Joe Rogan podcast.

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

Good to see you, my friend.

Oh, good to see you, man.

Strange times we're living in.

The strangest and getting stranger.

Didn't some shit go down today? Didn't we steal the president of Venezuela's plane? Yeah, I think we just stole his plane.

I didn't.

No, not us.

Okay, good.

The United States.

All right.

Which is kind of an act of war. What is that?

Was he in it?

I don't think so. No. I think we just stole his plane.

Carl, just like, for a joy ride.

What's the story? US seizes Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro's airplane in the Dominican Republic. So we said, nope, we're stealing that. How does that work? Even if you don't get along with, like, a president of a country, how disrespectful is it to steal their plane?

You're right. It's an act of war.

Imagine if Xi Jinping landed somewhere and we're like, we're gonna steal your fucking plane. Yeah, no chance. That's a bully move. That's a move you can only do to a country like Venezuela.

Yes. Well, I'm trying to remember exactly what the story was, but there was a point where Ecuador was acting very courageously with respect to Julian Assange, and there was a question about whether the president of Ecuador could fly Assange out so that he could be outside of the embassy and inside of Ecuador proper. And I believe the reasoning was they couldn't do it because they expected the plane to be forced down. Same issue.

So this says. Merrick Garland said that the Justice Department seized an aircraft we allege was illegally purchased for $13 million through a shell company and smuggled out of the United States for use by Nicholas Madura and his cronies. What business is that of ours, though? This is what I don't understand. Like, if it was purchased through a shell company, then it was purchased.

Right. And was there. Was there a trial that established that this was ill gotten gained?

It says, smuggled out of the United States. The plane was purchased from a company in Florida, the Justice Department said, and was illegally exported in April 2023 from the United States to Venezuela through the Caribbean. So we not allowed to sell them planes? Is that what it is like? Because we have a problem with them. Would they say how much it costs? $13 million?

Yeah.

Okay. So he's got this $13 million plane, a Dassault Falcon 900 ex, since been used to fly almost exclusively to and from military base in Venezuela. Justice Department said CNN reached out to venezuelan government. Just. Huh. It seems like, though, that's like that's. There's more to it than. That plane was illegal. You shouldn't have that plane. For years, officials have sought to disrupt the flow of billions of dollars to the regime. Homeland security investigations, the second largest investigative agency in the federal government, has seized dozens of luxury vehicles, among other assets headed to Venezuela. So there's a us sanction? So there's a sanction. This is it. The plane was seized in violation of us sanctions. With Venezuela and other criminal matters that we're looking at regarding this aircraft, they're gonna find a reason to keep it. Like they stole all those boats from all those russian cats. Sorry, you're too rich. And you know Putin. So give me your vote.

Well, that's the thing, is, there's a hidden story for everything, and this is about, you know, incentivizing the world, and we and the public don't get to know the real story.

Don't you think? Now, though, most people, I feel like genuinely, most people are aware there's more to the story. Every story, everything in the news, every time something comes up, people are like, what's the whole story here?

Well, you know, I coined this term the cartesian crisis. And the cartesian crisis basically means the point at which you can't really be certain of anything. And the problem is, yes, I do think people are catching on to the fact that they never know the real story. But the response to that is either that you start believing the bullshit that they tell you, or that you just become cynical and stop believing anything. And neither of those are functional ways to exist.

And both those ways are good for the people that are running scams.

Exactly. They're good for the people who want to maintain power. Because it just keeps us back on our heels.

Yeah, because if you don't know what's true and what's not true, you're like, oh, geeze. You know, and then you get cynical. Oh, it's all bullshit. This whole system is rigged. Then you just go fishing.

Right. And that's the thing people don't understand, is at the point that you think you're striking a blow by checking out of their system, you're actually doing them a favor.

Right. It's actually beneficial to them, because then you have a smaller number of people that are voting. So essentially, in the 2020 elections, it was the largest ever win. Right. The Democrats got 80 something million votes, which is. So let's say. Let's say even if it was 50 50. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 million people, how many people are women and children? I mean, how many people are children? Women can vote. What am I saying? How many people are children, rather.

Oh, geez, I have no idea.

On the percentage under 18, it's probably in the 30%. So that's a pretty high turnout.

Yes. If that was even real.

If it was real.

Yeah. That's the problem we have there.

And that's the problem with the whole cynical game, because I'm not convinced. You know why I'm not convinced? Because everybody wants me to be convinced when they, like, yell at you. If you ask a question like, hey, one of the things that I've always said, and everyone sort of agrees with this. I mean, literally everyone, even people that think that the election was 100% legitimate, the percentage of voter fraud is never zero. Correct. And they're always like, yes, no one can say it's zero. It's not zero. There's a bunch of slippery people that get arrested on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats get arrested for election fraud. It's a real crime, the idea that they commit all these other acts of fraud and deception. But when it comes to elections, Brett, that's a sacred institution that we don't violate at any cost.

Yep. Well, and the way they maintain that story is by ruthlessly punishing anybody who questions it, even though questioning it is the obvious thing to do.

Right.

Because for one thing, elections used to be different, as you remember. Right. First of all, you used to vote in person, and voting by mail was something you were very reluctant to do because you knew that if your vote got counted, it was going to be very late in the process. It wasn't really going to matter.

It was mostly for soldiers serving overseas.

Right, exactly. It was for people who just simply couldn't vote in person. And it never really mattered, except in very rare cases, the disappearance of that and the normalization of voting by mail, the normalization of voting across a period of time so that you're not all voting on the same day. And the absence of exit polls. Right. When everybody's voting from home or wherever, you can't detect fraud by virtue of the fact that the count that came in from that precinct didn't match what the exit pollrs registered.

Right.

And so, you know, I don't think we are wrong to imagine that we have lost the ability to check whether an election is fair and that that's not an accident. That leaves the possibility open to cheat. And as you point out, they cheat in every other way. Are we supposed to believe that they won't do that because their patriotism is so deep? I don't see any patriotism to them at all.

Well, not only that, they've established this narrative that it's imperative that the democrats win to save democracy. So they've already made all of these statements that would. It's more important for them to win than anything. More important than anything. More important than having primaries, more important than letting the people decide who the representative is. More important than having, like, live, actual conversations, interviews that aren't edited on CNN and said they have a 40 plus minute one that's edited down to 18 minutes. Like what?

Well, and we just went through this with them over Covid. Yeah, we know that when they think they're in the right, they feel entitled to lie about everything. They feel entitled to coerce. And so the idea that we're supposed to imagine that our elections are somehow different to them, I can't imagine how that would even work.

It doesn't make any sense. And it's. It's one of those things, again, that you're. You're forced into agreeing with just out of fear because people get very aggressive with it. Just like people were super aggressive about the vaccine. You know, I hate seeing people die because they made a poor choice. But there's something insane about how many people were, like, pro vaccine advocates that were shaming people and angry at people. And now they're dead. And they're not dead because they ran their time and they got old and they died. And, you know, it's unfortunate, but it happens to all of us. Uh uh. No, they're dead young. Like a lot. A lot of people. Not one, not 20. We don't even know what the real numbers are because it's not something the mainstream media covers because they've all been vaccinated, too, and they're probably freaking the fuck out, too.

Yeah, it's a huge number of people. We can detect that statistically. The trouble is that it's hard in any individual case to know whether or not you're looking at something that would have happened anyway.

Right?

You remember John Ritter?

Yes.

From three's company?

Sure.

Died of a. I work with him. Ruptured. Oh, you did?

Yeah. Did an episode of news radio with him. Super nice guy.

Good guy. Yeah, I got that impression. Anyway, he died of a ruptured aorta, if I remember correctly. Long before there was Covid vaccines.

Right.

So the point is if that had happened last year, right. We'd all be saying, come on. Of course, he's in Hollywood. He got faxed, and now look at him.

Yep.

So it happens 100%. Right. The rate at which it's happening has changed radically.

Exactly.

And the very people who say, oh, that's not the vaccine are very uninterested in figuring out what it is. So, you know, let's put two and two together.

Well, they don't even want to consider the vaccine, which is so crazy. If you called it anything else, if it wasn't called the vaccine, if it wasn't for Covid, okay, let's. Because Covid became so. It became so politicized, and it was, like, culturally so polarizing. Let's pretend it was for something else. And there was some medication, and the people that were taking that medication were dropping like flies. They would 100% make a correlation, and they would make it publicly, and it would be in the news. Of course, it might not actually be in the news today, because this is part of the problem with what we're dealing with, with advertising and the media, is that there's so much revenue that comes from pharmaceutical drug companies that there's just a reality about them reluctant to print or put any stores on television that are negative. There's too much money involved.

Right. There's too much money involved. And it becomes impossible to override this narrative. The narrative takes on a reality of its own, even though it is contradicted by the facts. And we, you know, our scientific tools are. They're tremendously powerful at discovering patterns like this. It's not difficult to do. And yet we deliberately avoid using them in the ways that they were intended.

Do you think in the future we'll look back on this and there'll be some sort of a. Some sort of a shift in the way we discuss it? You know, there's a lot of things in history that during the time where they were happening, I'm sure people were all like the McCarthy era, you know, I'm sure people thought it was very important to root out these communists, but they didn't exactly understand, like, hey, you're calling a lot of people communists that aren't even communists. You're going after people that just went to meetings to find out what's going on. The world didn't exactly understand what that even meant back then. We look back at it now. The red scare is like a negative thing. It's a dangerous sort of negative aspect of our history.

Yeah. Although I'm sure you're having the same experience where lots of stuff that you learned as a clear narrative, like, you know, the red scare took over people, and it was like a witch hunt. And the answer is actually more nuanced than that. There was more truth to it than I was taught. Right. The Rosenbergs really were guilty of passing secrets to the Russians.

Oh, yeah. There definitely was a lot of that.

So, you know, it's a mixed story.

Right.

You asked the question, though, if in the future, we're gonna have a different conversation about what's taking place, and I just want to put a little placeholder there. The answer kind of depends if there is a future. And I worry a lot that not only are we headed into chaos, but that we are going to be denied the ability to have a proper historical account of the present, that we are never going to understand what these stories were doing, why they played out the way they did, you know, why people disappeared when they did. And that. That's not healthy. You need to be able to create a record. It's never going to be perfect, but you need to be able to create a record of what took place that has been exposed to some kind of analytical standard so that you can correct your course. If you don't know what happened, you can't improve on your thought process going forward. And that's extremely dangerous. It's like, you know, flying with a blindfold.

Yeah, that's a great way to put it. And I'm glad you did point out the fact that there were really things. The red scare is a weird example, because people would like to kind of dismiss the impact that communists, especially Russia, was having on our government. And there was a pretty big impact. I mean, they did steal the plans for the nuclear bomb. There's a lot of shit that happened because of actual communist interference. But the narrative when I was in high school was that the red scare was bad. It was like everybody went crazy. They were all looking for, which was true, too. But that's part of the problem when you don't know, like back then, no Internet, very little paper trail. It's really hard to find out who's talking to who unless you get an actual listening device in the room and capture them talking.

Yeah, we can't know. And it's important to get your comeuppance on these stories. You grow up comfortable that you understand what happened during the red scare. One day you're doing a little reading, and you discover the story just isn't the one you were taught. And the more stories you dig into the more frequently that happens.

Well, if you just get one good one, you're hooked. For me, it was the Kennedy assassination. One good book on the Kennedy assassination, I was like, God damn it, they killed the fucking president. It freaked me out forever. That was like, I literally had a giant shift in how I viewed the world after reading that book, because before that, I was never a questioner of whatever was in the news or whatever the narrative was that we were being told about anything.

Well, but, I mean, I have exactly the same reaction to that story, and I've been down that rabbit hole, and I think you're just ultimately left with a question. Something happened in 1963. That's before either of us were born. Right, right. That thing was either an anomaly that robbed the nation of a president, and the nation continued to be a democratic republic in the aftermath of it, or that was interference with democracy. And we don't know how to look at all of the seemingly democratic things that have happened since. How much of what has happened since are the people who took control with that assassination? How much is them continuing to maintain control with? A certain amount of democracy. And how much was that an aberration that then returned us to our normal course?

That's a good point. A certain amount of democracy.

A certain amount. There's clearly a certain amount.

Yeah. Well, which is one of the reasons why they're so terrified of Trump. There's a certain amount of stealing they can do. If. Let's imagine if it is dirty and you really can manipulate elections, how much can you manipulate by. Can you manipulate it by 30%? We don't know. And as long as they can have you believing in the polls, this is what's really important. Polls. Kamala Harris is up by 3%. Oh, she's up. She's winning. Who the fuck are you talking to? Who are you talking to?

Right, you're not talking to me. What narrative is it in which Kamala has done something that might have caused a surge in her popularity? Like, I didn't see it.

Well, some magic. It's like, you know, there's that theory, that concept about multiple dimensions, multiple universes that we all. Multiverse.

Sure.

Yeah. This possibility that there's infinite numbers of universes all around us all the time, and we enter into a different timeline. We entered into a different timeline. Well, clearly, I mean, something happened to.

I think the multiverse thing is nonsense. I think it's an accounting scheme for figuring out how to deal with the fact that actually the universe is not deterministic, which people wrestle with. Because we don't exactly know why it isn't. But to your point about how much can they cheat? I call that factor, which none of us can put a number on. Maybe they can. I call it the cheat factor. Right. The cheat margin. And one of the things that I'm trying to convince people of is that it's not hopeless because they can cheat, but it means that you have to succeed at a level that exceeds their capacity to erase it.

Right. So that's what we're talking about. So we're talking about, like, maybe they can cheat by 10%.

Right. And what we know, and I think, actually we owe trump a huge debt of gratitude for proving something that I couldn't have told you if it was true before he won the presidency, which is, is there still enough democracy left in the system for something to upend the plan? Right. Cause he was clearly off narrative.

Right.

And he did become president, so he, you know, he did something for us that I don't know anybody else who could have done it.

Yeah. It would take a person with that kind of personality that could withstand that kind of abuse. Cause he didn't freak out at all when they went after him. He was like, just brushed it off like it was nothing. And no one's done that. He's also the only guy that's ever gone through four years and didn't age. Like, he went through 30 years.

That's true.

He aged normal. Yeah, he's used to it. He's used to pressure, you know, and Bush, he aged a ton. Obama aged a ton. Everybody aged a ton. Biden was already cooked before he got in, but he's hard. But he aged a ton. I mean, Biden from 2019 to today is a different person.

Yeah. And he was already visibly degraded, but, wow, was it a precipitation?

Big jump. Big jump now.

Yeah, Trump was fine. Yeah. Trump physically. And actually, I think he sounds better. I think, you know, he drives me crazy sometimes when he talks, but I think he's getting better at it.

I think he's trying to be a little bit more reasonable, you know, and try to appeal to more people because of that. You know, that effort to be more reasonable. Like, he's. He's changed his mind about a lot of things. He's talking about legalizing marijuana. He's talking about all these different things that are, like, where, you know, you're going to get a lot of different responses from, like, the hardcore Republicans are not going to be for that. You know, any. Any idea of abortion? The hardcore right wing are not interested at all. And any restrictions on abortion at all, you get your hardcore left wing. So it's the, mostly it's the people in the middle. Abortion's a good one, right, because most people are like, no one should be able to tell you what you could do with your body. But also aborting an eight month old fetus is kind of fucking insane.

Yeah. I mean, the funny thing, and I've been saying this forever, is that almost everybody agrees on the basics on abortion. We're supposed to not be able to even talk about it. But most people believe that abortion is negative, that if you've got a blastula right, a clump of cells that doesn't yet have a nervous system, that you have the right to terminate that pregnancy and that the farther you go through that pregnancy, the less right you have. And most people are incredibly queasy about it, I think, as they should be in the third trimester. And, you know, thats what we agree on. And so its really the extremists on both sides that we are up against. But to the question of what Trump is doing with an issue like this, I want to make a couple points. One, I think there are two issues that are getting tangled. One, I think hes politically going to some places that are not traditionally republican because I don't even think, I think he's destroyed the Republican Party. I just don't see the same Republican Party I remember at all. I see a different thing and it's flying.

It's a MAGA party.

Yeah, it's a MAGA party. Right. Exactly. And that's a very different thing because I see MAGA as mostly the labor faction that was cut loose by the Democrats in the Clinton administration. And so they've now found a home under MAGA.

Interesting. Right. Like because blue collar people were generally union people, which were generally Democrats.

Totally. And then Clinton turned the Democratic Party into a second corporate party so that those people were homeless. And then Trump picked them up as MAGA and they're now under the republican banner. But it doesn't read like the Republican Party at all to me. And now it's picked up a, you know, I don't want to say technocratic, that's dismissive, but it's got this Silicon Valley component to it.

Yes, that's recent.

Yep.

That's recent as of the convention.

Yep.

Yeah, it is interesting, right. Because we did growing up always associate unions and blue collar people with voting Democrat because Democrats were looking out for the middle class, looking out for people's best interests supporting unions and fair wages and funding schools and all that kind of stuff, keeping neighborhoods safe. And Republicans were more like small government. Fuck you. Figure it out. I don't want to pay taxes.

Yes. Stingy.

And they were the ones that are encouraging war, which is crazy today, that you have this massive 180 degree shift. And the Democrats are talking about how important it is that we keep funding Ukraine and that we have some sort of. Whether you are pro Hamas or pro Palestine, I should say, or whether you're pro Israel, there's involvement in that. No, Democrats are saying we need to get the fuck out of there. They're saying we need to free Palestine. Oh, okay. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that? What do you. How much is involved in that? Are you going to bring in people? You're going to send people there? Like, what are you going to do? Are you going to kill people for this? What are we doing? The Democrats are. You guys are looking for war. You're not looking for peaceful solutions. Like, this is kind of weird. This is interesting, you know, that we need to beat Russia. Are you out of your fucking mind?

Are you serious?

Do you know how big that place is? Do you know how much military force is behind Putin? What are you talking about? What are you talking about? Like, what if he just decides to go nuclear at any point in time? If he gets pressured, you keep advancing further and further into Russia, and he's like, I'll just end this right now. I'll just turn Kiev into a fucking sandbox. Boom. And then what do we do?

No, it's insane. And the hardest part, I'm sure you have these people in your life, too. Let's just take my parents for a second, okay? My parents are good people, lifelong Democrats. They live in LA, surrounded by Hollywood types. They cannot seem to grasp the fact that the party that they believed in is now doing the inverse of everything they signed up for.

Exactly.

Because the New York Times rephrases everything, so it seems like the values are still there.

Right? Which is wild.

It's crazy. And if you're not a New York Times reader, you can barely figure out what these people are talking about.

Did you see the article that I posted on my instagram? That's a title of a New York Times article for today.

Which one?

Jamie, pull this up. I want Brett to see this. So you know this is real. This isn't the Babylon bee. This is an actual New York Times article. You see it? Yeah, I had it in a weird spot. This is so crazy. It's really hard to believe that someone would print this and the New York Times would say, yeah, we like it. Put it out there.

I'm not quite sure what to expect.

Look at this. Oh, yeah, of course the constitution is sacred. Is it also dangerous?

Right.

One of the biggest threats to american politics might be the country's founding document. What the fuck are you talking about?

Yeah.

One of the biggest threats to America's politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country has ever found on, if not the greatest ever. That could be a threat to America's politics. What politics are we talking about? Like, what? How could you possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?

Yeah, it's incredible. I mean, it's, on the one hand, completely predictable, right? Because there's obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do. Last week, you know, and so, of course, they're, like, scratching their heads, like, can we come up with an argument for why it might be time to get rid of that thing? And of course, if you're a normal thinking person, this is complete insanity. But if you're a New York Times reader, I'm sure that fits with the kind of ethos that's been cultivated.

Well, this is why a person like Trump is so important to them. Because if you don't have someone that is an imminent threat on the horizon in three months, it's very difficult to justify all this shit. So if you have Kamala Harris and she's competing against Ron DeSantis, if it's just Kamala Harris and Ron DeSantis and Trump doesn't exist, maybe he died. Maybe he died in the last few years. You know, how could. You wouldn't be able to make that argument. You wouldn't. There's no imminent threat.

Right?

Let's say Mitt Romney, let's say someone even more moderate as a Republican, even more palatable. You can't make that. You can't make that argument that we don't need. We can't have a first amendment because the First Amendment is getting in the way. The First Amendment is allowing people to say things that aren't true. Misinformation and disinformation. And, you know, we're right here. We're. September 2. I think yesterday was the first day where Brazil banned Twitter.

I know.

So X is illegal to have in Brazil as of today, as of yesterday. And not only is it illegal. But you go through it through a VPN and they will charge you $8,000 a day.

I know it's, it's incredible that we are watching this insane. But I would remind you, they did pull this stuff when it was Mitt Romney, when it was George W. Bush. Right. The rhetoric was still existential threat. Right. And they always have particular versions of this. Right.

Not as ramped up as this. This is like Hitler, Hitler talk. They never talked about Mitt Romney like he was Hitler.

I agree. And as I've been saying since the beginning of this electoral cycle, they fear Bobby Kennedy far more than they fear Trump, because actually, Trump gives them the only argument for their existence that is functional. Right. They don't have an affirmative argument for why they should be in power. But being the alternative to Trump is, you know, that's a pitch. So we are now somewhere pretty interesting in the sense that I think to the faithful, that argument still works. But to a larger and larger group of people, they're seeing right through it. They're understanding, first of all, we lived through four years of Trump. Right?

Right.

There were good aspects, there were bad aspects, but it was not distinguished as some moment of total failure of our system or something. You know, there were a lot of elements of it that were very positive.

Right. That's, that's a, and that's where a fun meme is. There's a fun meme that someone made about how you're telling me that he's going to do these things that he didn't when he was in office and you're telling me that you're going to do these things that you didn't do and you're in office now.

Right.

Like what?

And add to that you're doing the things that you're accusing him of intending to do. Right. All this lawfare stuff, that's frightening. They're weaponizing the courts.

Yeah. And they're weaponizing the courts over what was a misdemeanor with. That's already, if you look at the, like, Bill Ackman had a post that he made on Twitter laying out the legality of this 34 count thing that they convicted him of, that this is essentially an accounting error or deception that's a misdemeanor that is past the statute of limitations.

Not only that, but I don't think you have to really even squint at it to see that it's just simply unconstitutional to point the courts at particular people and not other people. Right. We have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. And obviously, they are setting a different standard for Trump because they want to keep him tied up in court. Maybe they want to lock him up and put him in prison. But whatever they're doing is unamerican.

It is anti american and very dangerous because you've set a precedent now. Now let's imagine, like, we've gone through shifts in this country where we leaned heavily left, like, during the Carter administration, was run by serious lefty, you know, and then what if now it is run by a hardcore right winger? What if there's some sort of an attack on american soil and it ramps up patriotism and people get real angry and right, you know, just like the left has moved so far left that if you're not in favor of hormone blockers for kids, somehow you're transphobic and you're a bigot. Like, somehow or another, if you're not in favor of that, you're a bigot. What if it gets so right that if you're not in favor of, you know, stops and frisks all over the country for everyone, then somehow or another, you're anti safety of the nation. And if you're not in favor of no knock raids on people's homes with no warrants, that somehow or another youre a danger to our democracy. Like, it can go really creepy far right, just like it's really creepy far left. And then they're utilizing the courts, if they fill the courts up with a bunch of hardcore republicans, now you're utilizing the courts against people in a way that you would find very offensive because you've made it.

You've set a precedent.

Right. And I think, actually, we are already living this nightmare in one way, because what they did was loaded powers into the executive branch that were never supposed to be there. They created emperor like discretion. And they gave those powers to the president, I think, believing that they would never be in the hands of anybody that wasn't on their team. Right. And I'm not talking red or blue, right. I'm talking about inside versus outside. And one of the reasons that I think the reaction to Trump is what it was, is that he was taking over an office that had been given all of these exotic tools that he could, in principle, use against anybody. These are tools that are absolutely a violation of our constitution, and yet they exist there. And so the need to prevent him from having access to those things was existential in their mind. And so anyway, the point is they created tools they never expected to be in the hands of someone else. And that is the situation. That's the scenario you're describing here as well.

Why do you think the multiverse is bullshit?

I just don't think it makes any sense, because if you take the multiverse literally. So let me back up a second. We have a principle that tells us more or less what is true, called parsimony, right? We take the simplest explanation that accounts for what we observe, and we imagine it's true. And there's a little imperfection in there. But if you had all the information, it would work, I think, perfectly. And then there's a flaw in how we apply it. The multiverse is analytically very simple. Right. It's just one move. Oh. There are an infinite number of universes. Every moment, there are an infinite number of things that could happen, and a universe is created for each one. That's very simple. I just said it. And one sentence. On the other hand, at the practical level, it couldn't possibly be more wasteful and absurd. Right? And the idea that there's going to be a different. There's going to be two universes. You're going to double the universe because I just moved my glasses, and we need one universe in which I didn't and one universe in which I did, and then each of those universes is going to proliferate out from each moment.

This does not make any sense. So I think what it is, is this is just part of the process of discovery. If you imagine an infinite number of proliferating universes from each branching point, right, that accounts, that allows us to understand. We could describe it that way, and it allows us to understand the universe as we observe it. Now, the question is, what's really going on that allows that to take place without the proliferation of universes. That's why I think it's wrong. It's the intermediate, it's the immature, analytical point at which we have noticed that something is going on. We know we need to explain it, and we haven't yet stood in the right place to explain it in a way that's actually efficient. So what we're doing is we're explaining it in a way that if you typed it out, it's one tweet.

But isn't existence itself insane? The universe itself is insane. Subatomic particles are insane. Going all the way out to solar nurseries. It's all insane. The whole thing's insane. It's insane in scope, it's insane in size. It's insane in its complexity.

It's almost incomprehensible, almost incomprehensible.

So why would it be more incomprehensible if there was infinite variety and infinite numbers of them? It would just be a different level of crazy that we weren't aware of.

Well, no, no. I mean, I don't think so, because it's not a different level. Let's just agree that the universe the size of it is impossible to actually comprehend. I think it's literally impossible.

We just look at it as a number. It's a small number, actually. You look at it. Oh, like, what's the most recent? The James Wood telescope, the most recent advanced versions of it. They're talking about 22 billion plus years for the Big Bang. They're looking at that now because of the structure of some galaxies that shouldn't exist, shouldn't exist in the time period in which they would have to be formed in a certain amount of years. And so it's very contentious, but there's some of these people studying the results that seem to believe it's quite possible that you might want to push that date back to whatever the big Bang is.

Okay?

And then there's Sir Roger Penrose, who thinks it's like a constant cycle.

Right? I'm open to all these ideas, except ones like the multiverse. Because, let's put it this way, you haven't solved a problem by invoking the multiverse. What you've done is you've caused a problem that is like the original problem that you had raised to the infinity.

Right?

And so my feeling is, anytime you've made the problem, the philosophical problem you had that we all admit is really, really difficult, infinitely worse, you probably made a wrong move.

I don't know about that. I don't think that's necessarily true, because just because we haven't solved the problem of this immense thing that's impossible to grasp, it doesn't mean it can't be way bigger than we even imagine in a concept that's impossible to grasp. And there's got to be some reason why so many people are entertaining this multiverse theory.

It's not. Well, that's just because we're not very. Because we're descendants of chimp like ancestors and we have limited tools to bring to bear to this sort of thing.

It's exciting, right?

It's exciting. It's a good way to think of it as, if you think of it as a temporary stand in for whatever the answer is that's going to dawn us on us at some point. It's fine. It's a good thought problem. But imagining that it's real. You know, you said, you know, maybe the problem is infinitely bigger than we thought. It's not infinitely bigger. It's the rate of growth of. The problem is every instant needs multiple universes for the most trivial of modifications. I'm sorry. That just does not sound like nature to me.

I think it sounds like the universe, though. I don't think the universe necessarily sounds like nature. Nature is what we see here. But what we see everywhere is so bizarre. With black holes are so bizarre. Supernovas, they're so fucking bizarre. The fact that there's a giant black hole in the center of every galaxy, that's one half of 1% of the mass of the galaxy, and it might be another universe inside of that thing.

But see, I actually think that one. I mean, I was waiting for that discovery for my whole life, and when I finally heard, it was like, okay, now I understand why. You've got this huge swirling thing. You've got this giant gravitational mass in the center that you can't see. Now it makes sense. So that was like, a simplifying discovery.

Well, the existence of the black hole, but the concept of a black hole being essentially a portal into another universe where there's hundreds of billions of galaxies, each one with a black hole in the center of them. You go through each one of those, you have hundreds of billions of galaxies, each one with a black hole in the center of it. And you just keep doing that forever and ever and ever. Isn't that kind of the multiverse?

Well, let's put it this way. I mean, a were a little bit safe here because by definition, there's no way of peering into those dashes for now, I think, forever.

You think AI can't get a grasp on this in a better way?

Well, it might be able to.

Quantum computing 1000 years from now might have a.

The problem is that there's a physical reason you can't. For the same reason the light can't get out, there's no way to peer in.

Right.

So am I cool with the idea that maybe there's an equilibrium that, you know, a black hole where things, once they're pulled in over that threshold, they never emerge again, and maybe they emerge somewhere else? Yeah, I could imagine parallel things that are entangled in this way. That does not sound inherently like an insane cheat to me, because what we have is a mystery staring us in the face in every one of those ultramassive black holes. What the hell is it, right?

What about a future in which we develop some sort of propulsion system and attach it to a drone that's not. It's not based on fuel. It's based on some sort of gravity thing. And it allows you to traverse immense distances very quickly. And then we could actually get that fucker way out there, take some video and bring it back.

Well, you're going to avoid the warranty, I'm pretty sure.

Well, it's okay. It's all funded by the government. Infinite money. We just print checks. Oh, we'll just tax people and blame the UFO's.

Yeah.

Which is what I think they're doing, by the way.

Using the UFO story. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I think so, too.

Yeah, I think. I think both things are true. I think we have been visited, and I think it only makes sense. I think there is life out there because it doesn't make sense. There isn't. And I think I would visit if I got a thousand years more advanced than we are, and we found out about some planet that's 2000 light years away that actually is making nuclear bombs. Fuck yeah, I'd visit. Of course it'd visit. 100%. So of course they would visit. And of course they would want to protect us from the overwhelming shock to our culture that would undoubtedly be thrust upon us if we were. If we were confronted with a city sized spaceship that's hovering over Detroit, just hovering over there. Send the world into a massive panic. No one would know what to do. I would hide.

So I'm not sure about this. So I want to just adjust a couple things you said.

Okay, please do.

From my perspective, you're absolutely right. It would be. There's every reason to think there's lots of life in the universe, right? And that life that attains a certain level of cognition will inevitably create technologies that break boundaries that it can't biologically break. So it'll traverse some distance across space. But the real question is, how many islands of life? What's the closest one? How traversable is the cosmos? It may not be traversable at all at those scales, or it may be much more traversable than we know. And then it doesn't take very many islands of life to have somebody visit us. But as to your last point, I actually. Well, first of all, everybody. Every thinking person I know is pretty troubled by the present. And, you know, a hostile alien force would freak everybody out. But I a. I can't see a reason why aliens would be hostile. Doesn't make sense to me.

They don't have to be hostile. Just being there.

Right? But then if they were just there, first of all, we've been training for this, right? We all spend a lot of time on Sci-Fi stories, aliens and all that stuff, right? So I think actually we wouldn't be impressed enough because we've seen really impressive stuff on screens again and again and again. If you actually heard that this stuff was going on, if the ship showed up in the sky and you could see it with your binoculars, I think the question is, well, are they friendly? And what do they have to say? Right, right. I honestly don't think, you know, it'd be. If I heard about it, I would think that's gotta be good news because.

Right. But to anyone in power, this would be a gigantic threat to anyone trying to pass off some sort of narrative that this is the. We're in the lead in terms of like, the moral high ground of the world and that we're, you know, we're the wisest, we're the best. We're gonna make decisions for everybody that would throw a monkey wrench completely into the gears of that.

Oh, totally.

So they would lose all control, they lose all authority, they would lose all respect.

But why are the aliens abiding by their plan?

Because I don't think they are. That's not what I'm saying. I think that would freak them out. And they're not doing that. Right. I think if they are real and they do observe us, they probably observe us in a way where there's a limited amount of detection. And I think there's probably, if I was going to acclimate a culture to the idea that they're not alone, I would do it slowly. That way you could have the same ultimate effect eventually and maybe, maybe help them along their evolution as well. Along their cultural evolution, to like, slowly introduce this concept that they're not alone. And then do it over decades, which is exactly what's been happening.

Yes.

And the acceptance of it has changed from when I was a kid. You talk about UFO's, you're a fucking kook. 100%. Yeah, straight up kook. And then the Bob Lazar story came around and everybody was like, hey, wait a minute. Is that guy telling the truth? And that was like 89, but still seemed like bullshit. And then there was a bunch of questions about his education, background, bullshit artist. But then over time, more people have seen enough things like Commander David Fravor and more people have seen things that, like, have no explanation whatsoever. And you start hearing stories from high level people about retrieved vehicles and this and that. It's more and more and more and more and more normal people talking, and more and more professors at Stanford and the New York Times in 2017, Princess story. And respected air Force pilots are coming out and talking about it. It's a different world, and it's a different world just over a few decades.

Yeah, it's a different world. But I still haven't seen anything that isn't best explained as Psyop bullshit.

Right. I haven't either, but also, I haven't seen anything. Right, right. These are unique experiences. And the problem with unique experiences is everyone has to just sort of trust you. Unless you have some kind of evidence, everyone has to trust you. Even if it's a whole town, it's a unique experience in the town. Mass hypnosis, a bunch of bullshit artists, they're taking advantage of it for tourism, like Vargina in Brazil. The entire town saw this thing. So, you know, I'm not sure if it's all bullshit. I think there's some bullshit mixed in with some real stuff. That's what I think. This is my conclusion over time, because if you go back to, like, the Kenneth Arnold sightings in the 1950s, we didn't have anything that moved like that. Nobody did. There's no way anybody had anything in the 1950s that could shoot across the sky soundless, make no noise, skip like flying saucers, is the way they described it. There was a. I think there was nine of them together. Like, there was. No. We didn't have anything like that. So maybe occasionally we're visited, maybe occasionally they show themselves, and maybe they have been here.

Tucker thinks they've been here all along. He thinks they're a part of this world that we live in. They just. They hide from us, and maybe they live in the ocean.

Yeah, I mean, you know. You know what my stock and trade is? And my feeling is I'm perfectly open to the possibility that there are alien intelligences in the universe. I'm perfectly open to the possibility that they would stop by. But I'm going to need something like evidence that isn't better explained by terrestrial bullshit, because, frankly, the terrestrial bullshit is guaranteed.

Right. If they had some sort of a drone that used gravity and could zip across the sky, like, ten x light speed, they wouldn't tell you about it.

Yeah, but I don't even think it's. I don't. Look, I think the fact. And I think we may have talked about this before, but the fact that these things are doing stuff that's beyond any terrestrial craft that we know of, and they're silent, that's because they're not craft, they're projections of some kind. And so they're visually very compelling, but they do not disturb the atoms that they're passing through, because they're not. They don't displace anything.

So you think the radar, when they use radar and they find these things, what do you think that is?

Oh, man. I think that's people putting blips on other people's radar. Not the only place in history that. That shows up. Right.

So you could force a blip onto someone's radar.

Sure.

Hack their radar.

And heck, if you had a.

How would you do that?

Well, these radars are all computerized.

Well, let's talk about the David Fravor one, right. Because this is 2004, so it kind of limits our ability in terms of, you know, you have high technology, you have extremely powerful computers, you have a lot of stuff going on. We certainly don't have what we have 20 years later. Right?

Yep.

We all agree to that. Now, they have multiple different mediums, multiple different types of evidence. They have visual eyewitness testimony, and more than one jet sees this thing, more than one pilot sees this thing. They all have the same story. This thing zips across the sky. They have the radar that shows that this thing went from 50,000ft above sea level to 50 in a second. They have this thing moving at speeds on video, where you see it move on video that would turn anybody inside it into jell O. So it's whatever the fuck this is, it's doing something that we didn't think human beings could do. Right. So you have three different ways of verifying that there's something there. You have the radar, you have video, you have eyewitness testimony. You have this thing flying to the cat point where they were initially supposed to, when they were doing their training mission, they were supposed to meet.

Yep.

There's a lot of weird shit with that.

Yep.

But do you think they could fake that?

Yeah, I mean, I do think you could fake it, because you just have multiple attack vectors.

So how would you fake a visual sighting from trained fighter jet pilots over the ocean?

A projection.

A projection. And where would the projector be?

I don't know. Could be coming from space. Could be from an aircraft that's flying too high to see. I don't know.

How would you do that? What technology would enable you to make something look, I mean, they even had a disturbance of the ocean floor, or of the ocean surface, rather.

So I'm not an expert in these technologies. I'm not claiming that I could do it. But what I'm saying is, a, you have a huge amount of classified technology. Just imagine for a second how useful it would be to be able to convince your enemy that you had aircraft in its airspace, that they were able to exceed limits, whatever. So do you think we've worked on the ability to fool an enemy into believing that we have capacities that we don't have? Of course, given that those programs are essentially certain to exist, do you think anybody's ever going to have the idea that actually, in this case, it would be useful if some, you know, unassailable authorities were to have undeniable experiences that suggest x, y, or z? Somebody's going to come up with that idea.

So this would explain why these things are able to stay stationary in 120 knot winds. Because they're not affected by physical reality. They're just images.

Have you. I mean, I know you have. There are incredibly good magicians who will do stuff in front of you that you don't walk out of there thinking the laws of physics have been broken, because you understand that magic is a genre where you walk in and you agree to suspend your disbelief enough to look through your eyes and register something as if it's violated a law of physics. But we all know it's magic, right?

David Blaine?

Right, exactly. An illusion.

Yeah.

Now, imagine that you had teams working on illusions who were going to do so in a context that you would have no concept that that's what had happened, because you're so used to trusting what your eyes perceive, what your ears hear, all of those things. So all I'm saying is the evidence that these things exist always hovers in the realm where a ruthless whatever could have faked it. Right. Whether that has to do with an mkultra intervention where somebody's been given drugs, they don't know they've been given, and they've been shown things that they are more open to because they were in a state in which they were induced. Openness. That's a possibility. Or a mixture of things. You see something, you've been brought into a state of openness, you accept it more than you think you have, because you don't know that anybody tinkered with your wiring. I just am waiting to see a piece of evidence that really makes me go, huh. I don't think we could have done that.

Have you seen any of Gary Nolan stuff on the metallurgy, on the different samples they've collected from these supposed down crafts that defy all our understanding of how to create alloys and how expensive it would be to craft these things.

Let me ask you a question. You've got alloys that are beyond known human technology, and you've got discussion of alloys that are beyond human technology, which is.

Well, it's certainly discussions that's the problem, right? I mean, I don't know who. See if you could find anything on Gary Nolan's samples. So Diana Pasolko, who'd been on the podcast before, she had done some excavating of these areas where they purport that these things had crashed and they could still find pieces, which made me a little skeptical. As soon as I see you still find you didn't pick them all up, why wouldn't they send someone out there to pick everything up? Why would.

You would sift.

Yeah.

You would take truckloads and you.

100%, you would get every single scrap of that stuff. But if I wanted someone to believe that a craft was there, I leave a bunch of bullshit out in the field. I'd blindfold them like they did. I'd take them out to this spot. This is the spot. Look around. Oh, look, you found a piece. Like, how do you not know where all the fucking pieces are? If this thing crashed 30 years ago, why didn't you go over this place with a fine tooth comb? People do that for arrowheads. Why would you not do that for alien craft metal?

Of course you would.

Yeah. Also, there's the other problem. It's like, why are these things crashing?

Right? Exactly.

They're so fucking good. They can get here from another dimension.

They're partying. They got here, and they just. They don't know. They're.

They get ahold of some fucking Jack Daniels. Next thing, they crashed in the sand. They're having a good time in America. It's also. That's a big problem, too. A lot of these sightings are in America. They're like, if you look at the chart, their sightings overseas, for sure, they happen all over the world, undoubtedly, but they have a lot more here.

We have an alien problem across many different dimensions.

Yeah, we do. We have multiple alien problems. That's another thing that they're gaslighting people on the idea that they would let people come over here so they would vote. Of course they would. That's a great way to, like, get voters. So these are these pieces that Gary Nolan claims to have had. And what does it say about these pieces? I mean, this is.

Well, I can only find it in the video.

I was trying to find pictures. Explosion. Okay, so this is from. How do you say that. Ubatuba. Ubatuba, Brazil. So this is a different. It might be a different pronunciation in Portuguese, but this is a different crash than the Virginia one. So there's been multiple sightings, and things happen in Brazil. Apparently, Brazil also has a little bit of an alien problem.

Oh, yeah? A little one.

But the vargina one is wild. That's the most wild one.

But those. Those fragments there appeared from where I'm sitting to look like they were made of pixels.

Let me say that again. That could just be a low resolution photograph.

No, no, I'm kidding with you. I'm just saying, we're looking at that thing as if we know that it's a fragment of metal, and we're being told that it has properties that are unfamiliar. But what we have, the evidence you and I have, is pixels.

Right? Sure. We're not there. We don't get to see these things. Also, even if you gave it to me, what? How's that going to help me? I have no idea what you're. Yeah, I don't know what that is.

Yeah, I don't.

Even if you gave me the microscopes to look at it, I'm like, what am I seeing?

Right?

I'm seeing layers. Is that what this is?

Right.

How'd they do this?

Right, so that's why. Look, you know, I want a team of honest biologists to look at some space biology that would settle this. Immediately.

Yeah, immediately.

Immediately, yeah.

Like, if there really is a body, just one. Everyone says there's frozen body somewhere.

Just one. That's all it takes. We can settle this tomorrow.

Let some people in. Okay, here it is. Alleged extraterrestrial metal from the bottom of a wedge shaped craft in the late 1940s made of 26 alternating layers, one to four microns dark bismuth and 100 to 200 microns silver magnesium zinc alloy. Each of six pieces received from US army source were formed with a curvature that tapered.

Wow. That is incredibly compelling. Metallurgical narrative, if it's true, transmitted by pixels.

Right? That's the problem. And also, the late 1940s, how many of these fucking things crashed?

It was happening all the time.

That's the weird thing, right? Like, think of how many corvettes there are.

Yeah.

You don't find a whole lot of them, like, on the side of the road crashed.

Yeah. It's not a common thing.

Nobody's finding corvettes in the. In the. In the desert. Look, we found a corvette. There's so many corvettes. There's millions of them.

Right. And yet. Yet most of them make it from a to b.

But these fucking UFO's, they're so smart, they can come here from other planets. Boom.

Well, maybe we're not on their map. And so they're like, or maybe the.

Only people that are the only intelligent life outside of this planet that's willing to do it. They're like australian outback people. They're like those wild dudes who go overlanding. Australia has a big overlanding culture where they build up these vehicles and they take them off into the bush and they live off of them. My friend Adam Green tree does that. These people are wild, Australians are wild folk. So maybe they like the Australians of space and they just over landing and.

It doesn't always work out, overlanding.

They're these nuts that like, you know, there's people that go out in the desert for 30 days and they have enough food and water and they have a solar thing on the top of their rig and that charges their cell phone, and they have, you know, Jerry cans of petrol so they can keep going.

Well, I kind of dig this. Look, if it were possible to traverse vast empty spaces and go to places that were known to have life, I'd be all about that.

But it would only be the real hardcore adventurers that would take that chance. And maybe those people are nuts. Maybe those alien people are nuts, just like the human people are nuts that do that kind of stuff.

Right? They like to get into trouble, winch themselves out and wild people, they got.

Winches on their spaceships.

Exactly.

Well, you got to also think, here's another problem with the idea of them being biological. It's far more effective to send things that are non biological in space, like what we're doing on Mars. We don't have a base on Mars, allegedly, but there's a lot of nutty people that believe we do. But they do certainly have some robots that are on Mars gathering data, and they're doing it right now. And so you don't have to worry about radiation. All the things that kill people make people. Sadeena, if we lose one of those rovers, who gives a fuck? Make another rover, ship it out there, fly it. Nobody cares if you lose 50 people. If you take 50 people and they die on your Mars trip, you're going to have. Congress is going to be meeting about it. What are we doing? Why are we killing people? Let's not do that. As time goes on and as technology improves and as sentient artificial intelligence becomes a better option for sending some intelligent robot to gather data, why would. Why would anybody go through space as a living creature? It seems stupid.

Yeah. I mean, I agree. On the other hand, I probably, you know, why. Why do I want to go to the Amazon? Right? I can. I can see.

Yeah, but you can go to the Amazon. That's the thing. Humans live in the Amazon. Humans don't live on Mars. It's way simpler to send a robot to Mars.

Why would we go to Mars? Yeah, yeah. There is a good reason to go to Mars, and the good reason to go to Mars is we're in jeopardy here. And I don't think Mars is in any way a long term plan for survival of people. But there are processes unfolding here in our solar system that put us in jeopardy, potentially here on Earth. And having just at least an outpost of people somewhere else would not be a bad hedge against that. Definitely. I think we're not close enough, but.

Right. It's definitely a potential reality. And if it was possible, it would be a good move if you wanted to hedge your bets.

Yep, and we should hedge our bets.

Because Elon's position on this. Yeah. That we're in danger of the human race going extinct from a variety of different things, not even our own fault. It could be a bunch of different things. Asteroid impacts, super volcanoes. A lot of stuff can happen right here that kills us all.

Space weather.

Oh, yeah. Fucking some supernova. Too close. Sorry, everything's cooked.

Micro nova, which is actually a viable hypothesis. Apparently, this is something that can happen. It doesn't necessarily destroy the star. You can have a burst of radiation that radically alters things down here.

Oh, fun. And maybe that's what happened to Mars, which is also part of the problem, because Mars at one time had an atmosphere, Mars at one time had liquid water. We don't really know what happened.

Yeah, no, I agreed.

Mars is probably a little closer to the sun at one point in time in the past.

It turns out that our solar system is dynamic and dangerous in a way that we don't really know, because our study has happened in a period of.

Calm, and we're really looking at a very brief amount of time that we can measure in terms of a human experience. It's so brief in terms of what we know about what human beings have experienced. And then we have to go back to, like, core samples. You have to go back to, oh, it appears that there was Earth one and Earth one was hit by another planet. That's how we get the moon and then the moon. The moon's crazy.

Yeah.

What a crazy thing that this thing stabilizes us. It's in the exact same right position, the exact right size to make sure that we can exist as we exist right now. It's almost like somebody put it there.

It's a beautiful thing.

It's a beautiful thing, but it's. It's kind of kooky. It's almost like someone put it there.

It's very convenient. Yeah, yeah. I mean, and of course, there's an anthropic principle in play here as well because the question is, are we here? Because we do have a moon to play the exact right roll. You know, this planet has a lot, a lot going for it. And one way to think about that is, wow, that can't be. That's no accident or. No, we're here to talk about it because those accidents happen to line up here.

Right? Or. Yeah, it's odd, but that's also why there's not life everywhere.

Right.

And this does happen. And when it does happen, then you get some life. Yeah, but until it happens and the variety of temperature changes over the course of the seasons is just too vast for what we understand as biological life to survive. But then, or at least intelligent. See, it's not just biological. It has to be intelligent. It has to be able to manipulate its environment. It has to be able to record the previous thoughts in history, develop language. And it's really tough to do that if you're in an environment and you've adapted to an environment that can vary by 300 degrees.

Right. No, you're exactly right. That the number of things that have to stack up before you get to the point that you're pondering why you're here is many.

You have to have food. You have to have food. You have to have your feet up and going, why are we here?

Yeah. And you have to not be going routinely extinct because then suddenly go haywire.

Exactly. This is why this kind of thought emerges once people sort of settle down.

Yep.

Get some food, start herding some cattle and go, hey, stars are kind of crazy.

Yeah. You ever looked up instead, everybody's just.

Looking in the bushes for what's going to kill them, what's going to eat me.

You know, it's funny, I've spent a lot of time watching animals. They don't look at the sky.

Oh, that's interesting.

It is interesting.

That is very interesting. That's very interesting.

Yeah. I mean, you know, I get it. It's not productive until you get pretty deep into thinking about, you know, abstract things as a way of finding what you're not doing, right?

Well, we look outward and we look inward, which is really, like, next level, right? Like we look at microscopes go, what is going on here?

Right?

We're all filled with bacteria.

This is.

This whole thing's nuts. Like, we're not even an individual. We're an ecosystem. We're individual ecosystems. And the healthier your ecosystem is, the healthier you are as an individual, because you're not really an individual.

Wow. So this is something Heather and I talk about frequently, is that we have more or less an epidemic of people who are maybe smart, but they don't know the difference between a complex system and a complicated one. And so they take their complicated system thinking into complex systems.

What is the difference?

Whether it's predictable? So, for example, your computer or your phone, you know, it's beyond your comprehension or my comprehension, but it is well understood how it works. There's nothing mysterious about the outputs, right? It's a system that all of the functionality of is well understood. But a biological creature isn't anything like this. And so when you intervene, you know, when they give you a drug and they think they know what it's going to do, they're intervening in a system in which things are connected in ways that they've not yet discovered and they can't anticipate the cascading effects. So, you know, we keep getting upended by the sense of, like, you know, oh, this thing is wrong with you. Here's a biochemical intervention that will adjust one parameter and put you back into health. No, almost never. True. Right? It is occasionally true if somebody is quite sick, that you can push them back in the direction of homeostasis, you can rescue them. But the idea of improving health with an intervention is almost always the wrong approach. Right. You should be restoring the environment in which the body knows how to take care of itself.

Because it is a complex system. Given the right inputs, given the right parameters, it has all of the processes necessary to keep it functioning. But if you think you're going to improve it by intervening, you're almost certain to do harm.

Hmm. But what about medication for people that have, like, type one diabetes?

Right, but the question is, why do you have type one diabetes?

But it's a genetic thing.

Yeah, but is it a. You think our ancestors were walking around with type one diabetes they might have.

And just died off?

Well, but then you would have a very low rate of that gene. So our ancestors. So the question is, so you think.

There'S an environmental reason for type one diabetes?

I think there is a massive disruption in all of the environments that we pass through in life that is causing a mismatch between what we are. We are basically perpetual fishes out of water, and that process is making us unhealthy in every single regard. Heather and I call this hypernovelty. And in fact, it's not even that we're just out of our environment in which we can be healthy. But the rate of change is so high that even to the extent that we are highly adaptable, we can't adapt fast enough to keep up. It's a pathology. And the flip side of this is, if you did recognize exactly where you started, that you are actually a system that is complex beyond even the sense that you're an organism. I mean, you're multiple organisms at multiple different levels. Every single cell in your body is being fueled by mitochondria that started out at a different place on the evolutionary tree and got taken inside of cells to become powerhouses. That's a symbiosis. So you are a symbiosis, you know, in each of your cells, and even.

Crazier, your psychology, your mentality, affects your physical health profoundly, profoundly. So the way you think about things, the joy you have in your life, the happiness that you encounter has an enormous effect on your biology.

100%. Yes.

Which is just madness. So the reductionist view of just give them a shot of this and a pill of that, like, well, there's a lot more going on here right now.

Our whole medical standpoint is fundamentally flawed. And I'm really hoping that we will take the lesson of COVID seriously and we will recognize, in my opinion, allopathic medicine, standard western medicine, is living on the gains of a tiny number of subfields. The fact that a surgeon can put you back together after a car accident, that's something that we all know we want there for us if we need it, right? That surgeon's capacity to do that is a predicated on the ability of the body to repair itself. Right? A surgeon can cut you open and go, you know, take out your spleen, but that surgeon is depending on the fact that your body knows how to heal the damage, right? You can't go up to a car and slice it open and pull out the alternator and put in another one.

And have a staple it back together again.

Right? It doesn't work like that. So anyway, there are a few things in medicine that are transcendently awesome, like the ability of a surgeon to fix you and the ability of an emergency room physician to stabilize you where your body is, you know, spiraling out of control. But those things result in a sense of the godlike powers of medicine. And most of the time, medicine is in danger of hurting you. If it's not of the mindset that we should be minimizing intervention, we should be figuring out what the root cause of the pathology is. If we have to intervene, it should be a temporary intervention that pushes you back to the place where your body knows what to do. And then we should take our hands off, which is, of course, not profitable.

Right. The problem is we want you to be hooked on a medication, because then we can prescribe that to everybody. And then you have the Sackler family.

Right. The fact is, this process health, is far too important to be managed by market forces left to their own devices.

That's a good point. And the problem is, right now it is. And so we have to figure out how to regain control of that 100%.

And so I'm hoping that medicine, having just gotten its comeuppance during COVID where, you know, almost every doctor ended up poisoning their patients with advice that turned out to be, you know, and themselves. And themselves.

Yeah. Which is more important, because those doctors believed it. They thought that it was true. I was just talking to a doctor recently that regretted taking it. And they. They really believed.

Yeah.

Believed. They believed they were telling people what to do, and now they're injured and, you know.

Yeah.

And then they have this practice where they told people, this is what you should do, and then a bunch of people did it and got all fucked up, and now they're in a situation where it's not just that they got fucked up, but, like, how much time they have left. Like, how many of these people are going to drop dead over the next 510 years?

Yeah.

Because it's not just one. It's not just two. There's probably going to be a bunch. There's a bunch of people out there with, like, real myocarditis. There's a bunch of people out there that have blood clots. The d dimer. There's this doctor on Twitter the other day was talking about how it's very rare that he uses a d dimer test on unvaccinated patients and finds blood clots, but he finds a ton of them on vaccinated patients.

Yeah.

And some of them are micro blood clots. Some of them are. Some of them are significant, but that they find quite a few.

Yeah. There was a paper recently, I haven't delved deeply into it, but that just says, you know, that the spike protein, which is obviously produced by the shots, is interacting with fibrin, which is a clot producing protein. So it's not surprising that it's having these cascading effects, but, okay, so you had all these doctors who gave terrible advice to patients. They assured them not only that this was the right thing to do, but that it was safe. They should have known better, because it couldn't possibly have been. And there's no course taught in medical school about, you know, repentance. How do these people repent for what they did so that they learn the lesson and it can't happen again? And the fact is, the whole system is rigged around pharma, and they can't.

There's so many people out there that are still all in. I found some lady in my timeline. I don't follow her, but she was talking about how disturbing it is to her that children are not being vaccinated and that Covid is killing kids, and the reports that she has of child death, and she was talking about how she wears a mask everywhere. And then there's all these people in the comments that are commenting on that. I only go to places when I know there's going to be minimal amounts of people. I always wear a mask. And they were all like. It was some weird echo chamber where they were all terrified still of what is now like a cold.

Well, I don't. I will resist portraying it as a cold, because I do think that ain't where we are.

It's not a cold to you, right. When you got it, it was rough.

I got something that was pretty rough. But let's put that aside for a second. Let's say that this is not a very severe disease. And by the way, I will just tell you, at the risk of opening old controversies, it took me a long time to understand that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, they have broad applicability across rna viruses. And many of the things that make us sick are rna viruses. So there is a strong argument to be made that in a world where we are now being exposed to all of these rna viruses, that acting quickly and taking those things is a reasonable thing to do. Now, hydroxychloroquine may have more toxicity than ivermectin. In fact, it does. But ivermectin has such a low toxicity that from the point of view of not doing the damage to the body that comes from being sick with these pathological agents, simply being reflexive about taking the stuff quickly is sensible. And of course, if what I just said is correct, you would expect Pharma to look anywhere but there because they can't patent the stuff.

Right? Did you see Chris Cuomo on Patrick Bette David's show admit that he's taking ivermectin now?

I heard about it. I didn't see it.

He admitted it. He admitted his doctor has him on ivermectin for long Covid. And he kept distinguishing the difference between long Covid and vaccine injuries. Like he said, had some sort of a vaccine injury. Then he was talking about how ivermectin is not good for Covid, but it's good for long Covid. And I'm like, what is long Covid? Long Covid is not even a thing. Like, stop saying that. Like, you're fucked up because either of COVID or you're fucked up because of the vaccine. One of those two things happened where you got damaged. Calling it long Covid is weird because it's like saying you're still sick from COVID That's not really what happened. Okay. If you get pneumonia and you get lung damage, you don't have long pneumoniae. You had damage to your lungs. It's not long Covid. So you're either taking ivermectin because your doctor said, like, what benefit would ivermectin have on long Covid? Like, what does that mean? Well, or vaccine injuries.

It has a benefit for vaccine injuries. We can just say that empirically. The people who have become successful at treating these things tell us this.

Which vaccine injuries, but which ones? Which specific vaccine injuries?

You mean what are the symptoms?

Yeah, what things?

Things like brain fog, fatigue, neuropathy, these things. And I actually have several friends who report that they were suffering badly. I sent them to Pierre. He treated them. Ivermectin was core to the treatment. And they report. I don't want to say miraculous, but spectacular recovery.

Pierre. By Pierre. You're talking about Doctor Pierre Quarry? Who, did he lose his license or something?

Yeah, I believe so. Or it's in process. But they are punishing him for.

For talking about a beneficial medicine that happens to not be patentable.

Punishing him for doing his job. Wild.

Yeah, that's wild.

It's crazy.

That's crazy.

Yeah. Diabolical, really.

It is diabolical. So what would be the mechanism to which ivermectin would help these people?

I don't know. It has a number of different mechanisms. It's certainly an anti inflammatory. You know, there's only so far that explanation will take you. But I don't know, I can't answer that question. It really doesn't much matter if you're sick and it makes you better. That's what you want. Our understanding of how many medicines work is.

But isn't it bizarre when people that have been vaccinated not once but multiple times, and had side effects from the vaccine, that they'll report openly, we'll talk about it and say it's long Covid while they're still suffering. It's almost like they alleviate themselves from any of the responsibility of making a terrible choice.

I think they're also being fed this story, right? And we've seen that in multiple places. So, for example, you remember these long debates about, well, okay, yes, the mRNA shots do cause a certain amount of myocarditis, but not nearly as much as Covid.

And it goes away quick. That was the other thing they kept saying, it's temporary.

Yeah, which is nonsense. And it turns out now that the myocarditis appears to have been vaccine induced myocarditis, that was being just like everything else happened with COVID It was a. I don't want to say an accounting error. It was cynical. They shoved things into the wrong category.

Right. And they also pushed out a narrative that you get more myocarditis from the vex, from the virus, rather than you do from the vaccine.

Right, and apparently you don't get it from the virus.

Yeah, well, what you do is get. You get high troponin levels, right? And Asim Mahaltra, he explained all this, is that when you test for that, you can assume if a person is suffering from a viral infection, that they will have high troponin levels. But it doesn't mean they have myocarditis. Right, so you're calling it myocarditis without actually doing an MRI on the hearth.

Right. And as I've pointed out in many different places, myocarditis is kind of a red herring anyway, because what it means is inflammation. And inflammation is there for a reason, there's an underlying pathology. And so the fact that we can detect that you have myocarditis means, well, okay, something's up with your heart. What is it? And the vaccines create damage in the heart. They create damage because they get taken up by heart cells. Those heart cells produce.

Explain the whole thing with the lipid nanoparticles, so people understand why they cause damage.

So the way these shots were supposed to work is you have an mRNA transcript that is loaded into lipid nanoparticle. The lipid nanoparticles are injected. We were told that they stayed in the deltoid where they are injected. They do not. They circulate in the blood and lymph. Lipid nanoparticle.

And this is proven?

Yeah, lipid nanoparticle. Lipid means fat. You may remember from high school chemistry that, like, dissolves. Like, so fats dissolve other fats. So you've got this thing encased in fat. Any cell it encounters is covered in fat. So it gets taken up by cells haphazardly around the body. Those cells take the message, the mRNA transcript, into the cytoplasm. They translate it into protein and that protein gets exported to the surface of the cell. This is how the manufacturer wants it to work. Now, if it happened in your arm, okay, but if it happens in your heart, well, anywhere it happens, it will trigger your immune system to spot this antigen that it doesn't recognize. And t cells will come in and kill the cells that are making this foreign protein. Because in natural circumstances, anytime a cell makes a foreign protein, it has the signature of a virally infected cell. A cell is producing self antigens and foreign antigens. That's a virally infected cell. No matter what place in the body it exists, the right thing to do is to destroy it. So the immune system comes in. T cells destroy that cell, and that leaves you with a wound, right?

You've lost cells that were doing something. Most of the tissues of the body can tolerate a certain amount of that. But in your heart you can't tolerate very much. Because the heart has an extremely low capacity to repair the itself. It scars instead. And it takes time to scar. You have a wound until it scars over. So those wounds are vulnerabilities. If you're an athlete and you've got a wound in your heart that you don't know about, you could easily die. Because you have a weakened wall in the chambers of your heart. And something breaches at the point that your blood pressure is high in the middle of some activity. So my point is, when we say myocarditis, we are effectively accepting a placeholder for there's an underlying pathology that we haven't found. And that pathology can be damage to the heart, which is very serious inherently. It compromises your lifetime capacity for your heart to function. And in the short term, it creates a substantial vulnerability to cardiac incidents.

And so these injections, which were supposed to stay local, is it because that they didn't aspirate, that they get into blood vessels? Like, what is the reason why it gets through the entire system.

Well, the aspiration issue, I believe, is a contributor, but I don't think it is the determinant. So in the case that, just to explain what you're getting at when you inject, somebody pulling back on the plunger in the syringe allows you to see whether or not you have accidentally landed inside a vein. If you pull back and you see blood, the tip of the needle is at least partially in a vein. And if you inject there, it doesn't go into the spaces between the cells in your muscle. It goes into your circulation. That's a bad thing. If you plunge the needle in, you pull back on the syringe, on the plunger, and you see blood, then you should plunge in further so that you're no longer in that blood vessel.

But we never saw that.

In fact, people were specifically told not to do it. And the rationale was they did not want to create vaccine hesitancy by leaving the needle in the arm any longer than necessary. They did end up doing a certain percentage of intravenous, accidental intravenous injections. And that means that a globule of this stuff went immediately into the circulation, which meant that if it went to your heart and got picked up there, it might not just be a small number of cells, it might be a large number of cells. So that was a completely unnecessary level of harm. Aspirating the needle was the right thing to do, and they should have done it, and they didn't have. And who knows how many people have died because they got a big dose intravenously where it was supposed to be intramuscular.

And that seems so straightforward that I can't imagine that they were showing people doing it any other way on television.

Yeah.

Even when they did the president, remember when they injected him on television, they just stuck it right in there.

Well, there's a question about what they injected him with, but yes, whatever happened.

On television, are you suggesting that that was deception? They didn't give him this life saving vaccine?

Well, here's the problem. I don't know how dumb these people are. It seems to me. Let's just play this out with sort of standard parameters. Inoculations cause a certain number of acute adverse reactions. These people wanted everyone injected. They didn't want us talking about injuries that were real. Right. They went out of their way to make sure that nothing caused anybody to have the sense that there was some problem with them. Do we really think they rolled the dice, injecting an old man with an active shot on tv?

Like, I don't think so. I suggested it back then, and I got called a kook. But I was talking about. There was a lot of people that were talking about being injured, and they were getting attacked. Like, remember when they were going after Eric Clapton?

Yeah.

Remember that one?

Oh, yeah, that was horrific. Vicious.

I mean, full boar attacks on Eric Clapton. I mean, calling him the most hurtful words, an anti vaxxer. He's always been a terrible person. And, like, fuck are you talking about?

Yeah, the. The gaslighting of the injured is insane.

Insane.

It's especially. You've asked people to do something. There's always adverse events. How is it that somebody who suffers an adverse event is not entitled to our compassion? I don't understand.

Yeah.

How you would turn vicious in that case.

And how can you rationalize, excuse me? How can you rationalize continuing to have these companies exempt?

Oh, you can't.

It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, especially if they're that profitable, because we know that if they're profitable, they're going to keep selling stuff.

Yeah. Well, let me put it to you this way. I think it makes sense to establish a policy that I will not accept any medical product for which the manufacturer is not liable if it goes wrong. And that's not medical advice. That's legal advice.

Yeah. Yeah. Because there's just too much room for fuckery and profit. When. When they know that something is profitable and they know they can get away with it, because they don't have any liability at all. They're gonna fuck with you. They're gonna gaslight you. They always have. Because you have two different types of people, right, that are involved in any kind of medication. You have the scientists and the clinicians that develop these things and create these things, and then you've got the money people. And the money people, they're not even scientists. What those people are interested in is making the most amount of money for their company. In fact, they have, they have a responsibility to their shareholders, right, to make a ton of money.

Absolutely.

Make more money every year. So if they know that they can get, it's their job as CEO to push that shit through, use it. Why do you have all those connections and all those relationships if you don't utilize them to help our company? Isn't that why you get a fucking gigantic salary every year as a CEO of a pharmaceutical drug company? And don't you understand? The relationship that we have with the FDA and the CDC has been. We have cultivated this relationship forever. So we have a revolving door to make it nice and easy. So the people that are in charge of regulation, they get a nice, sweet job. Nice, sweet, golden. We got it locked in. We got it locked up. Let's sell the shit. Sell it.

Well, the fact is, if you understand how the market is supposed to do its magic, this doesn't work, even in principle. Just simple evolutionary dynamics guarantee that corporations that are not responsible for the harm that they do will start making a profit by doing harm. Right. They will be out competed by other corporations who do if they don't. So it is guaranteed that they will move in that direction. Which is why I say you shouldn't take any product produced by an entity that is not liable for the harm that it does to you. It just doesn't make any sense.

Yeah. Anything. Anything across the board.

Yeah, yeah.

It's just bizarre that we let that slip through because they had decided at one point in time that vaccines create so many problems. There's no way they could sell these and be profitable and have legal responsibility. And our government was like, all right, all right. No responsibility.

I don't think most people know that little fact that you just mentioned, that, in fact, they were granted immunity from liability because they said it was impossible to make safe vaccines.

Yeah. Explain when this happened and how it happened to people. So they understand that this is. This is an issue that came up because of problems from vaccines.

Yeah, I believe it happened in the Reagan administration that they approached. They were reluctant to make vaccines. The Reagan administration wanted them to ratchet up production, and they said, we can't. It can't be done safely. And they were granted this immunity. And the system, the Vaers system was set up, and a special court was set up to adjudicate cases. And tremendous amount of evil has flown from that fateful decision. Including the proliferation of the childhood vaccine schedule.

Yes. Which is right now, pretty fucking insane. There's so many of them. They give them to them so quickly. Like, from the moment they're born, they want to bang them up with vaccines. And it's incredibly profitable. And people who are kind people who are intelligent people would never imagine there are human beings that are willing to profit off of injecting babies with things that may very well fuck them up for the rest of their life. They're like, there's no way. No one's that evil.

Right? It's hard to imagine. And then when you start looking into the evidence, it's like, oh, my goodness.

Oh, well, you look at just the history of vaccines themselves. You read turtles all the way down or dissolving illusions. You just like, wait wait wait wait wait.

Right?

What, what happened? Because all our lives, vaccines are the most important invention. Vaccines saved countless millions of lives. Vaccines are the way we can be safe today. Vaccines are the. So that was one of the dirtiest tricks about this mRNA technology that they piggybacked on an old word that already had pass. It already had hall pass.

Yep. Yeah, it's crazy. I mean, you know, Heather and I wrote into our book in 2020 that vaccines were one of the three greatest medical inventions in history, you know, the other two being surgery and antibiotics. And I still believe that in principle, there is something potentially very medically valuable there. But in practice, the way we produce these things, the way we manufacture them, the way the technology on which they are based has been modified. Right. The idea that we're going to produce a vaccine that is adjuvant based, and we're not going to tell you that we're going to hyperactivate your immune system to get a weak shot to function. And that that means that you're going to be in danger of creating a sensitivity to anything you encounter or eat during that period. Like, how are we not discussing that?

Right?

I mean, again, in 1919, in 2020, I was an enthusiast for this technology. Now I'm an enthusiast for what it says in the textbook about what this might be able to do, but I'm terrified of how it's actually being deployed. And I also now recognize, I believe I have vaccine injury. My allergy to wheat. The only way it adds up is probably a flu shot, caused me to become hypersensitive to something that was exposed to my immune system. Of course, wheat's in everything, so, you know, it's ever present. My children, my older son has an allergy to dairy, a profound one. I think that's a vaccine injury. Frankly, I don't know what percentage. You know, I have a friend who has an allergy, profound allergy to mold, that's driven her from two homes. Right.

But wait a minute. Allergies have always existed, and they existed before even vaccines.

No, no, I'm not going to say there weren't any.

There's nothing in the literature about vaccine or about allergies before vaccines.

The proliferation of allergies. Again, I don't want to say there wasn't any. But in many of these cases, things like Alzheimer's disease, we of course think, oh, these things are longstanding. They've been there. Maybe there's been an increase in the amount, but the degree to which many of these pathologies, including autism, frankly, turns out to be something that erupts out of nowhere, suggesting a novel environmental cause of some kind is profound. And mostly we don't know that because we don't do the legwork to go back and look at, well, where does this first show up? Right. We think polio has always been with us. No, that's not true. Right. So we have a pattern that we in the public are not aware of, pathologies that are widespread, that showed up out of nowhere, like obesity, and that suggests an environmental cause. We should become fascinated by what that cause might be because people are being. Every new generation has people being maimed by these pathologies. And if you can discover what the pathology is and you can eliminate the factor, you know, how much misery do you erase? How much economic growth do you create?

Right. These are powerful ways in which we could improve our well being, and we just simply don't do it because all of us carry the vague notion that these things are longstanding. But if you think about it, do you see animals in the wild being allergic in their environment?

No.

Sneezing?

Sometimes dogs are. But dogs get vaccinated to high heaven, too.

Yes, they do. Right. And so anytime you see that pattern where it's like, yes, wild animals don't have that pathology, but domestic animals and people do. That's telling you something.

Right.

Right. Because we share an environment.

Have you seen that? They're going to. They're calling for a cease fire in Gaza so that they can vaccinate for polio.

Yes, I have seen that. And what?

Yeah, you're going to not blow people up temporarily so they can keep them from a disease? Which do you know the statistics of? Like, when people get polio, how much of polio is asymptomatic? Do you know the statistics?

I don't know the statistics. I will tell you, I read a jaw dropping book. I mean, and this is. I keep. I keep having this experience where there are various stories that we all carry around that tell us something about the world we're living in and what to be afraid of. So, for example, spanish flu, right? Much of our fear of pandemics is based on the idea that spanish flu erupted out of nowhere. It killed young, healthy people. And you know what? It's not that long ago it could happen again. Blah, blah, blah. Turns out that story isn't what we all think it is. There are two things about that story which are not commonly known. One is there was an enthusiasm for prescribing aspirin for people who came in with flu symptoms, and they were prescribed aspirin in doses that are now known to be deadly. Okay. So a lot of people drowned, basically, their lungs filled with liquid because they were overdosed on aspirin. That's one thing. The other thing is bacterial pneumonia, which followed on the viral infection. Bacterial pneumonia that we can now easily treat with antibiotics. Yes, exactly. So the question is, you know, would spanish flu, if it emerged tomorrow, cause a pandemic that mattered?

No, it wouldn't. But we all think, oh, goodness, it can happen because spanish flu proves it.

Right?

Same thing happened with my understanding of polio.

I was going to give you the number. 95% to 99%. Asymptomatic.

Is asymptomatic.

Asymptomatic of polio, yeah.

Do you know why?

Why?

Because I actually know. I think I know why. Based on the book, the moth and the iron lung, there is a virus involved in polio. That virus is not normally serious. It's a gut virus. Right. It causes slight gut pathology, goes away of its own accord. What appears to have happened that caused polio to be a terrifying, debilitating disease is metal toxicity. Right? So polio, turns out, has some weird quirks, right? It affects the nerves in the front of the spinal cord, but not the back of the spinal cord, and it affects children and not adults. And the argument that is made in the moth and the iron lung, I think, quite compellingly, is that what's happening is the metal are causing that bacterium to, or the virus to leak out of the gut, and it can grow in neurological tissue. And in a child, the gut is sitting right in front of the spinal cord. And so it is affecting the motor neurons, but not the sensory neurons, which are on the back because of the physical proximity of the gut to the spinal cord. And that as you grow, those things separate, and so the susceptibility disappears.

But it's the metal toxicity that is taking a non serious pathogen and causing it to be serious, which makes for a very confusing story, because you actually do have a pathogen, and you can actually prevent the pathogen with a vaccine, but the root cause is the metal toxicity that is causing things to leak out of the gut and touch the spinal.

I had read this thing that was connecting DDT as well.

Yep. DDT is connected as well.

Lots of cases of it in rural areas where people sprayed.

Well, actually, that's what the book, the moth and the iron lung, amazingly tracks the history of this, where, in fact, you had a problem, where the moths, the silk moths, were not robust to predation. And so entomologists were looking for something to hybridize the silk moths with that would be resistant to things like jays eating them as caterpillars. And this one entomologist had gypsy moths from Europe in his possession that he was trying to breed with silk moths, an experiment that was doomed to failure. But nonetheless, one day he had them sitting on his kitchen window, and a wind blew and blew them into his garden. And he knew he tried to recover them, and he couldn't find them all. And so he knew that he had a problem. He tried to alert people locally. Hey, we've got a local gypsy moth problem, which is bad because gypsy moths devastate vegetation. And in any case, they were unable to control the infestation. And of course, it spread throughout the east.

Oh, my God. Why didn't that guy torch his field?

Well, right. If you had understood what was going to follow from this, that would have been. It would not have been an overreaction. Right, right. But nonetheless, what you have is something like an epidemic of polio. That's not really an epidemic of polio. You have an epidemic of gypsy moths that are being sprayed for with these toxic pesticides. Right. It's a crazy, crazy story. But the upshot is we all carry around stories like, polio is a terrifying disease. It debilitated people. We have a vaccine that ended that horror, therefore, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's not the story. The story is we actually have an epidemic of stupidity about industrial toxins. And in this case, they interface with a story about a vaccine and a pathogen. But the story isn't the one we think, right. It's a very strange set of interactions. But once you start digging into these stories and you realize that all of them are, you know, we've been told some fairy tale that leads us to a conclusion that just isn't right, then you have to start rethinking things. But of course, as you discover these things, people decide you're a crank.

But have you seen, in New York City, they're spraying pesticide in the sky to kill the mosquitoes that might be carrying the West Nile virus.

Is. They're. They're going after West Nile virus in New York mosquitoes.

They're spraying pesticide. They're letting people know we will be spraying at 08:00 p.m. stay inside, limit your exposure to the pesticide. And they're driving trucks down the street that are just spraying pesticides. So we don't learn.

Right.

And isn't that disease, West Nile virus. Isn't that like 80% of the people? It's almost nothing, right?

And then at the same time, we're dealing with a set of restrictions in the northeast over eastern equine encephalitis.

Right?

Right. And so I've been looking to find.

The videos of them spraying that shit in New York City because it's, it's very orwellian, it's very like, how do we not. How do we not know to not do this anymore? Like, this seems like a crate. Look, they're driving down the street spraying. Look, there's mosquitoes, we got to kill them. So they're spraying out of the back of this fucking truck. By the way, you're not killing anything, you're killing what's on that street. What about what's in between the houses, what's in the fields, what's in the park, what's in the lake where they all breed.

Well, okay, so let's do this at full spring.

Six confirmed cases. We need to start spraying. One of them was Doctor Fauci, right? Well, look, he was hospitalized, Brett.

I know.

Yes.

So let's, let's look at all the components here. One, I've seen spraying like that in person before. I've seen it in Panama, in the canal zone. Now the canal zone is malaria free. I don't know what the cost. I mean, people live in the canal zone. Americans lived there while the canal was in our possession in large numbers. I do think that the spraying kept the anopheles mosquitoes to a low enough number that malaria did not exist in the canal zone. What the cost of that was, I also can't say. My guess is the cost of that was very high, but not well measured. The idea that we are now a, why is it we are dealing with a simultaneous panic over eastern equine encephalitis and west Nile virus? Well, that is a very odd coincidence. One thing that's true is the last panic was over Covid. And the response to Covid was massive vaccination with the mRNA shots. As you know, the mRNA shots for anybody who got two or more triggered the production of something called igg four, which I don't know if we've talked about it before, but igg four is the immune system's own message to itself to turn itself down.

Okay, why two or more?

That's just empiric. I don't know whether anybody expected this result, but when it was pursued, that was just the number at which we could detect the presence of ITG four.

So not with one?

Not with one. I'm not saying there wasn't any with one, but we don't detect it with one shot. And then two produces some effect. And the more shots you get, the bigger the effect. Does that explain why disease itself appears to have changed in the last year or two? Right. Why are people so sick during the summer? Right. Do you remember even five years ago, right, there were summer colds. People remarked on them. Because it was weird when you got sick during the summer, right? Oh, I got a summer cold. But people weren't sick with lots of different things during the summer. In general, you were, you know, fine during the summer. And then when you got sick, when, when it was, you know, cold out and you were driven indoors, and that was just the pattern. So something's going on that people are much more susceptible. And it just so happens that we've watched a pattern where people have been multiply, injected with something that we know turns their immune system down. Why are we not asking the question if the reason that we may have a problem with West Nile virus and eastern equine encephalitis is the result of a self inflicted wound?

Right. We should at least be asking that question. Instead, we are still recommending that goddamn Covid shot.

Well, and then look at a guy like Fauci, who was one of the rare few that was hospitalized, and he's had six shots, according to him.

Yeah. I got to say, as soon as we get to Fauci, I just don't believe anything. I don't know. I'm agnostic as to whether or not the dude took any shots, whether he's. I don't know what's going on because there's so much garbage surrounding that guy, what he thinks and what he did that I just can't accept any of it at face value. But here's what I don't understand. Let's look at the eastern equine encephalitis issue. They are now considering curfews. They are going to start eroding civil liberties over the presence of this disease. One person has died.

It's only one person.

Yeah. If you read up on it, it turns out the average year there are seven diagnosed cases of this. So it's not like this is a disease that never shows up and suddenly there's one case and people are freaking out. There's apparently an annual rate of this. We have an annual rate that even if it's more, this does not suggest the possibility of a massive disease spread. And if it did, we're still giving people a shot that causes their immune systems to turn down. So can we at least stop doing that before we start panicking over new diseases? Because it sure looks like we are creating vulnerability to new diseases over here. Recommending mRNA shots that people don't need. And then we are, you know, having lockdowns.

Like, we're also recommending it to people that already have natural immunity, which is the most bizarre thing, of course, the most bizarre, because there's no science that backs that up. Doesn't make any sense. And yet we're still saying to these people, you gotta get your boosters. This ig four.

Igg four.

Igg four. What does that stand for?

Ig means immunoglobulin. That's synonym for antibody. IgG is a major class of antibody. There are something like five major classes, and then Iggdez is a subclass that turns the immune system down.

And why does this, what is it about the mRNA shots that causes this to happen?

We don't know.

We just know measurably. People who have more of them have this.

Yes. And it's alarming. I mean, it's alarming for multiple reasons. I was really unsure what to think about this when it first occurred to me, but the more I think about it, the more alarmed I am. Covid SArS Cov two, the virus that causes Covid, appears to have emerged from laboratory work that was dual use. Dual use work means bio weapons research. The excuse. So it's called dual use because you're only allowed to do bioweapons research if it's also research that might contribute to public health. So the excuse is, oh, we're working, you know, what do they tell us? They said, well, the gain of function research is so that we can create pathogens and learn what to do about them before they find themselves out of nature. And we don't know what to do. Right, this is a nonsense story. It's not. It is, it is not coherent to think that by creating some pathogen in a laboratory that you're going to learn something about pathogens that might leap out of nature. For one thing, pathogens. Leaping out of nature is a difficult thing for them to do. They have to do two tricks, and it's not easy.

They have to infect a person. Okay, some pathogens will do that, but then before that person dies or gets better, they have to jump from one person to the next. Very, very few are ever going to jump that gap. So it's not a big risk. And then if you've created a pathogen of your own, you're going to learn about what to do about that pathogen, but it's not broadly applicable. And you can see we had research on coronaviruses being done in the Wuhan Institute being done in North Carolina. How much help did it give us? What did we learn from that research that protected us from COVID And the answer is, nothing. Nothing, because it's inconceivable that you would. So they're using the excuse of public health to do this weapons research. But here's the punchline of the story. The vaccines are also the product of bio weapons research, because they include the spike protein, which was the innovation that made the ancestor of SARS CoV two into an infectious human pathogenous. The addition of a furn cleavage site to spike protein made this thing capable of infecting and spreading between humans. That spike protein was the core of the mRNA shots.

Get two or more of those shots. Now you create igg four, and the more of the shots you have, the more you produce.

But was there any literature that indicated that this was going to have this effect before they rolled out the vaccines? Or was this just an unfortunate byproduct?

I am not aware of that literature, but notice the following problem. That IgG four signal to turn down the immune system is now connected to the presence of spike protein. At a bioengineering level, it is trivial to add spike protein to something else. Bioweapons researchers have a problem. If you create. First of all, they have two problems. One of them is there aren't that many weaponizable human pathogens, right? So they're sort of bored with the fact that they've got a small number of these things and they've played around with them, and, you know, they're not happy, they need something else. So there's also a vast number in nature that you could, in principle, weaponize, but most of them can infect a human. So they engage in this, you know, hocus pocus stuff, where they take stuff that doesn't infect a human, and they turn it into something that infects a human. And of course, the risk that it will escape is very, very large. And the risk that we will learn anything useful is very, very small. But nonetheless, they play this game. And if they create something that is a frightening weapon, that could, in principle, in their warped minds, be used for something useful, the question is, how can you deliver a biological weapon that harms your enemies without harming your population?

You have to separate those two populations in some way. The obvious way to do it is to inoculate your population so that they have an immunity. The enemy population doesn't have an immunity. Right. Mind you, this is all wildly immoral, but if you think like a weapons maker, this makes some kind of sense. But this is not the only way. That's where the IgG four thing really throws me. Because what they seem to have, in the best case accidentally done, is created a vulnerability in the populations that took the mRNA shots that does not exist in populations that didn't. And any time a pathogen shows up with Spike, it is likely to trigger the immune system to stand down. Right? That's something that a weapons maker might dream of doing to its enemy. The Chinese did not inoculate their population with mRNA based shots, and they did not inoculate them with spike based shots. So what did they use? Other stuff. More standard vaccine stuff. Antigens delivered. I mean, not effective, but doesn't create this effect, as far as we know.

Is that like what the Novavax is?

Nova Novavax is another new technology. I don't know very much about it, but the Sinovax is what the Chinese used, and it was a much more standard, apparently not very effective shot. But nonetheless, the creation of a vulnerability in one population that the other population doesn't have. We can imagine that that was an accident. Let's hope it was an accident. But it does appear to be something that they have created. And the fact that weapons makers seem to have created this with their diabolical research ought to give us pause.

So if weapons manufacturers were involved in the creation of a virus, what if especially a virus like a respiratory virus, that could go across the entire population of of the planet and did, what would be the use of something that only kills old people and overweight people?

Well, I'm not saying that it was a bioweapon. I don't think it was a bio.

You're saying it's bioweapons research that created this virus, but not that the virus was actually a bioweapon?

Well, look, I do not know how crazy these people are, and I don't really know who they work for. Right. It is obvious that something beyond what most of us would imagine is true, because somehow our dual use researchers were collaborating with chinese military associated researchers. That's surprising, isn't it?

Right, so the Wuhan lab was a.

Chinese based weapons lab, bioweapons lab, certainly military affiliated. But the head of the Wuhan Institute laboratory in question, Xi Zhengli was trained by Ralph Barrick. Right. So this is a partnership on dual use research that doesn't seem to make any sense, given what we all think. We understand about where the tensions are, who are the allies and who are the antagonists on the world stage.

And also the fact that this funding was stopped in 2014 by the Obama administration, but then Fauci restarted it under the Trump administration. And there's no. There's no. Nor is there. There's no specified goal in terms of, like, what's the positive benefit for society? If this research is done, there's a huge possibility that it leaks, and it's incredibly detrimental, which did. But there's also, even though they were working on this stuff for so long.

There was no cure force for Covid.

For the thing that they created. So if you're gonna create something that could potentially, you know, damage the human race. So you're worried about, like, what would happen if this. What would happen if there really was a natural spillover and this thing really did come through a pangolin or whatever the fuck it did, and then got into people. We need to figure out a way to save people. But there's no solution. They were working on this stuff forever, and they didn't have a solution.

Ah, they didn't have a solution, and they didn't allow the one process that would quickly generate a solution to function. Doctors treating patients based on what walks through their office door. Right. But to my way of thinking, they already knew what worked. Ivermectin worked on SARS one. SARS one is an rna virus. This stuff works generally across rna viruses. It would have rendered Covid, you know, tragic in the sense that we don't need another human pathogen circulating, but totally manageable in almost everybody's case.

And the way you would use ivermectin is upon initial infection, that's. It's very quickly, you give it to people. So is there a certain point in time where, after the infection, it's not going to be effective anymore?

Absolutely.

And how much time is that generally?

Well, the amazing thing is, even in the studies that claimed that they proved it didn't work, it does work. If you look at the data they collected, it reflects that it works. Even though these experiments were set up to fail, they dosed late. They under dosed and were done in places where the control group was likely to have ivermectin circulating at a fairly high rate. So there's all sorts of tricks that were used, but even in those cases, it still worked. But the answer, I would say, is, at least in the case of ivermectin, it's a little different with hydroxychloroquine. But with ivermectin, the stuff is so low harm that treating immediately is the way to go, because the difference in its efficacy between day one and day two and day two and day three, those jumps are substantial, so there's no reason not to give it immediately. And I guess the question is why? We saw all of the skulduggery around portraying ivermectin as dangerous, portraying it as ineffective. So we know that they just lied through their teeth. We also know that they knew that it was essentially certain to work. So why they do that?

And, you know, there's a. I don't know how bad the answer is, but the answer is at least that they wanted the pandemic, the so called pandemic, right. They redefined a pandemic in order that this would qualify, but the so called pandemic would be significant enough to get everybody to engage in the same kinds of behaviors, to accept them. Right. So I don't know the problem. We're stuck in the same place we always are, which is, if we just simply navigate this logically, we end up in some pretty dark places. With respect to what they might have been up to. Why were the weapons makers lying about the utility of drugs that rendered this novel pathogen minor?

Well, don't you think the most obvious answer would be there was a pathway to extreme wealth? If you're going to have a vaccine that is paid for by the government that not only the government profits off of. Right? So they own patent, right? They own a piece of Moderna, right?

Yep.

So they sold these vaccines to themselves, essentially. They. They made incredible amounts of them. They distributed them all over the world. Insane amount of profit. And then forced people to take them, and then ignored all evidence that there was other medications, in fact, demonized those medications publicly, like what they did on CNN. That's the demon showing its eyes. What they did on CNN and all those networks when they were talking it and calling it horse dewormer, despite the fact that it had won the Nobel Prize for use in humans, all that stuff. The most obvious answer would be profit. Because you look at the amount of money that was generated. How much money did they make? How much money was generated by Pfizer? Let's ask. Let's take a guess. How much money do you think was generated by Pfizer and Moderna between 2021 and 2023, which is like the peak years where people were taking it. It's kind of tough to talk people into taking it now, but there's a bunch of believers, and I follow a few of them on Twitter that are all in. Take a guess. How much money do you think they.

Made between what years?

2021 and 2023? I think 2023 was the first year it really dropped off.

Yeah. I'm not going to guess.

I'm going to guess between the two of them. I want to say $90 billion. That's what I want to say. That's my guess.

So is that we're going to find.

Out how much up. Okay, let me try again. 200 billion. It's a little over 100 billion.

I think Pfizer's was real close.

Cominardi says generated 75 billion between 21 and 22, doesn't include 23 and then 36 billion for spike facts, which I think is. Is that Moderna?

Yeah.

So over a hundred billion?

Yeah, but that ain't nothing.

That's a lot of money.

It's not.

It's not. But you don't think that's enough money for them?

First of all, I don't think they were.

Wonderful thing called the emergency use exemption. Right.

Yeah.

And the only way to allow people to get away with the emergency use exemption is you have to have some sort of proof that nothing else works.

Yeah, I know.

If you have another effective medication, you don't get emergency use authorization. Right.

First place I heard that hypothesis was Heather. I believed it. I've come to believe that it's actually not that, that their ability to cheat in the american system at least is so great that that obstacle would not have prevented them from deploying their shots.

Let's pause real quick because I have pee and we'll come back right into that because I want to know the whole thing and I can't be thinking what happened.

I totally get it.

All right, we'll be right back. And we're back. So we were at the emergency use authorization.

Yeah.

And you think that that wasn't necessary and they could have gotten it through anyway?

I think it's. Yeah, it's logical enough. There's truth in it. They, you know, having a viable preventative for SARS CoV two in theory, should have prevented an eua. But I don't think that that was an obstacle they couldn't have overcome. I think the problem was their real goal was to normalize the use of a gene therapy on a population that had never had that idea placed in its mind. And so they called it a vaccine that was one thing, but they also needed the disease to be frightening enough that people would accept something radical in order to get through it. And had doctors been enabled to just simply do what doctors are supposed to do, they would have discovered that there were treatments, inexpensive ones, one of them extremely safe, the other one comparatively safe, that were highly efficacious. They would have discovered the connection to vitamin D, all of these things. And that would have, that would have meant two things. One, it would have meant that the degree to which the mRNA platform got normalized would have been much reduced, and it also would have created a massive control group, people who didn't take the shots, which would make the harms that much less obvious.

So I suspect the reason I say that $100 billion isn't a lot of money, when it obviously is a lot of money, is that it's not a lot of money compared to what was at stake in their minds, which is the mRNA platform, which can be used to reformulate every vaccine they've got to create a bunch of new vaccines. We're talking about a trillion dollar invention that could not be brought to market normally, because it's way too dangerous. And the emergency made it possible not only to bring it to market, but to get everybody, or nearly everybody on board with it. And I don't know how deep this rabbit hole goes. I do think there is something remarkable about the early days of the so called pandemic, where doctors were primed for the horror of this disease, so that they were already in the mindset of radical interventions, which meant that they did a lot of harm with things like ventilators that didn't need to be done. They killed a lot of people because they thought they were rescuing them. So the EUA story is good enough, it more or less explains it, but I don't think it obscures the bigger picture, which is that the mRNA platform itself is the ultimate cash cow that couldn't be brought to market under anything but the most extraordinary emergency circumstances.

And so they took a virus that shouldn't have existed in humans at all. And wasn't that terrifying when it was released into the population, and they turned it into something frightening enough that people would contemplate things that they ordinarily would have rejected.

But doesn't that also make sense that the emergency use authorization would have to be in place in order for them to implement this? Because you're always gonna, like you said, the lack of a control, right? If everybody gets vaccinated, you don't know what the hell happened, you blame it on Covid, which is why people have been hit with the shots, say they have long Covid. But if you have no emergency use authorization, and then people are allowed to make their own decisions and doctors are allowed to make their own decisions, there's a lot of, it's way easier to do it with this emergency use authorization. It's way easier to slip it through. And the only way you could stop that is if all of a sudden. If so, emergency use authorization is supposed to only exist if there's not some sort of a medication that currently exists that treats it. Right. Otherwise you're going to have to go through all the trials if there's another medication that exists. So you demonize the medications, you sneak it through, you make everybody take it, therefore you lose the control. And now you've got this platform rolled out.

Do you think that they didn't know to the extent, extent of the damage that it was going to cause?

I think they knew.

You think they knew it was going to harm that many people?

Yeah, because so much, I mean, I'm not arguing that the EUA wasn't important. I think it was important. I just don't think it was necessary for them to, they could have overcome that obstacle the way they overcame it.

I see what you're saying, many others, but the most important thing was rolling.

Out this platform and normalizing it. Getting people to accept the idea that they were going to take an mRNA shot. Right. That was a big leap. And so the EUA was important, and we know that because of the shenanigans around, they ultimately did get a shot that they said was the same. Not emergency use authorized, but I'm now forgetting the term when the FDA, actually, there's another term. It's not authorized, but it's a synonym. But anyway, they did get approved. They did get one approved, and you couldn't get it. They kept giving the one that had the EUA. They did that for legal reasons. It gave them a layer of immunity. Right. They had been given the license to deliver an experimental drug, and then they got approval for a non experimental drug, and they kept giving the experimental one, even though they said they were the same thing. There's something very deep there around the legal status of that emergency use authorized pharmaceutical.

Hmm. And so do you think that the blowback from all of this and the amount of people that are reporting vaccine injuries and the amount of discussion that's happening, especially online, about these things, makes it more difficult for them to roll out that platform for other things?

Yes, I think we got in their way. I think we outed them. But to your earlier question about did they know how much harm if they didn't, they'd be behaving differently now. Notice how it's not slowing them down. Right. They're still recommending these things for six month old. What, on what planet would you do that we now have.

And pregnant women.

And pregnant women, we now have a novel pathogen that presumably these kids are going to be faced with encounters repeatedly for the rest of their lives. And you want to mess with their immunity six months into life, you have no idea whether you are making it impossible for them to develop some proper immunity so they can fend this thing off for all of the encounters for the rest of their life. Right? You're like creating a consumer at the expense of a child. And it's insane. And I will tell you, I've just found out that there is sort of a next chapter on this mRNA stuff, which I don't know if you've paid any attention. Have you noticed what's going on in Japan? Self replicating mRNA?

No.

So there's a new version. Apparently, when the mRNA platform that we got was settled upon, there were some competing platforms that didn't make it. And those competing platforms are beginning to make their debut. And in Japan, there are currently protests over what's called a self replicating mRNA vaccine. I think they call it a replicon. And so, notice that the whole mRNA platform was really about doing away with the vaccine factory, by turning you into a vaccine factory, right? Your cells became the vaccine factory. And there are reasons that a pharmaceutical company, especially an amoral one, would prefer that. So remember, one of the things that was done to make the mRNA vaccines that we got work was the mRNA transcript was stabilized with pseudouridine. All of the uracils that would ordinarily have been in that message were replaced by something chemically similar that is sometimes seen in nature. But the more of them you have, the more stable the molecule is. So when they told us the mRNA molecules were short lived, we didn't have to worry about this shot, because the mRNA's weren't going to last very long in our bodies, right? They would disappear.

That was a lie. They had hyper stabilized these things. They've now given a Nobel prize for the hyper stabilization process. They wanted to give a prize for the vaccines, and so they gave it for this narrow thing. I would argue maybe it's the worst design flaw in the entire thing. And that's saying something, because there are substantial number of design flaws. But these self replicating mRNA's, the competing platform, borrows some machinery from something called an alpha virus. And that alpha virus, basically they take the genome of an alphavirus, and they include the gene for the antigen that they want your body to develop an immunity to. But they include it along with some genes for proteins that allow the rna to basically copy itself. Now, instead of taking a molecule of mRNA and putting it in lipid nanoparticle and making it hyper stable, so it keeps making new messages, what they're going to do is they're going to allow the mRNA to duplicate itself biologically inside of you. Now this is madness, right? They are running a radical experiment, a new one. The mRNA platform was a radical experiment to begin with, self replicating. That's a whole new level of radical.

And they are considering, I think they have gotten permission to deliver this stuff in Japan this fall, right? So this is, if these people did not understand the damage that they were going to do, it would have given them pause. They were, they would have looked at all of the harm, all of the people who died who didn't need to, all of the people suffering from, you know, compromised immunity. And they would have thought, holy shit, what did we miss? But that's not what they thought. Think this is business as usual for them. It's clearly business as usual.

The only way you're going to develop new novel medications that are effective is commerce. You're going to have to have people profiting off of them, which is why they fund them. Cost a lot of money under the current climate, if you have FDA approval, costs billions of dollars to achieve that. So you need people to be able to make money. But isn't people making money off these medications the real reason why stuff like this happens in the first place?

I think it's a bad paradigm. You know, I definitely want those rare pharmaceuticals that actually do more good than harm.

When you say rare, what percentage do you think it is?

1%.

Jesus Christ.

Yeah. Now let me, that's going to sound crazy to people, but let me defend it for a second, okay? When you have a pathology that's widespread enough for a company to make a medication to do something about it, you are dealing with a failure of the environment in which the creature lives. Our focus should be on that. It should be on what's in our food that we're not expecting. Right. Seed oils, for example. Right. A lot of us spent our lives not noticing that seed oils weren't what they appeared to be, and that they actually have a role to play in the creation of disease. Right. It's not vegetable oil. Right? Vegetable oil. Avocado oil is vegetable oil.

Seed oil. It's a fruit oil.

Exactly. It's a fatty fruit oil. Perfect. So the point is that one makes sense because a plant does not want you eating its seed, right? So it puts toxins in the seed. The oil from avocados comes from the flesh, which is there to induce birds to take the seed various places. So the point is it's designed as a food. So anyway, there's something wrong with the environment. The profitable thing to do is not to fix the environment. It's to create a remedy or something that masquerades as a remedy. And the number of harms that are being done to people is just compounding. So my feeling is the paradigm is wrong. I want the antibiotic to prevent the gangrene. Right? We've cured gangrene. People don't lose their arms anymore because they got a wound. That's good. That's a pharmaceutical that's worth having. We should treat it with respect. We should note I deliver the stuff where it doesn't belong. But by and large, the pharmaceuticals we have are creating their own demand. Sometimes they're being given because somebody has engineered a parameter that causes a doctor. You know, statins are being delivered because of a metric that suggests to somebody that you have ill health in somebody way that can be remedied by these things.

It was nonsense to begin with. So, yeah, I think the cost we pay is huge and that the market is going to find plausible stories that cause people to be willing to take drugs and that mostly, you know, health, it starts in the kitchen. That's something that doctors I respect have pointed out, that this is about what you're consuming. It's about the environment that you live in. It's about understanding that sunlight is an important contributor to health and that the way we live means that you're probably deficient in vitamin D. It's about all of those things. And the amount of good that could be done just by simply recognizing the environmental component is huge.

Well, that seems reasonable.

I must be a crank.

Yeah, I know. Isn't that funny? That was what was hilarious to me during the pandemic was people that were clearly not physically healthy saying that the only way that you could be healthy was to take this medication. That to me was bizarre. It was so bizarre because they weren't even considering taking care of their body. They were only considering taking this medication as if taking care of your body was foolish, right? Which is so weird. Like, when I had Hotez on, he was talking about his diet.

I remember that.

What do you eat and what do you.

Do?

You ever work out? Like, eats junk food? He eats junk food and blasts himself with vaccines. Yeah, it's nuts. It's nuts.

Yeah. I don't know, I don't know what's up with him, but it's.

It's something not good. Yeah, yeah. I mean, just the contradictory statements over the years and his stance on vaccines when Trump was president, his stance on the mRNA platform when Trump was president first versus the immediate 180 Biden took in office.

I hate to say this, but he's either a cold hearted liar or the most profoundly unself aware person that has ever existed. I mean, it's stunning.

I think it's two, it's number two. It's the latter with a little bit of number one that is necessary in order to be number two. You know, I think you, if you're a part of a system and it's really important that you support all the people above you in this system, and that you all work together and you're a good company man, you find profound ways to justify the things that you're saying. And especially if you can use some science y kind of talk and talk about diseases and inflate people dying and inflate numbers, inflate this and that.

Yeah, yeah, well, which is why they.

Attacked me so hard. They don't want someone healthy. Get real quick and say, hey, you know me, I work out all the time. By the way. Got over real quick. Right, how I did it.

Well, that, I mean, that, that goes back to what I was getting at, is that everything I saw suggested they wanted it to be as terrifying as possible.

Absolutely, yeah. There was no comforting people, no telling people, listen, it's not nearly as bad as we thought it was going to be. You're going to be fine. They didn't want to contribute to vaccine hesitancy because they wanted that money to keep rolling in. And that the number, I mean, just the shift in that. Imagine if they did. Imagine if right away they said, you know what, this is not nearly as bad as we thought it was going to be. The way Bill Gates talks about it now, it actually mostly affected older people and people who were very vulnerable. Those are the people that really affected. The amount of profit they would have made would have been significantly less and the enthusiasm for the platform would have been significantly less.

Yes, I really believe you're talking in the end about, I think many hundreds of billions is unrealistically low. We're talking about an industry that has been playing this game without our knowledge, right? How do you demonize competing drugs? How do you make your pharmaceutical look safe when it isn't? How do you make it look effective when it isn't? Right? That's the game every day of the week for these people. And they found the ultimate version of that game in the mRNA platform which they wanted to normalize and they needed an emergency to do it. That's the most parsimonious explanation for everything we experienced. And you know, it's playing God with people's lives.

But it's also, the weird thing was, especially now, because of Zuckerberg's recent statement, we now know for sure that what he was saying was that they were pressuring them to remove Covid-19 information. That turned out to be true. So the government was involved in this whole thing because the government was probably being pressured by the pharmaceutical drug companies?

Yes. And you know, even those distinctions, I think are quaint. We are now watching the fusion of corporate power and governmental power. That is the definition of fascism. We're seeing the breakdown of individual and national sovereignty. Right? What the hell is the five Eyes? Why are the intelligence apparatus of these countries conspiring against the citizens of these countries? All of the categories that we grew up with, with, are an obstacle to seeing what's actually functioning as our antagonist here. It doesn't have a name, it doesn't have a national boundary. It's clearly targeting the civil liberties that make the west possible. And we're going to have to level up quickly if we are actually going to survive this.

So what's worst case scenario in your mind, with all the competing factors that are happening right now, what's worst case scenario?

Well, let's leave this terrestrial, okay? There are some space weather stuff. I'm pretty concerned about that we really need to have our governmental shit in order to deal with. But I'm concerned that we are facing the last opportunity to wield the power that remains in our constitution in order to preserve the west. I really believe the west is at stake in this election. And I know that everybody will laugh and they will say, ah, everybody always says this is the last opportunity. This time it's really dire. But I truly believe the republic is in serious jeopardy. I believe that however it happened, the blue team has become hostile to all of the fundamental values that allow the republic to function and that undergird the west. And when I say the west, I'm not talking about a set of countries. I'm not talking about a geographic description. I'm talking about an agreement not to rig the world in favor of your people. An agreement on a level playing field in which people are rewarded for creating wealth from which we all benefit. That system is incredibly dynamic and powerful. It increases human well being at a rate that no other competing system has ever come close to.

And it is very strong in one way. Its capacity to generate wealth is incredible, but it is vulnerable. The reason that our founding documents have the strange form that they do, the reason that the founders of the US carved out all of these counterintuitive rights, are that in order to stabilize that system, you needed to have an industrial strength document that prevented all sorts of threats from getting anywhere near the core of that system. So I think the worst case scenario is the next election, November. We don't beat the cheat margin, the blue team remains in power, and it dismantles the remaining protections of our civil liberties and the basis of our freedom.

And what would be the way they would go about doing that?

Well, you know, you saw it, right? That thing you put up from the New York Times. The idea is, look, at some level, we've got the First Amendment, which is already in tremendous peril, right? We've got Brazil turning off x, as you pointed out, threatening to ruin anybody who uses a VPN to circumvent their bloc. You've got Pavel Durov, who has been effectively taken hostage in France.

You have the owner of Telegram.

Yeah. You have people in Britain being arrested for speaking freely. And the US is actually, in some ways, the last holdout. Why are we the last holdout? Because our first amendment is spelled out in very clear terms and it's difficult to get around it. It. And, you know, you and I lived through an era of terrible censorship, but it had to be cryptic. Here you showed the New York Times. Was it experimenting with how to phrase the argument for unhooking the constitution so that people would get used to the idea that that was being done for them. Right?

It's dangerous. The first amendment is dangerous. The constitution is dangerous. Don't you see? What is it dangerous? They pose the question.

But here's the. I mean, let's flip the topic on its head. The founders of the US enshrined counterintuitive rights. These were brilliant men, and they enshrined counterintuitive rights because they understood a thing or two about tyranny, because they had faced it. They knew that there was no way to eliminate bad speech without eliminating necessary speech. So they said, you know what? You can't do it. There is lots of bad speech. Live with it. You know why? Because there's really uncomfortable stuff that needs to be said that you don't want anyone to have the power to eliminate. Right? That's counterintuitive. Everybody, every child understands. People shouldn't be allowed to say bad stuff. Right? Maybe that's appropriate in a kindergarten classroom, but it's not appropriate in a civilization where we have to figure out what's.

Good and what's bad, right? And it has to be debated.

Nobody has the position from which to say which speech has no value. So that's off limits. But here's the frightening part. It's even frightening to raise this point that First Amendment is where it is for a reason. It's the fundamental right to all of these. They placed the second amendment in the backup position. So what I'm telling you is I am concerned that we are. You know, you can hear our civil liberties creaking. You can hear that document threatening to give way. You can hear the enemies of it experimenting with explaining what they're doing and why they're really the ones who are looking out for your best interests. All of these maniacs are going to make violence inevitable. We have to avoid that. We absolutely have to avoid that. So I don't know if this is the moment to talk about what's brewing over the course of the next month.

Sure.

All right, so several of us are organizing an event. I don't really want to call it an event, because although it's technically an event, I think it's much more important than that. But we're going to hold an event, event on the Capitol Mall on September 29. It's going to be between the Washington monument and the World War Two memorial. That event is called Rescue the Republic, and it is really about rescuing the republic in order to save the west. This is an attempt to gather the unity movement that is forming at this moment. Here you can see some of the characters who will be joining us on the mall. And here is the pitch I would make. There are transcendent moments in culture. There are moments at which something shifts. Woodstock was a music festival, but it was obviously more than a music festival. It was a defining moment for a generation. I think there's a lot that's unfortunate about what that generation has done. And in fact, I believe they've put us in the jeopardy that we're in now, and that in some ways, what we're struggling to do is get past their vision.

The event that we are holding on the Capitol Mall on September 29 is really an attempt to bookend that era, to end it, and to start a new era in which, as Bobby Kennedy said, we love our children more than we hate each other. And that allows us to come together and recognize each other as allies to fend off this force that is obviously targeting our civil liberties, our freedom, the very foundations of our system. So what we've done is we've outlined eight pillars. They're things which I think almost every member of your audience, really, any patriot, anybody who understands the value of the west, would resonate with. These are just fundamentals, and we can go through them in a second if you want. But the idea is we're going to get as many people as we can together on the Capitol Mall. And my point would be, it could be 50,000 people. That's not enough. If you want to prevent the other side from being able to cheat its way to victory, there needs to be a massive showing of support for this unity coalition that is emerging. This unity coalition is not MAGA.

It contains MAGA. MagA is part of that coalition. We saw that begin to happen where President Trump brought on Bobby Kennedy, when Bobby Kennedy stepped out of the race. Right. That was the moment at which the idea of unity began to catalyze. And the question is, all right, well, how many of us are there? Gathering on the Capitol Mall is going to allow us to show just how many of us there are and how serious we are about restoring the republic and returning to the foundational principles.

How many FBI agents think are going to show up?

Well, you should be able to recognize them by the swastikas that they're carrying, the fact that they're inciting violence, or.

You think that's going to happen?

Well, let's put it this way. The first of the pillars of the rescue, the republic event is war is always the last resort. And I would broaden that a little bit just so that it's very clear to people who are listening to this. And I realize you're an MMA guy, so I got to be careful here. Non consensual violence is always the last resort. If you want to gather with somebody else and fight with them under some agreement, that's.

Yeah, I don't. Violence is very different than sport. Yeah, sport, violent, combat, sports. It's just. Violence is just a part of it. It's agreed. There's some of the nicest guys you ever want to meet.

Oh, yeah. Believe me, I want to leave plenty of room for that. I just want to say, if I say violence is the last resort, I don't want anybody to be confused about what that means. But the point is, look, violence is the last resort, and this gathering is the attempt to avoid that happening. The people who are eroding our rights are making it inevitable. We want to head them off at the pass, and we want to proclaim what it is that we stand for. And the first thing that we stand for is that war is always the last resort. This is not a pacifist movement. Right? In fact, I've been. All right. But do you remember learning in school that this country, this bastion of freedom, was forged by patriots who fought off tyrants who beat the odds and created this country? Do you remember learning that Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must periodically be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants? So this idea that tyranny is a profound problem is written in our DNA as a nation. And those who are cynically dismantling the nation are putting us in that jeopardy.

And what I'm afraid that people will do is they will, with some justification, say to themselves, you know what, I'm not sure how much my vote counts. I'm not sure what we can do. I'm expecting them to cheat, and then they're going to cross their fingers and we're going to end up with a result that people are going to have a hard time accepting. This is the alternative. If you don't know if your vote counts, you know what does count? If you show up in a large group, that makes it very clear that there are lots of us who are intent on keeping our rights. So the first of our. Oh, go ahead. No, first of our pillars, war is always the last resort. Second is that we have to recodify informed consent. So the medical freedom movement is part and parcel of what we are. And I know that that's an issue that is profoundly important. I'm concerned that the medical freedom movement was taking shape, and then events happened that caused it to get swamped. The fact that the Trump campaign was uninterested in talking about the problems of Project warp speed dropped that issue to a low priority, and we are going to re prioritize it.

The third of our pillars is that we have to repel censorship, propaganda, and information control. We have a right to have a public square, to have a discussion. You have a right to be incorrect. Hopefully, you're honorable about it and you discover you're incorrect, and you fix your error. But we have to be able to talk freely. There's nobody who knows what the facts are so that they can tell us, you know, which things we're allowed to talk about any more than there's somebody in a position to tell us which speech is tolerable. Right. This is sacrosanct. And so we have to have an end to censorship. The fourth pillar is that we have to return to a modality of truth seeking. You can't have a system of universities or institutes or arms of the government that. That believe they have the right to lie to us for our own good. That leads to a very dark place. And so we have to replace that paternalistic anti truth bent with a return to open truth seeking. So that's the fourth one. Fifth one is an end to lawfare. We've seen the radical abuse of the courts.

Much of it amounts to election interference. So it is breaking down another one of the fundamental elements of a democratic society. It is making it impossible to elect the people we would choose to elect. We're being steered in a way that is intolerable. And I would say the second component of our focus on lawfare is that we have to have elections that we can trust. Free and fair elections are obviously central to a democratic republic, and so that has to be enshrined in a way. In my personal opinion, this is not the opinion of the organizers of the event necessarily, but in my personal opinion, this is a place where the various, the states all coming up with their own mechanisms for voting is a problem. And I think, actually, we have to have a national conversation about how to hold elections that are transparent and verifiable. That seems like a minimum requirement. I think I'm on the.

That was six.

That was six. So the 7th pillar is financial freedom. So this is essentially about the danger of a central bank digital currency, that we need to retain the capacity to be autonomous, and we can't have tyranny inflicted on us through some sort of a social credit system that would be mediated through a central bank digital currency. There are two more, and these are out of order. On the screen. Immigration, industrial complex, border policy. We need a rational border policy. Obviously, open borders don't make any sense. Immigration is something that we need to decide what the right level is. We need to decide how to bring in people who actually want to be Americans, and only at the rate that the civilization in question can absorb them and they can be part of this great experiment. And then the last one, injustice, is no, that's lawfare. The last one is going to be. Where is it? Oh, development. Right. Of course. The sovereignty of the family. We can't have a civilization in which the government is telling you that because your child said something that they think means that they are genderqueer, that they are, you know, that they need to have medications and surgeries inflicted on them and that it's not your right as a parent to say no.

So those are the eight pillars. I think if people think about those eight pillars and realize, actually there's nothing to disagree with there, that reasonable people would all agree to these things because they're not in any way radical, and that a unity movement built around these things is exactly where they want to be in an era where there's so much insanity being presented to us as the only way forward. Hopefully, they will gather with us on the Capitol Mall on September 29 and show themselves. And really, I think if you had, you know, half a million people show up, that will make a pretty unambiguous statement.

I think it's important to point out that you had this idea a while ago and that it was actually removed from Twitter.

In 2020, I initiated what I called the Unity 2020 movement, which I actually announced on your show under a different name. It was called Dark Horse duo before it became Unity 2020, and I still think it was the right idea. It was elegant in its construction, so that it neutralized things by virtue of the balance of the plan. That's not what we're faced with now. But I do think, yeah, if I'm. If I'm perfectly frank about it, I think unity was the right answer. It was the wrong moment for it to catch fire.

But what's important is that it was removed from Twitter.

Yeah, it was removed from Twitter.

What was the rationalization? What did they say?

It was under false pretenses. What they said was that we had engaged in, what was their phrase? Something like inorganic behavior or inauthentic behavior, which was code for bots. Yeah, bots that they argued that we had used. We did an internal investigation to see if somebody had used them under our banner. It turned out there was no truth in it.

Well, here's the thing you could do very easily. You put bots onto this program, so you have these people that are tweeting under this banner, and then you send the bots to that page to agree with them. They say, oh, my God, we found bots.

Right?

Let's shut it down.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it's, you know, it's the same trick as sending people with a swastika flag to the trucker march. You can claim that they're Nazis.

Exactly the same stuff. It's just organized.

Yeah, it's organized. So I don't know. I do think unity is the right message. I think this is exactly the moment at which people do come together because many people feel the jeopardy. I sincerely hope that what President Trump discovered when he brought Bobby Kennedy on board continues to grow in his mind, because I think actually he has the potential to lead a massive movement to restore the republic and make it function. And that would be, I think it would be wonderful for him. I think he would go down in history as not the polarizing figure that people seem intent on turning him into, but he would go down in history as a galvanizing figure, as really a re founder of the country. I know that will be hard for many people who have thought ill of him to swallow, but the. I don't know what you think, but the joining of the Trump campaign and Bobby Kennedy and tulsi. And tulsi. Tulsi, who is, in fact, coming to our event. I will say tulsi's coming. Jimmy Dore, russell brand will be there. Oh, you know who's going to be there?

Who?

Bobby Kennedy. He's not on the website yet, but he, matt taibbi, Tybie will be there. Zubi will be there, Pierre Corey, Robert Malone, Colonel Douglas McGregor.

And this is September 29. And what is the website? Jointtheresistance.org.

Dot jointtheresistance.org is where you find it. And Laura Logan will be present. And there are some folks. So, by the way, Bobby says hello. There are some other folks that we are negotiating with to see if we can get them there. Some very big names. I wish I could tell you.

No worries. That's enough big names.

Yeah. But in any case, I can't emphasize enough how important it is that we make a strong showing. And the reason that it is important is because it will make it very difficult to sell the story that the enthusiasm simply drove Kamala Harris, who has yet to articulate anything like a vision, into the White House. We need to make it clear, right. If you worry that your vote doesn't count, your physical presence on the mall, the picture of Americans coming together across ideological divides and joining together in order to rescue the republic, I believe is the antidote to the cheating that we all fear.

All right, hear, hear. Weinstein. Appreciate you very much.

Right back at you.

Thank you. Thanks for being you.

All right, thanks.

Goodbye, everybody. All right, we were going to end. Ladies and gentlemen, a bonus. A bonus. We had forgot to talk about this one thing. So when Tucker was on, he was saying that there was no evidence for evolution.

Yeah.

And you had a real problem with that.

Well, I didn't have a real problem with that.

A small problem with that.

Let's put it this way. I think it's nonsense, but I understand that's a problem. I understand how he ends up there. So let me just say, I saw that segment, of course, as you would imagine, and I immediately reached out to him and I said, tucker, you've got it wrong. The evidence for darwinian evolution, for adaptation is overwhelming. And I would love to sit down with you and talk to you about why that is. And he said, I would love that. We haven't had a chance yet. But I do think it's important in saying something about why that perspective, where that perspective is coming from and why it's incorrect. It is important to say. I really appreciate Tucker and his openness to hearing the counter argument says a lot about him. He was not the slightest bit defensive and in fact, was eager to hear about darwinism and, well, he's absolutely willing.

To change his mind.

Yeah.

Yeah. About everything.

Yeah, I agree. It is, it is.

It's a very, it's very important that he's got such a big voice because of that.

I agree. And I must just say, you know, it's funny, I went on his show, he was the first person to reach out when things melted down in 2017 at Evergreen. And I thought him a villain at the time. But because nobody else had reached out from any mainstream platform, I felt like I had no choice.

But I remember you took a lot of heat for that, for being on your show.

A lot of heat. But I also. It was a wake up call because, you know, I was expecting him to treat me badly. I was expecting him to treat me as a liberal who got what he deserved, and instead, he was absolutely compassionate and he didn't. There was no part of him that was taking a victory lap over some, some liberal who was faced with an angry mob. So anyway, he's oddly misinterpreted. Yes.

Like the way people pretend he is versus how he actually is. I mean, he doesn't do himself any favors. Like when he had that guy on that said he blew Obama, like, what are you doing? He's just wild. But, I mean, he's willing to have on anybody, I guess, but. But who he is as a person. He's a lovely guy.

Yeah. He's a great guy.

Very nice guy.

And, you know, he's just, like, obsessively in love with nature.

Oh, yeah.

Right.

Yeah. Which is really interesting about him. Passionate fly fisherman.

Oh, yeah. Passionate, yeah. Passionate outdoorsman. And anyways, I have a lot of affection for the guy.

Yeah, I do, too. And it is interesting. There's a certain group of people that are just on team blue. Do you say anything positive about Tucker, and you're some sort of a terrible villain, and he represents white supremacy and.

Yep.

Okay.

Yeah.

What?

Yeah, it was. It was a weird. A strange discovery, but it's a fi.

It's being connected to Fox News. You know, you get attached to Fox News, you get attached. Especially him. The most popular voice on Fox News.

Yeah, I spent a lot of time. You know, he's always being demonized as a white supremacist or something, and I got into the habit every time somebody said, oh, you know, tucker's finally revealed himself, I would click through and see what the evidence was.

Yeah.

And it's just like, okay, the guy just said he wasn't for open borders, right? Yeah, it's just empty.

Yeah. Well, it's just. The rational voice is so discouraged in today's world. The rational, objective voice, where you look at both sides, you look at. I see why someone would say this. I see what you're saying. I see this. You know, everybody immediately gets polarized. Everybody immediately connects to their ideology and changes the words of someone to be the least charitable version of what it is and the most heinous interpretation of who that human being is. And if you support them, you support this. And if you platform them, you platform this. And it's just nonsense. It's nonsense. Peddled by morons. It's a moronic way to look at the world. It really is.

Yeah. It's almost beyond that, because, I mean, look, I remember. I remember thinking Bobby Kennedy was a kook. Yeah.

100%. I said it to him when he came on the podcast. I said, I have to be honest, that my version of you was connected entirely to you being an anti vaxxer, conspiracy theorist kook. The dark cloud of the Kennedy family. This one guy who's just nuts, unfortunately. Too bad. Then I read the real Anthony Fauci, and I was like, hang on.

Yeah. Oh, it's.

But then I talked to some brilliant people that I know that recommended certain things and told me to read some other things that he had written. I'm like, oh, okay, this is another one of those. Another one. Well, this is people that meet me and they think I'm some right wing kook, you know, conspiracy theorist, asshole, mean person. It's like, okay, how do you get there? Like, you're getting there because someone's led you there. You're not getting there from a normal, objective analysis of a person, who they are and what they stand for.

That's exactly it.

And with him, he's connected to that business, that business of first environment. Right. So he's an environmental attorney. He cleaned up the East river, you know, did a lot of great work.

Yeah. He is our champion. And we were led to believe that he was a bad guy. Yeah, yeah.

And he's so well measured when even dealing with these attacks. The way he handles things is so admirable.

It is admirable.

It really is.

Yeah. And, you know, it's good for all of us. Yeah. Well, the discovery. I want everybody to have the experience of having thought ill of somebody like Tucker or like Bobby Kennedy, and then to discover in person that the. That the rap is just wrong.

Right. And you're being led. You're being led by what's essentially propaganda. And it's to polarize us. It's to keep us separated and to keep us thinking that you don't have anything in common with people on the right. And they're demons. You don't have anything in common with people on the left. They're loons. Like, you and I are both very socially liberal.

Yeah.

You know, and the idea that you'd be sitting here saying, trump's gotta win.

I know. Who would have thought, right?

Crazy.

It is crazy.

It's crazy. But the world's crazy. And when the world's crazy, you have to have crazy solutions.

I've started. When people don't know who I am, and they start. They ask, I'm a biologist.

Keep moving.

Well, the problem is, eventually they're going to run into it. So I've started saying, look, I'm happy to tell you what I do, but I should warn you, I'm a terrible person who's come to believe unforgivable things. It kind of works because you hear somebody say that about themselves, it's like, well, okay, what doesn't add up here?

Right?

But anyway, back to Tucker. Here's the problem. I think there's a lot of concern, especially on the right, the story of darwinism being incorrect. And to me, this is a slow motion train wreck. And I don't fault people for thinking that Darwin had it wrong, because I think modern Darwinists have screwed up their job and in fact, they became advocates for Darwin in a way that prevented them from seeing that there was a major error in the version that they were presenting.

And what is the error?

The error is that the story, let's put it this way. Darwin existed at a moment where his ability to access what was taking place inside of biological creatures was just limited technologically. Okay? So there's a lot that he didn't know. And it actually worked to his benefit because what he outlined was an extremely elegant idea. In fact, Richard Dawkins said it was the most powerful theory that anyone had ever come up with. And his defense for that I find very compelling. His defense was the power of a theory is that which it explains divided by that which it assumes. And the thing about Darwinism is it assumes almost nothing. Right? Essentially, descent with modification. And it explains essentially all of biology. So by that rubric, it is just far and away the most powerful theory we've got. Now, what he presented was an outline of how. What I would call selection, right, just a non random sorting of things. When it was coupled with heredity, produced adaptation. Okay? Creatures being adapted to their environments by the process of selection. Where some things outdo other things. And heredity allows the characteristics that make some things outdo other things to accumulate when DNA.

So the order of events is, Darwin outlines his hypothesis. Mendel, at the same time, is playing games with pea plants. And Mendel discovers the particulate inheritance. He discovers that if he is careful about how he breeds the peas. That he can actually identify traits as they move from parent to offspring. In a way that suggests that it wasn't like swirling up a bunch of ice cream. It was like things that stayed independent, that flowed through these breedings. Right? Darwin didn't know about it. Mendel was working at the same time. But Darwin apparently did not know about what Mendel was doing. And so Darwin worked purely at the level of critters and their characteristics. And he knew that there had to be a way for hereditary information to be housed inside of them. But he knew nothing about how that worked. Mendel had the first piece of how it worked. It's particulate. These things exist. We now know they exist on chromosomes in DNA form. But that took a long time to figure out. But at the point that we finally found out. Watson and Crick elucidate the structure of DNA. They say it hasn't escaped our notice that this provides a place for the information that Mendel had pointed to.

That Darwin had implied that that fits in the DNA. Right? At that moment, our vision of heredity narrowed a radically. Okay, because we had this description of how it is that information can live inside of a biological organism, be past parent to offspring, and be selected in a way that causes adaptation. That story is absolutely true. We know it to be true. And it's so powerful and elegant that it caused biology to focus on it as if it was Darwin's mechanism. Period. The end. The error is that it's not Darwin's mechanism, it is a darwinian mechanism. And the problem is as powerful as it is. Right. The story that they teach us, random mutations in protein coding genes are almost always bad. Every so often there is a good one. Selection tends to accumulate the good ones and the creatures and their special characteristics are all the results of all the collected good adaptations, with all of the bad adaptations or mutations, all of the good mutations collected and all of the bad mutations lost. That story is not, in my opinion, powerful enough to explain the amazing characteristics of creatures. It explains some of them.

It can explain, for example, how you get a pigment molecule, right. You know, so a plant is green because it can't use green light. It's collecting other wavelengths of light. How can you get a molecule that happens to collect certain wavelengths of light? That story that I just told you about, mutations and protein coding genes can get you to a picture, right?

But can it get you to where an octopus can change its texture and completely camouflage itself to look like a coral reef?

No. And I don't think it can get you from a shrew to a bat. Right, right.

Or to a human.

Right.

Shrew to a human.

Right. So you now have a problem, which is a, you've got Darwinists and other biologists who have been backed into a corner and they've sworn up and down that mutations and protein coding genes, if you give it enough time and enough selective force, can do everything we see. And because they know that the story they're telling is true in some regards, they just keep stretching it. So it covers everything. I don't think it does cover everything. In fact, I've thought since I was in college that there was a missing layer, right? That there is a layer that explains how the amazing alterations in form that we see is produced by darwinian processes, right? Selection interacting with heredity. And I think we've just missed it. So just to take an analogy so this will be clearer to people. A computer, a modern computer functions based on binary, the flipping of switches that have exactly two states. If you were to sit down with, I don't know, an AI or a sophisticated computer game. And I say, yep, that thing is programmed in binary to do these amazing things that you're seeing. Right. There's a technical truth there, but that's not.

You couldn't program a game like that in binary. Nobody did. It's not how it happened. There's a layer that's missing. There's a layer called compilers and computer languages that allows a human being through a very regimented process to specify things such that the binary layer can do its job. Right. The computer is binary, but there's a whole layer between binary and halo three or whatever kids are playing. So I'm arguing that there's another layer, and I believe it does live in the DNA, but it is not protein coding genes. Right. It is not limited in the same way. So what this does to a guy like Tucker is it leaves him debating between two camps. And it happened. You had Stephen Meyer on.

Mm hmm.

Yeah. So I know Stephen Meyer. Really like him, too. Stephen Meyer is obviously a believer in intelligent design.

True believer. True believer believes in resurrection.

Yep. Now, here's the other thing I know about Steven Meyer, because I've had the good fortune to spend some time with him, to break bread, to talk to him about biology. He really loves biology, and he's good at thinking about it. He's passionate about it. In fact, where I overlapped with him was at a little conference, and he brought swim goggles for anybody who wanted them because he wanted to go into the Mediterranean and go look at animals because it's cool, right?

Yeah.

This guy's passionate. He's not a faker.

Right.

So here's what I would say. He will not be surprised to hear me say because I've said it directly to him. I don't think he's got it right. He's looking for flaws in Darwinism because he thinks what will be revealed is a divine creator. I think there are flaws in Darwinism. I think they reveal the fact that we've missed a bunch of Darwinism. Right. This is no obstacle to us being friends and sharing an appreciation for biology. Okay. But it does mean that in the end, we're betting on different outcomes of the experiment, but we're both committed to finding those errors and figuring out what's there. Right. Should I be troubled by the fact that he believes in a divine creator? Not really. Any more than I should be troubled by a biologist who's motivated by a desire to win a big prize.

So do you think there's a process that it's yet to be discovered? There's something else going on.

Yeah. And I think we've glimpsed it.

But have we glimpsed it?

I think there's another way. That information is stored in DNA that is not in triplet codons. And it allows the equivalent of a either. We have different kinds of computer languages. Not all of them are compiled. Some of them you can just write directly and tell the computer to operate, but it's the equivalent of a computer language that turbo charges the process of adaptation. And so the point about Stephen Meyer is he makes a number of different arguments about problems he spots with Darwin. I don't think some of them really are problems, but there is one that strikes me as real. Right. They call it the waiting time problem. And the basic point is, look, we can do the math on how much adaptation we see, and there isn't enough time for you to get the adaptations that you're seeing, given how much availability of time there was for those things to occur. So the point is, that process that you're claiming made these creatures couldn't have done it in the amount of time you're claiming they were created. Now, my point is that is actually, I think, likely true, because there's this other process, like, if you had to come, if you had to write halo three, I don't even know if there is a halo three.

I don't know how many halos.

Okay, good.

Thumbs up.

If you had to write halo three in binary, how long would it take you? It would take you a zillion years, because, you know, it's binary. If you had to write it in, I don't know, c, it might be doable on human timescales. So it's that kind of an error. So I think you've got. You've got Darwinists claiming that the story is more complete than it is. My bet is the thing that's missing is every bit as darwinian as the part of the story that we already know. So I think, you know, to the extent that there's an error, the error is on biologists who thought too narrowly. It's not on Darwin. Right. This is not a threat to what Darwin gave us. It's just a belief that Darwin was righter than we have yet recognized. And in the end, I think that that's what people like Stephen Meyer will discover. And I would also point out from the perspective, so if a guy like Tucker is listening to this and he's thinking, you know, the story in which we've got a creator makes more sense to me than the story in which some darwinian process produces all of this biological diversity.

I would argue that ultimately you still don't escape Darwinism. Right? Like, imagine. Imagine that this universe was created by somebody who had a plan. My claim would be they used darwinian evolution to make all the creatures. In fact, I would argue if this universe is one that has a creator, that it is an evolution simulator. That's the most useful thing it does, is it figures out how creatures could be by using this process of selection. Right.

And they continue to get better.

Right? Yeah. Somebody was interested, you know, I don't think there was a creator, but if there was a creator, I believe not only, a, did they use selection and adaptation in order to make the creatures, but that's probably the reason they did the whole experiment. Right. That's the most interesting thing it produces. And b, let's say, you know, let's just give the hypothesis. Do, let's say that this was an environment created by some intentional being with the purpose of making critters using darwinian evolution. Okay, so then, you know, you've heard Elon say, well, if it's possible to simulate universes, then there are bound to be vastly more simulated universes than there are real universes. So we're probably in one. Now, I don't really buy that analysis, but. But let's say that it's true. Okay? So you get outside of your simulated universe into what he calls base reality. Okay, now what, right. Was that one created, too? By whom? Right. At some level, you're going to get far enough out that you have to invoke a natural process, and that natural process is going to involve something without a creator. Right. There's no philosophical place, even if we're inside something that was intentionally created, that something is inside something that wasn't.

It has to be. You eventually get out to that layer, and at that point, you know, if there was a creator, you know, there was a creator. An intelligent designer of this cup. Right. What designed that creator.

Right.

Darwinian selection. Right. Let's suppose that's not true. Let's suppose that the creator of that cup is inside a simulator made by another creator. What made that creator? Darwinian evolution. Well, let's suppose that's not true. You go one layer out. Eventually you're going to get to the place where you're going to have to surrender to the only thing anyone's ever come up with that could, in principle, create intelligent creatures. And it doesn't have a creator. It's a darwinian process.

All right, there you go. Tucker.

There's a lot more to say to Tucker. I would say the number of places, you know, the genomes of the creatures that we have did not have to tell an elegant story of how they're related to each other. Right. If a creator had designed them, he'd have no reason to make the phylogeny fit an evolutionary story that Fitzhe the paleobiology. Right. So the number of confirmations that we have gotten is extraordinary, and they're just not familiar. But anyway, there's a lot of power in the, in the theory. And don't fault the myopia of any generation of scientists. The overall story is elegant and fascinating.

All right, that's it. Bye, everybody.