Kind: captions
Language: en
A woman is stabbed to death by a literal
madman and race riots break out on X.
The Fed has seemingly lost control of
the ability to control interest rates.
You're not going to want to miss that.
Israel bombs Qatar and Trump is not
happy. Russia claims crypto is just the
US's plan to export more inflation. And
they're not necessarily wrong. PBD goes
on Jubilee in capitalist versus 20 anti-
capitalists. An MIT tech company has
made mental telepathy real and an AI
studio backed by OpenAI is set to launch
their first animated feature in 2026.
Things are looking crazy.
>> We just found out Charlie Kirk has
passed. Uh he's no longer with us. He
has died after the result of the
shooting at UVU. This is uh this is a
moment where I think people are going to
react incredibly strongly and I would
urge everybody to um isolate what
happened to not look at it as being this
is the entire left versus the right.
This was a gunman who unfortunately
became convinced that he saw things more
clearly than anybody else uh and that he
had to take action to save um his vision
of the country and make it about that
person and this horrifying tragedy.
Don't make things worse by seeing it as
that team has tried to kill my team
because once we make it about the teams,
that's where things will really
escalate, escalate, escalate and people
will feel like they need to get theirs
back. And this is how this really
spirals out of control. Um, so we've got
to let the justice system do its work,
give this person due process. Um, and
hopefully instead of responding to this
tragedy
as a call to arms that we see this as
that warning of like this will only get
worse. And if history is anything,
moments like this where somebody is
fatally shot often sparks that huge
violent reaction and all that will do is
guarantee the size of the tragedy is
magnified a thousandfold. And so
recognizing this moment as that call to
find a path back to each other. They're
that's going to be so unpopular.
I get it. This is devastating.
But somebody at some point has to be the
one to say, "All right, pause. Slow
down.
>> Define where we want to go. figure out
how we get there in a sensible way.
Those are the great men of history.
Those are the people that are
remembered, are the ones that can find
that way to cross the divide rather than
exacerbate it. But look, history is a
long string of people
fighting until one side is just too
fatigued to continue. And so I don't
want to pretend like that's not a real
option, but boy, it isn't what I want.
It's not what I want for America. um
history is just too clear. The only
outcome on the other side of that, no
one will say, "Oh, we won." Everyone
will have lost. And
if we know that that's true, then how do
we short circuit that and get to
bringing ourselves back together? I
think it is clearly defining where we
want to end up. I think it is thinking
from first principles, mapping out in a
way that is historically
um grounded in terms of okay, what can
we learn? How have people handled
moments like this before? That's worked
out in a way um where we don't end up in
um pockets of violence. I don't think
this is going to be the start of a civil
war, but boy could it be a moment on a
road that leads to significant violence
and that I would not want to see.
>> Yeah. Just some facts of the case. There
was a Turning Point USA event at the
Utah Valley University. Um he was at the
Q&A portion. Some people say he was kind
of winding down. Uh the shot was a
sniper shot. It was fired over 200 yards
away or a rifle shot. Um allegedly the
suspect is in custody, but Twitter has
been all over the place.
>> Footage of a guy who looks like a boomer
>> um down on his knees.
>> Yeah. Some people saying it's not him
and he's just wrong place, wrong time.
So that's still up in the air. Um but
again, just at the very minimum,
thoughts and prayers of Charlie Kerr. I
know he's a young father. He got two
kids. I think his son just turned one,
so wife. So you just regardless of where
he stood politically and all these
things, you never want to see a wife,
two kids, not have a dad, not have a
husband. Um, sure his family, brother,
sister, all those things are are
struggling. You never want it to end
this way. You never It's just It's a
sticky, nasty situation. I watched the
video and I immediately regretted it. It
just it made me feel weird even talking
about it right now. It's just like
there's one thing to play politics and
one thing to talk about what policies
are good and bad and things like that,
but when it's a a human being losing a
life, this is the this sobering moment.
I hope that we actually internalize it
and try to actually change the direction
of the country.
>> Here's the bad news. We're really not
going to. This is uh this is where I
will remind myself that we are automata
that just bounce off of each other. And
the reality is that people in moments
like this, in populist moments, people
become utterly convinced that political
violence is a useful tool that needs to
be used in a moment like this where
everything is an existential threat.
People trust themselves. They trust
their emotions and they believe they see
things clearly like they alone see
things clearly and they have to do
something and we have to take action.
not understanding that the way that you
move forward is with political debate,
that you have to talk about these
issues. You have to allow people to say
things that you really disagree with.
And once you hit that breaking point
where people are trapped in their
feelings, they're completely convinced
in the righteousness of their actions,
then you start going down this path,
which is exactly where we were in the
60s.
>> Uh where people just really believed,
oh, the right answer to this, this
person is such a threat, we have to kill
them. We have to neutralize the threat.
Not realizing they are the exact monster
that they're afraid of. And yeah, um
this is heartbreaking for sure,
heartbroken for Charlie Kirk and his
family.
>> Um but when you step back and look at
this as what
some huge swath of the west is going
through um how much political
instability, not that Nepal's in the
west, but you've got Nepal literally
burning their own I don't think it's a
capital building, but their parliament
or whatever. um early reports that some
of the ministers were being executed
that the president's wife was burned
alive. You've got things popping off in
France. Um obviously what's going on
here in America, it's just these things
once they get started, they just
escalate, escalate. And so my call to
everybody would be to remember that
you can't trust your emotions. You
cannot trust that they are accurate. And
we need to be looking at a way to come
together. We need to be looking at a way
to find a path out of this. Otherwise,
it will be ever escalating violence
until we get to the point where there's
been so much violence, so much bloodshed
that we're just so fatigued that we back
off. But when the cycle is that
knowable, and I think this is the part
that drives me crazy. When the cycle is
that predictable that we've seen this
happen enough times that instead of
having to go all the way through things
feeling
things getting to the point where we
have to have so much violence and
bloodshed that we get fatigued before we
stop is just ridiculous. Th this is
knowable. If you are pulling away from
each other, if you are viewing them as
an existential threat, then people are
going to be violent. Like we have to
find common ground.
Is this more so an infection or is this
like a virus? Like, you know, an
infection, you take three antibiotics
for a week, you're good. You're back to
go. You can kind of get rid of this
sickness. But when you have a virus or a
flu, you just have to kind of beat the
beat uh beat the um uh fever. You just
have to wait it out. You have to get to
the other side. Society is bubbling up
with those point things that you
mentioned, the Trump assassination, the
Minnesota um uh legislature, and then
now Charlie Kirk. Is this just something
we're just gonna have to ride out, you
think? Is there something we can do? Is
this if Trump says the right set of
words, if the right and the left shake
hands? Like what do you think?
>> To answer the analogy itself. This is
more like a virus. It gets in, it takes
over the cell, it turns the cell into a
replication machine, and then things
just get worse and worse and worse until
the body responds with the fever. And
you're
>> basically to push the analogy to its
limits, it's like you have to heat
things up to the point where people get
that fatigue.
>> Uh, and the virus encounters an immune
response that is so stiff that it begins
to recede. Um,
so that's the analogy. But by way of
is there hope that we can avoid that? Of
course, if there are enough voices of
reason, the problem is I'm not expecting
a lot of voices of reason. Voices of
reason don't get a lot of clicks. Trump
is constitutionally incapable of calming
things down. His rhetoric is going to be
escalatory. He's going to talk about um
you know how violent the left is, how
out of their minds they are, all of
that. And here's the thing,
both sides are in that position. That is
literally what a populist moment is. A
populist moment is where you're so stuck
in your feelings. You are so convinced
of your righteousness. You are so
convinced that the other side is an
existential threat that you want a
strong man that will go and slap them
around. And when each side feels like
that, the expedient solution is just to
kill them.
>> And it is these really powerful
reminders of what lurks inside the human
mind. And the human mind is capable of
tremendous I mean evil is probably a
misleading word because it sends people
off into like a different place. Um
people need to stay grounded. humans
will uh destroy the bodies of other
humans to get to an expedient result
that they want. And that like that sort
of
not benality, but that just simple I'm
just going to go tear this person apart
and because I believe that I'm right.
Like my humanity detection just shuts
off.
>> Yeah.
>> And Yeah. People do it all the time.
They do it all the time.
>> I feel like I've been doing content with
you for a while. This is a much somber
tone. It does sound like. Um, where do
you think that like what about this
specific thing do you think is hitting
you in a different way?
>> I probably should have felt this way
during the Minnesota assassinations, but
the people weren't known to me.
>> Um,
>> I didn't see the footage. And so seeing
this happen in real time, Charlie Kirk
obviously being a figure that is sort of
in our um beat if you will of the things
that we cover is hyper on my radar.
>> Um so this one just feels like that
escalatory step. So much of what I've
been trying to do is deescalate, show
people ways to think through this stuff.
Uh where the punchline doesn't have to
be the other side is evil. And so this
just feels like okay things are now that
much more difficult um for us to pull
back from the brink. I often think about
things in terms of the economics of it
like how do we pump the brakes? How do I
help people? How do we pump the brakes
so we don't take on so much debt that it
just makes it absolutely impossible for
the average person to get ahead? uh how
do we give people information such that
even if we don't solve the systemic
issues which I have no faith that we're
going to solve the systemic issues of
debt deficit spending money printing I
think that's just going to keep going
and so um I feel like I'm constantly
warning people about the fact like hey
you will eventually go off the cliff and
this feels like that first time where
one of the wheels just went off the
cliff
>> and so we now have a landmark moment to
be able to plant the flag there's going
to be a big reaction to
And it isn't going to be metered. It
isn't going to be um we need to come
together. It's going to be blood lust.
The odds of America coming to like a
sort of explosive violent head, I think,
is effectively zero.
>> But we're already in a cold civil war.
And
the question is how bad do what I call
the pockets of violence get? Um, and
once you start getting into tit for tat,
like if Charlie Kirk dies, then he, and
I really hope that does not happen,
>> um,
>> he becomes a symbol of something,
somebody else then will feel agrieved
enough that it increases the odds that
somebody does something back to the
other side. Uh, which I certainly don't
want to see. Um,
I grew up in an era where I saw how good
it could be. And so there's a real like
sadness to watching first the economic
isolation of America and now that
economic isolation leading to the
political violence is really really
heartbreaking. Um, so for all of cuz
again it's not just America right now.
For everybody that's going through it
right now, this is um, very sad. Human
tragedy is going to abound is my
concern.
>> Um, I was watching some of the streams
when we first had the breaking news. Um,
so I was in the comments of Destiny and
Hassan and I'm kind of seeing of course
missed reactions. There's people who are
doing memes. There's people who are
laughing. There's people who are kind of
dunking on it. What would you say to
those people? How would you get them to
properly respond to this moment?
>> I think all of that stuff is going to
happen. So, I'm not going to pretend
that it's not.
>> One person's tragedy is another person's
comedy. One person's loss is another
person's victory. So, we're going to go
through all of that. Um, the only thing
that I would try to put into culture is
there is a solution. There is a path out
of this. And if people look for it, they
will find it. if they don't look for it,
then obviously they're not going to find
it.
>> And so if people put their time and
energy into like we can't let them do
this, uh we've got to escalate, we've
got to fight back, well then that's
what's going to happen and people are
going to play that out. Um so yeah, this
is one of those I will do whatever small
part I can to at least plant the seed
that there is another option. There is a
way to come together. There is a way to
understand that the human mind is
working against us right now. The human
mind wants us to be on teams. It feels
very safe.
>> The scarier things get, the more we
crave the safety of a tribe. So, the
more likely people are to push harder
into their camps.
>> Um, and yeah, there is a a sense of you
have to be willing to put yourself out
there into the breach, as it were. Uh,
the moderates are the first people that
are killed in a revolution, which is
wild,
>> but nonetheless true because they don't
have a team and so they're the easy
target. Uh, I would ask people to define
what needs to be true for them to earn
their own respect. I do admittedly fear
that for a lot of people, the
willingness to fight is the thing that's
going to make them earn their own
respect. Um, for me it is to constantly
try to get people to deal with cause and
effect, to understand the way that the
human mind operates, to understand um
the role that envy plays, to understand
what a populous moment is, how we end up
getting here, that it's fear-based once
people are locked into that fear, the
likelihood that they push onto a team,
the likelihood then that they're just
trying to win, that they want their team
to be victorious and they don't care
what happens to the other person, that
we do this thing known known as
othering, that we literally dial down
the sense that the other person is a
human.
>> Uh, and so all of those things lead to
something that is incredibly unpleasant
for everybody. Like that's one of those
things where nobody wins.
>> And so to me, the cause and effect of
the situation is so clear and it's so
tied to economics. And I know that I
fear because I don't want to believe
that anything is uh predestined, but I
fear that where people go is instead of
dealing with the economic root cause of
so much of this stuff, they're just
going to deal with the surface level um
the Hatfields versus the McCoys and it
just becomes the left versus the right
>> uh in the way that we've got men versus
women not understanding the left and the
right need each other. They are
evolution's answer to how do you get a
very large group of people to cooperate
flexibly and um you don't become
pathological on the right and become
overly rigid and authoritarian and you
don't become pathological on the left
and become the suicidal empathy and
compassion where all you have left are
freeloaders because um everybody's just
trying to take the free ride. And so the
two groups are both prone to pathology
and it is only when they work as a um
frictionled
coalition because you do need that
dynamic tension between the two. I don't
expect them to see the world the same.
Um but you have to want the presence of
the other person. You have to understand
that you, no matter how convinced you
are that you're right, um that evolution
has seen fit to have both personality
types. Obviously, everybody's on a
spectrum, but you've got both
personality types for a reason. And once
you understand, oh, myself left to my
own devices, I will not be as dynamic uh
as I am in partnership with somebody who
thinks differently than I do. We both
have to be well-intentioned. We both
have to share a common vision for where
we want to end up
>> or you will inevitably pull in opposite
directions.
>> But in coaching entrepreneurs and just
in my own entrepreneurial life, I've
seen this a lot where you'll get a CEO
type and you'll get an operator type and
they both think the other person is a
[ __ ] And for whatever reason, they
just cannot see that we work as a team
and the other person just thinks
differently. They're not stupid. They
think differently. And when the right
looks at the left and thinks you guys
are stupid, when the left looks at the
right and thinks you guys are stupid,
you end up where we are right now.
You've got to look at the other side and
say, "I don't agree with you." But as
long as we agree on where we're trying
to get to, it's going to be building a
coalition that makes us do the
compromising and seeing the other side
um that's going to get us to a better
outcome. But it just
>> while humans are very capable of it and
when things are right, we do it
extraordinarily well. When things break,
humans are capable of tremendous
violence. Okay, guys. Uh, with that,
here is the rest of the episode. What is
about to follow obviously is going to be
very different in tone because all of
this was recorded before Charlie was
shot.
>> Twitter man, it's happening. Race war
2025. First, they gave us Daniel Penny.
Then, they gave us the um lady at the
park. Um, and now we have random train
violence. So, I'm very apprehensive of
showing the video itself. I'm going to
link to Alexis Jones. Don't show.
>> Yeah, I'm not playing it, but if you
guys want to see the full thing, he has
the full like forward minute version,
the before, the after, and then the
people coming over and helping her
eventually.
>> Um,
>> yeah, that that one is a a watch at your
own risk.
>> I've seen enough videos now of people
that transition from alive to dead. It
is a
>> It does something weird to my brain. I
do not enjoy it. So, watch that one at
your own risk. It will stay with you for
a while. Uh but for people that don't
know the setup, woman gets on a train,
sits down in front of somebody who
unfortunately uh as we get the facts has
schizophrenia, his own mother uh said,
"Please do not release him from prison.
He will hurt. I don't know if she said
the word kill, but she I guess he beat
his own sister uh brutally." And so the
mom had been advocating for him to stay
in prison. He's been
>> arrested 14 times. I don't know if he's
convicted of felonies every time he was
arrested or not, but uh back out on the
streets and
he just stabs her. There's no
interaction between the two of them
whatsoever. Uh now, what ex would like
you to believe is the real lead is that
she's white and he's black. Mhm.
>> Uh that's so crazy to me that when you
think about from first principles, if
your level of analysis is solely that
this is about race, I I cannot track how
you parse the world. If you were going
to solve this and you said, uh, hey, how
do we stop this guy from killing
anybody? Let's evaporate racism. Will he
not kill anybody? I would say he may not
kill that person because he may have
some other algorithm running in his
brain, but this is somebody with
schizophrenia. He's got voices telling
him that he needs to do a thing.
>> Uh, and so he beat his sister. I have
zero reason to believe that that was
race motivated. This is a guy who um if
you were to solve for one problem that
would
dramatically reduce the likelihood that
he kills somebody, it would be to solve
a schizophrenia. So yes, once you have
someone who is a literal madman, they're
going to have an algorithm running in
their brain. And this algorithm happens
to it seems to be because he says when
he kills her, I got that white girl. I
got that white girl.
>> Uh
but he's schizophrenic.
That's the problem from where I'm
sitting. So uh like there was the
whatever son of Sam guy that was like
the dog told me I had to kill people. So
it's like schizophrenics are going to
kill. That would be not all
schizophrenics, but when they kill,
>> yeah,
>> it they're going to play some tape in
their brain. It was something that
pushed them forward.
>> Uh so I'm not saying that race doesn't
play into this, but I am saying if
you're going to focus on a problem, race
is not the level of analysis when the
person has schizophrenia. It's been
interesting to see the responses from
this because I think that this has been
used as a lot of people's
like almost litmus test was saying see
this is why insert a bunch of racist
scientist nod not backed by science
claims. Um Benny Johnson came out with a
whole thread of like it's because he
doesn't have a father that's why he
killed her on a train. Um
>> this is what I'm talking about. So there
are there are probably a hundred
examples you could give where it's like
okay this person does not know how to
emotionally regulate themselves. Uh they
did not develop any discipline. They
ended up growing up on the streets where
to earn respect and to thrive you had to
cultivate your willingness to be
violent. And so all of those things are
going to shape your brain development.
So yeah, point to those and say, "Okay,
you have a problem where you do not have
a u person in the household that's able
to draw aggressive boundaries, that's
able to be a imposing physical force, an
imposing um force from a disciplinary
standpoint to say these are the things
that are acceptable. These are the
things that are not acceptable." Great.
Like if you want to have that
conversation, I'm not saying that's not
a worthy conversation to have, but when
the person doing the attack is
schizophrenic and nobody's talking about
that, that's like multiples of absurd
higher to me than when nobody's talking
about the race. Sure, get into the race
part. Get into why somebody with
schizophrenia would be running an
algorithm about race. Fine. But if
that's where you start, that that's
patently absurd. Um, and there's been a
lot of comments in the chat already
about like, well, why isn't the media
talking about it? Um, you are the media.
You guys are the media. Elon Musk
retweeted it. Every right-wing
conservative is talking about it. Fox
News did a whole segment on it. CNN had
a panel on it. So, this is this is my
thing, right? Cuz I think Elon said, "If
this was a black man, if this was a
black uh girl getting killed by a white
man, people would have rioted already."
And it was like, "Yeah, black people
probably would have turned up for it."
So, if white people, you feel this uh
enraged about what happened on the
train, go outside, go walk, go ride. But
it seems like you want other people to
get as mad as you feel right now. And
that's the part that I'm thinking we're
just getting caught in like what are we
actually talking about? Yes, we should
be this is a criminal justice problem.
Yes, he shouldn't have been out. Yes,
he's violent crime. Yes, it's not okay
to stab white people on a train. Like, I
know things that I think I don't have to
say out loud. I feel like I now have to
say out loud.
>> You have to say them out loud right now.
>> Yeah, it's crazy.
>> Go ahead. Sorry. No, but then on but on
the flip side, it's like, yes, this is
bad. We need to like we should be mad
about it. Yeah, you guys are mad about
it. You're tweeting about it. You're
retweet like people are talking about
it, but I think they want New York Times
to release a full page four-part article
about it. And this is like why do you
need that to validate that this is
wrong, this is bad, all these other
things. So, I don't understand that lack
of the media isn't doing it for me when
the theme of the world since 2020 is the
media doesn't tell you the full story of
anything. So, we'll be back to the show
in just a moment, but first, let's talk
about the skills you don't have time to
learn. There are dozens of expert level
skills that would transform your life.
Negotiation, decision-making,
persuasion, leadership, but you cannot
spend years mastering each one. I am sad
to report you don't have time to read
every book by every expert. That though
is the exact problem short form solves.
Take negotiation. It impacts your
salary, your relationships, even getting
your kids to listen. Some of the best
techniques come from Chris Voss, the
FBI's former lead hostage negotiator, in
never split the difference. You can
spend weeks reading that book and still
struggle to apply the techniques. But
Short Form changes that. Their guides
aren't just summaries. They're created
by human writers who extract the core
frameworks and show you exactly how to
apply them. Stop making decisions by
guesswork. Click the link below and get
a free trial and three months off the
annual plan to access the
decision-making systems behind every
major breakthrough. And now, let's get
back to the show.
>> Yes, this that's a really good point.
And what I think we're witnessing is
people are coming face to face. So, I've
talked a lot about volume and velocity
of information.
>> So, we live in an era where the this is
the whole James Bum argument is you are
always going to have elites. The elites
are always going to try and control the
narrative, but we are now living in a
social media era where you can't control
the narrative. It's going to come at you
from every direction. And so now
everybody's going to put their narrative
forward. And what you see people pushing
back against is they're seeing in real
time that the New York Times is a
narrative control machine
>> and they're struggling with that. And
you'll see even like when we assess to
do a deep dive um we'll look at okay we
know these three to five things would
pop but then I have to look at them and
go but which ones do I actually believe
are true because to write a video that I
know will do well but I don't actually
believe it for me as somebody whose like
number one priority in life is to earn
my own respect. I'm like, "Okay, yeah,
I'm not going to do something that I
don't believe is true, but I know it
would perform well because it speaks to
an emotion that people are in." Once you
understand that the people tribe up in a
populist moment, they they are in their
feelings.
>> Yeah.
>> Once you understand, oh, they're in
their feelings, they're going to tell a
narrative partly because they're trapped
in their own frame of reference. So,
it's what they believe, it's what they
want to see, and they understand because
they are intelligent. They understand
the potency of controlling a narrative,
of constructing and controlling a
narrative. And once you understand that
there's so much efficacy to controlling
a narrative, that if you can control a
narrative, well, you can sway society,
then you understand, oh, for whatever
reason, they're they're morally gray or
however you want to think about it, or
they they're they feel so righteous
>> that this idea is so important or it's
so self- serving, whichever bucket you
want to put them in,
>> that I need to control the narrative and
I need to say the thing. So, of course,
on both sides, whether you're Benny
Johnson or whether you're the New York
Times, like you're going to cover it in
one specific way. Watch how people cover
the thing that supposedly is bad on
their team to figure out like what are
they optimizing for? Are they optimizing
for team support or are they optimizing
for they have an internal locus of like
this is what I believe to be true and so
I'm going to push for this thing. Um,
are they fair-minded and they're always
trying to connect with the physics of
the situation? They're trying to think
of first principles. Like, watch how
they build the bricks. The vast majority
of anybody in front of a camera, they
are building up from a um team sport
mentality. This is what my team
believes. This is how I keep my tribe
happy, and I'm going to do this thing.
And this is why I would highly encourage
people even if you have a violent
negative reaction to him. Sam Harris is
not playing team sports.
>> He will occasionally align with a team
and he will occasionally say things I
think are like properly unhinged, but I
don't think he ever says something that
he doesn't actually believe. So you need
to find people like that who will say
something they believe when it's hyper
unpopular. So you can at least touch
base. you're not always going to agree
with them, but you can touch base with
them. You can figure out what the
building blocks are that they're
constructing their world view from. Um,
and that is where this gets interesting.
But the collision that we're seeing
right now is people are ideologically
driven. They want the other side to
admit that they're wrong because this is
a team sport. They want to score points
by saying, "See, do a search on the New
York Times." And they mentioned George
Floyd 862,000 times and they mention the
Ukrainian woman zero times. And for
them, that's like a big gotcha. That
that is that is the setup. So
>> like New York Times isn't going to
suddenly be like, "Oh, actually we're
fair and impartial." So yeah, I I don't
know if we're ever going to get the
average person to um accept that
everybody's just trying to control a
narrative. I don't even know if we need
to. But if you don't want to drive
yourself crazy, don't waste any time.
Everybody is spinning a narrative.
Period. Yeah. Um, I want to talk about
this Overton window shift because right
now there's been a tweet that's been
circling from it starts with uh, Stag
Wyatt. He says, "White people have a
simple choice to make. One, be
conquered, enslaved, raped, and
genocided while being called racist.
Two, reclaim our nations and our dignity
while being called racist. It's that
simple." American Patriot account
retweeted it. The two options are clear.
And Elon Musk retweeted it. Yes. Yeah.
So, for for me, this is I think the
bigger I don't want to say concern, but
do you think that this is something that
can start a movement that might be
letting it go away? Um,
>> start a movement that might be letting
go.
>> And I'm I'm going to kind of tag this
with the JD Vance tweet about like I
don't care if as long as it's a drug
cartel, I don't care what the military
does, they could just bomb a boat.
>> But that cuts out due process. Like
there's this thing where sometimes we
want justice and we give up our
freedoms. We might turn anarchy. you
might turn re so important. Let's
>> I I want to stay with racism for a
minute. Okay.
>> And then we can get to the how that
dovetales into the JD van saying, but
just to like take one issue at a time
because I worry these things start to
conflate so fast that
>> the just amount of things that people
have to parse through becomes impossible
to formulate an opinion.
>> So staying with race, what I think is
happening is
racism is obviously a real phenomenon.
It's what I call school of fish. For
whatever reason, all salmon hang out
with salmon. And maybe it's just as
simple as mating. I don't know. But
anyway, all salmon hang with salmon. All
trout hang with trout, right? You just
like people group up in schools of fish.
So, humans will cue off of uh visual
cues that you're part of my tribe. And
so, given from an evolutionary
perspective, uh being able to thin slice
somebody very rapidly as either in-group
or outroup would be incredibly
important. So skin color is just this
screaming alarm bell that this person is
not inroup outroup. Religion comes along
which would have been I mean just so
late in human evolution. But from our
perspective, oh feels like it's been
here forever.
>> But in reality like that's going to come
along pretty late. You're starting to be
homo sapiens at that point. Uh so
religion allows you to convey a value
system very rapidly through symbology.
So I can wear a cross. You see my cross.
And now all of a sudden it's like I
don't care that he's white or I don't
care that he's black. Yo, we have the
same symbol. We believe in the same God.
So I've just imparted a value system to
say you're in tribe, not out tribe. Even
though like there's this visual
representation that would otherwise make
us believe. Okay. So, we have been
living through this incredibly bizarre
moment that did not start in 2020, but
that was such a flash point
>> that we can sort of pick up the
conversation with uh BLM, George Floyd,
>> and everybody was at home watching TV.
So,
>> yeah. Which exacerbated everything a
thousand fold. So, now you've got this
um to your point about the Overton
window beginning to shift. Like, at
first it was um you're a racist if you
say anything like, "Wait, hold on a
second. I don't see anything in him uh
in the interaction between Derek Schovin
and George Floyd that makes me think
this is specifically race related. Yes,
he's white. Yes, he's black, but
>> does he say words to that effect? So
anyway, that that would get shut down
immediately. And I remember George Floyd
was my awakening to that there was
something going on. And I ended up
spending like Jesus dude like 3 hours
trying to come up with like a 15-second
post on it cuz I was like ah like it
felt so dangerous. And
now what I see happening is people for
so long were cancelled, debanked, uh
deplatformed. Like it it just became
impossible to say the things that you
thought were true. And so it started
pushing people down this more radical
path of like being angry, being
frustrated that they couldn't talk about
it. So that created a necessity to move
the Overton window because when you're
not allowed to speak, you're not allowed
to think, you're not allowed to put your
ideas out there and get the feedback.
Also, just articulating an idea out loud
forces you to realize, oh, wait a
second. The emotions that make me think
I understand this well, as soon as I
have to say the words, I realize I can't
say the words. I don't understand this
as well as I thought I did. And so that
all begins to break down. So people have
this impetus to say, "No, no, no. I need
to talk about this. I need to be able to
hear other people that are talking about
this. I need to be able to present my
ideas and get the feedback. And so they
pushed so hard. And now what we're
seeing is like this massive pendulum
swing where you get the Matt Walshes of
the world who are like, "No, no, no,
this is pure race and we just need to be
able to talk about it. Nick Fentes, pure
race, we just need to be able to talk
about it." And that to me again I think
is the wrong level of analysis. I think
that this is about value system and um
religion to me is the very thing that
proves this is about values and not
about anything else. and that you can if
you have a
larger value system like religion it
will unite people of different
ethnicities no problem. Uh but we do
need that rapid way to communicate value
system in a social media age where you
see something like this it just becomes
like the most common denominator basic
thing that everybody understands
intuitively which is race. And so that's
why I'm saying the the problem here is
that the level of analysis is wrong. So
race is a part of what's happening
>> for sure,
>> but it's really a values problem. And if
we can't move people out of the mindset
of race down into the mindset of values,
you'll never be able to solve the
problem because you'll be up here trying
to steer things based on commentary
about race and then it just the problem
doesn't solve.
>> So let's break that down from a value
system. Let's kind of go cuz from the
vase the race level it's black versus
white. This black man is bad. One point
one out of 22% of black men all this
other stuff and this precious white
woman who's attacked by a monster. And
then you go to that. So if we're at the
second level of value system, what are
the clashes from that perspective?
>> Okay. So uh the easiest one because I
think there's the most data on this is
uh the importance of men in a family
unit. And once you create policies that
erode the social pressure for men to
remain in a relationship to have
responsibility for their family uh what
ends up happening is it and it's really
twofold. So you uh start you create an
economic incentive to remove men from
the household. Then you um have the
social aspect of what men do is toxic
and that they're really blank slates
anyway. And so we should just they
wouldn't use the words feminized, but
like
it is feminization. So we should be
feminizing men. We shouldn't be having
them pull their kids up short. We
shouldn't be having them uh you know
waking their kids. Like if you know
Bedro Coulian runs this whole fathers
and sons camp where like it's basically
militaristic and so they're waking these
kids up early making them do hard things
crawl through the mud like deal with
freezing weather all this stuff and
people like ah like I don't want that
>> and so you've got this uh the removal of
males and then the feminization of males
and that from where I'm sitting stems
from a confusion about men and women
being the same. Men and women are
different. They are evolutionary answers
to very different questions. And women
are the sexual gatekeepers. So men from
an evolutionary perspective are the
answer to what do women need to
effectively safely have children.
>> And so they've made us bigger. They've
made us stronger. Uh they've made us
hyper ambitious. They've made us um
super responsive to sexual um
manipulation is uh encouragement. Uh, I
always want to use a more positive word,
but it's just so much easier to like
once
>> is manipulation.
>> Women help you be a better man by um
denying you access to sex.
>> And so it it's been this incredible
partnership that we've worked out. But
all of that now has just imploded. So
you've you're the social setup that we
have now is asking and answering the
question what happens to society when
you feminize men and just remove them
from the child rearing equation.
>> And the answer is it's bad. And uh
children do not regulate their emotions.
And the bad news is when a man does not
regulate his emotions, when he does not
learn how to do that as a kid, then some
of them will break violent. And men are
hard to stop because we have turned them
into these hyperaggressive, we being
sexual evolution, hyperaggressive,
uh, physically stronger,
>> much more likely to take risks, uh, half
of the species. And now you're seeing it
run a muck. And then the last part of
this piece, I do want to get to the
community. I see you guys popping off.
We're definitely going to take some of
your comments, but uh Matt Walsh made uh
an argument, and we don't need
necessarily need to play the video, but
his point now is with something like
this happening, he wants to bring back
rope hanging. I want somebody hanging
from a rope 24 hours later.
>> Um Donald Trump and what he's doing with
the National Guard trying to put a more
pressure on law and order.
>> Should this be a wakeup call to capital
punishment? Should this be a wakeup call
to um how we
litigate some of these cases? Um do you
think that there should be a natural
cause that like maybe violent criminals
shouldn't be released? We should bring
back three strikes. Do you think that
there should be some type of criminal
justice reform piece at the end of
something like this? So again, level of
analysis one, yes, you're going to need
to do that because you cannot if if you
don't have a society that's safe, that
society is going to spend an inordinate
amount of their time
>> uh just mental and emotional resources
like trying to protect. And we're living
in a populist moment. We're watching
what it looks like economically when you
protect yourself. It's very different
than when you have high trust,
cooperation, you get a lot more done.
You can advance a lot faster.
>> Yeah. And so now you'll get that at the
individual level where it's all
protectionist. So I think that's bad. So
you do need to do something to address
that because we are in the situation
that we're in right now. Um so yeah, you
you need to do something to stop violent
crime, but that's treating the symptom.
It's not treating the cause. So when I
hear that somebody's on a GLP1
inhibitor, when I hear that somebody's
taking metformin because they can't
manage their glucose, I'm just like,
hey, [ __ ] nut. Like this is 100% a diet
problem. This is not like mostly a diet
problem. This is 100% a diet problem. So
what we have is a raise your children
well problem. Now you're never going to
get that to 100% just life is too
complicated. But you've got to address
that. You've got to put the structural
things in place both from a financial
incentive perspective from the
government and from a social pressure
perspective to get people like one we
want people to have kids but we want
them to raise them well. We need both a
female and a male influence to raise
kids in a wellbalanced way where they're
getting all of the things that they
need. So, we've got to focus on that.
Otherwise, you're just always giving
people GL1 inhibitors, GLP-1 inhibitors
instead of
>> putting band-aids on the problem.
>> Yeah.
>> You you've got to uh stop the problem
where it starts, and that's with how you
raise kids.
>> Okay. Bringing it back up to the society
level. Um there's been a lot of talk of
fiscal dominance lately. the abil the
situation in which the federal budget is
getting out of hand. The federal deficit
is getting out of hand and the bond
market is broken. Um I want to jump to
this video from Andre Jle
I think Jako J I KH um on my smarter
chat. People can tell me how to
pronounce that. Um and his policy on how
the bond market just broke the Fed.
>> So it looks like the central banks of
the world are slowly losing control over
interest rates. There is breaking news
as we come on the air. The Trump economy
is sputtering. We learned this morning
that job growth in the past 3 months has
all but ended. The jobs numbers changed
again and we're now showing we actually
lost 13,000 jobs in June. That is the
first negative jobs report since 2021.
And the most recent August one was also
bad. We added only 22,000 jobs, which
means unemployment is now at 4.3%.
So to save the economy, the Federal
Reserve might come in and cut interest
rates by as much as half a percent.
Which is huge. And in the short term,
that sounds like a good idea. But here's
the problem. The bond market is telling
us we actually might be in a recession
already. Investors don't believe
inflation or debt can be controlled no
matter what the Fed does at this point.
Now, you might be thinking, Andre, I do
not care about bonds. I don't invest in
them. I don't buy them. But bonds run
the world. They set the interest rates
for the cost of things like mortgages,
loans, and even the value of our
currency. And it's not just happening in
the US. This is where we get into the
economy is just complicated enough that
again, this is largely going to break
along the lines of whether people have
the intellectual horsepower to figure
this out. This is why I like the idea of
if we're going to inflate people's money
into non-existent, which I wish we would
stop, but if we're going to do that,
then setting up some sort of fund when
kids are born where we either put one
lump sum and then just let it acrue or
we like constantly put money into it uh
instead of doing a lot of the
entitlements that we're doing now.
You've got to do it. You've got to do it
otherwise people are going to get left
behind. This is one of those where
people don't want there to be
trade-offs, but there are trade-offs. If
you deficit spend, okay, you can do it,
Drew. Obviously, look at the world. Hey,
we're here. We deficit spend. It looks
the way that it looks. But it has these
insane tradeoffs. And the biggest one is
inflation. We are going to take from
everybody and we're only going to give
back, and I probably should explain to
people what I mean by give back, but
we're only going to give back to people
that hold assets. They're technically
not giving you anything, but those
assets will respond from a price
perspective to the amount of money that
you print just automatically because
what ends up happening is you've got a
bunch of people. It's always an auction.
Basically, you're going to sell it for
whatever you can sell it for.
>> As more money goes into the system, more
people are willing to bid on those
assets and say, "Oh, I'll buy that house
for a little bit more. I'll buy that
stock for a little bit more." And so,
the price is going up up up up. Now, why
are they willing to buy it for a little
bit more? because they've got that money
more the money is printed. It goes into
the system and so as people accumulate
that money they're willing to there are
more people that have enough money to
bid on that thing. But because no goods
have been no additional goods have been
created
the technical real answer is more money
has been printed than goods have come
into new goods have come into existence.
So the discrepancy creates more people
competing for those things. Now, if you
once you start understanding that,
you're like, I know exactly where I need
to put my money. If you don't understand
that, and I know that even right now, no
matter how many times I've said this,
that there's just because there are
always going to be things you leave out
each time you talk about it because it's
so complicated, uh, that it's very hard
to get a total picture of things. Even I
don't think I have a total picture of
it, as I've said. I think Scott Besson
would laugh at my understanding of the
economy. I would not have known how to
break the back of the Bank of England,
which he did with George Soros. Uh, too
sophisticated for me. So
that level of ignorance is the thing
that holds people back.
What he's trying to explain to people is
that fiscal dominance. So fiscal means
government spending definitionally. Now
the problem is colloquially we will use
the word fiscal to just mean monetary
but fiscal dominance means governmental
spending dominance. What's actually
happening in fiscal dominance is the
government is deficit spending at a rate
that when the Fed tries to adjust
interest rates to control the money
printing based on the private economy.
So based on borrowing to buy a house,
borrowing to start a business, like
whatever, all the things that
individuals will borrow money for
because every time you borrow money,
you're creating money. Let's just be
very clear about that. So every time you
borrow money, you're creating money. So
it's an inflationary event. So what the
Fed does is says, "Oo, there's too much
money coming into the system. I'm going
to raise rates to get the average person
to be like, oo, I don't want to buy a
house right now. I don't want to take
out a mortgage. It's too expensive." And
so the Fed's like, "Cool. We know how to
regulate the um how hot the economy is
is how they would say it. We know how to
regulate that by adjusting um the
interest rate. As people start taking
out too many loans, we raise the
interest rate so they'll slow down. If
people aren't taking out enough loans,
then we lower the interest rate and
people start taking out more. And so
they try to walk this line. Fiscal
dominance happens when the government is
taking out money at a rate that the Fed
has to print print or technically the
Treasury, but they have to print print
print money to keep up with it.
>> And so no matter what the Fed does to
individuals, the government's like,
"Bro, I have to keep printing money.
It's the only way that I can meet my
debt obligations. So I am going to keep
printing." And so the Fed's like, "Well,
[ __ ] then I'm in a bad position because
if I raise interest rates, I increase
the rate at which the government has to
borrow money
and then the train goes off the tracks
>> because I can't cool the economy because
that makes it more expensive, but I also
can't inflate the economy because then
it makes it more expensive. So it's like
>> so you you it that's what's known as
fiscal dominance. And so once you're in
fiscal dominance basically and t