Coleman Hughes and Joe Rogan dissect New York’s migrant crisis, exposing how a 1930s constitutional amendment forces housing for non-citizens, straining resources with tens of thousands arriving voluntarily. They critique media bias—like the NYT’s unverified hospital bombing claims—and Hamas’s use of $4B in aid for rockets, not Gaza’s welfare. Hughes defends RFK Jr.’s vaccine critiques while Rogan questions unchecked AI influence and speculative brain-monitoring tech. UAPs spark debate: Hughes slashes extraterrestrial odds to 1%, citing plausible drones; Rogan highlights military sightings of impossible physics. The episode ends with Rogan praising Hughes’ sharp analysis, steering listeners toward his work on Conversations with Coleman and colemanwhys.org. [Automatically generated summary]
And I think when Eric Adams gets in front of the country and says, I can't handle this, I think he's telling the truth.
And some people have accused him of racism, bizarrely, but I don't think it comes from that.
I looked into this and the part people don't know about this story is really the full unfolding of it goes back to the 1930s.
New York State made a constitutional amendment to the state constitution which required the state to provide housing for the homeless.
And it was sort of vaguely worded.
So in the 80s and 90s, the courts in New York began interpreting that more and more strictly.
Almost no other state, I'm not sure if any other state actually has something in its state constitution requiring that kind of a thing.
So basically what happened is the judges ended up interpreting this more strictly.
Obviously, the original purpose of this is for New Yorkers that are homeless to be housed.
But they ended up interpreting it so strictly that when the Republican governors in Texas and Florida began sending a few thousand migrants up to New York City as kind of an FU to the liberal cities that have declared themselves sanctuary cities without actually having to deal with the kind of border crisis that Texas does.
The first few thousand found that, legally, New York had to house them.
And then word got down to Mexico that if you make it to New York City, you will not be turned away.
Legally, you don't even have to be a citizen for the state amendment to apply to you.
So what began as a few, let's say the first 10 or 15,000 were sent by the Republican governors as a kind of political tactic, Has now become tens and tens and tens and tens of thousands coming of their own volition to New York City.
And it's the only state in the country where Mayor Adams has no legal recourse to send people elsewhere.
He actually cannot do it.
He's tried to do executive orders.
But he legally can't because it's in the state constitution.
It's above his power.
And now it's taken on a life of its own way over and above what the Republican governors started.
So this is why he's going to the national media and literally saying, I can't do anything about this.
I'm trying to do something about this, but I can't.
And we're putting people up in Airbnbs for $100 a night.
And the city will be bankrupt in X number of years if we don't find a solution to this.
It's just a smart thing to do from their perspective.
But that doesn't mean, from our perspective...
That we should just put out the bat signal to the whole world and say, you can come to New York City and we have no legal recourse to move you anywhere else.
It's strange that recently it's become this crisis where migrants are coming en masse to these places and just flooding them.
Is this orchestrated?
Is this just a fact that they found out that they can do it and it's better than where they are?
And if they go there, these places that are essentially, you know, they're charitably minded and they would like to house people that are down on their luck, but now people are sort of taking advantage of that loophole and just swarming.
I think the whole Western world has become much more open to immigration recently.
Obviously America was open to immigration in the 19th century, but we were the outlier.
All the other countries of the world, the default was closed borders, essentially.
So I think the whole world has, out of empathy for the poor and struggling, has wanted to have more permissive immigration, but that sends an incentive to people of the world that they can now come.
They can, you know, abuse asylum laws.
And again, I don't even blame people for doing this because it's exactly what I would do if I were born in Guatemala or Syria.
I would say, hey, I'm a refugee.
This is my story.
And I would probably lie about it in order to get a better life in the one life that I had.
But this is just a true side effect of those compassionate laws is that people abuse them.
You get, you know, immigration pools that are vastly proportionally male, which is how you know that they're not refugees because where are the women?
Right.
And it's a side effect of the intended compassionate immigration policy.
This is how this works.
Thomas Sowell's great quote, there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs.
This policy has a tradeoff.
It's more compassionate, but it also leads to, in the case of New York, what could be a serious fiscal crisis.
Now, one of the things that's weird about this crisis is it comes at the same time as people trying to say that you should have no voter ID. And they've openly spoken about it in New York that people who are illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote.
The Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirmed that the administration has successfully negotiated a deal with Venezuela to execute the policy, but did not say whether Venezuela was getting anything from the US in return.
We are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, Mayorkas said at the same Thursday press conference.
Officials said that some migrants have already been identified for deportation.
Starting today, the United States will begin direct repatriations of Venezuelan nationals back to their home country.
In fact, we have already identified individuals in our custody today who will be removed promptly in the coming days, a senior official said.
Venezuelans make up a large share of border crossings and for years the U.S. has generally been unable to deport them because of frosty diplomatic relations with Venezuela.
Mexico has agreed to take some, but it remains a difficult issue for the administration and for cities receiving migrants.
Speaking of the voter ID thing, though, this is one thing that really made me crazy during COVID. For years, people on the left have been saying that voter ID laws are racist.
I don't know if you've paid attention to this at all, but the argument is that black people, and especially poor black people, struggle to get IDs.
It's never made much sense because you need an ID to buy a six-pack, you need an ID to open a bank account, you need an ID. It's just that all these normal things that people of all classes and races have to do.
And then when, in New York City, during COVID, they implemented the policy that to get into any restaurant, any gym, anywhere in the city, you needed vax card plus ID. So me paying attention to the discourse for the past few years, I thought to myself, where is everyone on the left that said black people don't have IDs?
Shouldn't they be calling this policy racist and saying that we are excluding all of the restaurants and gyms and so forth?
To black people because you need vax card plus ID and black people can't get IDs?
I'm doing the math here.
I didn't hear a single peep from anyone of the usual suspects.
And I said, this is how you know it's a fake belief.
They never really believed that black people can't get IDs.
If you want to say something's racist, you could make a much better argument that vaccine mandates are racist.
Because the majority, at least in the beginning of the COVID vaccine rollout, the majority of the people that were refusing it were African Americans and Latinos.
They were like, we don't buy this.
Especially when you deal with the Tuskegee crisis, when you hear about the times in the past where medical interventions are specifically targeted or there's been like Evil shit that they've done specifically to black Americans, and they're suspicious.
In every possible way, from dealing with the police to dealing with Court systems.
In any domain.
And they did make the argument that COVID itself was systemically racist because it was, at least in the beginning, it was disproportionately killing black people.
I thought this was, again, this is a very simplistic way of thinking.
I don't equate disparities with racism.
But I noticed the Washington Post ran a story a few years later that maybe by 2022, COVID was disproportionately killing white people, right?
Because the situations change and it's just very complicated, right?
Very few things fall equally along every population in life.
And I asked the question, okay, did systemic racism change its direction?
Is COVID now...
Anti-white?
Well, no.
The truth is that, you know, every disease has a different racial profile in terms of who it affects.
Hispanics, for whatever reason, no one understands it.
Hispanics have the lowest maternal mortality rates, lower than white people.
Nobody gets it.
It could be any number of things.
There are many cancers that preferentially, some kill black people more often, some kill white people more often.
If you look at the CDC charts, you'll just find every disease has its own profile.
And rather than say, okay, this disease is racist because it has a disproportion, we should all back off the R word a little bit and realize that You know, these things are very complicated, multifactorial, and to reduce it all to racism is just very, you know, we've gotten into this thing where we have a hammer and everything looks like a nail, and the media knows that racism stories get clicks, so everything becomes about that.
You've probably seen his skit where he takes footage of the BLM protests and the police brutality videos and he says, I give half of them to CNN and half of them to Fox.
I mean, actual journalism should be unbiased, objective people discussing what is actually going on.
And that is definitely not the case.
And that's part of what we're running into.
And, you know, when it comes to the COVID deaths...
I mean, so many factors were never discussed.
And one of the big ones that seems to affect the African-American community more than other people is vitamin D deficiencies.
The reason why there's so much melanin in African-American skin is because people in Africa deal with very hot climates and direct contact to sunlight.
And so they have protection from that.
The reason why people became white is because they moved to areas that are covered with clouds, like England.
And it's not a fucking coincidence that people there are pale as paper.
It's because they're basically a solar panel for vitamin D. Their body's trying to produce more vitamin D, and the way to do that is to produce less melanin.
And my friend who was a doctor in New York City said that when he was a doctor and he would find sick people that would come to the hospital and he would test them for levels of vitamin D, he would find oftentimes undetectable levels of vitamin D in some African Americans who weren't supplementing.
And weren't getting sun exposure.
And he's like, it is catastrophic for your health.
It's catastrophic for your immune system.
And none of this was ever discussed, of course, because there was a binary solution.
Like, it was this experimental mRNA vaccine or nothing.
And any other solution was conspiracy theory, foolishness, anything else to improve your health.
Even on top of that vaccine, even saying, yes, you should get vaccinated, but also you should lose weight.
Also, you should take vitamins and you should exercise and you should eat better and don't drink, don't smoke.
Do these things that are going to improve your overall metabolic health.
There was zero of that because it wasn't journalism.
It was all promoted by people who are advertising on these mainstream media platforms.
And that was what it is.
And that's what we're dealing with.
And again, it's good and it is bad.
The good thing is it's led people, I think, to have the lowest level of trust ever in mainstream media in our lifetimes.
I mean, there was a recent CNN ratings poll.
They got like 43,000 people watching CNN, which is insane.
I mean, that is like...
That's like an average comedian with 100,000 followers reel.
You know?
That's nuts!
It's nuts that this massive, major, worldwide, international news organization is getting 43,000 people watching their show.
But it's because people have completely lost faith in whether or not these people are telling the truth.
So I watched your RFK Jr. episode, and I watched the whole thing very carefully.
I read his books and checked the footnotes.
All of the people that are...
My friends that are very smart people really disagreed with the fact that I liked him.
So I had to do a lot of soul searching about what it is that resonated with me, but not with...
All of my, you know, intellectual and journalist colleagues that I tend to agree with about 90% of stuff.
I really had to do some soul searching.
And, you know, what I came out feeling was that...
It wasn't that I agreed with RFK about every claim that he made.
In fact, there are certain claims that he made that I double-checked that were flat-out wrong.
It's that I felt the version of RFK portrayed in the mainstream media was a totally different person from the real RFK. And that there was a framing put around him that was so...
Obviously uncharitable and bad faith.
So for example, if I told you, if I'm one of those people that was obsessed with getting fluoride out of the water, right, and that was my cause in life, as a journalist, what would you label me?
She wanted to take high-fructose corn syrup out of food.
She was very...
This was a big issue for her.
Would you call her an anti-high-fructose corn syrup...
Addict as a journalist or an anti-food activist?
Well, no.
So RFK Jr., you know, and I don't think he's right about this, but just as a matter of journalistic accuracy, his whole project with vaccines has been to take stuff out of the vaccines that he thinks is toxic, right?
His most anti-vax quote-unquote book is Thimerosal, Let the Science Speak.
He's trying to take the thimerosal out of vaccines, right?
Now, if I were describing this guy, even if I disagreed with every word he said as a journalist, I would call him an antithimerosal.
So the framing of him in the mainstream media as an anti-vaccine activist to me seemed already like not at all the framing an objective journalist would put on the issue even if he's wrong about the facts.
And that clear bias in the treatment of him, rather than treating him like a normal politician and putting your perspective on it, putting this framing on him as a crazy guy, as a crackpot, I think that is really what rubbed me the wrong way about how so many people were treating him.
Well, also, they don't understand his work before he became this vaccine skeptic or this person who discussed the apparent connection between some adverse events and some adverse effects and some vaccines.
He started off as an environmental lawyer, and his work helped clean up the Hudson River.
And you could research it.
It's like He did amazing work and he held corporations responsible that were polluting.
And because of his work, the Hudson River made a remarkable comeback.
And then these women came to him and they said, you are researching all these toxins and pollutants that get released in the water.
I want you to do this with vaccines.
And they started talking to him and this woman came to his door and she said, I'm not leaving until you look at this.
And she gave him a stack of files and documents and he started looking at it.
I started looking at the difference between ethyl mercury and mercury.
Or methyl mercury and ethyl mercury.
What's the difference?
And which ones are toxic?
And why are they in the vaccines in the first place?
And like, why are the manufacturers that make vaccines not liable at all for adverse effects?
And so he starts doing a deep dive in this, and he finds out that it's all foreboding, right?
This is all forbidden subject.
If you talk about it, you'll be labeled a vaccine denier or an anti-vaccine person, which is like...
The worst anti-science pejorative that someone can label on someone who wants to be taken seriously.
And he realizes that he has to go down this road.
And he's like, I can't believe I have to go down this road, but I have to go down this road.
And he starts researching.
And he starts talking about it openly and, frankly, courageously.
And there is...
Some very bizarre correlation, not necessary causality, right?
Because it's not really being openly studied in terms of like, it's not like...
It's not being discussed in mainstream media.
It's not something that's being discussed openly in universities and taught in schools and medical school.
But there seems to be a rise in adverse effects and all sorts of issues that people are having once they started adding more vaccines to the rollout, which also happened right after they made these vaccines and the companies that manufacture them no longer liable for any adverse effects.
And it's sketchy stuff because you can't talk about it.
And whenever there's something that you can't talk about, it gets real weird because you can't just look at it and say, okay...
What is actually going on objectively?
Let's not signal to everyone that I'm on the side of science and I'm the side of reason and I'm on the side of, you know, what's best for the whole world.
Let's just look at what is actually happening.
And no one wants to do that because if you even just start dipping your toes in those waters, people are like, wait, what are you saying?
Are you a vaccine skeptic?
Are you a vaccine denier?
Are you anti-vax?
Which is not something that he's like, I've been vaccinated.
My whole family's been vaccinated.
This is not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is there are proven effects that mercury and aluminum have on human beings, particularly in their developmental stage, that seem to be detrimental.
Because everyone's blood pressure rises when the topic comes up and we have that caveman instinct that we may get socially ostracized for something, right?
There's clear incentives that are in place just based on the past, just based on the fact that people have been able to parlay these jobs, go from being a part of the FDA to being a part of Pfizer and being a part of all these other pharmaceutical drug companies.
I don't know if he mentioned this specifically on your podcast, but I looked into this because of his book and talked about it on some other podcasts.
Around 2000, the Rotashield, the rotavirus vaccine, seven of the 13 people responsible for approving that vaccine at the CDC and the FDA, Seven of 13, so a majority, had direct financial ties to companies that were producing that exact kind of vaccine right at the time.
Congress looked into it and they reported on this.
They said, this is a disaster.
They had to recall the vaccine, by the way, because it was causing intussusception in infants.
And we've sort of been assured that they've cleaned up their act since then.
And that seems to be the narrative that they've cleaned up their act.
And I'm sure there was some panic and there was changing of policies, right?
But as a journalist, our job is not to trust the government.
Our job is to verify.
And the status quo, I looked into it recently, is that the CDC and the FDA, they're still allowed to appoint members of those panels who have conflicts of interest, so long as they're below a certain bar of conflict so long as they're below a certain bar of conflict of interest.
Now who determines where the bar is?
They determine where the bar is.
And they're not required by law at all to report their deliberations publicly.
So, as an objective outsider, I would like to believe, I would like to believe that CDC and the FDA, I don't think they're evil people, I don't think they're lizard people, I think they're whatever.
I would like to believe that they're making good decisions.
But as a journalist, you have to be able to verify it, or else why should I trust?
So if they're self-policing and not required to report, I think people should be...
This is my problem.
When Rand Paul is aggressively pressing Fauci about conflicts of interest in Congress, Journalists should be like, this guy's doing our job.
We're supposed to be doing this.
Instead, they label him as some kind of bad person.
Journalists are supposed to aggressively police the government.
And when you don't do that, you end up getting people doing the job for you, and they may not do it perfectly.
And they may overstep, but shouldn't the response be, how come mainstream journalism isn't pressing Fauci like that?
We should have done it, and we should have done it 10 times harder and more precisely than Rand Paul did it, right?
That should be the response, not Rand Paul as a conspiracy theorist.
The problem is when you look at the incredible amount of money that the pharmaceutical drug companies spend on advertising, They essentially have control of the narrative.
Whether people are directly told not to discuss these things, it is most certainly on the table that they know that there'll be repercussions.
And so they don't report on them.
Look, if you look at the Purdue Pharma crisis, have you seen the Netflix documentary, Painkiller?
And when they show that they clearly knew that it's an opiate and they are addictive, and yet they somehow or another use the language many believe Or some believe.
What was the exact wording?
Some believe is not addictive.
Like, who the fuck uses that for something that's going to be prescribed to millions of people?
That's insanity.
And it turns out, oh my god, it's very addictive.
Oh my god, it caused a massive opiate crisis that didn't exist anywhere else in the world.
The United States had this opioid crisis that it was unparalleled.
There was nothing like it anywhere else in the world.
And it was directly because of the influence that these massive companies had, the amount of money they were spreading around.
I know a few months ago the city of San Francisco, I believe, won a lawsuit against Walgreens for, it might have been hundreds of millions, I can check exactly.
And in the report, in the discovery for the lawsuit, they were just talking about the sheer number of doctors who were found to be corruptly prescribing.
It wasn't like one or two doctors.
It was a number that was so high that I remember thinking, I mean, how can a person that reads this really trust their doctor after reading this, right?
So, my view of that book is that I don't jump to...
RFK basically puts the worst possible interpretation of everything Fauci did.
Kind of in the same way that Christopher Hitchens did with Bill Clinton, for example.
When Bill Clinton bombed the Al-Shifa factory in Sudan that was said to have weapons, turned out to have medicine, turned out to have no link to Al-Qaeda, Hitchens wrote that he did this to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Now, that's possible.
I can't rule it out.
Not saying it's something he wouldn't do, but without direct evidence for it, my bar is that I don't jump to the worst motives.
And there's recent ones that people are talking about now that this was from the Defense Department and that this was...
that COVID was a bioweapon.
Well, you know, a bioweapon that accidentally got released.
Like...
Would that hold up in court?
Do you have enough evidence to say that publicly?
And is it irresponsible to say that publicly?
My take on it from clearly, obviously a non-scientist, is if I was a researcher and my education was in viruses, and specifically coronaviruses, I would be looking to do research on coronaviruses.
And gain-of-function research is one way Whether it's dangerous or not in the Obama administration.
Cordyceps mushrooms infect ants and they get into the ants' body.
And ants recognize this and know that this thing is going to grow mushrooms.
So the ants carry this other ant out of town.
They get them the fuck out of town.
So before the cordyceps mushrooms blow and the spores spray through the air and infect all the other ants, these ants recognize, oh, this motherfucker's got it.
We gotta get him out of here.
And they'll carry him way the fuck out of town.
Like there's some sort of memory or some knowledge or understanding of the danger of this specific fungus that's growing on this dead ant.
Like so we know that We know these things are fucking dangerous, and if we're monkeying around with nature, but also we know that there have been medical interventions, there's been medical technology, there's been research that's done that's enhanced people's lives,
saved people's lives, rescued people from fatal diseases, and to cast light on The entire pharmaceutical industry that it's like this horrible monster of a thing that's destroying lives.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
What it is, is a bunch of people that are, like you're saying, scientists who figure things out because it's cool and they get married to people who just want to make money.
They're stock market psychos.
And there's a lot of psychos out there.
And the psychos say, okay, we got this thing, and we're making X, but I think we can get to Z. We just got to get this guy to say this and this regulation to pass, and then we're in Z. And this guy is thinking himself doing coke off a stripper's ass on a yacht.
That's what he's thinking of.
He's not thinking of saving the world.
But the scientists that are making all this stuff, they're just fucking scientists.
And part of the problem with getting the money attached to the regulatory body and attached to the scientist is because then there's someone who doles out the funding.
And maybe that guy is connected to the money side.
And maybe that guy was actually a doctor.
And now you've got this crazy situation where these doctors can't even tell the truth.
Scientists can't tell the truth.
They can't talk openly about the reservations that they have about some of these specific types of research that they're doing.
Like, hey, should we be doing this?
They can't say anything.
They can't.
Because they're connected.
And if they get ostracized from that system, they're fucked.
Their career is fucked.
There's no recourse.
They don't have anything to fall back on.
So we've got a system much like our governmental system, much like our media, that's captured by money.
And it's not that the journalists are bad people.
It's just that's the fucking game they're playing.
Well, I think that the journalists, most of the journalists I know aren't necessarily captured themselves by money, but they may be captured by ideology and groupthink.
So, for example, on the money end, I was astounded that it was not widely reported and that you have to get to someone like RFK Jr. to tell you this, that The NIAID had a financial stake in the Moderna vaccine.
So when I see the director of the NIEID, Anthony Fauci, former director...
Talk about the Moderna vaccine, as a journalist, should my default be to trust everything he says because he's the government?
Or should I say, he may be conflicted.
Let's do what great journalism does and pressure test everything he says.
Demand the documents on everything he says.
And what he says may turn out to be right.
I don't assume it's wrong, but that should be the job of mainstream journalists is to pressure test everything.
When you don't do it, my point is it's left to the RFK Juniors of the world who end up getting certain things very wrong because they're one person.
It's not what they do.
And so, for example, like I told you, I was really going through all the claims in RFK Juniors' book because some of them are just insane, turn out to be true.
So you have to use the actual data that's in the study.
That happens.
So if you're saying a study showed that, or if you're just saying the number and not saying where you're getting this information, Then it's he really shows every single one of his claims This is why I thought it was such a cop-out that that guy you were in a little Twitter spat with Oh Peter Hotez.
Yeah, Peter Hotez If you if you're an expert on this and you have this guy that you're saying Total misinformation.
Yeah, he's got every single one of the claims he made on your show in one of his books with a footnote and Peter Hotez, if this is his job and this is important to him, should absolutely spend the time.
What could be more important, right?
If you're saying that I'm an expert in this and this guy is dangerous for the world, you can't then say, well, I don't have time to go in his book and click on every footnote and showing receipts for why he's wrong about everything.
That was a total cop-out of him to say, oh, this is not worth my time.
And, you know, let me tell you my history with Peter Hotez, because I met Peter Hotez in like 2012. I had him on an episode of Joe Rogan Questions Everything, and we were talking about viruses.
And I found him to be a really fascinating, very intelligent man who's dedicated his life to trying to help people, specifically of tropical diseases.
Because there's a real issue in tropical disease.
He was telling me that people that live in tropical climates, the vast majority of them have some kind of parasites.
And what he wanted to talk about was that.
I think when COVID came along, there was this psychological angst that was overwhelming, even to people that are fairly good at keeping their shit together.
I think of myself as someone who's pretty good at keeping my shit together.
I don't freak out too much about things.
And so with COVID, I was like, all right, well, I guess this is a real thing, and we're going to have to hole up in the house for a while, and two weeks to flatten the curve, and make sure we have food and power.
You start thinking about things like, okay, if I needed to get food for my family, if I needed to get out of here, how much gas do I need?
Like, there's a real air.
There's a feeling in the air.
Where, like, okay, we're in an unprecedented state of the unknown and chaos, and this could get worse.
Like, this virus could mutate into something that's just killing everybody.
That level of anxiety prompts people to look for solutions that are very binary, and it prompts people to dig their heels into what their decision is to do this.
Like, should we go into the basement in the horror movie, or should we get the fuck out of here?
I think we should get the fuck out of here.
We've got to go in the basement.
We've got to go in the basement.
There's these decisions that people make in these traumatic situations, like do we hide?
Do we run?
What do we do?
And when they have a decision that they've made, like the decision, there's only one decision.
This decision is this, we have to take this one vaccine.
That's the only thing that we can do.
And everybody starts thinking, okay, well, we have a solution.
And everybody that's opposed to that, You're fucking it up!
You're fucking it up for everybody!
And I think that was the feeling in the air.
And I certainly felt that when CNN was saying I was taking horse dewormer, like when I was being attacked for taking out—when I said that I was taking monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamins and all these other things, too.
I was just saying, this is what I took, and now I'm better.
Thank you.
I gotta cancel my shows.
That's all it was.
It wasn't some political declaration or some anti-vaccine.
There was a reality of what I took.
I told everybody what I took.
unidentified
But there's this feeling from everybody, you're fucking this up.
Because people wanted to believe that there was a way out of this that was very binary, very simple.
This is our solution.
Everybody get on board.
Everybody who's not on board is ruining it for the world.
And you saw the fucking cruel way people would talk.
People who would think of themselves as compassionate, progressive people.
Right?
Progressives.
Left-wing people.
The worst thing about unvaccinated people dying because they didn't trust pharmaceutical drug companies that are captured by money and the media that is captured by them, their money and the regulatory, the fact that people were just unwilling to look at the big picture because they wanted that fucking solution.
And I think when you're a person who's on the side of that solution, and you're genuinely doing work to try to solve real problems that people have with parasites and diseases and all these different things, and then you're getting attacked.
And then it turns out that, man, maybe a lot of the shit you said wasn't right.
Now you're kind of stuck, because you don't want to debate this.
Because even though you probably did it for all the right reasons, You look at the actual effectiveness and whether or not it actually did what it was promised to do, it didn't do any of those things.
And it did certainly cause some adverse problems in people that may or may not have had any problem with COVID. They might have gotten over it quickly like I did.
So now you're fucked.
Now you're fucked.
And now you're in this situation where you kind of have to defend it all the time.
And to go on a debate and talk about that, you would be so filled with anxiety.
Because it brings us back to the decisions that people make during times of extreme crisis.
We always want to think that the evil things that people have done in the past, false flag events and all these different things that people have done in the past, in order to start wars so that they can make more money.
We want to think that that stops.
Like, oh, we don't do that.
We don't do that anymore.
We don't do that anymore.
It's a childlike impulse that I personally experienced when I was a young boy.
When I was a young boy, we were living in San Francisco, and my mom and my stepdad were hippies.
And we lived in this very progressive, very hippie area.
And when the Vietnam War ended, Everybody was so happy, and there was this feeling, and I said to myself, I remember saying, oh, this is so good, there's not going to be any wars.
They figured out that wars are bad.
I remember thinking this when I guess I was like 10 or 11 or something like that, going, okay, there's no more war.
Well, first of all, I wish I knew how they didn't know that those people are going to do that.
Because I don't want to talk about intelligence, because I don't know what I'm talking about.
So if I start saying that the government...
That they would have had the capability to make sure that none of those things took place, and that they had infiltrated these organizations, and they did get accurate information from that, and they were aware...
That would just be complete armchair speculation from someone who's not qualified.
Right now, the belief is that, and I think we'll know more about this in a few years, That a few things happen all at the same time.
It's a perfect storm.
First, Hamas has been planning this attack for two years.
And one of the leaders of Hamas actually said that they've been strategically lulling Israel to sleep by making it seem like they're no longer interested in a conflict the past two years.
And Israel even just a week before the attack allowed more Gazans to come over the border and work in Israel as basically a reward for good behavior.
They thought Hamas has gone into this mode where they're more concerned about the economics of the Gaza Strip than about attacking Israel.
So Israel was asleep at the wheel.
Israel also had transferred a lot of IDF that would normally be at the Gaza border to the West Bank.
It was also the Sabbath.
It was also a major holiday.
They've had the biggest protests in a generation, almost the same way America was during 2020. Israel has been for the past several months over their judicial reform.
Yeah, so basically the judicial reform in Israel, Israel is not like the United States.
They don't have a constitution.
They don't have this kind of really beautiful genius system of checks and balances that we have where, you know, the president can veto the Congress and the Supreme Court has a check on everyone, right?
And everyone keeps each other in check.
Israel just has a single parliament they call the Knesset, a prime minister that has a lot of control over that parliament because he leads the majority coalition.
So basically, in Israel, the president and their Congress have a lot more power than in America, historically.
The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to say no to them.
But over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has been basically grabbing more power for itself under these things called basic laws, where they can now say to the Knesset, no, you cannot implement that policy in the West Bank.
It violates human rights.
They have more powers to check the majority party.
And that's come to a head now because the Supreme Court is perceived as left-wing and sympathetic to the Palestinians.
Just like in America right now, the Supreme Court is perceived as right-wing.
And Benjamin Netanyahu is obviously Likud, he's the right-wing party, and he's gone into coalition with these ultra kind of right-wing religious And so it's come to a head where basically the right in Israel feels that the Supreme Court is just expanding its own power and is anti-democratic.
And now they want to...
Judicial reform is basically stripping the Supreme Court of the power it's grabbed for itself over the past 30 years.
Now the left in Israel views the Supreme Court as the only protection against human rights violations and the violations of Minority rights.
So the left feels the Supreme Court is a great defender of Israeli human rights, and the right feels that the Supreme Court is an undemocratic institution that's been expanding its own power for 30 years and now needs to be reined in so that the majority can govern.
That's torn apart the country.
It's absolutely the number one issue every day, protests all over Israel.
So you put all this together with Hamas backed by Iran, and you also throw in the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a peace deal, which is huge.
It would be the biggest news in the Middle East in a very long time if Israel and Saudi Arabia made peace.
It would basically put kind of the death nail in the coffin for Hamas because Saudi Arabia is the biggest holdout now in terms of who has not made peace with Israel.
So Hamas, from the point of view of Hamas and Iran, they think this is a last chance, kind of.
We have to attack now, kill this deal, or we're dead forever.
And they planned this thing meticulously for two years, intentionally lulling the Israelis to sleep.
And they have brilliant success, much more success than they expected to.
Now, some people have said it's an inside job.
I don't believe it is.
I think if it is, we'll know that from reporting that comes out in the next two years.
But at this point, I believe the theory that it was an incredibly successful attack by Hamas and a perfect storm.
Well, that all connects and makes sense, if that's the case.
What's always terrified me about the Middle East is that there doesn't seem to be a clear way to resolve this.
I mean if Saudi Arabia and Iran or rather Israel came to some sort of an agreement and made peace and were able to establish that long term, That'd be a great step in the right direction.
But other than that, like when you look at what's happened now, oh my God, the rhetoric from both sides, it's just, didn't we learn anything from World War II? Didn't we learn anything from the Holocaust?
Didn't we learn anything from...
Human beings' ability to other human beings, to just turn them into a thing that's not them, dehumanize them, and that there's this impulse to do so that existed forever because when we were tribal people that probably barely had a language, you had to be absolutely terrified of marauding male tribes that came over your border and wanted to kill you and take your resources and steal your women.
Because that's what they did.
And so we have this ability to look at other human beings as an other and get ruthless and horrifyingly violent because that was the only way for us to survive for thousands of years.
So it's ingrained in our system.
But now it exists in the context of global war.
And it exists in a time where you can manipulate media and spread false narratives and governments are allowed to use propaganda.
They're allowed to lie to people if it's for the overall better good of the nation.
It's wild.
And that's the root of the issue.
The root of the issue is how every human being sort of Reluctantly admits that there's almost no way to stop all wars.
Right now, if you had a magic solution to stop all wars in the world, what would it be?
It doesn't exist.
That's terrifying.
Because the thing that we are scared of the most is global thermonuclear war.
The thing that everybody should be the most terrified of.
That we get so stupid that we wipe every human being off the face of the planet and we're more than capable of doing it some insane number of times over.
And that they're playing.
With the very first steps of that game, they've moved the first pawn out onto the chessboard of the global thermonuclear war chess game.
That is fuck the world.
Everybody.
Every single nation that's involved in every conflict and all these people controlling resources over a group of gigantic people with their their representative and they're saying these people are the bad people and they're saying you're the bad people.
So I agree with you that we are built and hardwired for deep levels of violence.
Those of us that have been lucky enough to live in safety and security, we may not realize the violence we're capable of because we've never had to survive.
Right.
But I do believe that there is a difference.
You mentioned the lessons of World War II, right?
We were capable of violence, Hitler was capable of violence, but we were not the same as Hitler.
There was an imperative for us to defeat him at almost any cost, and we did horrible things in that war.
But people understand that there was a good side and there was an evil side.
Now, I don't know if you or most of your listeners feel this way about Israel, but I do.
I think that in this situation, Israel is the good guy and Hamas is the evil guy.
I think some people feel Hamas is just acting like anyone would if you had taken their land and their freedom fighters that go a little bit overboard.
I don't think that's what they are.
I think they are a death cult that really believes what they write in their charter in the late 80s, that they want to annihilate every single Jew in Israel and replace it with an Islamic State and eventually have a state like ISIS. And that what they did on October 7th with the, the barbaric slaughter.
That's the point for them.
That is what they want to do to all of Israel.
And the difference is that Israel, though like the American army, there's been many excesses, much to criticize.
If Israel wanted to annihilate Hamas and the Palestinians the same way Hamas wants to annihilate Israel, Hamas would be gone and there would be no Palestinians in Gaza.
We know that Israel could obliterate them overnight.
Why don't they?
Well, for mixed reasons, but because they don't want to.
They want to live in peace fundamentally.
And so I don't think the two sides are equivalent here, though they're both capable of that universal among humans, which is cruelty.
I don't think these two sides are the same.
I really think this is a situation where there is a good guy and a bad guy.
Basically what happened is the entire media, the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas, said that Israel just bombed a hospital and killed 500 people.
The entire media ran with this story.
New York Times, BBC, everyone said 500 killed in Israeli airstrike on hospital.
And obviously this is monstrous, if so, right?
Why would Israel bomb a hospital?
Israel is known to have at least a policy of not bombing hospitals because...
Israel feels that it wants to generally respect what a war crime is, right?
That's the policy, at least.
So this went viral.
Then it turned out, actually, most likely, it actually turned out 100% the hospital wasn't bombed.
It was the parking lot next to the hospital.
So that was the first inaccuracy in the story.
Then it turned out it's very, very unlikely to be an Israeli airstrike and was almost certainly not a Hamas rocket, but a Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
This is the other Palestinian terror group in Gaza.
They launched a bunch of rockets.
One of them was a dud and landed in the hospital parking lot.
And this is on video.
Al Jazeera showed the video by accident and that's part of how it's been confirmed.
So then all the New York Times, BBC, they all started slowly changing their headlines from 500 killed in Israeli airstrike to 500 killed in blast to, you know, at this point they may be saying parking lot next to hospital killed only 50 to 100 people.
This is still an evolving story and we're talking on Thursday.
The New York Times, when they reported it first, they showed a picture of a different place in Gaza that was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike, not the hospital.
So this is now, you know, I think there's an emerging consensus that it was a parking lot, probably not 500 people, probably more like 50 or 100, which is, again, tragic.
Every life is tragic.
But that basically the legacy media took Hamas's word as fact and then has had to backpedal.
And rape and murder and torture and killing kids and explosions.
I was reading about these parents who were trying to find their son.
They were hoping their son was still alive but that he had gotten his arm shot off by a machine gun.
He was in a bunker and then he was captured.
He was in some sort of a bomb shelter.
Captured him and they have no idea where he is.
They hope he's okay.
Just the horrific idea that some peaceful civilian could just be targeted like you would shoot a monster.
Not even an animal.
You shoot an animal, you eat it.
It's like a monster.
Just gun that monster down.
Leave it where it is.
It's so scary that people are still willing to do things like that.
But it is real.
That's what we have to all understand.
You can have these utopian perspectives of how you think the world should be.
And I side with a lot of what they think about the inequality of the world.
I just have different solutions than them.
My solution is not redistribution of wealth.
My solution is figure out what's wrong with communities and rebuild them.
The fact that we have these impoverished communities and that we've never spent any like real engineering and money to try to solve these crises that have led to so many people coming out of these places and just being fucked from the jump.
And having no examples of people living good lives, no examples of people that aren't involved in crime, and just being swarmed by negativity and bad influences constantly.
And the fact that we expect these people to rise past that is complete and total insanity.
And almost always perpetrated by people that just like you were talking about people that have experienced peace most of their life, they have no idea that violence is inside of them or what violence really is.
It's the same sort of thing.
It's people that grew up where they really never had to worry about money.
Maybe they weren't rich, but they weren't starving to death.
They didn't have to worry about someone shooting them every day or killing their parents when they were on the way home from working or whatever the fuck the problem was.
But for a large percentage of what we supposedly think of as a community, which is the United States, we should think of ourselves as a big community.
We've ignored people that are fucked.
It's like there's places that are just fucked, and we have to do something to fix that.
If you don't do something to fix that, you're gonna keep this disparity.
You're gonna keep this problem, and the problem is far more...
It's more solvable than so many other things that we try to tackle.
Like, we're trying to figure out how to cool the earth down.
Like, that's great too, but let's fucking figure out how to make the country a better place.
Instead of just saying that rich people are the problem.
There's a lot of problems with rich people.
There's a lot of problems with influence.
There's a lot of problems with people that have the ability to change laws and people that have the ability to sell you things that they know will kill you.
They know we're going to kill a certain number of you, and they can still sell them to you.
They can just say, hey, some may believe it's not addictive.
People like to throw money at every problem, but they don't love to see how the money is being spent.
So, for example, we could use Hamas as the example.
So much money has been thrown at the Gaza Strip, and they use it, instead of to build buildings and build water pipes, they dig up the water pipes and build rockets to go to Israel, right?
They have a video, one of their own propaganda videos, where they show themselves doing this.
Billions of dollars has been thrown by Europe, by America at helping the Gazans because they are living in conditions that are indescribably horrible.
Third world doesn't even justify...
How Gazans are living.
But they're living under a terrorist party that actually doesn't care whether they live or die, because any Palestinian that dies from an Israeli airstrike, they go straight to heaven, according to Hamas.
So Hamas, and they genuinely believe this.
This is why I think people in the West, they don't remember what it's like to truly believe in religion because the West has been pretty much secularized at this point outside of some pockets.
People that still believe in religion really believe it.
Like during the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians, they would send 13-year-old, 12-year-old boys over to be cannon fodder.
They would throw them at Saddam Hussein and they would give them a key around their necks.
To get them into heaven.
And the boys believed it.
You have to realize that people really believe these kinds of things, and you can't...
So many people analyze the situation without putting themselves really in the shoes of a true believer.
Rejection of organized religion and this sort of because the atmosphere that most of these academics exist in most media people exist in and most people that live in big cities exist in is that there's a sort of kind of Wholesale dismissiveness that's attached to organized religion.
So if you're dealing with someone who comes, or a group of people that, basically a cult that perpetuates that kind of mindset, that raises people You know, the older brother raises his younger brother to believe that from day one, right?
There's a community aspect that can't be ignored, where people want to be a part of something big.
And when you connect...
A person who might have very dire circumstances otherwise, like the world around them is very bleak, but you connect them to this group of people that are also committed to this quest that they believe is righteous and in God's will, that God wants this to take place and that this is their directive on earth.
You can talk people into things, man.
We've all seen wild, wild country.
We've all seen documentaries on cults.
Human beings are extremely malleable.
I mean, it's not like all the people that moved to the cities just decided to move there because they're Democrats.
Like, I'm a Democrat, I'm gonna move to where the other Democrats are and find my people.
That's not what's going on.
There's a hive mind aspect to human beings that just can't be ignored.
Because we don't want to be ostracized socially.
We don't want to be kicked out of the tribe.
So we're terrified of stepping out of line.
And so when you Or in a terrible situation, you're much more likely to believe that someone put you there.
You're much more likely to believe that there's an oppressor.
You're much more likely to believe that that person's taking from you.
If that's what you're told from the time you were young, and you're told that the solution is to become a martyr and you're going to get to go to heaven, you can talk people into that with no options.
I think that's the hard truth, that the land was partitioned between an Israel and Palestinian state in 1947. The Palestinians rejected the partition and attacked, and that was the War of Independence.
That was an opportunity for a solution.
There's an opportunity when it was occupied by Jordan and Egypt for them to create a Palestinian state.
But it wasn't in their interest, so they didn't do it.
There was an opportunity in 2000 was the closest opportunity when Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak met at Camp David with Clinton and Arafat walked away.
And the difference between now and then is that Israeli society is now moving more and more to the right.
And what that means in Israel is less and less are they seeking a two-state solution compared to 2000 or 2008 when two-state solutions were offered.
And part of the reason Israeli society is moving to the right is because the ultra-Orthodox, or what we call Hasidic often in America, in New York they have communities in Brooklyn, They have, you know, they have six kids per family, something like that.
And so they started out as a tiny minority in Israel 75 years ago.
And now a third, a third of kids under a certain age, might be 18, are ultra-Orthodox.
And they have more right-wing views.
They're generally more pro-settling the West Bank, anti-two-state solution.
So I fear that the Palestinian side rejected the only options, the only times that they were offered a state, and that those offers are not going to be forthcoming again in the future because of how Israeli society is changing.
And so it's a very grim situation because it seems like there's no solution that does not involve horrible bloodshed.
They need to stop this idea that there's good guys and bad guys because there's things that people do when the other side is the enemy that are absolutely horrific on both sides.
It's always been the case.
It's natural.
It's not like...
Everyone on side A is pure.
No, they're all humans.
And when you're dealing with a group of people that want you dead, and you want them dead, they do horrible things.
Like Abby Martin, who was on my podcast, talked about her experience.
Going back and forth from Israel to Palestine, how scary it was talking to people that had been shot by soldiers and people shot in the dick on purpose and crazy shit.
Not that they all do the same extent of horrible things.
Some are really worse than others, but none are saints.
I don't think there's ever been an army that just truly behaved like a saint down to the last man.
It's not...
It's not real.
I think that is, to your point, a fantasy standard that...
Outsiders who've never had to get their hands dirty to survive.
But obviously, it's a standard we should ideally want to hold people to.
We should encourage the world's armies to behave better.
But if a country is going to wage a just war, if you're going to say, you have the right to wage war in this situation, I don't think that can be revoked the second you find a soldier that does something horrible.
And, you know, I wish I knew more about the history of that conflict to see if there's any way that they could change the way they interact with each other, but I just don't.
So it's just one of those things where you just see it playing out and you feel so helpless.
It's made me so anxious.
Sometimes at nighttime, I think about Ukraine and Russia, and I think about what's going on right now with Israel and Palestine, and I get so terrified.
I get so terrified of the possibility of it just going off the rails and then nukes being on the table.
Because I just...
I know we haven't used one since 1945, but...
I feel like that is one of those things when you look at history, like the invention of the bow and arrow, the invention of the atlatl.
Oh, it was 2,000 years later.
How long before someone shot someone with it?
Did they wait a while?
Was it a few years?
Was it a few months before someone shot someone with an arrow once they first invented it?
Just because it's been...
Let's go to 100 years.
In overall history of human beings, 100 years ain't shit.
If you look at the 1700s, do you really think there's a big differentiation between 1720 and 1790?
Or is there that much of a difference?
I bet there's not.
I bet if someone did something today with a nuclear bomb, history would look at it the same way we look at every other thing that takes place over long periods of time.
Oh, then there was an invention of the wheel and then X amount of years later they put a fucking gun on top of that thing and started mowing people down.
And this is just blips in time.
We're just in the middle of it.
So we think, well, mutually assured destruction is what's kept us from dying.
But has it?
Or are we just waiting?
Are we waiting for this fucking stupid game, this chess game, to reach a point where it's checkmate?
Reach a point where someone flips the table over?
Because if you're dealing with people that aren't afraid to die and you're dealing with people that are willing to kill everyone that opposes them because they genuinely think they're doing the will of God, they get a hold of a nuke.
If they're willing to kill, I've always said this, how many people is it acceptable to kill in one shot?
If you say they bombed and killed thousands, well that number seems to be reasonable for us.
We're like, well, thousands of people died in 9-11 too and that sucks and that's really awful that thousands of people are dying.
But if someone dumps a nuke and it kills a million people instantly, is that more horrific?
To them, to us, it scares the shit out of us because of mutually assured destruction.
But is that more horrific to someone who really believes they're doing the right thing?
When people talk about eugenics, if you were not a human being, if you were raising an animal and you wanted to do a very specific task, like dogs, for instance, you don't let the ones that are fucked up breed.
So you could see how someone who has no sense of humanity and no compassion for human beings that are unfortunate, you could see how they would say, well, you've got to kill them.
As opposed to top-down eugenics being the government deciding who gets to procreate and not based on racist ideas or anything like that.
We're going to have very soon, like I think easily within the next three years, a You know, you and your wife getting a bunch of embryos, 15 or 20 embryos, doing polygenic analysis on those embryos and telling you which ones are going to turn out taller, which ones are going to turn out smarter, which ones are going to turn out less likely to be depressed.
If you have a history of schizophrenia in your family, we can tell you that correlates with this set of genes and this one's less likely.
So you're scoring your own embryos, which people already do.
But now they just score it based on what's the biggest embryo, which is...
Well, and then there's CRISPR, which they've already used in China, and they supposedly jailed the scientists that did it.
What they were saying they were doing is they were doing something with a gene to make people impervious to AIDS. But what really was going on is they were making them smarter.
Yeah, see where you find that, because I know I butchered that.
And I believe the international response was, you know, people were pretty scared that this kind of stuff is going on.
But here it is.
China's CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced...
It was a mistake.
Guys, we're just trying to kill this thing that doesn't really kill any people anymore.
New research suggests that a controversial gene-editing experiment to make children resistant, not even immune, resistant to HIV, may have also enhanced their ability to learn and form memories.
I get that one is icky and sci-fi, but if you remove that element of it and just look at it for what it is, if it's reliable, why would I not want to make my kids smarter?
But actually, you know, there is a, I don't know if you've seen this, that one of the smartest guys in the world, IQ-wise, is like a crazy white supremacist.
Yeah, he has like a 190 or something IQ. Wait a minute, are you talking about that guy, they did a documentary on him back in the day, the smartest man in the world, he was a bouncer?
They've likened him to Alex Jones with a thesaurus.
Langan, now in his 60s, has been a curiosity for nearly 25 years, a man who has clocked his own IQ somewhere north of 190. Albert Einstein wasn't quite there, apparently, who has mostly worked as a bouncer in a bar, never attained any significant professional roles or published any serious academic work.
He's been the subject of several profiles from Esquire magazine to Malcolm Gladwell.
He makes an appearance in Outliers.
The documentarian Errol Morris even interviewed Langan.
He's an interesting guy.
He's very intelligent.
Like, when you hear him talk, he's obviously able to, like, retain an incredible amount of information in his brain.
But over the years, it says in this article, but over the years, he has garnered a following that overlaps considerably with fans of the far-right internet content.
Okay.
Overlaps doesn't mean he's far-right, right?
We can agree to that.
He invades against the academic establishment for not accepting his papers about his proprietary theory of everything.
He frequently touts his IQ. Okay, so he's got flaws.
Inviting the interest of all right, but by the way I've read that about me and writers who subscribe to the belief that IQ is racially determined and a sign of racial superiority Okay, look what he's saying though.
He's inviting the interest.
He's not saying this.
It's saying he's inviting the interest of people who believe and writers who subscribed to the belief that IQ is racially determined and a sign of racial superiority.
It's not him saying that.
It's saying that people who like him think something fucked up.
One of Langen's posts, an obituary for the intelligent gorilla Coco, wherein Langen suggested the U.S. would do better to admit African guerrillas as refugees than African people, was praised by the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi blog.
But, this is why at the end of the day, there's no substitute for just listening to the person, the words out of their mouth and making up your own mind.
Because I don't like the way they were framing all the things before that, where they're saying that people who also believe this like him.
He can't do that.
Because how many people like him?
Like, if the guy's got a substack that has 100,000 followers, and you find 1,000 white supremacists, and you say, some people like that believe that Jews should be exterminated, like, come on.
So when you have bow-hunting journals in America, bow-hunting journals in America where there's magazines and stuff, people hold up pictures of a white-tailed deer that they're going to eat.
It's like, oh, we got venison for dinner tonight, and look at this beautiful buck that we harvested.
In Australia, some of the magazines hold up dead cats, too.
Like, look, we got rid of this motherfucker.
And it's a house cat.
And you're like, yo!
That's great!
For some people, it's like a dog.
The way I feel about my dog, some people feel that way about a cat.
And to see a cat with a fucking arrow hole through its chest, and the guy's holding it up like, I did a good thing, mate!
In that world, they've fucked that system up so badly that the cat is now the bad guy.
The cat is not your little friend, like, hey, buddy, what's up, buddy?
Your little friend.
No.
Now the cat's the bad guy, and you can shoot him and take pictures of him.
Whatever issues he has, I think he thinks now that he's autistic.
I think that's what he's been openly saying.
But whatever issues he has, that guy is a fucking tornado of creativity.
Like, his mind is...
When he wanted to do the podcast, okay?
One of the things he wanted to do is make a set that was a womb.
And we're going to do it in there.
He was like, your studio is ugly and it's boring.
I forget what he said.
He said, would you allow me to design your studio?
I go, yeah, do whatever the fuck you want.
This is going to be fun.
But Jamie got COVID. So it all got thrown into a monkey wrench and we needed someone else to engineer it.
And so we just did it in my little shitty studio.
But that guy is just always trying to think about sustainable housing.
He's trying to think about new forms of currency.
He's designing clothes.
He's writing fucking songs constantly.
His brain, the same thing that makes him blurt out things that are questionable and you probably shouldn't have said it, that same brain is responsible for an insane amount of art.
One thing I've noticed about people as I've gotten a little older is that if a strategy has been working for someone their entire life, they're not going to get to 50 years old or 40 years old and suddenly change it when it stops working.
So, if you're Kanye, you're a random kid from Chicago, and you became like a decent producer, but like everyone else, you came to New York with big dreams and you didn't get noticed for a while.
And then the second you did get noticed, the second you tried to rap, everyone told you you were crazy.
And not just everyone, the top experts of rap in hip-hop, right?
Jay-Z's record label, the people that would most know, say, look, Kanye, you're a good producer, but take it from us.
We're the top experts in the world.
You don't want to get into the rap game.
And he says, you know what?
I'm going to do the really dumb thing and say no.
You're all wrong.
And then he becomes not just a good rapper, but the best rapper in history.
So this strategy of a bunch of people that are the smartest people...
And then, by the way, he did the same thing with fashion.
Everyone, the smartest people in the world said, Kanye, you're a great rapper, but trust us.
We know more than anyone in the world about this industry.
You can't make it.
And then he does it better than them.
So a guy for whom that strategy has been working, he's just been calling his shot like Babe Ruth over and over again and getting it every time against the odds.
He's not going to wake up at 45 years old and when people say, you can't vote for Trump, he's going to say, Yeah, actually, I should listen to them this time.
I think it's precisely connected to his extreme success of all the ventures that were supposed to fail, that had you put anyone else at the helm, they would have failed.
Tesla, SpaceX...
Just constantly having the smartest people in the world tell him he can't do something and then doing it.
He's immune to a chorus of very smart, well-meaning people telling him, don't say that, don't do this.
And so I think the point is, the flaws people point out in these people, they may be genuine flaws, but they are the flip side of the coin of their success.
Kanye is trying to change, make America great again.
To make America great or something?
Or keep America?
I forget what he was doing, but he had this idea in his head that he had this, this was bad for black people and we want to make it change into this thing.
He's just a wild dude.
He's a wild dude.
I don't think he's a bad person.
He's not a bad person by any stretch of the imagination.
I do remember there was one week where people considered not listening to Michael Jackson, and then everyone at the same time was like, ah, it's too good.
I don't think you get rid of bad ideas by doing that.
So everything I said about Israel on your podcast, no one can say that I'm a Hamas defender, right?
I'm very pro-Israel.
But there are people right now that for expressing pro-Hamas beliefs are being, you know, there's companies saying we're never going to hire you to college kids.
There's all kinds of stuff like this is going on where I'm totally against it.
I think people should be absolutely free to make these stupid arguments and we should inform them.
We should argue, right?
We should have a conversation even when it's like a really bad belief.
If some guy says he's into ISIS and he wants to work for your company, you would say, hey, I'm not going to hire you because you have decided that you're pro-Taliban.
You know, my friend Noam Dorman, who owns a comedy cellar, he says that he has people working in his kitchen.
This guy, both his parents are from Israel, very pro-Israel.
It's actually the most important issue to him in life, perhaps.
He has people working in his kitchen from the Middle East that believe all the propaganda, all the anti-Semitic propaganda that they've been fed, that many people in the Arab world are fed.
They believe the Jews are controlling the media, the Jews are everything, right?
And they're totally anti-Israel.
And maybe some of them are even happy about the Hamas attack.
But he says as long as they keep their politics out of work, they don't alienate customers and we treat each other with respect, I'm not going to say I'd fire you or I wouldn't hire you.
The difference between that and someone holding beliefs because they came from a particular part of the world is very different from someone going out on the street And yelling it, holding up banners and flags, using bullhorns.
And that is what someone might do at a protest.
So if you were at a pro-ISIS protest and you were screaming about ISIS's caliphate and that this is the just way of life and this is what God wants, I probably don't want you working at Subway.
You're probably not going to be the dude I want to be making sandwiches next to.
If I'm hiring at an auto repair shop and this guy thinks he's going to be a martyr if he blows himself up, maybe I'm not going to hire that guy.
Maybe I'm not going to hire the guy that thinks that it's okay to talk little kids into wearing a fucking vest and walking into a school.
And this is part of what's happening with diversity, equity, and inclusion statements, is that all over the country there are these jobs, professorships at universities, where in order to be hired, you have to sign and say, I support diversity, equity, inclusion, and a long paragraph of values you may not hold.
Why should I need to sign on to that to be hired to teach math?
I mean, if you were a Catholic and you would not hire Baptists, because Baptists were fools, you only believe in hiring Catholics, that would get weird, you know?
But we're okay in that sense that most people of differing Christian persuasions are comfortable with each other.
Lutherans are comfortable around Methodists, and they look at Baptists the same way they look at Catholics.
But it's very common for people of different branches of Christianity to work together and have no problems.
It's when things get weird is when one thing is way worse than the other thing, or one thing opposes the existence of another thing.
Now we're getting to extreme differences, like the difference between Hamas and Israel.
We're getting to that.
Or if you're getting to Nazis and the Jews, or if you're getting to...
There's things that you can get to where you're like, okay, this is valid.
These are valid reasons to not be worried.
But if you do that, and it keeps pushing in a certain direction, it could get to...
Catholics hating the Protestants, and that's what the fuck happened in Ireland.
They were blowing each other up.
I mean, when I went to Belfast, Northern Ireland, for a UFC once, there's cars, police cars, that are covered with like steel plates to bomb-proof them.
And the people that live there, there's people that are there right now that still remember the IRA and they remember all the bombings and the terrorists and the horrible things that people from both sides of Ireland did to each other.
They're two totally different countries.
Northern Ireland's a completely different country than Ireland because of that and a lot of it was wrapped up in religion.
I mean, we don't want to think that that could happen.
But whenever you have this thing where you're against someone who's not on your team, that could take place.
You could have a peaceful coexistence like Baptists do with Methodists.
Like, I wouldn't even believe in God, I think, if it might.
Like, it's nowhere in me.
But...
It's an interesting and pretty verified result, I think, at this point that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, less mental illness, and the religious tend to be happier than the secular.
So then the question becomes, why is that?
Is it because they believe in religion?
Or is it explained by a third variable?
Is it correlation without causation?
Is it that religious people have communities, they have somewhere to go to where they see familiar faces every Sunday, and atheists lack that, or they don't have it automatically?
And one of the things you see in primarily secular places, like if you think about New York City, there's so many people, but yet they're not friends with each other.
And they're all stacked on top of each other.
I was talking to my friend Jim Norton the other day.
He's like, I've lived next door to my neighbor for 10 years.
I have no fucking idea who he is.
And they all just live in this giant stack of humans that they don't know.
I've had culture shock when I've come to the South because I grew up in North Jersey right outside of New York and I didn't realize that until I came to the South, until I hung out in Florida and even the Midwest, that people in the Northeast aren't as nice.
My primary theory for why people are so wild on the East Coast, because they are wild and aggressive, is because those are the ancestors of the people that fucking came across on boats.
It used to be a horrible, crime-ridden, murderous place to be.
And at the turn of the century, when people were coming over here from Europe, the people that came here from all parts of the world, those people came from somewhere that sucked and they had a wild, crazy chance to try to make it in America.
It was probably very aggressive and it was during the time of the Depression.
So you're dealing with really fucking scared people and really desperate people.
And you're dealing with a very aggressive culture.
And then a lot of people are like, fuck this, I'm going west.
And they just kept going.
They just kept going until on the west coast of the country, whether it's because of the entertainment industry or whether it's because of the amazing climate.
I think there's a combination of those two.
That became the most progressive, the least aggressive, the most open-minded.
When I used to hear about fighters coming from California, I'd be like, how good could he be?
That's what I used to think when I was a kid.
I was thinking, you're going to get a good fighter, they're all going to come out of the cities.
They're all going to come out of places where there's a lot of hardship and people are pushing shove and you're going to get your ass kicked at school all the time.
And then you get a few dudes that grew up in the South That lived, you know, in like hardscrabble neighborhoods, coal mining communities, they were badasses too.
There's the hobos like Jack Dempsey, the dudes who rode the fucking railroad trains, and just hard men who did hard jobs, and they were scary too.
But once you got to California...
Those dudes.
It's a ridiculous thing to think.
But it comes out of this thing where the people that arrived there, those were the people that stayed.
They're the people that were fine with that or didn't know another way of life.
And they have footage of building the Empire State Building.
And these guys are just like tossing hot rods to each other.
Oh!
20 feet away from each other, just absolutely insane way of living.
And from there I learned that the Empire State Building was supposed to be a parking spot for a blimp or a dirigible, whatever it's called technically.
Instead of one of those guys, have a shit ton of them.
We are often driven by a few mad geniuses that have, just through their own creativity, and Tesla's very unusual with his creativity because he talked about how he was kind of like I don't think he was saying aliens, but he was saying that he was receiving this information from somewhere else.
Like, he had this...
See what you find about that, because I don't want to misquote him.
But he had some very bizarre descriptions of where ideas came from.
And I think he felt like he was in communication with something from somewhere else as well.
I think it's not a life that uses blood and tissue.
I think it's like a different kind of non-tangible life form that enters into the creative mind.
And it manifests itself in the form of physical objects.
Every physical object that we see on Earth, from cars to planes to tables, was thought of first.
A thought came to someone's mind.
What if I cut this wood and sand it down and put some fucking legs on this bitch and I got some shit to put my stuff on?
Look at that.
I got a table.
Somebody had to think of that.
And that thing became a real object.
The whole Earth is covered with these things that human beings have put here because they had an idea.
And it's making us make a better version of ourself.
And this is what I think AI is.
I think what we're doing with this constant thirst for innovation and also It coincides with our materialistic tendencies.
It's like it facilitates.
It helps it.
Everyone's so material.
You've got an iPhone 6?
What's wrong with you, bro?
You need to get the 15. It's USB-C now.
Oh my god, I've got to get the 15. And everybody's running out.
And everybody wants to do that.
Everybody wants to have the newest, latest, greatest thing.
And what does that do?
It fuels innovation.
And ultimately, that leads to us creating AI. And this is where we find ourselves.
And we find ourselves in this weird situation like, okay, who's in control of AI? And if someone really does invent a better form of AI and uses it to hijack the economic system, to hijack Who knows?
You have insane amounts of power if you have an insane mind and the ability to innovate far beyond the capabilities of the human mind.
Some people have been arguing, I think they're probably right, that the safest way to build AI is to have lots of people build it separately because then no one AI will be decentralized.
Right.
Rather than try from the top down, the government to say, okay, we got to build this safely.
We're going to take charge.
We're going to regulate everything.
We're going to make you put the seatbelt on.
To have multiple parties at the same time all over the world doing AI... It may guarantee or may help ensure that no one of them becomes so powerful that they exist unopposed by others.
Well, they would like the international scientific community to get on board with that, but they don't have that option in certain parts of the world.
They just don't.
They just don't.
And when it's something like AI, something that does have the power to radically transform everything that we see around us and is probably doing it right now with algorithms that manipulate people's perspectives on all sorts of things.
How much of the Twitter beef with the bots and all that stuff?
How many of those fake accounts are being run by AI? How many of them are being generated by programs?
I would assume at this point, it's not zero.
It's not zero.
And we know that that's a real factor in making sure that people are constantly pissed off at each other and fighting back and forth.
There's certain foreign and domestic interests that have a vested Responsibility to do that.
This is what they're trying to do.
This is my job.
I've got to go out and make people mad about abortion.
I've got to go out and make people mad about the border.
I've got to go out and make people mad about this.
And they're running programs.
That are having people argue with people, like constantly, all the time.
I'm sure you've seen when someone will highlight some sort of a tweet about a particular thing, and then you put that tweet in a search engine and you will see thousands of people tweeting the exact same thing.
And I think it was a part of our history before it was ever written.
We are going to make a better version of ourselves.
And one of the things we're going to do first is create some sort of sentient intelligence that might...
Sentient intelligence that may or may not be physical.
It may exist only in terms of running programs, but it's going to be smarter than us.
And one day, someone's going to put that in a physical object.
Or one day, we're going to allow that thing into our own brains.
We're going to develop some sort of an ability to utilize that and a universal language would be one of the quickest things that it could do.
So it would change the way people communicate with each other because there would be no longer, neither a cultural boundary nor a language boundary.
You'll be able to understand the way a person thinks based on their actual thoughts.
Versus the rhetoric and what they're thinking and saying might be two different things.
But you'll be able to recognize that instantaneously.
There'll be no ability to lie.
There'll be no bottleneck between information and your ability to acquire it.
It'll be instantaneous.
We're going to change what we are fundamentally, and it may overall be the thing that saves us, because if we truly can understand that we are all connected and we are all the same thing, and that the only thing that separates us is where we were from, how we grew up, who we were influenced by, what our genes are, what our environment is, all these variables, but the core of what we are is just human beings.
And maybe through a universal language and an ability to communicate universally, like across no boundaries, no boundaries for expression, no boundaries for understanding, no misconstrued things, no things taken out of context, the ability to recognize the actual thing And you to be able to recognize what you are, too, because people will confront you.
Like, the people that read your thoughts and know your mind will be able to show you the error.
It'll be almost impossible after a certain point in time to have distorted perspectives because you won't just be a biological human being.
You'll be a biological human being that is interfaced with an insanely intelligent Technology that allows you to elevate everything around you, but then again It's not going to be great.
You know, she pays close attention to the current state and the near future state of mind reading technology.
And I was absolutely blown away because I did not think that things were possible that are already happening in certain parts of the world.
For example, She talked about a factory in China where they're able to, through an over-scalp ESG scanner, determine whether someone is slacking off by the brain signals being sent from them.
And apparently it's even possible to simply have a tattoo behind your ear or somewhere on your face that gets enough of an electrical signal from your brain that can then get enhanced to get actual brain readings, to read your state of mind, essentially.
Anyway, so the full thing is to have a big cap on, right?
And it gets ESG signals.
And these signals get correlated through big data with states of mind.
So you get enough data, you say, okay, this signal pattern means you're happy, this signal pattern means you're tired, this signal pattern means, etc.
You get enough data of people talking with ESG and correlate it, perhaps using AI. Then you can get a signal in principle of what does the brain look like when someone is saying the sentence, I'm hungry for food or whatever.
In principle, you can mind read with this, right?
You can read if...
And this apparently has been done in India, according to Farahani.
If you're in a courtroom and you ask a witness, have you seen this murder weapon before?
They can lie, but there's a neural signature to recognition.
So I know that there was, when you brought up India, I know that there was a trial where someone was convicted of, I think the term was functional knowledge of the crime scene.
They had to be acquitted because they were being accused of either negligence or some sort of...
I forget exactly what the charge was, but they were essentially not understanding seismology and the unpredictable nature of the movement of the earth.
Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter.
So they were going to charge them with manslaughter.
So six seismologists accused of misleading the public about the risk of an earthquake in Italy were cleared of manslaughter on 10th of November.
An appeals court overturned their six-year prison sentences and reduced to two years the sentence for a government official who had been convicted with them.
So a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the historic town of La Aquila in the early hours of 6 April 2009, killing more than 300 people.
The findings by a three-judge appeals court prompted many...
I don't know how I'm not saying that right.
La Aquila...
Citizens who were waiting outside the courtroom to react with rage, shouting shame and saying that the Italian state had just acquitted itself, local media reported.
But it comes as a relief to scientists around the world who had been following the unprecedented case with alarm.
We don't have to be worried about the possibility of being prosecuted if we give advice on earthquakes, says seismologist Ian Main of University of Edinburgh, UK. That would discourage giving honest opinion.
The defendants themselves have mixed feelings.
Guillo Salvaggi, former director of the National Earthquake Center in Rome, says that although he is happy to be acquitted, there's nothing to celebrate because the pain of the people of La Aquila remains.
The scientists that end up in court is a consequence of a botched communication in a highly stressed environment.
In the months before the major earthquake struck, the region around La Aquila had been subject to frequent, mostly low-magnitude tremors known as seismic swarms.
Residents were confused and increasingly alarmed by statements made by a local amateur earthquake predictor who said that he had evidence of an impending quake, although geologists dismissed his methods as unsound.
A commission of experts met on 31 March 2009 to assess the scientific evidence and advise the government.
According to the prosecution, a press conference after this meeting attended by acting president of the commission, volcanologist Franco Barberi of the University of Rome, Roma Tre, and the government official Bernardo de Bernardinis.
And then deputy director of the Italian Civil Protection Department conveyed a reassuring message that a major earthquake was not on the cards.
Okay, so the earthquake happened, and so they charged these people with manslaughter.
As a consequence, so, okay, the television interview recorded shortly after the meeting, but aired shortly before the meeting, rather, but aired after it.
DiBernardinis, who is now president of the Institute for Environmental Research and Protection in Rome, says that the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy during the seismic swarm.
As a consequence, according to the prosecution, when the earthquake struck on 6 April 29, people chose to stay indoors instead of stepping outside as they otherwise would have done, and died as their homes collapsed.
All seven members of the expert commission were found guilty of manslaughter.
And this is 2012. This is pretty recently.
After a 13-month trial that transfixed the international scientific community.
Charging them with manslaughter is fucking crazy.
I don't think they're basing it on what they know about earthquakes.
And someone that she was directly involved with in some sort of a meeting.
It's a cartoon.
But it's trying to paint.
I think it's a World Economic Forum thing.
Is it?
They're trying to predict this rosy version of a much more productive future if you just submit to letting the company that you work for read your fucking mind.
And the things that she's citing, it's really fascinating.
But she's talking about how much better her productivity is and she's getting more work done.
She's much more focused because they know when she's not.
So I don't know if that China factory story ends up being true, but Farahani has a lot of other examples in her book of studies that have been done and what's possible.
And she has this worry about this notion of cognitive liberty that soon we're going to have to decide if the right to privacy extends to our brain data.
Well, we've already submitted to this idea that a company can mandate whether you get vaccinated.
Even when it was preposterous.
We submitted to that.
There was people that I know that had COVID, recovered from COVID, and were required to get vaccinated in order to participate in certain television programs and certain movie programs.
And I think part of the reason why someone like RFK has so much support and enthusiasm is because there's all these people that didn't have Zoom professions, that didn't work from home, for whom a paycheck was meaningful.
Who were forced into this thing, not forced, I shouldn't say forced, were pressured.
Were pressured into additional things that they didn't need.
And that has caused an understandable backlash.
And I think people have, there's obviously an age element to this too.
Vaccines were far more important for older folks than for younger folks.
And so I think people have really failed to take the compassionate angle towards why people are so interested in a guy like RFK and that is definitely part of it.
That is possibly the best documentary I've ever seen.
Definitely top three.
I was blown away.
It's just a documentary about our pullout from Vietnam.
And our efforts to get South Vietnamese out, the fact that we waited so long to admit the war was fully lost and that we had to leave, there were people just clinging to the myth that we could still be there a little bit longer, a little bit longer.
And the total logistical failure of it, that people were just trying to find helicopters from anywhere in the world to get people off of the rooftop of the embassy and all the South Vietnamese that we abandoned that ended up in concentration camps.
It was maybe the best war-related documentary I've ever seen in my life.
Fact that these people are tweeting about these things on phones that you can literally trace if you go back down the supply chain Literally made by slaves who are using materials that are pulled out of the ground in some of the most inhumane, horrific conditions on Earth right now.
That pregnant women, women carrying their babies on their back, are digging cobalt out of the ground.
And that's getting into your phone, and that's what you're using to tweet about inequality.
I read this book recently called In Defense of Capitalism by...
I think he's like a Northern European guy.
And he mentioned this episode where UNESCO... Banned child labor either in Pakistan or Bangladesh and did a follow-up study of the kids that were no longer in those child labor factories.
And some crazy proportion of them had gone into child prostitution because that was their alternative.
Their alternatives in life were work in the factory or sell your body.
It's a very grim reality that's currently happening.
That's one of the strangest things about these things.
When they're not happening to you right now, it's very difficult to wrap your mind around What would be like if your roll of the dice was you were born in Karachi or you were born in...
Name the place.
Name the troubled place on Earth.
You were born in Beirut.
Wherever it is, name that spot.
You were born in Libya.
Name it.
Just luck.
Luck of the universe, of karma, of whatever the fuck you want to believe.
But it's just luck.
And if you were born in North Korea, You're fucked.
You're fucked.
And no one's coming to save you.
And that's real.
And that's real right now in 2023. And the only thing that stops that from happening is people who have good intentions making sure that we engineer a future that's better for everybody.
And I don't know how you do that.
How do you do that with all these different special interests?
How do you do that with the military-industrial complex?
How do you do that with...
Education being halfway sideways.
How do you do that?
How do you do that with the immigration crisis, the fucking political discourse in this country?
That's one of the things that I've become very fascinated with from my discussions with Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock is the Younger Dryas Impact Theory.
And it's a theory that somewhere around 11,800 years ago, the end of the Ice Age was caused by us getting hit by comets.
And it probably wiped out most civilization.
When we're looking at the Mesopotamians and ancient Sumer, we're looking at a rebuilding of civilization.
Not the emergence of civilization, but a rebuilding of civilization.
What that means to me is that from 11,800 years ago to 6,000 years ago, it was probably pretty fucking horrific.
Pretty horrific for a long time.
People probably barely made it.
And the people that did make it were probably monsters.
And then it took a long time for everything to settle back down again.
And people started inventing mathematics again and start rebuilding structures and start using agriculture and all these different things that they probably had already harnessed when they were building the pyramids.
They probably already harnessed all that.
They were probably as advanced, if not more advanced than us.
That what we are is what Graham Hancock...
Yes.
Graham Hancock likes to say that we're a civilization with amnesia.
And that seems like archaeologists were pushing back against it for a long time, but they seem to be backing off of that now for a bunch of reasons.
One, because of the physical evidence.
There's a lot of real physical evidence of ancient cultures that were far more sophisticated than we give them credit for.
Specifically, Gobekli Tepe and some of these places in Turkey, they found 11,000-year-old complex stone structures back when people were supposed to be much more primitive.
And they really don't know the actual dates of the pyramids.
They've just carbon dated some genetic material, some material that's inside the cracks of the stones and stuff on the stone.
But they don't know when they actually put it down.
It's just kind of guesswork.
Because easily it could have been work that was done thousands of years later by people who found it.
And the thought behind it is that the real problem is some of these fucking things weighed 50 70 tons and they were taken from quarries Hundreds of miles away through the mountains at the very most recent with the with the mainstream archaeologists believe was 2500 BC somehow another back then They have the ability to move 70-ton blocks of stone through the
mountains from hundreds of miles away and get it to Giza.
And not just that, but build 2,300,000 of them into a perfect pyramid.
to do north, south, east, and west, and that at one point in time was covered in smooth limestone.
What we see now is like jagged.
It's because people looted it, and they took the limestone off the surface of the pyramid.
People are monsters.
They found this thing that far more intelligent people built a long fucking time ago, and they rummaged through it and stole shit.
But whoever those people were and whatever they did and how they did it and how long ago they did it, what they did we can't do today, No matter what anybody says.
I think the number was, if they cut in place 10 stones a day, it would take you 600 plus years to make one pyramid.
10 of these massive stones that they move into place.
4,000 plus years ago, at least.
Like how?
How'd you do it?
No one knows.
No one knows.
It's all guesswork.
They don't even know what they did, how they cut it.
They only had, supposedly had copper tools back then.
They don't know how they cut those things.
They don't know how they move them.
There's evidence of drill marks.
There's like all these different pieces of stone that looks like a tubular diamond drill has gone into it.
Yeah, not just his, but many people now are coming on board with this.
But there's also core samples.
They've taken core samples of Earth.
And when they get to that point in time at 11,800 years ago, they find high levels of iridium in certain parts of the Earth, which is very common in space and very rare on Earth.
They also find nanodiamonds that come from impacts.
And I think they call it tritonite or trinitite, like after the Trinity bomb, because when they detonated the Trinity bomb, they found this same sort of micro glass because of the explosion.
It's just extreme amount of energy slamming into dirt and it makes these micro diamonds.
And they find those also at that level of 11,800 years.
And they think it was not just that one time.
They think it probably happened again somewhere around 10,000 years ago as well.
Maybe multiple times throughout history.
And they think it's also the same comet storm that we passed through that led to the Tunguska event.
Do you know about that?
I think that was in the 1920s.
There was an area of Siberia where I think it was like more than a million acres of trees were devastated.
And what they think happened was we passed through that comet shower and something blew up in the environment upon re-entry, upon entry into our environment, into our atmosphere, and blew up over.
It didn't actually impact, but it detonated above it.
When you see a shooting star and it gets really bright and then it stops, that's because it's burned up upon entry.
But something might be so big that when it burns up upon entry, it just explodes.
And this Tunguska event, there's wild speculation.
I was listening to a Radiolab podcast where there was a scientist who was speculating that Perhaps it was a very tiny black hole that impacted the Earth.
But there's a lot of debate as to whether or not that's valid.
I don't know.
I'm not smart enough to understand that.
But they do believe that that time that the Tunguska event happened coincides with the time where Earth goes through this regular period of comet activity.
Because we pass through this comet cloud.
I think it's every November and every June.
See if you can find that Tunguska thing.
Because I think to this day it's still flattened.
I mean, it just devastated this area.
And it's pretty wild when you see the original pictures of it.
It just, all these trees are just flattened.
It's like this is, that's what it looks like now, still to this day.
Which is crazy.
But if you look at the other images and what it looked like when they discovered it after it happened, I mean, just imagine.
So you have this dense forest.
If you see that black and white, excuse me, Jamie, the color image again?
The color image of what it looks like now.
Now imagine what it looked like back then.
Well, that whole area was covered with trees, too.
And something detonated, they think, right above it.
And it just, boom!
Just flattened out everything.
Wow.
Yeah, so it was 1908. That's what it was.
And they think that this has happened many, many, many times in Cuban history.
They found these big impact sites in Greenland.
They found them off the coast of Australia.
They found these things, obviously, where the dinosaurs died off of Mexico.
That happens.
That's a thing that happens.
And when it does happen, we get knocked back into the fucking Stone Age.
And the same thing could happen with nuclear war.
It could be the same thing.
Same kind of thing, where we reach this incredible level of sophistication, but everything that our sophistication is based on, in terms of your ability to acquire that information, is all either electronic or paper.
I mean, all that stuff is like so easy to destroy.
It's like if we didn't have computers, if we died, if there was some Walking Dead type situation, and all the people that run computers and all the people that run the power grid, they all die, and then we have these hard drives four or five hundred years from now, they're not going to be Worth anything anymore.
They're going to be gone.
They're going to be laying around.
They won't feed us.
You can't light them on fire to cook food over.
So we're just going to leave them on the ground.
And those things are going to rot.
And they're just going to disappear.
And the Earth's going to swallow them up and there's going to be no evidence of them.
They'll just completely be absorbed by the Earth.
And that's probably why we don't find anything from whatever the technology was that these people had that they were able to invent the pyramids.
Because whatever the fuck they had, there's these bizarre stones where it looks like they've somehow or another scooped out sections of stone.
It looks like it was done with like some unknown technology.
They speculated all sorts of different things, like different kinds of energy systems that they would have used to cut this stone in this manner.
But it's, I mean, some of the stones in the Great Pyramid are cut so precisely, you can't even get fucking a razor bleed in between them.
And they just stack these things on top of each other and made this perfect structure.
And there's a fantastic series called Magical Egypt by this guy that he's been on my podcast twice.
He's gone now, unfortunately.
But his name was John Anthony West.
And he was sort of an alternative Egyptologist.
He wasn't like formally trained in it, but became obsessed with it.
I learned, like, so much about the mysteries of these ancient cultures and how insanely sophisticated they were and how they have hieroglyphs that date back 40,000-plus years of history.
So they depict These kings that modern Egyptologists say, oh, that's just fantasy.
They're just making that up.
Don't pay attention to that.
Pay attention to stuff from the time period where we tell you it happened.
Because they talk about kings and people that lived 40,000 years ago.
It's fascinating that people always say it's the mind.
But my thought has always been like, imagine if there was a machine, and this machine did all these incredible things, but you realize this machine was plugged into the wall.
And if you pulled that plug out, the machine stopped working.
Like, oh, that's the brain, right there.
Because you pull that out, it doesn't work anymore.
Well, you blow someone's brains out, they can't think anymore.
But is that because the brains are where they're thinking?
Or is it possible that the brain is receiving Consciousness.
That consciousness is something that's just a part of the universe and that we are the embodiment of it in a physical, biological form.
But we're just kind of tuning into it.
And we're using the mind, we're using the human brain to tune that in like a radio.
It's kind of close to the idea of panpsychism, right?
Which is, it's as respected now, a theory as all of the other theories.
every atom in microcosm.
And when you put enough atoms together in some kind of way, you get advanced consciousness.
But, you know, by that logic, the table would have some rudimentary form of consciousness.
It would just be nothing like an animal, nothing like a dog, which is nothing like a human.
But as nuts as that sounds, it is on a par with all of the other theories.
None of the other theories have more evidence for them than that one.
It's a deep mystery that science, despite its enormous successes over the past 400, 500 years, is no closer to an answer about now than it was, you know, 100 years ago.
Like if you stopped and think about what life would be like if you lived before they understood that viruses existed or what caused them or what bacteria was, what caused infections when surgeons didn't even wash their hands.
They didn't even know.
They didn't have any idea.
Their understanding of what these things are was based entirely on what people had already figured out and they couldn't imagine a world Imagine if you lived before bacteria was discovered.
Imagine a world where someone tried to explain to you.
Now, there's like these little tiny invisible things.
Because according to the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, everything that is known in biology, chemistry, and physics, there is no reason why we should be feeling something in addition to doing stuff.
Right, but you'd have to create it, but you'd have to be a thing that understood those things in order to create it.
The assumption is that through evolution, there's been determining factors that favored that sort of thinking and behavior.
Because those determining factors allowed you to create tools, shelter, devise strategies to avoid problems you've experienced in the past, and that all this would be beneficial to passing on your genes.
Yeah, they do, but this extra variable of consciousness is not necessary for any of that.
You could build a robot that hunted, in principle, the laws of physics allow for that you could build a robot that hunted and tried to procreate and did all this kind of stuff, but there's nobody home.
Right, but if we get down to certain really ancient creatures like crocodiles, we don't assume that.
Have you ever seen the video?
There's a lady that's feeding crocodiles.
She's throwing chickens into this crocodile pit.
And this one crocodile reaches over and grabs the other crocodile's foot and just bites it and does a gator roll and just snaps his foot off and chokes it back and swallows it.
And he doesn't even budge.
He doesn't even budge.
Like, that thing is the thing you're talking about.
That's like the biological robot that just consumes.
Watch this.
This lady's throwing the food out there, so watch.
This crocodile dives on it, and this one just grabs that guy's foot, and look, spins, pops the foot off, and then just chokes it down.
Look at that.
Because he thinks it's food.
And the other one doesn't even budge.
And I think they regenerate.
Do crocodiles regenerate limbs?
They may regenerate.
Certain really primitive animals regenerate, which is pretty fucking wild.
Like, you chop their hand off, a new one grows back.
Despite being reptiles, little is known about whether or not alligators could regenerate their thick, massive tails.
Gators can reach 15 feet in length, weigh up to 1,000 pounds, so regrowing a tail is no small feat.
But in a surprising new discovery, scientists found that young American alligators can regrow their tails up to 9 inches or around 18% of their body length.
Further analysis revealed the tail had grown back after it was severed.
Using a high-tech imaging technologies and traditional dissection, the researchers found that the gator's tail re-grew cartilage, connective tissue, and skin instead of bone and skeletal muscle.
The findings revealed that American alligators have more regenerative abilities than mammals.
It says that mammals.
Oh, I see.
That mammals, which usually grow nerves, skin, and blood vessels, but less than lizards, which can sprout entirely new perfect tails with skeletal muscle.
Well, I think there's probiotics that you can take that can mitigate some of those issues, but it's also a healthy diet and feeding yourself the correct foods.
Because you want your body to have the real building blocks to be healthy and to regrow tissue instead of just stuffing your face with stuff that tastes good.
And also, my understanding is it's not approved at all in Europe.
So when I learned that, I just said, I should probably cool off on this, not drink it every day until we have a little more information that this is okay in the long run, but it tastes great and it's not technically sugar.
So they can say Soylent has zero sugar but tastes amazing.
And this feels too good to be true.
My mother told me, whenever something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
So I stopped drinking it, although it's really good.
That's the question many carb-conscious dieters are now facing as they struggle to keep their carb counts within the strict limits recommended by Atkins and other low-carb diets.
In an effort to cash in On the low-carb craze, food manufacturers invented a new category of carbohydrates known as net carbs, which promises to let dieters eat the sweet and creamy foods they crave without suffering the carb consequences.
But the problem is that there's no legal definition of the net active or impact carbs popping up on food labels and advertisements.
The only carbohydrate information regulated by the FDA is provided in the nutrition facts labels, which lists total carbohydrates and breaks them down into dietary fiber and sugars.
Any information or claims about carbohydrate content that appear outside that box have not been evaluated by the FDA.
The terms have been made up by food companies, says Wahinda Carmally, Dr. PHRD, director of nutrition at the Irving Center for Clinical Research at Columbia University.
It's a way for the manufacturers of these products to draw attention to them and make them look appealing by saying, look, you can eat all these carbs, but you're really not impacting your health, so to speak.
Although the number of products touting net carbs continues to grow, nutrition experts say the science behind these claims is fuzzy, and it's unclear whether counting net carbs will help or hurt weight loss efforts.
loss efforts.
So what's a net carb?
So what's a net carb?
The concept of net carbs is based on the principle that not all carbohydrates affect the body in the same manner.
The concept of net carbs is based on the principle that not all carbohydrates affect the body in the same manner.
Some carbohydrates, like simple or refined starches and sugars, are absorbed rapidly and have a high glycemic index, meaning they cause blood sugar levels to quickly rise after eating.
Excess simple carbohydrates are stored in the body as fat.
Examples of these include potatoes, white bread, white rice, and sweets.
Other carbohydrates such as fiber found in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables move slowly through the digestive system, and much of it isn't digested at all, which is insoluble fiber.
Also in these categories of largely indigestible carbohydrates are sugar alcohols such as mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, and other polyols, which are modified alcohol molecules that reassemble sugar and These substances are commonly used as artificial sweeteners.
In calculating net carbs, most manufacturers take the total number of carbohydrates, a product containing, and subtract fiber and sugar alcohols.
Because these type of carbohydrates are thought to have minimal impact on blood sugar levels.
So, for example, the label on Power Bar's new Double Chocolate Flavor Protein Carb Select Bar says it has only 2 grams of impact carbohydrates.
The nutrition fact label on the product says it has 30 grams of total carbohydrates.
Just below the nutrition facts box, the impact carb facts box provided by the manufacturer explains, fiber and sugar alcohols have a minimal effect on blood sugar.
For those watching, their carb intake count 2 grams.
That's 30 grams minus the bar's 27 grams of sugar alcohol But the researchers say that the impact of sugar alcohols on blood sugar levels and the body is not fully understood, and they may also cause problems in some people.
There are some sugar alcohols that can raise your blood sugar, says Carmally.
Certain sugar alcohols do have a higher glycemic index, and they are still not counted as carbohydrates by these companies.
Again, this is the idea that COVID somehow broke through the defensive shield of the vaccine rather than claiming, saying it normally, which would be the vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting it again.
That would be the normal way to say that, rather than to create a new concept of a breakthrough infection that is breaking through like a powerful warrior through the shield of this substance.
It's a weird, a very backwards way of framing what's going on.
It's a sneaky world that's gonna be solved with mind reading.
We're gonna fix it all.
Did you ever find that commercial, the World Economic Forum cartoon about mind reading at work?
We should probably end with this because it's adorable.
It's so kooky when you watch it, you just go, what?
Like, this lady is fantasizing about the guy, and you see the guy with, like, a six-pack in a cartoon, and you see her co-worker getting hauled off, you know, because the co-worker was doing something corrupt, and she was worried because she was starting a project with this guy.
So it's all labeling all the reasons why you should submit to mind reading.
What they're saying is, in the future, this is what they're saying in the cartoon, what you can look forward to, not that they're doing it right now, They're saying, you can look forward to when this technology is implemented, it's going to radically increase productivity.
Even you can't believe how productive you've been.
Your memo is finished, your inbox is under control, and you're feeling sharper than you have in a decade.
Sensing your joy, your playlist shifts to your favorite song, sending chills up your spine as the music begins to play.
You glance at the program running in the background on your computer screen and notice a now familiar sight that appears whenever you're overloaded with pleasure, your theta brainwave activity decreasing in the temporal regions of your brain.
You mentally move the cursor to the left and scroll through your brain data over the past few hours.
You can see your stress levels rising as the deadline to finish your memo approached, causing a peak in your beta brainwave activity right before an alert popped up telling you to take a brain break.
But what's that unusual change in your brain activity when you're asleep?
It started earlier in the month.
You send a text message to your doctor with a mental swipe of your cursor.
Could you take a quick look at my brain data?
Anything to worry about?
Your mind starts to wander to the new colleague on your team, whom you know you shouldn't be daydreaming about, given the policy against intra-office romance.
When the email she sends you later that day congratulates you on your brain metrics from the past quarter, which have earned you another performance bonus.
You head home, jamming to the music, with your work-issued brain sensing earbuds still in.
When I originally read the article from David Grutch, not from him, but reporting about him and all of these other intelligence people that seem to confirm his story, I thought, this seems like the best, this seems like the most solid case for UAPs to date.
Then I saw him interviewed and he seemed like a crazy guy.
You get that sense sometimes when you see someone actually on video.
On the other hand, I have people I know that are saying, because of the multiple confirmations from other respected people, former intelligence people, that they take it very seriously.
I don't know.
I think we'll know soon.
I don't know.
I put the odds at like 5% when I first saw the David Grutch story drop.
But then when I saw his crazy eyes, I put that down to like 1%.
I think there's multiple things going on simultaneously.
I think if you go back to the sightings that happened in this country, specifically the multitude of sightings that happened after we dropped the bombs, there seems to be, if they're telling the truth, there's a lot of credible sightings by high-level military people By people that claimed they shut down nuclear missile bases and that they did things, that they hovered over bases and that fighter jets scrambled to go after them.
All this stuff seems verifiable, that there was some sort of a phenomenon back when there was no possible technology that existed that could do that in terms of like what we could make.
I don't think that's the case anymore.
My feeling is there's probably real life situations where we or someone encounters something from somewhere else.
I think it would be foolish to think that it's not possible.
Just given the vast scope of the universe and the possibility of things existing in a much more stable environment where they don't have to worry about asteroid storms and a different kind of solar system or the different kind of life form that doesn't have all the primate issues that we have, It evolves to the point where it's capable of traveling through the universe and visiting these semi-primitive cultures like ours or relatively primitive cultures.
I think that's possible.
I also think when the government starts telling you about out-of-world crafts and things not of this earth and all that, I think that's what I would say if I had some technology that we have developed that is insane.
That is beyond the imagination of the Luddite, beyond the imagination of the person who doesn't understand the physics involved and whatever this propulsion system they've engineered is.
And people have been working on magnetic propulsion systems and gravity propulsion systems forever.
They've been, at least in concept, It's entirely possible that with the unlimited amount of funds that the government has, that the military has to develop things, that somewhere they've developed some sort of a drone that's capable of moving in ways that we can't even imagine.
I think they all seem to happen near where military bases are.
They seem to happen like off the coast of San Diego is the Tic Tac one.
There's a big military presence in San Diego.
They happen off the East Coast where they have military bases and these restricted air zones.
They happen in these places where they run tests like when they do training missions with jets.
And that's how these fighter pirates like Ryan Graves have encountered these things.
Specifically after they updated their sensors.
These people have spotted things visually.
They have visual confirmation.
Their detection systems have seen these things.
But who's to say that these things aren't some sort of fucking crazy drone that we have developed that we don't want the world to know that we've developed it.
I'm publicly way more open to the possibility of UAPs and even the government has kind of looked into it open-mindedly and Brazil has just been like an open conversation, a non-taboo conversation for decades.
Also, there's a very famous sighting or event that happened in Varginha.
So the town of Varginha, Brazil, actually has this giant flying saucer as a monument dedicated to this event that happened in the 1990s.
It's documented in the James Fox documentary, Moment of Contact.
It's a great documentary.
Because you go into it open-minded and you go, what did these fucking people see?
Because they bring this...
Police officer to the site of where they supposedly found this crashed thing that happened during some crazy electrical storm.
Something crashed.
Then another vehicle seemed to have been looking for it.
And supposedly, according to this story, and the people that were interviewed, they saw creatures.
They saw this creature, and one of them was injured, and this soldier took this creature to more than one different hospital.
It's documented.
And then that soldier died.
That soldier died of some crazy bacteria infection, some crazy infection that they couldn't treat.
He was a young guy, and he died pretty quickly after it happened.
And there's people that, to this day, they're much older now, and they describe when they were children, and they saw this thing.
They saw this living creature.
That apparently had been trying to communicate with him and ask them for help.
And that after that happened, there was another craft that came that was seen by thousands of people in this town that described this exact same thing where they saw this thing that appeared to be like looking for this crash craft or the members that were inside, the creatures that were inside this thing.
But David Grush is not saying he has any personal experience with this.
This is where it makes it interesting.
This is just stuff that was revealed to him.
Which is also how I would get out information if I wanted to put out misinformation.
I mean we know that the federal government infiltrates extremist groups and they put – they have members – like when the famous Gretchen Whitmer case when they were saying that they were going to kidnap her.
And it turned out that 12 of the 14 people that were involved were federal informants.
So 12 of the 14 people were feds that were involved in this.
So, like, if I was going to, if I wanted to release some fake information, I would find some dude.
And I'd say, hey, man, look at this.
This is crazy.
Look what we found.
You know?
Like, I want you to investigate this.
And then, you know, like, maybe you should probably be a whistleblower.
I should tell the world.
You should tell the world.
Dude, you should tell the world.
But if you haven't seen it yourself, this is all just talk, you're reading documents, maybe they're true, maybe they're not.
What fascinates me is people like Commander David Fravor that encountered that Tic Tac thing and the other fighter pilots in a different jet that encountered this.
They saw this thing.
And they saw it take off at insane rates of speed and then they tracked it where it went to their cat point which is their agreed upon point where this mission had like very specific areas they were going to go to.
This thing went directly to there at insane rate of speed.
That supposedly, if there was a human being inside of it, they'd just turn into jello.
And the structure would break apart.
Nothing that we have can withstand that kind of g-force and that kind of speed.
So what is that?
What is that?
Is that a propulsion system that is...
Right now, unknown to the general population?
Is that something that they've been working on for a long time, where they've developed this ability to get this thing to move to certain directions?
But the problem is he's assuming that all of their communications, that they don't know what they're seeing, that they don't know how to read these machines that are detecting things, that their eyes are deceiving them.
They're looking at this thing physically.
Either they're lying or they don't know what they're looking at.
He's a non-believer believer.
There's people that are just skeptics no matter what, and they're not going, I don't know what that is.
They're like, no, there's no way that is this.
But when you talk to the actual fighter pilots that have listened to his criticism, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
That's what they say.
I don't know who's telling the truth.
I don't know who's correct.
But I would probably believe that they understand that a thing that moves from 50,000 feet above sea level to 50 in a second is beyond comprehension.
If the tracking systems are accurate, which they are with everything else, they are with all the jets, and there's ways to detect them, or there's ways to evade them, right?
That's what the stealth bomber's all about.
There's ways to evade certain radar systems.
But this is like multiple systems and physical or visual recognition of this thing where multiple people have seen this thing move in this very bizarre way.
And then there's the video of this thing taking off at this supposed insane rates of speed.
There's the go fast one that's off the coast, the East Coast.
There's these weird things where you're like, what are they looking at?
How fast is that thing going?
And why doesn't it have a heat signature?
Where's the propulsion system?
What is that thing?
You know, is that just a mylar balloon and they're stupid?
That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
It doesn't seem to make sense to me that they're detecting this thing that, according to Ryan Graves, stays motionless in 120 knot winds and then can zip off in some insane way.
They don't understand what it's doing, that they're seeing this.
Is it a circle inside of a sphere or a sphere inside of a circle?
I'm sorry, is it a circle inside of a sphere, or is it a circle inside of a square, or a cube?
And let's send these things loose and see how often they spot them.
And let's see what they can do.
Can they track these things?
Are we capable of tracking them?
When they do move off at a million miles an hour, how much can we see?
What can we do?
And what can we do with these things?
Like, maybe right now they can't use them in terms of, like, maybe there's not some sort of a military way to use it.
You know, they just fly real fast.
So maybe they're still in some sort of a...
I don't know.
But the whole thing that it's definitely from another world, if they're telling me it's from another world, I'm like, you know, you guys aren't square about anything.
At the same time, you know, I think most people that believe life is biological and that God didn't start at all and Earth isn't special would acknowledge there's probably life out there.
Like I said, I always assign it very low probability because the odds are things that are crazy and on Earth are created by us and we just haven't found out about that yet.