Joe Rogan and Tim Pool critique media bias, from CNN’s $6B+ pandemic misinformation (like Cuomo’s fake quarantine) to YouTube’s selective demonetization of independent voices while promoting mainstream outlets. They debate UBI’s flaws, citing automation risks, and question China’s escalation potential amid South China Sea tensions, contrasting it with U.S. nuclear deterrence. UFO theories—including O’Hare’s 2006 sighting and Bob Lazar’s claims about Element 115—spark speculation on human origins, from Sumerian texts to the Dogon tribe’s Sirius knowledge. The episode reveals how media narratives distort reality, whether through viral lies or staged controversies like hydroxychloroquine, while exposing systemic failures in policing and voting integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Some activists went to the CEO of Shell, and he talked to him, and he was like, listen, you got to understand I'm trying my hardest with me at the helm.
I'm doing such good things for the environment.
They always think they're the benevolent dictator.
That's why I think decentralization is so much more important in so many different aspects.
So a lot of people took it because there were photos of seeds at Walmart or something where there was like a tape saying you can't, you know, this part of the store is closed.
And so the story went out that you weren't allowed to buy seeds anymore.
The story actually was that stores over 50,000 feet had to close off non-essential areas like flooring and gardening and things like that.
And who's to determine what isn't essential about any of those services?
I heard a good argument for keeping liquor stores open because I was like, come on, liquor stores.
But someone said actually it is to prevent people from going into detox, from having problems detoxing, or they would take up a hospital bed that we need, potentially need because of the virus.
So, you know, I had a friend messaging me saying, stupid people who want haircuts are going to get us all killed.
And they're going out and protesting.
And the first thing I'm like, you really don't think, just because one guy was holding that dumb sign, that's what everyone is thinking, right?
No, that's not the case.
But what's crazy to me is you had the UN, a UN advisor, come out and say, we're looking at 130 million people are going to starve because of the economic shutdown.
And that's going to be much worse potentially than the actual pandemic itself.
And these kind of facts are ignored because of the tribalism of what's happening.
Trump tweets it out, therefore it's now a right-left conservative, whatever.
I mean, I think there's some educated decisions that are being made by medical professionals, and then they have to adjust those based on new statistics that come in.
And I don't know if they have adjusted.
The initial idea was that there was X amount of people that were infected in California.
Turns out there's many, many, many more.
And the most recent thought is that there's somewhere around 400,000.
Now, there has been some dispute about these studies, whether or not these studies are accurate, whether or not the tests are accurate, whether or not you could get it again, whether or not it even matters if you've already had it.
You might be able to get it again.
But there's no adjustments.
No one's saying, hey, this is way less deadly than we thought it was going to be.
I think I heard something similar about like Washington.
They found two strains.
Liberal conservative strains.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
The crazy thing to me is the people, a lot of Trump supporters, and I don't want to, I'm not trying to blanket every single one, but there's some high-profile ones that are really acting like since the beginning, they've doubted it every step of the way.
And I'm like, have you looked at the spike charts?
Here's what I say.
If in New York City, we're seeing thousands more dead, what are they dying of if not some kind of infection?
I mean, you can call it whatever you want.
You can act like nothing's going on, but we're seeing huge spikes in the infection.
But it's, you know, you've got to just dismiss that stuff.
You can't even debate it or dwell on it.
But what's interesting to me is, well, there's a bunch of parts that are interesting.
But what's interesting to me is like who, like, Georgia's opened, right?
And then parts of Montana have opened.
There's things that have opened in Texas.
Like, it's going to be interesting to see what the response is going to be, whether or not they come back online quicker and their economy builds up quicker, or whether or not they get a second surge and they have to shut down longer.
And it winds up being that maybe you should have waited longer and would have had less infection.
They're all the same where it's like, it's like, we're all in this together.
And then it shows people banging pots and pans and it's like, we may not be able to hug anymore, but the love is there.
It's like all identical.
But then all of a sudden an older commercial pops up.
And I was watching this the other day and it's like a guy walks up, shakes his buddy's hand, pats him on the back, and then like gives his wife a kiss in the cheek.
Well, there's a Bloomberg, not the mayor, but there's a Bloomberg statistic on the economy that measures the downside, like when the economy goes down, how many people die because of it.
And you could kind of trace it.
It's very disturbing.
And when we're talking about deaths, we're talking about this something that we can immediately deal with.
It's right in front of us.
It's a disease.
It's happening right now.
Go after it.
stop it.
But the secondary reaction to that, in fact, because you're closing the economy, might wind up killing as many people as you're trying to avoid being killing in the long Or more.
Well, hopefully they are going to kick back in the gear.
California is supposed to open up on May 15th, but the governor has been, I don't know if he enjoys it, but he seems like they definitely are comfortable with being the person that get to say, this is shut down, and we're going to keep it shut down.
You see that tweet from the UK where they posted the shadows of the two cops, and it was like, think going into a rural area to have a picnic is, you'll get away with it.
We're going to lurk out of the shadows and find you.
I don't want to, I know this is going to be really touchy because you've got a lot large group of really angry people, but they're saying things like, take your vaccines back.
We don't want them.
We won't wear the mark of the beast.
You know what, man?
He's talked about.
You know what China did?
They're giving you these codes on your phone.
And if you leave the town, it becomes void.
So if you're in the city, then you can go to a building and they scan it to see if you're clear.
We've been talking about that quite a bit lately, where I've been saying you can't have massive overreaching government surveillance as a response to a disease.
You can't, because they're not going to shut it off once the disease has a vaccine.
They're going to keep that stuff in place.
And you are giving up a massive part of what it means to be an American.
Well, they're clearly spouting out Chinese propaganda, too, particularly in January when they were saying that according to China, there's no evidence that you could be transmitted from person to person.
And did you know the AP reported at that time China knew and withheld the information for six days?
So the day that the World Health Organization tweeted out no evidence according to China of human human transmission, we now know, according to the AP, that China did know and purposefully withheld that.
What you've got going on with China right now, I question whether or not we're getting close to an act of war.
And I know that might be a little exaggerated, but they've got, you know, this is a story that was published in BuzzFeed News.
Trolls working either for China or within China, trying to slow down the response in other regions like Spain, Italy, Taiwan.
I think that the BuzzFeed one was specifically about Taiwan, sowing disinformation so it would slow their response, things like that.
And Thucydides' trap says that whenever a growing power seeks to upset the dominant power, it results in war.
And out of 12 out of 16 times over the past 500 years, it has happened.
So people have been predicting a U.S.-China war for a really long time because of this historical precedent.
It's not absolute, but it looks like, I'm not going to like I'm a historical expert or anything like that, but it looks extremely probable to me.
I've had a lot of people get mad at me saying that I was fearmongering by bringing this up, but the U.S. just sent two warships into the South China Sea, which China considers their own territory.
When you look at what China's been doing in terms of misinformation, clearly lying about the numbers, you know, I can't remember who did this.
I think it may have been Germany, removing China's numbers from the chart saying they're not real.
So China's been misleading the rest of the world, withholding information on how bad the infection is.
They sent a strike group, an aircraft carrier, through the South China Sea near Taiwan, putting Japan on alert.
The U.S.'s aircraft carrier, Theodore Roosevelt, was disabled because of the coronavirus.
They evacuated 80% of the personnel.
The U.S. does what they call an elephant walk in Guam, where they have all these bombers.
Then the US pulls them out because apparently China's got some kind of weapon that can just blanket Guam and wipe out our forces.
unidentified
Next thing I know, we sent-What kind of weapon do they have that can do that?
I'm getting my information from just reading peripheral stories.
I'm not a military guy or anything like that.
But it really does, you know, so the U.S. just sent two warships into the South China Sea.
And I think they're doing this because one of the things I read from a military website was that the strike force is testing U.S. resolve.
The last time that China has done this, where they sent a strike force around Taiwan, actually tried to take it in some fashion, the U.S. sent a couple super carriers in.
Everything calmed down.
Now our super carriers in the region were disabled by COVID.
And so then sometime after, Donald Trump deploys two U.S. naval vessels near Venezuelan waters, which he says are for drug-related operations.
I'm not going to, like, I know a lot of people are going to get heated saying, you know what you're talking about.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
All I know is that's what was reported.
Who knows what that means or what it leads to?
But needless to say, with it, you know, look, Russia is withholding wheat exports.
Several European countries have closed their borders within the Schengen area.
People are starting to hoard food.
And we just had a full-page ad in the New York Times Sunday edition, I think it was from Tyson, saying the food supply chain is breaking and we're getting ready for a major shortage of food.
When you have these nation states shoring up their borders, even within the European Union, that was crazy to me when you see Germany and France and Austria closing their borders to each other.
Then you get these warships making these movements.
You get people desperate for food.
You see Venezuela ramming into a cruise ship.
I say this.
It could be that we're hyper-focused on it because we're bored.
We don't normally pay attention to this stuff.
We normally pay attention to celebrity gossip and politics.
Now that we're not doing anything, we're really focused on what's happening in international territory.
Or perhaps it's that we're getting desperate and we're scared as the economy tanks.
And I think it really depends on how strained they are for resources and whether or not they're really going to lose.
The difficult look, in China when this broke out, we saw videos of them barricading people in their homes, welding their doors shut.
The doctor whistleblower.
There's one story, Vice Ran, a journalist, was calling out all these things, disappears for a month, comes back a month later, all happy, like, government's great.
Now, this could be propaganda, you know, because I'm in America, so of course I'm getting this information.
Maybe the U.S. is trying to build this up.
But I think you take a look at that kind of behavior, the willingness to do anything by any means necessary.
And at what point do you get one person who's in charge saying, I will not be the captain of a ship that sinks?
You know, I look to, well, I don't want to get super political in American history, but I view it as you've got a leader of a country, and as people are looking at him, he says, this will be the year my country ceases to exist, F that.
Presses a button.
I will not be the lead.
I will not be the person with it, Stane.
It's hard to know, though, because it could be a leader saying, I will not be the person who destroys the world.
I would rather go down in history as the failure of my country.
I think you back somebody into a corner and you get fight or flight.
And here's what Trump supporters immediately fired back with.
There is H2O2 nebulization therapy.
And they pulled up an article from, it was posted to msn.com April 10th.
One of the treatments they're looking at for COVID is to take hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer into your lungs.
That's a disinfectant into your body for a cleaning.
I don't think Trump was going for that.
I think the guy mentioned we have bleach and alcohol and Trump was like, I wonder if you could, you know, possibly get in their body through an injection.
Yeah, I mean, look, well, what's really interesting that came out of this was Twitter banned an account that is a publicly traded biotech account that has a legitimate therapy.
When someone has been incubated, when they're on a respirator, they can send UV light through that tube and actually kill some of the bad bacteria in the lungs.
Now, the video that shows how they do it, it shows like the tube and this animated thing which shows the lungs.
They banned a publicly traded biotech company, which is just, I don't know if they banned them because they think that in some way this supports what Trump was saying or if someone just pulled the trigger too quickly.
I mean, who's doing this over here?
I think you have a bunch of fucking kids that are making decisions whether or not something gets banned or not.
Something gets reported, like someone report, I'm just guessing.
Someone reports and says, look, these fucking idiots are saying that Donald Trump's right.
I think we got an answer in terms of what Jack wants, in terms of he, I think Jack is a legitimately honest guy who is trying to manage things at scale, and I think that's almost impossible.
The sheer numbers that are coming in, and he's trying to do a Wild West Twitter now.
This is his concept of having a Twitter that's just wide open, we could do anything, and then having like a regular sort of moderated Twitter.
Yeah, I think that biotech company, somebody fucked up.
I think you have too many.
I think from what Adam Curry was explaining to me is that there's a bunch of kids that work for Twitter, and they work for a lot of these other companies.
And they're the ones responsible for whether or not something gets banned or something gets taken down.
Chris Cuomo goes on his radio show and says, I don't want this jackass on a fat tire bike coming up to me.
I should tell him what I want.
The guy on the bike says he called the cops and said he threatened me.
So this basically confirms the encounter.
Chris Cuomo then shot a segment for CNN of him emerging from his basement like, this is what I've been dreaming of, finally getting out of my basement and seeing my kids.
But he was witnessed seeing his kids somewhere else.
I don't know if you've talked about this yet, but if you go to Google Play and look up Larry King's show from 1993, you will see there.
So I actually, I checked many of the different months.
What people noticed was that one episode was missing, August 11th, 1993, the episode where Joe Biden's accuser called in saying, my daughter had a problem with a prominent senator.
So I went through Google Play, and there certainly were other episodes that were presumably missing, typically Mondays, where I would assume that Larry King had a day off or something.
The 11th was a Wednesday.
Why was this missing?
Why did CNN, why were they scooped on their own story?
They had this evidence.
Apparently, this was news.
So when you look at what CNN's been doing, admitting that they're doing rage journalism, you get people like Jim Acosta.
And, you know, look, I may be hyperbolic or whatever, because I got my opinions on CNN and all that.
But take a look at someone like Jim Acosta.
He stands up, he argues with the president.
That's not what journalists are supposed to do.
You know, if you want to ask the president a question, he gives you an answer.
If you have the opportunity for a follow-up, you do.
And then you write your story and you fact-check him.
You write your story and say, Donald Trump, here's what he told us.
Here's the truth.
That's what journalists used to do.
Now you've got this idea of channeling the rage for the people.
What that means is it's something I've seen in activist circles where it was explained to me that what people are looking for is someone to strike down a symbol of what they view as their enemy or the cause of their problems.
So the reasons why someone like Jim Acosta would do so well, he would get so many followers constantly doing this, it's not that he's asking any real questions or actually challenging the president.
It's that the people who don't like Trump see him as striking a symbol down.
It doesn't matter if he's telling you the truth or not.
Now you get performative journalism where Chris Cuomo pretends to come out of his basement, where you get people standing up with the White House correspondents at the press conferences just arguing instead of actually asking questions.
And then YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter say, this is the truth.
We deem it so.
YouTube now puts them, among other outlets, on the front page of the website, guaranteeing hundreds of millions of views.
Meanwhile, independent commentators like myself, we actually get hurt in the algorithm.
If you go to my channel, they only show you Fox News.
If you want to watch me, then you are guaranteed in the sidebar, the next video will be Fox News.
They prop up all of these channels.
David Pacman, for instance, you get MSNBC.
Jimmy Dore, Fox News.
I don't understand why they're going to send Jimmy's lefty followers to Fox News, but they're doing seemingly everything in their power to make sure individuals like myself and other commentators are struck down while channels like CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are propped up, even though we know that they put out fake news.
I've looked at my analytics around the time these smear pieces came out arguing that there was a rabbit hole where if you watch one kind of content, it's all you get.
It's a very, very misleading way of framing what was really going on.
And I'm surprised that YouTube just bent over for this.
You basically have YouTube's competition, these media outlets, using their media weight to hurt YouTube in ad sales.
They're trying to get, like, I understand what they're saying in terms of so like the CEO of YouTube when she said that they're going to go with the World Health Organization.
I don't think it's a good idea to go with the World Health Organization because it seems like it's a very corrupt organization.
But I do understand this desire to go towards respected and established medical professionals.
So if respected and established medical professionals have a protocol for dealing with coronavirus, we should listen to them, right?
But they told me, they published editorial guidelines.
Very early on, I did a video about this January 23rd when they first started locking down.
I did a segment talking about what's going on.
And I actually didn't think it was a big deal.
This was before anybody was really covering it.
I mean, this is, you know, impeachment was happening.
And YouTube fully monetized it.
So I have a thing on YouTube called self-certification, where when I upload a video, they ask me, does your video contain any of the following?
My videos are always clean, family-friendly.
I don't swear.
And I was approved, video monetized.
A week later, they implemented a new change without telling anyone.
Anything, anyone talking about coronavirus was instantly demonetized, deranked, possibly had your videos harder to find, things like that.
And it wasn't until about a couple weeks ago, they overturned these D-rankings on my channel.
They told me before they published the guidelines, you cannot say these things.
One of which was that it may have emerged from a biolab.
Now we have on April, I think, I think it was the 16th, a former Clinton administration NSC staffer saying that Occam's Razor suggests the most likely place that this came from was breaking out of a Wuhan biolab.
There was a story by Brett Baer over at Fox News, where he said, according to sources he has who have overseen the documents, they believe that China was trying to essentially prove their worth with American bioresearch by racing to do this development, and there was a breach.
And this resulted in the COVID outbreak.
That's Fox News and CNN.
CNN's run multiple segments saying this.
When I talk about it, I get de-ranked, demonetized, confirmed.
They say, you can't talk about this, Tim.
CNN can.
They're authoritative.
You can't.
Even if I use them as a source, even if I say like, so what I try to do is weigh the sources.
How good are they?
Brett Baer, that's a good source.
I mean, Brett Baer is one of the last true news people.
I'm not somebody who follows him too much, but he's a straight news guy.
He put his name on this, and that says a lot to me.
You don't got to like the guy.
You don't got to like Fox News.
But CNN also ran the story saying U.S. intelligence now believes, or I'm sorry, they're investigating whether this claim has merit.
We also had a story from the Washington Post that asked the same question, even got a professor from Rutgers University to say it's very possible.
The story actually emerged because at South China University, what is it, I think South China University in Beijing, released a paper saying that somebody was doing experiments on bats with coronavirus, and one of the bats spilled blood on him and peed on him.
And he had to self-quarantine for 14 days.
Being that the Wuhan CDC, I think it's a CDC, is about 300 meters away from the food market, it seems like that was a likely scenario.
But I think in their defense, some of this has to be that they're managing at scale.
Some of this has to be the fact that millions of videos are uploaded every day, and they have to keep this disinformation from spreading out of control.
When you have all these fucking nut jobs that are saying this is 5G, it's not even a virus, it's radiation sickness.
Someone sent me, a guy that I really like sent me this video of this doctor that seems like he's got schizophrenia or something.
He's talking about this is a plasma disease caused by radiation.
So the question is, like, okay, all this stuff's flying through the air.
There's all these signals through the air.
What effect do they have on the human body?
That's a good question.
That's a good question.
But to say that that's responsible for this coronavirus thing, it's fucking crazy.
Totally.
If you're saying they don't have any effect and here's why, I go, okay, this is why you don't need to be worried about UHF or V or whatever different waves that are flying around through the air, Wi-Fi, and people are worried about all that kind of shit.
They're really concerned that this does have some sort of effect on human beings.
They think that, in fact, cell phone signals have an effect on bees.
And that was one of the primary theories about the drop in bee populations.
So first, probably not like that specific, but I do have a partner manager.
I do have every single video I put out on my main channel is reviewed, 100% of them.
They just recently introduced my other two channels.
So I have a total of three channels under my name where I put out around 10 to 12 separate videos per day for a total of about three hours and 40 minutes.
They do.
So if I upload a video, it gets reviewed through some.
So I first self-certify.
I say this video has no swearing.
It has no extreme imagery or anything like that.
If someone watches it and demonetizes it, I then contact Google and they reverse it for me.
If the daily news, if CNN, if Fox, if MSNBC, if these outlets are going to do these things in a desperate bid to stay alive as their methodology fails, and YouTube is going to give them preferential access, which is what they've done, then we're in serious trouble.
You want to know the scariest thing is CNN, anybody's network, any of these networks can make a fake story, get a million views, a day later, apologize, retract, and they keep all the money they made.
They don't got to give it back.
So they're actively incentivized.
I'm not saying they're sitting there, you know, twirling a mustache being like, let's write a fake story.
I think they're all swimming in a toilet circling down to the drain.
Because what happens is somebody, so I saw a story written, I think it was an op-ed for the Washington Post or something, about Trump's alligator moat.
And so I'll tell you what, man, the scariest thing is how these social networks remove, like we talked about this last year, they remove a certain point of view.
Like this biotech company, they default on what is authoritative, and the authoritative falls in one direction almost every single time.
So, you know, I can't tell you how many stories I've gone through where it's like, you know that Peter Navarro story where Trump said to the journalist, you're a nasty reporter and everything?
But let me tell you, first of all, that way of communicating is fucking terrible.
It's second only to the terribleness that in those late night news shows where they have three different people like with the screens separated into three chunks and this person on the right is arguing with this person on the left and the moderator is trying to keep everybody in order and everyone's talking over everybody and everyone's looking for a soundbite and everyone's looking to get their shots in before the buzzer because there's like a bell coming when the commercial runs.
It is the dumbest way to really explore a complicated idea.
Look, I've sat in these rooms at press conferences.
I have stood in front of public officials as they prepared an announcement, and I know exactly, I've talked to these producers, I've talked to the journalists.
They're like, ask a question.
What should I ask?
Just ask anything.
So I've been thrown in front of people, like ask them something.
I'm like, what am I supposed to ask them?
Ask them anything.
Make something up.
Because they want you to get that screen time so they can say it's theirs.
Well, it's also someone like Jim Acosta, for example.
Don't you think there's an inclination when someone gets a certain amount of attention to lean towards that attention?
This is your base now.
These are the people that are supporting you.
And you find it with like online commentators and where what's really weird is when a person used to be left and then you see them getting a little bit of love from the right and they start kind of like inching over there in their comments and they get more and more attention and then they just jump ship.
The only way to access it is to be subscribed and to give your email.
They've since abandoned that and created a new website, thedonald.win.
You go there, you're going to hear only good things about the president.
And while there are certainly things you will just like any rational person would disagree with, I think a healthy discourse tries, you know, you want to see the counterpoints.
You want to see the positive points.
You want to better understand, you know, is there a real reason why Donald Trump did something or is he just an idiot?
And if you're only getting one side of it, your view of the world is just totally.
Reddit is so incredibly easy to manipulate and control, ridiculously easy, that, you know, I remember, man, what year was it, maybe 2015, political operatives were seeking ways to prop up politicians manipulating Reddit's algorithms because users have direct control of it.
I just tell you, it's ridiculously easy to do, like insanely easy.
They've since made it more difficult, but one person with 10 cell phones, and you could own the front page of Reddit very, very easily.
Since then, we've seen accusations of, and I think it's fair to say, you know, in my experience, I know that this tends to exist, sock puppetry, when someone runs multiple accounts, pretend to be different people, to create the perception of consensus.
I don't have the evidence to give you a definitive answer.
I think it's fair to say that Trump supporters will smash the upvote button, make sure those posts always fly to the top because they're very enthusiastic.
Look, there's a lot of arguments you can make about policy and the right way to solve these problems.
But I go on the front, I open Reddit and I'm browsing through it and I see these comments from people that clearly do not understand what's going on with these protests of people who want the economy to reopen.
And I try and talk to my friends about it.
And it seems like they're trapped because I think, you know, it's like you were mentioning how people drift towards what gets them the most love.
Well, over here in California, if you're not left-wing, if you don't, you know, just instantaneously, when there's an issue, instantaneously side with the left, you get chastised.
You get called a racist, or you get called a Nazi, or you get called a Trump supporter.
You can't even have a rational perspective on things.
You can't say something like, in hindsight, it was a good idea that Donald Trump closed off travel from China because it was coming from there.
And a lot of people were calling him racist.
It turned out to be a good move.
And then they've shut it down from a lot of different places as well.
I think he said, I'm not sure if he said woman of color.
I think he said he's guaranteeing it's going to be a woman, and he's looking at a woman of color.
I'm not entirely sure.
To me, that's absurd.
If you've got a good candidate, I think, you know, I don't care what they look like, what their skin color is, their race, gender.
I know a lot of people on the left view that as short-sighted because, and I think there's decent reasons to talk about how identity plays, you know, into how you view the world and the policies you want to implement.
I just think it's dangerous to create that kind of thing.
I would actually say on a scale of one to 100, that's not near like the top 50.
But I think it is fair to say that there's a real reason why that would play a factor, play a role.
Like you've got a lot of people who have never experienced certain things, and that includes the left.
And one of the big problems we have in politics is what we see coming from the left is really based on urban living and from conservatives on more likely to be rural living.
So when you see people on the left argue for like rent strikes and things like that, well, yeah, you're in cities where you're predominantly renters, so that's your big issue.
It doesn't resonate the same with people who live in areas where they primarily own their homes.
Or if you're talking about the Second Amendment, like obviously people in cities, they tend to be liberal.
They want gun control.
Yeah, because you've got a very, very dense population.
Gun accidents probably are an issue.
And you've got cops within a minute's notice.
You live in a rural area.
The cops are 40 minutes away.
You need to protect yourself.
So this divide creates a difficulty in creating policy for the entirety of the country.
I personally would never place someone's racial identity or gender in the top priorities.
But I do think it is fair to point out that a black woman is going to understand things about life in the black community that a white man's not going to.
That doesn't mean you give him a job because of it.
You can point out the perspectives will be different.
Yeah, nuclear energy is different than Three Mile Island or Fukushima.
We need to understand that when you're looking at some of these issues that they have with Fukushima in particular, which is kind of an antiquated system that they had set up that they can't really shut off, which I had a whole bit about how crazy that is.
When you're talking about the nuclear power that they could implement today, it would be a very different system.
But it became UBI to so many people, that's why they went with it.
When you see Amazon, Google, and these big companies becoming just insane behemoths that they can't be broken up, they just absorb and absorb and absorb.
Then there's an argument for some kind of dividend to the American people for potentially what they do outside of the United States.
It's very complicated economics.
I guess I'm not smart enough to pretend like I know anything about.
But you look at, he brought the example of Alaska.
They have the oil drilling.
The people who live in Alaska get a portion of that revenue and those profits.
That makes sense.
UBI, the way it's framed in general, makes very little sense.
And eventually, I think we're actually seeing now with the government stimulus one of the biggest pitfalls to it.
Do you hear there's a story they ran in NBC, a woman, her employees were in revolt because she acquired a loan from the Paycheck Protection Program that ensured their jobs, meaning they would receive less money because under the CARES Act, they would have received a bonus of $600 per week on top of the salary they'd normally get.
They actually preferred to have lost their jobs.
So you have people who are complaining that they're keeping their jobs now.
But the challenge with just giving people cash is the assumption that the cash has inherent value when the value of it is based upon what you can get for it.
So one of the lessons I think we learned now with the economy being shut down is doctors and nurses got to work.
You know, that we need them on the front line.
They're also getting paid.
What do they use that money for?
Pay their rent, buy food, things like that.
We're facing food shortages.
If you can't buy anything with the money, what's the point of taking the money?
I mean, like, if you were given the choice, you're going to work, you're going to go work your job at a grocery store, you're an essential worker, we're going to pay you 400 bucks.
Because the universal basic income was not designed to deal with the pandemic.
It was designed to deal with automation, which would have not stopped the supply chain, which has not stopped, which wouldn't have created food shortages.
This is a sort of a unique situation.
So you're comparing apples to oranges.
You're applying universal basic income to our current situation, which has nothing to do with the reason why he wanted to implement it in the first place.
He's worried that automation is going to take away jobs.
I see it is an assumption, but the universal basic income, the real problem is a psychology issue.
The real problem is the way human beings work.
We need incentives.
People don't just want to survive and get a little check from the government.
People will be despondent.
You don't want to create a United States of welfare, like an all-encompassing thing where some, you know, these programs that are in place that automate all of the goods and services, they take some of that money and give it back to the people because no one can work.
That's where Chris Evans is on a train that travels around the world because the world is frozen and only that train has, like, it's kind of a weird premise, but there's.
So they take kids from the back, from the poor cart, and have them work internally in the engine because they have to move things around because parts are missing.
If they don't, everyone, all human life dies.
So they literally go in the back and they take children away from their families who scream and reject this.
In Battlestar, they had children who were also taken for a similar reason to work.
You had people who had no choice but to work on the fuel processing ship.
Otherwise, all of humanity would be wiped out.
I've often thought about, you know, I'm a huge fan of Star Trek the Next Generation.
How do we get to a post-capitalism world where we still have incentives, but we're post-scarcity.
The problem is, as we're in transition, there will be jobs that are essential, which means one of the glimpses we get, I understand a pandemic is different, but we still see a glimpse of people who have to work kind of low-skill, boring, tedious jobs, like at a grocery store, while other people who have higher-skilled jobs are getting their needs met by the government, at least in terms of the cash.
So again, I understand it's a pandemic, it's very specific, but we're getting a glimpse of what happens when some people are told, your job is not essential, so we're going to guarantee your food and resources for the time being.
And let's say, you know, right now, one of the things I looked at, and we talked about this a little bit before, I met a homeless guy in Chicago, and he worked at a job that became obsolete.
I'll set back and build it.
I asked a homeless guy how he became homeless when I was like 19.
And he told me that he had a job.
He worked there for 20, 30 years.
As he got older, his family moved away.
He lost contact.
These are different times.
Some friends and family had died.
When his company became obsolete, technology didn't matter anymore.
He was cast out.
He had nowhere to work anymore, and his expertise was very specific.
So he got a severance package.
That ran out.
He got unemployment.
That ran out.
He got kicked out.
Now he's homeless.
I look at that and I say, how do we make sure that doesn't happen?
This guy should not be punished simply because times have changed.
But if you scale that up and say it keeps happening in every different sector, eventually you'll end up with 90% of the population saying, my needs will be taken care of, and 10% saying, I still have to work, whatever the industry may be.
It's because they don't understand real struggle because they've grown up without it and they have these ideals.
Like they feel guilty because they've grown up without struggle and they want to help the world and they think capitalism is evil and I never saw my dad.
So we need to get all these rich people, they need to give that money to all these poor people and we need to balance out income.
But, you know, when you then take that generalization and apply it to anyone who has money or everyone and you take it to a dark place.
Exactly.
When I first started, you know, entering the public space in terms of news and politics, I was at Occupy Wall Street.
And before I had any notoriety, I was being heralded.
They called me a good example of what's wrong with the system.
Here's Tim Poole, a high school dropout, mixed race guy, and here he is just sleeping in a dirt park using his phone to tell the real stories of the world.
After I got featured in Time magazine, what did they say?
Tim Poole is white, and he was born with a silver spoon, which is not true.
It's absolutely not true.
But the socialist types, the activists couldn't accept that I had jumped the class system, I guess.
Their view of the world is rigid, that the rich people keep the poor down.
There's no chance for upper mobility, and that's not the case.
You absolutely can become successful from humble means.
One of my favorite AOC quotes was her talking about it's literally impossible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when she used to be a waitress and now she's a congresswoman.
It's not impossible, but it's not even.
That's what we need to address.
It's not even.
The reality is, some people have a far easier path.
Now, I think there's always going to be certain limits based on your ability.
Like, I'm never going to play in the NBA, tall enough, nowhere near as fast or can jump high enough.
Actually, that's not true.
I can jump pretty high skateboard, but you take people who don't have top-tier intelligence, not the strongest, but if they work hard enough, they can find their apex.
They can find that point where they are successful and they can make it.
It's not true for everybody.
Some people are below that threshold.
No matter how hard they try, they're going to need help.
But I think most things you'd be better off seeing.
Like with comedy, it's massive.
It's gigantic.
Being able to visually see yourself is like primary.
That's number one.
A little bit less good is listening to yourself.
And at a certain point in time in your career, you can get away with just listening in terms of like, but there's a big difference between people who monitor their stuff and go over it and analyze it versus people who don't.
And it's just, it's accelerated learning.
It's like taking advantage of all the tools that you're given.
And you can apply that to anything that you're trying to do good in life if you have the time and the energy.
Like if you're doing a job and during this job, you know, you just show up at work and you try to do your best, then you go home and you fuck off and you do your stuff.
But if you go and do your job and then afterwards analyze what you did, pay attention to it, write things down, make a diary perhaps, or review your work, and really, you'll get better faster.
It's a matter of how much time, as long as you don't burn out.
So I'm doing constant research in between, fact-checking, and then I record, like once I get everything in line and I think I'm confident on what I have.
And of course I'm not.
I'm not perfect.
Then I record for about 20 minutes.
Then I get back to researching, reading, and I, you know, so it's.
That's the difference between someone who's working in a fucking coal mine or someone who's working in a field all day picking strawberries because they hate the job.
I hear you, but you know how many people have hit me up?
You probably get something similar.
Like, how do I do what you do?
You know, when I was working for Vice and I was traveling around the world, 10, 20 emails every week from young people saying, I really want to do what you do.
And you know what they would say to me when I would tell them how to do it?
They would say, I will never do that.
I would tell them, here's what you do.
Do you have any money saved up?
No?
Okay.
Where do you work?
You don't work.
Get a job, Starbucks, McDonald's, whatever you can get.
Maybe you can do better than that.
Save your money.
Once you've saved enough, find a story you want, fly there, cover it.
You know what they would say?
No.
I had one, there was one person that said to me, I want to travel around the world and do what you do.
How do I do it?
I say, do you have money saved up?
Yes.
Excellent.
There's a story right now going on in Turkey.
All right.
You got to be secure.
You got to be safe, but it's in both fairly okay.
Fly there right now, film it, and I'll see if I can make any connections on what you find.
You know what they said?
Well, the money I saved is for my apartment in Brooklyn.
And I'm like, right, what's more important to you having your nice Williamsburg apartment or being a journalist traveling around the world?
Well, I like my apartment.
I'm like, okay, listen, when I worked for Vice, I was sleeping on a couch.
Every dime they paid me, I put in the bank, I didn't touch it.
I got a job working for an ABC News joint venture company after that.
They paid me a bunch of money.
I put 70% in the bank.
I didn't touch it.
When I left, I went to a bunch of these New York digital companies.
You know, I'll spare them their names for any embarrassment, many of them who have become rather worthless.
They still exist, and they're big.
And I decided after seeing what they had to offer, the bias, the deception, the clickbait-driven nature of it, I'm going to do it myself.
And because I saved my money every step of the way, I was able to do so.
So then I had an apartment.
Then I could pay for my plane ticket to Sweden, to France, to Germany, to do these stories and started building up a base.
Within about seven or eight months, I had gone from red to black.
So now all of a sudden, I was no longer losing money.
I was making money.
And I'm like, there it is.
A couple of years on, ridiculously successful.
For myself, I guess I could, you know, it's relative, but I've got several employees launching new companies.
One of the companies shattered a fundraising record of a million bucks in a single day.
So that's, look, the path for me isn't the path for everybody, but sacrifice, you know.
It's also like, who is the type of person that would chase down the stories?
The type of person that's really going to chase down the stories is a person that's driven to chase down stories.
What you're getting is questions from idiots.
You're getting questions from people that are like, how do I do it?
And then when you offer the answer, I'm not going to do that.
But those are the people that are never going to make it.
There's a conversation I had with Ari Shafir where he and Robert Kelly, apparently, they thought about sponsoring a comic who's up and coming, taking care of their financial needs, and for like a year and a lot, trying to see how far they could get in their career if they didn't have to deal with money.
And I said, that's the problem is the type of person who's going to make it is going to make it not just in spite of the fact that they don't have any money, but because of the fact they don't have any money.
Those day jobs, those sucky jobs that you need to have when you're struggling, those they fucking motivate you.
They're important.
If somebody just comes along and gives you all the money you need for food, you're going to half-ass it and some hungry guy on the other side of town is going to take all the gigs that you would get.
They're going to write better jokes.
They're going to be more motivated to go to open mics.
You know, so one of the arguments I keep seeing from a lot of people who have more, I don't even want to call them socialists.
I think they're just regular urban dwelling, like liberal left-type people.
There's one viral post on Reddit that said, you've got these conservatives or you've got these people out protesting so they can enrich their landlords and these billionaires when they should be demanding that rent be waived, that mortgages, you know, and evictions be canceled, and that the government take care of their needs and provide them with stimulus or something like that.
And I look at that like you're very clearly living in a city, but what they don't understand is they say things like, you know, landlord isn't a job.
Like, I'll argue that there's a lot of very successful landlords who make a ton of money and do very little, but it's a fucking job.
The money you pay in rent can't just be wiped out because there's groundskeepers, there's maintenance, there's administrative assistance, there's taxes that you filed.
Rent doesn't just go into their pocket so they can buy a boat, but they view it this way and they think that money is what you want.
That when they say these people who want the government to be reopened, you know, are simply trying to enrich the wealthy.
It's like, I think maybe they make things and they want to keep making things.
But there are a lot of people that don't seem to understand.
I think it's because when you live in a city, everything's already there for you.
When I lived in New York, the Williamsburg Bridge, boom, there it is.
I didn't see it built.
I didn't pay a dime for it.
And I can just use it.
I can cross over.
It's just there.
And I've never had to, you know, you've never had to fight for it.
So you just say, why can't I just have it?
You walk in any store and there's food.
Hey, there's food.
Easy.
What they don't see is the supply chain, where the food is made, the work that goes into it.
So they assume that money guarantees access to it, which it doesn't.
If the economy is shut down, the money can't buy you things.
The value of that money starts going down.
If the farms can't sell any of this to anybody and start dumping, and I think it's called fallowing fields, no longer farming, then there's nothing to buy.
So if products aren't being made and services aren't being rendered because the economy is closed, what is your money going to get you?
At a certain point, when the economy is shut down for too long and we're seeing all of these businesses close, family businesses, I heard a story, terrible tragedy.
Somebody killed themselves because their family business of seven years was shut down.
That product is gone.
So eventually there's no food to buy.
And only then will people realize the government stimulus money has no inherent value.
It's the work we do for each other.
That's the argument being left out when you get a biased view on social media or when these people don't quite understand.
People that aren't a part of the supply chain that really don't know what it's like to, like the people that raise food, they're freaking out right now.
The people that raise cattle and the people that grow food and the fact that they have to deal with being shut down and trying to figure out how to restart things and when is it going to be okay to restart things?
And what if it happens again?
What if there's another flare-up two months from now?
I mean, they're hurrying right now and they might take years to recover from these past couple months.
Well, there was, I think, some health official in California saying they might not be able to fully reopen until there's a vaccine, which could take 18 months.
So I think there was an MIT technology review article talking about how we may have to do intermittent lockdowns, you know, like two months lockdown, one month off until the vaccine is available.
Then there was another study came out saying something similar.
It says, new Pentagon formally released three mysterious UFO videos captured by Navy pilots.
The already leaked videos showed what DOD insists on calling unidentified aerial phenomena moving at incredible speeds and performing near-impossible maneuvers.
This is a weird subject because it's one of those subjects where people automatically dismiss it because it's been so touted by kooks.
There's so many wacky fucks that have talked about UFOs that anybody talking about UFOs has to be out of their fucking mind.
But then when you see these videos and you see them performing these impossible tasks, like these things are moving in a way that we've never seen anything move before.
Flipping upside down and sideways, moving at insane rates of speed.
What's interesting, though, is I was reading one of these stories, and they passively mentioned that the sighting was near a U.S. Naval technology station of some sort, like a top-secret development.
Either it's developed by the people that are at that base or they're monitoring the people that are at that base.
These aircraft, we call them aircraft, are displaying characteristics that are not currently within the U.S. inventory nor any foreign inventory that we are aware of.
Maybe they see this shit that's going down with China and all the ships being moved and like, listen, you fuckheads.
You know, maybe we've slowly been getting more and more information about this.
I've been actually reading a lot of these stories over the past several months.
More admissions from government, more release of documents, and more sightings.
So there's been a big, I don't want to call it, well, a lot of people murmuring that April was going to be the month when we finally learned the truth.
So this was, I think, in like 06 at Chicago's International O'Hare.
A UFO came down and hovered above, I think it, I can't remember which terminal it was.
It hovered for a few minutes, I think, and then shot straight up, punched a hole in the clouds.
Everybody saw it happen.
Now, I had just quit working at O'Hare around this time when the sighting happened.
So I had friends who were still there.
I had a friend tell me that when this UFO came down, people on Mannheim Road, which is the road on the side of O'Hare, got out of their cars, like just stopped the light, got up, and were looking and staring at it.
And that the people who are working, where we worked, we worked for American Eagle Airlines, walked out of the rooms and were just staring at it, float, and then shoot up and punch a hole in the clouds.
And what they said?
Weather phenomenon.
So there's a photo of it.
A pilot took a photo of it.
This is back when like very early phone cameras, so it's a very grainy, awful picture.
Like, we forgot to, we didn't talk about it during the show, but she wanted to bring it up because she knows I'm kind of obsessed with UFOs.
But the account that they have, like they get hypnotized and he's recalling the abduction and they have like the same story.
It's very terrifying.
You hear him crying and screaming and that he was taken aboard this craft and examined then brought back and they have missing time.
But here's the thing.
If they only did that occasionally, if they only came down once every few years and just scooped some person up in the middle of some rural place, like if you're flying over, you know, I think their instance was in, I believe it was in Maine.
If you're flying over somewhere like Maine, which is a very low population state, and you see a lone car and it's just traveling along the highway.
And there's places in Maine where you go from like Portland to Bangor.
When you're traveling on that road, it's like 60 miles with nothing, not a gas station, nothing.
If you were an alien and you saw a car by itself, you're like, no other car, let's move in.
Because we don't have the capability of doing something like that.
I don't think the capability of the scientists working for the government is any different than the capability of the scientists that are working for Project X or fill in the blanks in terms of what Raytheon, publicly traded companies.
You know, we've seen the little drone toys you buy.
They got four propellers.
Take that concept, use thinner jets and surround it in a disc so that it's universally like it can move in any direction because it's gotten a power source.
Think about how little mileage you can get out of a Tesla.
You know, they had as advanced as Tesla is.
Still, when it's going full out, it can only go for, I mean, you get 307 miles if you drive like a grandma, but if you drive like a maniac, you don't even get half that.
My understanding of why we abandoned jetpack technology was that it was inefficient and heavy, and you couldn't carry it without it being turned on.
So they opted for larger, like, you know, like what are they called?
Chinox helicopters that can carry multiple people at once.
When you're wearing a jetpack, it has to be on idle, negating its own weight, which means it's burning as you're walking around, which means you get a good 20-minute jump and you got to abandon the tech.
And he had this guy who was a jetpack pilot who came in and in the parking lot of the radio studio and fans of the radio show came and did it too and watched it rather.
And this guy flew in the air for about 15, 20 seconds and then landed.
Yeah, but what these people are describing is nothing like that.
These people are describing things that are silent, that go from zero to 1,000 miles an hour in a split second.
Things that defy physics as we understand them.
This is not something that I think that the U.S. government has.
If you look at like, okay, like Elon Musk company, Project X, or SpaceX.
SpaceX is right now one of the premier civilian companies, private companies that's making rocket ships.
They fuck up all the time.
They're in the middle of innovating all the time.
He's one of the smartest people on Earth.
He's one of the, in terms of technology, he knows as much about propulsion as anyone.
And they still can't get it right.
They're still trying to figure it out.
They're trying to come up with something that could be viable in terms of commercial space flight.
And they're working on it daily.
And these people are the brightest minds we know of right now that are in this jet propulsion space travel business.
There's Virgins working on something.
There's a couple other companies that are working on things as well.
And then you have NASA, which worked, the best they could come up with was the space shuttle.
Do you think that there was something way better than Space Shuttle that they just never used, that they had, and they kept it on the back burner, didn't want to let anybody know, but the way they would use it is they would pick people up and erase their memory and explore you with their asshole?
That's crazy.
Well, that's less likely than the hundreds of billions of galaxies just in our own known universe, right?
Each one with hundreds of billions of stars, each star with who knows how many fucking planets, that somewhere out there that's something more advanced than us, maybe a thousand years, maybe a million years, that's figured out how to come here.
But the idea is that they've received the signal that we sent out way, way back in the day, actually when the first broadcast signal was Hitler announcing the Olympic Games, the start of the Berlin Games.
And this was the first signal they got.
There's a really controversial moment in the movie or controversy in the plot with that once they were trying to decipher the image that was being sent, they realized it was Hitler.
Well, so I got a few, there's a few issues I see in terms of aliens and Earth contact, right?
We are substantially more connected in an evolutionary chain to ants than we are to any alien.
So we can't communicate with them for the most part.
We kind of can.
We understand how they communicate.
But when an ant sees a superhighway, this is someone else's quote.
They don't think twice.
So it's possible there are aliens that have superhighways right above us.
We can't tell what it is.
Same as a dog doesn't understand other than stay away from it.
But one of the issues I think is often neglected in the conversation about aliens is the we assume aliens would be on a very similar planet to us.
We assume that they would have some kind of gaseous atmosphere, perhaps it's a liquid atmosphere.
And one of the things that I would ask of a researcher, because I'm not the expert, is the fact that we have the proper balance of oxygen in the atmosphere to manipulate fire, which allows us to separate elements and then create computers and components and fuels, wouldn't exist on a planet without the same atmosphere we existed in.
He said he saw something that was sitting down, but he doesn't know if it was a model that they were using, like if they had created something that was supposed to be the size of a thing that could fit in these crafts because these crafts, he said, were designed for things that were far smaller than human beings.
I'm pretty sure in the initial interview he gave when he went public was that he saw an alien and then later on changed it saying, I don't know if it was maybe a model or a puppet.
Yeah, he said he thought he saw something sitting down and two people were standing over it looking at it.
He said he thought he saw an alien.
But he's probably, I mean, I don't know.
I mean, look, he said it was literally for like a half a second.
Like he's walking by a window and he sees something inside of it.
Imagine being a guy who's in your 20s and you're a propulsions expert and it's been proven that he worked at Los Alamos Labs and it's been proven that he did put a fucking jet engine.
Yeah, it's been proven that he did put a jet engine on a Honda.
I mean, he's a genius.
And then you talk to him.
He's an incredibly smart guy.
Now, imagine you get sent off to Area S4 and they show you this thing that you know doesn't even exist.
And they tell you about this propulsion method that they don't understand.
And they say that they found this a long time ago in an archaeological dig and they want you to back engineer it because you're a propulsions expert and they're running out of options.
They've been studying this for decades.
No one knows what the fuck it is or how you can make it work.
And then they do test flights with this thing.
And then he tells his friends about these test flights after he gets fired.
And so when his wife is fucking her flight instructor, they told him he couldn't work anymore.
And he's like, why not?
Well, they were tapping his phone.
Because when you have top secret clearance to work on UFOs, I guess they don't want your wife fucking her flight instructor because then you're going to go crazy and you have a lot of imbalance at home, right?
So he doesn't know why.
They don't tell him why.
So he takes his friends and he tells them, listen, this is real.
They're running these experiments.
I know you're thinking I'm crazy.
This is what I've been working on.
So he takes them to this area where you used to be able to have access to.
But once he did this, they closed off access and pushed it far back to where the public has access to.
And he showed them these things doing these impossible maneuvers in the desert in the night sky.
And so when he gets arrested, he was in fear of his own life.
He goes public and tells this whole story.
And then they erase his past.
They erase his social security number.
They erase his education background.
Even though people that knew him and knew he worked at Los Alamos Labs, he takes George Norrie of a tour of Los Alamos Labs, knows the people that work there.
They all say hi to him.
He takes them on a tour around the laboratory, shows them around, shows them the devices they use for biometric security.
The challenge with any theory, I don't like saying conspiracy theory because they're not always conspiracies, is that people want something to be true.
And so they end up looking for things to justify what they think it already is.
But when you start with what you've got, you've got a guy who was living in Vegas, was taking these flights out to Area S4, knows the place, knows it inside out, can describe it very accurately, also worked at Los Alamos Labs.
You know, my favorite, I don't want to call it a conspiracy theory, but one of my favorite stories is humanity emerged on Venus and that we destroyed the planet with a greenhouse effect.
So we created the Ark Project and took the DNA of two of every animal and loaded up on the last vessel, the Ark, and went to Terraform Earth.
And what people do, again, I'm not saying it's, I think it's a fun story.
They argue that the Bible was like the stories being told and retranslated over hundreds of years to a lost civilization that had only one ship escaped the destruction of their planet.
So like, you know, things with density create an attraction through gravity because the pressure that like their influence on space-time, I'm not an astrophysicist, so I can't explain it to you perfectly.
But, you know, the larger, the more dense the object, the more pull it has.
You know, so like a very dense black hole, for instance, sucks you in, then, you know, Mars has slightly less gravity than us because it's less dense.
I wonder if there's something, again, this probably, you know, I'm sure there's some scientists laughing right now.
What amoron?
But negative density, something that would actually have a push effect in terms of gravity, in which case you could have some kind of object with where you can control and expand and contract density so that you're pushing and pulling.
Yeah, they would think it is absolutely the craziest thing that anyone has ever seen or heard.
They would try to tamper with it.
They'd all get radiation poisoning and die.
They'd never be able to figure it out in a million years.
If you just left it with them, if you left some sort of a nuclear reactor with them.
And he said this is really how far advanced he believes these aliens or whatever you want to call them are, that their science, their technology is indistinguishable from magic because they're so far ahead of us.
Well, all innovation happens because people are trying to improve on initial designs.
Now, why do they try to improve on initial designs?
They try to make things that are better, make things that are more efficient, make things that can do tasks that they can't do without these tools.
And then their curiosity and their creativity causes them to expand upon these ideas.
Well, of course, if something's going to be so far advanced that they didn't accept their current place in the universe, they don't even accept the fact they want to stay on this planet.
They want to travel to other places.
Do you know how fucking insanely curious you'd have to be to lock you and three of your other three-foot buddies in a giant fucking flying saucer and propel yourself through space?
I think if we saw like a group of chimps standing near a waterbed and then one chimp fashions some kind of bag and pulls it over its head, jumps in the water and tries to go as low as he can for as long as he can before coming back out.
We would look at that like that is the stupidest attempt at scuba diving I've ever seen.
But oh my god, a chimp just tried to scuba dive.
So if there are aliens and they're in these amazing technologically advanced ships that can jump light speed, manipulate gravity, they just watched us strap ourselves to an explosive and fire us off of our atmosphere where we're likely to die.
And they're like, this is the stupidest attempt at actually going to space.
But they have a thing called a stack in the base of their, in their, in the, in their spinal column right below their head that stores their consciousness, and they call their bodies sleeves.
And they kind of don't care when they die because they just get, you know, it's, if you're poor, you get really crappy sleeves, right?
But if you're rich, you get premium access, military upgrade, like high-tech, very strong.
But their bodies just become separate.
And you can also transport your consciousness interstellar, like to other planets.
And then you wake up in a body on a different planet.
That's how you go places now.
Your consciousness travels.
So, yeah, I mean, maybe aliens do that.
Maybe there's not.
You know, I find the idea of the various alien life bodies curious.
One of the things I've read about is that it could be humans from the future.
This falls into another one of these conspiracy theories that the goal of the globalists is that in order to get access to alien tech, we have to be a unified planet.
The point I'm making is there are people online who believe this.
They believe that if there is some kind of Galactic Federation or at least some kind of recognizable different cultures that have some kind of set rule base, who do they negotiate with?
Us, Russia, or China.
And so the argument, well, one of those theories is that interests on the United States who have access to the aliens know that they have to do everything in their power to unify the entire planet under one authority so that we can be entered into whatever alien access would exist.
But so long as we are nuclear-powered, competing territorial factions, they can't do it.
But you add in what you were saying about masculinity and gender.
And one of the things that I find interesting is that when it comes to this argument about removing masculinity, there's kind of an overlap with this idea of domestication.
You think about proto-wolves, proto-dogs, and dogs.
Dogs are effectively wolf cubs perpetually.
So wolves are aggressive, territorial, independent.
I mean independent in the sense that like you're not going to tame them.
Dude, I was thinking of this really cool idea for a sci-fi film where aliens come to Earth and most humanity accepts domestication.
And then 300, 400 years from now, you've got regular-looking 21st-century kind of men and women.
But then you have these five-foot-tall, super-armored, jetpack with plasma rifles that love and serve the aliens, and we view them as freakish genetic defects.
If aliens came to Earth and most humans agreed, and then over time, the humans that got access to life-saving technology, special armor, were the ones that were agreeable and less likely to be aggressive.
You basically have humans like raiding a chicken coop, and the aliens are like, ah, and they call their attack humans who jump out with like armor and crazy future attack from the aliens, but they're like these small dog-like versions of humans, you know?
Like desperately in love with the aliens, you know?
They killed the missionary because they were invaded in the 1800s by a guy named Maurice Vidal Portman, who was a pervert/slash explorer who would measure dicks and take detailed descriptions of people's anatomy and genes.
This is why I really don't like, I think it's Hawking's argument, that we shouldn't be excited about aliens because whenever a more powerful civilization approaches a weaker one, they dominate it and enslave.
I don't buy that for two seconds in terms of aliens coming to Earth.
Well, what he's saying is like, you know, when the Europeans came to North America and spread disease and then stole land and started wiping everybody out.
Like when a more advanced civilization meets a, you know, you know.
I don't think aliens would do that at all.
It's like Why not?
The way I would view the most devastating approach would be more like a gigantic vessel coming down and just slicing a skyscraper in half and stripping out all the copper and elements while ignoring the people.
When we go to a habitat for animals, we're not going to like, haha, we'll kill all the squirrels.
We're like, we're taking the lumber.
Squirrels be damned.
So we go into habitats where other creatures live, take what we want, and we don't care about the animals.
You know, when we farm, we kill all the mice and all the little critters in there.
We don't care.
So I don't think the argument makes sense that a more advanced civilization would come to Earth and be like, haha, humans, now you will serve us, and it's our land now.
They would completely ignore us and just start taking stuff and crushing us and ignoring us.
It wouldn't be.
But I don't think that's the most likely scenario either.
I think any race sufficiently advanced enough to travel the massive size of the universe would have little need for the primitive elements on our planet.
And it would actually be substantially easier for them to go to any other empty rock.
It's incredibly rare as far as everything we've been able to observe.
They might come here because they found this Goldilocks planet that has liquid water and incredible biodiversity and more life than any other place on Earth.
It's because the aliens use these suspended gold particles in their atmosphere to protect their atmosphere from deterioration by their industrial use of chemicals and toxins has destroyed their environment.
So sitchiniswrong.com is an interesting website.
And I don't know who's right or who's wrong.
And I think if you want to go over the Anunnaki and the ancient, but what's really interesting and not just about Sitchin, but about Sumer in general is one thing is they had these tablets, these clay tablets that had a depiction of the galaxy or the depiction of the solar system.
Now you're talking about 6000 BC.
They have this depiction of the solar system that shows the sun in the center and it shows all the planets in our known galaxy or our known solar system with a proper perspective in terms of the size of the planet and the proper distance.
Like they're in the right places.
It's not like there's a big one really close to the sun, then there's a little one three planets out.
The take that Zacharias Hitchin had was that they were trying to tell us that they have come from this other planet and they were trying to explain to us what our solar system is.
But just the fact that they have this sun in the center and then they have all the planets that we know of circling this sun.
And this has been criticized like, oh, no, they didn't do it right.
They didn't do it.
First of all, they did it in clay.
Okay?
So relax.
It's so goddamn close that you would have to say, man, that might be what that is.
And if that is what that is, what are they trying to say with this thing?
Because there's also an image from a clay tablet of a very large being that has a very small human-like being with a monkey tail on its lap.
And this is what Sitchin points to as some sort of a depiction of the genetic engineering that took place to turn primitive primates into human beings.
This is the reason why we are so different from every other animal on this planet.
And the real thing that when people talk about aliens and alien countries, like what would aliens be doing here?
Why would they do it?
What if human beings are the product of accelerated evolution?
Like, what if they came down here, they found this incredibly rich planet that's filled with biodiversity and all these different life forms, and then they found these primates.
And, like, oh, we know where these fuckers are going.
Like, this is us 10 billion years ago, or whatever the fuck it is.
Let's accelerate this little party.
Let's inject some of our super advanced DNA into these primates and let's see where it takes itself.
But Bob Bazar said, I don't know if they told me that to throw us off the trail, if it's disinformation, or if it's just some wacky thing that they came up with to just have a crazy story that the scientists couldn't tell anybody.
So, if you do tell people, like, what are you working on?
I'm working on a reverse engineering or propulsion system from an aircraft that came from another planet.
And by the way, we are a product of accelerated evolution.
And, you know, well, think about that story in the context of ancient religions and a lot of the commonalities, notably like Abrahamic, this idea that we were created, that we were told we should and shouldn't do certain things.
So, I think these are all fun stories, but you could look at the idea of someone being the son of God, you know, a hybrid, right?
Yeah, you could look at the stories of regular old Genesis, taking the rib of Adam to create Eve.
Well, yeah, the genetic matter and then manipulating it.
So, you know, I get a lot of heat from my more religious friends for pointing that out.
That I believe the Bible is more likely on an odds base to be about aliens than about the actual creator of the universe.
And I'm talking astronomical odds, like ridiculously astronomical, but I think we actually know some things exist: genetic manipulation, cargo cults.
We know how primitive life form reacts to more advanced technology they don't understand.
And that would make more sense to me than believing in a hard religion about the creator and carpenter son, things like that.
Yeah, well, it's also we're dealing with translations that have gone on for thousands and thousands of years that are a story that was told as an oral tradition for a thousand years before that.
It's like, boy, saying hard and fast exactly what they meant in the Bible and what this means and what must have happened for them to write that down.
To me, it's just bonkers.
I mean, who knows?
But what we do know is that the older the stories get, the weirder they get.
Like, that's one of the weird things about the ancient Sumerian texts is that you're dealing now, you're in like the 6,000 years ago range, which is really weird.
Robert Schock, who is a geologist at Boston University, has actually taken the time to examine the erosion around the outside of the Sphinx.
The Sphinx itself has been worked on a lot.
There's been a lot of rehabilitation of the pause.
They've sort of rebuilt it, which is kind of a shame.
But it's made out of a sort of a soft stone that's eroding and falling apart.
And when they found the Sphinx, like when Napoleon found the Sphinx, it was buried.
It was buried under sand.
So this is a thing that had been buried and re-exposed many times, they think, throughout history.
And what Robert Schock had found in discovering this, the temple where the Sphinx was carved and the area that surrounds the Sphinx was these deep fissures in the walls that were indicative of thousands of years of rainfall.
The problem with that is the last time there was rainfall in the Nile Valley was 9,000 BC.
So they're dealing with, like, and you have to go back thousands of years or 9,000 years ago, might be 7,000 BC, but you have to deal with thousands of years of rainfall prior to that to create this.
So that means that this was something that was clearly carved by man, has thousands of years of rainfall that eroded it.
And you're dealing with a time period where the last time they had this rainfall in this area was thousands of years before they think people were even capable of building things like this.
Isn't it even slightly, even a tiny tiny bit more likely that humans came from a different planet and after they destroyed it and then reseeded and we lost our way of life?
So it's got to be men and women, and the people are going to have to be, boy, heterosexuality is going to be favored because you really can't have gay people that aren't going to breed.
You know, you have two lesbians like, oh, we need to have it only populated by lesbians.
Let's say we sent a Mars expedition, you know, 10 families.
We've got two of each.
They start having kids.
We send cargo there.
They start building.
And then Earth wipes itself out.
Runaway greenhouse.
We can't get a control of things.
Nuclear war, whatever.
The planet becomes a desolate wasteland.
There's no more communication to those who are on Mars.
So the last remaining hundred or so people who are now on Mars, the adults who remember Earth, write down a book.
Here's everything that happened.
Here's what you should and shouldn't do.
Here's how we lived.
And they give to their kids.
Now their kids never experienced Earth and know nothing about it.
In fact, those kids only have a fleeting image of the technology that they once had.
Now go two more generations down.
The old tech where we used to colonize Mars is now decaying and falling apart.
They have no idea how to fix it.
The original colonists are dead.
Go down three more generations.
Now you've got a few thousand humans start moving off looking for resources.
And no one has any idea Earth even was a real thing other than the stories they heard about the military leader in the orbital space station who long since died.
So now they have this book they don't fully understand.
Their language is now changing as they separate from each other and find different areas of the planet.
Now English or whatever language they were speaking becomes 10 different languages.
Now they're translating the book.
Now it's a thousand years later.
They don't even know Earth existed.
And they have this weird book about the way things used to be.
And now out of the billions of, you know, now we're 10,000, 20,000 years in the future, and they find, you know, these old ancient relics, and they're like, I wonder what if?
Let's say that we had an orbital space station over the new planet we're terraforming.
What kind of government would exist?
Let's say Earth is wiped out.
The only survivor is on an orbital space station over Mars with a small colony on the base.
It's going to be a military dictatorship.
Not intentionally, not from this evil perspective, but from a, you're the general, you're second in command.
We've always operated this way.
It's a military mission.
You know, the person who's in charge is in charge.
And then eventually you build up the colony to a certain point where second in command or one of the favorite lieutenants says it's time to enact democracy.
And the general says, fuck no.
And then a civil war breaks out in the heavens, people on the ground watching the ships shoot at each other and blow each other up.
But there's a lot of ways to interpret various ancient spiritual religious texts in a science fiction-y kind of way.
So I actually talked to my friends about this and we like kind of, what if the Bible and the Old Testament were viewed from a science fiction perspective?
Not to be disrespectful, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone's religion or anything like that, but like what if we tried to apply a lens of from a futuristic perspective of our understanding of technology to how they may have viewed what was going on back then?
For those that don't, it's you know these natives on these islands saw planes, didn't know what they were, so they built effigies of the planes, like I guess hoping they'd come back or whatever.
So when I saw that, I wondered, you know, a lot of people ask that question, what if we did the same thing with aliens?
And the other question is, what would we do if we destroyed our own planet like people say we are?
It would be so funny if we destroy this planet, we go to Mars and repopulate Mars and fix it up and then destroy that place and come back to Earth after we're done.
Because look at what's going on right now during this pandemic.
The skies are clearer than ever before.
The Venice canals in Italy have dolphins in them now.
The Dogon tribe, the Nomo, and their fascinating cosmic knowledge, deep in Northwest Africa, more precisely in Mali, we find one of the oldest, most fascinating ancient cultures to develop on Earth.
So the ancient Dogon tribe is known for their religious traditions, ritual dances, their massive ritual masks, their wooden sculptures, and their architecture.
However, they're also known for their incredible astronomical knowledge and their fascinating mythological accounts.
The Dogon have a compelling ancient tradition.
They mention myths and legends that go thousands of years into the past, predating possibly even their own history.
Some authors like Robert Schock, who's also the guy from Boston University, he's the geologist that talked about the Spins, argue that the Dogon were a people who originated in Africa, but who had been forced to leave ancient Egypt due to their religious persecutions.
It is in his opinion that the Dogon may preserve ancient Egyptian traditions and myths that may even have been carried into the present age, claiming that the Dogon have a powerful cosmic connection.
Where, you know, in the first segment, he talks about the three kings of Orion's belt pointing to the star in the east where the sun rises on the third day.
When you stop and look, if you were traveling across the country as you were, did you get a chance to stop and look in the middle of nowhere at the sky?
And wasn't it, there was a story that I think in Los Angeles, the power went out, this blackout in the 90s, and the police got tons of calls from people who didn't know what they were seeing in the sky.
But there's also reports, and you guys got to factor this stuff for sure because it's not like something I've been diving too deep into, but she was trying to divorce the guy.
But whether or not any of that's true, it's like, you know, I always say, give me the proof.
But I can't tell you this.
The media loves to run everything the president says through a filter of like it must be taken literally or to its worst, most the opposite of the benefit of the doubt, the most negative conclusion possible.
If he says it, we're going to run the most negative interpretation.
It's bad.
It's awful.
So when he says something like, you know, that Peter Navarro instance where he said, you know, you're a nasty reporter, he said about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquin, it might work, it might not, but I'm optimistic.
But look, when Andrew Cuomo came out and said, we're going to start trialing, you know, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, where was the negative press?
If you go back to 2008, 2008, rather, when Obama was elected, the influence of online media and the ability to pull eyes away from traditional media sources was nothing.
It was nothing.
Newspapers were still real.
People were buying newspapers.
I mean, mainstream media was the only way you got your news.
Now there's people like you.
There's people like Kalinske or Jimmy Doerr.
There's people like The Hill.
They have these online platforms where this is, not only are they more viable than the traditional media outlets, they're more accurate.
They're less biased.
They're younger.
They're more intelligent.
And they're not connected to some gigantic media machine that has a very consistent bias.
From everything, but it starts with people like me.
So look, I'm an individual.
I have an opinion.
There are things that I think are more important than other things.
I look at this establishment press, this behemoth, constantly lying to people.
Not every single journalist.
I know many journalists, they're fantastic at their jobs.
They risk their lives.
They do good stories.
Even political reporters.
You know, my respect to Ben Smith, formerly of BuzzFeed News, now New York Times, calling out the New York Times, well, sort of, for their defense of Joe Biden, calling out CNN.
There's great reporters.
But you have a lot of people in media whose, their goal is just survive, make money.
And so what happens with YouTube, one of the reasons I think they started censoring a lot of channels is what works?
Shock content, sensational rage bait.
So YouTube hard suppresses that.
It's not entirely fair, but there's no real good answer to how you deal with this.
And it's unfair to a lot of independent creators because, like you mentioned, YouTube doesn't know better.
They're like, who's credible?
But CNN starts adopting this same tactic.
So now, you know, CNN realizing they can't win no matter what they do.
They're competing with free videos on Facebook.
You know, mom and pop who post that video from the rally on Facebook costs them nothing.
They don't care.
And CNN's got to pay someone $30,000 to $50,000 a year at a low level to make this kind of content.
They're losing.
So they switch it up.
Now we're being told that our accountability, our credible news outlets, authoritative sources, they're the same thing as what the YouTubers were.
Look, I mean, when you get Don Lemon going on the show asking if a black hole swallowed an airplane, how is that any different from the crackpot signs?
So I think I always like things for which there's just being provocative to get someone to answer a silly question that's being bandied about on the internet.
Because first of all, back then, I mean, this was 2014, September 2014.
I think people were just starting to understand the impact of comments, and they were addressing them, and they were probably trying to silence a lot of the nonsense.
I mean, maybe when it's nighttime and you're tired.
Because one of the things I remember last time I was sick, which was quite a while ago, at the end of the night, I'd be like really achy because I was tired.
And as I was tired, my immune system would be depleted and then I would feel the effects of the cold more.
And then you wake up in the morning, you feel a lot better.
So whatever young progressives say, and I told him, I asked, are you saying that if there's a factual news story that would be upsetting to our audience, we won't cover it?
She's going up against a woman named Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, who is a moderate, who actually sounds very reasonable.
And it kind of breaks my heart a bit because I remember how Democrats used to be.
Like, you can look at the thing she talks about, and she's a very reasonable, like, she's got, like, a book.
She was an anchor for some, I think for like CNBC or something.
And she comes off like, I don't know, kind of like maybe you or me, just how what used to be left before they went became radical activists for social justice.
And so when you have digital media framing things as always, like you ever wonder why they never say left-wing.
Like in the media, they'll say conservatives did X. They never say liberals did X because they view themselves as those people.
So you end up with social media companies that view that kind of content as authoritative, left-leaning.
You end up with left-wing activists and acceptable marketability.
There was a study done where they tracked essentially like it's a visualization of location for various aspects of the internet.
Conservatives are in this bubble, liberals in this bubble.
Marketing, digital marketing companies overlapped with resistance Twitter, anti-Trump.
So what ends up happening is big marketing firms based in New York City, based in Los Angeles, very urban areas, much more likely to be blue, have a blue perspective.
They run commercials based on a left-wing perspective.
Politicians see what the television is saying.
They see what the websites are saying, and they say, this is what America wants.
It's not.
It's what the hyperactive 2% of Twitter wants.
So they fall into that trap where they believe all this stuff.
The reason Ocasio-Cortez got elected, she won, I think, she got 17,000 votes in a district of 750,000.
Like, that's not winning a real election.
But it was exploiting the system.
So you end up with someone who has views that don't represent the overwhelming majority of this country in a very high-profile position, influencing Nancy Pelosi.
And one of the reasons they think they even went forward with impeachment was because Ocasio-Cortez gave a statement where she said it was a bigger scandal that the Democrats would not impeach Trump.
Next thing we know, Nancy Pelosi hops on board with the idea, and that blew up in their face.
They don't want to take any chances, and Trump is a bully.
I don't mean that necessarily as like, you know, to the Trump supporters get mad.
What I mean is like he pushes people around.
And a lot of people like that about him, that he yells at the press.
What a lot of people on the left don't get is when he yelled at that CNN guy, you're a nasty reporter, his base was clapping, standing up saying, thank you for finally calling these people out.
It was a good thing.
You take that attitude next to Biden.
Do you think Biden's going to make anybody feel safe?
Nah, man.
I don't think so.
So the argument I've put forward is, look, man, I'm a moderate person.
My politics have always been left-leaning, pro-choice, progressive tax, government programs, all this good stuff.
Grew up in a city.
But I'm not super far left.
I need an argument from you.
Donald Trump has come forward with the economy was booming, lowest unemployment in 50 years, best numbers of our lives up until the pandemic.
He instituted a travel ban that the Democrats are even agreeing with now at this point.
If you want to convince me to vote for you, and many people like me, I think you've got to give me an argument as to why Biden is better, but they're not.
And I think if the economy does manage to show some signs of resurgence around November, towards October and September, if he has some sort of a real rock-solid plan and he can show you where it's going, this is what we're planning on doing.
We're going to have this by that and that by this.
By the way, Joe Biden is not going to get better.
His cognitive decline is going to increase.
And it could drop right off of a fucking cliff.
It might come around to where November is, where the gaffes are constant and they pull him off of the public eye and they never show him.
Mail-in voting, I think, will be the downfall of Republicans.
If mail-in voting does get pushed through, Nancy Pelosi, I believe she said she wants to have mail-in voting confirmed the next stimulus package.
If the lockdown persists beyond November, and mail-in voting is the go-to way, the challenge, you see a bunch of Republicans saying that mail-in voting could lead to fraud, and it can, right?
If somebody's mom is like, you know, old and just like not paying attention and you fill it out for her.
But the bigger issue I see for Republicans is that uninitiated and uninterested people will be voted for.
And that means in big urban areas, you'll have a mom and a dad telling their kids who normally don't care to vote, just fill it out, just fill it out.