Kind: captions
Language: en
Biden announces devastating cancer
diagnosis with curious timing. Bernie
admits the Democrats are a threat to
democracy. NIH director says CO may have
started in Wuhan and his employees walk
out. Xiinping confiscates the passport
of a top scientist known for editing
human embryos. Trump says Putin may be
ready to begin the peace process. And
Cash Patel is being hella sus about
releasing the Epstein files. Microsoft
also announces a whole new era of
agentic AI.
Drew, it's another week of political
theater. Starting with some heavy news.
Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an
aggressive form of prostate cancer. Um,
he tweeted early this week, "Cancer
touches us all." Like so many of you,
Jill and I have learned that we are
strongest in the broken places. Thank
you for lifting us up with love and
support. I want to send a, you know, our
well warmed wishes to the Biden family.
I think there's um three things that are
simultaneously true. It is devastating
that he's been diagnosed with an
aggressive form of cancer and I know his
son died of cancer as well and it's
absolutely brutal. Uh literally I'm
still doing scar healing from having
cancer removed from my face and that's
the world's like most minor thing ever.
So I can only imagine uh super heavy.
The timing though is, I think, directly
related to the release of the book
that's coming out, Original Sin, uh,
from Jake Tapper. And the subhead of
this is pretty crazy. Uh, President
Biden's decline, its cover up, and his
disastrous choice to run again. Uh, so
needless to say, I think the book is
going to be pretty damning in terms of
the accusations towards the
administration. And listen, um the
second thing that is true is that
um despite the fact
that you don't want to go too hard in
the pain on somebody that's just been
diagnosed with cancer, um you can't hide
from the massive cover up. There's
nothing to debate. They were obviously
covering it up. There's nothing to
debate either. Everyone in the Biden
administration was completely blind,
cannot in any way, shape, or form judge
human performance. In which case, we
have an even bigger problem. Or they
were leveraging somebody that they could
maneuver, manipulate, position, poise,
like, however you want to think about
it, but they had a puppet that they
could move around the chessboard, and
they didn't want the American people to
be aware of it. So when I think about
the way that the game of political
theater works, it is uh it's the
architecture of the human mind. Humans
don't want to pay attention to this
stuff most of the time. They just want
to fall in love, live their life, make
some money, love their family. They
don't want to deal with this stuff. Um
we are manipulated because we are
manipulatable. It seems now that there's
kind of like an apology tour happening.
I seen Jake Tapper on Megan Cully
talking about, yeah, we were wrong. We
thought it was one thing, it happened to
be another thing. Is there any
percentage of you that thinks that maybe
he was okay or was it just nah political
man is animal and man is political
animal. There's no universe in which he
was okay. I think that having people in
office that are over 70 years old
already you are trending in the wrong
direction. You want people that are in
the prime of their cognitive life. You
want people that have high energy. You
want people that are of the moment first
of all. like I can already feel from a
social commentary standpoint that
there's a band of people that I can
speak to and that I understand. And so
it's, you know, maybe 15 years below you
to 15 years above you. When you're
young, you feel like you're all that's
relevant. And then as you get older, you
realize, uhoh, we're all actually just
in this band that moves with us. And so
if you're I mean, how old is Trump? Like
he's pushing his late 70s, right? So,
uh, you're in a position now where you
represent this really old block where
half of the people that are 15 years
older than you are just dead. Uh, and so
it really you want people that are in
their prime that are super vital. And
Biden was anything other than that. And
I think what we want to look for in our
political figures are people that we
look at and we say I can esteem this
person that I can point my kids at them
and say like look that that is a person
that lives by the kind of values that I
want you to live by. Now look I get it a
long time ago we abandoned political
figures representing any of the moral
standards by which we want to live by.
But I'm saying I don't know that that
was the right answer. I don't know that
abandoning that um is the ideal. Now,
man is political animal. I don't know
that it's possible to get into that
position unless you have wild
narcissistic tendencies where you want
the attention. You believe that you're
right. You believe that people should
listen to you. You covet the position
because you think you're the right
person for the position. And that very
cognitive framework is in and of itself
the danger. And I don't know what you do
about that, man. I don't know that
there's a way around it. But oh man, I
really don't like looking at the entire
political apparatus and being grossed
out. And I remember as a kid looking at
the political apparatus, going to
Washington DC for the first time and
being in awe. I was there not too long
ago, like six months or whatever. And
even then, like you see all the
monuments, it feels some kind of way.
Like it really does feel
um presidential is the word that keeps
coming to mind. But what like whatever
that whatever that bigger thing is where
it's like there's some honor, there's
some sense of awe. There's a sense of
being a part of something that's bigger
than you. That's the picture. That's the
thing that we paint. That's the
aspiration that we put forward. But none
of it's real. I came across um stuff
about Lincoln and you want to talk about
somebody that I rever because of the
story that's told about Lincoln. Dude,
this is a paraphrase, but Lincoln said,
"If I could keep the Union together
without freeing a single slave, I would
do it." And it's like, god damn. And so
he ends up doing the Emancipation
Proclamation because he feels the threat
of Europe coming in to tear America
apart. and he's like, "We've got to find
some way to make this um a fight that
people would feel morally aborant being
on the wrong side of." And so, if I can
make this something that Europe beat us
to, which is abolishing slavery, if I
can make this about slavery, even though
it wasn't, and he stated multiple times
in documentation that that's not what
what it was for him, um if I can make it
about slavery, then I can get Europe to
be like, "Ah, damn it. Now, we can only
be on one side. We can't be on both and
just fund both sides and see whoever
wins and who the [ __ ] cares. America's
getting too powerful. We want to tear it
apart. We'd much rather be in a position
where it's like divided states again.
And so, it's like, oh, that's so gross.
And so, I'm in this position of like,
hold on. Like, I want there to be these
really empowering narratives about
whatever, about what a man should be,
about what America is, about what the
Civil War was. And then you really get
under the hood and it's always ugly,
petty,
economic, political, and it's just like
Jesus Christ. And so, could he have
gotten elected if he didn't play the
game? Probably not. Uh, would the slaves
have been
freed he not played a political game?
Probably not. But is it absolutely
gut-wrenching that he didn't do it? Like
I always thought of him as a man that
died for a moral stance that I'm willing
to risk tearing America apart to make a
stand for this moral thing. And then as
you look the beast in the eye, you
realize it wasn't [ __ ] that at all.
And so it's like what do you do? Do you
do you then like push that and say, "Oh,
there's no heroes, boys and girls.
There's no one for you to look up to."
Uh or do you tell the story? And
honestly, that's what's jumping out to
me in this whole uh monologue that you
had is that it seems like we traded in
America as the entity to know America
isn't good. This side is saying it's
like this where another side is saying
America isn't the thing because and then
they have kind of their own narrative.
So instead of us doing what's best for
country, we now do what's best for the
political person that has taught us how
to view the country in like a new way.
So, it's almost as if we traded in this
boilerplate America is great kind of
tagline and everybody's now moving
toward that direction to now small
different factions of political people
who are saying America isn't it, it's
this thing or and trying to like pull
our attention away to get their own
narrative pushed forward. There has to
be an aspirational narrative because
that's how the human mind works. And
listen, I was originally drawn to film
just because I loved stories. And I
won't lie and say that when I was 12, I
understood that I wanted to make
empowering stories. But as I developed
the motivation to tell stories around
wanting to uplift people, I realized how
powerful that is to have a north star,
to have something to aim at.
Um, we're all going to face hard things
in life.
And in those moments, you're going to be
locked inside your head. And there is
going to be a narrative on play. What
that narrative is is up to each
individual person. Who do you want to
be? How would the person you want to be
act in that moment and then act
accordingly. I cannot tell you how many
times I will go through something and
feel like I'm not actually the person
that I want to be, but I'm being given
an opportunity right now to say, "Okay,
even though I'm this completely flawed
and wildly insufficient
human, how close can I get to acting at
least acting the way that the person I
want to be would act?" And it changes
your energy. It changes your level of
aggression is how I think about it. It
allows me to put my chin down and barrel
forward into hard things because the
person I want to be would do that. And
if I need that narrative inside my own
head, I know that we need it at the
family level. I know that we need it at
the country level. Like, you've got to
tell people, here is this thing that we
should all aspire to. And so I want to
live in a world where instead of it all
being about Biden's a loser, Trump's a
loser, it's like, hey, we both have
visions of how to make America amazing.
We both have visions of how America is
amazing right now today. And we want to
do more of that. And instead,
it's nobody has a vision for the parts
that are awesome now. Nobody's shining a
flashlight on the parts that we can be
proud of. Everybody's just got some
reason about why XYZ parts sucks. And if
you point the flashlight at anything to
say this thing is awesome, somebody's
going to come and tear it down. And it's
like, I'm not even saying that what
they're saying isn't true. I'm just
saying that the deranging effects of
putting the flashlight only on the
negative things is really distressing.
And I am admittedly in my own life, the
deeper I delve into politics, I am
thinking through this stuff in real time
because I'm trying to end every deep
dive video with like, okay, but what do
we do? I don't want to just wallow in
problem, problem, problem. Yeah. And the
answer of what we do is how we frame
things matters. You need to stare
nakedly at how things really are so that
you're not easy to trick because we're
so easy to trick because we just we want
to feel the way we want to feel. And
we'll lean into whatever narrative makes
us feel that way. If we want to be
outraged, we'll lean into the narrative
that outrages us. If we want to feel
uplifted, we're going to lean into the
narrative that uplifts us. So, you
become very easy to fool. So, you do
have to understand how the world works.
every bit of the ugliness of politics
that I look at, I feel like, oh my god,
I'm going to make so much money off this
because I understand what to pay
attention to economically to win. It's
crazy. I've I've never felt more
confident in my ability to navigate
markets. Now, I could be wrong. I want
to be very clear about that, but there's
something about like, oh my god, I'm
actually seeing how this works, but I am
not willing to allow myself to become
cynical. And man, I just want to see
more of that. I want to see people give
a vision that's positive. Yeah, I think
the first step is to take a look in the
mirror and understand where we are and
how far we've come from where we could
be. Um, and Bernie Sanders was forced to
do that as he sat down with Andrew
Schultz and during a podcast taping
earlier and he was talking about the
problems of what happened and the
threats to democracy that some of the
political parties are enacting. This is
crazy. The problem I think a lot of
voters had is like they didn't even know
if it was her. We didn't even know if
Biden was president. We didn't even know
if these were her talking points. And we
felt that over the last four elections,
Democrats, we felt that we didn't have a
say on who could be president. We talk a
lot about the Republicans being
autocrats and oligarchs and taking over
democracy, but from the Dem Democrat
perspective, and this I'm a lifelong
Democrat. I felt like the Democratic
party completely removed the Democratic
process from its constituents, and they
I think they need to have some
accountability of that. No longer been
here. I donated for you. I I mean I
wanted you to like 2016 I was like this
is going to happen. This guy's going to
do it. And it felt like they it felt
like they stole it from me. And I'll be
honest, it broke my heart when you when
you supported him. Look, but you have in
the world that I live in, you got a
choice. And I mean a lot of people,
including my wife, agree with you. But
you know, you're down to a choice. Is it
going to be Hillary Clinton or is it
going to be Donald Trump? Not a great
choice. But it ended up being him
anyway. So why don't we burn it down?
Well, because it's easy to say burning
it down means that children are not
going to have,
you know, food to eat, that the schools
will deteriorate. People will not have
healthcare. I got it. And I, you know,
I'm an elected official. I got to
represent the people that I can't turn
my back on. But then could we not also
say if ostensibly there hasn't been a
fair primary for the Democrats since
2008, are they not also a threat to
democracy? We often hear Fair enough.
That is that is Yeah, I'm not gonna
argue with that point. One, I'm
impressed that Bernie is just outright
willing to admit that the the behavior
of the Democratic party is a threat to
democracy. I don't want to make it about
the Democratic party. I think
Republicans also, if they could, if
Trump could become emperor, he would. I
I just I don't see anything to tell me
otherwise. If somebody said um to him
that hey you could run for three more
years, 10 more years, 12 more years, he
would do it until he died. I really
believe that Washington was given the
opportunity and he didn't take it. So I
know that there are people that would
say no like it that isn't the right
thing for the country and um Trump
wouldn't. I don't think the Democratic
party would. In my position, you have a
choice. they'll put up whoever they need
to to just keep the ball rolling. And
the fact that he's willing to admit
that, I really respect. But the most
interesting thing in what he said is
that
um he doesn't say man is political
animal, but that's what he's talking
about. And he he had to do something and
he knew that if he split the party, then
Trump was more likely to win. It's a
little unfair of Andrew Schultz to make
out like he could have known that that
was going to be the result. That was the
Yeah, that was the same year Trump has
no shot. This is Hillary's year. Like
Bernie's got to roll the dice and say,
"Listen, I think that I I know that if I
uh pull attention away that we're going
to lose." Like that basically becomes a
guarantee. And so the system is Tom
Billy's words,
corrupt. It is what it is. That's how
politics works, says Bernie. Uh, and so
I'm gonna put my weight behind um
Clinton, who for whatever reason has
more control of the Democratic machine
than I have. So, I get all of that. Now,
I think Bernie is quite literally uh I I
think he's an unhinged lunatic. Like, I
don't the the policies that he puts
forward are
so emotionally driven and so
economically illiterate. Um
I yeah I think that's a bit harsh. I
think that hit me with it because I
think it comes from a good place though
because I think what the [ __ ] does that
matter literally? What does that matter?
You represent people. So you represent
the interests of those people and if I
could do something that can help those
people, I'm going to try to push
legislation that can help those people.
I agree. But when when your legislation
has never ever in all of human history
shown that it helps your people, why the
[ __ ] do it? People are not tracking
chain of logic. They are not following
cause and effect. They are following
feels good. Do it, Mike. Like I actually
believe Bernie believes what he says.
There are plenty of reasons. You can
point at Bernie and be cynical. I'm not
going to do that. I think Bernie
believes what he's saying, but dude,
this is a guy who, and I couldn't give
you the quotes or anything, but I know
that he went to Russia, honeymooned in
Russia or something like this is
somebody that has a legitimate please
look it up. This is somebody that as far
as I know has legitimate um affinity for
I'll say the
USSR and that's madness. And anybody
that can't
understand
that creating a set of inputs that has
outputs that are greater than the inputs
like that is a miracle. When you think
that redistribution is the miracle, like
we we're already in La La Land. I I
understand that and I understand that
communism leads to eating babies,
socialism. Do you actually do or or have
I said it so many times now that it's
just a I actually understand. I think
though that there is a line
between increased taxation, efficient
use of government resources, and
starving babies. So, I I do think that
there is a window right now if it takes
10 clicks to get to eating the babies. I
feel like Bernie Sanders was at click
number two. I do think that there is a
way right now to bite into a business's
profit margin. Exxon's going to be mad.
The pharmaceutical industry is going to
be mad. A lot of business owners are
going to be upset because this is going
to increase their expenses. It's going
to have a second order consequence that
it's going to then hurt people. It's
going to hurt business. But there are
going to be people that are going to
say, "Okay, instead of me making 10
billion in profit, I'm going to have to
make five billion in profit and
reallocate those resources to this
government program that's going to
increase the health care of our of my u
employees that is going to do other
things that can ultimately lift those
constituents. I do think there is a
narrow slit of we can fix these
problems. we can enact more socialist
policies that can help long term without
completely flipping the switch and
saying everything redistribution,
billionaires need to not exist, things
like that. Let me ask you a question.
Yes. Uh if somebody ran into this room
right now and they were screaming in
Vietnamese and they clearly needed help,
who would you go to for the help? Would
you turn to me?
Um, I feel like I would turn to I don't
I wouldn't turn to you because I'm not
sure you can speak Vietnamese. I can't
speak Vietnamese. Not a lick. But
is there somebody in the office that
can't speak Vietnamese? I believe so.
Yes. We We'll speak. Okay. Yes. Okay. We
will talk. So, you don't go to me.
Uhhuh. Because I can't speak Vietnamese.
The government can't spun spend money
efficiently. The government is a [ __ ]
psychopath of I want to get bigger. All
governments want to do is grow. If you
allow them to absorb more money and
spend, they'll keep doing it and keep
doing it and keep doing it and they only
have one mechanism, man. And they will
print [ __ ] money. If you do not give
the money to the organization that is
proven that it can allocate those
resources in a literal magical way where
you create a set of inputs that yield a
better output than the inputs, you're a
lunatic. Just like you would be a
lunatic if somebody came in here and
they're screaming Vietnamese and you
don't immediately go to Will and say,
"Will, you speak Vietnamese. What the
[ __ ] is the problem? How do we help this
person?" Going back going back to
cynicism though. Is is that that is a
cynical view of the government? And do
you think that this government is beyond
is the government too big to fix, too
big to reform? So governments are
awesome. Governments are necessary. But
you have to understand what the
government is good at and what the
government is bad at. The government is
very good at defense. Cool. We want to
make sure that the government does
defense. The government is very good at
getting big. And so we know if we feed
it, it's going to grow. And so then we
have to ask, as it has grown, have the
uh outputs of the governmental system
gotten better? Have we gotten healthier?
No. Has our education gotten better? No.
Uh have people gotten wealthier? No. Has
life expectancy gone up? No. So it's
like I I don't know what metric people
want to look at to say, "Oh, this is
working." Everyone can feel something is
very wrong. Very wrong. You could sit me
next to Gary's economics and both of us
are going to be like something is very
wrong for the average person.
Screamingly wrong. Maybe I didn't grow
up as poor as Gary. I did not grow up
well off.
Uh, I've seen poverty up close. I've
been
broke. I want to see the average person
win. But Gary and I are going to beat
very different drums. But when you push
Gary on cause and effect, he just keeps
saying, "I'm going to keep betting and
I'm going to keep winning." But what
he's betting on, Drew, is that the
government's going to print money.
That's the only thing he's betting on.
asset prices are going to go up. And the
reality is that system is broken for a
very specific reason. And that reason is
that governments are terrible with
money. They will deficit spend if you
give them the ability to. Um they
literally don't care about any sort of
short to medium-term fixes.
Um all they want is to give their
constituents the
feeling that they're fighting for them.
That's it. And this becomes a thing of
you have to define your base
assumptions. Once somebody tells me um
innovation is not
helpful, okay, there's nothing for us to
talk about because innovation is the
very thing that's pulled people out of
poverty. I I don't have beef with any of
that. I think that that's very valid. I
see the one, two, and three, the cause
and effect of it all. I think
specifically even taking the Gary
economic thing off the table. Um I do
feel like the government can reform in a
way that can allocate resources that can
help people. I do think that there can
be reforms. I do think that people
giving them more money. What would you
do to reform the government? I think we
just need to do a very uh substantial
audit of where we spend our dollars
because when we need certain things. So
you love Doge? Uh yeah, I don't have no
beef with Doge. those should exist. Yes.
Um my beef in general though is that
when it comes to reform of capital
markets, when it comes to reform of
taxation, that is dealt with higher
scrutiny than the reform that was
necessary to get the government. Right
now, wait, I didn't understand that it's
dealt with higher scrutiny. What do you
mean? People would rather talk about how
inefficient the government is instead of
saying the government, let's make the
government become more efficient. Even
the the word government is like, nope,
since it's a government, there's no way
that it could be working and operating
unless it's these three categories. To
your point earlier, unless it's defense
or getting bigger, that's all the
government is good for. I think the
government can be good at other things.
If we just shrink its uh perception and
what it's focused on, I don't think the
government should be doing 40 things,
but I think if we put the government in
charge of six things, and these are the
six things that they do for the US, I
think we will be okay. I mean, it's an
interesting uh hypothesis. It's just
very detached from reality in terms of
we have I forget how many hundreds of um
departments that but that's my point. If
those hundreds can turn into six
defense, education, EPA, um FDA, food,
um I feel like uh infrastructure,
transportation, and maybe an extra spy
agency because we need to know uh where
the terrorists are. Like if you give me
those like six and they take a step back
out of everything else, I feel like give
the states more power, increase it, that
cuts our our uh spending 60% cuz we're
not doing entitlements and things like
that. So then you and I don't disagree
on anything. Here's the great news. If
you did that, you wouldn't need more
taxes.
If I did that, I wouldn't need more
taxes. Correct. We'll get back to the
show in a moment, but first, I've got an
announcement that's been in the works
for months. People are always asking me,
"Tom, what do you actually eat to fuel
that amazing performance?" Well, you
don't have to wonder anymore. You can
experience it firsthand and have it
delivered straight to your door. For the
first time ever, Butcher Box is
releasing the Bill Box. It's never been
easier to get the exact cuts Lisa and I
have personally selected after years and
years of eating Butcher Box. You're
going to get 100% grass-fed beef that
melts in your mouth. Wild caught salmon
with that clean, rich flavor that's
packed with nutrients. Freerange chicken
that's never touched antibiotics or
hormones. And because I've got your
back, you're also going to be getting
free bacon for life with every Billu
box. We've got a long history with that
free bacon. And $20 off your first box
at
butcherbox.com/impact. Use code impact
at checkout. Again, that's
butcherbox.com/impact and use code
impact to get one of those billion
boxes. And now, let's get back to the
show. You generate 4 trillion dollar a
year in
taxes. Trillion. So, the problem is you
spend six trillion. That's your problem.
So, if you literally did what you're
saying, which no one will ever do, uh,
but if you did, that would be amazing.
And I know a lot of people, so the
problem comes down to it's not
necessarily the problem of the
government. It's what will happen. And
we're saying the government or you're
saying the government will never get
shorter. They will not cut entitlements.
It's political suicide. So, this
government is only going to go one way,
bigger, larger, spend more
inefficiently. I won't say that. And I
certainly
uh every president that gets into office
should do their best to constrain
government to make it as efficient as
possible. Nobody should come into office
being cynical. Um so let's not even talk
about Trump. Let's talk about uh
Clinton. They did a great job. Narrow
the focus of government, built a
surplus, reduced spending. Very dogey.
they didn't, you know, use the words or
have Elon Musk, but um it's the right
idea. So, I love that. I want to see
more of that. But that isn't the moment
that we're in. The moment that we're in
is populist, the moment that we're in is
um go be strong man. So, whether you
want Trump to go slap around the
international community or you want uh
Bernie to come in and slap all of the
billionaires around, you want somebody
slapped around. And it's just a question
of who you want slapped around. And I am
really not enjoying a populist moment
that I can agree with you on. So for me
the the goal really needs to be a
positive vision of uh our country. It
needs to be a way to um de intelligently
reduce our reliance on China. I won't
even say decouple, but like we need to
be smart about that. Um, it's about
finding ways all the people that have
totally disengaged from the workforce.
How do you get them re-engaged? Um,
yeah, it's about ending deaths of
despair. It's about helping people find
meaning and purpose. Um, it's about
unity and finding each other in the
middle. It sounds cheesy even to say it,
but I don't want I wouldn't want anybody
to be in office that wasn't optimistic.
We'll have agree to disagree on this
one. Well, where did I lose you? Cuz I
feel like we're agreeing near the end.
Yes. But I still feel
that what we ultimately want is
efficient government. Yes, I can meet
you there. Agreed. I think that the
populace of it all could be distracting.
And to your point, I don't want anybody
slapped around. So, yes, I don't think
if we take all the money from the
billionaires, all our problems are
solved. That would be nonsensical. I
agree. I do think billionaire What's the
part you disagree with? The part I
disagree with is that making increasing
taxes and cutting into profit margins of
billionaires and highwealth individuals
to fund certain social programs is a
death sentence. I think that that
redistribution can work on a very
specific Why is it a death sentence?
What do you mean? You're just saying you
I don't think I don't think it's it's a
death sentence cuz you said you said if
we take it it's just going to go into a
black hole. I do think we can
efficiently increase tax. We we agree if
uh sort of if you make government
efficient, you can pay for the things
that you want to pay for. I'm just
saying you first have to make government
efficient. So before you do anything
before you do why would you pour money?
So that's the entrepreneur. We have to
we have to do efficiency first increase
taxes and all the other things. As an
entrepreneur, you learn an ironclad
rule. Don't ever throw capital or people
at an inefficient system. It will all
get burned. All of it. You no matter how
much growth you have, like when Quest
was
57,000% in three years, Drew,
57,000%. We had a doubling time of 30
days. You go from a million to 2 million
to 4 million to 8 million to 16. 30
days. 30 days. 30 days. 30 days. It was
pure insanity.
Pure insanity. Even at that point, you
realize, uhoh, we're throwing money at
problems and your profit margin begins
to bog down. And so, you're growing
topline revenue, but you're not growing
profitability.
And it it's just completely illogical.
You have to slow down because making
more money only to put less money in
your bank account doesn't make any
sense. So, it's like slow down, solve
the problem, and then step back and see
where you really are. But if you're
hiring so many people that you've got
people standing around and they're not
doing anything, it it is nonsensical.
You're just burning capital. So now
you're saying, "Hey, I have this magical
thing over here called entrepreneurship
and I'm draining the lifeblood which
would with which they would use to
continue to do magical [ __ ] and I'm
giving it to this wildly inefficient
machine over here because it's like,
hey, there are people that need to be
taken care of." Totally understand. And
I'm definitely not saying just let
companies do whatever the [ __ ] they
want. Let them pollute, let them kill,
destroy, neglect. I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying you have a wildly
inefficient system. Solve inefficiency
first. Then and only then do you move to
okay now do we actually need more money
or by becoming more efficient do we have
everything that we need to take care of
people.
ipso facto. And I honestly think, man,
that if people saw the government, I'll
speak for myself. If I saw that the
government was spending money
efficiently and they were making
people's lives better, like go to the
Middle East, you'll be like, uh, holy
[ __ ] It isn't literal, but it's about
as close to literal as you're going to
get to. The streets feel like they're
paved with gold. Like it it's
unbelievable. And that's because there's
just so much money coming out of the
ground.
And if you can do that kind of thing for
your people, dude, that'd be awesome. I
I if if it made, first of all, people
lose their heads in a literal fashion
when inequality gets too wide. So only
idiots don't want a thriving middle
class. Literally only idiots.
idiots and the truly
um evil the creature from Jackal Island.
You want a thriving middle class? I'll
happily pay tax. I happily pay taxes
now. I've literally done nothing to
evade taxes. I'm not that guy. I live in
[ __ ] California for god's sake.
Um people will pay taxes if they see the
money is being spent.
Well, okay. I'm with you there. I am
with you there. NIH director sparked a
massive walk out at a conference for the
NIH employees when he suggested that CO
19 may actually have come from a Wuhan
lab and they also may have partially
funded it. It's possible. There's a lot
of a lot of controversy over this. I'm
sure there's folks in the room who
disagree with me. Um, but it's possible
that the the pandemic was caused by
research conducted by human
beings and it's also possible that that
the NIH partly sponsored that research.
And if that's
true, it's nice to have free speech.
Welcome you guys as people are walking
out.
[Music]
Yeah. So if it's true that we sponsored
research, if it's true that we sponsored
research that caused a
pandemic and if you look at polls of the
American people, that's what most people
believe. And I've looked at the
scientific evidence. I believe it.
What we have to do is make sure that we
do not engage in research that has any
risk of posing any risk to human
populations. We have to stop researching
things that can have an effect on human
population. Um I
understand chemical warfare. I
understand that we have to get in front
of our enemies, the nuclear race, things
like that. This is to me saying the
quiet part out loud that like, yeah, we
were just experimenting and it went off
and 20 million people across the globe
ended up getting killed before. Like
this seems like it's a smoking gun to
me. Like you're kind of admitting to a
pretty big mess up, but yet it kind of
feels like business as usual. Two things
going on here. One is um humans engage
in the creation of biological weapons.
So gain of function is how much more
deadly can we make this? That's what
gain of function means. Jeez. Um, why
why they say they do it so that they
know how to defend against it,
but like you make it possible, you make
it stronger and risk that it can get
out. That's crazy. Uh, so this is one
that either you've got a bunch of morons
or they're doing this to create
biological weapons. Either way, stop
immediately. Um, so that strikes me as
just absolutely moronic.
um the especially now that we have the
ability to simulate like protein folding
and things like that. So we if we can't
already we are getting very very close
to a world in which we can simulate
viruses and how they would mutate and
what you would need to do to protect
against that.
Um the other thing that's going on here
is that you have people that are on a
team and they are going to go to bat for
their team no matter what. And Jay
Bodacharia, the director of the NIH, was
put there by Trump. And the people that
walked out just are political and
they're not going to uh be there for
that. And that to me is crazy town. The
way that people ought to be parsing the
world is what's true. What's true? I
just want to know what's true. And the
second that anybody finds themselves
feeling defensive because somebody is
saying a thing about you that you don't
like is true. It's like you want to you
want to hit pause immediately and go, is
there any truth to this? Because if
there's truth to this, I've got an
opportunity to get better. But some
people, man, they they literally don't
want to know what's true. It's like
they're being driven by their emotions
type thing for sure. But there I think
there's an evolutionary impulse to seek
control of the environment. That the way
that an animal stays alive is by finding
ways to control their environment. I
think the reason that the human is the
ultimate apex predator is because we are
unimaginably good at going into any
environment and controlling it. Doesn't
matter if it's the Arctic, the ocean, uh
obviously dry land, like we can go in
and conquer any area, make it safe, we
can enslave anything, including
ourselves, just absolutely bananas.
And because of that impulse for control,
um people are always trying to find a
way to
[Music]
um frame, create a narrative, bamboozle,
shut down. And so this idea of
um you're not an expert, what do you
know? Uh you're just a Trump plant, what
do you know? But ultimately, these are
people playing a game of control. They
want to silence
him. You're going to see
this
forever on everything that when
somebody's touching on something that
threatens somebody's control or sense of
identity,
they're going to take a hard pass and
they will try to shut it down. And while
I understand why people get unnerved by
quote unquote
misinformation, shutting down people's
quest for truth
is far more dangerous than
misinformation will ever be. And the
hardest hitting story, and I share this
in the deep dive that I did, is the
Ignes
Sumlowise. He's working in a hospital.
There's two clinics in the same
building. One of them has a death rate
five times higher than the other one.
They're in the same building. And so
he's like, "Okay, there's clearly a
reason. So what's the reason?" And he
realizes, "Oh, it's because they're
doing autopsies in the morning and then
delivering babies in the afternoon and
they don't wash their hands." And so
there's something that they're spreading
from doing the autopsies. And so
basically he discovers germ theory and
he does a test and he makes the doctors
in the high death rate clinic wash their
hands with this special solution between
doing the autopsies and delivering
babies and the death rate plummets.
Doesn't drop. It plummets. It goes from
I think over 10% to under 2%. Just
massive.
And do they celebrate him? No. They
drive him out of medicine. They ridicule
him. He ultimately ends up dying alone
in an insane asylum because they hounded
him that far because they couldn't bear
the thought that they were the reason
that all those women had died. And to
not It took 20 years before the evidence
just mounted to the point where they
couldn't deny it anymore. How many more
women died in those 20 years because
they didn't want to go, "Oh, maybe I've
done something wrong." People's
inability to go, "Maybe I was stupid.
Maybe I was wrong. This is really
embarrassing. This is going to hurt my
career." or whatever that inability
because it breaks your hold on control,
your control of how you see yourself,
your control over other people because
you're now not the authority. People
can't do it. And that that is but
one. I I created an entire list of all
the not all, a very partial list of
examples that I could quickly come up
with. Uh and the list was way too long
to include everything. It was just
absolutely ridiculous. You could go on
and on and on and on and on for days.
The earliest example of this is Socrates
killed for um questioning traditional
beliefs in ancient Athens and goes on up
through today. It's just absolutely
bananas.
So that is while gain of function
research is horrifying and terrifying.
The part that jumps out to me here is
you've got some very substantive
percentage of the people at the National
Institute of Health that don't want to
know if they had any involvement in
[ __ ] creating CO. That is so insane
to me. Like if it was me personally, I
did it. I'd be like, "Yo, we got to know
because we can't [ __ ] repeat this."
Mhm. So, ah yeah, it's almost like they
don't support him, so they don't even
think he's worth listening to. And that
fallacy can have consequences that
ultimately hurt them. Like if you turn
your back because that's the slide of
hand for sure. That's the thing they use
to pull off the magic trick. But the
magic trick is silencing people. What
they're trying to do is take control.
They are trying to make sure only the
right people get to talk and only the
approved narratives get to move forward.
And the way that people talk about this
is like it's annoying or it's
frustrating instead of it being an
absolute catastrophe. It is a
catastrophe that will rear its head in
so many ways that cause people to die.
It It's the wrong impulse. And if I need
to just appeal to people's greed, if you
can map cause and effect, you can make
yourself tremendously wealthy. If you
can map cause and effect, you can make
yourself tremendously healthy in the
marketplace in general. Just if you
understand cause and effect, you can
build a business. If you understand
cause and effect, you can invest in
markets. Markets are very very complex.
So, it's it's a lot harder to understand
the cause and effect there just because
there's so much noise. Um, but yeah, you
can get things right enough. I will
round it to once you understand that,
oh, money's fake. Money is purely debt.
Purely debt. There's nothing but debt.
Debt, debt, debt. I I I mean that
literally. There's nothing but debt.
Every single dollar in the economy is
based on debt was created. That's it.
There's no original dollar. It's not
based on gold. It's all debt. If you
paid off all the debt, there would be no
money. Anyway, I won't ask people to
believe me even though it's true. Uh,
all they need to understand is since
money is not real and it can be made up
out of thin air, but if it's made at a
greater rate, then there are new things
to buy, which it almost always is. Uh,
then the purchasing power of that goes
down and the only thing that runs
parallel to that are the things that you
could have bought with that money. So
that somebody else might want to buy a
house, gold, art, stocks, bonds, yada
yada yada. Those things will go up in
value. And so once you understand, oh, I
get it. Cool. I need to own assets.
Awesome. You just saved yourself in the
last 5 years, you would have saved
yourself 25% of your money, your
purchasing power. But that's just in the
last five years. In the last hundred
years, you would have saved Drew, it's
it's something like 99.9%.
It's unbelievable. Yeah. If you think
about it in terms of like gas used to be
a nickel a gallon and now it's like five
bucks. There are people alive today that
if somebody had given them $100 when
they were born, it would effectively be
worth like, I don't know, a penny or 10
cents or something. Yeah, that's enough.
I got nothing for it. I got nothing for
that. Uh controversial. Yeah. a
controversial scientist in China who did
germline editing is now not able to
leave the country and his wife is not
able to enter the country. Um, this
reads like straight up like a conspiracy
theory like manifesto, but I'm I'm
trying to like parse it. So, like give
us the playbyplay of what's exactly
going on here. Okay. Uh, so I'm not
entirely sure what the right way to read
this is. I think that we're going to get
this over time. So, I'll walk people
through the facts. Uh, so his name is
Hei Jianqui. I don't know if that's
exactly how you pronounce it. Obviously,
he's Chinese, but uh, that'll get you
close enough. Um, he posted recently on
X that Xiinping took his passport. Why?
I don't know. But this is the guy that
went to prison supposedly for three
years. People always say supposedly.
This makes me think maybe he really did.
Some people are calling this a total
false flag and blah blah blah, but I
don't know.
Um, he did germline editing on twins,
which is illegal. The international
community hated it. China supposedly
hated it. He goes to prison for 3 years.
He gets out. He's not allowed to do um
fertility stuff anymore. Mhm. So, we
started working on Alzheimer's and
supposedly, again, this is where we're
like, we're going to need more time for
all this to come out, but supposedly has
a germline way to address Alzheimer's.
And so, uh, people are hypothesizing,
again, very early, very early, people
are hypothesizing that, um, the Chinese
government is worried about what they
see in his research, doesn't think he's
abiding by the restrictions that they
put on him or something. Uh, and so
they're trying to clamp down. Could they
be clamping down because they think that
it's too big, that it's like such a
potent breakthrough and he's now married
to an American and they don't want the
um, information escaping? I have no
idea. Um, so this will be something that
I'll watch closely. Germline editing, I
want to be very clear, is a terrible
idea. We should absolutely not be doing
it. But I very much want to learn what
the possibilities are. So that the
because the only reason I say that this
is bad is we just don't know the second,
third, fourth, or fifth order
consequences to all of this stuff. Like
what's going to be the knock-on effect?
But man, if we could map that out and we
knew with a high degree of certainty
that we could make people more resilient
to radiation, make people more resilient
to Alzheimer's, make people more
resilient to sugar, like whatever
whatever whatever. Um, okay. So, just
just a level set. This is not like
crisper we're talking about.
Technically, he uses a different uh
modality. But that to me is somewhat
irrelevant. Same idea. You go in, you
edit the genes, but um the the thing
that's different isn't crisper, not
crisper. It's editing the gene of an
individual person or editing the genes
that get passed on in the sperm and egg.
Oh, like the reproductive correct. So if
you edit what gets passed on in the
sperm and egg, now they then pass it on
and they pass it on and they pass. This
is now a new trait inside the gene pool.
So imagine it's bad and that the two
twin girls that he did the germline
editing on for supposedly
u resistance to HIV, let's say that at
35 their head
explodes. And but let's say that they
each have seven kids before they reach
35 who all carry the gene. And then
those kids now either are like, well, we
can't have kids cuz mom's head exploded
when she was 35. uh or they also have
kids and now those kids have to watch
their mom's head explode blah blah blah.
Obviously that that's an extreme
example, but that's what people are
worried about is whoa once something
works its way into the gene pool you can
have a real problem unwinding that. Um
but if you're just doing something on an
individual then it's like if it goes
horribly arai and they turn to mush and
die it's like well sucks obviously a
tragedy but it's one person. Is this
similar to the what's the saying asylum
guy with it? Semmoise. Semmoise. Is this
similar to Simoise's situation where
maybe he's just too early? That is
literally what his wife said. She didn't
say Simma Weise, but she's like, "My
husband is a heretic. I understand that.
It's one of the reasons that I love him,
but like he stands for what he believes
in. He's 10 toes down. He believes that
this is like exactly how you're going to
make humanity better." And so shouldn't
say he's gonna keep doing it, but like
that was the implication was like he's
brilliant. Stop [ __ ] with him. These
are me injecting a lot here, but he's
brilliant. Stop [ __ ] with him. Let
him do his thing. Like he sees things
that other people don't see. He's not
going to give up on this kind of
science. He's going to keep trying to
push this forward. And um again, if he I
mean, look, he already edited humans.
like he already did the thing that
you're not supposed to do. So, it's like
you can't exactly give him a lot of like
trust, but boy do I want somebody of
that level um of intellect to at least
be doing research so that people can
learn. And he was saying like, again,
this is all early, but he was saying he
what he's doing now, he's not going to
implant any embryos. There's no way that
this is like going to go on to be a
thing um in terms of it entering the
gene pool, but we'll see. But dude, this
is one of those that um people won't pay
attention to because they don't
understand gene editing and all that.
They don't understand the difference
between germ line and not uh but whoa is
this like gene editing and AI are the
things. There's literally nothing else.
Those two things are going, one or both
of them is going to change the world
fundamentally. Let's give ourselves a
really long timeline in the next 100
years. Like profound. They will bring
about a religious war. One of those two
things for sure. And by the way, if
anybody thought I was crazy, we didn't
cover it, but there was that bombing at
the IVF. Uh IVF. I look, I don't know
the details, but I have a feeling that
that's going to be somebody who just
thinks you're playing God, and you've
got to stop. I think you're going to see
more and more of that. That will r when
you have stuff like this where you've
got like a clinic outputting germline
edited babies. Forget it. People are
going to go nuts. It But like what's the
difference between this and clinical
trials? Like if somebody consents they
want to try it, they want to be the test
dummy guinea pig. Like I don't know
enough about what he's actually doing to
answer that. Again, the big beef with
him is purely germline versus not. But
even if an individual human wants to do
their own thing, it is an outrage to me
that they're not allowed to do that. An
outrage. I don't if dude, they will let
people have sex change surgery, but they
won't let somebody who's dying of cancer
like try an experimental treatment. Now,
admittedly, that has changed recently,
but for God knows how long, like even if
you were like begging, please let me
enter this trial. I have terminal
cancer. they wouldn't let you. I forget
when that changed. It's recent. Now you
can. But um it's like compassionate use
or something like that. But if somebody
wanted to alter themselves in any