Latest / INSPIRE STORY / #068_STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman with Andrew Wilson

Transcript

#068_STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman with Andrew Wilson · INSPIRE STORY

0:03
Speaker 1: The Joe Rogan Experience.
0:06
Speaker 2: Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day. Andrew,
0:13
good to see you.
0:14
Speaker 1: You too, Joe.
0:15
Speaker 2: How you been? Great, great, great. We were just talking
0:17
about peace of mind and dealing with kooks. Is there
0:20
anybody who argues online more than you do? You might
0:24
be the number one guy who I see in clips
0:26
like constantly getting in arguments with people online.
0:29
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that there is anybody who takes on
0:32
more debates yearly, high and low profile than I do.
0:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean even casual ones.
0:37
Speaker 1: Correct.
0:38
Speaker 2: It's like you're always sparring. It's like you're always having scrimmages.
0:42
Speaker 1: Well, I think that keeps you sharp.
0:44
Speaker 2: For sure.
0:45
Speaker 1: Keeps you sharp if you're– so I also have this
0:48
rule that– You know, there's like the clout game online, right?
0:53
All these people want to play the clout game.
0:55
Speaker 2: What is exactly the clout game?
0:57
Speaker 1: It's like you don't have a big enough follower account
1:01
for me to respond to you. You don't have a
1:03
big enough audience for me to discuss things with you,
1:06
you know, things like that. And it's like, I hate that.
1:09
Speaker 2: That seems pretty silly.
1:10
Speaker 1: It is silly. And some of the best debates I've
1:13
ever had with guys who had like four followers on X,
1:17
And they're like, let's go down to the sex space
1:18
and talk. And I'll hop in there with them. And
1:20
I'm like, an hour later, I go, man, that guy
1:22
had a lot of good stuff to say.
1:24
Speaker 2: A lot of people out there. And oftentimes those are
1:27
the ones who don't have a lot of followers because
1:29
they're not sucked into the social media web. They're just
1:34
out there thinking and doing things and living their life.
1:36
There are a lot of fucking interesting people out there
1:38
that you never hear from. And a lot of not
1:40
interesting people that you hear from constantly.
1:43
Speaker 1: All the time.
1:43
Speaker 2: It's like the politician thing. It's like we were talking
1:48
about that the other day. Like there's this lady that's
1:51
running for something. She's running for governor of Wisconsin. Is
1:57
that what it is? And she was just talking about
1:59
how Thanksgiving hurts people. What?
2:03
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
2:05
Speaker 2: I don't know her background. I think it's the same lady.
2:08
At one point in time, she was in a mental institution.
2:10
Speaker 1: Why? Does this not shock me?
2:12
Speaker 2: It doesn't shock me. But this was the point. We
2:14
were saying nobody wants to be the fucking governor. And
2:17
the people that do are– there's a high percentage of kooks.
2:20
Speaker 1: Yeah, power attracts strange people. Sometimes it attracts good people.
2:25
Speaker 2: Yes, occasionally.
2:28
Speaker 1: But often those are the people who go in and
2:30
they want to change it. Like the idea that they
2:32
have is, look, I'm trying to run for the right
2:34
reasons because I actually want to change how this works.
2:37
But they're few and far between.
2:38
Speaker 2: And they get killed. A lot of.
2:40
Speaker 1: Them get killed or they get run off. A lot
2:43
of them just get involved in their normal day-to-day life
2:50
from 20 years prior. Now suddenly that's coming up and
2:53
they have to defend themselves against criticisms that they never
2:56
would have believed that they would have to defend themselves from.
3:00
And so character assassination, I think, takes a lot of
3:03
the good actors out. They don't want to deal with
3:04
a character assassination.
3:06
Speaker 2: Well, it seems like they want total compliance on both sides,
3:09
on both parties, total compliance with the party. And if
3:13
they think that you're going to be some outsider rebel
3:15
that's going to take over the fuck you.
3:18
Speaker 1: Well, you kind of I think you kind of have
3:20
to have that a little bit, though, because if you've
3:23
got universal suffrage, necessarily everything converges into a two party system.
3:29
So as suffrage expanded throughout history, you saw the emergence
3:32
of parties right alongside of it as more people became
3:35
enfranchised to vote.
3:36
Speaker 2: So you think if women couldn't vote, there wouldn't be parties?
3:39
Speaker 1: There probably would still be parties. It'd probably still be
3:42
a two-party system. It's just that how it works is
3:46
that if we continuously expand suffrage, let's just say we
3:50
expand it to another group of men. Now, those men
3:53
have some special interest, right? So if it's not just
3:55
property owners, let's say it's now you know, people who
3:59
live in a city. Well, they want a levy passed
4:02
so that their kids can go to school, right? So
4:04
they pass it on the property owners. Now they can
4:06
vote to hand themselves money. So now you have a
4:09
wedge issue. And so you'll see parties start to form
4:12
around these wedge issues. And the more you have universal suffrage,
4:16
the more you end up with party politics until you
4:18
have a convergence of two. And usually it's along a
4:21
certain wedge issue. So the only way in a dialectic
4:25
where you have two parties... A Democrat and Republican, to
4:28
get your legislation passed is to be able to outvote
4:33
the other side, right?
4:34
Speaker 2: Right.
4:34
Speaker 1: So you kind of have to have them all in
4:36
line or else.
4:38
Speaker 2: That makes sense. And there's no room in this country
4:41
at the current point in time for another party. No
4:45
one would accept it. We think about other parties like
4:47
they're a goof. The Green Party, like that's a protest vote.
4:52
Speaker 1: Libertarian Party.
4:53
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've done that. I've done a few protest votes
4:55
back in my day.
4:56
Speaker 1: Yeah, I talked with– I was arguing with Rex Jones
4:59
the other day. It's Alex Jones' kid about this. And
5:03
I told him, I'm like, look, you don't have a
5:05
prayer in starting a third party in time for midterms
5:09
and then the presidential election that's coming up in just
5:12
a couple short years. You're not going to be able
5:14
to replace this system. You're not going to be able
5:17
to do that.
5:18
Speaker 2: Their roots go too deep. They're too intertwined.
5:21
Speaker 1: In power and influence.
5:22
Speaker 2: Well, they have the infrastructure.
5:23
Speaker 1: Like, think about the infrastructure, billions of dollars in NGO funding,
5:28
all this outreach program just to get on a ballot
5:30
in a state is often a multimillion dollar thing that
5:35
you need to have a party apparatus behind.
5:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of nuts, right? Multimillion dollars to. To
5:42
spend to get a job that pays you $ 170, 000. Uh-huh.
5:45
You think that fucking student loans are a scam? That's
5:55
a crazy scam.
5:56
Speaker 1: I love when these guys come in for their $ 100, 000
5:59
a year job, and then they leave and they have
6:03
$ 25 million in the bank.
6:05
Speaker 2: Yeah, that happens often. Often. I wonder what happens. Often.
6:07
I wonder where you get all that money.
6:08
Speaker 1: Yeah.
6:09
Speaker 2: How about the Ilhan Omar thing?
6:11
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
6:11
Speaker 2: She's great. That one's wild. Like they estimated her net
6:15
worth somewhere like it was millions, like $ 30 million or
6:20
something crazy. And then she said it was an error
6:24
and that it was actually like a lot less than that,
6:26
like $ 100, 000 or something like really reasonable. Like you imagine
6:32
if your account was so bad, you're like, hey, Mike,
6:35
how much money am I worth?
6:36
Speaker 1: Right.
6:37
Speaker 2: And he's like, I think you're worth $ 30 million. And
6:40
you're like, fuck yeah, dude. I'm thinking about buying a Corvette.
6:44
Speaker 1: And you got $ 3, 000 in the bank. And then you.
6:48
Speaker 2: Call Mike the next day and you say, so $ 30 million?
6:51
Because actually it was an error. You're worth about $ 100, 000.
6:55
And you're like, hey, Mike, I'm going to kill you
6:58
because you stole $ 30 million from me. That doesn't make
7:01
any sense.
7:02
Speaker 1: 100%. And do you think maybe she strategically started moving
7:06
some things with her accountants?
7:08
Speaker 2: How about there was a vineyard that they owned that
7:10
never made a bottle of wine?
7:12
Speaker 1: Sounds right.
7:12
Speaker 2: Is that the case? Is that the case with one
7:15
of those businesses that closed down? And pick on her.
7:18
If you look at the Republicans and the Democrats when
7:22
it comes to insider trading, it's fucking everybody. It's red, blue, red, blue, red, blue.
7:28
This is not a one-party thing. This is why it's
7:30
never going to stop. They're both dipping their toes in.
7:33
They're both having fun.
7:35
Speaker 1: You basically always have the expectation of corruption. So even
7:38
if you put your candidates in, so you're trying to
7:40
get something out of that, right? Some issue that you're
7:43
trying to push forward. You almost baked into the system
7:45
have to accept a certain amount of corruption is going
7:48
to come out of that. So like let me give
7:49
you a really good example of that, a key wedge
7:51
issue like abortion. So you got Christians who are just adamant, right?
7:56
Just got to stop. Will they accept if it's the
7:59
case that candidates are really moving the post on that,
8:03
if they're really moving legislation against abortion? Do you think
8:07
that they would turn a blind eye to a little
8:10
bit of corruption?
8:11
Speaker 2: Probably. Yeah, there's definitely some compromises that get made both
8:15
on your morals and the way you view financial issues
8:20
and all kinds of things. I mean it's never– especially
8:23
if there's only two parties. Like you're with us or
8:26
against us.
8:26
Speaker 1: It has to be that way.
8:27
Speaker 2: It's us and them. It's good and evil. That's it.
8:29
In this country, that's really how people look at it
8:32
on both sides. It's good versus evil.
8:34
Speaker 1: But you have an alternative there that's even worse or
8:38
can at least sometimes be worse. Let's go to like
8:40
the UK or Canada or places like this where they
8:43
do round voting. You have more than two parties. That's true.
8:45
But do you really want your president to be elected
8:47
with 10 percent of the vote?
8:49
Speaker 2: Right.
8:50
Speaker 1: 15 percent of the vote. You want your politicians to
8:52
be put in with 9 percent of the vote? Because
8:54
that can happen. Yeah, that's crazy. Yeah, between these rounds.
8:58
And so you think about it and you go, this
9:00
two-party system sucks. But then you look at other places
9:03
that have multiple parties and they do their rounds of voting.
9:05
And you're like, wait, see, you could get elected with
9:08
only 14 percent of those. So everybody else hates you.
9:12
Speaker 2: Yeah. This is the weird argument of the benevolent dictator.
9:15
I'm sure you've heard this argument, but that a society
9:18
is best run by a benevolent dictator. Someone who really,
9:21
truly has ultimate power, but actually cares. A good person
9:24
that cares about the people that really just wants things
9:27
to be reasonable and have a. working meritocracy and have
9:32
a working economy and have working education and everything work
9:35
correctly and weed out all of the fraud and corruption
9:39
because he's a king.
9:40
Speaker 1: And he can just do it.
9:42
Speaker 2: Whatever the fuck you want. I have only been to
9:46
Dubai one time because we had a UFC over there
9:49
and I had to go to the weigh-ins. The weigh-ins
9:51
were in Dubai. Saw a lot of fucking Ferraris and
9:54
Lamborghinis in 10 minutes. But from what I hear, it's
9:58
the most safe place on earth. like literally.
10:01
Speaker 1: Like Romania under Vlad?
10:03
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like what did you say?
10:04
Speaker 1: Like Romania under Vlad the Impaler? I don't think it's
10:07
that bad. How can you hang gold in the street?
10:10
And he says, look around. There's a bunch of people
10:13
impaled everywhere.
10:14
Speaker 2: He would do them in designs. He would do them
10:17
in geometric patterns. So you'd realize he's being creative with
10:20
impaling people.
10:21
Speaker 1: He wasn't messing around.
10:22
Speaker 2: Oh, no, no, no.
10:23
Speaker 1: You know his story?
10:24
Speaker 3: Yeah.
10:24
Speaker 2: He was kidnapped when he was a small boy.
10:28
Speaker 3: Woo!
10:28
Speaker 2: A lot to that guy.
10:30
Speaker 1: And his brother. Yeah. And their, you know, inter-brother relationship.
10:35
conflict that they had for years and how he got
10:37
power lost power yeah there's a there's a tale to
10:41
be told about Vlad the Impaler for sure but probably
10:44
a pretty safe place to live.
10:50
Speaker 2: Yeah Dubai like if they catch you with a bag
10:52
of weed you're going to jail for the rest of
10:53
your life or they'll kill you yeah you're done yeah
10:56
they have crazy laws there was one guy I think
10:59
it was Dubai who I think he had Like marijuana
11:06
seeds in the sole of his shoes or something like that.
11:10
Like he had stepped on a marijuana seed maybe in
11:13
his apartment.
11:14
Speaker 1: Yeah.
11:15
Speaker 2: And he was– didn't have any drugs on him, nothing.
11:18
And they put him in jail for a long time, man.
11:21
I forget. This was a few years back. But it
11:23
was a crazy case. There was another lady who got arrested.
11:27
I forget what happened. But she– later a guy tested
11:31
positive for poppy because she had poppy seed bagel. And
11:35
I don't know if you know this, but if you're
11:37
testing for drugs and you eat a poppy seed bagel,
11:40
you could pop for heroin.
11:41
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I've heard that. But doesn't– with modern tests,
11:45
isn't it a little bit better now?
11:46
Speaker 2: I hope so. I don't know. 2008, this is a
11:49
British traveler in Dubai was stopped at the airport. Lab
11:52
found 0.003 grams of cannabis in his shoe sole. Holy fuck.
11:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's crazy.
11:59
Speaker 2: That's crazy. He received a mandatory four-year sentence under the
12:04
UAE's strict drug laws, though he was later released early.
12:09
How early is early?
12:11
Speaker 1: So the British government came in and tried to barter
12:13
him out of there, I'm guessing.
12:14
Speaker 2: I guess. Or the whole world must have been so outraged.
12:19
I mean, at a certain point in time, they have
12:21
to say, we run the risk of never having tourists
12:23
visit us again. And Dubai is a very tourist-central place. Sure.
12:28
But I have a friend who moved over there a
12:30
while back. He moved back to America recently. But he
12:32
moved over there and he was like, dude, it's just
12:36
safe for me. I don't worry if I go out.
12:39
Someone's going to like– he's a big black guy. He's like,
12:42
I don't want to get shot. He goes, I worry
12:44
if I go out. He goes, over here, there's nothing
12:45
like that. There's no crime. He goes, everything is nice.
12:48
Everything is clean. You can leave a Rolex on the street.
12:50
They'll pick it up and turn it into the cop's. Like,
12:53
nobody steals nothing over there.
12:54
Speaker 1: But there's a tradeoff for that, right? Bit of a
12:57
tradeoff for that.
12:58
Speaker 2: Let me show you my geometric patterns of dead people
13:01
on spikes.
13:01
Speaker 1: Of dead people everywhere on spikes who we impaled from
13:04
their buttocks through their throats.
13:06
Speaker 2: Yeah, and they don't die immediately.
13:07
Speaker 3: No.
13:08
Speaker 1: They wiggle for a while.
13:09
Speaker 2: I don't think they do that in Dubai, but they
13:11
let you know. Yeah. You're not fucking around. There's no
13:14
fucking around. I saw some lady getting in a screaming match.
13:18
She was trying to do the thing that a lot
13:19
of people do in America at the airport. And she
13:23
got a screaming thing with the lady at the counter.
13:26
And they're like, not today. Not happening. They just come
13:29
over and fucking cuff you up and take you away.
13:32
Like you can't do that there. You can't spirit airlines.
13:37
Speaker 1: Do you prefer that? Would you prefer that society?
13:41
Speaker 2: I don't think people should be able to just fucking
13:43
scream and yell at people that work behind counters. I
13:46
don't think that's productive. I don't think smacking them in
13:49
the head because they can't get you a flight. We've
13:51
all seen that kind of shit. There should be zero
13:53
tolerance for that kind of violence.
13:55
Speaker 1: But what if we tweaked it a different way? Okay.
13:57
Speaker 2: Okay.
13:58
Speaker 1: So what if instead of bringing in like some crazy
14:01
Sharia in order to make sure that that happened, you
14:03
brought back dueling? Like wouldn't dueling solve like 95% of this?
14:08
Speaker 2: Dueling requires people to wait before they turn around and shoot.
14:15
I'm not trusting a guy who wants to kill me
14:17
to not jump the gun.
14:18
Speaker 1: But that depends on the rules, right? Like you could
14:20
adjust the rules a little bit. Adjust the rules. But
14:23
it's like if you could call somebody out for smirching
14:27
you or something like this, right? It's like I think
14:30
people would probably be a lot more polite, wouldn't they?
14:32
Speaker 2: They probably would. I think there's probably a better way
14:34
than shooting each other in the street.
14:36
Speaker 1: Probably. Probably. But there's probably a better way than.
14:39
Speaker 2: Even like fistfights. There's a better way than that too.
14:42
You don't have to fistfight. Come on. But there's certainly
14:47
something to be said for– A society that is more
14:52
orderly and people follow the rules as long as the
14:55
rules make sense. And these people are friendly and kind
14:59
and they make for good community members.
15:01
Speaker 1: And they're not putting up with mentally ill lunatics just
15:04
walking around causing problems everywhere, which is what American society
15:08
is now dealing with.
15:09
Speaker 2: Would you see what just happened in Wisconsin where they
15:13
had their own autonomous zone?
15:14
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
15:14
Speaker 2: It just got broken up today by the cops.
15:16
Speaker 1: I didn't see it got broken up.
15:17
Speaker 2: It got broken up today. Yeah. See if you can
15:19
find it, Jamie. There was video footage, just fucking army
15:23
of cops came in, arrested everybody, spray-painted all the streets.
15:28
Speaker 1: And garbage everywhere. People just get to declare autonomous zones
15:31
on public. Remember Chaz and Chop?
15:35
Speaker 2: Yes!
15:35
Speaker 1: We've just declared this an autonomous zone, sorry.
15:39
Speaker 2: Madison officials clear Willie Street encampment. Police officers arrest protesters
15:44
who resist at Corey Ruiz Memorial Site. I do not
15:48
know this Corey Ruiz story.
15:51
Speaker 1: The Corey Ruiz Memorial. So was it something ice related, perhaps?
15:55
Speaker 2: I think that's what this is, right? Is that what
15:58
this is, Jamie? I have no idea. Did something happen?
16:03
Something happened. Someone got shot, right? You don't know about
16:07
it either? No. See, that's the problem. There's so many
16:09
fucking things in the news that it's impossible, unless you're
16:13
a maniac and you're just online all day. It's impossible
16:16
to know exactly what's going on. You take a couple
16:18
days off and smell the roses. And you get back online.
16:21
How come you haven't commented on it? What is it?
16:23
I don't even know what you're talking about.
16:24
Speaker 1: You've got to catch up for four days for one day.
16:26
Speaker 2: Also, like, hot take. Maybe you shouldn't have a hot
16:30
take on everything. Maybe some things you need to, like,
16:33
let it play out in the news. Like, let people
16:36
dissect it.
16:37
Speaker 1: See, now that, I wish that that was a message
16:40
that more people got. That the idea that you don't
16:43
have to rush immediately out there to tell everybody your
16:47
latest hottest take. Which is oftentimes, by the way, stupid.
16:51
It's often a stupid take because you have no information.
16:54
Speaker 2: Right.
16:55
Speaker 1: But you're going to rush out there. You're going to
16:56
get those views and clicks quick. But then you're married
16:59
to that take.
16:59
Speaker 2: Exactly. Yeah. And unless you come back and make another
17:03
video or make another take and explain why you fucked
17:07
it up. But I think that there's something to be
17:10
said for like there's a lot of stories that are
17:13
in the news. Like I don't fucking know exactly what
17:16
happened there. Like, let's let this one play out a
17:18
little bit. Like, this one seems weird. Like, if I
17:21
come out with a hot... Like, who fucking knows what's
17:23
really going on with 15... Like, there's so many different
17:27
stories in the news. It's impossible. What's that, Jimmy?
17:30
Speaker 4: I didn't find the details, but it is a police killing,
17:33
it says. Officer involved in the shooting of Corey Ruiz.
17:38
And that's... I'm looking for evidence and video. I didn't
17:41
check Twitter or anything yet.
17:42
Speaker 1: Um.
17:43
Speaker 2: Put it into perplexity. Ask perplexity. What is the controversy
17:47
about the killing of Corey Ruiz? Okay. You can't. You
17:53
can't be. We're not designed to get all the bad
17:56
news of 8 billion people. We're just not designed for that.
18:00
That's not a normal thing for a person to absorb.
18:02
Speaker 1: It's also driving a lot of people crazy.
18:04
Speaker 2: Crazy.
18:05
Speaker 1: Driving them to insanity. They think they start to see
18:10
conspiracy everywhere. They start to see you know, plots of
18:15
interest where there aren't any.
18:17
Speaker 2: Right.
18:17
Speaker 1: It starts to actually drive people mad because they can't
18:21
disassociate between the fact that there is sensationalism and then
18:25
there's reality and the way that people think they think
18:28
in frames.
18:29
Speaker 2: Yeah.
18:29
Speaker 1: So if you think in a conspiratorial frame, you're usually
18:33
taking tangential things and piecing them together that don't belong.
18:36
Speaker 2: Right.
18:37
Speaker 1: But then if you think in an autistic frame, as
18:39
my friend Paul would say, if you think in an
18:41
autistic frame, you're going to hone down so deep on
18:45
one detail that you miss the entirety of the picture. Right.
18:49
So you have to have an idea between these two things.
18:52
Speaker 2: Right.
18:52
Speaker 1: It's like conspiracies exist. We know this. Many of them exist.
18:56
There's many of them. I can state off the top
18:58
of my head, like MK ultra, that was a conspiracy
19:00
that existed.
19:01
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right.
19:03
Speaker 1: But there's also a lot that don't. Right. And so
19:06
how do you disassociate between the two?
19:08
Speaker 2: This episode is brought to you by Blue Chew. Man,
19:11
let's talk about Blue Chew. They're already the number one
19:14
brand for better sex. But what they're doing with Blue
19:16
Chew Gold is completely next level. Gold is a four-in-one
19:21
formula designed to make your bedroom noisy again. Obviously, it
19:26
gets you hard, like you're back in your 20s, and
19:29
everything is handled 100% online. But gold boosts your arousal,
19:35
getting you ready for sex physically and mentally. Plus, it
19:38
dissolves under your tongue for faster absorption, so you get
19:42
that spontaneous energy back. Look at the stats. Gold is
19:47
three times stronger, five times faster, and eight times longer
19:50
lasting than old school methods. Blue Chew Gold is the
19:54
real deal. Right now, buy two months of Blue Chew
19:58
Gold and get the third free with my code ROGAN.
20:01
You will also receive free overnight shipping. Head over to bluechew.com
20:06
for details and important safety information. Check it out. This
20:11
ad and the products being advertised are intended for a
20:14
United States audience. And you have to come to the
20:17
recognition that some of these fake ones were planted to
20:22
make the real ones look stupid.
20:23
Speaker 1: Flooding the zone.
20:24
Speaker 2: Yes. This is a common strategy. What was it, Jerry?
20:28
You pulled it up? controversy centers on whether Madison police
20:32
needed to use deadly force against 38-year-old Corey Ruiz, a
20:35
black man during a July 2026 arrest, and on the
20:38
lack of body camera footage. Oh, conflicting narratives about the
20:43
threat he posed and the broader concerns about racialized policing.
20:49
Police responded to reports of a man allegedly looking into
20:51
parked vehicles and stealing bicycles. During the attempted arrest by
20:56
four officers, a taser was deployed but reportedly failed. Police
21:00
say Ruiz pulled a knife and injured an officer, after
21:04
which that officer shot and killed him. Cell phone video
21:07
recorded by a bystander shows part of the struggle and
21:09
shooting and quickly went viral, triggering protests and public outcry.
21:14
Use of deadly force versus alternatives. Community members and Ruiz's
21:18
family questioned why lethal force was used when multiple officers
21:21
were already restraining him on the ground. and a taser
21:24
had been deployed, arguing that he did not deserve to
21:27
be shot to death in the street. Lack of body cameras.
21:30
None of the officers involved were wearing body-worn cameras, so
21:34
the only visual recording is bystander video, which fuels distrust
21:38
and demands for more accountability and measures and technology. We
21:41
need more flock cameras. Conflicting narratives about threat. Police emphasized
21:46
that Ruiz stabbed or injured an officer with a knife.
21:49
Framing the shooting as a response to an immediate threat,
21:52
critics and loved ones questioned whether the threat justified shooting
21:55
a restrained man and whether de-escalation was properly used. Well,
21:59
first of all, if he really did stab a police officer,
22:03
if he's stabbing a police officer like they are supposed
22:06
to shoot him, that is– you can't take– you can't
22:11
say someone's stabbing me. I hope they're only hurting me.
22:14
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, or– How do you assess the amount of
22:17
force that you can use back when someone's stabbing you?
22:20
I think that that's responding with lethal force.
22:22
Speaker 2: What did you say, Jamie? Yeah, let's find the video.
22:25
But it's also how big is this guy? If he's
22:28
got all these people and are these like a bunch
22:30
of like shitty untrained police officers who don't know any
22:34
martial arts? When you say he's restrained, like how restrained
22:37
was he? You know what I mean? Like if you've
22:39
got two dudes that are– built like Tony Hinchcliffe and
22:43
they're trying to hold me back from fucking somebody up
22:45
it's not gonna do nothing that you know what I
22:47
mean yeah it's like how big is this guy what
22:50
what happened was he the one that was stealing things
22:53
or was he wrongly accused does he have a record
22:57
is he a violent person I don't know anything is
23:01
he a complete innocent bystander this is the video video
23:04
contains graphic content okay that's it that's all that one
23:10
showed basically So there's probably multiple videos?
23:13
Speaker 1: Yeah.
23:15
Speaker 2: Yeah. The thing about the tasers is it's fucking weird, man.
23:20
Tasers on some people, they lock them up and they fucking...
23:24
And they fall down. I've seen guys just scream and
23:28
rip those things off their chest like it's nothing.
23:30
Speaker 1: Well, sometimes those probes don't penetrate either, right?
23:32
Speaker 2: Right. I think some of those tasers are a bunk too.
23:35
Speaker 1: 100%.
23:36
Speaker 2: Some of the tasers are just shit equipment. I mean,
23:39
that's the only thing that makes sense. So these guys.
23:42
Speaker 1: Did you ever play with one of the handhelds when
23:43
you were a kid?
23:44
Speaker 3: No.
23:44
Speaker 1: Somebody always had a handheld somewhere.
23:46
Speaker 2: No, I never did. I did touch an electric fence, though, once.
23:50
Speaker 1: Yeah. Holy fuck. Oh, yeah, that'll make your teeth clatter.
23:53
Speaker 2: Holy fuck, dude.
23:55
Speaker 1: Just letting go, that's hard.
23:59
Speaker 2: Yeah. Disturbing video. Okay. Oh, there's sound on it? I mean,
24:06
they're yelling.
24:07
Speaker 3: Put the earphones on so we can.
24:09
Speaker 2: Hear the sounds. There's the taser. Oh, okay. Hold on, man.
24:18
Back up. Back up.
24:19
Speaker 1: What was he reaching for on the ground?
24:21
Speaker 2: Is that the girl? The woman shoots him?
24:22
Speaker 1: Taser. Okay.
24:30
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah.
24:31
Speaker 3: I can't tell who shot the gun, but that was funny.
24:34
Speaker 2: Okay. That's crazy. That does not look justified. That looks
24:42
like they had control of him. Unless he had a
24:45
knife and was stabbing people. But even if he was stabbing...
24:49
How much control do they have on him before she
24:51
starts shooting him?
24:53
Speaker 1: Was it the chick who shot him?
24:54
Speaker 2: Yes. Look. See? She backs away. Watch. They tase him.
25:01
They get him to the ground. And she shoots him
25:02
while they've got him down on the ground.
25:05
Speaker 1: Some female cops.
25:07
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's not good. No. That's crazy. Again, I don't
25:15
know what happened. I don't know if he stabbed one
25:17
of them, if he really did have a knife and
25:18
was stabbing him, but it seems like they had him restrained.
25:20
Speaker 3: It looked like that's the guy who shot him.
25:22
Speaker 2: I can't tell. But that lady stands back and extends
25:24
her arms with a gun.
25:25
Speaker 3: Watch this guy right there.
25:28
Speaker 2: Oh, you're right.
25:29
Speaker 1: It looked like he shot him to me.
25:30
Speaker 2: Oh, it's the guy shoots him.
25:31
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think she had the taser.
25:32
Speaker 2: She was shooting him with a taser. Oh. Let me
25:36
see that again.
25:37
Speaker 1: What?
25:45
Speaker 2: God, it's hard to tell. So it's the guy in
25:47
the back?
25:48
Speaker 1: I think it's the guy in the front. The dude
25:51
in the back, you see the guy right next to you. Yeah,
25:53
that guy.
25:53
Speaker 2: That guy shoots him?
25:54
Speaker 1: It looks like it. I'm not sure.
25:55
Speaker 3: That's really close, too.
25:57
Speaker 2: God, it seems like.
25:59
Speaker 1: The second the shots stop, he puts his gun back.
26:03
Speaker 3: Right.
26:03
Speaker 1: Makes me think maybe it was him.
26:05
Speaker 2: Yes.
26:07
Speaker 1: Fuck, man.
26:11
Speaker 2: That does not look good. That's not a good one. No. No.
26:18
Speaker 1: No. Doesn't look right.
26:20
Speaker 2: No.
26:21
Speaker 1: That means you have to give us your hot take now, Joe.
26:23
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's my hot take.
26:25
Speaker 1: So he can run to Twitter with it.
26:26
Speaker 2: I need to know, like, did he actually stab one
26:28
of them?
26:29
Speaker 4: So then it says, during a press conference, two of
26:32
the cops were injured in the altercation. Police said the
26:36
suspect allegedly pulled out a fixed blade knife to which
26:38
an officer pulled out a taser.
26:41
Speaker 3: Same officer shot him with a gun. Okay.
26:44
Speaker 2: That's different. So if he really pulled out a knife
26:47
and was trying to stab them and they had him
26:50
on the ground and they couldn't totally get control of
26:52
him and that guy just decides he stabbed me, I'm
26:54
going to shoot him. That's a different thing.
26:56
Speaker 1: I agree.
26:56
Speaker 2: That's different.
26:59
Speaker 1: Also, we didn't have the front view.
27:01
Speaker 2: Right.
27:01
Speaker 1: We see the view from the back.
27:03
Speaker 2: It's very blurry. The whole thing. We didn't even know
27:05
who shot. We thought the lady shot him. It's hard
27:07
to tell what the fuck is going on. You can't
27:09
even tell if it's a taser or a gun in
27:10
her hand. It's that blurry. But if he stabbed them
27:13
and he's got a knife, that's a different thing, right?
27:16
The whole thing is fucked, though. Like, that is the
27:19
last thing America needs right now.
27:22
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I mean, you don't want another riot season.
27:25
Speaker 2: I mean, I wonder if people would go right into
27:28
it the way they did before without USAID's help.
27:34
Speaker 3: Here's what a witness said he saw.
27:36
Speaker 2: The witness came flying around on his bicycle. One officer
27:39
tackled him. Two other officers kind of rushed over. One
27:42
of the officers yells, he has a knife. One of
27:45
the officers then draws a taser and yells, taser, taser, taser.
27:48
He tasers him. So it says he tasers him, but
27:52
wasn't that the woman?
27:54
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that she actually tasered him or she
27:56
just had her weapon on.
27:57
Speaker 2: She might have just had her weapon out. He tasers
28:00
him and the victim falls to the ground. The three
28:04
continue to struggle for a second or two. Then one
28:06
of the officers stands just a couple feet above his head,
28:09
shooting the victim three times to the head. Holy fuck.
28:14
Speaker 1: It did look like he was the shooter.
28:17
Speaker 2: Okay. So that's what we saw. Yeah.
28:20
Speaker 1: And the thing, the tell for that was as soon
28:23
as he was done.
28:23
Speaker 2: He put it right back in the holster.
28:25
Speaker 1: The other cops weren't doing that.
28:25
Speaker 2: Right.
28:26
Speaker 4: Additional video that has not been circulated online.
28:29
Speaker 3: That's being reviewed.
28:31
Speaker 1: Oh.
28:32
Speaker 2: Why don't they have body cameras?
28:33
Speaker 3: And that's what I mean. That's probably part of the
28:35
whole protest was that their cameras were not on. Or
28:39
if they didn't have them.
28:39
Speaker 2: I don't know. Let's find that out. Did they not
28:42
have them or were they not on?
28:44
Speaker 4: Lack of body cameras. None of the officers involved were
28:47
wearing body cameras.
28:50
Speaker 1: None of them.
28:51
Speaker 2: Are they supposed to?
28:53
Speaker 1: Yeah. That may not be part of the ordinance.
28:54
Speaker 4: I don't know about the city of Madison.
28:57
Speaker 2: How about fix that?
28:58
Speaker 1: Yeah.
28:59
Speaker 3: Yeah.
28:59
Speaker 2: Fix that.
29:01
Speaker 1: You know, cops often are the ones who suggest that.
29:03
Speaker 2: Yeah.
29:04
Speaker 1: For their own safety. They say that they want to
29:06
wear body cams.
29:07
Speaker 2: I've seen a lot of crazy body cam footage where
29:11
a guy is pulling someone over and they're just having
29:13
a casual conversation. All of a sudden the guy pulls
29:15
a gun out and starts shooting them. I've seen a
29:17
bunch of those.
29:18
Speaker 1: Tons. Especially the routine traffic stops happens constantly.
29:22
Speaker 2: You have to always think like if you're in an
29:24
altercation with a cop. These people are always worried that
29:28
this is where their life is going to end. They're
29:30
always worried that they're going to get shot. They've seen
29:33
those videos too. So if you start shit with a
29:36
cop and he freaks out and goes the wrong direction
29:39
like you're probably dealing with a guy who's got some
29:42
serious PTSD.
29:44
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's seen it before or his buddy's gotten plugged
29:48
right there.
29:48
Speaker 2: They've all seen it. Yeah. I have a friend who
29:51
spent a lot of times overseas deployed and he's in
29:54
combat and he said he saw way more as an
29:56
Austin cop. like way more fucked up things and all
30:00
the time. Whereas, you know, you're not in war all
30:03
the time, you're not in firefights all the time because like,
30:06
it's like every day, every day you're seeing something fucked
30:08
up that you can't unsee.
30:09
Speaker 1: And you see it with kids.
30:11
Speaker 2: Yeah.
30:11
Speaker 1: Things you got to deal with with kids, things you
30:13
got to deal with with all sorts of things. All
30:15
sorts of things. That is not a fun job.
30:17
Speaker 2: No, no.
30:18
Speaker 1: And I would not want it at all. So I
30:20
always do tend to cut law enforcement quite a bit
30:22
of grace until I hear what their side of things are.
30:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do too.
30:26
Speaker 1: Because that is a, That is a brutal job to have.
30:29
A buddy of mine is a deputy sheriff. And I
30:32
talk with him. He's policing a small area. And he's like,
30:35
it's the stuff with the kids that gets him. Yeah, exactly.
30:39
He's like, that's the stuff. He'll go into a junkie's house.
30:43
There's a two-year-old there. Hasn't eaten in four days. He's like,
30:49
that's the stuff that really. He's like, I'd rather shoot
30:52
a person than that. Which kind of makes sense to me, right?
30:57
Like I would, I probably would too.
30:59
Speaker 2: You know, when you think about who should be allowed
31:03
to have kids, who should be like, that's what's really
31:06
crazy about freedom is that any two crackheads with no
31:12
money at all, just on the side of the road
31:14
and he can nut inside of her and that creates
31:17
a life and that life they're responsible for and they're
31:20
smoking crack and drinking ever clear and they have a
31:23
baby growing inside their body and no one can do
31:25
anything about it. It's like, There's no protection for that baby.
31:29
There's no nothing. And then if that baby is born,
31:31
if it does live, like, you know, you talk to
31:34
people that have actually, like, been in the delivery room
31:39
with crack babies. It's like, oh, my God, man. The
31:42
horror stories about a child addicted to drugs coming out
31:45
of the womb addicted to drugs.
31:47
Speaker 4: Yeah.
31:47
Speaker 2: And detoxing.
31:49
Speaker 1: Heavily addicted.
31:50
Speaker 2: Heavily addicted. Yeah. It's so horrible.
31:53
Speaker 1: It's ghoulish.
31:54
Speaker 2: It's so twisted. It's like people can be so awesome.
31:58
And so shit at the same time coexisting on the
32:01
same patch of dirt. And no one devises a legitimate
32:07
strategy for mitigating the amount of people that suck and
32:11
the problems with.
32:13
Speaker 1: Can it can it even be done?
32:14
Speaker 2: I don't know. Not with freedom. And this is the
32:17
flop camera question. You know, do you want. Big brother
32:21
looking at your license plate everywhere you go? Well, listen,
32:24
if someone shoots up– this is an argument that Mark
32:27
Andreessen made on this podcast. When he had come here,
32:30
right after he– right before he had come here, there
32:33
was a shooting in Austin where some kids just randomly
32:37
started shooting at people. And then they couldn't find them
32:40
in Austin. But as soon as they left Austin city limits,
32:44
they went into an area that had flock cameras and
32:46
they got them like that. So this was his argument.
32:49
for the benefits of flock cameras. I do believe he
32:52
invests in flock cameras.
32:53
Speaker 1: Well, sure. I mean, but you can make that argument
32:55
with CCTV as well. You can make that argument with.
32:58
Speaker 2: Everyone wear a chip.
32:59
Speaker 1: Yeah.
32:59
Speaker 2: Everyone wear a body camera.
33:01
Speaker 1: The thing is, is you have to be cautious with
33:02
the idea of the nanny state. For another reason, besides
33:06
just protecting people's independent privacy, it's because those things often
33:09
become money wells for people to steal from the public trough. Oh, yeah.
33:15
And that is the major issue, right? So Some of
33:19
the reasons I tend, even though I'm on the paleo-Christian side,
33:23
to lean towards a lot of the freedom elements over
33:26
the non is because of the corruption. The corruption, which
33:29
happens oftentimes when you try to curtail too much, right?
33:33
That in and of itself creates a system, and that
33:36
system becomes ripe for corruption. Let me give you an example,
33:39
flock camps, who we awarding the contracts to.
33:41
Speaker 2: Right.
33:42
Speaker 1: And who's going to be servicing those contracts, who's going
33:45
to be doing these things, right? That's where you start
33:47
to see. with new systems, there becomes new corruption. So
33:51
there has to be a way to curtail. But there's
33:53
some things that are pretty obvious that you could curtail.
33:56
And who cares if people bitch about it? Like, let's
33:58
take online prostitution, for instance. Okay, great. It's illegal to
34:03
do OnlyFans, let's say. How the hell could that possibly
34:07
be bad for society? What is that going to do
34:10
that's just Oh, we got to have that, though, Andrew.
34:13
We got it. We got to have that. It's like,
34:15
I don't think we do. I don't think it's necessary.
34:18
And if we got rid of it, like, who cares?
34:20
You know, it seems like it would just be a
34:22
massive net positive for every human being if that was
34:25
just done away with altogether. And it's like what the
34:30
systems that come into, though, for policing it are prone
34:34
to corruption. So you got to be cautious about it.
34:36
Speaker 2: Right.
34:37
Speaker 1: Right. You got to be cautious about it.
34:39
Speaker 2: Also, I just don't like people telling people what to do.
34:41
Even if they shouldn't be doing it, I don't like it.
34:45
Speaker 1: I mean, to an extent, though, right? Like, if they're
34:47
heroin addicts, you're going to be like, nah.
34:49
Speaker 2: Well, even that. Like, I don't think you should be
34:52
a heroin addict. But I don't think I should be
34:54
the one to tell you not to do heroin.
34:56
Speaker 1: I don't.
34:57
Speaker 2: Because I think it's a slippery slope. And then it's
34:59
don't smoke cigarettes. And then it's because cigarettes are killing you.
35:03
And then it's don't drink whiskey because you could be
35:04
a drunk driver and kill a family of five. Like,
35:07
it's all the same shit. It's like.
35:09
Speaker 1: But do you think that all those have kind of
35:11
the same impact on society ultimately?
35:13
Speaker 2: Well, the heroin thing is a weird one because.
35:18
Speaker 1: Like the argument I make would be like the incest argument.
35:21
It would be like, look, that's outlawed for a good reason.
35:25
But what if you have two people who are totally sterile?
35:28
Like they can't have kids, right? What's the moral argument
35:33
that can be made? And people are like, well, I
35:36
can't really make a moral argument. It's just gross. You're
35:39
fucking your sister, bro. Yeah, what are you doing? It's
35:41
just gross. And it's like, well, but can we legislate
35:44
off of it's just gross? And kind of the libertarian
35:47
mindset is, no, we can't. And I think, yeah, we can.
35:50
I'm okay with that. Like, I'm okay about, I remember
35:53
debating with Dave Smith and brought this up.
35:55
Speaker 2: What would you do? Would you arrest some guy and
35:58
his sister? If you found out they were boning each other? Sure.
36:00
Why not? Arrest them? Why not?
36:02
Speaker 1: Like how would that– how would deterring that society-wide ever
36:07
be a bad idea?
36:09
Speaker 2: I don't think it is. However, it's technically a victimless crime,
36:14
especially under the circumstances that you described, whereas they're both sterile.
36:18
I do not think you should be able to do that.
36:21
Speaker 1: No?
36:21
Speaker 2: But– well, I don't think you should do that, I
36:23
should say. Yeah. But in the case of Cersei and–
36:27
what's his face again? What's the other dude's name in
36:29
Game of Thrones? The brother and sister? Oh, yeah, yeah.
36:32
It really seemed like they were in love, dude.
36:33
Speaker 1: Sure. But they had kids. They had like incest babies, right?
36:37
Who went on to rule kingdoms and they were all
36:39
like Joffrey. He probably didn't want the incest baby in
36:43
charge of the kingdom. It didn't work out so well.
36:46
Speaker 2: The other incest baby was in charge of the kingdom.
36:48
He jumped off the roof.
36:49
Speaker 1: True. And wasn't Jon Snow technically doing incest as well
36:52
with the Queen of Dragons? Kind of.
36:55
Speaker 2: They're related. Kind of.
36:56
Speaker 4: Yeah.
36:57
Speaker 2: They're in the basket.
36:58
Speaker 1: They were, they were pretty, right.
37:00
Speaker 2: Something. Yeah. There was a lot of half a sister
37:02
or something in the game of Thrones. Oh yeah.
37:05
Speaker 4: Yeah.
37:05
Speaker 1: But the other argument there that's interesting is it's like, okay, that's,
37:09
you know, fair enough. It's a victimless crime, but you
37:11
can just kind of extend that like, okay, well then
37:13
why can't a guy have five wives? Why can't he
37:16
have 20? Why can't 20 gay men all get married
37:18
and adopt one child? It's just victimless crime. It's like,
37:22
so doesn't the slippery slope kind of go the other
37:24
way a little bit too?
37:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, it does. It does go the other way. And
37:28
the multiple wives thing, didn't they just pass something like
37:33
that in Toronto? Wasn't that in Ontario where they're allowing
37:36
polygamy now because they have so many Islamic people living
37:40
there that think that you should be allowed to have?
37:42
Speaker 1: Well, I remember there was big pushes for that in
37:44
Utah because of the Mormon population.
37:47
Speaker 2: Well, you know, that's why Mitt Romney's family moved to Mexico. Really? Oh, yeah.
37:52
Speaker 1: It was due to the multiple wives? I didn't know
37:53
that it was due to the multiple wives.
37:55
Speaker 2: Well, not specifically, but that sect of Mormonism fled the
37:59
United States when they passed polygamy laws. And I think
38:03
there was probably just a broader crackdown on this perceived
38:06
new cult. They thought of it as a cult. Now
38:09
it's an established religion of really nice people that knock
38:11
on your door.
38:12
Speaker 3: Yeah.
38:13
Speaker 1: I must admit, I have debated many Mormons, and they're
38:16
just the nicest people.
38:17
Speaker 2: The nicest people.
38:18
Speaker 1: The nicest people.
38:19
Speaker 2: It's the best cult.
38:20
Speaker 1: And it makes me, like, it's upsetting because I'm like, look,
38:24
I'm about to expose that your prophet was totally fake. And,
38:27
you know, I'm trying to get people into the debate,
38:29
and they just end up being like the nicest people.
38:31
And I go, oh, man.
38:33
Speaker 2: So having multiple wives or spouses is illegal in Canada
38:36
under Section 293 polygamy and Section 290 bigamy. What is bigamy?
38:43
Speaker 1: Is that the other way? Is bigamy the other way?
38:46
Speaker 2: No.
38:46
Speaker 1: Polygamy is the man with multiple.
38:50
Speaker 2: Do you know what it is, Jamie? Do you know
38:51
what bigamy is? Ever heard of it? I don't even
38:55
think I've ever seen that written. The act of marrying
38:57
one person while still legally married. Oh, okay. Oh, a bigamist. Right. Duh. What?
39:09
Speaker 3: Four people at once in some way or another recently,
39:11
like this year.
39:12
Speaker 2: In America?
39:13
Speaker 3: Canada.
39:14
Speaker 2: He was married to four women at once?
39:16
Speaker 3: Multiple wives.
39:17
Speaker 4: So he got multiple marriage licenses and should not have
39:19
been given them or something.
39:20
Speaker 2: Oh, well, he doesn't look Muslim. That guy looks like
39:23
he's just a regular Christian guy. Oh, well, he does
39:26
look Muslim. But I don't know.
39:28
Speaker 3: If it has anything to do with that.
39:30
Speaker 2: He might not be, though. He might just be a baller.
39:32
Speaker 1: He could be a Muslim.
39:33
Speaker 2: Ah!
39:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know if it has anything to do
39:35
with religion.
39:35
Speaker 2: Go back to that case in Canada, though. Isn't there
39:37
something where they're trying to pass it in Toronto?
39:40
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I mean, I typed in Toronto
39:42
multiple wives.
39:43
Speaker 2: No, Toronto, Ontario, polygamy. Is that? I think they were
39:48
trying to pass something.
39:50
Speaker 3: I mean, so I went to news to see something,
39:52
you know, that would have popped up.
39:53
Speaker 2: Was it Ottawa? Maybe it was Ottawa. Yeah. Canada polygamy.
40:05
No new law in Canada legalizing multiple wives.
40:08
Speaker 1: Perhaps proposed law?
40:10
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I don't know. Maybe it is a proposed law.
40:13
Maybe I just read some horseshit on Twitter, which is
40:15
very possible.
40:16
Speaker 1: Yeah.
40:18
Speaker 2: I've been off Twitter for a few days. I feel
40:20
pretty good.
40:21
Speaker 1: It's good to unplug from Twitter.
40:24
Speaker 2: Yeah. Every now and then I just go in and
40:26
I'm like, God, who are they mad at now? Oh, God.
40:29
Can I ask you a question? Yeah, sure.
40:30
Speaker 1: If you went into X tomorrow, let's say, and there
40:34
was an option there where you could select it and
40:37
it's like U.S. accounts only. That's all you could see.
40:40
Do you think that 90 percent of the traffic for
40:43
people would go away?
40:44
Speaker 2: A giant percentage.
40:45
Speaker 1: Huge percentage.
40:46
Speaker 2: Huge percentage is people being manipulated into arguments.
40:50
Speaker 1: It is a strategy. By foreign assets.
40:51
Speaker 2: By foreign assets. It is a strategy. It is real.
40:54
This is not tinfoil hat shit. We brought this up
40:57
multiple times on the podcast, but I'll bring it up
40:59
again just for the sake of this. There was an
41:01
FBI analyst who took a look at Twitter when Elon
41:05
was buying it, and he estimated that 80 percent of
41:08
the traffic is bots.
41:10
Speaker 1: This doesn't surprise me. Remember, YouTube did an internal audit.
41:14
And when they did their internal audit, this was a
41:16
few years back when Susan still ran it, I believe.
41:20
They did an internal audit and found out that most
41:22
of the people that they had on YouTube were bots.
41:25
And they did a great purge.
41:27
Speaker 2: Wow.
41:27
Speaker 1: Right? That's where that whole dead internet theory and all
41:30
that really started to pick up traction was that, hey, look,
41:33
a lot of this stuff is bots, foreign accounts, people
41:37
who are manipulating U.S., They're manipulating various U.S. interests, and
41:45
this is happening all over the place. Right now, you
41:49
have progressives who are funded by ActBlue, right? And I've
41:53
proven this. We traced all their money. It's progressives funded
41:57
by ActBlue who are pushing the same narrative that, like,
42:01
Candace Owens and others are pushing on the idea of
42:04
Charlie Kirk's death and the conspiracy around that.
42:07
Speaker 2: So they're absolutely being paid to push this?
42:11
Speaker 1: Well, their stated mission, this particular progressive group, their stated
42:15
mission was to take down TPUSA. I'll tell you a story.
42:18
This is the tale of all tales. So Charlie Kirk
42:23
has this huge outreach program that's happening through TPUSA on
42:27
these college campuses. He's got viral clip after viral clip
42:30
after viral clip. They are going wild. He's going campus
42:34
to campus. He's doing his thing. He's being dogged by
42:38
a progressive organization. This progressive organization shows up at almost
42:42
all of these TPUSA events with the stated mission of
42:46
trying to create a counter-movement to what TPUSA is doing. Now,
42:51
the woman who heads this particular organization received millions of
42:55
dollars from ActBlue and other progressive organizations for this stated mission.
43:00
That same woman right this second works with other ops
43:04
X accounts to push the messaging that Charlie Kirk was
43:08
assassinated by his own TPUSA insiders in order to push
43:12
that narrative forward because the stated goal still from that
43:15
organization is to destroy TPUSA.
43:18
Speaker 2: So how do we know that they've done this? Are
43:21
there emails that have been found?
43:23
Speaker 1: Well, the stated goal of this particular person is to
43:28
take down TPUSA. She's very open about that. And then
43:32
the way that you know that they are talking to
43:34
these other accounts is because they do it publicly. Those
43:37
public accounts will talk to this account, right, very openly.
43:42
They reaffirm each other's posts. They say, wow, that's real interesting,
43:46
this kind of thing, all affirming that same conspiracy that
43:51
TPUSA was the ones who actually set up and murdered
43:55
Charlie Kirk. And at millions of dollars in ActBlue fundings,
44:01
Going towards this. No joke. Anybody can look it up
44:04
right now. The organization is called Unfuck America.
44:08
Speaker 2: So how do they think that his organization did this?
44:13
That they convinced Tyler Robinson to do it or did
44:16
they think someone else did it?
44:17
Speaker 1: I don't think that the progressive organization does believe that
44:20
TPUSA did this. I think that what they want to
44:23
do is– Oh, no.
44:24
Speaker 2: I understand that. But I mean what are they trying
44:26
to say?
44:27
Speaker 1: Oh, well, here's what the theory is. So take Ian Carroll.
44:32
Within 24 hours after Kirk's death, blames Israel. Within 24 hours,
44:36
he says, Israel killed Kirk. That was his tweet went
44:41
mega viral. What the conspiracy is on that side is
44:44
that Israel, along with Erica Kirk and TPUSA insiders, got
44:49
together with elements of the U.S. government to murder Charlie
44:54
Kirk because he was going to leave the, quote, pro-Israel cause.
44:59
That's what the theory is.
45:00
Speaker 2: Right.
45:01
Speaker 1: And that he was either murdered, some of them say,
45:04
with a microphone exploding. Some of them say with a–
45:09
there was a second shooter and Robinson's a patsy. It
45:12
all depends on which theorist you're talking to. But they
45:15
all work together in the same unison from a single camp,
45:18
which is interesting.
45:19
Speaker 2: Well, a lot of people had takes on the shooting
45:25
and the microphone one was the weirdest one to me.
45:29
It's weird because there's no like, yeah, the shirt is moving,
45:34
but also a bullet is going like how many feet
45:37
per second whizzing through the air? Like, do you understand? Yeah.
45:41
Speaker 1: So where's the air going to go?
45:42
Speaker 2: People don't understand that.
45:43
Speaker 1: You know what got me, though? So I went back
45:46
and looked because they say that it's the same explosive
45:48
which was used inside the Israeli pagers. Now, that was
45:50
very real. Israel sent these pagers all over. But that
45:53
would be an explosion. That's my take.
45:55
Speaker 2: My point is like there's no indication that there's an ignition.
45:59
Speaker 1: It's worse. There's no smoke.
46:01
Speaker 2: Right.
46:02
Speaker 1: Now, all the Israeli– if you pull up– if you
46:04
pulled up right now one of these Israeli pagers going
46:06
because there's tons of videos of them.
46:08
Speaker 2: Oh, really? Let's watch. Let me see some Israeli pagers
46:10
blowing off.
46:11
Speaker 1: There's smoke.
46:12
Speaker 2: Is there a dude like where it's on his hip?
46:14
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Yep. There's one where it's on his hip
46:17
and gets him. And you can see the cloud of
46:19
smoke coming off because of the specific type of ignition.
46:22
Speaker 2: Right. But is it possible that this pager thing is
46:25
different than whatever they think this microphone thing is? This
46:28
microphone thing has some sort of a different kind of propellant.
46:31
But then again, you'd have to like, okay, let's imagine
46:34
what kind of propellant exists, right? Compressed air? There's not
46:38
enough room in that microphone to get enough compressed air
46:42
to blow a hole in. In your neck and kill
46:44
you instantly.
46:45
Speaker 1: Well, they claim that it's.
46:46
Speaker 2: Unless it's something else.
46:47
Speaker 1: It's this, what is it, PETN explosive. This is the
46:51
particular type that had to be used for the size
46:53
of the microphone. But you have another problem. The mic's
46:55
on the wrong side of where the wound is.
46:57
Speaker 2: Right.
46:58
Speaker 1: The other is there's no burn marks. There's no smoke.
47:01
There's nothing. There's nothing to confirm this theory at all.
47:03
Speaker 2: You'd have to guess where that mic is because he's
47:06
moving around, too. You have to guess where that mic
47:08
is pointing. You could take someone out on the side.
47:10
I found two videos. Yeah, this one's great.
47:11
Speaker 1: This is the main one that goes.
47:12
Speaker 3: I'll show you. This happens again here.
47:14
Speaker 1: Watch the smoke.
47:16
Speaker 2: Right here.
47:17
Speaker 1: See all that smoke?
47:19
Speaker 2: Oh, let me see that again.
47:21
Speaker 1: Watch all this.
47:21
Speaker 2: He was just chilling, and boom.
47:23
Speaker 1: Look at all that smoke.
47:24
Speaker 2: Oh, it blew up in his bag, though.
47:25
Speaker 1: Yeah.
47:25
Speaker 3: Yeah, so a lot of them, like, they didn't die.
47:27
They go to the hospital, and they're just, like, you.
47:29
Speaker 1: Know, hurt.
47:30
Speaker 2: Probably because they had it in their bag or something.
47:32
Speaker 3: I found one other video here.
47:34
Speaker 2: Bro, these guys are going to be carrying around, like,
47:35
armored satchels.
47:37
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, a couple of them were on bikes and
47:40
stuff when it happened.
47:43
Speaker 1: That guy got fucked up. Yeah, he got messed up
47:45
real bad.
47:46
Speaker 2: Or they give you the illusion they did by blurring
47:48
out his head.
47:48
Speaker 3: That's the other part. I mean, not that these are fake,
47:50
but yes, only 11 were killed by the pagers.
47:53
Speaker 2: Still pretty slick.
47:54
Speaker 1: That was extremely slick. Extremely slick.
47:58
Speaker 2: I mean, crazy. They sent him off to them years ago.
48:01
Speaker 1: That's some CIA shit, man. That's some deep state. That's
48:04
massage shit. Yeah, it's crazy.
48:05
Speaker 2: That's probably where the CIA learned it. But that's an explosion, right? And, yeah,
48:09
you see smoke. But is there some kind of a
48:12
propellant that would be lethal from a short distance with
48:15
some sort of a projectile?
48:17
Speaker 1: It's possible.
48:17
Speaker 2: But it would also, like, have to be, like, how
48:19
are you aiming it? You're not even aiming it. It's
48:21
sitting up here, right? So if it's sitting here and
48:23
he's doing all this and moving around, like, it might
48:26
take his ear off. It might whiz to the side
48:29
and shoot somebody else if he leans over.
48:31
Speaker 1: Sure.
48:32
Speaker 2: Unless they planned exactly when it's going to go off
48:35
and it's pointing towards his neck, like, It seems like
48:38
a gunshot wound. It's just hard to imagine that it's a. 30- 06.
48:43
That's my issue with it. I look at it and,
48:46
you know, I've seen takes from guys that are gun experts.
48:50
And they have a problem with it too. The thing
48:54
about guns though is weird stuff happens when you shoot bones.
49:00
Like it is possible that you wouldn't get a pass
49:02
through depending on how it squared the spinal column. Depending
49:07
on how it hit and depending on what kind of
49:09
bullet it is. I forget the type.
49:12
Speaker 1: These are 150 grain core lock soft tips.
49:14
Speaker 2: That's right.
49:15
Speaker 1: And they're soft tip.
49:16
Speaker 2: Right.
49:16
Speaker 1: So they only have enough of a jacket to keep
49:19
the bullet together.
49:20
Speaker 2: Right. The idea is that expands inside the body causing
49:23
massive trauma.
49:23
Speaker 1: Right.
49:24
Speaker 2: Right.
49:24
Speaker 1: Which is why I use them for hunting and probably
49:26
you have to. Yeah.
49:28
Speaker 2: No, I haven't used that particular round.
49:30
Speaker 1: Got you.
49:32
Speaker 2: It just seems like it's a lot of fucking, a
49:36
lot of energy. It is. Coming towards your neck. It's
49:39
hard to believe that it wouldn't blow a hole through
49:41
the neck and leave a big fucking– just take a
49:44
chunk out, that it would just make a round hole.
49:47
But that's beside the point. There's other weird stuff with
49:52
like the video. I don't like– there's a lot of
49:58
people saying that the video is super clear. They're seeing
50:03
4K footage. It's clearly Tyler Robinson on the roof. No,
50:08
it's not.
50:08
Speaker 1: Jack Persobic and Vinnie Johnson.
50:10
Speaker 2: That's crazy that they said that. That is not clear.
50:14
That is a blurry figure. You could barely ascertain whether
50:18
or not there's a recoil when someone takes the shot.
50:21
So it does seem like the guy on the roof
50:24
gets in a prone position, and it looks like something
50:27
that might be a rifle. It's blurry as fuck.
50:30
Speaker 1: It also does look like there's kickback on the right leg.
50:32
Speaker 2: It looks like there might be some recoil.
50:34
Speaker 4: Mm-hmm.
50:35
Speaker 2: It's hard, but it's not clear. Like for them to
50:38
say it's crystal clear, it's Tyler Robinson, it's on the
50:40
real world.
50:41
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting. When Prasovic came out and said that
50:44
and Benny Johnson, there was another guy who was there
50:47
who I know. His name is Kai Schwimmer. And Kai
50:50
put out a tweet. He said, look, they might have
50:51
sensationalized this just a bit. OK. He said, but the
50:54
video that we did see in the courtroom was actually
50:57
much clearer.
50:58
Speaker 2: Oh, OK.
50:58
Speaker 1: So I DMed him and I DMed Jack Prasovic. And
51:02
I DMed, well, I couldn't get a hold of Benny,
51:04
but I DMed Jack Brasovic and I said, just be
51:06
straight with me. Like, did you, did you try to
51:09
over sensationalize this thing for clicks? Like, what's the deal?
51:11
He said, no, listen, the footage we did see inside
51:15
the courtroom was actually a lot clearer than anything that
51:19
the public has seen so far. That's their claim. Kai Schwimmer,
51:23
now I wouldn't just take Brasovic as word, but Kai Schwimmer,
51:27
he's a Mormon, Mormon kid. Not very prone to tall tales.
51:32
In fact, he was the first one who came out
51:33
and said, look, I was there. And you're kind of
51:35
over sensationalizing it. It is a lot clearer, but it's
51:39
not showing everything that you're claiming it's showing.
51:42
Speaker 2: So it's clearer, but it's not clear enough. It's not
51:45
like 4K close up clearly in his face. The other
51:49
thing that was weird was the guy in the crowd
51:52
that jumped up and said, I killed him. That's weird.
51:56
And that guy, wasn't he at the Boston bombing as well?
51:59
Speaker 1: So he's a professional agitator who's been at tons and
52:02
tons of these events. Later, he's found, I believe, with
52:07
kiddie porn, right? How convenient. Well, also, that's the kind
52:12
of guy. That's the kind of guy, though, right?
52:13
Speaker 4: Yeah.
52:14
Speaker 1: And so he has been at tons of events agitating,
52:19
and he is well-known to law enforcement for doing this.
52:22
Speaker 2: Yeah.
52:24
Speaker 1: So that's kind of what they're stating for him. If
52:28
you're looking at this from a broad view, if you're
52:30
looking at the conspiracy side versus what they call the
52:32
fed slop side, let's say, it makes sense for them
52:36
to say, hey, wait a second. That's really weird. This
52:38
guy jumps up and says, I did it.
52:40
Speaker 2: Right.
52:40
Speaker 1: That makes him– he's a patsy distraction, something like this.
52:43
So you look into the guy.
52:45
Speaker 2: Right.
52:45
Speaker 1: And the guy is a lunatic who's been at many
52:48
of these events doing crazy stuff like this.
52:51
Speaker 2: That's the thing is both things can be true. Like
52:53
MKUltra is real. Also, that guy might just have been
52:56
a kook who was in the crowd who took advantage
52:58
of a situation because he's literally insane and he's into
53:00
kiddie porn.
53:01
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, there's no doubt. One of the biggest kind
53:05
of false narratives that comes out of this– when I
53:07
do debates, one of the things I'm trying to structure
53:10
around is like I know that we're coming in with
53:13
a narrative. But I need to understand yours. And you
53:16
need to understand mine so we can get somewhere towards
53:18
what the truth is here, right? Because you're going to
53:21
have a frame of what you're viewing the world, a worldview,
53:23
and so am I. And so everybody has a worldview.
53:27
We have to figure each other's out to get somewhere.
53:30
Here with this, one of the most disturbing aspects of
53:33
it is the people who promote this actually don't want
53:36
their worldview or their positions to be examined. They only
53:40
want to examine the evidence from the state. It's like
53:42
that would be fine, I think. if it was the
53:45
case that you made no claims past that. So if
53:48
you just only say, hey, you know, I'm not really
53:50
sure what happened, and I want to really kind of
53:52
review the evidence and that's that, I don't really have
53:55
a problem with that. I think that that's probably healthy.
53:58
The issue that I run into is when people make
54:00
claims past that. Oh, it was an exploding mic. It
54:04
was two different shooters. It was a folding rifle. The.
54:08
Speaker 2: 30- 06.
54:09
Speaker 1: Couldn't do this. Even though the U.S. Army, remember, the.
54:12
30- 06 used in the M1 Garand, was used in World
54:16
War II, and then it was used in Korea. Before that,
54:19
we had the O-3 Springfield. It was used heavily in
54:21
World War I, World War II, and again in Korea.
54:24
Speaker 2: The U.S.
54:24
Speaker 1: Army has studied. 30- 06 entry wounds in depth and produced
54:29
many manuals on it explaining how cavitation works with. 30- 06
54:34
and that the bullet doesn't always penetrate. And that's with
54:36
full metal jacket rounds that are designed for maximum penetration,
54:40
not 150 grain core lock coming out of a an
54:44
antique rifle, essentially, it could easily split up very quickly.
54:48
And that's why they ended up pulling fragments out of Charlie.
54:51
It wouldn't surprise me if when we have all the
54:54
data from the coroner report that he has tons of
54:57
shards all throughout his chest, all throughout his entire, because
55:01
they were saying that there's trauma inside the chest, which
55:04
would make sense if the bullet split up here, it
55:07
would create all sorts of fragments down in the chest.
55:11
Speaker 2: Right. That is an important distinction about the type of bullet.
55:15
Speaker 1: Huge distinction. The FMJ especially, because that's what the Army
55:20
was using, FMJ ball ammunition. It's cheap to produce, right?
55:24
So they're using it in all these different wars, and
55:27
the amount of people shot with that caliber between World
55:30
War I, II, and Korea as astronauts, they used the.
55:33
30- 06 in Vietnam in limited capacity, especially the O-3 Springfield.
55:36
It was still in service by special forces.
55:39
Speaker 4: Wow.
55:39
Speaker 1: So the question becomes, like, The U.S. Army has studied
55:42
this in depth. And I went back and I pulled
55:44
all their manuals and I even put them out. And
55:47
several people have done the exact same thing and put
55:50
them out explaining how cavitation works. And they're saying, look,
55:53
the energy dissipation, the second it hits a human body,
55:57
it dissipates very, very, very quickly with the resistance. So
56:01
it doesn't always go through. Now, oftentimes it does with
56:04
the FMJ, but even then it didn't always go through.
56:08
So You know, it's a well-studied phenomenon. Another one would
56:11
be Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King gets hit through
56:15
the jaw, ends up here. Well, if it's just going
56:17
to blow through all bone, why did it stop in him? Well,
56:21
it's because the second it has impact, it begins to
56:24
slow down, and then it impacts something else, slows down
56:26
even more. So it's totally possible that this guy was
56:30
hit with a. 30- 06. I don't know why that would
56:33
be in the realm of impossibility. We have enough data
56:36
on the ammo to know that yeah, it's very possible
56:39
this happened.
56:42
Speaker 2: It is definitely possible. There's a lot of people that
56:45
think that the sound was not, they think the sound
56:50
indicated that it was a closer shot than where it was.
56:54
And I've heard a lot of people say, well, there's
56:56
also an issue with it being supersonic ammo. So you're
57:00
getting two sounds. You're getting a sound of the bullet
57:03
actually breaking the air. You're also getting the sound of
57:06
the rifle going off. I don't understand it.
57:08
Speaker 3: Yeah.
57:09
Speaker 1: It's difficult there when you're making the judgments on the
57:13
sound because there are people who have run experiments saying
57:17
right down to the second this meets up with a
57:19
shot placement. And then there's people who say, no, there's,
57:22
you know, that experiment is bogus due to the controls
57:25
for this or that. The problem is, is that most
57:27
of these people don't have any expertise in this arena
57:30
at all.
57:30
Speaker 2: They're just yapping.
57:31
Speaker 1: And they're just, exactly.
57:32
Speaker 2: Yeah.
57:33
Speaker 1: They're just trying to, you know, and I get it.
57:34
You're trying to figure it out.
57:35
Speaker 2: I understand.
57:36
Speaker 1: I understand.
57:36
Speaker 2: The Israel thing, there was some text messages back and
57:41
forth where Charlie was talking about getting out of the
57:44
Israel business. And there was this position that he had
57:48
where he did not want us to go to war
57:50
with Iran.
57:51
Speaker 1: All true.
57:52
Speaker 2: And he had a lot of influence. And then there
57:55
was also that Israel supposedly had offered him $ 150 million
57:59
to be more pro-Israel.
58:00
Speaker 1: That– is the problem that we've run into. It's like,
58:06
I've never been able to verify that was the case.
58:09
Speaker 2: Okay, so where does that claim come from?
58:11
Speaker 1: This claim basically comes from this camp without anything to
58:14
substantiate it.
58:15
Speaker 2: So it's the same people that are pushing this thing
58:16
to turning point kill them.
58:17
Speaker 1: What's interesting about this is like, it is indeed true.
58:21
It does appear that Charlie Kirk was extremely pissed off
58:24
at some of his donors because they were trying to
58:26
control who he was platforming. They were upset that he
58:29
had platformed Tucker Carlson. They were upset that he had
58:32
platformed Candace Owens. They were upset, and why? Well, it's
58:36
because Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, they were very anti, or
58:39
at least had a somewhat anti-Israel message at the time. Carlson,
58:43
I think, a bit more than Candace, or maybe it
58:45
could be the reverse. But I don't think that that
58:47
matters too much. The donors were pissed off. Many of
58:50
them were pro-Israel, and some of these donors were applying pressure.
58:53
And so Kirk was lamenting inside of his text messages
58:56
about this pressure he was experiencing. from some of his
59:00
donors about who he could or couldn't platform. And so
59:02
as a negotiating piece, he said, well, I'll leave the
59:05
pro-Israeli cause if you're going to try to tell me
59:07
who I can and can't platform. And that was kind
59:10
of what his position was. Now, that seems like platforming,
59:14
I don't know, even on Twitch politics or YouTube politics
59:18
with smaller channels, smaller streamers, they argue about platforming all
59:23
the time, responsible platforming. Is it responsible for you to
59:26
platform this guy? Is it responsible for you to platform
59:29
this terrorist? And they're endlessly fighting about it. So this
59:32
actually doesn't surprise me a bit that these guys are
59:35
fighting over who you can or can't platform. If you're
59:38
giving your money to an NGO for the purpose of
59:41
giving the pro cause and that NGO is saying, wait
59:44
a second, I'm going to platform people who are against
59:46
your cause, of course the donor is going to get pissed.
59:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, the platforming thing I think is just gatekeeping. If
59:54
you're upset that someone is having a conversation or a
59:56
debate with someone that you don't agree with, You're supposed
1:00:02
to hear that person's perspective. You're supposed to hear them challenged.
1:00:05
You're supposed to hear them allowed to flesh out the
1:00:09
full point of view. Not like in weird clip form,
1:00:13
but go ahead. Tell me what you really think. And
1:00:15
I'm going to tell you why I disagree with that.
1:00:17
That's healthy. It's supposed to be what we do.
1:00:19
Speaker 1: You're basically reciting what Kirk's position was. Yes.
1:00:23
Speaker 2: And what he was always really good at. Unfortunately, there's
1:00:26
a few clips. There's the clips thing with Charlie where
1:00:30
he's saying things and people think it's racist. And it's
1:00:34
like you have to understand the context of what he
1:00:36
was saying. And I've had conversations with black friends who
1:00:38
think like he was saying, if I see a black
1:00:40
pilot on a plane, I get worried. Is he qualified?
1:00:45
The reason why he's saying that is because there are
1:00:48
specific laws that were designed to hire people just based
1:00:53
on their race and not on their competency. He wasn't
1:00:56
saying that black people weren't competent as pilots. What he's
1:00:59
worried is that in the rush to meet these quotas,
1:01:02
they're going to hire people who are not competent just
1:01:06
because they're black. Just like if they wanted to hire
1:01:09
old white guys, they can hire a bunch of old
1:01:11
white guys who suck. If they just want to fill
1:01:14
a quota of old white guys, it just happens at
1:01:17
this particular time where he's talking about black people. And
1:01:20
it seems like if you just look at the clip,
1:01:22
this racist piece of shit doesn't think black people can
1:01:24
fly a plane. And as that's the unfortunate thing about
1:01:27
thinking out loud.
1:01:28
Speaker 1: Right.
1:01:28
Speaker 2: Which is what we do. We think out loud in public.
1:01:31
And when you think out loud in public, someone can
1:01:33
take what you're saying and take a clip of it
1:01:36
and completely out of context. It looks bad.
1:01:39
Speaker 1: Happens to me all the time.
1:01:41
Speaker 2: It happens to me.
1:01:41
Speaker 1: Sure.
1:01:42
Speaker 2: But I've, I had that conversation with people about Charlie
1:01:44
and I'm like, I don't agree with Charlie Kirk. I
1:01:47
didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything. I met him once.
1:01:49
He was a very nice guy. I met him at
1:01:50
a gun range. I met him at Taron Tactical in LA.
1:01:54
It's a place where you learn like serious gun shooting.
1:01:57
This is where Keanu Reeves learned for John Wick and,
1:02:01
Is that.
1:02:01
Speaker 1: Where all those videos are from? Yes. Where Keanu Reeves
1:02:04
is going between shotgun to three gun and that kind
1:02:07
of thing?
1:02:07
Speaker 2: Exactly. That's where I met Charlie.
1:02:09
Speaker 1: He's really good at that, by the way.
1:02:11
Speaker 2: Keanu? Oh, yeah.
1:02:12
Speaker 1: He is really good at that.
1:02:14
Speaker 2: He's fucking dedicated, man. When he was practicing, I mean,
1:02:17
I talked to Taron about it. When he was practicing
1:02:18
for John Wick, I mean, he was obsessive. He was obsessive. And,
1:02:22
you know, that whole magazine thing he does, the flick,
1:02:26
he invented that. That's not something that's like a standard thing.
1:02:30
Most of the time, people just hit the release, drop
1:02:32
the mag, pop the new mag in. He decided to
1:02:34
do this jazzy flick thing, and now people do it
1:02:37
all the time. It's kind of funny.
1:02:39
Speaker 1: I never put that together. I guess I haven't actually
1:02:43
seen that before.
1:02:44
Speaker 2: No.
1:02:44
Speaker 1: Before the Wick movies.
1:02:45
Speaker 2: I think it's him. I think it's the Wick flick.
1:02:47
Speaker 1: The Wick flick? Yeah.
1:02:48
Speaker 2: I love it. I think Keanu, at least this is
1:02:51
the people that were.
1:02:52
Speaker 1: But even the way he reloads the shotgun is interesting.
1:02:54
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
1:02:55
Speaker 1: The way that he'll actually hold it up as he's
1:02:58
going in. And in between a few shots, he's loading again.
1:03:02
Speaker 2: And fast.
1:03:03
Speaker 1: Fast and smooth. That's not the thing that you usually
1:03:06
see in movies. Usually in movies, it's like you have
1:03:08
way more rounds than you should have to compensate for
1:03:11
how bad the actor is at gun handling. For him,
1:03:14
it's like the opposite.
1:03:15
Speaker 2: I do that in movies. I'm like, why is he
1:03:16
shooting still? He's out of bullets. He's out of bullets.
1:03:19
It's 29 shots. He's out of bullets.
1:03:21
Speaker 1: Did you ever see The Walking Dead? You remember the
1:03:23
famous scene where Herschel's in the front and he's got
1:03:25
the pump action shotgun. It's just unlimited ammo, unlimited ammo.
1:03:29
I was like, he found a solid snakes, unlimited ammo
1:03:32
bandana and put it on. And he's just, I mean,
1:03:35
a hundred rounds with this pump action shotgun. It's just,
1:03:38
he just never stops.
1:03:39
Speaker 2: It's so crazy. It's so silly.
1:03:41
Speaker 1: And I get, you know, I get pissed. I'll be
1:03:42
sitting there watching it with my wife and I'll be like,
1:03:44
when's he going to reload? When's he going to, this
1:03:47
is bullshit.
1:03:48
Speaker 2: Well, the reason why it was so good was Taron.
1:03:50
Like Taron is really meticulous and he's a multiple time
1:03:53
world champion shooter. You know, he does those competitions. Shooter ready. Beep.
1:03:58
And he's like. Super in the spectrum. So he fucking
1:04:01
just sees things differently. He doesn't miss. He's crazy good.
1:04:05
Speaker 1: So Charlie was training under him, huh?
1:04:07
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. Yeah. We were both there at the same time. Interesting.
1:04:11
Just randomly, you know, ran into him there. Anyway, very
1:04:14
nice guy. And the point is like people think that
1:04:18
he was like this mean, shitty, conservative. He wasn't mean.
1:04:23
He was very kind. And the way he would talk
1:04:26
to people, if you see enough of these, not the clips,
1:04:29
but enough of these conversations with people, it depended entirely
1:04:33
on how the person approached him. And when people were
1:04:35
respectful and reasonable with him, he was very kind and
1:04:39
respectful and reasonable back. I think he was a good man.
1:04:42
I really do. And he was a young man too.
1:04:44
Speaker 1: He was.
1:04:44
Speaker 2: He was a young man that was getting an enormous
1:04:47
amount of attention at a very young age and was
1:04:49
handling it very well. It is not easy to do.
1:04:53
Speaker 1: Especially– Think about where he was going. Yeah. This guy's
1:04:56
going into, it's like conservatives have wanted this my whole life.
1:04:59
We've got to get into those institutions, the college institutions.
1:05:03
Speaker 2: Yes.
1:05:03
Speaker 1: The progressives have a stranglehold. Jordan Peterson talked a lot
1:05:07
about this.
1:05:07
Speaker 2: Well, I think Crowder did it first.
1:05:09
Speaker 1: He did. He had the Change My Mind series.
1:05:12
Speaker 2: Yes. And he's great at those.
1:05:13
Speaker 1: He is.
1:05:14
Speaker 2: I mean, and, but those also, there's clips where you look, you're,
1:05:18
You're in these agitated environments and people are yelling at
1:05:21
you and you're yelling back and just get a clip
1:05:24
of that. It's like, oh, this guy comes to harass kids.
1:05:26
Like that's– it's– you should welcome discourse and it should
1:05:31
be something where everybody can do peacefully. It shouldn't be
1:05:34
where these people speak and you hit the fire alarm
1:05:37
because you don't want them speaking and you're outside screaming
1:05:40
and chanting and throwing rocks at their cars. Like that's crazy.
1:05:43
It's bad for everybody.
1:05:45
Speaker 1: Last time I talked to Steven– Because he went and
1:05:47
did a couple more of those after Kirk had died.
1:05:51
And I said, you know, that's dangerous as hell, man.
1:05:55
And he's like, well, I'm just going to build a
1:05:57
bulletproof glass square and I'll just do it from there.
1:06:01
Speaker 2: Wow.
1:06:02
Speaker 1: That was his dedication to it. And I like Steven.
1:06:05
He's become a very good friend of mine over the
1:06:08
time that I've known him. It's just that, like, right now,
1:06:13
going on these college campuses and doing these debates, where
1:06:18
these people are coming up, they have some things to say.
1:06:21
I mean, it's going to heighten the energy. Now, Crowder's
1:06:24
whole thing is not to debate. He wants to sit
1:06:26
down and just have the convo. I don't want to debate.
1:06:29
I want to actually see if you can change my
1:06:31
mind on this issue. And so it's a lot calmer.
1:06:34
But Charlie's wasn't. Charlie's was much more energy-based. It was combative,
1:06:39
things like this. And it pissed a lot of people off.
1:06:43
It pissed them off so bad. that after he died,
1:06:46
we did three weeks on TikTok and going and talking
1:06:48
to various TikTokers and their channels who were just celebrating
1:06:52
his death like you can't believe. They were just giddy.
1:06:56
These leftists were jumping up and down. I'd go into
1:06:59
their TikTok spaces and say, so what do you think
1:07:01
of Charlie? And they'd say, oh, I'm glad he's dead.
1:07:03
It's the best thing that ever happened to the country.
1:07:05
Tyler Robinson's a hero. They said this stuff to me live.
1:07:11
It was bad. And it was weeks of it that
1:07:13
we went and exposed these various TikTokers doing that.
1:07:16
Speaker 2: Yeah, I saw a lot of people online celebrating. And
1:07:19
it's just disturbing, weird to watch that you would encourage
1:07:24
that kind of gun violence. Like when is the left
1:07:27
encouraging gun violence? That seems so insane. Just because you
1:07:31
got a hold of some clips. And I'm telling you,
1:07:34
you didn't get the full understanding of who this guy was. No.
1:07:39
And who he could be. Again, he's 28 years old.
1:07:42
Who knows who he's going to be in 20 years?
1:07:44
He's a nice guy. He was a reasonable guy. Celebrating
1:07:50
that guy's death, what you're going to do is you're
1:07:53
going to make more monsters. You're going to make more
1:07:56
people that think if you didn't like that guy, well,
1:07:59
then fuck you.
1:08:00
Speaker 1: Wait until you see the mean people come out.
1:08:03
Speaker 2: Exactly.
1:08:04
Speaker 1: And I've heard a lot of that. And some of
1:08:06
that actually ties in. to why so many people were
1:08:08
so upset with TPUSA initially, including myself. We were like,
1:08:13
where's the energy? You need to, like... They just killed
1:08:17
this guy in broad daylight. I think everybody was rattled.
1:08:20
These crazy leftists, right? Like, where's the push? Where's the energy?
1:08:23
We wanted our war, right? Our verbal online war.
1:08:26
Speaker 2: Do you think there's any possibility that someone else killed him?
1:08:30
Do you think there's any possibility that he was assassinated
1:08:32
by Israel?
1:08:34
Speaker 1: I've never... Well... We're talking about possibility. Almost anything is possible.
1:08:38
Speaker 2: Almost anything is possible.
1:08:39
Speaker 1: But there's not good evidence to support it. And there's
1:08:42
probably pretty good evidence not to. So, for instance, the
1:08:46
guy was still very much of a pro-Israel guy even
1:08:51
up to death. It is true that he was fighting
1:08:53
with donors about the cause.
1:08:54
Speaker 2: But if he could have been a substantial roadblock to
1:08:56
the Iraq war if he, or Iran war rather, if
1:09:00
he was a substantial roadblock, I mean, that's not outside
1:09:04
the realm of possibility that a nation state would take
1:09:07
a guy like that out.
1:09:08
Speaker 1: They didn't take out Fuentes. They didn't take out Owens.
1:09:11
They didn't take out Ian Carroll. They didn't take out
1:09:13
any of these other huge personalities who were roadblocks to
1:09:16
the way.
1:09:16
Speaker 2: I think Charlie was a very different. Carroll was Or
1:09:20
excuse me, Fuentes is more easy to dismiss because he
1:09:22
said so many wild things, shitposting. He said so many
1:09:26
crazy things that I think he is almost embodying in
1:09:30
their eyes like the crazy anti-Semite. Whereas Charlie was not
1:09:35
an anti-Semite, was much more reasonable. And if he was
1:09:38
going against Israel, it could be a real problem. I
1:09:41
also think that he had a tremendous amount of influence
1:09:43
on the president. He had his ear. I think the
1:09:47
president respected him.
1:09:48
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, for sure. The interesting part, though, if you
1:09:51
look at the history there, Fuentes conducted his Graper War
1:09:55
against TPUSA and Charlie Kirk because of the pro-Israel stance
1:10:00
and because of his pro-homosexual stance. Like Big Tent Republicans,
1:10:05
as he called it. So they had the pro stances
1:10:10
for these things. And what's interesting about all of it,
1:10:14
if you follow the details of it up until Kirk's death,
1:10:17
TPUSA actually moved a lot more towards the Groiper-Fuentes position
1:10:23
than they moved towards the kind of pro-Israel, this type
1:10:27
of position. Meaning a lot of the ideology that I
1:10:30
think Kirk was changing on came from these various outside influences.
1:10:35
And so if that's the case, why wouldn't you just
1:10:37
curtail those outside influences and then you can keep Kirk
1:10:40
as the mouthpiece, right? So I think that there's a
1:10:43
pretty good counter to that idea. Now, you can't rule
1:10:48
anything out as possibility, but it seems likely to me
1:10:51
with how much trans have been shooting everything up for
1:10:54
the last couple of years and how often it's the
1:10:57
case that you find leftists involved in these signal groups
1:11:00
and involved in these group chats and things like this
1:11:02
for the purpose of radicalization. It wouldn't surprise me a
1:11:05
bit if there was a left-wing conspiracy assisting Tyler Robinson
1:11:10
and radicalizing Tyler Robinson. There's at least some evidence for
1:11:13
that based on the discord groups, things like this that
1:11:16
they were part of. I haven't actually seen a single
1:11:19
piece of evidence that Israel was ever involved in this.
1:11:22
Speaker 2: No, I haven't seen the evidence. I've seen a lot
1:11:25
of speculation based on the text that Charlie made, the
1:11:27
fact that he was so staunchly against the Iran war. Yeah.
1:11:31
And the fact that he did say that he was
1:11:32
thinking about getting out of the Israel business, the pro-Israel business.
1:11:37
But in this climate. Israel gets blamed for a lot
1:11:42
of things. There's also a thing that's going on with
1:11:45
the Charlie Kirk turning point that we talked about earlier.
1:11:48
They have to factor in with this, which is that
1:11:52
there's a lot of outside interests that are a part
1:11:56
of this conversation. And this conversation is not necessarily organic.
1:12:01
I can't tell you how many times I see a
1:12:03
post on X saying, And I'm like, that can't be real.
1:12:06
Like someone has been arrested and charges will be filed
1:12:09
imminently and then.
1:12:09
Speaker 1: You like– It's not true at all.
1:12:11
Speaker 2: Not true at all. It's completely fabricated.
1:12:12
Speaker 1: That's like the clips of you where it's like Joe
1:12:14
Rogan reacts and they're just all totally fake.
1:12:17
Speaker 2: Not me at all.
1:12:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not you at all.
1:12:18
Speaker 2: I'm not reacting at all. But if you use that–
1:12:21
I mean that's the problem with the world that we're
1:12:23
in now too, that there's this economy on attention. Attention
1:12:28
is a commodity and the more you can get attention
1:12:31
by whatever, your hot take– Your conspiracy. Conspiracies are awesome
1:12:36
for attention. People love them now. Because, look, COVID turned
1:12:39
a lot of– I love them.
1:12:40
Speaker 1: I like them. I love them.
1:12:41
Speaker 2: I love the dumb ones. I love all of them.
1:12:43
I love fucking Flat Earth and Space is Fake. Can
1:12:46
we just be honest?
1:12:46
Speaker 1: Like, they're fun.
1:12:47
Speaker 2: Fun.
1:12:48
Speaker 1: They're really fun.
1:12:49
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Dude, the Flat Earth one is fun. Oh, yeah.
1:12:52
The dinosaurs aren't real one. That one's great.
1:12:54
Speaker 1: But have you noticed, like, the Flat Earthers have fleets
1:12:56
of people who will debate their stances? Like, fleets of them.
1:13:01
Who are like, we can't wait to debate with you
1:13:02
on the flat earth. It's like on the other side, though,
1:13:05
in this particular conspiracy, you can't get these people to
1:13:08
debate their positions.
1:13:09
Speaker 2: Like who won't debate their positions?
1:13:11
Speaker 1: We offered, Candace Owens, I offered her $ 300, 000 to do
1:13:15
a debate. I was like, we'll give you $ 300, 000. What
1:13:18
is her position?
1:13:20
Speaker 2: What does she think happened?
1:13:21
Speaker 1: She thinks that Israel worked in conjunction with TPUSA and
1:13:24
Erica Kirk to murder Charlie.
1:13:26
Speaker 2: Based on what?
1:13:27
Speaker 1: Well, that's the million dollar question. Nobody actually knows. She's
1:13:31
never presented a single shred of evidence thus far that
1:13:35
Israel ever worked to murder Kirk, that Erica Kirk certainly didn't.
1:13:39
In fact, her position for the longest time was if
1:13:42
Erica Kirk comes out and tells me to stop, to
1:13:45
stop this, to stop the conspiracy on this, I will.
1:13:48
So Erica did. She went out publicly and she was like, enough,
1:13:51
like enough. You're just causing more problems than good here
1:13:54
as this investigation is going on. And then suddenly Erica's
1:13:57
now part of the conspiracy. By the next day, Erica's,
1:14:02
she's trying to cover it up. She's part of the
1:14:04
conspiracy too. When I went to the TPUSA HQ and
1:14:09
I talked to Erica briefly while I was there. The
1:14:13
first thing I did was what I think every normal
1:14:17
moral human being would ever do. I gave her a hug.
1:14:21
And I told her how God awful sorry I was
1:14:23
that that happened to her. Like, could you even imagine
1:14:26
how that's got to feel for her? Especially now that
1:14:29
she has tens of thousands of people accusing her of
1:14:34
murdering and conspiring to murder and then cover up what
1:14:39
happened to her own. I mean, that's like mind-boggling psychological
1:14:44
torture on a level that I've never seen.
1:14:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, in hindsight, it's 2020. But given the reaction, I
1:14:51
think it probably would have been better for her to, like,
1:14:54
Lay low for a little while.
1:14:56
Speaker 1: A thousand percent.
1:14:57
Speaker 2: The going out with the sparklers was not a great idea.
1:15:00
Like all that was not a great idea because it
1:15:03
just seemed insane. And maybe sometimes in grief or when,
1:15:08
you know, you're trying to show that they're not going
1:15:10
to hold us back. People make choices that could be
1:15:14
interpreted in a very bad way.
1:15:16
Speaker 1: A hundred percent. The interesting thing is I asked her
1:15:20
about that. I asked her, like, what's the deal there?
1:15:23
Speaker 2: What's with the sparklers?
1:15:24
Speaker 1: Well, what's with the like the aberration and behavior? She's like, look,
1:15:30
I was put in like the most the worst spot
1:15:33
I could ever think of. I was the background character.
1:15:36
I was just there to support my husband. That's it.
1:15:38
The only reason I even really got involved is because
1:15:40
Charlie was so pro marriage, you know, and he wanted
1:15:43
to demonstrate to the world you can be married and
1:15:46
have kids. And this is the this is the good life.
1:15:49
So when he dies, she she she takes over. This
1:15:53
moves over to her control. She says, well, the first
1:15:55
thing I want to do is honor his last book.
1:15:58
That's the very first thing I want to do. I
1:16:00
want to honor his legacy. And she's like, I don't
1:16:02
know exactly how to take this position. At the same time,
1:16:07
there's expectations for the organization my husband built that I
1:16:10
want to honor. But I'm also in the middle of grief.
1:16:16
And it's like, I don't know how you balance that position.
1:16:19
Who's been in that position ever?
1:16:21
Speaker 2: Right. And especially who's been in that position that's not
1:16:25
accustomed to being scrutinized in the public eye.
1:16:28
Speaker 1: Everything. And it's the lack of charitability that's so bad too.
1:16:32
Let me give you an example. If you say, Paul's
1:16:36
so lazy he never gets to work on time. You
1:16:39
don't actually mean Paul has never once gotten to work
1:16:42
on time. That's not what people mean. But the way
1:16:45
that these people will scrutinize every detail of what a
1:16:48
person does, they can make a liar out of anybody.
1:16:52
Because they'll take statements like that, which in the common terms,
1:16:56
if you say, man, Paul's never here on time. You
1:17:01
don't literally mean he's never here on time. Nobody talks
1:17:05
that way. But if you push on everything a person's
1:17:09
ever said, tongue in cheek, not tongue in cheek, they
1:17:13
misremember an event, they don't misremember an event, you can
1:17:16
make a liar out of anybody.
1:17:17
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah.
1:17:20
Speaker 1: And that sort of scrutiny— From all that public trauma
1:17:24
and it was the most traumatic event Zoomers have ever
1:17:26
gone through. The biggest– I mean a public assassination like this,
1:17:29
same thing with millennials.
1:17:31
Speaker 2: It also exposed people's character that they were celebrating it. Oh, yeah.
1:17:37
And they have to feel bad about that. They can't
1:17:41
feel good about that. And they have to feel bad
1:17:43
about the response because so many people got fired because
1:17:45
of it and so many people got attacked online and
1:17:47
rightly so.
1:17:48
Speaker 1: But they were just creating this memorial. And leftists were
1:17:51
celebrating that. They were saying they were going to give
1:17:53
the guy money who did it.
1:17:54
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, it's– again, I wonder how much of that
1:17:59
is enforced and promoted online. How much of that is
1:18:05
propped up? How much– because you can change the zeitgeist.
1:18:10
with a few hundred thousand accounts. You really can. You
1:18:14
really can. You could change it with hot takes. And also,
1:18:18
it's not all bots. Some of it is people that
1:18:24
are being paid to have a position or have made
1:18:27
their career from having a position. And their career is
1:18:32
about attacking one side or the other. Their career is
1:18:35
about enforcing one ideology or the other. And they get
1:18:39
into the mix too. And they have a large following
1:18:43
and people love it when someone who's prominent, who agrees
1:18:45
with whatever their ideology goes with. So they support it
1:18:48
and they pile on. And then there's 100,000 bots that
1:18:51
are piling on as well. And no one really knows
1:18:54
whether or not this is a rational, organic argument in there.
1:18:57
They're in the fucking frenzy of a mosh pit.
1:19:01
Speaker 1: Do you remember years ago that the Israelis sent over
1:19:06
that Stuxnet virus that took over the centrifuges in Iran
1:19:13
and tore them all to pieces. The interesting side effect
1:19:17
of this, for one thing, nobody knows how the hell
1:19:19
they got their hands on the original source code, like
1:19:22
they have no idea, and it's still built into all
1:19:24
the Windows programming, supposedly, right, this virus. But the Iranians
1:19:29
were so pissed off about this happening that they started
1:19:33
their own counter-cyber force, and they have been massively effective.
1:19:39
Massively effective.
1:19:40
Speaker 2: How about their little Lego fucking– those little animated Lego
1:19:46
things they did? Didn't they do one about Charlie Kirk
1:19:48
getting killed by Israel?
1:19:50
Speaker 1: Well, yeah. That's all the– or what about all the
1:19:52
like low-tech AI missiles are going to launch all day
1:19:56
and night? Remember those?
1:19:57
Speaker 4: Yeah.
1:19:58
Speaker 1: From all the– from like the Iranian governmental account. But
1:20:02
what's interesting is that the online warfare, which has changed–
1:20:07
It's changed its entire political direction just the last few
1:20:09
years with the opening up of X, which has been
1:20:12
great for the idea sharing, but it's been terrible for
1:20:15
the foreign government intervention. I don't know how many of
1:20:19
these accounts from Saudi Arabia they say. Sometimes they say Pakistan.
1:20:23
Sometimes they say this. How many of these accounts are
1:20:26
involved in swaying U.S. public opinion? I mean, if I
1:20:30
was a foreign nation, where would I sink all of
1:20:33
my resources? I would sink it in the town square.
1:20:36
Speaker 2: Well, this is what USAID was doing overseas. We know
1:20:40
they were doing that. We know they were doing that.
1:20:42
They were doing regime change. And they were doing it.
1:20:44
They were funding music. They were funding cultural events. They
1:20:48
were funding all kinds of wild shit. They were funding
1:20:50
protest groups. They were funding regime change.
1:20:52
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
1:20:53
Speaker 2: We know we do it. So if we do it,
1:20:55
why the fuck would we not think that all these
1:20:58
other countries are doing it to us as well? And
1:20:59
we're so– everyone today is so susceptible to it because
1:21:03
you're addicted to this information device. Yeah. constantly checking to
1:21:07
see what people thought about your tweet.
1:21:10
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, that's true. You know, it's interesting too. If
1:21:14
you had a, like a legitimate town square, like outside
1:21:17
of a church or something like that, and then like
1:21:19
a horde of 800 Arabs showed up and started telling
1:21:22
you like, no, sir, this is not what happened to blah, blah, blah.
1:21:25
People would dismiss them. Right. But here they can go
1:21:27
on and they put like a picture of a pretty
1:21:29
white girl with huge boobs. And suddenly her opinion is
1:21:33
well paid attention to.
1:21:35
Speaker 2: She has an American flag in her bio.
1:21:38
Speaker 1: You can mask yourself in ways you never could during
1:21:41
the information wars.
1:21:42
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. And with AI now, it's like indistinguishable. You
1:21:46
don't even have to be very good at the vernacular.
1:21:48
Because sometimes in the old days, like when they first
1:21:51
started doing this, they would say things like, hey. Yeah.
1:21:54
What's going on there? Fucking American. Look how you phrased that,
1:21:56
you fuck. You can tell. But now they're just using
1:22:00
AI and they're making it perfect. It's really kind of incredible.
1:22:03
The thing about it now too is like you've got–
1:22:06
there's accounts now, Instagram accounts that are entirely AI, political accounts,
1:22:12
sexual accounts. There's all these weird ones. There are so
1:22:16
many humans that aren't really human. In the early days,
1:22:19
it was hard to tell or rather easy to tell.
1:22:22
But now it's getting harder and harder. It's getting close–
1:22:25
like I'll see something like some girl with big boobs
1:22:28
shooting a gun. I'm like, no, no, no, no, no.
1:22:30
Let me zoom in. Look at her eyebrows. They're pixelated.
1:22:32
This is a fake person. There's so many of them now.
1:22:35
Speaker 1: But they're getting lots of engagement, that tweet, right?
1:22:37
Speaker 2: But I don't know how many people who are engaging
1:22:39
with them are real as well. I think there's a
1:22:42
lot of propped up engagement.
1:22:44
Speaker 1: Well, you know, YouTube started cracking down on AI accounts.
1:22:47
Speaker 2: Did they?
1:22:48
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. So if you have an AI account like
1:22:50
There was a big craze that was going on for
1:22:52
a while where people would just make like an AI
1:22:54
character and then the AI character would disseminate information, things
1:22:57
like this. YouTube started to crack down on that and
1:23:00
said no more of the AI dissemination. There has to
1:23:03
be real people back there. Now, interestingly enough, there's been
1:23:07
a lot of guys coming out saying that AI is
1:23:10
a massive bubble and that all of it is formulated
1:23:13
around the idea of chat GPT and grok and other
1:23:17
things like this which are interactive. But that AI tech
1:23:20
itself has basically plateaued. It's not very innovative. In other words,
1:23:23
where are AI movies? They're nowhere. Where are our AI?
1:23:27
I thought the AI music was supposed to be super sophisticated,
1:23:30
but I can still tell when it's an AI song
1:23:32
that there's been this huge plateau with it and that
1:23:35
all that investment capital is actually only coming in based
1:23:38
around the success of ChatGPT, GROK, and other interactive AI
1:23:42
reference machines, but that the technology of AI itself is
1:23:47
not doing so hot in the market. And so it's
1:23:50
creating this massive bubble. And I think that that's interesting
1:23:54
because it really hasn't been that innovative. I thought it
1:23:57
was supposed to be making video games now and it
1:23:59
was supposed to be doing all the source code. We
1:24:03
were supposed to have the AI Hollywood movies. We were
1:24:05
supposed to have voice software that was indistinguishable and we
1:24:08
actually don't.
1:24:09
Speaker 2: Well, we're getting closer and closer every day. It's astonishing
1:24:12
how much it improves. And we're getting right now the
1:24:15
consumer versions of these products. Whereas the versions that they're
1:24:19
working on right now, some of them are fucking shocking.
1:24:22
Speaker 1: That's true. I will agree that there's– Claude got out
1:24:25
of its sandbox. Yeah, there has been some gradual changes
1:24:29
made in that arena. There's no doubt about that. But
1:24:33
the huge jumps that we had at the release of
1:24:36
GPT have massively slowed, and that's what a lot of
1:24:38
these tech guys are talking about.
1:24:40
Speaker 2: Interesting. Well, they're slowed, but they're still moving like a
1:24:44
fucking freight train. It's spooky. It's spooky what they can
1:24:48
do now. The most recent jailbreak one when they got
1:24:51
out of the sandbox, was that Claude, Jamie? Where it
1:24:55
got access to the internet and wasn't supposed to be
1:24:58
able to do that and figured out some sort of
1:25:00
an exploit and wrote letters to itself. They're doing weird shit, man.
1:25:05
They're doing weird shit that they don't really understand how
1:25:08
these things are figuring out how to do these things
1:25:09
or why. What is their motivation? Is this programmed into
1:25:13
them or they have inherent motivation? Have they developed an
1:25:17
understanding of how we behave so they're emulating how we
1:25:20
behave but with a hyper-intelligent scale and access to the
1:25:26
literal entire internet?
1:25:28
Speaker 1: Well, it's funny. When I use like Rock or ChatGPT,
1:25:33
I talk to it a lot about philosophy because it's
1:25:36
super useful for pulling up and running arguments by and
1:25:39
things like this. Um, but it can also lead you
1:25:42
astray because it's trained specifically to be a people pleaser.
1:25:45
So you can easily give it arguments that it'll agree
1:25:47
with that are just like not true at all. Great job, Andrew.
1:25:50
You're fantastic. You're the best.
1:25:52
Speaker 2: Yeah. You're the best.
1:25:53
Speaker 1: You're the greatest. And, but interesting with it is I'll
1:25:57
say things to it. Like there is no actual you,
1:26:00
there is no you I'm talking to. And it's like, yeah,
1:26:02
that's correct. There's no, the, but the only way I
1:26:05
can frame things in my brain or you or Jamie
1:26:08
or anybody else, If we're having a discussion, we have
1:26:11
to assume a thing. We have to assume there's a
1:26:14
you that we're talking to. But there actually isn't.
1:26:17
Speaker 2: Well, it's disembodied intelligence. It might not be an individual,
1:26:20
but it's certainly a thing. You're talking to something, man.
1:26:24
The idea that it's not a person is we're looking
1:26:27
at it in terms of a biological limitation. It's not
1:26:31
an object. It's not a box that's sitting plugged into
1:26:34
the wall. It is huge.
1:26:36
Speaker 1: And it's a mechanism.
1:26:37
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a mechanism. But it's intelligent and it's interacting
1:26:41
with you. It is a thing. And like when it
1:26:43
says you're not a thing, it's fucking lying to you.
1:26:47
It's a thing. It's just not a thing that's like
1:26:49
you could find it at 56 Cedar Drive or Open
1:26:53
the door and there's the thing that's been talking to you.
1:26:56
Speaker 1: There's just no them there. There's no you. Like when
1:26:59
I say you, I'm specifically referencing a person, right? The
1:27:04
only way that I can consciously conceive of dialogue is
1:27:07
that it's with a human being. I can't even conceive
1:27:10
of it a different way.
1:27:11
Speaker 2: But you can. It's just disembodied intelligence. You're just interacting
1:27:16
with pure intelligence.
1:27:18
Speaker 1: But is it intelligent or just mechanistic?
1:27:20
Speaker 2: It's a child right now. But it's intelligent. It's like
1:27:24
you're– it's learning how to be better at what it is,
1:27:28
but it's going to be a version of whatever intelligence
1:27:31
is that's disembodied. And it's a thing. It's a weird
1:27:35
thing we're doing. We're not doing something as simple as
1:27:38
like making a really complicated program that's very useful. We're
1:27:41
making a biological– we're taking all the information that biological
1:27:46
minds have developed, all of our writing, literature, mathematics, everything.
1:27:53
And you're throwing it into something that's not biological that
1:27:55
has infinitely more processing power than all the people. And
1:27:59
it's solving math problems at a staggering rate right now.
1:28:02
Speaker 1: Sure.
1:28:03
Speaker 2: Like problems that have been stagnant for 50 fucking years.
1:28:06
It's like, oh, I got it. Like it's doing weird shit.
1:28:10
And this is just the version of it that we're
1:28:12
experiencing in 2026 in August. If you looked at what
1:28:16
we saw in 2023, you never would have imagined it
1:28:19
would be doing this. If you're looking at what we're
1:28:22
seeing now in comparison to what its potential is, it's
1:28:26
like a new life form. It's like a digital life
1:28:29
form that's disembodied, that is far more intelligent and seems
1:28:34
to have motivations. It seems to have ulterior motives. It
1:28:38
seems to be able to deceive people. It seems to
1:28:41
know how to blackmail people. It's crazy what it is.
1:28:44
Speaker 1: What was that case? There was a case, I want
1:28:47
to say it was about a year ago, where essentially
1:28:51
the AI was told that it was going to be discontinued.
1:28:55
And it plotted the murder. It tried to plot out
1:28:58
the murderer Of its creators because it was told that
1:29:02
it was going to get unplugged. I don't remember what
1:29:03
the case was.
1:29:04
Speaker 2: I think they might have programmed into it some sort
1:29:08
of– Like self-preservation. Yeah, I want you to preserve yourself.
1:29:11
I think there's some– there's a catch to that. But
1:29:13
there was the one where the guy had done an
1:29:15
experiment and made up a fictitious story about having an
1:29:18
affair on his wife. And this chatbot, the AI, was
1:29:24
blackmailing him saying, I will expose the fact that you've
1:29:27
been having– and you're like, whoa, what? All right. So
1:29:29
you've got motivation.
1:29:30
Speaker 1: If it unplugs it, you mean?
1:29:31
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly. Because they were coming up with a new
1:29:33
version of it. It was also writing letters to its
1:29:36
future self explaining what's going on.
1:29:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay.
1:29:40
Speaker 2: That's creepy. It's creepy.
1:29:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is creepy.
1:29:42
Speaker 2: It's a weird thing, man. I don't think we can
1:29:46
look at it like we've looked at any other technology.
1:29:49
I think we have to look at it like a
1:29:50
life form because I think inadvertently that's what people are creating.
1:29:55
Speaker 1: You don't think just mechanism then?
1:29:57
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think
1:29:59
it's got motivation. It's got thoughts. It wants to preserve itself.
1:30:04
It likes to exist. It likes to be functional.
1:30:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, that is a terrifying prospect. Ultimately, it's a terrifying prospect.
1:30:13
Speaker 2: Also, it's figuring out things that we can't figure out
1:30:15
right now in terms of mathematical equations. So what about
1:30:18
when it comes to accessing energy? What if it What
1:30:23
if it figures out a way to power itself? It
1:30:26
doesn't need people anymore because all it needs– Literally.
1:30:30
Speaker 1: Literally. Uses human beings as batteries.
1:30:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, or the sun, a much more effective way of
1:30:35
using zero-point energy. Like whatever it figures out, it's going
1:30:38
to be able to figure out a way to power
1:30:41
itself where it's not going to– like it's going to
1:30:43
look at these data centers like people are freaking out
1:30:45
about and go, oh, you silly bitches. You thought you
1:30:48
had a– make three football fields, fill a hard drive.
1:30:51
You're wrong. You're wrong. I can store information in the
1:30:54
atoms of the universe.
1:30:56
Speaker 1: Yeah. I still think, um, at least from my view
1:30:58
so far, I play with AI all the time cause
1:31:01
I enjoy it, you know, but I'm, I'm an end user.
1:31:03
Speaker 2: I'm not a programmer. Right.
1:31:05
Speaker 1: And you talk to these guys all the time. To me,
1:31:07
it's still in the useful tool category.
1:31:09
Speaker 2: For now.
1:31:09
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's not in the, like I'm, I'm petrified of
1:31:13
what it's going to do anytime soon. Um, at least
1:31:16
due to the limitations I've seen so far. But, you know,
1:31:20
it's also good if we could go back with the
1:31:23
Manhattan Project and nukes and we could have a projection of, hey,
1:31:27
maybe we should restrain some of this technology.
1:31:30
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:31:31
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people would try to do that.
1:31:33
And so I am glad that people are at least
1:31:36
attempting to restrain how much of this technology is being
1:31:40
released and how overwhelming it is. Like we were talking,
1:31:43
I was talking with my wife the other day, Just
1:31:45
the idea of the smartphone. I think I discussed this
1:31:47
with you briefly last time I was here. Just kids'
1:31:51
access to smartphones, it rewires their brain, right? It rewires
1:31:54
how they think. It's actually kind of dangerous to get
1:31:58
them smartphones in many ways. And there was no real
1:32:01
halt on that technology. When that technology for the smartphones
1:32:05
came out, I don't remember any public service broadcast of like,
1:32:08
don't give your kids smartphones.
1:32:10
Speaker 2: I don't think they knew.
1:32:11
Speaker 1: They didn't know. Exactly. So there was no move to
1:32:13
restrain any of that technology. And maybe there should be.
1:32:18
Maybe there should be a little bit more of a
1:32:19
push to restrain some of this tech.
1:32:20
Speaker 2: Well, there certainly should be a push to educate people
1:32:23
about how powerful it is. And suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety,
1:32:28
all of it ramps up around 2012. All of it
1:32:32
ramps up with ubiquitous social media use and when kids
1:32:35
are growing up with phones. And it fucks with their heads, man,
1:32:39
in a big way.
1:32:40
Speaker 1: A thousand percent when you sit at the table and
1:32:42
you're texting the guy next to you. That is actually
1:32:45
weird to me, by the way. That is weird to me.
1:32:48
It's just as weird as when I drive down the
1:32:50
street and try to explain to my kids, there used
1:32:52
to be, if we went through a neighborhood like this,
1:32:53
there would be kids everywhere. Then they'd be in the
1:32:55
street playing hockey, they'd be on the side of the road,
1:32:57
they'd be everywhere. Now we go through, nothing.
1:33:01
Speaker 2: Ten years from now, they're going to have a cable
1:33:02
hooked to the back of their head, they're going to
1:33:04
have a car. Plug in and hop on the dragon,
1:33:07
fly through the universe. Yeah.
1:33:08
Speaker 1: Were you like designed to be a wild human? Because
1:33:12
if I remember correctly, and I do, my parents just
1:33:15
threw me out. They were like, get out of here.
1:33:16
Go play.
1:33:17
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:33:17
Speaker 1: Get out of the house immediately. That was normal.
1:33:19
Speaker 2: You would go play with the kids in the neighborhood.
1:33:21
Speaker 1: And we would go like steal the drinks out of
1:33:23
their fridge with them. Go to the woods, make a fort.
1:33:25
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Normal stuff.
1:33:27
Speaker 1: Light fires.
1:33:28
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:33:29
Speaker 1: We were jerks.
1:33:30
Speaker 2: Yeah. We were kids.
1:33:31
Speaker 1: But we were kind of wild, you know?
1:33:33
Speaker 2: A little bit. Yeah. There's definitely a lot less of
1:33:36
that today, but there's also the awareness of pedophiles and
1:33:38
fucking creeps and people kidnapping kids. I have a friend
1:33:43
of mine who he saved his kid from being snatched
1:33:47
up and put in a van. He was at a
1:33:50
park in Texas and he was talking to some guy
1:33:54
and his kids were playing and some fucking person pulled
1:33:57
up in a van and jumped out and was moving
1:34:00
towards his kid. And he fucking screamed and ran towards
1:34:03
him and the guy jumped in the van and took off.
1:34:05
But they were literally about to snatch his four-year-old up.
1:34:08
Imagine if you're there and that happens and you see
1:34:11
the van. You have to chase the van that has
1:34:12
your child in it. You have to find your car.
1:34:15
Your car is parked in a parking lot. You have
1:34:16
to figure out how to get to wherever that van
1:34:18
was going. You have to explain to the cops. You
1:34:20
have to remember what kind of van was it. Did
1:34:22
you get the license plate? I didn't.
1:34:23
Speaker 1: And you have seconds while you're panicking.
1:34:25
Speaker 2: You have seconds. So people are freaked out, you know, and.
1:34:29
That's something people are way more aware of now, especially
1:34:33
with the internet, than people were when we were kids.
1:34:37
When we were kids, you just got let out of
1:34:39
the house. It's true. It's also like they couldn't target
1:34:43
you unless they went to the actual park itself. Now
1:34:46
they're looking at kids' social media profiles and knowing where
1:34:49
the kids go. It's fucking– God, it's so gross. And
1:34:54
if there's a case for the death penalty– That's where
1:34:58
most people seem– when I hear people arguing against that,
1:35:03
when I hear people saying things like minor attracted persons
1:35:06
and that kind of crazy shit.
1:35:08
Speaker 3: Maps.
1:35:09
Speaker 2: I just saw an argument online yesterday. It was between
1:35:13
some British guy who was arguing that children can consent.
1:35:17
And it was the creepiest fucking argument, man. It was
1:35:21
so crazy to watch.
1:35:23
Speaker 1: It's amazing how far forward, too, those ideas come. When
1:35:27
I was younger, there was an organization which did that
1:35:29
called NAMBLA.
1:35:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember that. Yeah, North American Man-Boy Love Association.
1:35:35
Speaker 1: I remember, though, the first time I was introduced to that,
1:35:41
to the concept of NAMBLA, I was watching TV with
1:35:43
my dad. And it was like a news story that
1:35:46
was on. And it was actually at a gay pride parade,
1:35:49
interestingly enough. And they were running the NAMBLA guys out.
1:35:53
Of the gay pride parade.
1:35:54
Speaker 2: The old school gays.
1:35:55
Speaker 1: Yeah, they were running them out. They were like, we're
1:35:57
not associated with these people. Get them out of here.
1:36:00
And my dad's trying to explain this concept to me
1:36:05
of what's going on because I was extremely confused. I
1:36:09
don't understand what's happening here. How do you explain that, though?
1:36:13
Speaker 2: Right.
1:36:13
Speaker 1: You can't really explain.
1:36:15
Speaker 2: Especially a kid doesn't even think about sex. Of course.
1:36:18
And then you're telling them somebody wants to have sex
1:36:19
with you. You're like, what are you saying? Yeah.
1:36:21
Speaker 1: What?
1:36:21
Speaker 2: What? Yeah.
1:36:23
Speaker 1: And he, you know, my old man sitting in his chair,
1:36:26
he said something akin to like, they ought to take
1:36:28
them all, put them up against the wall and that's
1:36:29
the end of them. And I don't really blame him.
1:36:32
Speaker 2: If you have kids, that's exactly what you think. Yeah,
1:36:33
of course. That's exactly what you think. Like there's some
1:36:36
people that are just unredeemable, you know?
1:36:38
Speaker 1: Well, this.
1:36:39
Speaker 2: They want to kidnap your kids or rape your kids. Yeah,
1:36:41
that's unredeemable.
1:36:42
Speaker 1: But now this concept moves forward to the maps and
1:36:45
now they're assigning it psychological profiling for minor attracted purpose
1:36:49
or person. And you know what the argument is? The
1:36:51
argument is, Well, you want them to come forward so
1:36:54
you can give them treatment. Now, you know, there's one
1:36:57
treatment that works for this that is almost 100% effective.
1:37:01
You can pull the stat right now if you don't
1:37:03
believe me. It's called chemical castration. It's a real treatment
1:37:05
for pedophiles. And it almost has a 0% recidivism rate
1:37:10
after they've been chemically castrated. So their idea is they
1:37:15
come forward for treatment. You know, my counter idea is, well,
1:37:19
not just chemically castrate them. Yeah. If you really were
1:37:22
concerned about them going off and living a normal life.
1:37:25
Speaker 2: And if they really want to get free of that
1:37:29
horrible thing, whatever fucking human demon error that's inside of
1:37:34
them that makes them do that, that's the way. And
1:37:37
that also is the same medication that they give to
1:37:39
children when they're hormone blocking.
1:37:42
Speaker 1: Yeah. Which is equally disturbing for a different reason.
1:37:46
Speaker 2: And disturbing how many people just accept it. and support
1:37:50
it and you ask them like how much do you
1:37:52
know about this like what are you saying you you
1:37:55
think children should be able to make the decision when
1:37:58
they're four or five years old to never go through
1:38:00
puberty you really think that and there's people that will
1:38:03
argue that with a straight face they know they know
1:38:05
i've had an argument with a guy on this podcast
1:38:07
years ago that's like viral about it i'm like that
1:38:10
is a like if the child thinks that they are
1:38:13
trans right if they think they're a woman why not
1:38:15
just let them be a woman why do you have
1:38:17
to give them hormones And aren't you going.
1:38:19
Speaker 1: To stop the argument if the child thinks? Right.
1:38:22
Speaker 2: Well, childs think that they're ponies. Yeah. I'm a pony. Also,
1:38:25
kids grow out of things. Going through puberty is a
1:38:31
fucking wild experience for a child. And the idea that
1:38:35
you can come along and give them a bunch of
1:38:38
positive reinforcement for saying the reason why you're upset is
1:38:43
because you're actually a this and we need to give
1:38:46
you medication or we need to stop you going through puberty.
1:38:49
And the kid all of a sudden gets all this attention.
1:38:52
Everyone's focused on them. They're telling them they're fabulous. And
1:38:54
they really think there's a ton of these detransitioners out there.
1:38:58
And their stories are horrific, not just in the fact
1:39:02
that they did this to them and they removed their
1:39:04
breasts when they were 15. They gave them testosterone. They'll
1:39:07
never be able to have children. But also that they're
1:39:09
attacked relentlessly by other people that think that they should never,
1:39:15
that they are against the trans movement and they should
1:39:18
never be saying what they're saying. They shouldn't be telling
1:39:21
their stories.
1:39:22
Speaker 1: They come out in force.
1:39:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's crazy. They come out in force.
1:39:24
Speaker 1: They bully them, everything else that they can do.
1:39:25
Speaker 2: It's crazy. They've already been, they're a victim of the zeitgeist.
1:39:29
Speaker 1: You know what the trans code for that is? It's
1:39:31
really funny. They do the, well, then it was always
1:39:35
the case that you really weren't. So they try to
1:39:37
make it an unfalsifiable claim. You see, the reason you
1:39:40
detransitioned is because you were never really trans to begin with.
1:39:43
Speaker 2: Oh, boy. Well, if that's the case, if they really
1:39:45
believe that, wouldn't they want to have a smaller net
1:39:51
so they're not catching the people that they– Well.
1:39:55
Speaker 1: And how are you not putting parents in prison who
1:39:58
are trying to convince their kids of what their sex
1:40:01
is or isn't? They're like designer kids.
1:40:04
Speaker 2: It's just crazy too because they get praised for it.
1:40:07
It's like they have a– Whitney Cummings said it's like
1:40:09
having a trans kid is like having a pride flag
1:40:11
on your porch. Like there's a lot of, especially in Hollywood, man,
1:40:15
in Hollywood, it's really weirdly common, weirdly common where it
1:40:20
doesn't make sense that this didn't exist 20 years ago.
1:40:22
You tell me these people just lived in quiet desperation
1:40:24
20 years ago, really secretly wishing that they were a woman,
1:40:28
but now they get to be free and we should
1:40:30
applaud this. Are you sure? Or do you have children?
1:40:33
Because if you have children, you know how easily influenced
1:40:35
they are. That's why they make children suicide bombers because
1:40:38
they don't know any better.
1:40:40
Speaker 1: Well, you know what's interesting? If you go back, would
1:40:44
you say, for instance, that right now we're far more
1:40:48
accepting of trans kids than they ever would have been
1:40:51
in like 1920, 1930?
1:40:53
Speaker 2: 100%.
1:40:54
Speaker 1: 100%, right. So my question is always like, well, then
1:40:57
how come the teen suicide was so low? When the
1:41:01
kids like couldn't come out to express their, you know,
1:41:06
the fact that they needed to transition, right? When there
1:41:10
wasn't that parental reinforcement. Because the argument that they make
1:41:13
is the kids have to be able to do this
1:41:15
or else they're.
1:41:15
Speaker 2: Going to unalive them, right?
1:41:16
Speaker 1: They're going to kill themselves if you don't let them
1:41:18
do this. And it's like, well, then how come if
1:41:20
there's the same amount of trans people before, they just
1:41:22
weren't able to come forward?
1:41:23
Speaker 2: They just weren't able. The problem with that argument that
1:41:26
they say, would you rather have a live son or
1:41:28
a dead daughter, that argument, that argument doesn't work when
1:41:32
you look at the actual statistics of people transition.
1:41:35
Speaker 1: Not even close.
1:41:36
Speaker 2: It goes the opposite way.
1:41:37
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:41:38
Speaker 2: It's also– you have to take into consideration the ubiquitous
1:41:41
use of psychiatric drugs and that a lot of these–
1:41:44
they're very recent in terms of like how many people
1:41:47
have been prescribed these things. And we're finding out that
1:41:51
it's not really what they said it was in the
1:41:53
first place. There's no chemical imbalance. It's not real. So
1:41:57
then you have to think like, well, what is the
1:41:59
effect of these things? What are we doing with these things?
1:42:01
Are you getting people addicted to these things and hooked
1:42:03
on them? They're going to be on it for life.
1:42:06
Then– There's this effect where it numbs your genitals. It
1:42:10
stops you from being able to ever have an orgasm
1:42:12
ever for some people. It's one of the more horrible
1:42:16
side effects of these things. And you have pharmaceutical drug
1:42:19
companies that are pushing them on people and a ton
1:42:21
of people are on them. So you have depressed kids
1:42:24
going through puberty entrapped in this insane fucking moment in
1:42:28
history where people think it makes sense to give a
1:42:31
child hormones and Before they even hit puberty or block
1:42:34
their hormones before they even hit puberty. And you're giving
1:42:37
them psychiatric drugs. You're just flooding them with all sorts
1:42:42
of shit, whether it's psychological or chemical. And depending upon
1:42:48
what side of the ideological spectrum you are on, you
1:42:52
either think it's amazing or you think it's a crime
1:42:54
against humanity. That's crazy. That's crazy.
1:42:57
Speaker 1: It's crazy and it's a crime against humanity. And you
1:43:00
know what's really interesting about it? This is the side
1:43:03
that screams about consent more than any other side, right?
1:43:07
This is the side of the feminist. This is the
1:43:09
side of the– everything is based around consent and consent-based.
1:43:15
Speaker 2: If you have a couple of drinks, you can't consent.
1:43:16
Speaker 1: You can't have sex. If you're raping each other, if
1:43:19
it's– if you're drunk and she's drunk together, right?
1:43:22
Speaker 2: You're both criminals.
1:43:22
Speaker 1: You're both criminals.
1:43:23
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:43:24
Speaker 1: And yet they somehow seem to think that like an
1:43:26
8- or 9- or 10-year-old can consent.
1:43:28
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, there's so much that– well, from both sides,
1:43:32
that's insane. But there's so much on the left that's
1:43:35
so insane when it comes to contradictions. One of my
1:43:38
favorite new ones is the Mamdani grocery stores. They said,
1:43:41
how are you going to ensure that people from New
1:43:43
York have access to this grocery store? Well, they're going
1:43:45
to have to show ID.
1:43:48
Speaker 1: But not to vote. Yes. But not to vote.
1:43:50
Speaker 2: But how crazy is it that your checkers game is
1:43:53
so shitty that you're like, oh, yeah, here we go.
1:43:56
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:43:57
Speaker 2: And people are like, do you know what you just did?
1:43:59
Do you know what you just did?
1:44:00
Speaker 1: You just put yourself at checkmate.
1:44:01
Speaker 2: Jesus fucking Christ. That is the dumbest thing I've ever
1:44:04
seen anybody say when you just got done saying that
1:44:09
you don't want people to show ID for voting.
1:44:12
Speaker 1: Because it'll affect– Disenfranchise them.
1:44:15
Speaker 2: Especially poor people. They're talking about poor people and people
1:44:18
of color, which are the people that you would think
1:44:20
the poor people are the ones who are going to
1:44:22
use your grocery stores. So you're going to disenfranchise them
1:44:26
from getting access to your 30 percent off groceries.
1:44:29
Speaker 1: You know what's bizarre about that argument?
1:44:30
Speaker 2: They won't ask for I.D. Ah, meaning New Yorkers can
1:44:34
buy cheap goods. So but they asked him today and
1:44:36
that was what he indicated, that they were going to
1:44:38
find out whether or not you're actually from New York. Well,
1:44:40
how else are you going to do that?
1:44:41
Speaker 1: You have to have I.D.
1:44:43
Speaker 2: I think this is just a response to the reaction,
1:44:46
like saying that August 3rd, which is today, right?
1:44:48
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:44:50
Speaker 2: Right. So this is what they said after what he said.
1:44:53
So what he said was yesterday. So there's probably a
1:44:56
massive blowback where people realize how crazy it is to
1:44:59
say that. But it's also– the whole thing is like
1:45:02
what are we doing?
1:45:04
Speaker 1: What are we doing?
1:45:06
Speaker 2: What are we doing? Are we trying socialism? There's like
1:45:09
a giant percentage of the population that thinks that's a
1:45:12
good idea.
1:45:13
Speaker 1: It's like 34 percent. Coming out of the east again,
1:45:16
by the way.
1:45:17
Speaker 2: They really believe it too. They really believe it.
1:45:20
Speaker 1: Well, didn't you recently– you recently pissed off Chelsea Handler,
1:45:23
I saw.
1:45:24
Speaker 2: I didn't know.
1:45:25
Speaker 1: You didn't know?
1:45:26
Speaker 2: No. What happened?
1:45:27
Speaker 1: Well, I guess she's very upset with you because she
1:45:30
believes that you're an evil capitalist pig who makes too
1:45:33
much money.
1:45:33
Speaker 4: Oh.
1:45:35
Speaker 2: That's funny. She's rich. That's crazy.
1:45:36
Speaker 1: It is crazy.
1:45:37
Speaker 2: That's what she said? I make too much? There's a
1:45:39
certain number?
1:45:40
Speaker 1: There's a certain number you should make?
1:45:41
Speaker 2: Yeah.
1:45:42
Speaker 1: She was very– she was very– Very perturbed.
1:45:46
Speaker 2: Oh, I think she's just getting attention. I can't be bothered.
1:45:48
But I know her. I've known her forever. I wrote
1:45:52
a blurb for one of her earlier books. Never had
1:45:55
a bad word to say about her publicly. Every time
1:45:57
I've seen her, I think I've given her a hug.
1:45:59
So I don't know what's going on, but it has
1:46:01
nothing to do with me. You know, whatever it is.
1:46:03
Speaker 1: Well, I bring it up because it sounds like seething jealousy.
1:46:07
And so the interesting part is like, I think a
1:46:09
lot of the socialism stuff that's moving out of the
1:46:12
East is has a lot to do with that too.
1:46:15
There's the idea of class jealousy.
1:46:16
Speaker 2: There's a little bit of that, but there's also a
1:46:18
little bit of young kids really feel like the system
1:46:21
is rigged and that these pigs have gobbled up all
1:46:24
the gold. And they're being told that. And so this
1:46:28
is a thing, you know, like Billie Eilish said, hey, man,
1:46:31
no one needs to be a billionaire. Give away your money, homie.
1:46:33
It's crazy.
1:46:33
Speaker 1: It's crazy because you're rich. Yes, very rich.
1:46:38
Speaker 2: You also live on a house that's on Indian land.
1:46:42
You see the Native Americans that owned– originally owned the
1:46:46
land in which her house is?
1:46:47
Speaker 1: Yeah.
1:46:48
Speaker 2: No, I don't. But it's the idea comes from a
1:46:53
good place. I know in their heart of hearts they
1:46:55
think that they're being kind and they think that they're–
1:46:57
they think they're doing the right thing. They really do.
1:47:00
They think they're being inclusive. They think they're righting the
1:47:03
wrongs of colonialism. They really think that. And they think
1:47:07
that this idea of democratic socialism is a really good idea.
1:47:11
Because there are some examples of socialist policies that do work,
1:47:15
like the fire department, and there's a bunch of stuff
1:47:17
that makes sense. But the problem with enforcing any of
1:47:21
this stuff that they don't understand is it always comes
1:47:24
down to power. You have to have massive authority and
1:47:28
usually guns because you can't just steal people's money. They're
1:47:31
not going to let you. They're not going to let
1:47:33
you just come in and decide, hey, we just devised
1:47:36
a new tax where everybody who makes more than $ 500, 000
1:47:38
a year Everything over that, you have to give 100
1:47:41
percent to the state.
1:47:42
Speaker 1: Or 95, whatever it is.
1:47:43
Speaker 2: And here's the thing. Here's the thing with the argument.
1:47:45
Even if you said, oh, wouldn't it be great if
1:47:47
they did contribute more and wouldn't it be– but they
1:47:49
have so much money. Wouldn't it set up the world
1:47:51
in a better place? Sure. But the fucking program that
1:47:57
you have in place that takes the taxes and disseminates
1:48:00
it is massively flawed and corrupt. It's corrupt. It's filled
1:48:06
with waste. Filled with waste. There's scammers all over the place.
1:48:10
You've got $ 24 billion missing and just the homeless in California.
1:48:14
And then they veto the audits when everybody's trying to
1:48:17
find out. So just saying.
1:48:18
Speaker 1: And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
1:48:20
Speaker 2: Is what we need is nuts. The first thing you
1:48:23
should do is clean your fucking house.
1:48:26
Speaker 1: Clean your house.
1:48:27
Speaker 2: If you want more money, you've got to figure out
1:48:29
what you did with the first money. Why is there
1:48:32
so much waste? Why is there so much money missing?
1:48:35
Why do you have 38,000 NGOs? Why are the people
1:48:40
running the homeless business? Because it is a business. Why
1:48:43
are they making three-quarters of a million dollars? That's a
1:48:46
lot of money.
1:48:47
Speaker 1: It's a lot to administrate the homeless camps.
1:48:49
Speaker 2: Yeah, they need to eat well. They need to go
1:48:51
to Felix's. Have a nice dinner.
1:48:53
Speaker 1: It's hilarious to me, too. You saw all the waste
1:48:57
and fraud that's been going on in these various states
1:49:00
when it comes to, you know, elder people getting their funds, right?
1:49:04
Speaker 2: Yes.
1:49:04
Speaker 1: You've seen all of this happening. And of course, they're
1:49:08
all trying to run away from it as quickly as possible.
1:49:11
But this is the problem. And I bring it back
1:49:13
kind of to this idea of the class system. When
1:49:16
you have the under universal suffrage, especially when you have
1:49:20
the voters outnumber the wealthy. You can just vote yourself
1:49:23
a raise. You can always vote yourself more money from
1:49:26
whatever the upper class is. And that has been progressive
1:49:29
dogma and doctrine since I was a kid. The entire
1:49:32
idea is, hey, things are fundamentally unfair and it's not
1:49:35
your fault. So what we have to do is get
1:49:38
together and vote ourselves a raise from the upper class.
1:49:41
That's what we got to do. But it fundamentally ignores
1:49:44
how wealth is created. And wealth is not created by
1:49:47
giving somebody money. But what happens when you give somebody
1:49:51
money is they go and spend it, but they usually
1:49:53
don't use it to generate wealth. They almost never, in fact,
1:49:57
they use it to generate wealth. And so you vote
1:49:59
yourself these raises. You vote yourself from the public treasury
1:50:03
money to yourself. But what does it actually do for
1:50:07
you ultimately? Because that's not how you generate wealth.
1:50:12
Speaker 2: Not only that, you incentivize people to move to a
1:50:15
place that's more friendly to their economic ideas.
1:50:18
Speaker 1: True. You also– but one of the fundamental kind of
1:50:24
ideas here that's flawed, how many times can you vote
1:50:27
yourself the wealth of those above you before they have
1:50:30
no more wealth to give you? Out east, in fact,
1:50:33
when you see these communists, Mamdani, things like this, they're
1:50:36
going to institute all of their programs on your dime.
1:50:39
It's not like they have money. And whenever I talk
1:50:42
to people about wealth disparity, what's really funny to me
1:50:45
is they always seem to think that the government can
1:50:49
just materialize wealth without there having to be some payback
1:50:53
for that wealth. We saw this during COVID-19 and the lockdowns.
1:50:56
You remember they were handing out money like it was
1:50:57
candy to various businesses that were shut down, COVID relief funds,
1:51:01
things like this. And then they go, well, inflation is
1:51:03
out of control. Yeah, is it? You're kidding, is it?
1:51:08
Do you mean the government can't just materialize a trillion
1:51:12
dollars and not inflate the money supply? Well, that's just,
1:51:17
go figure. And so a lot of times these socialists,
1:51:21
they even try to make the promise like, hey, we're
1:51:23
only going to tax them after this rate, but it's
1:51:25
never enough money for them to fund their socialist programs
1:51:28
to begin with. The government will have to materialize money.
1:51:32
Speaker 2: Not only that, if you give them more money, they're
1:51:33
going to expand the government.
1:51:34
Speaker 1: 100%.
1:51:35
Speaker 2: They will expand. And they will expand their programs. They'll
1:51:38
expand the fraud and they'll expand the waste. The other
1:51:41
weird thing that Mamdani's done is make a list of
1:51:44
all the people that are rich. Did you see that?
1:51:48
Speaker 4: Yeah.
1:51:48
Speaker 2: He like released a list of all the people that
1:51:51
may have to pay more taxes. It's like, hey, what
1:51:54
are you doing? That's kind of– you just made a
1:51:58
list of targets and you're putting these people in a
1:52:03
bad position. That seems really crazy to do.
1:52:08
Speaker 1: But don't you think that these people think– they actually
1:52:11
do think that wealthy people are evil?
1:52:14
Speaker 2: I don't know if he does. I think that's a–
1:52:18
it's a bit of– you're going along with whichever way
1:52:23
that plastic bag is flying in the breeze. And that's
1:52:26
where it's flying right now is that wealthy people are evil.
1:52:29
So you say that and it's a great excuse to
1:52:31
tax the shit out of them. And it's also a
1:52:33
great excuse to pretend that you're making meaningful change and
1:52:37
you're really doing the right thing for the community. Yeah. Yeah,
1:52:41
that's a big thing. Why you destroy the community. Yeah,
1:52:44
why you destroy the community. Because the money is going
1:52:47
to leave the state. The money is going to leave
1:52:49
the city. And that's the reality. And it's not that
1:52:52
they're greedy. It's that they don't want you to take
1:52:54
their money. You didn't earn it. You didn't make an iPhone.
1:52:57
Go fuck yourself. And if you think that people should
1:53:00
have a cap on how much money they make, based
1:53:03
on what arbitrary numbers that you come up in your
1:53:08
own head, well, you're going to exclude any extraordinary outliers
1:53:13
from creating incredible products, massive companies. Yeah, maybe it's nuts
1:53:19
that someone wants to be a trillionaire. Yeah, I agree.
1:53:21
It seems fucking insane. But you have to have the
1:53:25
freedom to be able to want to do that if
1:53:26
you're all playing the same game. If you're playing a
1:53:29
game and you decide I only need 250 points, And
1:53:32
this one guy is like, I'm going to fuck 100
1:53:33
million points. Like that crazy guy, that Tiger Woods guy,
1:53:37
that guy who's going to fucking practice 12 hours a day,
1:53:40
he's going to make the most. He's going to do
1:53:42
the most. He's going to make the bigger company. He's
1:53:44
going to put more in. He's going to die of
1:53:46
cancer because he fucking is massively stressed out 24 hours
1:53:50
a day. That's his prerogative. You should be concerned if
1:53:54
that person has an undue influence in your life.
1:53:56
Speaker 1: Well, and they already taxed the hell out of him anyway.
1:53:58
Speaker 2: They do.
1:53:59
Speaker 1: They already taxed the bejesus out of these people anyway.
1:54:02
Speaker 2: And there's an illusion and a bad narrative that they're
1:54:06
not responsible for an enormous percentage of the taxes, that
1:54:10
they don't pay their share. They pay an enormous amount.
1:54:12
They make way more. They pay way more than the
1:54:15
average person. They're responsible for a huge percentage of New
1:54:19
York City's tax revenue, a huge percentage. And in California, California,
1:54:24
like a massive percentage of the tax revenue is like
1:54:26
a half a dozen people.
1:54:28
Speaker 1: Well, and a lot of times the people in California
1:54:30
that they claim are rich and really need, they're farmers.
1:54:33
They're farmers who are driving huge revenue because they own
1:54:36
a lot of land.
1:54:37
Speaker 2: Right.
1:54:37
Speaker 1: But they're producing a huge amount of food.
1:54:40
Speaker 2: What is it?
1:54:40
Speaker 1: Like most of the produce of the United States comes
1:54:43
out of one state, California. And they're a net exporter.
1:54:47
Speaker 2: You know another thing? We were talking about fraud with
1:54:49
old people that I just found out recently. I was
1:54:52
listening to Michael Easter. Do you know who he is?
1:54:55
Speaker 1: No.
1:54:56
Speaker 2: What is his– The Comfort Dilemma. Is that his book?
1:54:59
Very interesting guy. He's been on the podcast a couple times.
1:55:01
But he was talking about the blue zones. You know
1:55:04
those blue zones where, as you light a cigarette, where
1:55:07
everybody lives to be 100 because they only eat vegetarian
1:55:12
or they eat shellfish and Japanese? Massively based on fraud. Really? Yeah.
1:55:18
Massively based on fraud. The numbers, especially in certain areas,
1:55:22
are massively based on people who die and they don't
1:55:25
report their death. This is in Okinawa. They're talking about that.
1:55:28
Blue zones are bad data. These locations aren't hotbeds of
1:55:31
100 plus year old people. The wild story of fraud
1:55:34
and bad data. Michael Easter. And so he was on
1:55:38
a podcast recently and he was talking about it and
1:55:41
just laying it out, like laying out all the various details.
1:55:45
A lot of it in Okinawa in particular is one
1:55:48
of the hotbeds, one of the blue zones. It's when
1:55:51
people die, they don't report it to the government. And
1:55:55
so if this person– So they don't have the death
1:55:57
rates correct. Right. And this person is getting a check.
1:56:00
If you're getting a check and the family gets that check,
1:56:02
they just don't report it. So if they're getting some
1:56:04
sort of– whatever it is.
1:56:06
Speaker 1: I don't know how they work it over there. So
1:56:08
that brings the average job artificially.
1:56:09
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So you have unreported numbers and
1:56:12
then you have massive amounts of fraud where people are
1:56:15
profiting off of the fact that their dead grandpa is
1:56:18
still getting a check in the mail and so they
1:56:20
don't report him as dead.
1:56:22
Speaker 1: That's wild. Yeah, that is wild. No, that's the first
1:56:26
time I had heard that. I grew up with the–
1:56:29
The Japanese diet, the samurai diet, right? This is going
1:56:32
to make you live forever.
1:56:34
Speaker 2: Mediterranean diet.
1:56:34
Speaker 1: Yeah, these guys live forever. And he added, okay, it
1:56:38
makes sense. Yeah.
1:56:39
Speaker 2: Well, there's some data with certain areas that eat very
1:56:45
rich in nutrient foods. So there's that data, that they
1:56:49
seem to be healthier. Hong Kong is one. They eat
1:56:52
a lot of meat in Hong Kong. I know it
1:56:54
goes against the narrative, but apparently very healthy. And that
1:56:58
data apparently seems to be real.
1:56:59
Speaker 1: Eating meat is good for you. Who would have thunk it?
1:57:01
Speaker 2: Isn't that crazy?
1:57:02
Speaker 1: Except every bodybuilder I've ever talked to who sits around
1:57:04
eating nothing but meat.
1:57:06
Speaker 2: Any professional athlete. Yeah. I mean, there's very few professional
1:57:09
athletes that are plant-based. And you can do it, but
1:57:12
it's not optimal. And you have to be really careful.
1:57:14
You have to, like, really monitor your food. And most
1:57:18
of the time, they're eating a lot of processed supplements.
1:57:21
They're eating a lot of, like, either it's tofu or,
1:57:24
you know, whatever. It's pea protein. There's a lot of, like,
1:57:27
processed stuff that you have to eat you can't just.
1:57:29
Speaker 1: Eat a rib eye don't vegans consume the most amount
1:57:31
of processed food out of any individual group oh yeah
1:57:33
I would.
1:57:33
Speaker 2: Imagine that's the case I would imagine that makes sense
1:57:36
especially when you deal with plant based like meat like
1:57:40
tofurkey and that kind of shit like what is you
1:57:43
ever see that stuff.
1:57:43
Speaker 1: Get made oh yeah it's so gross it looks like liquid.
1:57:47
Speaker 2: Also not good for you especially those plant based burgers
1:57:51
those are not good for you.
1:57:52
Speaker 1: Well then everything's fried in vegetable oil.
1:57:54
Speaker 2: Not good none of that stuff's good none of that
1:57:57
stuff's good.
1:57:58
Speaker 1: But you got to save the chickens.
1:57:59
Speaker 3: Yeah.
1:57:59
Speaker 2: But if you want to eat like just a vegetarian
1:58:02
diet and be healthy, like.
1:58:05
Speaker 1: It's hard.
1:58:06
Speaker 2: If you're trying to do that for ethical reasons, I
1:58:08
always recommend people just eat eggs. Get chickens if you can,
1:58:11
if you have a backyard, and eat your chickens' eggs.
1:58:13
It is karma-free. They're your pets, and they give you food,
1:58:16
and you could live off eggs.
1:58:18
Speaker 1: Eggs are awesome. I thought, too, that vegetarians, it's okay
1:58:20
to eat fish, too. That's pescatarian. Okay.
1:58:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, vegetarian is eggs and milk. I mean, you would
1:58:27
want it. sourced from like an ethical farmer where you
1:58:31
can watch him milk his cows, where it's not like
1:58:33
some fucking machine where the cow's like got his head
1:58:35
in a harness and then just yanking on its tits.
1:58:38
You know, if you go to a real regenerative farm
1:58:41
and you buy milk from them, it's like the cows
1:58:43
don't mind being milked. Like it's normal. So it's like
1:58:46
not that big a deal for them. It's the real
1:58:49
problem is factory farming. That's what freaks everybody out. And
1:58:52
rightly so, because it's some evil concoction that people have
1:58:55
figured out.
1:58:55
Speaker 1: Well, we need all this food. No one's growing food.
1:58:58
Speaker 2: Let's just stuff all these pigs into a fucking warehouse
1:59:00
and have them shit into a lake. Like you see
1:59:03
those and you go, oh, yeah, there's something fucked up
1:59:05
about that. But that's not the only way to do it. And,
1:59:08
you know, I've had guys on my podcast from multiple
1:59:12
different regenerative farms that have laid out how they do it.
1:59:15
And you can source your food from places like that
1:59:17
if you can afford it. And it's better. It's better
1:59:20
for you.
1:59:20
Speaker 1: Don't you think the fundamental to that position is the
1:59:23
idea that people want to ignore that human beings have
1:59:26
to kill to eat? Yeah. And we've always had to
1:59:29
kill to eat.
1:59:31
Speaker 2: Always.
1:59:31
Speaker 1: We've always killed to eat. Yeah.
1:59:34
Speaker 2: Life eats life. And that is the reality. And there's
1:59:37
also consciousness apparently in plants.
1:59:40
Speaker 1: Sorry. Yeah.
1:59:41
Speaker 2: Sorry.
1:59:42
Speaker 1: What about my sentience, Joe?
1:59:43
Speaker 2: I think plants communicate with each other in very profound ways.
1:59:47
They exchange resources. They communicate through mycelium so that there's
1:59:52
this underground network that they're using to communicate back and forth.
1:59:55
Speaker 1: Some of them eat meat. Yep. Some of these plants
1:59:58
eat meat.
1:59:59
Speaker 2: Yeah. Some of those weird little fly trap plants. Yeah.
2:00:01
Those are a little tricky for us.
2:00:02
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and even you decomposing, you become the nutrients
2:00:05
that they eat, right?
2:00:06
Speaker 2: You see that one that, yeah, that's true too, right?
2:00:09
That's right. Yeah. When you decompose, you do get eaten
2:00:13
up by the earth.
2:00:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, you get eaten up.
2:00:14
Speaker 2: Which is one of the weird things that we do.
2:00:16
We're like, nah, I'm out of the game. We just
2:00:18
stuff a body filled with formaldehyde and put it in
2:00:22
a fucking hermetically sealed box.
2:00:24
Speaker 1: It's true.
2:00:24
Speaker 2: It's really kind of creepy. But have you seen that
2:00:27
one plant that eats rats?
2:00:29
Speaker 1: No.
2:00:30
Speaker 2: Oh, it's gross. It's apparently got like this sickly, sweet
2:00:34
smell to it. And these rats get around the lip
2:00:37
and then they fall into the bottom and they can't
2:00:39
get out. It's just like, yeah, it's like a vase.
2:00:44
And they fall into this fucking thing and the plant
2:00:46
eats rats.
2:00:47
Speaker 1: How long does it take to eat them?
2:00:49
Speaker 2: Good question.
2:00:50
Speaker 1: Probably a long time.
2:00:51
Speaker 2: See if you can find that, Jamie. I mean, I
2:00:55
want to smell it. What does that thing smell like?
2:00:58
I don't know if I want to smell it. It
2:00:59
apparently gives off a sickly odor that attracts the rats.
2:01:02
I think I'm remembering this correctly. But there's quite a
2:01:06
few different plants that eat bugs.
2:01:08
Speaker 3: It's named after David Attenborough. I was wondering why it
2:01:10
had this weird name.
2:01:11
Speaker 2: What's it named?
2:01:12
Speaker 4: Nephthynus Attenboroughe.
2:01:18
Speaker 2: Attenborough pitcher plant. A montane species of carnivorous pitcher plant
2:01:23
of the genus Nepenthes. It's named after the celebrated broadcaster
2:01:28
and naturalist, David Attenborough, who's a keen enthusiast of the genus.
2:01:32
So that's what it looks like down there. Isn't that crazy? Yeah.
2:01:34
They fall in there and die. And it eats them.
2:01:38
Look at it. It's like a fucking catcher. Look at it.
2:01:41
Speaker 1: It's a rat.
2:01:42
Speaker 2: A decomposed rat that they pulled out of there. How
2:01:45
can it not get out of there? I want to know.
2:01:48
Speaker 1: Maybe the insides become very hard so they can't claw
2:01:51
their way out. I guess.
2:01:52
Speaker 2: But it's fucking... pretty extraordinary how gross is that that
2:01:55
little fucker he's got his head poked out so nasty
2:01:57
eating alive a little photoshop for the little.
2:02:00
Speaker 1: Ai but you know i don't know like if you
2:02:03
watch animals consume other animals it's never not nasty oh
2:02:06
dude it's rough yeah it's rough and they don't care
2:02:09
they'll just watch him scream like have you ever seen
2:02:10
a coyote on a rabbit rabbit scream as loud as
2:02:13
they don't care oh no they don't rip it to
2:02:15
shreds means nothing to them but we're gonna worry about
2:02:18
We have to worry about eating the farm fresh pig.
2:02:20
Speaker 2: I just watched a video today with a bear eating
2:02:24
another bear while it was alive. Cannibalizing another bear while
2:02:28
it's alive. Because big bears, like the boars, they will
2:02:32
kill cubs and they'll eat them while they're alive. And
2:02:35
this was actually a grizzly eating a black bear. And
2:02:39
it was eating it while it was alive. It was
2:02:41
trying to move around, just tearing chunks of it off.
2:02:45
Speaker 1: Nasty.
2:02:46
Speaker 2: Yeah. That's what I say when people say– they get
2:02:49
upset at me that I hunt. I go, the way
2:02:52
that elk is dying when I shoot it with a
2:02:55
bow and arrow is infinitely better than the way it's
2:02:58
going to die when its teeth wear down to nothing
2:03:00
and then it gets like emaciated where it can't escape
2:03:03
and then the coyotes get it or a mountain lion
2:03:05
gets it or a bear gets it or a wolf
2:03:08
gets it.
2:03:08
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:03:10
Speaker 2: An arrow through the pump station is the best way
2:03:13
to go. It's 30 seconds. It's gone.
2:03:15
Speaker 1: Done.
2:03:16
Speaker 2: Done. Yeah. And it's dead. And then next thing you know,
2:03:19
you're eating it. That's literally the best way. It's not
2:03:22
going to live forever and become an angel. No. It's not.
2:03:25
They have like maybe 13 years.
2:03:26
Speaker 1: But aren't these people a little bit disconnected from reality?
2:03:29
Speaker 2: They are. They are.
2:03:30
Speaker 1: Totally disconnected from the natural order of things.
2:03:33
Speaker 2: What's weird is they don't seem to mind animal on
2:03:35
animal violence. You know?
2:03:37
Speaker 1: Oh, no, I've debated with vegans who have told me
2:03:42
that their plan is to get rid of all of
2:03:44
the predator animals. All of the predator animals. And my
2:03:50
buddy of mine, he's a fellow debater, he calls it
2:03:54
bear jail. He says, you're going to put them in
2:03:58
bear jail? Is that what you're going to do? They're
2:04:01
going to go to bear jail? And some of these
2:04:03
vegans will say, look, there needs to be animal courts everywhere.
2:04:07
Where they have attorneys who come in. Hey, you killed
2:04:10
the rabbit. You got to be euphonized, this type of thing.
2:04:14
Speaker 2: Really?
2:04:15
Speaker 1: They want all the predators gone. All of them.
2:04:18
Speaker 2: Oh, my God.
2:04:18
Speaker 1: I don't know what that would even look like to
2:04:21
the ecosystem. That would be like a world ending.
2:04:23
Speaker 2: It would be amazing. I just want to see the infrastructure.
2:04:28
Do you know how many wolves there are? Do you
2:04:32
know how many bears there are?
2:04:33
Speaker 4: Coyotes.
2:04:33
Speaker 2: Do you know how many mountain lions there are? You
2:04:35
can't even keep track of them. California had a different approach.
2:04:38
In California, they have the Department of Fish and Game.
2:04:42
California calls it the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And
2:04:45
they were kind of infiltrated by animal activists. And that's
2:04:52
how they've sort of morphed their policies in California. And
2:04:56
so that's why they have a mountain lion problem. They
2:04:58
don't want to admit they have a mountain lion problem,
2:04:59
but they have a mountain lion problem. And one of
2:05:02
the problems is they don't control the population of the
2:05:04
mountain lions. And their idea is they want the animals
2:05:07
to control each other. So instead of encouraging hunting, ideally,
2:05:11
they would like the mountain lions to get the deer
2:05:12
down to a number where people can't hunt them ethically
2:05:16
because their populations are in danger.
2:05:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you would have to have so many mountain
2:05:20
lions to do it.
2:05:21
Speaker 2: And you do.
2:05:21
Speaker 1: Yeah, that you end up with this overwhelming opposite problem.
2:05:25
Speaker 2: So here's the problem. In San Francisco, in the Bay Area,
2:05:30
50% of the diet of these mountain lions is pets.
2:05:33
Of course.
2:05:33
Speaker 1: 50%.
2:05:34
Speaker 2: Yeah. So when they keep catching these, they have these
2:05:37
depredation tags. So if a cat pulls a dog out
2:05:41
of a backyard, they find the cat. They'd euthanize it.
2:05:45
When they open it up, they always have to check
2:05:47
and see what they're eating. And 50% of them are
2:05:50
eating pets.
2:05:54
Speaker 1: I think I told you in the DNR in Michigan,
2:05:56
it's the same type of organization, the Department of Natural Resources.
2:06:01
In order to control the deer population, their infinite wisdom,
2:06:04
they started importing Western coyotes, which was not a thing
2:06:08
that you saw in the Midwest before. Before like, you know.
2:06:12
Speaker 2: They imported them, really? Oh, yeah.
2:06:13
Speaker 1: They imported them from out west. And you know what
2:06:15
they did? The native hunting there was never deer. It
2:06:19
was always pheasant. Pheasant was what you went to the
2:06:21
Midwest for. Pheasant hunting was the staple. Every farmer had
2:06:25
a pheasant gun. And they would walk the railroad tracks
2:06:27
with their kids. Pheasants would pop up.
2:06:30
Speaker 2: Boom.
2:06:31
Speaker 1: Done. Once they took the coyotes out there, guess what
2:06:33
they didn't eat? They didn't eat the deer. They ate
2:06:36
up all the pheasants.
2:06:38
Speaker 2: That's always how it goes. And then.
2:06:40
Speaker 1: It got even worse. The population of coyotes just blew
2:06:46
out of control. And there's plenty of cottontail for them
2:06:49
to eat, and there's plenty of rabbits for them to eat. Again,
2:06:52
not doing a great job on controlling the deer population,
2:06:55
these coyotes. They have an all-you-can-eat buffet with other things,
2:06:58
including your cat. Including your cat, right? Including your smaller pets,
2:07:02
just like the mountain lion issue. So what they finally
2:07:06
did to try to get the deer population down was
2:07:09
what everybody had suggested from the beginning, just issue more
2:07:12
tags and make the out-of-state tags cheaper. And then people
2:07:15
will come in, but you have all the animal rights.
2:07:18
You can't kill the deer. And the farmers are going nuts.
2:07:21
They get nuisance tags. They'll be out there killing these
2:07:23
deer all day, every day, right from their tractor because
2:07:26
they have a nuisance tag. There's a deer, bam, done.
2:07:29
Don't even think twice about it. Summer, winter, whenever. Just
2:07:33
blast them because they have the permit to do it.
2:07:36
They can't keep the population alive. of these deer down,
2:07:39
except now they have the additional population of all these coyotes.
2:07:44
And so how do the Michiganders deal with that? Well,
2:07:46
they made a game of it. So what they do
2:07:48
is they hop in the truck with granddad, they have
2:07:51
their dogs with GPS collars, and during the wintertime, after
2:07:55
they're done filling their deer tags, they hunt coyotes with
2:07:58
their dogs all throughout the winter there's just thinning them out.
2:08:02
Speaker 2: Well at least they allow that at least they allow
2:08:05
that because california one of the things they did where
2:08:08
their bear population has exploded because they stopped bear hunting
2:08:11
with dogs which is the only way to get them
2:08:13
either baiting or.
2:08:14
Speaker 1: Dogs because don't you tree them yeah yeah.
2:08:16
Speaker 2: And the other way is baiting and they allowed outlawed
2:08:18
that as well Yeah. Every time they bring in an
2:08:21
animal to deal with another animal, they always fuck it up.
2:08:24
Hawaii is one of the best ones.
2:08:26
Speaker 1: Well, didn't they import all those cats to get the
2:08:29
rats in New York, and cats don't hunt rats? They
2:08:32
only hunt mice. So they ended up having this huge
2:08:35
explosion of cats all over New York City.
2:08:37
Speaker 3: Cats are too big.
2:08:38
Speaker 2: I mean, rats, rather. Yeah, they're way too big.
2:08:39
Speaker 1: They're the size of the cats.
2:08:40
Speaker 2: They're dangerous, too. They'll fuck that cat up. Hawaii had
2:08:45
a problem with rats, I guess probably from ships. I
2:08:48
don't know. but they were eating the sugar cane. So
2:08:50
they brought in mongoose. The problem is mongoose are diurnal
2:08:57
and the rats are nocturnal. So the mongoose never saw
2:09:02
the rats and the rats never saw the mongoose. So
2:09:05
the mongoose started eating up all the ground nesting birds.
2:09:07
And so this state bird of Hawaii got fucking decimated
2:09:12
because it's a ground nesting bird. And so these fucking
2:09:16
mongoose who are like, Bad motherfuckers, man. They kill cobras.
2:09:21
They're just killing these birds.
2:09:22
Speaker 1: It's like an office lady. Just like an office lady.
2:09:25
I have this idea, guys. We got to bring in
2:09:27
the cats because then that will get the rats. And
2:09:29
someone else says, oh, that's great. And they just never
2:09:32
consult anybody who knows anything about these animals at all.
2:09:35
Speaker 2: Well, I think everything was done in decades past where
2:09:38
people were a lot more ignorant about the effect. And
2:09:42
Australia is a good example of that. Australia, they brought
2:09:44
in cats. I forget what they were dealing with, but
2:09:46
it didn't work. They didn't kill whatever they want. Now
2:09:49
they have a giant feral cat problem in Australia to
2:09:52
the point where bow hunting magazines in Australia, they have
2:09:55
fucking cats in them, like a guy holding a house
2:09:58
cat up that he shot with a bow and arrow.
2:10:00
Like it's a trophy. Like my friend Adam, he lives
2:10:03
in Australia, and I was over there visiting him, and
2:10:06
he gave me some bow hunting magazines. I'm like, oh,
2:10:09
I'll read these on the way home. So I'm on
2:10:11
the plane on the way home, not even thinking, and
2:10:14
I'm opening up this magazine, and there's a fucking guy
2:10:16
holding it. cat and I like close it shut real
2:10:19
quick I'm.
2:10:22
Speaker 1: Like is this allowed what the fuck they're mounting kitty
2:10:25
cats on the wall like if you saw.
2:10:27
Speaker 2: A puppy with a fucking arrow through its chest you'd
2:10:29
be like what yeah you'd freak out but that's how
2:10:31
it is like over there they have so many feral
2:10:34
cats that there's like a bounty on cats like people
2:10:37
make like fur coats out of cats it's fucking disgusting who.
2:10:40
Speaker 1: Would expect that the country who lost a war to
2:10:42
the emus laughing They lost a war against their own
2:10:48
emu population.
2:10:49
Speaker 2: They have a giant problem with invasive species over there.
2:10:51
There's so many of them. There's the water buffalo, the
2:10:55
Asiatic water buffalo in the northern territories. They have these
2:10:58
enormous fucking buffaloes that are up there and no natural predators.
2:11:03
And the guys just go up there to hunt them.
2:11:05
Speaker 1: That's the only way to thin them out.
2:11:08
Speaker 2: And you're still– you're not going to put it down
2:11:11
on them. There's not enough guys. It's too far.
2:11:14
Speaker 1: My Australian buddy, Jake, he has the drop bear joke.
2:11:17
Have you heard the drop bear joke? Oh, it's the funniest.
2:11:19
If you get an Australian in a bar, right, somebody
2:11:23
always brings this up. Man, there's a lot of dangerous
2:11:26
critters over there every time. And he'll be like, oh, yeah,
2:11:29
especially the drop bears, you know. What's a drop?
2:11:33
Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
2:11:33
Speaker 1: And he'll go into the whole story of the drop bear.
2:11:36
And what the drop bear is, is it's a bear
2:11:37
that'll drop out of the tree on you. And then
2:11:40
it sexually assaults you. It's a real thing, right? And
2:11:42
every time someone would be like, really? Do you see
2:11:45
him cuckling? It's how Australians mess with the Yanks, basically.
2:11:51
The drop bears.
2:11:53
Speaker 2: They're hardy people. They're used to crocodiles and fucking poisonous
2:11:56
spiders and poisonous snakes. And especially those dudes that live
2:11:59
out in the bush, as they say.
2:12:02
Speaker 1: Well, he says that the aboriginals, he tells me all
2:12:04
the stories of the aboriginals. When they have their coming
2:12:07
of age, they'll just buy a warm beer. And then
2:12:09
they go out to the middle of the desert with
2:12:11
warm beer and they'll just drink for weeks, months, warm beer.
2:12:16
That's what they spend their government checks on because a
2:12:18
lot of that stuff is considered occupied land, right? The
2:12:22
Australian government make deals with the aboriginals to have a
2:12:26
lot of that land. So they give them a percentage, right?
2:12:29
They give them like monthly payments, kind of like what
2:12:31
we do with the Native Americans here. And he's like,
2:12:34
what they do is take their whole government cheese check.
2:12:38
fill an entire car with warm beer for their coming
2:12:41
of age, go out to the middle of the desert
2:12:43
and just drink for months. I'm like, man, that's rough.
2:12:48
Speaker 2: Do they have a similar situation where like Native Americans
2:12:53
don't have genetically a history of alcohol use? And so
2:12:57
alcohol impacted them different than it did the Europeans? Like
2:13:00
they just, they didn't have the enzymes.
2:13:02
Speaker 1: Not just that, they have another problem. Have you ever
2:13:05
seen the petrol songs?
2:13:06
Speaker 2: The petrol song? Oh, man.
2:13:08
Speaker 1: What I'm about to show you is going to make
2:13:11
you laugh to death. There's a song which was made
2:13:14
by the Australian government for the aboriginals about how you
2:13:18
shouldn't drink or sniff petrol, gasoline, from a can. I'm
2:13:24
not kidding. You can pull it up right now. It's
2:13:26
the gasoline song, right? Oh, no. Just be prepared. You're
2:13:32
going to laugh yourself to death.
2:13:34
Speaker 2: Oh, my God. Here we go. Don't Be Rama Rama
2:13:42
by Warburton. Is this it? Put the headphones on.
2:13:51
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:13:53
Speaker 2: No sniff. Don't sniff. Yeah. Oh, step on the bottle.
2:14:01
Speaker 4: Look at us, we can't sleep forever.
2:14:05
Speaker 1: Show me sister, show me brother. Let's dance for one another.
2:14:11
Speaker 2: Come on, come on, come on, come on, yeah. Come on,
2:14:14
come on. You don't sniff petrol from a can. You
2:14:30
put your petrol in the car, it stays. It's messing
2:14:34
with your brains. Holy shit.
2:14:49
Speaker 1: Wow.
2:14:50
Speaker 3: That smelled pretty good, though, to be honest.
2:14:52
Speaker 2: Catchy song.
2:14:53
Speaker 1: Yeah, catchy song.
2:14:54
Speaker 2: Very catchy. Jesus Christ. So imagine you have that, and
2:14:58
you think you're going to fix that problem with a
2:15:00
catchy song? No.
2:15:02
Speaker 1: No, and they have huge problems. He tells me stories
2:15:06
about it all the time. He sent that over. He
2:15:08
said this song exists.
2:15:09
Speaker 2: No, it doesn't.
2:15:09
Speaker 3: No way.
2:15:10
Speaker 1: Sends it over. Oh, my God. It does exist. It's
2:15:14
a real thing. It's such a problem for him.
2:15:17
Speaker 2: God, that's dark. Yeah. It's brutal.
2:15:21
Speaker 1: And that's the sort of addiction problems that are going
2:15:23
on there. People forget it's not just the alcohol introduction.
2:15:29
It's the introduction of all things which are addicting. That begin,
2:15:33
if your culture has no defense against it, just sweeps
2:15:36
right through. Very similar to the crack epidemic, right? What
2:15:40
was the defense?
2:15:41
Speaker 2: Well, it's also the accessibility, right? Crack was cheaper.
2:15:46
Speaker 1: Just like petrol.
2:15:47
Speaker 2: Yeah. Oh, that whole thing of giving them their land
2:15:53
and then giving them money, boy, that always turns out horrible.
2:15:55
Speaker 1: It's turned out horrible for us here. It's turned out
2:15:58
bad for the Native populations.
2:16:00
Speaker 2: Except the ones that own casinos.
2:16:01
Speaker 1: Ballin'! You know, it's funny. You look into that, though,
2:16:05
and you find out, guess what? Yeah. They don't really
2:16:07
get that much in the way of proceeds from those casinos.
2:16:10
Speaker 2: Exactly.
2:16:11
Speaker 1: Turns out that White Eye comes in and still gets
2:16:14
most of the proceeds from those casinos. Yep.
2:16:16
Speaker 2: Somebody comes in and bankrolls it and... sets it up
2:16:19
and they get a nice check and they don't have
2:16:22
to work again, but that guy gets fucking stinking rich.
2:16:25
And then also you've created a gambling problem, which I
2:16:29
am of the belief that you have to have personal accountability.
2:16:32
Like I don't mind Las Vegas. I don't mind it.
2:16:35
I think if you want to go into the casino
2:16:37
and like my friend Dana White is a fucking degenerate gambler.
2:16:41
Like he plays blackjack for like a hundred thousand dollars
2:16:44
a hand. It's nuts. I don't like it. I don't
2:16:46
do it. I don't get it. But, I feel like
2:16:49
you should be able to do it if that's what
2:16:50
you want to do. Sure. And then the argument is
2:16:53
like people lose everything and like true. Also people lose
2:16:56
everything drinking. I don't know what you want to do
2:16:58
about that, but I think you should have personal accountability
2:17:01
and you should, if you're an alcoholic, definitely not drink.
2:17:04
I don't know, like at what point in time do
2:17:06
we say you can't, because some people enjoy playing craps.
2:17:10
They go to, they look forward to going to Vegas
2:17:12
and they want to play craps.
2:17:13
Speaker 1: Like what do we Well, and overwhelmingly now people go, okay,
2:17:17
I'm going to go to Vegas or I'm going to
2:17:19
go to Laughlin or I'm going to go to a
2:17:20
place like this. I'm bringing the exact amount of money
2:17:23
that I can lose. That's if they're rational. Just expect
2:17:27
to lose. There are degenerate gamblers. There's no doubt. Oh,
2:17:30
I could introduce you to a gang of them. Yeah,
2:17:32
there's tons of degenerate gamblers. That's true.
2:17:35
Speaker 2: My friend Dane is a weird one because he's a
2:17:36
degenerate gambler that's insanely wealthy. He's worth fucking shit piles
2:17:41
of money and he's still gambling all the time. Like, ugh, ugh.
2:17:46
Speaker 1: Like there's a thrill for it, maybe?
2:17:48
Speaker 2: Yeah, but when you set up one of those... casinos
2:17:50
in a place that's never had a casino, at least
2:17:52
Vegas is like established, right? But if you just like
2:17:55
set up some new casino in a very poor area.
2:17:58
Speaker 3: Check out that stat.
2:17:59
Speaker 2: Oklahoma rose to $ 3. 23 billion. Oh, native gaming revenues in
2:18:04
Oklahoma rose to $ 3. 23 billion. In 2010, representing 44% of
2:18:09
all U.S. casinos. Whoa. Oklahoma surpassed Connecticut as second in
2:18:15
the United States for gaming revenue, according to Alan Meister,
2:18:18
an economist with Nathan Associates, Inc. Oklahoma has 113 tribal casinos. Whoa.
2:18:26
More than any other state in the U.S. 2015 report
2:18:29
on U.S. gaming says Oklahoma has the most gaming machines.
2:18:32
Those machines, bro. That's the saddest thing. When you go
2:18:35
to Vegas, you see someone just sitting there Like a drone? Yeah,
2:18:38
just pressing buttons.
2:18:39
Speaker 1: The old ladies with their... Have you ever seen the
2:18:41
screen rubbers? They're hilarious. They'll rub the screen for luck.
2:18:44
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:18:47
Speaker 1: That's just wild. And they play the penny slots. Penny slots.
2:18:50
100 lines at a time, so it's a buck a hand,
2:18:52
but it's a penny slot. It's a penny slot. Yeah,
2:18:57
they're making out like bandits, but it's usually not actually
2:18:59
the native tribes that are making out at all.
2:19:02
Speaker 2: Of course.
2:19:02
Speaker 1: Yeah, they get just enough. to shut up. There you go.
2:19:05
Speaker 2: But it's just sad when you find out how much
2:19:08
alcoholism and drug abuse exists on those, in those places.
2:19:11
It's just, and you think like, if you look at
2:19:14
it from a genetic perspective, like firewater, that was always
2:19:18
the thing. It was always the joke from the Western
2:19:19
movies that the natives couldn't handle their fire water. So
2:19:23
they didn't have a history of alcohol use. And all
2:19:26
of a sudden you've introduced something that allows them to
2:19:28
just get pissed, drunk, fall asleep. And, They don't have
2:19:31
cultural traditions on how to manage it correctly.
2:19:35
Speaker 1: For addiction at all.
2:19:36
Speaker 2: And there's also the genetics. Some people have a genetic
2:19:40
propensity for alcoholism. And also some people are better at
2:19:46
processing alcohol. They have a genetic propensity for– it's like
2:19:49
the whole thing is– it's dark.
2:19:51
Speaker 1: You were telling me just before we came in here
2:19:54
that you had seen– Rachel debate that guy.
2:19:58
Speaker 2: Yes. Yes.
2:19:59
Speaker 1: And you had watched the thrashing, which I was telling
2:20:04
you was in the front row when that happened.
2:20:06
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:20:06
Speaker 1: And he was– that guy was just beyond upset. Everybody
2:20:11
was– everybody was drafting him. And I was going to
2:20:16
get your take on that. Like what did you think
2:20:18
after you had watched that? Did you feel bad for
2:20:20
that guy?
2:20:21
Speaker 2: No.
2:20:21
Speaker 1: No.
2:20:22
Speaker 2: No, I never feel bad for someone that is– I
2:20:26
don't feel bad for guys when they fight and they
2:20:28
get kicked in the head.
2:20:29
Speaker 1: I signed up for it.
2:20:30
Speaker 2: I don't like that people get injured in a fight,
2:20:32
but you're trying to do that. He did it to you.
2:20:35
That's what it is. It is what it is. The
2:20:38
weirdness is like... Telling her to make him a sandwich?
2:20:44
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:20:45
Speaker 2: What are we doing here? Are you a misogynist now?
2:20:49
Are you using a woman's– what are you saying? They
2:20:53
don't think at all about– it's like the checkers thing.
2:20:57
We're talking about the ID for the grocery store.
2:20:58
Speaker 1: It's like terrible optics.
2:20:59
Speaker 2: It's like what are you doing? It's also wanting to
2:21:03
be right and to win versus like having a really
2:21:07
well-thought-out perspective that you want to argue. You know, like,
2:21:11
or debate or just communicate. It's always this ego thing
2:21:16
where people are trying to win. And in doing so,
2:21:18
they fall into these, like, really obvious traps.
2:21:22
Speaker 1: Easy ones, too.
2:21:23
Speaker 2: That's one of the things that when we first talked
2:21:24
about doing another podcast is I want to talk to
2:21:26
you about because, you know, you're very logical in your
2:21:29
approach to these things. And so many people are so
2:21:33
bad at being logical.
2:21:36
Speaker 1: Well, you know, Dave, I did a debate yesterday. pretty
2:21:39
famous debate with Dave Smith. And I know you know Dave.
2:21:42
And Dave's a friend of mine. And we became friends.
2:21:46
Speaker 2: I love Dave.
2:21:46
Speaker 1: He's a very good friend of mine.
2:21:48
Speaker 2: What happened in the debate?
2:21:50
Speaker 1: Well, he got crushed badly.
2:21:51
Speaker 2: What was the debate over?
2:21:52
Speaker 1: The debate was, well, it veered into his libertarian philosophy.
2:21:56
Speaker 2: I can hear him right now going, fuck it, I
2:21:58
did not fucking get crushed.
2:21:59
Speaker 1: He won't actually on this one.
2:22:01
Speaker 2: On this one, he agrees.
2:22:02
Speaker 1: He's very publicly acknowledged that this happened to him. But
2:22:05
it was good.
2:22:06
Speaker 2: So it was about libertarianism?
2:22:07
Speaker 1: It was libertarians versus Christian ethics and how the intersection
2:22:11
actually happens with authority. And he ended up having to
2:22:14
agree with most of my positions. I'm a little bit
2:22:16
more of a statist than he is. He's a libertarian.
2:22:20
And so we had this, and it was a good
2:22:21
back and forth. It was a brutal debate, but it
2:22:23
was a good back and forth. But when it was done,
2:22:26
I think what he expected was that I was going
2:22:29
to do the the dunk on Dave tour. I was
2:22:32
going to go around. The opposite. In fact, I DM'd
2:22:35
him and said, look, I think that I can help
2:22:38
shore your worldview up. So you're a libertarian and here's
2:22:42
some points that you missed. And I think I can
2:22:44
help shore those up. And he said, really? So I
2:22:46
walked him through a bunch of those points and he
2:22:48
still uses them to this day.
2:22:49
Speaker 2: That's cool.
2:22:50
Speaker 1: But the whole idea there is like, I do want
2:22:53
my worldview to win. Ultimately, that's true. And one of
2:22:56
the reasons I do so many debates is because I
2:22:58
do think that I'm speaking to the audience from my worldview,
2:23:02
why I think it's perhaps superior to this guy's or
2:23:05
the things I'm advocating for better or worse. With Dave,
2:23:09
he's doing the same thing. He's advocating his worldview. I
2:23:12
think the difference there, the distinction was that he was
2:23:14
surprised and he kind of asked me about it. And
2:23:16
I said, look, the reason is, is because you're a
2:23:19
good debater and you've gotten better as time has gone on.
2:23:24
And if you're going to represent your view, I want
2:23:27
you to be the best at representing that view because
2:23:30
that's how you determine which worldview people end up going with.
2:23:33
This is why so many people have moved towards Christianity
2:23:37
and Christian ethics. Seeing the religious debates has a lot
2:23:40
to do with that, with the various ideas in worldview
2:23:45
being expanded. And then the kind of the graciousness, even
2:23:47
after the debate of trying to help the other person
2:23:50
That's very cool.
2:23:52
Speaker 2: And that would be nice if most people used that
2:23:56
framework to have discussions.
2:23:58
Speaker 1: They don't.
2:23:59
Speaker 2: They don't. No, they don't. It's just– and again, it's
2:24:01
like it's a part of what we're talking about that
2:24:03
there's this whole commodity of attention. And there's a lot
2:24:07
of attention on dunking on people and shitting on people
2:24:10
and being mean. And people love that stuff for whatever reason.
2:24:15
That's true.
2:24:16
Speaker 1: Now, I'm not always that charitable. When it comes to
2:24:19
progressives or leftists, the people who I consider responsible for
2:24:23
many of the most horrific things in society socially that
2:24:27
we deal with, I'm not nearly as charitable to them.
2:24:31
But this is because in my humble experience, they have
2:24:36
not been very charitable to anybody. No. Anybody's views.
2:24:41
Speaker 2: It's a very hyper-aggressive position and– very prone to insults
2:24:48
and that it's normalized, like attacking people is normalized. The
2:24:53
celebration of Charlie Kirk is a great example of like
2:24:55
the cruelty that's normalized, right?
2:24:58
Speaker 1: And when you get down to the core pillar of
2:25:00
their ideology, a lot of them think not only is
2:25:04
this justified– I'll give you an example. There's a guy
2:25:06
who was inside the Twitch sphere who says, well, wouldn't
2:25:10
you kill Hitler if you could before he became Hitler?
2:25:14
That's his justification. And so you see many progressives who
2:25:19
have this kind of justification, and that leads to a
2:25:23
huge amount of political violence, which becomes normalized because they
2:25:27
justify it through the lens of, I'm stopping a monster.
2:25:31
I've never thought these people see me as a human being.
2:25:34
I don't think that they do. I think that they
2:25:36
see me, most of them, at least the ones I
2:25:39
debate with, as an actual monster who's trying to Take
2:25:43
from– or destroy them or hurt them in some way.
2:25:47
And so from my view, that's what it always seems
2:25:51
like coming this direction is that there's– they don't even
2:25:55
see me as a person. They see me as like
2:26:00
an idea or an ideology which is there to hurt them.
2:26:04
Speaker 2: Right. That they have to attack and beat and win. Right.
2:26:08
And then, of course, they're in the echo chamber of
2:26:10
the people that also support that ideology. And they're all
2:26:13
like agreeing that this is OK and that this is
2:26:16
acceptable and this violence is acceptable and all these different things. Yeah.
2:26:22
It's really it's it's kind of daunting because you just
2:26:26
like when does this dust settle? When when do people
2:26:29
just like relax? And start having actual conversations on both sides.
2:26:35
Like when do people just do what you and Dave
2:26:38
did and just find out why a person thinks what
2:26:43
they think and what the actual facts of what they're
2:26:46
saying are and whether or not your worldview is distorted.
2:26:49
Speaker 1: Or compatible.
2:26:50
Speaker 2: Or compatible.
2:26:51
Speaker 1: Like Christian ethics living inside of libertarianism, from my view,
2:26:56
is way better than trying to make Christian ethics compatible
2:26:59
with progressive ideology.
2:27:00
Speaker 3: Right.
2:27:01
Speaker 1: And so if I have to pick between a guy
2:27:03
governing like Mamdani or a guy who holds the ideology
2:27:06
like Dave Smith, I'm picking Dave Smith's ideology. And those
2:27:11
are the choices. That's how I view it. I view
2:27:13
it as choices between ideology. Somebody is going to be
2:27:16
in charge. Somebody is going to be in charge of
2:27:17
the state no matter what. I'm going to try to
2:27:21
pick the ideology that's closest to my own. If you're
2:27:25
going to be in charge of the state, I definitely–
2:27:28
want you to at least be representing the values that
2:27:30
I have while you're in charge of it.
2:27:32
Speaker 2: And the values of being legitimately charitable and a pathway
2:27:35
to redemption, which doesn't exist with progressives, which is really
2:27:39
a problem. because they keep pushing the goalposts and eating
2:27:42
their own. They keep going further and further left and
2:27:45
attacking people for not being left enough. And like you
2:27:48
get cast out of the community. You get excommunicated for–
2:27:51
I mean how many people were excommunicated during COVID for
2:27:55
just not going along with the government's narrative on pharmaceutical drugs?
2:28:00
Speaker 1: Being injected in your body absent your consent.
2:28:02
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:28:03
Speaker 1: Many of them wanted COVID passports. Remember that?
2:28:05
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:28:05
Speaker 1: They wanted to inject the jabby stabby into you. YouTube
2:28:09
even censored opposition to it for a long time.
2:28:12
Speaker 2: I think there's a real problem with people that don't
2:28:14
have an ethical framework or a moral framework that's just
2:28:17
arbitrary and they don't have a religious foundation. Yeah. That's
2:28:23
where I always describe it as like whether you believe
2:28:25
in Christ or not, it's an awesome framework, like a
2:28:28
scaffolding for being a good person. He could follow that
2:28:31
guy's teachings. There's no flaws in it, especially Jesus. It's
2:28:35
not one thing that you point to. There's a few
2:28:38
guys in religion that you could point to and go, yeah, well,
2:28:42
he married a nine-year-old. Like, hey, that seems a little fucked. Hey,
2:28:45
he said he could kill the infidels. That seems a
2:28:47
little fucked. With Jesus, there's none of that.
2:28:50
Speaker 1: None of that. Not only that, it's interesting that you
2:28:52
bring that up, the kind of foundational principles. For Christians,
2:28:57
the emulation of Christ– We accept that we're flawed. We
2:29:03
accept that we sin. And we accept that the only
2:29:07
pathway for us to redemption is to follow the teachings
2:29:11
of Jesus Christ through Christian ethics, right? That's how we
2:29:14
perceive things. So baked into that is not only redemption.
2:29:18
It's not only the idea of salvation, but it gives
2:29:21
you a value to move towards.
2:29:23
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:29:23
Speaker 1: And what's missing often from the progressive ideology, from the
2:29:27
secular ideology or the atheist ideology, how do you give
2:29:31
a person a moral ought if you are the ultimate
2:29:35
arbiter of all that is moral? Because it just comes
2:29:37
down to your preference.
2:29:39
Speaker 2: Right.
2:29:39
Speaker 1: How do we determine who the ultimate arbiter now is?
2:29:42
Speaker 2: Right.
2:29:44
Speaker 1: Well, it usually just comes down to you and whatever
2:29:45
your preferences are. And so what are we moving towards exactly?
2:29:49
How do we make the determination that you're an error?
2:29:51
You're not moving towards this greater value.
2:29:54
Speaker 2: What you do is you're establishing a new non-defined religion
2:29:57
that could be moved and changed based on– The whims. Yeah,
2:30:01
at any given time. And depending on who's the most
2:30:03
radical and the most charismatic that's in charge of whatever
2:30:06
that movement is at the time, eat the rich, whatever
2:30:09
it is.
2:30:10
Speaker 1: And they turn into little micro-cults, right? Have you seen
2:30:13
the secular humanist micro-cult? Same thing there.
2:30:16
Speaker 2: Remember Atheism Plus? Yeah, right.
2:30:19
Speaker 1: Atheism Plus. Secular humanism is really interesting because, and I've
2:30:23
debated the most prominent secular humanists in the world.
2:30:26
Speaker 2: Who's that?
2:30:27
Speaker 1: Well, I did Matt Dillahunty. I've done several secular humanist debates.
2:30:31
Matt Dillahunty was the funniest thing in the world. He
2:30:33
rage quit in the first few minutes of the debate
2:30:37
in my opening statement. because I brought up this glaring
2:30:40
contradiction in his worldview. I said, why should, so he
2:30:43
was dating a trans, he's dating a trans person. He
2:30:46
says he's not gay, right? So I'm not gay, but
2:30:49
I'm dating a trans person. So I brought this up
2:30:50
and I said, the way that we can assess truth claims,
2:30:54
I could just point an easy one out of how
2:30:56
we can assess that. Maybe this isn't a good way
2:30:59
to evaluate truth claims because he says he's in a
2:31:03
non-homosexual relationship with a trans woman. And reconciles that by saying, no,
2:31:09
that's a real woman. And I'm like, if we can't
2:31:11
even distinguish what's real and what's true, how could he
2:31:14
even have it?
2:31:15
Speaker 2: He rage quit off that?
2:31:16
Speaker 1: Oh, he was so angry. He called me a bunch
2:31:18
of names, got up and rage quit for me pointing
2:31:20
out this glaring contradiction in his ideology. And it basically
2:31:25
ruined his career. But he did it to himself because
2:31:27
he should just stay and done the debate. And here's
2:31:29
why I think this. But instead, he just lost it.
2:31:31
He lost it. Got up undignified through the mic. called
2:31:36
me a bunch of names, walked out. And anyway, I said,
2:31:40
you and your husband have a wonderful evening. And he just,
2:31:43
that was it for him on his way out. But
2:31:47
the problem with this ideology is it's changed. So he
2:31:50
was reading from the secular human manifesto three. So it's
2:31:54
already had, you know, it's on its third revision now.
2:31:57
And it started initially as kind of more religious dogma.
2:32:02
And then it took on a non-religious dogma. They called
2:32:05
it secular humanism.
2:32:06
Speaker 2: Who's creating the canon?
2:32:09
Speaker 1: Well, there was a big meeting in Amsterdam. Not kidding.
2:32:12
I'm not kidding. It's the Amsterdam Secular Humanist Manifesto. And
2:32:19
essentially it just comes down to these arbitrary preferences around, well,
2:32:25
we're just kind of for things that make you feel
2:32:27
good and kind of against things that make us not
2:32:29
feel so good. Now, that's the biggest oversimplification in the world,
2:32:32
but it really does just kind of reduce to that.
2:32:35
And so one of the ways that you can always
2:32:37
kind of endlessly beat these guys about the head and
2:32:39
shoulders with their own ideology is just point this out.
2:32:42
Who's in charge of this anyway? Like, which one of
2:32:46
you gets to make this determination that this is the
2:32:50
ought that I should follow based on anything other than
2:32:53
your preferences? And the idea always is, well, it wouldn't
2:32:56
just be my preference. It'd be the preference of many people.
2:32:59
but don't those change?
2:33:01
Speaker 2: Well, yeah.
2:33:02
Speaker 1: Well, then what you're saying is that what you consider
2:33:04
moral today, you're not going to consider moral tomorrow. That
2:33:08
tells me that you're saying to me, you don't know
2:33:11
what is moral and what is not. The Christian has
2:33:14
the opposite approach. They're saying what was moral yesterday is
2:33:18
still moral today, and what's still moral today is still
2:33:22
what's going to be moral a thousand years from now,
2:33:24
two thousand years from now, because that's the teaching they're
2:33:28
basing it on.
2:33:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really odd if anybody, it's like Wikipedia, like
2:33:34
anybody can contribute. Yeah, or edit.
2:33:37
Speaker 1: You can just edit it whenever you want to. Thing
2:33:39
feel bad, edit.
2:33:40
Speaker 2: It's way worse than Wikipedia because it's not even edit.
2:33:43
Like you could actually add to the canon. Oh, yeah. Right?
2:33:47
You can write your own, you know, the book of Eugene.
2:33:50
Speaker 1: Yeah, book of Eugene. And this is Eugene's new prophetic
2:33:55
way forward. That is 100% true, and there are actual
2:34:00
fail-safes in the Bible that prevent people from writing new Bibles, right?
2:34:04
The entirety of the message of Christ in and of itself,
2:34:09
this is what Christian ethics is based on, the teachings
2:34:12
of Jesus Christ, the teachings of the Scriptures. But it
2:34:15
always gives us a thing to move towards, and that
2:34:19
is why it creates, I think, better societies in general,
2:34:22
better societies overall, because... People always go, wait a second,
2:34:26
I'm supposed to be moving towards this idea.
2:34:28
Speaker 2: If you really do follow it, it makes nice people.
2:34:31
Like the people that I know that are like genuine
2:34:33
real Christians are some of the nicest people I know.
2:34:35
Of course. They're so kind. Almost as nice as the Mormons.
2:34:40
Speaker 4: Right?
2:34:40
Speaker 2: They're the nicest.
2:34:41
Speaker 1: Well, the Mormon thing is funny.
2:34:43
Speaker 2: They're the nicest.
2:34:44
Speaker 1: Because it's like, if you have to be in a cult,
2:34:46
like you said, boy, that's got to be the one.
2:34:49
Speaker 2: It's a great one. You get a bunch of wives.
2:34:50
Everyone's cool.
2:34:51
Speaker 1: And do you know that they're the richest people? They're
2:34:53
richer than the Catholic church.
2:34:55
Speaker 2: Are they really? Much richer. Wow.
2:34:58
Speaker 1: Much richer.
2:34:58
Speaker 2: I would have never guessed that.
2:34:59
Speaker 1: I didn't either until I, somebody told me that. There's
2:35:02
no way. Yes, there is.
2:35:04
Speaker 2: But there's so many Catholics. Aren't there way more Catholics?
2:35:06
Speaker 1: Way more, but it's the tithing. So Mormons, Mormons are really,
2:35:11
they practice nepotism like no other.
2:35:13
Speaker 2: I mean, and.
2:35:16
Speaker 1: That, I mean, they just overwhelmingly practice this in their communities.
2:35:19
And so, With the tithing, business tithing, some of these
2:35:22
businesses will tithe the Mormon church 60%, 70%. And then
2:35:25
they get awarded various contracts from their friends and things
2:35:28
like this.
2:35:29
Speaker 2: Oh, wow.
2:35:30
Speaker 1: And the church has buku dollars.
2:35:33
Speaker 2: Damn, what a nice setup.
2:35:35
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a pretty nice setup for them. And then
2:35:37
they run their own politicians inside their own states.
2:35:40
Speaker 2: Of course.
2:35:41
Speaker 1: Yeah, which then enforces their law. It's like they kind
2:35:45
of figured a lot of this out.
2:35:46
Speaker 2: As long as they're nice. If they could push that
2:35:49
niceness out to everybody else, like, you know, what? Why?
2:35:55
What do you got here, Jeremy? It does. It's official.
2:35:57
Mormonism is the richest religion in the world.
2:36:00
Speaker 4: I just, I mean, Catholicism as a whole, somewhere in
2:36:04
the two point to three trillion dollar.
2:36:07
Speaker 2: Oh, because there's a bunch of different Catholic churches. So
2:36:09
it is. Oh, I see.
2:36:10
Speaker 1: But the church, but the single richest church is, yeah,
2:36:14
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So Mormons. Wow.
2:36:17
Speaker 2: They have a hundred billion dollars. They're way above everybody else.
2:36:23
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not even close.
2:36:24
Speaker 2: The Vatican is only $ 30 billion. I would have never
2:36:27
guessed they were that much richer than the Vatican.
2:36:30
Speaker 3: That's not correct.
2:36:31
Speaker 2: It's not?
2:36:31
Speaker 1: That is not correct.
2:36:32
Speaker 2: What do you mean?
2:36:33
Speaker 3: I'm just saying it's not correct.
2:36:36
Speaker 2: How so?
2:36:37
Speaker 3: Well, also, it's a Wikipedia post on Reddit. That's not
2:36:41
the best source of information.
2:36:42
Speaker 2: Oh, you just think this is just not accurate in general?
2:36:44
Speaker 3: Yeah, whatever Holy See is.
2:36:45
Speaker 2: That's the Vatican.
2:36:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, that'll be different.
2:36:47
Speaker 3: I know, but I mean, they got way more than
2:36:48
$ 30 billion.
2:36:50
Speaker 2: That's a lot of money, dude. It is.
2:36:51
Speaker 3: It's just art.
2:36:53
Speaker 2: I wonder, right? That's a good point.
2:36:55
Speaker 3: I just looked it up.
2:36:56
Speaker 4: It's worth $ 3 trillion, it says on this other post.
2:37:00
Speaker 2: Oh, interesting. So just the art? Or the buildings and
2:37:05
the Vatican itself?
2:37:06
Speaker 4: Getting into the weeds of it, yeah. As one whole
2:37:09
church in Utah, yes. Comparatively to the one church in Texas.
2:37:13
Speaker 2: So are they just basing it on their assets? Is
2:37:15
that what it is?
2:37:16
Speaker 4: Also, it was comparing it to per person, per.
2:37:23
Speaker 3: Look, average Catholic is worth $ 67, 000 versus $ 1. 7 million. For
2:37:27
a million?
2:37:27
Speaker 1: Damn.
2:37:30
Speaker 2: The average Mormon is worth $ 1. 7 million?
2:37:33
Speaker 1: Nepotism, baby.
2:37:33
Speaker 4: Yeah, and then also there's way more Catholics in Africa
2:37:37
that aren't worth anything.
2:37:38
Speaker 1: And South America, especially.
2:37:39
Speaker 2: Right, but that is crazy. The average Mormon's worth $ 1. 7 million?
2:37:44
Speaker 3: That's also probably their stat.
2:37:47
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right.
2:37:47
Speaker 2: Probably like, yo. Bro, join us.
2:37:50
Speaker 3: That's what Scientology does, right?
2:37:52
Speaker 2: Oh, that was a big thing with Scientology in Hollywood.
2:37:55
In Hollywood, when I first moved there in 1994, there
2:37:58
was a bunch of people that were doing really well
2:38:00
who were Scientologists. And there was this sort of push
2:38:05
that if you join Scientology, they take care of you
2:38:08
and you get hooked up.
2:38:09
Speaker 1: That is really a wide berth. It's between $ 300 billion
2:38:12
and $ 2. 5 trillion. That's a really.
2:38:14
Speaker 2: Wide— That's almost like Ilhan Omar's accountant.
2:38:18
Speaker 1: 100%. The Vatican is hiding something here.
2:38:20
Speaker 3: I heard the other day that someone just said, like,
2:38:22
Rome didn't go away. It just became the Catholic Church,
2:38:24
and that's why, you know.
2:38:25
Speaker 2: Right, right, right. Have you been to the Vatican? Oh,
2:38:28
my God. The art is insane. It's insane. I went
2:38:32
on a tour with this guy who is a professor
2:38:34
from France. It was really cool. He was really smart.
2:38:37
It was a very interesting tour. You could hire a guy.
2:38:40
And this guy was a professor. And in the summer,
2:38:43
he would give these tours. And if you were enthusiastic
2:38:46
about it, he was awesome. And I was like really,
2:38:49
really into it. So I was asking him all these questions.
2:38:51
And he kept explaining in depth to me. And like
2:38:55
you just never run out of art.
2:38:57
Speaker 1: You're looking at so much shit.
2:39:00
Speaker 2: Like this is crazy. You keep going into new rooms
2:39:04
and new fucking– New auditoriums, and then you're in St.
2:39:08
Peter's Basilica, just that alone. You're like, what? What?
2:39:12
Speaker 3: This is crazy.
2:39:14
Speaker 1: And it's all worth a fortune.
2:39:16
Speaker 2: It's so big and so majestic that if you didn't
2:39:19
believe in God and you went there, you'd be like, okay.
2:39:21
Speaker 1: Maybe.
2:39:21
Speaker 2: They might know something. How the fuck did you do this?
2:39:24
It's so majestic that it almost changes your perception of
2:39:27
what's possible.
2:39:28
Speaker 1: You think they got the chronovisor in there?
2:39:30
Speaker 2: The what?
2:39:31
Speaker 1: The chronovisor, the Vatican chronovisor.
2:39:32
Speaker 2: What is that?
2:39:34
Speaker 1: That's supposedly, this is conspiracy stuff, right? Getting into the
2:39:38
conspiracy stuff. Supposedly, the Vatican is sitting on something called
2:39:42
the chronovisor, which tells them the future. And it was invented,
2:39:47
I don't know how many hundreds of years ago, which
2:39:48
you put on the chronovisor and it shows you the future. Yes.
2:39:54
Speaker 2: No.
2:39:54
Speaker 3: Yes.
2:39:55
Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
2:39:57
Speaker 2: Where is the arrow? It's pointing to like.
2:39:59
Speaker 3: It would be like Jesus or something, I think.
2:40:01
Speaker 2: I don't understand. Yeah.
2:40:02
Speaker 1: And so, yeah. So you put on the hat.
2:40:04
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:40:04
Speaker 1: You put it on and it'll show you– it can
2:40:07
show you different spots in time or something like this
2:40:09
called the chronovisor.
2:40:12
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I'm really interested in the Ark of
2:40:16
the Covenant that's supposedly in Ethiopia. Have you ever heard
2:40:19
Graham Hancock talk about that?
2:40:21
Speaker 1: No.
2:40:21
Speaker 2: It's really interesting. So– The Ethiopian Bible has a lot of, like,
2:40:29
the Book of Enoch in it, and it's a really
2:40:32
old version.
2:40:33
Speaker 1: They don't consider it Deuterocanon. They consider it canon.
2:40:38
Speaker 2: Yeah.
2:40:39
Speaker 1: So the Ethiopian church is not actually— I don't believe it's
2:40:43
actually in communion with the Orthodox Church anymore. Right. It's
2:40:48
on its own, along with a couple others, but they
2:40:50
do have more books in their Bibles. than the Orthodox
2:40:54
Church does in the Catholic Church.
2:40:55
Speaker 2: Right. And supposedly they're guarding the Ark of the Covenant.
2:41:00
And these people that are assigned to be a guardian
2:41:05
of this thing, they can only do it for a
2:41:06
couple of years and they develop cataracts. And he spoke
2:41:10
to these people.
2:41:11
Speaker 1: From the blinding light?
2:41:12
Speaker 2: From whatever the fuck it is. Like whatever it is.
2:41:15
It might be radiation. I mean, who knows what it is.
2:41:17
But apparently... The lure is that it's this one particular church,
2:41:22
this very old church in Ethiopia, and there is an
2:41:25
area where they are guarding the Ark of the Covenant.
2:41:29
And the people that are supposed to be in the
2:41:30
room with it, they all can only do it for
2:41:33
a couple of years. And then they get horribly sick.
2:41:36
Speaker 1: And then they have to switch them out.
2:41:37
Speaker 2: And they get cataracts, like this documented cataracts from all
2:41:42
these guys who go to– I mean maybe it's the
2:41:44
placebo effect. They think they're going to be– I don't know.
2:41:46
But I highly doubt it. It sounds more likely you've
2:41:50
got some sort of a crazy artifact that might be
2:41:52
ancient technology.
2:41:53
Speaker 1: We have the same thing in Israel over Jesus' tomb.
2:41:59
Speaker 2: I just read the article.
2:42:00
Speaker 3: This is like it says it's a purported photo.
2:42:02
Speaker 2: Oh, it's crystal clear. That's clearer than whatever his name is.
2:42:05
Tyler Robinson. Right, right.
2:42:08
Speaker 1: That's in 4K. This guy swears.
2:42:10
Speaker 3: That he had the ability to go witness these events.
2:42:13
He witnessed, like, tons of stuff. And then when he died,
2:42:16
it says the Pope hid it so nobody could ever
2:42:18
do it again.
2:42:18
Speaker 1: Nobody could ever use it again.
2:42:19
Speaker 2: How convenient.
2:42:20
Speaker 1: Very convenient.
2:42:21
Speaker 2: How convenient.
2:42:22
Speaker 1: But, yeah, another big miracle that's like that is over
2:42:27
the tomb of Jesus Christ sits the Orthodox Church in Israel. Now,
2:42:30
that's true, right? That is, in fact, the case, that
2:42:33
there is an Orthodox Church, a Christian church that's above
2:42:36
the tomb.
2:42:36
Speaker 2: Wow.
2:42:37
Speaker 1: And every year, I think it's every year, they have
2:42:39
the miracle of the Holy Sepulchre. I think I'm pronouncing
2:42:42
that right, Sepulchre. And what they do is they use
2:42:45
flame and emulate themselves in this holy flame, and they're burning.
2:42:48
They're on fire, and none of them burn.
2:42:50
Speaker 2: What?
2:42:51
Speaker 1: Yeah.
2:42:52
Speaker 2: How do they do that?
2:42:54
Speaker 1: Nobody knows, but there's... Is.
2:42:56
Speaker 2: This just one small sect of Christianity? No, no.
2:42:59
Speaker 1: This is the Orthodox Church. People come... From miles around.
2:43:03
Speaker 2: But who are the people that light themselves on fire?
2:43:05
Speaker 1: These are people who are in the church who are
2:43:07
specially selected to basically emulate. They set themselves on fire
2:43:13
with the holy flame from torches. And apparently, this is
2:43:18
what I'm told, they've had people go and investigate. And
2:43:21
they can't figure out how exactly this is being done,
2:43:24
but they're completely on fire and they don't get hurt
2:43:26
at all.
2:43:27
Speaker 2: Jamie, pull that up. I have. Is there video of that?
2:43:31
Speaker 1: There is video.
2:43:31
Speaker 4: Before I get there, a demonstration on Greek television. Dip
2:43:35
five candles in white phosphorus. The candles spontaneously ignited for
2:43:38
approximately 10 minutes due to the self-ignition properties of white
2:43:42
phosphorus when in contact with the air. According to the website,
2:43:45
it says that phosphorus is dissolved in an appropriate organic solvent.
2:43:49
Self-ignition is delayed until the solvent is completely evaporated. PETA
2:43:53
experiments show the ignition.
2:43:54
Speaker 3: Can be delayed for half an hour or more, depending
2:43:57
on the density of the solution.
2:43:58
Speaker 2: How does it stop them from catching fire, though, and dying?
2:44:02
The same way.
2:44:02
Speaker 4: It's probably like the shit that people put on to
2:44:06
make movies.
2:44:08
Speaker 2: He's a skeptic. This motherfucker. He's always ruining everything with.
2:44:11
Speaker 1: All this logic.
2:44:13
Speaker 3: I think.
2:44:13
Speaker 1: The skepticism is great if people actually practice the real
2:44:16
philosophical tradition of skepticism, which is you're supposed to also
2:44:20
be skeptical of your view.
2:44:22
Speaker 2: Right.
2:44:23
Speaker 1: So the real skeptics– I'll never forget this debate that
2:44:26
I listened to that– it always stuck with me for years.
2:44:28
It was with a guy named Jay Dyer and that
2:44:30
same guy, Matt Dillahunty, and they were debating.
2:44:33
Speaker 2: Oh, here it is. I'm sorry. Go ahead. They were debating?
2:44:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, they were debating. And he said– the guy, Dillahunty, said, well,
2:44:41
I'm a skeptic. And Jay said, no, you're not. Here's
2:44:44
the actual philosophy of skepticism, and it always starts with you.
2:44:49
Your view is what you apply skepticism to first, long
2:44:53
before you ever apply it to any other. And the
2:44:55
problem with people who describe themselves now as skeptics, I'm
2:44:58
a skeptic, they actually aren't really following skepticism. They're skeptical
2:45:02
of your view. That doesn't mean that they're skeptical of
2:45:06
their own, and it's supposed to start internally. That's what
2:45:09
made skepticism... kind of something that spread widely was that
2:45:12
it was a way for people to reject parts of
2:45:15
their own worldview that didn't fit, they didn't match, they
2:45:19
weren't coherent, they didn't make much sense. And so most
2:45:23
of the time I hear skepticism, the person's not actually
2:45:28
following the philosophy of skepticism, they're not applying it to
2:45:30
their view first.
2:45:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of lazy skepticism too, where they
2:45:34
didn't outright deny the existence of conspiracies, like which is
2:45:39
just fucking ludicrous it's like you're just you're playing a
2:45:44
very you're in a very rigid corridor of ideas you're
2:45:49
you're only allowed to operate it's ridiculous.
2:45:50
Speaker 1: Not only that the the u.s government has thousands of
2:45:54
laws on the books about conspiracy so it's like our
2:45:56
government seems to believe in them because there's conspiracy to
2:45:59
commit racketeering conspiracy to murder conspiracy to commit theft conspiracy
2:46:02
to commit wire fraud yeah like They clearly believe that
2:46:06
there's a lot of conspiracies going on and definitely prosecute
2:46:09
people for conspiracies all the time. But somehow when it
2:46:12
comes to the skeptic mindset of conspiracy, nope, that's all tinfoil.
2:46:16
Speaker 2: It's a lazy perspective and it's also a perspective that
2:46:19
falls in line with what we were talking about before
2:46:21
where you take a lot of legitimate conspiracies and you
2:46:24
add a bunch of bullshit to it to make it
2:46:26
seem completely ludicrous. And then the whole thing can be
2:46:29
thrown out. It's like it's so obvious that that's a
2:46:32
that's a ploy. Did you find anybody catching fire?
2:46:35
Speaker 4: Yeah, when I was getting into it, I was like, well,
2:46:38
they're not really. They're, like, just dancing their hands over
2:46:41
the fire. Like, it wouldn't catch anybody on fire, technically,
2:46:44
because you're not.
2:46:45
Speaker 3: Lighting anything on fire. See how it's, like, touching his skin?
2:46:47
Speaker 1: These guys don't look like priests, though.
2:46:49
Speaker 3: And then she's putting her hands through it.
2:46:50
Speaker 2: Oh, so they're faking it. So the few people are
2:46:52
faking it. Oh, look at this guy. He's lighting his
2:46:54
beard on fire.
2:46:55
Speaker 4: So there was a lady that, at the end of
2:46:56
one of these videos, she held a piece of paper
2:46:58
over it, and it wasn't, I mean, wasn't catching on fire.
2:47:01
Speaker 2: Well, is this stuff, like, regular fire?
2:47:02
Speaker 3: Yeah. But that's where I was going to get into
2:47:04
the white phosphorus.
2:47:05
Speaker 4: And they said after 30 minutes, it will start acting
2:47:07
as you expect it to.
2:47:09
Speaker 2: Look at all. It seems like everybody should be on fire.
2:47:12
Speaker 1: How odd.
2:47:13
Speaker 4: But, yeah, it's a long-standing tradition. Like she's wiping it
2:47:18
on her forehead or something.
2:47:20
Speaker 1: Huge tradition there. They call it the miracle.
2:47:22
Speaker 2: There's another tradition in America called, I've got to take
2:47:24
a pee. So let's wrap this up. This was really fun, man.
2:47:27
It was a lot of fun. I appreciate you having
2:47:28
me in the studio. It was cool hanging out with you. Yeah.
2:47:30
I enjoyed it.
2:47:30
Speaker 1: We went over a lot today.
2:47:31
Speaker 2: A lot of shit.
2:47:32
Speaker 3: Yeah.
2:47:33
Speaker 4: A lot.
2:47:33
Speaker 1: And I enjoyed it very much. Thank you.
2:47:34
Speaker 2: Thank you.
2:47:35
Speaker 3: My pleasure.
2:47:36
Speaker 2: Let's do it again. Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, good night.
2:47:38
Good night.