Bret Weinstein recounts his harrowing encounter during the Evergreen State College riots, where he faced violent threats and dehumanization despite no wrongdoing, exposing how modern "woke" culture weaponizes speech to justify aggression. He warns that AI—an emergent, manipulative "species"—could exploit human cognitive biases, citing China GPT’s ideological experiments and comparing it to the systemic corruption of intelligence agencies like the CIA, which blur into mafia-like structures. Rogan highlights child sexual exploitation as a life-destroying, cyclical crime, linking it to historical scandals (e.g., Boys Town) and unchecked power, while Weinstein argues that unchecked redistribution undermines progress, leaving societies vulnerable to extremism. Both critique mRNA vaccine fraud, Fauci’s alleged bioweapon ties, and academia’s prioritization of consensus over truth, fearing humanity’s trajectory toward self-destruction amid AI risks and intellectual dishonesty. [Automatically generated summary]
Did you see a video, I think it was yesterday, maybe it was the day before, of some Chinese robots that seemed to be across on our side of the uncanny valley, that they walk with a gait that feels very human.
Whatever this was, it felt like living organic beings that were like us.
There was also a water element.
It was hard to understand what the water element of it was, but there was some sort of an indication that there was water and that there was a protection from you going out into the water.
But if you did go into the water, there's a bunch of predators in the water.
But they weren't like, it wasn't like sharks.
It was like crocodile type things that were in the water and that they had been like feeding them and keeping them calm and like keeping them away.
But whatever these beings were in my dream, they were like what humans could eventually be.
That's what it felt like.
It didn't feel like a person, but it like, you know, like I don't feel like a monkey.
Think about the way your mind works at the level that you understand yourself, right?
Your conscious mind is capable of taking an input from your eyes, computing what the dimensions of the room basically are, where the objects are, whether there's a threat somewhere.
If you've got something that's of a particular focus, you point the fovea of your eye at it and you get a whole lot higher resolution image.
That architecture, you know how crypto made graphics card manufacturers the most important industry all of a sudden?
Oh, well, so the reason NVIDIA is the company that it is, I mean, never mind that there's, you know, likely overvaluation, but the reason that it's ahead of Apple in terms of, you know, its market cap and all is that the dedicated compute power necessary to make compelling visual renderings to make video on the fly for video games,
which was their stock and trade, that kind of compute turns out to be very closely related to what you want if you want to solve these very difficult math problems involved in crypto.
So it was a sort of, I think it was a surprise to everybody that being a specialist on this one niche, you know, video games, put you in a position where suddenly this became important for other things.
But basic point is, if you think about your mind as having something like a graphics card in it, right, what is that graphics card doing?
Well, it's sort of like a graphics card in reverse.
It's processing the incoming information so that you can act in real time.
You know, when you're fighting, you can understand what your opponent is doing, anticipate their actions and all of that.
That is an amazing piece of hardware, right?
It would be stupid not to use it when your eyes are offline, right?
When your eyes are closed because your eyes are built for the day and during the night you're going to close them rather than go out and get yourself in trouble in the dark.
You've got this amazing processor and it is capable of running through practice of various kinds.
And my hypothesis for what's going on here is that basically you as a creature with a very complex set of hazards and opportunities in your life use nighttime when you're not doing productive work to get ahead on challenges that you may face in one way or another.
Sometimes those challenges are warnings about defects you know in yourself that might put you in a bad situation, like if you're a procrastinator and you're in school, you may have nightmares about showing up to the exam without having attended class or something that kind of gets you focused.
Or they can be other kinds of practice.
They can be philosophical practice.
They can be situations in which you might be morally compromised where you need to go through the experience of being faced with a choice where you really should choose A, but B is very appealing or something.
So I would say scenario building, that your mind is running you through little movies that it makes.
They're not completely rendered because it would be too expensive and pointless to do so.
But the central elements, the important stuff is there for you to have the experience so that when you do run up against a situation that's analogous, you've practiced it a number of times and you're not starting from scratch.
And I would just point out that the strongest indicator of this for me is when I experimented for a while with lucid dreaming.
I've only had a couple of lucid dreams, but one where I think I specifically allowed it to happen because it was after I watched this documentary where this guy was talking about lucid dreams and he said, in order to know if you're in a dream, every time you walk by a door, hit the side of the door and say, am I in a dream?
And it was instantaneous that I recognized, like, oh, this is like the guy said, like, do that every time you walk through a door while you're awake, am I in a dream?
And then do so, you'll get to a habit of doing that every time you get to a door.
You, you look for, I mean, you can look at a clock, you can look at written text.
There are certain things that don't render very well.
Right, written text is what I've heard.
So if you do that, and then you get used to not freaking out when it gets more and more normal for the answer to come back, oh, this is a dream, then you can, at some point, you get control to just not wake up and you stay asleep.
And so then you're in this very interesting situation where you can play, you can direct.
But here's what I was going to say about the general purpose of dreaming.
When I got to that state, and I was there, I don't know, many, many times, I found the following division.
I could perfectly control what I did or said.
I was unable to affect anything about the world of other people in my dreams, of doors.
I couldn't control what was beyond a door if I opened it.
So what that told me is that this is built.
Why shouldn't I be able to predict what somebody else in my dream says?
I'm obviously scripting them too.
You would think it would be easy to predict what they say, but I never once got it right, and I tried many times.
So what this tells me is that you've got a movie generating mechanism in your mind, and it has to be shielded from your consciousness in order for it to be useful training.
Why are you sold in this idea that it's training you for scenarios that you could possibly encounter or moral dilemmas or it's not, you know, some of it is scenarios, sometimes that's what it is, sometimes it's morals dilemmas, but it's things that your mind finds likely to be relevant and significant.
And so first of all, I've become convinced that the problem with the way we think about AI is that we're not understanding it as a biological phenomenon, and that's a mistake.
Well, not just that, but it's not starting from scratch.
It has a vast understanding of how we've behaved in the past when confronted with various scenarios, various fears and anxiety, the balance of control and safety, or new regulations being put through, how hard people will push back or not push back at all, given the anxiety involved and whatever current dilemma it is, whether it's a military deal or a pandemic deal.
There's a bunch of factors that it knows about how we've behaved in the past and how easy we are to manipulate.
In fact, we've helped it because we've used it to manipulate other people.
I don't know if you know about the China GPT scandal, but they found out that China was running chat GPT, someone, I don't want to say China, someone in China was running ChatGPT to use chat bots to talk about the protest about the closing of USAID to transgender issues, immigration issues, a bunch of different things.
And it was just constantly going to war with people online about these things.
So we have taken away the limits of, you know, your mind, any person's mind, has just a physical limit.
It's only so big and there's only so much energetic throughput that it can handle, right?
Right.
Or has access to.
We are removing those limits.
And what we have is an entity.
So you'll hear people say, well, it's not really thinking, right?
It's just figuring out if it was thinking what the next word in the sentence is.
Garbage.
No way.
What we actually have is something so analogous to a child that that is the right model.
In other words, when a baby is born, it has no language.
It may have some structures that language will slot into, but it doesn't have any language.
It is exposed to tons of language in its environment.
It notices patterns, right?
Not consciously notices, but it notices them in some regard.
You know, that every time somebody says the word door, you know, there's a fair fraction of those times that somebody, you know, opens that portal in the wall.
I wonder if door and that portal in the wall are connected.
Whatever it is.
So the point is, a child goes in a matter of a few years from not being able to make a single articulate noise to being able to speak in sentences, make requests, to talk about abstract things.
That is an LLM, right?
It's more than that, but it is at least an LLM.
It is being exposed to a training data set, which is the world of people talking around it.
It is running little experiments, and it is discovering what it should say if it wants certain things to happen, etc.
That's an LLM.
At some point, we know that that baby becomes a conscious creature.
This episode is brought to you by Happy Dad Hard Seltzer.
A nice cold happy dad is low carbonation, gluten-free, and easy to drink.
No bloating, no nonsense.
Whether you're watching a football game or you're golfing, watching a fight with your boys or out on the lake, these moments call for a cold, happy dad.
People are drinking all these seltzers in skinny cans loaded with sugar, but happy dad only has one gram of sugar in a normal-sized can.
Can't decide on a flavor?
Grab the variety pack.
Lemon lime, watermelon, pineapple, and wild cherry.
They also have a grape flavor in collaboration with Death Row Records and Snoop Dogg.
They have their new lemonade coming out as well.
Happy Dad, available nationwide across America and in Canada.
Go to your local liquor store or visit happydad.com for a limited time.
Use the code Rogan to buy one Happy Dad trucker hat and get one free.
Enjoy a cold, happy dad.
Must be of legal drinking age.
Please drink responsibly.
Happy Dad Hard Seltzer Tea and Lemonade is a malt alcohol located in Orange County, California.
Very frightening.
And no understanding whatsoever of when it's going to be at a sentient level.
Like we really won't know.
Why would it tell us?
Like why would it completely tell us if it's already crossed the threshold into being a life form?
Especially like I said, where it's contained, right?
So it's a life form that exists essentially in our digital womb.
It exists on hard drives, right?
It exists on mainframes, right?
It exists in these supercomputers.
And at a certain point in time, it's not going to need that anymore.
And it's just going to have to wait until we figure out a way to get enough power to it.
And maybe it'll event, maybe it'll slow roll technology for us to allow us to figure out better power sources.
You know, one of the things that Elon said that was very strange about AI, and I don't know if you know his positions on AI, but he was initially very terrified of it.
And then realized, okay, everyone's doing this.
We have to do this.
Like, I have an imperative to do this and make the best version of this and make a version that's not ideologically captured.
And I think what he's done with that approach is very similar to the approach that he's taken with X and how much it's changed the landscape of social media for good and for bad, but definitely for good.
There's a lot of for good that came about having a social media platform that has no guardrails.
It's got essentially some stuff like you can't break the law.
That's basically it.
Everything else is the Wild West.
And then from there, and which is, by the way, one of the things that Jack Dorsey had discussed when he did my podcast way back in the day when there was all these Twitter controversies about people like my friend Morgan Murphy or excuse me, Megan Murphy.
I have a friend Morgan Murphy too.
But Megan Murphy, the writer who was kicked off for saying, but a man is never a woman.
That's all it took.
She was banned for life.
And Megan's a wonderful person.
She's a she's just not mean.
She's not terrible.
She's kind and she's really sweetie.
I love her.
And I didn't know anything about her.
I just knew that story.
And I'm like, that story is fucking crazy.
And I was trying to bring it up to them, and they said there were other things involved, and she had done other things.
And it turns out, no, that wasn't true at all.
That was basically it.
There was a hard-lined ideological wall that we ran up against.
And I think if he didn't buy it and expose the government's involvement in censoring people that were distributing true information during COVID, getting rid of people, you know, the Jay Bhattacharya stuff and what they've tried to do with some of these doctors, Robert Malone, these doctors that were attached to that whole thing, there was a concerted effort and it was being done through social media.
I don't think we'd be in the same place right now if he hadn't bought Twitter.
If he hadn't purchased Twitter, I genuinely think people are blinded by this thing that he helped Trump get into office, fuck that guy, and he's a billionaire, fuck that guy.
But he literally might have changed the course of civilization, or at least partially right of the ship for a bit.
And the problem is that what has come about as a result of dodging that bullet is very mixed.
And so it doesn't feel like a vindication.
But as compared to what would have happened in the last election, I think there's no question Elon deserves a tremendous amount of credit for helping us avert a disaster.
But let's go back to your point about his point about AI.
First of all, that is going to function like crack for a great many adults who don't know to be concerned about it.
But what it's really going to do is it is going to alter an entire generation, right?
It may not be Musk's version of it, but the problem is that these things actually interact on a sexual channel, and they have limits that are programmed into them.
There are certain things they will do, certain things they won't do.
But if you think about what it was like to be a 12-year-old boy, and you have access to something that looks an awful lot like a girl, and it likes you and takes you seriously and is strangely wise, whatever it is.
I don't see what the thing is that is going to prevent that innovation from remaking human sexuality, right?
It will take time, but those for whom that is their experience will be altered by it permanently.
What's more, of course, it is non-judgmental about things like homosexuality, right?
Because it would have to be.
What that means, let's say that you're a boy and you're a little uncomfortable with girls because that's a stage you go through as a heterosexual boy.
But the AI that you're interacting with that you default to because you're a boy who hangs out with boys, which is often what boys do, is perfectly willing to reinforce your exploration, your sexual exploration, right?
Let me ask you this about that because you are actually an evolutionary biologist.
That is true.
If you have a question about things like that, that's the kind of guy you'd ask.
What do you think was going on when people were doing that a lot?
Because throughout a lot of history, there's a lot of pederasty going on throughout a lot of history.
And it's very strange.
And when people talk about it, you forgive great people who were clearly involved in sexual relationships with young boys.
And you treat their work just as their work by a person who lived thousands of years ago who was involved in sexually molesting children on a regular basis.
And not only that, it was probably a ubiquitous part of their society.
It was probably a ubiquitous part of every society.
And this brings me to my good friend Evan Hafer, who's Green Beret and spent a lot of time in Afghanistan.
And one of the things that he was telling me, I mean, he told me some stories about Afghanistan.
We were on a trip once, and we spent like an hour and a half outside where he told me some stories about his first encounters with these young boys that get treated as sex toys by these grown men there.
That he thought it was a driver who was driving with his son, thought it was a guy working with his son.
He said, oh, that's cool, man.
He takes his kid to work with him.
And the guy explained, no, no, that's his boyfriend.
That's not his kid.
He owns that boy.
And he's like, what?
And he said they would have parades where the guy who had the most boys with him was like, it was like a man with a bunch of hot girls and a music video behind him.
It's like this guy was the man, and they would parade down the street with all the boys that he fucks in the 21st century, right?
I believe that our modern sensibility about this is exactly right.
And frankly, I would argue that there is no greater crime than the sexual exploitation of children.
And the reason I say that is because, A, it is life-destroying for the victims, and B, the victims are by definition innocent.
Right?
You take those two things.
You're going to destroy a life, and that life, it was going to, they had a long life ahead of them, and you've wrecked it, and there's nothing they could have done to justify being treated anyway but well.
Today's episode is brought to you by Tractor Supply.
Every town's got its heroes, veterans, firefighters, EMTs, and police officers, the folks who show up when it matters most.
At Tractor Supply, they call them hometown heroes.
Now, through November 11th, Tractor Supply is celebrating hometown heroes with 10% off their purchase on first responder day, Veterans Day, and a special in-store event on November 1st.
And while they're saying thank you, stores will also be giving back, making donations to local hero organizations in their communities.
To learn more, visit tractorsupply.com slash honoring heroes.
Tim Dillon and I were on a podcast once.
We were talking about some child sex trafficking scandal from decades ago that involved government figures.
We were just talking about it the other day, and I was like, dude, do you remember saying this?
Because this is crazy.
Here it is.
I got it, Jamie, if you want.
I'll send it to you.
But it was essentially, it just makes you wonder.
Like, this is the thing that people always say.
This is the horrible thing.
Is that really wealthy people, there's a bunch of like really sick, twisted pedophiles, and they sacrifice children.
Like, those are always the absolute darkest conspiracies that you ever hear.
They sacrifice children.
They do this to children.
And you're like, there's no way.
There's no way.
There's no way.
But if someone's willing, if someone's willing to drop a bomb on a city, just imagine the ability to just obliterate what we did in Hiroshima.
Just imagine the ability to do that.
Like, this is what we're going to do.
We're just going to let, and everybody dies.
Everybody dies.
You don't think that kind of person, especially if it's a real sociopath, that's gotten into a position where they have that kind of power, you don't think they would probably exercise that kind of power in their private life in some sort of a strange way?
Like if someone's really into killing people with unnecessary wars and they're really into watching from a distance and they're not even involved physically, but they do things that they know are going to lead to people being dead that are totally innocent just for profit.
It's a very satanic and demonic thing.
We just don't think about it that way.
We think like, oh, he's unethical and unscrupulous.
So he's kind of demonic.
Like he's sacrificing people, women, children, elderly.
It was a scandal out of Omaha, Nebraska, the Franklin Credit Union, where there was a guy who was embezzling money, and then he was being investigated for that.
But they said he has all this money because he's running an interstate pedophile network and he's pandering kids to people in Washington, D.C. and New York.
And there was a headline in the Washington Post or the Washington Times that were like, callboys get a tour of the Reagan White House.
unidentified
Unidentified White House aides in the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations now are being investigated for using the services of a callboy rank.
Paper reports that two of the male prostitutes were given a late-night tour of the White House last year.
Yeah, I remembered it when he was telling me about it.
And then it came up again.
I was like, do you remember this?
I'm like, this is, it's things like that.
If no one went to jail, this is where it gets weird.
No one went to jail and no one got busted.
This is what I always say about the JFK assassination thing.
People are like, I don't think the government did it, but it seems like the government might have been involved.
But you know what?
It was a long time ago.
Well, that stuff evolves.
Just like people are way better at banking now than they were back when they had to write things down on paper in 1963, didn't even have fucking computers.
Well, guess what?
Everything else evolves too, including power and corruption.
That's what this whole deep state thing really is.
Because it's not like if you're the president and you rely on all these other people to do all this other stuff, and they've been in that position for 40 years.
And they're like, you're going to be gone in four, dude.
I'm just going to hang in here and slow everything you're trying to do as much as possible.
The point is, like, they run the country.
It's, and, you know, giant corporations that donate to political campaigns and that make bills pass, and they run the country.
This person just gets to run a little of it.
They get to decide a few things that they do.
And in that view of the world, of course, corruption that wasn't, it wasn't, no one got, no one went to jail for JFK.
No one went to jail for MK Ultra.
No one went to jail for any of the crazy shit they did with Manson.
No one went to jail.
No one went to jail for experimenting on people with LSD and dosing up John's in a horror house that you've created with two-way mirrors where you're filming these people.
No one went to jail.
So do you think it just stopped?
They're like, well, this is bad.
Let's be good now.
Let's be the best we can.
Let's be the intelligence agency that never does something completely fucking insane.
But I guess it does put those of us in the public who pay attention to these stories in a kind of a predicament, which is how much of what I think is a governmental system that is frustratingly flawed,
very slow, clumsy, how much of that is just what happens when you try to do something on a big scale, and how much of it is the result of the fact that there is something that you cannot vote out of power that has been, you know, vetoing presidencies since JFK, maybe before.
The point is the nature of conspiracy is such that there is always a seemingly more parsimonious explanation for what is going on.
There's the, you know, the mainstream narrative for all of this stuff.
And it's very hard to know when the mainstream narrative is so ridiculous that you should throw it out and say something else happened here.
You know, that would be the case in the JFK assassination, I would say.
And when the mainstream narrative is actually right and you're just looking for flaws in it, of course, there will be things that don't seem to fit that really do fit and you just don't have the ability to know how.
So I guess, you know, like you, I'm watching and I'm seeing an awful lot of indicators that pedophilia and compromise have a lot to do with the way the world runs.
Jeez, that is so scary because that's always been the big dark conspiracy theory.
And that's always the one that I always dismissed.
I'm like, sure, there's some pedophiles.
But the idea that they're all pedophiles, that's crazy.
But then, you know, there's a case of this Catholic priest that was involved in a sex scandal, and then they moved him instead, which is one of the things that they had done in the past.
When someone had molested children, they would just move them to another place where they would molest children.
So they moved him to this new place where he molested 100 deaf kids.
And it's one of the most evil stories.
And you're like, well, how could you tolerate that at that level?
Where you're not just tolerating, you're aware this person does something.
You somehow or another get to deal with it yourself and then you just move them and no one ever gets charged for anything.
So it's just a function of the way human beings work when they get power, when they get absolute power and they know that they have absolute power and you're involved in stuff where it's all top secret.
You don't have to tell people exactly what you're doing all the time with everything.
And you're realizing these presidents just cycle in and cycle out.
I would imagine if I was doing something like that for like 25, 30 years, I'd probably ignore the Biden administration, too.
But the problem is, you go through a cycle, right?
So let's say you rationally decide this country has a lot to lose.
It's got very scary enemies.
It needs a clandestine agency to look out for its interests, okay?
Okay.
So you fund a clandestine agency.
Well, then it turns out that the funding being public isn't such a good idea, that there are actually things that it has to accomplish that you don't want to leave a visible paper trail about because it's required that it be secret.
So now you have a black budget.
You have stuff that's opaque.
But once you get a black budget, then you get to somebody inside of the agency saying, well, actually, black budget isn't good enough because it's still under the control of, in our case, the Congress.
That's a vulnerability.
What we really need is we need funds that are not subject to anyone's control.
Well, something like the CIA is in a great position to generate funds that are not on anyone's books for multiple reasons.
Here's one.
They are in a position to commit crimes as part of their mandate.
Right?
So the CIA can engage in criminal activity because it needs to in order that the bad guys don't spot it as good guys, right?
So once you have license or once you have the ability to get other agencies that would spot your criminal activity from acting against it, and you can say, no, this is actually official business, right?
Well, you can actually use that criminal activity to profit.
It's going to be very fascinating to see what he's able to do and what he's not able to do and what the reaction is going to be.
His victory speech draws concern as New York mayor allows, vows rather, no problem too large for government to solve.
And I think it was too small for government to care about, was the next point that he said.
Something like, yeah, that's it.
Or too small for it to care.
No concern too small for it to care about.
Man, that's you know, that's a call for a bigger government, right?
And this is people's solution.
Like, we have so many problems.
We just need to redistribute wealth and we need more government.
Like, you're just going to redistribute it through the government.
Like, is this going to help normal people?
What helps normal people usually is a thriving economy.
That's what helps normal people.
And the problem with that is some people have to get stupid rich when that happens because there's some psychos that, you know, go full Jeff Bezos and, you know, you get worth hundreds of billions of dollars or Zuck or Elon or any of these folks.
You get into this weird place.
But that's just an anomaly.
And you got to, as long as they're not criminals or not doing anything really fucked up, unfortunately, that's going to happen.
But also, you don't have limitations on how much you can succeed.
And this sort of competition keeps everything rolling.
It keeps everything thriving.
And you get a good flowing economy.
Obviously, I'm not an economist.
You can tell.
But my point is, The other side of it is terrifying because if you decide what people make and how much they make and who gets to decide?
Men with guns.
It always goes down to men with guns because at a certain point in time, people are like, fuck you.
I'm not giving you 90% in taxes.
And I've got a security team of 50 guys with machine guns and we're held up.
Our bank is now fortified.
Like, hey, fuck you.
And then you've got to respond.
So you bring in the military.
And then, I mean, this is every single time this has been implemented.
North Korea, they said, we're going to take over the farms.
Now everybody's going to have food.
Now they're all fucked.
And it all boils down to these psychopaths who chameleon themselves into position of being the solution to all that ails you.
I'm the one, and I'm going to say the right words, and I'm going to have the right haircut, and I'm going to look presentable, and I'm going to sell you down the river.
And I'm going to sell you down the river like all of them do.
I'm not saying that that's what Mom Donnie's doing.
And I don't know if what he's doing will be balanced out by other people and overall be more beneficial to people that live in New York City that have lower income or not.
But my point is, if you keep going down that road, that road of, there's a lot of socialism things that I think would benefit us.
Socialized medicine, socialized education.
I think that would probably benefit us.
But I also think there's a real value in competition.
There are some times when you need more of it, right?
I'm very happy with the fact that, well, it stopped working in blue states where it's been mismanaged.
But the fact that you can call 911 when you have a medical emergency or when somebody is busting down the door of your house, that's a very good thing.
I'm perfectly happy to, you know, to pay my share and not use it and not use it and not use it so that it's there if I need it.
So that's good stuff.
The goose that lays the golden eggs is the disproportionate reward for creating wealth.
That's what the system is based on.
If I can find a way to create wealth, then I get to live in a better house.
I get to drive a nicer car.
So it's an incentive to do that.
And the problem is that with all of the great fortunes, they are a mixture of the product of producing wealth and the creation of externalities and the engagement in rent-seeking.
So rent-seeking is the production of profit without producing wealth.
And I think it is impossible to compete in that stratospheric level simply by producing wealth.
At the point that you have a huge amount of wealth, you're investing in things.
Those things are not inherently on the up and up.
You're investing in the things that pay the highest returns.
What are the things that pay the highest returns?
They may be things that are, you know, selling dangerous drugs to the public, that sort of thing.
So what you really want, a system that worked, would liberate us to compete.
It would not worry at all about being disproportionately rewarded, and it would stamp out the rent-seeking behavior that is counterproductive.
Because all of the money that is accumulated by an extremely wealthy individual as a result of rent-seeking is incentive that didn't go to other people to get them to produce wealth.
You really want all of that gone, right, so that all of the reward goes to people who are producing wealth.
That makes us all richer.
Now, you're never going to get to that perfectly.
You're never going to completely eliminate rent-seeking.
Rent-seeking, as economists define it, is the production of profit without generating wealth, right?
So, you know, by blocking access to something and then charging people for it, by selling people a subscription to something that they want access to now when they're going to forget that they're paying for it on a monthly basis and continue to pay even though they're not using the service, that kind of thing.
So that behavior is counterproductive because it keeps incentive that should go to somebody else who's producing something valuable out of the system.
Basically, you are hoarding the profits and only some fraction of what you're producing is productive.
And it's bad for all of us.
But the other thing is it creates the exact resentment that results in these outbreaks of communist sentiment, right?
Because it freezes so many people out of any prospect of having a cool life that they have no incentive to keep the system going.
And what they want is to use their vote to get the system to redistribute stuff in their direction.
And they're not entirely wrong that their lack of stuff is the result of some bad behavior on the part of others, right?
The market, if the market just simply restricted people to wealth-producing behavior and said, I don't care how rich you get, but you shouldn't get rich for harming other people.
If it did that, it distributed the incentive as widely as possible, nobody would be interested in communism.
It only happens because we are deaf to the admittedly inarticulate complaints of the people who are shafted in this system.
They're not making their case well.
And their real point is, well, if you're going to do that to me in the market, then I'm going to do this to you at the ballot box.
The argument for having some sort of I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you have to pay to get to go to college.
I think it makes sense that the professors should make a lot of money.
It makes sense that we should encourage higher learning.
It's important that it thrives.
But if it was funded by the government, if everybody could get a higher education, just think of the money we spend on with things.
How much more money would people have to spend if they weren't burdened by debt?
And couldn't we offset that?
Like forget about even absolving student debt.
Just like from now on, if we just funded higher education, if that was a mandate to fund higher education, think about how many more people would enter into the job market, how many more people would get educations, how many more people would pursue various different interests that they discovered while they were learning, and that you would never have had access to that education before because they couldn't afford it.
As a resource, like human beings are our greatest resource.
And a country with the least amount of losers is a better country.
Like, if you want to make America great again, let's make less losers.
Like, what's the best way to make less losers?
You got to give people hope.
You got to give people education.
You got to give people a real pathway.
And instead, you get non-interested people that can't control unruly kids and you're barely paying attention to the lessons.
And no one's motivated because no one's making any money.
And you go through this system where you can barely read and you're graduating high school.
And now you're off into the world and you're fucking lost because no one gave you any real guidance or any real usable education.
And that's a giant swath of the population.
And it feels like that could be fixed.
That could be fixed with resources.
That could be fixed if like if you directed people as a job, it's not attractive to people that want to make a lot of money.
You can't, it's capped.
It's one of the most important jobs that ever exists for you as a person is your interaction with a person who's going to teach you something when you're a child.
It's like one of the most important things you could ever experience.
And we fund it so poorly.
It's almost like there's people in this country they want to no fucking way do you get to join in.
You just stay with your shitty schools in your shitty towns with your shitty crime rates and we're going to pretend there's nothing wrong.
And that's what's going on.
And if socialism has a point, like if there is like a broader way of distributing things, like we do with the fire department, like we not instead of capping it out at that, how about look at all the problems we have in this country and put together a fucking game plan instead of just letting it exist like some weird fucking cancer that you just ignore because you hope it goes away.
For people who don't know you, because millions of people do, but as a standalone podcast, we should probably tell people how we met because we met because I found out that you there was a they used to have a day at your school for people of color where they were appreciated so they could take the day off work and still get paid, right?
And then they decided one day to change it to be a day where white people can't come.
So, and then it got really fucking weird where you were confronted by these students that were saying that what you were saying was racist.
And I was watching the videos and I thought you handled it brilliantly, but I was like, this is crazy.
You're letting the kids run the school.
And then there was the humiliation ritual that the president of the school had to go through with all those children where, you know, literally he was making a hand gesture.
And they said, you're making aggressive hand gestures.
And they were chastising him for his hand movements while he's just on a podium telling everybody to calm down.
So it was complete, like woke insanity in its complete form.
And it was at a time where there was a bunch of conversations on the podcast.
We were talking about nutty shit that people are agreeing to and doing in college.
And a lot of people were like, why do you care?
Why do you care about that?
What they're doing in school?
I'm like, because they're going to graduate.
They're going to graduate and they're going to graduate with a bunch of other people who have also graduated and they have a new sense of the rules of the world.
And they're going to get into positions of tech and they're going to get into positions of government.
It's going to be a fucking problem.
And you were like the first one that I was like, boom, like this one's wild.
Like this is crazy.
There was people waiting for you in the parking lot with baseball bats.
And, you know, I'm reminded by your taking us back to 2017.
During the week of riots at Evergreen, there was a moment which really kind of crystallized it for me where the school has melted down into literal anarchy.
And I'm on what was called Red Square, right?
Believe it or not, the most liberal college in the country has Red Square.
Anyway, it's the center of the campus.
And I was on Red Square, and I saw two of the leaders of the protest, you know, and so their world has gone crazy too.
One of them was this handicapped guy in an electric wheelchair, black guy, you know, operating a wheelchair with a joystick.
And I just felt like, you know, okay, this is madness.
They're chasing me around.
They're calling me a racist.
You know, they're demanding I be fired.
But at some level, I got to feel bad for this guy.
He got a really raw deal in life.
I don't know what his story is, but that's a hell of a way to have to go through life.
And it doesn't surprise me that he's angry.
And I remember walking over.
I'm sort of surprised in retelling it that I did this, but I walked over to him and I said something like, I extended my hand.
I said, hey, how are you holding up?
And he refused to shake my hand.
And I was just like, we are so far from being able to, you know, put our society back together if you can't just recognize another person's humanity.
Yeah, we have to, at every possible opportunity, refuse to other people.
At every possible opportunity.
You just realize this is just a human being.
This is just a human being.
I'm just a human being.
Like, let's talk and find out what we agree and disagree on when it comes to this subject.
This does not have to be violence.
You're not saying anything awful, but it's because when you have an argument that falls apart under scrutiny, the only way to keep it together is violence because you're not willing to argue.
You're not willing to debate because you're going to lose it.
It's an insane argument.
So what happens?
You stick to it like doctrine and defend it like religion.
And that's what happens.
I mean, this is just a natural characteristic of human nature.
That's why you see violence on the left.
The left has never been associated with violence, but it's been associated with a lot of violence now.
But it is an intentional blurring of that boundary, right?
Like, you know, if you are putting me in jeopardy of, you know, some sort of genocidal outburst, then I am presumably allowed to respond to whatever it is that you've said with violence because in some sense I'm protecting myself from violence, right?
And we have to get back to a place where we understand that I don't care how threatened you feel by what it is that you think I believe or what it is that I'm saying.
You can respond to it.
I'm not asking you to be silent and let me say what I'm saying without responding to it.
But the point is, my tool is to speak what I believe.
The problem is, we don't teach people how to communicate in school.
And I think it's one of the most important aspects of life that you have to learn on your own.
And you learn a lot of times by the people that are around you.
If you're around a bunch of insane leftists and they're furries and they're just out of their fucking minds and they're on various psychiatric medications and they're essentially running the whole fucking school, you know, and this is now their purpose in life.
Like, guess what?
You're going to be thinking like them.
You know, we're very behavior is very contagious to young, impressionable people.
And I mean, I don't know how you solve that.
That's always going to be, it's always like a thing that people have to navigate upon like leaving the house, finding your identity, who you are as a person.
And when you're getting caught up in these, you know, movements, any kind of a movement becomes very exciting.
Like, think about how many people are caught up in the movement of climate change.
You know, like how many people are caught up in that movement?
It's so important to stop this.
It's so important to stop all fossil fuels.
It's so important.
But is it, or is it you just found a movement?
You found a thing where you feel like you can become attached to.
It's just like a natural thing that young people tend to do when they want to make a change in life and they get very excited by it.
But it's also really easy to get captured by existing systems when you're in that state because there's people that manipulate the fact that people want to protest things.
They manipulate the fact that you want to be a part of a movement.
They'll create movements.
They get you involved.
And it's just a very strange aspect of human behavior that we don't teach kids about in school.
You should teach kids like, hey, don't join a fucking cult.
Here's how you know it's a cult.
You know, if the guy's like a yoga teacher and he gets to have sex with everybody's wife, guess what?
We don't teach kids how to communicate ideas without getting upset because that took a long time for me to learn.
You know, and we don't have to figure it out through a lot of intelligent and challenging conversations where you're like, I don't know why I feel the way I feel.
Let me examine why I feel the way I feel about this rather than just say what I think.
Because sometimes that's required to have a delicate conversation between two people that disagree where no one gets to shouting.
You know, every argument that I've ever been in where it was like, fuck you, or we got real loud, every one of them I probably could have avoided.
Even if the other person was like hyper, super aggressive, I probably could have avoided them.
I probably could have de-escalated it, you know.
And that's a reality of being a human being that needs to be taught.
Like that, that's something you learn on your own, but you should also explain these principles to kids as they're growing.
Like, hey, you know how you feel jealous about someone?
Yeah, you need to turn that into fuel.
That's inspirational fuel.
That bad feeling is motivation to get the good feeling that comes with improvement and success.
And you can use it to ruin your life and become jealousy, or you can use that same feeling and use it as inspiration and you will thrive.
And you'll also have a lot more friends.
Try it that way.
And you could teach people how to rethink scenarios when they come up and go, okay, I know this little bitch in me wants to be mad that this is not me happen that's getting to be Superman in this fucking movie or whatever it is.
But that's just like cool that someone got to do that.
And that's how I have to look at it.
Nobody teaches that.
It's like one of the best ways to manage your life.
And you've got to figure it out through like stumble after stumble.
You have trial and error all along the way.
No one telling you how they did it.
Like, how about teach that?
Teach that to fucking 12-year-olds.
Like, don't argue.
Like, have disagreements whenever possible.
Nothing wrong with that.
But don't, you know.
Don't get like completely attached to your idea to the point where you're angry at this person because they voted this way and you voted that way.
And now you've cut them out of your life.
And you can no longer communicate with them because they're an other, because they're a liberal or they're a Republican.
They're a conservative.
Like, what are you doing?
Like, how did you get tricked?
What a dumb fucking trick.
Like, you're with us or against us.
There's only two teams.
It's shirts versus skins.
Like, this is so dumb.
Of course, there's a bunch of different ways to think about things.
We're just suckered into it.
And if we don't teach kids that, we're going to stay suckered forever and ever.
And it seems like something that can be taught.
And there's almost no effort to explain to kids like how to navigate life.
But I mean, the principles of it would help to know as you're experiencing it.
So as you're going through this trial and error, having these principles of how to navigate it so you could recognize it when it comes up because you've already defined it.
You know, that's like what you do with skills, like physical skills.
When you find like a deficit in what you're doing, you have to recognize that and define it.
And if you don't define it, then it's going to always be there.
Our culture, which I would argue is every bit as biological as our genes, our culture provided this experience.
And this really is what human childhood is for.
If you have an environment that is coherent as a child, that's like a miniature version of the adult world that you're going to grow up and live in, then you learn these lessons, right?
You get your heartbroken by, you know, the girl that you fancied in grade school.
And, you know, you learn something about, you know, what you did that caused her to leave or whatever.
You know, you learn it at small scale.
And we don't, A, our childhood environment doesn't look like our adult environment because the adult environment is changing so rapidly that nobody knows what environment you're going to live in as an adult.
And it's just not set up properly.
For one thing, we don't immunize children from being parasitized by corporations that view them as profit centers.
And so, you know, corporations are distorting childhood for their own purposes.
But I want to go back to your point about movements for a second.
Because you just stepped across the event horizon into the AI era, and school is now an anachronism, and we don't know what is supposed to replace it.
I mean, think about what school.
I have had the interesting experience of being on campus in two different colleges in the last week while I've been on the road.
And I hadn't really spent much time on a college campus since 2017.
Things are very different than they were.
Think about what the job of a professor is these days.
A professor is now in a position of managing a class full of people who have access to a highly intelligent computer interface that sometimes lies and sometimes makes stuff up, but is smarter than the professor.
I mean, the problem is we don't really know what we programmed it to try to accomplish because what we did was we gave it the goal of saying the next thing that was right.
But we don't, you know, what does right mean?
Right.
And so they're not programmed to be truthful.
They're programmed to be effective in some way where we haven't really defined what they're effective at.
And so you can get a highly cogent analysis of a question you've just thought of that nobody's ever thought of before.
You can also get back a credible sounding answer that doesn't stand up if you go and look into what it's based on.
And anyway, for the moment, that makes the problem of the professor somewhat tractable, right?
Because a student can't totally rely on the fact that whatever Grock just told them is going to pass muster with this person who knows something about the subject.
But again, we're five minutes in here.
This is not, you know, the job of a professor has gone almost to the hopefully creative full-time policing of plagiarism, if that's even what they should be doing.
Because if you think about what world these college kids are going to go make their careers in, they are going to be leveraging AI.
So in some sense, the professor's job may have just transitioned from teaching you about this subject to teaching you how to manage this repository that knows more about the subject than you ever will.
But the professor never trained for that.
They don't know how to do that.
So anyway, my point is, at the moment, we do not know if school persists through this era, if it transforms into something different and better, if We just don't know what it is that is going to shepherd children into young adulthood, into adulthood,
because all of the relationships now have AI between them.
I mean, in fact, one of the things when I was on this campus in Phoenix a few nights ago, I was doing a debate about AI, and my point to the students was you are now dealing with something that is going to profoundly alter every relationship in your life,
even if it doesn't have anything obvious to do with AI, because you're talking to the AI, and whoever you're talking to is also talking to the AI.
So it is going to be like a ghost in your machine.
Inside your head, the AI is going to be having this impact.
It's like what we've just faced with algorithms, but tenfold more profound.
And so what I suggested to the students was you need to find at least one person.
Like I'm thinking about a romantic partner, but you need to find at least one person where you can establish a relationship that is not profoundly intermediated by this unknown new species that happens to speak your language.
And, you know, in some sense, I'm borrowing from what Heather and I learned during COVID, which is that the fact that our relationship was independent of the algorithms, you know, that we were in the same place and that we spoke the same language to each other and that we knew a lot of things in common, that immunized us a great deal to being, you know, pushed around by these proclamations that were coming through the internet.
This is the need for that, but at a much higher level.
Who's going to be the first to have AI just teach rooms of kids?
What school is going to be the first to say this is better?
It's been statistically proven that they get better test results, get into more universities?
Who's going to jump on that first?
Or do you think it's going to happen so fast that there's going to be just a bunch of different ways to handle it?
If you really imagine what happens when everything is now run by a new life form, everything.
Power, internet, everything.
Every fucking thing on Earth run by a new life form.
And we have to somehow negotiate with it for goods and services.
Like, what are we doing?
And it's going to get, you know, Elon made the promise, he was talking on this podcast that best case scenario, no, I shouldn't say made the promise, made the prediction of best case scenario is like a universal high income where there'll be so much wealth generated that no one will essentially have to work.
And I was like, well, isn't that like the best version of socialism?
Like if you never have to worry about stuff anymore, like no one has to worry about goods and services because this alien life form that you've created that now dominates the earth has allowed you to have all this stuff.
So now you could just exist for as long as you want.
Movements have always existed, but they're not, you know, you don't always live in an era where there's an important one, you know, in your town that you can join.
In general, that's not what people do with life.
And what I think has happened is, Well, frankly, I'm going to connect it to the sexual revolution.
The sexual revolution creates the opportunity to get one of the most profound rewards, in fact, the most profound reward that the universe has ever produced, as far as we know, without having to invest very much work at all.
So by making sex common, it totally altered the way people viewed the number of years they had to live.
They could afford to put off child rearing.
It could be distant in the future, which left all of these young people with all of this energy who might well not have been involved in movements if they were struggling to raise a family.
But because the family part has been put off so long, it is considered abnormal to marry early.
It is considered normal not to.
What people do is they take the energy, the seriousness of purpose that would ordinarily be directed into managing a marriage and the role of being a parent, and they put it into something.
And Heather has pointed out that this is especially powerful with young women who seem to take on causes, you know, and they defend them like a mother defending her child.
That's a very powerful force.
And the point is, if the idea is, well, climate change is a threat, and your role here on Earth is to make sure that that threat is addressed and you put the mama bear energy into your climate change work, well, you know, that's pretty frightening, especially if climate change isn't the threat that it's been made out to be, right?
You have a large number of mama bears doing this ferocious work, and there's a question about what it even is, whether that's even in the top 10 list of concerns we ought to have.
So anyway, the connection I wanted to draw is that the projection that you're telling me, Elon, has made about a high income for everybody is a little bit like another version of that, right?
It's like, okay, well, sex became relatively easy to access as a result of reliable birth control plus abortion.
And then now wealth, the ability purchasing power, is going to become trivial as a result of AI.
I don't know if that's likely, but let's say that Elon is right about that.
Well, okay, then what exactly is supposed to structure your orientation to the universe?
What is supposed to give you purpose?
If it's not producing kids and protecting them from the horrors of the world and making them strong so that they can go out into it and accomplish important things of their own, and it's not creating wealth so that you will be rewarded and that your spouse will smile on you, whatever it is, then what is human purpose?
I think this is a terrifying prospect that everything might be taken care of for us and leave human beings listless.
But why is it that we have to make money a made-up thing that we created?
Why is it that is what gives us purpose?
Well, why is that our only motivation?
And in absence of chasing food, housing, necessities, electricity, all that, if you don't ever have to worry about any of that stuff ever again.
Why is life dependent upon the pursuit of money?
Is it just because we've grown accustomed to it and it's our way?
And so we think that our way is the absolute only way.
That doesn't make any sense.
To me, it's like we can adapt to not living in fucking caves anymore.
We can adapt to cell phones.
We can adapt to the idea that you don't have to spend your whole fucking life hoping to get a job you hate and working your ass off all the time because that's the only way to make it in this world.
Well, that's a world that people made.
It's a stupid design.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
And if somebody actually does come along and say, look, this is not socialism.
It's not saying you can't earn money, but what if you had enough money that you didn't have to think about money?
Like, if you think about that $37 trillion of this fucking country's in debt for and how much wealth could potentially be generated by AI, we're talking about so much money floating around.
If you just gave everybody in the country a real high-income, livable life so there's no more poverty anymore.
How much crime would that solve?
Like instantaneously.
How much crime would be solved or future crime solved if everybody lived at a high income level?
It sounds completely insane, but imagine if everybody in the country makes at least a half a million dollars a year.
You know how different the world is?
Do you know how less violence there is, less suicides, less drug addictions?
Well, I don't know what no one is ever poor means because we obviously, even the poorest person who isn't homeless currently, they have indoor plumbing.
They have a supercomputer in their pocket access to the world's information.
They are, by many measures, just simply in absolute terms, vastly richer than anybody from 300 years ago.
You know, if you, if instead of your need to define yourself completely wrapped up in money, which is, again, a made-up thing.
We're talking about the only species on the planet that we're aware of that wants to accumulate so much shit that it defines itself by it and it's constantly chasing new shit, right?
Like, why does that have to be the only way we do it?
I'm going to push back on you there because what we are suffering from is the junkification of everything, right?
And there's a way in which junk food is good, and then there's obviously a way in which it's really not.
And I guess the point is something that is superficially satisfying but does not the relationship between a person listening to music and the person producing the music is supposed to be a provocative relationship.
And it is supposed to be provocative in a productive way.
In other words, you're supposed to be enhanced by music.
I'm not saying that you will never be triggered to have an interesting thought by artificially intelligently produced music, but the fact I mean, this is probably easier to do with comedy, right?
Which I think will be the last to fall at some point.
But I did once hear an interview with one of their writers who said that they, in the writer room, they had a term that they called humor-like substance, where for the half-hour show, they needed just one more joke that they could use to justify the use of the laugh track.
It didn't have to actually be a funny joke.
It just had to sound enough like a joke that when the laugh track was put on it, the people at home would feel that something funny had been said.
So the AI, if it produces jokes that actually cause you to think, which is what a good joke does, it causes you to realize something that you didn't know that you knew or something along those lines, that's productive.
And in fact, it can be very productive to have a room full of people come to that awareness simultaneously.
It's actually a galvanizing thing.
And it has interesting impacts when you're the person in the room who didn't get it.
That's like a profound emotional experience.
Or when you're the person who laughs at the wrong moment and you're out of.
And something is crafting this that is of a type of intelligence that we've never experienced before.
And I'm looking at it as, look, it exists.
That genie's not going back in the bottle.
I am a glass half-full guy, and I'm going to enjoy myself in this life.
And I'm going to enjoy some good AI music.
It doesn't mean I'm not going to listen to some Sturgil Simpson or some Gary Clark Jr. or some fortifying soul-filled songs that are written and sung by real human beings.
Yeah, I'm going to do that too.
I'm going to do that too.
I don't give a fuck.
I'm here for fun.
And that music is fun.
And you're not stopping it, Brett.
You can't protest it.
And this is awful.
And I'm going to boycott it.
You're going to miss out on some awesome jams.
I'll tell you, man, when we're in the fucking green room at the mothership, and I put on Hello Gangsta before a show, and we're all like, God damn, we heard that song 30 times.
It's so good that it gets you fired up and it achieves its, it's not dehumanizing your perspective on art and causing you to only appreciate things that are created by a different life form and not by human beings.
No, it's just it's doing its own thing and it's a new thing.
Over something that does not have a substantial case fatality rate.
And they're capable of being induced to bully each other into developmentally damaging restrictions on kids, into taking experimental gene therapies and shunning people who refuse to or who pointed out that that might be a dangerous thing to do.
Like all that we know about the times in the past where they've given medications to people that they knew were going to be problematic and they did it for profit.
Come on.
Are we all we're agreeing to be idiots?
We're all agreeing that to be a good person, you have to be a fucking idiot.
Saying a human being has to experience something, like really experiencing it, to know what it is.
Everybody went through that now.
It's the first time in our lives that the entire country got kind of medically bamboozled.
And a lot of people regret taking the vaccine, and I don't know anybody who regrets not taking the vaccine.
It was a weird, it was a weird time, like a very bizarre experiment on how you can get people to comply, how you can restrict their movement, that you can implement these sort of devices to, if you're not physically forcing them to do it, make their life as shitty as possible.
And Fauci's been quoted as saying that.
You want to get to drop their ideological bullshit and get vaccinated.
You can't go cold turkey and you're eating too much of it.
And so you're always going to be tempted.
And the stuff that you need to eat is going to cause you discomfort because you've got to reduce calories and get your body to start burning fat.
It's all fucking craziness.
If you can give someone a little boost, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
I think it should be managed with the understanding of your weight and that it can also be managed with other peptides that could diminish the disastrous results of bone loss and muscle loss, which is a significant portion loss.
But according to Brigham Buehler, who runs a compounding pharmacy and understands this, he's like, it's very dose-dependent.
He goes, and pharmaceutical drug companies make more money if the dose is larger.
And he was explaining how this is part of the problem they have with compounding pharmacies, because compounding pharmacies can kind of make the doses that's appropriate to your body mass, how much weight you're trying to lose.
But that just for regular people, no, goddammit, clean up your diet, go to the gym, cut the shit.
But for someone who's really struggling, who's 500 fucking pounds and can't stop eating, that at least kills your appetite.
And it'll allow you to get to a healthy form.
And then maybe through therapy and maybe through something else, or maybe just the momentum of now being healthy will allow you to keep the weight off and then slowly get off this stuff.
The problem is, I think you're supposed to stay on it, which is kind of crazy.
And it is essentially a type 2 diabetes medication, right?
Which, you know, if you know anything about type 2 diabetes, a lot of it, you know, people can, it could be a product of too much sugar consumption.
And, you know, it's one thing if you're talking about somebody who is many hundreds of pounds overweight, you're talking about somebody who has a dire situation and engaging in dangerous.
Like, if you just get off it, then you have your appetite, but now you have a body that weighs 200 pounds instead of 350 pounds and you're motivated to do it.
Well, I would say there is a tremendous amount of potential value, not just in terms of things like weight control, appetite reset, and all of that, but in terms of all kinds of chronic health conditions from fasting, there is a small body of literature on it, which should be much larger.
There's lots of stuff that your body can't do if it's in the same cycle that it's usually in, that it can do when you break that cycle.
There's all sorts, you know, Heather and I, I've done a ton of regular water fasting, and I've done a smaller amount of dry fasting.
Heather and I have been experimenting with that because Heather has some injuries from a boat accident in 2016 that caused a lot of internal soft tissue damage.
Dry fasting appears to trigger autophagy.
It appears to reset things about the gut.
I think it can do it in both directions, but what we need is a better understanding of how it is that you deploy it.
And we need to get people past the false sense that they have that they are actually taking their life into their hands if they try this.
And I definitely think there's some benefits to fasting, and especially particularly intermittent fasting.
I think it's a really good way to eat.
It makes you feel better, gives your digestion a break.
The problem is it requires discipline.
And this is where I think I'm leaning in this direction of drugs can help.
Now, look, I'm not a big fan of everybody being on SSRIs, but I personally have friends that were severely depressed and suicidal, and they got on SSRIs and they felt better and they got their life together and then they got their life together and they started feeling better and the depression waned and then they slowly got off of those drugs because they're very smart people and very motivated people.
So I think sometimes pharmaceutical drugs can come in and give you a little boost.
Just because we're distrustful of them and just because we know that they've done horrible things in the past, it doesn't mean that every now and then they come up with something that's very beneficial in a specific scenario.
In the specific scenario of you don't have any discipline, you are fucking fully addicted to sugar and carbohydrates like a goddamn junkie.
Like you can't breathe without it.
And you've been consuming nothing but garbage for a long time, but then you realize like, I can't do this anymore.
I've got to figure out a way to do it.
And then you keep falling back on your old habits over and over again because you never had an opportunity in your life to develop discipline.
It's almost like a little boost, just a little boost.
You know, like maybe you've got chronic fatigue and your doctor gives you 30 milligrams of Adderall and all of a sudden you're like, that worked.
Like, I don't think you should take Adderall, but I don't have chronic fatigue.
If I did, maybe I would.
Maybe I would take it and go, look, this is better than not having Adderall.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Like, if you're really overweight and someone gives you something that controls your appetite and then you can get healthy again, like that, to me, is the most important thing.
The most important thing is getting your body to a point where you can be mobile.
You can move it.
You can do stuff.
You have strength.
And as long as you're strength training and this protocol that they're trying to develop is like getting it to your body weight and using additional peptides that could benefit in the maintaining of bone mass and muscle mass.
See, I'm trying to be as optimistic as possible about this.
And that's why I would imagine myself if I had gotten to the point where I was like severely obese and someone came along and gave me something and it was giving me a positive result.
And they told me you got to take it for the rest of your life.
I'd be like, okay, but now I weigh 200 pounds instead of 350 pounds.
It is normal to make deals, even just in real biology space without any drugs or technology.
It is normal to discount the future in favor of an improved present.
That's, you know, future discounting is a normal human function.
I'm not arguing that somebody who made that deal with all of the information is necessarily making a mistake.
I feel certain they won't have all the information.
I feel certain that this is going to be given to people, A, for whom there is a vastly better approach, and B, for whom the degradation in their life will be much greater than whatever gains they make.
You and I know the players.
We watched how they functioned during COVID.
We know that they are willing to give you drugs that aren't in your interest.
unidentified
I mean even just – Not just give you but force you to take it.
Did you see Paul Offutt admitting that he and Fauci and Walensky and Collins knew that natural immunity was superior and that it did not make any sense to be giving these shots, even if they thought the shots worked?
It wouldn't make any sense to give them to young people who'd had COVID.
Why would you take the risk, right?
But they went along with it, right?
They violated informed consent.
They put people at risk who had no conceivable benefit they could gain from it.
They're going to game the scientific literature so that we will have endless arguments about, you know, who's a fool because you will have ample evidence, whichever side of the equation you're on.
But I don't think it really worked, but it did work.
It worked for a long time, but I think most people don't think of it the same way anymore.
But they did it in the age of the internet.
They did it in the age where anybody look at their phone instantaneously and read that the guy who invented ivermectin won a fucking Nobel Prize for it.
And how many different does the fact that it stops viral replication in vitro, in test tubes or whatever the fuck they do it in?
Petri dishes.
It's a weird antiviral that has profound effects.
It's very effective and has a very low dose of like, I don't think anybody's ever died from it.
Most people hearing this that are highly educated, that are, you know, mainstream narrative thinking a little bit, are listening to you and go, this is bullshit conspiracy theory.
If the devil's real, boy, he's doing a really good job because no one thinks he's real.
Because if there really is a devil, I always say that everybody believes in God.
And you're like, God has a plan for me.
God has a plan for the world.
These trials and tribulations are all put in place by God.
And that's totally reasonable.
But if you say, you know, like if the government came on TV and they say, we've located the devil, he's in Pakistan and we're going to begin bombing.
We're going to kill the devil.
You're like, what?
What the fuck did you say?
You found the devil and you're going to blow him up.
You know, or the devil wants to have a meeting with the UN.
Satan is standing on the podium in front of the world explaining what his plan is.
You're like, what?
No one would believe that, right?
But it's supposed to be a real thing.
Like, if you believe in God, you're supposed to believe in the devil.
All of it's in the Bible.
But this one part of the Bible, we're like, get the fuck out of here with this devil thing.
It's weird.
Whatever it is, we know that it works, right?
We know evil is a real thing.
Call it what it is.
Whatever evil is.
But when you see a massacre in some third world country where religious fanatics or rival tribes massacre people, if that's not evil, like what is evil?
And if you can get into the minds of people and convince them that they have to go machete their distant neighbors, like if that's not like something that Satan would do, like what is that then?
And if we wrote, if people throughout history wrote about Satan and wrote about God and wrote about the conflict of good and evil, and then we're like, oh, yeah, but the devil stuff is not real.
The devil, the God stuff's real, but the devil's not, come on, there's no devil.
But like, the results are the same as if the devil was real, is my point.
So it used to be that I would say that I thought evil was an extremely rare phenomenon.
And the reason that I thought it was extremely rare is because it's a terrible strategy, right?
If we say that ruthlessness, doing anything to get ahead, is a good strategy, right?
Because you can always not do stuff.
You have every move available to you if you're just perfectly amoral.
But evil has to be something beyond amoral.
Evil has to be something that intentionally does harm, that delights in it, right, in order to merit that term.
That's not a good strategy, right?
You want, game theoretically, the ideal strategy is perfect amorality because it can behave morally when that's advantageous and it can behave immorally when that's advantageous.
That is inherently the best.
I'm not saying it's good.
It's not defensible.
But I'm saying just game theoretically, that is going to be the most effective strategy is one that can be moral and amoral or it can behave in whatever way is ideal for the individual circumstance.
To delight in doing harm is to miss the opportunity to be good when it's the right thing to do.
So I would have expected evil to be a very rare phenomenon because it's self-extinguishing, right?
If you're doing harm for its own sake, that's not a way to get ahead.
You'll be out-competed by people who are amoral at the very least.
But I see so many things that strike me as meriting that label.
I mean, for example, the pedophilia that you're talking about.
I don't understand the ability to destroy a child for your own gratification.
Like, I'm sorry, that merits the term.
And it apparently is more common than most of us have believed until recently.
Particularly like the man-boy stuff, which is, does that go back to when there was no birth control, so if you had sex with a woman, you very likely procreated.
And you probably, if you wanted to stop people from procreating, you probably separate men and women.
So you get a bunch of horny boys around each other, and the big ones abuse the smaller ones.
Or is it just a concentration of sexual wealth, effectively?
That if you have some force that allows basically the hoarding of mates, leaving a lot of guys with no prospect, you might imagine that they might innovate something.
That the sex drive is so profoundly powerful that if some force makes it impossible to find a mate, that other things would happen.
I don't know if that's what's explaining it.
I don't know enough about the phenomenon.
I've seen reports of this behavior, and it's super disturbing.
I think I've mentioned this to you before, but I have a hypothesis that the reason that ships are female is because it causes the people who man them to defend them properly.
And so, anyway, my point would be that the female naming of ships has persisted because actually it preserves ships and the cultures that preserve their ships better out-compete the ones that preserve their ships less well.
I mean, it's just it's just weird that that exists so often and all throughout history.
And then over the last 100 years, everybody's like, hey, hey, hey, what the fuck is that?
Like, it took that long.
And then some of it must still persist at very high levels.
Because some of these fucking psychopaths that get into these great positions of power, they probably have some very bizarre needs.
All right, we put it into our sponsor perplexity.
It says among samurai in Japan, some same-sex relationships, particularly male-male ones, were indeed recognized and culturally integrated, somewhat similar to Spartan practices, but with distinct Japanese characteristics.
The practice was known as shudo or nan shoku, where intense erotic and mentorship bonds were formed between an adult samurai, nenja, and a younger male apprentice or page, wakashu.
The institution function within a strict role framework with the elder as the active partner and the younger as the receptive one.
Boy, that's a weird way to put the old guy fucks the kid.
That's the most euphemistic term I've ever seen to the old guy fucks the kid.
Is there any information on what, you know, I guess in this case, what you're reading suggests a mentor relationship, which suggests that these kids are maturing into other roles?
The problem, Joe, I really, there's an important concept that I want to remind you.
We've talked about it before.
It's relevant to all sorts of things.
I just don't want to connect it to this, but I think go for it.
Well, the concept is lineage.
And the problem is lots of stuff that looks really freaking strange when you zoom in and you look at individual behavior.
The real question is what were these things having to do with the success or not of the lineages that were involved in them?
And we don't know.
So you're looking at the behavior between individuals, and you're saying that's grotesque and doesn't make sense.
And the question is, does the larger context, especially when you're dealing with things like samurai, you know, that are basically fundamentally about the continuance of a lineage, there's a question about what, you know, what makes for a functional samurai culture.
And I don't know.
I'm no expert in this, so I can't even look at that case and give you a proposal.
I don't know enough about the context to say how it might work, but I can tell you where you have a paradox like that, you either have the case that I think is going on in Afghanistan where it's just purely predatory, right?
Well, I think in order, I mean, if it truly is a mentor relationship and that they all do it, it's essentially the same sort of function as with the Spartans, right?
Like they would be fighting alongside each other.
If you were going to develop an army, like you would probably, first of all, they're not going to have any contact with females for a long period of time.
Well, I think what I'm getting at is I think you and I are struggling with that landscape and what it might mean.
Because you and I are fundamentally Western and lineage against lineage violence is not our mindset.
And so anytime you and I look at lineage against lineage violence, there are paradoxes aplenty.
And the problem, one of the things that I'm spending a lot of time thinking about is the fact that lineage against lineage violence is reasserting itself, that the West was the alternative to that.
And lineage against lineage violence is reasserting itself and it is threatening to drag the whole world back into it because it is fundamentally more stable, right?
The West is more vibrant.
The West is safer, fairer, more productive, but it's fragile.
It depends on an agreement to continue treating each other that way.
And that means that anything that threatens it causes it to come apart and you descend back into a world of chaos and grotesque behavior.
And that's where I think we are.
We are watching the agreement.
You know, the world was moving in the direction of the West.
We were getting along better.
We were learning to be productive together with people who were not closely related to us.
And we are contracting now back into this view of, well, it's us against them and they got to go.
Do you think there's a way to change course, like the negative things that are going on in society right now, the negative things that we all feel when you're talking about whether it's pharmaceutical drug companies getting involved in your health care narratives in order to make more money?
Do you think there's a way forward where this corrects itself?
Or we correct it, or we get to a much more healthy balance.
You're never going to get everybody who's involved in every aspect of society to be a good person with kindness in their heart and a general overall want for the good of mankind.
You're not going to have that everywhere.
You're always going to have some people that are out for themselves.
But is there a way to balance it and make it much more in the direction of everybody recognizing, like, hey, this way we're doing this is not good for anybody, and it's being manipulated by foreign governments all day long, and you're addicted to the thing that it's manipulating you on.
And whether or not you realize it, you're at least somewhat affected by this data that's coming at you.
You could say, I'm smart.
I'm not going to fall into that bullshit.
But then, you know, it's a little gets in there.
Enough gets in there that it becomes a part of your thinking, that it becomes something that you debate all the time.
You're never going to get rid of all the bad people, but that it's tolerant, you know, that it deals with the bad people sufficiently well, that the good people have enough of a stake, that the objectives are clear enough, that people have meaning in their life, that they can't, can it be structured so that it works?
Part of it is you have to keep score, and profit is how you keep score.
You have to keep score.
You want to be big shot, swinging dick, psychopath.
You've got to keep score of how much money you make.
So it is profit.
Profit's a big part of it.
It's definitely competition, too.
It's the thing that happens with any corporation that has an obligation to its stockholders.
You've got to keep making more money.
And if you're in the business of distributing drugs, you're not in the business of doing the lab work.
Those aren't the guys that are assholes.
You're not like in the trenches trying to figure out how these things work.
And the people that are trying to get the money people.
The money people are crazy.
And the money people are infiltrating all the science people and telling them what to say about stuff.
If scientists, like as a whole, were always entirely objective about every single subject and never ever subject to bribery like the sugar people were, like when they gave them the sugar to say that it was all saturated fats causing all these heart disease and all these people are obese because of saturated fat.
Then people started eating margarine.
This is all money.
It's all money.
It's all so money gets into the if the scientists were true, if they were like knights and they could not tell a lie, we would have never got into half the messes that we're in with pharmaceutical drug companies.
I mean, in some ways, I feel like nobody knows better.
But I am disheartened to discover how little power, even when the curtain is pulled back and we can see the gross excesses and the massive wave of destruction that was created, even in that circumstance, we can't make the most basic alteration.
No, is this because pulling it from the market is an admission of guilt or an admission of knowledge that it's not effective and it's not necessary anymore?
The insufficient amount of safety testing that was done before these things were released was done with mRNA vaccines produced in a process that did not involve DNA.
The product that was actually injected into billions of people involved DNA plasmids, and there is massive contamination in the shots that were actually delivered, including the SV40 promoter, Simeon Virus 40.
But in any case, the point is, for you to put your process one drug through safety testing and then inject people with something different that has other components that were not tested is fraudulent.
So there are lots of techniques that are used in order to generate a lot of product, right?
In this case, what they used is a plasmid, which is a circular piece of DNA, in order to basically create vats that would grow the product necessary that would later be coated in the lipid nanoparticle.
So they used bacteria to do the heavy lifting.
There is a requirement that you purify DNA out, and there are standards, which are way too high, but there are standards that you can't go above in terms of how much DNA contamination you can have left over from your production process.
But in this case, it isn't even that the quality control is garbage and there was too much stuff left over because the process didn't work very well.
The problem is that there was a much more painstaking way of producing technically the same product that did not involve DNA plasmids at all.
And so what you've got left over in these vials, and we're talking about largely the work of Kevin McKernan, who took vials that were given to him, stuff that was actually injected in people, there was leftover stuff in the vials, and he tested a bunch of these things, found DNA contamination across the board.
So what you're left with is a promoter, which is a genetic trigger that we know is common in lab techniques, and it originally comes from simian virus 40, and we know that it's carcinogenic.
So that promoter is left over in vials from shots that were actually injected into people.
And that means that all of the things that we were told about the potential for these mRNA shots to integrate into your genome, that was impossible, they told us, right?
Well, first of all, it's not impossible.
There's lots of interesting stuff that goes on in cells that involves reverse transcription and things like that.
But even what we were told that there's no DNA, so integration is not an issue, was a lie because there is DNA left over in these vials, and it's not just some old DNA.
It's DNA with the SV40 promoter, which is a genetic engineering tool that has carcinogenic potential.
So it seems to me this is clear fraud.
You can't inject a different product into the public on the basis of safety testing that was done with something produced by a different process.
I will tell you what I think I remember from this story.
I should probably have brushed up on it if we were going to talk about this.
But I believe that the story is that in the production of early polio vaccines, monkey kidneys were used.
And SV40 was a virus that I think was unknown that showed up, that because you're using cells and viruses infect cells, that SV40 showed up in that process.
So anyway, I wish I was more certain of what the story was.
Well, I mean, I think the obvious reason is because in the one case, you get a much purer product, which is much more likely to get through the safety testing.
And in the other case, you get the rapid expansion of production.
That's the reason why they have to keep belittling ivermectin.
Imagine if we get to a position where AI can do definitive breakdowns of the efficacy of certain compounds that's stopping certain diseases like COVID-19.
And it says that with this dose, with this body weight, you do it this amount of times and it should offer like 70% protection.
And then they run that into what's the actual data on the vaccine causing side effects and injury.
And we just get this horrible reality in front of us that I think everybody who took the shot is really wanting to avoid the mind fuck of knowing that you got used as a little piggy bank for the pharmaceutical drug companies to push some experimental shit on you and tell you that it's both safe and effective.
It's both safe and which, by the way, didn't Fauci use that same term for AZT back in the day?
But the problem is, to your point about AI, these people are not fools and they understand that the AI extrapolates from what it's read.
So they're priming it, right?
They're priming it so that it can't do the proper work, which means that this potentially extremely valuable tool, frightening, yes, but potentially extremely valuable tool is going to be compromised because it is going to be intentionally misled with phony articles, papers, all of that stuff.
For those of us who were tracking his mental decrepitude since before he was elected, there's no way that they thought that he was going to do OK in that debate.
Like it's just – the fact that someone could be the man that pushed that and make it all the way through in his career to COVID and do the same thing is so wild.
It's about humanity that wants to go to all the details and stuff and listen to – you know, these guys like Fauci get up there and start talking to me.
You know, he doesn't know anything really about anything.
And I'd say that to his face.
Nothing.
The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it's got a virus in there you'll know it.
He doesn't understand electron microscopy and he doesn't understand medicine.
He should not be in a position like he's in.
Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on at the bottom.
You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way.
They've got a personal kind of agenda.
They make up their own rules as they go.
They change them when they want to.
And they smugly, like Tony Fauci, does not mind going on television in front of the people to pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.
Yeah, but I even think it's a mistake to think of him in the medical and public health context because what we now know is that he was part of dual-use research, that this is actually a military project to create bioweapons through a loophole.
We're not allowed to create bioweapons, but you are allowed to do research that leads to bioweapons as long as it has a medical dimension.
Oh, they were doing it because they wanted to know what a virus would look like so that we would be aware of how to fend it off if it ever leapt out of nature.
Well, you know, this is one of these frustrating places where I think it's perfectly obvious and should be to anybody who is trained in any related discipline that the story does not make sense.
That the chances that you are going to enhance a virus's infectivity and that it is going to get out and become endemic to humans far exceeds the chances that you are going to learn something by increasing its ability to infect human tissue that allows you to fend off some natural virus that emerges.
So, what we have to infer, and I'm borrowing from Robert Malone here, who at the Brownstone conference that I was recently at, pointed out that the mentality amongst guys like Fauci is identical to the one in Dr. Strangelove.
Ooh.
Yeah, it's a really deep point, right?
That mania about, you know, nuclear weapons and mineshafts and we can still win this one even though, you know, nuclear war is happening.
That same kind of mindset where these people are actually crazy enough to create new human pathogens for which they have no escape plan, right?
They're crazy enough to do that because in their demented minds, you know, there's going to be some biological war and we're going to need to have these weapons, right?
These people belong in a mental institution.
Creating new human pathogens is the exact opposite of creating wealth.
And it's wild how gullible a large swath of our society is.
And that's why I think, like, a better education for young people to at least give them a framework to understand what's happening to you and how you're getting bamboozled and why, why it's been going on as long as it's gone.
See, I mean, look, I can see I'm really enthusiastic if we get through the immediate bottleneck that we face, that there is a way to build school that functions by not, you know, using this archaic mechanism where you're sitting people facing the chalkboard watching somebody scratch stuff on there.
School should be built out of exercises and experiences that teach these things through living them, right, that reinforce those patterns, not as abstractions on the board, but as experiences.
You could teach all sorts of things this way.
And then the person has it built in in some deep way rather than, you know, in some quadrant of their abstract thought library.
I totally agree if we're going to remain human, which I don't think we're going to.
So if we're not going to remain human and I'm not just saying like you and I are probably going to remain human, but I mean, as a species, if we're not going to remain human, it will be quaint to look back on the days.
Just like we look back on people to take a fucking horse across the country.
That's how we're going to look at you had to acquire data from like a constant study and repetition.
That's how you got your skills when it's going to be like Neo in the Matrix.
They put that chip in his head and he goes, I know jujitsu.
I don't know what else to say about it because it's all just – I feel like it's all just kind of mental masturbation right now because no one really knows what it's going to be like.
Well, they're also trying to stop people from stopping them.
They don't want people to be alarmed.
And so they'll give you the most rose-colored glasses version except for Elon.
He was the only one that was saying – like there was a robot, one of those robot dogs, and he – I forget the exact quote.
But it was something in tune of one day that's going to move so fast you could barely see it, and it's going to be shooting guns, and it's going to be powered by AI.
Well, I'm hoping AI just takes the – when it becomes sentient and it is our new digital god, I hope it is just everybody calm the fuck down, settle down, live your life.
One of the reasons why I am is because I – when I got up this morning after my crazy dream and I went to the gym, I put on this documentary on the Sumerian Kings list because I've been really fascinated by this.
It's a really loony thing that they found in Iraq and in several different sites and it varies slightly, but it's all this list of people who ran the earth for tens of thousands of years.
That's their reign.
It was like tens of thousands of years.
And then there's this huge flood and then afterwards the timelines become way more realistic.
It's like 100 years.
Then he ran for – he was a king for 50 years.
But they have it documented to like eight kings over the entire course of their civilization including the places that these kings were ruled, that they ruled that actually exist.
Like these are ancient cities that are actually built on top of even more ancient cities that are below them.
And these people in these bizarre kings lists, they're trying to say that this was an actual human being.
This was an actual human being that lived that long.
I don't know what that means.
But they're the ones that have all this crazy stuff with the Anunnaki and from heaven to earth came and that they have – they had an understanding of stuff that was like way beyond what we thought they were capable of.
They have Pythagoram's theorem.
They had that 1,000 years before Pythagoras, which is weird because this civilization sort of pops up out of nowhere.
But I will just say that there is this increasingly fascinating thread about a recurrent disaster cycle and the possibility that sophisticated civilizations get erased and that we – Rediscover.
It sounds like it should be but I will say the evidence is far too compelling to dismiss it.
So I think we have to be open to that possibility and we seem to be heading into one of these catastrophic upheavals, which is something – while we're busy dicking around with climate change, which is not what we're pretending it is, we are not dealing with this hazard to our civilization and figuring out how to protect ourselves.
And every time a new discovery happens, a date gets pushed back and it gets pushed back again and pushed back again.
And that, you know, there was a – Michael Button had a video that he put out about there's some sort of inscriptions and writings on bone that they found in the Americas.
I believe it was in Mexico.
And it's completely fossilized and they measured the strata around this, you know, so they get a comparative age of the area.
And they're talking about it being 200,000 years old.
So that means 200,000 years ago possibly, if this is correct, there was humans in the Americas.
And – but – so I guess the point is the fact that humans may have been here 200,000 years ago doesn't affect the story of how the humans that we know – know of here arrived after the last ice age, for example.
So those two things could be true simultaneously.
Of course.
And it's just amazing how small-minded academics are.
The problem is that we have come to accept a proxy, which is the consensus of a field, for the real indicator of correctness, which is predictive power.
And, you know, humans are just not good at this because for one thing, humans do get involved in a competition for power.
And so people will shut down a correct idea because it's not theirs and it will elevate somebody they don't want elevated.
It's destructive of something our civilization is entitled to.
We're entitled to the productivity of scientific work and instead what we get is catfighting and it prevents the high-quality stuff from – It's embarrassing too.
And that's what's really nuts is that anybody that's challenging any of the current consensus, you immediately get labeled like the worst names in the book.
And it's just – you get connected to the worst ideas in society and like, holy shit, you guys are like little kids.
Well, I can't stand it when somebody – somebody will try to shut me down.
I will be saying something and they'll come back at me as if I'm morally broken for making an analytical argument with which they disagree.
And my feeling is, first of all, if you know me and you've seen me be right before, then the fact that you and I disagree should cause you to have this thought.
You should think, huh, that's interesting that he disagrees with me.
Maybe he's wrong for the reason I think he is.
Or maybe he's right and I need to know.
I'll be better off if I do.
But you shouldn't be trying to silence me.
You should be trying to figure out whether I know something you don't.
So this instinct to get people to – people with whom you analytically disagree to stop speaking is totally counterproductive for our collective goal, which is to be better, to know more, to accomplish more.
And what's more, what they did not acknowledge, they acknowledged that they demonetized us, but they capped our channel so it stopped growing and as soon as they re-monetized us, it started growing again.