Patrick Bet-David (Entrepreneurship, Politics & Inequality)
Patrick Bet-David, entrepreneur and host of 'Valuetainment' joins Russell to talk about the latest Trump indictment, how to stop corruption in the healthcare system and the military industrial complex, plus his story from immigrant to entrepreneur.Find out more about PBD: https://www.patrickbetdavid.com/ Join us at ‘Community 2024' https://www.russellbrand.com/community/Come see my new LIVE show: https://www.russellbrand.com/live-dates/ For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here: https://russellbrand.locals.com/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
Thanks for joining us on Stay Free with Russell Brown.
I know how this works.
I can do it.
I can do it.
I'm an independent free thinker.
What's this?
What does it want?
This foam phallus?
What does it ask of me?
What are these vibrations that we interpret in our minds?
If you're watching us on YouTube, We'll be here for 15 minutes and you would miss out on my conversation with Patrick Bet-David who's joining us on a breaking news day.
He's getting indicted from every single direction.
I've never seen indictments rain down.
These indictments are burning and blazing like the neglected fires of Hawaii that are not being addressed and could be the result of infrastructure and you know there's some interesting theories about how those fires started and even if they didn't start As a result of Bill Gates's space laser, which there's, let's face it, no evidence for, certainly elite interests benefit from disasters like this one.
In fact, every disaster appears to benefit a particular strata of society.
Why could that be?
It's just one of the questions I'll be talking to Patrick Bet-David on.
So if you're about, so if you're watching this on YouTube, there's a link in the description.
Join us over on the other place at the appropriate movement.
If you, moment, if you're watching this on Locals, press the... No, if you're watching us on Rumble, press the red button and join us on Locals.
What happens is I keep drinking these energy drinks.
Oh no, it's happened again.
I've drank down, I've swilled down some of these... How much have you had?
You've had a gallon of the stuff.
I've been brewing my own kombucha down in the cellar.
Vile slops, we're calling it.
It's our new energy drink.
We're going to compete with Logan Paul, ain't we?
Vile slops!
They're good for you.
But listen, we can't get into my latest enterprise about drinking a culture nurtured in a cellar, stinking stuff.
Let's instead focus on these ongoing indictments.
We have a look at Hillary Clinton's impartial reaction when she was asked about it.
Watch the... I mean, look.
Part of the problem with these indictments, whether the charges that are being proffered are true or not, the simple fact is no one trusts the surrounding systems, judicial, electoral or political.
So it's astonishing to see Hillary Clinton and Rachel Maddow chatting about this as if there's naught but ubiquitous approval to be gleaned.
As if Hillary Clinton didn't participate in Russiagate.
As if even in the state of Georgia, Stacey Abrams, a Democrat candidate, didn't say, this is an election that we will be disputing.
Rejecting!
And more specifically, she said, we won!
Accusing the, uh, claiming electoral fraud.
So let's have a look at Hillary Clinton.
Steal yourselves for it if you're not a fan of Hillary because it'll, it'll rile you up.
Let's have a look.
Madam Secretary, fancy meeting you here.
Oh, I can't believe this.
Yeah, this is not the circumstances in which I expected to be talking to you.
Really pleased with themselves and one another, are they?
I thought you were here just for me to promote you, to promote your new book and your course at the university.
What about your courses at university?
What about your book?
What about your involvement in the Iraq war?
What about the confederation that you have with your husband, Bill, that seems to raise a lot of money?
There are so many questions that Rachel Maddow could be asking but isn't asking.
And isn't that the problem with the mainstream media?
It's the inquiries that they don't pursue.
It's the acknowledgements that they don't offer us.
I mean, those of you that are watching us on YouTube, part of our army of 6.5 million awakening wonders, you'll still be able to research that famous clip where Rachel Maddow says, if you take it, that's it.
It stops with you.
You'll still be able to see Hillary Clinton claiming the Russia gate is a real thing rather than a hoax.
And Rachel Maddow.
All of them.
The whole damn conglomerate claiming that, which amounts to, I would say, intervention in elections.
Certainly Russiagate amounted to that.
So when there is no moral authority, how can you condemn somebody for acting in alignment, even then that's the nature of these accusations, with an already corrupted and broken system?
Let's have a look.
I mean, that's only five seconds in.
We're outraged.
Let's look a little more.
For me, Rachel, it's always good to talk to you, but honestly, there's going to be no challenging questions.
I didn't think that it would be under these circumstances.
Yet another set of indictments.
Do you Clinton talks as if there's no one in the world that regards her as the very epitome of an establishment career politician.
The very cause of a figure like Trump.
The very cause of the mistrust and anti-establishment fervor that many of us feel.
The reason that Trump can say, I'm probably one indictment away from a landslide if they keep giving me these indictments, this election's in the bag.
Because he knows that the more that he's regarded as an anti-establishment figure, the more popular he becomes.
And to see the kind of self-congratulatory manner of this conversation shows you how we have these two separate ideological camps that are oblivious of one another's existence, except when it comes to condemning them, and no acknowledgement of their own failings and flaws.
These are the kind of spiritual principles that I have to run my own life on.
Personal fallibility, willingness to change, willing to listen to and acknowledge other people's perspectives.
Without those tools, you're just gonna have ossified camps.
Yeah, also, isn't part of the deal with, like, CNN and MSNBC, why they say, oh, we're so much better than Fox because we're meant to be impartial?
I mean, if you're impartial on the case against Donald Trump and you get on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't show you to be all that impartial, in my opinion.
Is that the most impartial person you could summons up from Hades that day?
You feel...
Satisfaction in that?
You warned the country, essentially, that he was going to try to end democracy, but most of the country didn't believe you.
Well, it's hard to believe.
I don't feel any satisfaction.
I feel great.
Uh, you know... Great!
I just feel great that this is happening.
For the first time in my life, I look right.
Not since Bill marched in with that cigar and she wandered out in that blue dress have I ever felt more like my intuition was serving me well.
Just great, profound sadness.
He set out to defraud the United States of America and the citizens of our nation.
If it's a fraudulent and corrupt system, if you have a media that continually lies to you, if you have stories about the Hunter Biden laptop withheld because it might sway the election, when we spoke to Vivek Ramaswamy last week, he said the election was stolen.
Stolen by big tech.
Stolen by a propagandized system.
Stay free with Russell Brand.
See it first on Rumble.
We're going to leave you if you're watching us on YouTube.
Not forever. You're one of our awakening wonders and we love you,
but we want you to click the link in the description below and join us there in
the other place, the place where truth flourishes, where free speech flows like wine.
Where the opportunity to communicate openly with transparency, clarity, and love is abundant and abounding.
And what a fantastic guest we have to speak with.
Patrick Bet-David will be joining us only on Rumble.
If you're watching us on Rumble, give that little Rumble button a little, have a little fiddle with it, a little mess around with it.
Oh, you'd like that, wouldn't you?
Go on, give it a nudge, Wydonia.
Join us over on Locals.
There's a mighty army growing there too.
It's time for us to welcome our fantastic guest Patrick Bet-David, entrepreneur and host of Valuetainment.
Thank you Patrick for making time for us today.
We're thrilled to have you.
It's great to be on with you.
It's a historic day.
Do you agree that it is a prison death match that we're involved in?
Do you think that either Biden or Trump has to go to jail?
That like Highlander, there can be only one?
Listen, it's pretty wild what's going on.
But, you know, there's a lot of different scenarios that could go on.
I think at the beginning when this was going on, there were signs of people not thinking it's going to be Trump and Biden.
And one was Newsom and the other one was DeSantis.
This is what I'm convinced I could be wrong.
If you remember, DeSantis' camp didn't come out the gate strong.
They were kind of like holding off and coming out when he did his book launch.
It wasn't a book launch.
I'm not convinced, you know, their strategy was thinking Trump's not going to make it at the end.
Maybe somebody came and whispered to them and said, listen, Trump's not going to be at the end.
You're most likely going to be the nominee.
And on the other side, they went to Newsom and they said, hey, Newsom, play loyal.
Loyal as much as possible.
Here's why.
The more you say Biden's done a great job, Biden's a great president, Biden's this, the moment he steps out and he's not in it anymore, Biden, the market's gonna say, look how loyal Newsom was to Biden, but look how disloyal DeSantis was to Trump, and then boom, Newsom becomes a president.
So that's one of the things that we have to keep in mind that could be the scenario.
The other one is the fact that the Democrats are sitting there waiting for Michelle Obama or somebody to get in the race.
They keep writing articles to see if she's going to bite.
Is she going to get in it or not?
Because if they don't, and they timed us the wrong way with Biden, Can you imagine if RFK becomes a candidate for them on the left and if Vivek passes up the Santas?
It's a very weird, unpredictable election.
So whenever you watch in sports, you want it to be a Super Bowl or a final that you don't know who's going to win it.
This is one of those that there's a lot of possibilities of who could end up winning a year from now.
What concerns me, Patrick, perhaps more than anything, is that there is so much cynicism about our political processes and systems right now.
There's no one that has any real trust in electoral democracy.
No one has any trust in the judiciary.
Whatever happens in 2024, the side that loses is going to declare that it was a fraudulent election.
You can almost guarantee it. There are new independent media voices
emerging and like both you and I are part of that movement and there
perhaps is a requirement for independent political figures or at least
renegades within the system like RFK. I wonder mate if you feel that that's to
some degree because just take this current story the wildfires raging across
Hawaii that already a subject to considerable pontification
And many people are entertaining pretty extraordinary conspiracy theories that it was started deliberately by lasers that Bill Gates benefits.
One of the reasons I think these conspiracies gain traction is because it does look like Like there will be powerful interests that will benefit from those fires when Hawaii, that particular island, is rebuilt.
And when Joe Biden is unable to offer a comment when directly asked, it shows the inefficiency and ineptitude of our current, or your, I'm not American, your current president.
I wonder if this cynicism is therefore And whether any political candidate, other than the sort of outlier renegades that we've already touched upon, can do anything to change and improve such atrophying and broken systems.
Uh, it's going to be tough because one, you're going up against the machine that knows how to ruin your life.
And it's got all the weapons in the world to ruin your life.
If they want to target somebody, they can throw everything at you for longest time.
The way you did it historically, if you wanted to eliminate an opponent, you did it the way, you know, uh, Ecuador just did it.
You know, that's the old school way, right?
You just get rid of them and, Blame a shooter and then make sure you bring the shooter to the office and then you shoot the shooter.
So the guy that you may have paid off to shoot a Republican presidential candidate in Ecuador, make sure you eliminate the shooter as well.
That's happened before with John F. Kennedy, with Jack Ruby, and then boom.
You know, with Lee Harvey Oswald, and then Jack Ruby takes him out, so Lee Harvey Oswald's not there.
Was he a former CIA asset?
If we think about what's happened from the 60s till today, for Americans to no longer trust their government, it's very, very well deserved.
John F.K's assassination, we still don't fully know what's going on from the government telling us the story.
Why don't you want us to know?
What will be the problem?
Is LBJ going to be frowned upon?
Is he going to be seen as a guy that, right in front of John FK's wife, he wants to be sworn in immediately?
Why are you so ambitious?
Her husband just died.
And you're standing there doing this?
Kind of weird.
Isn't it what you got going?
Or Dulles?
The folks from Texas or some of the people that didn't know where they were at when JFK was assassinated?
These are great questions to be asking until today.
People are still wondering.
But at first, everybody trusted the government and said, hey, you know, it's the shooter.
That's what it was.
You know, it's the that's what happened.
He's dead.
Government would never do something like this.
So Americans believed in it more and more and more eventually.
I don't know about this.
Then 9-11 happens.
Like, yeah, you know, weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, and then boom.
Well, there was no weapons of mass destruction.
What are we doing spending all this money?
So decade after decade after decade, the U.S.
government has had opportunities to win the people over and they've lost.
And we are now at the lowest level.
So if the U.S.
government had a credit score, You know, in America, when you want to buy a house, you have to have a credit score of 720 and up to get a decent, you know, rate and all this stuff.
If we go based on a perfect score is an 820, give or take 850 is a perfect score.
The US government's credit score right now is a 450.
No one trusts them.
No one does.
And say we do get somebody to get in there.
What needs to happen?
Um, one, you and I know this term limits, it's just not going to work out.
Guys are staying there, looking at presidents coming and saying, this guy's only going to be here for four years anyways, max eight years.
We're going to be here for 20 to 30 years.
Don't worry about this guy.
Let's tolerate him for, you know, four to eight years.
Eventually he's going to be gone.
We'll be running this place.
So I don't blame the American people for feeling this way, but I will say this to you, Russell.
Think about like when I know you, I know you through Sarah Marshall, which by the way, man, you crushed it in Sarah Marshall, right?
Not the shirt, you know, all the lines with, with, you know, the, the inside of you, all these, the stuff.
When I look at you, I remember I was in San Francisco.
I saw a billboard says, I hate Sarah Marshall.
I'm like, babe, is somebody running for office?
They hate the Sarah Marshall girl.
I go and watch the movie.
You made the movie with Mila Kunis.
Everybody, it was an incredible movie, but that's who you were in my eyes.
And then all of a sudden I'm like, wait a minute, what's he doing?
Why is he talking about this kind of stuff?
Why is he, he shouldn't do this stuff because if he does, does he realize Hollywood's never going to hire him again?
But why is he going through this?
This is a risk.
Hollywood should have a guy like this by the balls.
They should control him.
He shouldn't go out there and talk boldly like this.
Why is he doing this?
He's not even in America.
He's, I can't understand this part.
And then here's what we realize.
This is what's going on today, Russell, which is a beautiful thing.
There's guys like you who sacrificed a career in what many would dream about being in big movies, big shows, the beautiful Hollywood stars, the women, the girls, the partying.
You gave all of that stuff up to do this.
Why would you do that?
Does this pay you more than movies?
What is the motive?
And then somebody would say, man, that's a big 180.
The point I'm trying to make is the following.
I believe true believers are waking up and they're finding each other.
If there was no social media and podcasting, the chances of you and I, me from the insurance industry and you from Hollywood doing a show like this would probably be zero.
But today, a guy like you who chose to leave the, you know, Hollywood industry and maybe you're still doing stuff, but where you were at before, Or me saying, you know what, I'm sick and tired of what's going on in America.
I got four kids and 11 year old 972.
I can't sit on the sidelines and just count my money.
I want to get involved.
We're forcing people to have to answer questions, whether it's ESG, whether it's term limits, whether it's the, you know, what they're doing with their elections that they're saying, don't talk about it.
And then eventually YouTube's coming back and saying, well, we were giving strikes.
We were saying, you can't talk about it.
Now you can, now we're no longer taking those videos off.
It's because of us talking and the louder we get, I think those types of candidates are going to show up to be able to synergize America and take it more in the direction that it needs to go to.
I think you're right, Patrick.
Thanks for the various compliments embedded in that answer.
What I sense is that independent media and independent politics will mesh going forward.
You'll find that people from these kind of media spaces will start standing for office,
that there will be alliances between emergent political voices and media.
I mean, it's already happening.
We have a great relationship, for example, with RFK, we're starting a relationship with you.
We already have a good relationship with Tucker.
I know you spoke to Vivek Ramaswamy, and they are geared up.
You can see even technically they're geared up to come on these shows now.
Their technical setup demonstrates that they're invested in this type of media,
that this type of media is a requirement.
In fact, Trump's ascent was somewhat built on his ability to bypass traditional media outlets
and the centralized gatekeepers of what are commonly regarded as legacy media.
So do you feel beyond an ability to host conversations, Patrick, in this space, an obligation to get involved in electoral politics, either by supporting preferred candidates or even by getting involved with politics more directly?
Yeah, for me, uh, I think we all are playing a different role with our background.
Me, uh, I'm a guy that doesn't like bullies.
And I think a lot of these guys have been bullying the American people.
America has been, in my opinion, the greatest country in the world.
I lived in Iran 10 years.
My mother was a communist, her family, all communists.
My dad, they were all imperialists.
And the dream was to want to come to America.
We escaped Iran.
We go to Germany.
I live in a refugee camp for a couple of years.
Then I come to the States here, then I joined the Army, and then I go into business, I go into finance, and then I build an insurance company and it grows, and then I sell the insurance company.
Last year we licensed roughly 45, 46,000 insurance agents nationwide, and part-time I start creating content.
And then now it's turned into a media company, consulting from all these things that it's doing.
The best part about Avengers is everybody has their own superpower.
We're not all going to have the same superpower.
We're all going to have our own independent way of giving our messages.
Your angle is going to go from a different angle.
Mine's going to go from a different place.
Ben's going to go from a different place.
Tucker's going to go a different place.
Elon's playing a different role.
Joe's playing a different role.
Jordan's playing a different, all these folks, everyone's playing a role, but it's even Chris is playing a different role from a rumble.
Everybody is playing a different role in this taking place.
But what is happening?
Is we're finding each other and we're also inspiring others to say, I want to get in the ring as well.
And then they're going to bring their superpower to this.
Look.
You know, long-term for me, um, you know, what we're going to be doing, I'm not born in the States, so I can't run for office.
For me, it's going to be more about building a media company and disrupting this entire thing that's taking place.
I think this is going to be the last election, if you ask me, where the traditional way of running for office is going to be used.
I think this is it.
So I think that the model of what some of these guys, like, let's just say DeSantis is using the people from Ted Cruz's camp, And they're just getting the big mainstream media places to go to and RFK is disrupting it.
Vivek is disrupting it.
Some of these guys are disrupting it in ways that you're sitting there saying, he's doing three podcasts a day.
You're going on CNN once a week, or you're going on Fox twice a week.
That guy doing three, four or five podcasts a day is going to school you because he's going to be everywhere.
We ran the data, Russell, very interesting data.
We ran when I had our, uh, when I had Vivek at the town hall, From January of this year, January of this year, till the town hall, which was two weeks ago with Vivek, to see whose Twitter followers has increased the most from January of this year to end of July, the numbers.
Mike Pence was the only one whose Twitter followers decreased.
Okay?
His Twitter followers decreased 3%.
You know what that's telling you?
America doesn't like Pence.
America likes Pence less today than they did 7 months ago.
I don't know why, but data doesn't lie.
Then it was small percentages of Nikki Haley growing.
Small percentages of, you know, some of these guys.
Tim Scott had a good amount of growth.
DeSantis had some growth.
But the only one that grew in 100 plus percent was Vivek.
He was in the 389 percent.
I think he's about to cross a million followers on Twitter.
A year ago, nobody knew who Vivek was.
The only people a year ago that knew who Vivek was, was his wife, his family, his coworkers, his colleagues, classmates, and relatives.
Today, everyone's like, why is this guy everywhere?
A year ago, you've talked to RFK before.
I've had RFK on multiple times.
Did you ever think about RFK is going to run for office one day?
Like, did you ever sit there and say, I think this guy's going to run for president.
That's probably not somebody we thought is going to run for president, let alone, Run for president and create the kind of momentum that he's created.
This is all a beautiful sign that the control is coming back to us.
You and I, regular people who are not controlled by mainstream media that are going out there and saying, I got basic questions for you.
I want to talk to you.
I want my audience to hear from you.
What do you think about this?
What do you think about that?
This is very, I just had a guy on a podcast this morning, Avi Loeb.
He's a Israeli, he's a Jewish, um, Scientists at Harvard who investigates what's going on in the cosmos, aliens, all this stuff.
That's kind of what he does.
And, you know, we talked about the establishment of scientists because scientists, you know, they don't believe in God because many scientists want to be God because God forbid scientists get anything wrong.
They know it all.
Right.
You can't debate a scientist.
You know, there's a guy named Tony.
I don't know if you heard about this guy the last three years.
He was a hundred percent right.
He would never be wrong.
And he was a scientist.
Trust the science.
And he said, the establishment scientists don't like debate.
They're being forced now to debate because it's either the government investigating aliens, it's either professors investigating at universities or it's private, right?
We're talking about it.
They have to give an answer.
Us doing what we're doing, we're pissing off the establishment mainstream media.
And I got to tell you, it's a beautiful thing.
Yeah, even when you think about in the world of entertainment, the phenomena around Sound of Freedom shows that a film can be financed via a crowd, promoted via new media, can have topics and subjects that while they might once have been considered worthy of Disney, because I believe they for a moment owned that script and were across that project, Ultimately it's not something they wanted to bring to air and there are a host of reasons for that.
Some people terrifyingly think that even the subject of the movie was part of the reason for the reticence to release it.
But what it shows us from a media perspective and a business perspective is that there are now, that we are as you say, now at a tipping point where there are sufficient people I'm fascinated by your personal story and I'd love to get into that a little more.
in the same way, isn't biased in the same way, hasn't been sanctioned by the sort of elite
interests that presumably would have put men like you and I on opposing sides once upon a time.
Your background is in finance, I'm fascinated by your personal story and I'd love to get into that
a little more, but the fact that you know a little while ago I would have been regarded as and was
openly called in fact like a sort of a woolly liberal, sometimes even a communist, but what
a sort of a woolly liberal, sometimes even a communist. But what I've always been is anti-establishment,
I've always been is anti-establishment, pro-individual freedom. I've always been in favour
pro-individual freedom. I've always been in favour of people being able to be who they are and live
of people being able to be who they are and live their lives how they want to, I've always been in
their lives how they want to. I've always been in favour of people being able to run their
communities with as little intervention from the state and with as little disruption from
private corrupt Goliath interests as possible. But it seems now that there is more opportunity
for new alliances, whether it's in the world of entertainment and media or politically. And I
suppose what you're saying is that we're going to see more of that and it's going to be more effective
and even the candidacy of Vivec and the candidacy of RFK demonstrates that it's becoming
More of people like us rising up?
Like what industry?
And Sound of Freedom shows it's effective in media spaces.
So I guess what you're saying is we're going to see a lot more of this.
Where in particular do you think it's going to be pronounced, Patrick?
In regards to what?
More of people like us rising up?
Like what industry?
Yeah, what industries do you imagine are going to be most meaningfully disrupted?
Would you say entertainment, media, politics?
Yes.
So, so, so I'll give you a couple of them.
So, so let's go through one of them.
Look at Hollywood.
Most people don't realize that this whole, whole concept, why we call it Hollywood, Hollywood was never Hollywood.
Hollywood was in Jersey being ran by a guy named Thomas Edison and Thomas Edison controlled all the actors and actresses eventually.
They decided to leave Jersey and go to Hollywood because they revolted against the establishment at the time Edison was establishment.
And they went to Hollywood and started making movies in Hollywood, Burbank.
That's what they did.
They went away from Jersey.
Hollywood forgot that that's why they're in Hollywood.
Now they're going to be leaving Hollywood and going elsewhere.
And by the way, This whole strike thing that's going on and you know, all the AI fears that they have and you know, with Bob Iger and going back and forth with writers.
Now it's been what, two months?
I think a little over two months.
I think the last time Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon did a show was May 12th or May 14th, some number like that.
They have not done a show because they can't, they don't have the writers to do it, right?
So they're on a strike.
You're seeing the strikes taking place in a few different industries, but Hollywood's going through a disruption in a very different way.
There's this lady actress, I'm sure you know who she is, who's playing Snow White.
I don't remember her name, but she's sitting there saying, the new Snow White we're making is not the same Snow White of 1937.
It's a different kind of a Snow White.
There is not really a love story.
Maybe you want to call it that, but there's not because women are now independent and they're this and they're that and they're this.
I posed the question to Bob Iger yesterday on Twitter and I said, Bob, I know for a fact you're a smart CEO.
I've read your book.
You're a very smart guy.
I have a hard time believing you think this is a good idea.
This is costing you generations of loyal viewers who followed Disney.
At what cost?
At an ESG score?
At the funding for us to get the best institutional money?
From Black Rock, State Street, and Vanguard for what?
Because you're planning on breaking apart Disney and selling ESPN?
And you're gonna sell a couple of the legs?
And you forgot about what Walt's vision was?
What this whole concept of Disney was?
What we grew up with these movies?
Snow White was a girl's dream growing up to find a man that's gonna kiss her and fall in love and now we're looking at courting as stalking?
That's a bad thing nowadays.
Men are afraid to court because that's what is considered nowadays.
A man's man today who stands up and defends his family and takes care of his wife and his kids.
That's toxic masculinity.
All this nonsense.
We cannot be buying into this kind of stuff because contradictions are now starting to show up.
And even guys like that, they're going to figure it out.
So it's going to happen in Hollywood.
It's going to happen with ESG.
One of the concerns that you talk about a lot, which you and I are on the same page with, I'm a capitalist.
I run businesses.
So, for example, you know how shows work.
You're not with Rumble.
prepared us for, for a long time ago and Kennedy followed suit.
And then we're realizing now what's going on with, you know, the concepts are very simple. I'm a capitalist. I run
businesses.
So for example, you know how shows work, you're not with rumble.
The more eyeballs you get, the more comments you get, the more subs you get, the better you can ask for
sponsorship.
The deals can be bigger.
So if Joe got a massive deal from Spotify, it's because Joe gets eyeballs.
It's capitalism.
Spotify is willing to pay the money because Joe runs a number one podcast in 94 different countries on Spotify.
Okay?
He's got the number two most female listeners worldwide, and he's not a female, you know, podcast as Joe running his podcast.
What's the moral of the story?
The basic concept of capitalism, if Russell, you and I own five hotels in UK.
We own five hotels in Miami.
We would want to know a couple numbers.
One number we want to know is how many rooms do we have?
What is the price per room that we're renting out?
And we want as many rooms to be rented as possible, right?
So if we got 2,000 total rooms, and we're sitting there saying, hey, Russell, good day today.
We're texting at night.
Hey, just got a report from our COO.
Out of our five hotels, 2,000 rooms, 1,873 was used today.
Good day.
90 plus percent.
Boom.
Awesome.
Text back.
Fantastic.
Hey, today was a shitty day.
Out of our 2000 rooms, only 800 rooms were taken.
Kind of a rough day on Wednesday night.
Damn.
What are we doing about it?
I don't know.
We're having a call tomorrow morning.
Okay.
If we ran a hospital, we own five of them.
What, what allows us to make more money?
If we have five hospitals and we got 2000 beds, we need more sick people.
Think about that for a second.
The incentive is more sick people.
Per hospital bed that a person stays there, we make $440 up to $1,800 a night in America, the more people are sick.
So is the business model more sick people, more money we make?
Yes.
So why would we want people to have better diet?
And no, we don't need that.
We need people to eat shitty food.
We need people to not take care of themselves because we need people to come here or else we'll go out of business.
So watch the next one here.
All right, so military.
What is the concept of Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, you know, General Dynamics and all these guys?
Well, if we look at the top institutional money they're getting is also from who?
Same three people.
You know these names, BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard.
Top three out of four on almost every one of those four companies I mentioned.
They need more wars because more wars equals more money.
More money equals more profit.
And then we could be the savior.
And all of a sudden, Chase and BlackRock signed a $400 billion contract to fix and help rebuild Ukraine.
So these are industries that the more we talk about this stuff, people start questioning it
and they're gonna have to pivot.
And you're starting to see SMP says, we're no longer looking at your ESG score
and McDonald's removed every single word on their website of ESG, we're making progress.
So there's gonna be a lot of different industries will be disrupted the more we talk about it.
Patrick, as a self-declared capitalist, how do you using just the metaphor
that you just laid out for us, one area hotels where it's sort of like a business
that doesn't require sickness or exploitation or war seems like a legitimate endeavor that provides a service.
How do we, where are the lines drawn between a capitalism that's built on the free market service of people that require a product and capitalism that Cap sizes social models such as in your example where a health care system requires sickness and you can see how big food require that we eat processed sugars and and seed oils and food that we know make us sick and yet we're not given the correct information about that food and those foods are proliferated and a big farmer industry that is self-regulating
And only benefits if there are a sufficient number of people sick and if they can and they're able to propagate their products and a war industry that requires ongoing conflict and death at the heart of its economic model.
How do we ensure and how do we indeed segregate capitalism which is about providing a service,
whether that's a media service or some other commodity, to a willing consensual public
and the kind of capitalism that plainly is pulling the strings of political apparent
public servants that fund both the Democrat party and Republican party, that require war,
that require sickness, that have essentially bought and paid for our political process?
How do we draw that distinction? Because I think a lot of people that are cynical about
what you might call right-wing politics are cynical on the basis of, you know, I'm sure
there are cultural and social issues, yes, you know, we've covered those, but economically
the idea that the market should govern has clearly gotten to a point where we have got
a kind of metastasized capitalism, precisely in the form that you're describing, where
BlackRock, Vanguard, et al.
are able to agure political situations that are detrimental to ordinary people and yet beneficial to elites.
Even with this Hawaii story, you get the sense that already ordinary working people that come from families that are recognizable to most of us will probably suffer and there will be assets available and real estate available for people that want high-end properties.
Where do you draw the distinction?
What type of regulation does that require?
And what type of conversation around moral capitalism ought we be having, Patrick?
Fantastic question you're asking.
First of all, you know, it's kind of weird with this whole Hawaii thing, where we're willing to send $100, $150 billion to Ukraine, but the president doesn't want to make a comment on Maui.
And somehow, some way, certain homes weren't affected by it, as if they got better sprinklers than the other houses.
And at the same time, these fires that came in and hit up, the people that lost their homes, they're getting callers.
From realtors, local investors saying, Hey, are you willing to sell your land?
I'll buy it from you.
These are the types of things where we're learning about the fabric of the character of people on how they're exploiting people.
But let me give you an answer to that question.
So I'm in the insurance space.
The benefit about being in the life insurance space is we study numbers of life expectancy.
For example, life insurance today is the cheapest it's ever been.
Why?
Because people are living longer.
Longer.
Okay.
The longer you live, life insurance is cheaper.
A couple of years ago, an insurance company, I don't know if it was Hartford or Hancock, one of them came up with a policy.
They called it vitality.
I want to say, and here's how it was Russell, very interesting concept that when we had this guy, this company that said, Hey, we're launching this product vitality.
They wanted clients to wear a Fitbit.
So you bought a policy from them.
They will send you a Fitbit.
And if you wore the Fitbit and it reported that you're exercising after a month, three months, six months, 12 months, your cost of insurance would go lower.
So hey, this person's moving their body.
Guess what?
Let's lower their cost of insurance because they're showing us they're exercising.
I think those types of incentives are gonna get people like you and I to say, I think that's fair.
Cool.
Okay.
My driving ability, I'm not getting tickets.
You should lower my cost of insurance for driving.
Totally get it.
Don't just charge me as much as you want to for different things.
The problem can be solved purely with incentives.
Russell, this is a very interesting thing we did yesterday.
Looking at... I had Cenk Uygur on the podcast.
Couple weeks ago, him and I politically are on complete opposite sides.
And he says, Hey Pat, don't you think we need to offer people 12 weeks of paternity leave, maternity leave, you know, when they have a kid and the husband and the wife can step away for 12 weeks and we should pay for it.
What's wrong with that?
So somewhere he said, I think Iceland does 81 weeks.
Why shouldn't we do 12 weeks?
I'm like, okay, perfect.
Let's process this conversation.
But I got a follow-up question for you.
He says, what is it?
I said, Why do we have women in America have six, seven, eight kids.
And the incentive is for me to send you money for having more kids.
Why are we doing that?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
We're incentivizing people to have more kids out of wedlock.
So we said, let me go a little bit deeper on the numbers here.
Watch this.
Do you know when Social Security first came out, or the entitlement programs first came out by FDR, it was supposed to be a temporary program.
It wasn't supposed to be a long-term program.
It was supposed to be, hey, Great Depression happened.
Things are bad, guys.
We got to take care of our poor people.
Let's get a temporary program.
And we all know what happens with temporary programs by the government.
They become permanent.
Do you know, at that time, we roughly spent a couple percent of our federal expenditure on entitlement programs.
Russell, today, the number is 53%.
Of our money.
We receive federal expenditure.
53% goes to entitlement programs.
Just the welfare side, 59 million Americans rely on welfare.
59 million Americans rely on welfare.
I'll go a little bit deeper with this on how bad policies have consequences.
So at first, the policy was, let's support single mothers to take care of their families and kids.
So there was a certain portion that you paid under 6 years old and at 7 to 18 years old.
And I was in 1935 when FDR came out with that program.
Then in 1964, Lyndon Johnson took it to a whole different level.
I think it's 64-65.
When you look at the numbers, Russell, if I were to ask you a question, I'm actually curious to know what you say to this.
In 1940, What percentage of kids in America were born to a single mother who's never been married before, who doesn't have a husband, who's not married?
What percentage of kids in 1940 do you think in America were born to a single mother, no husband in the picture?
What do you think the number is?
Firstly, I grew up with a single mother, but my perspective is that we tend to manage the conversation around morality and conflating, for example, single parenthood, addiction, mental health with moral issues.
And even in this part of our conversation, Patrick, it distracts from... I think when we're having conversations about power, and I think you have to focus on the powerful.
Now, whether or not single mothers or drug addicts or mentally ill people or even immigrants are costly to a society, that's certainly a conversation we can have, and I'm totally willing to have that conversation.
But I'm more interested in how we discern the difference between effective and responsible capitalism and gargantuan capitalist institutions like BlackRock, Vanguard, etc., and their impact.
If BlackRock Rock are going to rebuild Ukraine after this expensive war
that's costing the average American taxpayer $900 a year that none of you guys have been
invited to vote on.
And like you say, no one's offering the kind of support to Hawaii that's getting offered
to Ukraine, and there's no incentive to stop this war because it's baked into the American
economic system.
I prefer to keep my focus on what are the movements and machinations of the powerful.
So what I'm asking, I think, is how do you regulate and control these vast institutions
that have more powerful than government and operate on a global scale.
That's like, you know, because the sort of moral failings, if indeed it is that, of individuals and the sort of increase of single mothers for me is less important because I know how those people live and it ain't good.
So, like, I'm more interested in the powerful, Patrick.
I totally get it, Russell.
So let me, let me go back to my question.
What percentage of kids you think in 1940 were born to single mom?
And by the way, I'm raised by a single mother.
My parents got a divorce twice in 20 years to each other, twice in 20 years to each other.
So what percentage of kids in 1940 you think were born to a single mother, no father in the picture?
You know, the number is 4%.
It's less than 5%.
You know what that number ended up being by 2000 and even today, 40 plus percent of kids are born today to single mothers.
Okay.
Sometimes it's 35, sometimes it's 45, but the numbers are on 30 to 45%.
Okay.
So at first they said, we're going to be able to eliminate poverty by giving these incentive programs and these entitlement programs to the people.
Guess what?
Do you know how many years it took to realize this doesn't work?
It took us 55 years to realize it doesn't work.
Today, the amount of entitlement programs we have, we almost have to do stuff to take advantage of American people because they're so reliant on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Section 8, child tax benefits, all this stuff that we have.
So, that's one part.
Meaning, bad policies have consequences.
We're realizing that today.
Okay.
That we have consequences.
Families raised by fathers in a picture do better than those who don't.
That's not a debate.
That's a factual statement that's being made.
Let's go to the incentive programs.
So do you know what the laws are in America, Russell for monopoly laws?
Do you know what monopoly laws are in America?
At what percentage point it's considered a monopoly?
You know, number is 50%.
Okay.
So at 50%, so for example, watch this.
What kind of a phone do you use?
Are you iPhone or are you Droid?
Okay, I do too.
Malik, what do you use?
Do you use iPhone?
iPhone has 58% of market share.
Have you heard any conversations about iPhone and America being broken apart because they have a monopoly?
No, it's not happening.
Why?
We're not following our monopoly laws.
Okay, when you go look at ETFs, With what these BlackRock, they have all this control with the ETF money or institutional money.
There's an element of monopoly going on there that they have control.
That needs to be broken apart.
We have to have people that are working under the administration that understand this space to start telling them, you cannot be doing this anymore.
The whole concept of ESG has to be eliminated where today, if somebody wants to go out there and win an Oscar, I have to meet certain requirements for me to be nominated for an Oscar.
A third of my employees have to be part of an underrepresented community for what?
If that was the case, the last 50 movies that won an Oscar, none of them would win an Oscar.
These are ludicrous policies that we're putting in place to have control of what this person needs to do,
rather than hiring people that can do the job like Sound of Freedom and do 150 plus million dollars,
and they could care less about their ESG score.
There's things that we can do to break those things apart, but it starts with actually following the laws
that we have in place, not allowing companies to have monopolies,
because once they do, they have control over things.
It's not an easy thing to do.
It's gonna be very challenging to do, but it's gotta be someone that understands this space
to be able to say, guys, we gotta have a meeting.
You cannot do this moving forward.
Here's what we're passing.
I wanna prepare you.
These companies have to be broken apart.
Just 30 years ago, we had 50 different companies that we were buying weapons from,
Now, five of you guys bought all the other 45 companies.
We can't do that anymore.
You guys have control.
We got to break apart some of these companies.
These are things that a president could do.
These are things that leaders could do.
But to do that, It's going to be tough to do it if you took money from those guys.
It's going to be tough to do if those guys are funding you.
It's going to be tough to do if there's always going to be money in elections.
It's going to be tough to do if there's always going to be lobbyists in there.
Like, look, to, to, to rehaul this whole thing, when talking to Vivek, Vivek's like, I'm, I'm, I'm here for revolution.
I think the next phase, Russell, to get it to where you and I can be comfortable, where These capitalists, crony capitalists, are buying up people left and right.
Senators for $10,000, $20,000 to get stuff that they want their way.
Congressmen that you know are going to be there for 20, 30, 40 years, you can buy them up, no problem.
They're not going to have to deal with insider trading.
They can make all the money.
You see their networks on how they make money.
How are you worth all of a sudden $50 million, $100 million, $150 million?
How?
You only make $170 per year.
These are real concerns.
But to do that, It's extremely, extremely risky because I no longer, I used to think as a naive guy, when I was 14 years old, I went to school, a teacher started talking about Democrats and Republicans and independence, all this stuff.
I came home one day and I said, mom, are we Republicans or Democrats?
And she said, we're Democrats.
I said, why are we Democrats?
She said, because Democrats are for the poor, Republicans are for the rich.
And I said, interesting.
I said, you know what, mom?
She said, what?
I said, when I grow up, I want to be a Republican one day.
She says, what do you mean?
We can't be Republicans.
I said, I don't know what Republican means.
I just want to be rich.
I'm sick of being poor.
I fricking hate it.
I can't stand being poor, but it's no longer about Republicans and Democrats because you and I may not be politically on the same side, but we agree on a lot of things.
It's today now more about you're either for the establishment or you're against it.
The against people have a very hard job.
The against people, very hard to get elected.
The against people will be demonized, character assassination, destroyed, targeted.
This is not an easy job.
It's not a good life.
Not for you, not for your wife, not for your kids, not for anybody.
There's a lot of risk for speaking the anti-establishment language, let alone being an anti-establishment candidate.
But unfortunately, or fortunately, that's exactly what we need today.
Yeah, I think I agree with you on a great deal there, Patrick.
It's plain that we see some things pretty differently.
As I stated before, my preference is to focus on where power is.
And whilst, you know, similarly, I've made a journey through a number of different economic classes, I...
Always like to maintain in our discourse, where are particular news stories being used to enhance the power of already advantaged systems and institutions, whether they are deep state, governmental, or corporate and financial.
And what I'm interested in learning more about is what models within free market capitalism can be moral and effective, and how we manage the delicate balance between Regulation and assuring that legitimate entrepreneurship is able to succeed.
We've got a social movement that we're participating in.
We've got a media organization that we're participating in.
We have ambitions in our organization to improve the lives of as many people as possible and a strong sense that real change will come from personal spiritual awakening and decentralized Movements of government.
The opportunity to control your own community means that it's no longer necessary to have a strong moral opinion on the behaviors and preferences of another religious, cultural community or people that organize their identity around gender or sexuality or identity.
I think that these conversations create more conflict than they resolve and they don't address the fundamental issue and I've had these conversations with A good number of people, the same people that I imagine that you're speaking to in your space.
But one thing I know is integral is that if you're unable to access, destabilize, disrupt, attack, centralize the organizations of government, Finance, global corporatism that are by their nature, as you say, monopolist and not truly competitive, gargantuan, buying up competitors, posing them, presenting themselves as ingenious and scientific, as in the case of Pfizer, for example, recently, when in practice, they function more like an enterprise that purchases smaller organizations, acquiring their patents, etc.
We're given so many false stories.
We're fed so many lies.
We're continually distracted and seduced by narratives of conflict.
That's why, personally, I tend to keep away from arguments and conversations around immigration, even though I know it's important to people.
Welfare and subjects like that, even though I know they're important to people.
Not because I want to avoid the subjects or because I believe I have solutions to them.
It's just a more of an intuitive sense that you will not resolve the issues of our time by focusing on the most vulnerable people, whether they are immigrants or whether they are from, you know, any members of an economic class, where I think it is our obligation to find alliances and new ways of coming together.
And then I think you can regionalize whether or not you're going to have immigration in
your community or whether you're going to have programs to support single mothers or
whether it's going to be traditional or progressive values.
A lot of people I've spoken to think that these issues are primarily used to drive conflict
and certainly that's how I've seen them play out because I find people who think,
I agree with you that we have to disrupt and attack the establishment and I also agree
that you should be able to have your own moral and cultural practices because that's the
price of me having mine.
Patrick, you are an absolutely fascinating and brilliant man.
I love you as a podcaster.
I can't wait.
I'm assuming you're going to let me come on Valuetainment when I'm next time I'm in Florida.
You can, you've got to check out David on Valuetainment.
You should also look at his business act.
Uh, business app Minic.
That's available to download now.
I wish I'd met you, David, when you were doing insurance and stuff like that.
I'd love to have met you in the game.
I think you could have sold me anything.
Thank you so much.
I can see why you've had so much success in this area and thank you so much for making time for us.
I know you're very busy.
Thank you, David.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
So check out Patrick's show, Valuetainment, and look at that app, Minect, as well.
On the show tomorrow, we're going to be joined by Dr. John Campbell.
Loads of you absolutely love Dr. John, don't you?
And he's got some stuff to tell us about myocarditis and vaccines that I think is going to astonish you.
Remember, click the red button if you want to join us on local so that you can get involved, ask questions.
Look, human fly says simply, oh yeah, fuck yeah!
Lots of swearing, joyful swearing abounds in the locals community.
You can join them and you get early access to interviews as well as meditations, podcasts.
You need to keep yourself spiritually straight if we're going to change the world together.
Join us tomorrow, you community of beautiful awakening wonders.
Not for more of the same.
That would be vile slops.
Which is a brilliant new energy drink I'm launching.
