Kind: captions
Language: en
A woman is stabbed to death by a literal
madman and race riots break out on X.
The Fed has seemingly lost control of
the ability to control interest rates.
You're not going to want to miss that.
Israel bombs Qatar and Trump is not
happy. Russia claims crypto is just the
US's plan to export more inflation. And
they're not necessarily wrong. PBD goes
on Jubilee in capitalist versus 20 anti-
capitalists. An MIT tech company has
made mental telepathy real and an AI
studio backed by OpenAI is set to launch
their first animated feature in 2026.
Things are looking crazy.
>> We just found out Charlie Kirk has
passed. Uh he's no longer with us. He
has died after the result of the
shooting at UVU. This is uh this is a
moment where I think people are going to
react incredibly strongly and I would
urge everybody to um isolate what
happened to not look at it as being this
is the entire left versus the right.
This was a gunman who unfortunately
became convinced that he saw things more
clearly than anybody else uh and that he
had to take action to save um his vision
of the country and make it about that
person and this horrifying tragedy.
Don't make things worse by seeing it as
that team has tried to kill my team
because once we make it about the teams,
that's where things will really
escalate, escalate, escalate and people
will feel like they need to get theirs
back. And this is how this really
spirals out of control. Um, so we've got
to let the justice system do its work,
give this person due process. Um, and
hopefully instead of responding to this
tragedy
as a call to arms that we see this as
that warning of like this will only get
worse. And if history is anything,
moments like this where somebody is
fatally shot often sparks that huge
violent reaction and all that will do is
guarantee the size of the tragedy is
magnified a thousandfold. And so
recognizing this moment as that call to
find a path back to each other. They're
that's going to be so unpopular.
I get it. This is devastating.
But somebody at some point has to be the
one to say, "All right, pause. Slow
down.
>> Define where we want to go. figure out
how we get there in a sensible way.
Those are the great men of history.
Those are the people that are
remembered, are the ones that can find
that way to cross the divide rather than
exacerbate it. But look, history is a
long string of people
fighting until one side is just too
fatigued to continue. And so I don't
want to pretend like that's not a real
option, but boy, it isn't what I want.
It's not what I want for America. um
history is just too clear. The only
outcome on the other side of that, no
one will say, "Oh, we won." Everyone
will have lost. And
if we know that that's true, then how do
we short circuit that and get to
bringing ourselves back together? I
think it is clearly defining where we
want to end up. I think it is thinking
from first principles, mapping out in a
way that is historically
um grounded in terms of okay, what can
we learn? How have people handled
moments like this before? That's worked
out in a way um where we don't end up in
um pockets of violence. I don't think
this is going to be the start of a civil
war, but boy could it be a moment on a
road that leads to significant violence
and that I would not want to see.
>> Yeah. Just some facts of the case. There
was a Turning Point USA event at the
Utah Valley University. Um he was at the
Q&A portion. Some people say he was kind
of winding down. Uh the shot was a
sniper shot. It was fired over 200 yards
away or a rifle shot. Um allegedly the
suspect is in custody, but Twitter has
been all over the place.
>> Footage of a guy who looks like a boomer
>> um down on his knees.
>> Yeah. Some people saying it's not him
and he's just wrong place, wrong time.
So that's still up in the air. Um but
again, just at the very minimum,
thoughts and prayers of Charlie Kerr. I
know he's a young father. He got two
kids. I think his son just turned one,
so wife. So you just regardless of where
he stood politically and all these
things, you never want to see a wife,
two kids, not have a dad, not have a
husband. Um, sure his family, brother,
sister, all those things are are
struggling. You never want it to end
this way. You never It's just It's a
sticky, nasty situation. I watched the
video and I immediately regretted it. It
just it made me feel weird even talking
about it right now. It's just like
there's one thing to play politics and
one thing to talk about what policies
are good and bad and things like that,
but when it's a a human being losing a
life, this is the this sobering moment.
I hope that we actually internalize it
and try to actually change the direction
of the country.
>> Here's the bad news. We're really not
going to. This is uh this is where I
will remind myself that we are automata
that just bounce off of each other. And
the reality is that people in moments
like this, in populist moments, people
become utterly convinced that political
violence is a useful tool that needs to
be used in a moment like this where
everything is an existential threat.
People trust themselves. They trust
their emotions and they believe they see
things clearly like they alone see
things clearly and they have to do
something and we have to take action.
not understanding that the way that you
move forward is with political debate,
that you have to talk about these
issues. You have to allow people to say
things that you really disagree with.
And once you hit that breaking point
where people are trapped in their
feelings, they're completely convinced
in the righteousness of their actions,
then you start going down this path,
which is exactly where we were in the
60s.
>> Uh where people just really believed,
oh, the right answer to this, this
person is such a threat, we have to kill
them. We have to neutralize the threat.
Not realizing they are the exact monster
that they're afraid of. And yeah, um
this is heartbreaking for sure,
heartbroken for Charlie Kirk and his
family.
>> Um but when you step back and look at
this as what
some huge swath of the west is going
through um how much political
instability, not that Nepal's in the
west, but you've got Nepal literally
burning their own I don't think it's a
capital building, but their parliament
or whatever. um early reports that some
of the ministers were being executed
that the president's wife was burned
alive. You've got things popping off in
France. Um obviously what's going on
here in America, it's just these things
once they get started, they just
escalate, escalate. And so my call to
everybody would be to remember that
you can't trust your emotions. You
cannot trust that they are accurate. And
we need to be looking at a way to come
together. We need to be looking at a way
to find a path out of this. Otherwise,
it will be ever escalating violence
until we get to the point where there's
been so much violence, so much bloodshed
that we're just so fatigued that we back
off. But when the cycle is that
knowable, and I think this is the part
that drives me crazy. When the cycle is
that predictable that we've seen this
happen enough times that instead of
having to go all the way through things
feeling
things getting to the point where we
have to have so much violence and
bloodshed that we get fatigued before we
stop is just ridiculous. Th this is
knowable. If you are pulling away from
each other, if you are viewing them as
an existential threat, then people are
going to be violent. Like we have to
find common ground.
Is this more so an infection or is this
like a virus? Like, you know, an
infection, you take three antibiotics
for a week, you're good. You're back to
go. You can kind of get rid of this
sickness. But when you have a virus or a
flu, you just have to kind of beat the
beat uh beat the um uh fever. You just
have to wait it out. You have to get to
the other side. Society is bubbling up
with those point things that you
mentioned, the Trump assassination, the
Minnesota um uh legislature, and then
now Charlie Kirk. Is this just something
we're just gonna have to ride out, you
think? Is there something we can do? Is
this if Trump says the right set of
words, if the right and the left shake
hands? Like what do you think?
>> To answer the analogy itself. This is
more like a virus. It gets in, it takes
over the cell, it turns the cell into a
replication machine, and then things
just get worse and worse and worse until
the body responds with the fever. And
you're
>> basically to push the analogy to its
limits, it's like you have to heat
things up to the point where people get
that fatigue.
>> Uh, and the virus encounters an immune
response that is so stiff that it begins
to recede. Um,
so that's the analogy. But by way of
is there hope that we can avoid that? Of
course, if there are enough voices of
reason, the problem is I'm not expecting
a lot of voices of reason. Voices of
reason don't get a lot of clicks. Trump
is constitutionally incapable of calming
things down. His rhetoric is going to be
escalatory. He's going to talk about um
you know how violent the left is, how
out of their minds they are, all of
that. And here's the thing,
both sides are in that position. That is
literally what a populist moment is. A
populist moment is where you're so stuck
in your feelings. You are so convinced
of your righteousness. You are so
convinced that the other side is an
existential threat that you want a
strong man that will go and slap them
around. And when each side feels like
that, the expedient solution is just to
kill them.
>> And it is these really powerful
reminders of what lurks inside the human
mind. And the human mind is capable of
tremendous I mean evil is probably a
misleading word because it sends people
off into like a different place. Um
people need to stay grounded. humans
will uh destroy the bodies of other
humans to get to an expedient result
that they want. And that like that sort
of
not benality, but that just simple I'm
just going to go tear this person apart
and because I believe that I'm right.
Like my humanity detection just shuts
off.
>> Yeah.
>> And Yeah. People do it all the time.
They do it all the time.
>> I feel like I've been doing content with
you for a while. This is a much somber
tone. It does sound like. Um, where do
you think that like what about this
specific thing do you think is hitting
you in a different way?
>> I probably should have felt this way
during the Minnesota assassinations, but
the people weren't known to me.
>> Um,
>> I didn't see the footage. And so seeing
this happen in real time, Charlie Kirk
obviously being a figure that is sort of
in our um beat if you will of the things
that we cover is hyper on my radar.
>> Um so this one just feels like that
escalatory step. So much of what I've
been trying to do is deescalate, show
people ways to think through this stuff.
Uh where the punchline doesn't have to
be the other side is evil. And so this
just feels like okay things are now that
much more difficult um for us to pull
back from the brink. I often think about
things in terms of the economics of it
like how do we pump the brakes? How do I
help people? How do we pump the brakes
so we don't take on so much debt that it
just makes it absolutely impossible for
the average person to get ahead? uh how
do we give people information such that
even if we don't solve the systemic
issues which I have no faith that we're
going to solve the systemic issues of
debt deficit spending money printing I
think that's just going to keep going
and so um I feel like I'm constantly
warning people about the fact like hey
you will eventually go off the cliff and
this feels like that first time where
one of the wheels just went off the
cliff
>> and so we now have a landmark moment to
be able to plant the flag there's going
to be a big reaction to
And it isn't going to be metered. It
isn't going to be um we need to come
together. It's going to be blood lust.
The odds of America coming to like a
sort of explosive violent head, I think,
is effectively zero.
>> But we're already in a cold civil war.
And
the question is how bad do what I call
the pockets of violence get? Um, and
once you start getting into tit for tat,
like if Charlie Kirk dies, then he, and
I really hope that does not happen,
>> um,
>> he becomes a symbol of something,
somebody else then will feel agrieved
enough that it increases the odds that
somebody does something back to the
other side. Uh, which I certainly don't
want to see. Um,
I grew up in an era where I saw how good
it could be. And so there's a real like
sadness to watching first the economic
isolation of America and now that
economic isolation leading to the
political violence is really really
heartbreaking. Um, so for all of cuz
again it's not just America right now.
For everybody that's going through it
right now, this is um, very sad. Human
tragedy is going to abound is my
concern.
>> Um, I was watching some of the streams
when we first had the breaking news. Um,
so I was in the comments of Destiny and
Hassan and I'm kind of seeing of course
missed reactions. There's people who are
doing memes. There's people who are
laughing. There's people who are kind of
dunking on it. What would you say to
those people? How would you get them to
properly respond to this moment?
>> I think all of that stuff is going to
happen. So, I'm not going to pretend
that it's not.
>> One person's tragedy is another person's
comedy. One person's loss is another
person's victory. So, we're going to go
through all of that. Um, the only thing
that I would try to put into culture is
there is a solution. There is a path out
of this. And if people look for it, they
will find it. if they don't look for it,
then obviously they're not going to find
it.
>> And so if people put their time and
energy into like we can't let them do
this, uh we've got to escalate, we've
got to fight back, well then that's
what's going to happen and people are
going to play that out. Um so yeah, this
is one of those I will do whatever small
part I can to at least plant the seed
that there is another option. There is a
way to come together. There is a way to
understand that the human mind is
working against us right now. The human
mind wants us to be on teams. It feels
very safe.
>> The scarier things get, the more we
crave the safety of a tribe. So, the
more likely people are to push harder
into their camps.
>> Um, and yeah, there is a a sense of you
have to be willing to put yourself out
there into the breach, as it were. Uh,
the moderates are the first people that
are killed in a revolution, which is
wild,
>> but nonetheless true because they don't
have a team and so they're the easy
target. Uh, I would ask people to define
what needs to be true for them to earn
their own respect. I do admittedly fear
that for a lot of people, the
willingness to fight is the thing that's
going to make them earn their own
respect. Um, for me it is to constantly
try to get people to deal with cause and
effect, to understand the way that the
human mind operates, to understand um
the role that envy plays, to understand
what a populous moment is, how we end up
getting here, that it's fear-based once
people are locked into that fear, the
likelihood that they push onto a team,
the likelihood then that they're just
trying to win, that they want their team
to be victorious and they don't care
what happens to the other person, that
we do this thing known known as
othering, that we literally dial down
the sense that the other person is a
human.
>> Uh, and so all of those things lead to
something that is incredibly unpleasant
for everybody. Like that's one of those
things where nobody wins.
>> And so to me, the cause and effect of
the situation is so clear and it's so
tied to economics. And I know that I
fear because I don't want to believe
that anything is uh predestined, but I
fear that where people go is instead of
dealing with the economic root cause of
so much of this stuff, they're just
going to deal with the surface level um
the Hatfields versus the McCoys and it
just becomes the left versus the right
>> uh in the way that we've got men versus
women not understanding the left and the
right need each other. They are
evolution's answer to how do you get a
very large group of people to cooperate
flexibly and um you don't become
pathological on the right and become
overly rigid and authoritarian and you
don't become pathological on the left
and become the suicidal empathy and
compassion where all you have left are
freeloaders because um everybody's just
trying to take the free ride. And so the
two groups are both prone to pathology
and it is only when they work as a um
frictionled
coalition because you do need that
dynamic tension between the two. I don't
expect them to see the world the same.
Um but you have to want the presence of
the other person. You have to understand
that you, no matter how convinced you
are that you're right, um that evolution
has seen fit to have both personality
types. Obviously, everybody's on a
spectrum, but you've got both
personality types for a reason. And once
you understand, oh, myself left to my
own devices, I will not be as dynamic uh
as I am in partnership with somebody who
thinks differently than I do. We both
have to be well-intentioned. We both
have to share a common vision for where
we want to end up
>> or you will inevitably pull in opposite
directions.
>> But in coaching entrepreneurs and just
in my own entrepreneurial life, I've
seen this a lot where you'll get a CEO
type and you'll get an operator type and
they both think the other person is a
[ __ ] And for whatever reason, they
just cannot see that we work as a team
and the other person just thinks
differently. They're not stupid. They
think differently. And when the right
looks at the left and thinks you guys
are stupid, when the left looks at the
right and thinks you guys are stupid,
you end up where we are right now.
You've got to look at the other side and
say, "I don't agree with you." But as
long as we agree on where we're trying
to get to, it's going to be building a
coalition that makes us do the
compromising and seeing the other side
um that's going to get us to a better
outcome. But it just
>> while humans are very capable of it and
when things are right, we do it
extraordinarily well. When things break,
humans are capable of tremendous
violence. Okay, guys. Uh, with that,
here is the rest of the episode. What is
about to follow obviously is going to be
very different in tone because all of
this was recorded before Charlie was
shot.
>> Twitter man, it's happening. Race war
2025. First, they gave us Daniel Penny.
Then, they gave us the um lady at the
park. Um, and now we have random train
violence. So, I'm very apprehensive of
showing the video itself. I'm going to
link to Alexis Jones. Don't show.
>> Yeah, I'm not playing it, but if you
guys want to see the full thing, he has
the full like forward minute version,
the before, the after, and then the
people coming over and helping her
eventually.
>> Um,
>> yeah, that that one is a a watch at your
own risk.
>> I've seen enough videos now of people
that transition from alive to dead. It
is a
>> It does something weird to my brain. I
do not enjoy it. So, watch that one at
your own risk. It will stay with you for
a while. Uh but for people that don't
know the setup, woman gets on a train,
sits down in front of somebody who
unfortunately uh as we get the facts has
schizophrenia, his own mother uh said,
"Please do not release him from prison.
He will hurt. I don't know if she said
the word kill, but she I guess he beat
his own sister uh brutally." And so the
mom had been advocating for him to stay
in prison. He's been
>> arrested 14 times. I don't know if he's
convicted of felonies every time he was
arrested or not, but uh back out on the
streets and
he just stabs her. There's no
interaction between the two of them
whatsoever. Uh now, what ex would like
you to believe is the real lead is that
she's white and he's black. Mhm.
>> Uh that's so crazy to me that when you
think about from first principles, if
your level of analysis is solely that
this is about race, I I cannot track how
you parse the world. If you were going
to solve this and you said, uh, hey, how
do we stop this guy from killing
anybody? Let's evaporate racism. Will he
not kill anybody? I would say he may not
kill that person because he may have
some other algorithm running in his
brain, but this is somebody with
schizophrenia. He's got voices telling
him that he needs to do a thing.
>> Uh, and so he beat his sister. I have
zero reason to believe that that was
race motivated. This is a guy who um if
you were to solve for one problem that
would
dramatically reduce the likelihood that
he kills somebody, it would be to solve
a schizophrenia. So yes, once you have
someone who is a literal madman, they're
going to have an algorithm running in
their brain. And this algorithm happens
to it seems to be because he says when
he kills her, I got that white girl. I
got that white girl.
>> Uh
but he's schizophrenic.
That's the problem from where I'm
sitting. So uh like there was the
whatever son of Sam guy that was like
the dog told me I had to kill people. So
it's like schizophrenics are going to
kill. That would be not all
schizophrenics, but when they kill,
>> yeah,
>> it they're going to play some tape in
their brain. It was something that
pushed them forward.
>> Uh so I'm not saying that race doesn't
play into this, but I am saying if
you're going to focus on a problem, race
is not the level of analysis when the
person has schizophrenia. It's been
interesting to see the responses from
this because I think that this has been
used as a lot of people's
like almost litmus test was saying see
this is why insert a bunch of racist
scientist nod not backed by science
claims. Um Benny Johnson came out with a
whole thread of like it's because he
doesn't have a father that's why he
killed her on a train. Um
>> this is what I'm talking about. So there
are there are probably a hundred
examples you could give where it's like
okay this person does not know how to
emotionally regulate themselves. Uh they
did not develop any discipline. They
ended up growing up on the streets where
to earn respect and to thrive you had to
cultivate your willingness to be
violent. And so all of those things are
going to shape your brain development.
So yeah, point to those and say, "Okay,
you have a problem where you do not have
a u person in the household that's able
to draw aggressive boundaries, that's
able to be a imposing physical force, an
imposing um force from a disciplinary
standpoint to say these are the things
that are acceptable. These are the
things that are not acceptable." Great.
Like if you want to have that
conversation, I'm not saying that's not
a worthy conversation to have, but when
the person doing the attack is
schizophrenic and nobody's talking about
that, that's like multiples of absurd
higher to me than when nobody's talking
about the race. Sure, get into the race
part. Get into why somebody with
schizophrenia would be running an
algorithm about race. Fine. But if
that's where you start, that that's
patently absurd. Um, and there's been a
lot of comments in the chat already
about like, well, why isn't the media
talking about it? Um, you are the media.
You guys are the media. Elon Musk
retweeted it. Every right-wing
conservative is talking about it. Fox
News did a whole segment on it. CNN had
a panel on it. So, this is this is my
thing, right? Cuz I think Elon said, "If
this was a black man, if this was a
black uh girl getting killed by a white
man, people would have rioted already."
And it was like, "Yeah, black people
probably would have turned up for it."
So, if white people, you feel this uh
enraged about what happened on the
train, go outside, go walk, go ride. But
it seems like you want other people to
get as mad as you feel right now. And
that's the part that I'm thinking we're
just getting caught in like what are we
actually talking about? Yes, we should
be this is a criminal justice problem.
Yes, he shouldn't have been out. Yes,
he's violent crime. Yes, it's not okay
to stab white people on a train. Like, I
know things that I think I don't have to
say out loud. I feel like I now have to
say out loud.
>> You have to say them out loud right now.
>> Yeah, it's crazy.
>> Go ahead. Sorry. No, but then on but on
the flip side, it's like, yes, this is
bad. We need to like we should be mad
about it. Yeah, you guys are mad about
it. You're tweeting about it. You're
retweet like people are talking about
it, but I think they want New York Times
to release a full page four-part article
about it. And this is like why do you
need that to validate that this is
wrong, this is bad, all these other
things. So, I don't understand that lack
of the media isn't doing it for me when
the theme of the world since 2020 is the
media doesn't tell you the full story of
anything. So, we'll be back to the show
in just a moment, but first, let's talk
about the skills you don't have time to
learn. There are dozens of expert level
skills that would transform your life.
Negotiation, decision-making,
persuasion, leadership, but you cannot
spend years mastering each one. I am sad
to report you don't have time to read
every book by every expert. That though
is the exact problem short form solves.
Take negotiation. It impacts your
salary, your relationships, even getting
your kids to listen. Some of the best
techniques come from Chris Voss, the
FBI's former lead hostage negotiator, in
never split the difference. You can
spend weeks reading that book and still
struggle to apply the techniques. But
Short Form changes that. Their guides
aren't just summaries. They're created
by human writers who extract the core
frameworks and show you exactly how to
apply them. Stop making decisions by
guesswork. Click the link below and get
a free trial and three months off the
annual plan to access the
decision-making systems behind every
major breakthrough. And now, let's get
back to the show.
>> Yes, this that's a really good point.
And what I think we're witnessing is
people are coming face to face. So, I've
talked a lot about volume and velocity
of information.
>> So, we live in an era where the this is
the whole James Bum argument is you are
always going to have elites. The elites
are always going to try and control the
narrative, but we are now living in a
social media era where you can't control
the narrative. It's going to come at you
from every direction. And so now
everybody's going to put their narrative
forward. And what you see people pushing
back against is they're seeing in real
time that the New York Times is a
narrative control machine
>> and they're struggling with that. And
you'll see even like when we assess to
do a deep dive um we'll look at okay we
know these three to five things would
pop but then I have to look at them and
go but which ones do I actually believe
are true because to write a video that I
know will do well but I don't actually
believe it for me as somebody whose like
number one priority in life is to earn
my own respect. I'm like, "Okay, yeah,
I'm not going to do something that I
don't believe is true, but I know it
would perform well because it speaks to
an emotion that people are in." Once you
understand that the people tribe up in a
populist moment, they they are in their
feelings.
>> Yeah.
>> Once you understand, oh, they're in
their feelings, they're going to tell a
narrative partly because they're trapped
in their own frame of reference. So,
it's what they believe, it's what they
want to see, and they understand because
they are intelligent. They understand
the potency of controlling a narrative,
of constructing and controlling a
narrative. And once you understand that
there's so much efficacy to controlling
a narrative, that if you can control a
narrative, well, you can sway society,
then you understand, oh, for whatever
reason, they're they're morally gray or
however you want to think about it, or
they they're they feel so righteous
>> that this idea is so important or it's
so self- serving, whichever bucket you
want to put them in,
>> that I need to control the narrative and
I need to say the thing. So, of course,
on both sides, whether you're Benny
Johnson or whether you're the New York
Times, like you're going to cover it in
one specific way. Watch how people cover
the thing that supposedly is bad on
their team to figure out like what are
they optimizing for? Are they optimizing
for team support or are they optimizing
for they have an internal locus of like
this is what I believe to be true and so
I'm going to push for this thing. Um,
are they fair-minded and they're always
trying to connect with the physics of
the situation? They're trying to think
of first principles. Like, watch how
they build the bricks. The vast majority
of anybody in front of a camera, they
are building up from a um team sport
mentality. This is what my team
believes. This is how I keep my tribe
happy, and I'm going to do this thing.
And this is why I would highly encourage
people even if you have a violent
negative reaction to him. Sam Harris is
not playing team sports.
>> He will occasionally align with a team
and he will occasionally say things I
think are like properly unhinged, but I
don't think he ever says something that
he doesn't actually believe. So you need
to find people like that who will say
something they believe when it's hyper
unpopular. So you can at least touch
base. you're not always going to agree
with them, but you can touch base with
them. You can figure out what the
building blocks are that they're
constructing their world view from. Um,
and that is where this gets interesting.
But the collision that we're seeing
right now is people are ideologically
driven. They want the other side to
admit that they're wrong because this is
a team sport. They want to score points
by saying, "See, do a search on the New
York Times." And they mentioned George
Floyd 862,000 times and they mention the
Ukrainian woman zero times. And for
them, that's like a big gotcha. That
that is that is the setup. So
>> like New York Times isn't going to
suddenly be like, "Oh, actually we're
fair and impartial." So yeah, I I don't
know if we're ever going to get the
average person to um accept that
everybody's just trying to control a
narrative. I don't even know if we need
to. But if you don't want to drive
yourself crazy, don't waste any time.
Everybody is spinning a narrative.
Period. Yeah. Um, I want to talk about
this Overton window shift because right
now there's been a tweet that's been
circling from it starts with uh, Stag
Wyatt. He says, "White people have a
simple choice to make. One, be
conquered, enslaved, raped, and
genocided while being called racist.
Two, reclaim our nations and our dignity
while being called racist. It's that
simple." American Patriot account
retweeted it. The two options are clear.
And Elon Musk retweeted it. Yes. Yeah.
So, for for me, this is I think the
bigger I don't want to say concern, but
do you think that this is something that
can start a movement that might be
letting it go away? Um,
>> start a movement that might be letting
go.
>> And I'm I'm going to kind of tag this
with the JD Vance tweet about like I
don't care if as long as it's a drug
cartel, I don't care what the military
does, they could just bomb a boat.
>> But that cuts out due process. Like
there's this thing where sometimes we
want justice and we give up our
freedoms. We might turn anarchy. you
might turn re so important. Let's
>> I I want to stay with racism for a
minute. Okay.
>> And then we can get to the how that
dovetales into the JD van saying, but
just to like take one issue at a time
because I worry these things start to
conflate so fast that
>> the just amount of things that people
have to parse through becomes impossible
to formulate an opinion.
>> So staying with race, what I think is
happening is
racism is obviously a real phenomenon.
It's what I call school of fish. For
whatever reason, all salmon hang out
with salmon. And maybe it's just as
simple as mating. I don't know. But
anyway, all salmon hang with salmon. All
trout hang with trout, right? You just
like people group up in schools of fish.
So, humans will cue off of uh visual
cues that you're part of my tribe. And
so, given from an evolutionary
perspective, uh being able to thin slice
somebody very rapidly as either in-group
or outroup would be incredibly
important. So skin color is just this
screaming alarm bell that this person is
not inroup outroup. Religion comes along
which would have been I mean just so
late in human evolution. But from our
perspective, oh feels like it's been
here forever.
>> But in reality like that's going to come
along pretty late. You're starting to be
homo sapiens at that point. Uh so
religion allows you to convey a value
system very rapidly through symbology.
So I can wear a cross. You see my cross.
And now all of a sudden it's like I
don't care that he's white or I don't
care that he's black. Yo, we have the
same symbol. We believe in the same God.
So I've just imparted a value system to
say you're in tribe, not out tribe. Even
though like there's this visual
representation that would otherwise make
us believe. Okay. So, we have been
living through this incredibly bizarre
moment that did not start in 2020, but
that was such a flash point
>> that we can sort of pick up the
conversation with uh BLM, George Floyd,
>> and everybody was at home watching TV.
So,
>> yeah. Which exacerbated everything a
thousand fold. So, now you've got this
um to your point about the Overton
window beginning to shift. Like, at
first it was um you're a racist if you
say anything like, "Wait, hold on a
second. I don't see anything in him uh
in the interaction between Derek Schovin
and George Floyd that makes me think
this is specifically race related. Yes,
he's white. Yes, he's black, but
>> does he say words to that effect? So
anyway, that that would get shut down
immediately. And I remember George Floyd
was my awakening to that there was
something going on. And I ended up
spending like Jesus dude like 3 hours
trying to come up with like a 15-second
post on it cuz I was like ah like it
felt so dangerous. And
now what I see happening is people for
so long were cancelled, debanked, uh
deplatformed. Like it it just became
impossible to say the things that you
thought were true. And so it started
pushing people down this more radical
path of like being angry, being
frustrated that they couldn't talk about
it. So that created a necessity to move
the Overton window because when you're
not allowed to speak, you're not allowed
to think, you're not allowed to put your
ideas out there and get the feedback.
Also, just articulating an idea out loud
forces you to realize, oh, wait a
second. The emotions that make me think
I understand this well, as soon as I
have to say the words, I realize I can't
say the words. I don't understand this
as well as I thought I did. And so that
all begins to break down. So people have
this impetus to say, "No, no, no. I need
to talk about this. I need to be able to
hear other people that are talking about
this. I need to be able to present my
ideas and get the feedback. And so they
pushed so hard. And now what we're
seeing is like this massive pendulum
swing where you get the Matt Walshes of
the world who are like, "No, no, no,
this is pure race and we just need to be
able to talk about it. Nick Fentes, pure
race, we just need to be able to talk
about it." And that to me again I think
is the wrong level of analysis. I think
that this is about value system and um
religion to me is the very thing that
proves this is about values and not
about anything else. and that you can if
you have a
larger value system like religion it
will unite people of different
ethnicities no problem. Uh but we do
need that rapid way to communicate value
system in a social media age where you
see something like this it just becomes
like the most common denominator basic
thing that everybody understands
intuitively which is race. And so that's
why I'm saying the the problem here is
that the level of analysis is wrong. So
race is a part of what's happening
>> for sure,
>> but it's really a values problem. And if
we can't move people out of the mindset
of race down into the mindset of values,
you'll never be able to solve the
problem because you'll be up here trying
to steer things based on commentary
about race and then it just the problem
doesn't solve.
>> So let's break that down from a value
system. Let's kind of go cuz from the
vase the race level it's black versus
white. This black man is bad. One point
one out of 22% of black men all this
other stuff and this precious white
woman who's attacked by a monster. And
then you go to that. So if we're at the
second level of value system, what are
the clashes from that perspective?
>> Okay. So uh the easiest one because I
think there's the most data on this is
uh the importance of men in a family
unit. And once you create policies that
erode the social pressure for men to
remain in a relationship to have
responsibility for their family uh what
ends up happening is it and it's really
twofold. So you uh start you create an
economic incentive to remove men from
the household. Then you um have the
social aspect of what men do is toxic
and that they're really blank slates
anyway. And so we should just they
wouldn't use the words feminized, but
like
it is feminization. So we should be
feminizing men. We shouldn't be having
them pull their kids up short. We
shouldn't be having them uh you know
waking their kids. Like if you know
Bedro Coulian runs this whole fathers
and sons camp where like it's basically
militaristic and so they're waking these
kids up early making them do hard things
crawl through the mud like deal with
freezing weather all this stuff and
people like ah like I don't want that
>> and so you've got this uh the removal of
males and then the feminization of males
and that from where I'm sitting stems
from a confusion about men and women
being the same. Men and women are
different. They are evolutionary answers
to very different questions. And women
are the sexual gatekeepers. So men from
an evolutionary perspective are the
answer to what do women need to
effectively safely have children.
>> And so they've made us bigger. They've
made us stronger. Uh they've made us
hyper ambitious. They've made us um
super responsive to sexual um
manipulation is uh encouragement. Uh, I
always want to use a more positive word,
but it's just so much easier to like
once
>> is manipulation.
>> Women help you be a better man by um
denying you access to sex.
>> And so it it's been this incredible
partnership that we've worked out. But
all of that now has just imploded. So
you've you're the social setup that we
have now is asking and answering the
question what happens to society when
you feminize men and just remove them
from the child rearing equation.
>> And the answer is it's bad. And uh
children do not regulate their emotions.
And the bad news is when a man does not
regulate his emotions, when he does not
learn how to do that as a kid, then some
of them will break violent. And men are
hard to stop because we have turned them
into these hyperaggressive, we being
sexual evolution, hyperaggressive,
uh, physically stronger,
>> much more likely to take risks, uh, half
of the species. And now you're seeing it
run a muck. And then the last part of
this piece, I do want to get to the
community. I see you guys popping off.
We're definitely going to take some of
your comments, but uh Matt Walsh made uh
an argument, and we don't need
necessarily need to play the video, but
his point now is with something like
this happening, he wants to bring back
rope hanging. I want somebody hanging
from a rope 24 hours later.
>> Um Donald Trump and what he's doing with
the National Guard trying to put a more
pressure on law and order.
>> Should this be a wakeup call to capital
punishment? Should this be a wakeup call
to um how we
litigate some of these cases? Um do you
think that there should be a natural
cause that like maybe violent criminals
shouldn't be released? We should bring
back three strikes. Do you think that
there should be some type of criminal
justice reform piece at the end of
something like this? So again, level of
analysis one, yes, you're going to need
to do that because you cannot if if you
don't have a society that's safe, that
society is going to spend an inordinate
amount of their time
>> uh just mental and emotional resources
like trying to protect. And we're living
in a populist moment. We're watching
what it looks like economically when you
protect yourself. It's very different
than when you have high trust,
cooperation, you get a lot more done.
You can advance a lot faster.
>> Yeah. And so now you'll get that at the
individual level where it's all
protectionist. So I think that's bad. So
you do need to do something to address
that because we are in the situation
that we're in right now. Um so yeah, you
you need to do something to stop violent
crime, but that's treating the symptom.
It's not treating the cause. So when I
hear that somebody's on a GLP1
inhibitor, when I hear that somebody's
taking metformin because they can't
manage their glucose, I'm just like,
hey, [ __ ] nut. Like this is 100% a diet
problem. This is not like mostly a diet
problem. This is 100% a diet problem. So
what we have is a raise your children
well problem. Now you're never going to
get that to 100% just life is too
complicated. But you've got to address
that. You've got to put the structural
things in place both from a financial
incentive perspective from the
government and from a social pressure
perspective to get people like one we
want people to have kids but we want
them to raise them well. We need both a
female and a male influence to raise
kids in a wellbalanced way where they're
getting all of the things that they
need. So, we've got to focus on that.
Otherwise, you're just always giving
people GL1 inhibitors, GLP-1 inhibitors
instead of
>> putting band-aids on the problem.
>> Yeah.
>> You you've got to uh stop the problem
where it starts, and that's with how you
raise kids.
>> Okay. Bringing it back up to the society
level. Um there's been a lot of talk of
fiscal dominance lately. the abil the
situation in which the federal budget is
getting out of hand. The federal deficit
is getting out of hand and the bond
market is broken. Um I want to jump to
this video from Andre Jle
I think Jako J I KH um on my smarter
chat. People can tell me how to
pronounce that. Um and his policy on how
the bond market just broke the Fed.
>> So it looks like the central banks of
the world are slowly losing control over
interest rates. There is breaking news
as we come on the air. The Trump economy
is sputtering. We learned this morning
that job growth in the past 3 months has
all but ended. The jobs numbers changed
again and we're now showing we actually
lost 13,000 jobs in June. That is the
first negative jobs report since 2021.
And the most recent August one was also
bad. We added only 22,000 jobs, which
means unemployment is now at 4.3%.
So to save the economy, the Federal
Reserve might come in and cut interest
rates by as much as half a percent.
Which is huge. And in the short term,
that sounds like a good idea. But here's
the problem. The bond market is telling
us we actually might be in a recession
already. Investors don't believe
inflation or debt can be controlled no
matter what the Fed does at this point.
Now, you might be thinking, Andre, I do
not care about bonds. I don't invest in
them. I don't buy them. But bonds run
the world. They set the interest rates
for the cost of things like mortgages,
loans, and even the value of our
currency. And it's not just happening in
the US. This is where we get into the
economy is just complicated enough that
again, this is largely going to break
along the lines of whether people have
the intellectual horsepower to figure
this out. This is why I like the idea of
if we're going to inflate people's money
into non-existent, which I wish we would
stop, but if we're going to do that,
then setting up some sort of fund when
kids are born where we either put one
lump sum and then just let it acrue or
we like constantly put money into it uh
instead of doing a lot of the
entitlements that we're doing now.
You've got to do it. You've got to do it
otherwise people are going to get left
behind. This is one of those where
people don't want there to be
trade-offs, but there are trade-offs. If
you deficit spend, okay, you can do it,
Drew. Obviously, look at the world. Hey,
we're here. We deficit spend. It looks
the way that it looks. But it has these
insane tradeoffs. And the biggest one is
inflation. We are going to take from
everybody and we're only going to give
back, and I probably should explain to
people what I mean by give back, but
we're only going to give back to people
that hold assets. They're technically
not giving you anything, but those
assets will respond from a price
perspective to the amount of money that
you print just automatically because
what ends up happening is you've got a
bunch of people. It's always an auction.
Basically, you're going to sell it for
whatever you can sell it for.
>> As more money goes into the system, more
people are willing to bid on those
assets and say, "Oh, I'll buy that house
for a little bit more. I'll buy that
stock for a little bit more." And so,
the price is going up up up up. Now, why
are they willing to buy it for a little
bit more? because they've got that money
more the money is printed. It goes into
the system and so as people accumulate
that money they're willing to there are
more people that have enough money to
bid on that thing. But because no goods
have been no additional goods have been
created
the technical real answer is more money
has been printed than goods have come
into new goods have come into existence.
So the discrepancy creates more people
competing for those things. Now, if you
once you start understanding that,
you're like, I know exactly where I need
to put my money. If you don't understand
that, and I know that even right now, no
matter how many times I've said this,
that there's just because there are
always going to be things you leave out
each time you talk about it because it's
so complicated, uh, that it's very hard
to get a total picture of things. Even I
don't think I have a total picture of
it, as I've said. I think Scott Besson
would laugh at my understanding of the
economy. I would not have known how to
break the back of the Bank of England,
which he did with George Soros. Uh, too
sophisticated for me. So
that level of ignorance is the thing
that holds people back.
What he's trying to explain to people is
that fiscal dominance. So fiscal means
government spending definitionally. Now
the problem is colloquially we will use
the word fiscal to just mean monetary
but fiscal dominance means governmental
spending dominance. What's actually
happening in fiscal dominance is the
government is deficit spending at a rate
that when the Fed tries to adjust
interest rates to control the money
printing based on the private economy.
So based on borrowing to buy a house,
borrowing to start a business, like
whatever, all the things that
individuals will borrow money for
because every time you borrow money,
you're creating money. Let's just be
very clear about that. So every time you
borrow money, you're creating money. So
it's an inflationary event. So what the
Fed does is says, "Oo, there's too much
money coming into the system. I'm going
to raise rates to get the average person
to be like, oo, I don't want to buy a
house right now. I don't want to take
out a mortgage. It's too expensive." And
so the Fed's like, "Cool. We know how to
regulate the um how hot the economy is
is how they would say it. We know how to
regulate that by adjusting um the
interest rate. As people start taking
out too many loans, we raise the
interest rate so they'll slow down. If
people aren't taking out enough loans,
then we lower the interest rate and
people start taking out more. And so
they try to walk this line. Fiscal
dominance happens when the government is
taking out money at a rate that the Fed
has to print print or technically the
Treasury, but they have to print print
print money to keep up with it.
>> And so no matter what the Fed does to
individuals, the government's like,
"Bro, I have to keep printing money.
It's the only way that I can meet my
debt obligations. So I am going to keep
printing." And so the Fed's like, "Well,
[ __ ] then I'm in a bad position because
if I raise interest rates, I increase
the rate at which the government has to
borrow money
and then the train goes off the tracks
>> because I can't cool the economy because
that makes it more expensive, but I also
can't inflate the economy because then
it makes it more expensive. So it's like
>> so you you it that's what's known as
fiscal dominance. And so once you're in
fiscal dominance basically and this is
why Lynn Alden says this train has no
brakes or nothing can stop this train.
What she means is
there's no way to stop it other than
what Ray Dalia would call a beautiful
deleveraging which requires among levers
austerity. You you must slow down the
rate at which you spend money.
>> Yeah.
>> And so right now we have a grow or
collapse strategy. And I want everyone
to be wideeyed about that. right now,
every administration, Trump, Biden,
everybody,
>> Obama, Bush,
>> all of them. All they're saying is we
are going to grow our way out of this or
we're going to let it collapse when
somebody else is in office.
And that's it. That's the strat. And it
is a terrible strategy that has led to
all the problems that people can feel,
but they don't know how to point to. And
so they go, "Capitalism's broken." Blah
blah blah. that isn't the problem. Uh
yeah, we'll get back to the show in a
moment, but first here is the brutal
truth about scaling. Most entrepreneurs
don't outright fail, they plateau. And
if you're stuck right now, you know how
true that is. It could be that your
revenue flat lines every time you step
away, or maybe you're trapped in a
commodity market that's racing to the
bottom, or maybe you're one of the lucky
people who is navigating a very complex
partner dynamic that turns every
decision into a battle. These problems
and a whole lot more can seem impossible
until you break them all down into first
principles. My partners and I used this
thinking to grow Quest Nutrition by
57,000%
in our first three years alone and scale
to a billion dollar exit. And now I'm
teaching this framework to a select
group of entrepreneurs who are ready to
scale. Now, I want to be clear. This is
not for everybody because I'm looking to
work with serious entrepreneurs that
already have an established business and
a proven track record of execution. If
that's you and you want to learn how to
break through your biggest business
bottlenecks using first principles
thinking, be sure to apply now. Just go
to impact theory.com/scale
or click the link in the show notes.
Again, that's impact theory.com/scale.
Now, back to the show. There was a drone
attack on a boat running drugs leaving
Venezuela. Um Trump uh praised it, took
um responsibility for the attack.
They're saying that there were 11 uh
cartel members on board and this is why
it was done. Um JD Vance then goes and
says like, "I'm proud of this moment.
I'm glad that this happened." yada yada
yada. He got a lot of backlash,
including some from Rand Paul, the
senator. And it kind of goes into that
notion of we're losing, especially with
the Kilmar Garcia,
we're losing due due process. Now we're
advocating for people who we suspect as
cartel members to be killed instantly
with no due process, no fair trial.
>> Are we getting on that slippery slope
where we're starting to give up certain
>> getting on dude countries live on that
slippery slope? So, this is one of those
where uh the Jessification, as uh Eric
Weinstein called it, of America is going
to make a lot of people uncomfortable,
but the reality is we have always had
men standing on the wall that were
willing to do things that if you knew
about all of it, you would be disgusted.
>> And yet, given that other countries are
constantly trying to do that to us, it
just is the reality. And I think this is
why some of my take on Israel uh
befuddles people, angers other people,
is I'm looking at it and I'm going,
that's just what total war is. So, we've
had god knows how many uh millennia of
total war. And now all of a sudden,
because of modern society, because we
like to think that we're past that, that
we're somehow at the end of evolution,
all that. Uh we're not. We are animals
that kill people that [ __ ] with us.
That's what we do. Uh and so we're
watching that play out. And for 70
years, people kept it sort of in check.
And now it's just breaking free again.
You've got Putin invading Ukraine for a
whole host of reasons. You've got Israel
very complex set of reasons that include
allowing them to amass stuff uh amass
the um terror tunnels to amass weaponry
to uh radicalize as many people as
possible. Letting knowing that they
could do that because you have the
belief that you can control the size of
the flame. They then attack and you're
like, "Oh shit." Like maybe they let
them attack, maybe they didn't, but
they're just taking advantage of it. But
it's like whatever. And now they're
going to go all the way. And they show
absolutely no signs of like stopping
until they get all the hostages back and
Hamas is completely eradicated. They are
bombing sovereign nations now because
they think that there's Hamas like in
those and I look at that and I'm like,
is it evil? Yes. Do humans do evil [ __ ]
all the time? Yes. Uh was what Hamas did
evil? Yes. Is the way that Hamas runs
the country evil? Yes. So looking at all
of this, it's just evil. Left, right,
center, up, down, ba, select, start. So,
uh, I I'm not embracing any of it. I'm
deeply saddened by all of it. But it is.
And so, when I look at what we're doing,
you have to in terms of bombing that
boat. Uh, you've got to one,
if there are people running drugs into
your country, you tell them to knock it
the [ __ ] off and they don't. And if we
knew for certain that those people have
drugs, that they are a part of a narot
terrorist state and they are trying to
get those drugs in and you have given
them warning and they keep going, yes,
shoot, blow them up, make it real
[ __ ] clear what we do and don't
tolerate. Uh, if it ends up that those
are just like fishermen out in a boat,
then you're the [ __ ] and you've
clearly gotten like out of hand and
you've got to rein that [ __ ] in. And I
have no idea what the facts on the
ground are going to be. But the only
thing I can tell you is on a long enough
timeline, you get a bunch of [ __ ] wrong
and it's really [ __ ] ugly. And uh
you've got to be careful. But the one
thing that you can't do is not defend
yourselves. And so I am a big proponent
of walk softly and carry a big stick.
The very famous Theodore Roosevelt
quote. If you have not read about
Theodore Roosevelt, read about him. He
was a hardcore [ __ ] This guy
did not play. Uh but he made very clear
the only reason that you can talk softly
is because you carry a big stick. And I
think that the reason that people are um
so unwilling to back America's
lethality, being aggressive, all of that
stuff, is because things have gone too
good for too long and we don't realize
what it takes to actually uh protect a
country. So um yeah, I look at that and
I say the specifics are going to matter
a lot. I'll need to know what actually
happened, but at the level of like,
let's make it a thought exercise.
>> If those guys really are Venezuelan
cartel members running drugs into
America, [ __ ] them up hard.
I I get that and I understand that
there's there the nuance take is the
right take. So once we have all the
information, it's easy to make that. But
if I had to put like gun to your head,
bomb or no bomb, drone or no drone, are
you leaning toward the side of I rather
blow it up and ask questions later or
should we have a more
>> You have to ask questions first. We
cannot become that country. You've got
to be very careful. But I really believe
that we should be putting the money into
the intelligence to make sure that we
can figure out who's who and what's
what, that there is an acceptable
collateral damage. And yes, if it was me
or my wife or my kids, they got killed
and were part of the collateral damage,
that'd be very cold comfort. I
understand that. And everybody needs to
fight for the position that they're in,
which is why you allow for freedom of
speech so that people can push back so
we can figure out where the right
balance is.
>> Uh but yes, I believe that America needs
to be aggressive in its protection in
itself. I believe that America needs to
be aggressive in wanting to win. I think
America needs to play to win. Um,
so you've got to do your due diligence.
You 100% should not fire first and ask
questions later. You should absolutely
be asking questions first, making sure
that you're as sure as you can be, uh,
that something is right, you need to
back off. If you've got a certain level
of uncertainty, but you're never going
to have perfect information. Um, but if
your win ratio is high, then yeah, like
if we're 95% accurate, can I live with
that last 5%? Yes. If we can push that
even farther, would I be happier? Of
course I would.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, that that's valid. Brendan Gibson
said, "Drew, you don't think they had
any intel?" I don't think it's an intel
question. My question kind of goes back
to um the Patriot Act. Once somebody's
classified as a terrorist, all their
rights are now thrown out the window.
The cartel is now slowly moving into
that. And I'm just trying to ask our
should we treat drug bust the same way
we treat 9/11 attackers? And if
everybody's saying yes, it's cool. If
you're in a cartel, you don't you
deserve no rights. you deserve to get
bombed into oblivion. Okay. But I don't
necessarily think, you know what I mean,
that if if if it goes from terrorists to
then drugs, how soon is it going to be
murderers, really big shoplifterss, and
then before you know it, anybody who
commits any crime now can get executed,
judge, jury, you know,
>> for sure. And if we were to go that far,
we'd be a bunch of morons that history
should just be ruthless in the judgement
of them on the slippery slope. So,
>> 100%. But what you can't do, and this is
like um Jordan Peterson has a really
powerful idea when with raising kids
about minimum force necessary. So you
always want things to be minimum force
necessary, but you need to do the
necessary force. And if that means
grabbing your kid by the arm and
dragging them out of that situation,
then grab your kid by the arm and you
drag them out of that situation.
>> Um look, I my mom swatted me I can't
even imagine how many times with a
wooden spoon. And I did not grow up
traumatized. Uh she kept me on the
straight and narrow. I I have emotional
control. I And if people want to look at
the results, I've been very successful
in business partly because my mother
helped me develop discipline largely
because she helped me develop emotional
control. Uh my marriage has been
successful for the same reasons. So it's
like those things work. Now my mom, I
don't think ever spanked my sister
because my sister did not need that. So
uh she read the situation well. Both my
sister and I have grown up well
adjusted. So it's like yeah I I think if
you have the idea of minimum force
required but you are willing to do what
is required then you're pointed in the
right direction. You cannot be letting
mentally ill people out on the streets
that you've gone like just full [ __ ] at
that point. Uh so yeah if you're violent
you need to be locked up. I would
encourage people to think of us as
automata. So if you realize that, oh, by
the time somebody gets to an adult, so
much of who they are is going to be
baked. They could change, but they
won't. Just the vast majority of people
don't change. So even though it is
possible, it is ridiculously difficult
to escape your own frame of reference.
So people get tied into it. If they're
mentally ill, they're going to need to
be medicated. You have a physiological
problem. Now, that physiological problem
can also be exacerbated by their thought
patterns, but you have a physical
problem. You need to address the
physical problem. So if people stop like
the judge that let the guy out that
stabbed the Ukrainian woman, she said he
made me a promise that he was going to
stop being violent. What the what? Like
come on.
>> I promise you. I promise you, Anna, I'll
never murder another person again.
>> That is wild. That is wild. So that's
where it's like, okay, you're just
completely detached from reality. And so
it's interesting because the person that
wrote the definitive book on us being
automat um is a guy named Robert
Sapolski. Uh it's called Determined. I
highly recommend people read that book.
Extraordinary book. And in it he makes
it there there's as far as I can tell
there's just nowhere left to attack him.
I mean he covers everything including
quantum physics which people always go
to. Um but he handles it all. Now, he
and I come to a very different final
conclusion where for him it's like all
empathy all the time. And it's like he's
saying basically, I didn't earn my
intelligence. I didn't earn my
discipline. I didn't earn my emotional
control. And while all of that's true,
nonetheless, uh if somebody's a danger,
you got to get them off the street. Now,
he admits that he comes to that same
conclusion, but he's far more in like
the you've got to be kind, you've got to
be compassionate, and it's like you've
got to be effective. That would be my
guide.
>> Uh, all right. So, Putin's adviser,
Kobikov, says the US has devised a
crypto scheme to erase its massive debt
at the world's expense. The US is now
trying to rewrite the rules of the gold
and cryptocurrency markets. Remember the
size of their debt.
>> This is a direct quote, by the way.
>> Yeah, direct quote. $35 trillion. These
two sectors, crypto and gold, are
essentially
>> wrong about 35. It's 37 trillion.
>> Uh, at the time it was probably 3.
>> Yep. He said it nine minutes ago.
>> These are two sectors. Crypto and gold
are essentially alternative to the
traditional global currency system.
Washington's actions in this area
clearly highlight one of its main goals
to urgently address the declining trust
in the dollar. As in the 1930s and in
the 1970s, the US plans to solve its
financial problems at the world's
expense. This time by pushing everyone
into the crypto cloud over time. Once
part of the US national debt is placed
into stable coins, Washington will
devalue that debt. The Russian comment
that the US is using cryptocurrency as a
way to export inflation is absolutely
true. For him to say that that is the
very structure of crypto, that's what
it's designed for, is false.
>> But there is no doubt Scott Besson is a
brilliant economic mind. He is one of
the best economic minds I've ever come
across. Uh so he's in that very elite
echelon of people who've made money off
of understanding the economy and is now
setting policy. And I think that he is
very aware of the fact that if we can
back stable coins with a oneto one uh US
treasury that that would give us a huge
market wildly increased market for our
national debt. So 100% the Russians are
right to point that out. That is very
true. And then that we will weaken the
dollar is inevitably. It is not a and
then we'll weaken the dollar. We have to
weaken the dollar. There are structural
realities to be faced. If you are
deficit spending, you are going to
weaken the dollar. Full stop. Period.
End of story. It's not possible to not,
especially once you're in fiscal
dominance, which we are in where the
government is ultimately the government
spending is the thing that controls the
rate because the Fed is not going to be
able to reduce the rate for the reasons
that we were talking about a minute ago
because private loans are not the thing
that accounts for the massive
inflationary effect. It's governmental
loans that cause the massive
inflationary effect. So you are in a
storm where the US is looking for
anything that will forestall the
collapse of their currency or at least
make it so slow that it's still the best
alternative because that's what you're
going to hear people say all the time
about the dollar. Yes, it's being
inflated. Yes, it's terrible what the US
is doing. But where else are you going
to go? Do you really trust the Chinese?
No, you do not trust the Chinese. Uh you
going to use the British pound? No, you
were not. So it's like you don't have
any alternative. That's what people are
going to say. But you will be forced
into an alternative if the US dollar
inflates too quickly. So the right now,
barring that once in a h once in history
growth rate that maybe we get from AI,
uh you're not going to be able to grow
your way out of a 37 trillion debt
problem. You are going to have to
eradicate some of that debt. And so
you're gonna have to do it through
austerity, uh, devaluing the dollar, and
that's devaluing the dollar is going to
be the big one by by a country mile. So
anything that helps them do that more
slowly over a longer period of time
increases the odds that they're able to
remain the world's reserve currency. Uh,
because if you can take if you can drop
the value by 99% over a hundred years,
most people don't really blink because
the US has already done it. I think it's
95%, but still
>> catastrophic.
Sheesh. Well, because my thing, right,
is I thought we were saying the quiet
part out loud. I thought it was like,
"Yeah, we're the world's reserve
currency, but yeah, we're we're the
people of the world. We're here for
you." I feel like with the Russian
advisor saying that, well, Putin's
advisor saying, it's kind of like, wait,
America is just trying to look out for
America. Why should we align with them?
We shouldn't let them get off the hook.
And with the BRICS nation being a
majority of GDP, majority of population,
they kind of have a a um a a bigger say
on the global stage if they actually
acted as a united block. If you see a
large number of people moving in lock
step, they have been coerced in some
way. The only way to get a large group
of people moving in the same direction
is that isn't coerced would be religion.
And then you sort of have the coercion
of God because he's like, "Bro, if you
don't, you're going to burn in hell for
all eternity." If you don't have that,
then you're not going to be able to get
a large group of people moving together.
You're just not. Yeah. So, like, if you
go back and research what happened in
Breton Woods when we actually became the
world's reserve currency, it wasn't like
everybody was like, "Word, man. All
good." It was, "Hey, you all just got
obliterated
by World War II. You dumb asses wouldn't
stop bombing each other. We the US were
geographically blessed by God. And so,
hey, we've come out of all this where
you guys owe us gazillions of dollars.
And so, you don't have a [ __ ] choice.
If you don't want me to come choke you
out with the amount of money that you
owe me, then we're going to be the
reserve currency. And for that, we are
going to give you like certain
privileges that you otherwise wouldn't
get. And so, they're like, I have no
leverage. And this is what I'm trying to
get people to understand about like
people want to go and vote and all that
to get, you know, better pay. No, no,
no. That's not how this game works. The
game works. You have to have leverage.
And if you're going to let companies go
overseas, you diminish your leverage. So
if you want to increase your leverage,
stop importing cheap labor. Stop letting
companies go wherever the hell they
want. That's it. Like that that is your
only way. So figure out where your
leverage is. Increase your leverage.
That's why it it makes me sad for other
people that don't have what I call the
only belief that matters. If you put
time and energy into getting better at
something, you will actually get better.
So, if you reject that because you're
cynical and you don't want to go get
better, cool. Then you're [ __ ] because
for the foreseeable future, we are going
to keep outsourcing jobs.
So, I think Trump has a playbook where
he's trying to bring high-tech
manufacturing back to the US. We'll see.
Uh, but also I think a lot of people are
going to get displaced by AI. So there's
that.
But the one thing that you can do, and I
get it, most people won't because they
have a very low utility algorithm
running in their brain that's all about
victimization, bad Mr. Capitalist, etc.,
etc. And so they don't try to uplevel
their skills. They don't try to figure
out how to make money in stocks. And
they just let themselves get inflated
into oblivion. and to um really sit in
the very real problem rather than
looking for a very real solution to that
problem. This was part of what watching
the uh Patrick Bed David on Jubilee was
like, yo, these are people that are just
they're mad as hell and they've built
really like sophisticated arguments
against capitalism, but they don't have
any like first principles thinking on
socialism and why it will work. And that
that one's very sad.
>> So, it's more so capitalism bad versus
like the
>> I can point out all the things that are
broken, but I can't tell you what we're
going to do to fix it. It's just
socialism literally. And then you like
they weren't even asking good questions
in that. But I would be so curious to
know like what people think happens. Why
do the ones go wrong when this has
always been tried? Like what is it that
happens? Because you can't take an
ideology in theory and then go, well,
okay, I get that it never works in
practice, but still the theory is so
dope. Um
I I don't know how they rationalize it
to themselves. Okay, so Patrick Bed
David went on Jubilee. It was one
capitalist versus 20 anti- capitalists.
And um I am very eager to finish it, but
the part that I watched I've watched the
first half and what I saw were young
people that were very articulate about
the things that bother them about
capitalism. So it was a very useful
insight into uh the people that I
consider the um sort of enemy of the
public good.
>> Mhm.
>> How they're approaching it, what their
thought is, what are the things that are
triggering them so that I can make sure
that like I'm engaging with people where
they're at. because Gary's economics
really had a big impact on me in terms
of like watching him be very emotionally
eloquent but completely ignorant to the
real solutions. So he understands how to
make money off of it but he doesn't seem
to understand why it's happening. Mhm.
>> And so that was a very interesting
phenomenon or is a very interesting
phenomenon for me where um he's really
captured the emotional tenor of this
moment but I think is going to lead
people astray because he's feeding into
their emotions. So anyway, this was
people I didn't feel like the anti-
capitalists for the most part were in
their fields like they were really
walking through like here are all the
problems. They just don't have solutions
and they have like these really
delusional views of socialism. Anyway,
uh so this is where it was. Now, I love
Patrick BetDavid. Talk about somebody
who has been very kind to me every time
I've interacted with him. I think he's
very smart. He is a very talented
entrepreneur. But, and by the way, I
think I'm a terrible debater. Let me
throw that out there. But, I don't feel
like his debate prowess was where I'd be
curious to see like what he thinks if he
walked away from that going, "No, I
smashed it." Or if he's like,
>> "I wish I had said this, that, or the
other." Anyway, let's play it so people
can see that for themselves. Mhm.
>> My first claim is incentive is the
engine of capitalism. Remove it and the
system fails.
>> Okay. So,
>> do you agree with that claim?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Obviously.
>> Hey, great to meet you, Patrick.
>> What's your name?
>> My name's Mason.
>> Mason, good to meet you.
>> Mason.
>> Um, I'm Value Tained. I'm a big fan of
the channel.
>> Are you really?
>> Yeah, I do watch regularly.
>> Very cool. So, I found this very
interesting that Homeboy is actually, I
mean, if you can be believed, a fan of
Value Tamement. Uh but he's going to
make some pretty interesting arguments
>> with your claim. I don't think that
incentives are only born out of
capitalism. Uh most capitalist defenders
say
>> capitalism incentives are not born of
capitalism. This is this is like my big
thing. This is what I think people miss
about socialism. Socialism is out of
step with human mind with our
psychology. That's why it doesn't work.
>> Capitalism is simply more in step. And I
think it is right to say that capitalism
is a terrible system. It's just the best
of the terrible systems.
>> Um, we just haven't found anything
that's better yet.
>> Uh, it's not like capitalism is some
amazing godsend and it can never be
better, but
>> we've had a lot of years to find
something better and we haven't. Uh, so
anyway, that's a misspeak. This is the
kind of thing that I would want PBD to
pick up on and say, well, hold on a
second. That wasn't my claim. I'm not
saying that capitalism gives birth to
our desire for incentives. I'm saying
our desire for incentives needs to match
the economic system. And the economic
system that most closely matches our
innate desire for fairness, our innate
desire for compensation is going to be
capitalism. Then it's like he could keep
reorienting to like what the argument
is. You're going to see very quickly it
spirals off.
>> Say that in incentive uh is because of
scarcity and people's ability to get
what is necessary pushes them to work
harder. Um I disagree. Pause that for a
second.
>> So, this is one of the things that ends
up being like the big argument that
comes up over and over and we we'll run
out of time before we get to see the
pattern uh emerge. But one of the
patterns that emerges is everybody
saying um well people shouldn't have to
work like there shouldn't be scarcity
like people there should just be like a
base level that's taken care of for
everybody. And thi that should have been
where PBD just said, "Pause. Hold on. I
love that. That's an emotional argument
because who exactly is going to work for
free to provide for everybody else?"
This is the the fundamental thing that
people do not understand. The only way
to get something for free is to make
somebody work for free. Who are the
people that you're going to point to and
say, "You are going to work for free.
You're going to work for free for this
many months." and that way we can give
all this free stuff to people. That's
where people it it is like they think
that the government can just um make
money and they don't realize that when
the government quote unquote makes money
what they're doing is devaluing
everybody else's money and the only
thing that actually creates money is
entrepreneurship. uh because you're
creating something of value that people
say, "Oh, I want that thing." And so I'm
going to take this what we call proof of
work.
>> We call money, dollars, whatever. But
that's your proof of work. You did a
thing. And so people gave you money for
that. So you lock in the value of your
time through the compensation that you
got for doing that thing.
>> And I'm going to give you my proof of
work for this thing that you've created.
That's the engine of all this. And then
the government goes, "Cool. I'm going to
take a little bit of your piece of work,
proof of work, uh either at the income
level or you can do it at the purchase
level, whatever. All kinds of places
that it can happen. But like I'm going
to take some of your proof of work and
I'm going to then hand it out to people
in whatever way, building roads,
schools, uh social security, whatever.
But there seems to be a fundamental lack
of understanding that that's how this
engine gets going. And so I just need to
know like, okay, if you want to say
people should be guaranteed this, who's
supposed to work for free?
>> I'd say that some of our hardest workers
are single moms working three to four
jobs. And the resources that they're
able to acquire compared to those that
utilize their workers in order to build
profit for their own companies is not
equivocal.
>> So how would you do it? How would you
change it?
>> Yeah. So I I think that humans
inherently want to be meaningful. They
they want to contribute to their
communities.
>> He's 100% correct. There are five things
that motivate people in terms of work.
Meaning is one of them. Purpose is one
of them. Uh so for sure like none of
that is fault.
My my uh furry children have entered the
uh the field of play here. Uh so he's
not wrong about that. But again getting
to the claim is that the engine that
makes capitalism work is incentives. And
so far I'm not hearing him say that
people don't respond to incentives. What
I hear him say is it's not only
incentives. He's right about that. I
don't think people will work just for
money. I think that's the big thing that
people are always confused by is, "Well,
I just made all this money and I'm
miserable." Yeah, exactly. Because
there's five things that people care
about, not one.
They want to contribute to society. When
you look at depression rates, often
times it's people who aren't able to do
anything besides laying in their bed and
and basically barely taking care of
themselves. So I think that it's just a
human intrinsic value to want to bring
value to their community or greater
society. So I don't think that it has to
be through scarcity alone that scares
people into working if
>> I I worked for scarcity. I think there's
levels to it. You have the survival
folks who work for survival to pay their
bills. Some work for status. Some work
for freedom and some work for legacy.
The folks that work three or five jobs,
you know, to pay their bills and do what
they're doing, if the incentive wasn't
there, they wouldn't work three to five
jobs. some of the guys that build a
bigger business that solve a lot of
problems.
>> The incentive there is either I die or I
work. That's not really a system that
rewards.
>> See, okay, so it you that is the
argument you're going to hear over and
over is uh I'm only working because I'm
scared if I don't work that I'm going to
starve to death. This is where you have
to like hit the timeout. Heard you said
that earlier. What I would like to know
is how do we remove that need? And
they're going to say, well, the
government should provide this. How how
does the government provide this? What
what the gap that people are unable to
cross is the only way to give things to
people for free is to have people work
for free. Who is it that you want to
work for free? Like you're saying
everybody works for free. Like what are
we talking about here? So this is the
place where this like just deranges and
it drives me nuts.
>> All right, keep going.
>> Merit, that's a system that pushes
people into insecure positions.
>> Not necessarily. In many cases, we put
ourselves in situations
>> I I'm gonna keep beating this drum. And
by the way, Mason, if people are like
pushing back on what I'm saying, I want
to know about it cuz I want to address
it and we're need more time.
>> They were pushing back earlier, but
they're saying you're cooking now. So,
>> Oh, okay. Well, let's go. So, uh, when
rewind it like give me 10 seconds back.
>> Either I die or I work. That's not
really a system that rewards merit.
That's a system that pushes people into
insecure positions. Not necessarily.
>> Okay. So, uh it's pushing people into
insecure positions. If you look back
through all of human history, the reason
that we created governments was it was
we come together as a collective and we
are much stronger than when we're apart.
That people would roll up to our
village, they would rape the women or
just straight kidnap them. Uh they would
kill the men, steal the farm animals,
whatever. Like they would just take what
they could. And so we're like, "Okay,
we've got to come together as a
collective. We've got to build walls and
we've got to do all this stuff." And
what people realized was, okay, for us
to scale, because you can be communist
in a family, you can think about sort of
collective action in a small group, but
as you get bigger and bigger, you need
some way to incentivize people to do
like that specific thing, right? Like I
get you don't want to build the wall. I
get it. But we need somebody to build
the wall. And so it happens to fit your
skill set, whatever. And so people go,
"Listen, uh, you're not going to have to
barter." And the economy is too complex
for one person to say you go do this,
you go do that. And so from that
emerges, I mean technically you go
through all kinds of horrible systems
first that allow people to be abused,
enslaved. Like it's not like we got
right to capitalism, but like you get
all these systems that emerge where
people are trying to decentralize as
much of it as possible. And capitalism
is so far the best system that we've
gotten to where we go, okay, cool.
Everything is decentralized. You get to
charge whatever you can. There's going
to be friction between you and the
capital owner is going to try to pay you
as little as they can, but you try to
get so good you can demand a lot of
wages, but it's all decentralized. You
only have to buy the things that you
want, blah blah blah. Government comes
in and says, "Okay, you can't be an
[ __ ] like that. Can't overwork kids.
Workers will do their best to negotiate
for a better position, all that. Of
course, it can go pathological. I'm not
saying that. I'm glad that there are
government regulations. That can also go
pathological anyway. But once you
understand, oh, this was a phenomenon
that came from the bottom up. This has
to do with specialization. This has to
do with not wanting to barter. This has
to do with people wanting autonomy. It's
one of the five things that motivates
people is I don't want you to be able to
tell me what to do. This is the very
thing that drives people crazy in work.
This is why I know anybody that gets
frustrated with me is because they just
want to control more of their life. They
don't want to do what I say. They also
don't want to take responsibility for
making payroll though. I'll tell you
that. But so I get like all of the like
difficulties and the frictions of all
these different things. But like when
you really start to say, "Okay, but what
thing do you put in its place?" Like, "I
get it. It sucks that we all have like
you can legitimately starve to death. If
you can't make enough money or get
somebody to give you kindness, you can
actually die." And for a long period of
time, people literally just did die. And
one of the reasons that churches come
into existence is they go, "Cool. Like,
we're the catch-all. We take care of
people. We ask our people in the name of
God to give a tithing. And then we use
that tithing
oftentimes to enrich ourselves, but when
it's going well, we're also taking care
of the poor. And so we had this communal
area where we could catch people rather
than trying to do everything at the
level of government. But people aren't
connecting those dots.
>> All right, let's a little bit more.
>> Many cases, we put ourselves in
situations as well. But when we're
talking, are you saying that it's an
individual failure for these single
mothers that are working three to four
jobs?
>> For for some of them, it is. For some of
them, it is. I'm glad you bite that
bullet because most people are not going
to say that it's a moral failure of
people.
>> This is where I started to get really
frustrated. So, the thing that I don't
think PBD, he did not demonstrate in the
first half of this that he is connected
to the bigger picture. To have this
conversation right now, you have to say,
"Listen, we're in a situation right now
where that single mother is getting
eaten alive." And the reason she's
getting eaten alive is bad um social
policies and bad economic policies.
Obviously anybody that's listening to me
right now knows I walk through all of my
greatest hits on what's exactly going
wrong. You can round it to inflation. If
you can acknowledge, listen, the system
is broken. This is why I had an easy
time talking to Hassan is like we both
agree on the problem. We just don't
agree on the cause. Therefore, we don't
agree on the solution. But we agree this
thing is happening. This is a bad thing.
People not being able to afford housing
as one example is a catastrophe that has
to be remedied. If PBD had said that,
yes, that is a catastrophe.
While I'm sure there are some people out
there that really are just being lazy
and living off the public dime, that's
not our big problem right now. Our big
problem right now is we've got terrible
policy, both financial and social. He
does talk about the social the
dissolution of the family later. Um, but
you you've got to explain to people
I can describe the world that you see in
a way that you'll recognize it. This is
like the great test for physics. Any new
theory of physics has to describe the
world as we see it. If you can't explain
how I'm going to step out of a third
story window, I'm going to fall.
>> If your theory of physics does not
account for that, we have a problem. So,
you've got to show people, listen, my
theories about capitalism describe the
world that you're seeing.
>> So, let me explain to you all the broken
[ __ ] Then I can get into why the
incentives or whatever. He obviously
makes multiple claims throughout the
video, but why the incentives are
broken?
>> Because I wanted to jump into alter ego,
the world's first near telepathic
wearable that enables silent
communication at the speed of thought.
Alter Ego gives you the power of
telepathy, but only for the thoughts you
want to share. With Alterra Ego, you
talk just like you normally would, but
without making a sound. Let me show you
how it works.
>> You literally just think
>> for this,
>> if you're watching, the words are
appearing.
>> We all have moments when inspiration
strikes and you want to save an idea
before it slips.
>> It's when he starts doing this in
without lifting a finger.
>> This is insane. This is one of those
where I was screaming, "Take my money."
>> Works with your other devices, but it
also works with other people wearing an
alter ego.
>> It feels almost telepathic.
>> Okay, they're just thinking words that
are appearing on the screen. So,
theoretically, the other person's
hearing it.
>> There's a slight delay, which should get
a bit awkward.
>> This is V1.
So wild, man. I I am tripped out that
>> it can read your brain waves. It's got
to be reading your brain waves. But that
is
insanity.
I'm so impressed. This this one I was
like, holy Jesus. And it will also, if
you want to go to the part where it's
one guy speaking in English, the other
guy speaking in Chinese, but they can
speak to each other. That is amazing.
>> Here it is.
>> Again, bad TV because he's just
thinking, but the words are appearing.
And then you're going to hear it in
Chinese.
>> So, first the guy's thinking in English.
He then translates it into Chinese and
speaks it in Chinese. And then the other
guy's doing the same. That is wild,
dude. How is it getting worse?
Okay. Now, the cables that are running
off the back of their head, that's
obviously going to like some giant
supercomput or something. So, they're
not showing it for a reason.
>> Uh, but I am this one I'm over the moon
about. I want to see like where this
goes. If there was a version of this
>> uh available for sale,
>> I'm here for it.
>> Yeah. And I think one part that we
didn't show was that there's things
where he said there's times where you
want to write something down but you
can't talk or you can't grab your phone.
So he says take a note that I need to go
do my laundry later or whatever it is
like that. Then he picks up his phone
and then it
>> Yeah. Look, I mean none of that is like
a big deal right now. I think that for
that kind of use case, you're never
going to be like, I wish I could be
tethered to a big box that I'm hiding
behind the couch right now. That would
be so convenient. Like we're not at the
convenience stage. This is just showing
you what is possible. But dude, the fact
that you could have a conversation with
somebody without making noise.
>> If they're just receiving it and no one
can hear, you're literally using
telepathy. Like this is not like
telepathy. This is telepathy. This is
mental telepathy. This is insane, dude.
Okay, so when I was watching this, I'm
thinking to myself, okay, this is how it
starts. You start getting things in AI
where I've always said when I start
talking about AI, think of me like a
sci-fi writer. I'm imagining what could
be, not what necessarily is or will be.
And so I know that I'm directionally
correct at best. And the things that I'm
saying are not literally true. We are
now seeing that wave of things that are
literally true. So this is never going
backwards. This is only going to get
better. And so eventually you're going
to have like either just like a little
device that plugs into your ear. Uh it
will be something very subtle. And
you're going to be able to communicate
with people in thought in any language
in real time. And it will get to the
point where it's so fast. There's no
delay. Like dude, when just extrapolate
this stuff a little bit and this gets
incredible. The world is going to be
unrecognizable. And I know that makes a
lot of people very scared, but the world
is going to be unrecognizable and
there's going to be so many cool things
that come out of this. So yeah, this one
I was like, "Oh my god, I can't believe
how fast we've got here. This is
awesome."
>> Yeah. Um, it's it seems like it's a
breakthrough.
I'm trying to guess I think see what the
application of it would be cuz to me
like the AirPods 3 with the live
translation, I think that's the one that
a lot of people have been waiting for.
Like everybody loves Dualingo. Nobody
has learned a language yet. I think we
need to start figuring out how we can
minimize those borders and talk to
people internationally. Like I love
that. So with this, if we get to that
application, it's cool. But to your
point, it seems like they're tethered to
something. We don't see what that is
yet. There is some comments um in the
tweet post itself that you have to say
the words in your mouth, move your
tongue. So, it's not like you could just
think it, but you almost have to like
sound it out silently or something like
that so they can kind of cross reference
it. So, it's not
>> that makes more sense in terms of how it
would be able to track it.
>> Uh but I don't see there's nothing on
their throat. So, what is it doing?
>> I'll be very curious to see how it's
picking up those signals as we go
broader. Uh, but in terms of where does
this go from here, the ability to speak
to somebody without making sound is from
where I'm sitting self-evidently
awesome. So whether that's wanting to be
able to communicate privately to your
wife in my case, uh, that would be
amazing to be in a crowded room where
uh, it's too noisy and now you can just
talk to somebody, that would be amazing.
Whether you just want to have a private
conversation with anybody, you just
don't want other people listening in,
that would be amazing. Whether it's just
talking to your device and not wanting
to make noise because there's people
around. It's super weird. That would be
amazing. So, and those are just the
things we can think of right now. I did
not think of Uber when cell phones came
out. It did not occur to me, oh, drivers
will all have these. People wanting a
car will all have these. And with
software, we can link them up. So, I
don't yet know what people are going to
create. Are we going to talk about
Saudia?
>> Yeah,
>> this is wild. We'll get there in a
second. Teaser. Teaser. Uh weird week
for former guests of Impact Theory, and
we're we're here for it.
>> Uh so the things that are going to be
created will have these second and third
order consequences of things that will
become possible that aren't possible
today. And if you're like me and future
facing stuff gets you excited because
you're like, I don't even know what
people will create. It it won't just be
the things that we can think of. It'll
be those things, right? So I just did
like a however many city tour on my
vacation. Uh, and first of all, speak
for yourself. I have learned Greek. It
was wonderful being there. Uh,
>> Dualingo.
>> No, no, no, no. That gave it very little
on Dualingo. That admittedly is just
vocabulary. But, uh, being able to speak
another language is awesome. It
reinvigorated my desire to really master
the language because that I have not
done. Um,
but the ability to speak seamlessly with
all of the people in the different
countries would have been really cool.
really cool and things like this are I
mean they're near future. It's wild.
>> All right, let's jump over to the new AI
animated film that is releasing. Um the
writer of Paddington 3 was head was uh
led to um write it. It's going to be
called Critters about forest creatures
who go on an adventure after their
village is disrupted by a stranger. Um
it's cool. Open AI has backed it. What
got me was that it's still costing $30
million. So, I was 100% thinking this
was like, oh, they're going to VO3 80%
of it, add in a VFX department at the
end to kind of round it out. But
>> we're not there yet.
>> Yeah, it's still,
>> but if you're normally, let's say 150
million
>> and you can get it down to 30 million,
you're normally three years Exactly.
>> So, this is as a reminder,
>> we are so early in AI. We are so early
in AI and for it to already be able to
do this now. We need to wait and see if
it's any good because it could be trash.
And then it's like, okay, we're farther
away than we thought. But if we're
already at a reduction in cost of let's
say 1if roughly of what it would have
otherwise been that if we're uh call it
25%
of the normal length of time, that's
insane.
>> So that's the kind of thing that gets me
excited. And when I think about the
impact that it's had on our development
of the video game project Kaizen here at
Impact Theory, I know firsthand how much
AI speeds up the process. So, I'm not at
all surprised that they're still like
using animators. Not at all surprised
that they're using like really good
writers. I'm not at all surprised that
it's still taking 9 months. And I'm also
not at all surprised that they've
reduced the cost that much and sped it
up by that much. That all feels real.
So, I look at that and I go, I'm pretty
optimistic that they're actually going
to output something that's awesome.
>> Uh, so yeah, that's thrilling to me
because those kinds of like real world
rubber meets the road reductions but
still using human talent, which is where
I think we are now.
>> Um, that would be incredible. Like, as
somebody who just loves IP, the thought
that we could reduce the risk so that
people could take way bigger risks with
the movies that they make. Uh Lisa and I
were talking about like we missed the
days of indie cinema where you could
have like uh lower budget film that was
just emotionally driven, character
driven. Like that was a dope time to
watch movies like Pulp Fiction, one of
my all-time favorite films. No way that
gets made today. It's way too big of a
risk.
>> And so if we can get to that level with
games, with uh animated films, like that
kind of stuff, oh man, you're going to
start to see some really cool stuff. And
I think there's going to be a really
awesome period that we're going to go
through where we're getting ultra high
quality output. Uh there's still a big
enough like threshold that you have to
meet to get something out that there's
not going to be the absurd like influx
of just volume of content. Uh so you're
doing away with the slop, but you're
getting things out a lot faster. People
can take a lot more risks. I think
that's going to be cool.
>> Nice. Um and
>> all right, we got to stop there, guys.
Boy, did I miss this. I really missed
it. We have a special event going on
this week uh Friday. I hope you guys
will all join me. This is a zero to
founder master class, AI master class
this Friday at 2 p.m. Pacific time.
Please join me. We're going to be doing
something special, but only for the
people that show up uh a thing that I've
seen other people charge hundreds, some
people thousands of dollars for. We're
going to be giving away for free uh
around an AI resource resources
technically that we've created here.
We're going to be giving to you free if
you show up. Uh, so come. I'm going to
be teaching you guys how to launch a
business by creating AI personnel for
your company. And we've got a set of
free things only for the people that
show up. Come. You're going to want
this. It's very cool. So, if you've ever
had any interest in starting a company,
you're not going to want to miss this.
Whether you've ever thought about AI or
not, I will make this very uh accessible
for you guys. We've got some cool tools
we're going to be giving away free, but
only if you're there. Uh so this Friday
2 pm Pacific time zero to founder is
growing like a weed. Uh the last like
five months on the impact theory
university side has been absolutely
incredible for us. I really think it is
the lives paying off. People get to hear
how I think through problems. Uh if
you're thinking about starting a
business, come join me. I will show you
how to think through business problems.
First principles thinking is the only
way. So this Friday, 2 p.m. Pacific
time. Please join me. If you're there,
uh, you're going to learn you're going
to get access to these tools and you're
going to learn a lot about how to launch
a five member AI team. I'll show you how
to do that. All right, guys. Thank you.
I missed you guys so much. I'm glad
we're back together and I will see you
on Friday, same time, 6 a.m. Pacific.
All right, everybody. Peace out later.
>> Link in the description.
>> Oh, yep. Link and chat. Link and chat
later.
>> If you like this conversation, check out
this episode to learn more. Trump
attempts to fire Fed board member Lisa
Cook. Trump signs an EO making flag
burning illegal. Trump wants to seize
the means of production apparently. And
Trump is going after the cartels in
North and South America. And they find