Warning On America's Collapse, Don Lemon vs Elon Musk, Racism, Hitler & Rising War | Bret Weinstein

We are naive not to at least publicly contemplate the possibility of our antagonists abroad taking advantage of our famous lack of security and you will see why we have to talk about genocide, someone has to open these issues if we want to overcome it. them and not let them chase our future why it's become a meme to say America is collapsing like the growth of the Roman Empire is running out we borrow from the future we can't do that anymore uh and now we're going tribal, yes, but I don't think it's useless, if I'm honest, I think we'll probably screw it up and it will become inevitable, lovely, yes, but there's a reason I'm taking the risks I must to talk about these things in public, which is , I think we still have the potential to rescue Westernization and probably, if I'm honest, introduce a version 2.0 that is able to deal with the novelty that version 1.0 is striving to be the key.

Humans detect growth failure because growth failure is not an economic fact, it is a resource scarcity fact and it has been applied to all of our ancestors for 3.5 billion years, so it's not like you know that growth did not. It was not invented in a modern economic context, economics formalized an understanding of something that is as primordial as anything else, which must be true so that we do not descend into this other phase, the phase in which musical chairs, music It stops and there are too many. few chairs in which blood is thicker than water and that is the rule that governs the day, the way to avoid that fate is to recognize that it predicts a lot about the noises people will make while it happens, so I am watching the shocking increase. in anti-Semitism and I think it's just in time because when I did my work in college on Hitler as a rational monster I understood that attacking Jews was a predictable phenomenon that Jews, because they live as a diaspora, are and because they are successful as a diaspora They are an obvious target.

When the music stops you get very concrete about why you're in the diaspora, for people who aren't familiar with it, you're an outgroup living in another country, so people. The Chinese are often referred to as part of a diaspora because they have a strong sense of Homeland, but they can still live somewhere else, yes, so let's say you have a population that is hard-working and capable, for whatever reason, I I would say that those reasons are largely cultural, maybe entirely, but you accumulate some wealth, achieve a certain position in society and then the racist impulses return and one way to generate growth for a population is to find an excuse to transfer the wealth of another. population, so the obvious thing is to say, well, you know, hell, the reason Germany lost World War I was a Jewish fifth column and the sorry state of Germany today is the result of being stabbed in the back by this people.

I mean, maybe they shouldn't even be called people, maybe they're vermin, they're sick, they're disgusting, sure, you start making those noises and justify a significant transfer of wealth from one population to another, but and this goes back to the question about the foundation. Parents, obviously the time period is different, but if you imagine that Germany before the Holocaust was a place that involved a few bloodlines and then one bloodline starts playing against the others, then you create growth for a bloodline without having to invent a new technology. . technology or discovering some more efficient way to achieve something is false growth what is it made of is made of the things that the people you are killing leave behind is made of their homes right, you are creating something that feels like growth for one population attacking to another population and when that happens within a land mass we call it genocide and when it happens across a border we call it war, but they are the same process, right?

You come with an excuse to attack a population that cannot. defend yourself and create the appearance of growth through theft, right? I mean, if you had a company and it could steal from another company, it would feel like, well, the value of this company is just Rose and the point is that yes, you took things from someone. Otherwise, I knew that by the time the growth dried up, there would be rabid anti-Semitism, and frankly, it precedes other forms of virulent

racism

, but you'll see those too, and I know where it's leading. I'm going to make excuses to take down people who don't have the right to what they have and that ends in genocide, so, you know, I think the bad news is that this is where we are in history, the good news is that in We actually have much better tools than we had when this happened previously to understand what is happening and, of course, but the way you would have to do it is to create a mechanism by which the population would be immunized against the immediate sense of danger that arises when we run out of new ways to generate well-being just when growth is not a sustainable process and the fact that our institutions pretend that all you have to do is keep things pointing in the right direction and there will always be a lot of growth that is not it's true growth comes from somewhere and it doesn't come from that place regularly you can't just create a system that works and is always creating new things, there are booms and busts and you can't afford for the bust to trigger these genocidal impulses, Which is what they will do if you don't figure out how to address the issue.

Well, right now we have two wars going on, one in Ukraine and Russia, another in Israel, Gaza. Are both the genocidal impulse? Complicated I will say something is happening in Ukraine and if there is one thing I know it is that I don't know enough to understand it, okay there is the obvious part, Russia has attacked a sovereign nation and now a generation of young men. They have been sacrificed in this battle, so I have nothing but compassion for the Ukrainian people in that circumstance, but I also know that there was an issue about NATO expansion and NATO behaved in a way that did not allay Russia's fears. and, more to the point, I know that my own government is in the hands of people who had their hands on things inside Ukraine in completely mysterious ways before this war broke out.

Why is the president's son involved as some kind of energy expert inside Ukraine? This is a story about things I don't know, so I don't know. I cannot say how the genocide is related to the conflict in Ukraine. I can say that it is a complicated puzzle. Israel and Gaza. The unspeakable truth is that there are innocent people caught on both sides of that conflict. you have a genocidal influence on both sides of that conflict, it is something that I do not have. I don't think I said it publicly. I've hinted at it and hoped people would understand and they've both told me that. sides that I am a terrible person, but what I said at the beginning of the conflict was that it threatened to drag the entire world back into the lineage against the violence of the lineage that if we want to save the West and save the world we have to rescue the Middle East from this situation because I don't think either party is being irrational.

I think they both understand that they are in a fight to the death and in a fight to the death the rules are quite different than what one would expect, so there it is. There is clearly a majority in Israel that wants to be part of the modern world and would like to get along with its neighbors. I think it's clear. I can't say the same about the leaders and I'm particularly concerned about the fact that Netanyahu himself, who um I must say engaged in absolutely alarming behavior during the pandemic and also appears to have been a Hamas facilitator before October 7, just as what I have seen is a video that appears to be Netanyahu advocating cynical support of Hamas for that purpose. to divide the Palestinians now my feeling is whatever that was.

Everyone who participated in any way in making October 7th happen has nothing to do with any kind of power. This is the last person who should be in charge of a military engagement in Gaza and I don't know what his motives are. Honestly, I can't say. All I can say is that he seems to be a crazy person and Netanyahu, yes, do you think Netanyahu is responsible for October 7? Yes, what I have seen I believe is credible evidence. of his argument for funding Hamas, if that is accurate, then he is responsible in some way, as a conspirator, hey guys, here is the money, I know they are going to do it somehow if we believe in the consent of the Government of MH and someone else outside of the governed acts to elect your leaders and those leaders behave badly and you suffer greatly from the bad behavior of the leaders someone else chose for you you are responsible do I know what I was really thinking? how could i know?

I couldn't be more oblivious to this. Is this a hypothesis or a thesis? No, it's an extrapolation. I don't know how it could be clearer. Palestinians are people. I believe that the right that consent allows me as a governed person. about that governance process extends to all people or should I think that it matters where we define a people is a relevant part of this or is it just a practical matter, but I know this is going to drag us down because I don't know if you're saying that based in the UN Charter that talks about a people and they are given certain protections or if you just mean look at any group of people, whether it's someone in a city or whatever, see if If you're going to be governed, you have right to give consent in the sense of consent of the term Govern.

I believe that people have the right to self-determination. I am not an expert on Palestinians or the Palestinian mentality. I don't know what you think the people of Gaza would have done without Netanyahu's meddling, maybe it would have been the same. I don't know what Israel is supposed to do in light of this absolutely barbaric attack, but I do know that whatever was involved in that attack put Israel in a bind. there was no way for Israel not to respond to that attack the brutality was calculated to make it impossible for Israel to choose it was calculated to provoke a response that would be overwhelming because someone thought it was a good idea, presumably Hamas thought it would be a good idea The idea now is that Hamas should be erased from the Earth, there is no doubt that these are terrible people, whatever they think, they are terrible people and eliminating them would make the world a better place, that is obviously not the same as the Palestinian people and given The way Hamas incorporates into itself what Israel is supposed to do is not obvious, but if there is something that is obvious, Netanyahu should not be in charge of it.

Well, so that was born out of the question of whether or not there is a genocidal impulse that we can actually appease through conversation by getting people to understand what it is that is drawing this into the public consciousness and, in doing so, eradicate this kind of things. Well let me add one thing to make it clear that we are all products of genocides that are not traced to me human history is long yes people kill their competitors it is common MH in history most of it has been lost not recorded you're just saying we're the ones who win, yes we are here and so are we, it's fair to say that all the product of multiple violations, human history is very long, give me, give me a percentage, what percentage of people do you have are waters down from a rape?

Oh, I think all of us, literally, 100%, yes. I think as soon as you realize how long of an ancestry period we're talking about, the chances of there not being a rape somewhere in each of our origins approach zero. um, that's dark, that's dark, but it's also yeah, it's dark, look at it, but once you've seen it, realize what that means. The potential for rape and genocide is something we all carry. We are also capable of overcoming it. There is a lot of hope in that recognition. Once you realize that you are not condemned to live this reality. just because it had meaning in ancient times that's where Liberation comes from, we don't have to live that way, we can sit down and write down our values ​​and we can say what is the system that really makes us realize those values ​​at the highest level. right level, what would we like to see happen with rape?

Well, we would like it to go to zero. Likewise, genocide, that's what it means when we say never again. So when I say that there is a genocidal impulse on both sides, we are seeing the predictable result of a zero-sum game in the Middle East that is unleashing potentials that we all have, we can see exactly why we have to take these potentials seriously in this setup and the right thing to do is actually not to hit each other over the head. side accusing the other side of genocide the right thing to do is recognize that this was predictable and that we have the power, if we stop talking nonsense, we have the power to make the future better than the past man, I'm with you and Look, this just happened become an interview in which a platitude of I hope everything is going to be okay, it just doesn't feel right, so I'll ask the most telling question, there is no agreement on whether what ishappening is correct. now it's genocide and this is um, there are several things that you feel like no one is listening to you, you're shouting from the rooftops and people just don't understand it.

I get a very similar feeling when I talk to people about someone's frame of reference. The old fashioned beer glasses that will control how you interpret what people call facts and people who quote Ben Shapiro and Say the facts don't care about your feelings bro, we can't agree on what the facts are or we certainly can't We can agree on what the facts mean and I don't really think people are playing a game. I think people don't understand. how distorted all our worldviews are, that we really only see the distortions and, for us, there will be people who look at this and go away, obviously, what is happening in Gaza is a genocide, obviously, and there will be people who obviously That It's not genocide, this is crazy, I can't even believe we're having this conversation and each side thinks the other is trying to play a linguistic game or something and they're missing what I think is the real truth, which is they. sees the world so fiercely in a way that there is literally nothing you can show them and I mean nothing that will make them go oh I see your point and because there is literally nothing you can show them like let's leave the Jews aside. wait a second because this is getting very strange, very fast, especially right now, in Rwanda, almost a million people were hacked to death in about six weeks, so that's crazy and it's still happening now.

I haven't researched the Rwandan genocide, so during All I know is that they both said, yes, this genocide and it's completely justified, which then gets into another problem which is yes, genocide, what's the problem. People really become convinced that I am following God's orders. I am doing what is fair and correct in what I am doing. and the only way I see to get to the other side of that is that everyone has to wake up to one simple fact, ideas control everything and what I mean by that is that if you believe certain things to be true, you confuse them with reality objective, which is physics. but you believe that certain things are true, so you have a set of things, your values ​​that you believe should be true and now you have something that they confuse with objective reality and that they often confuse with something that is simply obvious or self-evident.

Divine whatever and so it is non-negotiable and both things will be fiercely debated by the other side who sees the truth that they do not have their own being nor their own duty and so on until we are all gone eh, I know I am in the clutches of an illusion, I can't see things clearly, so we all have to come to a set of shared values ​​and then build from that, if we can't share values, it doesn't matter how much you talk about genocide, Will Death Loop because people just avoid it by saying but this is not genocide or genocide is correct, yes, it is genocide, but hey, it's what we have to do, it was a very good summary, it overlaps with a lot of things that I also think I think distinguish . between beliefs and values ​​is crucial um what are you saying uh regarding we are all suffering from an illusion.

I agree that it is correct. I call this the Caresian crisis and I think we are mired in it and it is if you understand its implications, it is terrifying, the Cartesian crisis. I named it after Dick Hart, who got scared when he realized that all the things he thought were facts, what you say, you think is physics, but they are beliefs that he himself had not established and therefore, he was assuming some kind of authority. The problem is that the systematically induced blindness that is being inflicted on the public is creating a scenario where we can't really establish much of anything and that leaves us vulnerable to being sold a correct narrative, it simply fills the void of what they really could. believe in common, the obvious thing to do is to agree on the basics that Enlightenment is better than deciding what you are allowed to believe, for example, let us pursue Enlightenment, agree to share facts we can differ on values ​​we should talk about what values ​​should govern how we should live but we shouldn't differ on the basic facts and we should be and this is crucial if you love coffee and a little caffeine but hate the jitters and the afternoon slump that comes with it, there is finally a substitute The coffee you should try is from Peak and is called Nanda Nanda is made with the highest quality ingredients and aims to activate your metabolism, promote healthy levels of testosterone production. and provides sustained energy without the jitters or crash with slow-release caffeine that comes from fermented probiotic teas Nanda provides an energy boost that lasts all day so you can stay focused and productive Peak has over 15,000 star reviews and for a limited time I can get up to 15% off plus a free refillable soft drink and mug with my Peaklife docomo link directly to Peak life.com SL impact to get up to 15% off plus two freebies using the only tool that truly allows us to establish those facts in a completely unbiased way, science works because it is designed to tell you what you don't believe, correct biases if it weren't for this value, it wouldn't be worth doing, it's too cumbersome and slow, but because it's the only system that will give you allows you to see exactly what you don't expect.

It has the ability to tell us what is true and to know that it is true because it predicts things better than some other idea. That's the tool. It b

elon

gs to no one or b

elon

gs to all of us equally and those who politicize it are putting us all in danger. This is really why I'm trying to bring this tool to people in this way and show them that it applies to the things that they are struggling with and the only way out of it is that we have to learn to use this tool to find out. where we are in an era where all the institutions that should do that job are failing once we are going to have to build institutions that work, some people think we can rescue the institutions we have.

I'm less and less convinced of that, but I know that we can build something that works and we have to stop beating each other up. another about the product of scientific research, you know that the facts are what they are and then the values ​​tell you what to think about them and if you divide things that way so that we are not fighting over the facts based on the idea that They themselves are somehow immoral, so there is hope. Can I try an idea with you? Please, it's okay. I think the way the human animal is designed, there is no way for us to come to a consensus.

Trading in a mutually beneficial way is leveraging another foundation that I'll round up to Greed, but I don't mean it in a bad way. I think the only way out for something like Israel Hamas is to make people obsessed with the future of their country. Children, if you believe that the brightest future for your children could be to be killed, to be martyred, to go to heaven, then that idea gets you, now violence is radical, that is a great way to ensure that your child has a wonderful future, on the other hand. On the other hand, do you think my son's future can be filled with education and I guess I'll say earthly love here on this planet for at least this period of time and that tomorrow will be better than today and that they're going to progress and it's going to be wonderful. and they're going to grow up and they're going to fall in love and they're going to have kids and you know this is going to go on forever, that feels like when I look back to identify how To move forward, I'm going, yeah, you want progress, health and safety , love for family members, watching them grow, etc, etc., I think you are right on the question of Islam.

I will simply point out that there are numerous examples in the Middle East. in which the Islamic States tried to modernize adopted values ​​that were not exactly Western, but we moved in that direction and I think that, unfortunately, for reasons that in the end were profoundly economic, we have interrupted this process, we in the West have interrupted this process and have created a conflagration that didn't have to happen, how do we stop it? Well, the Shah of Iran was basically installed to facilitate the transfer of economic resources, we nullified a democratic impulse in Iran and it resulted in a theocratic rebellion, so what?

Would it have happened, if we had not meddled in Iran, would Iran be where it is today? Or is it entirely the result of resentment against the West that has left a void that has been filled by a well to connect it to an earlier part? of the conversation, you have these two bases for cooperation, you have reciprocity, which I would say is the way the modern world should be structured and there is lineage against lineage of violence and I think our meddling in the Middle East has set the course towards a lineage against lineage. lineage violence that we now largely wrongly blame on the content of religious doctrine, true, religious doctrine contains this violence, but the question is exactly how is the case with Israel, true, the Old Testament contains some really toxic things, but most Israelis want to be. part of the modern world, right, the fact that there are bad things in the founding documents is not destiny, so I'm not sure what to make of that and I got stopped trying to explain this connection.

But the correct thing is to recognize that we are all better off, all of humanity is better off if we do it. Accept, you call it greed. I wouldn't use that term, but if we recognize that humanity is improved when human beings are enabled to compete in a way that, ecologically, we would call exploitative competition, there are two types of competition, you have exploitative competition and interference competition, right? If I bomb your Factor so that you can't do things, it could be said that I am competing with you, but it is a destructive type of competition, if I try to do better things than you so that I can compete with you in the market and you try to do better things than me because you want to be successful, so the point is that what we get is an improvement in the quality of the things that we have access to, so what you really want at the end of the day and I'm not telling you that I know how to create a instance of this, but what you really want at the end of the day is for people to benefit when they bring things to the table that improve the quality and length of human life.

The way to do it, to the extent that there is anything we can describe, is to internalize all the costs of our activities and let the market solve the problem if you let the market solve the problem. the market solves the problem and if somehow and I'm not claiming that I know how to do it because it may just not be possible, but if you internalized all the costs of each product and each process so that at the end of the day the only people who benefited They were the ones who did things that really improved us, you don't need to do anything else that will solve the whole problem, so people spend their time trying to figure out how to improve the position of humanity. and when they are successful, the quality of their personal life improves, that's what you want, that allows the market to do what is good without interfering with our values ​​and, um, minimally facilitates or prevents the outbreak of tyrannical impulses that the market he simply says. we, uh, which things should be increased and which should be abandoned based on whether their impact on humanity was positive or not, yeah, why has it become a meme to say that the United States is collapsing like the Roman Empire?

What are people trying to deal with when I think there is a palpable sense that the system is collapsing, so I think it's not incorrect to think that a

collapse

is occurring. I consider it a slow motion meltdown. I don't think about the Roman Empire very often, except for the simple fact that something that seemed as robust as it should can also fall apart. I also remember from childhood the surprise

collapse

of the Soviet Union, but once you recognize that things that seem eternal still end, it's not difficult to recognize the signs. Where we are now, I guess I'm glad we're finally having that discussion because the risk of the Republic falling apart was there and has been for decades and, uh, if we're going to get through this phase.

Whether it's rescuing the republic or figuring out how to escape a crash landing, it will be because we understand what the implications are. I've heard you say that the rational optimistic position is not bad, we can get there, but we are. I'm not going to get there by accident, so what is being removed now that prevents us from ending up naturally on the optimistic path? I think we have antagonists to our ability to understand where we are and, in fact, I've grown tired of the idea of ​​meaning letting you know that concept became Hackney, but there is some need to deal with the evidence around you and put it together into some kind of model and we have some force that opposes our ability to Do That Well is denying us basic information about easily answerable questions that would allow us to navigate the most basic topics well.of life and that's why we keep getting hurt because something is acting to keep us in the dark, what are some of the things? that prevents us from seeing well take an obvious question from the covid crisis we were told that mRNA injections were safe and effective they have now been administered to literally billions of people we have highly credible claims of certain patterns of pathology that have emerged Below We have a number of overwhelming denials about the connection between, for example, tumors and various types of heart problems, and anyone who has gone through the process of studying science knows that these are not difficult questions, there are difficult questions, but the simple ones are. . people who took these injections are more prone to condition It becomes important that we can't come to a scientifically sound conclusion about it, that's what I want to understand better, so, as a student of History, I'm getting more and more worried. about a slide toward totalitarianism, that the desire for authoritarian control is a good thing seeping into the public consciousness.

I see the world as a battle of ideas and when wrong ideas are celebrated really deep problems arise, so what I'm trying to map okay, we have this thing that you will often refer to as Goliath, but whatever the entity , the elites, whatever, the government, whatever, we want to label that thing as trying to blind us, but I don't think they care. the effectiveness of the V so it doesn't feel like it's the symptom not what they really care about what they really care about I think they want to make sure that you comply and compliance is the game and if you can see that they are fallible and they talk about it , then it is much more difficult to achieve compliance.

Does that feel good? One element of it feels great, but they left us with a mystery: They had a technology on which to build something they called a vaccine. misleadingly, but they used that term to put it in our blind spot because most people, myself included, had the feeling that vaccines were tremendously well-tested and that the risks that come with them tend to be small. It's forced Co to rethink that, but if the whole point had been compliance, they would have been smart enough to recognize that the technology they were using to make these shots was extremely risky and could well backfire due to the variety of pathologies which, in principle, could be triggered by a shot of this type.

It was huge, so the question is whether the real point was: can we get you to take a shot? The smartest thing would have been to give an injection that was effectively neutral, that was a placebo. You know, maybe you could have concentrations that low. of the active ingredient that would not have had any impact and if they had, I think they would be in a much better position today because people in general would not have a list of friends who have had some serious negative reaction to these things and could play the same games that they play with Statistics to claim that they had been effective and if they had done that and there was no pattern of pathology then all those of us who were worried about who we were If they told you what these things were going to do to the body, it would seem like a nonsense and that their ability to get people to comply in the future would be much greater, so I don't get the feeling that a simple game of forcing people to comply could possibly explain the takes for some reason they wanted people to take them , so I want to start separating two ideas, so I want to find out why they want to blind us, while I think it's a stretch to say that America is in decline like the Romans.

Empire when, if you're thinking that the Roman Empire declined rapidly when in reality I think it's probably a very slow process, which we may or may not be in, we may improve in the next 10 years and then collapse, who knows or crawl away. forever, whatever that is, so I think it's important for people to understand that when they talk about you or anyone else in that group, I see that they are being attacked now in a way that they weren't five or six ago years. I understand when you say I think this is worthy of exploration and when you say I've explored a lot of things and on this one I'm really going to plant a stake in the ground, because I have a feeling I'm going to touch on both in today's conversation, okay. , so getting back to the question I really want to nail down, is why blind ourselves, what's the point, let's talk about the topic of blinding and I'll just tell you my own thought process.

I come from a background in studying complex systems. I am a biologist. I'm an evolutionary biologist and I'm very interested in levels of analysis, so I come to questions about how human societies function through that lens and a hypothesis in that case. tends to actually be a nested series of sub-hypotheses and you build them up and the more they hold up to new observations, the more truth they are likely to contain, so I build a model and if I see something next week that is inconsistent with it, my point is that my confidence in that model is pretty low, but if I have a model and it lasts a year or two and all I see are things that really fit it, I tend to get the feeling that maybe it's correct or analogous to something that is right, so the question of why we are being blinded here is what I have become increasingly confident in is a hypothesis, but it is amazing how well it predicts events and phenomena in the future, we are caught in competitive fights all the time inherently and that is not a bad thing, in fact, it is the engine that makes Western civilization work, you just have to put it in place.

I used to think it's like explosive energy in the cylinder of an internal combustion engine, right, an explosion is not a productive thing, but in that context, it can be very, very productive, but when you're in a competitive system There is an advantage that anyone who has superior information has and what I mean is that this almost seems too obvious to me at this point for it not to be on everyone's mind. but we proceed by imagining that there is a level of patriotism that we share with other people in our system who surely have the same feeling that the United States or the West is a wonderful structure in which to achieve new things to innovate and therefore must want to protect it too and it's harder for us to deal with that, what if they don't see it in those terms and what if there's actually a group of very powerful people who see democracy as a terrifying mechanism that can change anything? you're trying to achieve based on the whim of an audience that may not know what they're doing.

I mean, I actually understand that concern for democracy can do things that are destructive and so if you were in a position of power you could look at the fact that the public can remove the leadership and install someone who is saying things that resonate with them with some uneasiness, so if you didn't get the sense that the West and its obligation to have the consent of the Government was a good thing, they might start playing against people who we would tend to think would be playing alongside them would be developing a wide range of topics in which superior information allowed them to get ahead at the expense of others.

I mean, this is if we think about In a financial market, economists talk about the big fool: how do you make money? You find someone who understands less than you and you exchange things and basically take advantage of what they don't understand and their wealth is transferred to you by doing so. That can actually be a positive force if what you understand is something about the future that is unclear to others, if you are really insightful then you can get rich by seeing the future more clearly, but you can also do the same trick by blinding yourself. your competitors by making the information they would use to find out what's coming unavailable to them and what that would look like.

Well this is where the rubber meets the road with this idea it would seem like an attack on everyone. the things that allow us to navigate all sources of public truth searching would seem like an attack on all newspapers would seem like an attack on universities and science would seem like an attack on magazines ultimately would seem like an attack on the courts and that just coincides With the evidence we have, all of these public truth-seeking mechanisms are getting sillier by the hour and what that's doing is putting people in front of people who see this problem and correctly recognize that they are much better. disconnect from those institutions and try to find out what's going on outside of them, but what many of them don't realize is that a poor substitute for the public search for the truth that is actually, you know, could be good for people like you and like me. appeals to an audience that wants to hear a conversation that hasn't been approved by one of these lobotomized institutions, but rather from the point of view of the average person trying to figure out what to do with the advice their doctor or the FDA is giving them. he's talking about nutrition, it's a bad substitute and the reason I fear collapse is because you don't know you can put on a blindfold and keep driving down the road for a while, but at some point there's going to be a curve. and we can't, we can't, we can't drive like this, we have to rescue ourselves from whatever it is, whatever the Force is, whether right or wrong about its nature, that prevents us from establishing the basics.

Facts of Our Lives, okay, do you see this as a WF super conspiracy or is it just emerging behavior of people who get into positions of power, whether economically like someone who runs a big company or politically, and think, huh, I like what I am? Able to do better in this position, so there are 50,000 people who just have that slight inclination to oo. This would be a little better for me if I had a little more control and then the emergent behavior starts to look like a coordinated attack but in reality it's just a bunch of little people trying to make their own lives a little richer and more controlled uh I got substantial confidence that it will be a combination of both now that I look at the we F and there's a part of me that thinks that's too silly and too obvious to really be the entity that perhaps represents a front for whatever real thing is out there. in collusion behind the scenes, but I do believe that there is a component that is obviously in collusion against public understanding, but there are also numerous mechanisms that will cause people to innovate in the direction of that Force without being contacted or remunerated by it, they will simply do it because a system of incentives makes them move in the same direction. and we see this issue after issue, if we try to establish the basic facts of, for example, climate change, what we find are fields full of people, presumably most of them have good intentions, they care about what they see as a real emergency and They do the best they can. elucidate it so the rest of us can see it, but if you have lived within academia you will also know that a field like climate science right now will not accept evidence that counters it and what that means is that the evidence you see is not It doesn't have the implication that you think it does, even if the studies you see are accurate, you're not seeing the studies that weren't done that would have provided a different view, and through all of these questions, our ability to have a view open.

A conversation in which all the evidence is presented is essential. It occurred to me the other day that this is actually the reason why freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas are so closely tied to the other rights of the West: that the consent of the Governor means nothing if the Governor cannot have a discussion that allows them to vote in the direction of reason, so you can ruin a democracy by trashing speech even if people are perfectly free to vote for whatever they want that you don't want. I need to play with the election itself if the public's mind is confused by being deprived of real information, so that's what I'm seeing, both in the informal sphere and in the formal institutional sphere, it's mind-blowing, that's what we're seeing. hallucinations that will cause a suspicious person to see them depicted in elaborate form. um I don't know if I fully answered your question about emergency versus collusion, so you did in the sense that you said it's going to be a combination of all of them.

Of them, what I want to do is start to investigate what exactly that looks like in reality, because we can say exactly the same thing or we can say something different, but my opinion is something like this, you know what I am. I'm about to say it because you're the one who taught me it, but the Earth, its rotation, changes, its tilt, there are three different things that add up to slight variations on different time scales, which caused the Earth to cool and warm. so we've been through a long time beforehumans were here Ice Age without Ice Age Ice Age without Ice Age and it went back and forth because of these slight disturbances that change that determine how much colder things get in the summer, how much snow accumulates then years that then it turns into an ice age and then it lurches the other way and a little bit of snow melts and a little bit more and a little bit more until you warm up again, so it's these huge macroeconomic trends that are basically colliding. waves and every once in a while they hit it the right way and you get a rogue wave and that's what I think is happening right now.

Yes, there is probably a bit of collusion. Yes, there is probably only the authoritarian desire for power. um, yeah, some people. They probably just aren't intellectually powerful enough to hold really nuanced ideas in their head, so when you're dealing with social media and there's a massive velocity and volume of information H, I just need something, so I'm team blue , I am the team. red cute simplistic just tell me what to do and I'll do it just so I don't have to think about all these problems and what it feels like right now is a rebellious wave.

I have no idea how big the rogue is. Wave it is, I just know it's the biggest wave in my life. It's so possible that now, compared to the Civil War, this is nothing and we're super safe and everything's going to be okay. Okay, but what I want to start unraveling is what are those elements that are coming together now, so we've talked about it being the WF, but like the Elites are actually in cahoots and I'll say, um, the Fed, the way banking is run. That's guaranteed, even if they are open, it's a group of people who have an agenda and largely control what you know, what you understand, what they tell you when they tell you, they want to make sure you understand. as little as possible about printing money, etc., so there is definitely what I will call official collusion, maybe with the best of intentions, maybe not, but anyway, so things happen at the local level, while at the Board level School there are movements there that are taking control where they are trying to isolate the parents and they have the FBI investigating the parents as terrorists and then you have something strange that happens at the local level and then you have what is happening at the uh At the level of social media, where people, platforms are being pressured on what to show and what not to show, and we go on and on, but each of them feel like they're driven by the same kind of human beings, but slightly different things like the To me, FED is not the same as what is happening at the local school board, two things and I don't want us to get lost, but your example, the Milankovich cycles that cause the oscillation between ice ages and interglacials, is fine .

Chosen and it actually illuminates how to reconcile his presentation and mine, but I think your audience will have to please me to make it clear why, so we have these three orbital oscillations, we have the obliquity of the orbit that we have. we have the procession of the Earth's axis and we have the Dee degree of tilt, these things are independent of each other and oscillate on separate time scales, we have a 100,000 year cycle, a 41,000 year cycle and a 21,000 year cycle, each one of them has a very small influence on the amount of solar radiation that actually reaches the Earth, even together they have a small impact, so if you pressed a button and had them all go into the phase where they cool the Earth for one year, I wouldn't do it.

I can't tell that year from any other, it might be a little cold, but it wouldn't be decidedly cold, what happens is that when these patterns align in such a way that they cause the amount of ice that remains in the northern hemisphere during the summer be a little larger make the Earth a little whiter because the ice turns out to be white and the white surfaces reflect energy back to space, making the next year a little colder when the next year is a little colder. A little more ice adheres during the northern summer the following year. that's a little bit colder, so almost everything that causes glaciation is a result of this amplifier, it's not a result of the Milankovich cycles that set it in motion, it's the amplifier doing the job correctly, it's As if you imagine it, you know.

MC Jagger at the Rose Bowl singing his heart out, no one in the back row would be able to hear well, it's the mechanisms that amplify his voice, but they're not adjusting the content of his voice, he's still Mcjagger, he's just having a high impact. based on all the things that amplify your voice and then project it to all the people at home who weren't there, that's probably where we are the real collusion, maybe a small fraction of what's happening, but it's like a navigation fraction. establishing our Direction and then these organic emergent processes are causing it to become a terrifying Force, instead of knowing a joke where 10 Apes gathered in a room and decided to direct the world in a direction that sounds absurd but given the ability of markets and fields. of study to amplify thinking to amplify motivated reasoning we get the same kind of puzzle, so I don't disagree with you that most of it can be emergent, but I don't think that's the place to focus if we want to fight back, but the way To understand where we are going is to focus on the part that is leading and that is not so easy to do because, of course, we are not invited, we have to extrapolate from the pattern. abroad yes, but I think we will be able to describe the phenomenon of okay, they are blinding us, they are censoring us, there are things that are the massive attempt to reduce the Overton window so that so many things were not allowed to talk about it. , um, which again from where I'm sitting feels like um, the emerging phenomenon, more than just overlords, because this really gets complicated.

I've been here trying to write down all the things I think. um create this so that the current variations of the movich minkovich cycle uh, but the growth has stopped, which we probably need to talk about. uh you just have the internet and social media again, going back to the idea of ​​speed and Volume of information you have about the nanny state, which I guess Jonathan Height wrote a new book about, I haven't read it yet, but I'm very eager to see the consequences of that. You also have, uh, I forget who wrote the book, but about um therapists now they just claim claim claim and how that's creating an additional spiral of this feeling that I need to be protected uh and then you also have the postmodernist thinking that has spread through the institutions which is now like we have a Generation of people who have been taught that everyone has Tik Tok and Instagram accounts and they just post these things as fast as they can and now, according to my Thinking Beyond Collusion, those They are the things that are creating this.

At this point you think I missed something. Well, you mentioned it in that last article. But I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's highlighted enough. However, there is an aspect of social media that causes a totally unnatural simplification of the very natural. Human tendencies and I've been thinking more about the Overton window and the fact that it has an analytical connotation, right? What are the ideas that are beyond what we are ready to contemplate, but then I started to Look, I have become increasingly suspicious of what I call polite society and more, what does that mean?

Well-mannered society, at the risk of making your audience think me crazy. I accepted, I accepted Alex Jones' offer. on his show and that caused an interesting stir, most of which wasn't actually about what I said on the Alex Jones show, but it caused what I said on the Joe Rogan show to be scrutinized in a way that It was new and I think it's pretty mean and since people think Alex Jones is crazy, if you've been on his show you must be crazy, let me look at what you said and prove that yes, but I also think there's a concern.

I think going on Alex Jones' show would have made less sense before Tucker Carlson interviewed him, that actually led Alex Jones into a discussion where it had formally been possible before to just fire him out of hand and the problem with Alex Jones. from the point of view of polite society is that he is not only wrong about everything that would be easy to address, but he is often right and so what do you do with someone who has simply given up on staying within any boundaries? ? I'm willing to explore any idea that is too dangerous for certain people, so I go there.

You know I have a PhD in biology. I've made a couple of contributions to my field and if I talk to Alex Jones, it creates a questioning that causes a re-exploration of the question of whether one really has to take it seriously or not, so it became the moment when it was important to find reasons not to take me seriously properly so that question could come back to uh. being marginalized and what I realized was that I was getting a lot of pushback from people who were raising the cost for me by doing what I did well, which was contained in what they said, but the real message was that I didn't really you should I hadn't, it was a don't go there, girlfriend moment, so I started thinking about what I was made of and I realized that polite society that for me takes the form of, you know, like a fractal. a cocktail party, the people you want to like, who have the ability to guide you by threatening not to invite you to the next one and my feeling is that I don't care anymore because these people have been so wrong that, um.

It is not obvious why his sanction should have value and the more I thought about that question, the more I realized that polite society exists in all eras and I leave open the possibility that it can have a positive amplifying effect in a good ERA, TRUE? might stimulate people to achieve great things so that they can be heralded at the next cocktail party for their ideas, but I noticed that you've seen that there are some photographs that were discovered somewhere in the last two decades, a photo album Nazi who had been languishing in someone's attic, um, and didn't reveal the things we're so familiar with about the Holocaust, but instead revealed the private recreational lives of the Nazis outside of Aitz, you know, I heard something about this, but no , it's remarkable and there's a couple of photographs that I find absolutely chilling where there are these well-dressed Nazi girls, one of them is enjoying the blueberries, bowls of blueberries like right outside of aitz um wow, yeah, it's, it's wild and I guess.

My feeling is that, not really. I want to put the spotlight back on polite society and I want to ask the question: why should we care what you think right now when you know it's okay? Polite society is very much invested in the idea that we have no choice but to vote for Joe Biden because of the terrifying prospect of Donald Trump being elected again. Well, if polite society had any sense, it wouldn't be running Joe Biden as a hedge against Donald Trump's re-election. offer someone serious, he would actually give up his influence to pedal, so that wasn't a major argument against blue in this election, if he cared about us that's what he would do and the fact that he didn't do suggests that in reality He's as cynical as ever, but he wants the little people to jump out of fear of Donald Trump, which is irrational in my opinion, so when that's the footwork, when polite society wants to turn, already You know, he looks at me and says.

You're out of line, but this isn't about looking at the Democratic National Committee and saying what the hell are you guys doing. Do they realize what they are playing with Joe Biden, he shouldn't have been elected in the last election, the idea of ​​running him again? This even more advanced state of decrepitude is crazy, and yet it doesn't make the Democratic machine blink, so anyway my point again. I think it's important to say it clearly. I'm not accusing anyone of Nazi defects, that's not my point. about the Nazi girls and their blueberries my point is polite The society existed just outside of Aitz it exists in all eras the fact that he invites you to his cocktail party or not has to be evaluated the meaning of that has to be evaluated in the context of whether or not polite society is doing its job of amplifying the good things of civilization or whether it's doing exactly the opposite and actually making us worse off, making us petty and superstitious, and that's exactly what I think it's doing right now. , so, huh.

I guess I'm happier to be out of this and not welcome at those parties than I would be to continue going to them, okay, so again, this is something I came to terms with after listening to you, but the idea that shame it has its place uh you said you don't want to rule that out you have to understand it many times you use pain as an example if you go to the doctor and he thinks that pain is in itself a disease that is to get rid ofyou have a problem because pain means there is a problem you need to address and it is adaptive, not maladaptive.

I would say the same about polite society, although I agree with you that it doesn't. I don't want to blindly accept polite society, so I'm going to take that as the shame mechanism and I'm going to say okay, no, I'm not going to dismiss this lightly, but what I don't agree with and what What you just said is that I don't think polite society will ever be its own police and that's why we need you to call yourself out. I think you're a reluctant radical, so it's like we need reluctant people or else we need people who sit down. outside of polite society also work on their own thing and, therefore, although there will always be friction between polite society and the radicals, my whole mission in life is to make people understand that you must exist in a dynamic tension such as you do not want. . those two things to inform each other.

I wouldn't want polite society to give up its sense that this is how things should be and I wouldn't want radicals to conform to polite society to be there, it takes both. they serve well only when in the Ju position, now they get specific about Alex Jones. Well, one thing is, as I look at you, you are a big part of my sense-making apparatus, people can take that however they want, but you, Sam Harris, you are a part of my continuing sense-making apparatus and I know that people have problems with him and my thing is that I am not going to believe everything you say or what anyone says or what anyone says.

I think everyone's job is to take the best information they can get, discard the things that they think, for whatever reason, don't work, and then synthesize their ideas and if you can't think for yourself, you already have a problem, so when I think, it's okay for you, knowing that you use this hypothesis, thesis dichotomy, is there a limit to what you think is a hypothesis that you will present? Do you have a governing Matrix paradigm in your own thinking that says this hypothesis I will present publicly and this one I will not, which then relates to whether Alex Jones could have been?

I haven't seen it, so I have no idea. If you were like the voice of reason in the room, I think of him as someone who has absolutely no Overton windows, he will talk about literally anything, so I wouldn't want to see him censored because he better let me separate the wheat from the CHF . Instead of it being a top-down decision, though, I put it in a very specific box because you apparently have no self-governance over what you'll talk about, so do you have anything governing what hypotheses you will and won't do publicly? explore, that's a great question, and it's strange, I don't know exactly the answer, let me tell you how I think about it, although there are certain properties that have a paradoxical nature, freedom of expression is one of them, we could waste the rest. of our lives by analyzing the various examples where speech has had some implication and whether the effect was negative or positive on a net level, but at the end of the day the correct answer is that speech must essentially be perfectly free and the net result Of this is positive, in the same way, I would say that I have reluctantly engaged in a battle with a person on Twitter who has been a very strong and I think not outspoken advocate of the standard narrative about things like covid vaccines .

You want continued commitment. I don't want to get involved with him anymore because I don't think he's really working from evidence to a conclusion. I think you're working backwards from a conclusion, so I don't think it's an honest debate, but my point would be this in an honest debate, let's say we have an honest debate about something that matters a lot, like whether these injections are the right thing to do. safe enough to administer to a human being. Do I say good? The injections will kill more. people or not taking them is going to kill more people and if I have an argument with someone about it and I say, hey, I think the shots are going to kill more people and it turns out the shots save more people.

So we kill, am I then responsible for those deaths? That's not at all how this works. Is someone on both sides of an honest exploration helping us know more about where the dangers are and where the values ​​are? Both sides get credit as long as they are doing it in good faith, as soon as someone steps out of the realm of good faith they are no longer in that position, they actually own the downsides of their argument, if you're going to argue I'm responsible of the deaths, if I misunderstand something, then the point is that if it turns out that you are wrong, you are responsible for those deaths because you chose that argument, but if you are willing to participate with me in exploring this, we can take countermeasures. positions and at the end of the day we both get credit for clarifying the question, that's the world I'm happy with, so again, is there a limit to what I'll present?

Well, if there is a limit, it is a threshold. very different from most people and that's how it has been. I can trace it back at least to college in college taking an evolutionary biology course my final paper the course was taught by Bob Drivers a very famous and influential evolutionary biologist my final paper for the course was an exploration of the question of whether Hitler was in fact really a crazy maniac or if what he did could be understood in terms as obviously moral as IM, but could it be understood in rational terms from an evolutionary perspective?

That's something I've been told is a question we shouldn't explore, and worse, I've been told it can't possibly be true. People don't want it explored and want to present an answer to the question without exploring it, which I can't. Respect, but the fact that you know since I was in college would have been 1991. I guess I've been exploring questions like that and it tells you that I'm willing to go places that others wouldn't go. Now I do it knowing that it is. so carefully that I put tools on the table and that I have an obligation not to say things that I believe are not true and I trust in some sense that the reality that I will end up unearthing is something valuable to be aware of if that is the case. worth exploring the possibility that genocide is a rational goal immoral but a rational goal my belief is that the probability that we will actually be able to prevent future genocides increases if we understand that connection I could be wrong on that I could be but I'm a scientist To the core, I believe that finding out the truth is valuable in the end, even if you know it, even if I die believing that something that turns out to be reversed later, the process gets us there over time and it's, uh, it's like that. embolden our best values, okay this is really interesting, I firmly believe that everyone has a world view, they are what I call Whole Life beer glasses, so everyone sees the world through a distorted lens and everyone we can distort that lens any way we want. they choose, most people don't realize that, they are born with something, they live in a value system, they just stick to whatever they grow up with, but the warping of that lens is a combination of what you believe , your values ​​and your genetics.

What I'm hearing is a mapped value system on your part, that makes a prediction, so you're willing to explore whether hitting Hitler or anyone else who commits genocide is acting rationally and immorally. You were very clear about that, but rationally some people also said that you're going to say that's beyond the pale because if you find out that the answer is yes, the world gets a little worse because now I can't just cut it off at the knees and completely say Beyond the Boundaries uh everything is evil it's just evil the moment you see it evil reacts it goes crazy so the value that I think predicts what you just said is that the truth and understanding Trump, even the grotesque and damaging results, well, it depends on whether I understand what you just said, um, I'm not saying that the value of knowing the truth is intrinsically greater than any harm that can come from it, but does How will you know until you explore it?

I won't do it. I could try to analyze each instance of the speech and figure out what I can obviously have the right to say. Anything isn't the same as thinking you should say everything but Studable-Winter exploration, but if I'm wrong, let me know. Okay, it all started CU. I'm trying to map the way you think and what you said about Hitler explored genocide as a potentially rational, immoral but rational act. I think it was to explain the underlying value system on which you make these decisions because we were trying to figure out what hypotheses you would or wouldn't explore.

Well, then I told that truth. and understanding Trump's grotesque and damaging results, you said no, that's not entirely correct because you said that exploring that thing doesn't outweigh the possible harmful effects of knowing said thing, so if that's true, then in the case of Hitler as a potentially rational example, don't you think. that knowledge of that will create a negative outcome worth shutting down exploration. Well, I think I'm seeing this more clearly now. Do you have further away? Did you want to go if I have already strayed from the path. No, you should bring. No. you're not off track I just finished Bobby Kennedy's new book about it's called The Wuhan Coverup it's just like his last book uh the real Anthony Fouchy is amazing it's really shocking uh it's an encyclopedic exploration of a search for biological weapons that I almost didn't understand before reading this book the question about biological weapons, uh, it allows us to see the answer that you're looking for because I wouldn't say that the simple fact that there are viruses in nature that could be enhanced in ways that could tell us something about the possible human health impacts from future pandemics, um, or that could be enhanced in a way that tells us something about weapons, we cannot continue down this path to the extent that our exploratory exploration of those questions in the laboratory will give as a result massive results. human harm what if you never created the virus but just explored gaining a function theoretically well?

That's the question, my feeling is that there is no mechanism by which you can stop people from thinking about these questions nor should you, because if you open the door to telling people what they can and can't contemplate analytically open baby, okay, but my point is that not analytically we have to be able to talk about these things just as I have to be able to talk about the actual evolutionary meaning of rape and genocide, right? Not making those conversations fun, doesn't mean you know that someone might listen to a discussion about that and be inspired to spread their genes, I guess, but the value of understanding that pattern, the value, frankly, for women, understanding the pattern, the degree to which it empowers. them to be safer from this danger is important enough that one cannot analyze it.

If you focus too much on the potential damages, you'll miss the fact that there is indeed a related rate issue that makes the benefit of understanding these things outweigh the cost. but I wouldn't take that to the level of experiment, right, the level of experiment has all kinds of dangers that we shouldn't address, but the level of abstraction, I think it's just better that we be as informed as possible about every topic that has been addressed. implications for human well-being, have you looked at the literature on IQ? A little bit, what do you think about that?

It is another purely ideological hyperfra. It's just a thought, just an idea, but man, it scares people, but it's okay here, but I wish I had done it. a better example of this, but when I was a kid there was a children's book that we read in my family and it was called The Monster at the End of This Book, do you know the monster at the end of this book? But I can make a lot of guesses based on the title. The monster that appears at the end of this book is a book that Rover is afraid of because the cover of the book tells you that there is a monster at the end of the book. and try to avoid turning the pages because each page you turn brings you closer to what at the end of the book is going to be a monster and of course you turn all the pages of the book and the monster at the end of the book is Grover's, there is nothing What to worry about right now.

What I mean is that we can look at all of these issues and we can get scared about the danger that one of these issues will put us in some terrible circumstance that we can't get out of. and that we should try to imagine beforehand without knowing what's at the end of the book, we should try to imagine beforehand which of these topics should be taboo because you don't want to get there, but by doing so you're pretty much saying oh, I know what's probably there. and we don't have the luxury of knowing that in any objective way, so it can't be right, because how do you know if you haven't gone down that path?

So this is what I say. I'm not afraid of this IQ discussion. I think I know where it lands. It could have been a lot worse than I think the evidence actually suggests. And I'll tell you where I think it's going. And it's a drinkbitter, but. What is the net impact of understanding the implications of the IQ literature? I think it's actually liberating for all humans. It won't be interesting what people fear. I don't know nature, so I can't. I talk about it, but I know people well enough to know that it will be a mix of things and therefore some will use it as a weapon, so the real fundamental question is that what you are asking are some ideas too taboo to discuss.

I was explaining to someone why. I find you interesting even as you become more and more controversial and give the world, even in this conversation, more and more threads to pull if they have something to discuss with you, however, the way I would invite everyone to watch all. otherwise it includes anyone who is going out and putting ideas out into the world, uh, dive into seeing what they have to say on a particular topic, of course if you think they're a lunatic on something, ignore them and move on to the next . You have to be able to synthesize your own ideas, you have to be able to think for yourself, and no one has gotten very far if all they do is follow someone.

Jordan Peterson did a riff years ago that I thought was brilliant and he's really kept me in check as a podcaster and he said to me, "If you read a book and you memorize the things that person said in the book, those ideas aren't yours but you don't have them." You understand, all you can do is follow them and repeat them." you have to go learn the literature, you have to understand the thought process that drives all of this and then you can begin to master the literature, think for yourself, come up with hypotheses that make predictions, test those predictions, etc., and so on, and I thought, wow, that's a high bar, but that's the right way to approach it and that's why I like that I don't put you in the Alex Jones camp, you guys taste very different flavors to me, uh, I like that you exist , I like that you are. out there looking at things that other people I think I understand why you're tripping up so many people um but I like that you exist and you're not afraid to do these things to look at these ideas and so when I want a well Well thought out, look at this, for crazy or untouchable whatever.

I like that you explored some of those ideas, whether I agree or not. Now what I think you're doing is people are traveling. I think we have a uh moralist in our brain that says this is bad, don't we? It's like a dislike mechanism and if you activate it then people inherently reject, they may not even know why they are rejecting, they may even be able to give. In fact, I'd love to see you and Coleman Hughes debate IQ. I don't know if his thinking has evolved, but I heard him talk about it at one point.

I thought his opinion was really brilliant and it was um. I don't see a world where the answer to these questions makes the world better and I said, yeah, as I understand it, I'm with you, so now I don't believe in top-down authoritarian government, so if people want explore it, I think they should be able to, but I'm with him. I don't see how that makes the world a better place. I know you have an angle on this, but yeah, I think you're stumbling over this dislike. mechanism that people have and it's just not, it's not a rational feeling anymore, it's purely emotional, yeah, um, I think part of the problem is that I don't think he's a great villain and there's a lot of things, I get it. because I accidentally found myself on the other side of this when Bobby Kennedy Jr returned to the public consciousness.

I thought he was a dangerous person because I thought I understood what his perspective on vaccines was and it was diametrically opposed to me. In my position I couldn't see how an intelligent, reasonable person could be saying the irresponsible things I thought he was saying, which would have made them irresponsible with their value system, which were unlikely to be true and were almost certain to influence people in a direction that would harm them, you got that right, so going back to your definition of hypothesis is somewhat plausible, uh , and you thought his were just manipulations or you thought he was too dumb to understand the truth, um, he didn't have one. a detailed understanding because if I had, if I had spent enough time getting to know his thinking style and his presentation style, none of it was consistent with what I thought I knew about him, so then I fell down the same rabbit hole in the one he fell. and now people think of me what I thought of him and I'm able to see this as someone who has woken up to the despicable destruction of his reputation um and now I can see what's happening to me and I can think straight I know how to avoid it, but I wouldn't think much of myself if I did.

Hush, sure, oh absolutely yes, keep it to yourself. You can think what you want politely. Society will tell you that You can think what you want, but be careful what you say in any case, but I think the problem, the reason I keep getting this message is because of the disgust that you are talking about, is that humans They are very sensitive to being excluded for a powerful reason that is no longer consistent with the way we live, but it wasn't long ago that being excluded from your lineage was a death sentence, so We have a sensitivity when Other Apes begin to not make noises that suggest we are about to be expelled.

We panic, like a drowning person, panicking about not being able to breathe again and that has made us manipulable in a terrible way. It's part of the amplifying force that you were talking about on social media, you know, when the group starts making noises and those noises may not be organic to begin with, they can be seeded into that million by something that doesn't want certain things discussed. things. Right, the idea of ​​antivaxer, for example, what does that mean given what we just went through? We were told that people who didn't think these injections were reasonable were anti-vaxers and that means they are stupid or selfish. or both, right, that's what that term meant to me.

I know better now, but the impulse to ensure that certain ideas are not discussed because the conventional narrative does not withstand that discussion is very powerful and that is why I see it as my obligation to go where others can. That doesn't mean that all places are fruitful, but to the extent that I discover that there is something that we must talk about and that we cannot talk about because it is not allowed, I see that it is my obligation to discover how to do it. Talk about it and I'm ready to talk about IQ if you want and then you'll see why we have to talk about genocide and the fact is I want topics like that to dominate my life at all.

I'm like everyone else. I don't want to obsess over these things, but someone has to open up these issues if we want to move past them and not let them haunt our future, which is what they are going to do. get it right, I have a feeling some people are running an algorithm that says thinkers are obligated the same way doctors are obligated to do so. First, do no harm, do you think thinkers should meet the do no harm standard? a great question and a fascinating time to ask it. You know, once a week I think about the question of what the hell happened to our doctors.

This is one of the few professions where you actually have an oath, an oath, and the medical profession. just violated that oath en masse is a consistent violation of the obligation to provide informed consent, a principle so important that the Allies literally hanged seven doctors after World War II for violating informed consent even though that requirement was not yet in place. had been formalized, so where? We are that way? Yes, there is a question about first doing no harm, but I would point out that if you think carefully about what that means, it doesn't mean what we think it means.

You can't tell a surgeon first Do no harm and then. Micromanage every move correctly. The first thing the surgeon has to do to save you from the tumor is to hurt you. They have to open you up and they have to do it in a way that your body can repair that damage over time. We need to be harmed to not be harmed, so first Do No Harm is not a principle designed to micromanage every move, it's a general principle and I've already told you, I think what this is. my mind, which is the exploration of reality with robust tools with epistemic humility, that exploration is what birds say.

In the end, we are right. What I need to be true to be morally comfortable with myself is to have contributed to that process in some way. made progress and what I just told you does not require that I be right about anything, it requires that I participate frankly in a process that advances the human sphere. Now I do believe that I have been right about a huge number of things. and that anyone who is looking at the things that I say that make me think that one can't be right should go back to that history and should recognize that I'm not telling stories, there are a lot of things that I've gotten wrong, but what I do, what I do very well, it is to follow my own predictive power and when I make a mistake, I correct it.

Shame doesn't stop me from correcting my mistakes. I correct them, they disappear. My model improves over time if we all did that we would be in a completely different place so I think I am sticking to the principle as I would apply it to a doctor the first time. Do no harm. I am involved in something that does the opposite of harming him. It doesn't mean that no harm will be done along the way, but the net impact is positive. Would you rather be known for constantly updating your positions when you're wrong? Yes, I was wrong.

Here is my updated thought or would you rather be known. because doing many things well depends on what you want to say. I think the way you get things right is by updating your positions and the real question I think you're asking is publicly correct. You could do all that work in private and then. it creates a very wrong impression about how we get smarter and this is one of my complaints about the narrative that we give students when we try to teach them how to do great science is that we give them a narrative that is too focused on things.

That worked to make them have no realistic sense of the process that causes those things to happen. My favorite process is prototyping. I know your first prototype can waste as much effort as it can save, but it's a proof of concept, it tells you that you can save effort if you can refine this and make it work well, it can be 10 Pro 10 prototypes in the future. I mean, look, you're asking me a lot of questions that are causing I want to say a lot of things about how I see myself and, uh, I think I'm my own worst critic, but that's part of how you clean that stuff up right away, you can't stand certain evaluations of yourself and that's why you stop doing it. the things that force you to do them and what I'm telling you is that the result of that process is not what people imagine, it is a person.

I don't really care how badly you start your process. it actually takes things you had that were wrong, turns them around to be correct, and moves forward on that basis, if that's all you do, it almost doesn't matter how bad you start, you'll end up outperforming other people who don't have that process running. even if they start very far away, so you know, I'm defending it, I'm using it, I'm also trying to model it and, um, every great idea starts with a minority of one that involves a lot. A lot of people can see the logic in that, logically it has to be true, but what that means is that when you have a great idea, the first thing you'll hear is that no one agrees with it.

You have to be able to overcome it. phase and not think, well, God, if no one agrees, it can't be okay, right, if you do that, then you're setting your own limit as to how much you can achieve, if you say no it actually means everything is okay, If plate tectonics was a crazy idea before it became textbook gospel, then the fact that an idea is crazy is not an argument against it in itself, the question is: does it give you a predictive power that's always the question, yeah, that's what I'm trying to obsess people over.

You know you're closer to the truth when your mental model of the world makes accurate predictions. If it doesn't make accurate predictions, then you have a problem, which is something I got from business, um, but yeah, it's worrying how rare people are to apply that to the world. Going back to um, nesting this in people can feel like something is wrong, uh, they meme it like America is collapsing. What are the elements of the Western value set? Illuminated value set. however you want to illuminate the mint value set, however you want to think about it, that they are being eliminated, and I guess they are doing it by closing the Overton window, censoring people, having that reflection discussed and pushing people back.

We shouldn't even talk about it, freezing people, what are they, what are they really undermining? Have I ever wondered how much of your personal data is on the Internet for anyone to see your name, contact information, social security number, home address? HEsells to the highest bidders online, that's why I recommend you take back control of your personal data with deleteme, their experts search and delete your personal data from over 40 data brokers and people search sites and then they monitor those sites to continue to delete your data if it is ever republished pay for control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for delete me now with a special discount for our listeners today get 20% off your delete me plan when it is One way to delete me.com is to make sure you use the promo code impact to checkout.

The only way to get 20% off right now is to join me.com impact remove and enter the impact code at checkout. That is the impact of Jo i n d lem.com. I've thought about it a lot. West and I consider myself a patriot of the United States, but even more so a patriot of the West and I believe that although the history of the West goes back to ancient Greece, the West was really founded by the American founding fathers and was founded almost by accident, In order for the colonies to confederate, they built a system that leveled the playing fields in a way that hadn't been done before and I don't think they knew what problem it really solved and I don't want to take anything away from them.

I'm a big fan of the founding fathers and I think they did as well as they could have done from their place in history, what did they think they were? doing and what they did really well. I mean, consent of the governed is a radical idea and you know that again there is a history of that, but the idea that you are going to have large scale votes to determine the direction of a society is a radical way out, but once you decide that that may be a better way to navigate, get people to agree because they don't see the solution, that's the trick, the idea of ​​the West is that we shouldn't know that it's basically uh an application of the pink veil of ignorance before of it existed, so you should want to establish rules that you would like to live on the other side of the law and your desire for a rule should not depend on your position in society.

We should want courts that can resolve questions of fact and questions of law without asking who that law applies to, it shouldn't matter, that's what they did and by building that system they actually solved an evolutionary puzzle before anyone knew what It was an evolutionary enigma. So we evolutionists have done a poor job of exploring what I call lineage. We have adequate language and we have had it since the mid-20th century to understand how kinship relationships affect behavior. Why might a mother run into a burning building to save her offspring because that offspring is the conduit through which Their genes will reach the future, but we evolutionists lost track of the fact that the logic that explains when it is your offspring or your cousin continues? explain that on much larger scales for which we do not have precise terminology that says exactly how many genes are shared, a lineage is an evolutionary entity, lineages carry our genes over time and act in ways that benefit our lineage at the expense of others. lineages we can promote our genetic interests why do you avoid the word race for a very particular reason? um lineage is the responsible version of the concept race is a racist bastardization of the legitimate concept, right? blood of some other group, that's a selfish racist notion, so by saying lineage I'm telling you what level of rigor I'm demanding of the concept: America, a lineage, no, absolutely not, in fact, that's the amazing thing about this applies?

So where else is it not? I mean a single drop feels like a gray area for an otherwise useful race concept, but if it's not breaking a long race and it's not breaking a long nation, what is a bloodline? Well, no, no, um, lineages are the rigorous version of what we carelessly call Race, now I can define it precisely and you can extrapolate from it. A lineage is any individual and all of their descendants, okay, okay, now what won't be immediately obvious is that that becomes a tool of absolute power of a concept because it is independent of scale if you don't have children you are a lineage. you and all your children and grandchildren if you have them are a lineage but so is your species a lineage there was a most recent common ancestor and all his descendants that is a lineage Melia is a lineage the idea that these things are at play evolutionarily is Very important has profound implications is the idea that the way the dynamics play out in a room is based on the lineage relationships that are represented.

There is only one thing you can understand if you have looked at that fractal and realized that the French and the Irish can see each other as competing lineages, until the Japanese person walks through the door right where these dynamics play out. ways that we are all familiar with and we don't understand that we are looking at an evolutionary history, but let's go back to the founders to federate the states, the founders built a crude set of level playing fields now that were not perfectly level. and there were some major flaws in those formulations, but anyway what they had to do to get the signatories to agree was find a way to level them out enough so that people's fears would be calmed, but this is where the Rubber meets the road in this case. two evolutionary bases for cooperation, one of them is genes, shared genes, that is what flows through lineages and that is why lineages collaborate more naturally against other lineages than at random, but there is another basis that It is reciprocal altruism.

Reciprocity can take two individuals that look very different and have them collaborate because it is profitable to do so and this is, if you squinted correctly, the reason why an orchid flower and a hummingbird collaborate, those are very different lineages, I want That is, one is an animal and the other is a plant that are quite separated, they collaborate. not because of their shared genes, of which they have some, they collaborate because it is profitable for each of them to do so now, by leveling the playing field, the founders created an environment in which people who came from many different lineages had a basis to collaborating with other people regardless of their lineage, regardless of their race, that's lightning in a bottle and the reason it's lightning in a bottle is that if you imagine there's a lot of productivity to be discovered through collaboration, well , if you decide. only to collaborate with people who look like you, how far you'll go will be limited because some of the best people to collaborate with probably won't look like you, to the extent that you build a system where people collaborate. with whoever brings the right things to the table, you do much better, and the whole amazing list of innovations that are American in origin, I think, is a consequence of this very thing: the founders created an environment where people were collaborating with others now.

They tell you racial jokes behind each other's backs, yes they did, they made fun of each other and imitated each other's accents and all that, but the point is that at the end of the day there was a lot of collaboration that was indifferent to how they looked. . how and who your ancestors were and once another population saw how productive that thing they wanted was, then it was a contagious idea. That is why the West is bigger than the United States. There's just no argument for behaving any other way once you've seen how good this is in good times, but the problem is that it only works when you're in a period of growth and we've been in a period of incredible growth when the Growth stops, blood is thicker than water and what happens is that we go back. to our corners and that is what is happening now that is why the West is collapsing that is why our blindness about where we are is going to result in a massive loss for all of humanity is that it is not going to allow us to avoid that pitfall that we are in If we are going to return To do what we have done, genocide will become more common and more inevitable and anyone who sees that connection would do almost anything to prevent it from happening because it is such a terrible loss for humanity that it seems like we are doing exactly the same thing.

The opposite, although it is very much under attack, even if you expand that definition and say that part of the way we collaborate beyond lineage is through specialization, so you are good at something and we are both going to use reason to order. to get us where we want to go so the scientific method uh you've talked very interestingly about people need to deal with the physical world you can't do everything on a social intellectual level uh make a car work like you know no one has done it to tell you if it worked. or it doesn't, or the car turned on and works or it doesn't, and having that kind of tactile relationship with something whether it works or doesn't becomes really important, so we're living in a time. where that same process of rationality is being dismissed as somehow white supremacist or whatever, which is crazy to me, so how do we protect this little Ember?

If right now we're stopping people from talking about things, censoring people to death, in fact, one thing I'd love to hear you talk about is Don Lemon and Elon Musk and Elon saying you want censorship so bad you can taste it. I thought it was a great line and really endemic to something much more than just Don Lemon, I think a lot of people want to moderate and make sure some things can't be talked about, so anyway, how do we protect that little flame when is being attacked from so many different directions? great question and I think that's what we've been getting at throughout this entire discussion.

I may be wrong about how we protect it, but in my opinion the thing to do is understand it so we understand what it's doing so we understand what it does. What replaces the system will most likely surpass it in this capacity. I think the chances are almost zero if you destroy this system. What will replace it will look a lot like history and be a lot worse, which is not to say we should ignore any of the glaring flaws in our system, but we should at least compare it to something other than false utopian alternatives that have never been established to exist. possible, so anyway, I'm trying to do it. trying to explain why we have it pretty good, why addressing the flaws in our system will always be better than discarding it in favor of some system that has shown no promise or achievement in what we have and I think also exploring you know why history It looked like it was, there's a reason to talk about Hitler and my term for Hitler is rational monster, right, I'm not minimizing the horror of what he did, obviously, in fact, I'm more familiar with it than most. but to understand why that would have happened if you imagine that the reason I engaged in that exploration as a college student was that I was afraid that it would be too easy to dismiss them as crazy, if you dismiss Hitler as crazy then there is no way to do it. nothing to prevent the next true, you can't prevent radical dysfunction someone is going to be radically dysfunctional if that's all there is just nothing to say, on the other hand you can disincentivize a rational monster from doing what he does , Hitler can be prevented from a

rising

by making it irrational to do what he did.

How do we decide who is an irrational monster? We don't have to do it, we don't have to do it, okay, so this is actually bringing up a lot of threads, let's take the rape case. Okay, and let's remember that the reason rape is on the table here as a topic is that it's the shallow end of the pool with respect to how knowledge helps us prevent something that all reasonable people agree is it's terrible mhm a rapist can pass his genes into the future by raping civilization can stop men from doing this by increasing the cost so high it's not worth it the benefit that can be gained from doing this is small or negative but still More importantly, just keep in mind that rape is essentially impossible for many men to commit and the reason is that it is not a correct arousal to be able to rape, the process must be aroused, so why are so many men actually incapable of doing it? genetic difference no, it's a developmental difference, we have the power to make rape disgusting and if we rape it we make rape disgusting then it becomes extremely rare by virtue of the fact that it is off the table for most of people who are physically equipped to do so.

This is an important leverage point, we as a society must have values ​​that lead us to raise children in such a way that rape will be repugnant to them when they become adults and that is easily possible, so if you didn't have the discussion. If you said well, look, I don't want to hear any discussion about why rape happens because you're going to legitimize it, then you never get to the point of realizing, well, actuallyWe have a tool at our disposal, it is not simple. It's not that you can't snap your fingers and make it go away, but you can say, well, three generations from now we'd like rape to be a historical consideration and not a modern consideration, of course you'd be right.

The point of influence exists to understand it, but you must have the courage to get to the end of the book before you realize that you have that tool at your disposal now the question is that rape is loosely analogous to genocide rape is the individual version genocide is the lineage level version do we have a tool that takes genocide off the table if we are able to understand why the idea keeps resurfacing, right we said never again after the holocaust but how many genocides have we seen? The never again sense didn't work, so if you really believe in never again, then the The question is, well, what tool will allow us to never again and I would say I don't know what the tool is, but I will tell you the most likely place to finding it is in an unwavering investigation of genocides, their causes, and any instances in which they have been prevented through wisdom or altered incentives or whatever, so why am I going down that path?

Is it because there is something evil in me? Am I fascinated by despicable historical patterns? um no, I'm terrified of them and that's why I really believe that the route to preventing them is to understand them. It's interesting that we have to do it, so if you're spreading the meme through the culture layer, you're saying we have to incorporate it into the culture. just abort I think what people are going to do, people may or may not hear it, but as you were saying it, this was the first thing I thought is that this idea ends up being so identified with being disgusting that it activates the disgust filter that then it makes people want you to stop talking about it and then there's a potentially fascinating oscillating loop of um people.

Forcing other people to stop talking about it so much that it becomes so taboo that it suddenly has to be reinforced. uh, we might be living through a moment like that with certain things, although I would, I'm old school, but rape is still pretty uh, it makes me sick, yeah, um, I don't feel like that needs reinforcement, wait, Wait, wait, wait, wait, yeah, I think we're missing something. Although because I want to say that I don't like porn, I think porn is a terrible mistake. I'm not against erotica, it's not that erotic content turns me off, but it's interesting, you have a line, although erotic, good porn, bad, yes, apocalyptically bad porn, can you? draw a line.

I can't implement the line, but I can tell you exactly where the line is. Well, the line was the motivation for the production of the content. I think you aspire to this, yes, so the fact that you got paid for it, the fact that you made a profit doesn't tell us if that's what drove you to achieve it, but if what drove you to make it is the profits and en Erotic in nature, that's interesting pornography, which is not to say that every element of porn is harmful. Wait, yes, yes I do hard bondage, super dominant, aggressive, almost like rap, but I don't do it for money, I just believe.

It's a beautiful art, honestly, yes, no, I get it, that would be fine, okay, the line I'm drawing. My feeling is a wise person and unfortunately young people are never wise, they can be wise beyond their years, but they are not wise because there is no way for them to be like that, but for a young person, I would say that you draw this line in a way Absolutely, you don't leave anything that could be pornography, right? Maybe you don't know for sure why they did it. but if you think someone did that for profit, don't let that enter your sexual mind, it's terrible for you and it's terrible for your future partner.

Seems like a really strange line to draw with a for-profit thing. I would do it as such. guy speaking from experience, uh, the loop that I would worry about is the volume, the initial age of contact, given how brains develop and then, um, the type, so if it was like super vanilla, it's um, you know, like the missionary on the wedding night, like really simple, loving, uncomfortable, I am less. I worry if it's an ever-growing loop of a freak show that starts at age 11. Now I'm very worried about what they will imbue, but even if that was art from top to bottom and the person who made it was the way I just want it. give to the world would still be like you don't do it right look I'm not arguing that everything that would fall under the category of eroticism is inherently defensible just like I believe in freedom of expression, but I don't think you should say everything I think you know you should choose very carefully what to say and most speeches are probably bad although you should have the right or present any argument you want um but let's look at the case where you know you have I drew a Continuum between simple things that are erotic for the most human reasons basic, to super extreme things, here's my point about the profit motive, the profit motive inherently takes you towards the end of the Continuum that expels you and that instinctively repels you. and the reason for this is that all pornographers sell the same thing, sex, so how do you compete in a world where all your competitors have the same thing for sale and the answer is through an ever-increasing battle over extreme that inevitably eventually ends in taboo?

Now I think those taboos, presumably all of them evolved for a reason, those reasons may not be that we think we understand them or in some cases could understand them, but the idea that you can sell something to people because they haven't seen it before. because it's taboo that you should do that, that's crazy right, those taboos, this is a Chesterton fence problem, you don't know why something has been banned, but the fact that the market will drive people to explore it It tells you that this reason is suspicious. And anyway, again, I'm not telling you that I know how to operationalize the line between pornography for profit and erotica that is done for other reasons and I'm not telling you that all erotica is good, but I'm telling you that there is no defense. necessary for human beings to produce or gravitate towards sexual content.

I mean, I look at, you know, wonderful sculptures of naked women and I wonder if you know what the pornography of the day is and it's the fact that I'm looking at it. such a sculpture in a museum and that I seem to be, you know, engaged in a heightened activity rather than a basic activity, is that the distortion of history and the fact that our civilization has become so crude that we miss what is going. and I don't know the answer to the question, but human beings do eroticism as they always have and there is nothing wrong with it and I would argue against anyone who says we shouldn't do it because I don't know what role it plays. has been reproduced, but for-profit pornography is dangerous precisely because it leads in the direction of exploring realms that are evil, especially violence.

This is one of the things I repeat. I don't think this is an abstract discussion at all. If we want rape to be eliminated, the one thing we shouldn't do is eroticize it, which is what we're doing because the market can't help but explore that niche, so I think this is a great test case, right? It makes sense to explore all these things that people don't want talked about well. I don't know. I feel like I just introduced. I'm not saying we'll accept it, but I feel like I just laid out a map of how. If society decided that it was serious to eliminate the scourge of rape, it would do so, not eroticizing rape, that would be a great start because to the extent that rape is not erotic it becomes almost impossible, and I think the same is true for Genocide is just a more complicated puzzle, so, going back to an earlier point, I don't think anyone has a valid argument that you won't find the solution to those puzzles by understanding them.

I think that argument is suspect on its own. face, I think it is likely that we will find the solutions to these puzzles by understanding them, and if we don't, the probability that we will make them worse I think is extremely small. Elon Musk has said this several times and I actually think he is right. If you want

racism

to go away, you have to stop talking about it all the time, that goes against what you are saying right now, which is, we have to talk about it, make it taboo, keep it in a certain box, no, no no. no, I would, I would instantiate the principle that I'm clarifying differently and in fact that's why I thought the IQ question is another good test case, what do we find if we actually go down that path?

Well I do not know. I think most people are prepared for it, but I think if we went down that path, what we would find doesn't actually have to be a good answer, but I think it's a good answer when you say it's a good answer, so which here you have What I imagine is happening and I want to go back to the context in which we started this, which is what is happening to Western civilization, but just to take the IQ so that it doesn't keep going back up, I think there are two hyper Dangerous things that if solidified can create real problems.

Whatever is true, is true. I think the truth is an absolute defense. I'm not saying people shouldn't watch this. I'm just saying I understand why you won't find me running. having this conversation, uh, if you find out that Jews actually have a higher IQ, that's not going to go well, because people are going to have a hard time with that, that's going to become a weapon, yeah, and if you find out that blacks If you have a slightly lower IQ then that will be used as a weapon and both of those things are horrible and will be.

There's nothing good coming out of that now again. The truth is an absolute defense. Whatever is true is true. But damn like those. the land mines that people are trying to avoid and since I think that ideas really drive things, they drive cultural currents, there are some ideas that I just don't want to spend a lot of time with, I get that, but I think uh, I get that. very good because I think that if the truth was as simple as what you just described and the implication was the one that you didn't say but was included in what you said, that would be a disaster for Humanity and I may not be interested in that answer .

I'm relieved to know that I don't think that's true, but this is what was missing from your description, your hypothetical description of a bad response that would harm humans if they explored it. that IQs differ between populations is almost certainly and substantially true that's not what most people hear when they hear a statement like that is that that must mean that genes produce those differences is not what it means and the difference between Distinctions in cognitive ability that are the result of genetic differences between populations and significant distinctions in cognitive ability that are the result of things being developed is all the difference in the world, right?

If you knew that there were important distinctions between populations but that those distinctions were not based on genes, then the answer is, well, can we level everyone up? It's part of the game. The reason people blind each other to keep their competitors in the dark. This is obviously an undercurrent for cryptic warfare between populations, so my feeling is to look at, I don't think, this is what I think people imagine and this is what I think underlies the hypothesis you put on the table. , people watch sports and think they know what must be going on with the brain, because it seems like it should be analogous, right?

We all understand that the ability to play different sports is not evenly distributed across populations, but rather radically unequally distributed, and someone who hasn't thought deeply about this might say, "Well, it seems like there should be all the analogies between sports." cognitive aspects". ability and physical ability, so I think we know the truth about the differences between races because we've seen them, you know, on the basketball court, on the hockey field, in the long jump pit and all that, it's a bad analogy, the reason it is a bad analogy is that there is a very good reason why human populations differ radically in their athletic ability in different sports.

There is a very good reason and it is because they come from different habitats, so you find that Ethiopians are absolutely dominant in marathon running. Why, oh, because Ethiopia is really they are tremendously hot and the key skill if you are Ethiopian on a physiological level is to eliminate excess heat, but the ability to accumulate too much heat is lethal, so they become lanky and thin, because which are shaped in such a way as to maximize their surface area to volume ratio so that they can remove heat. It is exactly the opposite of what an Innuit has.

Why are the Inuit round? The Inuit are round because it's terribly cold and you want to remove as little heat as possible so you want to minimize the surface area to volume ratio if you're an Inuit and so why don't the InuitDo they dominate marathon races because they come from the Arctic? So the reason humans differ in all of these physical capabilities is that different habitats select for different things that would be expected of them. to differ because it is better to be round or lanky well tell me where we are going to compete and I will tell you which right there is no better it is about without adaptation to particular habitats this is not true cognitively there is no habitat that selects out of stupidity, furthermore, the capacity of the genes to alter your physical structure, the proportion of one bone to another is tremendous, but that is not how the mind is formed, there are not enough genes to build a mind according to a model, the mind is the result of a very, very basic process that is then exposed to all these developmental influences, so here is the bitter pill that IQ populations differ in their cognitive ability as adults, that does not say that those differences came from the genome and here There is another bitter pill.

In evolutionary history there must have been significant differences in cognitive ability between populations that did come from the genome for our brains to have become as large as they were, those with more capacity must have surpassed those with less capacity. , so that happened. passing is possible but the question that remains is the one that we are avoiding because of what we see on the basketball court and because of what we see you know on the soccer field the question that we are avoiding uh is what would you have to do to democratize the things that make us smarter?

My feeling is that all the populations are substantially below the goal, right? We haven't adequately studied the question of which development environment really makes you smarter, have we? and I think we are not doing it well. Much better could be done and we would find that every population on Earth would increase radically if we actually put children in an environment that brought out the best of their abilities, but what I don't see is a substantial reason to think that within a species with many crosses we have these genetically based cognitive differences that reside in one population and not another, it doesn't make sense that they would do it, so what were those 8 minutes, 8 minutes and what I have said is that there is a There is a good chance that By avoiding the question of how cognitive ability is distributed by lineage, we are avoiding the remedy that could make us all radically more intelligent and neutralize differences.

Do we really want to avoid that question? I think the solution is on the way. to understand what the distinctions are, and frankly, I think we all believe in distinctions, why would anyone strive for better schools if the quality of your developmental environment has no bearing on how smart you end up? I think there are a lot of assumptions in the things you're saying, I'm not familiar with the literature. I have certainly heard that intelligence is inherited to a very distressing degree. Now through lineages. I have no idea. I think I've already expressed my reasons for not even wanting to do it.

Look at it pretty clear, so I'll leave it alone, but yeah, I think you explained it perfectly. Unfortunately, it brings me back to square one, but the moment we are in now in the West is despite all the amazing things it has. We were showered with the absolute and just shame of the riches that come with being born in the Western democratic world. Now people are destroying it. I saw a video the other day where the guy was like, uh oh, I'm on this march because I wanted to take down America, he was like all of us and I was like what, then you have at ground level, people are trying to destroy the West, absolutely strange things are happening at the government level, clearly the power grabs you. 'I've gotten the censorship going left, right and center, given the terrain we just traversed, can you put a button on it?

Why blind ourselves? Why are they so concerned about what we see and say yes? Let me develop the concept that I started with and then let me, as long as the punchline is why are they doing this, I'm here for it, yeah, well, I mean, the problem is who are they and how specific can we be about why? they're doing it, but if we put those, uh Nuances aside and then I'll come back to the question of where there might be hope, given all the reasons you just described for despair. I came up with a concept called time traveling money printer, which the time traveling money printer is based on. about the idea that we've all been through the thought exercise of what would you do if you had a time machine, well, if you had a time machine that could go forward in time, you could figure out what was going to happen and you could go back. to the present and place your bets in the market and make tons of money right, if you had a time machine that went back you could go back and you could buy Apple and Microsoft and Amazon would make tons of money so we'll all get that time machine.

It's a source of income, but as far as we know, there are no time machines. I am concerned that some rent-seeking elites seek rents for those who don't know it, because I always have to look for this is people who manipulate the political system for their personal benefit I would describe it another way, I would say they are people who make profits through activities that are not productive, the dictionary does not agree with you, oh God, yes, well, I would be willing to argue this in a fight to the death with a dictionary but um, but in any case, let's imagine that we have some people who have some Undeserved power seekers who want more power and control and do not want to be surpassed by competitors who are smarter than them.

So, well, they don't have a time machine, but what they do have is enough control to cripple humanity's ability to search for truth, they have the ability to contaminate what we are able to deduce and, therefore, If you can privatize the knowledge of what is coming, it's like you have a time machine, right, let's take an example. Strong evidence suggests that the Covid pandemic, whatever its nature, was already happening in China in September October 2019 and that the elites knew this, immediately ran to the public and told us. Or did they make some phone calls and say This is what's coming?

Cruises are a bad bet. You should fall short. You know the cruise industry. Airlines. I would make big home deliveries of this and that so you can. Imagine it's as good as a time machine if you keep the information about what the story is about to do private and the public doesn't know, the opportunity to make money is unlimited that's why someone would have gotten involved in blinding us because the Blinder the more powerful his money printer is and I think this happens and in fact there is an enormous amount of evidence, much of this is established in Bobby Kennedy's book on Wuhan that there were incredibly precise investments made by Bill Gates et al. in companies that you would have no reason to think were about to have a dramatic surge and that just happen to have the products to produce mRNA vaccines that would take over the world, this sort of thing, so I don't do it anyway.

We know exactly who some of the players we know Gates seems to be a major player who seems to know what's going to happen in the future before the rest of us and why it's obvious because for the same reason people rob a bank, do they? You know? This is safer and much more lucrative to place bets on the world based on private information. It's a good deal and that's what I think is happening anyway. We are being systematically blinded because there are some people who are sophisticated in their own devilish way and think well, why the hell would I share useful information about reality if I could use it for my own benefit?

What do you think of someone like Don Lemon who really seems to want to censor? Isn't it me? I really don't think he's doing it because he's going to make some pre-bets and wants to keep everyone dumb. I think it represents the person who says, yeah, you've stumbled upon something moral in him, uh, that probably develops something that someone needs. to be the adult in the room, what he kept saying in the interview with Elon Musk was: "You need to moderate this hate speech as if hate speech has increased. What are you doing? You need to get this stuff off your platform and no matter how many times Elon said, uh, if it doesn't violate the law or our policies, we don't remove it, uh, we just don't promote it and he moved on, you need to moderate this stuff, um, what do you think about that is moderation propaganda? for censorship as Elon says or um it's the blatant um Embrace of hate speech that Don Lemon also sees it I know very little about Don Lemon except that the six times it has come to my attention uh he has been impressively stupid um so I don't know. what is that I don't know if it's organic or non-organic I don't know I don't know what its role is in the universe um but let's put it this way I have a gap in understanding based on the sabotage of our educational institutions, so people are sabotage Intentional fool, I don't know, I guess I guess, same thing, think of it this way, an institution that makes other people's children smarter would be seen as hostile by ruthless people. players who wanted to take every advantage they had and turn it into wealth and power, so I don't think it's an accident that our universities are completely incapable of determining whether 2 plus 2 equals 4, whether men can become women, that confusion is to serve someone at what level was this a group of industries that decided they needed to disrupt the discovery of inconvenient things uh it was more systematic than that I can't say, I think it's probably a certain amount of systematic sabotage, but how would I know?

But in any case, in a world where you simply don't have those truth-seeking mechanisms, they don't work, in fact, they are more likely to spit out the opposite of the truth than the truth itself. There is a lot of room for various bad thought processes to take over and one of the things that should absolutely be expected is that when our ancestors discovered a counterintuitive truth, there will be uninvented freedom of expression, it is not obvious that the Most expressions probably don't make sense and of course speech that has an impact on a large fraction is just bad, so of course someone with a childlike view of the universe would think well why don't we just get rid of it. of bad speech?

And there are certainly some things that are so obvious. bad speech, let's start with that right, but as soon as you get there, you realize that someone is going to have to draw a line and they will come up with all kinds of utilitarian reasons to draw the line further and further. and further, the point is that no, actually, you can't do any of that, don't do any of that because, if you step on that slippery slope, it's a disaster, so it's contradictory, just like the standard and the burden of proof in court. It's also counterintuitive, most people we charge with a crime are probably guilty, so why would we force the state to prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

Why wouldn't we just say okay if the evidence suggests the person committed the crime he probably committed? You did it and you know how often that's going to go wrong. Did the Founders have a counterintuitive understanding that the power of the state is too fierce and that you have to hinder the state to give a person a fighting chance because even if it is on the average day when the evidence indicates that has committed the crime he probably did, if anything it makes the government take a dim view of the political compass or whatever the government needs to be limited in its ability to take away your liberties, right?

Counterintuitive so anyway my point would be that we've lost sight of all the things we used to understand, there are men and there are women we used to understand, now it's a crazy battle right, 2 plus 2 equals 4, yeah the symbols They are arbitrary but the concept is not in the least arbitrary, it needs no discussion, true, but now it is subject to discussion, you know, pedophilia is bad, yes, we used to know that pedophilia was really bad, there was no reason to that you would play Devil's Advocate on this. and yet suddenly this issue is back on the table, so we are losing sight of all the things we understood, all the foundations upon which civilization is built.

That's partly because the gap in understanding and the sabotage of education are opening the door. for us to just dust off concepts that we had outgrown, but if you know, the other thing is that when someone advocates for censorship, what probably happened is that they were temporarily in an advantageous position and would like someone to codify the prejudices that favor them in the time for them to continue doing it and not understand that they are very likely to end up on the wrong side of those same principles and therefore the smart position isno, we don't do what we don't do. do that means you're going to have to tolerate some bad language, yeah, yeah, I think that's exactly what it comes down to, people not being able to project where that ends up, how that comes back to bite them in the butt and one.

What we haven't talked about is that being able to talk is the same as being able to think, so if you really want to Hopple people and keep them dumb and keep them under your control, just make it hard for them. clear your own thoughts and put ideas into the market and see what comes back. It's very interesting. We have people trying to deal with the current situation, which is not just blinding us, but certainly part of it. Part of the milu is just that all the foundations are gone and that has broken us down in ways that nii warned us about and now that those chicks are coming into their nest quite a while later, but it's really developing, people are trying to re-embrace the traditional.

Well, and now something broader, you have all this madness happening in the government, including whatever the immigration crisis is, it feels like we are being bombarded from every angle and, oh, just in time, we have artificial intelligence to confuse things. so we can't even trust our own eyes, uh, I just don't even want to think about what it's going to do in the 2024 election, but it feels like that, although I'm very optimistic about where AI is taking us. worrying about this valley we're going to have to cross to get to the other side and it feels like it's just another one of these things piling up on top of us.

Do you have a family rule about AI? Hug him as fast as you can, be careful with that, what do you think about it? We've been avoiding it and I think this is an open question because avoiding it is something you don't want to achieve. left behind if the future skill is to handle that tool better than others, you don't want to be left behind, but I'm worried about contacting her. I think what we're doing here, what we're doing at Darkhorse, the world of people discussing these questions is not entertainment. I think we're discussing these things for a reason, and whether we think about it in these terms or not, we're trying to build a toolkit on a population of people that maybe engage. some podcasts maybe watch podcasts whatever they do, but if you and I are having a conversation, we represent an audience that is somehow involved in this conversation, maybe we imagine them listening and we try to phrase things for them to follow. , but we are defending a set of values, we are defending some beliefs, things that seem safe enough that you can put your weight on the ice, and I think we are developing the ability to increase the dose of the hallucinogen that is. effectively in our water right and I will say that there is a part of me that has done some hallucinogens, I didn't do many, but enough to have thought really carefully about what the impact was and one of the things that I'm grateful for.

Because having experienced those mental states and then returning to a normal mental state allows you to be skeptical of your own thought process at a high level, right when you see things that are not true and then, while you are hallucinating or I'm saying that when you come back, Well, presumably, that's what you realize, yes, but here's the thing: society has gone crazy and is advocating a strange description of the facts and I have an idea of ​​what I think is true. Part of me knows what it's like to believe in false things as if they were transparent realities in front of your eyes, so I think it would be a useful experience for people, so that by the time they are arguing loudly for some perspective , a part of them is aware that they could be convinced of this and it be absolutely false, it is an experience that we must all have had given what we are experiencing now and what will surely get worse in the near future.

It's interesting, I haven't seen this closely enough to know how people respond, but from the little I've seen, it seems like most people understand the exact opposite, which is: Oh my God, there's a door and Now you open it! I'm in this totally real thing that shows me that there's more to life than God is real and dimensions and aliens and uh, point out the comments. people will say Tom's never done DMT so he doesn't understand that of course we all visit to the same alien or whatever, which I agree I haven't done, so it's entirely possible that I walk away from that, but I have a worldview that tells me I'm going to walk away saying that I thought it was okay that I met an alien, but what I know about my mind is that it works a certain way, that it has an Essence and if all human Minds have the same Essence and that thing unlocks this sense of presence or whatever it probably has a lot more to do with that than that I actually ended up knowing something totally agree with you, totally agree with you, which is part of the and I'll tell you that uh In an effort to become the most rumor-killing person in the world, I have taken weapons against the idea of ​​entertainment or recreation, both, period, I say, it's a lot, it's a lot like my position on pornography versus eroticism, interesting what.

Are you worried that it is affecting your mind? Uh, you're really wasting it, yeah, but look, here's my point, if hallucinogens aren't your thing, if it's not something you should do, don't do it, if it's something you should do, don't do it. do them recreationally now what I'm saying is don't have fun. I hope you did. I hope you laugh all the time at all the ideas you get and then I hope you reflect on what those ideas were. and how they looked from that state and how they look from down here on Earth. What I don't think you should do is be casual about it.

It's such a powerful tool that wasting it on something silly doesn't make any sense. use it and I believe this about sex, frankly, this is a powerful tool, it's very important, right, if someone gave you a Ferrari, going to do donuts in the parking lot probably isn't the way to treat them right once in a while. So, sure, I'm talking about a snow day, but the point is that there are all these things that create this tremendous reward and that reward is built into them for a reason, an evolutionary reason to use them just to activate the reward without accomplishing anything. .

That's supposed to make you feel good. Well, I mean, there are a lot of drugs that I don't think are interesting that can trigger an overwhelming feeling of arousal. Without having done anything right, you are supposed to experience an overwhelming feeling. excitement in life when you have achieved something great if you can chemically trigger it, what have you just done to your motivational structure? So what I'm saying is don't enjoy these things, but enjoy them in all their depth, right? Entertainment is not recreation, right, read a great story not because it entertains you, it passes the time, but because it enriches you, because it makes you something you weren't before you started the story, it's so good, it alters your values ​​or your understanding of yourself. or the universe or something, I don't see it as entertainment, um, okay, talking about something that one should take in its full depth, it's definitely not entertainment, but it makes me feel like I'm taking hallucinogens, tell me about what it is .

It's happening on the border, that's, that's out of place, it's pretty wild, it's pretty wild and the fact that it's simultaneously an undeniable fact, I mean, you could go visit it and you could see it and it's a mystery why. Would anyone allow this to happen? If it violates all kinds of things that we all thought were beyond the need to discuss. The nation has to control its borders. That's part of it anyway. You asked what's happening. You want me to just describe what I saw that my son and I, Zach, went to Panama and traveled to the province of Darion to the edge of Darian Gap, in fact, we went to Darian Gap, but we traveled by car to the edge.

Darian Gap is a broken, it is a section of the Pan American Highway that has never been built. The Pan American Highway runs from Prudo Bay, Alaska, to the southern tip of South America. You can drive all the way except the 60 mile stretch on the border between Colombia and Panama, um, what is there, it's a desert, um, there's a national park and it's an extremely difficult strip of land to cross. Currently, there are thousands of people, thousands per day, being invited to cross the Daran Gap, largely by the international community, which is facilitating this mass migration MH um some of the people who are migrating are South Americans there are many people from Venezuela who flee uh economic collapse there um but there are a lot of people who come from all over the world fly to keto Ecuador the reason to fly to Ecuador is that there is no visa requirement, so they can land in Ecuador without a visa, they can move around land to Colombia and they can cross the Daran Gap into Panama, so what we saw was on the Panama side and we saw what I came to understand. as two different phenomena, there is a massive migration gained, many South Americans, many people from other parts of the world, from the Middle East, uh, Yemen, um people from Haiti, uh, are housed in camps that are built in settlements that already exist in Darian. people are leaving the jungle, they are walking towards these small towns that exist on the edge of the jungle, these towns have had refugee camps built by the international community, so Panamanians are not happy that this mass migration is moving through their countries. habitat but they have no control over it, how is it possible?

Well, the Panamanian border is supposed to be controlled by the ca front, which is the Panamanian border authority, it is a separate entity, yes, it is a military police entity in charge of controlling the border. and they do not respond to the Panamanian government no, they do, oh, they absolutely do, they are part of the Panamanian government. I have it so Panama can stop this. Well, see, this is what we, as little people, don't understand. International relations could. Panama technically stops it, yes, technically they could stop it, but what would happen to Panama if they did presumably explains why they don't, so the Panamanians are in no position to override whatever this migration wants to happen.

To what extent is Panama's position based? Is it public or and how do you infer um that's a good question let's put it this way the discussion about migration is not as substantial as you would expect and to a large extent what is happening is that immigrants are being diverted northwards as as quickly as possible from Panama's perspective the best thing to do is to put these people on a path where they do not become a burden to Panama and that is why they are being transported through Panama to Costa Rica and through all the countries .

As far as North America, all the Central American countries are participating in facilitating this migration for reasons that are not clear, but I said that I come to understand this as two separate phenomena, one of them is this migration of people that when you talk to them and we find out that many migrants were honest about the ordeals they had suffered in the jungle, which were terrifying, almost all had been robbed, young women were routinely raped, people left the jungle without their children coming out. from the jungle without their parents oh, it's a humanitarian disaster, yes, Daran Gap is a very difficult habitat to get through if you know what you're doing, these people, right?, they have been induced to try to cross the gap with They don't understand how gear up or what they're actually going to go into space there and you know it's the kind of habitat where you can slide down a muddy hill and break your leg and that can kill you because it prevents you from getting out. um, then accidents are needed and their lethality increases enormously um, but you have this migration, all the immigrants who will talk to us are economic immigrants, they are all very clear about this, which means that they are not eligible for political asylum in the United States, without However, that is the basis on which they cross our southern border, but there is another migration that is housed separately, which I found very surp

rising

.

It is a migration that is almost entirely Chinese, predominantly of young men, whether the fact that they are of military age is significant or not is impossible to say, but what I can say is that, unlike all other immigrants that we found, who were surprisingly open about what they were doing, where they were going, and what had motivated them to go. the Chinese immigrants who were housed separately by the Panamanians are housed in places that are not towns, interestingly they are housed in a camp called s vente that my secretary my orcus visited when I was in Panama just before it expanded a lot um, but the The Chinese moving around the San Vente countryside are not willing to talk, they give off a hostile air and it is not clear to me why this should be the case if, for example, they were fleeing oppression at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, as was the case. wait.

At least being curious about the citizens of this country, who were apparently going to start a new life, that would be something natural andeven if they were afraid to talk because they were afraid of what would happen if they found out. you wouldn't have a hostile feeling, you would have a feeling that they were conflicted or trapped and couldn't, couldn't talk, but that was not at all the impression they left, the impression they left was one of hostility and mockery, and that was the case. decidedly disturbing so I started to think of this as an invasion that was moving in parallel and was covered by a migration migration is real migration is alarming in its own right it is a humanitarian disaster on the level of what is happening to the people who migrating does and it is definitely being encouraged and facilitated by the international community, which seems to have the idea that migration is inherently a good thing now.

I don't know how anyone could be so confused, but this is visible if you look at the web. pages of the organizations that are facilitating say this that Migra is their mission to induce migration they believe that migration is positive but that migration is covering up something else I can't say exactly what that something else is but it would be irresponsible not to consider the possibility that it is an international competitor taking advantage of our open border to organize some kind of damage that will be easier orchestrated that way than on a battlefield. Okay, I know you say that to your kids. have a hypothesis that they need to assign a percentage probability of being accurate M, what percentage probability of accuracy do they give to the invasion hypothesis?

So let's be clear what that hypothesis is, if that hypothesis is that the Chinese Communist Party is sending people through our south. border with the intention of harming the United States I would say 60%, well, now there are many other possibilities, you know, does espionage fall under that hypothesis? No, I don't think it's specifically to hurt. I think it's more than spying, so 60% is adequate damage. You know, this is what I know how crazy it sounds and my last question is going to be about that, so one of the first questions I asked you was: is there a hypothesis? very far from it's better not to even float, we've already had that conversation, um, what I want to understand, although with this is what happened that gave you so much confidence because I agree with you that this is on the table as one of the things that very well could be and I don't think you just said this, but I've heard you say this before, which is really powerful if you believe that there is some element of financial corruption in our system, which I think everyone is in.

OK. There is a lot of money in our system, whether we call it corruption or not, it is almost a moot point that there is a lot of money in our politics. Money moves the needle here if people knew that from the outside, wouldn't they take advantage of it to get what they want? I want to, so that might be paying a ton of money to ensure that immigrants are allowed into the country, um, but what I want to know is that this is such a high degree of certainty from someone who I consider so cautious in his way of thinking, um, but this falls into that bucket that you're playing with more and more as you got hit during the covid situation it seemed to me like you were, I don't know if frustrated or angry, but you started making bolder statements , bolder statements and this is the one. help me understand what are the basic components that make it up so we know that they had their own migration, they didn't act the way you expected them to act, they were hostile, well, first of all, let me tell you that this is part of why I decided that I had to go in person because if you had heard this before, yes, the people who showed Zach and I this migration had been sending material for almost a year, so I was very aware of what I was probably going to see it but I wouldn't it made sense and frankly I didn't talk much about it because I didn't want to find myself conveying things that turned out not to be what I had been portrayed as.

I was very cautious about it and you know. It was hard to justify going, it's not a particularly safe place to go. What was I going to see? I couldn't figure it out from a video, but I was really glad I went because the physical relationship between these two different migrations and most. The most important thing is that the approach that the immigrants in the Chinese Cu uh camp had towards us was unequivocal, it was hostile now, why was it hostile? It's difficult, part of the reason you find that number so high is that, given what I saw that it is difficult to find other explanations of what is right, if these people were fleeing oppression that was inconsistent with the way they treated us , wasn't feeling right now, can I convey it to you in a way that has a degree of certainty about it?

Not really, you know, I don't think you know me well enough to know what it would take to activate that circuit for me, but here's the other question, we have a southern border that is effectively open, yeah, we're not even doing the most essential. Due diligence regarding establishing who is crossing that border and why, given that you believe that our antagonists abroad will take advantage of that fact, I think it is almost certainly yes, so the hypothesis seems compelling to me, but I thought I would to say something like that. 7 to 10% um so let me lay out the part that you and I agree on and then as the person who's just the armchair quarterback, I'll give you my opinion knowing that I haven't been there and really I'm just sticking my neck out, but I've heard from enough China analysts that the Chinese diaspora is a very significant thing and that a percentage of people in the Chinese diaspora actually consider themselves Chinese, regardless of where they live now.

These are just analysts I've heard of. I'm not the one forming a firsthand account, so I know this is part of my distortion in my lenses. I don't trust this, but in terms of hypotheses, I'm very unsure, but it is. an interesting assumption that deserves to be explored, so from what you say, governments are going to do what they can to gain an advantage, we are in a purely competitive relationship with China, China has every reason to want to know more about what we are doing as we have every reason to want to know what China is doing now moving away from that.

I will say that it is very possible that China is in a pretty difficult economic situation right now if the housing problem is as big as some experts make it out to be. Again, not first and knowledge I don't know, but it's certainly interesting. I realized that I am not from that culture. Clues are missing. They misread the signs to make them seem hostile or whatever. Again, they could be throwing things that you spit out. I don't know, but that would be nice. hard to misunderstand, but if it was more than body language refusing to interact with a frown, that kind of thing, then way beyond that, okay, okay, give me the craziest thing they did right.

I don't know if any of that was crazy, but we tried to interact with several different groups at Camp San Vente. One gentleman tried to trick us into believing he was Korean and was tripped up by Mike Leon, who took Daran, who had spent time in China, and revealed this to be what he was. a hoax, at which point there was laughter among the group who had witnessed this attempted hoax and then there was no willingness to talk about the reality, not that this had been a practical joke for, you know, a foreigner naive and that broke the ice, right, this was a deception that was exposed and led nowhere.

I also think we were monitored in the camp, so there was one guy in particular who I was watching who repositioned himself as we moved to different locations to witness what was going on there and I think he was watching us. I don't know why that didn't strike me as normal behavior for someone who, you know, is involved in a major migration to a new Homeland, it still does. Although qualitative, so we have qualitative feedback because I can, so you don't know this about me, but my background is actually writing, so I often wonder if this were a character and I was writing them, what would I have to do? be true for them to act?

This way, one could be I'm here as a spy for sure or I'm here to do harm, but honestly, if I'm going to talk to you, the last thing I'm going to do is be overtly antagonistic. be super friendly because I don't want you to stand in line to find out what I'm really doing, but I do have a bad view of Americans and I have the feeling that I'm going to go to America because I want to take my culture to another great place and I want to spread the Chinese diaspora and I have no idea what they say inside China about the United States.

They might say lovely things. I have no idea, but I know that, like all of Europe, it hasn't been a place I came to. England because I want to embrace English values, in many cases I have come to England and I plan to bet on my values ​​and I am trying to bring as many people as I can so that we can really have at least our own. Pockets where our culture is the culture and since hopefully America still has that vibe of yeah, we want people from the diaspora, we want people to come here and make this a cooler place now, I think we have to have Keep that in mind because I don't think you can bring that many people at once.

I think we're going to have problems, but I still like the vibe of the Statue of Liberty. Give me your tiredness, we pile up en masse. I love that vibe anyway. uh, I can write a bunch of backstories for these guys where yeah, they're joking around with American idiots even though they're now trying to get to America, whether they're fleeing China because China, with my archetype, It's not the kind of place I'd like to be or They come like an invasion. I don't know, the only thing I would say is that I can paint a lot of scenarios where they are probably still problematic for a lot of non-sinister and spy reasons, but it could also be exactly.

What you're saying I would have done again. I haven't been there, so I haven't seen the things you see, so I'm in the DMT position again. I haven't met the little guy, uh, but I'm sorry. with qualitative data requiring a more cautious percentage, well the question is what would you think if you had been there and I could be much tougher than you. It could be 90%. I don't know, no one has a problem accepting that. build weaponry, so the point is that it's not beyond our thought process to imagine that someone might be preparing for war with us, but for some reason this deal, hey, their southern border is open, can we do something with that?

It's worth sending, you know, maybe. perhaps the decision has not been made to use them, but the idea is that it would be a shame not to take advantage of that open border while it is still open and who knows how long it will be. Do you have an estimate of how many Chinese have crossed? I think there are tens of thousands. That's fine for a second, let's pretend that the dark stage is the real stage, which you're 60%, I'm like 7%, but what do you think we're going to have? Considering that if you send tens of thousands of people who still have loyalty to the Homeland and the Homeland wants to do you dirty, I don't even like to think like that, this is interesting, this is triggering some World War II vibes in me, uh, it which I'm not affectionate, but let's finish the thought experiment.

I get that your friend hates that, but do you think we have a reckoning coming up with a potential issue of where the call came from inside the house? I don't understand why this is even difficult because It seems obvious that an enemy would want to do this given a manifestly open southern border, I don't think anyone realizes that they can send people across it and use it. I mean, how many years did we spend taking our shoes off in airports? right, I mean, and the absurdity of knowing that if you cross the border, if you come home from Central America, you will be monitored, they will know exactly who is crossing the border, exactly at what time you are doing it, is completely different. situation, scrutiny will be exercised in your case and in another case there is no scrutiny, that is a mystery to me, how did that happen?

When I ask obvious questions like we have a corrupt political system, it's pay to play and what it's like to have stopped our antagonists. Far from having bought influence to hurt ourselves, isn't that the obvious deal if they can make it right in a way I don't realize that's what the money is for? I think that's a good thing, yeah, I sure could. I see a lot of really bad ideas that generate a lot of energy, I'm not saying "I think this has happened," but it certainly fits the incentive model. I think what I don't understand is that apparently we spend, I don't know how. many hundreds of billions of dollars to the intelligence community to think outside the box and figure out how a very intelligent enemy could get into our system and compromise us and we've left the most obvious mechanisms open and to talk about the My view is that They're using the most obvious loopholes, you know?

Do you have proof of this? The evidence that we haveantagonists abroad and that we have people who never sleep because they are worried that those enemies will be victorious. He jumps on us saying there is evidence. I don't know why the southern border is so open. I don't know why the international community is encouraging immigrants to enter the Darion. I don't know why the Chinese are housed. separate I don't know why the Chinese seem to be facilitated in their migration by their government, oh, but there's one other thing I wanted to mention to you and again, this goes back several years, in fact, this goes back quite a few years. that I had actually forgotten about it and it did not come up again while observing this Chinese migration phenomenon in Darion when the Chinese one-child policy was in full force.

I wrote an essay. He was not a public figure. Don't know. I know anyone read the essay, but I wrote an essay about a paradox: there is a principle in evolutionary biology that goes back to Ronald Fiser. Ronald Fiser realized something important about sex ratios. He wasn't thinking about humans and realized that although males and females differ enormously in the number of offspring they can produce in a lifetime that, on average, given some very basic assumptions, they on average produce the same number of offspring and therefore there is no advantage in producing males over females or vice versa, ie.

A male can produce a thousand times more offspring than a female in a given case, but on average they produce the same number, so if there are too many males you should produce females and if there are too many females you should produce males because you tend to produce to be more successful. evolutionarily if weird sex occurs, now that logic should apply to people and should have applied to China if you were a Chinese person and you could only have one child and he grew up in In a nation with an abundance of males, you should want to produce a female .

A male may well not find a mate. Not only would a female be almost certain to find a mate, but she would have a choice because females would be in high demand. Then why? All these years ago I wondered if that didn't cause the Embrace of female production, why the Chinese continued to produce an excess of males, and what occurred to me was the sobering realization that there was another evolutionary force that may well be at play. and that is that in a world of lineage against lineage competition there might be a reason to produce an over-male generation if one were preparing for war;

This excess of males is actually the perfect substrate for lineage-on-lineage violence because men who have no reproductive prospects in the world. People who are sexually frustrated can be armed and sent abroad with the desire to return as heroes and that would be a very effective mechanism to recover territory. The same process that I described to you when we talked about genocide, which if you want, no. Although it seems like that would be what you do when you have a surplus of males. It's not what you set out to do right. I do not see. I agree with you that it would be natural if you happen to end up with surplus males, but I see no reason why you wouldn't have an evolutionary bias, especially in a culture that is as farsighted as the Chinese have been.

It's interesting, I will say that there could be other hypotheses. That doesn't require you to be so calculated, which seems hard to understand, your whole culture, like all you're doing is applying pressure. You can only have one child and the nation. Build an army for yourself. It also seems to me that it is not impossible. Since it is very unlikely, I also have a basic assumption that could be wrong, but it is a basic assumption in my operating system that China is not very imperialistic, so I think people will confuse their desire to take back Taiwan with a desire to take back further. like they're pretty much like let the world do what the world is going to do like yeah, ultimately we want them to invest in us so that everyone owes us one, but we don't want to take over them, we don't want to rule their countries. um, but they want to take back Taiwan because that's part of the original Vision, so anyway, if you have a nation that's not imperial in nature and they were literally worried about people dying of starvation, that's why they said ah, you can only have one. child and then you'll get a short burst of "we want a man" because that's how lineage is passed down, that's how cash is passed down, like just give me a boy, that's all I want.

I have the feeling that if it had been like that. They kept it up, they would have gone, oh, that was a really dumb strategy. Now I want to have girls because this balance is out of control, but since they end up biting him in the butt, I think in the 90s, so it only lasts like 20 years, so you really only have like one generation to be like, oh terrible idea now , so if it had lasted longer and they kept making sure they only had boys, then I might be a little more like, okay, maybe, but yeah, I mean, I hear what you're saying and the problem is that the current governance of China is moving away from historical Truth, anyway, I find it interesting that there is a violation of a known evolutionary principle.

Balancing sex ratios seems to me like this would have been obvious to an individual, even if society viewed male children in a particular way. that you could calculate your own lineage, the chances of your son finding a mate, it suggested that it would actually be smart to have girls, so I don't know, it's an open question and the fact that we have what seems like an invasion uh of what seems to be one of our main ones. I don't like the term enemy, but it seems like a competitor competitor antagonist abroad. Well, one thing that might be interesting again, a hypothesis that I have no real reason to believe is actually happening, but is worthy of exploration.

It would be that this is more of a Viking model where, oh, I find myself with an excess of men, intentionally or not, and oh, my main rival has an open southern border and, uh, the Chinese diaspora is real, so I know who will still feel a pretty strong loyalty to Homeland let me send them, which is probably not a hateful idea, oh man, I don't remember there was a guy who was made a spy and, uh, he from Russia, he was actually from East Germany , but anyway they recruit him to be a spy in the west and he was like, oh, the idea of ​​living in America, he's like they didn't have to convince me that he was totally here for that, um, so he could see them as not being an authoritarian government, not, uh, social credit score.

I'm here, come on, well, I will say that the scenario you presented fits, if the scenario you presented was correct, then my 60% estimate includes it correctly, an opportunistic invasion that fits, but I also wanted to point out. I have discovered that the Chinese, as much as they have a multi-millennial history of being effectively insular, are involved in what is called the Belt and Road initiative, which is an expansive plan that looks like, you know, a modern Imperial, do you think? It looks Imperial. I think it looks like I want you to owe me one. I don't want to be imperial.

I don't want to have to govern them because that's complicated, but boy, oh boy, I want to control your infrastructure. I love you? have relations with me trade agreements want to control the flow of resources and labor to facilitate a future centered on Soo I'm not criticizing everything good without the Chinese having to govern you, right? I am not blaming the Chinese for standing up for their own well-being. I believe that much of our government is not synonymous with our population. I see that our government is largely hostile to the well-being of the citizens and I feel the same about the relationship between the Chinese government and the Chinese people, but nonetheless If anything, I don't blame the Chinese for viewing the world in competitive terms. , that's the adult way of recognizing how things work, but I think we're being naïve by not publicly considering the possibility that our antagonists abroad would take advantage of our lack of security, our famous lack of security on our southern border and the facilitation of mass migration by the international community would be the perfect cover for something that was not collaborative.

Okay, I have a nasty question I want to ask. In the 2024 elections, many people think that Trump is the rational monster. Is he? I don't believe it. I don't. I don't want him to be president because I don't think he has the time, the temperament or the team building. He has the skills to do the job that is necessary, but I think he at least distances himself from the ruling cabal that is clearly hostile to the well-being of average people. That being said, I think we only have one rational option left in this election and that is Bobby Kennedy Jr.

Don't you think that will split the vote. I don't even know what to think about that question. The Democratic party appears to be running a candidate who was too mentally decrepit four years ago to be elected. to run for president again is so absurd that it is not obvious to me how an American can, in good conscience, vote for Biden. It is inconsistent with our constitutional republic that we have a decrepit figurehead replacing a cabal whose names we do not know. I don't know, you can't call people who aren't elected in front of Congress and ask them if they attack us at night, who takes the phone call and decides if we launch nuclear weapons.

You can't have a person as far gone as Joe Biden in that office. a different country, so my feeling is that the Democratic Party has an obligation to present a reasonable candidate before there is a vote to divide, absent that, every rational American should flee the Democratic Party in favor of whatever has more sense and again. In my opinion, there is really only one plausible candidate for the position running for office. I haven't figured it out, but here's a guy who has an encyclopedic knowledge of what just happened. For us during the course of the covid crisis, he is the only one who is in a position to resolve the implications of what happened so that we can do a proper reckoning and ensure that it does not happen again, what's more, you have to a guy who has a deep understanding of the deep state and is obviously willing to risk his life on the question of how to decouple it from governance so that we can return to being a Democratic Republic.

I also know him personally. I like it a lot. I trust him and I believe that his legal knowledge and his wisdom, the fact that it is someone, I mean, his personal family history, is tied to the exact trauma that our nation has lived under since 1963, the right to have the The possibility of putting him in that office to finally take us beyond that chapter into a renewed phase of American strength to restore the consent of the Government seems to me the most obvious thing we can do, we are lucky to have that option on the table and I can't believe that, in the face of that, we adopt tired tropes as a spoiler and the lesser of two evils, right, those tropes make no sense in an era when the Democratic National Committee is Fielding Joe Biden in his state of uh bad state, just is inconsistent with this we, this is an emergency and we have someone we can vote for who makes perfect sense could fill the position has the skills has the temperament would probably have eight years to do the job all of those things are powerful arguments in favor of this person and, um, I really hope people reconsider their thoughtful embrace of what amounts to a t-shirt color over reason, that's a great place to end Brett's work.

Can people follow you? You can come find us on the Darkhorse podcast. we at Rumble can find us on the premises uh, I'm on Twitter Brett Weinstein Brett has a tea, there's a Brett Weinstein with two T's and he gets too much of my mail, um, you can check out the Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century it's amazing how I've read uh it's a good book and very relevant to many of the topics we've talked about um maybe that's it. Like, okay everyone, if you haven't already, make sure to subscribe and see you next time. my friends be legendary take care of your peace if you like this conversation watch this episode to find out more war is a test of wills Israel is very determined to completely eradicate Hamas, it will cause years and years of strategic problems for which people will seek revenge. them if I were an enemy