2 months ago
Coleman Hughes is a writer and opinion columnist who specialises in issues related to race, public policy, and applied ethics. He's the host of the "Conversations with Coleman" podcast and author of the "Coleman's Corner" Substack. www.colemanhughes.org
No timestamps yet...
Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success
Rainer Zitelmann, In Defense of Capitalism
...made a constitutional amendment to the state constitution, which required the state to provide housing for the homeless, essentially. And it was sort of vaguely worded. So in the 80s and 90s, the courts in New York began interpreting that more and more strictly. Almost no other state, I'm not sure if any other state actually has something in its state constitution requiring that kind of a thing. So basically what happened is the judges ended up interpreting this more strictly. Obviously, the original purpose of this is for New Yorkers that are homeless to be housed. But they ended up interpreting it so strictly that when the Republican governors in Texas and Florida began sending a few thousand migrants up to New York City as kind of an FU to the liberal cities that have declared themselves sanctuary cities without actually having to deal with the kind of border crisis that Texas does. The first few thousand found that legally, New York had to house them. And then word got down to Mexico that if you make it to New York City, you will not be turned away. And legally, you don't even have to be a citizen for the state amendment to apply to you. So what began as a few, let's say the first 10 or 15,000 were sent by the Republican governors as a kind of political tactic, has now become tens and tens and tens and tens of thousand coming of their own volition to New York City. And it's the only state in the country where Mayor Adams has no legal recourse to send people elsewhere. He actually cannot do it. He's tried to do executive orders, but he legally can't because it's in the state constitution. It's above his power. And now it's its own. It's taken on a life of its own way over and above what the Republican governors started. So this is why he's going to the national media and literally saying, I can't do anything about this. I'm trying to do something about this, but I can't. And we're putting people up in Airbnb's for $100 a night and the city will be bankrupt in X number of years if we don't find a solution to this. Oh my God. Yeah. I was looking at a video of the Roosevelt Hotel, which is no longer a hotel. They essentially said this is now a center for housing migrants. And they said the restaurant is no longer a restaurant. And sorry, that's just how it is now. What do you do if you own the Roosevelt Hotel and you just wanted it to be a hotel and now the state just says, nope. Yeah. I mean, look, I don't blame any of these people. I was born in Mexico. 100%. We'd all be doing the same thing. It's just a smart thing to do from their perspective. But that doesn't mean from our perspective that we should just put out the bat signal to the whole world and say, you can come to New York City and we have no legal recourse to move you anywhere else. It's not just New York City. It's other parts of the world. It's strange that recently it's become this crisis where migrants are coming en masse to these places and just flooding them. Is this orchestrated? Is this just a fact that they found out that they can do it and it's better than where they are? And if they go there, these places that are essentially, they're charitably minded and they would like to house people that are down on their luck, but now people are taking advantage of that loophole and just swarming. I think that's what it is. I think the whole Western world has become much more open to immigration recently. Obviously, America was open to immigration in the 19th century, but we were the outlier. All the other countries of the world, the default was closed borders, essentially. So I think the whole world has, out of empathy for the poor and struggling, has wanted to have more permissive immigration, but that sends an incentive to people of the world that they can now come, they can abuse asylum laws. And again, I don't even blame people for doing this because it's exactly what I would do if I were born in Guatemala or Syria. I would say, hey, I'm a refugee. This is my story. And I would probably lie about it in order to get a better life in the one life that I had. But this is just a true side effect of those compassionate laws is that people abuse them. You get immigration pools that are vastly proportionally male, which is how you know that they're not refugees because we're the women. And it's a side effect of the intended compassionate immigration policy. This is how this works. Thomas Sowell's great quote, there are no solutions, there are only trade offs. This policy has a trade off. It's more compassionate, but it also leads to, in the case of New York, what could be a serious fiscal crisis. Someone told me this. I was looking to check into this, but I figured I'd wait until the podcast. Someone was telling me that the Biden administration is talking about sending people back to Venezuela to deport about Venezuelans. See if you can find anything about this. Why Venezuela specifically? Because Venezuela is dealing with a communist socialist government and they wouldn't vote for that in America. Now one of the things that's weird about this crisis is it comes at the same time as people trying to say that you should have no voter ID. And they've openly spoken about it in New York that people who are illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote. Look, I cannot talk shit. They've been pushing for that for years. I cannot talk shit because I am the proct of immigration, my parents. My grandparents came over here in the 1920s and that is just, okay, that's why I'm here. Where'd they come from? They came from Italy and Ireland and that's just why I'm here. So they came over when they knew that they could have a better life in America and these people are doing the same thing and I understand it. It's just wild that there's no requirements. It's like there's no background checks. There's no checks to see if you're on a terrorist watch list. You're just letting people through. Biden administration will begin deporting Venezuelan migrants directly to Venezuela. I mean, that is just so transparent. So the idea is Venezuelans are going to vote right wing like Cuba because they hate socialism. Exactly, because it's ruined their country. I'm curious, what is his stated rationale though? This is, okay, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas confirmed that the administration has successfully negotiated a deal with Venezuela to execute the policy, but did not say whether Venezuela was getting anything from the US in return. We are a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws. Mayorkas said at the same Thursday press conference, officials said that some migrants have already been identified for deportation. Starting today, the United States will begin direct repatriations of Venezuelan nationals back to their home country. In fact, we have already identified individuals in our custody today who will be removed promptly in the coming days, a senior official said. Venezuelans make up a large share of border crossings and for years, US has generally been unable to deport them because of frosty diplomatic relations with Venezuela. Mexico has agreed to take some, but it remains difficult issue for the administration and for cities receiving migrants. That is so transparent. Interesting. The fact that they're saying Venezuelans and that they're communicating with the Venezuelan government to deport these people, that's so gross. So gross. Yeah. It's very strange, very weirdly selective. It's just transparent. It's very obvious as to why they've been so loose about this border crisis thing in the first place. I assume you saw that Biden suspended 25 federal laws to start rebuilding the border wall. Did you see that? They're rebuilding the border wall now, yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Essentially doing the same thing that Trump did. Yeah. They all do it. But I mean, Obama talked about it in like 2013. Yeah. It's like they've all talked about it. Yeah. Speaking of the voter ID thing though, this is one thing that really made me crazy during COVID. For years, people on the left have been saying that voter ID laws are racist. I don't know if you've paid attention to this at all, but the argument is that black people, and especially poor black people, struggle to get IDs. It's never made much sense because you need an ID to buy a six pack. You need an ID to open a bank account. You need an ID, just that all these normal things that people of all classes and races have to do. And then when in New York City during COVID, they implemented the policy that to get into any restaurant, any gym, anywhere in the city, you needed VaxCard plus ID. So me paying attention to the discourse for the past few years, I thought to myself, where is everyone on the left that said black people don't have IDs? Shouldn't they be calling this policy racist and saying that we are excluding all of the restaurants and gyms and so forth to black people because you need VaxCard plus ID and black people can't get IDs? I'm doing the math here. I didn't hear a single peep from anyone of the usual suspects. And I said, this is how you know it's a fake belief. They never really believed that black people can't get IDs. No, it's not just a fake belief. If you wanted to say something's racist, you could make a much better argument that vaccine mandates are racist because the majority, at least in the beginning of the COVID vaccine rollout, the majority of the people that were refusing it were African Americans and Latinos. They were like, we don't buy this, especially when you deal with the Tuskegee crisis, when you hear about the times in the past where medical interventions have specifically targeted or there's been evil shit that they've done specifically to black Americans and they're suspicious. Yeah. Right and so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, definitely. So I was always curious, was it, I think in the black community in general, people are just more suspicious of the government in general, in every possible way from dealing with the police to dealing with just court systems in any domain. They did make the argument that COVID itself was systemically racist because it was, at least in the beginning, it was disproportionately killing black people. I thought this was, again, this is a very simplistic way of thinking. I don't equate disparities with racism, but I noticed the Washington Post ran a story a few years later that maybe by 2022, COVID was disproportionately killing white people, right? And the situations change and it's just very complicated, right? Very few things fall equally along every population in life. And I asked the question, okay, did systemic racism change its direction? Is COVID now anti-white? Well, no, the truth is that every disease has a different racial profile in terms of who it affects. Hispanics for whatever reason, no one understands it. Hispanics have the lowest maternal mortality rates, lower than white people. Nobody gets it. It could be any number of things. There are many cancers that preferentially, some kill black people more often, some kill white people more often. If you look at the CDC charts, you'll just find every disease has its own profile. And rather than say, okay, this disease is racist because it has a disproportion, we should all back off the R word a little bit and realize that these things are very complicated, multifactorial. And to reduce it all to racism is just very, we've gotten into this thing where we have a hammer and everything looks like a nail and the media knows that racism stories get clicked. So everything becomes about that. Yeah, it becomes a failure of mainstream media and that there and what you're talking about the need for clicks. That's a huge part of this failure is that they rely on people paying attention. So to pay attention to a story, like in order to be incentivized, it has to be something that outrages you or scares you. And so those are the things that they lead with. And it's good and it's bad. The good part is it's given rise in a major way to independent journalism. So many people have lost faith in what they deem to be corrupt, very biased and obviously corporate influenced mainstream media because they'll hide certain narratives. They'll, you know, if it's Fox News, they will never criticize the right. Everything is about the left. If it's CNN, everything is about the right being fools and the left being like the ones that are on the right side of history. It's just shitty journalism. And you know comedian Ryan Long, right? Yes. You've probably seen his skit where he takes footage of the BLM protests and the police brutality videos and he says, you know, I give half of them to CNN and half of them to Fox. No, what does he mean? He has this hilarious skit where he's like to cameramen, essentially, to media organizations. Like what do you do with that other half of the footage, right? You shouldn't just waste it. You should give it to the other side, right? So give the videos of police officers beating up protesters. You give that to CNN and you give the videos of rioters burning down mom and pop shops to give that to Fox, right? And he, it's almost like an infomercial for how he doesn't waste any bit of the animal when he cooks the food, right? It's very funny. It's just, it's a failure. I mean, actual journalism should be unbiased, objective people discussing what is actually going on and that is definitely not the case. And that's part of what we're running into. And you know, when it comes to the COVID deaths, I mean, so many factors were never discussed. And one of the big ones that seems to affect the African American community more than other people is vitamin D deficiencies. The reason why there's so much melanin in African American skin is because people in Africa deal with very hot climates and directs contact to sunlight. And so they have protection from that. The reason why people became white is because they move to areas that are covered with clouds like England. And it's not a fucking coincidence that people there is pale as paper. It's because they're basically a solar panel for vitamin D. Their body's trying to produce more vitamin D and the way to do that is to produce less melanin. And my friend who was a doctor in New York city said that when he was a doctor and he would find sick people that would come to the hospital and he would test them for levels of vitamin D, he would find oftentimes undetectable levels of vitamin T in some African Americans who weren't supplementing and weren't getting sun exposure. And he's like, it is catastrophic for your health. It's catastrophic for your immune system. And none of this was ever discussed, of course, because we were, there was a binary solution. Like it was this experimental mRNA vaccine or nothing. And any other solution was conspiracy theory, foolishness, anything else to improve your health. Even on top of that vaccine, even saying, yes, you should get vaccinated, but also you should lose weight. Also you should take vitamins and you should exercise and you should eat better and don't drink, don't smoke. Do these things that are going to improve your overall metabolic health. There was a zero of that because it wasn't journalism. It was all promoted by people who are advertising on these mainstream media platforms. And that was what it is. And that's what we're dealing with. And again, it's good and it is bad. The good thing is it's led people, I think to have the lowest level of trust ever in mainstream media in our lifetimes. There was a recent CNN ratings poll. They got like 43,000 people watching CNN, which is insane. I mean, that is like, that's like an average comedian with a hundred thousand followers real. Yeah. That's nuts. It's nuts that this massive, major worldwide international news organization is getting 43,000 people watching their show, but it's because people have completely lost faith in whether or not these people are telling the truth. So I watched your RFK Jr. episode and I watched the whole thing very carefully. I read his books and checked the footnotes and all of the people that are, my friends that are very smart people really disagreed with the fact that I liked him. So I had to do a lot of soul searching about what it is that resonated with me, but not with all of my, you know, intellectual and journalist colleagues that I tend to agree with about 90% of stuff. I really had to do some soul searching. And you know, what I came out feeling was that it wasn't that I agreed with RFK about every claim that he made. In fact, there are certain claims that he made that I double checked that were flat out wrong. It's that I felt the version of RFK portrayed in the mainstream media was a totally different person from the real RFK. And that there was a framing put around him that was so obviously uncharitable and bad faith. So for example, if I told you, if I'm one of those people that was obsessed with getting fluoride out of the water, right? And that was my cause in life. As a journalist, what would you label me? Well, Coleman Hughes, the... Yeah. The conspiracy theorist or the... Or even more neutrally... Fluoride denier. Or anti-fluoride activist or something, right? Now, would you call me an anti-water activist? Of course not. That wouldn't make any sense. If I was someone that wanted to take like my mother's whole thing was she wanted to take high fructose corn syrup out of food. She was very, this was a big issue for her. Would you call her an anti-high fructose corn syrup addict as a journalist or an anti-food activist? Well, no. So RFK Jr., and I don't think he's right about this, but just as a matter of journalistic accuracy, his whole project with vaccines has been to take stuff out of the vaccines that he thinks is toxic, right? His most anti-vax quote unquote book is Thimerosal, Let the Science Speak. He's trying to take the Thimerosal out of vaccines. Now, if I were describing this guy, even if I disagreed with every word he said as a journalist, I would call him an anti-Thimerosal activist, not an anti-vaccine activist. Right. Because why would you advocate taking A out of B if you thought B was also poison? What's the point of taking poison out of poison? Right. Right. So the framing of him in the mainstream media as an anti-vaccine activist, to me, seemed already like not at all the framing an objective journalist would put on the issue, even if he's wrong about the facts. And that clear bias in the treatment of him, rather than treating him like a normal politician and putting your perspective on it, putting this framing on him as a crazy guy, as a crackpot, seemed to me that I think that is really what rubbed me the wrong way about how so many people were treating him. Well, also, they don't understand his work before he became this vaccine skeptic or this person who discussed the apparent connection between some adverse events and some adverse effects and some vaccines. He started off as an environmental lawyer, and his work helped clean up the Hudson River. And you could research it. It's like he did amazing work, and he held corporations responsible that were polluting. And because of his work, the Hudson River made a remarkable comeback. And then these women came to him, and they said, you are researching all these toxins and pollutants that get released in the water. I want you to do this with vaccines. And they started talking to him, and this woman came to his door, and she said, I'm not leaving until you look at this. And she gave him a stack of files and documents, and he started looking at it. He started looking at the difference between ethylmercury and mercury. Or methylmercury and ethylmercury, what's the difference? And which ones are toxic, and why are they in the vaccines in the first place? And why are the manufacturers that make vaccines not liable at all for adverse effects? So he starts doing a deep dive in this, and he finds out that it's all foreboding. This is all forbidden subject. If you talk about it, you'll be labeled a vaccine denier or an anti-vaccine person, which is like the worst anti-science pejorative that someone can label on someone who wants to be taken seriously. And he realizes that he has to go down this road. And I can't believe, he's like, I can't believe I have to go down this road, but I have to go down this road. And he starts researching. And he starts talking about it openly, and frankly, courageously. And there is some very bizarre correlation, not necessary causality, right? Because it's not really being openly studied in terms of like, it's not like, it's not being discussed in mainstream media. It's not something that's being discussed openly in universities and taught in schools and medical school. But there seems to be a very, a rise in adverse effects and all sorts of issues that people are having once they started adding more vaccines to the rollout, which also happened right after they made these vaccines and the companies that manufacture them no longer liable for any adverse effects. And it's sketchy stuff because you can't talk about it. And whenever there's something that you can't talk about, it gets real weird because you can't just look at it and say, okay, what is actually going on objectively? It's not signal to everyone that I'm on the side of science and I'm the side of reason. And I'm on the side of what's best for the whole world. Let's just look at what is actually happening. And no one wants to do that because if you even just start dipping your toes in those waters, people are like, wait, what are you saying? Are you a vaccine skeptic? Are you a vaccine denier? Are you anti-vax? Which is not something that he's like, I've been vaccinated. My whole family's been vaccinated. This is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is there are proven effects that mercury and aluminum have on human beings, particularly in their developmental stage, that seem to be detrimental. So why aren't we looking at this? I think what happens when the experts, the real experts abandon a line of inquiry because it becomes taboo because everyone's blood pressure rises when the topic comes up and we have that caveman instinct that we may get socially ostracized for something, right? That's a big one. Totally. When that happens, the experts abandon a line of inquiry. The non-experts are going to come in and do the job and they're going to do it non-expertly by definition. So that's what I feel has happened around the conversation with vaccines is that the experts have been so, so dismissive of any skepticism, right? Yes. Which generally skepticism is a good thing. You're taught to be a skeptic, right? But the word is pejorative in this case. And rather than really compassionately going into the evidence and saying, I'm going to go all the way down the rabbit hole with you. And as an expert, I'm not going to talk down to you, but I'm going to explain to you what I may know that you don't. And I'm going to go into it with an open mind, knowing that some vaccines have turned out to be unnecessary in the past. Some vaccines have caused damage in the past rather than make the whole area taboo and just making everyone feel like a non-person who's there. The best experts should shine a light on it. Really, they should shine a light on it. And then someone, people wouldn't be necessarily running to a lawyer, an environmental lawyer or their narratives about this issue. And I think that that's what happens when the expert class abandons a particular line of inquiry. Unquestionably. Yeah, that's a very good point. And then there's also the revolving door between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. Which no one denies that. No one denies. You cannot. No. There's clear incentives that are in place just based on the past, just based on the fact that people have been able to parlay these jobs, go from being a part of the FDA to being a part of Pfizer and being a part of all these other pharmaceutical drug companies. So I don't know if he mentioned this specifically on your podcast, but I looked into this because of his book and talked about it on some other podcasts. Around 2000, the rota shield, the rotavirus vaccine, seven of the 13 people responsible for approving that vaccine at the CDC and the FDA, seven of 13, so a majority, had direct financial ties to companies that were producing that exact kind of vaccine right at the time. Yeah. So you have to think to yourself, common sense, that's insane. That can't be how the system should work. Without doubt. Congress looked into it and they reported on this. They said, this is a disaster. They had to recall the vaccine, by the way, because it was causing intussusception in infants. We've sort of been assured that they've cleaned up their act since then. That seems to be the narrative that they've cleaned up their act. I'm sure there was some panic and there was changing of policies, right? But as a journalist, our job is not to trust the government. Our job is to verify. The status quo I looked into it recently is that the CDC and the FDA, they're still allowed to appoint members of those panels who have conflicts of interest, so long as they're below a certain bar of conflict of interest. Now who determines where the bar is? They determine where the bar is. And they're not required by law at all to report their deliberations publicly. So as an objective outsider, I would like to believe that CDC and the FDA, I don't think they're evil people. I don't think they're lizard people. I think they're whatever. I would like to believe that they're making good decisions. But as a journalist, you have to be able to verify it or else why should I trust? So if they're self policing and not required to report, I think people should be... This is my problem. When Rand Paul is aggressively pressing Fauci about conflicts of interest in Congress, journalists should be like, this guy's doing our job. We're supposed to be doing this. Instead, they label him as some kind of bad person. Journalists are supposed to aggressively police the government. And when you don't do that, you end up getting people doing the job for you and they may not do it perfectly and they may overstep. But shouldn't the response be, how come mainstream journalism isn't pressing Fauci like that? We should have done it and we should have done it 10 times harder and more precisely than Rand Paul did it. That should be the response, not Rand Paul is a conspiracy theorist. Well, the problem is money. The problem is when you look at the incredible amount of money that the pharmaceutical drug companies spend on advertising, they essentially have control of the narrative. Whether people are directly told not to discuss these things, it is most certainly on the table that they know that there'll be repercussions. And so they don't report on them. Look, if you look at the Purdue Pharma crisis, have you seen the Netflix documentary, Painkiller? I saw this one. It's a documentary. It's like a docudrama series. I saw the Hulu version. I didn't see that one. That's dope sick, right? I heard that one's excellent too. It was great. But when they show how it's captured by money and when they show that they clearly knew that this was, it's an opiate and they are addictive and yet they somehow or another use the language many believe or some believe. What was the exact wording, some believe is not addictive? Like who the fuck uses that for something that's going to be prescribed to millions of people? That's insanity. And it turns out, oh my God, it's very addictive. Oh my God, it caused a massive opiate crisis that didn't exist anywhere else in the world. The United States had this opioid crisis that it was unparalleled. There was nothing like it anywhere else in the world. And it was directly because of the influence that these massive companies had, the amount of money they were spreading around, the revolving door between the FDA and these pharmaceutical drug companies and the repercussions on millions of Americans. Who knows how many people died of overdoses? Who knows how many families were wrecked, how many lives were lost, just destroyed by addiction from something that was prescribed to them as being safe and effective by doctors? Yeah, no, it's insane. I know a few months ago the city of San Francisco, I believe won a lawsuit against Walgreens for, it might've been hundreds of millions, I can check exactly. And in the report, in the discovery for the lawsuit, they were just talking about the sheer number of doctors who were found to be corruptly prescribing. It wasn't like one or two doctors. It was a number that was so high that I remember thinking, I mean, how can a person that reads this really trust their doctor after reading this? Right? Yeah. We have to have a good doctor. Unfortunately, most doctors are captured as well, including researchers. And that's one of the things we... Did you read RFK Junior's book, The Real Anthony Fauci? Yeah, I did. What did you think of that book? So my view of that book is that I don't jump to... RFK basically puts the worst possible interpretation of everything Fauci did, kind of in the same way that Christopher Hitchens did with Bill Clinton, for example. When Bill Clinton bombed the al-Shifa factory in Sudan that was said to have weapons, turned out to have medicine, turned out to have no link to Al-Qaeda, Hitchens wrote that he did this to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Now that's possible. I can't rule it out. Not saying it's something he wouldn't do, but without direct evidence for it, my bar is that I don't jump to the worst motives. That's not how I tend to think. Well, I appreciate that about you. You are incredibly reasonable and objective in that regard. That is important. And Hitchens, he was brilliant, but he was also angry and he did like to throw rocks. Mother Teresa, Henry Kissinger, Gandhi. He wasn't factually wrong about any of his journalism about them, but there's often just uncertainty about why people do things. A certain type of person jumps to the evil end of the uncertainty. I feel I'm more in the middle. Fauci made tons of horrible public statements, later found to be false. And of course, I think everyone would admit now that he suppressed lab leak for self-interested reasons, him and Francis Collins. But I think RFK, he strings together every mistake and assumes the worst end of that spectrum, which could be right. But it's not something, I don't like making those accusations without like a flaming gun evidence. Yes. And there's recent ones that people are talking about now that this was from the Defense Department and that this was, that COVID was a bio weapon. So, a bio weapon that accidentally got released. Would that hold up in court? Do you have enough evidence to say that publicly? Is it irresponsible to say that publicly? Because my take on it from clearly, obviously a non-scientist, is if I was a researcher and my education was in viruses, and specifically coronaviruses, I would be looking to do research on coronaviruses and gain of function research is one way, whether it's dangerous or not, in the Obama administration, Obama outlawed it, he stopped it in 2014, right? It's sketchy work because what you're doing is you're making viruses worse, but are you doing it specifically to release them on people or are you doing it to understand the viruses? I think scientists do stuff because it's super cool. Yeah, there's a lot of that. Put yourself in the mindset of a scientist. They love this, right? This is their whole life. If you tell them there's some new cool thing, we can now make viruses, we can insert specific strings of code into viruses that make them easily acquired by humanized mice. This is like giving a kid Legos, right? So they don't have a bad bone in their body, but if it can be done, they will do it because it's cool and they will justify it to get funding. They have to justify it in terms of a public health rationale. The truth is they're nerds and they want to do it because it's cool and I don't blame them. But the government's responsibility is to say that is over the line, that is likely to leak, given how common lab leaks are, we cannot be intentionally making viruses more deadly. Have you ever been to one of those labs? I've been in a BSL3 lab. I've been in a lab of the same security as the one in Wuhan. I went to the one in Galveston. And I had no clearance to be in there, by the way. I had no clearance to be in there. How'd you get in there? Girl I was dating at the time was working in there. She wanted to show me the mice. Oh my God, that's so crazy. At Columbia University. But this goes to show you, this is why when I read that they were tweaking with coronaviruses in a BSL3 lab. Oh, BSL3 must be very high security. I was like, no, no, I just walked into one like a few weeks ago. With your girlfriend? No, look, no lab, every lab is as secure as the people that work there. It's just people. It's human beings. And they get tired. If you're on two hours of sleep, you forget to put your gloves on today. It's like... That's the story of every horror movie, right? It's the story of like, what is that? 28 Days Later? They're working on some fires? I don't watch horror movies. Oh, you don't? No, I can't handle them. 28 Days Later is an amazing one. It's the best zombie movie of all time. And it's a lab leak. It turns people into these ferocious things, which by the way, happens in nature. What do you think rabies is? Like what is rabies? Rabies is a disease that affects animals that makes them fearless and aggressive and makes them want to transmit that disease to you by biting you. And if you give it to human beings, it's like 100% fatal or 99% fatal, unless you take care of it like within a certain time period. And with animals, it's fatal. And they have to get rabies shots. One excellent example of how vaccines have really helped people. Vaccines have helped human beings avoid getting fucking rabies. Rabies is scary. Rabies is essentially a real zombie virus. Because it turns... You ever seen an animal that has rabies? They just have no fear of you. They just want to come after you and bite you like a fucking zombie. If I was a guy who was researching rabies, I would go, how do we make this even crazy? How do we turn this into someone who no longer needs oxygen and can just fucking exist in a zombie state? You don't need blood pumping through your muscles anymore. Now this parasite has taken over your body, which exists with cordyceps mushrooms. Have you ever seen that? No. Cordyceps mushrooms infect ants. And they get into the ants' body. And ants recognize this and know that this thing is going to grow mushrooms. So the ants carry this other ant out of town. They get them the fuck out of town. So before the cordyceps mushrooms blow and the spores spray through the air and infect all the other ants, these ants recognize, oh, this motherfucker's got it. We got to get them out of here. And they'll carry them way the fuck out of town. Like there's some sort of memory or some knowledge or understanding of the danger of this specific fungus that's growing on this dead ant. That's amazing. And they're like, we got to get him the fuck out of here. Evolution is amazing. It's amazing. There's another one where there's an aquatic worm that grows inside grasshoppers and convinces the grasshopper to commit suicide. It rewires the grasshopper's mind and commits it to jumping into water so that it can be born. So it comes out of the body of this grasshopper that's drowning and begins its life. Dude, there's a ton of those. There's another one called toxoplasmosis. The reason why they tell women to stop, you can't touch cat litter because some insane amount of feral cats have toxoplasmosis, like probably all of them. Speaking of grasshoppers, for most of my life, I didn't know that grasshoppers and locusts were the same thing. I didn't either until a few years ago when we were looking at swarms. What did they call it? When the Great Plains, when that was happening. People lost all their crops. It's like a numbers thing, right? Or some hormonal switch. They get into some mode. Yeah. Well, that exists in mammals too, man. It exists in pigs. With pigs, when they let a pig loose, like you see a cute little pig that you see, oh, he's so sweet. You let that motherfucker loose, he will become a wild boar. It happens quickly. I believe it happens, the metamorphosis starts to take place within like six weeks or something. See if you can find that. But what happens is, a body sends a signal to the, or the mind sends a signal to the body or some, the system knows that you're on your own now, motherfucker. So your whole body changes. Your snout extends. The males grow tusks. They get furry, thicker hair. They literally become a wild boar. I used to think a wild boar was a different thing. No, it's the same thing. Wow. It's one genus. It's Sousskaafa. It's one specific animal. If you domesticate it, it's cute and it's babe. It's the pig. If you don't, it's this fucking plague of mammals that can have three litters a year. Starts having a litter when it's six months old. Within a couple of years, they're 200 pounds and they eat constantly. And all they do is eat and fuck and make more pigs. And they're smart. Wow. Yeah. Wow. Like, so we know that, we know these things are fucking dangerous. And if we're monkeying around with nature, but also we know that there have been medical interventions. There's been medical technology. There's been research that's done that's enhanced people's lives, saved people's lives, rescued people from fatal diseases, and to cast light on the entire pharmaceutical industry that it's like this horrible monster of a thing that's destroying lives. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. What it is, is a bunch of people that are, like you were saying, scientists who figure things out because it's cool and they get married to people who just want to make money. And so they're stock market psychos. And there's a lot of psychos out there. And the psychos say, okay, we got this thing and we're making X, but I think we can get to Z. We just got to get this guy to say this and this regulation to pass and then we're in Z. And this guy is thinking of himself doing coke off a stripper's ass on a yacht. That's what he's thinking of. He's not thinking of saving the world. But the scientists that are making all this stuff, they're just fucking scientists. And part of the problem with getting the money attached to the regulatory body and attached to scientists is because then there's someone who doles out the funding and maybe that guy is connected to the money side. And maybe that guy was actually a doctor. And now you've got this crazy situation where these doctors can't even tell the truth. Scientists can't tell the truth. They can't talk openly about the reservations that they have about some of these specific types of research that they're doing. Like, hey, should we be doing this? They can't say anything. Because they're connected. And if they get ostracized from that system, they're fucked. Their career is fucked. There's no recourse. They don't have anything to fall back on. So we've got a system much like our governmental system, much like our media. It's captured by money. It's not that the journalists are bad people. It's just that's the fucking game they're playing. That's the game they're playing. Well, I think that the journalists, most of the journalists I know aren't necessarily captured themselves by money, but they may be captured by ideology and groupthink. Yes. There's a lot of that, I'm sure. Yeah. But so, for example, on the money end, I was astounded that it was not widely reported and that you have to get to someone like RFK Jr. to tell you this, that the NIAID had a financial stake in the Moderna vaccine. Yeah. In other words. How much money did they make off of it? One of the payments was like several hundred million dollars. That was one lump sum. Well, that's not enough to affect the way people think. That's not enough. No, that's not enough to affect the way... No, I'm kidding. I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell. I was like, what the fuck is... I can't help myself. It's just so crazy. One lump sum was like 400 million. That's not that much. That's not that much. That's just a little taste. Right. So, when I see the director of the NIAID, Anthony Fauci, former director, talk about the Moderna vaccine, as a journalist, should my default be to trust everything he says because he's the government or should I say he may be conflicted. Let's do what great journalism does and pressure test everything he says. Demand the documents on everything he says. What he says may turn out to be right. I don't assume it's wrong, but that should be the job of mainstream journalists is to pressure test everything. When you don't do it, my point is it's left to the RFK juniors of the world who end up getting certain things very wrong because they're one person. It's not what they do. For example, like I told you, I was really going through all the claims in RFK juniors book because some of them are just insane, turn out to be true. Some of them are insane, turn out not to be true. What did you find that wasn't true? For example, he cited a study, he said that the DTP vaccine in the 1970s hurt or killed one out of 300 kids. So I clicked on the study, I read every single sentence of the study twice down. There was nothing in there that said one in 300. What was the data that they gave? It didn't even give a clear number and the numbers you could piece together were orders of magnitude smaller than that. And I was surprised to find that. Is that due to a lack of data? There's an assumption that the VAERS system is grossly underreported, correct? Yeah, yeah. There's a some, but yes. Is that an assumption? Is that proven? I think so. I think that checks out. But with this claim, he was citing a specific study and he put it right there and it just wasn't in the study. Right. So that's locking this. That's the actual data that's in his study. Right. So if you're saying a study showed that, or if you're just saying the number and not saying where you're getting this information, then it's... He really should... He cites every single one of his claims. This is why I thought it was such a cop out that that guy you were in a little Twitter spat with... Oh, Peter Hotez? Yeah, Peter Hotez. If you're an expert on this and you have this guy that you're saying total misinformation, he's got every single one of the claims he made on your show in one of his books with a footnote. Peter Hotez, if this is his job and this is important to him, should absolutely spend the time... What could be more important? If you're saying that I'm an expert in this and this guy is dangerous for the world, you can't then say, well, I don't have time to go in his book and click on every footnote and showing receipts for why he's wrong about everything. That was a total cop out of him to say, oh, this is not worth my time. You can't debate a conspiracy theorist. I don't think any of that is true. Well, I think he's very anxious. And let me tell you my history with Peter Hotez, because I met Peter Hotez in like 2012. I had him on an episode of Joe Rogan Questions Everything, and we were talking about viruses, and I found him to be a really fascinating, very intelligent man who's dedicated his life to trying to help people with specifically of tropical diseases. Because there's a real issue in tropical disease. He was telling me that people that live in tropical climates, the vast majority of them have some kind of parasites. And what he wanted to talk about was that. I think when COVID came along, there was this psychological angst that was overwhelming even to people that are fairly good at keeping their shit together. Like I think of myself as someone who's pretty good at keeping my shit together. I don't freak out too much about things. And so with COVID, I was like, all right, well, I guess this is a real thing, and we're going to have to, you know, hole up in the house for a while and two weeks to flatten the curve and make sure we have food and power. You start thinking about things like, okay, if I needed to get food for my family, if I needed to get out of here, how much gas do I need? Like there's a real air. There's a feeling in the air where like, okay, we're in an unprecedented state of the unknown and chaos, and this could get worse. Like this virus could mutate into something that's just killing everybody. That level of anxiety prompts people to look for solutions that are very binary, and it prompts people to dig their heels into what their decision is to do this. Like should we go into the basement in the horror movie or should we get the fuck out of here? I think we should get the fuck out of here. Let's go in the, we've got to go in the basement. We've got to go in the basement. There's these decisions that people make in these traumatic situations. Like do we hide? Do we run? What do we do? When they have a decision that they've made, like the decision, there's only one decision. This decision is this, we have to take this one vaccine. That's the only thing that we could do. And everybody starts thinking, okay, well, we have a solution. And everybody that's opposed to that, you're fucking it up. You're fucking it up for everybody. And I think that was the feeling in the air. And I certainly felt that when CNN was saying I was taking a horseshoe warmer, like when I was being attacked for taking out, when I said that I was taking monoclonal antibodies and IV vitamins, all these other things too. I was just saying this is what I took and now I'm better. Thank you. I got to cancel my shows. That's all it was. It wasn't some political declaration or some anti-vaccine. It was just, there was a reality of what I took. I told everybody what I took. But there's this feeling from everybody, you're fucking this up. You're going to make sure people don't do it. Because people wanted to believe that there was a way out of this that was very binary, very simple. This is our solution. We get on board. Everybody who's not on board is ruining it for the world. And you saw the fucking cruel way people would talk. People who think of themselves as compassionate, progressive people, right? Progressives, left-wing people, the worst thing about unvaccinated people dying because they didn't trust pharmaceutical drug companies that are captured by money and the media that is captured by them, their money. And the regulatory, the fact that people were just unwilling to look at the big picture because they wanted that fucking solution. And I think when you're a person who's on the side of that solution and you're genuinely doing work to try to solve real problems that people have with parasites and diseases and all these different things, and then you're getting attacked. And then it turns out that, man, maybe a lot of the shit you said wasn't right. Now you're kind of stuck because you don't want to debate this. Because even though you probably did it for all the right reasons, you look at the actual effectiveness and whether or not it actually did what it was promised to do, it didn't do any of those things. And it did certainly cause some adverse problems in people that may or may not have had any problem with COVID. They might've gotten over it quickly like I did. So now you're fucked. Now you're fucked. And now you're in this situation where you kind of have to defend it all the time. And to go on a debate and talk about that, you would be so filled with anxiety because it brings us back to the decisions that people make during times of extreme crisis. We always want to think that the evil things that people have done in the past, false flag events and all these different things that people have done in the past in order to start wars so that they can make more money. We want to think that that stops. Like, oh, we don't do that anymore. We don't do that anymore. It's a childlike impulse that I personally experienced when I was a young boy. When I was a young boy, we were living in San Francisco and my mom and my stepdad were hippies and we lived in this very progressive, very hippie area. And when the Vietnam War ended, everybody was so happy and there was this feeling. And I said to myself, I remember saying, oh, this is so good. There's not going to be any wars. They figured out the wars are bad. I remember thinking this one, I guess I was like 10 or 11 or something like that. Go, okay, there's no more war. Thank God. Because I don't want to go to war. End of history fallacy. Yeah, my stepdad, he didn't get drafted. He got lucky. But I knew people that went and I knew people that went and came back and they were fucked up. And I was terrified as a young boy, terrified of being forced to go to war because that was the reality of the time. And you think that, well, that doesn't happen anymore. All that golf a tonk and shit and all the... They don't do that anymore. They don't do that anymore. They don't do that anymore. That's like people figured that out. So have you been paying attention to Israel? I have been paying attention. Yeah. Yeah, I have to. How could you not be? Yeah. Yeah. It's terrifying. It's very, very scary stuff. What is your view on it? I wish I knew... Well, first of all, I wish I knew how they didn't know that those people were going to do that. Because I don't want to talk about intelligence because I don't know what I'm talking about. So if I start saying that the government, that they would have had the capability to make sure that none of those things took place and that they had infiltrated these organizations and they did get accurate information from that and they were... That would just be complete armchair speculation from someone who's not qualified. I can give you what the leading theory is of how the hell is happening. Okay, please do. Right now, the belief is that, and I think we'll know more about this in a few years, that a few things happen all at the same time. It's a perfect storm. First, Hamas has been planning this attack for two years. And one of the leaders of Hamas actually said that they've been strategically lulling Israel to sleep by making it seem like they're no longer interested in a conflict the past two years. And Israel even just a week before the attack allowed more Gazans to come over the border and work in Israel as basically a reward for good behavior. They thought Hamas has gone into this mode where they're more concerned about the economics of the Gaza Strip than about attacking Israel. So Israel was asleep at the wheel. Israel also had transferred a lot of IDF that would normally be at the Gaza border to the West Bank. It was also the Sabbath. It was also a major holiday. It's also... They've had the biggest protests in a generation, almost the same way America was during 2020. Israel has been for the past several months over their judicial reform. So you put it all together. Can you go into that a little bit, please? Yeah. So, really, the judicial reform in Israel, Israel is not like the United States. They don't have a constitution. They don't have this kind of really beautiful genius system of checks and balances that we have where the president can veto the Congress and the Supreme Court has a check on everyone, right? And everyone keeps each other in check. Israel just has a single parliament they call the Knesset, a prime minister that has a lot of control over that parliament because he leads the majority coalition. So basically, in Israel, the president and their Congress have a lot more power than in America, historically. The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to say no to them. But over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has been basically grabbing more power for itself under these things called basic laws where they can now say to the Knesset, no, you cannot implement that policy in the West Bank. It violates human rights. They have more powers to check the majority party. And that's come to a head now because the Supreme Court is perceived as left wing and sympathetic to the Palestinians. Just like in America right now, the Supreme Court is perceived as right wing. And Benjamin Netanyahu is obviously Likud, he's the right wing party and he's gone into coalition with these ultra right wing religious. And so it's come to a head where basically the right in Israel feels the Supreme Court is just expanding its own power and is anti-democratic. And now they want to, judicial form is basically stripping the Supreme Court of the power it's grabbed for itself over the past 30 years. Now the left in Israel views the Supreme Court as the only protection against human rights violations and the violations of minority rights. So the left is feels the Supreme Court is a great defender of Israeli human rights. And the right feels that the Supreme Court is an undemocratic institution that's been expanding its own power for 30 years and now needs to be reigned in so that the majority can govern. That's torn apart the country. That's absolutely the number one issue every day protests all over Israel. So you put all this together with Hamas backed by Iran and you also throw in the fact that Israel and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a peace deal, which is huge. It would be the biggest news in the Middle East in a very long time if Israel and Saudi Arabia made peace. It would basically put kind of the death knell in the coffin for Hamas because Saudi Arabia is the biggest holdout now in terms of who has not made peace with Israel. So Hamas from the point of view of Hamas and Iran, they think this is a last chance kind of we have to attack now kill this deal or we're dead forever. And they plan this thing meticulously for two years intentionally lulling the Israelis to sleep and they have brilliant success, much more success than they expected to. Now some people have said it's an inside job. I don't believe it is. I think if it is, we'll know that from reporting that comes out in the next two years. But at this point, I believe the theory that it was an incredibly successful attack by Hamas and a perfect storm. Well, that all connects and makes sense if that's the case. What's always terrified me about the Middle East is that there doesn't seem to be a clear way to resolve this. I mean, if Saudi Arabia and Iran or rather Israel came to some sort of an agreement and made peace and we're able to establish that long term, that'd be a great step in the right direction. But other than that, like when you look at what's happened now, oh my God, the rhetoric from both sides, it's just didn't we learn anything from World War II? Didn't we learn anything from the Holocaust? Didn't we learn anything from human beings' ability to other human beings, to just turn them into a thing that's not them, dehumanize them? And that there's this impulse to do so that existed forever because when we were tribal people that probably barely had a language, you had to be absolutely terrified of marauding male tribes. They came over your border and wanted to kill you and take your resources and steal your women because that's what they did. And so we have this ability to look at other human beings as an other and get ruthless and horrifyingly violent because that was the only way for us to survive for thousands of years. So it's ingrained in our system. But now it exists in the context of global war and it exists in a time where you can manipulate media and spread false narratives and governments are allowed to use propaganda. They're allowed to lie to people if it's for the overall better good of the nation. It's wild and that's the root of the issue. The root of the issue is how every human being sort of reluctantly admits that there's almost no way to stop all wars. Right now, if you had a magic solution to stop all wars in the world, what would it be? It doesn't exist. It's terrifying because the thing that we are scared of the most is global thermonuclear war. The thing that everybody should be the most terrified of, that we get so stupid that we wipe every human being off the face of the planet and we're more than capable of doing it some insane number of times over and that they're playing with the very first steps of that game. They've moved the first pawn out onto the chess board of the global thermonuclear war chess game. That is the world. Every single nation is involved in every conflict and all these people controlling resources over a group of gigantic people where they're their representative and they're saying these people are the bad people and they're saying you're the bad people. It's just like human beings have always done. It's like literally a part of our system. I agree with you that we are built and hardwired for deep levels of violence. Those of us that have been lucky enough to live in safety and security, we may not realize the violence we're capable of because we've never had to survive. But I do believe that there is a difference. You mentioned the lessons of World War II, right? We were capable of violence. Hitler was capable of violence. But we were not the same as Hitler. There was an imperative for us to defeat him at almost any cost. We did horrible things in that war. But people understand that there was a good side and there was an evil side. I don't know if you or most of your listeners feel this way about Israel, but I do. I think that in this situation, Israel is the good guy and Hamas is the evil guy. I think some people feel Hamas is just acting like anyone would if you had taken their land and their freedom fighters that go a little bit overboard. I don't think that's what they are. I think they are a death cult that really believes what they write in their charter in the late 80s, that they want to annihilate every single Jew in Israel and replace it within Islamic State and eventually have a state like ISIS. What they did on October 7th with the barbaric slaughter, that's the point for them. That is what they want to do to all of Israel. The difference is that Israel, though like the American army, there's been many excesses, much to criticize. If Israel wanted to annihilate Hamas and the Palestinians the same way Hamas wants to annihilate Israel, Hamas would be gone and there would be no Palestinians in Gaza. We know that Israel could obliterate them overnight. Why don't they? Well, for mixed reasons, but because they don't want to. They want to live in peace fundamentally. I don't think the two sides are equivalent here though. They're both capable of that universal among humans, which is cruelty. I don't think these two sides are the same. I really think this is a situation where there is a good guy and a bad guy. What solution could possibly be created that would somehow or another calm this down at this point? After that attack, it's so horrifying, but then the response is horrifying too. Who knows how many civilians have died in Gaza? So we're terrified of both. And then there's this narrative that... What was the thing with the hospital? Oh yeah. So this has been going on the past 48 hours. Basically what happened is the entire media, the Gaza Health Ministry, which is run by Hamas said that Israel just bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. The entire media ran with this story. New York Times, BBC, everyone said 500 killed in Israeli airstrike on hospital. And obviously this is monstrous. If so, why would Israel bomb a hospital? Israel is known to have at least a policy of not bombing hospitals because Israel feels that it wants to generally respect what a war crime is. That's the policy at least. So this went viral. Then it turned out actually, most likely, it actually turned out 100% the hospital wasn't bombed. It was the parking lot next to the hospital. So that was the first inaccuracy in the story. Then it turned out it's very, very unlikely to be an Israeli airstrike and was almost certainly not a Hamas rocket, but a Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This is the other Palestinian terror group in Gaza. They launched a bunch of rockets. One of them was a dud and landed in the hospital parking lot. And this is on video. Al Jazeera showed the video by accident. And that's how it's part of how it's been confirmed. What do you mean by accident? So they were showing this in real time. I think it happened at 659 exactly, it was either 649 or 659. They were showing live footage of, or footage they had just taken of a bunch of rockets leaving the Gaza Strip to go to Israel. And one of the rockets you could see it was screwy. It kind of blew up and then you see a big explosion in Gaza right at that time. Turns out that's the exact time the hospital allegedly blew up. So that's how they knew it was a rocket from inside, an accidental rocket from inside Gaza rather than the Israelis air striking it. So then all the New York Times, BBC, they all started slowly changing their headlines from 500 killed an Israeli airstrike to 500 killed in blast to, at this point they may be saying parking lot next to hospital killed only 50 to 100 people. This is still an evolving story and we're talking on Thursday. So it didn't actually hit the hospital itself, it hit the parking lot next to the hospital and did damage to the hospital? The latest is that the hospital is still standing and it was only the parking lot next to the hospital and a bunch of cars may have exploded as well. That's the latest because they have pictures now, the next day they took pictures and the hospitals are there. I thought they had photos of the hospital that was bombed out. The New York Times, when they reported it first, they showed a picture of a different place in Gaza that was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike, not the hospital. Oh my God. Yeah. So this is now, I think there's a emerging consensus that it was a parking lot, probably not 500 people, probably more like 50 or a hundred, which is again, tragic. Maybe life is tragic, but that basically the legacy media took Hamas's word as fact and then has had to backpedal. Did you see the Babylon bees joke about that? What did they say? See if you can find Babylon bees. I still can't say X, X page. Yeah, I know. Still Twitter. I'm right at that point where I'm transitioning to saying X without saying form or Twitter. I just keep saying Twitter. It's Twitter. Sorry, Elon. He really has an obsession with X. Well, also it's like, are you sending an X or are you sending a tweet? You know, everyone says he tweeted. You don't say he X'd. It just doesn't sound right. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. But he can do whatever the fuck he wants. Yeah, that's true. So what was the Babylon bees? The Babylon bees had a funny thing about the New York Times and Hamas. There's something from two hours ago. I don't know. I saw it on my Instagram earlier today when I was embarrassed to be looking at my Instagram. Why embarrassed? I'm tired of it. I just, I get stopped being connected. My new phone has no apps on it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. So the New York Times patiently awaiting Zoom call from Hamas to see what they should print today. Yeah, so this is about the hospital. That is the Babylon bee. Thank God they exist. Oh, yeah, they're great. Because like they disprove the idea that it's only left wing people that are funny. Yeah. That is not true. Babylon bee is, they out onion the onion often. They're amazing. I love the onion. The onion used to be great. Still is good. They still knock it out of the park every now and again. But they're young, progressive liberals constrained by a certain ideology that doesn't allow them to poke fun at certain things. You know how much fun they could have like the trans issue? They can't touch it. They can't touch it. Yeah. Rachel LaVeigh, they can't touch it. Leave it alone. Get out of there. It's too lot. You asked earlier, what is the solution to this? Yes. Look, I mean, we're not going to solve the Middle East here. But if I'm Israel right now, I'm thinking we have to destroy Hamas. The same way when we were bombed during Pearl Harbor, nobody thought, well, what's the diplomatic solution to Japan? We thought these people want to destroy us. We have to destroy them. Right? There are some situations that can be resolved at the negotiating table. But there are others that have to be resolved through war because one side is committed to the destruction of the other. And you can only get to the negotiating table when you've retaliated militarily. You know? Yeah. That's terrifying. That's a terrifying thought. What do you think of all like, what was the latest pro Hamas, pro Palestine, pro-Tacos contest? There's been so many of them. Yeah. They had to shut down Columbia University, my own daughter. There's been a lot of them. Yeah. What are they saying? Like what is their main perspective on this? Their main perspective is that Israelis are colonizers in the Middle East. That Israelis are not the indigenous people. That settler colonialism and that resistance is justified and that we ought to side with the resistance. We ought to side with the resistance even when they go overboard. That's their basic perspective. Going overboard. That is a crazy way to justify paratrooping into a rave and just murdering people. Yeah. Execution style and. It's in rape and murder and torture and killing kids and explosions. I was reading about these parents who were trying to find their son. They were hoping their son was still alive, but that he had gotten his arm shot off by a machine gun. He was in a bunker and then he was captured. He was in some sort of a bomb shelter and captured him and they have no idea where he is and they hope he's okay. Like this, just the horrific idea that some peaceful civilian could just be targeted like you would shoot a monster. Not even an animal. You shoot an animal, you eat it. It's like a monster. Just gun that monster down. Leave it where it is. It's so scary that people are still willing to do things like that, but it is real. That's what we have to all understand. You can have these utopian perspectives of how you think the world should be. I side with a lot of what they think about the inequality of the world. I just have different solutions than them. My solution is not redistribution of wealth. My solution is figure out what's wrong with communities and rebuild them. The fact that we have these impoverished communities and that we've never spent any like real engineering and money to try to solve these crises that have led to so many people coming out of these places and just being fucked from the jump and having no examples of people living good lives, no examples of people that are involved in crime and just being swarmed by negativity and bad influences constantly. The fact that we expect these people to rise past that is complete and total insanity. I agree. Almost always perpetrated by people that just like you were talking about people that have experienced peace most of their life, they have no idea that violence is inside of them or what violence really is. It's the same sort of thing. It's people that grew up where they really never had to worry about money. Maybe they weren't rich, but they weren't starving to death. They didn't have to worry about someone shooting them every day or killing their parents when they were on the way home from working or whatever the fuck the problem was. But for a large percentage of what we supposedly think of as a community, which is the United States, we should think of ourselves as a big community. We've ignored people that are fucked. It's like there's places that are just fucked and we have to do something to fix that. If you don't do something to fix that, you're going to keep this disparity. You're going to keep this problem. The problem is far more, it's more solvable than so many other things that we try to tackle. We're trying to figure out how to cool the earth down. That's great too, but let's fucking figure out how to make the country a better place instead of just saying that rich people are the problem. There's a lot of problems with rich people. There's a lot of problems with influence. There's a lot of problems with people that have the ability to change laws and people that have the ability to sell you things that they know will kill you. They know you're going to kill a certain number of you and they can still sell them to you. They can just say, hey, some may believe it's not addictive. Yay. Then they cut it loose. Here's the thing. People like to throw money at every problem, but they don't love to see how the money is being spent. For example, we could use Hamas as the example. So much money has been thrown at the Gaza Strip and they use it instead of to build buildings and build water pipes. They dig up the water pipes and build rockets to go to Israel. You can make this- Use the water pipes as rockets? Yeah, they make pipes into rockets. No way. Yeah. They have a video, one of their own propaganda videos where they show themselves doing this. Days of dollars has been, billions has been thrown by Europe, by America at helping the Gazans because they are living in conditions that are indescribably horrible. Just a third world doesn't even justify how Gazans are living, but they're living under a terrorist party that actually doesn't care whether they live or die because any Palestinian that dies from an Israeli airstrike, they go straight to heaven according to Hamas. So Hamas, and they genuinely believe this. This is what I think people in the West, they don't remember what it's like to truly believe in religion because the West has been pretty much secularized at this point outside of some pockets. People that still believe in religion really believe it. During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians, they would send 13 year old, 12 year old boys over to be cannon fodder. They would throw them at Saddam Hussein and they would give them a key around their necks to get them into heaven. And the boys believed it. You have to realize that people really believe these kinds of things and you can't- so many people analyze the situation without putting themselves really in the shoes of a true believer. Yeah, that's a very, very important point. And in this country, when we start talking about true believers, we really talk about the negative ones. We talk about like Westboro Baptist Church type stuff. We talk about the worst aspects of cult-like behavior that comes from some organized religions and fanatical organized religions. So intelligent people in this country, I mean there was the big atheist movement that existed for quite a while. It seems to have kind of like, they've kind of dissipated into something else. Right, I notice that, yeah. But that movement of this rejection of organized religion and this sort of- because the atmosphere that most of these academics exist in, most media people exist in, and most people that live in big cities exist in, is that there's a sort of kind of wholesale dismissiveness that's attached to organized religion. There is. And so because of that, they don't have the context, much like people that have never experienced violence, don't have the context of violence. When I see people talking about openly advocating for military interventions, things like, who? You? Are you going to go do it? Are you going to go risk your face getting shot off because of information that may or may not be bullshit? You? Who's going to go? Oh, you want people other than you to go and represent what you think of as the good thing? Because you don't know these people, and if they die, it doesn't feel like anything to you. But those people have families, and those people have children, and there's got to be a way that we minimize the amount of violence in the world, specifically the amount of violence that doesn't make any sense. And this kind of violence doesn't make any sense. It's fucking terrifying. And if you have true believers that don't think it's terrifying and think it makes total sense, and you don't realize that people like that exist in the world, that that is a real thing. That's always been a real thing. That was the Nazis. That is a real thing. It's also most of human history, to your point. Yes, most of human history. Was Genghis Khan afraid of violence? Did he ever consider that violence? If you're dealing with someone who comes, or a group of people that basically a cult that perpetuates that kind of mindset, that raises people, the older brother raises his younger brother to believe that from day one, right? You can't address that like we would want to address, I don't know, if we had some dispute with Britain nowadays. There's also this solidarity in this, there's a community aspect that can't be ignored where people want to be a part of something big. And when you connect a person who might have very dire circumstances otherwise, like the world around them is very bleak, but you connect them to this group of people that are also committed to this quest that they believe is righteous and in God's will, that God wants this to take place and that this is their directive on earth. You can talk people into things, man. We've all seen Wild, Wild Country. We've all seen documentaries on cults. Human beings are extremely malleable. It's not like all the people that moved to the cities just decided to move there because they're Democrats. Like I'm a Democrat, I'm going to move to where the other Democrats are and find my people. That's not what's going on. There's a hive mind aspect to human beings that just can't be ignored because we don't want to be ostracized socially. We don't want to be kicked out of the tribe. So we're terrified of stepping out of line. And so when you are in a terrible situation, you're much more likely to believe that someone put you there. You're much more likely to believe that there's an oppressor. You're much more likely to believe that that person's taking from you. And if that's what you're told from the time you were young and you're told that the solution is to become a martyr and you're going to get to go to heaven, you can talk people into that with no options. Oh, yeah. It's not... Absolutely. It is real. It's a real thing. And I don't know how to re-engineer that. I don't know how to solve that. The truth is I think... Once people have already been down that path. I think most of the solutions have been missed. I think that's the hard truth. That the land was partitioned between an Israel and Palestinian state in 1947. The Palestinians rejected the partition and that was an attacked and that was the war of independence. That was an opportunity for a solution. There's an opportunity when it was occupied by Jordan and Egypt for them to create a Palestinian state, but it wasn't in their interests. So they didn't do it. There was an opportunity in 2000 was the closest opportunity when Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak met at Camp David with Clinton and Arafat walked away. The difference between now and then is that Israeli society is now moving more and more to the right. What that means in Israel is less and less are they seeking a two state solution compared to 2000 or 2008 when two state solutions were offered. Part of the reason Israeli society is moving to the right is because the ultra-orthodox or what we call Hasidic often in America, in New York they have communities in Brooklyn. They have six kids per family, something like that. They started out as a tiny minority in Israel 75 years ago and now a third of kids under a certain age might be 18 are ultra-orthodox. They have more right wing views. They're generally more pro settling the West Bank anti two state solution. So I fear that the Palestinian side rejected the only options, the only times that they were offered a state and that those offers are not going to be forthcoming again in the future because of how Israeli society is changing. And so it's a very grim situation because it seems like there's no solution, no solution that does not involve horrible bloodshed. And there's horrors from both sides. That's another thing that people need to look at. They need to stop this idea that there's good guys and bad guys because there's things that people do when the other side is the enemy that are absolutely horrific on both sides. It's always been the case. It's natural. It's not like everyone on side A is pure and everyone's, no, they're all humans. And when you're dealing with a group of people that want you dead and you want them dead, they do horrible things. Like Abby Martin, who was on my podcast talked about her experience going back and forth from Israel to Palestine, how scary it was talking to people that were, had been shot by soldiers and people that people were shot in the dick on purpose and do crazy shit. That's real too. That's real too. You mean from the Palestinian side? No, from the Israeli side, doing it to Palestine. Oh yeah, no, that's what I mean. Yes. Yes, absolutely. That's real too. Yeah. So Israelis are human beings, just like all human beings. And human beings have good ones and bad ones. And they have people that do horrible things in horrible times. I mean, there was a guy once, God, I forget the story. I think he was running for some office and they labeled him as like a war hero and he was kind of running with it. And then I believe he dropped out and then just started admitting the horrific things that he had to do during Vietnam. And I think it involved, I don't even want to say. You know that story, Jamie? I forget exactly what he said, so I want to keep going. No, but I totally agree with you. Every army that's ever waged war has done horrible things. And I thought they all do the same extent of horrible things. Some are really worse than others, but none are saints. I don't think there's ever been an army that just truly behaved like a saint down to the last man. It's not real. It's not possible. I think that is, to your point, a fantasy standard that outsiders who've never had to get their hands dirty to survive. But obviously it's a standard we should ideally want to hold people to. We should encourage the world's armies to behave better. But if a country is going to wage a just war, if you're going to say you have the right to wage war in this situation, I don't think that can be revoked the second you find a soldier that does something horrible. Because by that logic, we could not wage World War II. That's important to talk about. And that's going to happen. Israeli soldiers are going to do... The worst stories, I think, are yet to come. We can have sympathy for the Palestinians without saying that Israel has no right to retaliate. That's my point of view on it, at least. Well that's a balanced perspective. And I wish I knew more about the history of that conflict. If there's any way that they could change the way they interact with each other. But I just don't. So it's just one of those things where you just see it playing out and you feel so helpless. It's made me so anxious. Sometimes at nighttime, I think about Ukraine and Russia and I think about what's going on right now with Israel and Palestine. And I get so terrified. I get so terrified of the possibility of it just going off the rails and then nukes being on the table. Because I just... I know we haven't used one since 1945, but I feel like that is one of those things when you look at history. Like the invention of the bow and arrow, the invention of the adolat, oh it was 2,000 years later. How long before someone shot someone with it? Did they wait a while? You know, was it a few years? Like was it a few months before someone shot someone with an arrow once they first invented it? Just because it's been... Let's go to 100 years. In overall history of human beings, 100 years ain't shit. If you look at the 1700s, do you really think there's a big differentiation between 1,720 and 1,790? Or is there that much of a difference? I bet there's not. I bet if someone did something today with a nuclear bomb, history would look at it the same way we look at every other thing that takes place over long periods of time. Oh, then there was an invention of the wheel and then X amount of years later they put a fucking gun on top of that thing, started mowing people down. And this is just blips in time. We're just in the middle of it. So we think, well, mutually assured destruction is what's kept us from dying. But has it? Or are we just waiting? Are we waiting for this fucking stupid game, this chess game, to reach a point where it's checkmate, reach a point where someone flips the table over? Because if you're dealing with people that aren't afraid to die, and you're dealing with people that are willing to kill everyone that opposes them because they genuinely think they're doing the will of God, they get a hold of a nuke. If they're willing to kill, I've always said this, how many people is it acceptable to kill in one shot? If you say they bombed and killed thousands, well, that number seems to be reasonable for us. We're like, well, thousands of people died in 9-11-2, and that sucks, and that's really awful that thousands of people are dying. But if someone dumps a nuke and it kills a million people instantly, is that more horrific? To them, to us, it scares the shit out of us because of mutually assured destruction. But is that more horrific to someone who really believes they're doing the right thing? If it's okay to kill a thousand people- No, look, if you're like Thanos- Right. I think that why Thanos was such an amazing villain is because you could see deep in his mind he felt he was a monk, like a monk for good, and that he had to snap half the universe out of existence to save the world. He was a true believer. He wasn't just some guy that's- Right. Well, eugenics, when people talk about eugenics, if you were not a human being, if you were raising an animal and you wanted to do a very specific task, like dogs, for instance, you don't let the ones that are fucked up breed. Right. Right? So you could see how someone who has no sense of humanity and no compassion for human beings that are unfortunate, you could see how they would say, well, you got to kill them. It's a creepy, scary conclusion to what your problem, your solution is, but you could see how a sociopath or a psychopath would go in that direction. We're going to have bottom up eugenics very soon, as opposed to top down eugenics being the government deciding who gets to procreate and not based on racist ideas or anything like that. We're going to have very soon, like I think easily within the next three years, you and your wife getting a bunch of embryos, 15 or 20 embryos doing polygenic analysis on those embryos and telling you which ones are going to turn out taller, which ones are going to turn out smarter, which ones are going to turn out less likely to be depressed. If you have a history of schizophrenia in your family, we can tell you that correlates with this set of genes and this one's less likely. So you're scoring your own embryos, which people already do, but now they just score it based on what's the biggest embryo, which is- Is that what they do? You prefer the bigger embryo because there may be some scientific reason why it's maybe healthier or something. What if it's like that dude from Iso Many? He was big. That might not be the way to go, kids. It might not be just bigger. They have some reason, but they're going to get very precise with it very soon because of polygenic analysis. Well, and then there's CRISPR, which they've already used in China and they supposedly jailed the scientists that did it. We're saying they were doing something with a gene to make people impervious to AIDS, but what really was going on is they were making them smarter. Hmm. Yeah, see where you find that because I know I butchered that. If you're a scientist out there, sorry. So in China, they're doing this? They did it. They did it. They did it. Yeah. Wow. I believe the international response was people were pretty scared that this kind of stuff is going on, but here it is. China's CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced. It was a mistake. Guys, we're just trying to kill this thing that doesn't really kill any people anymore. New research suggests that a controversial gene editing experiment to make children resistant, not even immune, resistant to HIV may have also enhanced their ability to learn and form memories. Yeah. You don't think that's an accident? I'm sure it's on purpose, but ... I would hope it's on purpose. It sounds like a great accident. Yeah, it does sound good. If you're a parent, after your kid is born, you're going to spend ... Who knows how many thousands of dollars? If you send them to private school, you're going to ... You can send them $20,000 a year for some fancy private school to make them smarter and happier, but you wouldn't invest a little time at the beginning and effort at the beginning to make them smarter? Right, especially if it only costs a couple hundred bucks or something like that. I get that one is icky and sci-fi, but if you remove that element of it and just look at it for what it is, if it's reliable, why would I not want to make my kid smarter? Smarter people live longer, they're happier, et cetera. That's pretty clear in the data. Is that clear in the data that smarter people live longer? I think up to a point, smarter people have every other. But you always hear about that guy every other. I drank whiskey and smoked cigarettes, and I'm 105 years old, and I feel fucking great. Those guys exist too, man. What's up with those guys? I don't know. They just have ... I don't know. Amazing genes other than their brain. But actually, there is ... I don't know if you've seen this, that one of the smartest guys in the world, IQ-wise, is a crazy white supremacist. Really? Yeah, he has a 190 or something IQ. Wait a minute. You're talking about that guy. They did a documentary on him back in the day, the smartest man in the world. He was a bouncer. I don't recall whether he was a bouncer or not. Maybe. Let's make sure that we're not talking about the same guy, because I don't want to disparage this guy. But this guy was ... They did a documentary on him. He was a fuck-up all through school, but he was just genius. He got moved around a bunch of times, but he's a big, thick guy. He looks like a bouncer, this guy. Man with the world's highest IQ, Christopher Langan is gaining a following on the far right. Are you saying that this guy has a white supremacist? That's what I read. That's what you read where, though? This is 2019. So they've likened him to Alex Jones with a thesaurus. Langan now in his 60s, has been a curiosity for nearly 25 years, a man who has clocked his own IQ somewhere north of 190. Albert Einstein wasn't quite there, apparently, who has mostly worked as a bouncer in a bar, never attained any significant professional roles, or published any serious academic work. He's been the subject of several profiles from Esquire magazine to Malcolm Gladwell, makes an appearance in Outliers. The documentarian, Errol Morris, even interviewed Langan. He's an interesting guy. He's very intelligent. When you hear him talk, he's obviously able to retain an incredible amount of information in his brain. But over the years, it says in this article, but over the years, he has garnered a following that overlaps considerably with fans of the far right internet content. Okay, overlaps doesn't mean he's far right. Right? We can agree to that. He invades against the academic establishment for not accepting his papers about his proprietary theory of everything. He frequently touts his IQ. Okay, so he's got flaws. Inviting the interest of alt-right readers. Okay, what does that mean? Inviting the interest of alt-right readers, just because people read him. I don't like this style of journeys. I don't like this at all. I'd like them to just quote him. Exactly. Inviting the interest of alt-right, by the way, I've read that about me, and writers who subscribe to the belief that IQ is racially determined and a sign of racial superiority. Okay, look what he's saying though. He's inviting the interest. He's not saying this. It's saying he's inviting the interest of people who believe and writers who subscribed to the belief that IQ is racially determined and a sign of racial superiority. It's not him saying that. It's saying that people who like him think something fucked up. One of Langan's posts, an obituary for the intelligent gorilla Coco, wherein Langan suggests that the US would do better to admit African guerrillas as refugees than African people, was praised by the daily stormer, the neo-Nazi blog. So what did he actually say though? So yeah, this is, I think, as I get older, the more and more suspicious I am when they don't just quote. Right. Because... If the quote is not, knockdown evidence, you put the quote. Yeah, Jamie, I don't think you should click on that because I think that's just the people that believe that IQ is racially determined. But I would like... I was gonna find his story that way. Right, but... Oh, okay. I would just like to see what his quote was. I'll find it. Give me a second. Because it seems like they would put that quote in there if that quote was so... Probably. Yeah. It was such a problem. Why don't... But... You can't... I mean, I think it's a good substitute for just listening to the person, the words out of their mouth and making up your own mind. I don't know if that guy has a 190 IQ, but he's obviously very intelligent. Yes. When he talks about things, he's very smart. He's also like a bouncer. He's kind of a hard ass and he's got an ego. He knows he's smart too. Yeah, I don't like that about people. It's uncomfortable, but sometimes... People that go around telling you their IQ, it's like... I know. It's kind of gross. It's insufferable. It is. Also, people are insufferable when they tell you about how well their business does. They're insufferable when they tell you they have a big dick. Right. Whatever it is, people are insufferable. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they're stupid. It just means that they have flaws. The thing though is that smart people can get things very wrong. Yes. Because not all smart people have a good temperament to absorb evidence that doesn't confirm their belief. Not all of them are intellectually honest. To me, I think IQ is one thing, but intellectual honesty and general psychological, mental maturity, emotional maturity, two totally different things. Yeah. But isn't it interesting how you, even though you didn't have the information, were saying he was a white supremacist? There you go. Yeah. This is something that I fall victim to this too. We all do. I shouldn't just repeat things that I read in one article without having done the primary source stuff. I try not to, but I catch myself doing it too. It's also a function of, it's part of this thing that you just can't have all the information. It's not possible, especially when you talk about all the events and all the things in the world. It's just, you got to fuck things up. Do you find anything about that guy's quote? There's a lot about him, so I'm trying to dig through that then. I'd just like to see the quote that he said about African gorillas. I don't think it's actually a quote. He's got a blog where he talks about, he's got long writings. He's got tons of writings. He's got a sub-stack. This guy's been writing for a long time. That's why there's so many profiles on him. There's videos asking if he's completely made up, if all this is bullshit. Well, I just think he doesn't have the sort of academic, he doesn't have PhDs and he's not accepted in... Even if he's really intelligent, people are going to dismiss him just because he's not a part of that system. But I want to know what he said that made them say that. Right. Me too. Because I don't like the way they were framing all the things before that, where they're saying that people who also believe this like him. You can't do that, because how many people like him? The guy's got a sub-stack that has 100,000 followers and you find 1,000 white supremacists and you say some people who like that believe that Jews should be exterminated. Like come on. That's not him. You can't do that. That's bullshit. That's not journalism. You're pushing a narrative. That's like how a lawyer in a courtroom would grill the other side. That's not journalism. No, it's not. And it's uncomfortable because this is something that we all fall prey to and you just openly admit it that you did. I have two. I read a headline. I was just like, oh, that must be real. Yeah. I don't have the time to get into this. Yeah. I don't have any time. There's not enough time in the world to research all the different things that will freak you out. But you were talking about just intelligence in general and the ability to manipulate intelligence in embryos. And I think that this thing with China where you're saying that it's overall good to increase a child's intelligence, like who would say that's not good? Would you rather your kid be dull witted? Like well, this Billy could be dull. Or what we can do with CRISPR is by a significant margin, increase his ability to memorize things and you'd go, oh yeah, what do I have to do? It's really safe and effective. We're just going to do this little gene editing. And then all of a sudden Billy's a fucking genius. Of course you would do that. Yeah, I would. And that's just the beginning. That's the beginning. We're going to... But then what happens is they mess up. Once. You know, they make Billy stupid. They make Billy... Maybe Billy's a psychopath. Maybe Billy's an American psycho. He's really smart, but he's a fucking evil person. Right. And there's some massive class action lawsuit against one of the companies. Well, the companies be immune. No, they're being immune because it's for the greater good of the human race. Come on. Yeah, they'll lobby Congress to make an immune first. 100%. If they've done it with vaccines, they can do it with other things. The president's been set. We'll see about that. We'll see about that. I don't know. These companies may not have very much power at first. They may have nowhere near as much power as the pharmaceutical lobby. Well, also, what kind of regulations are in place to prohibit this sort of experimentation? I think none so far. That's not good. But it's not bad either. I think it's just a function of human beings, creativity, innovation, and this desire to constantly make things better. And we do that with computers, and we do it with cars, and we do it with everything. We do it with solar panels. We do it with fucking everything. We're going to do it with us. But the thing is, it's like we're going to miss some things. There's beauty that comes out of people's tortured experiences at how it gets expressed in art. And if you eliminate all the negativity of life, you're going to miss out on a lot of things that bring us joy and inspiration. And that's the real conflict. That's what's fucked. Every time you have an ecosystem that has a problem and they introduce an invasive species into the ecosystem to solve the problem, every time it gets fucked. Unintended consequences are off the charts. Australia's a great example. They brought in feral cats to deal with some of their pest problems. Now feral cats have like decimated, ground nesting birds. They make everything extinct. So now they're trying to kill all the cats. Yes. People hunt cats in Australia. So when you have like bow hunting journals in America, bow hunting journals in America where there's like magazines and stuff, people hold up pictures of like a white-tailed deer that they're going to eat. It's like, oh, we got venison for dinner tonight, and look at this beautiful buck that we harvested. In Australia, some of the magazines hold up dead cats too. Like, look, we got rid of this motherfucker and it's a house cat. And you're like, yo, that's great. For some people, it's like a dog. The way I feel about my dog, some people feel that way about a cat. And to see a cat with a fucking arrow hole through its chest and the guy's holding it up like, I did a good thing, mate. In that world, they fucked that system up so badly that the cat is now the bad guy. The cat is not your little friend like, buddy, what's up, buddy? Your little friend? No. Now the cat's the bad guy and you can shoot him and take pictures of him. So it's a question. If we, through gene editing, get rid of schizophrenia, does that also dial the clock down on creativity in general a bit? Yeah, who knows? Does a guy like Kanye get born in such a world? Right. Right. Well, he's a great example of that. Whatever issues he has, I think he thinks now that he's autistic. I think that's what he's been openly saying. But whatever issues he has, that guy is a fucking tornado of creativity. Like his mind is, when he wanted to do the podcast, okay, one of the things he wanted to do is make a set that was a womb and we're going to do it in there. He goes, he was like, your studio is ugly and it's boring. I really said, he said, would you allow me to design your studio? I go, yeah, do whatever the fuck you want. This is going to be fun. But Jamie got COVID. So it all got thrown into a monkey wrench and we needed someone else to engineer it. And so we just did it in my little shitty studio. But that guy is just always trying to think about sustainable housing. He's trying to think about new forms of currency. He's designing clothes. He's writing fucking songs constantly. His brain, the same thing that makes him blurt out things that are questionable and he probably shouldn't have said it. That same brain is responsible for an insane amount of art. I think that's right. Yeah. I think it's true of Elon too. And when he was medicated, he didn't like it. They cut that off. This superpower. It's like telling Superman, you have to wear a kryptonite coat. Why? I'm fucking Superman. I can handle this. It just gets drained from the world or something. Yeah. Probably something will come of that. We'll find out. He's been quiet for a while now. I don't know. I haven't heard anything about him recently. I haven't been paying attention. That's kind of crazy. What did he actually eventually say? What was the big thing that he said? He said that he loves Hitler because he loves everyone. Yes. And Alex Jones really tried to get him, gave him every opportunity to walk it back. And he's like, oh, so you're just saying you like the Nazi uniforms. You like the aesthetic of Hitler. He goes, no, I love Hitler. He really just stepped right into it. He didn't take any of the exit doors that Jones was giving him. Well, you got to understand his personality too. He's a guy that does not like being told what not to do. That's right. When Obama called him a jackass, he immediately started supporting Trump after that. Remember, he was wearing the Make America Great. When people were saying that Trump was bad, Kanye was like, no, no, no, I'm with Trump. And there was a concert that he did. He said he didn't vote, but if he did vote, he would have voted for Trump. And the whole crowd was like, boo. One thing I've noticed about people as I've gotten a little older is that if a strategy has been working for someone their entire life, they're not going to get to 50 years old or 40 years old and suddenly change it when it stops working. So if you're Kanye, you are a random kid from Chicago and you became like a decent producer, but like everyone else, you came to New York with big dreams and you didn't get noticed for a while. And then the second you did get noticed, the second you tried to rap, everyone told you you were crazy. And not just everyone, the top experts of rap in hip hop, Jay-Z's record label, the people that would most know say, look, Kanye, you're a good producer, but take it from us. You're the top experts in the world. You don't want to get into the rap game. And he says, you know what? I'm going to do the really dumb thing and say, no, you're all wrong. And then he becomes not just a good rapper, but the best rapper in history. So this strategy of a bunch of people that are the smartest people, and then by the way, he did the same thing with fashion. Everyone, the smartest people in the world said, Kanye, you're a great rapper, but trust us. We know more than anyone in the world about this industry. You can't make it. And then he does it better than them. So a guy for whom that strategy has been working, he's just been calling his shot like Babe Ruth over and over again and getting it every time against the odds. He's not going to wake up at 45 years old. And when people say, you can't vote for Trump, he's going to say, yeah, actually, I should listen to them this time. Right. Good point. And I've noticed this about other people, too. It's like if they have some weird strategy that's really worked for them. You can't tell them to change it halfway through their life. Elon's the same way. I think it's precisely connected to his extreme success of all the ventures that were supposed to fail that had you put anyone else at the helm, they would have failed. Tesla, SpaceX. Just constantly having the smartest people in the world tell him he can't do something and then doing it. He's immune to a chorus of very smart, well-meaning people telling him don't say that, don't do this. Right. Because it's worked for him his whole life. And so I think the point is the flaws people point out in these people, they may be genuine flaws, but they are the flip side of the coin of their success. Yes. They're inseparable. Such a good point. Such an important point. And I think when people get in a situation like, we've never seen a person get in a situation like Kanye, where he was one of the biggest entertainers on the planet Earth, if not the biggest. And then all of a sudden becomes persona non grata. That's never really happened before like that. Over words. And a guy who clearly has a penchant for saying things that are outrageous. And he's always done that. And he clearly goes on rants. I don't even know if he knows where he's going sometimes. He went on a crazy rant when he met with Trump. Did you ever see that one? Yeah, I did. It's one of my favorites. Because Trump is so happy that Kanye is there. He's like, this is great. This is great. I'm just going to listen. If Kanye was opposed to him and was saying the same kind of things, how do you think Trump would respond? He's like, yeah, he would respond. What? What are you talking? Where did you get your education? What kind of talk is this? Instead, he's sitting there going, okay, Trump's smart. He's sitting there. He's letting Kanye rant. Kanye is trying to change Make America Great again to Make America Great or something or Keep America. I forget what he was going to do. He had an idea in his head that this was bad for black people and we want to make it change into this thing. It's just a wild dude. He's a wild dude. I think he's a bad person. He's not a bad person. He stretched the imagination. I don't think he's going to be persona non grata forever. He's talented, man. That motherfucker will put out a new album and it'll be a banger. Everyone will listen to it. For most people, all will be forgiven, especially I think people will give him a pass because of mental illness. I don't think he'll be canceled forever. No, he's too good. He's too good. To this day, to this day, people listen to Michael Jackson music. To this day, to this day, I want to rock with you comes on and everybody goes, oh man, you don't think, oh, that's that guy who went crazy and had wild facial reconstructive surgery and may or may not have molested kids. You don't think that. You think that guy was so good. When Beat It comes on, you don't think about those things. Doesn't matter. It's pretty. I do remember there was one week where people considered not listening to Michael Jackson and then everyone at the same time was like, ah, too good. It's too good. It's too good. It's too good. Got to be starting something. When you hear some of those songs, you're like, God, damn, that dude was good. He was so good that they played him on rock and roll radio in Boston. I remember I was in Boston and it was WCOZ, which was like the local rock station we would all listen to. Like classic rock, like Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin and shit. The DJ comes on, this is back when DJs can still play whatever they wanted to play. He came on and he said, look, I know this isn't rock and roll, but I'm going to play it anyway because it's so good. He played Billie Jean. It was so good that people didn't give a fuck that it was Michael Jackson. They didn't think it was disco or anything. They didn't give it a label. They're like, wow. Just undeniable. Just undeniable. And that's Kanye. Kanye's got some bangers. I got Kanye in about 10 songs on my Green Room playlist. And when we were in the mothership and those songs come on, everybody's like, oh shit, here's another one. He had so many of them, so many of them, so many of them. And that's that same mind, that same mind that says crazy shit. That same mind is just fucking going. It's just going in a bunch of different directions with a fucking thousand horsepower engine and we're all here in civics. Yeah, exactly. That's what's going on. The rest of us are not like that. No, we're different. We're different. And we need people like that. We just need them to not say things that hurt people's feelings. Don't say things that disparage entire groups of people. And I don't think he needs to do that. I don't think anybody, I don't think he's a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, but I think we have to recognize that there's some mental illness that is extremely beneficial. And that when these people are behaving and expressing themselves in a certain way, they're just unwell. And it might be momentarily. There's people that get into manic states and they say things and then they have to call people back and say, I'm so sorry. I was freaking out. I'm not supposed to be drinking and I drank and I'm on this medication and I fucked up. And it's like, yeah, okay. But as a society, just cast someone, I might like Adidas, stop their contracts with them and everybody stopped doing business with them. It's like, wow. I don't think you get rid of bad ideas by doing that. No, I'm not. So everything I said about Israel on your podcast, no one can say that I'm a Hamas defender, right? I'm very pro-Israel. There are people right now that for expressing pro-Hamas beliefs are being, there's companies saying we're never going to hire you, do college kids. There's all kinds of stuff like this is going on where I'm totally against it. I think people should be absolutely free to make these stupid arguments and we should inform them. We should argue, right? We should have a conversation. Even when it's like a really bad belief. But do you think that you would want someone to work for you if you found out that there were pro-terrorist? No, probably not. Like if you found some guy says he's into ISIS. And he wants to work for your company. You would say, hey, I'm not going to hire you because you've decided that you're pro-Taliban. I wonder about that. I wonder about that. I want to say yes, but my friend Noam Dorman, who owns a comedy seller, he says that he has people working in his kitchen. This guy, both his parents are from Israel, very pro-Israel. It's actually the most important issue to him in life, perhaps. He has people working in his kitchen from the Middle East that believe all the anti-Semitic propaganda that they've been fed that many people in the Arab world are fed. They believe the Jews are controlling the media, the Jews are everything, right? And they're totally anti-Israel. And maybe some of them would even are even happy about the Hamas attack. But he says as long as they keep their politics out of work, they don't alienate customers and we treat each other with respect. I'm not going to say I'd fire you or I wouldn't hire you. Well, good for him. That's a very beautiful and Jesus-like way of approaching the world. Yeah. But I think ideally it should be more and more the way we approach the world because I don't think you persuade people by persecuting them. Right. The difference between that and someone, like someone holding beliefs because they came from a particular part of the world is very different from someone going out on the street and yelling it, holding up banners and flags, using bull horns. Yeah. That is what someone might do at a protest. So if you were at a pro-ISIS protest and you were screaming about ISIS is caliphate and that this is the just way of life and this is what God wants, like, I probably don't want you working at Subway. You're probably not going to be the dude I want to be making sandwiches next to. If I'm hiring at an auto repair shop and this guy thinks he's going to be a martyr if he blows himself up, maybe I'm not going to hire that guy. Maybe I'm not going to hire the guy that thinks that it's okay to talk little kids into wearing a fucking vest and walking into a school. I agree. Yeah. But at the same time, I don't like the idea that there's a political litmus test for having a job. Right. And this is part of what's happening with diversity, equity and inclusion statements is that all over the country there are these jobs, professorships at universities where in order to be hired, you have to sign and say, I support diversity, equity, inclusion, a long paragraph of values you may not hold. Why should I need to sign on to that? To be hired to teach math. Right. I get very uncomfortable with that. It gets slippery because you get to political ideologies that you're forcing people to subscribe to. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it is a slippery slope, right? I mean, if you were a Catholic and you would not hire Baptists, who's not Baptists for fools, you only believe in hiring Catholics, that would get weird. But those, we're okay in that sense that most people of differing Christian persuasions are comfortable with each other. Lutherans are comfortable around Methodists and they look at Baptists the same way they look at Catholics. Maybe they look at Mormons weird. Mormons are, that's a weird one. But they're very nice though. It's very, they're the nicest people. But it's very common for people of different branches of Christianity to work together and have no problems. That's when things get weird is when you, like one thing is way worse than the other thing or one thing opposes the existence of another thing. Now we're getting to extreme differences, like of the difference between the Hamas and Israel. If you're getting to that, or if you're getting to Nazis and the Jews, or if you're getting to ... There's things that you can get to where you're like, okay, this is valid. These are valid reasons to not be word. But if you do that and it keeps pushing in a certain direction, it could get to Catholics hating the Protestants. And that's what the fuck happened in Ireland. They were blowing each other up. I mean, when I went to Belfast, Northern Ireland for a UFC once, there's cars, police cars that are covered with steel plates to bomb-proof them. Wow. Have you ever seen it? No. It's wild. It's wild. And the people that live there, there's people that are there right now that still remember the IRA and they remember all the bombings and the terrorists and the horrible things that people from both sides of Ireland did to each other. They're two totally different countries. Northern Ireland's a completely different country than Ireland because of that. And a lot of it was wrapped up in religion. And I mean, we don't want to think that that could happen. But whenever you have this thing where you're against someone who's not on your team, that could take place. You could have a peaceful coexistence like Baptists do with Methodists, or it could be fucking horrible and you could other that person. And it's just a part of human programming. So I agree with the new atheists about how many problems have been caused by religion. And I'm an atheist myself. I grew up with no religion. On the other hand, the empirical literature suggests that religious people tend to be happier and also suggest that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. And that's a very interesting finding to me because I grew up in a very secular liberal context, was never even tempted by religion really. Like you know how they say there's no atheists in foxholes? I'd be an atheist in a foxhole. I wouldn't even believe in God. I think if my like it just it's nowhere in me. But it's an interesting and pretty verified result. I think at this point that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, less mental illness, and the religious tend to be happier than the secular. So then the question becomes why is that? Is it because they believe in religion or is it explained by a third variable? Is it correlation without causation? Is it that religious people have communities they have somewhere to go to where they see familiar faces every Sunday and atheists lack that or they don't have it automatically? And it's tough to be. Well that's really a factor, right? I ask it's unquestionably a factor. Got to be a factor. Yeah. Yeah. People need community. It is absolutely a part of us. And one of the things you see in primarily secular places, like if you think about New York City, there's so many people, but yet they're not friends with each other and they're all stacked on top of each other. I was talking to my friend Jim Norton the other day. He's like, I've lived next door to my neighbor for 10 years. I have no fucking idea who he is. And they all just live in this giant stack of humans that they don't know. And you know, that's normal. I've had culture shock when I've come to the south because I grew up in North Jersey right outside of New York. And I didn't realize that until I came to the south until I hung out in Florida and even the Midwest, that people in the Northeast aren't as nice. I have a theory for that. What's your theory? Well, my primary theory for why people are so wild on the East Coast, because they are wild and aggressive, is because those are the ancestors of the people that fucking came across on boats. They were people that took a crazy chance. Ambitious people. Yeah, before YouTube. Competitive, ambitious people. Just and mean. I mean, just the echoes of the past. Have you watched Gangs of New York? You ever watched that movie? But you know, when you think of New York City as this metropolitan... It used to be a horrible crime-ridden, murderous place to be. And at the turn of the century, when people were coming over here from Europe, the people that came here from all parts of the world, those people came from somewhere that sucked and they had a wild, crazy chance to try to make it American. It was probably very aggressive and it was during the time of the Depression. So you're dealing with really fucking scared people and really desperate people. And you're dealing with a very aggressive culture. And then a lot of people were like, fuck this, I'm going West. And they just kept going. They just kept going until on the West Coast of the country, whether it's because of the entertainment industry or it was because of the amazing climate, I think there's a combination of those two. That became the most progressive, the least aggressive, the most open-minded. Like when I used to hear about fighters coming from California, I'd be like, how good could he be? That's what I used to think when I was a kid. I was thinking, you're going to get a good fighter, they're all going to come out of the cities. They're all going to come out of places where there's a lot of hardship and people are like push and shove and you're going to get your ass kicked at school all the time. And then you get a few dudes that grew up in the South that lived in hard scrabble neighborhoods, coal mining communities. They were badasses too. There's the hobos, like Jack Dempsey, the dudes who rode the fucking railroad trains and just hard men who did hard jobs and they were scary too. But once you got to California, those dudes, it was a ridiculous thing to think. But it comes out of this thing where the people that arrived there, they dealt with, those were the people that stayed. They're the people that were fine with that or didn't know another way of life. I watched the five or six hours of the New York History documentary, New York City History documentary by Rick Burns. Oh, I haven't seen it. No Rick Burns. I've heard of him. Yeah. Ken Burns' brother that no one talks about. It's funny to me that Ken Burns has a brother that makes exactly Ken Burns style documentary. That is kind of funny. Great, by the way. He's not worse than his brother. I don't think I've seen anything. But no one ever talks about him. I don't think I've seen any of his stuff. Anyway, he has like a mega marathon New York City History documentary that's fantastic. What's it called? I think it's just called New York. Rick Burns, New York. You need to buy a subscription within Amazon Prime to get it. It's really annoying, but worth it. Get by a subscription? Oh, you have to get a subscription to Amazon Prime? Within Amazon Prime, there's like a PBS package or something. Oh, it's another thing you pay for? Yeah, you have to pay for it. I was picking people sitting on the beam over the city. Freaks me out. And leather soles, slippery ass shoes. Yep. And they have footage of building the Empire State Building. And these guys are just like tossing hot rods to each other, like 20 feet away from each other. Just absolutely insane way of living. And from there, I learned that the Empire State Building was supposed to be a parking spot for a blimp or a dirigible, whatever it's called technically. That was the pretext for why they had to build the spire higher. It was total BS because they wanted to get it over the Chrysler Building. So they said, we got to park blimps here. That's why we need this tall thing. And then they tried to park a blimp, but they didn't even build it to really work or be practical. It was just a pretext for why they needed to get higher than the Chrysler Building. But there is a picture of, I don't know if it's a real picture or if it was the blueprint of the Empire State Building with a blimp parked there. Hold that thought because I really have to pee. But I want to talk about this more. We'll be right back. Okay. So the blimp, New York City Empire State Building. Someone's going to yell at me for calling it a blimp because it's actually a dirigible. And I don't know the difference. I think it's the structure. I think it's the exterior structure. Yeah. Anyway. So dirigible has an exterior structure, whereas I think a blimp is just a balloon. Is that the case? So it parked it there. And that was why they said they needed to do it. And people walked onto that fucking thing from there. They tried to do it for about five minutes or something and it didn't work. And then they said, screw that. At least we're taller than the Chrysler Building now. When I was reading it, it didn't work because it was super fucking windy, which it obviously is in New York City. Right. So they didn't plan for wind? For a fucking giant balloon. It was supposed to be the stop for transatlantic Zeppelin flights. Dude. How crazy is it that I had a dream once. It was a really weird dream. It was a dream of, I forget, it was a thousand or a million Teslas. There was a dream that in a parallel universe, a very strange dream. And by the way, I've had it more than once. I think I've had it at least twice. It was a dream where instead of having one insanely innovative person like Nikola Tesla, there was a thousand or a million of them. And in this dream, I was living in like 1960 and there were blimps everywhere. There was flying crafts everywhere. And it was very different. The world was very different. It was a really strange dream, but it was like the sky was filled with these flying crafts. And there was Nikola Tesla's all over the place. Not literally him, but people like him. Not just one guy that everybody breaks into his apartment after he's dead to get his notes, but thousands of them, millions of them. Yeah, something like that. King's Dream of New York. Wow, that's crazy. So this is a kind of very, but in my dream, everything had like a kind of a steampunk sort of feel to it because it was sort of early. You know, it wasn't a dream of today. It was a dream where I was imagining what would the world have looked like if instead of one of these guys in like, when did Tesla live? It was like the 1920s, right? Instead of one of those guys have a shit ton of them and that, you know, we are often driven by a few mad geniuses that have just through their own creativity. And Tesla's very unusual with his creativity because he talked about how he was kind of like, I don't think he was saying aliens, but he was saying that he was receiving this information from somewhere else. Like he had this, see what you find about that, because I don't want to misquote him, but he had some very bizarre descriptions of where ideas came from. And I think he felt like he was in communication with something from somewhere else as well. Well, I know a lot of artists and musicians have described it that way because I don't think you know where the idea comes from. I mean, I have a theory. When you're joke writing, where does it come from? I think ideas are a form of life. I think it's not a life that uses blood and tissue. I think it's like a different kind of like non-tangible life form that enters into the creative mind and it manifests itself in the form of physical objects. Every physical object that we see on earth from cars to planes to tables was thought of first. A thought came to someone's mind. I said, what if I cut this wood and sand it down and put some fucking legs on this bitch and I got some shit to put my stuff on? Look at that. I got a table. Somebody had to think of that and that thing became a real object. The whole earth is covered with these things that human beings have put here because they had an idea. And it's making us make a better version of ourself. And this is what I think AI is. I think what we're doing with this constant thirst for innovation and also this, it coincides with our materialistic tendencies. It facilitates it. It helps it. Everyone's so material. You got an iPhone 6? What's wrong with you, bro? You need to get the 15. It's USB-C now. Oh my God, I got to get the 15. And everybody's running out. And everybody wants to do that. Everybody wants to have the newest, latest, greatest thing. And what does that do? It fuels innovation. And ultimately that leads to us creating AI. And this is where we find ourselves. And we find ourselves in this weird situation like, okay, who's in control of AI? And if someone really does invent a better form of AI and uses it to hijack the economic system, to hijack, who knows? You have insane amounts of power. If you have an insane mind and the ability to innovate far beyond the capabilities of the human mind. Some people have been arguing, I think they're probably right, that the safest way to build AI is to have lots of people build it separately. Because then no one AI will be decentralized. Rather than try from the top down, the government to say, okay, we got to build this safely. We're going to take charge. We're going to regulate everything. We're going to make you put the seatbelt on. To have multiple parties at the same time all over the world doing AI, it may guarantee or may help ensure that no one of them becomes so powerful that they exist unopposed by others. Well, it'd be very irresponsible if you were a superpower and you didn't do work with AI. And China does, or Russia does, or Iran does. That would be irresponsible. So you'd really kind of have to do that. So you remember when people were asking for a six month pause? Yeah. You heard about that? Yeah. China's not going to pause. China's not going to pause. Sometimes the smartest people in the world don't have common sense. Well, they would like the international scientific community to get on board with that, but they don't have that option in certain parts of the world. They just don't. They just don't. And when it's something like AI, something that does have the power to radically transform everything that we see around us, and is probably doing it right now with algorithms that manipulate people's perspectives on all sorts of things. How much of the Twitter beef with the bots and all that stuff, how many of those fake accounts are being run by AI? How many of them are being generated by programs? I would assume at this point, it's not zero. It's not zero. And we know that that's a real factor in making sure that people are constantly pissed off at each other and fighting back and forth. There's certain foreign and domestic interests that have a vested responsibility to do that. This is what they're trying to do. This is my job. I got to go out and make people mad about abortion. I got to go out and make people mad about the border. I got to go out and make people mad about this. And they're running programs that are having people argue with people constantly, all the time. I'm sure you've seen when someone will highlight some sort of a tweet about a particular thing, and then you put that tweet in a search engine, and you will see thousands of people tweeting the exact same thing. Wow. It's wild. It's wild. And there's less sophisticated versions and more sophisticated versions. And then there's actual physical bad actors, human beings that are doing it, and they're doing it very creatively. And that was one of the things that Renee DiResta investigated when she was looking into what was going on with Facebook and these troll farms and the Internet Research Agency in Russia and how they were manipulating social media arguments. One of the things she noticed, they had organized a Texas secession rally right across the street from some Islamic rally. And did people show up? Yeah. Sure people showed up. I think I learned from her too that they had organized a BLM rally and people showed up. That's wild. They also organized. Well, one of the crazy things they did was out of the top 20 Christian Facebook sites, 19 of them were run by troll farms. Wow. So all the hateful rhetoric and all that stuff run by people who are just trying to get people angry at each other. Now, I will say that said, I love GPT-4. Oh, it's amazing. Chat GPT. I love it. I use it almost every day. It's like a smart buddy that will do whatever I tell him to do. Yeah. It's a good way to put it. Even when I don't agree with him, I can have a fun or intelligent exchange with him that makes me smarter. It's just so much fun. It's very interesting. We use it all the time. I throw on a documentary and everything I don't understand. Explain this to me. Are you sure about that? Wow. Well, I heard that. It's fantastic. I strangely meet a lot of people that don't like it at all. Why? Either because they feel that it's not smart enough to interest them. That's the first thing. I really don't get that. It's smart enough to be interesting. It's smarter than a lot of people. Why would they say it's not smart enough to interest them? I hear this all the time. It's not really that intelligent. It's just feeding you talking points. It can't really think for itself. Come on, man. I'll say that as the seed of something that's going to be infinitely more intelligent than human beings. You're foolish. I think so too. Yeah, that's a person that- That ship has sailed. Yeah, but then that falls into this. People don't want to be duped by things. They don't want to be the person that- That fell for the hype. Yeah, exactly. Well, the hype is real this time. It's real as fuck. A lot of people are still on 3.5 because they don't want to or can't pay $20 a month. Go to GPT-4 and really have a conversation with it about anything. Tell me it's not smart. It's very smart. It's also just the beginning. I had Sam Altman on the podcast. We had a pretty long discussion about this. I feel like it's inevitable. I think it was a part of our history before it was ever written. We are going to make a better version of ourselves. One of the things we're going to do first is create some sort of sentient intelligence that may or may not be physical. It may exist only in terms of running programs, but it's going to be smarter than us. One day, someone's going to put that in a physical object or one day, we're going to allow that thing into our own brains. We're going to develop some sort of an ability to utilize that. A universal language would be one of the quickest things that it could do. It would change the way people communicate with each other because there would be no longer not neither a cultural boundary nor a language boundary. You'll be able to understand the way a person thinks based on their actual thoughts versus the rhetoric and what they're thinking and saying might be two different things. You'll be able to recognize that instantaneously. There'll be no ability to lie. There'll be no bottleneck between information and your ability to acquire it. It'll be instantaneous. I think we're going to change what we are fundamentally. It may overall be the thing that saves us because if we truly can understand that we are all connected and we are all the same thing and that the only thing that separates us is where we were from, how we grew up, who we were influenced by, what our genes are, what our environment is, all these variables. But the core of what we are is just human beings and maybe through a universal language and an ability to communicate universally, like across no boundaries, no boundaries for expression, no boundaries for understanding, no misconstrued things, no things taken out of context, the ability to recognize the actual thing and you to be able to recognize what you are too because people will confront you. Like the people that read your thoughts and know your mind will be able to show you the area. It'll be almost impossible after a certain point in time to have distorted perspectives because you won't just be a biological human being. You'll be a biological human being that is interfaced with an insanely intelligent technology that allows you to elevate everything around you. But then again, it's not going to be great. It's not going to be all great. It's not going to be perfect. What are we going to lose? Are we going to lose blues? Are we going to lose the blues? Are we going to lose hip hop? What are we going to lose? Are we going to lose comedy? Are we going to lose violent movies? Are we going to lose fun? Are we going to lose bungee jumping? What are we going to lose? We're going to lose some things. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure we will. We're going to lose a lot of thrills and a lot of the chaos of life. Maybe all bars will close. Maybe people will completely stop drinking. What the fuck was I doing? Now I realize why I needed to release my inhibitions. This is all just a thing I'm dealing with, a conflict, an internal conflict. So I had this lady, Nita Farahani, on my podcast probably a year ago. And then I met her at TED recently. And she wrote this book called The Battle for Your Brain. She's a professor, I'm forgetting the college, somewhere in North Carolina, I think. Maybe Duke. Is that in North Carolina or South Carolina? I'm a crazy... Not sure. Which one is it? North? So she just had this book and she pays close attention to the current state and the near future state of mind reading technology. And I was absolutely blown away because I did not think that things were possible that are already happening in certain parts of the world. For example, she talked about a factory in China where they're able to, through an ESG, an over-scalp ESG scanner, determine whether someone is slacking off by the brain signals being sent from them. Wow. And apparently it's even possible to simply have a tattoo behind your ear or somewhere on your face that gets enough of an electrical signal from your brain that can then get enhanced to get actual brain readings, to read your state of mind, essentially. Just a tattoo? Yeah. Is that the mark of the beast? I don't know. What is the mark of the beast? The mark of the beast from the Bible. Oh. So this... Anyway, the full thing is to have a big cap on, right? Okay. So you get ESG signals, and these signals get correlated through big data with states of mind. So you get enough data. You say, okay, this signal pattern means you're happy. This signal pattern means you're tired. This signal pattern means, et cetera. You get enough data of people talking with ESG and correlate it, perhaps using AI. Then you can get a signal in principle of what does the brain look like when someone is saying the sentence, I'm hungry for food or whatever. In principle, you can mind read with this, right? You can read if... And this apparently has been done in India according to Farahani. If you're in a courtroom and you ask a witness, have you seen this murder weapon before? They can lie, but there's a neural signature to recognition. This has been... This is very controversial. This is FMRI, correct? Is that what you're talking about? She's talking mostly about ESG. ESG. Yeah. So I know that there was... When you brought up India, I know that there was a trial where someone was convicted of... I think the term was functional knowledge of the crime scene. But I talked to a neuroscientist that said that would never fly over here. There was something about the court system where this person was convicted. If you had... Do you remember when there was seismologists in Italy that were sued because they didn't accurately predict an earthquake? Do you remember that? No, no. See if you can find that. There was a... They literally had to go to trial. They had to be acquitted because they were being accused of either negligence or some sort of a... I forget exactly what the charge was, but they were essentially not understanding seismology and the unpredictable nature of the movement of the earth. Italian seismologists cleared of manslaughter. So they were going to charge them with manslaughter. So six seismologists accused of misleading the public about the risk of an earthquake in Italy were cleared of manslaughter on 10th of November. An appeals court overturned their six-year prison sentences and reduced to two years the sentence for a government official who had been convicted with them. So a magnitude 6.3 earthquake struck the historic town of La Aquila in the early hours of 6 April 2009, killing more than 300 people. The findings by a three-judge appeals court prompted many... I don't know how I'm not saying that right. La Aquila citizens who were waiting outside the courtroom to react with rage, shouting shame and saying that the Italian state had just acquitted itself, local media reported, but it comes as a relief to scientists around the world who had been following the unprecedented case with alarm. We don't have to be worried about the possibility of being prosecuted if we give advice on earthquakes, says seismologist Ian Main of University of Edinburgh, UK. That would discourage giving honest opinion. The defendants themselves have mixed feelings. Guillot, Salvaggi, former director of the National Earthquake Center in Rome says that although he is happy to be acquitted, there's nothing to celebrate because the pain of the people of La Aquila remains. The scientists that end up in court is a consequence of a botched communication in a highly stressed environment. In the months before the major earthquake struck, the region around La Aquila had been subject to frequent, mostly low-magnitude tremors known as seismic swarms. Residents were confused and increasingly alarmed by statements made by a local amateur earthquake predictor who said that he had evidence of an impending quake, although geologists dismissed his methods as unsound. A commission of experts met on 31 March 2009 to assess the scientific evidence and advise the government. According to the prosecution, a press conference after this meeting attended by acting president of the commission, volcanologist Franco Barberi of the University of Rome, Roma Tre, and the government official Bernardo Di Bernardinus, then directly- The parents with that name named their kid Bernardo. Bernardo Di Bernardinus, and then deputy director of the Italian Civil Protection Department conveyed a reassuring message that a major earthquake was not on the cards. The earthquake happened, and so they charged these people with manslaughter as a consequence. The television interview recorded shortly before the meeting, Di Bernardinus, who is now president of the Institute for Environmental Research and Protection in Rome, says that the scientific community tells me there is no danger because there is an ongoing discharge of energy during the seismic swarm. As a consequence, according to the prosecution, when the earthquake struck on 6 April, 29, people chose to stay indoors instead of stepping outside as they otherwise would have done, and died as their homes collapsed. All seven members of the expert commission were found guilty of manslaughter. This is 2012, this is pretty recently, after a 13-month trial that transfixed the international scientific community. But I think, I mean, charging them with manslaughter is crazy. I don't think they're basing it on what they know about earthquakes, and earthquakes are unpredictable. Yeah, how predictable are earthquakes to begin with? Not very predictable. Yeah, that's what I ... I was never under the impression that they could be predicted super easily. Okay, so- Brain scanning in Chinese factories probably doesn't work if it's happening at all. This is ... Do you remember that thing, that video that we watched, Jamie? What was that from where the girl was sitting in her desk and she was having fantasies about a local co-worker and was trying to not have these, then someone in her office, because of their brain scanning, got convicted of fraud- Oh, no, I didn't see that. ... someone that she was directly involved with in some sort of a meeting. It's a cartoon, but it's trying to paint ... I think it's a World Economic Forum thing, is it? They're trying to predict this rosy version of a much more productive future if you just submit to letting the company that you work for read your fucking mind. Yeah. And the things that she's citing, it's really fascinating, but she's talking about how much better her productivity is and she's getting more work done. She's much more focused because they know when she's not. This is somehow ... You know that video? Do you remember it? So I don't know if that China factory story ends up being true, but Farahani has a lot of other examples in her book of studies that have been done and what's possible. And she has this worry about this notion of cognitive liberty, that soon we're going to have to decide if the right to privacy extends to our brain data. Right. Well, we've already submitted to this idea that a company can mandate whether you get vaccinated, even when it was preposterous. We submitted to that. There was people that I know that had COVID recovered from COVID and were required to get vaccinated in order to participate in certain television programs and certain movie programs. Me too. I had a music professor that was required to get the booster. Already double-vaxed and had gotten COVID, was required to get the booster on pain of lost work, of not being able to teach. Yeah. And I had a friend that was doing a television show and the exact same thing. He had gotten COVID, he had gotten vaccinated, but he hadn't gotten boosted. And they required him to get ... He's like, I've already recovered from COVID. It's totally unscientific. And they required him and he had to do it. And I think part of the reason why someone like RFK has so much support and enthusiasm, is because there's all these people that didn't have Zoom professions, that didn't work from home, that for whom a paycheck was meaningful, who were forced into this thing, not forced, I shouldn't say forced, were pressured into additional things that they didn't need. And that caused, that has caused an understandable backlash. And I think people have, there's obviously an age element to this too. Vaccines were far more important for older folks than for younger folks. And so I think people have really failed to take the compassionate angle towards why people are so interested in a guy like RFK. And that is definitely part of it. 100%. Yeah. It's all, we're in a strange new territory. We're in a strange new territory with human discourse. We're in a strange new territory with AI. We're in a strange new territory with global conflicts. This is a wild time. Because think about the social media coverage of the Israel-Palestine issue. This is one of the first times where you don't need the mainstream news at all to get your information. In fact, the mainstream news is slower than Twitter. I've been following the hospital story the past 48 hours. All of the mainstream news outlets are like 10 hours behind Twitter. That's very interesting. It's very interesting. Yeah. Well, they don't have the confinements. So they're going to, like you said before, they're not professionals. So they're going to get things wrong too. And there's always that. There's a lot of that kind of stuff that goes on. But generally that gets sorted out with free speech. If people are paying attention, but the problem is some people only pay attention to the initial assertions and then afterwards they miss the corrections. And there's a lot of people that are doing that now. I've watched people today talk about Israel bombing that hospital. I saw it today, someone who's talking about it that I follow. There are some people that are never going to get the correction. No, they're not going to get it. Yeah. They're going to still be saying it in a year. Yeah. Well, you're going to always have that. You're going to have that. But at least we're getting that information quickly. Like the correction was quick as opposed to the way it would have been in 1967. It's very different. In 1967, it would have taken years to correct. Years, if ever. It would still be up for debate. Who was right or who was wrong. I mean, how long did it take before they admit the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag? Took forever. The speed at which we get access to the actual truth is very quick now. It's very different. Have you seen the last days in Vietnam? No. That is possibly the best documentary I've ever seen. Definitely top three. I was blown away. Is it just a documentary about our pullout from Vietnam and our efforts to get South Vietnamese out? The fact that we waited so long to admit the war was fully lost and that we had to leave. There were people just clinging to the myth that we could still be there a little bit longer, a little bit longer. And the total logistical failure of it that people were just trying to find helicopters from anywhere in the world to get people off of the rooftop of the embassy and all the South Vietnamese that we abandoned that ended up in concentration camps. It was maybe the best war-related documentary I've ever seen in my life. I teared up. It was just incredible. It's just so horrible. And it was very reminiscent of our exit from Afghanistan as well. When you look at how many people we abandoned to the Taliban who were our collaborators who worked with us, it's heartbreaking. Yeah, it's horrific. And again, it points to this thing that we were speaking of earlier that we would think that we would know better by now, that we've learned from the horrors of the past, but apparently we haven't. There's also the realities of war that are available to you now. How much Russian Ukraine footage have you seen from people's GoPros and cell phone footage? It's insane. You get to see actual videos of war crimes, torture. I saw a guy get murdered with a sledgehammer. You're seeing people get shot when they're on the ground. You're seeing real high-resolution footage of some really horrific shit. That is what actual war is. Not this sort of sterilized, I support this because I got a flag on my Twitter bio and you go over there and do the right thing. It's a moral imperative that we support these people. That's the actual reality of what you're supporting. War is hell. It's hell. It's hell. The apocalypse exists. It just doesn't exist right here. It exists. Parts of the world, it exists. And then there's the insane fact that these people are tweeting about these things on phones that you can literally trace if you go back down the supply chain, literally made by slaves who are using materials that are pulled out of the ground in some of the most inhumane, horrific conditions on earth right now that pregnant women, women carrying their babies in their back are digging cobalt out of the ground and that's getting into your phone and that's what you're using to tweet about inequality. It's wild. But you know what? I read this book recently called In Defense of Capitalism by, I think he's like a Northern European guy. And he mentioned this episode where UNESCO banned child labor either in Pakistan or Bangladesh and did a follow up study of the kids that were no longer in those child labor factories and some crazy proportion of them had gone into child prostitution because that was their alternative. Their alternatives in life were work in the factory or sell your body. Oh my God. And so the question becomes the people working in those cobalt mines, what are their alternatives? Realistically from their perspective, what is this cobalt mine better than that they're choosing to come here if they are choosing? If they're not choosing, then they're slaves. It's a very grim reality. It's a very grim reality that's currently happening. That's one of the strangest things about these things that when they're not happening to you right now, it's very difficult to wrap your mind around what would be like if your role of the dice was you were born in Karachi or you were born in, name the place, name the troubled place on earth. You were born in Beirut. You were born wherever it is. Name that spot. You were born in Libya. Name it. Just luck. Luck of the universe of karma of whatever the fuck you want to believe. But it's just luck. If you're born in North Korea, you're fucked. You're fucked. And no one's coming to save you. And that's real. And that's real right now in 2023. And the only thing that stops that from happening is people who have good intentions making sure that we engineer a future that's better for everybody. And I don't know how you do that. How do you do that with all these different special interests? How do you do that with the military industrial complex? How do you do that with education being halfway sideways? How do you do that? How do you do that with the immigration crisis, the fucking political discourse in this country? Though despite it all, life seems to get better generation after generation if anyone you or I know talks to their grandparents. Nine out of ten. We have a better life than our grandparents. Nine out of ten. 100%. So despite all of it, the world chugs along and improves bit by bit. That's not inevitable. It can backslide. It could all end tomorrow. But we managed to make progress and that progress is important. The progress is important. It's not guaranteed. And during the time of the Mongols, it was definitely not good. And the thought is during your lifetime, it might go sideways, but ultimately it'll level back out. I feel like the stock market is something. It may. But I think sometimes that takes a long time. A long time. That's one of the things that I've become very fascinated with from my discussions with Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock is the Younger Dryas Impact Theory. And it's a theory that somewhere around 11,800 years ago, the end of the Ice Age was caused by us getting hit by comets. And it probably wiped out most civilization. And when we're looking at, when we're looking at the Mesopotamians and ancient Sumer, we're looking at a rebuilding of civilization, not the emergence of civilization, but a rebuilding of civilization. What that means to me is that from 11,800 years ago to 6,000 years ago, it was probably pretty fucking horrific. Pretty horrific for a long time. People probably barely made it. And the people that did make it were probably monsters. And then it took a long time for everything to settle back down again. And people started inventing mathematics again, start rebuilding structures, start using agriculture and all these different things that they probably had already harnessed when they were building the pyramids. They probably already harnessed all that. They were probably as advanced, if not more advanced than us, that we are is Graham Hancock. We're taking two. Yes. Graham Hancock likes to say that we're a civilization with amnesia. And that seems like archaeologists were pushing back against it for a long time, but there seem to be backing off of that now for a bunch of reasons. One because the physical evidence. There's a lot of real physical evidence of ancient cultures that were far more sophisticated than we give them credit for. Specifically, G\u00f6bekli Tepe and some of these places in Turkey, they found 11,000 year old complex stone structures back when people were supposed to be much more primitive. And they really don't know the actual dates of the pyramids. They've just carbon dated some genetic material, some material that's inside the cracks of the stones and stuff on the surface. But they don't know when they actually put it down. It's just kind of guesswork because easily it could have been work that was done thousands of years later by people who found it. Like they don't really know. I hear this said all the time. Is it now known how the pyramids were built or is it still an unknown? No idea. Not just no idea. Is there leading theory? Nope. They're all bullshit. And the thought behind it is that the real problem is some of these fucking things weighed 50, 70 tons and they were taken from quarries hundreds of miles away through the mountains. At the very most recent, what the mainstream archeologists believe was 2,500 BC. Somehow or another back then, they had the ability to move 70 ton blocks of stone through the mountains from hundreds of miles away and get it to Giza. And not just that, but build 2,300,000 of them into a perfect pyramid that points almost exactly to do north, south, east and west. And that at one point in time was covered in smooth limestone. We see now this jagged, it's because people looted it and they took the limestone off the surface of the pyramid. People are monsters. They found this thing that far more intelligent people built a long fucking time ago and they rummage through it and stole shit. But whoever those people were and whatever they did and how they did it and how long ago they did it, what they did we can't do today, no matter what anybody says. I think the number was if they cut and placed 10 stones a day, it would take you 600 plus years to make one pyramid. 10 of these massive stones that they move into place 4,000 plus years ago, at least. Like how? How'd you do it? No one knows. No one knows. It's all guess worth. They don't even know what they did, how they cut it. They only had supposedly had copper tools back then. They don't know how they cut those things. They don't know how they move them. There's evidence of drill marks. There's all these different pieces of stone that looks like a tubular diamond drill has gone into it. They don't know what the fuck that is. So Graham Hancock's theory is then that this was an advanced civilization that got destroyed? Yeah, not just his, but many people now are coming on board with this. But there's also core samples. They've taken core samples of Earth and when they get to that point in time at 11,800 years ago they find high levels of iridium in certain parts of the Earth, which is very common in space and very rare on Earth. They also find nano diamonds that come from impacts and I think they call it tritonite or trinitite, like after the Trinity bomb, because when they detonated the Trinity bomb they found this same sort of micro glass because of the explosion. It's just an extreme amount of energy slamming into dirt and it makes these micro diamonds. And they find those also at that level of 11,800 years. And they think it was not just that one time. They think it probably happened again somewhere around 10,000 years ago as well, maybe multiple times throughout history. And they think it's also the same comet storm that we passed through that led to the Tunguska event. Do you know about that? I think that was in the 1920s. There was an area of Siberia where I think it was like more than a million acres of trees were devastated. And what they think happened was we passed through that comet shower and something blew up in the environment upon reentry, upon entry into our environment, into our atmosphere and blew up over. It didn't actually impact, but it detonated above it. And I think to this day it's still flattened. To this day, I don't think there's trees there. Why would it detonate above it? Just on reentry sometimes they blow up, shooting stars. When you see a shooting star and it gets really bright and then it stops, it's because it's burned up upon entry. But something might be so big that when it burns up upon entry, it just explodes. And this Tunguska event, there's wild speculation. I was listening to a Radiolab podcast where there was a scientist who was speculating that perhaps it was a very tiny black hole that impacted the Earth. But there's a lot of debate as to whether or not that's valid. I don't know. I'm not smart enough to understand that. But they do believe that that time that the Tunguska event happened coincides with the time where Earth goes through this regular period of comet activity. Because we pass through this comet cloud. I think it's every November and every June. See if you can find that Tunguska thing. Because I think to this day it's still flattened. It just devastated this area. Wow. And it's pretty wild when you see the original pictures of it. All these trees are just flattened. That's what it looks like now still to this day. Which is crazy. But if you look at the other images of what it looked like when they discovered it after it happened, I mean just imagine. So you have this dense forest. If you see that black and white, excuse me Jamie, the color image again. The color image of what it looks like now. Now imagine what it looked like back then. Well that whole area was covered with trees too. And something detonated they think right above it. And it just boom. Just flattened out everything. Wow. Yeah, so it was 1908. That's what it was. And they think that this has happened many, many, many times in Cuban history. They found these big impact sites in Greenland. They found them off the coast of Australia. They found these things obviously where the dinosaurs died off of Mexico. That happens. That's a thing that happens. When it does happen, we get knocked back into the fucking stone age. And the same thing could happen with nuclear war. It could be the same thing. Same kind of thing where we reach this incredible level of sophistication. But everything that our sophistication is based on in terms of your ability to acquire that information is all either electronic or paper. All that stuff is like so easy to destroy. It's like if we didn't have computers, if we died, if there was some walking dead type situation, and all the people that run computers and all the people that run the power grid, they all die. And then we have these hard drives four, 500 years from now. They're not going to be worth anything anymore. They're going to be gone. They're going to be laying around. They won't feed us. You can't light them on fire to cook food over. So we're just going to leave them on the ground. And those things are going to rot. And they're just going to disappear. And the earth's going to swallow them up. And there's going to be no evidence of them. Just completely be absorbed by the earth. And that's probably why we don't find anything from whatever the technology was that these people had that they were able to invent the parents. Because whatever the fuck they had, there's these bizarre stones where it looks like they've somehow in other scooped out sections of stone that it looks like it was done with some unknown technology. They speculated all sorts of different things. Different kinds of energy systems that they would have used to cut this stone in this manner. But some of the stones in the Great Pyramid are cut so precisely you can't even get fucking a razor blade in between them. And they just stacked these things on top of each other and made this perfect structure. It's amazing that there's no leading theory. They have theories, but they're kind of war shit. But there's no theories that everyone agrees on because they're so likely. It's almost like this civilization may be... Because of your civilization that's so advanced that you want to leave evidence of yourself, no matter what happens, no matter what happens, it's going to be around. Because this is so crazy. Even if we do get hit by meteors, even if we survive, this will still be here. And then people go, oh, we're not the first. We're a rebuilding. We're a rebuilding. What they did in Africa is above and beyond what we do today in the wildest ways. In the wildest ways. Have you seen people... There's all these demonstrations. There's a guy named Bright Insight who has a YouTube channel. And he's got just a bunch of stuff on the mysteries of these ancient civilizations and what they were able to accomplish. But he's got this whole series of things like people trying to move 30 ton rocks and how insanely impossible it is. Like them putting them on dump trucks and the trucks fall over, trying to place them in the back of pickup trucks as suspensions explode. The most sophisticated machinery we have today, if you had to move a 70 ton block of stone 500 miles through the mountains, good luck. Good luck. Tell me how you did it. Tell me how you did it. You didn't even make a road. You didn't even make a massive road and have these impossibly large metal machines to move this thing. What did you do? You put logs on the ground and you guys rolled it through the mountains. And how many times did you do it? You did it 2,300,000 times? How long did that take? How'd you cut them? What were you using? How'd you figure out how to make it perfect north, south, east and west? Why does it have portals in it that stare at the sun through an summer solstice where it like lines up with like... Yeah, that's nuts. It's nuts. They were so advanced. They were so advanced. It's a fantastic series called Magical Egypt by this guy that he'd been on my podcast twice. He's gone now, unfortunately. But his name was John Anthony West. And he was sort of an alternative Egyptologist. It wasn't like formally trained it, but became obsessed with it and learned like so much about the mysteries of these ancient cultures and how insanely sophisticated they were and how they have hieroglyphs that date back 40,000 plus years of history. So they depict these kings that modern Egyptologists say, oh, that's just fantasy. They're just making that up. Don't pay attention to that. Pay attention to the stuff from the time period where we tell you it happened. Because they talk about kings and people that lived 40,000 years ago. I think they were probably right. I think that's probably real. I think they probably had some sort of memory of how this all got done. And they probably lost all of it over time and all of it due to catastrophe and who knows war. They were conquered by the Nubians. All sorts of things happened to Egypt. And now it's just like, just guessing. But this thing, these structures, they're so insane that you just look at them and go, how? I gotta learn more about this. It's wild stuff. It's what the whole Egypt is called. Yeah, it's a fantastic documentary. But just if I could recommend to anybody discussing it, it's Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock. And Graham has, I always fuck this up. It's ancient apocalypse, right? On Netflix? Yes. And it's a whole series about the evidence that points to ancient civilizations that we can't explain. And we don't know who built this. Why is it here? How is it so sophisticated? And where did this culture go? We know about the Mayans, right? We don't know how they built that stuff. But we do know that they were probably wiped out by plague. It was probably European settlers came down here and gave them diseases they had no immunity to. And it wiped them out. Just like it wiped out 90% of Native American populations. Native Hawaiians too. Yes. So we know that that's probably what was the end of the Mayan civilization, but we have no fucking idea. Like, what prompted them to do that? I went to Chichen Itza and you just look around and you go, whoa, what did you do? How did you guys do this? You're doing something that people in other parts of the world have no, like people in Europe, they weren't doing anything like that. They're making shit out of fucking bricks and stuff and stupid ends, you know? And these people are making these immense structures out of stone and dedicating them to the cosmos. It's wild stuff. Yeah. I love these things where there just is no theory yet. Yeah. I mean, the one I pay most attention to is consciousness. I have lots of philosophers on my podcast. It was my major in college. There's no leading theory of why it is that human beings are conscious as opposed to mere robots, mere lifelike robots. There's no, there's nothing agreed upon. There's no, you know, we're in the pre Darwin days with respect just to this problem. There's no one solved it. And what is it? And is it local? Is it a part of you or are you an antenna? We don't know. There's no theory. I mean, there are theories, but similar to the pyramid, there's nothing agreed upon because there's no evidence that strongly, no evidence or even logic that strongly favors one theory or the other. It's fascinating that people always say it's the mind, but my thought was always been like, imagine if there was a machine and this machine did all these incredible things, but you realize this machine was plugged into the wall. And if you pull that plug out, the machine stopped working. Like, oh, well that's the brain right there. Because you pull that out, it doesn't work anymore. We blow someone's brains out. They can't think anymore. But is that because the brains are where they're thinking or is it possible that the brain is receiving consciousness? That consciousness is something that's just a part of the universe and that we are the embodiment of it in a physical, biological form, but we're just kind of tuning into it. And we're using the mind, we're using the human brain to tune that in like a radio. It's kind of close to the idea of panpsychism, right? Which is, it's as respected now, a theory as all of the other theories, which is just that consciousness is in every atom in microcosm. And when you put enough atoms together in some kind of way, you get advanced consciousness. But by that logic, the table would have some rudimentary form of consciousness. It would just be nothing like an animal, nothing like a dog, which is nothing like a human. And as nuts as that sounds, it is on a par with all of the other theories. None of the other theories have more evidence for them than that one. It's a deep mystery that science, despite its enormous successes over the past 400, 500 years, is no closer to an answer about now than it was a hundred years ago. But isn't that always the case? If you stopped and think about what life would be like if you lived before they understood that viruses existed, or what caused them, or what bacteria was, what caused infections, when surgeons didn't even wash their hands, they didn't even know. They didn't have any idea. Their understanding of what these things are was based entirely on what people had already figured out. And they couldn't imagine a world where... Imagine if you lived before bacteria was discovered. Imagine a world where someone tried to explain to you. Now there's like these little tiny invisible things. That's what's fucking you up. Like, what are you talking about, dude? You need a microscope, you see him. A microscope. But Philip Goff, who's a philosopher, he made a very good point to me because I made that exact same argument to him. He said, isn't this just another one of the big paradigm shifts that we've had? And he made the good point, which is that the whole idea of science is premised on what is observable, what you can empirically observe. All of the great discoveries of science in one or another form have been based on observable evidence. Even things that are too small to see, they have effects that can be measured and we can test different theories by looking at observable things. Consciousness is about the unobservable. And so in some deep way, science was not designed to answer the question. You wouldn't know that I was conscious if you couldn't tell that you were conscious and you extend the courtesy, the analogy to me. I figure Coleman's conscious. He's a thing like me. There's something it feels like to be this flesh. So I'm going to assume that there's something it's like to be Joe Rogan. The lights are on in there and it's not just, you're not just a humanoid robot that has advanced AI, but there's no feeling. How does science deal with a problem like that? Because the evidence of consciousness is unobservable from the outside. By definition, I cannot observe that you're conscious. You just know it because you know it. That's not like other scientific problems we've solved. It makes it in principle much more difficult of a question to solve. Because what would an answer even look like? And yet it's kind of the most interesting question from my perspective. Indeed. Yeah, what is it? What is it? Because according to the laws of physics, the laws of chemistry, everything that is known in biology, chemistry, and physics, there is no reason why we should be feeling something in addition to doing stuff. You know? Doesn't it motivate you to do more stuff? You can create a robot that has the incentive structure of motivation without the feeling. Right. For example. But you'd have to create it. But you'd have to be a thing that understood those things in order to create it. The assumption is that through evolution, there's been determining factors that favored that sort of thinking and behavior. Because those determining factors allowed you to create tools, shelter, devise strategies to avoid problems you've experienced in the past, and that all this would be beneficial to passing on your genes. Yes. But why does evolution have to come with this additional thing of having feelings? Right. But why does it have to? Bacteria evolve. Viruses evolve. How do feelings motivate behavior? And doesn't behavior motivate innovation? All those things sort of work in conjunction to make sure we keep progressing. Yeah, they do. But this extra variable of consciousness is not necessary for any of that. You could build a robot that hunted. In principle, the laws of physics allow for that you could build a robot that hunted and tried to procreate and did all this kind of stuff, but there's nobody home. Well, that's animals. That's what we like to think about with predators. We like to think about it. Probably, I assume animals have some rudimentary feeling. Right, but if we get down to certain really ancient creatures like crocodiles, we don't assume that. We assume crocodiles. If you've ever seen a video, there's a lady that's feeding crocodiles. She's throwing chickens into this crocodile pit. No. And this one crocodile reaches over and grabs the other crocodile's foot and just bites it and does a gator roll and just snaps his foot off and chokes it back and swaddles it. And he doesn't even budge. He doesn't even budge. Like that thing is the thing you're talking about. That's like the biological robot that just consumes. Watch this. This lady's throwing the food out there. So watch. This crocodile dives on it and this one just grabs that guy's foot and look, spins, pops the foot off. Oh my God. And then just chokes it down. Look at that. Because he thinks it's food. And the other one doesn't even budge. And I think they regenerate. Do crocodiles regenerate limbs? They may regenerate. A lot of foot, but maybe a... No, let me see. Certain really primitive animals regenerate, which is pretty fucking wild. Like you chop their hand off a new one and it grows back. Do crocodiles do that? No. No. What animals do regenerate? Some lizards can regrow their tails. Not all of them. None can regrow their limbs. Interesting. So it's only tails. I wonder what tails... Now this says alligators are now the largest species known to regrow. This is from the Smithsonian. Okay. So is it saying regrow limbs? Young gators can sprout new tails that reach up to nine inches. New tails, young ones. Regrow severed. Now this says it says regrow severed limbs right on top. Yeah. This is now the largest species known to regrow severed limbs. It's not a crocodile though, but... But it's gators. I think they're pretty similar. Despite being reptiles, little is known about whether or not alligators could regenerate their thick, massive tails. Gators can reach 15 feet in length, weigh up to 1,000 pounds, so regrowing a tail is no small feat. But in a surprising new discovery, scientists found that young American alligators can regrow their tails up to nine inches or around 18% of their body length. What does it say about their limbs though? Are they considering a tail a limb? Is that why they're saying it that way? I guess, yeah. And this is even saying that one might have started regrowing away from the body or it was in a pickle jar. Look at this. Further analysis revealed that the tail had grown back after it was severed. Using a high-tech imaging technologies and traditional dissection, the researchers found that the gator's tail regrew cartilage, connective tissue, and skin instead of bone and skeletal muscle. The findings revealed that American alligators have more regenerative abilities than mammals says that mammals. Oh, that, oh, I see that mammals, which usually grow nerves, skin and blood vessels, but less than lizards, which can sprout entirely new, perfect tails with skeletal muscle. So lizards can grow a real new tail. So they're smaller. That's what it is. But can lizards regrow limbs? I don't think it's the same thing other than tails. Yeah. So they're saying limbs, but they really just mean tails. It's all in my suppose, but yeah, I'll see it. I believe there's an animal that regrows limbs, which is fucking wild. I think Octopi do. Do they? Yeah, I think so. I never watched that. Lobsters, yeah, lobsters do. That's right. That's one of the reasons why they chop lobsters claws off and throw them back in the water. Because they can regrow them? Yeah, they'll do that with crabs too. They just chop their claws off. See you, bitch. Throw them back in the water and then they grow more claws. To my point, why isn't your spleen conscious? Maybe it is. Maybe your entire body is one conscious entity and when you cut things out of it, it fucks up the system. Maybe your spleen has its own point of view. Where it's like, oh, I'm Coleman spleen. He doesn't really know about me. I'm doing my best to do my stuff and I feel things and I'm working for him. I'm going to work hard today but I'm going to work less hard if I finish this. Well, there's a lot of observable data about gut bacteria and human behavior. Yeah. Yeah. And there's gut bacteria linked to depression, linked to all sorts of ailments and mental disorders which is fascinating. Because if you have a disruption of the organisms that live inside of you, who knows how many ... Someone said once that there's more E. coli living in your gut than there have ever been humans ever. Yeah. And so there's bacteria that exists in your body. You're like this host of life. And whether or not that is healthy bacteria or unhealthy can determine the way you think. It can determine cravings for sure. Like the type of gut bacteria. What is that stuff that there's a certain type of gut bacteria that people get when they eat too much sugar? It makes you want more sugar. Candida. Yeah. Wild. So what do you take for gut bio? Well, I think there's probiotics that you can take that can mitigate some of those issues but it's also a healthy diet and feeding yourself the correct foods because you want your body to have the real building blocks to be healthy and to regrow tissue instead of just stuffing your face with stuff that tastes good. Which gets you addicted to that. It's weird empty calories filled with sugar but so addictive and so bizarre that that's a normal part of the human diet. Some study recently said that something like 40% of the American diet is processed food which is just nuts. I was drinking this Alulose stuff recently. What's that? Alulose, they have it in the Soylent. It's what makes Soylent sweet. It's an alternative sugar but it basically causes diarrhea to everyone at some dose. So for me it caused diarrhea if I had drank two. Two gets diarrhea. Two gets diarrhea. One you're good. My girlfriend gets diarrhea once it. Wow. And everyone just has a threshold and also my understanding is it's not approved at all in Europe. So when I learned that I just said I should probably cool off on this not drink it every day until we have a little more information that this is okay in the long run but it tastes great and it's not technically sugar. So they can say Soylent has zero sugar but tastes amazing. And this feels too good to be true. My mother told me whenever something sounds too good to be true it probably is. So I stopped drinking it although it's really good. Do you know the difference between net carbs and actual carbs? You know they're allowed to say things like net carbs. Net of what? Yeah, exactly. So if you look at something and it's like oh this only has like two grams of net carbs. Are there negative carbs that are being? No, no it's not that. It's just there's other factors. Like net carbs like outside of sugar, outside of this other. But how does your body process it? Net carbs I think, find out if this is true. I think it was a phrase that was invented by Atkins when they were doing the Atkins diet. When they were trying to label things in terms of like they were trying to make things more low carb seeming. But I think it's kind of a deceptive term. Someone was explaining online and I just glanced at it really quickly and I didn't get the deep dive on it. But is that what it is? According to the Washington Journal, Atkins coined the phrase. In 2001, the sidestep guidelines. Yeah. So Atkins coined the phrase net carbs back in 2001. Sidestep the FDA's existing guidelines. Atkins labels will drop the term net carbs. So what is net carbs? Okay, the concept net carbs is first introduced in 2002 when researchers, when research demonstrated fiber had a minimal impact on blood sugar. So is it carbs minus fiber then? I think so. What does it say? When a carb is not a carb, the net carb debate. Click on that. Okay. When is a carb not a carb? That's the question many carb conscious dieters now facing as they struggle to keep their carb counts within the strict limits recommended by Atkins and other low carb diets. In an effort to cash in on the low carb craze, food manufacturers had invented a new category of carbohydrates known as net carbs, which promises to let dieters eat the sweet and creamy foods they crave without suffering the carb consequences. But the problem is that there's no legal definition of the net active or impact carbs popping up on food labels and advertisements. The only carbohydrate information regulated by the FDA is provided in the nutrition facts labels, which lists total carbohydrates and breaks them down into dietary fiber and sugars. Any information or claims about carbohydrate content that appear outside that box have not been evaluated by the FDA. The terms have been made up by food companies says, Wahindah Carmali, Dr. Ph. R. D., director of nutrition at the Irving Center for Clinical Research at Columbia University. It's a way for the manufacturers of these projects to draw products, to draw attention to them and make them look appealing by saying, look, you can eat all these carbs, but you're really not impacting your health, so to speak. While the number of products touting net carbs continues to grow, nutrition experts say the science behind these claims is fuzzy and it's unclear whether counting net carbs will help or hurt weight loss efforts. So what's a net carb? The concept of net carbs is based on the principle that not all carbohydrates affect the body in the same manner. Some carbohydrates like simple or refined starches and sugars are absorbed rapidly and have a high glycemic index meaning they cause blood sugar levels to quickly rise after eating. Excess simple carbohydrates are stored in the body as fat. Examples include potatoes, white bread, white rice and sweets. Other carbohydrates such as fiber found in whole grains, fruits and vegetables move slowly through the digestive system and much of it isn't digested at all, which is insoluble fiber. Also in these categories of largely indigestible carbohydrates are sugar alcohols such as mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol and other polyols, which are modified alcohol molecules that reassemble sugar. These substances are commonly used as artificial sweeteners. In calculating net carbs, most manufacturers take the total number of carbohydrates, a product containing and subtract fiber and sugar alcohols because these types of carbohydrates are thought to have minimal impact on blood sugar levels. So for example, the label on Power Bar's new Double Chocolate Flavor Protein Carb Select Bar says it has only two grams of impact carbohydrates. The Nutrition Fact label on the product says it has 30 grams of total carbohydrates. Yes. These people are shameless. Wild. But below the NUTRITION FACT's box, the impact carb facts box provided by the manufacturer explains fiber and sugar alcohols have a minimal effect on blood sugar. For those watching their carb intake count two grams. That's 30 grams minus the bar's 27 grams of sugar alcohol and one gram of fiber. But the researchers say that the impact of sugar alcohols on blood sugar levels and the body is not fully understood. And they may also cause problems in some people. There's some sugar alcohols that can raise your blood sugar, says Carmali. Certain sugar alcohols do have a higher glycemic index and they are still not counted as carbohydrates by these companies. Yeah, this is shameless. I mean. It's wild. It's a wild term. Yeah. It does remind me though of what we were talking about earlier with the opioid scandal and OxyContin. They came up with this notion of breakthrough pain. Yeah. Which instead of saying that OxyContin doesn't prevent pain for 10 hours, right? That was their 10 or 12 hours, I guess was their original claim. Instead of admitting that that was false, they had all these people coming after three, four hours and the pain is back. Yeah. And it's horrible, back and worse than ever. Instead of admitting that it just doesn't protect you for as long as they said, they said, oh, well some patients experience breakthrough pain as if the Oxy is doing its job, but certain pain is like breaking through, right? It's blaming the pain as opposed to the drug. That's the way it's framed. Well, remember breakthrough transmissions. Yeah. Yeah. Again, this is the idea that COVID somehow broke through the defensive shield of the vaccine rather than claiming, saying it normally, which would be the vaccine doesn't prevent you from getting it again. Right. That would be the normal way to say that rather than to create a new concept of a breakthrough infection that is breaking through like a powerful warrior through the shield of this substance. It's a weird, a very backwards way of framing what's going on, right? Well it's deceptive and it's again this product of money being connected to science. Money being connected to medical science, money being connected to nutrition science. How do we make more money? Net carbs. I got this idea. Listen to this. How we call it net carbs? So even though it has 30 carbs, people would have asked too many carbs. Two net carbs. Two grams of net carbs. Ooh, I like it. Can we get away with that? Yeah, no problem. Yeah, glycemic index, a bunch of shit. Yeah, we're good. We're good. Roll it out. Roll it out. So it's not people that are objectively looking at these products and saying, well, we have to be honest about what's in here. And that total carbohydrates, no one's going to read that, bro. That's in that little thing at the bottom. That's little tiny letters. You can't even read it if you don't have eyeglasses on. The big total net carbs is like two grams in the front on the label. We're good. Most people just look at that and go, oh, two grams of carbs. I'm good to go. That's how they get you. Yeah. And what they are doing is just doing what they do. That's their game. That's the game. That's the money game. If they don't do it, they'll be replaced by someone who will. If their company doesn't do it, their company will over time lose revenue to the companies that do. Probably, if that's legal, until people recognize it like they do now. And regulate. And regulate, yeah. It's a sneaky world that's going to be solved with mind reading. We're going to fix it all. Did you ever find that commercial? The World Economic Forum cartoon about mind reading at work. We should probably end with this because it's adorable. It's so kooky. When you watch it, you just go, what? This lady is fantasizing about the guy. You see the guy with a six pack in a cartoon. And you see her coworker getting hauled off because the coworker was doing something corrupt and she was worried. She was starting a project with this guy. So it's all labeling all the reasons why you should submit to mind reading. This is going to be great. Yikes. You find it, Jamie? You remember we played it, right? Sort of. But I mean, also, if it's the same thing as the factory thing, then it's not real. No, it's a cartoon though, Jamie. I understand. You mean it's a fake cartoon? It's not real? What I was trying to say is that whatever they're trying to depict in the cartoon isn't accurate. They're just trying to scare you. No, no, no, no. What they're saying is in the future, this is what they're saying in the cartoon, what you can look forward to, not that they're doing it right now. They're saying you can look forward to when this technology is implemented, it's going to radically increase productivity. And this is how. And it's going to make people happier. And this is how. I think I have it. You got it? It's from their whole presentation. It's adorable. What do you watch it? You're like, what? I just want to know who looks at this and goes, I like it. So first off a video, it's going to make you see the future and understand a wonderful future where we can. It's wonderful, Coleman. We're going to fight fight crime, Coleman, future crime. Even you can't believe how productive you've been. Your memo is finished. Your inbox is under control and you're feeling sharper than you have in a decade. Sensing your joy, your playlist shifts to your favorite song, sending chills up your spine as the music begins to play. You glance at the program running in the background on your computer screen and notice a now familiar site that appears whenever you're overloaded with pleasure, your theta brainwave activity decreasing in the temporal regions of your brain. You mentally move the cursor to the left and scroll through your brain data over the past few hours. You can see your stress levels rising as the deadline to finish your memo approached, causing a peak in your beta brainwave activity right before an alert popped up telling you to take a brain break. But what's that unusual change in your brain activity when you're asleep? It started earlier in the month. You send a text message to your doctor with a mental swipe of your cursor. Could you take a quick look at my brain data? Nothing to worry about. Your mind starts to wander to the new colleague on your team who you know you shouldn't be daydreaming about, given the policy against intra office romance. But you can't help fantasize. No fucking way. Look at him. He's hot. Wait. Yeah, she notices. She thought about him and it popped up. Supervisor notices. When the email she sends you later that day, congratulate you on your brain metrics from the past order, which have earned you another performance bonus. You head home jamming to the music with your work issued brains and think earbuds still in work issued. Work in this somber cloud has fallen over the office, along with emails, text messages and GPS. Look at the guys with sunglasses. The government has subpoenaed employees brain. The government has sunglasses on the men in black. Compelling evidence that one of your coworkers has committed massive wire fraud. Now they're looking for his co-conspirators. You discover they are looking for synchronized brain activity between your coworker and the people he has been working with. While you know you're innocent of any crime, you've been secretly working with him on a new startup venture. Shaking you remove your earbuds. Whoa. Oh, this is who I'm talking about. Yeah. Need a fair honey. That's who I had on my podcast. Yeah. Just imagine that as being the future. Oof. That's nuts. Your supervisor notices you're thinking about something other than work. Hey, Coleman, what are you concentrating on over there? Sorry. Back to work. I saw you checking out Jessica. Back to work. Sorry. Sorry. Look, you got a performance bonus. You were a good robot. Fuck. Nita even told me about situations where a couple would go into therapy and a woman would say to the man, like, I don't know if you really love me. And they'd say, well, we can actually see how he feels when he sees your face or when he, let's put him in an ESG or FMRI and now we can confirm it. And now he's freaking out. He's like, well, do I have to play act or should I just feel what I feel or what should I be thinking? Should I try to rig this or will my love naturally come through in this sterile environment? And now they have proof that, you know, like this kind of stuff. Well, that is a sterile environment too. Just like that. The rat farm study. You know what they did with the rat park study? The heroin study? Yeah. Yeah. You think these cocaine as well? Didn't they use cocaine? But the point is that in laboratory environments, harsh, sterile laboratory environments, the rats go immediately to the drugs. They just take the drugs because they're fucking freaked out. But when you put them in a rat park, they just drink water. So the rat park has all stuff to play with. There's a lot of space, a lot of other rats are having a good time doing stuff. They don't get high. They don't get fucked up because it's a much more natural environment. Right. You scan my brain in couples therapy. I might seem like a dick. Yeah, you could. You also might not have wanted to be there. And you might be dealing with some fucking nonsense and you're like, oh my God, I can't believe I have to go here and deal with this stupid shit. And then you're hostile. And then, wait, Coleman, we're reading that you're hostile. I have things to do. This is fucking crazy. Yeah, well, hopefully we'll figure it out before we get to that reality. Hopefully we won't blow ourselves up and have thousands of years of barbaric human behavior before we restart civilization too. Yeah. Before take three. Okay. Before you leave because we've been doing this a long time. What's your take on all this UAP shit? Oh yeah. So I'm very open minded to it. When I originally read the article from David Grutch, not from him, but reporting about him and all of these other intelligence people that seem to confirm his story, I thought, this seems like the best, this seems like the most solid case for UAPs to date. Then I saw him interviewed and he seemed like a crazy guy. So I kind of, just you get that sense sometimes when you see someone actually on video. On the other hand, I have people I know that are saying because of the multiple confirmations from other respected people, former intelligence people that they take it very seriously. And I think, I don't know, I think we'll know soon. I don't know. I mean, I put the odds at like 5% when I first saw the David Grutch story drop. But then when I saw his crazy eyes, I put that down to like 1%. That's hilarious. Yeah. I think there's multiple things going on simultaneously. I think if you go back to the sightings that happened in this country, specifically the multitude of sightings that happened after we dropped the bombs, there seems to be, if they're telling the truth, there's a lot of credible sightings by high level military people, by people that claimed they shut down nuclear missile bases and that they did things that they hovered over bases and that fighter jets scrambled to go after them. All this stuff seems verifiable, that there was some sort of a phenomenon back when there was no possible technology that existed that could do that in terms of like what we could make. I don't think that's the case anymore. My feeling is there's probably real life situations where we or someone encounters something from somewhere else. I think it would be foolish to think that it's not possible. Just given the vast scope of the universe and the possibility of things existing in a much more stable environment where they don't have to worry about asteroid storms and a different kind of solar system or the different kind of life form that doesn't have all the primate issues that we have that evolves to the point where it's capable of traveling through the universe and visiting these semi-primitive cultures like ours or relatively primitive cultures. I think that's possible. I also think when the government starts telling you about out of world crafts and things not of this earth and all that, I think that's what I would say if I had some technology that we have developed that is insane. That is beyond the imagination of the Luddite, beyond the imagination of the person who doesn't understand the physics involved and whatever this propulsion system they've engineered is. People have been working on magnetic propulsion systems and gravity propulsion systems forever. At least in concept, it's entirely possible that with the unlimited amount of funds that the government has, that the military has to develop things, that somewhere they've developed some sort of a drone that's capable of moving in ways that we can't even imagine. And that's what the TIC TAC UFO is and all the other military sightings? I think they all seem to happen near where military bases are. They seem to happen off the coast of San Diego is the TIC TAC one, this big military presence in San Diego. They happen off the East Coast where they have military bases and these restricted air zones. They happen in these places where they run tests when they do training missions with jets. And that's how these fighter pirates like Ryan Graves have encountered these things. Specifically after they updated their sensors, these people have spotted things visually. They have visual confirmation. Detection systems have seen these things. But who's to say that these things aren't some sort of fucking crazy drone that we have developed that we don't want the world to know that we've developed it? So we say, oh, it's out of this world. It's crazy. UFOs, bro. That's. I hear in Brazil that they're publicly way more open to the possibility of UAPs and even the government has kind of looked into it open-mindedly. And Brazil has just been like an open conversation, a non-taboo conversation for decades. Yeah, it's very different. Also, there's a very famous sighting or event that happened in Virginia. So the town of Virginia, Brazil actually has this giant flying saucer as a monument dedicated to this event that happened in the 1990s. It's documented in the James Fox documentary, Moment of Contact. It's a great documentary because you go into it open-minded and you go, well, what did these fucking people see? Because they bring this police officer to the site of where they supposedly found this crashed thing that happened during some crazy electrical storm, something crashed. Another vehicle seemed to have been looking for it. And supposedly, according to this story and the people that were interviewed, they saw creatures. They saw this creature, one of them was injured, and this soldier took this creature to more than one different hospital. It's documented. And then that soldier died, that soldier died of some crazy bacteria infection, some crazy infection that they couldn't treat. He was a young guy and he died pretty quickly after it happened. And there's people that to this day, they're much older now and they describe when they were children and they saw this thing. They saw this living creature that had apparently been trying to communicate with him and asked them for help. That after that happened, there was another craft that came that was seen by thousands of people in this town that described this exact same thing where they saw this thing that appeared to be like looking for this crashed craft or the members that were inside, the creatures that were inside this thing. I don't know. It sounds awesome. That's what I'm scared of. What I'm scared of is I want it to be real. Right, right. That it's cool sounding. Yeah. And look, this guy, David Grutch, he says they have evidence of organic materials that are not manmade. That's a very easy claim to prove or disprove. You could send bits of it to five different labs tomorrow if anyone had it and have them all independently confirmed. But David Grutch is not saying he has any personal experience with this. This is where it makes it interesting. This is just stuff that was revealed to him, which is also how I would get out information if I wanted to put out misinformation. We know that the federal government infiltrates extremist groups and they have members ... like when the famous Gretchen Whitmer case, when they were saying that they were going to kidnap her and it turned out that 12 of the 14 people that were involved were federal informants. So 12 of the 14 people were feds that were involved in this. So if I was going to ... if I wanted to release some fake information, I would find some dude and I'd say, hey man, look at this. This is crazy. Look what we found. I want you to investigate this. And then maybe you should probably be a whistleblower. I should tell the world. You should tell the world, dude. You should tell the world. If you haven't seen it yourself, this is all just talk, you're reading documents. Maybe they're true. Maybe they're not. What fascinates me is people like Commander David Fraver that encountered that Tic Tac thing and the other fighter pilots in a different jet that encountered this. They saw this thing and they saw it take off at insane rates of speed and then they tracked it where it went to their cat point, which is their agreed upon point where this mission had very specific areas they were going to go to. This thing went directly to there. Insane rate of speed. That supposedly if there was a human being inside of it, it'd just turn into jello. And the structure would break apart. Nothing that we have can withstand that kind of g-force and that kind of speed. So what is that? What is that? Is that a propulsion system that is right now unknown to the general population? Is that something that they've been working on for a long time where they've developed this ability to get this thing to move to certain directions? Well, I know there's this guy, Mick Jenkins, you know, by him. Mick Jenkins made a series of videos and articles explaining in detail how that could all be camera error and very kind of... Mick West. Mick West. Mick Jenkins. Mick Jenkins is the rapper. I'm an idiot. Mick West. You've seen those? Yes. Yeah. But the problem is he's assuming that all of their communications that they don't know what they're seeing, that they don't know how to read their... These machines that are detecting things, that their eyes are deceiving them. They're looking at this thing physically. Either they're lying or they don't know what they're looking at. He's a non-believer-believer. You know, there's people that are just skeptics no matter what and they're not going, I don't know what that is. They're like, no, there's no way that is this. When you talk to the actual fighter pilots that have listened to his criticism of it, he doesn't know what he's talking about. That's what they say. I don't know who's telling the truth. I don't know who's correct. But I would probably believe that they understand that a thing that moves from 50,000 feet above sea level to 50 in a second is beyond comprehension. The tracking systems are accurate, which they are with everything else. They are with all the jets. There's ways to detect them or there's ways to evade them, right? That's what stealth bombers are all about. There's ways to evade certain radar systems. But there's like multiple systems and physical, like, or rather visual recognition of this thing where multiple people have seen this thing move in this very bizarre way. And then there's the video of this thing taking off at this supposed insane rates of speed. There's the go fast one that's off the coast, the East coast. These are weird things where you're like, what are they looking at? How fast is that thing going? Why does it have a heat signature? Where's the propulsion system? What is that thing? Is that just a Mylar balloon and they're stupid? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. It doesn't seem to make sense to me that they're detecting this thing that according to Ryan Graves stays motionless and 120 knot winds and then can zip off in some insane way. They don't understand what it's doing. They're seeing this. Is it a circle inside of a sphere or a sphere inside of a circle? No, I'm sorry. Is it a circle inside of a sphere or is it a circle inside of a square or a cube? Yeah, it's like a cube in a sphere. A cube inside of a sphere. So there's a translucent sphere inside of a black cube. And they keep seeing this very specific thing that behaves in this way and moves in this crazy way. Well, if they have something that can manipulate gravity and something that moves in a totally different way. If it was our government doing that, wouldn't they make sure everyone in the Air Force was clear of the area before they tested it or is it that they're not coordinated? Well maybe they want them to be able to detect it. Maybe they want to see how much they can see of these things. If it's a drone and you have these fighter pilots and if you wanted to test some super sophisticated just ultra secret technology. To see if it's undetectable by radar. Or how much of it is detectable. Let's upgrade their systems and let's send these things loose and see how often they spot them. And let's see what they can do. Can they track these things? Or are we capable of tracking them? When they do move off at like a million miles an hour, like how much can we see? What can we do? And what can we do with these things? Like maybe right now they can't use them in terms of like maybe there's not some sort of a military way to use it. They just fly real fast. So maybe they're still in some sort of a stage of development. And if something is moving at that insane speed maybe you can only have it made out of a certain thing. Maybe you can't put weapons on it. Maybe you can't put electronics on it. Maybe you can only make it move around. I don't know. But the whole thing that it's definitely from another world, if they're telling me it's from another world, I'm like, you know, you guys aren't square about anything. Why would you be square about that? It's definitely more likely to be from our world. More likely. More likely. At the same time, I think most people that believe life is biological and that God didn't start at all and Earth isn't special would acknowledge there's probably life out there. Yeah. Most likely. Most likely. And if it's advanced, it would be curious. Just like we're curious. Yeah. So that's why I don't rule it out. Like I said, I always assign it very low probability because the odds are things that are crazy and on Earth are created by us and we just haven't found out about that yet. But I don't rule out the extraterrestrial source. For me, it's a frustrating distraction. It's like less frustrating than social media. It's less frustrating than scrolling through Instagram, but equally unsatisfying. We're like, what is that? What am I wasting my time paying attention to? Show me some shit or leave me alone. I'm not going to be the one to figure it out. No. No. No. Well, listen, man, thank you very much for your time. Yeah, my pleasure. I really appreciate you very much and I appreciate the way you think about things. Oh, thanks. Really intelligent, very objective and just measured and I think you're an important voice out there. Thanks, Joe. I really appreciate that. And tell everybody how they can listen to you more. Yeah, listen to my podcast Conversations with Coleman. I release an episode a week. I write for the free press and for my own sub stack called Coleman's Corner.