VANCE WARNS AI WEALTH GAP THREATENS TO TRIGGER DOMESTIC COMMUNISM

万斯警告AI财富差距恐引发国内共产主义 副总统认为，除非国家采取亲劳工政策以恢复劳动者参与和住房拥有率，否则人工智能财富高度集中于少数精英群体将破坏美国社会的稳定。 副总统JD·万斯做客乔·罗根的节目，广泛探讨了政治、文化和经济等诸多议题，开篇提及了在白宫南草坪举办的历史性UFC赛事。万斯为其政府对伊朗的外交战略进行了辩护，批评了媒体驱动的“愤怒经济”，并回应了公众围绕爱泼斯坦档案的质疑。他还探讨了非常规话题，分享了关于UFO可能是超自然实体或高度先进实体的见解。最后，万斯阐述了植根于基督教传统的亲劳工经济哲学，指出恢复劳动者尊严和住房拥有率对于防止长期滑向共产主义至关重要。 万斯与罗根批评现代媒体与社交平台的“愤怒经济”，指出平台过度放大玩笑与微小争议来博取点击率，从而严重挤压了公众探讨核心政策的严肃空间。 (12:18) 万斯提出以“U-Haul 搬家卡车租金”作为衡量各州发展健康度的指标，探讨了加州人口外流与极端贫富分化，并认为尽管保守派在文化层面面临缺乏吸引力的短板，但仍不应放弃作为美国梦核心的加州。 (19:12) 罗根与万斯呼吁推行严格的选民身份证（Voter ID）制度并限制普选式邮寄选票，强调少数族裔群体对身份证要求的支持率与白人群体相当，反驳了该规定构成选民压制的观点。 (30:16) 针对公立学校展示十诫等争议，万斯认为其体现了西方文明与法律的历史文化基石，并援引前首席大法官伦奎斯特的观点，警惕过度排斥公共宗教象征会导致世俗主义本身演变为一种教条。 (47:18)

In conversation with Joe Rogan, Vice President JD Vance outlines the Trump administration's economic populism, pragmatic foreign policy, and skepticism toward political and media outrage, arguing that institutional failures have alienated the American working class. A Middle Way for the Working Class (142:22) Vance argues that four decades of bipartisan economic consensus—centered on offshoring domestic manufacturing and deregulating corporate interests—have gutted the American middle class and fueled working-class attraction to socialism. Pointing to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum novarum and Christian political economy, he advocates for a framework that protects private property while instituting state interventions to balance extreme wealth concentration. As artificial intelligence threatens further labor disruption, Vance warns that leaving wealth creation unchecked will destabilize society. To restore worker agency, Vance proposes reimagining American labor laws away from adversarial models toward cooperative European structures, such as apprenticeship agreements where initial sub-minimum wages are exchanged for guaranteed job training. He also criticizes corporate lobbying and Democratic Socialist immigration policies, citing labor activist Cesar Chavez's historical restrictionism to argue that flooding labor markets with undocumented workers directly depresses domestic wages and eliminates worker leverage. Pragmatic Deterrence and Diplomacy in Iran (66:34) Defending the administration's Middle East posture, Vance characterizes their Iran strategy as a mix of targeted military force and necessary diplomatic engagement aimed strictly at nuclear non-proliferation and open maritime passage. He rejects hawkish calls for open-ended strikes or forced regime change, warning that destabilizing Iran could replicate the post-Gaddafi collapse in Libya and spark a catastrophic refugee crisis affecting tens of millions of people. Vance contends that military defense alone cannot fully secure narrow waterways like the Strait of Hormuz, where adversaries can deploy inexpensive black-market drones to halt commercial tankers carrying millions of barrels of oil daily. Vance dismisses claims that the U.S. conceded $300 billion in taxpayer funds to Tehran, clarifying that the framework involves Gulf Arab states investing their own funds to rebuild the Iranian economy if Tehran halts terrorism funding and satisfies terms for U.S. sanctions relief. Responding to speculation regarding Israeli influence, Vance insists President Trump makes national security decisions independently, noting that while foreign nations routinely lobby to extend campaigns, American policymakers must rigorously prioritize domestic interests. Election Rules and Media Outrage Dynamics (14:42) Vance and Rogan contend that American public discourse has been degraded by an outrage industry where provocative statements are weaponized for social media metrics rather than evaluated in context. In discussing election integrity, Vance advocates for the federal Save America Act to mandate nationwide voter identification, arguing that broad majorities across racial demographics support ID verification. He contrasts these standards with pandemic-era voting rules and unverified mail-in ballots, pointing to a Pennsylvania court case that acknowledged how differing ballot-harvesting infrastructures disproportionately disadvantaged rural populations even while leaving remedies to the legislature. Classified Records and Theoretical Explanations (95:04) Addressing government transparency, Vance admits the administration mishandled messaging regarding the release of millions of documents tied to the Jeffrey Epstein estate, though he disputes any coordinated cover-up. Drawing on his own background researching the case, he argues that the most incisive physical evidence was likely lost or destroyed following the 2007–2008 federal non-prosecution agreement, while suggesting Epstein may have leveraged insight into high-net-worth tax strategies alongside sexual compromise. On the subject of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), Vance notes that the demanding operational tempo of the vice presidency leaves little time to bypass institutional gatekeepers, though he remains skeptical of claims that the government hides alien biological remains due to a perceived lack of bureaucratic competence to conceal such secrets. However, he finds declassified military encounters compelling, discussing theories such as Eric Weinstein's concept of paradigm-shifting physics that could bypass the speed of light, as well as the conceptual overlap between modern extraterrestrial accounts and historical descriptions of spiritual entities. Vance maintains that long-term stability depends on reforming economic institutions to restore broad-based prosperity, securing public safety for working communities, and resisting both reflexive military interventionism abroad and performative political division at home.

在《Joe Rogan Experience》第2526期节目中，美国副总统JD Vance阐述了其以“美国优先”与基督教社会思想为核心的执政理念，主张通过务实外交结束无休止的对外干预，并在国内通过产业回归与制度重塑来捍卫劳动阶层利益。Vance强调，美国必须摆脱新自由主义经济教条与新保守主义干涉陷阱，在应对极化政治与科技冲击的同时，重建公众对国家制度与社会公平的信任。 现实主义中东战略与对外干预反思 (66:34) 围绕中东局势与对伊朗战略，JD Vance阐明了本届政府阻止伊朗获得核武器的双轨政策，指出虽然摧毁核设施的短期军事目标已达成，但由于核工程知识无法通过轰炸消除，长远安全必须依赖外交接触。针对前副总统Mike Pence等鹰派人士对谈判的抨击，Vance强调纯军事威慑在面对低成本不对称袭击时存在局限：敌对分子花费10万美元采购黑市无人机，即可在狭窄的霍尔木兹海峡阻断高价值油轮，导致商业航运停滞。因此，政府推动谅解备忘录（MOU）以恢复每天2000万桶的石油通行，并由海湾阿拉伯国家出资援助伊朗经济以换取和平，Vance明确指责外界关于“美国提供3000亿美元让步”的说法完全是不实之词。 在对外干预的底线上，Vance坚决反对重蹈奥巴马时期颠覆卡扎菲政权导致利比亚沦为失败国家并诱发全球难民危机的教训，表示美国绝不会派驻15万地面部队强行推翻伊朗政权。尽管承认以色列等外国政府内部人士曾游说促使美军长期卷入冲突，但Vance坚称本届政府以内政利益为优先，未受外国游说左右；同时他断然否认了关于特朗普因受到勒索而被迫发动“午夜之锤”（Midnight Hammer）等军事打击的阴谋论，证实决策完全基于国家防止核扩散的独立判断。 基督教政治经济学与劳工尊严重塑 (142:22) 结合其新书《Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith》，Vance提出了超越自由放任资本主义与纯粹社会主义的“第三条道路”。他援引教皇良十三世的通谕《新事》（Rerum novarum），强调在捍卫私有产权的同时必须由国家介入防止贫富极度分化。Vance指出，过去40年制造业外流掏空了美国中产阶层，导致年轻一代因买不起房和缺乏资产阶梯而倒向美国民主社会主义者（DSA）；而人工智能引发的财富集中堪比19世纪“强盗贵族”时代，若不确保广大普通民众分享增长红利，极端贫富差距最终将滋生共产主义倾向。 在具体劳工权益上，Vance采纳保守派学者Oren Cass的思路，主张改革美国劳工法中工会与企业的零和对抗关系，借鉴欧洲允许工会谈判灵活学徒制及深度技能培训的合作模式。此外，Vance直言大企业游说开放边境的本质是为了获取廉价劳动力并削弱本土劳工的议价权，批评现代左翼背弃了早期工运领袖Cesar Chavez通过严格限制移民来保护工人薪资的传统。他呼吁通过重振制造业与保障社区治安，将公共安全与体面报酬普惠给普通工薪家庭。 愤怒经济、文化极化与选举信任重建 (12:18) Vance与Rogan共同探讨了现代政治舆论中表演性愤怒的危害。从白宫南草坪临时搭建八层场馆举办UFC赛事的幕后插曲，到脱口秀演员Tony Hinchcliffe在麦迪逊广场花园引发的舆论风波，Vance指出社交平台与主流媒体已形成靠“激起对抗”牟利的愤怒经济，将脱口秀调侃或反派人设当成博取流量的工具，严重挤占了对实质性政策的讨论空间。Vance同时承认共和党存在文化上的“无趣问题”（cool problem），因缺乏流行文化代表人物，导致大城市年轻群体天然向左翼倾斜。 在选举制度领域，两人深入讨论了加州不强制选民出示身份证件以及广泛推行邮寄选票带来的信任危机。Vance援引2020年宾夕法尼亚州乡村选民关于选票被稀释的诉讼案，指出法庭虽承认大城市的选票收割行动客观上使农村选民处于劣势，但裁定该问题属立法而非司法管辖。为消除选民欺诈疑虑，Vance力挺包含联邦强制选民身份核验要求的《拯救美国法案》（Save America Act），并驳斥了该法案涉嫌种族歧视的说法，指出民调显示非裔与西裔群体同样压倒性支持查验有效证件。 档案公开困境、政府职能与未知现象 (95:04) 在探讨国家治理透明度与机密管控时，Vance坦率承认政府在爱泼斯坦案（Epstein files）的信息公关上处理失当，包括新闻发布会夸大掌握的文件内容而引发信任缺失；但他认为该案的“原罪”在于2007至2008年联邦检察官Alex Acosta达成的过于宽松的和解协议，导致关键证据遗失或被销毁。此外，Vance提出爱泼斯坦作为俄亥俄州富豪Les Wexner个人税务策划师的特殊角色，可能使其掌握复杂的超级富豪避税机密，并以此作为另一维度的勒索控制工具。 针对不明飞行物（UFO）与外星智慧生命假说，Vance透露副总统高强度的行政日程限制了其深入查阅绝密档案的精力，但他从治理逻辑出发，对“政府秘密藏匿外星人遗骸”的传闻持怀疑态度，理由在于庞大官僚系统根本无法做到长期且滴水不漏的绝对保密。然而，Vance承认军方解密的飞行器视频具有颠覆性，并提到物理学家Eric Weinstein关于“新物理学”突破光速壁垒的技术假说，同时从神学角度分析了超自然智慧实体在人类历史文化中与“天使”或“恶魔”概念的高度重叠。 本期对谈勾勒出Vance试图将民粹经济主张、保守主义传统与实用主义外交相融合的施政路径；然而，其在中东复杂博弈中平衡威慑与退让的方案能否经受住鹰派与盟友游说的压力，以及在逆全球化与AI剧变中构建新型劳工协作机制的可行性，在实际施政中仍面临严峻考验。

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 7 月 15 日发布。视频简介指出，本期嘉宾是美国副总统、海军陆战队退伍军人、前俄亥俄州参议员兼作家 JD Vance，他在此宣传其探讨回归信仰之路的新书《共融》（Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith）。 ## TL;DR 在这场深度对话中，副总统 JD Vance 与 Joe Rogan 从近期在白宫南草坪举办的 UFC 历史性拳赛聊起，深入探讨了综合格斗对传统拳击的文化取代。随后，两人围绕选举诚信、选民身份证明争议、特朗普政府的伊朗外交与军事“双轨”政策展开辩论，并剖析了爱泼斯坦案背后的政商与情报网络。最后，Vance 结合其基督教经济学思想，反思了过去 40 年美国制造业外包和开放边境对本土劳工议价权的系统性摧毁，呼吁通过反垄断、重塑 21 世纪现代化工会以及制造业回流等“第三条道路”来解决年轻一代面临的经济与 AI 焦虑。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场节目的基调既高屋建瓴又极其接地气，充满了一种非正式但深刻的茶馆闲谈氛围。两位主持人和嘉宾在硬核政治决策、地缘政治博弈与幽默的“垃圾笑话”、热狗棒吃相、甚至是外星人与恶魔的形而上学假说之间自由切换。Vance 展现出一种罕见的坦率，面对棘手问题时真诚自嘲，而 Rogan 则以其一贯的草根敏锐度不断追问，使得这场长达近三小时的对话既有对美国劳工命运的深切同理，又夹杂着格斗迷和阴谋论爱好者的会心欢笑。 ## Key takeaways - [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1s) JD Vance 与 Joe Rogan 回忆在白宫南草坪举办的 UFC 比赛，赞叹现代格斗牢笼与历史政治地标结合的史无前例反差，并戏称其为“世界第八大奇迹”。 - [00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=44s) UFC 白宫之战创造了历史，整张对阵表的比赛全部以击倒（KO/TKO）方式结束；两人深入探讨了 Conor McGregor 的战况及职业格斗中选手带脑震荡比赛的残酷现状。 - [00:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=54s) 随着综合格斗在全赛程精彩度、满座率和动态魅力上的优势，UFC 在过去20年里几乎在文化层面上彻底取代了拳击的统治地位。 - [01:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=95s) 社交媒体催生了完全基于“收割情绪反应”的眼球经济，将体育风波或政治玩笑过度放大，严重毁掉了人类进行真正理性思辨和深度对话的能力。 - [17:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1039s) 加利福尼亚州正经历历史上首次人口净流出，大城市的衰落、贫民窟扩张与政策腐败互为表里，万斯与罗根对无限制邮寄选票和不查验选民身份证（Voter ID）的做法提出强烈质疑。 - [46:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=2798s) 针对学校张贴《十诫》及强制阅读《圣经》的争议，万斯认为这属于对公共广场过度世俗化的一种纠偏，而罗根则担忧其走向由富裕“基督民族主义者”资助的宗教强制极端化。 - [01:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3840s) 万斯详细拆解当前对伊政策的核心目标是阻止其获得核武器，美方正通过结合军事打击（大棒）与由海湾国家出资的经济宽免谈判（胡萝卜）来进行高度复杂的“外交踢踏舞”。 - [01:15:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4542s) 万斯痛斥保守派鹰派无休止轰炸的干涉主义，指出利比亚和叙利亚的政权更迭实验直接导致了难民危机与恐怖主义激增，完全不符合美国的利益。 - [01:22:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4974s) 万斯回应了《时代》周刊披露的针对他个人的外国资助舆论战，主张将美以关系调整为类似美英、美法间正常的、基于共同利益的国家关系，而非盲目的情感绑定。 - [01:30:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=5422s) 针对爱泼斯坦档案未彻底公开的疑虑，万斯澄清特朗普政府已依法解密绝大部分，并指出爱泼斯坦除了性勒索外，还通过深层税务操纵控制权贵，且与美以情报机构最高层有深层联系。 - [02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7681s) 万斯对政府掌握外星人遗骸的说法基于对政府保密能力的怀疑而持保留态度，但赞同如果人类发现颠覆性的“新物理学”，打破光速限制的飞行器也许是来自未来的未来人或超先进科技人类。 - [02:16:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8194s) 罗根尖锐指出极左翼的民主社会主义主张最终都会走向高度军事化的极权政府，因为控制生产资料本质上就必须走向集权去控制人类的思想与灵魂。 - [02:19:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8341s) 万斯在其新书《共融》中探讨了基督教经济思想，认为在自由放任市场与社会主义之间存在第三条路，即通过重塑年轻一代对资产的所有权来根除社会主义的蔓延。 - [02:22:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8533s) 由于过去几十年美国将工业岗位外包、彻底向金融主导转型，导致大资本入局买下基本资产，亲手断裂了中产阶级的阶层跃升通道并制造了高昂的生存成本。 - [02:29:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8940s) 万斯担忧 AI 释放的巨大经济力量如果只集中在极少数人手中，社会将不可避免地走向共产主义；解决路径在于通过建立21世纪现代化新型工会来赋予普通劳动者真正的谈判席位。 - [02:40:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9653s) 万斯作为坚定的移民鹰派指出，限制低薪移民对保护本土劳工至关重要，因为大量低薪移民往往成为企业压低本土劳工薪资、剥夺劳动者基本尊严的工具。 - [02:45:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9950s) 美国长达40年、由两党共同主导的失败领导力让国家去工业化并沦为“壳公司”，如果未来不能根本解决本土自给自足和保护工人的问题，美国终将迎来社会主义总统。 - [02:47:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=10026s) 罗根与万斯痛斥现行边境政策和通过人口普查统计非法移民来窃取国会代表权的做法，并引用工人运动先驱塞萨尔·查韦斯的历史立场来揭示开放边境是对中产阶级的系统性摧毁。 - [02:49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=10185s) 万斯提出“公共安全具有极强的阶级属性”，美国最伟大的成就之一就是将公共安全民主化，而左翼近年放任犯罪和庇护州的政策，实际上让低收入蓝领社区承担了治安恶化的最大代价。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1s) 白宫南草坪的“八大奇迹” 两位主持人首先回忆起他们最近一次令人难忘的碰面——在白宫举行的一场八角笼综合格斗（UFC）比赛。Joe Rogan 直言这是他一生中最疯狂的经历之一，而美国副总统 JD Vance 对此深表赞同，笑称自己事后花了整整两周时间才缓过神来，反复质疑那一切是否真的发生过。Vance 分享道，作为副总统，他每天在白宫西翼的办公室上班，一抬头就能看到窗外的白宫南草坪。在比赛前的几周里，他亲眼看着一座庞大的八层楼高的复合建筑在草坪上拔地而起。这种现代格斗牢笼与历史政治地标的强烈反差让他感到不可思议，他开玩笑说每天看窗外都得愣神几秒钟，心里惊呼：“这到底是在搞什么鬼？”随后才反应过来，哦对，是 UFC 再过几周就要进驻白宫了。他甚至将这一宏伟的临时建筑戏称为“世界第八大奇迹”。 --- ### [00:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=11s) 恶劣天气、超级孕妇与8.5万人的回音 除了解构牢笼本身带来的震撼，比赛当天的幕后也充满了戏剧性。华盛顿特区六月中旬的天气极其闷热潮湿，宛如蒸笼。就在比赛当晚，一场暴风雨险些让整个活动瘫痪。Vance 提到，当时根据白宫气象团队的最后通报，比赛可能不得不推迟到晚上10:30才能开打。这让 Vance 极为焦虑，因为他的新书《共融：我回归信仰之路》（*Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith*）的宣传签售行程正好在次日开启，他得飞往纽约。如果比赛拖到深夜，他可能要凌晨4点才能睡觉，第二天在镜头前就会像个彻头彻尾的疯子。幸运的是，暴风雨在最后关头神奇地绕道而行。这场雨不仅没浇灭热情，反而带走了几分酷暑。到晚上10点左右，现场已经凉爽了许多。不过，参赛选手 Justin Gaethje 后来向 Joe Rogan 吐槽，第一回合结束后他就觉得空气稠密得像“沼泽”一样，在里面高强度格斗简直是种折磨。 巧合的是，6月14日比赛当天不仅是唐纳德·特朗普总统的生日，也是 Vance 结婚12周年的纪念日。当时 Vance 的妻子正处于怀胎39周的临产阶段。由于随时可能发高烧或临盆，Vance 随时准备应对突发状况。他回忆说，夫妻俩在赛前一起去吃了晚饭，虽然妻子平时很乐意陪他出席各种副总统的酷炫活动，但这次看着天气预报，摸着大肚子，果断表示：“外面太热了，我可不想顶着大肚子在外面干坐六个小时。” 比赛现场不仅有核心区域紧紧围绕八角笼的3000多名观众，在不远处的椭圆形草坪（The Ellipse）上，还聚集了足足85000名围观群众。Rogan 形容那种氛围“非常诡异但又很酷”，因为核心区发生绝杀或抱摔时，几秒钟后才会听到远处那85000人传来的海啸般的延迟欢呼声。Vance 也十分沉迷这种音浪延迟扩散的效果，将其比作体育场里的“人浪”。UFC 总裁 Dana White 此前曾评价这是一场“一生仅一次”的体验，而 Rogan 则更进一步，直言这完全是“史无前例，也绝不会再有下一次”的旷世奇观，并调侃 Vance 说：“就算你以后当了总统，你也不会再干这种疯狂的事了吧？”Vance 笑着回答：“那我可说不准。” --- ### [00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=44s) 白宫拳赛的七次全KO与康纳的意外 Rogan 提到，这场白宫之战创造了该项运动历史上的一个神话：整张对阵表上的每一场比赛全部以击倒（KO/TKO）对手的方式结束，无一进入裁判判定。Vance 坦言自己当时并没意识到这一点。随后两人聊起了压轴大戏中 Conor McGregor 的表现。Vance 询问 Rogan 是在什么时候看出康纳大势已去的。Rogan 回忆道，当康纳第二次倒地时，他就知道情况不妙了。第一次倒地时，Rogan 还以为康纳只是在八角笼里脚滑了（毕竟他已经5年没有登场格斗，难免有些由于紧张导致的动作变形）。但当康纳站起来试图再次出腿时，他的整条腿直接软了下去。当时康纳和对手 Max Holloway 之间还有一些激烈的言语交锋，Max 对裁判示意康纳已经无法坚持，并叫康纳起来，结果康纳起身后膝盖再次支撑不住，裁判随之叫停了比赛。 在另一场 Ilia Topuria 对阵 Justin Gaethje 的焦点战中，Vance 曾误以为比赛在第三回合结束时被裁判叫停是因为 Gaethje 遭遇了严重的脑震荡，但 Rogan 纠正道，当时是因为 Gaethje 的右眼和整张脸都肿了起来，导致他完全丧失了视力，不断向教练和裁判高喊“我看不见了”。Rogan 借此科普道，在职业格斗中，选手带着脑震荡比赛其实是家常便饭，很多人在第一回合被重击击倒时就已经脑震荡了，后面纯粹是靠着肌肉记忆和本能在战斗，甚至有选手在第四回合打完“清醒”过来后，完全不记得前三回合发生了什么。Vance 听后不禁感叹：“天哪，这可真不是个谋生的好营生。” --- ### [00:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=54s) 综合格斗如何抢了拳击的风头 聊到选手的退役与收入，Vance 透露他们在赛后几周在白宫又见到了 Justin Gaethje。当 Vance 询问他是否彻底挂靴时，Gaethje 还有些犹豫，而当时陪同他一起在椭圆形办公室的母亲则毫不犹豫地替儿子回答：“是的，他退休了！”不过 Rogan 认为，如果有人在 Gaethje 展现了如此惊人的职业生涯后，愿意砸下一笔足以改变人生的巨额出场费邀请他再打一场，Gaethje 大概率还是会重返赛场。 Vance 对此感到好奇，询问像 Gaethje 这种级别的选手下一场比赛能拿到多少报酬，比如是否有“50M（5000万美元）”之巨。Rogan 表示自己从不打听选手的具体合同和具体数字。作为解说员，他的职责是保持客观，单纯去分析、点评并赋予八角笼内的格斗以生命力和色彩，过度关注金钱会干扰他对比赛的纯粹感知。不过，Rogan 从个人立场上强烈希望这些付出血汗的选手能拿到尽可能多的钱，从而在退役后过上无忧无虑的生活。 Vance 进一步引申到一个宏观的文化现象：在过去的20年里，UFC 几乎在文化层面上彻底取代了拳击的统治地位。他回忆起自己读高中时，全美大众还会为了某场重量级拳王争霸赛而万人空巷，而如今，全美乃至全球的焦点全在 UFC 上。他不太确定这究竟归功于高明的市场营销，还是因为综合格斗本身更加真实和震撼。 Rogan 赞同这一观察，并分享了他上周末几位拳击经纪人朋友（包括 Josh Dubin）来到 UFC 现场后的震撼感受。这些见惯了大场面的拳击圈内人也由衷感叹：“我的天，这比拳击推广办得好太多了。”Rogan 解释了其中的核心差异： * **全赛程的精彩度：** 拳击比赛中，绝大多数观众和名流纯粹是冲着最后一场主赛（Main Event）去的，很多人在主赛开打前15分钟才会入场，此前的垫场赛往往无人问津。 * **满座率与粘性：** 在 UFC 的比赛中，往往从前五、六、七场比赛开始，整个场馆就已经彻底爆满了。如果在盐湖城这种一年只能迎来一次现场赛事的城市，观众更是在第一场比赛时就会把现场填满。 * **运动本身的动态魅力：** 相比于拳击，综合格斗拥有更多元、更动态的获胜方式（抱摔、降服、站立打击等），变数更多，而且 UFC 内部源源不断地涌现出大量的明星选手。 --- ### [01:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=95s) 摔角式的政治戏码与社交媒体的“网红经济” 由于是第一次在现场看格斗，Vance 提到了一些让他大开眼界的细节。他看到 Josh Hok 和 Derrick Lewis 对阵时，Josh 拿到了一个看似极其致命的十字固（Armbar），他以为对方的手臂绝对要被折断了，没想到对方硬生生挺了30多秒。Rogan 笑着指出，那是因为 Josh Hok 虽然是个顶级摔跤手，但并不是个降服专家，他的十字固技术犯了严重的动作错误。Rogan 现场演示并讲解了标准的十字固技术：Josh 当时只是在盲目地生拉硬拽，手臂甚至平贴在自己的胸口；正确的做法应该是用双腿死死夹住并下压（Heavy Leg Curls），同时极力挺起臀部（Elevate the Hips）创造空间，将腰腹挺成一座桥，或者将对方的手臂拉向自己髋部的侧面，这样才能瞬间折断关节。 比起这个十字固，Rogan 促狭地问了 Vance 一个更具挑衅性的问题：“是这个十字固更让你震惊，还是当 Josh 在赛后麦克风前公然宣称‘米歇尔·奥巴马（Michelle Obama）是个男人’更让你震惊？” Vance 哈哈大笑，直言：“那绝对还是十字固更震撼。兄弟，我是在政坛工作的，在华盛顿我天天听人们说各种疯话。”Rogan 补充说，Josh 实际上在每场比赛后都会扮演这种类似职业摔角（Pro Wrestling）中的“反派（Heel）”角色，上次采访他时他也说了同样的话。Josh 本人私底下其实是个非常精明、正常的聪明人，但他非常懂得流量密码，为了最大化吸引眼球，他刻意打造了这个疯狂的美国狂热者人设——穿着美国国旗风衣，戴着墨镜，踩着 Hulk Hogan 的出场曲《A Real American》登场。虽然 Vance 很欣赏这种舞台表演艺术，但也承认“在白宫南草坪当着现任政府的面说米歇尔是男人，确实不是最合时宜的举动”。 这场赛后风波让 Vance 在随后几天的《The View》等各大主流媒体的新书宣发活动中饱受折磨。他回忆称，当时他团队里所有的公关负责人（Comm's People）都吓坏了，焦虑得抓耳挠腮，一整天都在围着他转，盘问他：“各大媒体绝对会逼问你对‘米歇尔·奥巴马是男人’这句言论的看法！你到底打算怎么回应？”Vance 觉得这简直不可理喻。在他看来，一个多巴胺彻底爆棚的格斗运动员在赛后情绪亢奋地开了个政治玩笑，居然能变成举国瞩目的头条新闻。 Vance 感叹道，自己进入政坛三年多来，依然常常对大众和媒体会为了哪些鸡毛蒜皮的“狗屎烂灶事”而集体歇斯底里感到震惊。Rogan 表示理解，毕竟那是在白宫举办的比赛，性质不一样。但 Vance 坚持认为这种舆论过激反应是完全不合比例的。他无奈地表示，自己每天处理的都是关乎生死、国家命运的重大政治决策，而整个现代流行文化却总是对一些明显的“钓鱼”言论反应过度。讽刺的是，Josh 这种人之所以抛出这种言论，追求的恰恰就是媒体和大众的这种歇斯底里。你越是跳脚，就越是掉入了他精心设计的陷阱。 Rogan 总结道，本质上是因为当今社会存在一种完全**基于“收割情绪反应”的产业链与眼球经济**。许多人在网络上的愤怒和激进发言根本不是真实的，而是“表演性”的。社交媒体在很大程度上彻底毁掉了人类进行真正理性思辨和深度对话的能力。大家不再理性讨论问题，而是每天盯着 Instagram 或 Twitter（X），把类似的争议言论当成“流量金矿”，只要能疯狂蹭热度、赚取点击量、赞和浏览量，就能顺理成章地将其变现。 ### [14:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=882s) 喜剧的边界与“被刺伤”的政治笑话 J.D. 万斯（J.D. Vance）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）聊起了公众对幽默的过度敏感。万斯提到，在2024年总统大选期间，喜剧演员托尼·欣奇克利夫（Tony Hinchcliffe）在麦迪逊广场花园（Madison Square Garden）讲了一个“传遍世界的垃圾笑话”（关于波多黎各的玩笑），随即引发了轩然大波。万斯认为，当听到一个不好笑的笑话时，正常人的反应应该是“不笑，然后继续过自己的日子”，但如今社会上却围绕着对幽默的声讨形成了一种“愤怒产业”（outrage industry），这正在严重伤害这个国家。 罗根听后笑着透露，他很早以前就警告过托尼，那个笑话迟早会让他“被捅” ("That's the one's going to get you stabbed")，托尼甚至把这个警告当成了自己台上的包袱。罗根指出，任何优秀的笑话都要冒一定的风险，尤其是涉及种族的玩笑。但他强调，其实波多黎各人是最开得起玩笑、也最擅长互相吐槽的群体。万斯对此十分赞同，并回忆起自己在海军陆战队（Marine Corps）服役时的经历，他的波多黎各战友们也是如此，甚至在听完托尼的笑话后依然很喜欢他。罗根将托尼比作喜剧界的“反派选手”（pro wrestling heel），称他非常享受这种故意激怒观众、挑动情绪的过程。万斯补充道，虽然自己与托尼只有数面之缘，但他认为托尼在政治立场上比大多数喜剧演员都要鲜明，是共和党阵营的铁杆支持者。 --- ### [17:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1039s) 从被《南方公园》恶搞到逃离加利福尼亚 万斯分享了一个让他觉得“自己终于出人头地”的趣事。他提到喜剧演员谢恩·吉利斯（Shane Gillis）在一场吐槽大会上调侃托尼的段子：“托尼·欣奇克利夫是唯一一个会因为 J.D. 万斯来到现场而感到兴奋的人。”万斯觉得这个笑话极其幽默。他甚至打趣道，当自己被知名讽刺动画《南方公园》（South Park）恶搞时，那种“功成名就”的真实感，甚至比他正式宣誓就任美国副总统的那一刻还要强烈。 随后，罗根提到托尼是六年前第一批跟随他搬到德克萨斯州奥斯汀（Austin）的人。每当他们回到加利福尼亚州，都会由衷地觉得当年的决定无比正确，因为加州正在一步步“滑向马桶深渊”。万斯询问罗根如何看待奥斯汀近年来的发展，因为在五六年前，人们普遍担心大量“蓝色州”选民的涌入会彻底改变奥斯汀的政治和文化生态。罗根认为这种情况并未发生，因为那些搬到德州的自由派选民，恰恰是因为意识到自己原先居住的纽约、洛杉矶和旧金山等城市已经彻底崩溃、无法立足才选择离开的。罗根吐槽加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）不断用“加州是世界第五大经济体”等言论来粉饰太平。万斯则一针见血地指出，衡量一个州好坏的真实标准，是看租用 U-Haul 搬家货车离开加州和进入加州的价格差异——而加州如今正经历历史上首次人口净流出。 --- ### [21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1284s) 洛杉矶的两极分化与选票疑云 万斯提到他的妻子乌沙·万斯（Usha Vance）来自南加州的圣地亚哥，因此他们经常回去，但他对洛杉矶的衰落感到痛心。洛杉矶曾是代表美国梦的经典城市，气候宜人、建筑优美，如今开车经过贫民窟（Skid Row）时却满目疮痍。罗根指出，那里的贫民区已经从一两年前的50个街区扩张到了现在的55个街区。 万斯分享了他第一次去贫民窟的经历：当时乌沙在南加州一家高端诉讼律师事务所担任企业诉讼律师。在Downtown LA举办的圣诞派对前，事务所给员工发了一份极其复杂的行车指南。万斯当时不解，后来才明白这是为了让大家在夜间避开贫民窟。当他们穿过贫民窟抵达派对现场时，看到的画面犹如两个世界：内部是极致的安全、高墙卫戍、香车美酒，而墙外则是凄惨的赤贫。万斯感叹，这一幕让他想起了美国驻海地太子港（Port-au-Prince）的大使馆。这是他第一次切身感受到，美国的部分地区已经变得像第三世界国家一样。 随后，罗根将话题引向大城市的选举，质问为什么洛杉矶和纽约等大型人口中心几乎总是由民主党人掌权。罗根以洛杉矶最近的选举为例，质疑其结果极度反常：在邮寄选票阶段，原本处于第三位的候选人妮西娅·拉曼（Nithya Raman）竟然逆袭反超，将共和党候选人斯宾塞·普拉特（Spencer Pratt）挤出了决选。更荒谬的是，选民们竟然在已经承受极高税收的加州，投票通过了一项加税法案。罗根指出，有直接证据表明有人在招募流浪汉，用香烟和现金换取他们的地址来进行邮寄选票。万斯也赞同这种投票逻辑毫无常理，正常人绝不会大清早醒来主动要求多缴税。 --- ### [25:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1545s) 共和党的“酷”难题与选举诚信 针对大城市普遍“染蓝”的现象，万斯提出这背后的原因非常复杂。他坦言自己曾对罗根几个月前的一个观点感到有些不快，但仔细想想确实是真理——共和党依然存在一个“酷”不“酷”的问题（cool problem）。万斯承认右翼确实有太多“死脑筋”的呆子（dorks），而左翼的呆子则是另一种类型。但由于演艺圈、摇滚明星、流行歌手等文化先锋大多偏向左翼，年轻人在这些文化中心很容易随波逐流。此外，倾向右翼的人更渴望郊区生活、单户住宅和不被打扰的隐私，这导致了文化上的自我隔离。但万斯强调，他不主张放弃加州，因为加州是美国梦的核心，放弃它意味着丢掉了美国文化中非常核心的部分。 罗根直言，加州的核心问题在于深层次的政治腐败，他们正试图让另一方根本无法获胜。他强烈反对无限制的邮寄选票，认为除了残障人士、海外军人等特殊群体，邮寄选票不应合法化。 万斯对此补充了一个被媒体忽略的司法案例：2020年大选后，宾夕法尼亚州一名乡村选民起诉称自己的选票被低估，因为乡村地区无法像费城和匹兹堡等大城市那样开展大规模的邮寄选票和“选票收集”（ballot harvesting）活动，导致代表性不足。宾州法院承认这一操作确实对共和党人产生了负面影响，但最终却以“这是政治问题而非司法能解决的问题”为由驳回。万斯指出，媒体当时纷纷报道法官驳回了共和党人的诉讼，却忽略了法官实际上也承认了“这里确实有猫腻，只是法院不是解决它的正确地方”。两人最后一致认为，不要求甚至禁止查看选民身份证（Voter ID）的做法简直是在鼓励作弊。 ### [30:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1816s) 选民身份证明（Voter ID）与选举诚信的博弈 乔·罗根与万斯（JD Vance）聊起了关于选举透明度的话题。罗根讽刺地指出，四年前民主党还要求民众必须出示疫苗接种证明（ID）才能去超市购物或进餐厅吃饭，现在却在投票身份证明上双标。万斯对此表示赞同，并指出这正是让保守派对民主党的动机产生怀疑的根源。万斯认为，解决选举争议的逻辑非常简单：“如果你不想在选举中作弊，那就让每个人都出示身份证。”他提到，选民身份证明实际上能解决大部分邮寄选票（mail-in ballot）带来的漏洞，因为只要确保每张邮寄选票背后都有真实的身份信息绑定，就能堵住极大的安全漏洞。 罗根则更加直接，他坦言自己对民主党不仅是怀疑，而是直接控诉他们“偷走了选举”。万斯认为选举欺诈绝对不是 0%，罗根也表示赞同，称总有一些极端狂热分子（无论是民主党“Blue no matter who”还是共和党“Red no matter what”）会为了他们所谓的“大局”去操弄选举。罗根甚至吐槽像奥普拉·温弗里（Oprah Winfrey）这样的名人公开发表“如果这次不赢，以后可能再也没机会投票”的言论，直言这种贩卖焦虑的说法极其荒谬。万斯进一步指出，正是这种“输了天就会塌”的极端态度，让很多人在心理上把作弊视作正义之举。 对于民主党常说的“要求选民出示 ID 是一种种族歧视”的论调，罗根和万斯都觉得匪夷所思。罗根直言：“难道你们觉得其他族裔的人连去车管所（DMV）办个证的能力都没有吗？这本身才是真正的种族歧视。”万斯补充道，民意调查显示，绝大多数非裔和拉丁裔美国人实际上和白人一样，极度支持投票时出示身份证明，只有那些政治操盘手（operatives）才会极力反对。万斯当场在节目中向民主党人叫板：“如果民主党真的认为没有作弊，那就给我们选民身份证明法案，我们就闭嘴不再提这事。” * **全美选举合法化提案**：万斯提到他们正在推动《拯救美国法案》（Save America Act），核心条款就是强制要求选民出示 ID。该法案在参议院其实拥有多数支持，但由于参议院的阻碍议事（filibuster）程序规则，非财政预算案需要 60 票门槛才能通过。他们正试图将该法案归入 50 票门槛的预算程序中。 --- ### [34:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=2076s) 民主党政客的“精英病”与加州州长纽森的黑历史 话题很快转到了民主党高层对自身选民的傲慢态度上。罗根提到了纽约州长凯西·霍楚尔（Kathy Hochul）曾发表过极其雷人的言论，暗示黑人社区的居民甚至不知道电脑是什么。罗根笑称有一个黑人喜剧演员专门拍了恶搞视频，围着一台电脑像看外星科技一样摸来摸去。罗根吐槽道：“这都什么年代了，每个人手里的智能手机就是一台电脑。”万斯指出，民主党的许多宣传痛点，本质上都是建立在“把自己的选民当白痴”的假设之上。他认为共和党倾向于把选民当成成年人看待，而民主党则常常充满 condescension（居高临下的傲慢）。 万斯分享了加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）的一段著名黑历史。纽森在一次面对 95% 都是黑人领袖和企业家的活动中，试图套近乎，大谈自己患有阅读障碍症（dyslexia）和求学阶段的挣扎，甚至说出了“我和你们很多人一样，不太聪明、连书都读不下去”这样的话。罗根和万斯一齐哄堂大笑，罗根讽刺道，纽森在无数其他采访里明明一直在吹嘘自己读了多少本书。万斯调侃纽森“满嘴跑火车，但吹得极为敬业和坚韧”，这反映了一种扭曲的“伪民粹主义”——试图通过把群众当白痴并模仿白痴来取悦大众，但演得太过了迟早会露馅。 --- ### [02:24:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8664s) 2024总统大选的转折点：拜登惨烈的辩论表现与民主党的包装术 万斯回忆起自己唯一一次见到加文·纽森的经历，那是 2024 年大选周期中唐纳德·特朗普与乔·拜登的第一场总统辩论。当时万斯还没被确认为副总统候选人，正在后台接受一个纪录片的采访。辩论刚一开始，看到直播大屏幕的万斯直接愣住了，心里惊呼“我的天，这真的发生了，拜登在现场彻底崩溃（imploding）”。辩论结束后万斯走到媒体采访区（spin room），迎面撞见纽森，形容纽森当时“脸色惨白得像见了鬼一样”。万斯嘲讽道，即使像纽森这么厉害的“大忽悠”，在那一刻也意识到拜登的表现是绝对洗不白的。万斯和罗根还点名批评了 MSNBC 主持人乔·斯卡伯勒（Joe Scarborough），指出斯卡伯勒在辩论前几个月还言之凿凿地宣称“这是我们见过最精明、最犀利的拜登”，结果辩论完第二天就光速变脸，大喊“赶紧把他换掉”。 罗根指出，2024 年的辩论时间安排得比以往任何一届大选都要早，这显然是民主党内部为了尽早掩盖拜登认知能力崩盘的蓄意串通。罗根回想起自己的一位激进派自由主义朋友，曾在电台里极力为拜登开脱，甚至坚称拜登说话结巴是因为“童年口吃”。罗根对此破口大骂：“上世纪 90 年代的拜登哪来的口吃？一个活到 80 岁才突然大爆发的口吃，鬼才信！他在 1988 年做过两次开颅的严重脑动脉瘤手术，这绝对对大脑造成了永久损伤。”万斯表示，主流媒体和民主党多年来一直在合谋对公众进行煤气灯效应（gaslighting），刻意封锁这些负面医疗背景。 * **哈里斯的极端政策倾向**：万斯提到，民主党后来在没有任何党内初选的情况下强行推举卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）。在 2020 年党内辩论中，哈里斯曾亲口支持用纳税人的钱为非法移民提供变性手术以及免费医疗（Medicare），这在全美属于绝对非主流的极端左翼诉求，但也表明当时的民主党完全被非营利组织和激进金主所挟持。 * **民主党的联盟硬伤**：万斯客观分析了民主党的选民结构矛盾。民主党最核心的票仓其实是 Atlanta 郊区等地的中产阶级黑人，这群人在社会议题上相对传统、甚至偏保守（他们反对Major Corporation的减税，但同样非常反对儿童变性）。民主党高层必须用拜登这样一个看起来“不那么疯狂”的传统建制派招牌，去勉强粘合远左翼狂热分子与中间派务实选民，这就是拜登当年唯一的工具价值。 最后，两人以拜登那些诸如“我的腿毛很长”、“Corn Pop”等荒诞的历史发言和吃冰淇淋的搞笑公关镜头作为调侃的结尾。万斯还分享了 2024 年爱荷华州参选时的趣事，提到有选民在维韦克·拉马斯瓦米（Vivek Ramaswamy）的活动上举牌写着“懦夫，快把那根玉米热狗吃了”，以此调侃政客们为了亲民人设在州博览会上不得不毫无形象地大啃热狗的滑稽名场面。 ### [45:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=2746s) 政治人物的“吃相”与形象管理 节目在一阵轻松的调侃中展开。Joe Rogan 提到自己很喜欢吃热狗棒（corn dog），并笑称曾见过 JD Vance 吃热狗棒的照片。Vance 则笑着回应，虽然热狗棒确实美味，但他现在会尽量避免在公开场合吃，这种事情“最好留在自家的厨房里”。 Rogan 调侃道，许多政治人物极度害怕在镜头前吃任何外形敏感的食物（比如香蕉或热狗棒），因为这很容易被断章取义，成为舆论嘲讽的焦点。Vance 深有感触地表示，政治本质上是一个“注重视觉形象（optics-based）的行业”，因此必须时刻保持警惕，不能怪大家杯弓蛇影。两人随后感叹，如今的舆论环境已经敏感到了荒谬的地步，人们甚至会为一个热狗的吃法而大做文章。 --- ### [46:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=2798s) 极端主义与“将十诫送进校园”的争议 谈话从舆论的敏感性过渡到了政治派系的极端化。Rogan 指出，无论是民主党还是共和党，理性温和的成员与极端分子之间的差距都极为悬殊，但两党却总是容易被各自阵营中“最糟糕的典型”（如右翼的“爱国者阵线” Patriot Front 或左翼的“安提法” Antifa）所定义。他顺势向 Vance 提问：在右翼阵营中，哪种现象最让他感到无法接受？ Rogan 提到了他曾邀请过的嘉宾 James Tarico（一位拥有神学院背景、虔诚的基督徒）。Tarico 坚决反对在公立学校强制张贴《十诫》，认为这种只在学校代表基督教信仰的做法，无异于将宗教强加于他人，反而会适得其反，将人们推离基督教。 Vance 表达了不同看法。他认为，宗教自由这一西方文明的核心贡献本身就源于基督教对个人尊严和自由意志的尊重，因此绝不能强迫任何人信教。但他并不认为在学校张贴《十诫》属于“强迫”行为。 * **Vance 的核心观点**： * 美国最高法院等许多历史与法律建筑中，同样陈列着包括摩西手持法典在内的各种文化与法律文献，这代表了西方文明法治传统的多元演进。 * 即便不是基督徒，仅仅看到《十诫》并不会对孩子构成实质性的“宗教强迫”。《十诫》中至少有八条是即便非信徒也会普遍认同的道德准则。 * 如果他的孩子在教室里看到非基督教的宗教文本，他不会觉得受到冒犯，反而会将其视为一个了解和学习其他文化的契机。 --- ### [52:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3150s) 强制性政策与政教分离的边界 Rogan 紧追不舍地指出，问题的关键在于**“强制性”（mandate）**。如果个别教师出于自愿在教室里摆放，或许无可厚非；但如果由政府立法强制所有公立学校必须张贴，那就是在公权力层面上推广单一宗教。这正是德克萨斯州最近饱受争议的法案的核心所在。 Vance 解释称，美国在过去三四十年里的政教平衡已经过度向另一端倾斜——即试图将宗教完全从公共领域中抹除，他认为这种“彻底清除”的态度本身就是将“世俗主义”（secularism）作为一种新的宗教强加强给公众。 > "如果你在公共生活中对待宗教的方式，永远是将其推离公共广场，那么你实际上是在公共广场拥抱你自己的宗教，那就是世俗主义。你只是用世俗主义取代了另一种宗教。" —— JD Vance Vance 表示，他完全支持不同信仰的人共同分享公共广场。例如在一个 95% 成员都是基督徒的社区里，地方议会在圣诞夜搭建耶稣降生像，不应该被视为违法。他透露自己虽然在白宫工作，但从不对员工传教或要求他们信奉耶稣，而是试图通过自己的生活方式来启发他人。他将德克萨斯州的举措视为对过去几十年“过度世俗化”的一种纠偏尝试。 --- ### [58:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3488s) 基督民族主义与极端战争预言的隐忧 在插播完一段关于 Fox Nation 独家直播 RAF 11 自由式摔跤比赛（Ben Askren 对阵 Belal Muhammad，以及 Arman Tsarukyan 对阵 Colby Covington）的广告后，Rogan 重新将话题拉回公立学校的宗教渗透。 制作人 Jamie 在屏幕上展示了德克萨斯州近期（2026年6月26日）通过的新提案：要求公立学校将《圣经》故事列为必读内容。Rogan 强调，这已经超越了单纯的“背景展示”，而是走向了另一个极端。正是这种由富裕的“基督民族主义者”（Christian Nationalists）资助、试图削弱公立学校并强制灌输特定信仰的思维，最令他感到担忧。 为了展示右翼宗教极端主义的危害，Rogan 举了另一个极端案例：在伊朗战争初期，有媒体报道称，一名军事指挥官在给士兵做简报时，欢呼雀跃地宣称不需要害怕战争，因为这场战争是“神的旨意”的一部分，而特朗普是被耶稣基督选中来宣告其重返人间的使者。该指挥官甚至声称，耶稣的回归将通过轰炸伊朗来实现，并描绘了阿玛吉顿神魔大战（Battle of Armageddon）中“由武器化耶稣溢出的、长达 200 英里、深 4.5 英尺的血河”的恐怖景象。 虽然 Vance 表示自己从未听过这个离奇的报道，并觉得这听起来非常荒谬，但 Rogan 强调，正是这种将宗教武器化、极端化的右翼思维，让普通人对保守派的宗教主张产生了巨大的恐惧与排斥。 ### [01:01:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3707s) 信仰、战争与被“神化”的军事言论 节目中，主持人向美国副总统 JD·万斯（JD Vance）读了一段据称来自某位美军指挥官的惊人引言。该引言声称，这位指挥官敦促麾下士兵相信，眼前的一切都是“上帝神圣计划”的一部分，并频繁引用《启示录》中关于哈米吉多顿（末日善恶决战）和耶稣基督即将重临的描述，甚至直言“特朗普总统已被耶稣赐予神权，去点燃伊朗的信号弹以引发哈米吉多顿，并标志着基督重返人间”。听到这里，万斯忍不住笑场。主持人开玩笑说，听到这种会议内容，自己肯定会大喊“快踩刹车”，而万斯则调侃道，这时候确实需要他们在上一次对话中聊到的“迷幻药”来缓和一下。 万斯明确表示自己绝不认同这种言论，并指出作为基督徒，最重要的是在上帝的计划面前保持谦卑。他引用了亚伯拉罕·林肯（Abraham Lincoln）的名言：在面临战争与和平的抉择时，我们应该祈祷并希望自己站在上帝这一边，而不是盲目预设上帝已经站在了我们这一边。如果由他来对基督徒士兵讲话，他会强调“上帝在掌控一切，我们无法预测未来，但让我们祈祷并尽最大努力去信任上帝”。针对主持人提出的“部队里并非所有人都是基督徒，这种宣扬特朗普受神启去轰炸伊朗以迎接耶稣回归的言论会让非信徒极度不安并想‘赶紧逃离’”的说法，万斯表示理解，并坦言自己是第一次听到这个故事，笑称自己仿佛“住在防空洞里”消息滞后。 * **林肯名言的现代应用**：万斯主张在决策时保持谦卑，应努力使行动符合公义，而非狂妄地声称自己代表神意。 * **对战争的原则性看法**：万斯强调，虽然有些战争是正义且无可避免的，但“战争永远不是一件好事，不应该带着笑容去面对”。 --- ### [01:04:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3850s) 媒体滤镜下的“末日狂热”与外交现实 万斯对这一耸人听闻的报道持怀疑态度，指出媒体极有可能断章取义或曲解了当事人的原意。不过他也承认，在拥有 3.3 亿人口的美国，确实不排除存在一些极端的“基督教民族主义”指挥官，因将战争视为圣战而感到兴奋。但万斯保证，政府绝不鼓励此类言论，他作为有信仰的领导人，目标始终是使外交政策符合基督的道德教义与正义。随后，对话切入正题——政府对伊朗的军事与外交政策。 万斯解释称，美方政策的核心目标非常明确：**阻止伊朗获得核武器**。这一政策分为短期和长期两个层面。短期内，美方通过军事手段摧毁了伊朗的核设施并削弱了其重建能力；而长期来看，由于制造核弹的技术在如今并非绝对秘密（万斯打趣说“上 YouTube 就能搜到怎么造原子弹”），单靠轰炸无法一劳永逸。因此，万斯极力主张通过谈判，建立一种让伊朗在长期内承诺不重建核能力的机制。对于特朗普曾公开表示万斯对该军事行动“不那么热衷”的说法，万斯回应称，作为副总统，他的职责是在内部向总统提供最真诚的建议，而一旦总统做出合法、合规的决定，他的任务就是竭尽全力确保该决策的成功，而不是像“星期一早晨的四分卫”那样事后诸葛亮地去评判三个月前的决定。 * **对伊政策的核心目标**：阻止其拥有核武器，结合短期军事威慑与长期外交谈判。 * **副总统的角色定位**：在决策阶段提供坦率建议，在决策执行阶段全力以赴推动成功，不公开对既定政策进行唱反调式的点评。 --- ### [01:09:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4140s) 霍尔木兹海峡的“胡萝卜与大棒” 针对主持人关于“为何政府总宣布谈判取得进展，随后又陷入相互轰炸循环”的疑问，万斯详细拆解了伊朗政局的复杂性。他指出，伊朗内部并非铁板一块，而是存在“狂热派”（渴望迎来第十二代伊玛目及末日审判）与“务实派”的博弈。美方推动签署的谅解备忘录（MOU）曾遭到严重误读，其核心内容非常务实：**伊朗重新开放霍尔木兹海峡并停止暴力，随后双方就长期核问题展开谈判；作为交换，伊朗将获得长期的经济和制裁宽免。** 然而，协议签署第一周，当海峡的石油运量恢复到战前每日 2,000 万桶、国际油价大幅下跌时，伊朗系统内的强硬派感到恐慌，担心自己失去了最大的谈判筹码。于是，强硬派下令袭击商船以测试美方底线。万斯指出，美方对此进行了果断的军事反击，摧毁了其袭击设施，迫使对方重新回到谈判桌。目前，双方正处于这种高度复杂的“外交踢踏舞”中，一边利用经济手段（胡萝卜）和军事打击（大棒）与务实派对话，一边坚决回击强硬派的暴力挑衅。尽管局势仍有反复，但万斯强调，目前伊朗的核计划依然处于被摧毁状态，且海峡运出的油气已足够保障全球能源市场免于崩溃。 * **霍尔木兹海峡的战略地位**：该海峡一旦遭到封锁，将直接切断全球 25% 的能源供应。 * **低成本不对称战争的威胁**：万斯举例说明，任何人只需花费 10 万美元在黑市购买无人机，部署在海峡岛屿上对商船发动袭击，就能迫使大量船长因安全顾虑而拒绝通航。因此，单纯依靠军事护航和拦截是无法彻底解决安全威胁的。 --- ### [01:12:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4348s) 怒斥鹰派：无休止的轰炸不是外交解决方案 万斯在发言中对以其前任迈克·彭斯（Mike Pence）为代表的保守派“超级鹰派”表达了强烈不满。他指出，这些鹰派人士不断在体制内攻击、甚至试图破坏这笔交易。万斯直言不讳地质问这些人的替代方案到底是什么：“如果你们的方案就是‘一直轰炸、轰炸、再轰炸’，那如果对方依然有疯子愿意顶着炮火向海峡发射廉价无人机，你们该怎么办？” 万斯赞扬了特朗普总统在处理此项危机时的智慧。总统没有采取无休止、无目标的无限期军事行动，而是将**军事力量作为服务于外交目标的手段之一**——“你袭击商船，我们就定点清除你的袭击设施，但我们绝不卷入没有终点的战争泥潭”。万斯总结道，那些自称支持政府却对他及外交路线大加批判的保守派鹰派，其真实意图实际上是想让军事冲突无限期地进行下去，而这无论在军事上还是经济上，都是极不负责任的。 - **霍尔木兹海峡运量指标**：战前及协议初期，该海峡的石油运量达每日 **2,000 万桶**。 - **世界能源供给占比**：霍尔木兹海峡承载了全球约 **25%** 的能源运输。 - **无人机袭击的极低门槛**：万斯指出，仅需 **$100,000** 购买黑市无人机，即可对海峡航道造成严重的系统性安全威胁，这也凸显了纯军事手段的局限性。 ### [01:15:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4542s) 失败的干涉主义与利比亚的前车之鉴 JD·万斯（JD Vance）指出，那些极力主张对伊朗采取强硬政策的批评者，实际上根本无法说清自己究竟想要达到什么目的。在字里行间中，他读出了两种潜在的意图：第一种是企图彻底颠覆伊朗政府，推翻什叶派神职人员的统治，并扶持一个对美国更为友善的政权。但万斯反问道：“我们做这种事的历史经验是什么？结果并不好，对吧？”他强调，如果伊朗人民想要起义并改变自己的政府，那是他们自己的事，美国不会再派遣15万地面部队去强行推动政权更迭。万斯直言，提议派兵无异于主张让美军替伊朗人民去打仗，而“我们现在不再做这种买卖了”。 另一种潜在的意图则是万斯所称的“利比亚结局”。他回忆起奥巴马政府时期卡扎菲被杀后的利比亚局势，痛批那是一个“非常愚蠢的决定”。其后果是利比亚沦为失败国家，引发了严重的难民危机，无数难民涌入欧洲、亚洲和非洲，并滋生了大量的暴力与恐怖主义。万斯质问道，让9400万陷入绝望的人口席卷欧洲和美国，并任由恐怖主义网络在全球蔓延，这到底符合美国什么利益？他强调，美国已经做过这种“实验”了。目前的政策目标非常明确且克制：确保海峡开放、保障石油和天然气的自由流动，并竭力阻止伊朗拥有核武器，同时运用外交与军事的双重手段来实现这些目标。 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）补充道，利比亚的崩溃正是导致欧洲移民危机的重要推手。万斯对此表示赞同，并指出叙利亚同样是由于糟糕的中东政策而造成的另一个失败国家。美国过去的这些干涉行径每次都无一例外地导致了难民危机、恐怖主义激增以及大量无辜平民的伤亡。 * **美国当前的对伊核心目标**：确保霍尔木兹海峡等关键水道开放、保障国际油气资源自由流动、阻止伊朗推进核武器计划。 * **历史教训**：卡扎菲倒台后，利比亚沦为失败国家，直接引发了波及欧亚非多地的难民危机与恐怖主义温床；叙利亚也是由于类似失败干预政策而崩溃的典型案例。 --- ### [01:18:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4698s) “3000亿美金让步”的政治谣言与中东多边谅解 针对外界传闻美国向伊朗妥协、提供3000亿美元用于重建的说法，万斯愤怒地予以反驳，称其为批评者用来抹黑协议的“一派胡言”。万斯顺便谈到了他一直非常关注的政治格局：唐纳德·川普（Donald Trump）在2024年大选期间组建了一个极其庞大的联盟，并以历史性的优势赢得了七个摇摆州，这是自罗纳德·里根时代以来从未有过的壮举。这个联盟非常多元化，既有像罗根和塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）这样厌恶对外战争的人，也有像马克·莱文（Mark Levin）这样的鹰派。万斯表示，他接受这一现实，并欢迎大家共同出力，但令他深感恼火的是，联盟中的鹰派成员极力攻击任何谈判的努力。这些鹰派不仅攻击总统，还对他个人进行人身攻击，甚至声称川普“背叛”了他们。万斯直言这种指控荒谬透顶，因为川普只是在努力通过谈判为美国人民争取最佳的结果。 万斯详细解释了谈判中起草的谅解备忘录（MoU）的真实内容。许多人狭隘地将中东局势视为“伊朗与以色列”的二元对立，但实际上，海湾阿拉伯国家也是美国极其重要的盟友。这些海湾国家主动找到美国表示，如果伊朗真的愿意改邪归正、停止资助恐怖组织，他们愿意出资帮助重建伊朗。 万斯澄清，这笔资金完全不需要美国纳税人掏一分钱。海湾国家只是询问美国：如果伊朗改变了行为，美国是否愿意解除制裁，允许阿联酋（UAE）和沙特阿拉伯等国对伊进行投资？万斯认为，如果伊朗最大的宿敌都认为伊朗发生了足够大的改变并愿意对其投资，这显然是“双赢”的典范。然而，鹰派却造谣称川普政府要亲手送给伊朗3000亿美元。万斯痛斥这完全是编造的谎言，其目的就是为了在政治上彻底搅黄这场谈判。 * **MoU（谅解备忘录）的实质**：如果伊朗履行其所有和平与安全义务，美国将允许阿联酋、沙特阿拉伯等海湾阿拉伯国家对伊朗进行商业投资。 * **资金来源**：重建资金全部由海湾合作委员会国家提供，美国政府不提供任何直接资金或经济援助。 * **2024大选联盟**：川普在2024大选席卷七个关键州，建立起自里根以来最广泛的共和党联盟，内部在外交政策上存在严重的孤立主义与干涉主义的分歧。 --- ### [01:22:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=4974s) 鹰派的战争狂热与针对万斯的外国资助舆论战 罗根追问，这些鹰派为什么如此热衷于继续轰炸，背后是否受到了国防承包商的操纵？万斯承认，在如此庞大的人群中，利益动机自然是多样化的，确实有人受到了军工复合体的动员。此外，以色列政府内部的某些势力也极度仇视这项协议。万斯提到，《时代》周刊（Time）前一天刚刚发表了一篇报道，披露有美国本土的舆论影响者收受了资金，专门来攻击这项和平协议。而这些资金链条甚至可以追溯到一名曾为川普竞选团队工作、后收受以色列政府内部特定势力资金的人员。这些受雇人员在社交媒体上对他进行疯狂攻击、向媒体泄密，并散布他“受到卡塔尔控制”、“听命于塔克·卡尔森”等荒谬的谣言。 万斯坚定地表示，他不在乎外国政府——无论是盟友还是敌人——试图影响美国政策，因为“这是行业常态”。但真正让他愤怒的是，美国的领导层竟然允许这种外国影响力去左右自己的判断，进而损害美国自身的国家利益。他说：“我首先代表的是美国人，这就是我履行职责的方式。” 万斯还指出，自己在国内激烈的亲以与反以舆论战中，其实扮演的是一个“温和理性”的角色，但他却常常被扣上“反犹分子”的帽子，这让他感到不可思议。他强调，以色列在面对美国年轻一代（尤其是65岁以下的年轻共和党人）时，正在迅速失去舆论阵地，这是连川普都公开承认的客观事实。万斯主张，美国应当像对待法国或英国那样，与以色列建立一种“正常的、基于共同利益的国家关系”：在利益一致时携手合作，在利益分歧时坦诚直言，而不是建立在其他盲目的情感基础之上。最后万斯强调，川普的对伊政策绝非一味妥协——当伊朗袭击美方船只时，川普同样会毫不犹豫地给对方以毁灭性打击，这是一种“谈判与军事威慑并重”的现实主义外交。 > "当我在《时代》周刊上看到，有人花大价钱雇人来蓄意破坏我正在争取的协议，而且那些拿了钱的人还在用完全不诚实的手法对我指手画脚时，我的回应只有一句：去你们的。我只会做对美国人民有利的事。" * **《时代》周刊披露的舆论内幕**：报道点名了部分美国本土政治影响者，其背后资金源自以色列政府内部特定势力，通过前川普竞选人员向其输送，旨在抹黑万斯的和平谈判。 * **外交关系的重新定义**：万斯主张将美以关系调整为类似美英、美法之间的“正常盟友关系”，允许双方在利益分歧时保持自主，而非无条件绑定。 ### [01:30:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=5456s) 国际影响力的博弈与美国优先的原则 JD·万斯（JD Vance）指出，他确信以色列政府内部有人试图通过影响舆论，引导美国背离现有的政策，以延续其军事行动。万斯强调，尽管他与以色列政府内的许多人关系良好，也很敬重现任以色列驻美大使，且理解各方都以自身国家利益为先，但确实有股势力在试图操纵美国的公众舆论以无限期延长战争。他认为，美国人对此感到沮丧是理所当然的，但愤怒的矛头应当指向那些轻易受到动摇的美国领袖。 万斯进一步阐述，在2026年的当下，卡塔尔、以色列乃至俄罗斯等国试图对美国施加政治影响，这本身属于国际政治的常态。真正令人困扰的，是这些外部的影响力运动（influence campaigns）开始左右美国的政治判断。他强调，作为美国的决策者，唯一的出发点应当是“什么才最符合美利坚合众国的利益”。 - 外部游说常态：万斯认为各国（如卡塔尔、以色列、俄罗斯）为了自身利益对美施加影响是政治现实。 - 核心问题所在：真正的问题在于美国本土政治领袖的判断力被外部运动所左右，未能坚守“美国优先”的原则。 --- ### [01:32:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=5552s) 对伊战争的决策与“鹰派与鸽派”的辩论 当被问及以色列是否已经影响到了美国的政治判断，以及如果没有以色列的影响，美国是否还会对伊朗发动战争时，万斯给出了明确的答复。他坚信，即便完全排除以色列的因素，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）总统自身也强烈反对伊朗拥有核武器，并愿意为此采取果断行动。两人回顾了去年六月代号为“午夜铁锤”（Midnight Hammer）的初始袭击以及随后的军事行动，万斯断言，即使没有外界施压，总统依然会推进最近的这场战役。 谈及外界对政府军事与谈判政策的批评，万斯反驳了那些关于特朗普因受到某种要挟才卷入战争的传言，称这种说法“简直疯了”。在近距离观察了特朗普的决策模式后，他明确指出特朗普绝不是一个会听从任何人摆布、接受命令的人。期间，两人还针对政治术语展开了一番风趣的互动：万斯用“鸽派”（doves）和“现实主义者”来指代那些批评总统推进军事行动的和平主义者，而乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）则笑称自己虽然常听人谈起“鹰派”（hawks），但几乎没怎么听过把和平派叫作“鸽派”或“鸽子、麻雀”的说法，引得两人一阵偏题的欢笑。 - 关键军事行动：提到去年（2025年）六月针对伊朗的初次袭击，代号为“午夜铁锤”，以及随后的“史诗暴怒”（Epic Fury）战役。 - 决策独立性：万斯坚决否认特朗普在对伊政策上受到勒索或外部控制，坚称其决策完全出于自主政治判断。 --- ### [01:35:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=5704s) 爱泼斯坦档案风波与公关失误 罗根指出，公众之所以会产生“政府遭到要挟”的联想，很大程度上源于“爱泼斯坦档案”（Epstein files）未能如期彻底公开所引发的抵抗与疑虑。万斯对此十分坦率地承认：“我们绝对把爱泼斯坦档案的公关（comms）搞砸了。”但他澄清，公关的失败并非为了掩盖秘密，而是因为当时帕姆·邦迪（Pam Bondi）在展示那些装满文件的文件夹时，有些操之过急并夸大了政府手中掌握的实际筹码，这种“表演性的展示”反而让公众对整个净化政坛的努力产生了怀疑。 作为自封的“初代爱泼斯坦阴谋论大牛”（OG Epstein conspiracy theorist），万斯表示自己几乎钻研过每一个相关的内幕。他指出，这起案件的“原罪”并不在2025年特朗普政府的处理方式，而要追溯到2007至2008年间亚历山大·阿科斯塔（Alex Acosta）最初对杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）的联邦调查。当时的调查范围被刻意限缩，导致大量八九十年代至2006年间的关键定罪证据在早期就已经被销毁或流失。 - 档案数量规模：整个调查跟进过程中，政府最终收集了多达600万份相关文件，其中约300万份与爱泼斯坦的遗产或案件直接相关。 - 总统的态度：万斯透露，特朗普对民主党暗示他是“恋童癖”的政治抹黑感到极其厌恶，因此他不仅没有阻挠相关立法，反而力主公开这些档案，除法院要求依法隐匿、保护受害者的部分外，其余均已解密。 --- ### [01:40:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6022s) 税务控制与爱泼斯坦背后的庞大网络 万斯分享了白宫幕僚长苏西·威尔斯（Susie Wiles）曾打趣他是该案件阴谋论者的往事。他进一步推析了爱泼斯坦建立影响力的多重可能性：除了广为人知的利用“性勒索”控制政商名流外，还有一个鲜为人知却更具控制力的渠道——深层的税务操纵。 万斯提到，爱泼斯坦早年与俄亥俄州哥伦布市的首富莱斯·维克斯纳（Les Wexner）关系匪浅。当地人都知道爱泼斯坦是维克斯纳的“税务奇才”，极其擅长通过剑走偏锋的古怪税务策略帮富豪避税。万斯质疑，这种深入跨国富豪财务核心的灰色手段，很可能成为了爱泼斯坦手中另一个用来要挟、控制和渗透权贵阶层的核心纽带。而爱泼斯坦本人不仅是一个道德败坏的堕落之徒，更精于利用许多权贵缺乏道德底线的弱点来编织关系网。为了帮特朗普正名，万斯和罗根还特别提到，档案记录显示正是特朗普当年把爱泼斯坦轰出了海湖庄园（Mar-a-Lago），并且是向棕榈滩警方举报爱泼斯坦的关键证人之一。 - 关键历史人物：提及哥伦布市富豪莱斯·维克斯纳（Les Wexner），他是爱泼斯坦早期涉足高端财务与避税网络的核心跳板。 - 举报线索：万斯强调，档案中明确记载是唐纳德·特朗普向棕榈滩警方揭发了爱泼斯坦的恶行。 --- ### [01:43:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6180s) 司法部对档案红线划定与阴谋论的演变 针对档案中部分名字被涂黑（redacted）的质疑，万斯解释道，司法部在实际操作中很难在“受害者”与“同谋者”之间划出非黑即白的界线。例如某些曾被国会议员罗·康纳（Ro Khanna）作为受害者代表带去参加国情咨文听证会的女性，在某些历史卷宗里也曾被列为协助招募更多女孩的潜在同谋。司法部只能在保护个人隐私与公开真相间艰难平衡。 罗根提到爱泼斯坦还曾极力拉拢顶尖科学家，并为此在纽墨西哥州建立了分支机构。万斯对这种通过“灌水”（flooding the zone）和“刻意隐藏”来混淆阴谋论视听的手法深有体会。他指出，爱泼斯坦在2019年第一任特朗普政府末期入狱并离世，其死亡的时间节点存在着极其微妙的巧合。他坚定地相信这背后隐藏着尚未被完全揭露的庞大内幕，尽管目前在法律上依然缺乏一锤定音的直接物证。 ### [01:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6363s) 杰弗里·爱泼斯坦的资金来源与学术界的审查时代 副总统 JD·万斯（JD Vance）指出，学术界审查制度的退潮，与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）的倒台在时间上高度吻合。在 2019 至 2020 年左右，学术审查达到了巅峰，甚至出现因研究结果可能产生“不同种族影响”而无法发表医学研究，或者因未进行“土地确认（Land Acknowledgements）”而遭到解雇的极端现象。万斯强调，爱泼斯坦生前资助了大量的科学家，并深度渗透到学术界和社交媒体巨头之中，他是一个“无所不知、无处不在”的人物，他的死似乎在客观上冲破了这种审查机制。 当被问及爱泼斯坦的资金究竟从何而来时，万斯透露，其部分资金来源于为极少数超级富豪量身定制的“可疑税务建议和避税方案”。然而，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）质疑，爱泼斯坦为什么会有如此强烈的动机去影响学术界，其背后真正的目的是什么。 - **资金来源**：涉嫌为超级富豪提供避税方案和税务咨询。 - **学术界渗透**：生前资助了大量科学家，其政治与人脉影响力在 2019-2020 年学术审查巅峰期尤为明显。 --- ### [01:47:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6440s) 爱泼斯坦与美以情报机构的深层联系 对于爱泼斯坦的真实身份，罗根提到外界普遍认为他是摩萨德（Mossad）的特工。万斯表示同意，并补充说爱泼斯坦显然与美国和以色列情报机构的最高层存在千丝万缕的联系。万斯分享了一个有趣的观察：尽管以色列现任总理内塔尼亚胡（Benjamin Netanyahu）目前在美国并非特别受欢迎，但爱泼斯坦在以色列的政治联系，似乎更偏向于“中左翼”的深层国家（Deep State）势力，而非右翼。 与在以色列的倾向性不同，爱泼斯坦在美国的社交圈横跨了整个政治光谱，无论是民主党、共和党，还是像史蒂夫·班农（Steve Bannon）和诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）这样立场截然相反的人士，他都有所接触。 - **情报网络**：与美国和以色列（特别是偏左翼深层国家）最高情报层级有密切关联。 - **跨党派人脉**：在美国的交友圈不分党派，左右通吃。 --- ### [01:48:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6537s) 罗根险些与爱泼斯坦会面的往事 罗根在节目中透露了一个令人震惊的秘密：在 2017 年，他的一位节目嘉宾曾极力试图安排他与爱泼斯坦见面。万斯听闻后感到难以置信，因为到 2017 年时，爱泼斯坦早已因性侵罪名入狱并登记在案。罗根笑着解释道，他当时上网搜索了这个名字，当即反应是：“你到底在胡扯些什么？”并拒绝了邀请。罗根表示自己还保留着当时的邮件，甚至曾在脱口秀舞台上公开宣读过，但出于该嘉宾已经“名誉扫地”的考量，不愿在节目中公开其姓名。 万斯指出，这恰恰证明了爱泼斯坦在 1990 年代至 2007 年（首次被起诉前）处于权力巅峰时期的可怕。在 2007 年首个逮捕令发出前，他的罪行未被公之于众，这使得几乎没有人会去警惕他。 - **险些会面**：2017 年罗根曾收到与爱泼斯坦会面的邀请，但因谷歌搜索其前科而果断拒绝。 - **权力巅峰期**：1990 年代至 2007 年是爱泼斯坦最活跃且未受法律制裁的黄金时期。 --- ### [01:50:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6622s) 被刻意收窄的司法起诉 万斯和罗根一致认为，针对爱泼斯坦的司法起诉被刻意“窄化”了。检方当时仅仅起诉了他涉嫌未成年人非法性交易的罪名，而完全避开了对其背后庞大“情报与勒索网络”的全面调查。罗根提到，当年的起诉检察官曾被明确告知，爱泼斯坦的背景“超出了他们的级别（above their pay grade）”，甚至暗示他属于中央情报局（CIA）等高级情报部门。 万斯直言，当他行使副总统职权，询问是否存在直接将爱泼斯坦与美国或其他国家情报机构联系起来的机密文件时，得到的官方答复是“没有”。但他随即无奈地自嘲道：“即使那些该死的文件真的存在过，到了 2026 年也早就被销毁得一干二净了。” - **起诉范围**：仅针对涉未成年人性罪行，涉嫌故意忽略了其更大规模的运作。 - **情报背景**：检察官曾被警告其背景“超出级别”；万斯证实目前官方无直接关联文件留存。 --- ### [01:51:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6669s) 副总统的信息特权与 UFO 的时间难题 当罗根问及作为美国副总统，拥有多少信息获取权限时，万斯笑着回答，他实际上拥有“几乎无限的信息获取权”。然而，真正的限制并不在于有人对他说“不”，而在于“时间”。作为副总统，他的日常日程被各种紧迫的立法游说、住房法案撰写以及极其复杂的国际外交谈判（如与伊朗、卡塔尔、以色列等国沟通）填满。 万斯承认，自己这一年半来一直向外界宣称要彻查“UFO 档案”，但至今未能成行。他指出，要突破官僚体系的层层“守门人（Gatekeepers）”，需要耗费极大的精力和连续数周的专注时间，而这对于日理万机的副总统来说是一件奢侈的事。不过他承诺，未来一定会抽出时间，彻底查清这些特种准入计划（Special Access Programs）中究竟隐藏着什么。 - **信息权限**：拥有不受限的国家安全信息调阅权限。 - **时间限制**：由于处理外交与内政事务极其繁忙，尚未能专门抽空彻查 UFO 档案。 --- ### [01:54:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=6846s) 超自然现象、恶魔与地外文明的感知争议 万斯解释了他此前曾将外星人称为“恶魔”的争议性言论。他强调，自己并非一个极端的理性主义者，而是相信神、相信超自然力量（Supernatural）的存在。万斯提出一个“假说”：如果一个非人类、拥有近乎无限力量的实体，频繁造访地球并对人类进行残忍的实验和折磨，那么在人类历史和各大宗教的语境中，这种存在完全符合“恶魔（Demon）”的定义。 罗根对此持不同意见，他以 1970 年代著名的“特拉维斯·沃尔顿绑架案（Travis Walton Abduction）”为例（该案曾在 1993 年被改编为电影《天空中闪烁的火光》*Fire in the Sky*），指出很多目击者描述的外星接触并不是折磨，而是信息传递或治疗。万斯幽默地回应：“如果是传递信息、帮助人类的强大实体，那听起来更像是天使。” 万斯进一步用“人与宠物狗”的关系进行类比： > “对我的狗来说，我和上帝没有本质区别。我走进房间，灯就亮了；我能瞬间变出食物，还能开着车带它在极短时间内跨越空间。如果外星科技领先我们太多，其在我们眼中的表现就和‘超自然魔法’毫无二致。” 罗根则坚持认为人类有能力进行更细致的区分，正如人类能区分自己与黑猩猩一样。如果人类文明再延续一百万年，所拥有的科技在原始文明眼中也会像魔法。他认为，“天使与恶魔”只是由于认知局限，对“高度进化的地外文明”的一种早期神话解释。万斯最终表示在形而上学的层面上，科技与超自然并不一定相互排斥，两者的探讨本质上是人类在面对远超自身理解力的力量时，所产生的感知和定义方式的不同。 ### [02:01:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7311s) 恶魔、外星人与不可思议的接触 JD Vance 谈到，他完全同意在概念上地球外可能存在地外生命、外星人，同时也可能存在天使和恶魔，这两者完全可以是两码事，其中一个存在并不代表另一个就存在。但他指出，一个在概念上让他觉得很有意思的区分是：如果一个拥有超越人类科技的外星人带着恶意降临地球，“我不知道该如何去分辨它和恶魔之间的区别。” Joe Rogan 随即用“到访者”进行了类比。他认为这就像是一个国家迎来了外来者，来的可能是和平队（Peace Corps），也可能是海盗。海盗并不就是恶魔，和平队也不是天使，但这只是一种比喻，实际上人们讨论的是维度完全不同的东西。 Vance 进一步解释说，在 2026 年的具体社会和文化背景下，一个事物呈现给人类的样子、人类如何去理解它，与其在概念上“到底是什么”的讨论是分立的。他认为这其中还存在鬼魂（ghost）与恶魔的差别，虽然人类遇到一个心怀恶意的鬼魂时也可能会把它当成恶魔。最后，Vance 大方承认，在天使、恶魔、外星人以及其他非自然但非上述品类的超自然生物之间，确实可能存在着本质的差异。 --- ### [02:04:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7451s) “特别通道项目”与未解密的信息 当 Rogan 问及这些所谓的“特别通道项目”（Special Access Programs）中到底能接触到什么信息时，Vance 透露他曾与大卫·格鲁什（David Grusch）进行过交流，甚至在 Grusch 参加完 Rogan 的播客后亲自给他打过电话。 Vance 指出，关于不明飞行物（UFO），目前主要有三个层面的信息： * **坠毁回收项目（Crash Retrieval Programs）：** 讨论其真实性以及这些回收的残骸到底藏在何处。 * **公开视频：** 已经解密并释放出来的视频，其中确实展示了一些“非常诡异的现象”。 * **其他未公开证据：** 可能存在的其他线索，但 Vance 表示自己目前保持开放态度，并没有掌握能辨别真伪的“独家秘诀”。 Vance 笑着说，自己这周并不急于把这些事情彻底弄明白，他还有更紧急的现实任务去处理，比如“与伊朗人谈判，并努力让法案通过”。 --- ### [02:05:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7523s) 为什么不公开？哈尔·普特霍夫的“社会评估” Rogan 顺着 Vance 的话进行假设：如果与伊朗的谈判非常顺利，海湾阿拉伯国家也决定投资伊朗并改变人们的想法，从而避免了巨大的末日冲突，那么接下来谁在掌控这些外星信息？他们又为什么不公开？ Rogan 分享了前 NASA 雇员哈尔·普特霍夫（Hal Puthoff）的故事： > “在小布什执政期间，政府曾计划进行‘大公开’（disclosure），并声称掌握了生物遗骸和物理实体飞船。他们邀请了来自不同学科和思想流派的领袖，要求他们权衡利弊并打分，评估这一消息公开后将如何影响社会、宗教、政府和经济。最终，当列表汇编出来后，所有人的‘弊’都大于‘利’，因此政府决定放弃公开。” Rogan 提到，纪录片《大公开时代》（The Age of Disclosure）中，包括情报官员在内的许多政府人员指出，长期隐瞒这些项目意味着存在“挪用资金”和“对国会撒谎”的问题。因此，像路易斯·埃利桑多（Lue Elizondo）等人认为，想要彻底揭开真相，唯一的办法是对所有涉事人员进行“大赦”（mass amnesty）。 --- ### [02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7681s) 阁楼里的外星人？关于泄密的质疑 对于挪用资金的说法，Vance 坚信如果存在无上限的资金和隐瞒行为，这些钱“百分之百流向了不该去的地方”，就像历史上一贯发生的那样。然而，对于政府是否真的存有外星人遗骸，Vance 持怀疑态度。他的怀疑并非基于技术可行性，而是基于对政府“保密能力和效率”的怀疑： > “如果美国政府手中真的掌握了外星人的遗骸，这件事情绝对不可能不以某种方式泄露出来。” * **Rogan 的反驳：** Rogan 认为进入任何绝密敏感隔离设施（SCIF）时，安检极其严格，连带信号的蓝牙设备都会被检测出来。他们甚至可以用扫描设备确保任何人身上都没有微型摄像头或录音设备。 * **Vance 的回应：** Vance 开玩笑说，在自己接下来的两年半副总统任期内，他们可以做这个实验。如果真的有“小绿人”的遗骸，他会试着走私一个照相机进去拍张照片。 --- ### [02:11:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7880s) “我不是个好骗子”与战机飞行员的目击 Rogan 问 Vance，如果他得知在赖特-帕特森空军基地（Wright-Patterson Air Force Base）或者某个山体深处的绝密设施里确实有这些东西，他是会直接公之于众，还是会在听取了关于“公开的后果”的安全简报后选择保持沉默。Vance 坦言自己会听取简报，但也承认自己有一点在政客中很罕见：“我就是个不擅长撒谎的人。” 随后，两人将话题转向了那些难以用现代物理学解释的飞行器： * **大卫·弗拉沃指挥官（Commander David Fravor）：** 其目击事件令人震惊，飞行物在短短一秒内从海拔五万英尺降落到海平面。 * **莱恩·格雷夫斯（Ryan Graves）：** 战机飞行员，他透露在 2014 年战机升级了雷达等装备后，突然开始频繁发现这些物体——在 120 节的强风中完全静止不动的“球体中的黑色正方体”。 --- ### [02:14:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8070s) 埃里克·韦恩斯坦的“新物理学”假说 Vance 提到了理论物理学家埃里克·韦恩斯坦（Eric Weinstein）几年前说服他的一套有趣理论。韦恩斯坦的观点是，正如从牛顿力学到爱因斯坦相对论的认知跨越一样，如果人类在未来能够发现一种颠覆性的“新物理学”，打破光速这一无法逾越的宇宙飞船速度极限，那么这些所谓的“外星人”也许根本不是外星生物。 他们可能只是“掌握了超先进科技的人类”。这些人类可能来自另一个星球，或者在很久以前移居火星并建立了极其先进的文明，如今他们开着违背我们现有物理常识的飞船重新造访地球。在 2026 年的人类看来，这和外星人或者超自然存在并没有什么区别。 ### [02:16:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8188s) 时空旅行、多行星物种与太空引力的基因挑战 罗根与万斯（JD Vance）聊起了地外文明与未来科技的可能性。罗根指出，如果存在领先人类数百万光年科技的生物，他们穿越时空的方式在我们看来简直就像是“神迹”。他们可能是外星人，但也完全可能是来自未来的未来人。罗根用生动的比喻解释说，宇宙中有数千亿个恒星系，每个恒星系又拥有无数的行星，其中能孕育生命的星球多到无法估量。如果这些生命形态的演化时间远比人类漫长，他们的科技将超出人类的想象： > “如果你把核弹、核反应堆、手机或电视展示给一个百年前的人看，他们会觉得这是这辈子见过最疯狂的事。这就像我家的狗看着墙上的灯光开关一样无法理解。想象一下，一万年甚至一百万年后的科技，他们不再使用传统的推进器，而是直接操纵时空。” 万斯非常赞同这一观点，并分享了他与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）探讨跨行星生存时的担忧。万斯表示，他极度热爱人类，并完全支持人类成为“多行星物种”、在火星建立殖民地。然而，太空旅行中有一个至今没有得到满意解决的底层科学难题——重力对人类基因的影响。人类的 DNA 是在地球重力环境下演化出来的，一旦脱离这个环境，人体细胞就会开始“分崩离析”。 在国际空间站生活了三到六个月的宇航员，返回地球时身体往往会受到严重损伤。万斯担忧地指出，去往火星单程就需要大约两年，往返则是四年，在长期的零重力或低重力环境下，一个原本健康的成年人可能还没落地就已经丧命。罗根对此打趣道，如果未来科技能够直接“操纵时空”而非依赖传统燃料推进，或许就能在飞船内完美模拟并维持地球的重力环境，甚至像传闻中生活在深海之下的不明飞行物一样，创造出完全封闭且自给自足的生态系统。 --- ### [02:19:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8394s) 冰淇淋、牛排与民主社会主义的乌托邦幻觉 万斯幽默地调侃道，也许那些高等文明已经破解了生物学密码，能让人一边大肆享受牛排和俄亥俄州著名的 Graeter's 冰淇淋，一边还能保持吃鸡肉沙拉般的健康血脂水平。罗根随即表达了对高脂饮食的支持，他自封为“牛排爱好者”，并纠正说鸡肉沙拉并非完美选择，而含有丰富脂肪和蛋白质的优质冰淇淋只要适量食用，其实是极佳的甜品。万斯则大笑着开玩笑说：“任何想吃冰淇淋的人都是共产主义者！” * **关于冰淇淋的政治笑话**：万斯调侃称，美国民主社会主义者（DSA）在举办活动时，会把冰淇淋扔进波士顿港，而不是像当年波士顿茶党那样扔茶叶。 * **罗根的担忧**：罗根坦言，那些极左翼的社会主义主张让他感到害怕。许多心地善良、富有同理心的年轻人天真地以为社会主义能行得通，只是过去没有被“正确地执行”。 罗根尖锐地指出，这种意识形态最终无一例外都会走向高度军事化的极权政府。因为要让人们乖乖交出私人财产和土地，除了暴力的国家机器别无他法。当听到像纽约 DSA 州议员佐赫兰·马姆达尼（Zoran Mamdani）这类人宣称要强行冻结房租、没收“无良房东”的财产时，罗根直言这简直是历史的重演： > “这是历史上每一个共产主义独裁政权诞生的第一步。北韩当年也是这么说的：‘把土地交给政府，我们保证没人会再挨饿。’ 看看结果如何。因为最核心的生产工具其实是‘人类的大脑’，为了彻底掌控生产资料，你就必须走向集权，去控制人类最根本的灵魂与思想。” --- ### [02:22:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8541s) 《圣餐》、基督徒经济学与拯救“无产”年轻一代 万斯接着推介了他的新书——《圣餐：寻找我的信仰回归之路》（*Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith*）。罗根在节目中当场调侃起这个书名，因为这与惠特利·斯特里伯（Whitley Strieber）那本讲述被外星人绑架的著名畅销书《圣餐》（*Communion*）撞名了。两人笑着在屏幕上对比了这两本书的封面，万斯无奈地笑道，要是早知道有这本外星人神作，他绝对会换个书名。 万斯借此阐述了新书中探讨的核心观点：在极端的“硬核自由放任市场（自由意志主义）”与“社会主义/共产主义”之间，其实存在着第三条路。这也是过去两千年里，基督教经济思想中一直存在、却在当代美国政治中被遗忘的智慧——既要保护私有财产权，同时也要承认极端的贫富差距会带来严重的社会撕裂。 万斯试图站在同理心的角度理解为什么 21 世纪的美国年轻一代会被社会主义吸引。他提到查理·柯克（Charlie Kirk）在与塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）的一期节目中谈到的核心痛点： > “如果你不给年轻人一份资产，不让他们拥有所有权，不给他们带去‘美国梦’和对未来的期望，他们就必然会成为社会主义者。当一个 25 岁的年轻人身处一个零和博弈的环境时，他眼里唯一的出路就是把别人的东西抢过来。” 万斯反思了共和党内部普遍存在的对社会主义的“条件反射式厌恶”。他认为这种反感完全合理，但如果不去反思“我们是如何沦落到这一步的”，就无法彻底解决问题。在特朗普政府执政期间，政府开始致力于扭转过去几十年将工厂外包、依赖低薪外国劳工制造商品的错误路线。万斯指出，关闭边境和调整移民政策在过去一年半里已经有效减缓了住房供需压力，使飙升的房租和房价开始趋于稳定。如果不从根本上让年轻一代重新拥有资产，社会主义的蔓延将不可阻挡。 --- ### [02:26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8773s) 被操纵的系统：一栋买不起的百万美元住宅 罗根赞同万斯的看法，坦言如今的系统确实对普通人“设了局”（rigged），这让很多年轻人绝望地认为除了“彻底烧毁现有一切”之外别无选择。万斯分享了两个极具代表性的身边故事，生动展示了美国中产阶级阶层跃升通道的断裂： * **高薪工程师的无奈**：在一次感恩节家庭聚餐上，万斯妻子的一位年轻女性朋友（比他们小五六岁）正准备结婚。作为一名极为优秀的工程师，她的薪水超过了 75% 甚至 90% 的同龄美国人。然而，她却满脸失落地表示，自己可能永远无法像父母一代那样，轻松买下一栋体面的房子、安稳地抚养孩子。 * **圣地亚哥的海军陆战队街区**：另一位在圣地亚哥奥申赛德（Oceanside）长大的南印度裔移民二代朋友回忆道，他小时候和街坊邻居的孩子一起骑车、打街头曲棍球和橄榄球，那些同伴全部都是彭德尔顿营（Camp Pendleton）普通入伍海军陆战队士兵（Enlisted Marines）的子女。然而如今，该街区任意一栋房子的价格都突破了百万美元。现在，不仅是普通士兵，甚至连军官也根本无力承担这里的房价。 万斯痛心地指出，美国过去几十年做了一场灾难性的社会实验： > “我们把所有的工业制造岗位外包，让自己彻底转型成一个纯服务业和金融主导的经济体。我们眼睁睁看着华尔街大资本入局，买下现代生活中的每一项基本资产，把它们变成在显微镜下‘只许涨不许跌’的金融投资品。结果是什么？我们亲手制造了这群被剥夺感包围、因而极度向往社会主义的下一代。” --- ### [02:29:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8942s) AI 焦虑与第二次工业革命：走向法西斯还是中间道路？ 除了高昂的生存成本，年轻人还面临着对未来科技的深层恐惧。罗根指出，人工智能（AI）的爆发让许多接受过高等教育的年轻人感到绝望，他们发现自己辛辛苦苦学习的专业技能和工作岗位，在未来很可能会被 AI 彻底抹杀。 万斯分享了他与一位政治立场偏右的中肯科技公司 CEO 的对话。这位 CEO 认为，AI 带来的变革与历史上的“工业革命”高度相似。工业革命虽然颠覆并消灭了大量旧岗位，但也创造了无数此前难以想象的新职业。因此，真正令人担忧的并不是“50% 的美国人将彻底失业”，而是财富分配的极度失衡： * **强盗男爵时代的教训**：工业革命时期，社会的生产力需求巨大，但财富分配完全失衡，催生了“强盗男爵”（Robber Barons）阶层。这种极端的贫富差距在欧洲和美国最终孕育了法西斯主义和共产主义。 * **历史的警示**：如果政府无法给绝望的底层民众提供一个切实可行的“好选择”，社会就不可避免地会倒向极端主义。 为了给当下的经济困局寻找药方，万斯特别推崇罗马教皇利奥十三世（Pope Leo XIII）在 19 世纪末撰写的一篇著名通谕。万斯盛赞这是有史以来由基督教领袖撰写的最佳文献之一。该通谕的核心论点正是针对工业革命时代的动荡，呼吁在放任自流的资本家与极端的社会主义之间建立一条“中间道路”，既要保障工人的尊严，防止六岁的孩童在工厂里遭受残酷剥削，又要维护社会的基本秩序与私有产权。 ### [02:31:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9073s) 应对AI财富集中的威胁：预防共产主义的重演 万斯（JD Vance）指出，当前的核心挑战在于如何确保普通人在AI释放的巨大经济力量中拥有发言权和控制权。如果AI创造的惊人财富只集中在极少数人手中——比如普通人连房子都买不起，而另一些人却坐拥35栋豪宅——那么社会将不可避免地面临剧烈的动荡。万斯直言不讳地警告说，虽然他支持财富的创造，但如果不能确保这种财富带来更广泛的繁荣，“我们以前做过这种实验，它的终点就是共产主义”。面对这个严峻的前景，主持人罗根（Joe Rogan）一针见血地问道：“既然这个系统完蛋了，我们该怎么解决它（unfuck it）？你有什么魔棒吗？” 万斯承认自己并没有能够一劳永逸解决所有问题的魔棒，但他提出了几条明确的应对路径。首先就是要在谈判桌上给普通劳动者真正的发言权。他指出，目前美国私营部门工会的流失是一个极大的隐患。回顾历史，美国和英国之所以能比其他西方国家更好地平稳度过工业革命，很大程度上得益于两大支柱：一是强大的宗教机构（如今已非常衰弱），二是强大的劳动者参与机制，这在过去甚至包括了好莱坞片场会主动与社区和教会合作，创造符合普通大众价值的内容。 - 财富高度集中的后果：如果AI创造的社会财富不能实现广泛共享，美国未来可能将走向共产主义。 - 历史经验的启示：19世纪英美平稳度过工业革命的支柱在于强大的宗教机构和劳动者参与机制。 --- ### [02:33:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9231s) 遏制超级垄断与维护真正的民主 除了提升劳工地位，万斯提出的第二大对策是重塑市场竞争，坚决打击垄断。他提到泰迪·罗斯福（Teddy Roosevelt）当年的反垄断主张，当时像钢铁托拉斯这样的巨头力量甚至超越了美国联邦政府，使得普通选民的选票变得无足轻重。在AI时代，这种历史危险正在重演。如果单一的超级垄断企业主导了AI领域，进而去影响政府、非营利部门，普通人就会被彻底排挤出利益分配的格局之外。 万斯解释道，虽然他和特朗普（Donald Trump）常因为偏向劳工阶层而被部分共和党人指责“过于亲工会”，但他作为共和党人支持劳工的根本逻辑，正是为了预防共产主义在未来的滋生。如果不能给普通人一个参与社会决策的席位，当企业垄断了整个空间时，所谓的“民主”就沦为了空壳。 - 反垄断的历史参照：钢铁托拉斯曾比美国政府更有权势，使得民主选举失去实际意义。 - AI时代的垄断风险：超级AI巨头可能通过控制信息流、政府及非营利组织，彻底剥夺普通人的自主权。 --- ### [02:35:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9336s) 打造21世纪的现代化新型工会 当罗根追问联邦政府具体可以通过什么立法手段来实现这一目标时，万斯指出，美国的工会制度需要进行21世纪的现代化升级。民主党人常将工会参与率低归咎于政府的反工会（anti-union）政策，这虽有一定道理，但更核心的问题在于，很多劳动者觉得现有的工会属于“20世纪的陈旧产物”，无法满足现代需求。万斯借用了他的朋友、右翼经济思想家奥林·卡斯（Orin Cass）的观点，指出美国20世纪的劳工法预设了企业与工会之间“零和博弈”的冲突关系，限制了工会可谈判的范围。 相比之下，欧洲部分国家的工会模式更具合作性，拥有更大的谈判自由度和灵活性。例如在某些欧洲国家，工会被允许与雇主达成弹性协议：企业可以在前几年支付给刚入职的年轻员工低于法定最低工资的薪水，但前提是必须为他们提供系统的职业技能培训和更好的福利。这种模式实际上将公司在前几年转变成了一个“教学机构”。但在美国，这种弹性的薪酬与培训方案目前在法律上是行不通的。万斯认为，政府应当给予工会和劳工组织充分的信任与工具，让他们自己去为会员争取最合理的利益，而不是由政府在官僚层面上把所有细节卡死。 - 传统工会法的弊端：美国20世纪的劳工法将劳资关系框定在狭窄的零和博弈中，缺乏灵活度。 - 欧洲工会合作模式：允许工会与雇主协商，以初期较低的工资换取企业的高质量培训与长期福利，使企业具备教学功能。 --- ### [02:40:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9653s) 限制低薪移民与夺回本土劳工的议价权 罗根提出了一个现实的质疑：企业对股东负有责任，其根本动力是每季度赚取更多利润，而最直接的手段就是压低员工薪水。万斯对此表示赞同，这也正是他坚持必须让劳动者拥有谈判筹码的原因。万斯批评了20世纪末主导美国的自由市场经济理论，该理论错误地认为劳动力市场是绝对高效的，企业不加薪就招不到人。但现实中，企业有太多的空子可钻，其中最典型的手段就是引入大量低薪移民。 作为一名坚定的移民鹰派，万斯指出限制低薪移民对保护本土劳工至关重要。如果企业在招聘时，能在本土劳动者和源源不断的低薪移民之间做选择，本土劳动者（无论何种族裔）的议价权就会被彻底摧毁。万斯批评美国民主社会主义者（DSA）等左翼人士在帮助普通人方面“纯属扯淡（a little full of shit）”：“如果你真的想帮助普通人，就不要给企业提供九个低薪移民来跟他们在谈薪水时竞争。”罗根也分享了自己与一位酒店集团高管的对话，对方曾抱怨政府打击非法移民，直言不讳地表示“因为本土工人期望更高的薪水，不招移民我们就得付更多钱”。 - 移民政策与议价权：涌入大量的低薪移民会直接成为企业压低本土劳动者薪资、削弱其谈判筹码的工具。 - 企业逐利本质：在没有外界抗衡力量的情况下，企业必然倾向于选择成本最低、要求最少的劳动力。 --- ### [02:43:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9780s) 制造业回流、尊严劳动与对廉价外包模式的反思 万斯提到几年前《纽约时报》上一篇探讨苹果公司为何选择在亚洲而非美国制造产品的报道，他认为那篇报道展示了一种令人啼笑皆非且带着说教意味的傲慢。报道抱怨美国工人“下班后想回家陪孩子吃饭”，而相比之下，苹果在中国的富士康代工厂里，工人们一周工作72小时，四个人挤一间狭小的宿舍。万斯情绪激动地指出，富士康大楼外面甚至不得不装上“防自杀网”，因为高强度的压榨让工人们痛苦不堪。 “我希望美国生活里多一点尊严。”万斯说道。他认为，一个健康的社会应当允许人们在养活家庭的同时，还能有时间去现场看孩子的棒球比赛，而不仅仅追求纯粹的利润。万斯坚信，如果给美国消费者一个选择——一边是完全在境外压榨劳工制造的产品，另一边是在美国本土制造、工人享有尊严和体面工资、背面印着美国国旗的 iPhone，绝大多数有消费能力的美国人会多花一点钱选择后者，因为这样他们能买得心安理得。这种对本地化、高品质和尊严劳动的追求在食品领域同样适用。万斯最后总结道，过去40年里美国尝试了通过非法移民和外包将一切推给低薪外国人的错误路线，如今给社会留下了巨大的烂摊子，而现任政府的一大核心任务就是扭转这一局面。 - 富士康案例的启示：境外廉价外包模式建立在剥夺劳动者基本尊严（如72小时工作制、防自杀网）的基础之上。 - 尊严劳动（Dignity of Labor）：万斯倡导一种能让劳动者兼顾家庭生活与体面收入的社会平衡，主张消费者愿意为这种带有“道德和本地属性”的产品支付溢价。 ### [02:45:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9950s) 长期经济政策的失败与社会科学的教训 JD·万斯（JD Vance）指出，最新的消费者物价指数（CPI）报告显示美国出现了去通胀趋势，甚至由于伊朗战争导致的汽油价格回落，部分领域出现了物价下跌。虽然油价并未跌回战争爆发前的水平，但较一个月前已有所下降。尽管万斯承认这表明当下的 CPI 报告表现良好，但他强调，特朗普政府在应对通货膨胀方面的表现远优于拜登政府——即便是在特朗普任期内最糟糕的月份，通胀率也从未接近过拜登时期的 $9\%$。 万斯认为，当前的经济困境并不是单一总统任期造成的，而是源于美国“长达40年、由两党共同主导的失败领导力”。这种长期的政策方向将美国变成了一个类似于“壳公司”的存在：国家不再生产足够的产品，失去了自给自足的能力，工人的议价能力也被严重削弱。万斯直言，正是这种长期的经济空心化，助长了如今社会上对社会主义的狂热。他警告说，扭转这一局面需要数年时间，如果两党不从根本上解决自给自足和保护本土工人的问题，美国未来终将迎来一位信奉社会主义的总统。 --- ### [02:47:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=10026s) 边境政策、人口普查与工人权利的底层逻辑 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）将话题转向移民问题的舆论叙事。他痛斥现行的主流叙事将“阻止非法移民”污名化为“残忍、种族主义和排外”，而倡导直接给非法移民发放公民身份。罗根指出，过去几年的边境乱象令人匪夷所思，政府不仅开放边境、鼓励非法移民涌入，甚至还在资金、医疗保险（Medicaid）、社会保障等方面为其提供便利，甚至将他们安置在酒店、发放手机，并转移到蓝州。这种做法不仅消耗了公共资源，更直接通过人口普查（Census）影响了国会席位的分配。罗根和万斯一致认为，人口普查理应只统计公民，而当前的统计方式实际上是在“窃取”那些非法移民较少地区的国会代表权。 万斯进一步剖析了左翼倡导组织（如美社民党，DSA）在移民问题上的逻辑悖论。他提到美国工人运动的奠基人之一塞萨尔·查韦斯（Cesar Chavez），查韦斯曾是一位坚定的移民限制主义者，因为他深知资本家会通过引入低薪移民来削弱本土工人的议价能力、压低整体工资。然而，如今声称代表工人利益的 DSA 却成了一个支持“门户开放”的组织。万斯辛辣地讽刺道，这完全是“满嘴胡言”（all BS），因为大企业、大财阀远比 DSA 更加渴望开放边境。数十年的“开放边境”实验已经证明，这不仅没有保护劳动者，反而系统性地摧毁了美国的中产阶级。 --- ### [02:49:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=10185s) 民主化公共安全与劳工阶层的未来 面对罗根关于“右翼必须做好舆论宣传、打破‘共和党冷酷且反工人’刻板印象”的呼吁，万斯表示自己一直在努力传递正确的声音。万斯强调，任何真正关心社区安全的人，都不会去支持放任犯罪的政策，而是会赋能优秀的警察去履行职责；真正关心法律与秩序、关心工人薪资与安全的人，必然会主张控制国境线并监禁暴力犯罪分子。万斯坦言，虽然共和党内部也存在诸多分歧，但当前共和党在保护家庭安全、提升工资、降低税负方面的政策方向无疑是正确的，而那些推行“庇护州”和对犯罪不作为的城市，正在经历一次又一次的灾难。 万斯提出，公共安全具有极强的“阶级属性”。在人类历史上，富人随时可以雇佣私人保镖来保护财产和家人的安全。而美国最伟大的成就之一，就是将“公共安全民主化”——无论贫富、黑白，每个人都应当享有不被抢劫、不被盗窃、可以在深夜安全散步的权利。然而，左翼近年来的政策实际上剥夺了普通劳动人民的安全感。万斯以自己由工人阶级祖父母抚养长大的社区为例，指出在拜登执政期间，这些蓝领社区的暴力犯罪、劫车事件频发，生活质量严重恶化，这绝非偶然。 在节目的最后，万斯幽默地向罗根推销自己的新书《圣餐：我皈依信仰的历程》（*Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith*），并相约下次再来探讨宗教、信仰与十诫。罗根对此表示感谢，两人在轻松的氛围中结束了这场长达近三小时的深度对话。 * **核心事实与论点整理**： * **通胀对比**：万斯指出特朗普政府在控制通胀上的表现远优于拜登时期的 $9\%$ 峰值。 * **历史典故**：塞萨尔·查韦斯（Cesar Chavez）作为工人运动领袖，历史上曾坚定反对大规模移民，以防企业压低本土工人工资。 * **政策反思**：万斯认为过去40年的两党政策导致美国制造业空心化，进而引发了对社会主义的崇拜。 * **宣传重点**：万斯提出应将公共安全视为一种“民主化”的权利，批评现行左翼政策让低收入和蓝领社区承担了治安恶化的最大代价。 ## Notable quotes > [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=1s) 这到底是在搞什么鬼？ — JD Vance > [00:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=44s) 天哪，这可真不是个谋生的好营生。 — JD Vance > [52:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=3150s) 如果你在公共生活中对待宗教的方式，永远是将其推离公共广场，那么你实际上是在公共广场拥抱你自己的宗教，那就是世俗主义。你只是用世俗主义取代了另一种宗教。 — JD Vance > [02:22:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8541s) 如果你不给年轻人一份资产，不让他们拥有所有权，不给他们带去‘美国梦’和对未来的期望，他们就必然会成为社会主义者。当一个 25 岁的年轻人身处一个零和博弈的环境时，他眼里唯一的出路就是把别人的东西抢过来。 — JD Vance > [02:19:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8394s) 任何想吃冰淇淋的人都是共产主义者！ — JD Vance > [02:19:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8394s) 这是历史上每一个共产主义独裁政权诞生的第一步。北韩当年也是这么说的：‘把土地交给政府，我们保证没人会再挨饿。’ 看看结果如何。因为最核心的生产工具其实是‘人类的大脑’，为了彻底掌控生产资料，你就必须走向集权，去控制人类最根本的灵魂与思想。 — Joe Rogan > [02:26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=8773s) 我们把所有的工业制造岗位外包，让自己彻底转型成一个纯服务业和金融主导的经济体。我们眼睁睁看着华尔街大资本入局，买下现代生活中的每一项基本资产，把它们变成在显微镜下‘只许涨不许跌’的金融投资品。结果是什么？我们亲手制造了这群被剥夺感包围、因而极度向往社会主义的下一代。 — JD Vance > [02:43:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=9780s) 我希望美国生活里多一点尊严。 — JD Vance > [01:24:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=5094s) 当我在《时代》周刊上看到，有人花大价钱雇人来蓄意破坏我正在争取的协议，而且那些拿了钱的人还在用完全不诚实的手法对我指手画脚时，我的回应只有一句：去你们的。我只会做对美国人民有利的事。 — JD Vance > [02:08:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg&t=7681s) 如果美国政府手中真的掌握了外星人的遗骸，这件事情绝对不可能不以某种方式泄露出来。 — JD Vance ## Mentioned Joe Rogan, JD Vance, UFC, Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith, Justin Gaethje, Donald Trump, Usha Vance, Dana White, Conor McGregor, Max Holloway, Ilia Topuria, Josh Dubin, Josh Hok, Derrick Lewis, Michelle Obama, Hulk Hogan, Tony Hinchcliffe, Shane Gillis, South Park, Gavin Newsom, U-Haul, Spencer Pratt, Nithya Raman, Kathy Hochul, Oprah Winfrey, Save America Act, Joe Scarborough, MSNBC, Kamala Harris, Vivek Ramaswamy, James Tarico, Patriot Front, Antifa, Ben Askren, Belal Muhammad, Arman Tsarukyan, Colby Covington, Fox Nation, Abraham Lincoln, Mike Pence, Mark Levin, Tucker Carlson, Time, Pam Bondi, Jeffrey Epstein, Alex Acosta, Les Wexner, Ro Khanna, Steve Bannon, Noam Chomsky, Benjamin Netanyahu, David Grusch, Hal Puthoff, Lue Elizondo, David Fravor, Ryan Graves, Eric Weinstein, Elon Musk, Zoran Mamdani, Charlie Kirk, Pope Leo XIII, Orin Cass, Cesar Chavez, The Farmers Dog [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtxyvD58eDg)

[0:01] JD Vance: 这到底是在搞什么鬼？ [0:44] JD Vance: 天哪，这可真不是个谋生的好营生。 [52:30] JD Vance: 如果你在公共生活中对待宗教的方式，永远是将其推离公共广场，那么你实际上是在公共广场拥抱你自己的宗教，那就是世俗主义。你只是用世俗主义取代了另一种宗教。 [142:21] JD Vance: 如果你不给年轻人一份资产，不让他们拥有所有权，不给他们带去‘美国梦’和对未来的期望，他们就必然会成为社会主义者。当一个 25 岁的年轻人身处一个零和博弈的环境时，他眼里唯一的出路就是把别人的东西抢过来。 [139:54] JD Vance: 任何想吃冰淇淋的人都是共产主义者！ [139:54] Joe Rogan: 这是历史上每一个共产主义独裁政权诞生的第一步。北韩当年也是这么说的：‘把土地交给政府，我们保证没人会再挨饿。’ 看看结果如何。因为最核心的生产工具其实是‘人类的大脑’，为了彻底掌控生产资料，你就必须走向集权，去控制人类最根本的灵魂与思想。 [146:13] JD Vance: 我们把所有的工业制造岗位外包，让自己彻底转型成一个纯服务业和金融主导的经济体。我们眼睁睁看着华尔街大资本入局，买下现代生活中的每一项基本资产，把它们变成在显微镜下‘只许涨不许跌’的金融投资品。结果是什么？我们亲手制造了这群被剥夺感包围、因而极度向往社会主义的下一代。 [163:00] JD Vance: 我希望美国生活里多一点尊严。 [84:54] JD Vance: 当我在《时代》周刊上看到，有人花大价钱雇人来蓄意破坏我正在争取的协议，而且那些拿了钱的人还在用完全不诚实的手法对我指手画脚时，我的回应只有一句：去你们的。我只会做对美国人民有利的事。 [128:01] JD Vance: 如果美国政府手中真的掌握了外星人的遗骸，这件事情绝对不可能不以某种方式泄露出来。

[9:36] JD Vance: I work in politics. People say crazy stuff all the time. [79:50] JD Vance: The hawks attacked us and misrepresented this and lied about it and said the Trump administration is going to give the Iranians $300 billion... it was done purely in order to politically tank the negotiation. [116:55] JD Vance: Is there really a meaningful difference between an angel or a demon and a space alien with super technology? To our perception, they would largely just look like the same thing. [142:22] JD Vance: If you don't give young people a stake, if you don't give them ownership, if you don't give them a sense of the American dream and of possibility in the future, they're going to become socialists. [152:26] JD Vance: One of the reasons why I'm pro-labor as a Republican is because... the alternative may very well be communism in the United States of America. Not next year, but down the road, you've got to give people a seat at the table. [169:45] JD Vance: What America did is we democratized public safety. Every person gets to keep their property. Every person gets to not be stolen from. Every person gets to walk down their neighborhood at night without being mugged.

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:03] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:11] >> U. So, the last time we talked [music] [0:13] uh last time I saw you, we were at a [0:16] cage fight at the White House. [0:18] >> That's right. That's [laughter] [0:21] That's [0:22] >> one of the craziest experiences of my [0:23] life. It must have been one of the [0:24] craziest experiences of your life. [0:26] >> Oh, yeah. It took me like 2 weeks [0:27] afterwards to recover just to like go, [0:30] did that actually happen? That seems It [0:33] seems so insane. [0:34] >> Okay. The most insane part of it, which [0:36] I guess was was before you got there to [0:39] to me at least, is you like you come [0:41] into work every day in the White House, [0:42] right? You you know, I have an office in [0:44] the West Wing. There's the Oval Office [0:46] in the West Wing. And you look out the [0:48] window and as this like eightstory [0:52] complex was growing up, it was the it [0:54] was just the most unbelievable thing. I [0:56] think it's like the south lawn of the [0:57] White House, but you've got the eighth [0:58] wonder of the world [laughter] being [1:00] built up around it. And every day I'd [1:03] look at it and be like, it would take me [1:04] a couple seconds to be like, "What the [1:06] hell is going on?" And I like, "Oh yeah, [1:07] it's UFC. It's UF UFC coming in a couple [1:09] weeks." [1:09] >> The whole thing was surreal. First of [1:11] all, it was crazy that the weather just [1:15] went around us. [1:16] >> Like there was a real moment where the [1:18] fights would have been postponed until [1:20] 10:30 p.m. to start. [1:23] >> Correct. And uh last minute the storm [1:27] just diverted. [1:28] >> That's right. Well, and uh you know this [1:30] this uh this book that I have that I'm I [1:33] guess we'll talk about a little bit, but [1:35] the book tour started the next day. So I [1:37] was flying to New York the next day to [1:39] talk about it. And all I could think [1:40] about is every time we got the update [1:42] from White House weather, oh it might [1:44] not start until 10:30. I was thinking to [1:45] myself, "Holy [ __ ] that means I'm going [1:47] to go to bed at like 4:00 a.m. I'm going [1:49] to look like a total crazy person when I [1:51] try [laughter] to go talk about go talk [1:54] about this book." But yeah, it it it [1:56] amazingly it did work out. Honestly, it [1:58] actually helped a little bit because, as [1:59] you know, it was hot as hell out there [2:01] and it was super humid, you know, mid [2:03] June in in in DC. And I think the [2:08] weather actually helped cool it down a [2:09] little bit because by about 10:00 or so, [2:12] I was not thinking it's hot as hell out [2:14] here anymore. [2:15] >> Yeah, it wasn't too bad. But I talked to [2:17] Justin Gatey about it and he said it was [2:19] a problem when he was fighting. He said [2:21] the air was very thick. Okay. [2:23] >> Like it like right after the first [2:25] round, he was like, "Boy, [2:26] >> like this is rough." Cuz that hot humid [2:29] air and you know it's [2:30] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's it's it's fine [2:32] walking around. [2:33] >> It's it's I mean it's okay walking [2:34] around. It still feels it is a swamp, [2:36] right? That's why people call it the [2:37] swamp. So, you know, that's obviously [2:39] June 14th. That's the president. [2:40] >> That's not why they call it the swamp. [2:41] [laughter] [2:42] >> That's one of the reasons why they call [2:43] it the swamp. [2:44] >> They call it the swamp. [2:45] >> They call it swamp because of my [2:46] colleagues, too. [2:46] >> Cuz it's filled with [laughter] mud and [2:48] water and gunk and [ __ ] and swamp [2:52] monsters. [2:52] >> Oh, man. So, that's June 14th. So, it's [2:55] the president's birthday. That's also [2:57] was that was my 12th wedding [2:58] anniversary. [2:59] >> Oh, wow. and uh my wife. So that's [3:01] that's the one thing like if somebody [3:03] runs in here, it's because my wife's [3:04] going into labor cuz she's like 39 weeks [3:06] pregnant. But uh I remember we go out to [3:10] dinner like right before the UFC fight [3:13] and we're of course checking the weather [3:14] report to figure out what's going on. [3:15] And you know, my wife normally likes to [3:17] come to the cool stuff of being vice [3:19] president. That was the one where she [3:21] was like, "It's hot. I'm super pregnant [3:24] and I'm not going to sit sit out there [3:26] for six hours." So [3:27] >> yeah, I couldn't imagine [laughter] [3:29] Also, it was just there was so much [3:31] chaos and and the potential for real [3:34] chaos was always there. First of all, [3:36] you have the Ellipse. So, the Ellipse [3:38] has what 85,000 [3:40] people outside [3:42] >> and for people that watching at home [3:44] like we could hear them like when the [3:46] fights when when something would happen [3:48] >> in like kind of a delayed way, right? [3:50] >> You hear the cheers from the people that [3:52] were near. So, it was like 3,000 plus [3:54] people tightly close to the octagon and [3:57] then you had 85,000 people in the Yeah. [4:01] >> Yeah. [4:01] >> in the background. It was very eerie. [4:04] >> Yeah. [4:04] >> I actually loved that. Like I loved the [4:06] delay reaction to where you know [4:08] somebody get a good punch in or you know [4:10] you get a takedown and then it was [4:12] almost like the wave, right? Cuz there [4:14] was the initial center of it and then [4:16] the people outside of it. [4:18] >> It was pretty sick. [4:18] >> It was pretty sick. It was very [4:20] [laughter] cool. I think Dana said not [4:21] once in a lifetime or not once in a [4:24] generation or once in a lifetime [4:25] experience. [4:26] >> Yeah. I mean, it's once ever. Yeah. I [4:29] don't see any other president. I mean, [4:30] if you become president, you're not [4:31] going to do that, [laughter] right? [4:33] >> Uh I don't know, man. [4:34] >> It's I wouldn't I didn't want to do it. [4:37] >> Very cool. Get it over with. Do it once. [4:40] >> It was the only time in the history of [4:41] the sport where there's been seven [4:43] stoppages. Seven Seven knockouts. Like [4:46] every single fight was a knockout. [4:47] >> I didn't realize that. [4:48] >> Yeah. Every single fight. Okay. [4:50] >> But the thing is like we've had seven [4:52] knockouts in a card. I think this last [4:54] weekend we had 10 10 stoppages. [4:56] >> But um [4:58] >> that was different because it was like [5:00] 14 fights. That's right. [5:01] >> This is all fights. Every single fight [5:03] was a knockout. [5:04] >> So the last fight. When did you realize [5:06] that was over [5:07] >> with Connor? [5:07] >> Yeah. [5:09] >> Um when he fell down the second time I [5:11] was like this is not good. F the first [5:13] time I thought he just slipped. It's [5:15] hard to tell. It's wild. It's in the [5:17] moment. I thought he slipped and then [5:20] when he got up and he threw a kick [5:21] again, I'm like, "Oh, I don't like how [5:23] his leg just gave out." That didn't seem [5:25] like I'm still hoping he's just [5:27] slipping. [5:28] >> Yeah. [5:29] >> I'm hoping he's just freaking out cuz he [5:30] hasn't been in the octagon in 5 years. [5:32] >> And then he started moving around and he [5:34] he like grabbed his knee and buckled. [5:37] >> Okay. [5:37] >> And there was some conversation that [5:39] Yeah. There was some conversation going [5:40] on between him and Max Holloway. And I [5:42] was like, [5:43] >> you know, Max is saying he can't fight. [5:45] Like something's wrong. and he's saying, [5:47] "Fight me." He's like, "Get up." And so [5:49] he lets him up and then his his knee [5:51] buckles. Then the referee stops the [5:53] fight. [5:53] >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There it always So so [5:56] the the very I think it was the very [5:58] last fight where the the ref tried to [6:01] call it at the end of the third round [6:03] and then because he was he was saying [6:06] that there was a concussion issue. I [6:07] mean I couldn't tell what was going on. [6:08] >> This the Ilia Tapora fight, the Justin [6:10] Gate fight at the White House. [6:11] >> The Taporio Justin fight. [6:12] >> He couldn't see. [6:13] >> Okay. [6:14] >> He was saying he couldn't see. Well, [6:16] something was wrong with his right eye. [6:18] >> Well, I mean it looks like his whole [6:18] face was puffed up, so he couldn't see [6:20] anything, but Okay. So, I thought it was [6:22] a concussion thing, but it was it was [6:24] because of his vision. [6:24] >> No, they never got they I mean, the [6:27] concussion thing would only be if [6:29] someone had been battered. There's a lot [6:31] of times where fighters are fighting [6:32] with concussions. [6:33] >> Yeah, it happens all the time. You get [6:35] dropped in the first round, you probably [6:36] have a concussion. You get back up, you [6:38] keep fighting, you're fighting on [6:39] instincts. There's been many times where [6:41] fighters wake up in like the fourth [6:43] round [6:44] >> and they've fought three rounds and they [6:46] don't remember it at all. [6:49] >> God, that's pretty crazy. [6:50] >> Not the best way to make a living. [6:52] [laughter] [6:52] >> Not the best way to make a living, man. [6:54] Yeah. No. So, we saw Gachi um at the [6:56] White House a couple of weeks ago and I [6:59] asked him, I was like, "So, are you done [7:00] fighting?" And he kind of hesitated a [7:02] little bit and then I think it was his [7:03] mom was in the Oval Office with her. [7:05] She's like, "Yes." [laughter] [7:07] >> Yeah. But, you know, if they offer him [7:11] some life-changing money for one more [7:14] fight after that performance, I have a [7:15] feeling he'll take it. [7:17] >> Like, what is what could he fetch for [7:19] his next fight? Like 50 more? [7:21] >> It's a good question. You know, I don't [7:23] know what his contract is. I don't know [7:25] how it works. I don't know what the most [7:26] anyone's ever I try not to pay attention [7:28] to that stuff [7:30] >> because I'm not on the business end of [7:32] the sport. [7:33] >> It kind of color your perception a [7:34] little bit. [7:35] >> It can. And it's also it's I mean I want [7:38] them to get paid the most amount [7:39] possible. That's my perspective. Yeah. [7:42] >> But what I'm my job is just to analyze [7:46] and to see what's going on and to [7:48] commentate and try to give color and [7:50] life to what's happening inside the [7:51] octagon. And I don't I try not to dwell [7:54] too much on the money. I just want them [7:56] to get paid a lot. Yeah. [7:57] >> I want them to be able to retire and [7:58] never have to do anything ever again. [8:00] >> Sure. [8:01] >> I don't know if Justin could do that. [8:02] What's crazy about it to me is just how [8:04] much the sport has replaced boxing and [8:08] like there's still obviously boxing is [8:10] still a big deal and fighters still get [8:12] paid a lot of money but like I remember [8:14] when I was I don't know in high school I [8:17] feel like people would get really [8:18] excited about the big heavyweight [8:21] heavyweight title bout. Now it's the UFC [8:24] thing. [8:24] >> So culturally it's like UFC has taken [8:27] over boxing and I don't I mean I don't [8:30] know how or why that happened. Like I [8:31] don't know if it's just good marketing [8:33] or if it's just the fights are so much [8:34] more real and intense. Like I but it's [8:37] it is a crazy shift that's happened in [8:38] 20 years. [8:39] >> Well, I've had some I had some friends [8:41] this past weekend that manage fighters. [8:43] My friend Josh Dubin and a few other [8:44] friends that actually manage boxers come [8:47] to the UFC and they were all like, "Oh [8:49] my god, this is so much better than a [8:50] boxing promotion." Because you c all the [8:53] fights are exciting. With boxing, most [8:55] people are just there for the main [8:56] event. [8:57] >> And a lot of people don't even stroll in [8:59] until like 15 minutes before the main [9:01] event. Sure. [9:02] >> Like all the famous people that sit in [9:04] the front row. [9:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. [9:05] >> Uh in the UFC, that place is packed for, [9:08] >> you know, five, six, seven fights in. [9:10] >> Yeah. [9:10] >> You know, and there's 14 fights in the [9:12] night and all of them are amazing. It's [9:14] like in the beginning it's usually like [9:17] half full [9:18] >> depending on where you are. If you're in [9:20] a place like Salt Lake City, it's pretty [9:21] packed like right away because they only [9:23] get like one event every year or [9:25] >> so. [9:26] >> But um it's just a more exciting sport. [9:28] There's more ways to win. It's more [9:30] dynamic. More things happen [9:32] >> and there's more stars. There's so many [9:34] stars in the UFC. [9:35] >> Yeah. So I'd never seen a fight live [9:37] before. Like I've watched them on TV, [9:38] but I'd never been there live. So kind [9:40] of crazy that it's literally in the [9:41] south lawn of the White House. But the [9:43] thing that I found completely shocking [9:45] about it was like I would think those [9:48] those like arm bar takedowns are just [9:51] done. Like that's it. You're over. But [9:54] there were a couple of times where [9:55] somebody had another person's arm and [9:58] >> Yeah, that was Josh Hoit and Derrick [10:00] Lewis. [10:01] >> Bless you. [10:02] >> Um and it's like holy [ __ ] [10:05] >> Yeah, he [10:05] >> you're going to have your arm broken off [10:07] and yet he didn't. [10:08] >> He wasn't doing it right. [10:09] >> Okay. [laughter] Josh Hok is a great [10:12] wrestler and he's an excellent fighter, [10:14] but he's not really a submission [10:16] specialist. I mean, he did get the arm [10:18] bar, but he didn't do it right. Okay. [10:19] >> He was basically like pulling on. You [10:21] have to elevate your hips and you have [10:23] to create space so that the arm is [10:26] bending back this way. His arm is [10:28] essentially flat to his chest, which is [10:30] not what you want. What you want is [10:32] >> a back arch like this where you see like [10:35] how it is right there. Yeah. Yeah. [10:36] >> So, what he wants to do here, what he [10:38] should do instead of having his hips [10:40] down, his knees up, what you're supposed [10:42] to do is heavy leg curls with the leg [10:44] and elevate the hips up and pull it way [10:47] back. So, he'd almost be bridging it. He [10:49] would be on the top of his shoulders and [10:51] bridging and then he would have broken [10:53] his arm. The other option is you pull it [10:55] off to the side like this. [10:57] >> Yeah. [10:58] >> And you put it to the side of your hip [11:00] and you can break it that way. [11:01] >> Okay. [11:02] >> But it's just bad technique. [11:04] >> Okay. So, watching it. No offense, Josh. [11:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. Watching it, I didn't [11:07] realize that. I just could not believe [11:09] that dude held out for like 30 seconds [11:11] with his [11:11] >> Was that more shocking or when he said [11:13] Michelle Obama is a man? [laughter] [11:15] Which one was more shocking? [11:17] >> Uh, definitely the armbar part. Man, [11:20] [laughter] I I work in politics. People [11:23] say crazy stuff all the time. [11:24] >> Well, he says that every fight, does he? [11:27] >> Yeah. Yeah, he said it. He said that the [11:28] last time I interviewed him. [11:30] >> Oh, man. Well, it's [11:32] >> He's like a pro wrestling character. [11:33] People lost their minds about it. [11:36] >> I know. [11:36] >> Lost their minds about it to the point [11:37] where again I had the view either the [11:41] next day or the day after to sort of [11:43] promote this book. [11:44] >> That must be fun. [11:45] >> It was crazy. It was harder than any [11:47] anything I've done in politics. But the [11:49] the the to the point where all of my [11:51] comm's people, the thing they were most [11:53] worried about was they're going to ask [11:56] you about Michelle Obama being called a [11:58] man. Like what what are you [laughter] [12:00] like what are you going to say about it? [12:01] And I was like, what an amped up fighter [12:04] told a joke after a fight. Said [12:06] something after a fight and that's [12:07] actually national news. I'm still [12:09] surprised. I've been in politics now for [12:11] three or four years. I'm still shocked [12:13] the [ __ ] that people get really fired up [12:15] about. [12:15] >> Well, I kind of understand it because [12:18] it's at the White House. First of all, a [12:20] cage fight at the White House is crazy [12:22] already. I mean, if he said Michelle [12:23] Obama's a man at the T-Mobile Arena in [12:26] Vegas, it's like, okay, [12:27] >> less of a story. He what he is is he's a [12:29] very good fighter first of all and but [12:33] sometimes that's not enough to get [12:34] attention and so what Josh has done is [12:37] created this persona like this pro [12:39] wrestling bad guy persona when you talk [12:41] to him offstage he's like very normal [12:43] very smart guy [12:44] >> it's just like he's decided like look I [12:47] want to maximize the amount of eyeballs [12:48] that see me and I'm going to create this [12:51] crazy person he comes out to the Hulk [12:53] Hogan song I'm a real American [12:56] who has sunglasses on, American flag [12:59] band. It's, you know, he's [13:02] >> I mean, I love I love the I love the [13:04] presentation, but again, I like [13:07] >> not the best thing to say at the White [13:08] House. Michelle Obama's a man is not the [13:10] best thing to say. [13:11] >> Fair, but the reaction to it to me was [13:13] still totally disproportionate. [13:15] >> Yeah, of course. [13:15] >> People say, Dude, people say stuff all [13:17] the time. And what I Okay, I I live I I [13:22] I work in a business where obviously [13:24] people make life decision, life and [13:25] death decisions all the time. And I'm [13:28] always a little bit caught off guard by [13:31] the culture that just overreacts when [13:34] clearly the thing what that Josh is [13:36] trying to get is the overreaction in the [13:38] first place, right? [13:39] >> So you give him exactly what he wants [13:41] and like the worst you could say is, [13:43] "Oh, that was an offensive comment." And [13:44] you get on with the rest of your life. [13:45] Like that's the worst that you could [13:47] say. the people who really flip out [13:49] about it and kind of lose their minds. I [13:52] just I don't understand that. [13:54] >> Well, first of all, I think a lot of it [13:56] is there is an economy that is [13:59] essentially based on getting reactions. [14:02] >> Correct. [14:02] >> And there's a lot of people that are [14:04] just, for a lack of a better term, [14:07] they're they're not real. They're [14:09] they're reactions are performative. Like [14:12] a lot of what they're doing is just [14:14] trying to trying to comment on things [14:18] and get clicks and likes and views. And [14:21] social media has ruined discourse in a [14:24] lot of ways because people [14:25] >> it has [14:26] >> people are not having like real [14:27] conversations about things. is they're [14:29] reacting to things on Instagram and [14:31] Twitter [14:32] >> and you know they're just they they look [14:35] at an opportunity like that like oh I [14:37] found a gold nugget [14:39] >> they're like this is going to give me [14:41] money or this is going to give me [14:42] attention this is going to give oh I [14:43] can't wait to have a take on that. [14:45] >> That's exactly right. So but okay so my [14:48] response to that is so many things is [14:50] like oh he was being funny he was being [14:52] outrageous and I just move on with my [14:53] life. What I find very interesting is [14:56] the people who say, you know, oh, that [14:58] was a joke. Like when when Kill Tony, [15:00] you remember he told like the joke heard [15:02] around the world in Madison Square [15:03] Garden during the 2024 election. [15:05] >> I remember getting into an argument with [15:06] somebody about this and I may have even [15:08] been like in an interview, but [15:11] >> I don't remember. It could have been [15:12] private, too. Anyway, I I'm like, he [15:14] told a joke and then the person's [15:17] response is, well, it's not a very funny [15:19] joke. And my response to that is, you [15:21] know what happens when somebody tells me [15:22] a joke that's not funny? I don't laugh [15:24] and then I move on with my life. This [15:27] whole industry around outrage, [15:31] >> especially getting outraged around [15:32] humor, I think is actually really [15:34] hurting the country. [15:36] >> Well, in that case, first of all, I told [15:38] Tony a long time ago that joke was going [15:40] to get him stabbed. I really did. He [15:43] even jokes around about it on stage. He [15:46] talks about me telling him, "That's the [15:48] one, dude. That's the one's going to get [15:49] you stabbed." Any good joke at least is [15:52] going to run you some risk of getting [15:54] >> well certainly a a racial joke and that [15:56] joke being about Puerto Rico. By the [15:59] way, no one takes a joke better than [16:01] Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are some of [16:03] the best people at telling jokes. Like [16:05] there it is a culture of joking and and [16:09] [ __ ] around with each other and [16:10] talking [ __ ] Like [16:11] >> they're great at it. So like [16:13] >> some Puerto Rican guys in the Marine [16:15] Corps, man. That's absolutely true. [16:16] >> They love him still, you know, like even [16:18] after that joke. What? So you you you [16:20] advised him not to tell that joke. [16:22] >> Well, I was kind of half joking. You [16:23] know, Tony that's what Tony does. You [16:25] know what? By I just said that's the one [16:27] that's going to get you stabbed. But I [16:29] mean that's what Tony does. Tony is like [16:31] the Josh Hokit of comedy. Like he but [16:34] very talented. You know, he's a really [16:36] good he's a roaster. [16:38] >> He's like roasting is is his specialty, [16:40] but it's also like he's trying to ruffle [16:42] people's feathers. That's what he wants [16:44] to do. He wants to piss people off. [16:47] That's he likes being a pro wrestling [16:49] heel. He always he's a huge pro [16:51] wrestling fan. [16:51] >> Well, so well he so Tony I like I'm a [16:55] huge fan of his comedy. I've only you [16:56] know met him a couple times. I don't [16:57] know him particularly well but he's [16:59] actually like you know more political I [17:02] would say than most comedians. [17:04] >> Do you think that's fair? Okay. [17:06] >> So um [17:07] >> well very supportive of like Trump [17:11] >> like he's on the Republican team. He's [17:12] on their 100%. That's because he's [17:14] experienced so many loony leftwing [17:16] people in California and that's why he [17:19] had to move. [17:19] >> Well, somebody sent me a clip. I think [17:21] it was Shane Gillis at a roast where the [17:24] the joke was they were roasting Tony and [17:27] they're like, Tony Hinchcliffe is the [17:30] only dude who would be excited if JD [17:32] Vance was here. [laughter] [17:35] And I was like, one, that's a very good [17:37] joke. And number two, I feel like I had [17:39] made it. Like there have been a few [17:40] moments where I feel like I've made it. [17:42] When [17:42] >> you're the vice president of the United [17:44] States, I think you made it. [17:46] >> When when South Park spoofed me, I felt [17:48] it more than when I got it sworn in as [17:50] vice president of the United States. [17:51] >> That's hilarious. That's very funny. [17:54] This episode is brought to you by the [17:56] farmer's dog. Here's a fun fact. [17:57] Research shows that dogs who maintain a [18:00] healthy weight can live up to two and a [18:02] half years longer on average than dogs [18:04] who are overweight. Isn't that wild and [18:07] also kind of obvious at the same time? [18:09] So, why is feeding vague scoops of [18:12] ultrarocessed kibble still the status [18:14] quo for most dog owners? Healthy [18:17] alternatives exist, and trust me, I [18:19] know. I buy one, the Farmer's Dog. I use [18:22] it for both my dogs. They love it. They [18:24] eat it up quick. It smells good to them. [18:27] It smells good to me. It's human grade [18:29] food. The Farmer's Dog makes fresh food [18:31] for dogs, and my dogs love it. Their [18:34] recipes are made with real meat and [18:36] fresh vegetables that are gently cooked [18:38] to retain vital nutrients. They also [18:40] portion out the meals to your dog's [18:42] nutritional needs, which helps avoid [18:44] overfeeding and makes weight management [18:46] easier. And isn't getting more time with [18:49] our four-legged best friends something [18:51] every dog owner wants? The answer to [18:54] that is yes, obviously. So try the [18:58] farmer's dog today and get 50% off your [19:01] first box of fresh, healthy food. Plus, [19:04] get free shipping. Just go to the [19:06] farmersdog.com/rogan. [19:09] This offer is for new customers only. [19:12] >> Yeah. Tony is uh I mean that's his style [19:14] like like he loves like being the heel. [19:18] >> Get a kick out of it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. [19:19] He's one of the first people that moved [19:20] out here with me. [19:21] >> Okay. [19:22] >> Yeah. I mean we've been here for six [19:23] years now. [19:24] >> Yeah. And every time we go back to [19:26] California, we're like, "We were right." [19:28] >> Yeah, absolutely. [19:29] >> We were right. It's falling apart. It [19:31] keeps going further and further down the [19:32] toilet. [19:33] >> Well, how do how do you feel like Austin [19:35] is going? Cuz the criticism of Austin, [19:38] call it five or six years ago, is that [19:40] all the like it's a cool town. It's got [19:42] its own unique culture. It's Texas, but [19:45] it's also its own thing. But that all of [19:48] the blue sters moving in, we're going to [19:50] like totally change the politics and the [19:53] culture of Austin. I actually don't [19:55] think that's happened. [19:56] >> I think the blue sters that moved here [19:58] moved here because they recognized that [20:00] wherever they were living was not [20:02] tenable. Yeah, it was falling apart. And [20:04] all of these places like New York and [20:07] really California, like especially Los [20:10] Angeles and San Francisco, they're [20:12] falling apart. [20:13] >> And I have a bunch of friends that are [20:16] stuck there that can't move. Like maybe [20:19] they have family there or maybe they [20:21] have a business there. Y [20:23] >> and they [ __ ] hate it. And then I [20:24] have a bunch of people that are trying [20:26] to move but they can't sell their house. [20:28] >> Like it's nuts there, man. I don't think [20:30] people first of all you get gas lit by [20:33] Gavin Newsome. I mean he's just [20:34] gaslighting everybody about how well, [20:37] you know, oh the GDP of like the fifth [20:41] largest country in the world. That's [20:42] what California is. [20:43] >> It's like dude, [20:44] >> hey bro, it was like that before you [20:45] were the governor. [20:46] >> Yeah, exactly. Also, how much does a [20:48] U-Haul cost if you're leaving [20:49] California? And how much does it cost if [20:51] you're going in California? Because [20:52] that's the real measure of whether a [20:53] state's doing well. [20:54] >> Yeah. The state has more people moving [20:57] out than moving in. And that has never [21:00] happened before. Correct. California's [21:01] when I moved there in 1994 until I left, [21:04] it was always every year traffic got [21:06] worse. Every year more people moved [21:08] there. Every year. And [21:10] >> I loved it. I loved it. I loved it. From [21:13] the time I moved there, I was like, [21:14] "This place is great. It's warm all the [21:16] time. The weather's fantastic. There's [21:19] [clears throat] so much cool stuff to [21:20] do. The people are great. [21:22] >> Yeah. [21:22] >> And then politics ruined it. [21:24] >> That's right. So, my wife's from [21:25] Southern California, San Diego, and so [21:27] we spent a fair amount of time there. [21:28] And I I just, man, I still feel a [21:31] certain sense of like heartbreak over [21:34] LA. Oh, [21:35] >> because every time I'm in LA, you can [21:37] see why this was like the [21:39] quintessentially American city. The [21:41] architecture is beautiful. It's got its [21:43] own vibe going. Like you said, the [21:44] weather is amazing. And then you drive [21:46] through Skid Row and you're like, how [21:48] could any state or any city let this [21:50] happen? [21:51] >> Skidro is now 55 blocks. [21:54] It was 50 blocks just like a year or two [21:58] ago. [21:58] >> Okay. So my my first experience with [22:01] Skidro was so Usha used to work at this [22:05] like very fancy litigation firm in in [22:07] Southern California. Um you before she [22:10] was second lady, she was a corporate [22:11] litigator. So, there's a Christmas party [22:13] in downtown LA and you get these [22:16] instructions from her firm and they're [22:18] like this really convoluted way of this [22:20] is how you have to get to this Christmas [22:22] party. And I'm like, why do I have to [22:24] follow these direct directions? Why [22:25] don't I just put it in Google Maps, [22:26] right? This is like five or six, seven [22:28] years ago. So, we realized that the [22:31] reason why they gave you these [22:32] convoluted directions was so that you [22:34] could avoid Skid Row at night. And so [22:38] you get to this party, you drive through [22:40] Skidro if you follow Google Maps's [22:42] directions. You get there and it's like [22:44] this beautiful facility with like fancy [22:47] food and fancy wine and then there are [22:50] armed guards outside of it and these [22:52] gigantic walls. And I realized when I [22:54] was there, you know what this reminds me [22:56] of? This reminds me of going to the US [22:59] embassy in Porta Prince, Haiti. like [23:02] super security, crazy wealth and [23:05] privilege and status on the inside and [23:08] squalor and misery on the outside. Like [23:10] it's the first time I'd ever thought [23:12] America, like this part of America is [23:16] actually more like a third world country [23:18] than anything that I thought we'd ever [23:19] become. [23:19] >> Let me ask you this. [23:20] >> Yeah. [23:21] >> Why is it that large population centers [23:25] like places like Los Angeles and New [23:27] York are almost always run by the [23:30] Democrats? Yeah. [23:31] >> Like what is it about? First of all, [23:33] what happened with the last election in [23:37] Los Angeles, the just the primary I I [23:40] think was so super sus. And here's why [23:43] it's super sus. [23:45] >> Not just super sus that Spencer Platt, [23:47] Spencer Pratt, who was in second place, [23:50] got overtaken by Nithia Ramen in the [23:53] mailin ballots, but that the mail-in [23:55] ballots also passed a tax hike. The [24:00] people voted to pay more taxes. [24:03] >> Yep. [24:03] >> In a state where you have the highest [24:05] taxes. [24:06] >> That's right. [24:07] >> They're like, "We don't pay enough." [24:09] [laughter] [24:11] >> That is insane. And then when you have [24:14] direct evidence that they were [24:15] recruiting homeless people. [24:17] >> That's right. [24:17] >> And they were getting homeless people [24:19] and giving them cigarettes and cash. [24:21] There's evidence of this. To use their [24:23] their address and mail in ballots. [24:25] >> Yeah. I would have I wouldn't be the [24:27] Californian Joe who wakes up in the [24:28] morning and says, "You know what? I'm [24:30] going to go and vote for higher taxes. I [24:31] don't I don't pay enough taxes. [24:33] >> I I feel like we could fix this if I [24:34] just% [24:36] more taxes." The crazy thing about it, [24:39] too, is it's that okay, so after the [24:42] initial ballots all came in, it was [24:44] Karen Bass was number one, Spencer Pratt [24:46] was right right behind her, and then [24:48] number three, whatever this woman Ramen. [24:51] Okay. So, you would expect the mail and [24:54] ballots to be more or less like the [24:56] original ballots in terms of one, two, [24:58] and three. I'm not saying Spencer's [25:00] going to win the mail and ballots, but [25:01] it just so happened that the third place [25:04] person in relative terms did a lot [25:06] better than the first and second place [25:08] person [25:10] such that the Republican was actually [25:12] kicked out of the race so that there's [25:14] not actually a real election in [25:15] California. That to me was the crazy [25:17] part. It's like you were designing the [25:19] vote share in order to kick Pratt out [25:22] and put the third person into second [25:24] place. That to me is like very very [25:26] bizarre cuz what is the theory of the [25:29] mail and vote that is somehow like so [25:33] much more pro- Nithia relative to Karen [25:36] Bass? [25:36] >> Makes no sense. [25:37] >> Makes no sense. [25:38] >> Makes no sense. Why would it be? Why why [25:40] would it be? I mean Karen Karen Bass was [25:42] ahead by every metric. [25:45] >> Yeah. But I mean Okay. So you ask a [25:46] question. Why do all these blue states [25:48] or why do all these big cities [25:49] population centers end up becoming um [25:53] end up becoming blue? And I think it's [25:55] like very complicated, right? So, one [25:57] thing and you said this a few months ago [26:00] and like when you said it, I was like [26:01] kind of annoyed by it, but then I like [26:03] thought there's there's like an element [26:05] of truth to it, which is that [26:07] Republicans still fundamentally have a [26:09] cool problem, right? There's something [26:11] more charismatic, more cool about the [26:14] Democrats as opposed to the right. [26:17] >> And so you you said something about [26:21] >> there are too many dorks or something on [26:22] the right. [26:23] >> There's a lot of dorks, [26:24] >> you know. Fair. I'd say there's a lot of [26:25] dorks on the left. [26:26] >> There's a lot of dorks on the left, too. [26:27] It's a different kind of dork. [26:28] >> It's a different kind of dork. But the [26:29] the point is that there's something, you [26:32] know, like, okay, if you're a pop star, [26:35] you're a rock star, you're an actor, [26:36] you're in all these cultural centers, [26:38] you're more likely to be left than [26:40] right. And so I think that a lot of [26:41] young people who are attracted to these [26:43] population centers, they sort of move [26:45] along with the prevailing culture. I [26:46] think that's that's one thing that's [26:48] going on. I think a second thing that's [26:50] going on is the people who are sort of [26:53] attracted to a certain kind of right of [26:55] center politics. They want the suburbs. [26:59] They want the single family home. They [27:00] kind of want to be left alone. They [27:02] don't want sort of to be able to hear [27:03] what their neighbors are doing. So I [27:04] think a little bit of it's just cultural [27:06] self-segregation. [27:07] And that's meant that a lot of these [27:10] population centers have gone blue. But [27:12] it's very complicated. I've thought [27:13] about this a lot. And I also just man I [27:16] like I'm not one of these people who [27:18] says we should just abandon California [27:20] to the Democrats. Like let them deal [27:21] with their own problems. I think [27:23] California is like a quintessential part [27:26] of the American dream. Like if you just [27:28] abandon California, you've like lost [27:30] something very core to American culture. [27:33] And I I just I don't want to give up on [27:35] it. Like I'm not saying we're going to [27:37] win California in my lifetime [27:38] necessarily, but I don't like the idea [27:40] of giving up on it. Well, it's not just [27:42] giving up on I mean, giving up on it [27:44] would be terrible. It's an awesome [27:45] state. The the real problem is it's [27:48] deeply corrupt. [27:50] >> I mean, deeply deeply corrupt. And what [27:53] they're trying to do is make it [27:54] impossible for the other side to win. [27:57] Yeah. [27:57] >> And there should be laws against that. [27:59] First of all, the idea of mail-in [28:01] ballots for anybody other than people [28:03] who are invalids who can't live their [28:06] homes or military or people that for [28:09] some reason they're serving overseas, [28:11] they're doing something overseas, [28:12] >> it should not be legal, right? [28:14] >> And the fact that it became ubiquitous [28:15] during co is a giant problem. [28:18] >> Yeah. So, this raises one of my total [28:20] segue here, side point, but so if you [28:23] remember in the aftermath of the 2020 [28:25] election where there was all this like [28:26] debate about was the election stolen, [28:28] was the election not stolen, all the [28:29] litigation that moved through, [28:31] >> there was a case in Pennsylvania that [28:33] like didn't get very much attention. And [28:36] I'm going to butcher it a little bit, [28:37] but basically it was a guy in a rural [28:40] area of Pennsylvania saying, "You're [28:42] underounting my vote because we didn't [28:44] have the opportunity to do the mail-in [28:46] ballots like they did in Philadelphia [28:47] and Pittsburgh." And like the argument [28:49] was a kind of disparit impact, right? [28:51] The cities jinned up all the mail and [28:53] balloting and the ballot harvesting. You [28:55] didn't do that in the country and that [28:57] hurt sort of our representation. So they [29:00] take this case to the Pennsylvania [29:01] courts. And what's crazy is the [29:03] Pennsylvania courts basically say, [29:05] you're making kind of a good point here. [29:07] Like the ballot harvesting did affect [29:10] Republicans in a more negative way. It [29:12] did mean that certain people in the more [29:14] rural parts of the state were [29:15] underrepresented. But then the court [29:17] conclusion was this is not a problem a [29:19] court can fix. Like that's a political [29:21] problem. Change your, you know, local [29:23] elections leaders, change your laws. [29:25] Like that's not a remedy that the court [29:28] has to fix. And so everybody saw that [29:31] case and they're like, "Oh, the judge [29:32] rules against Donald Trump, rules [29:34] against Republicans for saying that [29:36] there was something illegitimate." But [29:37] no, actually the judge kind of said, [29:39] "There is something kind of fishy here. [29:41] We're just the wrong venue to fix it." [29:45] >> Well, it it's just very disheartening [29:48] that you you have to consider the fact [29:51] that it's really possible that the [29:54] elections get stolen. And the California [29:57] one was a big one for me. And why not [29:59] just have mail in or why not just have [30:02] voter ID? [30:03] >> Yeah, you actually that's insane. Not [30:05] only did they not have voter ID, you [30:06] can't show your ID. You're not allowed [30:08] to show your ID. [30:09] >> You can in fact be like prosecuted if [30:11] you try to force somebody to show their [30:12] ID, [30:12] >> which is that seems like you want people [30:15] to cheat. [30:16] >> Exactly. [laughter] [30:17] >> And is this from the same people that [30:19] were saying you have to have an ID that [30:20] shows you've been vaccinated just four [30:22] years ago to go to grocery shopping or [30:24] to go to restaurant? Yeah. No, it's it's [30:26] definitely that's the part about it that [30:30] I think makes most people of my [30:32] political persuasion skeptical of what [30:35] the Democrats are doing. Like if you [30:36] don't want to cheat in the election, [30:38] then just make everybody actually show [30:40] an ID. What another thing people don't [30:42] realize is I didn't realize this until a [30:44] couple years ago, the voter ID solves a [30:46] lot of the mail-in ballot problem [30:48] because if you have to show an ID in [30:51] order to get a mail and ballot in order [30:52] to actually, you know, confirm that [30:54] there's a real identification attached [30:56] to that vote, that solves a big chunk of [30:59] the problem. [30:59] >> It's just logical. Like [laughter] I [31:02] don't I'm not [31:05] I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I [31:07] think they stole the election. [31:09] >> Yes. And I'm I'm I think it's common and [31:12] I you know this idea that elections [31:15] can't be stolen. I always say to people, [31:17] okay, do you think that the amount of [31:20] election fraud is 0%. [31:23] >> No one thinks that. [31:24] >> Yeah. [31:25] >> No one thinks it's zero. There's always [31:27] some overzealous person that works [31:29] somewhere that's doing something. [31:31] There's always crazy people. They're [31:32] like, "Blue no matter who, we got to win [31:34] or red no matter what." There's always [31:36] people right and left that are going to [31:39] try to rig the election because they [31:40] think it's imperative our n like look we [31:43] we saw there was people like Oprah [31:46] Winfrey was saying it like if we don't [31:48] win this election we you may never vote [31:50] again like what the [ __ ] are you talking [31:51] about [laughter] like why what who's [31:54] going to tolerate that left or right [31:55] that's crazy right [31:57] >> but that attitude allows people to [32:00] justify cheating [32:01] >> correct [32:01] >> and I think they cheat and I I think [32:04] they've been doing it forever and I [32:05] don't think there's any other reason why [32:06] you would have no voter ID? And they try [32:09] to say, "Oh, it's racist to have voter [32:11] ID." Like, what are you talking about? [32:13] Do you think other races are incapable [32:16] of going to the DMV? That's insane. [32:18] >> It's it's that's racist. [32:20] >> It's actually super racist. That's [32:22] really racist. [32:22] >> The implication of their argument is [32:24] literally like blacks and Hispanics [32:26] cannot go to the DMV to get an ID. By [32:28] the way, if you look at the polling, [32:29] black Americans are as pro- voter ID. [32:31] Even though they you most black [32:32] Americans vote Democrat, they're still [32:34] pro- voter ID as much as white Americans [32:37] is. Most Americans are voter. They want [32:40] voter ID except for operatives. [32:41] >> So I'll offer on the Joe Rogan podcast [32:44] this deal as vice president of these [32:46] United States that if Democrats really [32:48] don't think that there's any cheating, [32:51] give us voter ID. [32:52] >> I just don't know. [32:53] >> Give us voter ID and we'll stop talking. [32:55] >> Why is that not a federal thing? [32:57] >> We are trying to make it a federal [32:58] thing. So, we are right now trying to [33:00] pass the Save America Act. One of its [33:03] main provisions is a requirement that [33:05] you do voter ID. And we actually have, I [33:07] think, a majority of the Senate that [33:09] would support it. But this is just weird [33:12] Senate procedural [ __ ] There is a [33:15] subsegment of people who want voter ID, [33:18] but won't blow up the filibuster in [33:20] order to achieve it. And so they're so [33:23] married to these oldw world Senate [33:25] procedures that they're going to make it [33:27] impossible for us to pass Save America. [33:29] Now we we are for what it's worth trying [33:30] to fix that and trying to address these [33:33] like weird procedural archaic things. [33:36] It's insane though. Like if you ever [33:38] Okay, [33:39] >> I'm sure you hear people talk about the [33:40] filibuster all the time. I don't want to [33:41] go too far down this rabbit hole. [33:43] >> Here's what the filibuster is. It is a [33:46] pure Senate rule. It is a creation of [33:49] the Senate procedures which basically [33:51] says that anything that has to do with [33:54] the budget is a 50 vote threshold and [33:57] anything that everything else [33:59] non-budgetary is a 60 vote threshold. [34:02] Now, as you can imagine, there's some [34:03] gray area on things that maybe are count [34:06] as budget issues and should be 50 or are [34:08] not budget issues and count at 60. So [34:11] what we have tried to persuade the [34:13] Senate to do is to treat the voter ID as [34:18] something that can fall within the 50 [34:20] vote threshold. And there is no law, [34:22] there's no provision in the [34:23] Constitution. It is legitimately that [34:26] there are senators who are so attached [34:28] to the idea that budget is 50, [34:30] non-budget is 60 that they're quite [34:32] literally willing to prevent voter ID in [34:35] America. [34:36] >> God, [34:38] it's nuts, dude. It's it's so crazy [34:41] >> and it's also like the idea that [34:45] >> somehow or like Kathy Hol had the [34:48] craziest take on it. Did you [34:50] >> She often does. [34:51] >> Did you see her take on it? [34:52] >> I have not. [34:52] >> She was talking about black people in [34:54] inner cities not even knowing what a [34:56] computer is. [34:57] >> Did you ever see that? [34:58] >> No, I didn't see that. [35:00] >> Oh my god, it was so crazy. And then [35:02] this one comedian, uh, this black [35:04] comedian did this hilarious video where [35:07] he was like circling around a computer, [35:09] staring at it, like touching it like he [35:11] didn't know what it was. [laughter] [35:13] >> It's just like, what are you talking [35:15] about? Everyone has a phone. That's a [35:18] computer. [35:18] >> So many of these Democratic talking [35:20] points presume that their own voters are [35:23] actual idiots. [35:25] >> That's actually there there's a big [35:26] difference between, you know, [35:28] Republicans, we sort of presume that our [35:29] voters are adults. And you don't see [35:31] that with a I'm not saying every [35:33] Democrat, of course, I don't want to [35:34] cast too broad of a brush here, but it's [35:36] it's like, you know, Gavin Newsome did [35:38] this speech a few months ago. The [35:39] president, I think it's the funniest [35:41] thing ever because he's like speaking to [35:43] a group of black leaders and black [35:46] businessmen, but it's like an audience [35:48] that is 95% black. And they're asking [35:50] him about his dyslexia and his struggle [35:52] with education. And he basically says, [35:54] "Yeah, you know, um, I'm not very smart [35:56] like a lot of you." And it's like, [35:58] >> I'm like you. I can't read. Can't even [35:59] read. [36:00] Well, there's a ton of interviews where [36:02] he's [laughter] talking about all the [36:03] books he reads. Like, he's so full of [36:05] [ __ ] He's [36:07] >> He's full of [ __ ] but it's [36:08] >> admirably full of [ __ ] [laughter] [36:10] >> It's It's I admire the the the [ __ ] [36:15] the sheer tenacity that he has in being [36:18] full of [ __ ] [36:18] >> I I It really is amazing. But it it [36:22] speaks to the incentives of there's kind [36:25] of like look, there's a real populism [36:27] that I'm very much a fan of because I [36:29] think you should be responsive to [36:30] people, but there's like a faux populism [36:32] of the way that I'm going to appeal to [36:34] people is by assuming that they're [36:36] idiots and acting like they're idiots. [36:39] Yeah. [36:39] >> And then but but if you if you're [36:41] committed enough to that bit, eventually [36:43] it kind of leaks out what you're doing. [36:45] >> And I think that's that was sort of what [36:46] Gavin did there is he told on himself a [36:48] bit. [laughter] [36:49] >> Yeah. Well, it was just it's just he's [36:52] bizarre. [36:53] >> I will say I bizarre. [36:54] >> So, I've only met Gavin I think I've [36:56] only met him one time in my life and it [36:59] was it's such a crazy experience. So, [37:03] the debate between Biden and Trump [37:06] during the 2024 cycle and I'm there I'm [37:09] actually doing an interview for a [37:11] documentary when the debate starts and [37:13] there's this clip of me. The debate [37:15] starts. I'm in the middle of this [37:17] interview. There's a big screen behind [37:18] me as I'm talking to the camera, which [37:20] is here, and I kind of freeze and I look [37:23] back at the the the TV and I'm like, "Oh [37:25] my god, like this is actually happening. [37:27] Biden is imploding." Because if you [37:29] remember, it was obvious from the [37:30] get-go. So, I go to the spin room [37:33] afterwards and that's where, you know, [37:35] all these reporters and all the [37:37] surrogates of the candidates, this is [37:38] before I was the VP nominee and I'm just [37:40] like, you know, talking about how great [37:42] the president did, how bad President [37:43] Biden did. Okay, I see Gavin Newsome [37:46] there and he literally looks like he's [37:47] seen a ghost. Like I've I've never seen [37:50] a person who, as good of a bullshitter [37:52] as he is, who realized there was no [37:55] selling that performance. Like, but can [37:57] you imagine like try to put yourself in [37:58] the perspective of a human being? I [38:00] always try to, you know, be empathetic [38:02] where Joe Biden has just had that debate [38:05] and you have to go on CNN to talk about [38:07] how great of a job Joe Biden did. Well, [38:09] my favorite is Joe Scarboro because Joe [38:11] Scarro before it was like, you know, I'm [38:14] gonna say something and f you if you [38:16] can't take it. This is the sharpest [38:19] Biden we've ever seen. Have you ever [38:22] seen that? [38:22] >> No, I haven't. [38:23] >> Oh, it's amazing. And then after the [38:24] debate, he's like, "We got to get rid of [38:25] him. He's [laughter] got to go. He's got [38:27] to go, hey, hey, hey, what what what did [38:29] you say? You just said a couple of [38:30] months ago, this is the best Biden [38:32] ever." [38:32] >> That's wild. Well, it's like I wonder [38:35] what was going on with that cuz like the [38:38] debates were earlier than they've ever [38:40] been before and it seemed to me it's [38:42] like there was a concerted effort to [38:44] hide what was wrong with him. [38:46] >> 100% [38:47] >> 100%. Everybody was bullshitting. [38:49] Everybody was gaslighting us. We all saw [38:50] it. I I remember a friend of mine who's [38:53] >> super progressive, super liberal. You [38:55] know [snorts] what I I talked about on [38:57] our podcast. I'm like, "This is crazy. [38:59] even if he wins, he's not going to be [39:01] the guy that's the president. You're [39:03] going to have his cabinet that are [39:04] running everything. Turned out I was [39:05] right. [39:06] >> They were saying, "Oh, don't you [39:08] understand that he has a stutter?" [39:10] >> And I said, "Where the [ __ ] was that [39:12] stutter in the 1990s?" Like that's [39:15] crazy. [laughter] Like a stutter that [39:17] only shows up when you're 80. That [39:18] doesn't make any sense. [39:20] >> Like this is a lie. You're lying. He's [39:22] had two brain surgeries like where they [39:25] have to take the top of your head off. [39:28] Literally, they have to take you like a [39:30] cap. They [39:31] >> Wait, Biden had two brain surgeries? [39:33] >> Oh, yeah. [39:33] >> How did I not know this? [39:34] >> You didn't know this? [39:35] >> I didn't know that he had two brain [39:36] surgeries. [39:37] >> He had two brain surgeries. Jimmy, [39:39] please look this up. Make sure that I'm [39:41] right. I'm 99% sure I'm right. But I [39:43] know he had [39:45] a refund afterwards. [39:47] >> Well, it kept [laughter] him alive. It [39:49] kept him alive. I mean, he here Biden [39:53] has not undergone recent brain surgery. [39:55] He underwent two successful lifesaving [39:58] >> Oh wow. [39:59] >> brain surgeries to repair two inter [40:01] incraanial aneurysms in 1988. [40:04] >> Know this? [40:04] >> Yeah, [40:04] >> that's pretty crazy. [40:05] >> His medical professionals have stated [40:07] that he made a full recovery and [40:09] suffered no lasting brain damage or [40:11] cognitive impairment from these [40:12] procedures. Oh, it's from the Washington [40:14] Post, so you know it's accurate and [40:16] definitely not biased at all. And these [40:18] medical professionals, were those the [40:20] same people that said that the COVID [40:21] vaccine is safe and effective? Um, it's [40:24] it's we we live in a wonderful time for [40:26] [ __ ] It's like because they just [40:28] [ __ ] you right to your face. Like he [40:30] had two brain surgeries, like major [40:32] brain surgeries, cuz he's having [40:34] aneurisms. [40:35] >> I don't care who you are, that's [40:36] probably going to do some damage. [40:38] >> It's going to leave some aneurisms, a [40:40] real problem. It's a real thing. Your [40:41] brain [40:43] people die from aneurysms all the time. [40:46] See, that's the crazy thing is I never [40:47] even knew about that. [40:48] >> How did you not know about that? That's [40:49] nuts. I knew about it. Well, it speaks [40:51] to how constrained our media environment [40:54] is that even I had never heard that, [40:55] >> right? It was not a part of the [40:56] narrative. Certainly not from the [40:58] Democrats, but yeah, he's it was clearly [41:02] I just don't understand why they ran him [41:04] in the first place. [41:05] >> The the whole thing made no sense. And [41:07] then to have no primary and just stick [41:10] Kla in there and then all a sudden [41:11] pretend that she's the best thing ever. [41:13] And like this idea, like complete flip [41:16] of her being the least popular vice [41:18] president ever, always sticking her foot [41:20] in her mouth, always saying crazy [ __ ] [41:22] How dare we say Merry Christmas? You [41:24] remember that one? [41:26] >> Like what the [ __ ] is What are you [41:28] saying? Like joy is bad. Merry Christmas [41:31] is bad. [41:32] >> Legitimately when the campaign [41:34] consultants told me, "Hey, we're going [41:36] to hit this line because Kla Harris came [41:38] out in favor of taxpayerf funed sex [41:41] changes for illegal aliens. And [41:43] [laughter] I and I remember thinking to [41:44] myself, come on, you guys. Like, she [41:47] didn't really say that. It's taken out [41:48] of context. And then I go and look at [41:50] it. I'm like, holy [ __ ] she actually [41:52] said that. And she was she really was [41:56] like the very worst version of what the [42:00] Democrats were producing in 2020. The [42:02] thing is, it was they were all doing it [42:04] because that was the incentives of the [42:05] party. Like if you remember that debate [42:07] where it was do you want taxpayer funded [42:10] Medicare for illegal aliens which like [42:13] Medicare is the program to provide [42:15] health care to the elderly that people [42:17] pay into for like you know your entire [42:19] working life. You see your little [42:20] Medicare tax statement and the idea that [42:24] we were going to give taxpayer funded [42:26] healthcare to illegal aliens. It was [42:27] just insane. It was a 9010 issue but [42:31] their party in 2020 got kind of taken [42:33] over by the radicals. And I I think [42:35] actually maybe you're seeing a little [42:37] bit of that happening right now where it [42:39] seems like the radical organizations, [42:42] the nonprofits, the donors are pushing [42:45] the party in a direction that most of [42:46] the voters haven't gone in. Like you ask [42:49] why Joe Biden was the nominee and I'll [42:50] I'll say something in defense of Joe [42:52] Biden. So like was he the most effective [42:55] politician? No. Had he had two brain [42:57] surgeries? Yes. And clearly had shown [42:59] the negative signs of aging. But he was [43:02] kind of the only candidate, if you go [43:04] back to 2020, who could hold together [43:07] like the reasonable middle class black [43:11] American in the Atlanta suburbs with [43:15] whatever is going on on the far left of [43:16] the Democrat party. And I think this is [43:18] sort of the issue their party has. I [43:20] mean, our like to be candid, our party [43:21] has its own coalition problems. And it's [43:23] it's always tough in a two-party system [43:25] to hold everybody together. Like I think [43:27] about this a lot. I think it's really [43:29] tough on the Democrats because the core [43:31] of their party, like the most important [43:33] voting block in the Democratic party is [43:35] middle-class black Americans, socially [43:38] moderate to even socially conservative, [43:40] maybe a little bit more economically [43:42] populist on certain business and tax [43:44] issues. You know, they don't want to [43:45] give tax breaks to major corporations. [43:47] They also don't want to trans the kids. [43:49] That's the base of their party. But then [43:52] you've also got like the crazy people [43:55] and you have to kind of hold that [43:57] together. I think the argument for Biden [43:59] was he was one of the only people who [44:01] could hold that together even though he [44:02] was an awful politician in his own right [44:04] even before he was like old. [44:07] >> He was he was Obama's vice president. [44:10] >> Exactly. [44:10] >> And you know he's established he's a [44:12] known name and for the people that were [44:14] kind of casuals who weren't really [44:16] paying attention to politics like he's a [44:17] proven commodity. [44:18] >> That's right. He doesn't read as a crazy [44:20] person to the general electorate [44:23] >> even though you know [44:24] >> I got hairy legs [laughter] [44:28] >> when he tells stories like I tell you [44:31] about cord pop. Like what [44:34] >> the [ __ ] is going on? [44:35] >> The thing I couldn't get over Biden is [44:36] is just bad staff work, man. The way [44:39] that he ate ice cream. I mean, it's [44:42] like, you know, we could bring some of [44:44] this stuff up, but it's like they would [44:45] get him eating ice cream in the most [44:48] ridiculous suggestive way imaginable. [44:51] >> I never even paid attention. [44:52] >> Oh my god. Like such bad optics. Okay. [44:54] So, there's there's a clip I want to say [44:56] from the 2016 [44:59] um campaign where somebody is [45:01] campaigning in Iowa and like it's the [45:04] Iowa State Fair is like one of the main [45:05] things you go to when when you're [45:07] running for president and they give [45:09] somebody a corn dog and somebody eats [45:11] the corn dog and it becomes like a major [45:14] news cycle for a long time and I I will [45:16] never forget in 2024 [laughter] in 2020. [45:19] >> That's how immature we are. [45:21] >> I know. I know. You got to have a little [45:22] fun sometimes though. But in 2024, [45:25] somebody is holding up a sign at the [45:26] Iowa State Fair at I think it may have [45:28] been Vakes, one of Aakes's event, Vake [45:30] Rama Swami's events, and the sign says, [45:32] "Eat the corn dogs, you coward." And [45:35] it's [laughter] one of the best the best [45:36] political signs I've ever seen. [45:39] >> That's funny. That's funny. Yeah. You [45:42] You'd have to be a very manly man to be [45:44] able to eat a confidently confidently [45:46] eat a corn dog. [45:47] >> I don't know that I can do it, Joe. [45:48] >> I eat them. They're good. [45:50] >> Yeah, but they taste good. Are you I [45:52] love corn dogs. I've been photographed. [45:54] You've been photographed eating a corn [45:55] dog. [45:55] >> I'm sure someone has. [45:56] >> One of [laughter] [45:57] >> I've eaten corn dogs. The odds are [45:59] >> much more interesting life than I've [46:00] led. I I try I try to eat my corn dogs. [46:03] That's between that's between me and my [46:05] uh my kitchen. [46:06] >> I'm not scared to eat a corn dog. [46:07] [laughter] I just think it's funny that [46:09] people just they're so afraid of being [46:11] [snorts] [46:12] >> anything that looks like a dick. [46:14] >> You can't bananas, corn dogs. [46:16] >> You got to be [laughter] [46:18] you got to be careful when you're [46:19] politics. This is an optics based [46:20] business here. [46:21] >> What are those popsicles? The ones that [46:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. [46:24] >> Yeah. [46:25] >> Yeah. I get it. I mean, but it's just [46:27] like that's how crazy we are. That [46:29] that's what weirds people out. The way [46:31] someone eats a hot dog. [46:32] >> That's [46:33] >> like Okay. [46:33] >> Well, that's that's where we are, man. [46:36] >> Yeah. [46:36] >> I [46:38] >> It's the the difference between, you [46:40] know, the crazies and the the the real [46:45] reasonable Democrats is so stark to me. [46:48] I did I and it's also with the right. [46:51] It's like we're always the parties are [46:53] always defined by the worst examples of [46:55] the right. That's right. You know. Yeah. [46:57] Or or of the left, you know, whatever it [47:00] is, whether it's uh Patriot Front or [47:02] whether it's uh Antifa. [47:04] >> Okay. So, who do you think is the worst [47:06] example of our side? Like who who do you [47:08] read about on our side and your reaction [47:10] is, "Holy shit." And don't say JD Vance. [47:12] This is going to be a very awkward [47:13] interview. [47:14] >> Um [47:15] >> I'm screwed with you. Well, the the [47:18] people that you know, one of the thing I [47:20] had James Tarico on the podcast and one [47:22] of the things that I think he has a [47:24] really good point about even though I [47:25] know you're Catholic and you're very [47:28] religious, putting the Ten Commandments [47:30] in schools um I don't think is the right [47:34] way to do. And this is a guy Terrico who [47:37] was in seminary and is very Christian. [47:40] Mhm. [47:40] >> He just thinks that even though he [47:42] believes in the Ten Commandments, if [47:45] you're just only representing the [47:47] Christian faith in these schools, you're [47:50] forcing your religion into other [47:52] people's lives and that this is going to [47:55] push people away from Christianity [47:57] rather than encourage them to uh pursue [48:01] it. [48:02] >> Yeah. I mean, I think you'd never want [48:03] to force things on people. And I I do I [48:07] think one of the core Christian [48:08] contributions to Western civilization is [48:10] the idea of freedom of religion. It's [48:12] actually very much a Christian idea [48:14] because you recognize the dignity of [48:16] each individual. And part of recognizing [48:18] that dignity is that each person has to [48:20] find their own pathway to God. You can't [48:21] force this on anybody. I don't think [48:24] putting the Ten Commandments up in [48:26] school is like forcing things on [48:28] anybody. [48:28] >> But it's public schools. So I mean, if [48:30] you're going to do that, why not put [48:33] Buddhist scripture? Why not put, you [48:35] know, you Muslims stuff? You could you [48:38] could you could make an argument why you [48:40] should have a bunch of different [48:42] religious tenants in schools. [48:43] >> I think in the Supreme Court there [48:45] actually are a lot of different sort of [48:47] historical, cultural, legal documents [48:49] that are up there. And I I want to say [48:51] that Moses coming down with a tablet is [48:53] one of them, but I I think there [48:54] actually are other cultural and maybe [48:56] even other religious elements of this [48:58] like where you recognize that a big part [49:00] of sort of the lawgiving tradition in [49:03] Western civilization is the um is some [49:07] of these religious texts, not [49:08] exclusively Christian religious texts. [49:11] Obviously some Jewish there's like a an [49:13] important contribution from the Muslim [49:14] world in this. So I I don't I I guess I [49:17] don't think of it as exclusionary while [49:19] also recognizing that, you know, America [49:21] is a society. Our founders were people [49:24] who were very much influenced even if [49:26] they weren't Christians, a lot of them [49:27] of course were, but were very influenced [49:30] by Christian culture and articulating [49:33] American law. So my argument would be [49:35] even if you're not a Christian, like [49:37] does seeing the Ten Commandments, [49:41] let me put it a slightly different way. [49:43] Does seeing the Ten Commandments force [49:45] religion on a non-Christian child? I [49:48] mean, my argument would be no. And I'd [49:50] illustrate this by saying, well, there [49:53] are all of these ways in which you [49:54] actually could try to force religion on [49:56] a child, right? Well, it's not the worst [49:58] way to force religion on a child, but to [50:00] have it and not represent any other rel. [50:03] This is Texas, by the way. Sure. So what [50:05] he's talking about was that there's [50:06] these Christian nationalists, these [50:09] these guys that are very wealthy that [50:11] are trying to fund Christian schools and [50:15] trying to defund public schools or any [50:18] other kind of religious school and what [50:20] they want to do and and they passed this [50:21] to get the Ten Commandments in all [50:23] public school classes. and he's [50:26] fundamentally opposed to that as a [50:27] Christian because he thinks it's going [50:29] to force people to have this in their [50:32] class and it's gonna push people away [50:34] from Christianity. [50:35] >> I mean, I understand the argument. I [50:36] just don't see it that way. I mean, I I [50:38] I guess if if I I I hear you, but if I'm [50:41] a non-religious student and I'm sitting [50:44] in there and I see the Ten Commandments, [50:46] at the very least, I think I can [50:47] appreciate it. I mean I you know what I [50:49] thought about this one sort of [50:51] >> what if you're a Hindu what if you're a [50:53] Muslim and you know and you are seeing [50:56] that represented but not your faith. [50:59] Well, it's a public school. F [51:01] >> first of all, I think that you you I [51:04] mean I I'm pretty sure Muslims I'm not [51:06] hardly an expert on Islam, but I I think [51:08] all of the Abrahamic faiths recognize [51:10] the Ten Commandments as like a [51:13] significant thing, but I think if I was [51:15] a Hindu looking at the Ten Commandments, [51:17] I mean, again, it's hard for me to say [51:18] this right from my my perspective, but I [51:20] certainly went through an atheist phase [51:22] in my in my youth. And what I would see [51:24] that as as a non-religious person or a [51:26] different religion is I would say this [51:28] is like an important cultural element of [51:32] the western civilization which is the [51:35] foundation of the classroom that I'm [51:36] sitting in. And this idea that the law [51:40] comes in is sort of above any man even [51:42] if you don't believe in God yourself. I [51:44] think that's like an important concept. [51:46] I mean, if you look at the Ten [51:47] Commandments, probably eight of them are [51:49] something that I would hope that [51:50] everybody would agree with, even if [51:51] they're that not themselves religious. [51:54] >> So, I I guess here's my my view on it. [51:56] Like, I would not be offended if I sat [52:00] in a classroom as a Christian or if my [52:02] kids sat in a classroom as a Christian [52:04] and saw, you know, a religious text that [52:07] wasn't Christian on on the wall. I would [52:09] encourage them to see that. No, I'd [52:11] encourage them to see that as a learning [52:12] experience to try to understand. [52:13] >> What if it was from the Quran? What do a [52:15] bunch of [52:16] >> I guess it depends on what it was, [52:18] right? If it's if it's like something [52:19] crazy, but but no, I mean, if if if it's [52:22] if it's something that is like [52:24] culturally interesting, I I guess I [52:27] don't I don't have a problem with my kid [52:29] reading. [52:30] >> The problem is it's mandated. Like if [52:32] you have a classroom and the teacher is [52:34] Christian and the teacher wants to have [52:36] it in their classroom, maybe that's one [52:38] thing. But if you're mandating that [52:41] you're going to have the Ten [52:42] Commandments in classrooms, that's a [52:44] different thing because now you're [52:45] you're pushing Christianity on kids. And [52:48] this is Terico's position. And as a [52:51] Christian, he's saying I think this is [52:53] going to push children away from [52:54] Christianity. [52:56] >> So I again I I I understand what he's [52:57] saying. I just I think that part of [53:00] living in a society where you have [53:02] different people of different [53:03] perspectives, but you do have I mean [53:05] Christianity is the majority religion of [53:07] the United States. It is the religion [53:09] that was extraordinary influential to [53:12] our founding to the constitutional [53:13] principles. Again, freedom of religion [53:15] is itself not really a liberal concept. [53:17] It was originally derived um from from [53:20] from a Christian idea about free will [53:23] and the dignity of the person. I think [53:25] part of that is that you accept that [53:27] you're going to have exposure to [53:29] different things. And if a if a state [53:32] legislator in a majority Christian state [53:35] wants, it's not like they're putting the [53:38] Ten Commandments in front of these kids [53:39] and saying, "You have to read this and, [53:41] you know, write it 500 times a day." [53:44] They're exposing kids to something. And [53:46] I'm comfortable with kids being exposed [53:48] to a lot of different things. I think [53:50] that's part of living in a society where [53:52] there's a free exchange of ideas. And [53:54] what I what I worry about with [53:55] Tallerico's sort of perspective here is [53:57] is again I'm not saying that I I don't [54:00] want kids to be exposed to anything that [54:03] is outside of the Christian cannon. Like [54:05] I I I actually want my kids exposed to [54:07] things. I I write about this in the book [54:09] that I think it's important to have a [54:11] grounded enough faith that you can [54:12] engage with a lot of different ideas and [54:14] still ultimately you know sort of hold [54:16] on to your to your Christian faith. But [54:20] isn't part of just living in a like [54:22] pluralistic democracy that people are [54:25] going to be exposed to different things? [54:27] And you know, I I would kind of put it [54:29] on Tallerico in a slightly different way [54:31] that for a long time in this country, [54:34] there were actually Supreme Court [54:35] rulings that said that you cannot pray [54:38] in a school, even a a student [54:40] organization led by the students, or [54:43] that you cannot put the Ten Commandments [54:44] up, even a teacher who chose to do it in [54:46] their own classroom. And so I think [54:49] you're always kind of trying to strike [54:50] this balance, you know, given that we [54:52] have the first amendment in this country [54:55] between allowing the practice of [54:56] religious faith in public spaces and [54:59] possibly forcing religion on other [55:02] people. I think you have to strike that [55:03] balance the right way. I guess I just [55:05] say is the if the Ten Commandments being [55:08] in a classroom is the thing that you [55:10] think is forcing religion on somebody, [55:13] was he equally offended when the Ten [55:15] Commandments were like quite literally [55:17] prohibited from being listed in [55:20] building? [55:20] >> I don't know if he was offended by that [55:23] or if he was opposed to that. But the [55:25] idea of being exposed to it is one [55:28] thing. It being mandatory is another. [55:31] And to mandate that in classrooms is a [55:33] different thing because you're promoting [55:35] clearly promoting Christianity. And his [55:37] position is that promoting Christianity [55:40] in that way is going to have an opposite [55:42] effect on children. You're pushing it on [55:44] them instead. You're not just exposing [55:46] it to them. You're pushing it on them. [55:47] And especially if you're pushing it on [55:49] children who come from a household that [55:51] has a different faith. I guess I just [55:52] think the balance in our country the [55:54] last 30 40 years has actually been much [55:55] more in the other direction which is [55:57] that we try to completely remove [55:59] religion from the public square and I [56:01] think that's that's that poses its own [56:04] problems because you know people [56:06] practice their faith in all kinds of [56:08] ways. We think that that's the [56:09] responsibility of churches and and [56:11] synagogues and where that like if you [56:14] want and and in the community if you [56:15] want to promote religion promote it that [56:17] way. But promoting in public schools [56:19] should be just educational. And if [56:21] you're in a religious class and a a [56:24] class is teaching about religion, that's [56:26] a different story. [56:28] >> Well, you're right. It's certainly the [56:30] responsibility of churches and [56:31] synagogues and mosques and so forth. But [56:34] I also think that, you know, the the the [56:36] late Supreme Court Chief Justice William [56:38] Ranquist sort of said this that if your [56:41] approach to religion in public life [56:44] always and everywhere is to push it out [56:47] of the public square, then you're [56:49] actually embracing a religion of your [56:51] own in the public square, which is [56:53] secularism. You're just taking one [56:54] religion and replacing it with [56:55] secularism. And I guess what I'm saying [56:57] is I'm kind of comfortable with people [56:59] of different faiths sharing the public [57:00] square together. But part of that is [57:03] that if if I'm in a 95% Christian [57:06] community and my local city council [57:08] wants to put up a nativity display on [57:09] on, you know, Christmas Eve, I'm okay [57:12] with that. And that was actually like [57:14] for a long time in our country actually [57:16] prohibited. Yeah. [57:17] >> And so what what I think is that we got [57:19] we we we sort of put ourselves in this [57:21] frame in this country where we said [57:23] every public display of religion is [57:27] somehow illegitimate. But I I I mean I [57:31] don't know. I I try to live my faith in [57:33] a way that's consistent across different [57:35] spheres of my life. You know, I don't [57:37] preach to people. I don't like to walk [57:38] into the White House tell my employees, [57:40] you know, you need to be you need to [57:42] follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I [57:44] just try to live my life in a way that [57:47] hopefully makes people a little curious [57:49] about what you know, what motivates me [57:50] and what inspires me. But I also don't [57:53] think that the expectation should be [57:55] that we tell religious people they're [57:56] not allowed to be religious in the [57:57] public square because I think that's [57:59] what we've done over the last 30 or 40 [58:01] years. I guess, you know, we can agree [58:04] to disagree. I see the Texas thing as an [58:06] an attempt to correct that. This episode [58:08] is brought to you by Fox Nation. Real [58:10] American freestyle wrestling is [58:12] exclusively on Fox Nation. Every month [58:15] you get every feud, every match, and [58:18] every belt. And if you're a fan of MMA, [58:20] you don't want to miss it because RAF is [58:22] featuring some of the biggest UFC [58:24] fighters and putting them against the [58:27] best wrestlers in the world. On July [58:29] 18th, RAF11 turns up the heat when Ben [58:33] Ascrin returns to the mat to take on [58:35] former UFC champion Bal Muhammad. Then [58:39] two undefeated RAF stars finally face [58:41] off when Arman Sarukian and Kobby [58:44] Coington settle their score in the main [58:46] event. No cages, no gloves, no excuses. [58:49] RAF11, [58:51] live from Milwaukee, Saturday, July [58:54] 18th, streaming exclusively on Fox [58:57] Nation. Go to foxnation.com and sign up [59:00] today. Well, I think living by example [59:02] is probably the best promotion of any [59:05] good way to live your life, whether it's [59:07] Christianity or any other religion. I [59:09] think that's definitely the way to do [59:10] it. But the the point is that this is [59:13] being promoted by very wealthy people [59:16] who are Christian nationalists who who [59:18] want this to be uh they want it to what [59:22] is going on here, Jimmy? What you got? [59:23] Bible stories become required reading in [59:26] Texas public schools. Yeah. See? Well, [59:29] now that's a you're taking it to another [59:31] level. So, this is June 26. This is very [59:33] recently. [59:35] Um [59:37] that is that kind of thinking and [59:42] that kind of mindset is uh what bothers [59:45] me the most about some Republicans. [59:48] >> I see what you mean. Um, and then [59:51] there's the there's people that again [59:54] they live their life in a very beautiful [59:57] way and they follow the teachings of [60:00] Jesus Christ and they're very admirable [60:02] and I think that's very attractive and [60:04] it makes people very curious about that [60:07] religion. I think that brings people to [60:08] Christ and I think it brings people to [60:10] religion. [60:10] >> Sure. But then there's people like, did [60:13] you read that report uh that came from [60:18] at the start of the Iran war where uh [60:21] there was a guy who was an officer uh [60:24] non-commissioned officer who was uh at a [60:29] a briefing and this guy came in and was [60:32] explaining to them that they didn't need [60:35] to be afraid because this war was [60:38] important because Trump had been [60:40] anointed by Jesus Christ to bring about [60:42] his return. And the way they were going [60:45] to Jesus is going to return is by [60:48] bombing Iran. [laughter] [60:50] >> I did not see that report. [60:51] >> That sounds pretty far out there to me. [60:53] >> This is the kind of right-wing I see [60:56] >> thinking. So here it is. Military [60:58] commander tells troops bombing Iran is [61:00] part of God's divine plan. So, we [61:02] started getting calls in the wee hours [61:04] of Saturday morning from people saying [61:05] their commanders were just jubilant [61:07] about this, trying to tell people, [61:08] "Don't worry, it's all part of God's [61:10] plan. Uh, they promised a 200 mile long [61:15] river that is 4 and 1/2 ft deep, filled [61:17] with nothing but the blood that their [61:19] weaponized version of Jesus will spill [61:21] at the battle of Armageddon." Weinstein [61:24] said, u what what was the one uh there [61:27] was a there was an article where the guy [61:28] was explaining the actual quotes that [61:31] the the one uh officer was telling him [61:35] >> the one commander. [61:37] Uh yeah, but it's not that there was is [61:40] very specific. He was it was very [61:42] specific what he said. [61:45] Um, I mean, for what it's worth, my my [61:47] attitude on this stuff is I mean, first [61:50] of all, as a Christian, you sort of [61:51] believe that everything is is part of [61:53] God's plan, even things that are [61:56] ultimately very terrible. I mean, you [61:57] kind of have to make [61:58] >> it. Let me let me read the quote. He [62:00] urged us to tell our troops that this [62:01] was all part of God's divine plan. And [62:04] he specifically referenced numerous [62:06] citations out of the book of Revelations [62:08] referring to Armageddon and the imminent [62:10] return of Jesus Christ. He said that [62:12] President Trump had been anointed by [62:13] Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran [62:16] to cause Armageddon and mark his return [62:19] to Earth. [62:19] >> Okay. [62:20] >> If I'm in that meeting, I'm like, "Hit [62:22] [laughter] the brakes. [62:25] Hit the brakes." What? [62:27] >> Well, that's that's where you need some [62:28] of the psychedelics we talked about at [62:29] the last Joe Rogan JD Vance [62:31] conversation. [laughter] [62:32] >> That would definitely help. [62:33] >> I mean, my my response first of all, [62:36] like obviously, do I endorse that? No. [62:39] Do I think that it's important that [62:40] people reign it in a little bit? Because [62:42] I'm sure you're right. There were a lot [62:43] of troops there, probably a lot of [62:44] Christian troops there who were like, [62:45] uh, I'm not sure this is exactly right. [62:48] Right. [62:48] >> But the the important point is I think [62:51] it's important as a Christian leader, as [62:54] Christians, period. One of the things we [62:56] have to do is just have humility in the [62:58] face of of God's plan. There's a lot [63:00] that we don't understand. There's a lot [63:01] that we don't get. And I think [63:03] especially on matters of war and peace, [63:05] the approach that I try to take is you [63:08] try to make the best decisions that you [63:09] can. You hope that you're on God's side. [63:12] You don't assume that God has taken your [63:14] side. That's a that's a very famous [63:16] Abraham Lincoln quote. And that's the [63:18] attitude that I take. So for that, what [63:20] I, you know, what I would encourage that [63:21] NCO to say is, you know what, God is in [63:24] control. We don't know what's going to [63:26] happen, but let's pray and try to do as [63:28] good of a job as we can trusting in God. [63:31] If I was speaking to a group of [63:33] Christian troops, that's what I would [63:34] say. [63:35] >> But you're speaking to a group of [63:36] troops. You don't know if they're [63:38] Christian. You don't know. I mean, [63:39] you're essentially letting these people [63:41] know that you believe that Trump was [63:44] anointed by Jesus to bomb Iran so that [63:48] Jesus can come back to Earth. [63:49] >> Come back in a firearm. [63:51] >> I'd be like, "Can I get the [ __ ] out of [63:53] here?" [63:53] >> No, I hear you, man. I hear you. Look, [63:55] yes. And uh I I uh that's that is the [63:58] first that I have ever heard of this [64:00] particular story. How have you not heard [64:01] of this and Biden's two brain surgeries? [64:04] >> Apparently, I live in a bunker, man. [64:06] [laughter] [64:08] >> How do you not know about these things? [64:10] >> Wild. I Okay, here's the other thing [64:11] I'll say is is [64:14] having heard about this for the first [64:16] time just now. To your point about the [64:18] media, [64:20] >> I do think it's possible, let's be [64:22] honest, that whatever that dude said, [64:26] maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, has [64:28] been misreported by the press. So, I [64:30] always have a filter on this stuff. Like [64:32] I don't automatically assume. [64:34] >> It's also possible that this is the [64:36] other thing. He said the commander [64:37] supposedly had a big grin on his face [64:39] when he said all this, which made his [64:40] message seem even more crazy. [64:42] >> And I think that's again [64:44] >> I don't think anybody should have um [64:49] war is sometimes necessary, but it's [64:51] never a good thing. And that I think [64:53] that's like a fundamental Christian [64:55] principle is there are just wars, there [64:57] are necessary wars, but war is always [64:59] something that you try to avoid, [65:00] >> right? But saying that this is what's [65:02] being referenced in the book of [65:04] Revelation, [65:05] >> dude. I think that's I think that is [65:06] nuts. I also don't know that that, you [65:08] know, I want to be conf I want to [65:10] confirm that it's a person actually said [65:11] that before teeing off on it because [65:13] what that sounds to me is like somebody [65:16] butchering or misrepresenting something [65:19] that you know somebody that I know might [65:23] have said [65:23] >> quite possible. So you got to be [65:26] careful. Also quite possible that you [65:27] got a really looney guy who is a [65:30] Christian nationalist who is a commander [65:33] and who is in this position where he's [65:35] actually excited because he does think [65:38] that this is a holy [laughter] war and [65:40] this is going to bring back Jesus. [65:42] >> Well, it's certainly possible. I mean, [65:43] America's got 330 million people and [65:45] we've got a lot of people who believe in [65:46] a lot of things. But I can assure you [65:48] that we don't encourage people to talk [65:51] like that. And again, all I can do as a [65:54] Christian leader, I'll look into that [65:55] story certainly, but all I can do as a [65:56] Christian leader is talk about how I [65:57] think about questions of war and peace, [65:59] which is we try to do the right thing. [66:03] We try to figure out what it is that is [66:06] consistent with Christ's moral teaching [66:09] and we try to, you know, comport our [66:11] foreign policy with the cause of [66:13] justice. And that's what we try to do, [66:14] recognizing it's always going to be [66:16] imperfect. But I don't think that we [66:17] should ever have an attitude towards war [66:20] like this is a this is a great thing. [66:21] I'm going to grin and smile about that. [66:23] All I'm saying is I'm skeptical that [66:24] anybody took that approach because the [66:26] media misrepresents everything. [66:28] >> Do you think that this the way that you [66:31] just described it align with our [66:32] campaign in Iran? [66:34] >> Well, I think that the goal is certainly [66:37] good, which is to prevent Iran from [66:39] getting a nuclear weapon. And I I think [66:42] that there are obviously [66:44] a lot of questions about how best to [66:47] achieve that. There's both a short-term [66:48] and a long-term piece of it. I think the [66:51] short-term piece of it is effectively [66:52] what's already been done which is you [66:54] destroy the nuclear sites and you [66:56] destroy and eliminate the ability to [66:58] rebuild the nuclear sites. I think [67:00] there's a longer term thing which is [67:01] where like a lot of the debate is [67:03] focused on right now which is that [67:05] building a nuclear program is hard but [67:07] it's not impossible and it's expensive [67:10] but it's actually not even that [67:11] expensive if you look I mean you could [67:12] go on YouTube right now and find out how [67:14] to build an atomic bomb. So part of our [67:17] Iran policy, and this is where I get [67:19] frustrated with the people who say you [67:20] should never negotiate with Iran, part [67:22] of our Iran policy is like solving the [67:26] long-term problem that if we could [67:28] create the sort of circumstance where [67:30] Iran would commit not just to not have a [67:32] nuclear weapon right now, but over the [67:35] long term to not try to rebuild that [67:36] capacity, like yeah, I think that that [67:38] is a good and valuable thing. [67:42] >> If it was your call, would you have done [67:44] exactly the same [laughter] thing? [67:46] Well, what did the the president said um [67:50] publicly that JD was less enthusiastic [67:52] about it, I think was the exact phrase [67:53] that he used. [67:55] >> I mean, my attitude towards this man, as [67:57] you know, is the vice president. I'm not [67:59] a public commentator. Like, my job is to [68:02] give the best advice I can to the [68:03] president of the United States. I think [68:04] he's said a little bit about what that [68:06] advice was. Um, but once the president [68:10] makes a decision, so long as I think [68:12] that it's, you know, legal and ethical [68:13] and all that stuff, and I certainly [68:15] think whether you agree or disagree with [68:16] it, what we've done has been has been [68:18] legal, my attitude towards it is I try [68:21] to make it as successful as possible. [68:23] And I've got friends, of course, I think [68:25] you know, you've expressed some [68:26] skepticism of this. I've got a lot of [68:28] friends both in private and public [68:30] who've expressed skepticism of this who [68:31] say, "Well, this is terrible. We [68:33] disagree with the decision, etc., etc." [68:36] I'm not a public commentator. My [68:38] approach to this is not to Monday [68:40] morning quarterback a decision that was [68:42] made three months ago. My approach to it [68:43] is to try to make it as successful as [68:45] possible. Which is why I've poured my [68:47] heart and soul into these negotiations. [68:48] Which is why I've tried to make that [68:50] goal, Iran not having a nuclear weapon, [68:53] something that's not true both not just [68:55] now, but is true in the long term. And [68:57] that's the way that I try to approach [68:59] it. So, what is going on with Iran where [69:01] it seems like the president keeps saying [69:05] that a deal has been reached, [69:07] negotiations have been successful, and [69:10] then it all falls apart, and we start [69:12] bombing them again. [69:13] >> Yeah. So, uh, how long do we have here? [69:16] Cuz as much as you need So, so, so I [69:19] have to explain a couple of things in [69:21] the background so you sort of fully [69:22] appreciate, um, people fully appreciate [69:25] what's going on here. So number one, [69:26] it's a bit of a simplification, but you [69:28] have two elements within the Iranian [69:30] system. You have and and you sometimes [69:33] hear hawkish Americans say this that [69:34] they're all crazy people. They want to [69:36] bring about, you know, the the 12th imam [69:38] and the apocalypse and all that stuff. [69:40] There are people in Iran who believe [69:41] that they're also pragmatists. You've [69:43] got the crazy people, you've got the [69:44] pragmatists. Okay. So when we struck [69:47] thisou and really what theou says, and [69:50] I've it was misrepresented more than [69:52] almost anything that I've ever worked on [69:54] in public life. What it says is Iran is [69:57] going to open the straight of Hormuz. [69:58] The violence is going to stop and then [70:00] we're going to negotiate to see if we [70:02] can come to a broader deal on the [70:04] long-term nuclear issue. That's what we [70:06] wanted. And what the Iranians wanted, of [70:08] course, was long-term economic and [70:10] sanctions relief. Now, here's here's the [70:13] problem with where we are right now. And [70:16] and and I guess my summary view, Joe, is [70:19] that I of course can't predict the [70:20] future. I don't know exactly where this [70:22] is going to go, but I think [70:23] fundamentally we are on the right [70:25] trajectory. It's just going to be really [70:27] messy and there's going to be a lot of [70:29] stops and starts. So what happens the [70:31] first week after we sign theou, we get [70:34] 20 million barrels a day of oil out of [70:35] the straight of Hormuz. That's what it [70:37] was before the war. The price of oil [70:39] comes way down and there are elements, [70:41] the hardliners in the Iranian system [70:43] kind of freak out a little bit. They're [70:45] like, "Oh [ __ ] did we just give away [70:47] our major leverage point? Screw nuclear [70:49] weapons. We just gave away this." So in [70:51] thisou and so there was this kind of [70:53] freak out in their system. So they shot [70:55] at a couple ships we responded and I [70:57] think that's entirely appropriate of [70:59] course if they're going to shoot at [71:00] ships we are going to shoot at the [71:02] people who are shooting at the ships or [71:03] we're going to destroy the facilities [71:05] that they're using to shoot at ships. So [71:07] that happens okay and then the Iranians [71:08] like oh no no fine that that you're [71:10] you're right we shouldn't have been [71:11] shooting at ships. So then they come [71:13] back to the table and there's a few more [71:14] days of negotiation and then the phase [71:17] they're in right now is the hardliners [71:19] have really really reacted strongly to [71:22] all the oil that's coming out of the [71:23] straight of Hormuz and they've basically [71:25] said we're going to try to shut this [71:27] thing down. We're scared about losing [71:29] our leverage. Now the pragmatists in [71:31] their system are saying this was a [71:32] mistake. Let's keep on talking. And [71:34] again do I know how this is ultimately [71:37] going to shake out? Of course I don't. [71:38] But what we're doing is a delicate [71:41] diplomatic dance where we're using [71:43] economic leverage points. We're using [71:45] carrots and sticks. We're trying to talk [71:47] to the pragmatists. And then of course [71:49] when they commit acts of violence, we're [71:51] responding to it. And all those things [71:53] are happening simultaneously to get us [71:54] on a better trajectory. Now that said, [71:58] yes, right now there's there's shooting [71:59] right now. Last night they shot at some [72:01] ships. The but with all that said, is [72:05] their nuclear program still destroyed? [72:07] Yes. Are the straits not necessarily [72:10] fully pre-war traffic, but are we [72:12] getting enough oil and gas out of the [72:14] straight of Hormuz to prevent a [72:15] worldwide energy crisis? Yes. And all of [72:18] these things are happening in the [72:20] context of the broader negot negotiation [72:22] over the nuclear program. You never know [72:24] where this is ultimately going to end [72:26] up, but that's where we are. And then [72:28] the can I just say one other thing about [72:29] this because [sighs] there are people [72:32] you know you see Mike Pence who's sort [72:34] of a superhawk my predecessor who say [72:37] this there are people you know um who [72:40] are super hawkish in the American system [72:42] who have attacked the deal and and [72:44] frankly in some ways have tried to [72:45] derail the deal and what I always say to [72:48] those people is what is your proposal [72:51] what is your actual argument so so just [72:53] take the straight of horm like the [72:55] narrowest but in some ways the most [72:56] important part of this back and forth [72:58] right now. Straight of Hormuz is a [73:00] narrow waterway. To the extent you shut [73:02] it down, you shut down 25% of the [73:04] world's energy supply. Okay, Joe, you [73:08] could take a $100,000 and go buy a bunch [73:10] of drones on the black market and post [73:13] yourself on an island in the Straight of [73:15] Hormuz near it and you could fire drones [73:18] at those ships. Okay? Now, what does [73:20] that mean? some oil and gas is still [73:23] going to get out because some ships and [73:24] some ship captains gonna say screw you. [73:27] Now, the United States can help that, [73:28] right? We can shoot down some of those [73:30] drones. We can shoot down some of those [73:31] missiles and so we can facilitate the [73:33] flow of traffic. But the people who are [73:36] like, you cannot negotiate with the [73:38] Iranians. The reason why that's [73:40] fundamentally idiotic is because so long [73:42] as you have some person who's willing to [73:46] fire off a few cheap drones, you're [73:48] going to have some ship captains who [73:49] say, "No, no, no. we're not willing to [73:51] do this. So, we got to kind of use all [73:53] tools at our disposal. The military is [73:56] one tool, but diplomacy is another tool. [73:58] And I I'm very frustrated by the [74:00] Americans and frankly by people in other [74:02] countries who are like, you cannot [74:04] negotiate with the Iranians. Well, then [74:07] what is your proposal to get people to [74:09] stop shooting at ships in the straight [74:10] of Hormuz? You can bomb them. You can [74:12] take away their radar. You can take away [74:14] some of their drones and some of their [74:15] missiles, but it's just too easy to fire [74:18] at ships in the straits. So, you've got [74:21] to actually be willing to talk and to [74:22] try to figure out the problem. [74:24] >> What is their proposal? The people that [74:26] think you shouldn't negotiate with Iran. [74:27] >> I think that their proposal is to bomb [74:30] and bomb and bomb. And the honest view, [74:33] Joe, is that they they do not actually [74:35] have a solution. If you actually ask [74:38] them, "What do you want us to do? What [74:39] is the goal that you're trying to [74:41] achieve?" You know, they'll they'll say [74:43] things like, "Well, just bomb them to [74:45] oblivion." Okay, we can do that. We can [74:48] drop a lot of bombs, but what does that [74:50] accomplish if there's still a crazy [74:51] person who's still willing to shoot a [74:53] few drones at the straight of Hormuz? [74:55] What the president has done, I think [74:57] very very capably is said, "We're going [74:59] to use military force in the in this [75:01] situation when it's connected to [75:03] something we're trying to achieve." So, [75:05] if you shoot at ships, we're going to [75:06] shoot at the facilities at which you [75:09] used to shoot at the ships. But we're [75:11] not just going to do something [75:12] open-ended indefinitely. We're not just [75:14] going to bomb and bomb and bomb. We're [75:16] going to try to use our military force [75:17] as one of the many tools that we have to [75:19] solve the problem. And obviously, like [75:21] I'm biased, but I think that's exactly [75:22] the right approach. I I actually think [75:25] you have to read between the lines a [75:27] little bit because if if you look at [75:28] what Mike Pence or some of the [75:29] conservative hawks, like people who [75:31] voted for us, but have been very [75:33] critical of me, very critical of the [75:34] administration, [75:36] if you actually look at what they're [75:38] proposing, they just want the military [75:40] campaign to go on forever. and they [75:42] can't actually identify what it is that [75:44] they're trying to accomplish. None of [75:46] them can identify what it is they're [75:47] trying to accomplish. And I and I read [75:49] two things between the lines. I think [75:51] some of them want us to accomplish a [75:54] complete change in the government of [75:57] Iran to topple the clerics and to [75:59] replace that those clerics with somebody [76:01] who's, you know, much friendlier. But [76:03] like look, what is our experience with [76:05] doing that? [76:07] >> It's not good. Right? And so, like, if [76:10] the Iranian people want to rise up and [76:12] change their government, that's up to [76:13] them. But we're not going to send [76:15] 150,000 ground troops in in order to [76:18] accomplish a change in a regime unless [76:21] the people on the ground themselves want [76:24] to accomplish that outcome. Now, we're [76:26] not going to send the troops in [76:27] regardless, but like to propose sending [76:29] in the troops, [76:31] you're basically saying that the US [76:33] military should do the job for the [76:37] Iranian people. We're not in that [76:39] business anymore. We're just not. And [76:41] then I think a second outcome that [76:43] people are are whether they're aware of [76:44] it or not is what I call the Libya [76:47] outcome. So if you look at the end [76:49] result of our Libya policy after Gaddafi [76:52] was killed by the Obama administration, [76:53] by the way, again, a a very stupid [76:56] decision, what happened? Libya basically [76:59] turned into a failed state. You had a [77:00] refugee crisis. You had people pouring [77:02] into Europe, pouring into other parts of [77:04] Asia, other parts of Africa. You had a [77:07] lot of violence, a lot of terrorism come [77:08] from that. I do think that there are [77:10] people who would like that to be the [77:12] outcome in Iran. But then I say again, [77:15] what is in our interest? How is it in [77:17] the United States's interest to have 94 [77:19] million desperate people flooding into [77:21] Europe, flooding into the United States, [77:23] to have, you know, sort of the the [77:26] terrorist infrastructure that can get [77:27] established when you fan terrorists all [77:30] over the world? We've run this [77:32] experiment before. And so our policy [77:34] right now, what we're trying to [77:36] accomplish is get the straits open, [77:39] ensure the free flow of oil and gas, [77:41] obviously want to keep the Iranians from [77:43] having a nuclear weapons program, and [77:45] using the tools of diplomacy and [77:48] military power to accomplish that. [77:50] >> And Libya failing and the collapse of [77:54] Libya is a lot of what's fueled the [77:57] migrant crisis in Europe as well. [77:59] Correct. [78:00] >> Exactly. that in Syria, another failed [78:02] state that was created by bad Middle [78:04] Eastern policy. So there is precedent [78:06] for the United States doing this. Every [78:08] time that it has happened, it's caused a [78:10] refugee crisis. It's caused a spike in [78:12] terrorism. And it's also not [78:14] incidentally to the moral [78:15] considerations. It's led to a lot of [78:17] innocent civilian deaths. [78:18] >> Now, what was the the talk about I think [78:22] the number was like $300 billion in [78:24] concessions to Iran to rebuild. [78:27] Yeah. So, this is another just [ __ ] [78:30] argument that the critics made against [78:32] the deal. And and and again, like I just [78:35] to back up a little bit, this is my own [78:36] little hobby horse, but look, we the [78:39] coalition that Donald Trump piloted to [78:42] the 2024 election campaign. It was a [78:45] landslide. We won seven states. It was [78:47] historic. Nobody, certainly no [78:49] Republican had actually led a coalition [78:52] like that, at least since the days of [78:54] Ronald Reagan. So, like literally before [78:56] I was alive. Okay. So, Donald Trump wins [79:00] this great coalition and look, it's got, [79:01] man, it's got hawks and it's got people [79:04] who hate foreign wars. Okay. It's got [79:07] people like you and people like Tucker. [79:09] It's also got people like Mark Leven and [79:11] others. Okay. I just accept that as a [79:14] reality. That's part of the coalition. I [79:16] don't say that anybody is welcome or [79:18] unwelcome. I say that if you're willing [79:19] to sort of help us, you're going to get [79:21] a lot what you want. You don't get [79:22] everything that you want. What has [79:24] really annoyed me about the the hawkish [79:28] side of this thing is [79:31] they attack any effort to negotiate. [79:34] They attack the president. They attack [79:36] me personally. Donald Trump is betraying [79:37] me. Well, wait a second. I if you if you [79:41] if you want to have like a hawkish [79:42] policy towards Iran, the idea that [79:45] Donald Trump has betrayed you because [79:47] he's also trying to negotiate to get a [79:49] good outcome for the American people is [79:51] crazy. And so you've seen a lot of these [79:53] people completely flip on him. And that [79:56] brings me to the 300 million or the $300 [79:58] billion point. What we what we did with [80:01] with theou is is we actually worked not [80:03] just with the Iranians but with the Gulf [80:05] Arab states. [80:06] >> What is the term? What does it stand [80:08] for? [80:08] >> Memorandum of understanding. It's the [80:10] basic it's the basic structure that we [80:12] set up for the negotiation. So what what [80:15] happened here is okay so people sort of [80:17] think of of the Middle East as like Iran [80:19] versus Israel. I think a lot of people [80:21] do. There's also a massive number of [80:25] Gulf States that are really important, [80:26] good allies to the United States. You [80:29] know, they and Israel don't always see [80:30] eye to eye, but we're obviously very [80:31] close to both Israel and to the Gulf [80:33] States. And the Gulf States actually [80:36] came to us and said, "You know what? If [80:38] the Iranians are willing, really willing [80:40] to change their behavior, we'd like to [80:43] invest in rebuilding their country." [80:45] Now, [80:47] whether they change their behavior is [80:48] something that's going to be determined [80:50] over the long term, right? We want to [80:51] see real changes. We want to see them to [80:53] stop funding terrorist organizations. [80:56] And also, of course, none of that money [80:57] comes from the United States. But if [80:59] Iran's biggest enemies in the region are [81:02] saying, "We'd like to invest if they've [81:05] changed their behavior. Would the United [81:07] States let us? Would we release the [81:09] sanctions that would make it possible [81:10] for the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other [81:12] countries to invest in Iran?" Our [81:14] attitude was, well, isn't that a victory [81:16] for us? If Iran's biggest enemies see [81:19] that they have changed themselves so [81:21] much that they're willing to invest in [81:23] the Iranian economy, isn't that like the [81:25] definition of a win-win? And then you [81:28] had all these people saying, "No, no, [81:29] no, no. You can't give them $300 [81:31] billion." It's like, we're not talking [81:32] about giving them $300 billion. We're [81:34] talking about letting other countries [81:36] invest in Iran if Iran has changed the [81:39] way that it treats the Gulf Arab [81:41] countries. It's fundamentally between [81:42] them, meaning the Iranians and the Gulf [81:44] Arab countries. So there's this line in [81:46] theou that basically says that if Iran [81:49] meets all of its obligations, then we [81:51] will permit other countries to invest in [81:53] Iran. That's it. And that like again, [81:57] the hawks attacked us and misrepresented [82:01] this and lied about it and said the [82:03] Trump administration is going to give [82:05] the Iranians $300 billion. And it's [82:07] totally fake. It's completely made up. [82:10] and it was done purely in order to [82:13] politically tank the negotiation. So [82:15] there there's been this interesting [82:17] dynamic here where as we've been trying [82:20] to negotiate, there have been these [82:23] extraordinarily wellunded efforts to [82:25] tank the negotiation to prevent us from [82:27] reaching a deal to change American [82:29] public opinion, which by the way, if you [82:31] look at the public opinion, people love [82:33] the idea of actually getting to a final [82:37] resolution on this thing. Americans do [82:39] not they're not game for long-term, you [82:42] know, open-ended regime change wars in [82:44] the Middle East. They're okay with us [82:47] using the military to accomplish [82:49] discrete objectives. They're not okay [82:51] with open-ended obligations. [82:54] >> What do you think the motivation of the [82:56] hawks is? Do do you think this is are [82:59] they influenced by defense contractors? [83:02] So the influence what is what's the [83:03] reason why they're so keen on continuing [83:07] to bomb? [83:08] >> I think with with any big group of [83:10] people you have you know you have a [83:12] diversity of opinions. So so sure I I'm [83:14] sure that you know you have people who [83:17] are influenced by defense contractors. [83:20] You know there's a lot of talk about how [83:21] how much is the Israeli government [83:23] influencing American politics and uh [83:26] there are certainly certain people [83:27] within the Israeli government who hate [83:29] the deal. And we we we see exact [83:31] evidence. There was a Times story that [83:32] came out yesterday [83:34] um that basically there are certain [83:36] influencers in America who are being [83:40] paid in order to attack the deal. I [83:42] think some of it it's just pure [83:44] political ideology, right? It's foreign [83:46] policy perspectives that is that are [83:48] much different from mine. They think [83:50] that America should just that we can [83:53] basically you can wave a magic wand with [83:55] the military and accomplish whatever you [83:57] want. And you know, it's it's not that [83:59] simple. You actually have to have a very [84:01] clear objective. Military power can [84:04] accomplish a clear objective, but you've [84:06] got to have that clear objective. You [84:07] can't just say, "We're going to bomb [84:09] until something good happens." That [84:10] never works. The United States has tried [84:12] that before. So, I think it's a [84:14] combination of things, but I I [84:16] definitely think you have seen this very [84:19] discreet, extremely well-funded campaign [84:23] to try to derail the negotiation and try [84:25] to derail the deal. And you know, there [84:28] was again there's this time article that [84:29] came out yesterday. A friend sent it to [84:31] me. It's like worth reading because it [84:34] lists a bunch of people who have quite [84:36] literally been paid [84:39] by a former Trump campaign person who [84:42] was himself paid by certain elements [84:45] within the Israeli government. And those [84:47] people are attacking me viciously for [84:50] quite literally trying to accomplish the [84:52] negotiation objective that the president [84:54] set for the country. So, [84:55] >> what is their position? Like, are [84:57] they're attacking you? How? [84:58] >> Oh, it's it's social media posts. It's, [85:01] you know, they're leaking to reporters. [85:02] They're attacking me obsessively saying [85:05] that we should not be negotiating with [85:07] Iran. We should just keep the military [85:09] campaign going indefinitely. And that is [85:12] that is their explicit position. and [85:14] coming after me saying that, you know, [85:16] people have come after me and say that [85:17] I'm influenced by Qatar, that I'm [85:19] influenced by foreign governments, that, [85:21] you know, I take my marching orders from [85:23] Tucker Carlson. And there there's just [85:25] so much [ __ ] out there when what I'm [85:28] actually trying to do is accomplish what [85:30] the president of the United States told [85:31] me to accomplish, which is a settlement [85:34] of this that accomplishes our [85:36] objectives. Iran doesn't have a nuclear [85:38] weapon. We have the free flow of oil and [85:40] gas. and and and like I should be clear [85:43] um you know [85:46] like I don't actually mind I don't mind [85:50] that the [85:53] you know let's say certain elements of [85:55] the Israeli government want to criticize [85:57] the deal or have disagreements about the [85:59] deal. I don't even mind an effort to try [86:02] to influence, you know, foreign [86:05] governments try to influence the United [86:06] States all the time. You know, Israel [86:07] does it, other countries do it. It's [86:09] just sort of the nature of the beast. [86:12] What bothers me is actually when [86:15] Americans allow, meaning American [86:18] leadership allows that influence to [86:21] affect their judgment and to affect what [86:24] they are advocating for. That's what [86:26] really bothers me. People are always [86:28] going to try to influence the United [86:29] States of America, whether they're [86:30] allies of ours or whether they're [86:32] enemies of ours. But again, when I open [86:35] up the pages of Time magazine and I see [86:38] that there's a literal foreign influence [86:40] campaign being funded to tank the very [86:43] deal that I was pursuing and oh, by the [86:45] way, many of the people who were [86:46] receiving that money were actually [86:48] attacking me in completely dishonest [86:50] ways. You know, my response to that is, [86:52] well, go to hell. I'm going to do what I [86:54] have to do for the American people. I [86:55] represent Americans first, and that's [86:59] the way that I've I've tried to to do [87:00] this job. And I, you know, Joe, the [87:03] crazy thing is I'm like, people don't [87:06] realize this. I'm actually in this, you [87:09] know, there's this massive pro-Israel, [87:11] anti-Israel debate in the United States [87:13] of America. I'm like the reasonable [87:16] moderate. And I think that's what so [87:18] many people don't realize is, you know, [87:21] I've been accused of being an [87:22] anti-semite. I've been accused been [87:25] accused [87:25] >> for what reason? uh quite literally for [87:28] um I I've been accused of trying to I [87:30] guess some people say that I've insulted [87:32] the Jewish religion which is insane. [87:34] Like I like I have a ton of respect for [87:37] the Jewish religion. I mean if you talk [87:39] about [87:39] >> What specifically did you say that [87:40] >> I don't know I've never heard the a good [87:43] compelling argument for why I'm an [87:45] anti-semite even though I've been [87:46] accused of being an anti-semite by many [87:48] people. But it's it I what always what I [87:53] say to these guys is look at public [87:56] opinion. Look at the way young [87:58] Republicans versus Republicans over the [88:00] age of 65 approach this issue. Like [88:05] right now, Israel is losing the public [88:08] opinion battle in the United States of [88:09] America. It is a simple and obvious [88:12] fact. Donald Trump has said that [88:13] publicly. It's a simple and obvious [88:16] fact. that is [88:17] >> well let me finish this point because [88:19] okay my attitude is towards this is [88:22] >> Israel is an ally like France or like [88:25] the United Kingdom we're going to have [88:27] disagreements with them we're going to [88:28] have agreements with them there are [88:30] areas where we're going to have similar [88:31] interests and areas where our interests [88:33] are going to diverge so my approach to [88:35] this is to say you know what we're [88:37] partnered great let's work together and [88:40] we're not let's just be honest about it [88:42] and I for that people attack me for [88:45] being an anti-Semite or anti-Israel and [88:48] they don't see the writing on the wall [88:50] that I'm actually just the guy [88:52] advocating for a normal relationship [88:54] with a normal country that's based [88:56] around shared interest as opposed to [88:58] based around, you know, something else. [89:01] So why why is Israel losing um why is [89:06] Israel losing American public opinion? [89:09] Well, the narrative is that Israel has a [89:12] very disproportionate effect on American [89:15] politics. [89:15] >> Yeah, I see that. I see that narrative. [89:16] I mean, I actually think that [89:20] they [89:22] look, do they try to influence American [89:24] politics? Yes. But like I said earlier, [89:25] a lot of other countries do. I think [89:27] some [89:27] >> to the extent that Israel does. [89:29] >> I think some are better at it than [89:30] others. I think the Israel are [89:31] definitely more effective at it than [89:32] most. But I wouldn't say that they're [89:33] the only effective country by any means [89:36] that tries to influence American [89:37] politics. I just think you have to be [89:39] self-aware about it. I mean, why [89:40] wouldn't you? It's a country of 9 [89:42] million people. We have 330 million [89:44] people. And so, of course, they're going [89:46] to try to persuade Americans. They're [89:49] going to try to move Americans in one [89:50] direction or another. I think that's [89:52] just the nature of the beast. [89:53] >> But it's more than that. The concern is [89:55] that they're spying on American [89:57] politicians. That they're there's [90:00] there's there's concerns about funding. [90:03] There's concerns about influence. [90:05] There's concerns about whether or not [90:07] politicians are whether they're aligned [90:10] with Israel or whether they're aligned [90:12] with the United States first. [90:14] >> Well, there's certainly [sighs] [90:16] like I definitely get those concerns, [90:18] but my sense is that the way that all [90:21] foreign influence works in the United [90:23] States is people try to manipulate [90:26] American public opinion and then from [90:28] manipulating it public opinion they try [90:30] to get the outcomes that they want. I [90:31] this thing is a very good example of [90:33] this. So, you know, like we know, I'm [90:37] telling you beyond a reasonable doubt, [90:39] we know that the negotiation strategy [90:42] that the president has asked us to [90:44] pursue and again with limitations like [90:47] when the Iranians hit ships, the [90:49] president has been willing to knock the [90:50] hell out of the Iranians in response. [90:52] This is not just a negotiation. It's [90:54] negotiation, it's military, it's all [90:56] these things. But I know with beyond a [90:57] shadow of a doubt that there have been [91:00] people within the Israeli government who [91:01] are trying to like actually shift us [91:06] away from that policy because they want [91:08] to continue the military campaign. And [91:10] by the way, like there are people within [91:12] their government that I love, I have [91:13] good relationships with. I hope and I [91:15] don't think that they're part of this. I [91:17] mean, you know, the the ambassador of of [91:20] uh Israel to the United States, I think [91:21] is actually really good guy. Obviously, [91:23] he cares about Israel first. I care [91:25] about America first. But there are some [91:27] people within their system, we know [91:29] beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are [91:31] manipulating and trying to change [91:35] American public opinion to keep the war [91:37] going on indefinitely. Again, not [91:39] towards any objective, but just [91:41] indefinitely. So like, does it happen? [91:43] Yes. But I guess what I would say to the [91:46] Americans who sort of see this and are [91:48] frustrated by it, my attitude would be [91:50] you should be frustrated at American [91:52] leaders who are, you know, persuaded by [91:56] this, affected by this. [91:58] Countries are going to do what countries [92:00] do. I really don't. It doesn't bother me [92:01] that Qatar tries to influence the United [92:03] States of America and they do. I like a [92:05] lot of the Qataris just like I like a [92:07] lot of the Israelis. Doesn't bother me [92:08] that Israel tries to do this. It frankly [92:10] doesn't even bother me that Russia or [92:11] some of these other countries do it. [92:12] It's just the nature of being a [92:16] political leader in 2026. What does [92:19] bother me is when those operations, [92:23] those influence campaigns actually [92:25] affect American political judgment [92:27] because they shouldn't because we should [92:29] be thinking what is in the best interest [92:30] of the United States of America. [92:32] >> Do you think that Israel is affecting [92:35] American political judgment? [92:38] Um, [92:41] I mean, [92:44] I certainly think that [92:47] there are a lot of talking points and [92:50] there are a lot of arguments that make [92:53] their way into American political [92:55] discourse. I think there are a lot of [92:57] social media campaigns that definitely [92:59] influence Americans and affect [93:01] Americans. Do I think that it's been [93:03] dispositive on any particular issue like [93:06] like I think that's a much more [93:08] difficult question. [93:08] >> Do you think that we would have started [93:10] this war in Iran without the influence [93:12] of Israel? [93:14] >> I think the president completely [93:16] separate from any influence from Israel [93:20] believes very strongly and again I agree [93:22] with this that Iran should not have a [93:23] nuclear weapon. I think he was willing [93:25] to do things [93:26] >> bombed them in June. [93:28] >> Right. That was the initial attack, [93:29] right? [93:30] >> June of last year. Yeah. Midnight [93:32] hammer. [93:32] >> Yeah. Right. [93:33] Do you think he would have continued [93:36] with the most recent campaign if it [93:39] wasn't for the influence of Israel? [93:40] >> Yes. Yes, I I do. Really? I do. Yeah. [93:42] >> Look, I mean, I I I I think [93:46] [sighs and gasps] [93:47] again, and I see this and I see it even [93:49] from people that are in our coalition, [93:51] and this would be my my flip side to the [93:53] hawks who have been attacking me or the [93:55] president mercilessly over negotiation. [93:57] I would sort of turn this back on some [93:59] of the doves or some of the realists who [94:01] have been attacking the president of the [94:02] United States. [94:03] >> The doves. Those are the peace peace [94:05] people. [94:05] >> Peace people. [94:06] >> That's what you call them. [94:07] >> Hawks and doves. You never heard that [94:08] phrase? [laughter] [94:09] >> I've heard hawks. I've heard hawks. I [94:11] don't think I've ever heard doves. [94:13] >> Hawks and and pigeons. Hawks and I don't [94:15] know. [94:15] >> I think it's more doves. [94:16] >> Doves is good. Right. So [94:19] what what I I think a lot of people I've [94:21] heard this argument [94:23] >> is is this idea that Donald Trump, [94:26] you know, was sort of I've even heard [94:28] people say he was blackmailed into this. [94:30] >> Yeah. [94:31] >> By the not true, dude. It's just it's [94:34] just not true. I've seen the decision-m [94:35] up close. Again, whether you agree or [94:37] disagree with our negotiation or whether [94:39] you agree or disagree with the decision [94:41] to launch the campaign epic fury to [94:43] begin with, the idea that Donald Trump [94:46] is being like back blackmailed is crazy [94:51] to me because again, I I see the way [94:53] that he makes decisions. I see the way [94:55] that he processes this stuff. Like the [94:57] idea that he picks up the phone with [94:58] anybody and says, "Hey, like I'm going [95:00] to take orders from you." No, that's [95:02] just not how Donald Trump operates. Can [95:04] you understand though why people would [95:06] come to that conclusion especially [95:08] because the of the Epstein files? [95:12] >> What do you mean? [95:12] >> Well, the Epstein files were supposed to [95:14] be released. We were and there was a [95:17] tremendous amount of resistance to those [95:19] files being released and that concerned [95:21] a lot of people cuz if if you're talking [95:24] about very wealthy, powerful people that [95:26] were engaged in crimes. [95:27] >> I see. I So you're you're basically [95:29] saying like there's a the fear is that [95:31] whatever's in the Epstein files was used [95:34] to blackmail like the administration [95:37] into doing the Iran thing [95:38] >> or at the very least the people that [95:41] were involved in the Epstein files that [95:44] didn't want them coming out had undue [95:46] influence. [95:48] >> Well [95:50] again like say this with all cander like [95:53] we absolutely screwed up the comms of [95:55] the Epstein files like we just did. But [95:57] do I think the reason we screwed up the [95:59] comms is because we were trying to hide [96:01] something? No. I think the reason we [96:03] screwed up the comms of the Epstein [96:05] files is one, you know, Pam said Pam [96:08] Bondi said the client list is on my [96:10] desk, right? [96:12] >> Well, see, they had binders. They were [96:14] they were sitting in front [96:16] >> but those binders were largely documents [96:18] that had already been released, right? [96:20] So, so here's let me try what was the [96:23] purpose of that performative display of [96:25] the Epstein files and and she was saying [96:28] there's tens of thousands of hours of [96:31] film. [96:32] >> I don't know what the purpose of it was, [96:33] but I know that the effect of it was to [96:37] make people mistrust the entire effort. [96:39] And I think what I think was happening, [96:41] look, I I know Pam. I like Pam. I don't [96:43] think there was anything malicious going [96:44] on. I think Pam was trying to respond to [96:47] the political moment. I think she [96:49] overstated what we had and what we [96:51] didn't have. And I think that she, you [96:53] know, got got roasted for it publicly by [96:55] a lot of people, including me. Like, you [96:57] know, you and I have talked about this a [96:59] lot. I'm like one of the OG Epstein [97:02] conspiracy theorists. I've probably gone [97:03] down every single rabbit hole. We could [97:05] go down uh most of them today. Look, the [97:08] original sin of the Epstein [97:11] investigation, [97:13] and obviously I'm biased here, but it [97:15] was not what Donald Trump and the [97:18] administration did in 2025. It was you [97:20] have to go back to 2007208, the original [97:23] Alex Aosta investigation of Jeffrey [97:25] Epstein where he basically dropped the [97:28] federal charges. I think Epstein ended [97:30] up getting prosecuted on some sort of [97:32] local thing. But the original warrant, [97:35] you go to the original warrant back in [97:37] 2008. What was he looking for? What was [97:39] he allowed to look for? What were they [97:41] collecting? It was not looking at a [97:43] broader conspiracy. So that happens. [97:47] Okay. Epstein gets pinched. I think he [97:49] goes to prison or maybe this is when he [97:51] was on house arrest. Mhm. [97:52] >> But like anything that existed from the [97:56] 80s and 90s up to 2006, 2007, anything [98:00] that existed that we didn't get back [98:02] then was disappeared. Right? So like [98:06] when people say has has what you've seen [98:08] on the inside make you think that the [98:10] you know that Epstein never blackmailed [98:12] people or that Epstein never engaged in [98:14] broader sex trafficking? No, absolutely [98:16] not. What I have seen, and I've looked [98:18] at most of the files, is that there just [98:22] wasn't dispositive evidence. And if that [98:26] dispositive evidence ever existed, it [98:28] was probably destroyed after 2006, 2007. [98:30] Now, look, again, in our defense, [98:33] yes, was there some, you know, bitching [98:35] and moaning and was there some back and [98:36] forth? Yes. But there we eventually [98:40] collected six million documents as part [98:44] of the effort. the president. People say [98:46] the president was forced into releasing [98:48] the documents. Like again, the idea that [98:52] Donald Trump could not have killed that [98:53] legislation, especially with the United [98:55] States Senate is a joke. He absolutely [98:58] could have killed it. What did he do? He [98:59] actually said, "Nope, we're going to [99:00] release these files." He thought, you [99:02] know, he was annoyed by the story. He [99:04] was annoyed by the Democrats accusing [99:06] him of doing things bad. By the way, [99:08] like do I think there is any I've never [99:11] seen a single piece of cred credible [99:13] evidence that the president of United [99:15] States engaged in wrongdoing with minors [99:17] ever. So, like when the president says [99:19] the hoax, that's what he's talking about [99:22] is this democratic idea that he somehow [99:24] was a was a pedophile. It's absurd. [99:26] There's no evidence for it. Now, the [99:29] Epstein docu the Epstein, you know, law [99:32] gets signed. We find six million [99:34] documents. We find about 3 million of [99:37] them are actually responsive has [99:38] something to do with the Epstein estate. [99:40] We release all of them with the [99:42] exception of a few things that are like, [99:44] you know, the courts have said that we [99:45] have to redact certain things or we [99:47] can't release certain files. But like we [99:50] did release all these files. Did it take [99:53] longer than it should have taken? Yes. [99:55] But we did release these files. And [99:57] again, the problem here is not [100:01] like [100:03] anything that's in the files or not in [100:04] the files. The problem is if you go back [100:07] to the original investigation, it was [100:09] designed in a way that was way too [100:11] narrow. If there was a broader [100:14] conspiracy and you know, my view is that [100:16] there probably was. The evidence that [100:19] existed in 2007, that was the [100:21] opportunity to get. [100:22] >> So when you say there probably was a [100:24] broader conspiracy, what exactly are you [100:26] saying? I think there are a few [100:27] different options. I mean, look, man, I [100:28] like you could you and I could literally [100:30] do two episodes about this. I've gone on [100:32] down every rabbit hole. There's this [100:34] funny New York Times story that's [100:36] somewhat true, somewhat false, but where [100:38] Susie Wilds, the White House chief of [100:39] staff, says, "Well, we know JD's a [100:41] conspiracy theorist on this." Like, I am [100:43] actually. I've I've gone down every [100:45] every rabbit hole here. Look, so there's [100:48] the theory that whether it was American [100:50] intel or foreign intel that Epstein was [100:53] sort of using [100:55] um Epstein was using sort of the the sex [100:58] ring to blackmail rich and powerful [101:00] people. There's that piece of it. You [101:03] know, I'm I'm I I think there's a [101:05] separate conspiracy that hasn't gotten [101:06] covered as much, which is that Epstein [101:10] actually, okay, if you go back to to the [101:13] original Epstein guy was Les Wexner, [101:16] okay, who Columbus, Ohio was the [101:19] wealthiest person in Ohio, maybe still [101:21] is the wealthiest person in the state of [101:22] Ohio. The thing that everybody in [101:24] Columbus, and I lived there for a time, [101:27] knew about the Wexner Epstein [101:29] relationship is that Epstein was his tax [101:34] guy. that Epstein was like the genius at [101:37] identifying weird tax strategies that [101:40] would allow you to not have to pay [101:42] taxes, but if you were being a little [101:44] skeptical would also say that it would [101:46] allow Epstein to either blackmail people [101:48] or to have a separate nexus of influence [101:51] and control on rich and powerful people. [101:53] And so I think there's an under [101:55] reportported underexploited story of is [101:59] EP was Epstein like doing a lot of tax [102:02] stuff that was not on the up and up and [102:04] is that one way in which he gained [102:06] blackmail. It's it's not opposite of the [102:08] sexual blackmail story but in some ways [102:10] it's it's uh you know you could imagine [102:12] both things being true. Um I also just [102:16] think there's an element of he was a [102:19] scumbag. He was a very sick person. He [102:22] built relationships with a lot of other [102:24] rich and powerful people who just didn't [102:26] have any real moral judgment about the [102:29] fact the guy was obviously a scumbag. [102:31] And again, to go back to defending [102:32] Donald Trump, I know people don't want [102:33] to hear this these days, but like who [102:35] was the guy? People say Donald Trump was [102:38] blackmailed by Jeffrey Epste. Who was [102:40] the guy who narked on Epstein to the [102:43] Palm Beach police? That's in the Epstein [102:45] files, right? [102:46] >> It was Donald Trump. [102:47] >> He also kicked him out of Maraago. [102:49] >> He kicked him out of Mara Lago. It's [102:50] just [102:51] >> it's obvious that Epstein was a sick [102:53] man. [102:53] >> Yes. But if people want to say we [102:54] mishandled the Epstein release, guilty. [102:57] We did mishandle especially the [102:59] communications of it. [103:00] >> What do you think should have been done? [103:01] >> I think that we should have just dropped [103:02] everything at the very beginning and [103:05] like obviously it takes a little time to [103:06] review the stuff, to find the stuff, to [103:08] redact things where you have victims and [103:10] so forth, but we should have just done [103:11] it as quickly as possible. [103:12] >> But some of the stuff that was redacted, [103:14] some of the names that were redacted [103:15] weren't victims. [103:17] So yeah, I I I I've looked into this and [103:22] my understanding of this having looked [103:24] at a lot of this but not all of it is [103:26] that it is sometimes hard to draw a [103:30] distinction between victim and [103:31] co-conspirator and like let me highlight [103:33] this in a very sort of obvious way. Ro [103:37] Kana, who's been one of the most one of [103:39] the loudest voices on the Epstein file. [103:40] Well, he became very loud on the Epstein [103:42] files the minute Donald Trump became [103:44] president. Didn't seem to care about it [103:45] during the Biden administration. He [103:47] actually brought one of the Epstein [103:50] victims, I think, to the State of the [103:51] Union last year, or maybe it was the [103:52] year before last. Well, like that [103:54] victim, and I'm not accusing, I'm not [103:57] saying she wasn't a victim. Uh I don't [103:59] know anything about her particular case. [104:02] She was also listed as a co-conspirator [104:04] in some of these documents. Right? So [104:05] there's an idea that some of the people [104:07] who were engaged in the sex trafficking [104:09] were also, you know, facilitating it as [104:11] well. [104:11] >> So they were incentivized to get more [104:13] girls. [104:14] >> Yeah. But but what I but yes, that's [104:16] right. But the the idea is that it's [104:17] it's hard to sort of it's sometimes a [104:20] little bit of a gray area between, you [104:22] know, some of the people who were [104:23] alleged victims were also alleged [104:24] co-conspirators. And so what DOJ tried [104:28] to do was kind of make that judgment as [104:30] best they could and release as much as [104:32] possible. But it's clear that he was [104:35] trying to get in contact with people [104:37] that he felt were influential. It was [104:40] clear that he was trying to get people [104:43] to get together on the island and meet [104:46] at parties. So there there was something [104:48] he was doing where he was trying to [104:51] either influence people or compromise [104:54] people. [104:54] >> Correct. [104:55] >> So it's not there's some sort of an [104:58] operation that was going on. There there [105:00] is a story there and [105:02] you know I I will go to my deathbed [105:05] believing there's a story there but I [105:06] can't prove it and I I promise you [105:09] there's not some document that at least [105:10] I'm hiding that allows us to prove [105:13] exactly what was going on and how [105:14] >> he was he was also trying to get [105:16] scientists and this is one of the [105:19] reasons supposedly why he got that [105:21] >> okay so [105:22] >> branch in New Mexico. So, so a friend of [105:23] mine has this element, sorry, I should [105:26] step back. Conspiracy theories. One of [105:28] the ways you discredit conspiracy [105:30] theory, I thought about this a lot, is [105:32] try to hide it. Another way you [105:34] discredit conspiracy theories by [105:35] flooding the zone. So, one of the things [105:37] I've tried to do when looking at all [105:38] this stuff is to try to understand sort [105:40] of where it fits in and and to, you [105:43] know, try to separate the real from the [105:45] fake. But one really interesting element [105:48] of the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga, okay, [105:50] so he dies in 2019, right? This is at [105:52] the very end of of the first Trump [105:55] administration. [105:57] His death coincides [106:00] very very closely. This is not my [106:02] observation. This is a friend, but I [106:03] don't want to, you know, reveal [106:04] confidences here. Re it coincides very [106:08] closely with the end of what you might [106:10] call the era of censorship in academia. [106:13] So back in 2019 2020 we reached sort of [106:17] peak academic censorship where people [106:20] wouldn't publish a medical study because [106:22] it might have sort of disparited impact [106:24] racial undertones or people were getting [106:27] fired from academia for not doing land [106:29] acknowledgements stuff like that. Okay, [106:31] I'm not saying that stuff has completely [106:33] gone away but Epstein we know was [106:36] funding a ton of scientists. By the way, [106:37] where did his money come from? He was [106:39] funding a ton of scientists but like [106:41] when he died [106:44] it's almost like the era of censorship [106:46] started to break because he wasn't just [106:48] he was also plugged into a lot of in [106:50] academia but also you know he's plugged [106:51] into the social media companies like [106:53] this is a dude who knew everybody he [106:55] knew everybody [106:56] >> so [106:58] look [106:59] >> so where did his money come from? Well, [107:02] from given um part of it is suspect tax [107:06] advice and uh setting up tax schemes for [107:10] a lot of very very rich people, [107:11] >> right? But why was he motivated to [107:13] influence [107:15] academia and what what what was the [107:18] purpose? [107:19] >> I don't know the answer to that [107:20] question. I mean, I I have theories. [107:23] There's there's of course the [107:24] >> Well, most people think he was MSAD. [107:26] >> Yeah. Assad or CIA or some other deep [107:29] state, whether in America or Israel or [107:31] another country or or both. Um, [107:34] >> you know, look, was he he clearly had [107:37] connections to the upper the highest [107:40] levels of American intelligence? He [107:42] clearly had connections to the highest [107:44] levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact, [107:46] one of the interesting story, one of the [107:47] interesting things the Epstein saga [107:49] reveals about and and I try to make this [107:51] point is one of the reasons why I'm [107:53] always careful and I say there are some [107:56] elements within the Israeli government [107:58] who don't like our peace process because [108:00] there are a lot of elements within the [108:01] Israeli government that actually do like [108:02] our peace process. They recognize that [108:05] this indefinite campaign is not good for [108:07] them either. And and the Epstein thing [108:09] is interesting because as much as I [108:11] know, you know, Prime Minister [108:13] Netanyahu, not a particularly popular [108:16] person in the United States of America [108:18] right now, [108:20] Epstein seemed to be connected to the [108:23] elements of the Israeli deep state that [108:24] were left of center. Like I've always [108:26] found that fascinating. It wasn't like [108:29] he was super connected to the right of [108:32] center of Israeli politics. America, he [108:35] was connected across the board. like he [108:37] had Republican friends, he had [108:38] Democratic friends, he had much deeper [108:41] connections to the Israeli left of [108:43] center than right of center. I don't [108:44] know what that means. I always [108:46] >> hanging out with Steve Bannon and Nam [108:48] Chosky. [108:49] >> Exactly. He had again in America he had [108:52] friends across the political spectrum in [108:54] a way he didn't necessarily have in [108:56] Israel. [108:57] >> I had one of my guests try to get me to [108:58] meet him. [108:59] >> Really? [109:00] >> Yeah. [109:00] >> When? [109:01] >> 2017. [109:03] See, that that's crazy to me because at [109:04] that point he'd already gone down for at [109:06] least one like sex abuse thing. [109:08] >> That was my possession. [laughter] [109:09] >> I'll show you the emails. Okay. It's [109:11] kind They're kind of funny. I actually [109:13] read them on stage. [109:14] >> You want to say Okay, fine. [109:15] >> You people could find it. [109:16] >> Yeah. [109:16] >> I don't want to have the guy the guy's [109:18] already ruined. [109:19] >> Sure. [109:20] >> But um but [clears throat] it's [109:21] >> I Googled it and I'm I'm like what the [109:24] [ __ ] are you talking about? [109:27] >> See, but this goes back to my original [109:29] point. [109:29] >> This is part of what he was doing, [109:31] right? He wanted to get influential [109:33] people. [109:33] >> But you go back to the original 2007 [109:36] warrant on Jeffrey Epstein. [109:39] >> Uhhuh. [109:39] >> All of the really crazy [ __ ] happened [109:42] from the '9s to 2007. That's when he was [109:45] at the peak of his power. That's when he [109:48] hadn't yet gone down on a sex abuse [109:49] scandal. Like it's your point, right? [109:52] Even if you have some scumbags who were [109:54] willing to introduce him to Joe Rogan in [109:55] 2017, there are a lot of Joe Rogan, or [109:58] at least some who are going to say, [109:59] "Wait a second. I'm gonna Google this [110:01] guy and find out that he's a predator. A [110:03] lot. A lot didn't. [110:04] >> That was really crazy. [110:05] >> A lot didn't, but some did. And my point [110:07] is that would limit his influence. [110:09] >> But if you go back to like the 1990s, [110:12] the early 2000s, [110:14] that is the stuff I think that is like [110:17] the black hole of the Epstein saga. We [110:19] don't have nearly enough from that era. [110:22] And [110:23] >> it was destroyed. I think we had a [110:25] prosecution that explicitly was so [110:28] narrow that whatever existed would not [110:30] have even been caught up. [110:34] >> Right. So, they were specifically going [110:36] after him for underage sex and they [110:39] didn't look at the full picture of the [110:41] operation. [110:42] >> They didn't even try to they didn't even [110:44] try to [110:45] >> Well, that was one of the things about [110:46] the prosecutor was told that he was [110:49] above their pay grade. I mean, it was [110:50] one of the things that he [110:51] >> said he [clears throat] was like CIA or [110:52] something, right? He said he was told he [110:54] was intelligent, [110:55] >> right? And yes, I've asked were there [110:57] like [110:59] were there documents connecting Jeffrey [111:01] Epstein directly to our intelligence [111:03] agencies or anybody else's? And the [111:04] answer is no. But if that [ __ ] existed, [111:07] it wouldn't exist in 2026. [111:09] >> What is it like being the vice [111:11] president? Like how much access do you [111:13] have to information? [laughter] [111:15] >> Because [111:15] >> so I'll give you another conspiracy. So [111:17] I have like effectively unlimited access [111:19] to information. [111:20] >> Unlimited. But I think that the [111:24] one of the things that I've learned [111:25] about the job is it's you're doing so [111:29] much on the day-to-day like you're [111:31] calling senators and trying to get them [111:32] to pass a piece of legislation. You're [111:34] meeting with staff about what should go [111:35] in the housing bill. You're negotiating [111:37] with the Iranians or the cutteries or [111:39] the Israelis about something that's [111:40] going on in the Middle East. [111:42] And a lot of it like the UFO thing like [111:46] I I've said that I'm going to like I'm [111:48] going to look into the UFO thing and [111:50] I've been saying that for a year and a [111:52] half and I haven't done it yet because I [111:53] haven't had the time. And so some of [111:56] this is like you just have to have the [111:59] time to actually punch through the walls [112:01] and to like go to the gatekeepers and [112:03] say you have to open up that gate [112:04] because I'm the vice president. And some [112:06] of it is just hard to actually get to [112:08] because I don't have the time to sort of [112:09] focus on that one issue for any [112:11] particular period of time. So the answer [112:14] is you have unlimited access to [112:15] information. The constraint is not [112:18] people tell me no. The constraint is [112:21] you're just so busy doing other [ __ ] [112:25] The UFO thing I think would be something [112:27] that I would want to pursue. [112:29] >> Yes. [112:30] >> I I mean just for my own personal [112:32] information I would want to know what is [112:34] going on. [112:34] >> Correct. So the question is, are these [112:38] um special access programs that are [112:40] above top secret and that this is our [112:44] own stuff or is this something that's [112:48] far more bizarre and something that is [112:51] interdimensional from another planet? [112:54] Whatever fill in the blank. [112:55] >> Yeah. Is it foreign? And if it's [112:57] foreign, is it 6,000 mi away or like [112:59] 6,000 light years away? [113:00] >> Right. [113:01] >> Yes. [113:01] >> Right. And that is that is I will answer [113:04] that question eventually. [113:07] >> Really? [113:07] >> Yes. I'll get to the bottom of it. [113:10] >> How how are you going to have the time [113:11] to do that? Like what what will be [113:14] eventually I'll have like a few weeks [113:15] where I can just sit down and worry [113:16] about that problem. You said something [113:18] that I thought was very bizarre. [113:19] >> Here's here's the interesting thing [113:20] though. I will say [113:22] that is one of those conspiracy theories [113:27] that [113:30] there are a lot of people in our [113:31] government who are interested in this, [113:32] meaning our current political leadership [113:34] who are interested in this question. And [113:38] it hasn't like nothing has really [113:39] happened yet, which [113:43] makes me a little bit less interested in [113:44] it cuz there are a lot of people with [113:46] access to those files and access to that [113:47] information and nothing has changed [113:49] since Biden left office, which which [113:52] makes me think other people have looked [113:53] into it and they just haven't [113:54] necessarily found something. But anyway, [113:56] I I eventually I promise you I'm gonna [113:59] like sit down and spend a couple of [114:01] weeks trying to figure out what's in [114:02] these files. Actually, haven't done it [114:05] yet. [114:06] >> You said something that I thought was [114:08] very odd. [114:08] >> Okay. [114:09] >> You said that you thought that they were [114:10] demons. [114:15] >> Okay. I did say that. [114:17] >> What did you mean by that? [114:19] Well, [sighs and gasps] [114:20] I [114:23] first of all there not just in [114:24] Christianity but in a number of world [114:27] religions [114:29] there are a number of like [114:32] you know mystical things that happened [114:35] extradimensional [114:36] extra like I I I'm not one of these [114:39] people who's like a hyperrationalist [114:41] like I I think that there are things [114:43] happening in the world that we're not [114:44] always seeing. I you know I believe in [114:46] God. But I think that there is a kind of [114:48] what's what's the word I'm looking for? [114:50] Not extra real [114:52] >> supernatural. [114:53] >> Supernatural. There are supernatural [114:54] things that are happening. Okay. So if [114:58] you look historically [115:00] at, you know, things that are similar to [115:03] the alien phenomenon [115:07] where oh some like strange being. It [115:10] kind of looks like a human being but [115:11] doesn't look like but but not human and [115:14] it shows a particular interest in human [115:17] beings and then it takes the human [115:19] beings and you know like does weird [115:22] experiments on them. I think my argument [115:24] is that's either [ __ ] right? You're [115:26] either talking to a crazy person, which [115:27] I don't like. I'm not saying just [115:29] because I believe in the supernatural [115:30] doesn't believe mean I believe in [115:32] everything supernatural. But if we're [115:35] talking about an extraterrestrial [115:39] being that is humanlike but not human [115:43] that contains effectively infinite [115:45] powers and is torturing human beings, [115:48] you can call it an alien if you want, [115:49] but I think there's a lot of historical [115:51] precedent to call that a demon. [115:53] >> Well, a lot of these uh stories and [115:58] these accounts, [115:59] >> we have one right here on the [116:00] >> demonic. Yeah, that's the mothership [116:02] logo. [116:03] >> [laughter] [116:04] >> Um, a lot of these uh accounts are not [116:08] of [116:09] beings being or people being tortured. [116:12] They're people that are being exposed to [116:15] information like the Travis Walton [116:17] stories of very famous case uh from the [116:20] 1970s. [116:21] >> Read about it on the way back though. [116:22] >> It's this guy right here. I got a Travis [116:24] Walton followed. [laughter] He's one of [116:26] the most famous uh UFO abduction [116:28] stories. [116:29] >> Okay. There was a movie um with DB [116:32] Cooper in the uh [116:34] >> and like what is the information that [116:35] they gave Travis Waldman? [116:36] >> Was DB Cooper the that was the [116:38] >> DB Sween [116:39] >> DB Sweeney DB Cooper was the guy who [116:41] stole the money and jumped out of the [116:43] plane. Um Fire in the Sky there's a a [116:46] movie [116:46] >> of course. Yeah, I remember this movie. [116:47] I don't think I ever saw it though. [116:48] >> 1993. Good movie but sensational and and [116:52] Travis Walton says they made a bunch of [116:55] [ __ ] up and that's not what happened. [116:57] But [116:57] >> yeah, [116:58] >> the story was that he was uh a logger in [117:01] Arizona uh and he was uh leaving a job. [117:05] They were all together in a truck and [117:06] these uh these loggers saw this thing, [117:09] this light uh land in this uh forest and [117:14] they went to go investigate. He jumps [117:17] out of the truck and he gets close to it [117:19] and he's hit by some beam of light and [117:21] knocked to the ground. Uh they take off [117:24] and then they realize like we've got to [117:26] go back. we don't know what's going on. [117:28] Like they turn around, they go back to [117:30] get him. They They're freaked out and [117:31] panicked. They go back to get him. He's [117:33] gone. Uh the police interview them. They [117:37] think that they killed him. They they [117:39] you know, there's an investigation. 5 [117:41] days later, he shows up uh wearing the [117:44] same clothes. Um and he has this crazy [117:47] story. And uh he had been in this [117:50] spaceship for five days is what he said. [117:54] And that they had fixed him. They healed [117:56] him and then they had communicated with [117:58] him telepathically and he had had this [118:01] very bizarre encounter with these um [118:04] these beings that aren't from here or if [118:07] they are from here they're very [118:09] different than us. [118:10] >> Okay. So I guess my my response to that [118:12] would be extra powerful beings in this [118:15] case communicating telepathically [118:17] helping people [118:19] sounds like an angel. So, I guess my [118:22] point here here's let me let me make the [118:24] like the the steelman version of my [118:26] argument. [118:27] >> It's that [118:29] >> okay [118:31] >> my dog [118:33] there's no real difference between me [118:35] and and God to my dog. I can literally [118:37] walk into a room and turn the light on. [118:39] I can make food appear instantaneously. [118:42] I can transport myself across time and [118:45] space very, very rapidly. If you're a [118:47] human being with intelligence but not [118:48] supernatural intelligence, I I guess my [118:51] point is again, this could all be [118:53] [ __ ] This could all be fake. That's [118:55] a possibility. But if it's real, is [118:58] there really a meaningful difference [119:00] between an angel or a demon and a space [119:04] alien with super technology? I just to [119:07] our perception, they would largely just [119:10] look like the same thing. [119:11] >> I think we're capable of nuance. We're [119:13] capable of understanding that human [119:15] beings are far more complex and evolved [119:18] than chimpanzees. And we could imagine a [119:21] world where if we don't blow ourselves [119:24] up and there's not a nuclear bomb and [119:27] there's not a we don't get hit by an [119:29] asteroid, if we live another million [119:32] years that we would have technology [119:34] that's indistinguishable from magic. [119:37] >> Right. [119:38] >> Exactly. That's that's [119:40] angels and demons. It just means they're [119:43] hyper evolved advanced civilizations [119:47] from somewhere else. [119:48] >> And what I'm saying is the perception of [119:51] those beings to a more simple [119:55] intelligence. [119:56] >> Sure. [119:56] >> There's not a meaningful there's not a [119:58] meaningful difference. So you're you're [120:00] asking you're like talking about what it [120:02] is that these things actually are. And I [120:05] guess what I'm talking about is how [120:07] would a human being with my level of [120:09] intelligence or your level of [120:10] intelligence in 2026 understand what's [120:13] going on, [120:13] >> right? But from a biblical perspective, [120:15] there's a very big difference between a [120:16] demon and a a hyper intelligent being [120:21] from somewhere else. [120:25] >> [sighs] [120:25] >> I mean, a demon or a hyper intelligent [120:28] malicious. [120:29] >> If if demons are real, if there really [120:31] are dark forces in the universe, and [120:34] they're disembodied dark forces, these [120:37] things that exist, these [120:39] >> Yes. [120:40] >> And then there's also powerful light [120:42] forces in the universe [120:44] >> that that they don't have to be mutually [120:46] exclusive to the the concept of [120:48] hyperintelligent other species. [120:51] Absolutely. [120:51] >> When you're looking at an insanely vast [120:53] universe, I don't think they have to be, [120:56] but I think that [120:59] it is interesting to me that for most of [121:02] human history, [121:04] we would have understood supernatural, [121:08] hyper powerful, hyper knowledgeable [121:10] things as sort of celestial or [121:15] celestial. Thought [121:16] >> of a cell phone as being sorcery. I [121:19] mean, it doesn't that doesn't mean it's [121:21] sorcery. [laughter] [121:23] >> Maybe it's not. Maybe it's just [121:25] technology. I just it that argument [121:29] doesn't make any sense to me. [121:31] >> Well, [121:32] >> and this is not discounting the [121:34] possibility of demons or discounting the [121:36] possibility of angels. [121:38] >> Well, I guess I understand your point [121:41] conceptually. I don't dis actually [121:43] disagree with it. So, I don't think [121:44] we're saying something different that [121:47] you know metaphysically there could be [121:49] two separate things going on. There [121:51] could be celest there could be extra [121:55] earth outside of earth space aliens and [121:57] there could also be angels and demons. [121:58] These these could be two totally [121:59] separate things. One could be true and [122:01] not the other. That's I I I totally [122:04] concede and agree with that point. I [122:06] guess what I'm saying is [122:09] it's a distinction that is conceptually [122:12] interesting to me. But if a space alien [122:16] with like superhuman technology comes to [122:19] the earth and has malicious intent, [122:23] I don't know how I'm supposed to tell [122:24] the difference between that and the [122:25] demon [122:25] >> if they have malicious intent. But I [122:27] mean, isn't that also the case with [122:29] visiting people, right? Like you you [122:32] could have a country and you get visited [122:34] by the Peace Corps or you get visited by [122:37] pirates. [122:38] >> Yeah. [122:39] >> You know, and are the pirates demons? Is [122:42] the Peace Corps angels? No, but I think [122:44] we're talking about something much [122:45] different. [122:46] >> Are we talking about something [122:48] different? We're talking about a hyper [122:49] advanced version of that. [122:51] >> We're we're talking about I mean, as I [122:54] understand it, we're talking about [122:56] things that exist outside the United [122:57] States. Sorry, outside of the Earth. [123:00] Okay. And two different types of beings [123:02] that could exist outside I mean, okay, [123:04] maybe [123:05] >> there's a lot of people, you know, Tim [123:07] Bashette thinks that they're they're [123:08] here. [123:08] >> There's Atlantis or there's something [123:10] else. that they're they're somehow or [123:12] another they're survivors of a of [123:15] longgone civilization that live under [123:17] the ocean. [123:18] >> Yeah, [123:18] >> it's just as kooky as living. [123:20] >> Here's here's the way I would put it is [123:21] like there's also a difference between a [123:23] demon and a ghost, right? These things [123:24] are two very different conceptual [123:26] things, [123:27] >> right? But if I'm a human being and I [123:29] meet a malicious ghost, maybe I think [123:30] it's a demon. And and maybe all I'm [123:33] saying is maybe there's some [123:37] there's some point at which the [123:39] conceptually interesting this is such a [123:41] weird conversation. at which point the [123:43] conceptually interesting discussion of [123:45] what it is is separate from how it [123:51] appears to me and how I'm going to [123:52] understand it as a human being in my [123:54] particular social and cultural context [123:56] in 2026. But if you're looking for me to [123:58] concede the point that there is [124:00] something different or could be [124:01] something different between an angel, a [124:03] demon, a space alien, a a supernatural [124:07] but non any of those other things [124:09] beings. Yes, I concede that. [124:11] >> Yeah. The the question is what does [124:15] what do these special access programs [124:18] like what is the information that's [124:20] available like how [124:22] >> my understanding is David Brush and a [124:24] lot of these other people that there [124:26] have been crash retrieval programs. [124:28] >> Okay. And I've I've so I've talked to [124:30] Dave before. I think I called him [124:31] actually after he was on your podcast. [124:33] Um, [124:36] so [124:38] there's like the crash retrieval stuff [124:40] of whether that's that's real or not, [124:42] where is it, etc. There's the videos, [124:44] right? There are all of these videos, [124:45] some of which have been released and [124:47] declassified, that seem to me show some [124:49] pretty weird stuff. And then there might [124:51] be other pieces of evidence as well. I'm [124:53] not saying there is or isn't. I just [124:54] don't know. I I try to keep an open mind [124:56] about this stuff. All I'm saying is I'm [124:58] fascinated by it. I don't have like some [125:00] secret sauce, at least not yet, that [125:03] tells me what's true and what's false. [125:05] I'm just saying this is something that [125:07] I'm interested in. But it doesn't it's [125:10] it's because it's it's like anything in [125:13] life where do I have to figure this out [125:16] this week? No. So, I'm going to do the [125:19] things that I have to like negotiate [125:21] with the Iranians and try to get this [125:22] bill passed. [125:23] >> So, let's imagine a world where the [125:25] Iranian negotiations go swimmingly. [125:28] >> [laughter] [125:29] >> Everything's done. God willing. You [125:31] know, all these Gulf Arab states decide, [125:35] hey, let's invest money in Iran. Let's [125:38] change hearts and minds. [125:40] Okay. Avoided a gigantic apocalyptic [125:44] scenario. What What could be done? Like [125:48] if we have information, who who has this [125:51] information and why are they holding on [125:53] to this information? And what do you [125:55] know the the how put off story? [125:57] >> No. So how put off who used to work for [125:59] NASA um said that he was brought in [126:02] during the Bush administration where um [126:05] they were going they they were proposing [126:09] uh disclosure and they were saying this [126:12] is what we're they were saying they're [126:13] saying we have biological remains and we [126:16] have physical crafts we're proposing [126:20] disclosure and they brought in a bunch [126:22] of a bunch of uh thought leaders uh [126:25] different disciplines different schools [126:28] of thought and they said I want you to [126:30] compile a list of pros and cons and put [126:33] a numerical value on what how this is [126:37] going to affect society how is this [126:38] going to affect religion how's this [126:40] going to affect government how's this [126:41] going to affect economy all these [126:43] different things and when they compiled [126:46] this list every one of them had more in [126:50] the con than in the pro and they decided [126:53] against disclosure because of that [126:56] >> now if that's the case, what are we [126:59] talking about? Like, who has this [127:00] information and what is this [127:02] information? I mean, if that wasn't just [127:04] a thought experiment, [127:06] >> yeah, [127:06] >> if they weren't really just [ __ ] with [127:08] these people, which I don't understand [127:10] why they would do that, but let's assume [127:12] they what is known [127:15] >> and why would they prevent that [127:18] information from getting out? [127:19] >> Well, that's [127:22] that's a big if. [127:23] >> Have you seen the movie The Age of [127:24] Disclosure? [127:25] >> I have not. [127:25] >> Okay. Well, a lot of people um including [127:29] intelligence officers, different people [127:32] in the government are in this [127:34] documentary. And one of the things that [127:36] they're saying is part of the problem [127:37] with all this is if they have had these [127:40] programs going on for so long, that [127:42] means they've been misappropriating [127:43] funds and they've been lying to [127:45] Congress. So all these people that were [127:47] involved in I've heard this argument. [127:49] Yeah, I've heard this argument. Yeah. So [127:50] Lulu Alzando and all these other people [127:52] have said, "Look, what we're gonna need [127:54] is mass amnesty for people that are [127:56] involved in this. It's the only way [127:57] you're ever really going to get to the [127:59] bottom of it." [128:01] >> Problem with that is if you've got [128:04] unlimited money and you've got [128:06] misappropriation of funds and lying to [128:08] Congress, I guarantee [128:11] some of that money has gone to places it [128:13] shouldn't have gone. [128:13] >> 100% 100%. [128:15] >> Like it always does. [128:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, like it's always very [128:19] hard to engage in these like super [128:21] generic super general I should say [128:23] hypotheticals because [128:26] you know like yeah if if look we've got [128:29] remains of space aliens and we're hiding [128:32] them then there are a million other sort [128:35] of there are a million possibilities for [128:36] that what would explain it how it would [128:39] have happened I am skeptical that's true [128:42] and the reason I'm skeptical that it's [128:44] true that we have the physical remains [128:46] is not because I don't think that's [128:48] something that like is physically [128:49] possible or that the government like the [128:52] government's willing to do and able to [128:53] do a lot of a lot of crazy stuff in our [128:55] history and the history of all [128:56] governments. [128:58] I am skeptical of the competence. I [129:00] actually made this point to Dave when we [129:01] talked and I I think he's a very [129:02] interesting guy. Um so I don't mean to [129:05] insult him or say I disagree with him [129:07] about everything, but I made this point [129:10] to Dave when we talked. It's like if we [129:11] have literal space alien remains in the [129:15] custody of the United States government, [129:17] there is no way that that wouldn't get [129:19] leaked that wouldn't leak out in some [129:20] way. [129:21] >> Well, it has leaked out anecdotally. [129:23] >> Well, that's I guess that's the [129:24] counterargument, but I think it would [129:28] Jackie Gleason story. [129:28] >> No, I want to hear that. But but like [129:30] with cell phones and every way that we [129:32] have like it's plausible to me you could [129:34] hide that in an era where you have to [129:36] have a giant camera the size of these [129:38] antlers in order to take a photo of [129:40] something. But dude I can take you know [129:42] like you have cameras now that are like [129:43] literally this tiny. That's the part [129:47] that I'm skeptical of that we're hiding [129:50] that. Let me push back against that cuz [129:51] you know that if you have any sort of [129:56] top secret like if you go into a skiff [129:58] >> like there's no way you're bringing [130:01] cameras in there. You're you're Look, [130:04] when I came here to this podcast studio, [130:07] [laughter] [130:07] they had a dog my trunk and it's your [130:10] studio. [130:10] >> Pop my trunk. Yeah. [130:12] >> Like I'm going to blow up my own studio. [130:14] >> Yeah. But okay. So you know what I'm [130:15] saying? But the Okay. The [130:16] counter-argument though is they check [130:17] that stuff on you. They don't check that [130:18] stuff on everybody. [130:19] >> Everybody here. They did. [130:21] >> Everybody here. But I'm saying all you [130:23] need all you need is one official with [130:26] like the highest security clearance. [130:28] Now, okay, you're right. Certain devices [130:30] like give eminate signals that they can [130:32] pick up on Bluetooth and all that [ __ ] [130:34] but like but to have access to go into a [130:37] room where they have these things. If [130:40] they did have these things, I guarantee [130:43] you they're going to make sure no one's [130:45] got anything. They could easily scan you [130:48] to make sure that you don't have any [130:50] kind of electronics, any kind of camera, [130:51] any kind of recording device. [130:53] >> That's not hard. [130:54] >> I mean, [130:55] >> especially if you've got something [130:57] squirreled away at Area 51. [130:59] >> In the next two and a half years, we're [131:00] going to run this experiment cuz I got [131:01] two and a half more years as VP. And I [131:04] swear to you, if there are little green [131:06] men like body remains, [131:07] >> text me, please. [131:08] >> Well, I'm not going to No, [laughter] [131:09] I'm not going to text you. I'm going to [131:11] try to smuggle a camera and get a photo [131:13] of these things. [laughter] Well, how [131:14] would you, the vice president of the [131:16] United States of America, have to have a [131:18] camera smuggled in to do that? [131:21] >> Well, maybe I wouldn't, but again, I [131:22] I've seen it. [131:23] >> Do you think that you have the kind of [131:24] authority like look, let's imagine you [131:26] find out that at Wright Patterson Air [131:28] Force Base, they have some [131:30] secure facility somewhere. Maybe it's [131:33] not there. Maybe it's maybe they've kept [131:34] it under wraps. Maybe it's in the [131:36] mountain somewhere. Yeah. [131:37] >> And you find out that this thing exists. [131:40] Do you think it's as simple as you could [131:42] just go out and tell everybody or do you [131:44] think that you get briefed on the [131:46] implications of what would happen if you [131:49] disclosed all this information? [131:50] >> Well, I would definitely get briefed on [131:51] the implications of what would happen [131:53] >> and they would probably tell you, hey, [131:54] you have to [ __ ] people. [131:56] >> Yeah, but dude, I'm not uh [131:59] >> You're not going to [ __ ] people? [132:00] >> I Well, look, I have I have many skills [132:02] as a politician in some vices, but like [132:04] one of them is I'm just not a a good [132:06] liar. [132:06] >> Well, then they're not going to show it [132:07] to you. You [laughter] just [ __ ] up. [132:08] You just [ __ ] up on this podcast by [132:10] saying that [132:14] what I [132:15] >> show it to the ladies on the view. [132:17] That's [laughter] that's [132:18] >> that's right. [132:19] >> The intellectual leaders of our world. [132:20] >> Trust me, they show it to the ladies of [132:21] the view. It will be said two hours two [132:23] hours later. Anyway, maybe they show it [132:26] to them just so that no one will believe [132:27] it. [132:28] >> I do want to look into this stuff. I'm [132:29] just telling you [132:32] I have not yet seen the evidence that we [132:33] have. Certainly extraterrestrial [132:36] remains, but there's a lot of stuff [132:37] before extraterrestrial remains is also [132:39] interesting. Like the flight patterns in [132:41] some of these videos are super weird. [132:43] >> Um, [132:44] >> well, the Commander David Fraver stuff [132:45] is bananas. It goes from 50,000 ft above [132:48] sea level to sea level in like a second [132:50] >> to what people say, right? Like because [132:53] one of the arguments I've heard, for [132:55] example, is, you know, could this just [132:57] be a visual or on the camera or [132:58] something like that. Okay, that that [133:00] sounds to me plausible. I'm not an [133:01] expert in cameras, but then what the [133:03] pilots their reaction to it, it's not [133:06] like they're looking at a visual lure on [133:08] a camera. It's like they're looking at [133:09] something else that's really, really [133:11] weird and difficult to explain given [133:13] what they know about, you know, physics [133:15] and aeronautical engineering, etc. So, [133:17] anyway, I am fascinated by this, but I [133:19] just don't want to tell people like, oh, [133:20] I've uncovered the the truth or I [133:22] haven't because I haven't looked at it [133:24] yet. [133:24] >> Right. Well, I would, if I was you, that [133:27] would be the first thing I did. [133:28] storm right in there and go, [133:29] >> "Let's talk about tax policy." [133:31] [laughter] [133:32] >> Is that what you want to talk about? No, [133:34] >> we could talk about tax policy. [133:35] >> Way more interesting. [133:36] >> Um, I would want to know. I mean, I [133:38] think the world wants to know. I think [133:40] it would fundamentally change our [133:41] understanding of what it means to be a [133:44] living organ. [133:44] >> Okay. What do you think? Like what is [133:46] your you know more about this than I do. [133:49] >> I don't think we're alone. [133:51] >> But okay. [133:52] >> I don't think we're alone. I just don't [133:53] understand what it is. [133:55] >> Okay. I don't know if it's [133:56] >> So, you don't have like a strong view [133:58] about what it is. You're just [134:00] >> curious. I don't have any data, right? [134:03] So, I don't have any proof. So, I I [134:06] believe Commander David Fraver, I [134:08] believe Ryan Graves, he was a fighter [134:10] pilot. They said that when they upgraded [134:12] their um their equipment on these [134:16] fighter jets in 2014, all of a sudden [134:18] they started seeing these things that [134:20] were staying completely motionless at [134:23] 120 knot winds and they were a cube [134:26] inside of a sphere, a black cube inside [134:29] of some sort of [134:30] >> Yeah. Well, okay. So, this is a I know [134:32] you've talked to Eric Weinstein. Yes. [134:34] And um you know, I haven't talked to you [134:36] about this lately, but one of the things [134:39] that Eric sort of kind of persuaded me [134:42] of a couple of years ago was [134:44] >> it's Weinstein. They get very sensitive. [134:46] >> Weinstein. [134:47] >> Okay. U got it. Eric Weinstein. Good [134:50] [laughter] thought. [134:51] Speaking of pedophiles, I guess Harvey [134:53] was a pedophile. He was He was He had [134:55] many sins, but not that one. [134:56] >> Candace Owens says he's innocent. [134:58] >> Oh, interesting. Okay. [laughter] [134:59] >> Or not um [135:00] >> not guilty of everything that they said [135:02] he was. So, [135:04] okay, Eric Weinstein, this is probably [135:06] three, four years ago, persuades me of [135:08] this actually. Not, it's an interesting [135:11] theory. His his argument is in the same [135:15] way that I would say, what's the [135:16] difference between an extraterrestrial [135:19] and an angel or a demon depending on its [135:21] intentions from the perspective of a [135:23] human in 2026? His argument would be [135:26] what's the difference between a space [135:27] alien and a human being but just a human [135:31] being with super advanced technology, [135:32] right? [135:33] >> And so I don't know if this is still his [135:35] view, but he kind of was he was like, [135:38] let's say you had human beings who just [135:43] were super scientifically advanced. Like [135:46] what we know of the laws of physics as I [135:48] understand it is that light speed is [135:50] sort of the upper limit of what one of [135:52] our spaceships could travel. Okay? You [135:54] can't go any faster than the speed of [135:55] light. Well, that's a problem because [135:56] everything else that could support of [135:58] extraterrestrial life is much is many [136:01] many many many light years away. Okay. [136:04] So his argument to me again back in the [136:06] day was if you figured out a new physics [136:10] in the same way that you had an [136:11] understanding shift from Newtonian [136:13] physics to Einsteinian physics. If you [136:15] have a new understanding of physics that [136:17] allows you to travel much faster than [136:19] the speed of light, you could just have [136:21] human beings either from a different [136:23] planet or maybe they went to Mars and [136:25] started their own civilization and then [136:26] that you know that that got old and they [136:28] at this point they are many millions of [136:30] light years away but they can move [136:32] through space and time in a way that is [136:34] quite literally like divine from our [136:37] perspective or space aliens but they're [136:40] just human beings. It could be human [136:42] beings from the future. [136:44] >> If time travel is possible, why? [136:46] >> But it also it also we know that life [136:48] exists on Earth. So if life exists on [136:51] Earth, the Earth is a planet. There are [136:55] hundreds of billions of stars that have [136:59] hundreds [snorts] of billions of [137:00] planets. [137:01] >> We have no idea how many planets there [137:03] are in the known universe that could [137:05] potentially support life. And if these [137:08] things live on these planets and they [137:11] live far longer than we have, like if [137:14] you showed [137:16] a nuclear bomb to someone from a hundred [137:18] years ago, they would say, "That's the [137:20] craziest [ __ ] thing I've ever seen in [137:22] my life." You show them a show them a [137:24] reactor, show them a cell phone, show [137:26] them that television. [137:27] >> It's like my dog with a light switch. [137:28] Right. [137:29] >> Just be able to FaceTime someone in New [137:31] Zealand. Like, how what is that? What [137:33] are you doing? [137:33] >> That's right. now advance that forward [137:36] one million years and then you know [137:39] instead of using propulsion you are [137:42] instead manipulating space time. [137:44] >> So I so that's exactly right and one of [137:47] the things I've talked with Elon about [137:49] this and Elon is obviously a super smart [137:51] dude but I I've never heard like a super [137:53] satisfying answer to this. One of the [137:56] things that worries me like I I want [137:58] humans to be a multilanetary species. I [138:01] want us to go to Mars and set up a [138:02] colony. And you know, like that that's [138:04] sort of I love humanity. I want it to [138:06] continue. And [138:09] the problem with with space travel that [138:13] I have again not heard a satisfactory [138:15] solution to is, you know, when we're [138:17] outside of the Earth's gravity, [138:20] our genes, like our our our actual DNA [138:24] seems to not function as well when it's [138:26] not on Earth style gravity, which makes [138:29] sense, right? we developed [138:31] >> in these conditions with this gravity. [138:34] >> So whenever you have somebody who goes [138:36] to the international space station for [138:37] like three months or six months and they [138:38] come back and they are totally jacked up [138:41] because like literally the cells in [138:42] their body are starting to like [138:44] discombobulate in response to a [138:47] lowgravity environment. [138:48] >> I don't like we have to figure out a [138:50] solution to that problem. that that to [138:52] me is sort of the most interesting part [138:54] of space travel of going to Mars or [138:56] setting up a colony on another planet is [138:59] if you set up a colony on Mars but and [139:02] what it takes you like two years to get [139:04] there and two years to get back or [139:05] something like that, right? [139:07] >> But in that time you've gone from a [139:09] functioning adult healthy to like dead [139:12] if you're in space for four years. that [139:15] that that part of space travel is very [139:17] fascinating to me and I I don't know [139:19] that I've heard any satisfactory [139:20] solution to it yet. [139:21] >> I don't think conventionally there is a [139:23] satisfactory solution. But [139:25] >> if you're talking about manipulating [139:27] spaceime and not traditional propulsion, [139:29] >> you probably could figure that out. [139:30] >> You could manipulate [laughter] you [139:32] could essentially contain this [139:34] environment in exactly the same way it [139:36] is. Yeah. And travel to somewhere else [139:38] with that environment. So this is the [139:40] idea of them living under the surface of [139:42] the the ocean. [139:43] >> I see. I see. How can they live in the [139:45] depths of the ocean? Well, because they [139:47] have a completely contained environment. [139:49] >> Sure. Sure. [139:50] >> I mean, who knows? [139:51] >> Yeah. [139:52] >> It's all just nonsense. [139:54] >> Maybe they figured out how I can eat [139:56] like steak and grater ice cream and have [139:58] the blood profile of eating, you know, [140:00] chicken and salad. [140:02] >> Well, I don't think chicken and salad is [140:03] the way to go. I'm a steak guy. I think [140:06] uh just eat a little bit of ice cream [140:08] every now and then. By the way, ice [140:09] cream is one of the very best desserts [140:12] for you because it contains fat. [140:14] >> It's got a lot of fat and protein. [140:15] That's right. That's right. [140:17] >> A little bit of sugar, but it's all uh [140:19] it's a moderation thing. [140:20] >> That's right. [140:21] >> Yeah. [140:21] >> Yeah. Well, [140:22] >> anybody who want to eat ice cream is a [140:24] communist. [laughter] [140:25] >> There's nothing wrong with ice cream. [140:27] Ice cream. Speaking of communist, [140:28] >> the Democratic Socialists of America, [140:30] that's actually what they do at their [140:31] events is they throw the ice cream into [140:33] the Boston Harbor instead of the tea. [140:34] >> Ah, yeah. Those [ __ ] people scare me. [140:38] >> [laughter] [140:38] >> I I'm really concerned that people think [140:41] that's a good idea and that they think [140:44] that socialism just hasn't been done [140:47] correctly. [140:48] >> That drives me nuts cuz I think a lot of [140:50] like really well-intentioned, really [140:53] kind and empathetic young people think [140:56] that that's the way to go. And I do not [140:58] think they understand the dangers of [141:02] this ideology because it always leads to [141:05] one thing. It leads to a very powerful [141:09] military government that controls the [141:12] population. Period. End of discussion. [141:14] And if you if you play it out, it is [141:16] literally the only way that can get [141:18] people to give up their money. Yes. It's [141:20] the only way they can get them to give [141:21] up their property. And when you're [141:23] hearing like Mum Donnie talk about [141:26] freezing rents and taking bad landlords [141:29] and then confiscating their property, [141:32] you're like, [141:33] >> do you This is step one of [snorts] [141:36] what's happened in every communist [141:38] dictatorship throughout history. This is [141:40] what happened in North Korea. Give the [141:42] government the land and we'll make sure [141:44] that no one ever has to worry about [141:46] food. What a great idea. Look how it [141:48] turned out. So uh I don't I don't know [141:51] who said this but you know the whole [141:53] argument of communism is that you seize [141:55] the means of production but because the [141:57] means of production the most powerful [141:59] means of production is the human mind [142:00] you ultimately have to get into [142:01] totalitarianism. You have to have [142:04] control of that most fundamental element [142:06] of of the human person. [142:08] >> You also take away motivation and [142:11] there's a thing that people don't like [142:13] which is extreme wealth. But you have to [142:15] understand that if it wasn't for the [142:17] motivation of extreme wealth, you would [142:19] not have an iPhone. [142:21] >> So here's [142:21] >> wouldn't have these things. [142:22] >> Okay. So here's here's let me give you [142:24] my uh my my Christian answer to this. [142:26] And it's a good plug for my my new book, [142:28] Communion, Finding My Way Back to Faith, [142:31] >> not to be confused with Whitley Strive's [142:33] book, Communion, which is all about [142:34] aliens. Okay. Did you know that? [142:36] >> No. In coincidence, Joe. Pull up. Pull [142:40] up the the the pull up the cover. Pull [142:42] up the cover of the good drivers. all [142:44] your listeners to buy. [142:45] >> The problem is like you didn't know [142:46] about this book. I would have told you [142:48] to come up with a different title. [142:50] >> Seriously [142:51] book. [142:52] >> There we go. Okay. So, we want that is [142:54] wild. [142:54] >> And then there's another one. My first [142:56] communion. It's about [142:57] >> Okay. That's like a kids book. But yeah, [142:58] we want people to buy the second one. [143:00] The one that says JD Vance on it. But [143:02] okay. So this is one of the things I [143:04] talk about in the book is like there's a [143:06] there is a Christian idea of political [143:08] economy that's actually been lost in [143:10] American politics where it's it's like [143:13] we think of it as libertarianism, the [143:16] hardcore free market versus socialism or [143:19] communism. [143:21] And there actually is a third way that [143:24] has existed in pretty much all Christian [143:26] economic thinking going back 2,000 years [143:28] ago, which is that yeah, extreme wealth [143:31] inequality does create problems, but you [143:34] still got to have private property. You [143:36] still have to have a state that protects [143:37] private property rights. And there's a [143:39] way to balance these things that I think [143:41] we've sort of lost in our in our country [143:43] a little bit. And when I when I like, [143:46] okay, let me play devil's advocate with [143:48] with the DSA because I think that their [143:50] ideas are crazy and I think that you're [143:51] right. They will lead to a very [143:53] totalitarian place. I'm not defending a [143:55] single thing that they say, particularly [143:56] their hatred of ice cream. What I am [143:59] what I [snorts] am saying is [144:02] I and and maybe this is just sort of the [144:04] way my mind works. I tend to be a little [144:06] bit more empathetic. Why are young [144:07] people attracted to socialism in 21st [144:10] century America? One of the best [144:13] interviews that Charlie Kirk ever gave, [144:15] it was right before he died. It was an [144:17] episode that he did with Tucker Carlson [144:19] where he talked about the fact that if [144:21] you don't give young people a stake, if [144:23] you don't give them ownership, if you [144:25] don't give them a sense of the American [144:26] dream and of possibility in the future, [144:28] they're going to become socialists. [144:30] Like, if if you have a zero sum [144:32] environment for a 25-year-old in this [144:34] country, they're going to start to say, [144:35] "The only way for me to get anything is [144:37] to take away from somebody else." So we [144:39] have to get away from like the zero sum [144:41] thinking. I think that's like the root [144:43] cause of this. But I I also think that [144:45] look we've ran an experiment in the [144:48] United States of America and you know I [144:49] think that we have we have undone that [144:52] experiment taken in a different [144:53] direction in the Trump administration [144:55] where ship all the factories overseas [144:58] and let low-wage foreigners make our [145:00] stuff. That was a bad deal for American [145:02] workers. Again, it takes a long time to [145:05] reverse that trend, but I think it's one [145:07] of the best parts of Trump [145:08] administration policy is you do see that [145:10] trend starting to reverse. This idea [145:12] that nobody should own anything. We [145:14] should all become renters, whereas what [145:16] we're trying to do is lowest lower [145:18] interest rates. You actually have seen [145:20] housing costs stabilize in the country [145:21] over the last year and a half, frankly, [145:23] because of immigration. We had way too [145:25] many people going after way too many [145:27] homes. You close the border. This is one [145:29] of the reasons why rent and housing [145:31] costs have stabilized a little bit. So, [145:34] I think that unless you go down that [145:36] pathway of allowing young Americans to [145:40] own something, socialism is the [145:42] inevitable outcome. Do I think that's [145:43] good? No. But I I really do worry, and I [145:46] I see this frankly more in my own party [145:48] than I do on the other side. There is [145:50] this revulsion to socialism that's [145:52] totally justified without enough [145:55] thinking about how did we get here in [145:57] the first place. And if man if we don't [145:59] fix that and I I would say if we don't [146:01] get back to a more Christian sort of [146:04] understanding of of economics socialism [146:07] is the alternative like that that is [146:10] where this goes. People don't own [146:12] anything rigged. [146:13] >> Exactly. And in some ways Joe the game [146:15] is rigged. [146:16] >> Yes. the I mean if if you look at [146:20] >> I mean again I I just I think so much of [146:23] housing because [146:25] you know this happened I think it was [146:26] during the presidential campaign maybe [146:28] it was right before but I was I was [146:30] talking to some family members over [146:32] Thanksgiving and you know just a sort of [146:36] a younger friend of of my wife's they [146:39] were like five or six years behind us [146:41] they were just about to get married and [146:43] this this young woman successful [146:45] engineer makes a higher salary than most [146:48] Americans. She just sort of like tossed [146:50] out there that, you know, when her [146:53] parents' generation was coming up, it [146:55] was like possible to own a house and to [146:58] raise a family and not be worried that [146:59] much about things. And my thought was, [147:02] okay, you're an engineer. You make way [147:04] more money than 75% of people your age, [147:06] maybe 90% of people your age, and you [147:09] think that it is like this ridiculous [147:11] unachievable objective to have literally [147:13] what your parents had, which is a decent [147:15] job, a nice house, and a and a safe [147:18] place like at that literally that same [147:21] that same dinner like another guy [147:23] another friend of my wife was talking [147:24] about this and he you know South Indian [147:27] family grew up you know his parents [147:29] immigrated he was born and raised in San [147:31] Diego and he was like you know when I [147:33] was growing up in Oceanside. This is [147:34] like a suburb of San Diego where there a [147:37] lot of Marines live in Oceanside. It's [147:38] close to Camp Pendleton. Said when I was [147:40] growing up, [147:42] all of my like the kids that I played [147:44] with that I rode bo bikes with, that I [147:46] was, you know, playing street hockey [147:47] with and football with, all of those [147:49] kids were the sons of enlisted Marines [147:52] in Oceanside, California. And then we [147:54] went and looked at like Oceanside, [147:57] California rents. Again, this is a [147:59] couple years ago, rents and housing [148:01] prices. Like every house was north of a [148:03] million dollars on the street this guy [148:04] grew up in. And listen, Marine, frankly, [148:06] most Marine officers could not afford to [148:08] buy a million-dollar house. So, like, [148:10] does the socialism thing scare me? Yes. [148:12] Is it the wrong solution? Yes. But one [148:15] thing I try to persuade my fellow [148:16] Republicans of is socialism is the [148:19] alternative if we don't have a pathway [148:22] to give people a sense that the system [148:24] is not rigged and that the American [148:26] dream is attainable. That's like our [148:29] job. That's what we have to do. I'm not [148:31] saying Rome was built in a day. It's not [148:32] going to be easy to undo some of these [148:34] economic trends. But man, we ran the [148:37] experiment. We ran the experiment of [148:40] offshoring all of our industrial jobs, [148:42] of becoming a services and finance [148:44] economy and allowing Wall Street to come [148:47] in and buy every asset of modern life [148:50] and turn it into an investable, you [148:53] know, line goes up asset. And what has [148:56] that done? It's created a generation of [148:58] kids who kind of are attracted to [149:00] socialism. [149:01] >> We have to fix that problem. [149:02] >> Well, kids that do feel, and you're [149:05] correct, and I I I agree with you, the [149:07] system is rigged. Kids feel like there [149:10] are no options other than to burn it [149:12] down. Yes. And that's the problem [149:14] because they feel very frustrated. [149:16] >> And this is part of our job is to [149:17] provide an option that isn't burn it [149:19] down, but is not just doing the same [149:21] things that we've done for the past. But [149:22] they're also terrified about the future [149:24] because of AI because they feel like [149:26] jobs are going to be taken away and [149:28] there will be no place for people that [149:31] have education in very specific [snorts] [149:35] avenues like very specific jobs are [149:38] going to just be irrelevant. [149:40] >> Yeah. [149:40] >> They're going to be completely wiped out [149:42] by AI. [149:43] >> There is a huge fear over this. So I let [149:45] me kind of give my own my own spin on [149:47] this. [149:48] >> Yes. I was talking to a CEO not of an AI [149:50] company but of a tech company and he's [149:53] one of the few CIO CEOs that's sort of [149:55] right or center and I was like well you [149:58] know what do you think do you think AI [149:59] is going to come and take all the jobs [150:00] and his basic take was the the real [150:03] historical analogy is the industrial [150:05] revolution and you know did the [150:08] industrial revolution displace or change [150:11] a lot of jobs yes it also created a lot [150:13] of jobs that didn't exist before so he [150:15] was like my concern here is not that 50% [150:20] of Americans are going to be unable to [150:21] find a job. There will be some [150:23] displacement, some sort of churn in the [150:25] labor market, but that's not the main [150:27] issue. He said the main issue, if you go [150:28] back to the industrial revolution, is [150:30] that there was a lot of demand for [150:31] workers, but the inequality in the [150:33] country got completely out of whack. [150:37] Like this is the era of the robber [150:38] barons. And then the robber barons in [150:40] both Europe and the United States led to [150:42] fascism. It led to communism again to [150:44] this point about giving people an [150:46] option. if you don't give them a good [150:48] option, then it leads to fascism and [150:50] communism. [150:50] >> Now, there's this fascinating encyclical [150:53] um written by by Pope Leo I 13th. I'll [150:56] send it to you. It's one of the the best [150:57] things that I think has ever been [150:58] written by a Christian leader where it's [151:01] it's written in the late 19th century. [151:02] And the basic argument of it is that in [151:05] the age of industrial churn, there has [151:08] to be a middle way between [151:11] six-year-olds working on the factory [151:13] floor and socialism. And part of that [151:16] solution is to give workers a sort of [151:19] say in what's going on. Give normal [151:22] people some power in this in this in [151:25] this system. And I think that's the [151:27] thing we have to figure out with AI. I [151:28] won't say that I have all the solutions [151:29] because I haven't. But I think the [151:30] fundamental question is how do you [151:33] ensure that normal people have some [151:36] control over this? control over what's [151:39] their kids are seeing, control over, you [151:42] know, the the the economic forces that [151:44] are being unleashed by AI, some [151:47] certainty that they're not going to wake [151:48] up in a world where they can't buy a [151:50] home, but some other guy owns 35 [151:52] mansions, right? That that to me is is [151:54] the fundamental challenge of AI is it's [151:57] going to unleash a lot of wealth [151:58] creation, but if that wealth creation [152:00] all goes to some some segment of people, [152:03] you're going to have communism. like [152:04] that that is that is the choice before [152:06] us is a lot of wealth being created [152:08] that's good by the way I like I like [152:09] wealth being created but if if you don't [152:11] ensure that there's some broader [152:14] prosperity from that wealth creation [152:16] like we have run this experiment before [152:18] and it leads to communism [152:20] >> right so if the system is [ __ ] how do [152:22] we unfuck it [152:23] >> so [sighs and gasps] [152:24] >> you have a magic wand [152:26] >> I I mean look I I this is what I'm I'm [152:28] saying I'm being honest with you that I [152:30] I don't have a magic wand I I think [152:31] there are a few things that that that we [152:34] should sort of take from this I think. [152:36] Okay. The first is that we should give [152:40] workers a real say at the bargaining [152:42] table. Okay. So, [152:46] what really worries me about AI is the [152:48] is the fact that private sector unions [152:50] have largely disappeared from the United [152:53] States of America. There are a couple of [152:54] exceptions, but if you go back to like [152:56] why did the United States and Britain [152:58] weather um the industrial revolution [153:00] better than literally every other [153:01] western country? I think you could make [153:03] a good argument. Strong religious [153:05] institutions. Right now, we have very [153:06] weak religious institutions. Number two, [153:08] I think you could say strong worker [153:10] participation institutions and not just [153:13] private sector labor unions. That was a [153:14] big piece of it. But people don't [153:16] realize that, you know, Hollywood major [153:20] studios would actually work with [153:23] community groups and churches to sort of [153:27] help like develop content. Now, this was [153:30] an organic. This was a natural [153:31] cooperation. And this wasn't mandated by [153:33] some law, but where they'd go and say, [153:35] "Help us produce content that actually [153:38] speaks to your membership, that speaks [153:40] to your community." And there was this [153:42] sense of participation in American [153:44] society that I think we've lost. And and [153:47] that's the thing that I think that we [153:48] have to rebuild a little bit. It's [153:50] interesting that, you know, the Trump [153:51] administration, the president [153:52] personally, certainly me have been [153:54] accused of being too pro- labor for [153:56] Republicans. But one of the reason why [153:59] I'm pro- labor as a Republican is [154:02] because, and I'm not saying unions are [154:04] perfect. Some of them have very serious [154:05] problems. Like I'm opened about this, [154:08] like the alternative may very well be [154:10] communism in the United States of [154:12] America. Not next year, but down the [154:14] road, you've got to give people a seat [154:16] at the table. And I think that's that's [154:18] one answer to the question. Um I I think [154:21] a second answer to the question is is [154:22] competition. So if if you go back again [154:25] to what worked and what was broken about [154:27] the industrial revolution, [154:29] hyper monopolist style companies that [154:34] had way too much power. I mean Teddy [154:36] Roosevelt famously talked about how um [154:39] you know some of the steel trusts were [154:42] more powerful than the United States [154:43] government. So you could vote your vote [154:46] didn't matter as much because the [154:48] corporations were more powerful than the [154:49] government. I think reigning that in [154:51] making sure that like how do you what's [154:53] the most obvious way to give normal [154:55] people participation it's democracy but [154:58] if a single corporation has monopolized [155:01] an entire space then you don't have a [155:04] real a real democracy unless you reign [155:07] in the power of that company and I think [155:09] that that is another big risk with AI [155:11] it's that we have a hyper monopouist who [155:14] dominates the space and then influences [155:16] the government influences the nonprofit [155:19] sector [155:19] and then real people are effectively cut [155:21] out of the bargain. So again, I'm not [155:23] going to pretend sitting here that I [155:24] have all the solutions. I think about [155:26] this more than almost anything else [155:27] right now. But it's the solution has to [155:31] be giving normal people actual authority [155:35] over their own lives. [155:36] >> But how can the government get involved [155:38] in those steps? Like what could be done [155:40] on a federal level to implement that? [155:44] Well, [sighs] you know, I I think one of [155:46] the things and and we've we've looked at [155:48] legislation along these lines, we [155:49] haven't yet pushed anything, but you [155:51] know, one problem with the 20 with with [155:53] like the private sector labor union. One [155:55] reason why you Democrats will say you [155:58] private unions are at super low [156:00] participation rates because the [156:02] government is, you know, been anti-UN. [156:05] There's like some element of truth to [156:06] that. But the reality is that a lot of [156:08] workers don't see the utility in joining [156:10] a union because it's like in a lot of [156:12] ways it's a 20th century institution [156:14] when you need a 21st century [156:16] institution. So I think updating the [156:18] modern union to be to make more sense in [156:21] the 21st century I think that's that's a [156:24] part of the story. Um you know I think I [156:28] think antitrust [156:29] >> how would you do that? Well, a friend of [156:30] mine, his name is Orin Cass, actually, [156:31] very fascinating guy, sort of a [156:33] right-of-c center economic thinker. you [156:35] know, his his idea is that 20th century [156:38] labor law presupposes a sort of zero sum [156:41] conflict between the company and the [156:43] union and that where you've seen unions [156:46] actually thrive certain places in [156:48] Europe, it's a little bit more [156:49] cooperative and the the unions actually [156:52] have a little bit more power themselves [156:55] where they can negotiate with the [156:57] corporation with a little bit more [156:59] breadth and a little bit more freedom. [157:01] Whereas in the United States, we sort of [157:02] set a floor. we make we we create a very [157:05] small number of things the union can [157:06] actually negotiate over and so a lot of [157:08] people say well why would I join a union [157:10] why would I participate in it so [157:12] basically making the union a little bit [157:13] more cooperative which requires changing [157:16] the legal form of it I think that's [157:17] interesting I think antitrust is a huge [157:19] piece of the story now it's it's a [157:21] little early with AI because we don't [157:22] yet know which companies are dominant [157:24] but I think one of the big mistakes man [157:26] we made in the early 2000s is we should [157:28] have gone after the big tech companies [157:30] with antitrust like there is like a [157:33] trustbusting mechanism that exists in [157:35] the US government. We just didn't use [157:37] it. We're going to have to be willing to [157:38] use it in the 21st century. [157:41] >> And when it comes to unions, um what [157:46] like what what is wrong with the current [157:48] structure [157:49] um in in terms of what what power the [157:53] unions have to negotiate for for labor. [157:56] So let me look. So there's a concrete [157:58] example that that Orin uses all the [158:00] time. So in in some European countries, [158:03] you have a minimum wage, right? In some [158:06] European countries, the union can can [158:09] actually cut a deal with the employer to [158:11] where you pay a brand new employee less [158:16] than the minimum wage, then you pay a [158:18] more senior person higher than the [158:20] minimum wage. But in order to pay the [158:22] junior employee less than the minimum [158:24] wage, you have to provide them job [158:26] training and better benefits and so [158:27] forth. And so the idea is you turn the [158:30] employ for the first couple of years you [158:32] turn the company almost into an [158:34] educational institution but in order to [158:36] do that the union has to have [158:38] flexibility. That kind of arrangement is [158:40] effectively illegal in the United States [158:42] of America. So it's that you create the [158:45] ability for the union to be more [158:46] flexible in how it negotiates. You don't [158:49] set all the terms for it. You allow the [158:51] union to figure out what's in the best [158:52] interest of its membership. But people [158:54] are opposed like initially knee-jerk [158:56] reaction to lowering wages and even in [158:59] lowering minimum wage. I mean the most [159:02] people feel and I agree that minimum [159:04] wage is almost impossible to live off of [159:06] especially with [159:07] >> 100%. Yeah. That it is but but but what [159:10] these unions are not asking for I mean [159:12] you have to kind of trust the labor [159:14] representation of the people to sort of [159:17] make the right arrangement for them. And [159:20] so it's not, hey, let's create a minimum [159:22] wage or a wage floor that's lower than [159:26] the minimum wage. It's what about taking [159:29] for the first year of a person coming [159:30] into the labor market where, you know, [159:32] they work an internship for zero [159:35] dollars, right, at a at a company. Why [159:38] don't we allow our workers to work [159:39] effectively an internship, get the [159:41] training they need, get the benefits [159:42] that they need, and then join the [159:45] workforce full-time at a much higher [159:47] wage? The the idea is that you trust the [159:49] union to come up with this or or the [159:52] labor organization, whatever you want to [159:53] call it, is you actually give the union [159:56] the ability to sort of negotiate over [159:57] this stuff on behalf of its members. You [160:00] don't assume the way the United States [160:02] we do it is we we basically take all [160:05] that authority away from the union [160:07] itself and we try to settle this stuff [160:10] at the level of the government. But [160:12] again, where unions have been more [160:15] successful, where they actually have [160:16] higher membership and participation [160:18] rates, what you see is the the these [160:22] organizations actually have much greater [160:24] flexibility and that ends up meaning [160:26] that more people want to join. That [160:28] means these organizations have more [160:30] power and then that means they can [160:31] figure out the arrangement that works [160:33] best for their membership. So you kind [160:35] of have to trust people. You have to [160:36] trust that people are willing to do this [160:38] thing um for for their own for their own [160:41] benefit. And you know, so long as [160:44] they've got the right authority and so [160:46] long as they've got the right tools, you [160:48] give you kind of trust people to do [160:49] what's in their best interest in these [160:51] organizations to do what's in the best [160:52] interest of their membership. [160:53] >> Well, the the problem that people would [160:55] have with that is that corporations have [160:57] a responsibility to their shareholders [160:59] and they always want to make the most [161:00] money possible and they have to make [161:02] more money next quarter than they made [161:03] this quarter. And one of the ways they [161:05] do that is by paying people less. [161:08] >> But that's why I think that you have to [161:09] give workers some some seat at the [161:11] bargaining table. There there there is a [161:13] there is a theory of like economics that [161:14] dominated in the late 20th century [161:16] America which is that basically that you [161:20] know the labor market was entirely [161:22] efficient and maybe the corporation [161:25] didn't want to pay their workers more [161:26] money but they would be forced to pay [161:27] their workers more money purely because [161:30] if they didn't do that then they [161:31] wouldn't be able to get enough workers. [161:33] Now, I do think that there's an argument [161:34] for like there are all of these ways why [161:36] we should give workers more bargaining [161:38] power. One of them and we've spent a lot [161:40] of time talking about labor [161:41] organizations and that's important. Man, [161:43] one of the reasons why I'm such an [161:44] immigration hawk is because it is really [161:47] important not to flood the country with [161:49] low-wage immigrants, right? Because if [161:51] you give a corporation a choice between [161:53] a low-wage immigrant and a native worker [161:55] who's going to require, by the way, a [161:57] native worker of any race, they're going [162:00] to be forced to pay the native worker [162:01] more if there's not a pool of low-wage [162:04] workers to to go to. And this is like a [162:06] consistent finding in the economics [162:08] literature, but also just common sense [162:11] that when you flood the country with [162:13] low-wage immigrants, this is why I think [162:14] the DSA types are a little full of [ __ ] [162:16] when they talk about helping normal [162:18] people. If you want to help a normal [162:20] person, don't provide a corporation nine [162:24] low-wage migrants to compete against [162:27] them when they're bargaining for wages. [162:29] You actually give workers more power [162:31] when you have a more restricted [162:33] immigration policy. [162:34] >> Well, this is that's the that that's [162:37] that's where the real con is, right? [162:39] Because a lot of Yeah. You've told me [162:42] that you had a conversation with uh [162:44] someone who was at the head of some [162:46] corporation that was upset that they [162:47] were trying to shut down illegal [162:49] immigration because he said it's [162:50] >> head of a hotel chain. [162:51] >> Yeah. [162:51] >> Yeah. Cuz he said basically I want to be [162:53] able to pay my workers less money and [162:55] it's very hard because the native [162:57] workers expect higher wages. [162:59] >> It's crazy. I mean there there dude [163:01] there's there's this story from a few [163:03] years ago. It was the New York Times. It [163:06] was like unintentionally hilarious. And [163:08] it's talking about a, [163:11] you know, why Apple would choose to [163:13] manufacture in Asia over the United [163:16] States of America. And it's talking [163:18] about how, you know, the American [163:20] workers and it's it's almost kind of [163:22] judgy towards the American workers. It's [163:24] like, well, you know, the American [163:25] workers want to go home and see their [163:27] kids and have dinner with their kids. [163:29] And it's like, by the way, you go to the [163:31] Foxcon factory in Apple in China, the [163:34] Foxcon factory that develops products [163:35] for Apple and China, and what do you [163:37] see? You literally see suicide nets [163:39] around the top of the building because, [163:41] yeah, the workers work 72 hours a week [163:44] and they sleep in little apartments four [163:47] to a bedroom, but they also are so [163:50] miserable, you have to take steps to [163:52] prevent them from killing themselves. [163:54] So, you know, what I want out of [163:57] American life is a little bit more [163:59] dignity, a little bit more, oh, you [164:01] know, yeah, I can I can I can afford to [164:03] feed my family. I can also go home and [164:04] actually watch my kids' baseball game. [164:06] And that balance, I think, if you're [164:08] looking at it from a pure profit motive, [164:11] you know, maybe the corporation isn't [164:13] going to think like that, which is why [164:14] you have to give the people real power [164:17] to push back and advocate for their own [164:18] interests. I think a lot of people in [164:20] this country, if they had to choose, [164:23] especially people that have money, if [164:25] they had to choose between a phone that [164:28] was manufactured in America where people [164:30] were paid a very good wage and had [164:32] benefits and you have an iPhone that has [164:34] a little American flag on the back and [164:36] you have one that doesn't. I think a lot [164:39] of people would buy the one with the [164:40] American flag on the back because [164:42] >> just they would feel better about their [164:44] purchase. They'd feel I feel weird when [164:47] I'm holding a phone [laughter] and I [164:48] know that someone was working in some [164:50] factory in some foreign country working [164:52] 15 hours a day and and being paid [164:55] nothing. [164:55] >> That's right. I think that's true of our [164:57] food, by the way, too. [164:58] >> Yeah. [164:58] >> They they'd much rather it be, you know, [165:00] made locally. They're willing to pay a [165:02] little bit more so long as it's it's [165:04] healthier and it's made locally. There [165:06] obviously are exceptions to every rule, [165:08] but I I do again I think that we have [165:11] run the experiment where we just try to [165:14] do everything with low-wage foreigners, [165:18] whether they're in the United States via [165:20] illegal immigration or whether they're [165:22] outside the United States via offshoring [165:25] and outsourcing. And what it has led to [165:28] is I think a society where socialism is [165:31] a bit on the rise. And one of our jobs [165:32] in the administration, I think about [165:34] this all the time, is how do you make [165:37] things I'm not saying we're perfect and [165:39] I'm not saying there isn't a lot of work [165:40] to do because there is like we were left [165:41] in quite a hole by 40 years of bad [165:43] policy. People always talk about the [165:44] Biden administration inflation. [165:47] Yeah, the Biden administration inflation [165:48] was terrible. Got up to 9%. By the way, [165:50] I think today's CPI report is you had [165:52] deflation in the United States. We [165:54] actually had prices coming down which is [165:56] good because the Iran war gas prices [165:58] came down. But like [166:01] >> gas prices have come down now because of [166:03] the Iran war. [166:04] >> No, no, no. Compared to where they were [166:06] a month ago, [166:07] >> right? [166:07] >> So they're they're not down from the [166:09] beginning of the war, but they're down [166:10] from where they were a month ago. So you [166:11] had a good CPI report, uh a consumer [166:13] price inflation report today. My my [166:16] point is, yes, I don't ever get to the [166:19] 9% inflation of the B administration. [166:22] Yes, the Trump administration has had a [166:24] much better record on inflation than the [166:25] Biden administration. nothing close to [166:27] 9% even in our worst month. But some of [166:30] this stuff is actually much longer term. [166:32] This is 40 years of failed bipartisan [166:35] leadership which has created really a [166:38] kind of shell corporation out of the [166:40] United States of America. We don't make [166:42] enough of our own stuff. We don't have [166:43] enough self-reliance. Our workers don't [166:46] have enough bargaining power. That has [166:48] led in a lot of ways, I think, to this [166:50] kind of socialism fervor. And we have to [166:54] keep fixing these problems. Again, I [166:55] think that we're going in the right [166:56] direction. Maybe people disagree, but [166:58] it's going to take years to fix this [167:01] problem. And if we don't, we are going [167:03] to end up with a socialist president in [167:04] this country. [167:06] >> I think it's also a narrative change. [167:08] And that the the narrative is stopping [167:11] immigration is cruelty. Correct. And [167:14] you're you're you're racist or [167:16] xenophobic and that uh we should just [167:19] instead give these people citizenship. [167:21] And it's it's not a coincidence that I [167:25] mean like what we dealt with over the [167:27] last four years was insane where they [167:30] just opened the border and not just [167:32] encouraged people to come across but [167:34] facilitated it helped them got them on [167:36] Medicaid got them on social security got [167:39] people the they told people do you have [167:42] a bad back okay well you're permanent [167:44] disability and you get free money put [167:47] them in a hotel give them a phone like [167:49] that's crazy and then move them to blue [167:51] states and then you realize that that [167:54] has a direct impact on congressional [167:56] seats [167:58] >> because of the census which is also [167:59] nuts. The census should count citizens. [168:01] >> It should only count citizens but it [168:03] doesn't and that actually steals [168:05] congressional representation away from [168:07] areas that have lower illegal [168:08] immigration, right? [168:09] >> Which is its own its own problem. So [168:12] yeah, it it's it's the thing that I [168:15] don't understand about the Democratic [168:17] Socialists of America. And obviously I [168:19] disagree with a lot of their ideas, but [168:21] like if you go back to Caesar Chavez, [168:23] one of the original like founding [168:25] fathers of the American workers rights [168:28] movement, okay? He was a hardcore [168:31] restrictionist on immigration because he [168:33] thought that the bosses would bring in [168:35] low-wage immigrants to compete against [168:38] his workers and that would drive down [168:40] their wages. And yet the DSA, which says [168:43] they care about the wages of workers, is [168:45] quite literally like an open borders [168:47] organization. So I I tend to think that [168:50] it's it's all BS that they are actually [168:53] pursuing a set of policies that are good [168:56] for [168:57] that are like corporations care way more [169:02] about open borders than they do about [169:05] any other policy the DSA cares about. So [169:07] while these people say that they're [169:08] trying to fight for workers and they're [169:10] trying to fight for the working man, the [169:12] actual end result of DSA policy is to [169:15] flood the country with low-wage [169:17] immigrants which will destroy the middle [169:19] class in this country. In fact, we have [169:20] run this experiment for decades now and [169:23] we have a much weaker middle class than [169:24] we did before it started. And I think [169:27] this is a part of the the problem this [169:30] country has that there's this narrative [169:32] uh Republicans are cruel and they're [169:35] anti-worker and that they're anti- lower [169:38] class people or lower middle class [169:40] people. [169:40] >> Yep. [169:41] >> That narrative has to someone has to do [169:43] a better job of messaging. [169:45] >> I'm trying to, man. I'm trying to. But, [169:46] you know, it's it's one of those things [169:47] that it's it took a long while for it to [169:49] set in. It's going to take a long while [169:50] to to get out of it. But what I just I [169:53] try to remind people is that anybody who [169:55] actually cares about the safety of your [169:58] community is going to care about not [170:00] empowering police brutality, but [170:03] empowering the good cops to do what they [170:04] need to do. Anybody who cares about law [170:06] and order is going to want to throw [170:07] violent criminals in jail, not close [170:10] down the prison. Anybody who cares about [170:11] your wages and your safety is going to [170:14] want to control the border. So I I I [170:17] just all I can think to do is to remind [170:20] people that I'm not saying Republicans [170:22] are perfect and you know I have [170:24] disagreements of course within my own [170:26] party all the time but fundamentally our [170:29] party is right now pursuing a much [170:33] better set of policies when it comes to [170:36] safety of your home, your wages, your [170:38] ability to keep more of your money. I [170:41] just got to keep preaching that message [170:42] and you know the chips fall where they [170:44] may. And if you just look at the result [170:47] of what you see in these cities where [170:49] they don't enforce crime, where they [170:51] don't enforce [170:53] immigration laws, they provide sanctuary [170:56] states, you see disasters over and over [171:00] and over again. [171:01] >> Yeah. [171:01] >> I mean, and I I don't understand [171:03] >> exactly [171:04] >> why people who are voting for these [171:07] things can't see that. They can't see [171:10] that the results have been catastrophic [171:13] year after year. They keep getting [171:15] worse. [171:16] >> And the idea of voting a new better [171:18] person to do the same thing is just [171:20] crazy. [171:21] >> Yeah, it it's it's totally crazy to me, [171:24] too. I think part of it is we haven't [171:27] done a good enough job of actually going [171:28] to some of these places. Part of it is [171:30] that it is shifting and sometimes these [171:31] shifts just take a long time. If you [171:33] look, the Republican party under Trump's [171:35] leadership is way more workingass, way [171:38] more middle class than the Republican [171:40] party of 20 years ago. So these things [171:41] are starting to shift. But the public [171:43] safety thing is very interesting to me [171:45] because like one of the promises of [171:48] America is that every man, woman, and [171:52] child, rich or poor, black or white, [171:55] deserves public safety. Like it every [171:58] rich person ever has had public safety. [172:00] Every rich person ever has been able to [172:02] afford some security guard to make sure [172:04] that somebody who comes and tries to [172:06] steal their stuff or kidnap their kids, [172:08] they're protected against that. What [172:10] America did is we democratized public [172:13] safety. Every person gets to keep their [172:16] property. Every person gets to not be [172:18] stolen from. Every person gets to walk [172:20] down their neighborhood at night without [172:21] being being mugged. And obviously we [172:24] have imperfectly applied that. But what [172:27] the left has done over the last few [172:30] years. Why I think the crime thing is [172:32] it's not just a sort of public safety [172:34] thing. It's also a class thing is they [172:37] have made working people less safe. Like [172:41] if you look at my neighborhood, the [172:43] neighborhood that I my working-class [172:45] grandparents raised me in, it became [172:48] less safe over time. And really [172:52] workingclass neighborhoods had much [172:54] higher rates of violence, much higher [172:56] rates of carjackings and so forth. That [172:59] happened during Biden's administration. [173:02] >> That's not a coincidence. [173:04] >> No. Uh anything else? [laughter] [173:08] >> Anything else? [173:08] >> Go by Go by Go by Communion, Joe, and we [173:11] can we can talk about uh religion and [173:13] faith and the Ten Commandments next [173:14] time. But thanks for having me, man. [173:16] >> Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. [173:17] All right. [music] Wrap it up. Bye, [173:19] everybody. Great. [173:26] [music] [173:30] Hey. Hey.