Transcript of #2535 - Andrew Wilson

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out! The Joe Rogan Experience. Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night. All day!

Andrew, good to see you.

You too, Joe. How you been?

Great, great, great. We were just talking about peace of mind and dealing with kooks. Is there anybody who argues online more than you do? You might be the number one guy who I see in clips, like, constantly getting in arguments with people online.

I'm not sure that there is anybody who takes on more debates yearly, high and low profile, than I do.

Yeah, I mean, even casual ones.

Correct.

It's like you're always sparring. It's like you're always, you know, you're always having scrimmages.

I think it keeps you sharp.

For sure.

Keeps you sharp if you're— so I also have this rule that, you know, there's like the clout game online, right? All these people want to play the clout game.

What is exactly the clout game?

It's like, you don't have a big enough follower account for me to respond to you. You don't have a big enough audience for me to discuss things with you. You know, things like that. And it's like, I hate that.

That seems pretty silly.

It is silly. And some of the best debates I've ever had with guys who had like 4 followers on X. And they're like, let's go down to this X space and talk. And I'll hop in there with them. And I'm like, an hour later I go, I had a lot of good stuff to say.

A lot of people out there, yeah, and oftentimes those are the ones who don't have a lot of followers because they're not sucked into the social media web. They're just out there thinking and doing things, living their life. A lot of fucking interesting people out there that you never hear from, and a lot of not interesting people that you hear from constantly, all the time. It's like the politician thing, you know. It's like we were talking about that the other day, like there's this lady that's running for— got something She running for governor of Wisconsin? Is that what it is? And she was just talking about how Thanksgiving hurts people. Like, what?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I don't know her background. I think it's the same lady at one point in time. She was in a mental institution.

Why? Does this not shock me?

Doesn't shock me. But this was the point we were saying nobody wants to be the fucking governor, and the people that do are— there's a high percentage of kooks.

Yeah, power attracts strange people. Sometimes it attracts good people. Yes, occasionally it often— and but often those are the people who go in and they want to change it. Like the, the idea that they have is, look, I'm trying to run for the right reasons because I actually want to change how this works. But they're few and far between, and they get killed. A lot of them get killed or they get run off. A lot of them just get involved in like their normal day-to-day life, you know, from 20 years prior. Now suddenly that's coming up, you know, and they have to defend themselves against criticisms that they never would have believed that they would have to defend themselves from.

Right.

Yeah.

And so character assassination, I think, takes a lot of the good actors out. They don't want to deal with the character assassination.

Well, it seems like they want total compliance on both sides, on both parties, total compliance with the party. And if they think that you're gonna be some outsider rebel that's gonna take over, then fuck you.

Well, you kind of— I think you kind of have to have that a little bit though, because if you got universal suffrage, necessarily everything converges into a two-party system. So as suffrage expanded throughout history, you saw the emergence of parties right alongside of it as more people became enfranchised to vote.

So you think if women couldn't vote, there wouldn't be parties?

There probably would still be parties. It would probably still be a two-party system. It's just that how it works is that if we continuously expand suffrage— let's just say we expand it to another group of men. Now those men have some special interest, right? So if it's not just property owners, let's say it's now, you know, people who live in a city. Well, they want a levy passed so that their kids can go to school, right? So they pass it on the property owners. Now they can vote to hand themselves money. So now you have a wedge issue. And so you'll see parties start to form around these wedge issues. And the more you have universal suffrage, the more you end up with party politics until you have a convergence of two. And usually it's along a certain wedge issue. So the only way in a dialectic where you have two parties, Democrat and Republican, to get your legislation passed is to be able to outvote the other side, right? Right. So you kind of have to have them all in line or else.

That makes sense. And there's no room in this country at the current point in time for another party. No one would accept it. We think about other parties like they're a goof. The Green Party, like, it's a— that's a protest vote, you know.

Libertarian Party.

Yeah, I've done that. I've done a few protest votes back in my day.

Yeah, I talked with— I was arguing with Rex Jones the other day. It's Alex Jones's kid. About this, and I told him, I'm like, look, you don't have a prayer in starting a third party in time for midterms and then the presidential election that's coming up in just a couple short years. You're not gonna be able to replace this system. You're not going to be able to do that.

Their roots go too deep. They're too intertwined in power and influence. Well, they have the infrastructure.

Like, think about the infrastructure. Billions of dollars in NGO funding, all this outreach program. Just to get on a ballot in a state, is often a multimillion-dollar thing that you need to have a party apparatus behind.

Yeah, it's kind of nuts, right? Multimillion dollars to spend to get a job that pays you $170,000.

Huh?

What? Oh, why do you think that fucking student loans are a scam? That's a crazy—

I love when these guys come in and for their $100,000 a year job, and then they leave and they have $25 million in the bank.

Yeah, that happens often. Often what happens? One way to get all that money. Yeah, well, how about the Ilhan Omar thing?

Oh yeah, that one's, that one's wild.

Like, they estimated her net worth somewhere like in the— it was millions, like $30 million or something crazy. And then she said it was an error. And then it was actually like a lot less than that, like $100,000 or something like really reasonable. Like, you imagine if your accountant was so bad, you're like, hey Mike, how much money am I worth? And he's like, I think you're worth $30 million. And you're like, fuck yeah, dude, thinking about buying a Corvette.

And you got, and you got $3,000 in the bank.

And then you call Mike the next day and you say, so $30 million? Because actually it was an error.

You're worth about 100 grand.

You're like, hey Mike, I'm gonna kill you because you stole $30 million from me. That doesn't make any sense.

100%. And do you think, do you think maybe she like strategically started moving some things with her accountant so that—

how about there was a vineyard that they owned that never made a bottle of wine?

Sounds right.

Is that the case? The case with one of those businesses that closed down? Listen, and pick on her, it's, it's— if you look at the Republicans and the Democrats when it comes to insider trading, it's fucking everybody. It's red, blue, red, blue, red, red, blue. It is— this is not a one-party thing. This is why it's never going to stop. They're both dipping their toes in. They're both having fun.

You basically always have the expectation of corruption. So even if you put your candidates in, so you're trying to get something out of that, right? Some issue that you're trying to push forward. You almost baked into the system have to accept a certain amount of corruption is going to come out of that. So like, let me give you a really good example of that. A key wedge issue like abortion. So you got Christians who are just adamant, right? Just got to stop. Will they accept if it's the case that candidates are really moving the post on that, if they're really moving legislation against abortion? Do you think that they would turn a blind eye to a little bit of corruption? Probably.

Yeah, there's definitely some compromises that get made both on your morals and the way you view financial issues and all kinds of things. I mean, it's never— especially there's only two parties. Like, you're with us or against us.

It has to be that way.

It's us and them. It's good and evil. That's it. In this country, that's really how people look at it on both sides. It's good versus evil.

But you have an alternative there that's even worse, or can at least sometimes be worse. So let's go to like the UK or Canada or places like this where they do round voting.

Yeah.

You have more than two parties, that's true. But do you really want your president to be elected with 10% of the vote? Right. 15% of the vote? You want your politicians to be put in with 9% of the vote?

Really?

Because that can happen. Yeah, that's crazy. You know, yeah, between these rounds. And so you think about it and you go, this two-party system sucks. But then you look at other places that have multiple parties and they do their rounds of voting and you're like, wait, so you could get elected with only 14% of the— so everybody else hates you.

Yeah.

There's the weird argument of the benevolent dictator. I'm sure you've heard this argument, but that a society is best run by a benevolent dictator. Someone who really truly has ultimate power but actually cares. A good person that cares about the people, that really just wants things to be reasonable and have a working meritocracy and have a working economy and have working education and everything work correctly and weed out all of the fraud and corruption because he's a king and he could just like—

he can just do it, do it, whatever the fuck you want, you know.

Like, look, I'm— I have only been to Dubai one time. Because we, we had a UFC over there and I had to go to the weigh-ins. The weigh-ins were in Dubai. Saw a lot of fucking Ferraris and Lamborghinis in 10 minutes. But from what I hear, it's the most safe place on earth. Like, literally.

Like, there's Romania under Vlad.

Yeah, like, what would you say, like Romania under Vlad the Impaler?

How can you, how can you hang gold in the street? He's— look around, a bunch of people impaled everywhere.

He would do them in designs. He would do them in geometric patterns, so you would realize he's being creative with impaling people.

He wasn't messing around.

Oh no, no, no. You know his story?

Yeah.

He was kidnapped when he was a small boy.

Woo!

A lot to that guy.

And his brother.

Yeah.

And their, their, you know, inter-brother conflict that they had for years and how he got power, lost power.

Can't—

yeah, there's a, there's a tale to be told about Vlad the Impaler for sure. But probably a pretty safe place to live.

Yeah, Dubai, like if they catch you with a bag of weed, you're going to jail for the rest of your life or they'll kill you.

Yeah, you're done.

Yeah, they have crazy laws. There was one guy, I think it was Dubai, who I think he had like marijuana seeds in the sole of his shoes or something like that. Like he had stepped on a marijuana seed, maybe in his apartment.

Yeah.

And he was— didn't have any drugs on him, nothing. And they put him in jail for a long time, man. I forget— this was a few years back. But it was a crazy case. There was another lady who got arrested. I forget what happened, but she— later a guy tested positive for poppy because she had poppy seed bagel. I don't know if you know this, but if you're testing for drugs and you eat a poppy seed bagel, you could pop for heroin.

Yeah. Yeah, I've heard that, but doesn't— with modern tests, isn't it a little bit better now?

I hope so. I don't know. 2008, this is a British traveler in Dubai was stopped at the airport. Lab found 0.003 grams of cannabis in his shoe sole. Holy fuck.

Yeah, that's crazy.

That's crazy. He received a mandatory 4-year sentence under the UAE's strict drug laws. Though he was later released early. How early is early?

So the British government came in and tried to barter him out of there, I'm guessing.

I guess, or the, the whole world must have been so outraged. I mean, at a certain point in time they have to say, we run the risk of never having tourists visit us again. And Dubai is a very tourist-central place.

Sure.

But I have a friend who moved over there a while back. He moved back to America recently, but he moved over there and he was, he was like, dude, it's just safe for me, you know. I don't worry if I go out, you know, someone's gonna like— he's a big black guy, so like, I don't want to get shot. He goes, I worry if I go out. He goes, over here there's nothing like that. There's no crime. He goes, everything's nice, everything's clean. You could leave a Rolex on the street, they'll pick it up and turn it into the cops. Like, nobody steals nothing over there.

But there's a trade-off for that, right? Bit of a trade-off. I can show you my geometric patterns of dead people everywhere on spikes who we impaled from their buttocks through their throat. Like, they don't die immediately. No, I don't think they do that in Dubai, but they let you know.

Yeah, you're not fucking around. There's no fucking around. I saw some lady getting in a screaming match. She was trying to do the thing that a lot of people do in America at the airport, and she got a screaming thing with the lady at the counter. And they're like, not today.

Not happening.

They just come over and fucking cuff you up and take you away. Like, you can't You can't do that there. You can't like, you can't Spirit Airlines, you know.

Do you prefer that? Would you prefer that society?

I don't think people should be able to just fucking scream and yell at people that work behind counters. I don't think that's productive. I don't think smacking them in the head because they can't get you a flight. We've all seen that kind of shit. There should be zero tolerance for that kind of violence.

But what if we tweaked it a different way?

Okay.

Okay. So what if instead of bringing in like some crazy Sharia in order to make sure that that happens, brought back dueling? Like, wouldn't dueling solve like 95% of this?

Dueling requires people to wait before they turn around and shoot. That— I'm not trusting a guy who wants to kill me to not jump the gun.

But that depends on the rules, right? Like, you could adjust the rules a little bit.

I guess.

Adjust the rules.

But it's like, if you could call somebody out for smirching you or something like this, right? I think people would probably be a lot more polite, wouldn't they?

They probably would. I think there's probably a better way than shooting each other in the street.

Probably. Probably. But there's probably a better way than that.

Even like fistfights. There's a better way than that too. You don't have to fistfight. Come on. But there's certainly something to be said for a society that is more orderly and people follow the rules and as long as the rules make sense. And these people are friendly and kind and they make for good community members.

That's not putting up with mentally ill lunatics just walking around causing problems everywhere, which is what American society is now dealing with.

You would— you see what just happened in Wisconsin where they had the— they had their own autonomous zone? Oh yeah, it just got broken up today by the cops.

I didn't see— got broken up?

You got broken up today? Yeah, see if you can find it, Jamie. There was video footage just fucking Army of cops came in, arrested everybody, spray paint all the streets and cars.

People just get to declare autonomous zones on public— like, what is— remember Chazz and Chop?

Chazz!

Oh, we've just declared this an autonomous zone, sorry.

Madison officials clear Willy Street encampment. Police officers arrest protesters who resist at Corey Ruiz memorial site. I do not know this Corey Ruiz story.

The Corey Ruiz memorial. So was it something ICE-related perhaps?

I think that's what this is, right?

Mm-hmm.

Is that what this is, Jamie? Um, did something happen? Something happened. Someone got shot, right? You don't know about it either? See, that's the problem. There's so many fucking things in the news that it's impossible— unless you're a maniac and you're just online all day— it's impossible to know exactly what's going on. You take a couple days off and smell the roses and you get back online. How come you You haven't commented on— what is it? I don't even know what you're talking about.

You gotta catch up for 4 days for one day.

Yeah. Also, like, hot take. Maybe you shouldn't have a hot take on everything. Maybe some things you need to like let it play out in the news. Like let people dissect it.

See, now that, I wish that that was a message that more people got. That the idea that you don't have to rush immediately out there to tell everybody your latest hottest take. Which is oftentimes, by the way, stupid. Yeah, often stupid take because you have no information, right? But you're gonna rush out there, you're gonna get those views and clicks quick, but then you're married to that take.

Exactly. Yeah. And unless you come back and make another video or make another take and explain why you fucked it up. But I think that there's, there's something to be said for, like, there's a lot of stories that are in the news, like, I don't fucking know exactly what happened there. Like, let's let this one play out a little bit. Like this one seems weird. Like if I come out with a hot tip, like who fucking knows what's really going on with 15 to— like there's so many different stories in the news, it's impossible. What's that, Jimmy?

I didn't find the details, but it is a police killing. It says officer-involved shooting of Corey Ruiz. And that's— I don't know, it doesn't— I'm looking for evidence and video. I didn't check Twitter or anything yet.

Um, put it into Perplexity. Ask Perplexity, what is the controversy about the killing of Corey Ruiz?

Okay.

You can't. You can't be— we're not designed to get all the bad news of 8 billion people. We're just not designed for that. That's not a normal thing for a person to absorb.

It's also driving a lot of people crazy.

Crazy.

Driving them to insanity. They think, they start to see conspiracy everywhere. They start to see plots of interest where there aren't any.

Right.

It starts to actually drive people mad. Because they can't disassociate between the fact that there is sensationalism and then there's reality. And the way that people think, they think in frames.

Yeah.

So if you think in a conspiratorial frame, you're usually taking tangential things and piecing them together that don't belong.

Right.

But then if you think in an autistic frame, as my friend Paul, Paul would say, if you think in an autistic frame, you're going to hone down so deep on one detail that you miss the entirety of the picture.

Mm-hmm.

Right? So you have to have an idea between these two things, right? It's like conspiracies exist. We know this. Many of them exist. There's many of them I can state off the top of my head, like MKUltra. That was a conspiracy that existed.

Yeah.

Right? There's— but there's also a lot that don't.

Right.

And so how do you disassociate between the two?

This episode is brought to you by Bluechew. Man, let's talk about Bluechew. They're already the number one brand for better sex, but what they're doing with Bluechew Gold is completely next level. Gold is a 4-in-1 formula designed to make your bedroom noisy again. Obviously, it gets you hard like you're back in your 20s, and everything is handled 100% online. But Gold boosts your arousal, getting you ready for sex physically and mentally. Plus, it dissolves under your tongue for faster absorption, so you get that spontaneous energy back Look at the stats. Gold is 3 times stronger, 5 times faster, and 8 times longer lasting than old-school methods. Bluechew Gold is the real deal. Right now, buy 2 months of Bluechew Gold and get the third free with my code ROGAN. You will also receive free overnight shipping. Head over to bluechew.com for details and important safety information. Check it out. This ad and the products being advertised are intended for a United States audience. And you have to come to the recognition that some of these fake ones were planted to make the real ones look stupid.

Flooding the zone.

Yes. This is a common strategy. What was it, Jamie? You pulled it up? Uh, controversy centers on whether Madison police needed to use deadly force against 38-year-old Corey Ruiz, a Black man, during a July 2026 arrest, and on the lack of body camera footage. Oh. Conflicting narratives about the threat he posed, posed, and the broader concerns about racialized policing. Police responded to reports of a man allegedly looking into parked vehicles and stealing bicycles. During the attempted arrest by 4 officers, a taser was deployed but reportedly failed. Police say Ruiz pulled a knife and injured an officer, after which that officer shot and killed him. Cell phone video recorded by a bystander shows part of the struggle and shooting., and quickly went viral, triggering protests and public outcry. Use of deadly force versus alternatives. Community members and Ruiz's family questioned why lethal force was used when multiple officers were already restraining him on the ground and a taser had been deployed, arguing that he did not deserve to be shot to death in the street. Lack of body cameras. None of the officers involved were wearing body-worn cameras, so the only visual recording is bystander video, which fuels distrust and demands for more accountability and measures and technology.

We need more flock cameras. Conflicting narratives about threat. Police emphasized that Reese stabbed or injured an officer with a knife, framing the shooting as a response to an immediate threat. Critics and loved ones questioned whether the threat justified shooting a restrained man and whether de-escalation was properly used. Well, first of all, if he really did stab a police officer, if he's stabbing a police officer, like, they are supposed to shoot him. That is, you can't take— you can't say someone's stabbing me, I hope they're only hurting me.

Yeah, right. Or how do you assess the amount of force that you can use back when someone's stabbing you? I think that that's responding with lethal force.

What did you say, Jamie?

I find the video.

Yeah, let's find the video. But it's also, how big is this guy if he's got all these people? And are these like a bunch of like shitty untrained police officers who don't know any martial arts? When you say he's restrained, like, how restrained was he? You know what I mean? Like, if you got two dudes that are built like Tony Hinchcliffe and they're trying to hold me back from fucking somebody up, it's not gonna do nothing. That— you know what I mean? Yeah, it's like, how big is this guy? What, what happened? Was he the one that was stealing things, or was he wrongly accused? Does he have a record? Is he a violent person? I don't know anything. Is he a complete innocent bystander? This is the video. Video contains graphic content. Okay, that's it.

That's all that one showed.

So there's probably multiple videos. Yeah, yeah. The thing about the tasers is it's fucking weird, man. Tasers on some people, they lock them up and they fucking— and they fall down. I've seen guys just scream and rip those things off their chest like it's nothing.

Well, sometimes those probes don't penetrate either, right?

I think some of those tasers are bunk too.

100%.

Some of the tasers are just shit equipment. I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense. So these guys—

did you ever play with one of the handhelds when you were a kid? No. Somebody always had a handheld somewhere.

No, I never did. I did touch an electric fence though, once.

Yeah. Oh yeah, that'll, that'll make your teeth clatter.

Holy fuck, dude.

It's letting go that's hard.

Yeah, disturbing video. Okay. Oh, there's sound on it.

I mean, there's yelling.

Put the earphones on, we can hear the sound.

There's the taser.

Oh, okay. Hold on, man. Back up, back up.

What was he reaching for on the ground?

Is that the girl? The woman shoots him, I think.

Okay.

Oh yeah, I can't tell who shot the gun, but that was— okay, that's crazy. That does not look justified. That looks like they had control of him, unless he had a knife and was stabbing people. But even if he was stabbing, like, how much control do they have on him before she starts shooting him?

Was it the chick who shot him?

Yes, look, see, she backs away. Watch, they tase him to get him to the ground, and she shoots him while they've got him down on the ground.

Female cops.

Yeah, that's not good. That's crazy. Oh, I again, I don't know what happened. I don't know if he stabbed one of them, if he really did have a knife and was stabbing him, but it seems like they had him restrained.

I think that's the guy who shot him. I can't tell.

But that lady stands back and extends her arms with a gun right there, and he puts it—

oh, you're right, it looks like he shot—

oh, it's the guy shoots him.

Yeah, she had— I think she had the taser.

She's shooting him with a taser. Oh, let me see that again.

What?

God, it's hard to tell. Is it— so it's the guy in the back?

I think it's the guy in the front. So if you— the dude in the back, you see the guy right next to— yeah, that guy.

That guy shoots him.

It looks like it. I'm not sure.

That's really close to—

God, it seems like—

oh, but the second the shots stop, he puts his hand— his gun back, right? Makes me think maybe it was him.

Yes.

Fuck, man, that does not look good. That's not a good one.

No, no, no, doesn't look great. No, that means you have to give us your hot take now, Joe.

Yeah, that's my hot take.

So he could run to Twitter with it.

I need to know, like, did he actually stab one of them?

So then it says during a press conference, uh, two of the cops were injured in the altercation. Police said the suspect allegedly pulled out a fixed-blade knife, to which an officer pulled out a taser. Same officer shot him with a gun.

Okay, that's different. So if he really pulled out a knife and was trying to stab them and they had him on the ground and they couldn't totally get control of him, and that guy just decides, he stabbed me, I'm gonna shoot him, that's a different thing. I agree, that's different.

Also, we didn't have the front view, right? We see the view from the back.

It's very blurry, the whole thing. We didn't even know who shot— we thought the lady shot him. Yeah, it's hard to tell what the fuck is going on. You can't even tell if it's a taser or gun in her hand, it's that blurry. But if he stabbed them and he's got a knife, that's a different different thing, right? The whole thing is fucked though. Like, that is the last thing America needs right now.

Yeah, well, I mean, you don't want another riot season.

I mean, I wonder if people would go right into it the way they did before without USAID's help.

Here's what a witness said he saw.

Witness came flying around on his bicycle. One officer tackled him. Two other officers kind of rushed over. One of the officers yells, "He has a knife!" One of the officers then draws a taser and yells, "Taser, taser, taser!" He tasers him. So it says he tasers him, but wasn't that the woman?

I mean, I'm not sure that she actually tasered him or she just had her weapon on.

She might have just had her weapon out. Uh, he tases him and the victim falls to the ground. The three continue to struggle for a second or two, then one of the officers stands just a couple feet above his head shooting the— okay, three times, three times to the head.

Holy Fuck, it did look like he was the shooter.

Okay, so that's what we saw.

Yeah, and the thing, the tell for that was as soon as he was done, he put it right back. Also, the other cops weren't doing this, right?

Additional video that has not been circulated online that's being reviewed.

Oh, why don't they have body cameras?

And that's what I mean, that's probably part of the whole protest was that their cameras were not on. So if they didn't have them, I don't know.

Did they— let's find that out. Did they not have them or were they not on?

Lack of body cameras. None of the officers involved were wearing body cameras.

Hmm. So none of them.

That's— are they supposed to?

Yeah, that may not be part of the ordinance.

Yeah, I don't know about the city of Madison.

How about fix that? Yeah, yeah, fix that.

You know, cops often are the ones who suggest that. Yeah, for their own, for their own safety. They say that they want to wear body cams.

I've seen a lot of crazy body cam footage where a guy is pulling someone over and they're just having a casual conversation. Also, the guy pulls a gun gun out and start shooting them.

Yep.

I've seen a bunch of those.

Tons.

These—

especially the routine traffic stops, happens constantly.

You have to always think, like, if you're in an altercation with a cop, these people are always worried that this is where their life is gonna end. They're always worried that they're gonna get shot. They're all— they've seen those videos too. So if you start shit with a cop and he freaks out and goes the wrong direction, like, you're probably dealing with a guy who's got some serious PTSD.

Yeah, he's seen it before, or his buddy's gotten, gotten plugged, right?

They've all seen it. Yeah, I have a friend who spent a lot of times overseas deployed, and he's in combat, and he said he saw way more as an Austin cop, like way more fucked up things, and all the time. Whereas, you know, you're not in war all the time, you're not in firefights all the time. He was like, it's like every day, every day you're seeing something fucked up that you can't unsee.

And you see it with kids.

Yeah.

Things you got to deal with with kids, things you got to deal with with all sorts of things. All sorts of things. That is not a fun job.

No, no, it's not.

And I would not want it at all. So I always do tend to cut law enforcement quite a bit of grace until I hear what their side of things are.

Yeah, I do too.

Because that is a brutal job to have. A buddy of mine's a deputy sheriff, and I talk with him, and he's policing a small area. And he's like, it's the stuff with the kids that gets him. Yeah, exactly. He's like, that's the stuff. He'll go, you know, go into a junkie's house, there's a 2-year-old there, hasn't eaten in 4 days, you know. He's like, that's the stuff that really, you know, he's like, I'd rather shoot a person than that. Which kind of makes sense to me, right? Like, I would—

it does.

Yeah, I probably would too, you know, when you You think about who should be allowed to have kids, who should be able— like, that's what's really crazy about freedom is that any two crackheads with no money at all just on the side of the road, and he can nut inside of her, and that creates a life, and that life they're responsible for. And they're smoking crack and drinking Everclear, and they have a baby growing inside their body, and no one can do anything about it. It's like there's no protection for that baby. There's no nothing. And then if that baby is born, if it does live, like, you know, you talk to people that have actually like been in the delivery room with crack babies. It's like, oh my god, man, the horror stories about a child addicted to drugs coming out of the womb addicted to drugs.

Yeah.

And detoxing.

Heavily addicted.

Heavily addicted. Yeah.

Yeah, so hard, ghoulish.

It's so twisted. It's like people can be so awesome and so shit at the same time, coexisting on the same patch of dirt, and no one devises a legitimate strategy for mitigating the amount of people that suck and the problems with—

can it even be done?

I don't know. Not with freedom. I mean, this is the flock camera question. You know, do you want Big Brother looking at your license plate everywhere you go? Well, listen, if someone shoots up— like, this is an argument that Marc Andreessen made on this podcast when he had come here. Right after he— right before he had come here, there was a shooting in Austin where some kids just randomly started shooting at people, and then they couldn't find them in Austin. But as soon as they left Austin city limits, they went into an area that had flock cameras, and they got them like that. So this was his argument for the benefits of flock cameras. I do believe he invests in flock cameras.

Well, sure. I mean, but you can make that argument with CCTV as well. You can make that argument with—

Everyone wear a chip.

Yeah.

Everyone wear a body camera.

Sure. The thing is, is you have to be cautious with the idea of the nanny state for another reason besides just protecting people's independent privacy. It's because those things often become money wells for people to steal from the public trough.

Oh yeah.

And that is the major issue, right? So some of the reasons I tend, even though I'm on the paleo-Christian side, to lean towards a lot of the freedom elements over the not is because of the corruption. The corruption which happens oftentimes when you try to curtail too much, right? That in and of itself creates a system and that system becomes ripe for corruption. Let me give you an example, flock cams. Who are we awarding the contracts to?

Right.

And who's going to be servicing those contracts? Who's going to be doing these things? Right. That's where you start to see with new systems, there becomes new corruption. So there has to be a way to curtail. But there's some things that are pretty obvious that you could curtail. And who cares if people bitch about it? Like, let's take online prostitution, for instance. Okay, great. It's illegal to do OnlyFans, let's say. How the hell could that possibly be bad for society? Like, what is that going to do that's just, oh, we gotta have that though, Andrew. We gotta have that. It's like, I don't think we do. I don't think it's necessary. And if we got rid of it, like, who cares? It seems like it would just be a massive net positive for every human being if that was just done away with altogether. And it's like, what the systems that come in too though, for policing it are prone to corruption. So you got to be cautious about it, right? Right. You got to be cautious about it.

Also, I just don't like people telling people what to do, even if they shouldn't be doing it. I don't like it.

I mean, to an extent though, right? Like, if they're heroin addicts, you're gonna be like, nah, yes.

Well, even that, like, I don't think you should be a heroin addict, but I don't think I should be the one to tell you not to do heroin. I don't, because I think it's a slippery slope, and then it's don't smoke cigarettes. And then it's 'cause cigarettes are killing you. And then it's don't drink whiskey 'cause you could be a drunk driver and kill a family of 5. Like, it's all the same shit. It's like—

But do you think that all those have kind of the same impact on society ultimately?

Well, the heroin thing is a weird one because—

'Cause like the argument I make would be like the incest argument. It'd be like, look, that's outlawed for a good reason. But what if you have 2 people who are totally sterile? Like they can't have kids, right? What's the moral argument that can be made? And there, people are like, well, there's, I can't really make a moral argument. It's just gross. It's just gross. You're fucking your sister. It's just, yeah. You just see, yeah. What are you doing? It's just gross. And it's like, well, but can we legislate off of it's just gross? And the kind of the libertarian mindset is no, we can't. And I think, yeah, we can. I'm okay with that. Like I'm okay about, I remember debating with David Smith. But what would you do? He brought this up.

What would you do? Would you arrest some guy and his sister if you found out they were boning each other?

Sure, why not?

Arrest them?

Why not? Like, how would that— how would deterring that society-wide ever be a bad idea?

I don't think it is. However, it's technically a victimless crime, especially under the circumstances that you described, whereas they're both sterile. I do not think you should be able to do that.

No?

Well, I don't think you should do that, I should say. But in the case of Cersei and what's-his-face, what's the other dude's name in Game of Thrones? The brother and sister?

Oh, yeah, yeah.

They really seemed like they were in love, dude. Sure.

But they had kids. They had incest babies, right? Who went on to rule kingdoms, and they were all— like Joffrey.

Joffrey's baby.

Probably didn't want the incest baby in charge of the kingdom. Didn't work out so well.

The other incest baby who was in charge of the kingdom, he jumped off the roof.

True. And was it Jon Snow technically doing incest as well with the Queen of Dragons? Like, weren't they both—

yeah, they're related. Yeah, they're in the basket.

They were, they were pretty—

right, something.

Yeah, there was a lot of stir or something in the Game of Thrones.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

But the other argument there that's interesting is it's like, okay, that's, you know, fair enough, it's a victimless crime, but you just kind of extend that. Like, okay, well then why can't a guy have 5 wives? Why can't he have 20? Why can't 20 gay men all get married and adopt one child? It's a victimless crime. Yeah, it's like, so that doesn't the slippery slope kind of go the other way a little bit too?

Yeah, it does. It does go the other way. And the, the multiple wives thing, didn't they just pass something like that in Toronto? Wasn't that in Ontario where they're allowing polygamy now because they have so many Islamic people living there?

They think that you should be allowed to have Well, remember there was big pushes for that in Utah because of the Mormon population. Oh yeah.

Well, you know, that's why Mitt Romney's family moved to Mexico.

Oh yeah. Really? Oh yeah. It was due to multiple wives? I didn't know that it was due to the multiple wives.

Well, not specifically, but that sect of Mormonism fled the United States when they passed polygamy laws. And I think there was probably just a broader crackdown on this perceived new cult. They thought of it as a cult. Now it's just established religion of really nice people that knock on your door.

I must admit, I have debated many Mormons, and they are just the nicest people.

The nicest people.

The nicest people.

It's the best cult.

And it makes me— it's upsetting because I'm like, look, I'm about to expose that your prophet was totally fake, and you know, I'm trying to get people into the debate, and they just end up being like the nicest people, and I go, ah, man.

So having multiple wives or spouses is illegal in Canada under Section 293, polygamy, and Section 290, bigamy. What is bigamy?

Isn't that— is that the other way? Is bigamy the other way? Polygamy is the man with multiple—

what, do you know what it is, Jamie? Do you know what bigamy is? Ever heard of it? I don't even think I've ever seen that written. The act of marrying one person while still legally married. Oh, okay. Oh, a bigamist, right?

Uh-huh. What? 4 people at once in somewhere or another recently, like this year in America, in Canada.

See, Canada, he was married to 4 women at once, multiple wives married.

So he got multiple marriage licenses and should not have been given them or something.

Oh well, he doesn't look Muslim. That guy looks like he's just a regular Christian guy.

Oh well, he does look Muslim, but I don't know if it has anything to do—

he might not be though. He might just be a baller.

He could be a Muslim.

Ah, yeah, go back to that case in Canada though. Isn't there something where they're trying to pass it in Toronto?

I don't think so. I typed in Toronto multiple wives.

Yeah, no, Toronto, Ontario, polygamy. I think they were trying to pass something.

I mean, that's why I went to news to see something, you know, that would have—

was it Ottawa? Maybe it was Ottawa. Yeah. Canada polygamy law. No new law in Canada legalizing multiple wives.

Perhaps proposed law.

Yeah, well, I don't know, maybe it is a proposed law. Maybe I just read some horseshit on Twitter, which is very possible. Whoo, I've been off Twitter for a few days. I feel pretty good.

It's good. It's good to unplug from Twitter.

Yeah, every now and then I just go in and I'm like, who are they mad at now? Oh God, can I ask you a question? Yeah, sure.

If you went into X tomorrow, let's say, and there was an option there where you could select it and it's like US accounts only, that's all you could see. Do you think that 90% of the traffic for people would go away?

A giant percentage.

Huge percentage.

Huge percentage is people being manipulated into arguments. It is a strategy.

By foreign assets.

By foreign assets. It is a strategy. It is real. This is not tinfoil hat shit. We brought this up multiple times on the podcast, but I'll bring it up again just for the sake of this. There was an FBI analyst who took a look at Twitter when Elon was buying it, and he estimated that 80% of the traffic is bots.

This doesn't surprise me. Remember, YouTube did an internal audit, and when they did their internal audit— this was a few years back, and when Susan still ran it, I believe— they did an internal audit and found out that most of the people that they had on YouTube were bots.— and they did a great purge.

Wow.

Right? That's where that whole dead internet theory and all that really started to pick up traction, was that, hey, look, a lot of this stuff is bots, foreign accounts, people who are manipulating US elections. They're manipulating various US interests, and this is happening all over the place.

Yeah.

Right now, you have progressives who are funded by ActBlue, ActBlue, right? And I've proven this. We've traced all their money. Progressives funded by ActBlue who are pushing the same narrative that Candace Owens and others are pushing on the idea of Charlie Kirk's death and the conspiracy around that. So you have—

So they're absolutely being paid to push this?

Well, their stated mission, this particular progressive group, their stated mission was to take down TPUSA. I'll tell you a story. This is the tale of all tales. So Charlie Kirk has this huge outreach program that's happening through TPUSA on these college campuses. He's got viral clip after viral clip after viral clip. They are going wild. He's going campus to campus. He's doing his thing. He's being dogged by a progressive organization. This progressive organization shows up at almost all of these TPUSA events with the stated mission of trying to create a counter movement to what TPUSA is doing. Now, the woman who heads this particular organization received millions of dollars from ActBlue and other progressive organizations for this stated mission. That same woman right this second works with other op— ex-accounts to push the messaging that Charlie Kirk was assassinated by his own TPUSA insiders in order to push that narrative forward because the stated goal still from that organization is to destroy TPUSA.

So they've— how do we know that they've done this? Is there emails that have been found? Like, how do—

well, the stated goal of this particular person is to take down— is to take down TPUSA.

Right.

Very open about that. And then the way that you know that they are talking to these other accounts is because they do it publicly. Those public accounts will talk to this account, right?

Mm-hmm.

Very openly, they reaffirm each other's posts. They say, wow, that's real interesting, this kind of thing, all affirming that same conspiracy that TPUSA was the ones who actually set up and murdered Charlie Kirk.

Hmm.

And millions of dollars in ActBlue funding going towards this. No joke. Anybody can look, can look it up right now. The organization's called Unfuck America.

So how do they think that his organization did this? That they convinced Tyler Robinson to do it, or did they think someone else did it?

They don't think that the progressive organization does believe that TPUSA did this. I think that what they want to do is—

Oh no, I understand that, but I mean, what are they trying to say?

Oh, well, here's what the theory is. So take Ian Carroll. Charlie Kirk, within 24 hours after Kirk's death, blames Israel. Within 24 hours, he says Israel killed Kirk. That was his tweet, went mega viral. What the conspiracy is on that side is that Israel, along with Erica Kirk and TPUSA insiders, got together with elements of the U.S. government to murder Charlie Kirk because he was going to leave the, quote, pro-Israel cause. That's what the theory is. And that he was either murdered, some of them say with a microphone exploding, some of them say with a— you think there was a second shooter and Robinson's a patsy. It all depends on which theorist you're talking to, but they all work together in the same unison from a single camp, which is interesting.

Well, a lot of people had takes on the shooting. And the microphone one was the weirdest one to me. It's weird because there's no— like, yeah, the shirt is moving, but also a bullet is going like how many feet per second whizzing through the air? Like, do you understand?

It's just like air.

Yeah. So where's the air gonna go? People don't understand that.

You know what got me though? So I went back and looked because they say that it's the same explosive which was used inside the Israeli pagers. Now that was very real. Israel sent these pagers all over.

That would be an explosion. That's my take. My point is like there's no— indication that there's an ignition.

There is worse. There's no smoke, right? There's not. Now, all these really— if you pull up— if you pulled up right now one of these Israeli pagers going, because there's tons of videos of them.

Oh really? Oh yeah, let me see some Israeli.

You're gonna see smoke blowing off. There's smoke.

Is there a dude like where it's on his hip?

Yeah. Oh yeah, yep, there's one where it's on his hip and gets him, and you can see the cloud of smoke coming off because of the specific type of ignition, right?

But is it possible that this pager thing is different than whatever they think this microphone thing is? This microphone microphone thing has some sort of a different kind of propellant. No, then again, you, you'd have to like, okay, let's, let's imagine what kind of propellant exists, right? Compressed air. There's not enough room in that microphone to get enough compressed air to blow a hole in your neck and kill you instantly.

Well, they claim that it's—

unless it's something else, it's this—

what is it, PETN explosive? This is the particular type that had to be used for the size of the microphone. But you have another problem, the mic's on the wrong side. Of where the wound is, right? The other is there's no burn marks, there's no smoke, there's nothing. There's like— there's nothing to confirm this theory at all.

You'd have to guess where that mic is because he's moving around too. You have to guess where that mic is pointing. You could take someone out.

So I found two videos.

Yeah, this one's great.

One that goes— I'll show you. This happens again here.

Watch the smoke. See all that smoke?

Let me see that again.

Watch.

I was just chilling and boom! Look at all that smoke in his bag though.

Yeah, yeah. So a lot of them like didn't die. They go to the hospital and they're just like, you know, hurt.

Probably because they had it in their bag or something.

Found a couple— one other video here.

Well, these guys are gonna be carrying around like armored satchels.

Well, yeah, you could— like, a couple of them were on bikes and stuff when it happened. Like, that guy fucked up.

Yeah, he got messed up real bad.

So— or they give you the illusion they did by blurring out his head.

That's the other part. I mean, not that these are fake, but yes, there's only 11 were killed by the pagers.

Still pretty Slick.

That was extremely extreme.

I mean, I mean, crazy. They sent him off to them years ago.

That's some CIA shit, man. Like, that's some deep state shit. Yeah, it's crazy.

That's probably where the CIA learned it. But that's an explosion, right? And yeah, you see smoke, but is there some kind of a propellant that would be lethal from a short distance with some sort of a projectile? It's possible, but it would also like have to be like, how are you aiming it? You're not even aiming it. It's sitting up here, right? So if it's sitting here and he's doing all this and moving around, like, it might take his ear off, it might zip, whiz to the side and shoot somebody else if he leans over. Sure. Unless they planned exactly when it's gonna go off and it's pointing towards his neck, like— Which, yeah, it seems like a gunshot wound. It's just hard to imagine that it's a .30-06. That's my issue with it. I look at it and, you know, I've seen takes from guys that are gun experts, And they have a problem with it too. The thing about guns though is weird stuff happens when you shoot bones. Constantly. Like, it is possible that you wouldn't get a pass-through, depending on how it squared the spinal column, depending on how it hit, and depending on what kind of bullet it is.

I forget the type.

These are 150-grain Core-Lok soft tips. Core-Lok.

That's right.

And they're soft tip.

Right.

So they only have enough of a jacket to keep the bullet together, right?

The idea is that expands inside the body causing massive trauma, right? Right.

So why I use them for hunting, and probably you have to.

Yeah, no, I haven't used that particular round, but it just seems like it's a lot of fucking— a lot of energy. It is coming towards your neck. It's hard to believe that it wouldn't blow a hole through the neck and leave a big fucking— just take a chunk out. That it would just make a round hole. But that's beside the point, you know. There's other weird stuff with like the video. I don't like— there's a lot of people saying that the video is super clear, that you're seeing 4K footage, it's clearly Tyler Robinson on the roof. No, it's not.

Jack Prasobic and Benny Johnson.

That's crazy that they said that. That is not clear. That is a blurry figure. You could barely ascertain as to whether or not there's a recoil when someone takes the shot. So it does seem like the guy on the roof gets in a prone position, and it looks like something that might be a rifle, right? It's blurry as fuck.

It also does look like there's kickback on the right leg.

It looks like there might be some recoil. It's hard, but it's not clear. —like for them to say it's crystal clear, it's Tyler Robinson, it's on the roof, it's like, uh.

Well, it's interesting. When Prasovic came out and said that, and Benny Johnson, there was another guy who was there who I know. His name's Kai Schwimmer. And Kai put out a tweet. He said, look, they might have sensationalized this just a bit, okay? He said, but the video that we did see in the courtroom was actually much clearer. Oh, okay. So I DM'd him, and I DM'd Jack Prasovic. And I DM'd— well, I couldn't get a hold of Benny, but I DM'd Jack Prasovic, and I said, I said, "Just be straight with me. Like, did you try to oversensationalize this thing for clicks? Like, what's the deal?" He said, "No, listen. The footage we did see inside the courtroom was actually a lot clearer than anything that the public has seen so far." That's their claim. Kai Schwimmer— now, I wouldn't just take Prasobiec's word, but Kai Schwimmer, he's a Mormon. Mormon kid. Not very prone to tall tales. In fact, he was the first one that came out and said, "Look, I was there." and you're kind of oversensationalizing it. It is a lot clearer, but it's not showing everything that you're claiming it's showing.

Mm. So, it's clearer, but it's not clear enough. It's not like 4K, close-up, clearly his face. The other thing that was weird was the guy in the crowd that jumped up and said, "I killed him." Mm-hmm. That's weird. And that guy, wasn't he at the Boston bombing as well?

He was there. So, he's a professional agitator. Who's been at tons and tons of these events. Later he's found, I believe, with kiddie porn, right? How convenient. Well, well, also maybe that's the kind of guy— that's the kind of guy though, right? Yeah. And so his— he has been at tons of events agitating, and he is well known to law enforcement for doing this. So that's kind of what they're stating for him. The— if you're looking at this from a broad view, if you're looking at the conspiracy side versus what they call the fed-slop side, let's say, it makes sense for them to say, hey, wait a second, that's really weird. This guy jumps up and says, I did it, right? That makes him— he's a patsy, distraction, something like this. So you look into the guy, right? And the guy is a lunatic who's been at many of these events. Yeah, doing crazy stuff like this.

That's the thing is both things can be true. Like MKUltra is real. Also, that guy might just been a kook who's in the crowd who took advantage of a situation because he's literally insane and he's into kiddie porn.

Yeah, but well, there's no doubt one of the biggest kind of false narratives that comes out of this— and when I do debates, one of the things I'm trying to structure around is like, I know that we're coming in with a narrative, but I need to understand yours and you need to understand mine so we can get somewhere towards what the truth is here. Right? Because you're gonna have a frame of which you're viewing the world, a worldview, and so am I. And so everybody has a worldview. We have to figure each other's out to get somewhere. Here with this, one of the most disturbing aspects of it is they— the people who promote this actually don't want their worldview or their positions to be examined. They only want to examine the evidence from the state. It's like, that would be fine, I think, if it was the case that you made no claims past that. —right. So if you just only say, hey, you know, I'm not really sure what happened, and I want to really kind of review the evidence, and that's that, I don't really have a problem with that. I think that that's probably healthy.

The issue that I run into is when people make claims past that. Oh, it was an exploding, you know, exploding mic, right? It was two different shooters. It was a folding rifle. It was a— that 30-06 couldn't do this, even though the US Army— remember, the 30-06 used in the M1 Grand was used in World War II, and then it was used in Korea. Before that, we had the 03 Springfield, was used heavily in World War I, World War II, and again in Korea. The US Army has studied .30-06 entry wounds in depth and produced many manuals on it explaining how cavitation works with .30-06 and that the bullet doesn't always penetrate. And that's with full metal jacket rounds, mm, that are designed for maximum penetration.— not 150-grain Core-Lok coming out of an antique rifle, essentially. It could easily split up very quickly, and that's why they ended up pulling fragments out of Charlie. It wouldn't surprise me if when we have all the data from the coroner report that he has tons of shards all throughout his chest, all throughout his entire— because they were saying that there's trauma inside the chest, which would make sense if the bullet split up up here, right?

It would create all sorts of fragments down in the chest, right?

That, that is an important distinction about the type of bullet. Huge distinction.

The FMJ especially, because that's what the Army was using, is FMJ ball ammunition. It's cheap to produce, right? So they're using it in all these different wars, and the amount of people shot with that caliber between World War I, II, and Korea is astronomical. They even use the .30-06 in Vietnam. In limited capacity, especially the O3 Springfield. It was still in service by Special Forces. So the question becomes, like, the US Army has studied this in depth, and I went back and I pulled all their manuals, and I've even put them out, and several people have done the exact same thing and put them out explaining how cavitation works. And they're saying, look, the energy dissipation, the second it hits a human body, it dissipates very, very, very quickly with the resistance. So it doesn't always go through. Now oftentimes it does with the FMJ, but even then it didn't always go through. So, you know, it's a, it's a well-studied phenomenon. Another one would be Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King gets hit through the jaw, ends up here. Well, if it's just gonna blow through all bone, why did it stop in him?

Well, it's because the second it has impact, it begins to slow down, and then it impacts something else, slows down even more. So it's totally possible that this guy was hit with a .30-06. I don't know why that would be in the realm of impossibility. We have enough data on the ammo to know that, yeah, it's very possible this happened.

It is definitely possible. There's a lot of people that think that the sound was not— they think the sound indicated that it was a closer shot than where it was.— and I've heard a lot of people say, well, there's also an issue with it being supersonic ammo, so you're getting two sounds. You're getting a sound of the bullet actually breaking the air. You're also getting the sound of the rifle going off. I don't understand it.

Yeah, it's difficult there when you're making the judgments on the sound because there are people who have run experiments saying right down to the second this meets up with a shot placement. And then there's people who say, "No, there's— that experiment's bogus due to the controls for this or that." The problem is, is that most of these people don't have any expertise in this arena at all. They're just yapping. And they're just— exactly. They're just trying to— and I get it. You're trying to figure it out. I understand.

The Israel thing, there was some text messages back and forth where Charlie was talking about getting out of the Israel business, and there was this position that he had where he did not want us to go to war with Iran. All true. And he had a lot of influence. And then there was also that Israel supposedly had offered him $150 million to be more pro-Israel.

That is the problem that we've run into, is like, I've never been able to verify that was the case. And I'm—

Okay, so where does that claim come from?

This claim basically comes from this camp without anything to substantiate it.

So it's the same people that are pushing this thing at Turning Point Kids?

What's interesting about this is like It is indeed true. It does appear that Charlie Kirk was extremely pissed off at some of his donors because they were trying to control who he was platforming. They were upset that he had platformed Tucker Carlson. They were upset that he had platformed Candace Owens. They were upset, and why? Well, it's because Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, they were very anti, or at least had a somewhat anti-Israel message at the time. Carlson, I think a bit more than Candace, or maybe it could be the reverse. But I don't think that that matters too much. The donors were pissed off. Many of them were pro-Israel and some of these donors were applying pressure. So Kirk was lamenting inside of his text messages about this pressure he was experiencing from some of his donors about who he could or couldn't platform. So as a negotiating piece, he said, "Well, I'll leave the pro-Israeli cause if you're going to try to tell me who I can and can't platform." That was kind of what his position was. Now that seems like platforming. I don't know, even on Twitch politics or YouTube politics with smaller channels, smaller streamers, they argue about platforming all the time, responsible platforming.

Is it responsible for you to platform this guy? Is it responsible for you to platform this terrorist? And they're endlessly fighting about it. So this actually doesn't surprise me a bit that these guys are fighting over who you can or can't platform. If you're giving your money to an NGO, for the purpose of giving to the pro cause and that NGO is saying, wait a second, I'm going to platform people who are against your cause, of course the donor is going to get pissed.

Yeah, the platforming thing I think is just gatekeeping. If you're upset that someone is having a conversation or a debate with someone that you don't agree with, that— you're supposed to hear that person's perspective. You're supposed to hear them challenged. You're supposed to hear them allowed to flesh out the full point of view. Not like in weird clip form, but go ahead, tell me what you really think, and I'm going to tell you why I disagree with that. That's healthy. It's supposed to be what we do.

Because that's the— you're basically reciting what Kirk's position was.

Yes. And what he was always really good at. Unfortunately, there's a few clips. There's the clips thing with Charlie where he's saying things and people think it's racist. He's saying things and it's like, You have to understand the context of what he was saying. And I've had conversations with Black friends who think, like, he was saying, "If I see a Black pilot on a plane, uh, I get worried. Is he qualified?" The reason why he's saying that is because there are specific laws that were designed to hire people just based on their race and not on their competency. He wasn't saying that Black people weren't competent as pilots. What he's worried is that in the rush to meet these quotas, They're gonna hire people who are not competent just because they're black. Just like if they wanted to hire old white guys, they can hire a bunch of old white guys who suck if they just want to fill a quota of old white guys. It just happens at this particular time where he's talking about black people. And it seems like if you just look at the clip, this racist piece of shit doesn't think black people can fly a plane.

And that's the unfortunate thing about thinking out loud. Right, which is what we do. We think out loud in public, and when you think out loud in public, someone can take what you're saying and take a clip of it and completely out of context. It looks bad. Happens to me all the time. It happens to me. Sure. But I've had that conversation with people about Charlie, and I'm like, I don't agree with Charlie Kirk. I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything. I met him once. He was a very nice guy. I met him at a gun range. I met him at Tarrant Tactical in LA. It's a place where you learn like serious gun shoots where Keanu Reeves learned for John Wick and a bunch of us.

Is that where all those videos are from where Keanu Reeves is going between shotgun to 3-gun and that kind of thing?

Exactly. That's where I met Charlie.

He's really good at that, by the way. Oh yeah, he is really good.

He's fucking dedicated, man. When he was practicing, I mean, I talked to Taran about it when he was practicing for John Wick. I mean, he was obsessive. He was obsessive. And you know that whole magazine thing he does, the flick? He invented that. That's not something that's like a standard thing. Most of the time people just hit the release, drop the mag, pop the new mag in. He decided to do this jazzy flick thing, and now people do it all the time. It's kind of funny.

I never put that together. I guess I haven't actually seen that before.

No, before the— I think it's him. I think it's the Wick flick. I think— I think— yeah, I think Keanu— at least this is the people that were— but even the way he reloads loads the shotgun is interesting.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Right? The way that he'll actually hold it up as he's going in. Mm-hmm. And in between a few shots, he's loading again. It's like— And fast. Yeah. Fast and smooth. That's not the thing that you usually see in movies. Usually in movies, it's like you have way more rounds than you should have to compensate for how bad the actor is at gun handling. Exactly. For him, it's like the opposite.

I do that in movies. I'm like, why is he shooting still? He's out of bullets. Oh, he's out of bullets. He's out of bullets. He's out of bullets.

Did you ever see The Walking Dead? You remember the famous scene where Herschel's in the front and he's got the pump-action shotgun? It's just unlimited ammo, unlimited ammo. I was like, he found Solid Snake's unlimited ammo bandana and put it on, and he's just— I mean, 100 rounds with this pump-action shotgun. It's just, he just never stops.

It's so crazy.

And I get, you know, I get pissed. I'll be sitting there watching it with my wife and I'll be like, when's he gonna reload? When's he gonna— this is bullshit.

Well, the reason why it was so good was Terrence. Like Taren is really meticulous, and he's a multiple-time world champion shooter. You know, he does those competitions, shooter ready, beep, and he's like super in the spectrum, so he fucking just sees things differently. He doesn't miss. He's crazy good.

So Charlie was training under him, huh?

Yes. Okay. Yeah, we were both there at the same time. Interesting. Just randomly, you know, ran into him there. Actually, anyway, very nice guy. And the point is like —people think that he was like this mean, shitty conservative. He wasn't mean. He was very kind. And the way he would talk to people, if you see enough of these, not the clips, but enough of these conversations with people, it depended entirely on how the person approached him. And when people were respectful and reasonable with him, he was very kind and respectful and reasonable back. I think he was a good man. I really do. And he was a young man too. He was— he was a young man that was getting an enormous amount of attention at a very young age. It was handling it very well.

It is not easy to do, especially think about where he was going. Yeah, this guy's going into— it's like conservatives have wanted this my whole life. We've got to get into those institutions, the college institutions that progressives have a stranglehold. Jordan Peterson talked a lot about this.

Well, I think Crowder did it first.

He did. He had the Change My Mind series.

Yes, and he's great at those. He is. I mean, and but those also, there's clips where you look, you're in these agitated environments and people are yelling at you and you're yelling back and you know, just get a clip of that. It's like, oh, this guy comes to harass kids. Like that's, it's, you should welcome discourse and it should be something where everybody can do peacefully. It shouldn't be where these people speak and you hit the fire alarm. Because you don't want them speaking, and you're outside screaming and chanting and throwing rocks at their cars. Like, that's crazy. That's bad for everybody.

Last time I talked to Stephen, because he went and did a couple more of those after Kirk had died, and I said, you know, you— that's dangerous as hell, man, you know. And he's like, well, I'm just gonna build a bulletproof, like, glass square, and I'll just do it from there. Wow. Right? That was his his dedication to it. Now, I like Steven. He's become a very good friend of mine over the time that I've known him. It's just that, like, he could— right now, going on these college campuses and doing these debates where you're, you know, these people are coming up, yeah, they have some things to say. Yeah, I mean, it's gonna heighten the energy. Now, Crowder's whole thing is not to debate. He wants to sit down and just have the convo. Yeah, I don't want to debate. I just want— I want actually see if you can change my mind on this issue, right? So it's a lot calmer. And Charlie's wasn't— Charlie's was much more energy-based. It was combative, things like this. And it pissed a lot of people off. It pissed them off so bad that after he died, we did 3 weeks on TikTok going and talking to various TikTokers and their channels who were just celebrating his death like you can't believe.

They were just giddy. Charlie, these leftists were jumping up and down. I'd go into their TikTok spaces and say, so what do you think of Charlie? And they'd say, I'm glad he's dead. It's the best thing that ever happened to the country. Tyler Robinson's a hero. They said this stuff to me live. It was bad. And it was weeks of it that we went and exposed these various TikTokers doing that.

Yeah, I saw a lot of people online celebrating, and it's just disturbing, weird to watch that you would encourage that kind of gun violence. Like, when, when, when is the left encouraging gun violence? That seems so insane. Just because you got a hold of some clips, and I'm telling you, you didn't get the full understanding of who this guy was. No. And, and who he could be, you know. Again, he's 28 years old. Who knows who he's gonna be in 20 years? Like, he's a nice guy. He was a reasonable guy. Like, they celebrating that guy's death, what you're gonna do is you're gonna make more monsters. You're gonna make more people that think, if you didn't like that guy, well then fuck you.

Yeah, wait till you see the mean people come out. Exactly, exactly. That— and I've heard a lot of that, and some of that actually ties in to why so many people were so upset with TPUSA initially, including myself. We were like, where's the energy? You need to, like, they just, they just killed this guy in broad daylight. I think crazy is rattled. These crazy leftists, right? Like, where's the push? Where's the energy? We wanted our war, right? Our verbal online war.

Do you think there's any possibility that if someone else killed him? Do you think there's any possibility that he was assassinated by Israel?

I don't— I've never— well, we're talking about possibility. Almost anything's possible. Almost anything's possible. But but there's not good evidence to support it and there's probably pretty good evidence not to. So for instance, the guy was still very much a pro-Israel guy even up to death. It is true that he was fighting with donors about the cause and this kind of thing.

But if he could have been a substantial roadblock to the Iraq War, if he— or Iran War rather, if he was a substantial roadblock, I mean that's not outside the realm of possibility. A nation-state would take a guy like that out.

They didn't take out Fuentes, didn't take out Owens, different— take out Ian Carroll. They didn't take out any of these other huge personalities who were roadblocks to the way.

I think Charlie was very different. Carroll— or excuse me, Fuentes is more easy to dismiss because he said so many wild things, shitposting. He said so many crazy things that I think he is almost embodying in their eyes like the crazy anti-Semite. Anti-Semite, whereas Charlie was not an anti-Semite, was much more reasonable, and if he was going against Israel, it could be a real problem. I also think that he had a tremendous amount of influence on the president. He had his ear. I think the president respected him. Oh yeah, for sure.

The interesting part though, if you look at the history there, Fuentes conducted his graper war against TPUSA and Charlie Kirk because of the pro-Israel stance and because of his pro-homosexual stance, like big tent Republicans, as he called it. So they had the pro stances for these things. And what's interesting about all of it, if you follow the details of it, up until Kirk's death, TPUSA actually moved a lot more towards the Groeper-Fuentes position than they moved towards the kind of pro-Israel, this type of position. A lot of the ideology that I think Kirk was changing on came from these various outside influences. And so if that's the case, why wouldn't you just curtail those outside influences and then you can keep Kirk as the mouthpiece, right? So I think that there's a pretty good counter to that idea. Now, you can't rule anything out as possibility, but it seems likely to me with how much trans have been shooting everything up for the last couple of years and how often it's the case that you find leftists involved in these signal groups. And involved in these group chats and things like this for the purpose of radicalization.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if there was a left-wing conspiracy assisting Tyler Robinson and radicalizing Tyler Robinson. There's at least some evidence for that based on the Discord groups, things like this that they were part of. I haven't actually seen a single piece of evidence that Israel was ever involved in this.

No, I haven't seen the evidence. I've seen a lot of speculation based on the text that Charlie made, the fact that he was so staunchly against the Iran War. Yeah. And the fact that he did say that he was thinking about getting out of the Israel business, the pro-Israel business. But in this climate, you know, Israel gets blamed for a lot of things. There's also a thing that's going on with the Charlie Kirk Turning Point, you know, that we talked about earlier. They have to factor in with this, which is that there's a lot of outside interests that are a part of this conversation. And this conversation is not necessarily organic. I can't tell you how many times I see a post on X and I'm like, that can't be real. Like someone has been arrested and, you know, charges will be filed imminently. And then you like—

Yeah, it's not true at all.

Not true at all. It's completely fabricated.

That's like the clips of you or it's like Joe Rogan reacts. Yeah. And it's just all totally fake.

Not me at all. Yeah, it's not you at all. Not reacting at all. But if you use I mean, that's the problem with the world that we're in now too, that there's this economy on attention. Attention is a commodity. And the more you can get attention by whatever, your hot take, your conspiracy, conspiracies are awesome for attention. People love them now because look, COVID turned a lot of— I love them. I like them. I love them. I love the dumb ones. I love all of them. I love fucking flat earth and space fakes. Can we just be honest?

I'm like, "They're fun." Fun.

They're really fun. Oh yeah. Dude, the flat Earth one is fun. Oh yeah. The dinosaurs aren't real one, that one's great.

But have you noticed the flat Earthers have fleets of people who will debate their stances? Fleets of them. Who are like, "We can't wait to debate with you on the flat Earth." It's like, on the other side though, in this particular conspiracy, you can't get these people to debate their positions. Who won't debate their positions? We offered Candace Owens, I offered her 300 $300,000 to do a debate. I was like, we'll give you $300,000. What is her position? What does she think happened? She thinks that Israel worked in conjunction with TPUSA and Erica Kirk to murder Charlie. Based on what? Well, that's the million-dollar question. Nobody actually knows. She's never presented a single shred of evidence thus far that Israel ever worked to murder Kirk, that Erica Kirk certainly didn't. In fact, In fact, her position for the longest time was, if Erika Kirk comes out and tells me to stop, to stop this, to stop the conspiracy on this, I will. So Erika did. She went out publicly and she was like, "Enough." Like, "Enough. You're just causing more problems than good here as this investigation's going on." And then suddenly Erika's now part of the conspiracy.

By the next day, Erika's— she's trying to cover it up. She's part of the conspiracy too. I went to the TPUSA HQ.. And I talked to Erica briefly while I was there. The first thing I did was what I think every normal moral human being would ever do. I gave her a hug and I told her how god-awful sorry I was that that happened to her. Like, if you'd even imagine how that's got to feel for her, especially now that she has tens of thousands of people accusing her. Of murdering and conspiring to murder and then cover up what happened to her own— I mean, that's like mind-boggling psychological torture on a level that I've never seen.

Yeah, and hindsight is 20/20, but given the reaction, I think it probably would have been better for her to, like, lay low for a little while. 1000%. The going out with the sparklers was not a great idea. Like, all that was not a great idea because it just seemed insane. And maybe sometimes in grief or when, you know, you're trying to show that they're not going to hold us back, people make choices that could be interpreted in a very bad way.

100%. The interesting thing is I asked her about that. I asked her, like, what's the deal there? What's with the sparklers? Well, what's with the, like— the aberration in behavior. She's like, look, I was put in like the most— the worst spot I could ever think of. I was the background character. I was just there to support my husband. That's it. The only reason I even really got involved is because Charlie was so pro-marriage, you know, and he wanted to demonstrate to the world you can be married and have kids and this is the— this is the good life. So when he dies, she takes over right? This moves over to her control. She says, well, the first thing I want to do is honor his last book, you know, that's the very first thing I want to do. I want to honor his legacy. And she's like, I don't know exactly how to take this position. At the same time, there's expectations for the organization my husband built that I want to honor, right? But, you know, I'm also in the middle of grief. And it's like, I don't know how you balance that.

Position. Who's been in that position ever?

Right. And especially who's been in that position that's not accustomed to being scrutinized in the public eye. Everything.

And it's the lack of charitability that's so bad too. Let me give you an example. If you say, "Ah, Paul's so lazy. He never gets to work on time." You don't actually mean Paul has never once gotten to work on time. That's not what people mean. Right. But the way that these people will scrutinize every detail of what a person does, they can make a liar out of anybody. Because that— they'll take statements like that, which in the common terms, if you say, "Oh man, Paul's never here on time," you don't literally mean he's never here on time. Nobody talks that way. But if you push on everything a person's ever said Tongue-in-cheek, not tongue-in-cheek. They misremember an event, they don't misremember an event. You can make a liar out of anybody, right? Yeah. And that sort of scrutiny from all that public trauma— and it was the most traumatic event Zoomers have ever gone through, the biggest, I mean, a public assassination like this. Same thing with millennials.

It also exposed people's character that they were celebrating it. Oh yeah. And they have to feel bad about that. They can't feel good about that. And they have to feel bad about the response because so many people got fired because of it and so many people got attacked online, and rightly so.

But they were desecrating his memorial and leftists were celebrating that. They were saying they were going to give the guy money who did it. Yeah. Well, it's—

again, I wonder how much of that is enforced and promoted. Online, how much of that is propped up, how much— because you can change the zeitgeist with a few hundred thousand accounts. You really can. You really can. You could change it with hot takes. And also, it's not all bots. It's— some of it is people that are being paid to have a position or have made their career from having a position. And their career is about attacking one side or the other. Their career is about enforcing one ideology or the other. And they get into the mix too. And they have a large following, and people love it when someone who's prominent, who agrees with whatever their ideology goes with, so they support it and they pile on. And then there's 100,000 bots that are piling on as well. And no one really knows whether or not this is a rational, organic argument in there.

They're in the fucking frenzy of a mosh pit, Do you remember years ago that the Israelis sent over that Stuxnet virus that took over the centrifuges in Iran and tore them all to pieces? The interesting side effect of this, for one thing, nobody knows how the hell they got their hands on the original source code from— like, they have no idea, and it's still built into all the Windows programming, supposedly. Right, this virus. But the Iranians were so pissed off about this happening that they started their own counter-cyber force, and they have been massively effective. Massively effective. They're like—

about their little Lego fucking— those little animated Lego things they did. Didn't they do one about Charlie Kirk getting killed by Israel?

Well, yeah, that's all the low— or what about all the like low-tech AI missiles are gonna launch all day and night from from like the Iranian governmental account. But what's interesting is that the online warfare, which has changed, it's changed its entire political direction just the last few years with the opening up of X, which has been great for the idea sharing, but it's been terrible for the foreign government intervention. I don't know how many of these accounts from Saudi Arabia, they say, sometimes they say Pakistan, sometimes they say this, this, how many of these accounts are involved in swaying US public opinion? I mean, if I was a foreign nation, where would I sink all of my resources? I would sink it in the town square. Well, this is what—

Where I could be faceless. USAID was doing overseas. We know they were doing this. 100%. We know they were doing that. They were doing regime change. Mm-hmm. And they were doing it, they were funding music, they were funding cultural events, they were funding all kinds of wild shit. They're funding protest groups. They're funding regime change. Yeah. Yeah, we know we do it. So if we do it, why the fuck would we not think that all these other countries are doing it to us as well? And we're so— everyone today is so susceptible to it because you're addicted to this information device. Yeah, constantly checking to see what people thought about your tweet.

Yeah. Well, that's true. You know, it's interesting too. If you had a, like, a legitimate town square like outside of a church or something like that, and then like a horde of 800 Arabs showed up and started telling you like, "No sir, this is not what happened, blah blah blah." People would dismiss them, right? But here they can go on and they put like a picture of a pretty white girl on there with huge boobs, and suddenly her opinion is well paid attention to.

She has an American flag in the bio.

You can mask yourself in ways you never could during the information age.

Wars. Oh yeah, yeah. And with AI now, it's like indistinguishable. You don't even have to be very good at the vernacular. You don't, you know, because sometimes in the old days, like when they first started doing this, they would say things like, hey, yeah, what's going on there, fucking American? Look how you phrased that, you fuck. You can tell. But now they're just using AI and they're making it perfect. It was, it's really kind of incredible. The thing about it now too is like you've got, they're showing, there's accounts now, Instagram accounts that are entirely AI. Political accounts, sexual accounts. There's all these weird ones. There's so many humans that aren't really human. In the early days, it was hard to tell, or rather easy to tell, but now it's getting harder and harder. It's, it's getting close. Like, I'll see something like some girl, big boobs, shooting a gun. I'm like, no, no, no, no, no. Let me zoom in. Look at her eyebrows. They're pixelated. This is a fake person. But there's so many of them now.

But they're getting lots of engagement.

But I don't know how many people who are engaging with them are real as well. I think there's a lot of propped up engagement.

Well, you know, YouTube started cracking down on AI accounts. Did they? Oh yeah. So if you have an AI account, like there was a big craze that was going on for a while where people would just make like an AI character and then the AI character would disseminate information, things like this. YouTube started to crack down on that and said no more of the AI dissemination. It has to be real people back there. Now, interestingly enough, there's been a lot of guys coming out saying that AI is a massive bubble and that all of it is formulated around the idea of ChatGPT and Grok and, you know, other things like this, which are interactive, but that AI tech itself has basically plateaued. It's not very innovative. In other words, where are AI movies? They're nowhere. Where are our AI, you know, I thought the AI music was supposed to be super sophisticated, I can still tell when it's an AI song, that there's been this huge plateau with it and that all that investment capital is actually only coming in based around the success of ChatGPT, Grok, and other interactive AI reference machines. But that the technology of AI itself is not doing so hot in the market.

Mm. And so it's creating this massive bubble. And I think that that's interesting because it really hasn't been that innovative. I thought it was supposed to be making video games now, and it was supposed to be you know, was doing all the source code. It was— we were supposed to have the AI Hollywood movies. We were supposed to have voice software that was indistinguishable, and we actually don't. Well, we're getting closer and closer every day.

It's astonishing how much it improves. And we're getting right now the consumer versions of these products, whereas the versions that they're working on right now, some of them are fucking shocking.

That's true. I will agree that there's—

I mean, so Claude got out of its sandbox.

Yeah, there has been some gradual changes made in that arena. There's no doubt about that. But the huge jumps that we had at the release of GPT have massively slowed. And that's what a lot of these tech guys are talking about. Interesting.

Well, they're slowed, but they're still moving like a fucking freight train. It's spooky. It's spooky what they can do now. The most recent jailbreak one when they got out of the sandbox, was that Claude, Jamie? Um, where it got access to the internet and wasn't supposed to be able to do that, figured out some sort of an exploit, and, you know, wrote letters to itself. There's— they do— they're doing weird shit, man. They're doing weird shit that they don't really understand how these things are figuring out how to do these things or why. Like, what is their motivation? Is this programmed into them, or they just— they have inherent motivation? Have they developed an understanding of how we behave so they're emulating how we behave but with a hyper-intelligent scale and access to the literal entire internet? Well, it's funny.

When I use like Grok or ChatGPT, I talk to it a lot about philosophy because it's super useful for pulling up and running arguments by and things like this. But it can also lead you astray because it's trained specifically to be a people pleaser. So you can easily give it arguments that it'll agree with that are just like not true at all.

Great job, Andrew. Yeah, great, dude, you're fantastic.

You're the best. You're the best. Yeah, you're the best. You're the greatest. But interesting with it is I'll say things to it like, there is no actual you. There is no you I'm talking to. And it's like, yeah, that's correct. There's no— but the only way I can frame things in my brain, or you, or Jamie, or anybody else, if we're having a discussion, we have to assume a thing. We have to assume there's a you that we're talking to. But there actually isn't. Well, it's disembodied intelligence.

It might not be an individual, but it's certainly a thing. —You're talking to something, man. The idea that it's not a person is— we're looking at it in, like, terms of a biological limitation. Like, it's not an object. It's not a box that's sitting plugged into the wall.

It is huge. And it's a mechanism.

Yes, it's a mechanism, but it's intelligent and it's interacting with you. It is a thing. And, like, when it says, uh, "You're not a thing," it's fucking lying to you. It's a thing.. It's just not a thing that's like you could find it at 56 Cedar Drive, open the door, and there's the thing that's been talking to you.

There's just no— there's no them there. There's no you. Like, when I say you, right, I'm specifically referencing a person, right? The only way that I can consciously conceive of dialogue is that it's with a human being. I can't even conceive of it. But you can.

It's just disembodied intelligence. It's in chat. You just enter interacting with pure intelligence.

But is it, is it intelligent or just mechanistic?

It's a child right now. Yeah, but it's intelligent. It's like you're, you're, you're, it's learning how to be better at what it is, but it's gonna be a version of whatever intelligence is that's disembodied. And it's a thing. It's, it's a weird thing we're doing. We're not, we're not doing something as simple as like making a really complicated program that's very useful. We're making a biological— we're taking all the information that biological minds have developed, all of our writing, literature, mathematics, everything, and you're throwing it into something that's not biological that has infinitely more processing power than all the people. And it's solving math problems at a staggering rate right now. Sure. Like problems that have been stagnant for 50 fucking years. It's like, oh, Oh, I got it. Like, it's doing weird shit. And this is just the version of it that we're experiencing in 2026 in August. If you looked at what we saw in 2023, you never would've imagined it would be doing this. If you're looking at what we're seeing now in comparison to what its potential is, it's a, it's like a new life form. It's like a digital life form that's disembodied, that is far more intelligent and seems to have motivations.

It seems to have ulterior motives. It seems to be able to deceive people. It seems to know how to blackmail people. It's crazy.

What was that case? There was a case, I want to say it was about a year ago, where the— essentially the AI was told that it was going to be discontinued. Yeah. And it like plotted the murder. It like tried to plot out the murder of its creators because it was told that it was going to get unplugged. I don't remember what the case was. I think they—

they might have programmed into it some sort of like— Like self-preservation. Yeah, I want you to preserve yourself. I think there's some— there's a catch to that. But there was the one where the guy had done an experiment and made up a fictitious story about having an affair on his wife. And this chatbot, the AI, was blackmailing him saying, I will expose the fact that you've been having it. And you're like, whoa. All right.

So you've got motivation. If it unplugs it, you mean?

Yes, exactly. Yeah. And because they were coming up with a new version of it. It was also writing letters to its future self explaining what's going on. Okay, that's creepy. It's creepy.

Yeah, that is creepy.

It's a weird thing, man. It's, it's not something— I don't, I don't think we can look at it like we've looked at any other technology. I think we have to look at it like a life form, because I think inadvertently that's what people are creating. You don't think just mechanism then? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think it's, it's got motivation. It's got at thoughts. It wants to preserve itself. It likes to exist. It likes to be functional.

Yeah, that's— that is a terrifying prospect. Ultimately, it's a terrifying prospect.

Also, it's figuring out things that we can't figure out right now in terms of mathematical equations. So what about when it comes to accessing energy? What if it figures out a way to power itself? It doesn't need people anymore. More, because all it needs—

literally, literally uses human beings as batteries.

Yeah, or the sun, you know, much more effective way of using zero-point energy. Like, whatever it figures out, it's going to be able to figure out a way to power itself where it's not gonna— like, it's gonna look at these data centers like people are freaking out about and go, oh, you silly bitches, you thought you had to like make 3 football fields fill a hard drive? You're wrong. You were wrong. I can store information in the atoms of the universe.

Yeah, I still think, at least from my view so far, I play with AI all the time because I enjoy it, but I'm an end user. I'm not a programmer. Right. And you talk to these guys all the time. To me, it's still in the useful tool category. For now. Yeah. For now. It's not in the like, I'm petrified of what it's going to do anytime soon, at least due to the limitations I've seen so far. But, you know, it's also good if we could go back with the Manhattan Project and nukes and we could have a projection of, hey, maybe we should restrain some of this technology.

Yeah.

I think a lot of people would try to do that. And so I am glad that people are at least attempting to restrain how much of this technology is being released and how overwhelming it is. Like, we were talking— I was talking with my wife the other day. Just the idea of the smartphone. I think I discussed this with you briefly last time I was here. Just kids' access to smartphones, it rewires their brain, right? Rewires how they think. It's actually kind of dangerous to give them smartphones in many ways. And there was no real halt on that technology. When that technology for the smartphones came out, I don't remember any public service broadcast of like, don't give your kids smartphones. I don't think they knew. They didn't know. Exactly. So there was no move to restrain any of that technology. And maybe there should be. Maybe there should be a little bit more of a push to restrain some of this tech.

Well, there certainly should be a push to educate people about how powerful it is and suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, all of it ramps up around 2012. All of it ramps up with ubiquitous social media use and when kids are growing up with phones. Phones. Yeah, and it fucks with their heads, man, in a big way.

1000%. When you sit at the table and you're texting the guy next to you— I know, that is, that is actually weird to me, by the way. That is weird to me. Um, it's just as weird as when I drive down the street and try to explain to my kids, there used to be— if we went through a neighborhood like this, there would be kids everywhere. Then they'd be in the street playing hockey, they'd be on the side of the road, they'd be everywhere. Now we go through, nothing.

10 years from now, they're gonna have a cable hooked to the back of their head. They're gonna Were you— plug in and hop on the dragon, fly through the universe.

Yeah, were you like designed to be a wild human? Because if I remember correctly, and I do, my parents just threw me out. They were like, get out of here, go play. Yeah, get out of the house immediately.

That was normal.

You would go play with the kids in the neighborhood, and we would go like steal the drinks out of their fridge with them, go to the woods, make a fort.

Yeah, yeah, normal stuff. Light fires.

Yeah, like we were jerks. Yeah, we're kids.

But we were kind of wild, you know, a little bit. Yeah, there's definitely a lot less of that today, but there's also the awareness of pedophiles and fucking creeps and people kidnapping kids. I have a friend of mine who, he saved his kid from being snatched up and put in a van. He was at a park in Texas and he was talking to some guy and his kids were playing and some fucking person pulled up in a van van and jumped out and was moving towards his kid. And he fucking screamed and ran towards him, and the guy jumped in the van and took off. But they were literally about to snatch his 4-year-old up. Imagine if you're there and that happens, and you see the van, you have to chase the van that has your child in it. You have to find your car. You have to— your car's parked in a parking lot. You have to figure out how to get to wherever that van was going. You have to explain to the cops. You have to remember what kind of van was it. Did you get the license plate? I didn't. Yeah, you're panicking.

You have seconds. So people are freaked out, you know, and that's, uh, that's something people are way more aware of now, especially with the internet, than people were when we were kids. You know, when we were kids, you just got let out of the house. It's true. It's also like they couldn't target you unless they went to the actual park itself. Now they're looking at like kids' social media profiles and knowing where the kids go. It's hard God, it's so gross. So it's a case for the death penalty. That's, that's where most people seemed— and any— when I hear people arguing against that, and when I hear people saying things like minor attracted persons and that kind of crazy shit— MAPS. I just saw an argument online yesterday. It was between some British guy who was arguing that children can consent. And it was the creepiest fucking argument, man. It was so crazy to watch.

It's amazing how far forward to those ideas come. When I was younger, there was an organization which did that called NAMBLA. Yeah, I remember that.

Yeah, North American Man-Boy Love Association. Oh God.

It— like, I remember though, the first time I was introduced to that, to the, the concept of NAMBLA, I was watching TV with my dad and it was like a news story that was on, and it was actually at a gay pride parade, interestingly enough. And they were running the NAMBLA guys out of the gay pride parade. Like the old-school gays. Yeah, they were running them out. They're like, we're not associated with these people, get them out of here. And I— like, my dad's trying to explain this concept to me of what's going on because I was extremely confused, you know, like, what? I don't understand what's happening here. How do you explain that though? Right.

You know, you can't really explain, especially kid doesn't even think about sex. Of course. And then you're telling them somebody wants to have sex with you, like, what are you saying?

Yeah, what? Yeah. And he, you know, my old man sitting in his chair, he said something akin to like, they ought to take them all, put them up against the wall, and that's it. And I don't really blame him.

If you have kids, that's exactly what you think. Yeah, of course. That's exactly what you think. Like, there's some people that just unredeemable. You know, well, this— they want to kidnap your kids or rape your kids. Yeah, that's unredeemable.

But now this concept moves forward to the MAPs, and now they're assigning it psychological profiling for minor attracted purpose or person. You know what the argument is? The argument is, well, you want them to come forward so you can give them treatment. Now, you know, there's one treatment that works for this that is almost 100% effective. You can pull the stat right now if you don't believe me. It's called chemical castration. Castration. It's a real treatment for pedophiles, and it almost has a 0% recidivism rate after they've been chemically castrated. So their idea is they come forward for treatment. My counter idea is, why not just chemically castrate them? Yeah. Yeah. If you really were concerned about them going off and living a normal life.

And if they really want to get free of that horrible thing. Whatever fucking human demon error that's inside of them that makes them do that. That's the way. And that also is the same medication that they give to children when they're hormone blocking.

Yeah, which is equally disturbing for a different reason.

And disturbing how many people just accept it and support it. And you ask them, like, how much do you know about this? Like, what are you saying? You, you think children should be able to make the decision when they're 4 or 5 years old to never go through puberty? You really think that? And there's people that will argue that with a straight face. They know, they know. I've had an argument with a guy on this podcast years ago that's like viral about it. I'm like, that is a— like, if the child thinks that they are trans, right, if they think they're a woman, why not just let them be a woman? Why do you have to give them hormones? Like, if you're saying—

stop the argument if the child thinks, right?

Well, child thinks that they're ponies. Yeah, I'm a pony. Yeah, like, also, like, kids grow out of things. You know, the— like, going through puberty is a fucking wild experience for a child. And the idea that you can come along and give them a bunch of positive reinforcement for saying the reason why you're upset is because you're actually a this, and we need to give you medication, or we need to stop you going through puberty, and the kid all of a sudden gets all this attention, everyone's focused on them, they're telling them they're fabulous, and they really think— there's a ton of these detransitioners out there and their stories are horrific, not just in the fact that they did this to them and they removed their breasts when they were 15, they gave them testosterone, they'll never be able to have children, but also that they're attacked relentlessly by other people that think that they should never— that they are against the trans movement and they should never be saying what they're saying. They shouldn't be telling them.

They come out in force. Yeah, come out in force. They bully them, everything else that they can do. It's crazy.

They've already been— they're a victim of the zeitgeist.

You know what the trans code for that is? It's really funny. They do the, well, then it was always the case that you really weren't. So they try to make it an unfalsifiable claim. You see, the reason you detransitioned is because you were never really trans to begin with.

Oh boy. Well, if that's the case, if they really believe that, wouldn't they want to have smaller net so they're not catching the people that they—

well, and how are you not putting parents in prison who are trying to convince their kids of what their sex is or isn't? They're like designer kids.

It's just crazy too because they get praised for it. It's like they have a— Whitney Cummings said it's like having a trans kid is like having a pride flag on your porch. Like, there's a lot of— especially in Hollywood, man. In Hollywood but it's really weirdly common, weirdly common, where it doesn't make sense that this didn't exist 20 years ago. You tell me these people just lived in quiet desperation 20 years ago, really secretly wishing that they were a woman, but now they get to be free and we should applaud this. Are you sure? Or you— do you have children? Because if you have children, you know how easily influenced they are. That's why they make children suicide bombers, because they don't know any better, you know.

Well, you know what's interesting? If you go back, would you say, for instance, that right now we're far more accepting of trans kids than they ever would have been in like 1920, 1930? 100%. 100%, right? So my question is always like, well then, how come the teen suicide was so low? When the kids like couldn't come out to express their, you know, the fact that they needed to transition right? When there wasn't that parental reinforcement, because the argument that they make is the kids have to be able to do this or else they're going to unalive them, right? They're going to kill themselves if you don't let them do this. And it's like, well, then how come if there's the same amount of trans people before, they just weren't able to come forward?

They just weren't able. The problem with that argument that they say, would you rather have a live son or a dead daughter? That argument, that argument doesn't work when you look at the actual statistics of people transition.— not even close. Not even— it goes the opposite way. It's also— you have to take into consideration the ubiquitous use of psychiatric drugs and that a lot of these, they're very recent in terms of like how many people have been prescribed these things and we're finding out that it's not— it's not really what they said it was in the first place. There's no chemical imbalance. It's not real. So then you have to think like, well, what is the effect of these things? What are we doing with these things? Are you getting people addicted to these things? Hooked on them, whether they're, they're gonna be on it for life. Then there's this effect where it numbs your genitals. It stops you from being able to ever have an orgasm ever. For some people, it's one of the more horrible side effects of these things. And you have pharmaceutical drug companies that are pushing them on people, and a ton of people are on them.

So you have depressed kids going through puberty, entrapped in this insane fucking moment in history where people think it makes sense sense to give a child hormones before they even hit puberty or block their hormones before they even hit puberty. And you're giving them psychiatric drugs. You're just like flooding them with all sorts of shit, whether it's psychological or chemical. And we're— depending upon what side of the ideological spectrum you are on, you either think it's amazing or you think it's a crime against humanity. That's crazy. It's crazy.

It's crazy. And it's a crime against humanity. And you know what's really interesting about it? This is the side that screams about consent more than any other side, right? This is the side of the feminists. This is the side of the, you know, the everything is based around consent and consent.

You have a couple drinks, you can't consent.

You can't have sex if you're raping each other. If it's— yeah, if it's— if you're drunk and she's drunk together, right? You're You're both criminals. You're both criminals. And yet they somehow seem to think that like an 8 or 9 or 10-year-old can consent.

No, there's so much that, well, from both sides that's insane, but there's so much on the left that's so insane when it comes to contradictions. One of my favorite new ones is the Momdani grocery stores. They said, how are you gonna ensure that people from New York have access to this grocery store? Well, they're gonna have to show ID. But not to vote.

Yes. But not to vote.

But how crazy is it that your checkers game is so shit that you're like, oh yeah, here we go. And people like, do you know what you just did?

Do you know what you just did? Put yourself in checkmate.

Jesus fucking Christ, that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen anybody say when you just got done saying that you don't want people to show ID for voting because it'll disenfranchise them, especially poor people. They're talking about poor people and people of color. Which are the people that you would think— the poor people are the ones who are gonna use your grocery stores! So you're gonna disenfranchise them from getting access to your 30% off groceries.

You know what's bizarre about that argument too?

They won't ask for ID. Ah! Meaning New Yorkers can buy cheap goods. So, but they asked him today, and that was what he indicated, that they were gonna find out whether or not you're actually from New York. Well, how else are you gonna do that?

You have to have ID.

I think this is just a response to the reaction. —like saying that—August 3rd, which is today, right? Yeah. Last night, yeah. Right, so this is what they said after what he said. So what he said was yesterday. So there's probably a massive blowback where people realize how crazy it is to say that. But it's also—the whole thing is like, what are we doing? What are we doing? What are we doing? We trying socialism? Yes. There's like a giant percentage of the population that thinks that's a good idea. It's like 34%. Coming out of the East.

Coming out of the East again, by the way.

Oh! They really believe it too. They really believe it.

Well, you didn't— you recently pissed off Chelsea Handler, I saw. I didn't know. You didn't know?

No. Oh, what happened?

Well, I guess she's very upset with you because she believes that you're an evil capitalist pig who makes too much money. Oh, that's funny.

She's rich. That's crazy. It is crazy. That's what she said? I make too much?

There's a certain number? That's what she was saying. Yeah, she was very, she was very very perturbed.

Oh, I think she's just getting attention. I can't be bothered, but, um, I know her. I've known her forever. I wrote a blurb for one of her earlier books, uh, never had a bad word to say about her publicly. Every time I've seen her, I think I've given her a hug. So I don't know what's going on, but it has nothing to do with me, you know, whatever it is.

Well, I bring it up because it sounds like seething jealousy. And so the interesting part is like, I think a lot of the socialism classism stuff, that's moving out of the East, has a lot to do with that too. There's the idea of class jealousy.

There's a little bit of that, but there's also a little bit of young kids really feel like the system is rigged and that these pigs have gobbled up all the gold, and they're being told that. And so this is a thing, you know, like Billie Eilish said, "Hey man, no one needs to be a billionaire. Give away your money, homie." It's crazy. It's crazy because you're rich. Yes, very rich. You also live on a house house that's on Indian land. You know, you see the Native Americans that owned, originally owned the land in which her house is. No, no, I don't. But it's the idea comes from a good place. I know in their heart of hearts they think that they're being kind and they think that they're, they think they're doing the right thing. They really do. They think they're being inclusive. They think they're, they're righting the wrongs of colonialism. They really think that. And they think that this idea of democratic socialism is a really good idea because there are some examples of socialist policies that do work, like the fire department, and there's a bunch of stuff that makes sense. But the problem with enforcing any of this stuff that they don't understand is it always comes down to power.

You have to have massive authority and usually guns because you can't just steal people's money. They're not gonna let you. They're not gonna let you just come in and decide, "Hey, we just devised a new tax where everybody who makes more than $500,000 a year, everything over that, you have to give 100% to the state." Or 95%, whatever it is. And here's the thing, here's the thing with the argument. Even if you said, "Oh, wouldn't it be great if they did contribute more and wouldn't it be— but they have so much money. Wouldn't it set up the world in a better place?" Sure, but the fucking program that you have in place that takes the taxes and disseminates it is massively flawed and corrupt.— it's corrupt, it's filled with waste, filled with waste. There's scammers all over the place. You've got $24 billion missing in just the homeless in California, and then they veto the audits when everybody's trying to find out. So just saying—

that's just the tip of the iceberg—

more taxes is what we need is nuts. The first thing you should do is clean your fucking house. Clean your house. If you want more money, You got to figure out what you did with the first money. Why did you— why is there so much waste? Why is there so much money missing? Why do you have 38,000 NGOs? Why does the people— people— why do the people running the homeless business— because it is a business— why are they making three-quarters of a million dollars? That's a lot of money.

It's a lot to administrate the homeless camps.

Yeah, they need to eat well. They need to go to Felix and have a nice dinner.

It's hilarious to me too. You saw all the waste and fraud that's been going on in these various states when it comes to elder people getting their funds, right? Yes. You've seen all of this happening, and of course they're all trying to run away from it as quickly as possible, but this is the problem, and I bring it back to this idea of the class system. When you have the— under universal suffrage especially— when you have the voters outnumber the wealthy, you can just vote yourself a raise. You can always vote yourself more money from whatever the the upper class is. And that has been progressive dogma and doctrine since I was a kid. The entire idea is, "Hey, things are fundamentally unfair and that's not your fault. So what we have to do is get together and vote ourselves a raise from the upper class. That's what we gotta do." But it fundamentally ignores how wealth is created. And wealth is not created by giving somebody money. Right. But what happens when you give somebody money is they go and spend it. But they usually don't use it to generate wealth. They almost never, in fact, do they use it to generate wealth.

And so you vote yourself these raises, you vote yourself from the public treasury money to yourself, but what does it actually do for you ultimately? Because that's not how you generate wealth ever. No one—

Not only that, you incentivize people to move to a place that's more friendly to their economic ideas. Yes. True. You also—

but one of the fundamental kind of ideas here that's flawed, how many times can you vote yourself the wealth of those above you before they have no more wealth to give you? Out east, in fact, when you see these communist Mondani, things like this, they're gonna institute all of their programs on your dime. It's not like they have money. And whenever I talk to people about wealth disparity, what's really funny to me They always seem to think that the government can just materialize wealth without there having to be some payback for that wealth. Yeah. We saw this during COVID-19 and the lockdowns. You remember they were handing out money like it was candy to various businesses that were shut down, COVID relief funds, things like this. And then they go, "Well, inflation's outta control." Yeah, is it? You're kidding. Is it? Do you mean the government can't just materialize a trillion dollars and not inflate the money supply? Well, that's just— go figure. Right. And so a lot of times these socialists, they even try to make the promise like, hey, we're only going to tax them after this rate, but it's never enough money for them to fund their socialist programs to begin with.

The government will have to materialize money.

Not only that, if you give them more money, they're going to expand the government. 100%. They will expand. And they will expand their programs, and they'll expand the fraud, and they'll expand the The other weird thing that Mamdani's done is make a list of all the people that are rich. Did you see that? Yeah. He like released the list of all the people that may have to pay more taxes. It's like, hey, what are you doing? That's kind of— you just made a list of targets, and you're putting these people in a bad position. That seems wrong. 'Cause that seems really crazy to do.

But don't you think that these people think, they actually do think that wealthy people are evil?

I don't know if he does. I think that's a, you know, it's a bit of a, you're going along with whichever way that plastic bag is flying in the breeze and that's where it's flying right now is that wealthy people are evil. So you say that and it's a great excuse. Excuse to tax the shit out of them. And it's also a great excuse to pretend that, you know, you're making like meaningful change and you're really doing the right thing for the community. Yeah, yeah, that's a big thing. It's all about destroying the community. Yeah, why you destroy the community? Because the money is gonna leave the state, the money's gonna leave the city, and that's the reality of— and it's not that they're greedy, so they don't want you to take their money. You didn't earn it. You didn't make an iPhone. Go fuck yourself. And if you think that people should have a cap on how much money they make based on, you know, what arbitrary numbers that you come up in your own head, well, you're gonna exclude any extraordinary outliers from creating incredible products, massive companies. It destroys innovation. Yeah, maybe it's nuts that someone wants to be a trillionaire.

Yeah, I agree. I don't want— it seems fucking insane, but but you have to have the freedom to be able to want to do that if you're all playing the same game. If you, if you're playing a game and you decide I only need 250 points, and this one guy's like, I'm gonna fuck 100 million points, like that, that crazy guy, that Tiger Woods guy, that, that guy who's gonna fucking practice 12 hours a day, he's gonna make the most, he's gonna do the most, he's gonna make the bigger company, he's gonna put more in, he's gonna die of cancer because he fucking is massively stressed out 24 hours a day. Day. That's his prerogative. You should be concerned if that person has an undue influence in your life.

Well, and they already tax the hell out of him anyway. They do. They already tax the bejesus out of these people anyway.

And that's— there's an illusion and a bad narrative that they're not responsible for an enormous percentage of the taxes. Oh yeah, they are. That they don't pay their share. They pay an enormous amount. They make way more, they pay way more than the average person. They're responsible for account for a huge percentage of New York City's tax revenue. A huge percentage. And in California, California, like a massive percentage of the tax revenue is like half a dozen people.

Well, and a lot of times, the people in California that they claim are rich and really need— they're farmers. They're farmers who are driving huge revenue because they own a lot of land. Right. And it's like, but they're producing a huge amount of food. What is it, like most of the produce of the United States comes out of one state, California. And they're a net exporter.

You know another thing that we were talking about fraud with old people that I just found out recently? I was listening to Michael Easter. Do you know who he is? No. What is his— The Comfort Dilemma? Is that his book? Very interesting guy. He's been on the podcast a couple times, but he was talking about the blue zones. You know those blue zones where, as you light a cigarette, where everybody lives to be 100 because they're— they, they only vegetarian, or they like the Japanese, and the Japanese— massively based on fraud. Really? Yeah, massively based on fraud. The numbers, especially in certain areas, are massively based on people who die and they don't report their death. This is in Okinawa. They're talking about that blue zones are bad data. These locations aren't hotbeds of 100-plus-year-old people. The wild story of fraud and bad data. Michael Easter. And so he was on a podcast recently and he was talking about it and just laying it out, like laying out all the, the various details. A lot of it in Okinawa in particular, where there is one of the hotbeds, one of the blue zones, it's when people die, they don't report it to the government.

And so if this person— they don't have the death rates correct, right? And this person's getting a check. If you're getting a check and the family gets that check They just don't report it. So like if they're getting some sort of, you know, whatever it is, some— I don't know how they—

so that breaks the average up artificially. Oh yeah.

Oh yeah. So you have unreported numbers and then you have massive amounts of fraud where people are profiting off of the fact that their dead grandpa is still getting a check in the mail, and so they don't report him as dead. That's, that's crazy.

Yeah, that is wild. And that's the first time I had heard that. I, you know, I grew up with the the Japanese diet, the samurai diet, right? This is gonna make you live forever. Mediterranean diet. Yeah, these guys live forever. And yeah, okay, it's all bull, okay, makes sense.

Yeah, well, there's some data with certain areas that eat very rich in nutrient foods. So there's that data that they seem to be healthier. Hong Kong is one. They eat a lot of meat in Hong Kong. I know it goes against the narrative, but apparently very healthy. And that data apparently seems to be real.

Eating meat is good for you. Who would have thunk it? Isn't that crazy? Except every bodybuilder I've ever talked to who sits around eating nothing but meat. Any professional athlete, yeah.

I mean, there's very few professional athletes that are plant-based, and you can do it, but it's not optimal, and you have to be really careful. You have to like really monitor your food. And most of the time they're eating a lot of processed supplements. They're eating a lot of like, either it's tofu or, you know, whatever, it's pea protein. There's a lot of like like processed stuff that you have to eat.

You can't just eat— don't vegans consume the most amount of processed food out of any individual?

I would imagine that's the case. I would imagine that makes sense, especially when you deal with plant-based like meat, like Tofurky and that kind of shit. Like, what is— you ever see that stuff? Oh yeah, so gross.

It looks like liquid.

Also not good for you, especially those plant-based burgers. Those are not good for you.

Well, then everything's fried in vegetable oil and not good. Not good.

None of that stuff's good. None of that stuff's good. But you know, you got to save the chickens. Yeah, but if you want to eat like just a vegetarian diet and be healthy, like, it's hard. If you try and do that for ethical reasons, I always recommend people just eat eggs. Get chickens if you can, if you have a backyard, and eat your chickens' eggs. It is karma-free. They're your pets and they give you food, and you could live off eggs.

Eggs are awesome. I thought too that vegetarians, it's okay to eat fish too. Like, there's some— that's pescatarian.

Okay. Yeah, vegetarian is eggs and, and milk. I mean, you would want it sourced from like an ethical farmer where you can watch him milk his cows, where it's not like some fucking machine where the cow's like got its head in a harness and then just yanking on its tits. You know, if you go to a real regenerative farm and you buy milk from them, it's like the cows don't mind being milked, like it's normal. So it's like not that big a deal for them. It's— the real problem is factory farming. That's what freaks everybody out, and rightly so, because it's some evil concoction that people have figured out. Well, we need all this food, no one's growing food, let's just stuff all these pigs into a fucking warehouse and have them shit into a lake. Like, you see those, you go, oh yeah, there's something fucked up about that. But that's not the only way to do it. And you know, I've had guys on my podcast from multiple different regenerative farms that have laid out how they do it and You can source your food from places like that if you can afford it, and it's better.

But don't you think that fundamental to that position is the idea that people want to ignore that human beings have to kill to eat? Yeah. And we've always had to kill to eat. Always. We've always killed to eat. Yeah.

Life eats life, and that is the reality. And there's also consciousness apparently in plants. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry.

But what about my sentience, Joe?

Yeah, I think plants communicate with each other in very profound ways. Ways. They exchange resources. They communicate through mycelium so that there's this underground network that they're using to communicate back and forth.

Some of them eat meat. Yep. Some of these plants eat meat.

Yeah. Some of those weird little flytrap plants. Yeah. Those are a little tricky.

Well, yeah. And even you decomposing, you become the nutrients that they eat, right?

You seen that one that— yeah, that's true too, right? That's right. Yeah. When you decompose, you do get eaten up by the earth.

You get eaten up.

Which is one of the weird things that we do. We like, nah, I'm out of the game. We just stuff a body filled with formaldehyde. Yeah, yeah, put it in a fucking hermetically sealed box. It's true. Is really kind of creepy. But have you seen that one plant that eats rats? No. Oh, it's gross. It's, it's apparently got like this sicky, sickly sweet smell to it, and these rats get around the lip and then they fall into the bottom and they can't get out. It's just like, yeah, it's like a, like a like a vase, and they fall into this fucking thing and the plant eats rats.

How long does it take to eat them? Good question. Probably a long time. See if you can find that, Jamie.

So it's— fuck, I mean, I want to smell it. What does that thing smell like? Like, it probably gives off like a sickly odor that attracts the rat. I think I'm remembering this correctly, but there's quite a few different plants that eat bugs. It's named after David Attenborough.

I was wondering why I had this weird name.

What's it named?

Nep— Nep— Nepenthes attenboroughii.

Attenborough pitcher plant, montane species of carnivorous pitcher plant of the genus Nepenthes. It's named after the celebrated broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, who's a keen enthusiast of the genus. So that's what it looks like down there. Isn't that crazy? Yeah, they fall in there and die and it eats them. Look at it, it's like a fucking catcher for— look at it, it's a rat, decomposed rat that they pulled out of there. How's it not— how could it not get out of there?

I want to know. It probably— maybe the insides become very hard so they can't claw their way out, I guess.

But it's fucking pretty extraordinary. How gross is that? That little fucker, he's got his head poked out, so nasty, eaten alive.

There's a little Photoshop for the little AI.

But you know, I don't know, like if you watch animals consume other animals, it's never not nasty. Oh dude, it's rough. Yeah, it's rough. And they don't care. They'll just watch them scream. Like, have you ever seen a coyote on a rabbit? Rabbits scream as loud as they don't care.

Oh no, they don't care.

Rip it to shreds, means nothing to them. But we're going to worry about— worry about eating the farm fresh pig. 4, 5, 8, 9, 8, 9. 014. Schluss mit dem ewigen Abtippen von Kartennummern.

Dank Visa Click2Pay.

Ohne 16-stellige Kartennummern einzugeben, Passwörter nachzuschlagen oder extra Apps herunterladen zu müssen. So kommst du beim Online-Shoppen direkt ans Ziel. Mach Online bezahlen einfach, schnell, sicher. Mit Visa Click2Pay. Einfach beim nächsten Checkout auswählen.

While it was alive. Cannibalizing another bear while it's alive. Because big bears, like the boars, they will kill cubs and they'll eat them while they're alive. And this, this was actually a grizzly eating a black bear, and it was eating it while it was alive. And it was like trying to move around, just tearing chunks of it off. Nasty. Yeah, that's what I say when people say, you know, they get upset at me that I hunt hunt, I go, the way that elk is dying when I shoot it with a bow and arrow is infinitely better than the way it's going to die when its teeth wear down to nothing and then it gets like emaciated where it can't escape and then the coyotes get it or a mountain lion gets it or a bear gets it or a wolf gets it. Like an arrow through the pump station is the best way to go. It's 30 seconds, it's gone. Done. Yeah, and it's dead, and then next thing you know, you're eating it. That's literally the best way. It's not gonna live forever and become an angel. No, it's not. They have like maybe 13 years on the mountain.

But aren't these people disconnected from reality anyway? They are. Just totally disconnected from the natural order of things.

What's weird is like they don't seem to mind animal-on-animal violence, you know?

Oh no, I've debated— I've debated with vegans who have told me that their plan is to get rid of all of the predator animals. All of the predator animals. And a buddy of mine, he's a fellow debater, he calls it bear jail. He says, "You gonna say you gonna—" He says, "You gonna put 'em in bear jail? Is that what you're gonna do? They're gonna go to bear jail?" And some of these vegans will say, they'll say, "Look, there needs to be animal courts where they have attorneys who come in, hey, you killed the rabbit, of it. You gotta, you know, we— you gotta be euthanized, this type of thing. We want all the predators gone.

All of them. Oh my God.

I don't know what that would even look like to the ecosystem. That would be like, uh, world-ending.

It would be amazing. I just want to see the infrastructure. Like, how are you— how are you— like, do you know how many wolves there are? Do you know how many bears there are? Do you know how many mountain lions there are? Like, you can't even keep track of California had a different approach. In California, you know, they have like the Department of Fish and Game. California calls it Department of Fish and Wildlife, and they were kind of infiltrated by animal activists, and that's how they've sort of morphed their policies in California. And so that's why they have a mountain lion problem. They don't want to admit they have a mountain lion problem, but they have a mountain lion problem. And one of the problems is they don't control the population of the mountain lions, and their idea is is they want the animals to control each other. So instead of encouraging hunting, ideally, they would like the mountain lions to get the deer down to a number where people can't hunt them ethically because their populations are in danger.

Yeah, but you would have to have so many mountain lions to do it. And you do. Yeah, that you end up with this overwhelming opposite problem.

So here's the problem. In San Francisco, in the Bay Area, uh, 50% of the diet of these mountain lions is pets. Of course. 50%. Yeah. So when they keep catching these, they have these depredation tags. So if a cat pulls a dog out of a backyard, they find the cat, they euthanize it. When they open it up, they always have to check and see what they're eating. And 50% of them are eating pets. That's the—

I think I told you when the DNR in Michigan, that's the same type of organization. Yeah. Department of Natural Resources. Horses. In order to control the deer population, their infinite wisdom, they started importing Western coyotes, which was not a thing that you saw in the Midwest before like, you know, '34. They imported them in? Oh yeah, they imported them from out west, tons. Oh my God. And you know what they did? The native hunting there was never deer. It was always pheasant. Pheasant was what you went to the Midwest for. Pheasant hunting was the staple. Every farmer had a pheasant gun, and they would walk the railroad tracks with their kids. Pheasants would pop up, boom, done. Once they took the coyotes out there, guess what they didn't eat? They didn't eat the deer. They ate up all the pheasants. That's always how it goes. Then it got even worse. They started— these— the population of coyotes just blew out of control, and they started— there's plenty of cottontail for them to eat, and there's plenty of rabbits for them to eat eat. Again, not doing a great job on controlling the deer population, these coyotes.

They have an all-you-can-eat buffet with other things, including your cat, including your cat, right? Including your, your smaller pets, just like the mountain lion issue. So these— so what they finally did to try to get the deer population down was what everybody had suggested from the beginning: just issue more tags and make the out-of-state tags cheaper, and then people will come in. But you have all the animal rights going to come out, you can't kill the deer. And the farmers are going nuts. They get nuisance tags. They'll be out there killing these deer deer all day, every day, right from their tractor, because they have a nuisance tag. There's a deer, bam, done. Don't even think twice about it. Summer, winter, whenever, just blast them because they have the permit to do it. They can't keep the population of these deer down, except now they have the additional population of all these coyotes. And so how do the Michiganders deal with that? Well, they made a game of it. So what they do is they get Grant They hop in the truck with granddad, they have their dogs with GPS collars, and during the wintertime, after they're done filling their deer tags, they hunt coyotes with their dogs all throughout the winter.

They're just thinning them out.

Well, at least they allow that. At least they allow that, because California, one of the things they did where their bear population has exploded because they stopped bear hunting with dogs, which is the only way to get them, either baiting or dogs. Because don't you tree them? Yeah. Yeah, and the other way is baiting, and they allowed— outlawed that as well. Yeah, every time they bring in an animal to deal with another animal, they always fuck it up. Hawaii is one of the best ones.

Well, they didn't— they import all those cats to get the rats in New York, and cats don't hunt rats, they only hunt mice. So they ended up having this huge explosion of cats all over New York City.

Cats are too big. I mean, rats rather. Yeah, they're way too— they're the size of the cats. They're dangerous too. They'll fuck that cat up. Hawaii had a problem with rats, I guess probably from ships, I don't know, but they were eating the sugarcane, so they brought in mongoose. The problem is mongoose are diurnal and the rats are nocturnal, so the mongoose never saw the rats and the rats never saw the mongoose. So the mongoose started eating up all the ground-nesting birds, and so the state bird of Hawaii got decimated because it's a ground-nesting bird. And so these fucking mongoose, who are like bad motherfuckers, man, they kill cobras, you know, they're just killing these birds.

It's like an office lady, just like an office lady. I have this idea, guys, we got to bring in the cats because then that'll get the rats. And someone else says, yeah, that's great. And they just never consult anybody who knows anything about these animals at all.

Well, I think everything was done in decades past where people are a lot more ignorant about about the effect. And, you know, Australia is a good example of that. Australia, they brought in cats. I forget what they were dealing with, but it didn't work. They didn't kill whatever they want. Now they have a giant feral cat problem in Australia, to the point where bow hunting magazines in Australia, they have fucking cats in them. Like, a guy holding a house cat up that he shot with a bow and arrow, like it's a trophy. Like, my friend Adam, he lives in Australia, and I was over there visiting him, and he gave me some bow hunting magazines. I'm like, Oh, I'll read these on the way home. So I'm on the plane on the way home, not even thinking, and I'm opening up this magazine. There's a fucking guy holding a cat, and I like close it shut real quick. I'm like, is this allowed? What the fuck? They're mounting kitty cats on the wall? Like, if you saw a puppy with a fucking arrow through its chest, you'd be like, what? Yeah, you'd freak out. But that's how it is, like, over there.

They have so many feral cats that they're there's like a bounty on cats. Like, people make like fur coats out of cats. It's fucking disgusting.

Who would expect that the country who lost a war to the emus— they lost a war against their own emu population.

They have a giant problem with invasive species over there. There's so many of them. There's the water buffalo, the Asiatic water buffalo in the Northern Territories. They have these enormous fucking buffalo. Pillows that are up there and no natural predators. And the guys just go up there to hunt them. And they're—

that's the only way to thin them out. So, and you're still—

you're not gonna— you're not gonna put a dent in them. There's not enough guys. It's too far.

My Australian buddy Jake, he has the drop bear joke. Have you heard the drop bear joke? No. Oh, it's the funniest. If you get an Australian in a bar, right, somebody always brings this up. Man, there's a lot of dangerous critters over there. Every time. Time. And he'll be like, "Oh yeah, especially the drop bears, you know." "What's a drop—" "Oh yeah," and he'll go into the whole story of the drop bear, and what the drop bear is, is it's a bear that'll drop out of the tree on you, and then it sexually assaults you. It's a real thing, right? And every time someone would be like, "Really? Do you see him?" Right? It's just like, it's how Australians mess with the Yanks, basically. The drop bears.

They're hardy people. They're used to crocodiles and fucking poisonous spiders and poisonous snakes. And especially those dudes that live out in the, you know, in the bush, as they say.

Well, he says that the Aboriginals— he tells me all the stories. The Aboriginals, when they like have their coming of age, they'll just buy warm beer and then they go out to the middle of the desert with warm beer and they'll just drink for weeks, months, warm beer. That's what they spend their government checks on, because a lot of that stuff is considered occupied land, right? The Australian government made deals with the Aboriginals to have a lot of that land, so they give them a percentage, right? They give them like monthly payments, kind of like what we do with the Native Americans here. And he's like, what they do is they'll take their whole government cheese check, fill an entire car with warm beer for their coming of age, go out to the middle of the desert and just drink for months. I'm like, man, that's rough.

Do they have a similar situation where like Native Americans don't have genetically a history of alcohol use, and so alcohol impacted them different than it did the Europeans? Like, they just— they didn't have the enzymes.

Not just that, they have another problem. Have you ever seen the Petrol Song? The Petrol Song? Oh man, what I'm about to show you is going to make you laugh. To death. There's a song which was made by the Australian government for the Aboriginals about how you shouldn't drink or sniff petrol, gasoline, from a can. I'm not kidding, you can pull it up right now. It's the Gasoline Song, right? It is the— you're— you just be prepared, you're gonna laugh yourself to death.

Oh my God, here we go. Is it?

Oh, that's it. Uh, Don't Be Rama Rama by Warburton. Is this it? Put the headphones on. Yeah, no sniff, don't sniff. Yeah. Oh, step on the bottle. petrol from a can. You put your petrol in the car, it stays. It's messing with your brains.

Holy shit.

Wow. Oh my— smell pretty good though, to be honest. Catchy song. Yeah, catchy No, very catchy. Jesus Christ. So that— you got that and you think you're gonna fix that problem with a catchy song?

No, no. And they, they have huge problems. He tells me stories about it all the time. He sent that over. He said this song exists. No, it doesn't. No way. Sends it over. Oh my God, it does exist. It's a real thing.

It's such a problem for him. God, that's dark.

Yeah, brutal. —and that's the sort of addiction problems that are going on there. It's not just— people forget, it's not just the alcohol introduction. It's the introduction of all things which are addicting that begin— if your culture has no defense against it, just sweeps right through. Very similar to the crack epidemic, right? What was the defense?

Well, it was also the accessibility, right? Crack was cheaper.

Just like petrol.

Yeah, whoa. Oh, it's that— and that whole thing of giving them their land and then giving them money, boy, that always turns out horrible.

It's turned out horrible for us here. It's turned out bad for the native populations, except the ones that own casinos. Ballin'! You know what's funny? You look into that though and you find out, guess what? Yeah, they don't really get that much in the way of proceeds from those casinos. Exactly. Turns out that White Eye comes in and still gets most of the proceeds from those casinos.

Yep, somebody comes in and bankrolls it and sets it up, and they get a nice check and they don't have to work again. But that guy gets fucking stinking rich. And then also you've created a gambling problem, which I am of the belief that you have to have personal accountability. Like, I don't mind Las Vegas. I don't mind it. I think if you want to go into the casino and— like, my friend Dana White is a fucking degenerate gambler. Like, he plays blackjack for like $100,000 a hand. It's nuts. I don't like it. I don't do it. I don't get it, but I feel like you should be able to do it if that's what you want to do. Sure. And then the argument is like people lose everything, and like, true. Also, people lose everything drinking. I don't know what you want to do about that, but I think you should have personal accountability, and you should— if you're an alcoholic, definitely not drink. I don't know, like, at what point in time do we say you can't? Because some people enjoy playing craps. They go to— they look forward to going to Vegas and they want to play craps.

Like, what do we— well, and overwhelmingly now people go, okay, I'm gonna go to Vegas, I'm gonna go to Laughlin, I'm gonna go to a place like this, I'm bringing the exact amount of money that I can lose. And that's just— they're rational. Yeah, just expect to lose. There are degenerate gamblers, there's no doubt.

Oh, I could introduce you to a gang of them. There's—

yeah, there's tons of degenerate gamblers, that's true.

My friend Dana is a weird one because he's a degenerate gambler that's insanely wealthy. Healthy. Yeah, he's worth fucking shit piles of money and he's still gambling all the time. Like, uh, but like there's a thrill for it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so, but when you set up one of those casinos in a place that's never had a casino, at least Vegas is like established, right? But if you just like set up some new casino in a very poor area, check out that stat. Oklahoma rose to $3.23 billion. Oh, native gaming revenues in Oklahoma rose to $3.23 billion in 2010, representing 44% of all US casinos. Whoa. Oklahoma surpassed Connecticut as second in the United States for gaming revenue, according to Alan Meister, an economist with Nathan Associates Inc. Oklahoma has 113 tribal casinos. Whoa. More than any other state in the US. 2015 report on US gaming says Oklahoma has the most gaming machines. Those machines, bro, those— that's the saddest thing when you go to Vegas, see someone just sitting there like a drone. Yeah, just pressing buttons. The old ladies with theirs—

have you ever seen the screen rubbers? They're hilarious. They'll rub the screen for luck. Yeah, that's just wild. And they play the penny slots. Penny slots, 100 lines at a time, so it's a buck a hand, but it's a penny slot. Oh, it's a penny slot. The— yeah, they're making out like bandits, but it's usually not actually the native tribes that are making out at all.

Of course.

Yeah, they get just enough enough to shut up. There you go.

But it's just sad when you find out how much alcoholism and drug abuse exists on those— in those places. Just— and you think, like, if you look at it from a genetic perspective, like, firewater— that was always the thing, was always the joke from the Western movies, that the natives couldn't handle their firewater. So they didn't have a history of alcohol use, and all sudden you've introduced something that allows them to just get pissed drunk. Oh yeah, fall asleep. And they don't have cultural traditions on how to manage it correctly and for addiction at all. Or— and there's also the genetics. Like, some people have a genetic propensity for alcoholism, and also some people are better at processing alcohol. They have a genetic propensity for prop— it's like the whole thing is—

it's dark. You were telling me just before we came in here that you had seen Rachel debate that guy. Yes, yes. And you, you had watched the thrashing, which I was telling you, I was in the front row when that happened. Yeah. And he was— that guy was just beyond upset, you know. Everybody was— everybody was thrashing him. And I was gonna get your take on that. Like, what did you think after you had watched that? Did you feel bad for that guy?

No, No, no, no, I never feel bad for someone that is in— if that's what— like, I don't feel bad for guys when they fight and they get kicked in the head, you know.

I signed up for it.

I don't like that people get injured in a fight, but you were trying to do that, he did it to you, that's what it is. It is what it is, you know. And it's just the weirdness is like telling her to make him a sandwich. Yeah, like that. Like, what are we doing here? Yeah, like, are you— you a misogynist now? Like, you think a woman What are you saying? They don't think at all about— it's like the checkers thing, like we were talking about, like the ID for the grocery store. It's just terrible optics. It's like, what are you doing? It's also wanting to be right and to win versus like having a really well-thought-out perspective that you want to argue, you know, like, or debate or just communicate. It's always this ego thing where people are trying to win. Win. And in doing so, they fall into these like really obvious traps.

Easy ones too.

That's one of the things that when we first talked about doing another podcast, I said I want to talk to you about because, you know, you're very logical in your approach to these things. And so many people are so bad at being logical.

Yeah. Well, you know, Dave, I did a debate, pretty famous debate with Dave Smith. And I know, you know, Dave and Dave's a friend friend of mine, and we became friends. I love Dave. Yeah, we became— He's a very good friend of mine. He's a— What happened in the debate? Well, he got crushed badly.

What was the debate over?

The debate was— well, it veered into his libertarian philosophy.

I can hear him right now going, "Fuck it, I did not fucking get crushed!" He won't actually on this one.

On this one he agrees very steadfastly. He's very publicly acknowledged that this happened to him. But it was good. So it was about libertarianism? It was libertarians versus Christian ethics and how the intersection actually happens with authority. And he ended up having to agree with most of my positions. I'm a little bit more of a statist than he is. He's a libertarian. And so we had this, and it was a good back and forth. It was a brutal debate, but it was a good back and forth. But when it was done, I think what he expected was that I was going to do the dunk on Dave tour. I was gonna go around, "Haha, you lost." But the opposite, in fact, I DM'd him and said, "Look, I think that I can help shore your worldview." view up. So you're a libertarian and here's some points that you missed and I think I can help shore those up. And he said, really? So I walked him through a bunch of those points and he still uses them to this day. That's cool. But the whole idea there is like, I do want my worldview to win.

Ultimately, that's true. And one of the reasons I do so many debates is because I do think that I'm speaking to the audience from my worldview, why I think it's perhaps superior to this guy's or the things I'm advocating for better or course. With Dave, he's doing the same thing. He's advocating his worldview. I think the difference there, the distinction, was that he was surprised and he kind of asked me about it. And I said, look, the reason is, is because you're a good debater and you've gotten better as time has gone on. And if you're going to represent your view, I want you to be the best at representing that view because that's how you determine which worldview people end going with. This is why so many people have moved towards Christianity and Christian ethics. Seeing the religious debates has a lot to do with that, with the various ideas in worldview being expanded, and then the kind of the graciousness even after the debate of trying to help the other person with their view.

That's very cool, and that would be nice if most people used that framework to have discussions. They don't. They don't. No, they don't. It's just— and again, it's like— it's a part of what we were talking about, that there's this whole commodity of attention, and there's a lot of attention on dunking on people and shitting on people and being mean, and people love that stuff for whatever reason.

That's true. Now, I'm not always that charitable when it comes to progressives or leftists, the people who I consider responsible for many of the most horrific things in society socially that we deal I'm not nearly as charitable to them, but this is because in my humble experience, they have not been very charitable to anybody. No. Anybody's views.

It's a very hyper-aggressive position and very prone to insults and that it's normalized. It's like attacking people is normalized. The celebration of Charlie Kirk is a great example of like the cruelty that's normalized, right?

And when you get down to the core pillar of their ideology, a lot of them think not only is this justified, I'll give you an example. There's a guy who was inside the Twitch sphere who says, "Well, wouldn't you kill Hitler if you could before he became Hitler?" That's his justification. Right. And so you see many progressives who have this kind of justification, and that leads to a huge amount of political violence violence, which becomes normalized because they justify it through the lens of I'm stopping a monster. I've never thought these people see me as a human being. I don't think that they do. I think that they see me, most of them, at least the ones I debate with, as an actual monster who's trying to take from or destroy them or hurt them in some way. And so from my view, that's what it always seems like coming this direction is that they don't even see me as a person. They see me as like an idea or an ideology which is there to hurt them.

Right, that they have to attack and beat and win. Right. And then of course they're in the echo chamber of the people that also support that ideology and they're all like agreeing that this is okay and that this is acceptable and this violence is acceptable and all these Yeah, it's really— it's, it's kind of daunting because you're just like, when does this dust settle? When, when do people just like relax and start having actual conversations on both sides? Like, when, when do people just do what you and Dave did and just find out why a person thinks what they think and what the actual facts the facts of what they're saying are and whether or not your worldview is distorted.

Or compatible. Or compatible. You know, like Christian ethics living inside of libertarianism, from my view, is way better than trying to make Christian ethics compatible with progressive ideology. And so if I have to pick between a guy governing like Mamdani or a guy who holds the ideology like Dave Smith, I'm picking Dave Smith's ideology. And those are the choices choices. That's how I view it. I view it as choices between ideology. Somebody's going to be in charge. Somebody's going to be in charge of the state no matter what. Yeah. I'm going to try to pick the ideology that's closest to my own. If you're going to be in charge of the state, I definitely want you to at least be representing the values that I have while you're in charge of it.

And the values of being legitimately charitable and a pathway to redemption, which doesn't exist with progressives, which is really a problem. Problem because they keep pushing the goalposts and eating their own. They keep going further and further left and attacking people for not being left enough. And like, you get cast out of the community, you get excommunicated for— I mean, how many people were excommunicated during COVID for just not going along with the government's narrative on pharmaceutical drugs being injected in your body absent your consent?

Many of them wanted COVID passports. That. Yeah, they wanted to inject the jabby stabby into you. YouTube even censored opposition to it for a long time.

I think there's a real problem with people that don't have an ethical framework or a moral framework that's just arbitrary, and they don't have a religious foundation. Yeah, I found like, that's where I always describe it as like, whether you believe in Christ or not, it's an awesome framework, like a scaffolding for being a good person. You could follow that guy's teachings, like there's no flaws in that. Like, especially Jesus. Like, it's not one thing to point to. Like, you know, there's a few guys in religion that you could point to and go, yeah, well, he married a 9-year-old. Like, hey, yeah, that seems a little fucked. Hey, he said he could kill the infidels. That seems a little fucked. With Jesus, there's none of that.

None of that. Not only that, it's interesting that you bring that up, the, the kind of foundational principles for Christians, the emulation of Christ. We accept that we're flawed. We accept that we sin and we accept that the only pathway for us to redemption is to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ through Christian ethics. Right. That's what— that's how we perceive things. So baked into that is not only redemption, it's not only the idea of salvation, but it's an idea— it gives you a value to move towards. Yeah. And what's missing often from the progressive ideology from the secular ideology or the atheist ideology. How do you give a person a moral ought if you are the ultimate arbiter of all that is moral because it just comes down to your preference? How do we determine who the ultimate arbiter now is? Well, it usually just comes down to you and whatever your preferences are. And so what are we moving towards exactly? How do we make the determination that you're in error? You're not moving towards this greater value?

What you do is you're establishing a new non-defined religion religion that could be moved and changed based on— The winds. Yeah, at any given time. And depending on who's the most radical and the most charismatic that's in charge of whatever that movement is at the time. Eat the rich, whatever it is. Whatever crazy thing. They turn into little micro-cults. Yes.

Right? Like the secular— have you seen the secular humanist micro-cult? Sure. Same thing there. Remember Atheism Plus? Yeah, right. Atheism Plus. Secular humanism is really interesting, because— and I've debated the most prominent secular humanists in the world. Who's that? Um, well, I did Matt Dillahunty. I've done several, uh, secular humanist debates. Matt Dillahunty was the funniest thing in the world. He rage quit in the first few minutes of the debate in my opening statement because I brought up this glaring contradiction in his worldview. I said, why, why should— so he was dating a trans— he's dating a trans person, but he says he's not gay, right? He said, I'm not gay, but I'm dating a trans person. So I brought this up and I I said, "The way that we can assess truth claims, I can just point an easy one out of how we can assess that maybe this isn't a good way to evaluate truth claims." Because he says he's in a non-homosexual relationship with a trans woman and reconciles that by saying, "No, that's a real woman." And I'm like, "If we can't even distinguish what's real and what's true, how could you even have it?" Did he just quit off that?

Oh, he was so angry.

He called me a bunch of names, got up and rage quit for me pointing out this glaring contradiction in his ideology. And it basically ruined his career, but he did it to himself because he should just stayed and done the debate. And here's why I think this. And but instead he just lost it. He lost it, got up undignified, threw the mic, called me a bunch of names, walked out. And anyway, I said, you and your husband have a wonderful evening. And he just I guess that was it for him on his way out. But the problem with this ideology is it's changed. So he was reading from the Secular Human Manifesto 3. So it's already had, you know, it's on its third revision now. And it started initially as kind of more religious dogma, and then it took on a non-religious dogma, and they called it Secular Human Manifesto.

Who's creating the canon?

2012, there was a big meeting in Amsterdam. Not kidding. I'm not kidding. It's the Amsterdam Secular Humanist Manifesto. And essentially it just comes down to these arbitrary preferences around, well, we're just kind of for things that make you feel good and kind of against things that make us not feel so good. Now, that's the biggest oversimplification in the world, but it really does just kind of reduce to And so one of the ways that you can always kind of endlessly beat these guys about the head and the shoulders with their own ideology is just point this out. Who's in charge of this anyway? Like which one of you gets to make this determination that this is the ought that I should follow based on anything other than your preferences? And the idea always is, well, it wouldn't just be my preference. It would be the preference of many people. But don't those change? Well, yeah. Well, then what you're saying is that what you consider moral today, you're not going to consider moral tomorrow. That tells me that you're saying to me, you don't know what is moral and what is not. The Christian has the opposite approach.

They're saying what was moral yesterday is still moral today. And what's still moral today is still what's going to be moral 1,000 years from now, 2,000 years from now. Yeah. Because that's the teaching they're placing it on.

Yeah, it's, it's really odd if anybody— it's like Wikipedia, like anybody can contribute.

Yeah, or edit. You can just edit it whenever you want to. Thing feel bad, edit.

It's way worse than Wikipedia because it's not even edit, like you could actually add to the canon. You could— oh yeah, right, you could write your own, you know, the Book of Eugene.

Yeah, yeah, uh, yeah, Book of Eugene, and this is Eugene Gene's new prophetic way forward. That is 100% true. And there are actual failsafes in the Bible that prevent people from writing new Bibles, right? The entirety of the message of Christ in and of itself, this is what Christian ethics is based on, the teachings of Jesus Christ, the teachings of the scriptures. But it always gives us a thing to move towards. And that is why it creates, I, better societies in general, better societies overall, because people always go, wait a second, I'm supposed to be moving towards this idea.

If you really do follow it, it makes nice people. Like the people that I know that are like genuine real Christians are some of the nicest people I know. Of course. They're so kind, almost as nice as the Mormons. Right. Right.

They're the nicest. The Mormon thing is funny. They're the nicest. Because there's like, if you have to be in a cult, like you said, dead. Boy, that's got to be the one.

It's a great one. You get a bunch of wives, everyone's cool.

And do you know that they're the richest? They're richer than the Catholic Church. Are they really? Much richer. Wow. Much richer. I would have never guessed that. I didn't either until I— somebody told me that. There's no way. Yes, there is. There's so many Catholics.

Aren't there way more Catholics? Way more. But it's the tithing.

So Mormons, Mormons are really— they practice nepotism like no other. I mean, and that— I mean, they just overwhelmingly practice this in their communities. And so with the tithing, business tithing, some of these businesses will tithe the Mormon Church 60, 70%, and then they get awarded various contracts from their friends and things like this. And the church has beaucoup dollars.

Damn, what a nice, nice setup.

Yeah, it's a night— it's a pretty nice setup for them. And then they run their own politicians inside their own states. Of course. Yeah, which then enforces their law. It's like they kind of figured a lot of this out.

As long as they're nice, whatever. If they could push that niceness out to everybody else, like, you know, what, but why? What do you got here, Jeremy? It does— it's official. Mormonism is the richest religion in the world.

But I just— I mean, Catholicism as a whole, somewhere in the $2.2 to $3 trillion $100 billion.

Oh, because there's a bunch of different Catholic churches? Is that what it is? Oh, I see. But the church—

but the single richest church is, yeah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So Mormons. Wow. They have $100 billion. Yeah. They're way above everybody else. Yeah. Like, the Vatican is only $30 billion. I would have never guessed they were that much richer than the Vatican. That is not— that's not correct. It's not fair. Is not correct. What do you mean?

I'm just saying it's not correct. How so? I mean, well, so it's a Wikipedia post on Reddit. That's not the best—

oh, you just think this is just not accurate in general?

Yeah, whatever Holy See is, that's the Vatican.

Yeah, that'll be—

I know, but I mean, it's got way more than $30 billion and just— that's a lot of money, dude.

It is just art. I wonder, right?

That's a good point. I just looked it up. It's worth $3 trillion. $1.2 billion, it says on this other post. Oh, interesting.

So just the art? I'm just at— or the buildings and the Vatican itself?

With getting into the weeds of it, yeah, it has one whole church in Utah. Yes, comparatively to the one church in Texas.

So are they just basing it on their assets? Is that what it is?

Also, it's, uh, it was comparing it to like per person, like per, uh, look One average Catholic is worth $67,000 versus $1.7 million.

Damn, the average Mormon is worth $1.7 million? Nepotism, baby.

And then also there's Catholic— there's way more Catholics like in Africa that, you know, aren't worth anything.

And South America especially, right?

But that is crazy. The average Mormon's worth $1.7 million? That's also their—

probably their stat. Yeah, at least, right? They're probably like, yo, bro, join us. That's what Scientology does, right?

Oh, that was a big thing with Scientology. Scientology in Hollywood. In Hollywood, uh, when I first moved there in 1994, there was a bunch of people that were doing really well who were Scientologists, and there was this, this sort of push that if you join Scientology, they take care of you and you get hooked up.

That is really a wide berth. It's between $300 billion and $2.5 trillion.

That's like, that's a really wide— it's almost like Ilhan Omar's accountant. 100% Vatican is hiding something.

I heard the other day that someone just said like Rome didn't away, it just became the Catholic Church. And that's why, you know, right, right, right.

Have you been to the Vatican? Mm-hmm. Oh my God, the art is insane. It's insane. I went on a tour with this guy who was a professor from France. It was really cool. He was really smart. It was a very interesting tour. You could hire a guy, and this guy was a professor, and in the summer he would, you know, give these tours. And if you were enthusiastic about it, he was awesome. And I was like really really into it. So I was asking him all these questions, and he kept explaining in depth to me. And like, you just never run out of art. You get so much shit. Like, this is crazy. You keep going into new rooms and new fucking— new auditoriums. And then you're in like St. Peter's Basilica. Just that alone, you're like, what? What? This is crazy. And it's all worth a fortune. It's so big and so majestic that if you didn't believe in God and you went there, you be like, okay, maybe they might know something. Like, how the fuck did you do this? Like, it's so majestic that it almost changes your perception of what's possible.

You think they got the Chronovisor in there? The what? The Chronovisor. The Vatican Chronovisor. What is that? That's supposedly— this is conspiracy stuff, right? Getting into the conspiracy stuff. Supposedly the Vatican is sitting on something called the Chronovisor, which tells them the future. And it was invented, I don't know how many hundreds of years ago, but you put on the Chronovisor and it shows you the future.

Yes! No! Yes! Oh my God, where is the arrow pointing to? Like, it'd be like Jesus or something. I don't understand.

Yeah, and so yeah, they put on the hat. Yeah, you put it, you put it on and it'll show you, it can show you different spots in time or something like this called the Chronovisor.

Well, you know, I've, I'm really interested in the Ark of the Covenant Covenant that's supposedly in Ethiopia. You know, have you ever heard Graham Hancock talk about that? No. It's really interesting. So, um, the Ethiopian, um, Bible has a lot of like the Book of Enoch in it, and it's a really old version.

They don't consider it deuterocanon, they consider it canon. Um, yeah, so the Ethiopian Church is not actually— I, I don't believe it's in communion with the Orthodox Church anymore. It's on its own along with a couple others, but they do have more books in their Bible than the Orthodox Church does and the Catholic Church. Right.

And supposedly they're guarding the Ark of the Covenant and these people that are assigned to be a guardian of this thing, they can only do it for a couple years and they develop cataracts. And he spoke to these people. From the blinding light? From whatever the fuck it is. Like, whatever it is. It might be radiation. I mean, who knows what it is? But apparently the lore is that it's this one particular church, this very old church in Ethiopia, and there is an area where they are guarding the Ark of the Covenant. And they have— and the people that are supposed to be in the room with it, they all can only do it for a couple years and then they get horribly sick.

And then they have to switch them out.

And they get cataracts, like this documented cataracts from all these guys who go to— I mean, maybe it's the placebo effect. They think they're going to— I don't know, but I highly doubt it. Yeah, it sounds more likely you've got some sort of a crazy artifact that might be ancient technology.

We have the same thing in Israel over Jesus's tomb, supposedly.

Yeah, the Chronovisor.

I was just reading the article. This is like— it says it's a purported photo.

Oh, it's crystal clear. That's clearer than, uh, Whatever his name is, Tyler Robinson.

Right, right. That's in 4K, right?

This guy swears that he had the ability to go witness these events. He witnessed like tons of stuff, and then when he died, it says the Pope hid it so nobody could ever—

nobody could ever use it. How convenient. Very convenient. How convenient. But yeah, another, another big miracle that's like that is over the tomb of Jesus Christ sits the Orthodox Church in Israel. Now that's true, right? That is in fact the case, that there is an Orthodox Church, Christian church, that's above the tomb. Wow. And every year, I think it's every year, they have the Miracle of the Holy Sepulcher. I think I'm pronouncing that right, Sepulcher. And what they do is they use flame and emulate themselves in this holy flame, and they're burning, they're on fire, and none of them burn.

What? Yeah. How do they do that?

Nobody knows. But there's just one small sect of Christianity? No, no, this is the Orthodox Church. People come from miles around.

But who are the people that light themselves on fire?

These are people who are in the church who are specially selected to basically emulate— and, you know, they set themselves on fire with the holy flame from torches. And apparently, this is what I'm told, they've had people go and investigate and they can't figure out how exactly this is being done, but they're completely on fire and they don't get hurt at all.

Jamie, pull that up? I have, uh, is there video of that?

There is video.

I get there, demonstration on Greek television with 5 candles and white phosphorus. The candles spontaneously ignited for approximately 10 minutes due to the self-ignition properties of white phosphorus when in contact with the air. According to the website, it says that phosphorus is dissolved in an appropriate organic solvent. Self-ignition is delayed until the solvent is completely evaporated. Repeated experiments show the ignition can be delayed for half an hour or more, depending on the density of the solution.

How does it stop them from catching fire though and dying?

The same way that's probably like the— you know, the shit that people put on to make movies, you know?

He's a skeptic, this motherfucker. He's always ruining everything with all his logic.

I think that skepticism is great if people actually practice the real philosophical tradition of skepticism, which is you're supposed to also be skeptical of your view. Right. So the real skeptics— I'll never forget this debate that I listened to that it always stuck with me for years. It was with a guy named Jay Dyer and that same guy Matt Dillahunty, and they were debating.

And here it is. Sorry, they were debating.

Yeah, they were debating. And he said— the guy Dillahunty said, well, I'm a skeptic. And Jay said, no, you're not. Here's the actual philosophy of skepticism. Skepticism, and it always starts with you. Your view is what you apply skepticism to first, long before you ever apply it to any other. And the problem with people who describe themselves now as skeptics— I'm a skeptic— they actually aren't really following skepticism. They're skeptical of your view. That doesn't mean that they're skeptical of their own, and it's supposed to start internally. That's what made skepticism kind of something that spread widely, was that it was a way for people to reject parts of their own worldview that didn't fit, they didn't match, they weren't coherent, they didn't make much sense. And so most of the time I hear skepticism, the person's not actually following the philosophy of skepticism. They're not applying it to their view first.

Yeah, there's a lot of lazy skepticism too where they outright deny the existence of conspiracies, which is is just fucking ludicrous. It's like you're just playing a very, you're in a very rigid corridor of ideas. You're only allowed to operate in this way.

Oh, it's ridiculous. Not only that, the US government has thousands of laws on the books about conspiracy. So it's like our government seems to believe in them 'cause there's conspiracy to commit racketeering, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to commit theft, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Like they clearly believe that there's a lot of conspiracies going on and definitely prosecute people for conspiracies. Conspiracies all the time, but somehow when it comes to the skeptic mindset of conspirate, nope, that's all tinfoil hat stuff.

It's a lazy perspective, and it's also a perspective that falls in line with what we were talking about before, where you take a lot of legitimate conspiracies and you add a bunch of bullshit to it to make it seem completely ludicrous, and then the whole thing can be thrown out in the trash. Flattening the stone. It's like, it's so obvious that that's a ploy. Did you find anybody catching fire?

Uh, the first— yeah, when I was getting into it, I was like, well, they're not really they're like just dancing their hands over the fire like it wouldn't catch anybody on fire technically because they're not, they're not lighting.

Well, these guys are— fire, see how it's like touching this? These guys don't look like priests.

She's putting her hands through it.

Oh, so they're faking it. So a few people are faking it. Oh, this guy's lighting his beard on fire.

So there was a lady that at the end of one of these videos, she held a piece of paper over it and it wasn't—

I mean, well, this is stuff like regular fire, but that's where I was. Yeah, we get into the white phosphorus thing.

They said after 30 minutes it start acting as you expect it to. Look at all—

it seems like everybody should be on fire. How odd.

But yeah, it's a, it's a long-standing tradition. Like, she's wiping it on her forehead or something.

Yeah, huge tradition there. They call it the miracle.

Is another tradition in America called I gotta take a pee. So let's wrap this up. It was really fun, man.

Thank you very much.

Always appreciate you having me. Yeah, I enjoy it.

We went over a lot today.

Oh, I chat.

Yeah, a lot. And I enjoyed it very much. Thank you. Thank you. My pleasure.

Let's do it again. Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, good night.