Transcribe your podcast

Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. The Joe Rogan experience. Train by day. Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day.


Very funny text you sent me the other day. He said, I hope we have something to talk about.


Well, you know, the fact is, the world's gotten kind of calm, so I was hoping. I looked out the window of the hotel this morning, thinking the weather might help us. No. Boring as can be.


It's beautiful. Birds chirping while who knows what lies on the horizon. I did not watch the Super bowl, but I got a ton of messages from people that watched it. They're like, what the fuck is going on? Like, the Super bowl was some gigantic propaganda campaign, and there's Pfizer ads and weird woke commercials.


It was bizarre. I did watch know I had nothing else to do, and I probably wouldn't have watched it otherwise, but I did watch it, and it was like some running inside joke. You had to know who these people were in order to even just be with the flow. I mean, obviously the game is what it is, but all of the stuff surrounding it was like, you're either embedded in this culture, or it's kind of a head scratcher.


I did not see any of it. So I wasn't watching the Super bowl last night. I was busy, so I don't know what happened.


Well, let's put it this way. I'm not a football aficionado by any stretch, but it was a pretty exciting game. I mean, it came down to the last seconds of overtime, and it was a hell of a comeback.


There are a ton of conspiracies about the way it was officiated and that the fix was in with Travis Kelsey being sponsored by Pfizer and Taylor Swift and Taylor Swift's music catalog being owned by some mega corporation that has shady ties.


Well, I have to say, I was watching it, and I didn't have a dog in the fight. I wasn't really rooting for either team. I was just trying to get the sense of what the game was like. But I did find myself, in the end, rooting against Taylor Swift.


This is the Biden thing that they.


Posted after his bedtime, just like we.


Drew it up, and it's Biden with these red robot eyes. Why would they do that? Why would they make that? Just that alone? What are you like. What are you doing? Imagine that's the president of the United States. Just how much you imagine Ronald Reagan, if social media was alive, posting a photograph like that, or Bill Clinton.


Well, I mean, I do know what they're doing, right. They have a very weak meme game, but they do have moments when they show some kind of spark in this regard, and I detest it. I think they have an obligation to be above this stuff and to not troll. But in a world where Trump is a political force, they're trying to build a game in the same arena, and they're going to get crushed. But that's why they did it. And obviously, it's the machine that did it.


It's kind of amazing that the left can't meme because they're really bad at it because they're denying so many truths. Like, in order to adhere to the ideology, you have to be so rigid in what you accept as truth. And there's so many things that just don't jive with that, that you can't really meme. Well, when you're doing that, like, what memes are is pointing things out and exaggerating them in a way where people kind of know that this is a case, and then you make a preposterous image and everybody laughs. But the left can't really do that because a lot of those memes are very offensive and funny.


Well, I think it's actually a window into not really the left. I mean, as you know, I feel myself of the left, but I don't relate. As do I people at all.


Nor do I. Something weird happened, and we got kicked out.


Yeah. It got taken over by something diabolical. And what you're pointing to, it's the same thing. It has no sense of humor. Right, right. They laugh, but they have no sense of humor. They have no ability to juxtapose things so that you suddenly see something in the way something, a funny joke works. They can't meme because they're not really. This is some corrupt cabal behind the scenes that arranges a set of policies that aren't coherent together because they're about something that's never been discussed with us. And so it's not a natural for, you can't really build a culture around it because it's incoherent to begin with. So they're bad at humor. Memes is a special kind of humor that has arisen online. And the rules of it, actually, I wanted to talk to you about this. The rules of it are different from normal humor. I was trying to phrase something on Twitter today to make it funny, and I was realizing the difference between a tweet and what I've seen you do in your club, where in your club you can actually structure a joke that isn't funny until four lines in, because your audience isn't going anywhere on Twitter.


You need to keep them on board with the tweet so they don't scroll to the next one. Right. So there has to be some juice in the beginning in order to get to the punchline. But anyway, I'd be curious what you think about what the different rules are for humor in the different contexts, but even just the structural differences is profound online.


Well, one of the best examples of how the tide has changed is the Babylon bee out. Onions. The onion. The onion is essentially dormant. The onion was like the dominant force of satire forever. And they were so good. They were so good. And then something happened where there's, like, places they can't go. It's like a runner being limited to a certain amount of miles per hour when the speed that you're limited to cannot compete with the best runners.


I think it's actually a manifestation of a larger pattern that you can see very clearly when it's about humor and it's out tire and you don't see it as clearly elsewhere. But when the onion was funny, it was a political force, and so it had to be targeted by things that it would have opposed, right? By things that it would have mocked and revealed. And so the fact that it's been neutered makes perfect sense if you imagine whoever it is that was galled by being revealed by the onion. It doesn't make sense if you imagine that the onion is in some competitive environment where it's trying to win market share by being hilarious, right? Why would you take a hot property like the onion and ruin it? Well, the question is, are you trying to accomplish something political by getting rid of a powerful force, a force of ridicule? Or are you trying to compete economically? And we see this in lots of places. Why would social media platforms embrace censorship, right? Everybody wants to be in a social media environment that's lively, it doesn't want one that's heavily constrained. And yet these would be competitors are behaving, they're colluding effectively to shut out messages that lots of people want to hear.


Do you think that that's because they're worried about government intervention and some sort of repercussions for not adhering to whatever guidelines the government wants you to do? I mean, this clearly seems to be the case when you look at, like, the Twitter files. The Twitter files, which has gotten almost no press in the mainstream media, or I should say, the corporate controlled media, but has been extensively covered by independent journalists because it's so shocking, because you're seeing the government actively campaign to get factual information removed from Twitter because it's inconvenient. And most of the social media campaigns, most of the social media programs, whether it's the companies, whether it's Facebook or Instagram, or most of them, have complied, to a certain extent, at least, limited the reach of certain things. Like, there was one that Tucker did famously on Covid and whatever government organization that was contacting them, I think it was the FBI was trying to get them to take it down, and they wouldn't take it down, but they limited the reach substantially by, like, 50%. But they had ruled that they cannot take it down because it is factual. And so it's not like this was misinformation.


So then it falls into this weird category that we've just recently heard has recently entered the zeitgeist, which is mal information. Mal information is factual information that could be used in a damaging way.


I know Heather and I have been screaming about this one since the day that memo emerged. Like, what the hell? You're actually going to put that on paper?


Yeah, it's wild.


But I think the answer to your question is we in the public are under the misapprehension that the game is about money. And the reason that we're under that misapprehension is that traditionally, money has been a pretty good proxy for power. And what's happened is the game is still very much about power and control, but money doesn't mean what we thought it did.


In what way?


Well, a, I think we're being set up that your ability to store wealth in money is dependent on rational policy. Right. If somebody is going to print money in order to get themselves out of a crisis, then they're robbing you without ever gaining access to your bank account. So the value of what you've stored is under somebody else's control. Now, if you imagine that the power players understand this game, that they know that the way I would put it is this. Money has two values. One is as a means of exchange, can you buy stuff with it? And money still works the way it always did from that perspective. The other is, can you store your wealth there? And at least with respect to dollars, it used to be the case that you could store your wealth in dollars, but the power players are aware that dollars aren't going to continue to mean what they have traditionally meant. And presumably they have other strategies for storing wealth in ways that they're going to be able to recover it after whatever happens. I would recommend people. I hope I have the title right. There's a book called the great taking, written by an elite Wall street insider who reveals certain changes that have been introduced into the law that most of us are unaware of.


So, for example, there's a change in which you think you own a stock in the way that people used to own stocks, but stocks used to actually have a physical manifestation. You had a sheet of paper that you would put in your safe. And what has happened is you now own a stock, and you can cash out anytime you like, the way you always could. But if the entity, the underlying entity goes bankrupt, then you don't actually own the stock. You actually own an IOU, which can be valueless. And we don't know this in the public. We think we're trading stocks the way we always did. But what has happened is something that had a physical manifestation in which you could have a battle in a court about who owns this piece of paper is now not about a piece of paper, it's about a right. And that right has an arcane structure that most of us are unaware of. So the question is, at some point, do things that you think you own? Do rules get revealed to you that tells you you don't actually own those things anymore, and that your financial position is therefore not the one that you thought you were in.


So what do you think this strategy is about? What do you think?


Power and control.


But do you think that this is the devaluation of money? What's the end purpose of the devaluation of money? Well, is it central bank digital currency?


That is a mechanism for the ultimate purpose, which is power and control. And I should point out that in the way I think about things, I take that as an assumption. I'm not arguing that as a conclusion, although I do think you can discover that that is the pattern by looking at all of the evidence about what the rent seeking elites care about and don't care about. But I would say it is a comparatively safe assumption that it is about control and power, because it's always been about that. In fact, evolutionarily. That's really why creatures look the way they do, right? Even if you take a human being, for example, you're composed of something like 30 trillion cells of 200 different kinds. All of those cells contain the same information, but they all agree to act differently, because it's in their interest to not go rogue, right? They could all independently try to reproduce like single celled organisms. But if they agree to collaborate, they surrender a lot of capability to reproduce. 30 trillion cells can produce a lot of offspring. Cells. What they get is an increased amount of control over their environment. So that's what evolution is doing by organizing things in the way it is.


Its purpose is to put your genes as far into the future as it can lodge them. But power and control is the game, the evolutionary game that is being played, and humans play it differently. And we go from being a highly adaptable, somewhat technological creature. Our stone age ancestors were technological in the sense that they could flintnap a weapon or a tool, but not highly technological. But nonetheless, the game has persisted as we have become organized into larger and larger social entities, into societies, and it hasn't fundamentally changed now. So what these elites are doing is they are attempting to gain control, to consolidate it, and to arrange to protect it into a future which they see as increasingly chaotic and dangerous. As the people of earth become aware that they have no plan for the future, that most of us have nothing meaningful to do with our lives, that even the systems that feed us and sustain us energetically are built on rickety premises. They know that there's a reckoning coming, and so they're preparing for it. And what you saw at the Super bowl, or didn't see but might have, is the distraction, right?


The stuff that we are fed so that we'll think about things that, other than our long term prospects, in light of elites who, frankly, don't give a shit about us.


Have you seen what happened in Europe with the farmers?


I've been watching that, yes.


Yeah. It seems like they, at least temporarily, have won.


They have won.


But let's explain what we're talking about.


All right, well, maybe you should explain what you've seen. I've watched massive protests of farmers who are increasingly angry and organized about regulations that make farming increasingly difficult, unproductive, and unprofitable.


If I was a conspiratorially minded person, what I would say is what they're trying to do is take over these farms. And the best way to do that is to enact legislation and rules that limit their profitable. First of all, farms are always very difficult to run. They're very difficult to maintain profitability. They struggle. And it's a terrible shame that the people that provide us the thing that we need to survive, ultimately food, that we've done something to these people to make it more difficult for them to do it. While it's already insanely difficult, it requires incredible hours, incredibly difficult, highly stressful. There's so many moving pieces just to provide food for all these people. And they started enacting legislation to limit the amount of fertilizer they're allowed to use, to limit the amount of animals they have. I know in Ireland they propose something where they want to kill a certain amount of the cows because they're saying that the cows produce methane. It's fucking insane. It's not scientific. It's not something voted on. It's not something agreed upon by scientists, biologists, certainly not debated when you're talking about regenerative farming practices, like people that have provided significant options for farming, the way, whatever the issues that they have, where they can actually sequester carbon in the soil and make these farms carbon neutral.


It's been demonstrated, it's not theory, it's been done in America. Polyphase farms, white oaks pastures are two great examples of that. But there's many regenerative farms, it can be done. And for whatever reason, they have decided to enact these harsh limitations on these farmers abilities to provide food for people. Cynically, when I look at something like that, I'm like, I think what they would do is do that cripple the farmer's ability to make money. The farms go under, they take over, they control the food supply.


Right? And I hear you working overtime not to see what's in front of you. And I agree.


Well, I'm just being fair. I'm just making it as. I'm trying to steel man it as much as possible.


Right? But if you take the objective of the game as profit, it's not exactly clear what the end game is. If you take the objective of the game as power and control, then it's.


Pretty clear that's the best way to control the food supply. You just put the farmers out of business.


Who's going to challenge you if their ability to eat requires them to embrace whatever nonsense you're feeding them.


And all you would have to do is start some sort of famine and just make it very difficult for people to get food. And people panic.




And when people panic, especially people with limited resources and limited financial ability, they concede they do. And that's what we saw during the pandemic. It was a great test run to see how much control you can really have over people as soon as you have some sort of major issue that everyone globally has to deal with.


Right? Of course. Simultaneously, they make it difficult for those of us who recognize what is unfolding to make ourselves self sufficient. So you see weird regulations against ancient things like unpasteurized dairy, as if that was some major threat to people or something that you should override their ability to judge for themselves. But the pattern of seeking power and control, if you imagine an antagonist, rent seeking elites, for lack of a better term, and you imagine that they are, however they get there, completely amoral with respect to us normies, I don't know that they hate us, but they don't care if we live or die. If you imagine that, then you begin to see that major patterns point in the same direction. Right? This attempt to control agriculture, which suggests some later chapter in which hunger is going to be used to keep people in line, is consistent with vaccine mandates that were issued in the military, which drove out all of the people who would naturally resist immoral orders, creating a more compliant force. Now, you could imagine that that was an accident. You could imagine that public health officials let their fears get away from them and they mandated these things out of a misunderstanding of the protection of that force.


But I think the most parsimonious explanation is that actually a force built of people who take whatever orders you give them, is desired for some scenario we have yet to see.


So what happened in Europe was these farmers started fighting back. They started dumping manure everywhere, and they started blockading and doing all these things to protest. And apparently, at least temporarily, they've won. Now, what kind of repercussions they're going to face because of this, is what's going to get really weird. And that'll be very telling to see what they do to attack these farmers. But it seems like part of the problem was the public was unanimously in favor of the farmers. No one thought any of this stuff made sense. No one thought that killing all these cows made any sense. No one thought that limiting the amount of fertilizer these guys could use or the way these guys can produce food made any sense. And I think most people fundamentally recognize that farming is not just difficult, but it's fragile. They don't have a lot of wiggle room. And so for these people to rise up the way they did, that's very courageous.


It's very courageous. And it reveals that we are in territory that was just simply not anticipated by the US founders, by any of the important founders of the western nations. Nobody envisioned some sort of an attack from within, in which the ability to generate enough food for the population would be targeted. Right. That seems an insane thing that one doesn't need to create rules against, because it would be, if we view through a couple of century old lens, it would be a suicidal move. But that's not the case anymore. You're dealing with a global elite. And that global elite has options that were unthinkable in the 18th century. So that said, I don't think these people, whoever they are and whatever it is they are doing, I do not believe that they understand the world nearly as well as they think they do.


Do you think that's just because they're removed? I mean, if you're one of the billionaires that's involved in the World Economic Forum, how much contact do you have with regular people? What are your perceptions of regular human beings? And if you've been living like that for a long time? I liken it to like celebrities who just have no concept of how other people think or behave or feel. Because they've been famous and wealthy for so long and adored for so long, they don't understand the plight of the average human being.


They don't understand and they don't care because they don't see themselves as headed back that direction.




It's a rare elite that even if they came from humble beginnings, it's a rare elite that maintains that mindset in any significant way because it becomes an obstacle, it becomes a limiter of what strategies you can deploy. Yeah.


And encourages empathy, which is bad for business.


Very well said, joe. But the problem is the elites, especially ones who have to some degree or other, arranged their ascent, they've done something that makes them feel like they must be very well informed, they must be very clever. Right. There's some component of their power that is the result of some moment of cleverness in their past, or maybe more than one, but it makes it difficult for them to remember how much of what they accomplished actually had nothing to do with them. It had to do with systems built by other people that they know nothing about. And the tendency for them to see the part of the puzzle that they're comfortable with. Maybe it's the strategy of power and control, but to not appreciate the parts of the puzzle that nobody's expert at. They're dealing with complex systems layered upon each other, the ability to disrupt that stuff in a way that it stops functioning, such that even the elites who make this happen are not going to like the world that they're going to create. They may not even be able to live in it. Right. That's the biggest concern I have. If I thought that they were diabolical, but knew what they were doing, then my sense is, well, all right, we're in for a bad hundred years, and that's terrible.


But that's not extinction, right? I think we're actually headed for extinction because I think these people have no idea what they're playing with. They do not understand what needs to be preserved in order to keep the world functional enough for them to live in.


How is that conversation not taking place? That's what doesn't make sense to me. Well, is it coming from a place where they never feel like they're ever going to go back to poverty or to any sort of chaotic world that we could envision? If everything falls apart, they think they'll be protected ultimately because of resources, influence, power.


Think about it this way. Let's say that you're really good at the game of power and control, and you manage to take what would ordinarily be a profit making entity, social media platform, and you get it to sign up for rules of censorship that are bad for business, but good for keeping dangerous ideas from spreading. Well, then you're also likely to utilize that mechanism to shut down the very discussions that you need to hear. So if you think about the question, and I don't know how accurate it is, that monarchs had court gestures, I don't know how regular that was, whether it was an exception. But if you think about the position of a monarch who needs to know what's actually going on, but nobody around them is going to tell them, because it's too dangerous to tell the king that the people think he's an asshole, right? So you empower a jester, maybe you put a ridiculous hat on him, and he speaks in a weird way so that anything he says is dismissible. But the point is, that guy is actually in a position to tell you what you need to know, right?


He can make jokes that are funny in the street that you're not going to hear because you're the king, right? So these new power elites, they don't have a mechanism that overcomes the control, that keeps people from telling them exactly what they need to know. Look, if you're one of these people, you're going to screw up the world that you cannot escape. And nobody can tell you that because you've managed to create a very pleasant world of people who tell you what you want to hear. So that's the danger you're putting us in. And we're mad about it for two reasons. We're mad about it because you're plotting against our ability to guide our own ship. That's natural. And you expect that part, but we're also mad at you because you're screwing up the world, and it's not yours to destroy. You're not going to leave a planet for my children. You're okay with that. I get it. But you're not going to leave a planet for your children either. So wake the fuck up.


I think they think their children will be protected, and I think they just. It's the old phrase, rules for thee, but not for me. We see that with the World Economic Forum serving beef short rib. It's like, what do you really believe? And why are you saying what you're saying? And do you think that because you're so protected now, because you go from limousine to private jet to major hotels surrounded by armed security back and forth, your interaction with a person who's, like, trying to deal with their bills, trying to deal with their bullshit, trying to deal with mortgage payments and whether or not they can afford to pay their taxes and that kind of shit, you're completely removed from any financial strife once you get into that category. I'm nowhere near those people, and I don't worry about it. So they must not worry about it. They can't ever think that it's going to be an issue because it's not an issue. It's just like human beings have this inability to recognize anything that they don't immediately interact with. Everything else becomes abstract, like, even the whole climate of urgency. It's a great thing to talk about.


It's a great talking point for people that need something to wave a flag for and scream and protest and block the highway for. It's a great mechanism in that regard. But are you really worried about it every day? I'm not worried about it every day. Every day I wake up, it's pretty much just like yesterday. It's not that much different.


No, I'm worried about it less and less.


In fact, I'm worried about it less and less as well, and also because of the way China is taking it on, which is not at all. China's building power plants left and right. They've got a hundred coal plants being built right now, plus more than 100. Right. What was it, Jamie? I think it was like, close to 200. And they are the number one them in India. They're the people that are dumping shit into the air. Killing cows isn't going to put one half of 1% of a fucking dent in the amount of greenhouse gasses that get emitted. It's not a lot.


No. Let's put it this way. I think we have to have one caution, which is just because they're using it to manipulate us doesn't mean that there's not some underlying truth there. But if I look good point where the waterline was when I was a kid versus now, it hasn't budged. That alerts me to something. I do think I've seen a little bit of glacial retreat in places that I knew, but it's not a lot.


Well, also isn't that regardless of whether or not people are polluting the world, and I think they 100% are, and I'm 100% on board. Look, if you go to Los Angeles from the 1960s and 1970s and look at the air, and then you look at the emission standards that were enacted, catalytic converters, the way they changed how cars work, it is much better now.


So much better.


Substantially better. Clear indication that these regulations that were smart and intentional, they worked, they did something good. It's better. It still sucks. But if you go to Mexico City, you realize there is a giant difference. I took photos when I flew into Mexico City for the UFC, and it looks like there's a fire. It was like there's a fire on the ground. Like, there's so much smoke, and it's just an everyday part of their life. If they had the same regulations that they enacted in Los Angeles, that would lead to cleaner air and better health outcomes for pretty much all of their citizens. We both agree to that.


100%. I mean, in fact, when I travel to places like this and I think, oh, wouldn't it be cool to live here? I always think, yep. And how much does your life expectancy go down because of the amount of pollutant you're breathing every day? So, yeah, good. Regulations are critical. Critical. And, in fact, we just moved recently.


Don't tell anybody where you live.


I'm not going to tell them where I live. But I did move from Oregon to Washington, and Oregon and Washington deal? Very.


You moved from the frying pan right into the fire, sir. You're a glutton for punishment. What's wrong with you? We need to get you a gun. Bring it out to here, to God's country. Get yourself a ranch. We've got yourself a well.


Yeah, a well. Some guns.


Get yourself some longhorns you can slaughter once a year.


Yeah, but the point is, Oregon actually has regulations that you can't register your car if it puts out significant pollution and Washington doesn't. Otherwise, they're almost identical states politically. The difference between driving in Oregon, where you're not behind the truck that belches out that huge bunch of smoke, and you're struggling to find the thing to turn off the vent, right? In Oregon, it was a night and day difference even between those two states because of those rules, because of the regulation. So I'm a big fan of elegant, light touch regulation. That creates a big benefit for a small cost.


Also, we realize there's. Listen, I am a car enthusiast. I love automobiles. The automobiles today that have the best emissions output are by far faster, handle better, safer. Everything they do outperforms the stinky ones that were ruining the world. The benefit in terms of the air has no negative net effect on the ability to make awesome cars. It just doesn't.


Right. The cars are absolutely rad. The electric ones I also have.


Not just electric ones. The electric one's problematic. Here's why the electric one's problematic. At the fucking heart of every electronic device that uses batteries, you've got conflict minerals. And if you've ever seen my podcast with Siddharth Khara and you've read his book and you've seen the investigative journalism that that guy did where he risked his life to go into the Congo and show how these artesian mines that make cobalt or that mine cobalt, how it's actually being extracted from the ground in your cell phone, is likely conflict minerals that have come from the poorest of poor people on planet earth, literally farming with no protection, like hammering this stuff out, mining with babies on their back. Young girls who have infants on their back are mining this toxic shit that we need for our phones so we can tweet about global warming that is wild. And as of right now, these things don't exist in terms of the way our batteries work. They don't exist without those kind of minerals. And whether or not they can be harvested ethically, seems like we can probably do it. It doesn't seem like it would be impossible. But China's not interested in it at all, and the people that run those mines are not interested in it at all.


They want to make the most amount of money right now and the best ways to keep people poor as fuck so that those people have to do that because there are no options. You get that from them. You extract enormous profits. The people that risk their lives and have terrible outcomes have no benefit from it, and you continue business as usual because you've been allowed to. Now, if that was in Ohio, if we found out that that was going down in Ohio, people would freak the fuck out. They would boycott those companies. They'd figure out how to buy things that didn't rely on that, and we would have to change politically. It would be so untenable politically to support slave labor and to support people living in the most abject poverty you can imagine, the worst poverty on earth, but yet are extracting some of the most valuable resources the earth has. That's insane.


Yeah, it's crazy. Now, of course, the right answer to it is good governance. Where we look at these questions in the long term and we say, here's where we are. This isn't sustainable. What is the objective? How can we do the maximum amount with the minimum amount of damage? And we figure out how to move in a coordinated fashion in that direction, because it's in all of our interest to do so. But we can't do that while rent seeking elites are conspiring to control us, arguably out of existence.


Not just that, but trying to control discourse, because discourse is what starts the european farmers getting together and overturning these regulations. Discourse is what starts people recognizing how unfair the structure of some of these systems are and who's profiting and why, and whether or not we want to support that, or whether or not this is a normal pattern of behavior for human beings when they have ultimate power, it has existed forever. Every king, every emperor, every person who ran giant groups of people did so ruthlessly with no regard for the people. Ultimately, no one ever said, like, I've got so much money and I'm the king, I'm going to make sure that my money is distributed to everybody. There's no hungry people, everybody has food, everybody has a place to sleep. No one's ever done that. They all do the exact same thing when they have power, the ultimate power. They develop this idea that they deserve it and that it's theirs, and then they ruthlessly wield it and they keep the people down, because if the people are down just enough, you don't want them down to the point where they're going to fight back and kill everybody you want, just under coup levels.


Well, I think there's a little more richness to that story. I agree that almost without exception, leaders rule in their own enlightened self interest. But there's a question about how enlightened they are. You can have a monarch who understands that long term their ability to rule is better served by protecting the people's interests more than some other leader who realizes.


But isn't that rare to have a leader like that? Can you name any of them?


It would have a hard time.


Utopian leaders?


No, I think there's a spectrum. You have people on the other end of the spectrum, like pole pot, right? And the idea is you only need one tool, and the tool is, if I don't like you, you're dead right. So that's one way to do it, but it's not really a long term strategy. And then we have everybody.


But isn't it a long term strategy in some places, like Kim Jong un seems to be doing a pretty good job with that. I don't see any relinquishing of that power.


No, I don't see it either.


But it's not like they have massive resources. It's not like they're doing great.


I agree with you. I have to say, it is a more effective strategy than I would like to imagine. But it doesn't look like a strategy that is going to effectively spread over time. Whereas if you look at our system, and really our system, as much as you can say one monarch is better than another, really, the point is, the west has the alternative. That is the best plan going and probably the best plan possible. The consent of the governed, in which we put aside our lineage level differences and we collaborate with other people, irrespective of what they look like, because they're good collaborators. That system is like wildfire with respect to creating. I hate to use the term growth, but growth is a good proxy for what it creates. It creates capacity. Right. And the reason that so much of the world looked at the american experiment and decided that it wanted a piece of it was because America was an extremely dynamic place once it discovered that this was the way to do it, that putting aside monarchs altogether, giving people the right to consent or not over those who would rule them, and putting aside the many differences that existed at a genetic level between the populations that were here, that is, it's lightning in a bottle.


And I believe that what's going on with these rent seeking elites is that they have not really understood that story, and they have decided that they're going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, and they're not going to be happy with the world that follows.


But isn't that what the founding fathers were trying to prevent by structuring our government in the way that they did?


Yeah. My sense is they accidentally solved the most important puzzle because they needed to do it in order to get the colonies to agree to confederate, and that. So by taking a bunch of different mini nationlike things and saying, well, what are the rules that will allow these people to trust a confederation is not going to leave them with the short straw. They built a system that actually does allow people from different races to do the same trick. And the idea that the thing that really makes the west special is that we agree not to care about the shape of your nose or the slant of your eyes or the color of your skin. And the question is, well, all right, I've got some piece of the puzzle. Who's got a compatible piece that we can put together and create wealth? Right? That's magic. If you're limited to your own racial group in order to make wealth, then the amount of wealth you can make is a lot tinier. So this is just simply a better way of existing. And as you well know, we were nowhere. It was not perfected. It was really just a prototype ten years ago, 20 years ago.


But what we've started to do is wreck it in favor of utopian notions that'll never work or a retreat to some kind of cryptic oligarchic power. And none of these things are in a position to compete with that system from the point of view of discovering what's possible and bringing the value of it to the population of planet Earth.


And art, innovation, everything.


Good that we should be trying to achieve is achieved better with that mechanism.


But what's fascinating is that they're using this as, like you're saying, to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. They're using all of these utopian social ideas and using them in this very weird authoritarian way. And the people that are most promoting it are the people that are in control of all these systems, the people that are in control of the military industrial complex, the people in control of the pharmaceutical companies. They're the ones that they want this struggle to be going on between people. They want this false sense that white supremacy is the number one problem that we face in America right now.


In a country where we elected a black man twice.


Well, it's just nonsense.




And I think it promotes racism because it makes people that are, like, on the fence, racist, angry, and they go the other way. They go hard. And there's a bunch of people that feel like they have to be racist because they're being discriminated against and no one cares. And for people that aren't thoughtful and people that don't spend a lot of time and really consider their position on things, I think they tend to react in a way that is, you're reacting in an impulsive way because you feel threatened and it's not logical. It doesn't reflect your actual real values of how you really would think about people if everybody would just treated everybody as normal. Everybody is the same thing. And that the idea that even the goal of that itself, to aspire to a colorblind society, is somehow racist, that doesn't make any sense.


I think it's a pretty good. This is exactly why I'm concerned that these people just don't know what they're doing.




Right. They tried to create racial strife to distract from their bankruptcy, their moral bankruptcy. Right. They were staving off the French Revolution by getting us to turn on each other. Well, that worked a little bit for a while, but it also created a lot of interest in talking about what they were up to. And it created an entire alternative media space in which people who didn't want any part of that nonsense actually gained credibility in the public's eyes. People who might never have been heard of in wider circles if not for this. So they didn't anticipate that they were going to create an alternative to the media that they controlled. That's how little they understand. They didn't realize that at some point, if they tried to push the idea that fat is beautiful, that you're somehow morally defective, if you're not attracted to trans people, by pushing that nonsense, they created a rebellion. They forced people to actually consider these things, which made a lot of us reject them. And by rejecting them, there's now a very influential, if not powerful, group of people across a wide spectrum discussing what those elites are up to.


Right. We even, I think, have elites of our own. I can't be certain, but Musk doesn't look like he's on their team to me.


He's not on their team.


That's what I think.


Well, he's insanely wealthy and independent and an actual legitimate genius in a world of fools.


Right? And I think, not flawless. Not flawless.


He gets out of line every now and then, he gets a little wacky.


He does.


But he's fun.


He's restless.


He's a fun guy to have at the helm.


And I think he looks at what is being plotted against us and sees it as a fun challenge to confront it.


And he has the resources to do it, unlike most people, and has the courage to do something like completely overpay for Twitter and then have the advertisers lock him out. And literally, in a discussion with the guy from the New York Times, he goes, go fuck yourself. Go fuck. Let me be clear. Go fuck yourself.




I don't care. You're trying to blackmail me with money. Go fuck yourself.




And nobody does that.


Well, on the one hand, nobody does it. On the other hand, I wonder why more people don't. Because the fact is he's demonstrating that not only does it work short term, it has costs, but long term, he's not exactly losing. Right?


No, but he's a child of the Internet in the sense that he makes memes. He posts memes. Like when you post that meme of Bill Clinton, excuse me, of Bill Gates next to the emoji of a pregnant man and said, when you want to lose a boner real quick, that's wild because you can't even say, oh, fuck that guy. He's a dumbass. It's literally one of the smartest human beings alive and the wealthiest man alive.




And he's dunking on you on a platform that he owns now.


Right. There's that. As much as it's juvenile, I love it. There was something. No, the one where he was asked for comment by one of these legacy media outlets. I don't know if it was the New York Times, but it might as well have been. And he sent back a poop emoji. And it's like, look, that's a wise move because the rules of the game know he refused to comment.




But you can't say that if he did comment and it was a poop emoji, you have to report that. So that was extremely clever.


Yeah. Listen, regardless of how nonsensical some of the stuff that they print is, I still have faith in journalists. I think we're going through a very weird trend right now where they're not behaving like journalists, they're behaving like propagandists. And I think that the business is imploding because of that and the rise of independent journalists. And I know there was an attempt at a correction at CNN, there was an attempt at it, but they had so many fucking holes in that ship that just try to patch them up a little. You're not going to get people's trust in that way. And I don't think it was effective. So it wasn't effective in terms of the amount of people that were watching and no dynamic personalities that people appreciate and respect and really trust that are on the air. It's simply talking heads that you're familiar with. But I think that ultimately they're going to have to either adjust or die. Either one of them is okay. Because if they die, then you have independent journalists that do have the respect and the admiration of people because they've put their neck out there and they've said things that are controversial and difficult, and they've made these points from a well articulated place of an actual understanding of the issues and not ideological.


So when you're seeing something like the New York Times tweet, post, things that are clearly ideological, Rolling Stones lost the plot. I mean, just what are they doing? They're propaganda nonsense. That shit that they did during the pandemic about the people dying from Ivermectin while gunshot wounds. How many people are getting shot? The fuck are you talking about? You've got a line of gunshot wounds. Is that what you're showing me? And then you're showing me a photograph, which is a stock photo of a completely different time of the year where people are wearing winter jackets, you fuck heads. This is crazy. You're talking about. Was it Oklahoma? That we're saying Oklahoma in the summer and people are wearing parkas like, fuck you.


How are you real?


How are you real? How are you real? While the Dark Horse podcast exists, how are you real? It's because people, they're not quite ready to jump ship yet, but they're fucking close. And so you've seen the New York Times and the LA Times just fired a shitload of people. Sports Illustrated, there's all these organizations that are just fucked now because the media, corporate media, you don't want to call it mainstream anymore because it's not as big. It's really not. The real mainstream is online, and corporate media is fucking imploding. But the people that want those jobs, the people that go to school, the people that really grow up respecting and appreciating and admiring actual journalists, the people that uncovered Watergate, the people that report about the pipeline being blown up and who's actually doing it. When you get real, like kids that are growing up right now that are listening to this, people that are in college right now, that recognize the true value of journalism, they're going to get out into the world, and some of them are going to make it, and they're going to show the way. And it's the only way for those businesses to survive.


You can't survive as a propagandist while x exists. You cannot because you're going to be exposed. You might work for the boomers, but guess what? They're going to die. They don't have much time left. Especially if they take your fucking medical advice.


Exactly. So let me introduce a concept here that we talk about on dark horse regularly, which is zero is a special number. And this is about a little piece of game theory that the rent seeking elites did not understand. The idea is, if you have control. If you have censorship control over all of the social media platforms, then the world looks a particular way, because certain stories that should be discussed can't be discussed. If a single platform escapes that control, then it becomes the platform that everybody wants to be on because nobody wants to be treated like a child. We all want to be in the places where we can discuss whatever needs to be discussed. So by buying twitter and keeping it afloat through the initial attacks, Musk created an environment where we are now much freer than we were to speak even just two or three years ago.


And it seems to have alleviated pressure.


That's my point. Once you have one entity that succeeds in stabilizing itself outside of the control, every other social media platform has to follow or die. Right? Because.


But do.


They are, and they will. I mean, it's possible that they will find some way to defang x. There's still a lot of bad architecture inside of x. But if x remains free, er, then it forces the hand of everybody else who wishes to compete, because nobody wants to be playing mini golf when there's real golf.


Can you expand on the structure of it, the architecture that you think is.


Well, let's just say I will use. In my defense, I met with Elon, and he talked to me about something that I think he's also talked to. He's talked publicly about, which is the fact that before he owned x, he could detect that the behavior with respect to his own account was not organic, that there was lots of structure inside that decided what to elevate and what to suppress. I feel this in my account. I've, in fact, seen very strange stuff up until last week. It's very hard to convey that to anybody, because they don't know how good you are at sorting actual shenanigans from just feeling like a tweet should have done better than it did.




And it was just luck of the draw. But I think it is possible to demonstrate. Let me just tell you about one example.




I was tweeting about. It was about. After my interview, I had two recent interviews with Tucker Carlson. The second one was about the border crisis, and it contained some really explosive stuff, and it was not trending, which is weird for a Tucker interview, especially one that got as many views as it did. And there has been some. I used to be able to do something I would call climbing a trend. If there was a trend on Twitter, I could very often tweet about it, and then my tweet would climb up the trend and that became impossible. It was, like, forbidden somehow in the architecture of Twitter. In the aftermath of this Tucker interview, I expected to see that interview and my participation in it trend because so many people saw it. It was like 6 million views in two days. So it was obviously something that was being seen and discussed, and it didn't start trending. And then a weird thing happened. My name trended, but it was only my first name, and it trended under the category sports. And if you went to the tweets in the trend, they were actually about the Tucker interview.


So the. Bret. Whoa. Right. So what it turned out somebody posted underneath, they said, oh, it's Bret Favreau. Who's. That's why it says, bret Favre, communist.


What's wrong with you?


Wow. I'm not going to live that down, am I? But Farv, he's a legend.


You got to get his name right.


I am going to from now on.


What'd you say, Jamie? That's going to be a meme.


All right, well, I'll take my lumps on that.


But nonetheless, odd spelling in your defense, if you don't.


Well, yeah. So here's what happened. B-R-E-T trended. The category was sports. It wasn't Brett Weinstein trending. And when you went to the tweets, they weren't about sports or Bret Favre. Okay. They were actually about me.


Right. So you were prevented from trending in some way.


I think that what happened to put it in the proper computer science language is that the intersection of Bret Weinstein and Bret Favre is B-R-E-T. He spells his name with two t's. And obviously we have different last names. But the idea was that whatever the architecture in the back of Twitter is was preventing me from trending. But he was allowed to trend. And because our names had this intersection, I could trend under his category.


But most of the category was about you.


None of it was about him. It was all about me, as far as I could tell.




So anyway, I think that implies the structure that I've been detecting but haven't been able to establish. And anyway, that stuff is still inside Twitter. Do I think Musk has put a block on me trending? No, I don't think so at all. But I think there's something in there that he doesn't know about.


Well, you got to think who's working there. Okay.




First of all, Twitter is in San Francisco. The idea that you're going to get 4000 rebels who are international dark web members that are working in Twitter is nonsense. You're going to get those kids that are subject to the same social pressures that all the other kids that are getting out of universities and they're moving into social media space are getting. Those are the people. Now, they might have mandates that they're told to use, but these are computer geniuses. These are people that know how to fuck with things. These are people that are coders. And if they can get away with it, especially if your boss is busy running SpaceX and Tesla, I mean, how the fuck can that guy do? Oh, and the boring company. Sorry. And having 150 kids. How does that guy have time? Yeah, I have three kids, and I can't fucking pay attention to half the shit that's going on in the world. I have issues sometimes at my club where I have to put out social fires, and I'm like, what is actually happening? I have to kind of forensically analyze each and every conflict, measure personalities. Like, what is this person susceptible to doing something?


And maybe they don't seem to be honest, like, something's going on here. What's the actual truth? Do I get these two people together? Fuck, man. And that's a simple thing. Like a comedy club with a hundred employees. It's not that big a know. This motherfucker is running Twitter, SpaceX, Tesla, and the boring company, and he's providing Starlink satellites to Ukraine and all other parts of the world. And you could put one on your fucking camper and get five g in the middle of the desert. Like, what?


Right at the same time that he's meming people into submission?


How every time I text him, I'm like, how are you responding to me? How do you have the fucking time? How do you do that? I can't keep up. I have, like 89 text messages that I have to get to at the end of this podcast.


Yeah, it's amazing what he's able to do, and that's insane. He has a taste for it.


So how could he possibly be paying attention to how people are trending and what's allowed and what's not allowed?


Oh, I don't think he can.


He can't.


All he can do is put people in charge and he can give them marching orders and say, I don't want this thing to have its thumb on.


Is he aware of this dilemma? You should alert him to this.


Here's the problem, okay? And I don't know what this means, and I was not going to mention this, but this is the very thing. So I went to see Musk, as I mentioned, we had a very good discussion. I spent about a half an hour with him. At the end of it, he said that he thought it was a good discussion and he wanted to meet again. And I said, anytime. Of course, on my trip back home, literally, from that meeting, my Twitter account got hijacked. For the first time ever. I've never had an account hijacked, but my Twitter account got hijacked, and it started putting out some crazy spam stuff. And I was concerned about it, because not only is it alarming to have your account captured, but I had been dming with Musk, including encrypted dms. Now, there wasn't anything sensitive in there, but you can imagine, in my shoes, the last thing you want is somebody captures your account and they start exposing communications with musk that maybe he doesn't want public. So I contacted him right in alarm, and I said, my account's been captured. Not sure what to do about it.


We were in a discussion, and we were talking about the fact that the account itself has weird behavior on Twitter, which I didn't know if that was relevant or not. And he asked me for more information, and I started to tell him about this trend stuff. He blocked me. Now, I don't know what that means. I don't think he's on the other team. I don't blocked you? Yes, he blocked me, and I'm blocked to this day, which seems strange. It could be that he's forgotten that he's done it, but I don't think so.


Why would he block you?


I have no idea. It makes no sense. Now, it's possible that he's very busy. It's possible that he took what I was telling him about the behavior of my account, as if I thought it was his obligation to pay attention to me personally, which I never thought, but maybe he interpreted that way. The last thing he said was, stop spamming me, which was very strange for a guy who said he wanted to have another meeting. Right?


How many messages were you sending him?


Three or four.


Stop spamming me.


It was very strange. But look, I don't hold it against him. The guy is obviously. I think it's obvious that he is trying to save the world, and he's one of very few people who has the kind of power and insight to actually make an important difference in that. So I'm very much a supporter of what he's doing, even if I found that whole chapter strange. But nonetheless, it happened. I don't know what it means. And it is interesting that it happened. As I was trying to explain to him the weirdness in my account, which was a mirror for what he told me he had experienced with his account before he bought Twitter.


Yeah, if you wanted to be charitable, you could chalk that up to a guy that's just fucking insanely stressed out and busy and dealing with, let's put it this way, fires.


I'm already there. My feeling is I'm still a supporter of his. I don't like that he blocked me, but the guy's got more important stuff to do and I'm supportive of what he's doing.


Well, hopefully he'll hear this and unblock you.


That would be lovely.


Stop spamming him, bro.


Well, let's put it this way. If that was the issue, all he needed to say is, yeah. Hey, Bret.


Yeah, I'm very busy.


I'm very busy.


Yeah. Which he clearly is.




Yeah, you can't fake that's. I don't know how he does it in the first place. So responding to. Even responding by stop spamming me.


Right. Even that I didn't have time. How expensive was that that he actually typed that out?


I'm just thankful that there is a guy like him that's doing what he's doing. Because if it wasn't for him, I think we were moving in a very wild direction, a really crazy direction of adherence and compliance, regardless of whether or not it's logical. And things are moving more and more into this crazy ideological place that seems very much like a cult and it was in control of all of our mass means of communication, other than whether it's rumble or gab or these sites that are committed to free speech. And some of them have been kind of fucked and take over. And I think that's something that people need to take into consideration too, when you hear about a right wing platform that gets infiltrated by racists and Nazis. And I'm sure that's true too. I'm sure there are some. But I would imagine, and I would like you to consider that we know that government interference in social media discourse, whether it is our government or whether it's foreign governments that want us to stay at each other's throats, is a real thing. And one of the ways they would do that is to make any sort of, anytime there's a discussion, have the most problematic take on it elevated and have massive amounts of people that are saying egregious, horrible things over and over again.


And to me, my reaction when I see that is I stop using that platform. And that's me. That's someone who's really aware of this game and knows how it's going. I don't go to these other platforms. I just get the fuck out of here. It's too nuts. Some of them, and then some of them, I go, okay, on x, when some hot take comes out, I love to go into the accounts and see what the most ridiculous people like what they're saying, and then go to their page, and it's usually like a name with a bunch of numbers, and they have, like, 43 followers. And then you look at their tweets, and it's all either responding to these social issues in this very egregious way or retweeting preposterous things and retweeting gaslighting things, retweeting things that just, like, you just go, who the fuck thinks like this? Well, they're not real people, man. These are agents of chaos, and they're injected into social media. If you have beer, and it's a really good beer, and you inject 20% piss into that beer, people are going to drink that beer and go, what the fuck is wrong with this beer?


It's not the beer. It's what's being injected into the beer. You're not allowing the real citizens to have an honest take on how everybody else thinks, because the way we figure out what's right, no one exactly knows that their take is 100% the only way to look at things. You got to be able to interact with people. That's why discourse is so important. And that's the most fascinating aspect about the free Internet, is to be able to see the actual opinions of real people that think very differently than you. And some of them, you might think are ridiculous, and some of them might change your mind. You might listen to what their take is on something and go, I never considered that. Maybe I am looking at things ideologically. Maybe I do have a preconceived notion of what's right and what's wrong, and it's not based on facts. I'm not being objective, and that's the only way to find that out. But when you're dealing with swarms of people, whether it's russian troll farms or chinese or american, and they're jumping into the fray and fucking up all the conversations, you're like, what's really going on here?


What is really going on? And I think most people don't know what's really going on. The reason why I got to this recently, it was some article. I forget what the article was about, but it was some social take. But then I saw that they were posting tweets in the article, which is a new thing that lazy journalists would do. And this was the take online of this. And so I go, okay, that's a take online. Let me go to that person, see if it's a real person. No, not a real person. Let me go to this other tweet. No, not a real person. I mean, it might be a real person, but my instincts are that the fucking name and three numbers behind it, and the way they're tweeting about stuff. Bullshit. Bullshit. So did they do that? How did they not do that before they posted those tweets? They don't give a fuck. They're just getting clicks. They just want to see that people are arguing about things, and they want to see the support for whatever preposterous notion they're trying to push out, whether it's trans athletes or people being able to use women's rooms with penises, all of that stuff.


When you see the takes on that and you go, like, how much of this is real humans and how much of it is actually affecting real humans to their whole barometer, their idea of what's okay and what's not okay shifts. And the way I've described it, and I'd heard someone talk about this in terms of. I think it was Tony Robbins actually talk about it in terms of beneficial behavior, that if you are on a certain path, there's two boats on a certain path, and one of them deviates slightly in a better direction over time. The distance is great from where you would be to where you are now because you've done the right things. Well, that's also true if you get people to believe nonsense and you get to be people to believe weird social things, and you get to be people to believe that if you are not willing to have sex with a biological male who identifies as a woman, somehow or another, you're a Nazi. And that gets further and further. Then we find ourselves in these, like, how did I get here? How are we here? And a lot of it is just discourse.


And if you can control discourse, and if you can manipulate discourse, which is clearly being done, you could change what's acceptable.


Well, on the one hand, I think it's even worse than you're portraying it. And on the other hand, I find a kind of hope in this. And the way it's worse is if you think about who we're up against and what properties they control, they presumably have the intelligence services on their side. They've banked all of our communications. And, I mean, if you give me their cards, I know how to win. Right? You know, who suspects whom of what? You know who resents whom. You know how to cede anger and disrespect. It's not hard to take a group of people and get them to tangle themselves if you have that kind of information. And they just simply do. And they don't even have to collect it in real time. They just have to bank it so that they can go back and figure out what the map of these things is and they can tangle us. And I think they're doing it. And I think we are seeing. I know that in the COVID dissident community, there's all kinds of infighting that's going on. That about what? Well, there's a faction that has emerged, for example, that is convinced that there was no novel pathogen circulating during the COVID pandemic.


Now, do you think those people are real?


Some of them are. I know some of them.


Right? So these people think that it was just all bullshit and that all those people getting sick was what? The flu?


Well, there's a second faction that says it wasn't SARS Cov two. It was flu, right? Now, let's just say, I think the people who say that there was no novel pathogen, they actually have a point that they're failing to make, which they should be making. The point is the propaganda was so effective, it was so industrial strength, that a pathogen was not required. Much of this could have been accomplished with no pathogen.




Now, that doesn't mean there wasn't a pathogen. And I think there was because I think I've had it, right? And my sense that I have had that pathogen is based on observations of the pattern with my family. So let's just take the question of, well, was this flu? And are you leaping to the conclusion that flu was something special because people had put the idea of SARS Cov two in your mind? I don't think so. And here's why I don't think so. I've had flu maybe three or four times in my life. I've had something three times in the last four years, something severe. And flu like, I had it still severe.


Well, the most recent versions have been severe.


For you, let's put it this way. Severe as in debilitating.




I treated it aggressively. I got over it quickly.


But the results, the impact, initially, the.


Impact was profound, right? It was flu or worse severity. Now, am I saying that was SARS Cov two? How would I know? How would I know?


You didn't get tested the last two times?


The last time I got tested, it did not test positive for Covid, but it was out of season. So the basic pattern is this. I believe that pathogens exist. I believe that I have contracted a pathogen three times in four years. Does it have to be one pathogen? No, I'm open to the possibility it was a couple of different things, but mostly we're talking about not in the traditional season for flu.


Did you get tested for RSV?


I didn't, but I did talk to Pierre Corey about it, and there was no reason to think it was going to be RSV. So, anyway, my point is, I don't believe there was no pathogen, because I believe that something that followed the pattern of a pathogen is in the world also.


The pathogen is clearly documented.


Well, I agree with you. It's clearly documented, but it's not that the people who are arguing there's no pathogen don't have responses. And so we saw a lot of shenanigans with cycle thresholds on PCR. So there are ways to create the impression of a pandemic that do not require there to be an actual pathogen.


Well, it was also one of the rare times where being asymptomatic didn't. You were still considered sick.


Yeah. And that was likely nonsense or largely nonsense.


Well, it was, like, some wild number. Like, 65% of the people who were diagnosed with SARS CoV two were asymptomatic, and this was also during the PCR cycle days of 40 cycles.


Right. So the point is, all right, we know that there are various tricks you can play, and that we know that they were played, that people who died of things that had nothing to do with any infectious disease were categorized as dying with COVID or of COVID and.


That they were financially incentivized to do so.


We know all of those games were played. And so, from my perspective, I believe that most of what happened could have been arranged without a pathogen. That said, I believe there was one now. But the larger point, you asked me, what is the infighting in the COVID community? The fact is, those who believe that there was a pathogen are viewed as shills or limited hangouts by those who believe that there wasn't one.


Can I ask you this? There's this thing that they say that the conspiracy theorists never, biologists say is that Covid has never been isolated.


Yeah, I don't think this is true. I think what you want is somebody who is skilled in the molecular side of this story to talk you through what is and isn't correct.


Can you just expand on that? This idea that keeps getting propagated, that Covid has never been isolated.


So I can't really explore that evidence because I'm not well versed in it. I can tell you who I trust on this topic, and I would say talk to Kevin McCurnan. Right. He can tell you what's been seen and what hasn't. The problem mean, you read Bobby Kennedy's book about Fauci, and you remember in that book that there is an exploration of what happened with HIV. Now, the portrayal in that book, which I must say is, I think, shockingly compelling, is that HIV exists, but it is not explanatory of acquired immune deficiency syndrome as we think it is.


And this is Peter Deusberg's assertion, too, who was demonized heavily during the AIDS crisis.




So professor of biology, University of California, Berkeley.


So we're dealing with a question. There are those who believe that pathogens don't exist, that viruses don't exist. I think these people are completely nuts. We know viruses exist. For one thing, there are certain viruses you can see, right? Like a bacteria phage is something that you can actually see with an electron microscope. So viruses definitely exist. Whether they are responsible for this, that or the other syndrome is something that we can get wrong.


Can I stop you there?




So if you could see viruses in electron microscope, you cannot see Covid. In an electron microscope.


You can see something, right. You can see a particle with structure. But there are. So again, we're in an area that is not my area of expertise. You've got a couple of different kinds of electron micrographs. You've got scanning and transmission, and then you have various tricks to increase the ability of them to see into ranges that are actually beyond the ability of electrons to reveal them directly. And anyway, it is a highly technical realm, and it's not something I can explain, but we can see something. But the fact, if you say this person has a syndrome, right, and then you go looking for a particle, and that particle is present reliably. Right. You have to then figure out if that particle is absent from people who don't have the symptoms, and if it's not absent, which it sometimes won't be, you have to figure out what it means. Right. So there's a postulate about establishing the connection between a virus and a disease that is seemingly logical. In other words, people who have the particle present ought to show symptoms of the disease. And people who have symptoms of the disease ought to have the particle that postulate.


Cox postulate does not actually work. And the reason it doesn't work is because you have. Let's take the case of AIDS, for example. AIDS involves an inability of people to fend off various pathogens that they would otherwise be able to fend off. You can say, well, that's the result of HIV. The problem is that the inability to fend off some set of pathogens may be the result of the disruption of a subclass of cells. CD four cells, let's say. So if CD four cells are attacked by HIV and that disrupts the ability of a patient to fend off a particular disease, then anything that disrupts the formation of CD four cells will produce the same pathology. So, according to this postulate, which is too narrow, you can falsify the idea that HIV is causing AIDS because there are patients who have AIDS who don't have HIV, right? So that's the problem. You need a richer toolkit in order to be able to establish a causal relationship. And in the case of HIV, the argument is that it is effectively a minor fellow traveler, right. That whatever it is that is causing AIDS actually is accompanied by HIV, but that HIV isn't actually inducing that syndrome, right?


So AIDS is a syndrome, which just means a collection of symptoms that occur together. But the nature of biology is that you have pathways. Anything that disrupts a particular pathway will create all the same symptoms downstream. And so, in any case, that complexity makes it very difficult to establish with certainty that x particle creates y disease.


Because also ignoring a very important factor in AIDS, which is party drugs, that.


Is the competing hypothesis. And for those who think that this is a preposterous allegation, you should look at this evidence. The evidence is surprisingly compelling. And if your mind resists that, realize that Luc Montagna, who got a Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV later in life, became convinced that the thing for which he got the Nobel Prize was not nearly as important as he had imagined. He believed that HIV was not the causal element. So to me, that's very powerful. Somebody as smart as Luc Montagna looked at the evidence and said he had gotten it wrong, where that actually decreased his own historical importance.


And then we have to take into consideration the initial treatment, which was AZT, right? AZT kills people dead, and they stopped using it as chemotherapy medication because it was killing people quicker than cancer. And chemotherapy medication has never been. Never been prescribed to people. That you constantly stay on it. That's just not something they do. You go on it for very short periods of time because it's very damaging, but it kills the cancer and then your body recovers and survives. With AZT, with AIDS, it was killing people. So now you have people dying from AIDS and you have this medication which Fauci in the 1980s has famously quoted as saying is the only reason why we use only one medication is because the only medication that's been proven to be both safe and effective.




Where have you heard that before?


Right. Covid was a rerun of the AIDS chapter with AZT.


But the AIDS chapter seems even more terrifying because if the initial treatment was AZT, and we know AZT kills people, you're taking someone who has a compromised immune system and your response to that was give them something that's going to kill them quicker and then say there's a giant crisis and this is what Deusberg was demonized for.


Yeah, I agree. And for many years I resisted the interpretation. I was more familiar with Kerry Mullis's objections. Kerry Mullis was the inventor of PCR technology who died tragically, and some would say, strangely, at the very beginning of the COVID cris.


Why strangely? Because of the timing.


Have you ever seen this piece of video where he talks about Anthony Fauci? Yeah, let's put it this way. Kerry Mullis was a outspoken, vigorous, highly intelligent person who was not corralled by fashion. And in fact, his objection to the idea that HIV was causing AIDS was an early testament to his maverick nature.


For people who haven't heard it, let's find that. Find that clip of Kerry Mullis talking about. Anthony Fauci is essentially just saying he's a bureaucrat and he doesn't know what he's talking about and that his technology should never be used.


Yeah, the second one there.


The second one. That one. Yeah.


What is it about humanity that wants to go to all the details and stuff and know these guys like Fauci, get up there and start talking? 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 on the bottom. 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 that pay his salary and lie directly into the camera. You can't expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest.


They don't know the difference, really. I mean, I like humans, don't get me wrong, but basically, the vast majority of them do not possess the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. I mean, that's a problem. That's the main problem, actually, with science, I'd say, in this century, because science is being judged by people, funding is being done by people who don't understand it. Who do we trust? Fauci. Fauci doesn't know enough. If Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it, because he's been asked. I mean, I've had a lot of people, president of the University of South Carolina, asked Fauci if he'd come down there and debate me on the stage in front of the student body, because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance my. Because I felt like, well, these guys can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that's going to tell me the other side. She didn't want to do it.


Yeah. So that's a pretty wild piece.


And how did he die?


I've forgotten what the pathology was, but some spontaneous thing. But the thing is, people die. But he was a healthy, healthy guy.


That was from 2000.


What, that video, Jamie, do you know?


Well, I'll say it's like 1618. See if you can find it. Just so we know. So we could judge based on what he looked like there. He looked pretty healthy. But obviously, people have things that come up even when they look healthy.


Sure. And that's the problem with all of these things, is people do die spontaneously.


But if you're looking for someone who would be, someone who would be a brilliant, well respected scientist that would be at the head of the resistance to something like this and would be vocal about it.




That's your huckleberry.


Yeah. You would have had him on your podcast and he would have said, this cycle threshold stuff is nonsense. And frankly it would have been a mirror of what happened with Robert Malone. The whole Covid crisis unfolded differently because the inventor of the mrna technology at the heart of those so called vaccines didn't think this made any sense, had been injured himself by getting one of these inoculations that changed the dynamic of the argument. To have the inventor of PCR technology saying, you're using that in a way that is unforgivably wrong. Right. That would have changed the whole dynamic as well. And yet he was gone. So probably natural causes.


What was his cause of death? I'm looking both things up at the same time. Okay, we'll find out both things shortly.


I should point out Luke Montagna also died late in the COVID crisis. Now he was as old as the hills, so one has to imagine that that was probably just bad luck. But I've never even heard of him before. You've never heard of him?


No. What does it say? Heart respiratory failure brought on by pneumonia. 2019.


Yeah, August of 2019. Look at that.


Right before it popped up. Boy, that's convenient. 74. But 74 is around the time when people do die. That video was from. Did we know what year?


I was trying to. Too many things at once.


No worries. I found multiple issues or uploads of that video.


But I'm trying to figure out how.


To find out when the discussion was who the person was talking to him. Okay.


So anyway, the reason I raised him was that the first place I became aware that anybody significant doubted the story about HIV leading to AIDS, it was Kerry Mullis. And my sense at the time, which I now regard as wrong, was this is a chemist, he's a brilliant guy, but he doesn't understand the biology and he's overusing the postulate and he's not understanding why a virus that does cause a disease wouldn't match the postulate.


96. So that was when that conversation was, wow, that's crazy. Yeah, 96.


But what I came to understand later, after I looked at what Luke Montana had said and I read Bobby Kennedy's book on Fauci, was that actually the argument against HIV being causal was a lot higher quality than I had understood, right? That it being a real virus, a fellow traveler of a disease that was chemically triggered, that is at least a highly plausible hypothesis. And with Anthony Fauci playing his role, that was inconvenient for what he was trying to accomplish.


And we have to really take into consideration the time in which we're talking about. We're talking about the 1980s and the media was completely controlled and it was very small. There wasn't a lot of outlets. There was no independent journalism. It didn't exist. There was no people that were standing, no rebels that were standing outside the fray saying, that's not true. This is what's actually going on.


Right. And actually, this brings me back to an earlier point. So you were saying that journalism would survive.




And the story here is an interesting one. I don't trust almost any journalist who's still in the mainstream system. Right. There's maybe a couple of holdouts. Si Hirsch still puts out important stuff every now and again. But the interesting thing that's happened is whatever force it is that has made it essentially impossible to do good journalism inside the official system has driven out and surfaced really good people. Right? We've got Matt Taibi, we've got Schellenberger, we've got Greenwald. We have, of all things, Tucker Carlson is know he's gone from being an anchor person, albeit a very articulate and insightful one, but an anchor person. He's now traveling around the world and doing a job that looks like something, like what a newsroom used to be. And this was, of course, the achilles heel of the journalists that had surfaced previously was that they could do the job of journalism well outside of the New York Times and CNN and all of that. But they couldn't reproduce the power of a newsroom that could send people all over the world and actually report the story.




So anyway, I do see the emergence of, and part of it is what we're doing here right now. Right. The inability of the system to tolerate open discussion of important topics has produced the phenomenon that you so heavily innovated that so many of us have picked up, which is now fueling the ability of these independent journalists to bring their discoveries to the public. And the public, of course, is absolutely fascinated and completely uninterested in reading the New York Times because there's nothing in it.




So anyway, that's a very hopeful thing. And the degree to which that is also riding on the purchase of Twitter.


And people like Tucker.




And also fox fucking up and removing him.


Well, but think about it. All of these things are the same, right? You've got social media platforms that refuse to provide people a venue in which they can talk about whatever they want. That's business wise, stupid. But in terms of maintaining power and control, very important, right. You've got Fox firing its most important asset and thereby accidentally freeing him to basically dwarf their influence. So all of these things represent something that should. Or. And the onion, right? Yeah, the onion was funny, right? Funny is a money maker. So why do all of these properties make dumb decisions that sabotage, that cannibalize their own business? Well, it's all pointing in the same direction. All of these things are involved in some battle over control that confuses us because we think of them as normal businesses.


Well, it's clearly pressured by advertisers. It has to be. And it also has to be pressured by some intelligence agencies. If you got a guy like Tucker saying the CIA killed JFK, the FBI had 200 people, at least on the Capitol, on the lawn, that were instigating. He's saying this on Fox. And if you have a corporation like Fox, which is this long standing conservative news organization that has deep ties to the military and know conservative groups, and then certainly to beholden to advertisers, you got a real problem on your hands, like, how much is this guy worth? How many views does he get? What does Jesse Waters get?




Is it close? What about Sean Hannity? Is it close? Can we fucking just move him in and take a small hit but not have any propaganda hit?


It's not. And so, I mean, I think that actually describes the game, right? We've got to stop looking at businesses in simple terms, right? Victoria's Secret does not embrace fat because it thinks anybody actually is persuaded by this stuff. It does it because there's some higher order principle being deployed in which it has to play its role. That is driving the fact that there is some influence, a pernicious influence, causing everything that should behave normally, to behave weirdly and against the public's interest, is driving everything that insists on continuing to function out. And if we were all driven out, but we had no mechanism to reach an audience, then it would be game over.




But the fact is, there is a mechanism. The Internet provides it. So then the question is, well, what are the bottlenecks? Right? And now we're going to fight over the bottlenecks and social media platforms all marching in lockstep. That was a bottleneck, okay? One of them gets broken out by Musk. Right? Now, the whole sector can't behave in the same way because there is a place you can go if you don't want to exist under that control.


And when Musk buys it out, Tucker goes to x, right? Which is a double wild.


It gives Tucker a place to go. And so the point is, he doesn't miss a beat, right?


Not only that, he gets bigger.


He gets far bigger and more powerful. And it's interesting to see how you can infer the control that Fox had even over Tucker by the difference in the way he is playing the game outside of that structure. Right. And it's to our benefit. So I would say as know, a committed patriot and somebody who thinks the west is in great jeopardy, the way we should look at the chessboard is the most important thing is maintaining that ability for us to discuss what needs to be talked about in a place where it can be found by people who want to hear it.


Absolutely. Well said. It's the only way we get through this. And then I always bring this up, that throughout all human interactions, throughout all history, there's been good and evil, there's been pro and con, there's been negative and positive, and they battle. And it's one of the reasons why positive influences and great things rise. Because they're in competition with evil. They have to innovate, they have to grow stronger, they have to expand, because that's the only way to survive. And when people do have this moral imperative and do have these ethical considerations that don't allow them to give in and sell out, they can push this thing and get through, and we all benefit from it. And if this battle didn't exist, maybe we wouldn't get as far as we're going to get. Maybe this is just a natural part of the way humans interact and the way ideas battle it out to find out what's the good one and what's the bad one. And even these people that are these fake accounts that are on Twitter, they're participating in it whether they realize it or not, because they're allowing people to understand, like, oh, there are factors at play that are not actual human beings in the sense of individuals with objective ideas.


They're a part of a group that's trying to push a narrative in a very specific direction. And now, because I'm aware of that now, I see things a little bit more clearly. I stand outside a little bit more and analyze things with less emotion and try to figure out what is really going on here and how complex is it, and also, how much time am I going to have to invest in this before I really understand what's going on? Because most people don't have any fucking time. They don't. Most people's lives are filled with things that they have to do, obligations, family, finances, all sorts of stuff that they have to pay attention to where they don't have enough rabbit hole time to really dive into this kind of stuff and figure out what the fuck is going on? And why are things moving? What is Dei, why are things moving in this direction? Are people being paid to do this? Who's paying them? Why, why is there a financial incentive to push this kind of bizarre behavior and thinking like, what is it? What is it?


Yeah, I think you're pointing to exactly the right thing. And I have the same. Unfortunately, you told me many years ago, don't read the comment right now. I was a comment reader and I still do to an extent, but I think what's happened is whatever. As the number of people who pay attention to me has gone up, the certainty with which I'm going to have to embrace your approach to this grows as well. Yeah, and the reason is because it doesn't take very much seeding of bad behavior to create a wave, even amongst the real people. So when I talk about the COVID dissidents and the infighting, some of these people are real. I know it because I've met them, I've spent time talking to them. What is inspiring them to do that can well be sock puppets or bots that are loaded with information that is surprisingly good about where their blind spots are or what their suspicions are. And so they can be induced to play this role and to accuse them of not being real is incorrect.




But the amount of influence it has over the public discussion is huge. And actually, I would deploy, it's just a hypothesis, but I think one of the reasons that programs like yours are playing the role that they are, and my show is an outgrowth of yours. You literally told me to start one and I did. The reason that that makes a difference to people is because the ability to mislead is really dependent on the ability to know exactly where the audience is going to be seated so that you can construct something in front of them that looks a particular way and leads them to a particular conclusion. Conversations like this can't do that. Right. The point is, too many topics we don't know ahead of time what we're going to talk about. So the point is you really do get a sense for how comfortable a person is with their perspective, whether it requires them to stay exactly on message, because as soon as they're off message, it's not going to work. So if you were looking for authenticity the way you would find it is in a conversation, the confines of which were not spelled out in advance.


There was no script, there was no, we're going to spend four minutes here, then there's going to be a commercial, all of that. So I wonder if that's part of what's driving people into podcast world is just the simple fact that it can't really be faked.


Yeah, I think people definitely have a real hunger for authenticity, and that's a part of it. Like the least produced. The less there's some involvement, the less you feel like there's an agenda and a script, the more you're willing to listen.


Yeah, and I hate to use the term low production values because that sounds like an insult, but at some level, it's the low production values which that part you can fake. You can make something look like it was put together, but people smell it, right?


They smell the bullshit. Like this really is a low production value show. It really is. But it's on purpose, right? Because I think that's the only way to do it. And it's also with a skeleton crew, which I also think is the only way to do it. I have friends that have podcasts that have enormous staffs of people running around doing the job of one young Jamie. I don't think that's the way to do it.


No. And it's amazing. There are a lot of strikes against us in this battle, but one of the things that's working very much for us is the fact that in terms of the equipment you need to do it, and as long as they don't bar you from accessing the Internet, the ability to distribute it is available to pretty much anybody. So the question is, can you load something into that that's actually worth people's time enough that they're going to tune in?


Well, that's when it gets real sketchy, right? Because they are taking steps. And one of the things that has been discussed recently was Google's new guidelines in terms of what they're going to do in the future. If there's any sort of large event, and they use this really blanket description of what this event would be, anything of social consequence, anything involving a pandemic. So they're essentially expanding their ability to censor. Now, you could imagine where you could justify that if they weren't horribly wrong. Just a couple of years ago, just a couple of years ago, if you had discussed things on your podcast that are undeniably true and now accepted as fact, you would be banned, you would be kicked off. That's a fact. We know that to be a fact. And we know that there was pressure, at least on Twitter, documented pressure by these groups that have a vested interest in pushing a very specific narrative to deny people access to the truth and the best way to do that, in their eyes, was ban people, suppress information, kick people off the platform, demonetize them so you incentivize them to self censor. There was all these tactics being put in place in Google.


They're openly stating that they'd like to do more of this after they were horribly unsuccessful and incorrect doing this during the first pandemic.


Well, that is a perfect mirror for what's going on in the World Health Organization as well, where I don't know how much you've been following it, but there is a pandemic preparedness treaty modification, and international health regulations that are hurtling towards approval in May of this year. And what they are is the exact rules that would have allowed the CDC and the WHO and all of those over in Fauciland to win during COVID if they had been in place. So it looks to me like the World Health Organization is setting us up for a rematch in which we cannot do what we succeeded in doing, which is upend their narrative and get higher quality information into discussion. And they're doing this at every level.


And how do they want to do it? What's their plan?


Well, first of all, the plan keeps morphing. Our ability to even see it is not maintained. They keep changing its name, so it's hard to search on. But the overarching picture is the World Health Organization would like the ability to declare a pandemic for any reason whatsoever, including climate change, that in the event of such a pandemic, they want the ability to mandate behavior, including lockdowns. They specifically call out the ability to mandate vaccines. They specifically call out the ability to mandate gene therapy, which is frightening. And what's more, they want the ability to censor in order to make the campaign work, in addition to being able to redistribute medications. So, for example, let's say that they decided that people like you and me were out of hand with ivomectin, and they wanted to just mandate that it be sent to some far flung corner of the globe. So it would be a completely academic issue. All of these things are spelled out in detail in this document, and it is written in such a way that it's just boring voting on this, all of the member nations of the UN or of the WHO.


So this is an absolutely diabolical plan that, I mean, if you sat down and you said, well, what rules would have allowed them to win during COVID Rather than be embarrassed by podcasters, this is the set of rules. And it is a complete surrender of national sovereignty. Tedros in addressing that concern, which tells us that we are beginning to make headway raising people's concern about this. What he said is it's not a compromise of sovereignty. And then his explanation for why it's not is that effectively, this is going to be voted on by your elected governments. So his point is, you've elected governments that should block this if it's a breach of your sovereignty, and they're not going to do it. So your sovereignty is intact. But that does mean that he's going to have the ability to declare an emergency and then implement all of these draconian measures. It's absolutely terrifying.


Have they suffered any worldwide decrease in respect or whether or not people value their opinion, or whether or not people value their competency? Or am I in a bubble where I hear the World Health Organization go, these people are out of their fucking minds? But does the rest of the world think, like, what? What is the general perception? What's the temperature in the world when it comes to these things?


I think there are a great many.


Oh, why? The world's first pandemic treaty may never happen. And this is in politico. With less than six months to go, countries are still not really negotiating, say diplomats. Well, that's good. If that's the case, a huge global effort to draw up rules around who does what in the event of another pandemic is floundering as members of Covid-19 fade, raising memories. Excuse me, of Covid-19 fade, raising a real possibility that talks will break down and leave the world as unprepared as it was in 2020. Oh, great. So they're saying it's a bad thing. Give up sovereignty? The pandemic treaty. Political, you fucks. The pandemic treaty, currently being negotiated through the World Health Organization, aims to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa called vaccine apartheid, where countries had vastly unequal access to Covid vaccines. Wow. But wasn't the problem also in Africa that people weren't dying because they weren't getting vaccinated and it wasn't having the same effects? And also, the way they report things is very different than us because they don't have a financial incentive to label everything as a COVID death. And also, you have less people that have all of our comorbidities, which is really ironic, considering they're much poorer than us.


But you don't have a lot of food, you don't get obesity. And obesity seems to be one of the major causes of people's health declining to the point where something like Covid is fatal.


Yeah, you have all kinds of differences. You have regular use of ivomectin as an anti parasitic, you have differential exposure to the sun and the ability to create vitamin D. There are all kinds of reasons that Africa was in a different boat. And yes, it did fare very differently, much better than.


How confident are you that ivermectin was effective?


I will say highly confident that it was effective. And there are multiple different routes into that. For one thing, the evidence that it was not effective was drawn from randomized controlled trials that were designed to fail and yet did not.


Can you explain how they were designed to fail?


Yeah, there are a bunch of different ways you can design a study to fail. You can underdose, you can dose late, you can administer the study in a place where ivomectin was already in use. So the control group is actually cryptically on ivomectin at some higher level. There are numerous different routes to do it. And the irony of those studies, if you dig deeply enough, is that actually, although the studies claimed that there was no effect, that actually the effect is in the data, it's just not reported.


How so?


If you look at an analysis that if you look at what they wrote about what they discovered, it doesn't work. If you look at what they actually found. Right. If you read past their abstract and you look at what they actually found, there is an effect, even though the studies were designed to fail. So what that tells you is that the effect is powerful enough that even with the choosing of arbitrarily high end conditions, with all of these effects, you can still see that it was functioning in the treatment group. So even the studies that say it didn't work show that it does. And then there's a huge range of other evidence that did not come from these massive randomized controlled trials, or supposedly randomized supposedly controlled trials is what we should call them that suggest it works, in addition to the clinical experience of numerous doctors who discovered that it worked, in addition to the fact that it was already known to work with SARS one, along with a bunch of other rna viruses. So there was reason to expect that it would work. There was lots of clinical evidence that it worked. And even the randomized controlled trials that supposedly suggest that it didn't work show that it does work if you know.


How to read them, and that it halts viboreplication in vitro. Yes, we know that.


Yes. Among it's not even its only mechanism of action, it also apparently binds spike protein. It is an inflammation reducer, in addition to being among the safest drugs that have ever been discovered.


And the most important part about this, for people that are unaware, is that.


It'S generic, cheap as can be, right? It had been administered billions of times. So we knew a lot about its safety profile, its interactions with other drugs.


So there'd be no reason, if you were acting in the greater interest of mankind, no reason to not encourage its use, and definitely no reason to demonize it the way it was done. And to call it horse dewormer on CNN.


It was. This was, let's put it this way, Covid was not a major emergency, or it would not have been if medicine had been allowed to function normally, so that doctors could discover that things like ivomectin and hydroxychloroquine were highly effective and they could be used early to treat people who were actually in jeopardy because they had comorbidities. Right now, I still think this Covid was a major tragedy for the world, assuming that what we understand from the evidence is correct, that there was the release of SARS CoV two from the Wuhan lab, where it had been engineered to increase its ability to infect human beings. If that is true, it adds a pathogen to the list of things that afflict human beings, and we will never be rid of it. Now. So that is a major cost to humans. But in terms of the threat of an individual case of COVID it's minor if you allow doctors to treat it, as doctors would quickly have discovered, was readily possible, even in cases where people are full of comorbidities.


And we should also explain that not only is it because it's generic and cheap, but because of the emergency use authorization. If you're going to have an emergency use authorization of a medication, there has to be no available treatments that are effective. So not only is it cheap, but it could potentially cost them untold billions of dollars if they don't achieve emergency use authorization. So without the kind of long term testing that we've become accustomed to when they do approve certain medications.


Now, that is true. And I used to think that was the reason that they demonized ivermectin. I have changed my sense of why they did it, because there's something about that explanation, and I learned about that from Heather, who found it in the regulations and described it on our podcast. And for a long time, I thought that was the explanation that had ivomectin been understood to be an effective treatment and preventative for SARS CoV two, that they could not have gotten the emergency use authorization for the so called vaccines. The problem is these people had so much power over the regulatory apparatus, and that explanation requires that they would not have been able to overcome that obstacle, which I think they could have.


Yeah, but you're definitely squashing dissent because you're not allowing its distribution and the ability to demonstrate its effectiveness. So if people just can't get it, there's a doctor that I know, and this doctor had to go to court over this because they were prescribing ivermectin early and they were in jeopardy of losing their license.


Yeah. In fact, there is a mind blowing section of Pierre Corey's book, the war on Ivermectin, in which he describes an accidental experiment in which a lawyer goes into the job of confronting places where hospitals forbid the use of ivermectin. And the. I don't want to misdescribe it, but there are something I think if I'm recalling correctly, it was something like, there were twelve cases and he lost something like half of them and won. The others, and the people on whose behalf he won, who were administered ivermectin, survived. And the ones where he lost and the hospital didn't administer it, died. Maybe I'm describing that slightly cleaner than it was, but it's very close. And to think that this drug is powerful enough that your fate in a court, whether the court mandates that you be given it or not, tells you whether you're going to live or get a death sentence, right, which we've never experienced before. That's the thing about this drug, is it was a very powerful treatment for this disease, enough that even a study designed to hide that fact didn't effectively hide it. And where a court case, and think about how much time it takes to get a court to mandate this stuff, that means that if you win your case, you're getting it late.


And yet it's still the difference between life and death. So that's amazing. But what I've come to understand about the bizarre campaign against ivamectin, what I've come to think is the most likely explanation, is not that it really would have blocked the emergency use authorization, though technically it should have. The real problem was if ivermectin was available widely, it rendered SARS CoV two a minor fact. Right? It was not something that induced fear if people had access to the proper drugs. So from the point of view of the public and its acceptance of the mrna shots, most of us in the public would have said no. Given how highly novel that shot is. And the fact that there are drugs in the pharmacy. That apparently mean that this disease is not something I have to worry about. Why would I take that risk?




That's what I think was driving.


Which is all the same factor. It's all really just limits the amount of money that they're going to make from the compliance. Like the amount of people that got administered the COVID shot in America. It's a bananas number. There's never been a novel medication that's ever had such compliance.


I agree. But I think what was actually in play is much bigger than that. Because the mrna platform, as I may have described here before. I don't remember what we talked about the last time. But the mrna platform, it has a number of different defects, design defects. That are, in my opinion, insurmountable with respect to its safety. It can't be rendered safe. And I would describe the most important of these as the fact that the lipid nanoparticle. Which gets the mrna into your cells. It has no targeting mechanism. That would lead it to be taken up by certain cells, but not other cells. It will literally be taken up haphazardly around the body. And what it does, according to the manufacturer. Is the mrna gets into your cells. It is translated into protein by ribosomes. And those proteins then are displayed on the surfaces of cells, your immune system, automatically. Because of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Your immune system regards a cell that produces your own proteins and proteins. It's never seen before as virally infected. And it kills those cells. That's what it does. That's its automatic response. Because once a cell is infected with a virus, there's no curing it.


So the immune system is better off to kill it. Even though it's a cell of yours and it's potentially useful. An infected cell is better off removed. If that happens in your heart, it creates a wound and a vulnerability. So these shots were going to cause that effect. Wherever these lipid nanoparticles. Introduced the mrna into cells of yours. That was inevitable. If that was somehow limited to your deltoid. Wasn't going to be a big deal. From the point of view of your longevity, if it's in your heart, it's a disaster.


What is the difference in the people that did have heart issues. And the people that experienced nothing adverse?


First of all, first thing to know is that there are actually a small number of studies. In which the question has been looked at. Do people with no obvious heart pathology actually have damage. And the answer is yes, there are many people who have subclinical damage. They never had a symptom. But if we look at their hearts directly. We discover that actually they were badly impacted. But there are a couple of factors that impact whether or not a particular person is going to have this effect. One of them is that the manufacturer of the vaccines was highly variable. The quality control was crap. So the amount of the active ingredient these mrnas. Coded in lipid nanoparticle. That a particular shot contained. Varied tremendously. So that's one thing. People who had no effect may have gotten something like a blank. Second thing is you will remember during the pandemic. That there was a battle over the aspiration of the syringes that were used to administer this stuff. And the official line was they did not want the people giving the shots to aspirate the needle. That means pull back on the plunger when the needle is in your arm.


And the reason that you should do that is because it is possible to land the needle just by accident in a vein. And if you do that and you inject it. Then the stuff goes into your circulation directly, which is bad. It's not supposed to circulate around the body. Now what the officials said is, don't do that. Don't pull back on the plunger. The idea is if you pull back on the plunger and you see blood. You got to push the needle in farther, right. So that you can get out of that vein. They said, don't do that. And the reason that they said don't do that is because the amount of time that the needle is in your arm. And the amount of pain that the person experiences were thought to be a risk. I don't even think they thought it was a risk. They argued that it was a risk. And that they didn't want to create vaccine hesitancy. So the idea was inject you as quick as possible. Well, that is insane. Because what it means is that a small fraction of people, for each dose, a small fraction of people got a bolus that circulated immediately.


Because it went into a circulatory vessel. It's not supposed to go into a circulatory vessel. And they could have eliminated that. So some of the people who got hurt got hurt because they had an accidental intravenous injection. And a big glob of this stuff is circulating around them. And lands in their heart and they get a big wound. That's one of the factors. There could be genetic distinctions. I think that's actually pretty unlikely. But between the variation between the doses, the variation in the intravenous versus the interstitial injections, and the fact of just simple dumb luck, right? There's a question about where the material goes and which cells it bumps into. So that's just luck of the draw. Although I will point out that as the vaccine campaign was in full swing, Heather and I wondered about these issues and the myocarditis consequence was being discussed. And our point was, look, has this ever been studied? Given that this is a risk, has anybody ever looked at whether or not you're better off having it injected in your left arm or your right arm or your butt cheek? Which of these things produces this effect least often?


And as far as I know, it was never studied. Which is also crazy, because it's possible, even if you were going to inject this stupid stuff into people, that you could have done it in a way that was less harmful. You could have aspirated the needle, you could have injected it wherever it was least likely to damage the heart. You could have stopped giving it to young people who didn't need it in the first place. There were lots of ways to make it safer, and they did.


None of them, because any discouraging would have limited the amount of use that people had.


Well, right.


I mean, if there's anything like that, it would have in some way. If you've got people that are on the fence and then they start hearing this kind of talk, oh, they have to aspirate. If they don't aspirate, it could be a real problem. It could get to your heart. It can get to my heart. And if it damages your heart, it's permanent.




Hold on a second. Why am I taking this chance?


Well, that's what people should have done. And you're right that if we give them the benefit of the doubt, if we imagine that we had a bunch of, I don't know, health morons who were well intended but clumsy beyond any natural level, then, yeah, maybe they were doing everything in their power to get the maximum number of people to take the shots because they thought those shots were actually going to control the disease. But as I think I've said to you before, there's a limit to how bad advice can get as a result of stupidity. And what happened during COVID exceeds that limit because virtually everything you were told was the inverse of what you should have done.


Isn't there also a possibility, though, that they have this initial statement, this initial protocol, and they do not want to course correct. Because then they have to admit that they fucked up in the beginning.


Many things are possible to me. The degree to which they told you the inverse of what you should do. And let's take your argument and play it through. Wouldn't they at this point. Be at least taking their foot off the gas. With respect to the COVID mrna shock?


But the profitability of it has been so incredible.


Well, okay, the profitability is incredible. It is a tiny fraction of what I think was actually in play. And I have come to think that the story of COVID Let's assume that Covid starts accidentally, right? A virus escapes as a result of inadequate security measures in Wuhan. Begins to circulate. It is then utilized as an emergency. It is turned into an emergency. In order to normalize the mrna platform. To get people to accept that platform without proper safety testing. To get them to allow it into their systems. And to get used to the idea that it is perfectly normal. To inject you with a genetic message in mrna form. Wrapped in lipid nanoparticle. Right. The public has now accepted that which it never should have. And the profit that they saw over the course of COVID Is a tiny fraction of the profit. That will ultimately be realized from that platform. If we allow it to continue.


Hold that thought, because I have to pee so bad. All right, but we'll be right back. Because there's so many things I want to talk to you about. We'll be right back. All right, we're back. There we go. So we were at this idea of using this mrna platform in the future. And that they want to be able to use this in the future. Now, here's my question. If so many people got it, so many people got the shot. And there's 330, whatever million people in this country. And it's estimated that, like, somewhere between 70 something to 80 something percent of the people got at least one shot. Why are there not more people with all these problems? How come so many people I know got it. And didn't have really any issues? Do you think that a lot of those people have underlying issues. That they're not yet aware of because of it? Or do you think that some people's bodies were able to process it? Or do you think it's a combination of that and duds? And we do know that there has been some studies that have been done. That show that a disproportionate amount of adverse effects.


Occurred with specific batches. So there was batches that were tainted. Or batches that had there was some sort of a problem?


Yeah. The batches varied tremendously. The quality control was really quite lousy. So, a, we're not going to know what the full consequence was unless we actually get serious about tracking people's longevity and we figure out who didn't get it, who did get it, and we properly study that question, which at the moment, it's not looking like we will. I think there was a lot of variability. People presumably got damage to organs that will not limit their lifespan. Right. If you got the damage in your liver and not your heart, that probably does not have an implication for how long you're going to live, because most of us don't die from the failure of our livers. Failure of the heart is special, which is why we saw that effect.


Would you explain that to people, why that's the case?


Sure. Let me explain why it is the case and then why I think there's an explanation beyond that. Your liver has a tremendous capacity to replace damaged tissue. In fact, you can transplant a small fraction of a liver into someone, and it can grow into a fully capable liver in the recipient in, like, six to eight weeks. Yeah, it's amazing. So my guess, evolutionarily, is that that's true, because our ancestors did not have such an excellent ability to keep toxins out of their diet. And so you have excess capacity in your liver because your ancestors needed it, and we don't need it. Right. So we have livers that, unless you're a super heavy drinker, you probably go a whole lifetime super heavy drinker or a very uncareful eater of mushrooms, you probably go your whole life and your liver remains with excess capacity even as you die. The heart, you damage it. Obviously, if you damage it critically, it'll take you out. And if you damage it in some way that it scars over it will actually limit your athletic capacity for the rest of your life. It will put you at greater risk of heart failure, but anyway, it's a much more central to your functioning.


Anyway, I think a lot of people who have not had an important pathology have something subclinical. A lot of others got away with it because the shots they got were duds or close to it. Many people did not have intravenous injection, and so they might have gotten a small amount of damage, but not a large enough amount of damage to limit their lifespans.


There's also a problem with people being reluctant to talk about injuries they've gotten from the vaccine, particularly if they're of a particular political persuasion. There's a lot of people that don't want to discuss it, they don't want to admit that this is what happened.


I get it completely.


They don't want the blowback.


Well, there's the blowback, but there's also the terror.


Yeah, that's it, right?


You and I are not built this way. I think we'd be talking about, know, like, Robert Malone took the shot, got injured and is talking about it. Or Elon Musk similarly. But for a lot of people, the way they manage, the fear that they were induced to do something that could have implications for their long term health and lifespan is to lie to themselves. And I would point out to those people, as sympathetic as I am, I know how strong that coercion was and how many people who were smart and under other circumstances would have avoided this, succumbed to it. But if you lie to yourself about what happened, your ability to protect yourself from further harm is greatly reduced. We have to understand what we did to ourselves in order to fend this off.


But here's the other part of that question. The people that were promoting the vaccine, did they take it?


I don't think so.


You don't think any of them did?


The people who were promoting it. Lots of people who were promoting it.


Took it, of course, clearly. But people who were driving, people at the front of the line, the people at the wheel. Look, wasn't there an instance where Albert Borlow couldn't go to Israel because he didn't have the right booster?


There was something.


He wasn't up to date.


Let's put it this way. I'm hesitant to say anything conclusive here. Not because I don't know what I think ultimately happened, but the way in which the people who knew the actual stakes understood what the safety profile was here avoided taking that risk for themselves and their families. I don't know. You could imagine batches that contain nothing. You could imagine that the DNA shots were the way. The DNA shots do not show the same compromise in health that the mrna shots did. Did the people who were driving this campaign know that?


Which one's the DNA shots?


The Johnson and Johnson.


But the Johnson and Johnson, they pulled.




For clotting.


Sure, but.


Because it was a spike protein. Right?


You say because as if we know why they do anything.


But that was the.


Wasn't the explanation, right?


Yeah, the explanation was that somehow or another, the spike protein was causing clotting. They pulled it, but then they reinstated it, but then they slowly discontinued it.


Right? Right. So the short answer to your question is, I don't think that these people screwed up and injected the world with dangerous shots and they themselves got the same stuff. I think the evidence is they understood far better than we knew what they were doing and that it was going to be dangerous and that you can read their shamelessness in the fact that they are still pushing these things on young people who never stood the slightest chance of getting a benefit from them, especially now.


I know you're saying that you have had real bad reactions to the most recent infections that you've gotten. I had Covid once. Wasn't that bad. Got over it in a few days, but then I had it again, and it was nothing. It was like I had a runny nose and I was joking. This is back in the day. We were testing every day here. And I was joking, like, maybe it's Covid. And then our nurse was like, it's actually Covid. I was like, this is crazy. Like, I have to cancel a show for this. I'm like, am I going to get worse? Is this is it? No, it was. Not only was it not worse, I had it for a day. The two days afterwards when I tested, I was negative.


Well, I will tell you the pattern. It's weird talking about this, because you just know that people are going to spiral off and have all sorts of reactions to it.


Just stop reading the comments.


Well, that's a thought.


Just have this conversation. It's just you and me at dinner.


Just you and me wearing headphones at dinner. So I was here in Austin. I was here to debate Alex Berenson on the subject of Ivermectin's effectiveness.




And the night before I was going to debate him right here. I started coughing, and it got really bad, and I was flat on my back.


Yeah, I remember talking to you. You sounded terrible.


I was really, really bad off.


So Alex wound up coming on by himself. He won, but luckily for him, it benefited because it was actually very critical to talk about his situation as well, which is he is involved in a lawsuit with the Biden administration because they were actively trying to suppress him for posting factual information on Twitter. And so he's involved in that lawsuit right now.


I agree, and I find Alex to be a total mystery. I don't understand. He's been pretty good on the vaccines, and then he's backpedaled, like he's trying to get back into the club or something. He's been terrible on Ivermectin, and I don't know why. But anyway, maybe he needs a good debate. I thought so, yeah.


But anyway, we could do it again.


Maybe we should.


Yeah. Certainly after he hears this, I'm sure he'll want to. And also to highlight his particular case, which is still ongoing.


Right. But anyway, from the point of view of your question about how bad off I was, you were very kind, and you sent your nurse to give me an intravenous injection of vitamins and stuff. And I took iromectin and hydroxychloroquine, which I had with me, of course. And two days later, I was better. But for a cough that hung on for a month. The cough hung on for a month. But in terms of my general well being, it was two days and done.


Two days feeling like shit and then really bad.


I could get to the bathroom from the bed, but that was about the limit of how much energy I had. So it was bad. Now, but here's the other part of that. I was tested for Covid, and it came up negative. And so the assumption that it was Covid was based on the symptomatic match. Right. So your nurse thought that it looked like Covid, and Pierre thought that it sounded like Covid. But I think all of this raises the question about how many different pathogens were actually involved in the emergency that we call Covid. Because testing negative was a fairly common phenomenon even when you were sick.




So I don't know what that was.


Well, there's also the issue with flu basically going away. The number of people that were diagnosed with the flu during the pandemic was the most radical decrease, which doesn't make sense during a time where people's immune systems are compromised. Because one of the things, if you get hit with any cold or anything, sometimes other things will grab a hold of you during the same time period when you're compromised.




And that didn't really happen for whatever reason. Now, did it not really happen, or was it just not reported and not diagnosed? That's more likely to have a radical decrease in flu, and then they attributed to the fact that people weren't socializing. Yeah, but then how did Covid spread? Well, is Covid that much more contagious than the flu, that you don't still have the flu as well? And if all these people have Covid, now you're dealing with very compromised people. Why didn't the flu get them?


Right now, I want to be cautious about all of the complexity here, because I'm not saying that I believe that the flu necessarily disappeared. And we know for certain that they were hell bent on categorizing everything as Covid.




So it makes sense that they would categorize whatever flu was present as Covid because they were trying to amp up fear of COVID On the other hand, flu is adapted to normal human patterns. And the COVID pandemic disrupted normal human patterns through all of the authoritarian nonsense, the lockdowns, et cetera. So is it possible that the way we behave during COVID actually did interrupt a normal transmission of flu? That's possible. I don't know that I believe that's what happened, but at least I want to be open to that.


It's definitely a possibility.


It's a possibility.


It definitely disrupted a lot of the interactions that people had changed so much about the way people interact with each other and still do.


It changed a lot of stuff. And frankly, I take a lot of crap from the people who are hell bent on infighting over my initial belief that masks were a good idea. In fact, I wore one here. The fact, though, is that masks have a potential range of utility. I don't think they ended up being useful for Covid nearly at all. Right? But from the point of view of a disease that is spread by fomite transmission, that is, on surfaces, can a mask catch the droplets that you would cough out, that would land on the surface, that somebody else would get on their hand and then rub into their eye? That's plausible. So we did a lot of things that disrupted normalcy, that could have had an effect on flu. I'm not saying they did, but I'm just saying if you were going to try to figure out what happened during COVID you would want all these hypotheses on the table, and then you would want to test them, and you would want to see which ones actually match the patterns that we saw.




I don't want to lose the question of the mrna profits, because I really do think the hypothesis that I, at the moment, believe is most likely as to what happened during COVID is that the emergency, whatever its nature was, even to the extent that its nature was that they were able to amp up fear over a pathogen that didn't warrant it, but that allowed them to normalize the idea of mrna based gene therapy. That people accepted that because they were terrified of the pandemic, or because they wanted to get back to life, or whatever it was. And that having done so, what they did is they opened the door to an incredibly lucrative set of opportunities. Using the mrna platform that didn't exist before and couldn't be made to exist, because there's no way that these things could have gotten through normal safety testing. They were too dangerous. And the thing that people don't, who aren't following the biology, probably won't intuit, is that the very nature of the mrna platform is that it allows you to take a genetic message that encodes anything at all, and to put it into a shot that isn't any different than the ones you've deployed before.


This is completely simplified from the normal process of creating something like a vaccine, right? This is inexpensive. All you need is the sequence that you want in the shot, and then you can literally just start manufacturing it. And so, to my way of thinking, that opens the door to reformulating every vaccine that already exists. They can create a new one on the mrna platform, they can patent it anew, they can make a wide range of new vaccines that didn't exist before, and that all of these things would be highly profitable, both because they would be patented and because they would be inexpensive to go through all of that, to basically speed past all of that R and D. What's more, they could probably argue that they didn't need very much safety testing, because the only distinction between this shot and that shot was the actual content of the message. Right? And so one of the tricks that pharma has played is that they have tested things against what looks like a placebo, but isn't. It's really just something else in which only one piece has been varied, and that game could be played here endlessly.


So I don't know how much money is represented in the potential to use the mrna platform. But what I see is, you got people in pharma, their job is not to make people healthy. Their job is to sell stuff that's profitable. The mrna platform allows a whole new kind of medicine to be delivered in a very efficient way, that eliminates the big cost in doing pharma properly, and that they couldn't get it to market because of the hazard. The emergency of COVID allowed them to bypass the safety testing that would have stopped them. And it now means that the mrna platform is something that people have accepted in their minds. So that door is now open. I think that's where the real profit is. Not in the shots that people were given for Covid itself.


Well, that makes sense. But also the shots that people were given for Covid itself.


Well, but also, yes, the shots that people were given for Covid were obviously hugely profitable, but they are a tiny fraction of the profit that ultimately might be made with the platform, which is.


Terrifying if what you're saying about the platform itself is correct.


Yeah, that's the other part is they've played this game with us where they have misled us into over focusing on the spike protein. Now the spike protein was a bad choice because it's bioactive in its own right. It is cytotoxic, which I was fact checked by stupid people who claimed that that was not true. But it is true. So it was a poor choice of protein for a so called vaccine. But by over focusing on the problem of injecting people with something that creates spike protein, they leave the impression that the platform itself is innocent. If we can blame all of the harms on the spike protein, then people will be ready to accept the next mrna shot because it doesn't contain spike. But that's not the way to think of it. The platform itself is dangerous.


And what are the other conversations that they've had in terms of the use of the platform?


Oh, I have no idea, but I'd heard cancer. I can imagine virtually anything, because what this does, and I actually did for the first time, see them use this terminology. I've been saying it's not a vaccine. And one of the reasons it's not a vaccine is that it turns your cells into a vaccine factory. That's what it does. And I've now seen them use that phraseology.


But how can you use the same terminology as a different thing? Well, it's a therapy, right? It's a type of therapy. Regardless, let's not even debate whether it works. Let's not debate whether it works, but let's just say what it is.


Yeah, it's a gene therapy.


So we've had a definition of what a vaccine is that has been pretty standard for a long time, and then all of a sudden this hijacks.


That totally doesn't. It fits right into a blind spot.


That we all have right where we're pro vaccine. And to be anti vaccine is to not accept the fact that vaccines have done so much great for humanity. And know young Jamie's little buddy over there, oh, Carl, he just got vaccinated for the rabies. It works. That shit works.


You don't want rabies, baby. I'm vaccinated for rabies. You should be.


That's a scary one.


That's not a disease you want to die of.


That one scares the shit out of you.


That's an ancient disease, worst way to go.


Yeah, and it kills everybody.


Yeah, well actually there is one case.


Where somebody put them in a coma. We talked about it the other day, they put them in a medically induced coma.


Who was it?


They explained it to us, how it worked. Jamie. I don't recall. It's like three or four podcasts ago. Our cup overfloweth information track of all of it. But the idea was that putting someone in this sustained coma, this medically induced coma, it allowed the body to have more resources to attack the virus and stop it in its tracks, whereas normally under normal circumstances, it doesn't. The virus moves faster than the immune system can react to it.


That's great, but it's really a small.


Amount of people that survive it.


Yeah, I had only heard of one and it's such a terrifying way to go. But what were you talking about? We were talking about the. Oh yeah, they normalized the idea that this mrna platform was a vaccine, which was clearly sleight of hand in retrospect, that was intended to put this in our blind spot, so that we would accept a gene therapy as a vaccine, because most people weren't in a position to know the difference. But once you understand that the mrna platform is a mechanism for turning your cells into factories of protein, then the question is, well, what fraction of drugs can be produced this way, right? A large fraction, or how many diseases can be treated in such a way? In principle, a huge number of diseases, because proteins are the mechanism by which the biology of the body functions. And so getting your cells to produce proteins is a pathway into many of these conditions. So I don't know, to my way of thinking, I'm sure it's cartoonish, but I can imagine how galling it must have been to have this platform ready to produce huge amounts of profit, but unable to deliver it because the safety testing was going to block it.


And then an emergency allowed it to happen.


That's terrifying. That's terrifying because it's plausible.


Plausible is a category that we are having to expand, given how diabolical these people actually turn out to be.


I think of the world so much differently than I did four years ago. It's shocking. Yeah, it's shocking. I had all these ideas in my head that we're going to be fine, and now I'm like, oh my God, you got to figure out how to fucking stockpile food. This could get really wild.


Yeah. And the problem though is, okay, all of us people who are at least somewhat awake, and I work from the principle that none of us are more than half awake, I don't know if.


That'S fair, but I don't know how you could be. We're kind of like we're hearing people talk inside a building behind a large gate. We don't really have access to the actual conversations. What we see is what they're so bold to discuss in Davos in front of everybody. You're like, how the fuck are you guys just saying in front of everybody you don't got to vote anymore because they can figure it out in advance. Voting will not be necessary because our accurate models of you. What are you saying? And how is that dude from Google just going along with that? Why is he not freaking the fuck out? Going, what? Wait a minute. What are you saying? You won't have to vote because you're going to be able to predict results and who's going to be in charge of the software that predicts it? Who's going to be the guy that reads the data and tells the world what they want? That's fucking bananas. There's no way voting is in any way bad. The idea that you won't need to vote, there's no way that's in any way good. There's no way that that vulnerability, that giving away that much power to whoever counts the vote.


Isn't that a famous quote? I forget who said it, but it's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes. Who said that? Some famous person. It's a great quote because it's absolutely true. And if you've got a fucking computer that you run and you're in charge of the AI, that determines what the people want. And then the people in the neighborhood get together and go, hey, man, did you fucking want this? I didn't want this. Who are they talking to? They're not talking to anybody. Joseph Stalin.




The people cast the votes. Don't decide an election. The people count the votes do.


Wow. That's chilling.


And that's a terrifying human being. A terrifying human being that said that because he used that. He used that to his advantage and millions of people died because of him. But that's what's real. And so when someone's coming along telling you in any way, shape or form that voting is not necessary, that's bananas. Of course it's necessary. It's the only way we figure out even just what is voting. If it's not organized decision making and discussion, it's like a consensus that becomes relevant because of all the organized discussion, because of all the discussion, because of all the people online, because of all the people sharing accurate data when they come to a conclusion that makes sense and enough people charismatically push that out into the world and say, I should represent you because I have an understanding of these things and I am on your side, and this is what I believe. And then you're going to just decide that with AI? That's crazy talk. And the fact that they're just saying that out loud. What the fuck are you saying? When no one's around, there's no camera pointed at you because it's going to be wild if you're coming to these conclusions.


If you've normalized the idea of speaking publicly that voting won't be necessary. Holy shit, man. What do you say in private if you've normalized publicly the idea that overpopulation is a major issue? You've said that publicly, and you said that one way to reduce the population would be vaccines. What are you saying? That sounds bananas. Wait a minute. Have you done this before? It turns out they have. Turns out they have used vaccines to try to limit populations. They've done it unknowingly. These people had no idea they were being experimented on, and they did it in Africa. They gave women sterilizing vaccines and they hid it. They hid it under the guise of a vaccine to prevent against diseases. And they were giving them hcg and they were giving them at a dose in a time period that was going to limit their ability to reproduce or eliminate. They've done that.


I think starting from the premise that these people suck is just good. Baseline. Your point? I mean, democracy has its problems, right? Voting does not inevitably produce good outcomes. But I think if we take your point from earlier, you can see, is it Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others? Yes, that the point is democracy, as noisy and flawed as it is, has a tendency over time to move in the right direction. And your point about, if you are slightly pointed off, you end up in outer space. If you're slightly pointed in a better direction, you actually get there over time. It's wonderful to increase the rate at which you get in the right direction, but just simply moving in a better direction versus a worse direction is good enough. It actually does function. And the antipathy that these rent seeking elites have for the consent of the governed is appalling. Right. If you put yourself in their mindset, the threat that people who have, the threat that democracy poses to your elite plans must be frightening to them. So they conspire against it, not realizing that they are actually depending on that same force to keep the world stable and improving and to give them a landscape in which to compete economically.


But they envision a world where they have complete and total control over the population and you will own nothing and you'll be happy.


Yeah, they said the quiet part out loud, which is wild.


It is. They said it in a way where they had a smiling guy and you look at all these unhappy people that don't have anything already, and you go, maybe that's the thing. Maybe everybody owns nothing and then you'll be happy. So if they take it away from all the people that have it and I don't have it, maybe it'll be better. All these rich people.


I couldn't help but notice that they said, you will own nothing. They didn't say, we will own nothing. Right, exactly.


There's not we.


You will own nothing.


But people had to go to the wayback machine and pull it up. They denied saying that.


And that's the thing. They will lie directly to you. Right. They will just simply say that. They didn't say it.


Well, there's enough gaslighting out there now where you can say wild shit. Absolutely wild talk. Have you seen Gavin Newsom discussing how great Biden is?


No, but that's got to be something.


It's wild. It's absolutely wild. He first of all discusses how he would never run against such a great man. And the way he says it is like, he went to ten and you didn't have to go to ten. You should have been at five or six. Should have been calm and discerning. Like the way you're saying something like that when you're talking about a great person. This is like a guy in a movie. This is like Stephen King's movie where the fucking dude, what was that movie where he sees the future and this guy's going to kill everybody?


I don't know that.


Remember that movie? What was the movie where Stephen King, Christopher Walken played. God damn it, forget it. Was a great fucking movie. Great dead zone. Yeah. Where we shake hands with the politician. He could see the future and see that this guy's going to nuke us all, so he winds up shooting him, which is crazy fucking movie. Really good book. But that's what the kind of vibes this guy's given off. You need to see this. Play it, Jamie. I'm trying to figure out which one Chris Cuomo from. No, no. He was talking to some woman. He was praising Biden, saying he would never run against him. And it's in the middle of all this when you're seeing Biden on the news he's literally doing the grumpy man face. It's almost like old white dudes, they get to a certain age, they can't help but walking around like this. It's like he's got this thing going on, like an exaggerated frown where he's walking around with this. With this terrible posture and this hunch, like, for people just looking at that. Imagine if that was Trump. Imagine if Trump was rocking around, like, with the grumpy face and then the crazy way he talks, where he forgets what he's talking about.


He's not held accountable. No one's talking about on the left. Everyone's so terrified of Trump being president. They're like, blah, blah, blah. I don't hear anything. I don't see anything. They can't say anything. It's nuts. And there's too many people that see it. There's too many people that aren't doing well that see this gaslighting. And, like, if you're gaslighting me about something that is so in my face, how can I trust you about what's going on in Ukraine? How can I trust you about Yemen and Syria? How can I trust you about Gaza? How can I trust you about the Nordstream pipeline? How can I trust you if you won't tell me that you think something's up right here, this thing that's right in front of our. Won't. Nothing. Everything's fine. It's his superpower. Did you hear that? His age is his superpower. This is another thing that was like a New York Times article. Was it New York Times or was it medium? Some article where they were saying, his age is his superpower.


Hey. Oh, I saw that.


I'm right here. Fuck off. Fuck off with it. You're talking crazy. You're talking crazy. And you're talking also to two liberals. Regardless of how you and I get aligned with the far right and all the craziness, opinion, age matters, which is why Biden's age is his superpower. It was LA times, which is. Yeah, they're going under.


It's a reason.


But did you find the Gavin McGinnis? I don't know if. Gavin Newsom thing? I just went through real quick on the. Yeah, this is it. This is it. I don't think I saw the part you want, though. It says four months ago.


I know.


That's what I'm not. No, it's not from four months ago. It's pretty recent. I know what we're looking for here, and I'm not seeing it. Google the right way. Google Gavin Newsom gaslights about Biden. See if that's it. Where is it?


Everything else now is, like, recent, and there's not interviews with a woman.


Oh, is it hard to find? God damn it. YouTube. Don't tell me you pulled this. I wouldn't.




You can find it on the Twitter because that X platform, they tend to be a little more loose. Boy, the YouTube platform, these motherfuckers, they want to hide shit. Right there. Bam. The one talking to that guy, bam. You said it was a girl. That's it. I'm sorry. He did talk to a girl as well.


Three years, the Biden Harris administration, and then we drive contrast. It's not even a complicated campaign. We have the receipts. We have the best three year record of any modern american presidency, period, full stop. And we need to lift up the issues.


That's only one of them. The one where he was talking to the woman. He was talking about how much the Democrats are killing it. He's gone on this campaign. But then when he talked about Biden, I mean, he sounded like a guy who wants to be president, in my opinion. He sounded like a guy who knows he's already got the call. So that woman that you just saw in the corner, there's one of them. That's it. That's it. That's what the woman. 16 seconds. Yeah, that's. Okay. Just give me a click on that. That's it. That's what it is.


Who in their mind would want to run when you have someone of such esteem as our incumbent president of the United States with a record of accomplishments and a man of character, a man of decency. I'm old school. Talk about loyalty. I'll go to ends of the earth for this guy.


I wouldn't hire him for one of them fucking cop shows. One of them goofy tv cop shows, I'd be like, bro, you can't. This is like, you're too over the top. No one thinks a politician talks like that. Yeah, it's crazy.


No, it's so phony. And the thing is, in his case.


This is what I would say.


He just looks like he's lying.


This is what I would say. If I am the vice president of a company and I know the president is stepping down, and then they have, would you want to take over the position? Let me tell you how great that guy is. He is the best ever. He's the best ever. I could not fill his shoes. I know. I'm filling his shoes, right?


That's what I'm saying.


I'm throwing a guy a bone. I'm being nice because I'm not in competition with that guy. Whereas any other time a politician would be at least angling for the position that they are the superior choice. They'd be saying, although I fully support the biden administration, we disagree on, I think my vision is that we move forward in this direction, and this is why I think that's going to be beneficial. I would love to convince them that I'm correct, but I'm positioning myself as a superior choice to what's obviously, the guy wants to be president. Look at him. He looks like a president. He wants to be president. But, bro, you got to talk to some regular people. That's not how you could say it. You could say all the things you just said. I think he's a man of decency, and I think he's a man of character.


You can say it like that, right?


A man of decency, man of care. I'm old school. Well, you are old school. You're acting like you're in a 1950s movie. You're in a fucking James Cagney movie. This is crazy.


He even alludes to his loyalty, which is obviously, I mean, I wouldn't call it loyalty, but, bro, you got to.


Clean up California first. You got work to do. You got to do something about California. You can't just let la be the way it is. I know you're limited in what you can do and what you can't do.


God damn.


You got to move forward and fix that. Fix that, and then maybe we'll talk.


All right, well, he's clearly lying, and you're right. We know why he's lying. There's some sort of behind the scenes thing.


That's your guy, right? That's your guy.


He's your guy. But what do we do with all of the people who know, the normal folks who can't see Biden's cognitive decline?


That's not real. I don't think that's real. I don't think there's anybody out there. I think they just don't want to talk about it because they feel terrible about the idea that Trump becomes president, which seems to be inevitable. And then you see Kamala Harris serving up word salad like it's a fucking buffet at the golden corral.


I've seen these headlines today.


Kamala Harris says she's ready to serve amid birth. Yo, they're going to put her on a fucking convertible. Take her through.




Nobody wants that no. Well, I don't think they want that.


Look, nobody wants that. I actually think we have to. Boy, it got quiet in here. Yeah. Here's the problem. Our constitution anticipates terrible people like Kamal Harris. Right. It does not anticipate a hidden cabal acting through a senile figurehead.




So from my perspective, we have been in a consistent constitutional crisis for the entire Biden administration. His decrepitude was obvious before he was elected. Right? So something else is in control, and that is completely unacceptable in terms of the constitutionality of our system. So the right thing to do is to remove the incompetent person. Either he steps down or he's removed by the 25th amendment. Kamala Harris has to take office, and I hope she has no power to do anything because I don't trust her. But the point is at least that is a step back in the direction of normalcy. Of normalcy of checks and balances.


And then if that is the case, that actually would open the door to Newsom because then Newsom would be competing against Kamala Harris, who he doesn't have the same respect for, at least openly. He's not talking about her. But if he steps down and Newsom says, it's my obligation. I know the right way to this country.


Right. The problem is, as a patriot.




Not even sure I can worry about that. Because any day that Joe Biden is in that office and the call might come over, the know somebody's launched to something. What are you going to do, Mr. President? Right. We can't have ice cream. You have to have an actual person who's capable of responding to a cris in that office. It's offensive to the population that we would have had this circus, obviously incompetent guy at its head in the office. And from my perspective, the right thing to do is he has to leave the office immediately. Any minute that he's there compounds the problem. And the fact that it's Kamala Harris in the vice presidency, well, this is the way nature tells you that you need to pay very careful attention to who people choose as their running mates.




Right. If somebody chooses somebody who's bad, if somebody chooses impeachment, right. They're telling you they should not ascend to the office.


Right. We dodged those bullets. We dodged it with Dan Quail. We dodged it with Mike Pence. We dodged it with Joe Biden for eight fucking years.


Right? We did.


And that was eight years when he could talk the olden days.


Then the answer is kamala has to take the office. The Congress has to step up and make sure that Kamala does not have the power to do anything that is not reasonable. And we need to understand that the democratic party has announced that they are not interested in the consent of the governed, that they are interested in putting on a show and cowtowing to people's sensitivities, but they're not interested in actually governing the country in the interest of the citizens.


And they're also not interested in pushing anyone who's not going along with the plan, whether it's Tulsi Gabbard, whether it's Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Anybody that is very popular. Could you imagine a primary, like a debate between Biden and RFK? Let RFK go. Let him go on tv. Imagine RFK telling the truth about certain issues, RFK explaining how these systems work, RFK saying things where people accuse him. People have accused you of this. What is your answer? Let him say that on national television. And people go, oh, wait a minute, what is he saying? What's going on here? And then like, I like that guy better. And he's a Kennedy, right? And he's a Democrat, lifelong Democrat. And he's like a reasonable sort of centrist character. Hold on, that's our guy.


That's our guy.


And people would fucking vote for him. And they didn't want it.


Of course they would. And the fact that they're not begging him to run as a Democrat, I know, is proof that they would rather lose to Trump.


Well, there's enough boomers that think he's a loon that it becomes a problem. Like, you'd have to re educate people. But that's where the debate would come into play. At least some reasonable people on the fence and definitely some never trumpers. The never Trumpers would go in that direction. They would go, look, this guy can win a debate against Trump, whereas I don't think Joe Biden's even capable of having a debate at this point. He can't keep track of what he's talking about. He's saying, he's talking about people that have been dead for years and mistaking names. He fumbles in the middle of sentences and forgets what he's talking about and says he's being told to wrap it up. And it's embarrassing and it's elder abuse. Also, if that was my dad and they were forcing my dad to do that, I'd be like, come leave him the fuck alone. He's 80 years old. The guy should be chilling somewhere. He should be relaxing in a zero stress position where he's catching bluegills on a pond or going golfing or whatever the fuck he likes to do. He shouldn't be in that position. That's aging an already aged man.


We know it hyper ages people. That fucking stress is brute to everybody but Trump. That dude was like water off a duck's back. He didn't seem to age at all. He seems like the fucking same guy. Like, he's remarkably durable. But for Biden, it's been horrible. But I think it opens the door for Newsom because I think Newsom, I think the whole democratic party will embrace him. And if he could just come closer to the center, I think he's got a real shot.


Well, I hope not. I mean, the guy is utterly despicable. And obviously California tells you that he's perfectly capable of engaging in terrible governance to the great detriment of the people under his leadership.


It's a disaster. And if you haven't been there when I go back, every time I go back, I'm like, oh my God. Not only am I not exaggerating, I'm underplaying it. The amount of tents now that you see is fucking nuts.


It's out of control, it's not getting better.


And they're spending so much money on it.


Yeah, I don't know what they're doing. I can't imagine why they would. It's like they're not interested in saving the state because they have some other priority.


I don't know what the fuck is going on. But I do know that one of the parts of the problem is the blue, no matter who mentality of the people that live in that state, it's like they are convinced that there is only one way to vote. And if you vote that, but the problem with that is you don't have any real competition of ideas. Then you're just going to get to choose to who's going to be the representative of this party that you already know has been controlled, and they're going to do the same thing.


Yeah, but blue, no matter who is a holdover, it's like when somebody buys a brand that builds a quality product and then they decide to use the credibility, they decide to liquidate the credibility into a brief pursuit of high profits. Right. The idea that there are a lot of people, we used to call them yellow dog Democrats. These are people who would vote for a yellow dog if it was running under the right banner. That's the same thing as blue. No matter who they are allowing something that has captured the democratic party to run the blue states into the ground. And obviously their influence over national politics is obscene. I mean, what's going on on our southern border makes no sense from the point of view of trying to govern in the interests of average Americans.


I want to get into that because I know you've gone down there and you've actually gone to experience this caravan or some groups of.


Yeah, I saw the migration in the Darien of Panama, which we'll come back to in a second. But just let me say that the problem is the folks who have been loyal Democrats, who will vote blue no matter who need to wake up. That party has been captured by something that is not interested in the well being of the country, of the west, of the citizens. It is time for them to go. They have to leave. The idea that Newsom is going to be swapped in and because he's not senile, he stands a chance of winning. It couldn't be more troubling. Now, personally, I think RFK Jr. Is the solution to this problem. I don't know that anybody can solve the problem of the can he win?


Is there a pathway that he could become the president?


Yes. There are multiple pathways that said, do I expect it to go that way? I think we all need to start thinking differently. I think we need to recognize that the capture of our system is such a profound threat to the well being of the country, to the future of our kids and grandkids, that whatever needs to happen for us to come together and usher those people out in favor of something that is at least just not part of that plan has to happen. Right. So as far as I'm concerned, the best shot we've got is Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy is highly intelligent. I think he is deeply patriotic. And I know from interacting with them and watching what he said that he's also courageous. Right. I don't want to overemphasize this, but he is literally willing to die to take a shot at saving the country. And I think we need to get behind that.


And if anybody has real thought that they might be killed, it's a guy whose father and uncle were killed.




Because of doing the exact same thing.


Well, I was in the audience at Freedom Fest, which is a libertarian festival. It was in Memphis, and I'm no libertarian, but I felt very welcome there. I gave a talk. Bobby Kennedy also showed up and gave a talk, and it was attended by pretty much everybody. And the talk was very well received, even though Bobby Kennedy is also no libertarian. But the last thing he said in that talk was that everybody there knows that there are fates far worse than death. And I believe that he was speaking absolutely from his heart, and he was telling you that he knew he was taking this risk, but that somebody had to take it on our behalf, and he was stepping up. So to my way of thinking, that's the best shot we've got. And I really feel like the story, his origin story, makes this like Odysseus returning to the manor, right? Stringing the bow, that this is that iconic moment. And I wish I was certain that once in office, Bobby Kennedy had the power and the insight to get rid of the people who have captured our system, but I'm not sure anybody does.


I think he's the best chance, but it may be that the control is too elaborate.


Isn't it wild that you would have never thought this four years ago, never thought the system was this fucked?


You know, the funny thing is, I do think it's way more screwed up than I knew four years ago. But even four years ago, I knew it was bad enough that I was suspicious. It was an emergency.


I was suspicious, but I wasn't convinced. They're mostly good people, and they get fucked over by this weird system, and you become part of it, and you have to play ball. I didn't think it went as deep as it does.


I mean, I keep seeing that it goes deeper. But four years ago, even ten years ago, I knew that we were dealing with out of control capture and that it was antidemocratic in the most fundamental way. But anyway, the final point I want to make is I think Bobby Kennedy is the right way to solve this. He's got a few positions that throw people who would otherwise be on board with him, and I totally get their concerns. I really do. I hope that Kennedy will think about that and address them so that people are aware of what he is and isn't about. But if Kennedy can't make it, I still think we have to line up behind some solution that ushers these people out of office, because the capture is. It's a fatal pathology if we don't address it.


Who can do it? Do you think Donald Trump can have any impact on that, or do you think he can?


Well, let's put it this way. He has demonstrated that he has the capability to win. I'm very compelled that he is not part of whatever that cabal is. Clearly, the cabal really doesn't like him.


Clearly. Could be no more evidence.


Right? What I don't think the reasons that I think it's Kennedy and not Trump in terms of our best shot, is that Kennedy is a brilliant thinker, and he is encyclopedic in his knowledge, and to whatever extent that this is a difficult problem, he's the guy who understands how you address difficult problems, and he will gather the right people and he will figure out what the best approach is. Whether there's any approach that's plausible, I don't know, but I'm convinced that he will address it seriously. Trump A. He only has four years to accomplish the job. Kennedy might have eight to accomplish the job. He doesn't have the temperament. I think that this is maybe the most critical problem with Trump, is that Trump has the temperament to win the office, but he doesn't have the temperament to address the nuances of the know. He got played during COVID and he still doesn't see it. Right. That's a problem that has to do with him being ego driven and unable to admit that. How was he not going to get played? Right. He's not an expert, and he had lots of experts conspiring to lead him to believe things that weren't true.


I think it would be. Everybody would understand.


Also, politically, the people that support the vaccine are clearly on the left. When he comes out and says, the vaccine is great, I got the vaccine. We got that vaccine out, he's taking credit for something that these people on the left have already unanimously agreed was a net positive thing. I've had some wild conversations with really brilliant, intelligent people where I know they're saying nonsense about the effectiveness of the vaccine and the dangers of the vaccine, and I'm going like, this is a crazy conversation I'm having with you. You're not even willing to consider it because it's an ideological thing. You got locked into it. So he's playing on that by supporting the vaccine as well. You have to think, like, if you're looking at a guy who's trying to gather points and armor in a game of fucking World of Warcraft or something, you'd pick that armor up like, hey, this is my vaccine. I fucking made that vaccine.






It's the wrong temperament for the job.


But it's the right temperament to get into office, right?


Yeah. Politically, the man is brilliant.


And also, he is so polarizing that even though so many people support him and he can win, the people that hate him hate him so much that it's like, God damn, do we really want that sentiment in our society? We want more division and would that encourage, or is it possible that he could have some sort of come to Jesus moment in front of the country and it would unite people in a way that would realize you're already seeing a lot of people in the black community that have turned towards Trump because they're seeing what's going on with this immigration and how it's affecting them. And the fact that these people that are coming in that are illegal immigrants are getting so much aid that they're not getting, and they're like, this is fucking crazy. This is our community, and you're having these people come in, you're giving them food and money and shelter, and you won't do it for us. And we've been here forever, and we're Americans. This is crazy. And then there's a lot of people that, like, even Michael Rappaport, because of the way things are going in the world, is saying that.


And he fucking hates Trump. And he talks wild shit about Trump, even. He's saying that, first of all, that that's not off the table and that now that's the only solution.


Well, I don't think we're there yet, but I don't think on the basis of the time he would have his temperament or his ability to build a team. Trump is kind of a one man show, and his team building ability, I don't think, is enough to solve the problem either. But the punchline of that is, if Kennedy can't do it, for whatever reason, if politics gets in the way, we still have to get whatever that cabal is out of power immediately. This could not be more of an emergency. We've seen through Covid how dangerous these people are, how little they care about our well being, and we have to rally around whatever it is that addresses this. You know, as much as I'm not a believer that Trump, on his own, can do the job, I would far prefer him to another standard bearer of that cabal. The cabal is too dangerous. And I say this as you know, I'm a lifelong Democrat. Right? This is my party that I'm telling you, cannot be trusted with governance. But that's where we are.


The border crisis. So you went and saw the migration. You saw the groups of people that are making their way up through.


Yeah, I was invited, actually. My son and I. My son Zach and I went to Panama. Panama, where I have some history. I did my bat work on Barra, Colorado island in Gatoon Lake, the Panama Canal. So Panama is a place I'm familiar with. But Michael Jan invited us down to go look at the migration in the darian province of Panama, which is the province bordering Colombia. As you probably know, there's a gap in the Pan american highway, about 60 miles that were never built in this highway that otherwise stretches from Prudo Bay, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. And what's there is a tremendously significant and very difficult jungle in the Darian gap. So there's a national park there, and ordinarily, people do not cross the Darien gap. It is a famously difficult obstacle. And what we see there is that the international community is encouraging a massive migration of people from South America into Central America, and that almost all of those people are ending up crossing our southern border and entering the US. The ones who are questioned are claiming political asylum, which is not accurate. So we talked to many, many migrants, and the universal story amongst the migrants who would talk to us is that they were fleeing bad economic conditions in the direction of what looks like greater opportunity.


They've been told by the international community that they should come across the Darien gap, where many of them are not surviving the trek. It's extremely dangerous, and they are migrating north. Now, the really troubling thing, though, is that that migration is familiar. In one way, it looks a little bit like the migrations of Central Americans that migrated north when we were kids. But there is another migration. There is a migration of chinese immigrants that looks different, feels different, and is being housed in a totally separate way in Darian for reasons that are not in any way obvious. Now, I don't know exactly what to make of that. I have hypotheses. There are no more than that. But the chinese migration is not forthcoming about why it is migrating. It is composed mostly of young military age men. There are some women present, but it's not 50 50 by far. And the international community has arranged separate encampments. The Chinese are, in many cases, traveling a separate way across the Darien gap. They're skipping some of the worst parts of it, traveling by boat. And as I think I mentioned, they are. When asked where they're from, where they're going, why they're going, they are uninterested in talking.


There's a hostility to it that I found shocking, because, for one thing, if you imagined folks from almost anywhere in the world were heading to the US because they didn't like the way things were in China. They feared their government. They thought that there was economic opportunity. They would be curious about Americans. These are soon to be their countrymen. They would tend to be interested in talking. And even if they, for some reason, because they had lived under a totalitarian regime, felt that they couldn't talk, they wouldn't be broadcasting hostility, they would be ambivalent or something. And that is not the impression that they leave when interacting with them. So I found that utterly alarming. And I came to wonder if the migration of people coming up from South America, many of whom, by the way, are not south american, there are people coming from the Middle east. We met Afghans. There are people from Iran, Yemen, all over the world. They land in Ecuador, which has no visa requirement, and then they migrate through Colombia, into Central America and straight up to the US. But in any case, that massive migration seems to provide a cloak for this other migration from China, which is nothing if not mysterious.


Why are they letting it happen? Why do you think the government is allowing the border to be so porous, and why are they resisting when Texas tries to do something about it?


Well, I always worry when we're trying to understand what's happening and the information is not being shared with us, you have to ask yourself the question of how many separate things are in play. Right before I went to Panama, I thought there was a migration of people. Now I think there are two. One of them's clearly a migration and the other one could well be an invasion. So if I know that there are two things, then I can put them in two categories and I can ask myself the question, why is this being allowed? And why is that being allowed? The consensus, maybe consensus is too strong. But the belief amongst many who have been on the story of the migration for years now is that this is a ploy to create voters, democratic voters. And I don't think that's impossible. I think that's probably playing a role. I don't know how realistic it is. I don't know whether or not it is clear that migrants necessarily carry the likelihood of voting blue that the blue team imagines. But anyway, I think that's a plausible explanation in part, but I don't think it really covers it.


There are other hypotheses that are darker. There is talk about the possibility of trading citizenship for military service. I think that's a very frightening prospect. But I didn't invent the idea. It has been discussed. And the problem is that to the extent that we saw things like the vaccine mandate drive out the skeptics from the military, this process would also bring in a lot of people into military service who would have more reason to follow immoral orders than a citizen soldier. Who had been american their whole life. In other words, if the power structure is granting you citizenship, which you want in exchange for your obedience, then what is it that would cause you to say no? So if you wanted a force that was capable of acting on behalf of tyranny against Americans, then a force that doesn't have a deep history with the rights of being an american, that doesn't have a long standing allegiance to people within the country, that force would be potentially more compliant. And that worries me.


That should worry you. I really didn't consider that until you just said that. But my thought about this idea of the military turning on the citizens was always, but the military is citizens and many of them are deeply patriotic and unlikely to do something like that. But if they did swap out immigrants and they did do that, holy shit, this is exactly. Then you have a real coup.


This is what spooks me is that in thinking about the various scenarios five years ago, even three years ago, I would have said, I fear that somebody is going to issue immoral orders to the military. But I'm convinced that the military will divide over them, that there are those who will carry out immoral orders and there are others who won't.


And at the same time there's a senator, I think, from Massachusetts that introduced a bill to ban what they call paramilitary training, which is just training with firearms, like to get better at them.




So the idea is you have a right to keep and bear arms, but you can't be good at them because you can't practice.


So if you imagine in my naive state a few years ago, the idea was, well, you have a very well armed populace. You have a military that's likely to be divided about immoral orders. I don't like the sound of that. But I don't think that it's a slam dunk that the tyrants win because the part of the military that's not going to follow immoral orders and the citizenry that will fight to defend the republic, that's a pretty powerful force. But then you have vaccine mandates which force out most of the people who are independent minded from the military. And then you have the idea that migrants might be granted citizenship in exchange for military service.


Has that been introduced anywhere or is this just a complete hypothesis?


No, it's not a hypothesis. Actually. Maybe, Jamie, you could look it up. I don't want to slander anybody, but yes, I believe it has been raised by at least one senator.


Jesus Christ. Is that the. No, no. The other thing, the thing about granting citizenship to illegal immigrants in exchange for military service.


So in any case, it took a lot of thinking about different pieces of the puzzle to begin to wonder about something like this. But having wondered about it, it doesn't disappear from my mind as, oh, that's just simply crazy. Actually, given the number of things that don't add up, this begins to explain them in a reasonably parsimonious way, and it has me worried. But that is not inherently. In fact, it is probably not the same thing as what would explain the concentration of chinese migrants. The chinese migrants presumably have left China with the knowledge of their government, the bias of that group in favor of males. Something we can talk about if you want to, but it has an obvious interpretation, and that ought to frighten us as well. Right?


How many are we talking about? Is there an estimate of how many military age chinese men have gotten into the country?


I'm always hesitant at this point in the conversation, because what I saw is what one person looks at through their eyes. So I'm in no position to estimate that. But I believe we are talking about tens of thousands. Certainly when we're talking about the entire migration, we are talking about millions. And the number that is flowing through Central America, the flow through rate in a given day is many thousands. So it's hard to know. And I would want somebody who was in a position to look at an estimate, not just a spot check.


So if the tyrannical government is playing some long game of chess, these are the pieces they'd be moving. I could find out a number chinese immigrants who entered the US without authorization. 2023. It's over 30,000. Look at how low it was in 2021 and how high it is in 2023.


What's the source on this?


This is the US Customs and Border protection. Oh my God. And that's probably a low estimate. It's probably like Vares, when I was looking up the other thing about the.


Military, I think you have to have.


A green card first before give them a green card.


This also was talking about, the numbers are down for the air force, the army.


Yeah, for everybody. They're actually asking people who retired to come back.


Yeah, they are. And in fact, they've gone a large distance towards forgiving people who resisted the mrna vaccines. But anyway, the larger picture, I don't.


Know, there's a lot of pieces in play that could turn out terribly for us. That's basically what we're saying. We're saying when we look at the long term, if you look at Google's commitment to censorship, the World Health Organization's idea of taking over, the fact that they want to continue to push these mrna vaccines, the fact that the border is wide open and they're not only giving people money, they're putting them in housing, they're directing them, they're getting on busses, they're dropping them off in places.


Transporting them into the interior.


Yeah, it's happening.


100% it's happening.


What happened in New York City when those guys beat the cop up and then they let them ride out, and then they're giving the tupac to the camera, like, holy shit. Do you know what kind of a terrible message that sends to bad people all over the world? That you could beat up a cop, and they're so stupid with their laws, they just let you right back out. It's lawlessness.


I think the overarching message is something deeply unpatriotic, has taken over the governance of our country, and that in part in the same way that we all were misled, or most of us were misled by the use of the term vaccine. So we didn't spot the horror of the mrna shots early enough. We have this reflex of imagining that there are intense divisions amongst the political class about in which direction the country should be governed. And once you free yourself from that mindset, and you imagine, here's the way I think of it, we have a very corrupt and very corruptible governance structure. I do not know what force it is that is supposed to prevent our enemies from buying influence in the same way that corporations do and did. So I don't assume that what is taking place is the result of misguided patriots. I assume it is the result of corruption. Whether that corruption is actually hostile to the US, I'm completely open to that possibility. And it means that when you're looking at the people in power and you're saying, they couldn't possibly be doing that, could they? The answer is, you're really asking the wrong question.


Right. People just following orders is a well understood problem. Politicians whose reason for being has become corruption, right? They are, in effect, just following orders. Right? The orders of whoever paid to influence them. They don't necessarily know why policies are desired. And if they do know, they don't necessarily care, right? They've gotten used to not caring. That's how they got ahead. So I know how this sounds, but I also know that the only way to make the pieces that we can see fit together is to open our minds to possibilities that sound incredible on first hearing, but actually are pretty good match for the evidence.


I was hoping you're going to wrap it up in a nice rosy way. Nice rose colored glasses.


I'm only kidding.


Well, listen, I really appreciate you coming on, and I really appreciate your voice, because you're one of the few people that can put this together in a digestible way that really understands what we're talking about here. And it's terrifying, but it's critical that it gets discussed, and I think you're a really important part of that. And I think if you weren't out there, a lot of these ideas, they wouldn't be as digestible.


So thank, I really, really appreciate that, Joe. And as you know, the good you have done for humanity by opening this platform and being the guy you are, discussing all of these difficult issues with all the people you bring on, it's really. I'm proud to be your friend.


I'm proud to be yours as well. Thank you.


Thank you.


All right, Dark Horse podcast, available everywhere.


Until they pull it, sign up on rumble and locals. Those are the least likely places for us.


There you go.


To be removed.


Beautiful. All right, thank you. Bye, everybody.