Hilton Outlines Plan to Overhaul California Governance in Rogan Appearance

PowerfulJRE

Gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton argues single-party Democratic control has driven California into economic decline and child trafficking, promising to dismantle state environmental regulations and defund high-speed rail if elected.

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #2542 - Steve Hilton — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-09-13

Detailed notes

## Background This episode of the Joe Rogan Experience was published by PowerfulJRE on YouTube on August 19, 2026. The video features an interview with Steve Hilton, a businessman, political commentator, author, and Republican candidate for governor of California.

## TL;DR Steve Hilton and Joe Rogan discuss the political and socioeconomic issues facing California, criticizing state leadership on topics such as the state's business climate, homelessness programs, border policy, and energy regulations. Hilton outlines his gubernatorial platform, including political reform and budget cuts, while Rogan touches on health policy, comedy, and media coverage regarding COVID-19 origins. The conversation concludes with Rogan offering his endorsement of Hilton's campaign.

## Atmosphere & style The discussion maintains a relaxed, conversational, and direct tone typical of the podcast, with both participants sharing a skeptical view of government bureaucracy and progressive policies. The dynamic is collegiate and inquisitive, shifting smoothly between serious policy critiques and lighter banter about comedy and personal stories. Throughout the episode, there is a shared sentiment of frustration with California state politics paired with optimistic discussions on potential reform.

## Key takeaways - [48:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2916s) California faces severe economic and political challenges, ranking lowest in business climate among US states while struggling with high unemployment, poverty, and political entrenchment. - [01:12:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4353s) Steve Hilton criticizes single-party control in California, comparing Sacramento's supermajority and special-interest capture to Viktor Orbán's long-standing rule in Hungary. - [01:16:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4596s) California's 'Housing First' mandates and $24 billion homelessness budget are criticized for high unit costs, lack of required accountability, and vetoed state audits. - [01:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4890s) Involuntary mental health commitment and the limits of harm reduction programs spark debate over urban degradation, open-air drug markets, and public health policies. - [01:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5383s) Dario Amodei's essay 'Machines of Loving Grace' highlights potential dystopian future outcomes of AI replacing human economic utility and managing societal behavior. - [01:41:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6081s) Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton argue that modern political correctness and ideological conformity have stifled traditional comedy movies and freedom of expression. - [01:47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6465s) Joe Rogan details the design philosophy and support structure behind his Austin club, the Comedy Mothership, emphasizing community support and mental healthcare for staff. - [02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7355s) Investigative coverage of Anthony Fauci highlights controversial gain-of-function research funding, pandemic lockdown protocols, and severe pushback against early dissenters. - [02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) faced significant criticism over handling unaccompanied minor border crossers and failing to prevent exploitation. - [02:25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8720s) Debates around voter ID laws, border policy, and census representation highlight deep partisan divisions between progressives and conservative reformers. - [02:32:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9160s) California's strict energy regulations, fuel mandates, and reliance on crude oil imports contribute to significantly elevated electricity and gas prices across the state. - [02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) New replacement tire regulations approved by the California Energy Commission impose rolling resistance limits that could ban up to 70% of current tire models. - [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) Steve Hilton's 'Operation Zero Waste' platform targets state overspending, aiming to defund high-speed rail and reform government programs to restore accountability.

## Detailed walkthrough Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of the transcript section.

---

[00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1s) Reconnecting in the Studio & Reminiscing About Their Hawaii Meeting

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton catch up at the start of the episode, noting their long-standing friendship that spans over a decade. Steve recalls arriving in the United States from England in 2012, approximately 14 years prior. The two reminisce about their initial meeting on a beach in Hawaii, where their young children—Joe’s two daughters and Steve’s two sons—began playing together in the sand. Steve warmly describes his distinct memory of watching Joe walk down the beach shortly after arriving from the UK, calling it an unforgettable "cultural moment" and admitting he had never met anyone quite like Joe before, nor had he even heard of him at the time.

Joe and Steve also reflect on Steve's first appearance on the podcast back in July 2014 (Episode 509). Steve explains that at the time, he was living a low-key, normal life teaching at Stanford after a career in British politics and business. He admits he had no idea what a podcast actually was when he walked into Joe's old Los Angeles studio, expecting something brief like a standard 10-to-15-minute radio or TV interview. As the conversation passed the 15-minute mark, Steve recalls sitting there wondering when the next guest was coming on, only to realize the chat would run for hours. Steve contrasts that era—when "nobody was listening" and creators could speak freely without worrying about social media fallout—with the massive, 2,000-episode milestone the podcast has reached since.

- **First Meeting:** Hawaii beach in 2012; Steve had just moved to the US from England. - **First Podcast Appearance:** Episode 509 on July 3, 2014. - **Steve's Background at the Time:** Former UK political staffer and businessman, then teaching at Stanford.

---

[04:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=266s) Social Media Toxicity, Bots, and Public Comments

The conversation shifts to handling public scrutiny and online comments. Joe attributes his personal peace of mind to completely ignoring public feedback and never paying attention to what people say about him. He warns that online spaces like X (formerly Twitter) are filled with bad-faith actors and extreme takes, likening the platform to a restaurant where "20% of their food would literally kill you." Steve shares that as his public profile grew—from Stanford instructor to Fox News host and now a candidate for Governor of California—he frequently encounters bizarre abuse on his posts, ranging from xenophobic "go back to England" comments to insults about his baldness. Steve jokes about how tempting it is to respond to trolls with a simple "good point."

Joe emphasizes that much of the vitriol comes from angry individuals with too much spare time, but an even larger portion originates from automated bot networks. He points out that during Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, official filings claimed fake accounts were under 5%, whereas cybersecurity expert Dan Woods (a former FBI digital intelligence specialist) conducted a 2022 forensic analysis suggesting up to 80% of activity might originate from bots. Joe details the mechanics of physical "bot farms" filmed by whistleblowers, where rows of Android phones are wired to central keyboards to amplify identical messaging simultaneously. Joe notes that in addition to automated AI bots, various state actors and paid influencers are heavily funded to spread coordinated narratives on social media.

- **Dan Woods Estimate:** Cybersecurity expert and former FBI contractor who estimated Twitter bot activity could be as high as 80% in 2022. - **Official Twitter Claim:** Twitter claimed bot accounts were under 5% during the acquisition process. - **Bot Farm Operations:** Facilities using racks of connected Android smartphones to mass-tweet identical phrases.

---

[11:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=667s) Phone Habits, Distractions, and Gore on Social Media

Steve describes his relationship with social media, stating he avoids most platforms but spends about 30 minutes a day checking X primarily as a real-time news source. Joe brings up Steve's famous history of avoiding personal devices, recalling how Steve used to be virtually impossible to contact because he didn't carry a smartphone or regularly check emails on the go. Joe fondly remembers an incident in San Diego where Steve disappeared without a phone, driving his wife furious because she couldn't reach him.

The two discuss how addictive and distracting smartphones are. While Steve notes that most people on planes spend their time mindlessly scrolling Instagram, Joe reveals his own algorithmic rabbit hole on the app. Joe admits to a dark running joke with his comedian friend Tom Segura, where they send each other disturbing viral videos first thing in the morning to freak each other out. Joe describes scrolling past gruesome footage on Instagram—including a graphic video of a botched ATM robbery where a thief was dragged under a car—and notes how poorly platforms filter graphic violence compared to text-based commentary.

- **Steve's Tech Discipline:** Historically refused to carry a smartphone or check email on the go to stay present. - **Tom Segura Prank:** Joe and comedian Tom Segura share a morning tradition of texting each other horrific or bizarre internet videos.

---

[14:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=882s) TikTok's Algorithmic Hook and China's Curated Platform

Joe and Steve discuss the rise of TikTok, tracing its origins back to ByteDance and its early days as a music and lip-syncing app focused on dancing videos. Steve recalls reading about its early explosive growth years ago and initially doubting it would take off, only to watch it become a global dominant force. Joe notes how aggressively TikTok hooks users: unlike Instagram, which requires manual scrolling and browsing effort, TikTok immediately plays content the moment the app opens, easily trapping users in an hour-long loop of wasted time.

The conversation turns to the stark contrast between the Western version of TikTok and the version operated inside China (Douyin). Joe and Steve highlight how the Chinese government curates its domestic algorithm toward educational and high-achievement content—such as science experiments, martial arts, classical music performance, and athletic feats—while restricting screen time for kids. They contrast this intentional, skill-building feed with the addictive, brain-draining algorithm served to international audiences.

- **TikTok Origins:** Evolved from early ByteDance musical/lip-syncing and dance apps. - **Western vs. Chinese Versions:** The Chinese domestic platform emphasizes educational, athletic, and musical achievements, whereas the Western feed prioritizes viral distraction.

---

[16:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=979s) Media Regulation, Screen Time, and the Meta Lawsuit

The discussion opens with a look at how digital platforms are regulated, specifically highlighting China's strict controls over the Chinese version of TikTok (Douyin). In China, the app effectively "bricks" or locks out younger users after 10:00 p.m. until morning, prompting them to go to sleep and maintain a healthy routine. While acknowledging that state-mandated restrictions clash with Western ideals of freedom, Rogan notes that it prevents a culture from being entirely captured by digital distraction. Hilton recalls growing up in England as the child of Hungarian parents and visiting Communist Hungary, where television broadcasts were turned off entirely on Mondays to force people to socialize, play sports, and engage in real-life activities.

This leads into a major current event: a massive lawsuit against Meta involving state attorneys general seeking unprecedented financial penalties. Reports cite potential exposure between $200 billion and up to $1.4 trillion over claims that Meta deliberately designed algorithms to addict children to social media. Beyond financial damages, the lawsuit aims to enforce court-ordered product changes, including strict age/parental verification, disabling infinite scroll and autoplay, removing "dopamine-manipulating" recommendation algorithms, hiding like counts, and banning disappearing content like Instagram Stories.

``` META LAWSUIT PROPOSED CHANGES ┌───────────────────────────┐ │ • Parental Verification │ │ • End Infinite Scroll │ │ • Remove Like Counts │ │ • Stop Disappearing Story │ │ • Ban Autoplay │ └───────────────────────────┘ ```

Both Rogan and Hilton express deep skepticism over government-mandated product redesigns. Rogan points out that features like disappearing stories have positive uses—citing his friend, bow hunter Adam Greentree, who uses Instagram Stories to document solitary 28-day hunting trips deep in the Colorado Rockies. They argue that when government bureaucrats step in to micromanage technology features, the end result inevitably ruins the user experience without solving the underlying issue.

- **China's TikTok Policy:** The Chinese government enforces a curfew on its domestic version of TikTok, locking younger users out after 10:00 p.m. - **Hungarian Monday TV Shutdown:** Under Communist rule, Hungary shut down all television broadcasting on Mondays to encourage civic and physical activity. - **Meta Litigation Financials:** Four states lead a lawsuit claiming Meta addicted minors, with potential damages cited between $200 billion and $1.4 trillion. - **Adam Greentree Example:** Rogan highlights bow hunter Adam Greentree's Instagram Stories documenting 28-day solo wilderness hunts in Colorado as a legitimate, engaging use of short-form media.

---

[22:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1361s) The Attention Economy, Algorithm-Free Alternatives, and Video Games

Shifted away from lawsuits, the conversation centers on the core problem: modern digital platforms profit off human attention by intentionally feeding users outrage and conflict. Hilton mentions the news of a potential MySpace relaunch that promises to be completely algorithm-free. Instead of forcing engagement through anger-inducing content recommendations, an algorithm-free feed allows users to see strictly what they choose to follow. Rogan admits that even adults struggle with screen addiction, remarking on how easily attention gets sucked into useless digital noise.

Hilton shares his experiences traveling across California and speaking to thousands of voters at town halls and roundtables. While voters initially raise standard political topics like gas prices and tax rates, their emotional intensity spikes when discussing screens, social media, video games, and artificial intelligence. Parents feel completely overwhelmed by kids using AI to write homework or falling into addictive loops. Rogan points out that video games are far more addictive than social media, yet they escape political scrutiny because they do not directly shape public political opinions in the way social media algorithms do.

> "The commodity is your attention."

- **MySpace Relaunch:** An effort to reintroduce MySpace as an algorithm-free platform where content is purely user-selected rather than driven by engagement algorithms. - **Voter Concerns:** Steve Hilton notes that screen time, social media addiction, and AI in education generate more raw emotional anger from parents at town halls than traditional topics like gas prices. - **Video Game Addiction:** Rogan emphasizes that video games are arguably more addictive than social media, but face less government interference because they do not overtly influence political ideologies.

---

[25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1500s) Political Radicalization, Social Safety Nets, and Universal Basic Income

Rogan argues that social media algorithms play a central role in radicalizing young people toward extreme political ideologies, such as democratic socialism or Marxism. Many young people advocating for these systems online fail to understand historical precedent—specifically that surrendering all economic control to the state inherently grants total authority to the entity holding the guns. While capitalism can be brutal and requires guardrails, state-run monopolies historically produce disastrous real-world results. Hilton recalls visiting state-run grocery stores near his grandmother's home in Communist Hungary, describing the bleak reality and lack of basic goods.

The conversation turns to social safety nets and Universal Basic Income (UBI). Both agree that a compassionate society needs safety nets for people facing unexpected tragedy, such as a widowed mother losing her family's primary income. However, poorly structured safety nets risk disincentivizing work and ambition. Hilton contrasts modern left-wing UBI proposals with the original conservative concept championed by economists Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. The conservative vision aimed to replace the entire welfare state—eliminating all administrative agencies, Medicaid, and bureaucracy—and replacing it with a direct, streamlined cash grant.

``` MODERN WELFARE vs. FRIEDMAN UBI ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Modern Welfare State │ │ Friedman / Murray UBI │ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Complex Bureaucracy │ │ • Direct Cash Distribution │ │ • Means-Tested Programs │ │ • Total Elimination of Agencies │ │ • Administrative Overhead │ │ • Reduced Government Control │ │ • Traps & Disincentives │ │ • Maximum Individual Choice │ └─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

- **Historical Perspective:** Hilton shares personal memories of state-run grocery stores in Communist Hungary, using them as an example of central planning failure. - **Milton Friedman & Charles Murray:** Conservative thinkers who originally proposed a simplified negative income tax/UBI explicitly to abolish the massive government welfare bureaucracy.

---

[28:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1685s) California's Cost of Living, Minimum Wage, and Wage Regulations

Addressing the realities of working families, Hilton discusses ideas from his 2015 book, *More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First*. He highlights the fundamental flaw in current economic conditions: millions of hard-working people holding down full-time jobs (or even two jobs) still cannot afford basic living expenses. To address this, Hilton initially proposed a "business-friendly living wage" and a policy exempting state income tax on earnings under $100,000. However, during his campaign in California, voters informed him that $100,000 is no longer a high income due to hyper-inflated housing and living costs—leading him to bump his tax-free proposal to $150,000.

``` CALIFORNIA WORKING-CLASS TAX PROPOSAL ┌────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Original Proposal: $100,000 limit │ │ Adjusted Proposal: $150,000 limit │ │ Goal: 0% State Income Tax below │ │ the baseline living cost │ └────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

They debate the impact of California’s recent wage hikes, including the $20-an-hour minimum wage for fast-food workers. Rogan and Hilton observe that forcing drastic wage increases on small businesses and franchises backfires by cutting entry-level jobs and accelerating automation, such as self-service kiosks. Rogan asserts that minimum-wage fast-food jobs were historically intended as entry-level positions for teenagers learning work ethic, basic skills, and tax deductions—not career jobs meant to support an entire household.

> "When I was a kid, if you made a hundred thousand bucks, you were killing it."

- **Book Reference:** Steve Hilton authored *More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First* (2015), advocating for human-scale systems over massive bureaucracies. - **California Low-Income Threshold:** In several high-cost California counties, the official state classification for "low income" starts at or near $100,000 per year. - **Hilton's Tax Policy:** Proposes zero state income tax on incomes up to $150,000 in California to relieve pressure on the middle and working classes. - **Fast Food Wage Mandate:** California's $20/hour fast-food minimum wage law led directly to workforce reductions and faster adoption of automated ordering tech.

[31:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1911s) The "Doom Loop" of Bloated Government and Hidden Taxes

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton begin by lamenting the harsh reality of living on minimum wage, agreeing that paying someone $15 an hour for a 40-hour workweek is "brutal" and barely enough to survive on. Hilton argues that the core issue—especially in California—is the staggering size of government bureaucracy. Hidden taxes are layered into every aspect of life, from gas taxes to stealth housing fees, driving up the overall cost of living without delivering tangible benefits. Hilton describes a government "doom loop" where ruling Democrats recognize that citizens are struggling, yet respond by raising taxes to fund more welfare programs and redistribution. This response only makes living and running a business more expensive, rather than addressing the root cause by cutting costs and reducing the state's take.

Rogan characterizes this tax-and-spend cycle as a massive "slush fund." He points out the absurdity that as California’s population shrank and people moved away, the size of the state government actually doubled. He questions the official narrative on job creation, suggesting that many of these positions are simply expanded government roles or taxpayer-funded handouts to non-profits and NGOs.

- **Hidden Tax Burdens**: Stealth fees, gas taxes, and administrative mandates continuously drive up the baseline cost of living. - **The Redistributive "Doom Loop"**: Government responds to high living costs by increasing taxes for welfare programs, which further increases expenses. - **Government Growth vs. Population**: California's state government doubled in size while its actual population shrank.

---

[33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2032s) Non-Profit Corruption and the Homelessness Industrial Complex

Rogan shares an example from an Instagram creator who broke down a proposed $5 billion renovation for a convention center, pointing out that the money could instead be used to give a staggering payout to every person living on Skid Row. He argues that those operating within the system have no real incentive to solve issues like homelessness. Hilton and Rogan highlight the outrageous salaries drawn by executives of homeless non-profits, citing a case where a female executive pulled in a $1.6 million salary, and another non-profit head making $2.6 million annually.

Hilton notes that in the private sector, a CEO who loses vast sums of money while continuously failing to accomplish their core mission would be fired. In California's non-profit ecosystem, however, the homelessness crisis only gets worse while executive pay skyrockets. Rather than fixing fraud and waste, politicians push for a "billionaire wealth tax" to extract more money from high earners, despite the fact that the top 1% already pays roughly half of all income tax in the state. Rogan warns that aggressive tax hikes are driving away the very tax base supporting the state.

> "There was just one last week... this woman runs a homeless non-profit, $1.6 million salary... Homeless non-profit. Non-profit. She's killing it."

- **Convention Center Cost**: A proposed $5 billion convention center renovation highlighted as an example of misallocated public funds. - **Inflated Executive Pay**: Non-profit executives managing homelessness initiatives drawing salaries between $1.6 million and $2.6 million per year. - **Tax Base Vulnerability**: California's top 1% of earners pay approximately half of the state's total income tax.

---

[36:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2160s) One-Party Rule, Mail-In Ballots, and the Prop 64 Money Trail

Rogan proposes a radical accountability measure for local officials: tying a mayor's salary directly to the city's economic health and GDP. He notes that when Los Angeles lost 70% of its restaurants during COVID-19 lockdowns, then-Mayor Eric Garcetti should have lost 70% of his paycheck. Hilton attributes the lack of accountability to 16 years of uninterrupted one-party rule, leaving politicians convinced they will remain in power forever. They briefly discuss controversial local election outcomes, noting odd surges in mail-in ballot totals that flipped tax hikes and local races.

Hilton details how voter-approved initiatives are exploited through administrative "scams." He points to Proposition 64, which legalized recreational cannabis under the promise that tax revenues would fund substance abuse prevention. Instead, Hilton tracked $350 million of cannabis tax money flowing into a single health non-profit, which then distributed grants of $750,000 to $1 million to roughly 500 sub-organizations. These groups used the funds for partisan activities like voter registration and ballot harvesting. Furthermore, Hilton notes that California's state budget surged from $170 billion to over $350 billion in just ten years, even as public services declined and the prison population was slashed while its budget doubled.

> "This year the budget is just over $350 billion, the total budget. 10 years ago it was $170 billion, and everything's worse."

- **Garcetti Lockdowns**: Los Angeles lost approximately 70% of its restaurants during COVID-19 lockdowns without any pay cuts for leadership. - **Proposition 64 Tax Diversion**: $350 million intended for substance abuse prevention was funneled to 500+ non-profits engaging in voter registration and ballot harvesting. - **State Budget Explosion**: California’s state budget doubled from $170 billion to over $350 billion over a ten-year span. - **Prison Budget Disconnect**: The state prison population was cut nearly in half, yet the corrections budget doubled.

---

[39:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2361s) Fire Relief Scandals and Hilton’s Gubernatorial Campaign

Rogan brings up the handling of Los Angeles fire relief funds, calling the diversion of charitable aid into political non-profits "disgusting." Media personality Spencer Pratt publicly mapped out how aid money was split across roughly 200 non-profits while families who lost their homes received nothing. Hilton asserts that while the legal and political system is heavily stacked, his gubernatorial campaign against Democrat candidate Javier Becerra—who served as Joe Biden’s Health Secretary—is proving that voters are fed up.

Despite running a "scrappy startup" campaign against the establishment machine and public sector unions, Hilton notes that the polling gap is narrowing rapidly. Initial polls showed him down 61% to 36%, but recent surveys have closed the gap to under 10 points. Hilton believes a silent majority of Californians wants to dismantle the current political regime rather than abandon the state.

- **Fire Aid Misdirection**: Aid money raised for disaster victims was distributed to 200 non-profits instead of directly helping homeowners who lost everything. - **Gubernatorial Matchup**: Steve Hilton is running for California Governor against former Biden Health Secretary Javier Becerra. - **Polling Turnaround**: Hilton closed an initial 25-point deficit (61%–36%) down to less than 10 points.

---

[41:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2502s) The Los Angeles Voter Bubble and Over-Medication

Rogan examines California's political map, pointing out that while many rural and suburban counties turned red between 2020 and 2024, massive urban strongholds like Los Angeles County—which represents 23% of the statewide vote—dictate the state's direction. Rogan uses the Perplexity search app live on air to look up the number of adults in LA County taking SSRI antidepressants. The search estimates between 500,000 and 950,000 adults in LA County take SSRIs, though Rogan speculates the true number of heavily medicated residents is far higher.

Rogan argues that widespread over-medication creates a "zombie catatonic state" that leaves residents passive and susceptible to political echo chambers. He stresses that the chemical imbalance theory of depression has been scientifically disproven, emphasizing that lifestyle factors—sedentary habits, poor diet, isolation, and lack of exercise—are the true drivers of mental health struggles.

> "They're in this zombie catatonic state from anti-depressants and anti-psychotics... and they're cloudy. They don't see things, and they're surrounded by this echo chamber of people that only agree with them."

- **Electoral Weight of LA**: Los Angeles County accounts for roughly 23% of the total vote in California state elections. - **SSRI Usage Statistics**: Estimates indicate between 500,000 and nearly 1 million adults in LA County are prescribed SSRIs. - **Rejection of Chemical Imbalance Theory**: Rogan highlights that depression is largely driven by physical, environmental, and lifestyle factors rather than a simple chemical flaw.

---

[45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2701s) UK Healthcare Lessons and Big Pharma as a "Cartel"

Reflecting on his time as a senior advisor to the Prime Minister in 10 Downing Street, Steve Hilton recalls trying to shift the UK's National Health Service (NHS) toward preventive health promotion. Because the NHS is entirely taxpayer-funded, healthcare spending directly competes with all other public services, creating a clear financial reason to keep citizens healthy. However, after months of consulting top medical experts, Hilton realized the ultimate solutions were basic: diet, physical exercise, proper hydration, and sleep.

The conversation turns to a tragic news story regarding a mother suffering from severe postpartum depression who killed her children after being prescribed a heavy regimen of psychiatric drugs. Rogan and Hilton react with horror at the long list of side effects associated with modern antidepressants, including black-box warnings for suicidal ideation. Rogan labels the American pharmaceutical industry a government-sanctioned, publicly traded "cartel" that uses its immense profits to buy off politicians and pass favorable regulations.

- **10 Downing Street Insights**: Hilton notes that preventive health (exercise, nutrition, sleep) is the only realistic way to reduce government healthcare spending. - **Side-Effect Paradox**: Antidepressant medications frequently carry black-box warnings for increased suicidal ideation and anxiety. - **Pharmaceutical Influence**: Rogan describes Big Pharma as a legal cartel using corporate profits to capture regulatory agencies and lawmakers.

[[48:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2916s)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2916)] Special Interests, California Politics, and Kamala Harris's "Too Big to Rig"

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton dissect the deep-seated bribery and special-interest machine operating inside Sacramento politics. Rogan points out how lobbyists routinely write legislation that politicians sign without reading, leading to absurd real-world consequences that leave normal citizens bewildered. Moving to the 2026 California gubernatorial race, Hilton discusses his opponent, Xavier Becerra. When a news interviewer confronted Becerra with California's bleak realities—including holding the nation's highest unemployment and poverty rates—Becerra brushed off criticism by claiming things could not be that bad because tourists are still visiting Disneyland and the beaches.

The discussion pivots to Kamala Harris, who was recently spotted reusing Donald Trump's well-known "too big to rig" campaign slogan as if it were her own original idea. Rogan and Hilton chuckle at the irony of Harris claiming elections are being rigged by opponents, noting the hypocritical nature of political discourse surrounding election integrity. Hilton observes that candidate selection is ruthlessly enforced by political establishments, where anyone straying from the party narrative faces smear campaigns or dug-up personal scandals.

- California holds the nation's highest unemployment rate among all 50 states alongside record-high poverty and cost-of-living spikes. - Kamala Harris publicly adopted the phrase "too big to rig" during a speaking appearance, claiming voters needed to overcome obstacles set up by political rivals. - Hilton points out the paradox of political smears, noting lightheartedly that the establishment hasn't targeted him yet only because they underestimate his chances.

[[53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3220s)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3220)] Corrupt Endorsements: CalChamber and Police Unions

Hilton details the systemic corruption he personally encountered while seeking endorsements as a gubernatorial candidate. According to the Chief Executive Magazine annual survey of business conditions, California has ranked 50th out of 50 states for business climate for roughly 12 to 13 consecutive years. Despite Hilton listing his occupation on the ballot as "small business owner" after spending most of his 36-year career running businesses, the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) chose to endorse Xavier Becerra—a candidate openly promising no policy changes. Hilton explains that groups like CalChamber endorse based on proximity to power rather than aligned principles.

A similar pattern emerged during endorsement interviews with law enforcement associations. Despite Hilton campaigning heavily on a traditional law-and-order platform—promising to reverse police defunding and address rising crime—the police union endorsed Becerra instead. The union candidly admitted their endorsement came down to a single issue: Becerra promised to pass a specific bill increasing their public pensions.

- Chief Executive Magazine has ranked California 50th out of 50 states for business climate for over a decade. - Hilton chose "small business owner" for his three-word ballot designation after tracking his career back to graduating from Oxford in 1990. - Public pension obligations consume massive portions of state budgets; in public education, approximately one-fifth of school funding goes toward teacher pensions before reaching classrooms.

[[58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3523s)(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3523)] Missing Audit Money and the Decline of Downtown LA

Rogan and Hilton criticize the massive misallocation of public funds in California, highlighting the state's failure to address chronic homelessness despite spending billions. Rogan points out that over $24 billion intended to combat homelessness has vanished without clear accounting, noting that Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed state audits of the spending twice. A similar situation unfolded in Los Angeles, where Mayor Karen Bass blocked an audit requested by a federal judge following a lawsuit by downtown business owners. Rogan argues that redirecting those lost billions toward police funding, better training, and community safety would yield immediate improvements on the streets.

The conversation turns to the severe degradation of downtown Los Angeles, particularly around Skid Row. Rogan describes downtown LA as sketchy and unsafe, recalling a personal story where taking his children to get donuts in downtown turned into a stressful exercise in dodging erratic individuals on the sidewalk. Hilton describes staying near City Hall on a Saturday night and encountering streets smelling of waste and filled with wandering, zombie-like individuals. They express frustration that the second-largest city in the wealthiest nation tolerates complete lawlessness in its urban core, crippling local real estate and driving out standard commerce.

- Governor Gavin Newsom twice vetoed legislation mandating an audit of California's $24 billion homelessness budget. - A federal lawsuit in Los Angeles revealed an estimated $2 billion spent locally on homelessness without proper auditing, which Mayor Karen Bass opposed. - The LAPD projects that by the time Los Angeles hosts the 2028 Summer Olympics, the police force could be operating at half of its required staffing levels. - Skid Row spans approximately 50 blocks in downtown Los Angeles, acting as a dead zone for commercial real estate and long-term business leases. - Rogan recalls seeing Skid Row's sprawling encampments as far back as 2004 while filming *Fear Factor* in abandoned downtown buildings.

[01:04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3873s) The Squalor of Skid Row and Harm Reduction Controversies

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton discuss the horrifying deterioration of Los Angeles's Skid Row, reflecting on documentaries detailing how the area turned into a squalid epicenter of misery. Rogan notes how historical practices effectively contained vagrants and vulnerable populations by dumping them downtown to clean up wealthy areas like Beverly Hills. Now, however, the problem has spilled past those borders into the wider state. Hilton points out that government programs operating under the banner of "harm reduction" actively distribute drugs and drug paraphernalia, handing out opioids as fentanyl substitutes and providing free crack pipes.

---

Hilton recounts trying to film inside harm reduction facilities, noting that journalist Christopher Rufo from the Manhattan Institute successfully gained access to expose how government-funded organizations operate. Both express shock at the return of medieval diseases eradicated a century ago, driven by extreme unsanitary conditions.

- **Christopher Rufo's Exposé**: Journalist Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute gained access to document government-funded programs providing crack pipes and drug supplies. - **Historic Containment Strategy**: Early city policies cleared areas like Beverly Hills by rounding up homeless individuals and dropping them off downtown. - **Harm Reduction Model**: Government programs distribute opioids as lower-risk alternatives to fentanyl alongside drug paraphernalia like crack pipes.

---

[01:06:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3993s) Crime, Masked Home Invasions, and Policy Ideology

Hiltons observes that degradation and squalor are visible across the state, accompanied by a sharp surge in home invasions and breaking-and-entering crimes. A alarming trend in these violent home invasions is that criminals almost universally wear masks. To combat this, Hilton's campaign has worked on legislative proposals to add strict sentencing enhancements specifically for perpetrators who conceal their identities while committing crimes.

Rogan argues that releasing violent, repeat offenders back onto the streets seems like a deliberate strategy to destroy a city, executed under the guise of progressive reform and buzzwords surrounding systemic racism. However, Hilton highlights a rare bright spot: newly elected Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman. Hochman represents a pragmatic shift away from progressive ideology, though he still faces a hostile broader political system captured by rigid party dogma.

- **Masked Home Invasions**: Criminals routinely wear masks during home invasions; new proposed policy seeks mandatory sentencing enhancements for covering one's face during a crime. - **Nathan Hochman's Election**: Newly elected LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman is highlighted as a positive step toward practical, non-ideological prosecution.

---

[01:08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4125s) Party Loyalty, Ideological Rigidity, and the Independent Trap

Hilton details how political enforcement in Sacramento forces strict adherence to the party line. He shares an example of a Democratic state legislator who broke rank on a bill pushed by government labor unions; in retaliation, the union funded the campaign of a Republican opponent solely to punish the lawmaker and keep others in line. Rogan laments America's rigid two-party system, noting that mainstream voters are trapped between extremes—forced to choose between "the dumbest MAGA people" or hyper-progressive activists in cities like Portland.

When Rogan asks why Hilton doesn't run as an independent—citing figures like Michael Shellenberger or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who struggled against the two-party apparatus—Hilton explains his realistic path forward. While running as a Republican, he considers himself independent-minded and views his outsider status as an advantage.

- **Union Retaliation**: A Democratic legislator who voted against a major government union saw that union fund a Republican challenger to enforce party discipline. - **Independent Candidates**: Reference to Michael Shellenberger's two independent runs for California governor and RFK Jr.'s independent presidential bid. - **Traditional Liberal Values**: Rogan defines classic 1990s "Bill Clinton liberalism" as supporting gay rights, civil rights, women's rights, and a basic safety net, contrasting it with modern ideological stances.

---

[01:12:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4353s) One-Party Rule and Special-Interest Capture in Sacramento

The conversation shifts to how one-party dominance leads directly to institutional decay. Hilton points out that Democrats have held a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the California Legislature for over a decade, along with every statewide office, major city administration, and 61 Democratic appointees on the State Supreme Court. Hilton argues this creates an arrogant mindset where politicians feel untouchable, leading to widespread special-interest capture by big unions and corporate developers.

Hilton draws a direct parallel to Hungary under Viktor Orbán, noting that his own family lives there and experienced how 16 years of unchecked single-party control led to pervasive corruption. Both agree that giving absolute power to either party—Republican or Democrat—inevitably breeds the exact same outcome without proper oversight and opposition.

- **Supermajority Status**: Democrats have held a two-thirds supermajority in the California Legislature for over 10 years, controlling all 61 appointments on the California Supreme Court and all statewide executive positions for 16 years. - **Hungarian Parallel**: Hilton draws comparisons between California's 16-year single-party run and Viktor Orbán's 16-year rule in Hungary, citing similar patterns of corruption. - **Reform Allies**: Republican Assembly Leader James Gallagher, Carl DeMaio, and David Tangipa are mentioned as key allies fighting against Sacramento's interest-group capture.

---

[01:16:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4596s) The "Homeless Industrial Complex" and Housing First Mandates

Rogan and Hilton criticize the state's handling of $24 billion in missing homelessness funds. Hilton details how the state auditor—at the request of lawmakers—published a report showing the money was unaccounted for, yet Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed efforts to investigate where the funds actually went.

Hilton breaks down the two pillars of what he calls the "Homeless Industrial Complex": non-profits and crony housing developers. Under California's official "Housing First" mandate, it is legally forbidden for state funds to go to any organization that requires personal accountability from recipients, such as mandatory addiction treatment, mental health recovery, or job training. Meanwhile, massive sums are funneled to a select group of developers building "permanent supportive housing" units at exorbitant prices.

- **$24 Billion Missing**: A state audit revealed $24 billion spent on homelessness was unaccounted for, with no measurable tracking of outcomes as homelessness increased. - **Housing First Policy**: State regulations mandate that state funds cannot be given to programs requiring addiction recovery, treatment, or job training as a prerequisite for assistance. - **Crony Developers**: A small group of select housing developers receive the bulk of state funding to construct high-cost "permanent supportive housing" units.

---

{/* Reason: Offers structured follow-up paths directly expanding on Hilton's campaign platforms and California governance issues. */}

[01:18:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4730s) The $900,000 Homeless Unit: Housing Costs and the IMD Rule

Steve Hilton exposes the staggering price tag behind California's permanent supportive housing initiatives, where building a single unit for a unhoused person can cost anywhere from $600,000 up to $900,000 or $1 million in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Citing a friend who builds apartments in Northern California, Hilton notes that without the layers of government bureaucracy, taxpayer-funded union requirements, specific material mandates, and environmental regulations, the actual construction cost would be closer to $250,000 "per door"—a fourth of current expenditure. Beyond the inflated costs, Hilton points out that these projects fail to solve the underlying problem: housing an active fentanyl addict without mandatory treatment simply results in them returning to the streets to deal and buy drugs.

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton connect this crisis to the legacy of the Reagan administration, which closed the doors of state-run mental institutions without establishing functional alternatives for public health and safety. Hilton highlights how a prevailing anti-institutional ideology was later codified into federal healthcare policy via Medicaid's IMD (Institutions for Mental Diseases) rule. Under this regulation, federal Medicaid reimbursement is strictly denied to any mental health treatment facility with more than 16 beds. Because providers cannot receive federal funding for larger facilities, there is zero financial incentive to build scalable, modern mental health institutions, leaving society with fragmented, small-scale care that fails to address the scope of the problem.

- Permanent supportive housing units in LA and the Bay Area cost between $600,000 and $1,000,000 to construct per unit. - Basic construction costs without government mandates are estimated at around $250,000 per door. - The Medicaid IMD (Institutions for Mental Diseases) rule caps federally reimbursed mental health facilities at a maximum of 16 beds, disincentivizing large-scale psychiatric care facilities.

[01:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4890s) Forced Involuntary Commitment and the Canadian Mental Health Act Incident

The conversation shifts to the dangers of state overreach and the potential abuse of the psychiatric system. Rogan recounts a viral video involving Canadian police officers and a doctor pulling over a man in his vehicle to involuntarily commit him under the Mental Health Act. Despite the man remaining entirely calm, coherent, and articulate—asking why he was being certified without an official psychiatric evaluation and offering to voluntarily make an appointment—the authorities insisted on taking him directly to a hospital for testing and psychiatric evaluation in a controlled environment.

Rogan and Hilton dissect the chilling nature of the interaction. While initial reports claimed the man was a "conservative influencer" and some speculated online that he might have posted manic videos or acted strangely off-camera, Rogan points out that the immediate interaction showed no evidence of him being a danger to himself or others. They discuss how socialized medicine combined with authoritarian government measures can be weaponized against dissenters or "rabble-rousers." Rogan also notes the surreal follow-up footage from inside the facility, where the man was forced to tape up his windows because his room lacked drapes, highlighting a dark trend toward medicalized inhumanity.

- The viral incident involved the CAR87 program in Vancouver, a joint operation between Vancouver Coastal Health and the Vancouver Police Department. - A resident psychiatrist (Dr. Emery) certified the individual under the Mental Health Act based on prior reports from a doctor (Dr. Taylor) and family conversations, rather than a formal in-person examination at the scene. - Rogan voices concern over the ease with which individuals can be institutionalized without due process, warning against the creeping authoritarianism in government-run medical systems.

[01:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5383s) AI Dystopianism, Dario Amodei, and the "Machines of Loving Grace" Essay

Hilton shifts the discussion on medicalization and technological overreach to the ongoing debate surrounding artificial intelligence regulations. He highlights recent public exchanges involving Dario Amodei, the CEO and co-founder of Anthropic. While tech leaders are accused of hyping up AI doom scenarios to push for government regulations that protect big tech incumbents from competition, Amodei responded on X (formerly Twitter) by pointing to his 14,000-word essay, *Machines of Loving Grace*, to prove he holds an optimistic vision for the future.

However, Hilton describes Amodei's "positive" vision as deeply dystopian and unsettling. In the essay, Amodei envisions a future where human beings can no longer make useful contributions to the economy and people have little to do besides play video games. To address the resulting loss of purpose and depression, Amodei suggests that humanity already understands how to medicate people with pharmaceuticals like Ritalin and that AI could make mental health treatments even better. Rogan and Hilton express horror at the notion that leading AI founders view a future of mass sedating and numbing unemployed humans as a utopian outcome.

- Dario Amodei is the CEO and founder of Anthropic, one of the leading AI companies alongside OpenAI. - Amodei's 14,000-word essay, titled *Machines of Loving Grace*, argues that AI can drastically improve human lives, but notes that pharmaceutical interventions (referencing Ritalin) can help manage human psychological needs when economic utility vanishes. - Rogan mentions reports of lead AI developers experiencing existential crises and leaving top tech companies to retreat from society, write poetry, or prepare for impending civilizational shifts. - The hosts recall a public moment where investor Peter Thiel paused extensively when asked if the human race should survive, underlining the strange philosophy held by key figures shaping the AI industry.

[01:33:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5633s) Mental Health Interventions, SSRIs, and Natural Alternatives

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton begin by clarifying a discussion regarding AI-driven neuroscience and future mental health interventions. They address how AI could potentially engineer more effective or potent treatments than existing drugs like Ritalin or SSRIs. Joe emphasizes that he is not entirely anti-SSRI, sharing a personal story about a close friend who was severely depressed and suicidal; getting him to a psychiatrist and onto SSRIs saved his life, allowing him to eventually adjust his life and safely wean off them. However, Joe contrasts this success story with the severe danger of overprescribing psychiatric drugs, criticizing the state of healthcare and pointing out extreme cases like Canada's assisted dying programs (MAID).

The conversation pivots to the over-reliance on chemical solutions when natural alternatives exist. Joe argues that fundamental lifestyle habits—such as proper nutrition, exercise, and strong community support—are completely free and highly effective. He highlights how simple bodyweight exercises like push-ups and squats cost nothing, yet society favors addictive pharmaceutical solutions that disrupt human physiology. Joe notes that many people who stay on these medications for decades suffer drastic changes to their personality, erratic behavior, and debilitating physical side effects, including sexual dysfunction and genital numbness.

- Joe shares that a good friend who had been off medications for years was forced back on them because two decades of continuous use permanently altered his nervous system. - Exercise, nutrition, and community bonding are promoted as non-addictive, zero-cost first-line defenses against mental health struggles.

---

[01:36:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5761s) Foreign Corruption Allegations and Political Scandals

The hosts examine a news report from Snopes detailing an incident in Vancouver where a political commentator with over 67,000 Instagram followers was arrested after posting a document on Google Docs. The document alleged that the Canadian government and local authorities were selling out Vancouver to China, enabling illegal Chinese police stations and turning the area into a police state. Joe and Steve discuss how easy it is for corrupt entities to label whistleblowers or critics as "insane" or "crazy" in order to discredit legitimate exposure of high-level foreign influence and corruption.

This leads to a discussion on confirmed real-world political espionage scandals in the United States. Joe mentions the Mayor of Arcadia, California, who was exposed as an operative for the Chinese government, as well as the ongoing political fallout surrounding California Congressman Eric Swalwell and his relationship with suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang (Fang Fang). Steve shares a lighthearted anecdote about preparing for a gubernatorial debate where he desperately wanted to make a joke about the "Fang Fang" situation, but hesitated over accuracy concerns before Swalwell Ultimately skipped the debate due to a legislative vote.

- The document posted in Vancouver cited national security risks recognized by alliances such as NATO, NORAD, the Five Eyes, and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security. - Joe references the 1997 Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts film *Conspiracy Theory*, noting how obsessive or seemingly "crazy" individuals are sometimes the only ones who uncover actual truths.

---

[01:41:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6065s) The Decline of Comedy Movies and Ideological Capture

The discussion shifts to classic American comedy films and how societal culture surrounding humor has changed. Steve recounts driving across California for his campaign and catching up on iconic movies he had missed, including the 2007 comedy *Superbad*. He reflects on trying to show it to his young children years ago before realizing how inappropriate it was for that age, but praises its brilliant writing, hilarious premises, and clever execution. Both Joe and Steve agree that iconic comedies like *Superbad*, *The Hangover*, or *Ace Ventura: Pet Detective* could never be produced in today's Hollywood environment.

Joe explains that creative teams on the political left succumbed to an ideological dogma that effectively destroyed mainstream narrative comedy. When an ideology dictates strict boundaries on what can be mocked, it acts like a religious censorship against "blasphemy." However, Joe points out that stand-up comedy managed to survive and flourish because independent distribution and the internet freed comedians from Hollywood gatekeepers. He rejects the label of "anti-woke," stating that real comedy is inherently anti-establishment and exists purely to find what is funny, regardless of who holds power.

- Steve highlights the classroom dick-drawing scene in *Superbad* as a peak moment of clever writing. - Popular media personalities like former MTV VJ Kennedy (now a Fox commentator) are highlighted for holding sharp, independent libertarian viewpoints outside the traditional party apparatus.

---

[01:45:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6321s) Stand-Up Comedy, Louis C.K., and Comedy Mothership

Steve shares that his staff member Eric introduced him to the stand-up specials of Louis C.K., whom both hosts praise as one of the greatest comedic minds of all time. They address the controversies surrounding Louis C.K.'s past behavior, distinguishing his bizarre personal misconduct from preying on people or systematic crimes like those committed by Bill Cosby. Joe highlights Louis C.K.'s raw, brilliant return special where he directly addressed his actions on stage with honesty and humor, acknowledging that while people have every right to refrain from watching, his artistic mastery of stand-up remains undeniable.

Joe reveals that Louis C.K. personally visited his comedy club, Comedy Mothership in Austin, Texas, when the building was still a bare-bones shell. Louis toured the layout and provided key structural and aesthetic recommendations that Joe fully implemented. Joe concludes this section by explaining the naming convention of the rooms at Comedy Mothership, which are named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" after the two atomic bombs dropped during World War II.

- Louis C.K. provided crucial layout and acoustics advice during the early construction phase of Joe Rogan's Austin comedy venue. - The two performance rooms inside Comedy Mothership are named "Fat Man" and "Little Boy."

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of the provided transcript section:

[01:47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6465s) Designing Comedy Mothership and Supporting the Staff

Joe Rogan explains the lore behind naming the Comedy Mothership rooms. Since UFO sightings in America exploded after the advent of the nuclear bomb in the 1940s and events like the 1947 Roswell crash, the rooms were themed around nuclear history as a nod to UFO folklore rather than making light of tragedy. Rogan recounts how Louis C.K. offered crucial layout advice: make the stage smaller in the little room, lower the ceiling right to the top of the doorframe, and apply precise sound deadening to ensure crystal-clear acoustics. Rather than imposing his own vision top-down, Rogan ran design choices through a collective vote with comedian friends like Brian Simpson, Ron White, and Tony Hinchcliffe. Every practical feature requested was implemented, including monitors in the green room to watch the stage.

The ethos extended far beyond architecture to employee care and operational strategy. Rogan prioritized staff health and fair compensation over maximizing revenue, aiming only to avoid losing money.

- **Employee Benefits:** Free mental health services, counseling, and psychological/psychiatric care for all staff, alongside standard healthcare coverage. - **Comedian Compensation:** Paying performers significantly higher rates than traditional comedy clubs. - **Collaborative Feedback:** Incorporating input from visiting comics like Louis C.K. to refine the venue.

---

[01:50:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6609s) The Art, Craft, and Eccentricity of Stand-Up Comedy

Rogan notes that while Louis C.K. is remarkably brilliant, he is also "fucking weird"—a trait shared by virtually all top-tier comedians, including Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Tony Hinchcliffe, and Shane Gillis. Steve Hilton draws a parallel to his own political rallies, where he must keep hundreds of people entertained without being boring, though he acknowledges stand-up is vastly harder because it relies entirely on relentless humor rather than political topics or occasional self-deprecating jokes. Rogan quotes Joey Diaz's famous summary of the craft: "It's the fucking hardest, easiest thing you'll ever do." Flowing on stage and killing is effortless, but constructing the material requires immense solitude, grinding at a notebook or computer, and testing ideas that only have a 50/50 chance of working.

The writing process is further nurtured by spontaneous camaraderie in green rooms. Rogan describes how a casual observation can be identified by fellow comics who yell, "Write that down!" and force each other to turn it into a bit.

- **Writing Ratios:** Rogan jokes that finding a joke that survives the stage is like the Canadian healthcare system's MAID program—"one out of 20." - **Word Order & Pacing:** Hilton and Rogan reflect on how subtle tweaks in word choice or phrasing completely transform a joke's success. - **Louis C.K.'s Technique:** Opening a set with his absolute best joke to force subsequent material to rise to an even higher standard.

---

[01:52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6735s) Stage Presence, Audience Connection, and Venue Setup

Discussing the mental state required on stage, Rogan emphasizes that a comedian must be 100% present in the specific thought or premise they are delivering, rather than mechanics or what comes next. While maintaining a structured setlist, comedians must remain flexible enough to detour when an audience interaction or sudden inspiration strikes, then seamlessly weave back into their routine. Hilton notes similarities in political speeches where he balances long and short versions of topics like high-speed rail, joking that Donald Trump essentially performs stand-up "bits" on stage, such as his impression of Joe Biden getting lost.

The physical format of a venue drastically alters the performer's connection with the crowd. Rogan expresses a strong preference for performing "in the round" in 16,000-seat arenas over traditional flat-stage arena setups.

- **In the Round Dynamics:** A central circular stage allows the crowd to see each other having fun, creating an intimate hive where the comedian looks into the eyes of over 6,000 nearby audience members. - **Flat Arena Disconnect:** Standing on a high, distant stage facing a flat arena feels detached, making it feel like "delivering something rather than connecting." - **Theaters:** Performing in 3,000-seat theaters maintains a strong sense of intimacy compared to vast stadiums.

---

[01:58:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7130s) Crowd Sizes and Donald Trump's Stand-Up Style

Hilton shares his experience transitioning from smaller audiences to speaking in front of hundreds of cheering people at political events, mentioning a speech at a Megyn Kelly event in a Bakersfield arena as one of his larger turnouts. Rogan recalls his own largest crowd: hosting the UFC weigh-ins at the Ellipse near the White House in front of 80,000 people. While reading names and weights is easy work, the raw physical energy of 80,000 screaming fans is overwhelming.

Rogan praises Shane Gillis, who recently set a world record by selling out a 76,000-seat football stadium in Philadelphia. Expressing admiration for Gillis's contagious personality and dedication to stand-up, Rogan highlights one of his all-time favorite bits by Gillis regarding George Washington's wooden and lead dentures at his historic estate museum.

- **Largest Attendance:** Rogan MCed UFC weigh-ins for 80,000 people at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. - **Shane Gillis Record:** Sold out a 76,000-capacity football stadium in Philadelphia. - **Austin Comedy Scene:** Hilton credits Rogan with building the thriving Austin comedy ecosystem, though Rogan insists it was a collective effort of all the comedians who relocated together.

[02:01:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7292s) Leaving Lockdown States for Texas

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton reflect on why so many comedians and individuals relocated to Texas during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rogan points out that the migration wasn't driven by his comedy club (Comedy Mothership) because comedians like Tom Segura and Ron White had already moved to Austin before the club even existed. Stand-up comedians are inherently "addicted" to performing, and Texas offered the rare freedom where people could perform, go out to restaurants, and keep businesses open while states like California remained under strict lockdown policies.

- Comedians relocated to Austin primarily because fellow comics were already there and businesses remained operational. - Texas implemented only a brief, initial lockdown before encouraging people to return to work, contrasting sharply with prolonged restrictions in California.

[02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7355s) Media Coverage and Anthony Fauci’s Gain-of-Function Research

Steve Hilton recounts his time hosting a show on Fox News where he conducted investigative reporting into Anthony Fauci and the origin of COVID-19. Drawing on contacts at Stanford University, Hilton laid out evidence regarding gain-of-function research. They discuss how Fauci allegedly promoted the narrative that the virus originated naturally, framing lab leak discussions as racist, while simultaneously championing dangerous virus engineering.

- Hilton cites a December 2011 article co-authored by Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins (then head of the NIH) asserting that engineering potentially dangerous viruses in a laboratory was a risk worth taking. - A 2014 moratorium on gain-of-function research instituted under the Obama administration applied to ongoing projects, yet funding for bat coronavirus research continued. - Under the Trump administration, new protocols required independent review for renewed projects involving potential pandemic pathogens, which Hilton asserts Fauci bypassed. - Concerns are raised regarding a preemptive 10-year presidential pardon granted to Fauci for unconvicted actions, alongside his use of the Fifth Amendment during congressional inquiries.

[02:07:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7658s) Early Lockdown Data and Academic Persecution

The conversation turns to the early days of the 2020 lockdowns, specifically the "15 Days to Slow the Spread" initiative. Hilton points out that early seroprevalence studies in Santa Clara County, California—conducted by Stanford researchers Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis—showed the case fatality rate of COVID-19 was far lower than initial projections. Rather than adjusting policies, public health officials ignored the data.

- Santa Clara County was the first jurisdiction in the nation to enact a stay-at-home order, driven by public health officer Dr. Sara Cody. - Dr. Jay Bhattacharya faced professional retaliation and suspension from Stanford Medicine, led by administrators connected to local public health decision-makers, for publishing data critical of lockdown efficacy. - Bhattacharya was subsequently censored and shadowbanned on major social media platforms like Twitter.

[02:10:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7855s) Historical Parallels: The AIDS Epidemic, AZT, and Testing Methods

Rogan draws parallels between the response to COVID-19 and Anthony Fauci’s leadership during the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. He highlights how AZT (Azidothymidine)—a failed cancer chemotherapy drug known for severe toxicity—was heavily promoted as the primary treatment for AIDS patients, including those who were asymptomatic.

- Rogan notes that Kary Mullis, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique, publicly criticized Fauci for misapplying PCR tests to diagnose active viral illness by running high cycle thresholds. - Excessive cycle counts led to high rates of false positives during both the AIDS epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. - The depiction of people seeking alternative treatments for HIV and being denied access was central to the movie *Dallas Buyers Club*, as well as investigative works like those by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

[02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7993s) Pharmaceutical Advertising and Media Influence

Rogan and Hilton discuss why major news networks rarely investigate pharmaceutical companies or public health officials. Rogan argues that pharmaceutical advertising revenue serves primarily to secure media compliance rather than directly drive consumer purchasing.

- The United States and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription pharmaceutical drugs on television. - Rogan asserts that commercial buys on networks like CNN protect drug companies from investigative reporting on vaccine injuries, drug recalls, and severe adverse side effects. - Hilton mentions a political satire video created by Nicole Shanahan (during her vice-presidential campaign alongside RFK Jr.) parodying pharmaceutical commercials to satirize "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS).

[02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) Unaccompanied Migrant Children at the Border

Hilton highlights the human cost of federal border policies under former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra. He explains that HHS is legally responsible for the care and processing of all unaccompanied minors who cross the U.S. border.

- Official records indicate that 479,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border during the four years of the Biden administration. - The influx overwhelmed federal resources, leading HHS to set up emergency processing facilities and camps across Florida, Texas, and California.

[02:16:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8202s) The HHS Unaccompanied Children Crisis and Xavier Becerra

Steve Hilton lays out a damning timeline regarding Xavier Becerra’s tenure as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). Hilton explains that during a surge of migrant children at the border, emergency holding facilities—such as the one at the Pomona exhibition halls holding around 1,500 children—were overwhelmed. Reports emerged of widespread physical and sexual abuse inside the camps, perpetrated by older teenagers and gang members. Eager to avoid negative media coverage and politically motivated comparisons to "kids in cages," Becerra allegedly ordered staff to prioritize "speed over safety" to clear the facilities rapidly.

Hilton details how whistleblowers came forward after Becerra’s team dismantled essential background checks, identity verification, and home visits intended to ensure sponsors were safe. Case workers who raised red flags were reportedly fired or silenced. In some instances, hundreds of children were discharged to fraudulent front addresses like container lots, or handed over to individuals wanted by Interpol. Hilton notes that a New York Times investigation in 2023 exposed how children ended up trapped in forced labor—including a 13-year-old child whose arm was torn off in a meatpacking plant accident—and severe sex trafficking rings. RFK Jr. ("Bobby") summarized the failure by calling Becerra's HHS "the largest child trafficking operation in history."

- **Scope of Missing Children:** HHS reports indicated that approximately 330,000 migrant children remained untracked or missing, with at least 40 documented deaths. - **Ignored Calls for Help:** A dedicated safety hotline printed on sponsor paperwork received 65,000 unanswered calls from children in dangerous situations. - **Shift in Demographics:** A whistleblower caseworker in Pomona noted that local sex trafficking victims went from being predominantly African American girls to almost entirely Latina girls following the camp's rapid discharges. - **Political Backlash:** Hilton emphasizes the hypocrisy of Becerra running for Governor of California while managing to evade mainstream accountability for these systemic failures.

---

[02:25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8720s) Border Ideology, Demographics, and the Voter ID Battle

Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton debate the true motivations behind open-border policies and California's voting regulations. Hilton argues that much of the border mismanagement stems from an ideological belief among progressives that any border restriction is inherently racist. Rogan counters with a more cynical perspective, pointing to statements from Democratic leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer regarding citizenship pathways. Rogan argues that shifting populations into key states inflates census numbers—which dictate congressional seats—and creates a dependent voter base for Democrats.

The conversation turns to California's strict prohibition on requiring identification at polling places. Hilton calls the law absurd and notes that a voter ID initiative was placed on the November ballot. However, he accuses California Attorney General Rob Bonta of using "political hackery" to manipulate the ballot summary. Bonta allegedly changed the neutral wording right before printing to frame the measure as restrictive and negative, explicitly stating it would "prohibit voting" rather than setting standard identity verification.

- **Voter ID Disparities:** Rogan points out that photo ID is universally required for daily life—from purchasing alcohol to checking into a hotel or driving a car. - **Gas Price Inequities:** California consistently maintains the highest gas prices in the nation, outstripping even isolated island states like Hawaii. - **Energy Supply Paradox:** Despite vast local reserves, California imports over 80% of its oil from distant regions like Iraq and the Amazon rainforest due to strict state-level environmental mandates.

---

[02:32:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9160s) Regulatory Bottlenecks and the California Air Resources Board

Hilton explains why California's energy and fuel costs remain isolated from the rest of the country. A major factor is the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which mandates a unique, highly regulated "boutique blend" of clean-burning fuel intended to reduce smog. Because no interstate pipelines connect California to broader national fuel networks, the state operates as an "energy island" dependent entirely on local refineries running under strict regulatory burdens.

When global events or federal policies cause baseline fuel price spikes, California working-class residents bear a disproportionate burden compared to the rest of the nation. Hilton notes that politicians routinely blame external factors—such as foreign wars or federal actions—to dodge accountability for local taxation and CARB regulations that artificially drive up daily living costs.

[02:33:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9210s) Gas Taxes, Oil Shipping, and Climate "Ideology"

Steve Hilton lays out his frustration with California's state legislature, noting that while Democratic politicians run around preaching about solving the "affordability crisis," they just increased the state gas tax. While a governor cannot single-handedly override the legislature on every law, Hilton points out that gas costs are heavily inflated by stringent refinery regulations and hidden taxes. He highlights policies like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the "Cap-and-Invest" program—which funds the state's controversial High-Speed Rail—as stealth taxes passed onto energy companies and consumers.

Adding to the absurdity, Hilton argues that California refuses to produce its own oil under its world-leading environmental standards—such as extracting in Kern County near Bakersfield and piping it a short distance to refineries in Long Beach and Torrance. Instead, the state imports huge amounts of crude via ocean tankers, primarily from Middle Eastern countries like Iraq. Joe Rogan points out that these massive tankers burn dirty bunker fuel the entire journey, which Hilton highlights as a deep hypocrisy: California increases global carbon emissions under the guise of being "climate warriors."

Rogan and Hilton characterize this approach not as actual environmental stewardship, but as "climate posturing" and ideological doctrine. They describe the political dynamic as a pseudo-religion or cult, where agreeing to slogans like "climate change is real" or "science is science" acts as mandatory virtue signaling, and questioning the orthodoxy leads to social excommunication.

- **Refinery & Pipeline Disconnect:** Local oil from Kern County could be piped directly to Long Beach/Torrance refineries under strictly regulated California standards, but is bypassed for imported oil. - **Top Foreign Oil Supplier:** Iraq is listed as the primary Middle Eastern source of imported crude arriving on tankers burning heavy bunker fuel. - **Hidden Gas Taxes:** Programs like the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Cap-and-Invest directly fund projects like the California High-Speed Rail while raising fuel prices at the pump.

---

[02:35:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9358s) Offshore Windmills vs. Existing Natural Gas Infrastructure

Hilton recounts speaking at a conference in Sacramento where he confronted climate advocates about what he views as irrational green energy mandates. While he supports innovation and clean energy in general, both he and Rogan strongly condemn large-scale wind turbines as inefficient money pits. Rogan points out that turbine blades cannot be recycled, ending up buried in landfills where they never degrade, while also catching fire and killing millions of birds.

---

Hilton details California's ambitious proposal to construct massive offshore floating wind farms off Morro Bay and Humboldt County. Because the ocean floor drops off sharply, the state plans to build floating turbines roughly 1,000 feet tall—nearly the height of the Eiffel Tower—with proposals calling for up to 10,000 of these floating giants in deep waters. Hilton notes that Donald Trump previously halted similar projects and lawsuits are underway to resume them.

What makes this push infuriating to Hilton is that California already possesses enough natural gas-fired power plants to supply all of its electricity needs—capable of generating around 300 gigawatt-hours per year when the state only consumes roughly 270. Instead of utilizing this existing infrastructure, the state throttles these plants to run at 10% to 20% capacity just to serve as backup when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. As a result, California residents pay double the national average for electricity, second only to Hawaii.

- **Proposed Floating Wind Farms:** Target locations include Morro Bay (Central Coast) and Humboldt (North Coast). - **Turbine Scale:** Planned floating turbines stand around 1,000 feet tall (comparable to the Eiffel Tower), with long-term proposals mentioning up to 10,000 units. - **Natural Gas Capacity:** California's existing gas power plants can produce ~300 GWh annually against a state demand of ~270 GWh, but are throttled down to 10–20% capacity to support intermittent renewables. - **Electric Bills:** California electricity rates are the second highest in the United States, behind Hawaii.

---

[02:38:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9536s) The Human Cost of Climate Leadership and Economic Disconnect

When confronting attendees at the Sacramento conference, Hilton asked them a direct question: "What is the impact of any of this on climate change... What is the impact on global temperatures?" The room fell silent because the actual impact on global temperatures is essentially zero. When attendees countered that California must play a "leadership role," Hilton shot back, "Who's following? No one, because it's crazy."

Rogan and Hilton contrast California's approach with China, where the government and private sector operate pragmatically without sacrificing wealth for moral posturing. While California drives up energy costs for working-class families, China continues to rapidly construct coal-fired power plants—ironically using that dirty energy to manufacture the solar panels shipped back to California to make local elites feel good. Rogan notes that free markets force solutions to be profitable and sensible, whereas government mandates ignore market realities.

When traveling across the state for hundreds of campaign events, Hilton notes that working-class voters aren't casually wishing him good luck; they are intensely pleading with him to win because they feel crushed by soaring utility bills and rising living costs, unable to afford to stay but unwilling to be forced out of their homes.

- **Conference Interaction:** Hilton challenged climate organizers on whether California's mandates measurably reduce global temperatures, pointing out that no other regions are following California's economic self-sabotage. - **China's Energy Strategy:** China continues building coal plants to power factories that produce imported solar panels, highlighting the irony of global supply chains. - **Voter Urgency:** Working-class Californians express desperate, intense pleas for economic relief, as utility costs and inflation have drastically worsened over the past decade.

---

[02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) Regulatory Overreach: The Replacement Tire Mandate

Hilton and Rogan turn their attention to a prime example of California bureaucracy: a unanimous vote by the California Energy Commission approving new regulations restricting which replacement tires consumers can buy. Brought to light by Sacramento investigative reporter Ashley Zavala, the rule enforces strict energy-efficiency standards on rolling resistance. Commission members claimed the rule would "shelter the public from higher costs in the long run," even while acknowledging it could ban up to 70% of replacement tires currently sold in the state.

Pulling up state documentation on screen via Jamie, Rogan and Hilton dissect what "rolling resistance" actually means for drivers. Lowering rolling resistance requires tires with lower friction, which inherently reduces traction. Rogan points out the obvious safety and performance trade-offs: performance cars, trucks, and off-road vehicles rely on softer rubber compounds and deep treads for grip, meaning high-traction tires and popular off-road tires like those on Chevy trucks will fail these efficiency metrics and be outlawed.

Hilton highlights how this decision was driven by former Berkeley state senator Nancy Skinner unearthing a 20-year-old obscure regulatory statute. Without any direct input or vote from the public, an unelected commission passed a sweeping regulation that threatens the automotive market, all while the state struggles with top-nation rankings in homelessness, unemployment, poverty, taxes, and business flight.

- **Agency & Vote:** The California Energy Commission passed the new replacement tire regulations in a unanimous vote. - **Market Impact:** According to reporting by KCRA's Ashley Zavala, up to 70% of replacement tire models currently sold in California will fail to meet the new standards and be banned. - **Rolling Resistance Standard:** The rule drops the maximum allowable rolling resistance from 9.1 newtons per kiloton down to 7.2 N/kN starting in 2033. - **State Rankings:** Hilton points out California simultaneously holds the nation's highest unemployment rate, highest poverty rate, highest taxes, and highest cost of living.

[02:48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10105s) Regulatory Mandates and California’s New Tire Standards

The conversation reviews the projected metrics of a proposed California regulation targeting vehicle tires. The state claims the mandate would save nearly $1 billion annually in combined gasoline and electricity costs while reducing greenhouse gases by 2.00 million metric tons of CO2 per year—an environmental impact equivalent to removing 400,000 gas-powered vehicles from the road. The rule promises reductions in criteria air pollutants such as nitric oxide and particulate matter, cutting gasoline demand by 141 million gallons and electricity usage by 0.9 terawatt-hours annually.

However, the regulatory framework includes an extensive list of exclusions. Performance and specialty tires—including competition motorsports tires, winter snow tires, all-season winter performance tires, used or retreaded options, deep-tread designs, off-road and ATV tires, high-load index tires, and space-saver spare tires—are all exempt. Joe Rogan notes that with so many caveats, it seems less like a pragmatic cost-saving measure and more like an ideological climate calculation. Steve Hilton emphasizes that public reaction is overwhelmingly negative, reflecting fatigue over relentless state micromanagement.

- Proposed CO2 reduction: 2.00 million metric tons per year (equivalent to 400,000 gas cars). - Gasoline demand reduction: 141 million gallons per year. - Electricity demand reduction: 0.9 terawatt-hours per year. - Excluded categories: Competition/motorsport, winter snow, all-season winter performance, used/retreaded, deep tread, ATV/off-road, motorcycle, temporary spare, small rim (13-inch), emergency vehicle, high load index, under 50 mph, and space saver tires. - Media reports indicate the California tire rule could phase out up to 70% of current market inventory under a law originally passed in 2003 that sat dormant in Sacramento for 23 years.

[02:51:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10270s) Legislative Overreach and Executive Reform Mechanisms

Hilton highlights the structural lack of checks and balances within California's single-party state government. During a single legislative session the previous year, lawmakers passed 1,118 bills in a matter of months. To illustrate the absurdity, Hilton recalls printing out all the bills, which stacked up to double his height. He stresses that neither the public nor the legislators themselves are reading these massive documents, allowing special interest groups to quietly slip obscure provisions into law that resurface decades later to disrupt daily life.

To counter this bureaucratic overreach, Hilton outlines two main administrative levers available to the governor. First, the governor oversees the executive branch and has the authority to fire, replace, merge, or eliminate executive board members and agency officials who push through non-elected regulations. Second, the governor holds veto power over legislation. While a two-thirds supermajority in the legislature can override a veto, Hilton notes that California lawmakers have not overridden a gubernatorial veto since 1979 because doing so forces them to publicly justify controversial bills under intense media scrutiny.

- Bills passed in recent session: 1,118 bills within a few months. - Last legislative veto override in California: 1979. - Gubernatorial authority: Executive branch appointments, board mergers, agency cutbacks, legislative vetoes, and budget proposals.

[02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) California’s High-Speed Rail Project and "Operation Zero Waste"

Hilton breaks down his campaign initiative, "Operation Zero Waste," which aims to reallocate funds by canceling costly programs like free healthcare for illegal immigrants and the state's notorious high-speed rail project. When Rogan asks how much has been spent on high-speed rail so far, Hilton confirms the total stands at $15 billion—despite zero tracks actually being laid.

The project's history reveals staggering schedule slips and budget overruns. Approved by voters in 2008 with a $30 billion budget and a projected 2020 completion date, it promised a 2.5-hour train ride between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Today, official estimates place the total cost at $230 billion, with potential completion pushed into the late 2030s. The current plan relies on standard commuter trains from San Francisco to Merced, high-speed rail from Merced to Bakersfield, and a connecting bus route to carry passengers from Bakersfield to Los Angeles over the congested mountain passes.

- Initial 2008 proposition: $30 billion budget, 2020 target opening, 2.5-hour travel time from SF to LA. - Current project status: $15 billion spent, $230 billion projected total cost, completion pushed to late 2030s. - Proposed interim route: Standard train (SF to Merced), high-speed rail (Merced to Bakersfield), bus connection (Bakersfield to LA). - Mountain passage challenges: Requires four separate tunnels totaling 28 miles of tunneling and crosses the San Andreas Fault. - Funding source: Funded heavily via California's "Cap-and-Invest" program, financed through state gas taxes.

[02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) Concluding Banter, Political Authenticity, and Endorsement

Rogan and Hilton mock the political theater surrounding the rail project, referencing past clips of state leaders acknowledging the project's flaws while continuing to take tax dollars to keep it alive. As the conversation wraps up, Rogan expresses support for Hilton’s gubernatorial campaign, remarking that it would be "hilarious" and refreshing if he won.

Rogan jokes about not wanting any state government job himself, affirming that he has no plans to move back from Texas to California. However, he praises Hilton as a genuine, down-to-earth person rather than a fake "lizard person in a skin suit," noting that Hilton has maintained the exact same personality from before he entered politics. Hilton playfully invites Rogan to attend his inauguration in Sacramento, and Rogan agrees to attend if Hilton secures the victory.

- "It would be hilarious if you win." — Joe Rogan on Steve Hilton's candidacy for California Governor. - "You're not like some weird lizard person... There's a lot of these people that are just skin suits." — Joe Rogan on political authenticity in Sacramento. - "If you win, I'll come." — Joe Rogan committing to attend Hilton's gubernatorial inauguration.

## Notable quotes > [01:50:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6609s) It's the fucking hardest, easiest thing you'll ever do. — Joey Diaz

> [02:07:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7658s) 15 Days to Slow the Spread

> [02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7993s) Trump Derangement Syndrome

> [02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) speed over safety — Xavier Becerra

> [02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) kids in cages

> [02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) the largest child trafficking operation in history — Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

> [02:25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8720s) prohibit voting — Rob Bonta

> [02:32:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9160s) Cap-and-Invest

> [02:38:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9536s) What is the impact of any of this on climate change... What is the impact on global temperatures? — Steve Hilton

> [02:38:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9536s) Who's following? No one, because it's crazy. — Steve Hilton

> [02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) shelter the public from higher costs in the long run — California Energy Commission

> [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) Operation Zero Waste — Steve Hilton

> [02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) It would be hilarious if you win. — Joe Rogan

> [02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) You're not like some weird lizard person... There's a lot of these people that are just skin suits. — Joe Rogan

> [02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) If you win, I'll come. — Joe Rogan

## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Steve Hilton, Sacramento, California, Xavier Becerra, Disneyland, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Chief Executive Magazine, California Chamber of Commerce, CalChamber, Gavin Newsom, Karen Bass, LAPD, Christopher Rufo, Manhattan Institute, Nathan Hochman, Michael Shellenberger, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Bill Clinton, Viktor Orbán, James Gallagher, Carl DeMaio, David Tangipa, Ronald Reagan, CAR87, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver Police Department, Dario Amodei, Anthropic, OpenAI, Peter Thiel, Eric Swalwell, Christine Fang, Kennedy, Louis C.K., Bill Cosby, Comedy Mothership, Brian Simpson, Ron White, Tony Hinchcliffe, Dave Chappelle, Chris Rock, Shane Gillis, Joey Diaz, Joe Biden, Megyn Kelly, Tom Segura, Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, NIH, Fox News, Stanford University, Jay Bhattacharya, John Ioannidis, Dr. Sara Cody, Stanford Medicine, Twitter, Kary Mullis, CNN, Nicole Shanahan, HHS (Department of Health and Human Services), New York Times, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Rob Bonta, California Air Resources Board (CARB), Low Carbon Fuel Standard, High-Speed Rail, China, California Energy Commission, Ashley Zavala, KCRA, Nancy Skinner, Young Jamie

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA)

中文简报

希尔顿做客罗根节目阐述加州治理改革计划州长候选人 Steve Hilton 认为民主党一党控制已导致加利福尼亚州陷入经济衰退和儿童贩运，并承诺若当选将废除该州环境法规并停止向高铁拨款。 Steve Hilton 与 Joe Rogan 探讨了加利福尼亚州面临的政治及社会经济问题，就营商环境、无家可归者安置项目、边境政策和能源法规等议题对州领导层提出批评。Hilton 概述了他的州长竞选纲领，包括政治改革和削减预算；Rogan 则谈及了卫生政策、喜剧以及有关 COVID-19 起源的媒体报道。对话最后，Rogan 表示支持 Hilton 参选。加利福尼亚州面临严峻的经济和政治挑战，其营商环境在全美各州中排名垫底，同时还在高失业率、贫困和政治固化问题中苦苦挣扎。 (48:36) Steve Hilton 批评加州的一党控制，将萨克拉门托的超级多数地位及特殊利益渗透比作 Viktor Orbán 在匈牙利的长期执政。 (72:33) 加州的“住房优先”指令和 240 亿美元的无家可归者预算因单套成本高昂、缺乏必要问责以及州审计被否决而遭到批评。 (76:36) 非自愿精神健康收治与减害计划的局限性，引发了关于城市衰败、露天毒品交易市场及公共卫生政策的争论。 (81:30) Dario Amodei 的文章《仁慈的机器》（Machines of Loving Grace）强调了人工智能取代人类经济效用并管理社会行为可能带来的潜在反乌托邦未来。 (89:43)

Reading summary

In a wide-ranging discussion, host Joe Rogan and California gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton argue that entrenched political capture, bloated bureaucracy, and aggressive regulation are eroding quality of life across California. They contend that unchecked governance in areas ranging from homelessness and green mandates to digital media and public health primarily serves institutional and financial special interests at the expense of working-class citizens. The Attention Economy and Algorithmic Manipulation (16:19) Rogan and Hilton examine the societal toll of smartphone and screen addiction, drawing a sharp contrast between Western social media platforms and China's domestic version of TikTok (Douyin). They note that while China curates educational, athletic, and musical content and enforces overnight app lockouts for younger users, Western platforms employ infinite scroll and autoplay to maximize engagement through viral outrage and graphic distraction. This algorithmic design is the focus of a major lawsuit by state attorneys general against Meta, seeking between $200 billion and $1.4 trillion in penalties for deliberately addicting children. Hilton notes that across California town halls, voter frustration spikes most acutely when discussing screen time and artificial intelligence, reinforcing Rogan's assertion that platforms treat human attention as an exploitable commodity. California's Fiscal Pressures and Living Costs (28:05) Discussing California's economic climate, Hilton outlines what he characterizes as a government "doom loop": politicians respond to high living costs by raising taxes to finance redistributive welfare programs, which further inflates baseline expenses for small businesses and working families. Drawing from his campaign platform, Hilton proposes eliminating state income tax on individual earnings below $150,000, arguing that severe local inflation has made even a six-figure income insufficient to cover basic expenses. Rogan and Hilton criticize government wage regulations, including the state's $20-per-hour fast-food minimum wage, asserting that sudden hikes strain franchise owners, accelerate automated kiosk adoption, and eliminate entry-level jobs. Rogan highlights the irony that California's government bureaucracy and spending expanded significantly even as the state experienced an exodus of residents and businesses. The Homelessness Complex and Accountability Failures (76:36) The hosts focus heavily on California's homelessness crisis, pointing out that $24 billion in state spending remains unaccounted for after legislative audits were vetoed. Hilton describes a self-serving "homeless industrial complex" comprising subsidized developers and non-profit organizations where executive salaries can reach between $1.6 million and $2.6 million annually despite visible deterioration in areas like downtown Los Angeles and Skid Row. Hilton criticizes California's "Housing First" mandate, which legally prohibits state funds from requiring personal accountability, addiction treatment, or job training as prerequisites for aid. Furthermore, constructing "permanent supportive housing" frequently costs between $600,000 and $1 million per unit due to administrative mandates and union requirements—roughly four times the private construction cost cited by developers—without addressing underlying mental health or substance abuse crises. Energy Regulations, Mandates, and Infrastructure Delays (152:40) Turning to state regulatory authorities, Hilton explains how the California Air Resources Board (CARB) isolates the state into an "energy island" through proprietary, boutique fuel blends that artificially inflate gas prices. He and Rogan also criticize proposed regulations by the California Energy Commission that enforce rolling-resistance standards on replacement tires, noting that such mandates could outlaw up to 70% of current replacement tires and compromise vehicle traction and safety. State infrastructure projects face similar scrutiny. Hilton notes that California's high-speed rail initiative has already spent $15 billion without laying operational tracks. Originally approved by voters in 2008 as a $30 billion project slated for completion by 2020, its projected cost has climbed to $230 billion with operations delayed into the late 2030s, prompting Hilton to advocate for its cancellation under his "Operation Zero Waste" platform. Institutional Capture in Politics and Healthcare (72:33) Hilton attributes California's administrative stagnation to prolonged single-party rule, noting that Democrats have held legislative supermajorities for over a decade and controlled statewide offices for 16 years. Drawing parallels to Viktor Orbán's 16-year rule in Hungary, Hilton argues that unchecked power in any political party breeds arrogance and capture by special interests, such as public sector unions. The hosts extend their critique of institutional capture to federal public health and media. Rogan describes the pharmaceutical industry as an influential cartel, arguing that massive advertising buys shield drug companies from mainstream media scrutiny. Hilton also criticizes his gubernatorial opponent, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, citing whistleblower reports of rushed safety procedures and bypassed sponsor background checks during the processing of unaccompanied migrant children. While Hilton positions his campaign as a necessary disruption to California's political establishment and fiscal waste, both speakers acknowledge that reversing institutional inertia, entrenched non-profit networks, and pervasive ideological conformity remains an uphill battle.

精炼阅读摘要

政治评论员兼加利福尼亚州州长参选人Steve Hilton与主持人Joe Rogan在一场深入对谈中指出，从科技平台对公众注意力的算法掠夺，到加州在无家可归、能源税负及大型基建领域的治理瘫痪，均源于制度性官僚膨胀与特殊利益集团的深度俘获。他们认为，长期单一政党统治与缺乏问责机制的官僚生态不仅大幅推高了普通家庭的生活成本，更系统性削弱了社会机能，亟须重构以常识、务实行政与公众监督为核心的治理体系。算法成瘾机制与社交媒体监管诉讼 (16:19) 对话探讨了现代数字平台对公众注意力的剥削机制。针对多州总检察长联名起诉Meta公司的案件，诉讼指控其刻意设计诱导儿童成瘾的推荐算法，可能面临2000亿至1.4万亿美元的巨额罚款；检方要求法院强制平台推行重大产品调整，包括限制无限滚动、禁用自动播放功能、关闭操纵多巴胺的算法推荐、隐藏点赞计数并取消限时动态。Hilton与Rogan特别对比了中国版抖音与国际版TikTok的生态差异：中国国内版本不仅对未成年人设置夜间十点强制锁屏断网，且算法主要推送科普教育、武术、古典音乐及体育成就内容；而在西方分发的产品则充斥着低质甚至危险的病毒式分心内容。 Hilton分享在加州基层走访的见闻指出，家长群体对儿童沉迷屏幕、沉溺网络游戏以及使用人工智能代写作业的焦虑情绪尤为剧烈。Rogan强调，在现代注意力经济中，平台的商业模式高度依赖挑动用户愤怒和对抗来换取停留时长。尽管成年人同样深陷数字噪音，但由于电子游戏不直接塑造选民政治意识，其严重的成瘾性在公共政策讨论中反而长期被忽视。官僚扩张与加州生活成本的末日循环 (31:51) 谈及加利福尼亚州严重的经济困境，Hilton指责执政联盟陷入了自食其果的“末日循环”：加州人口近年来持续流失，州政府机构规模却翻了一番；执政者试图通过加税设立更多福利计划以援助陷入困境的居民，然而隐藏税费与繁重监管反而进一步推高基本生活开支，挤压企业生存空间。为缓解工薪阶层压力，Hilton在竞选纲领中主张将免征州所得税的门槛提高至15万美元，并抨击将快餐行业最低时薪强行上调至20美元的政策正在加速无人点餐设备的普及，导致大量入门级就业岗位永久消失。 Rogan与Hilton批评了一系列脱离实际的激进监管措施。加州空气资源委员会（CARB）推行独特的燃料标准，使得该州成为无法与全国油网联通的“能源孤岛”，常年承担全国最高的油价；能源委员会近期表决通过的轮胎滚动阻力新规，在缺乏选民投票授权的情况下可能导致全州高达70%的替换轮胎被禁售。此外，加州高铁项目成为基建低效的典型：这项2008年由选民批准、预算300亿美元且计划于2020年通车的工程，如今总成本预估飙升至2300亿美元并延期至2030年代末，耗费150亿美元公帑至今未铺设一段正式轨道。无家可归产业复合体与单一政党统治 (33:52) Hilton与Rogan痛批加州治理无家可归危机的严重腐败，指出过去数年耗费的240亿美元州级专项资金至今下落不明。加州审计长应议会要求公布报告证实这笔巨款缺乏追踪且无成效评估，但州长Gavin Newsom两次否决了彻查资金流向的州级审计法案，洛杉矶市长Karen Bass同样阻挠联邦法官要求的专项审计。Hilton将此现象归结为“无家可归产业复合体”的利益分肥：特定非营利机构高管年薪高达160万至260万美元，但在该州法定的“住房优先”框架下，接受救助资金的机构被禁止向受助者提出戒毒治疗、心理康复或职业培训等任何问责要求。在住房建设层面，政府资助的永久支持性住房单套建造成本在旧金山湾区与洛杉矶已攀升至60万至100万美元，而私营承建商排除工会特殊条款及官僚环保审批后的基准造价仅约25万美元。与此同时，打着“伤害减低”旗号的官方项目在大规模发放吸毒器具与阿片替代品，导致以洛杉矶市中心Skid Row为代表的街区沦为传染病蔓延的治安洼地。Hilton直言，加州民主党在立法两院连续十多年保持三分之二超级多数，控制所有宪制职位并主导司法任命，这种不受约束的权力垄断与任何长期缺乏反对力量制衡的政治体系一样，必然滋生系统性腐败。医药游说体制与公共卫生官僚失职 (122:35) 对谈探讨了公共健康领域的体制性扭曲。Rogan批评美国制药业已演变成受政府庇护的庞大利益集团，指出全球仅有美国和新西兰允许处方药直接在电视上投放广告，巨额商业投放实质上购买了主流媒体对药物严重副作用及召回事件的沉默。他以洛杉矶县多达50万至95万成年人长期服用SSRI类抗抑郁药为例，质疑过度依赖精神类化学干预的医疗模式，强调体育锻炼、改善营养和充足睡眠等无成本的生活方式干预往往被公共卫生系统长期边缘化。 Hilton进一步回顾了在新闻调查中掌握的公卫高层失职事实：前白宫首席医疗顾问Anthony Fauci不仅在2011年公开主张病毒功能获得性研究的潜在收益大于风险，还涉嫌规避联邦监管禁令持续资助高危病原体研究，并动用政治影响力打压病毒实验室泄漏假说；与此形成对照的是，斯坦福大学学者Jay Bhattacharya等早先通过流行病学数据反思防疫封锁代价的专家则遭到学术打压与社交媒体限流。此外，Hilton披露前卫生与公众服务部长Xavier Becerra在处理边境无人陪伴儿童危机时，为规避政治问责而要求“速度优先于安全”，大幅取消担保人背景审查与家访，导致大量难民儿童被移交至虚假地址，沦为强迫劳动与人口贩运的受害者。本期对谈揭示了从跨国科技巨头的算法掠夺到加州深陷财政与社会治安困局背后的共同根源：缺乏有效制衡的机构权力与盘根错节的利益联盟，正在持续瓦解公共政策的问责底线。尽管Hilton引用其民调差距大幅缩小的趋势来证明民众对常识性治理回归的渴望，但面对加州根深蒂固的一党超级多数、庞大的公营工会机器以及既得利益非营利组织的制度性阻力，自下而上的结构性改革能否突破政治惯性，仍然面临巨大的现实挑战。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由 YouTube 频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 8 月 24 日发布。视频简介指出，本期嘉宾史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）是一位商人、政治评论员、作家，同时也是加利福尼亚州州长的共和党候选人。 ## TL;DR 本期节目深入探讨了文化、疫情与加州治理的多重危机。乔·罗根与希尔顿首先回顾了好莱坞意识形态审查对喜剧艺术的冲击，并分享了单口喜剧创作与奥斯汀“喜剧母舰”俱乐部的独立生态；随后批判了疫情期间严苛封控政策、福奇涉嫌主导的病毒功能获得性研究，以及联邦卫生与公众服务部在边境无人陪伴儿童安置上的重大监管崩溃；最后，希尔顿系统揭露了加利福尼亚州在加文·纽森执政下由于 CARB 隐形税、激进能源转型、轮胎微观监管以及高达 2300 亿美元的高铁工程所造成的治理灾难，阐述了其以常识重塑加州的竞选主张。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在轻松幽默与严肃批判之间游刃有余，既有探讨喜剧排练机制与现场演出张力时的行家默契与开怀大笑，也有揭露官僚系统失职与儿童贩卖丑闻时的沉痛与愤怒。罗根与希尔顿配合默契、直言不讳，以极具常识感的平民视角辛辣解构建制派政客的荒诞行径，展现出兼具深度洞察与现场张力的畅快质感。 ## Bulletin - [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8280s) 拜登政府执政期间进入美国的47.9万名无人陪伴儿童中，有多达33万名移交后处于失联状态；吹哨人指控联邦卫生与公共服务部（HHS）推行“速度优先于安全”，导致儿童落入虚假地址及人口贩卖网络。 - [02:30:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9046s) 加州汽油价格高出全美均价约2美元，主要受全美最高汽油税、CARB特制配方油监管、低碳燃料标准隐性税以及80%原油依赖跨洋远运等四大推手叠加影响。 - [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) 加州高铁项目最新预估预算已自立项初期的300亿美元飙升至2,300亿美元，已花费150亿美元且无实质铺轨，第一阶段拟通过普铁、短途高铁与长途大巴拼凑通车。 - [02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) 加州能源委员会重启尘封23年的立法条款，拟推行轮胎滚动阻力强制标准，预计将导致市面70%的替换轮胎型号遭到禁售，引发对刹车抓地力安全的广泛担忧。 ## Key takeaways - [01:41:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6115s) 好莱坞在意识形态与政治正确审查束缚下已无法制作荒诞纯粹的经典喜剧，促使单口喜剧演员借助独立俱乐部和互联网平台探索创作自由。 - [01:47:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6441s) 奥斯汀“喜剧母舰”（Comedy Mothership）俱乐部通过压低天花板与缩小舞台优化声学气场，并为演员全员提供心理健康医疗和行业高额分成，开创喜剧人共治新生态。 - [01:53:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6788s) 单口喜剧是一门极度严谨的工匠艺术，段子成活率不足二十分之一，微调词汇顺序即可决定笑点成败，要求演员在台上保持全然专注。 - [02:01:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7271s) 加州疫情期间推行严苛封控与恐惧叙事，而德州迅速恢复正常经营，促成了大批喜剧演员与文化创意从业者向奥斯汀大迁徙。 - [02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7355s) 公共卫生部门官员被指在病毒功能获得性研究中绕过联邦独立专家审查机制，引发对行政权力滥用与科研透明度的深刻反思。 - [02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7642s) 斯坦福学者发表流行病学研究证实病毒低致死率后遭到停职、学术审查及社交平台限流，揭露了行政防疫政策对异见科学声音的打压。 - [02:13:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8003s) 制药企业在主流媒体大量投放处方药广告的深层逻辑在于建立利益捆绑，以广告赞助充当公关保护费，遏制媒体对药企展开深入负面调查。 - [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8280s) 联邦卫生与公共服务部拆除审查体系以加速消化边境滞留危机，导致至少40名儿童在移交后死亡，数万条紧急呼救电话无人应答。 - [02:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8700s) 非公民移民人口通过联邦调配安置进入关键选区，依托人口普查计入总居住人口的规则，直接影响国会众议院议席与总统选举人团票数格局。 - [02:30:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9046s) 加州政策封杀本土管道原油开采，反而迫使全州80%石油依赖跨洋高排放油轮从伊拉克和亚马逊雨林海运进口，造成环境与经济双重悖论。 - [02:36:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9379s) 加州现有清洁天然气电厂装机容量远超全州用电峰值，但行政机构强制其压低至10%至20%负荷运转以迁就风光电，导致居民电费暴涨至全美均价两倍。 - [02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) 加州能源委员会通过行政细则限制替换轮胎能耗指标，为追求极微弱的节油效果而牺牲车辆抓地操控安全，体现了微观过度监管的弊端。 - [02:51:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10274s) 加州立法机构单周期打包通过1,118项法案，近半个世纪未曾成功推翻过任何州长否决案，折射出立法通胀与权力制衡机制的实质弱化。 - [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) 加州高铁因地质构造难题与穿越圣安德烈亚斯断层导致预算无底线膨胀，被迫采用大巴与高铁断续接驳的折中方案，沦为治理低效的典型注脚。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=16s) 夏威夷海滩初遇与十余年的友谊乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与斯蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）以老友重逢的轻松语调开启了对话。两人回顾起他们相识的渊源——那是在2012年左右，希尔顿一家刚从英国搬到美国不久。当时两家人碰巧都在夏威夷度假，孩子们在沙滩上挖沙子玩耍，年龄相仿且玩得十分投机（罗根有两个女儿，希尔顿有两个儿子）。大人们顺其自然地打起招呼，由此结下了长达十多年的深厚友谊。对于希尔顿来说，那一幕至今记忆犹新。当时罗根的妻子先带着孩子在海滩上，罗根刚从健身房出来，一路迎着阳光走下沙滩。希尔顿坦言，自己刚从英国传统文化圈来到美国，眼前这个充满野性与个性的美国硬汉让他感到前所未有的文化冲击，心里直犯嘀咕：“这家伙到底是谁？”当时的他对罗根一无所知，直到后来向旁人提起，听到对方震惊地反问“你居然碰到了乔·罗根？”，他才意识到自己偶遇了一位名人。 ### [01:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=114s) 误入播客世界的局外人：第509期节目的回忆两人的回忆很快延伸到希尔顿第一次录制《乔·罗根体验》（The Joe Rogan Experience）的经历。那是在2014年7月前后（第509期），当时的希尔顿过着非常低调的生活，正在斯坦福大学教书，完全没有步入前台竞选公职的念头。此前他在英国政界与政府核心层（曾任英国前首相卡梅伦的首席战略顾问）长期担任幕后智囊，虽对主流媒体运作了如指掌，却对新兴的“播客”一无所知。他甚至误以为这只是类似于传统电台节目的访谈。当希尔顿走进洛杉矶的录音室坐下聊天时，他还以为每位嘉宾最多聊上10到15分钟，心里一直在纳闷：“下一个嘉宾什么时候来？这节目怎么录了这么久还没完？”结果录音直接持续了整整三个小时，彻底颠覆了他的认知。更让他震惊的是罗根毫无顾忌的说话风格——在传统英国政界媒体环境中受训的人往往字斟句酌、如履薄冰，而罗根在节目中满嘴脏话、随心所欲地探讨性话题和其他敏感内容。希尔顿笑称这完全是一场认知冲击，罗根则感慨如今节目已经录到了两千多期，而当年那种没人在意、可以肆无忌惮畅所欲言的网络氛围已经一去不复返。 - **首次作客期数**：2014年7月，JRE 第509期。 - **播客体量对比**：自希尔顿首次作客至今，罗根已录制了2000多期节目。 - **心态转变**：从早年毫无舆论包袱的随意漫谈，到如今置身高度两极化的社交媒体审判场。 ### [04:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=266s) 面对网络恶评：毒性餐厅隐喻与屏蔽杂音的心态随着时代变化，社交媒体的舆论环境发生了剧烈恶化。当被问及如何在网络舆论的风暴中泰然处之时，罗根分享了自己的生存法则：“绝对不要在乎任何人对你的评价，只管埋头往前走。”他认为很多现代人被外界的闲言碎语彻底击垮了。虽然真诚的反馈具有参考价值，但互联网上充斥着带着恶意、预设最坏立场去解读他人的“恶意演员”（bad-faith actors）。为了生动说明社交媒体的危险性，罗根打了一个犀利的比喻：“如果你去一家餐馆，明知道里面20%的食物吃下去会要了你的命，你还会去那里吃吗？绝对不会。而推特（Twitter/X）就是这家餐馆，上面至少有20%的人就像剧毒的毒刺一样有毒。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体网络生态与恶意攻击机制 accDescr: 展示从真实用户到水军农场及AI自动化机器人的演进路径 subgraph 舆论环境陷阱 A["公众人物 / 政治候选人发布言论"] --> B{"网络反馈来源"} B -->|极少数| C["建设性反馈"] B -->|大量分布| D["怀揣恶意的真实极端网民"] B -->|系统性操控| E["水军农场与机器人账号"] end subgraph 自动化与水军黑客产业链 E --> F["物理水军农场 (成排Android手机 + 集中控制键盘)"] E --> G["现代AI大语言模型自动化脚本"] F --> H["有组织的政治抹黑公关"] G --> H end ``` ### [05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=337s) 从学者到加州州长候选人：网络喷子与水军农场真相希尔顿谈到了自己近年来的身份转变：从斯坦福学者到创办公司，再到福克斯新闻（Fox News）担任节目主持人，如今更是正式参选加利福尼亚州州长。随着公众知名度的急剧提升，他社交平台下的辱骂性言论也呈现爆炸式增长。经常有喷子留言痛骂“滚回英国去，你这个秃头混蛋”。希尔顿打趣道，每次看到这种纯粹的人身攻击，他都极其手痒想回复一句“说得好（Good point）”，但最终还是忍住了。罗根提醒他，作为政治竞选人，必须清醒地意识到评论区里很大一部分甚至根本不是真人，而是水军机器人（bots）。罗根回忆起埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）斥资约440亿美元收购推特时的争议：推特官方历来坚称虚假账号占比不足5%，但前网络安全专家丹·伍兹（Dan Woods）在进行法医式取证分析后指出，推特上的虚假机器人比例可能高达80%。罗根进一步揭秘了早期的实体“水军农场（bot farms）”内幕：一些被内部吹哨人拍下的地下据点里，摆满了成排连接着键盘的安卓手机，操作员只需敲下一句抹黑文案，就能由数百台设备瞬间扩散。而在当下AI技术高度发达的背景下，操控舆论变得更加轻而易举。只要花钱雇佣公关机构，他们就能利用AI自动化账号在全球范围内针对希尔顿等竞选人发起大规模定向抹黑与水军控评。 - **网络水军规模争议**：推特官方财报长期声称机器人账户少于5%，但网络安全专家丹·伍兹（Dan Woods）在2022年评估真实比例可能高达80%。 - **推特收购案背景**：埃隆·马斯克以约440亿美元的天价收购推特，虚假账号比例曾是交易核心争议点。 - **抹黑产业链机制**：商业公司接受雇佣后，通过传统手机水军农场与现代AI自动化脚本，进行全网全天候的话题轰炸与人身攻击。 ### [10:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=627s) 社交媒体上的舆论水军与信息过载两人首先聊到社交媒体上充斥着有组织的言论操控。许多独立记者早就公开揭露过，大量账号会在同一时间使用完全相同的措辞和话术，这背后显然存在巨额资金支持。乔·罗根提到，以色列在这类数字宣传战上的投入相当公开，甚至声称要在数字战场上战胜所谓的“觉醒帝国”（woke Reich）。罗根感叹，虽然平台上有自己认识的真人以及优秀的独立记者，但充斥其中的虚假信息和垃圾内容（horseshit）实在太多，让人根本没有精力去一一甄别。史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）对此深有共鸣。他表示由于忙于竞选活动，自己很少有空泡在网上，几乎完全不碰 Instagram 等平台，唯独会看 X（原 Twitter）。他通常采取每天三次、每次约半小时的节奏（早中晚各一次），以此快速获取最新发生的新闻动态。罗根也赞同 X 是目前获取突发资讯的最佳工具，但他通常只扫一眼主页的新闻事实本身；一旦涉及到各路网民发表的冗长观点与口水战，他便会立刻滑走，不再多看一眼。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体资讯消费与过滤逻辑 accDescr: 对比 X 平台上的硬性新闻资讯与观点噪音的筛选过程 subgraph S1["X (Twitter) 信息流"] A["突发新闻与客观事实"] B["水军话术与网民观点口水战"] end subgraph S2["信息处理方式"] C["快速扫视，获取最新资讯"] D["直接跳过，拒绝浪费精力"] end A --> C B --> D ``` --- ### [11:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=710s) 手机成瘾与数字排毒：老友间的离线轶事谈到网络上的各种谩骂与负面评论，希尔顿心态非常平和，笑称自己甚至觉得那些攻击挺好笑的。罗根借此提到了两人之间多年的深厚友谊：早在希尔顿竞选加利福尼亚州州长之前，两家人就关系密切，不仅常去对方家中留宿，还曾一起带着家人去迪士尼乐园游玩。罗根回忆道，希尔顿在数字生活方面一直是个“异类”——在很长一段时间里，希尔顿出门几乎从不带手机，常常彻底失联，以至于罗根想找他时必须先联系希尔顿的妻子。罗根甚至怀疑希尔顿当年到底有没有电子邮箱。希尔顿辩解称自己一直都有电子邮箱，只是以前不在身上携带可以随时查邮件的设备，总觉得“没手机也挺好，从来不会出什么大事”。罗根立刻反驳并揭短，提起当年在圣地亚哥的一件往事：当时希尔顿整个人彻底“人间蒸发”，他的妻子因为完全联络不上他而大发雷霆。罗根指出，希尔顿当年其实看得很透彻，早就意识到智能手机是侵入生活的“有毒元素”，它不断分散人的注意力，让人无法活在当下；然而在现实中，想要拥有放下手机的自律性极其困难，哪怕自制力再好，有时也会不知不觉坐在马桶上刷上二十分钟手机。 --- ### [13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=793s) 算法喂养的极端内容与短视频诱惑机制罗根透露，自己其实很少花时间看 X 上冗长的文字争论，反而更常看 Instagram。然而，Instagram 的算法往往会推荐极其暴力的极端内容。他谈到自己和好友汤姆·塞古拉（Tom Segura）之间维持了多年的恶趣味传统：两人早晨醒来后，常常会互相发送在网上搜寻到的最骇人听闻的视频来吓唬对方。罗根描述了其中一个离奇而恐怖的案例——两名劫匪试图用汽车拴着铁链拖拽一台 ATM 机实施盗窃，结果其中一人被卷入 ATM 底部惨遭拖行，现场火花与鲜血四溅；此外他还刷到过各种公开处决的视频，感叹 Instagram 在违规内容审查下架方面效率极低。尽管如此，罗根和希尔顿都观察到短视频平台已成为大众日常消费的主流。希尔顿提到，在坐飞机时常常能看到周围乘客都在低头刷 Instagram。两人随后对比了 Instagram 和 TikTok 的产品交互设计： - **TikTok 的极致沉浸**：一打开 App 便自动直接全屏播放视频，甚至不需要用户主动点击，紧接着一个接一个不断推送，极具成瘾性，很容易让人不知不觉耗费掉一整个小时。 - **早期产品演变**：希尔顿回忆当年字节跳动（ByteDance）刚推出该产品（或其前身）时，主要定位是跟着音乐伴奏对嘴型（lip-syncing）和跳舞，当时外界都认为这不可能掀起太大波浪，如今却已风靡全球。 --- ### [15:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=954s) 算法差异、极权管控与 1.4 万亿美元 Meta 诉讼案两人深入探讨了 TikTok 在不同地区的巨大差异。罗根指出，中国本土版本的短视频（抖音）在算法分发和内容引导上截然不同，更多聚焦于武术展示、科研新成果、运动成就及古典乐器演奏等具有积极教育意义的内容，且对青少年实施严格的防沉迷限制（例如晚上 10 点后禁止未成年人使用）。罗根认为，虽然言论审查不可取，但如果一个社会想要避免被毫无营养的垃圾内容吞噬，这种引导机制确实有其精明之处。这番讨论勾起了希尔顿的童年回忆。作为匈牙利移民后裔，他出生在英国，但儿时常回匈牙利探亲。在当时的冷战及共产主义政权统治下，匈牙利每周一全国禁播电视节目，官方强制要求大家放下屏幕走出门去，参与体育运动或与邻里面对面交流。希尔顿虽然明确表示自己更崇尚自由，但也承认现代科技成瘾问题异常棘手。最后，希尔顿提到了当天刚刚开庭的一桩针对 Meta（Facebook 母公司）的巨额诉讼案，指控其故意设计产品诱导未成年人对社交媒体成瘾，原告索赔金额甚至高达惊人的 1.4 万亿美元（1.4 trillion dollars）。希尔顿坦言自己内心十分矛盾： - 他早在 2015 年出版的著作《More Human: Designing a World Where People Come First》中就曾发出警告，呼吁摆脱高度官僚化与中心化的体制、回归人性尺度，并明确主张 16 岁以下的儿童不应持有智能手机（仅可使用基础通讯功能的非智能机）。 - 但他同时认为，仅仅通过法律诉讼揪着 Meta、YouTube 或 WhatsApp 等单一巨头平台不放并不能解决根本问题，因为根源在于智能手机的屏幕硬件本身；即便没有 Meta，也会有下一个平台取而代之。 ### [19:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1154s) 赞助口播与针对科技巨头的法律风暴节目录制间隙插入了一段 BlueChew Gold 的口播赞助，宣传其四合一配方、舌下含服快速起效以及较传统方式更持久的生理与心理提振效果，并提供专属折扣码。随后话题切回社交媒体监管。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，政府目前将矛头指向社交平台，这就像当年把电视视作洪水猛兽一样，本质上不过是“用户自制内容的电视”；如果是屏幕本身造成问题，那责任就不在内容创作者身上。罗根调侃道，如果按这个逻辑去针对 YouTube，那接下来就该轮到他自己了，因为他是在“让人对听别人聊天上瘾”。罗根援引 AI 赞助商 Perplexity 提供的信息说明当前的司法现状：多个州正向 Meta 索要巨额财务惩罚，诉求金额在 2000 亿美元左右，而 Meta 自身披露的潜在风险甚至高达 1.4 万亿美元。此外，各州还要求法院强制下令重构 Facebook 和 Instagram 的产品机制，包括青少年账户家长验证、改变被指“操控多巴胺”的推荐算法、取消或限制点赞数、禁用无限滚动（infinite scroll）、自动播放、变脸滤镜、多账号体系以及以快拍（Stories）为代表的“阅后即焚”内容。 - 多个州向 Meta 索赔金额约 2000 亿美元，Meta 预估的潜在赔偿敞口可能高达 1.4 万亿美元。 - 法院可能强制要求的改动涵盖：算法推荐、无限滚动、点赞数展示、阅后即焚功能及青少年验证机制。 --- ### [21:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1277s) 官僚微观干预与算法重构的反思罗根为“阅后即焚”等功能辩护，提到自己玩弓箭狩猎的朋友亚当·格林特里（Adam Greentree），他去科罗拉多落基山脉独自荒野狩猎 28 天，在雪地露营，每天用 Instagram 快拍记录真实经历，这种内容极具观赏价值，绝非全盘负面。罗根直言，一旦政府介入强制要求产品重新设计，事情往往会变得一团糟，因为官僚机构从来不可能把产品改得更好；他们只会趁机捞取罚款，然后让一大群官僚坐在办公室里进行微观管理。史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）对此深表赞同，认为问题虽在，但政府干预绝非正途。两人随后谈到 MySpace 计划重启并主打“无算法”（algorithm-free）模式的尝试。罗根分析，现有主流平台的算法为了保持用户粘性，主要是靠推送激怒用户的内容来赚钱，将人的“注意力”当作终极商品进行变现。罗根打趣说，即使是成年人也像小孩子一样，极易沉迷于无聊琐碎的事物并被白白耗费时间；如果真能回归到让用户自主选择、只看自己感兴趣的内容，而非被算法硬塞那些令人抓狂的争吵，体验会好得多。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 现代社交媒体算法逻辑与无算法模式对比 accDescr: 对比主流算法以愤怒驱动留存与无算法模式让用户自主选择的区别 subgraph CurrentModel["主流商业社交算法"] A["平台推荐算法"] --> B["推送激怒/情绪化内容"] B --> C["多巴胺刺激与成瘾"] C --> D["抢占用户注意力与时间变现"] end subgraph CleanModel["MySpace 重启理念"] E["无算法机制"] --> F["用户主动检索/定制"] F --> G["聚焦纯粹兴趣内容"] end ``` --- ### [23:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1423s) 线下选民的真实焦虑：屏幕、游戏与思想操控希尔顿谈起自己在过去一年半参加政治竞选活动时的亲身体验。他在全加州面对数千名民众，无论在大型集会还是小型圆桌会上，选民一开始通常按照常规政治套路和他聊税收、油价等既定话题；可一旦话题转到“孩子与屏幕”，整个现场的气氛会瞬间发生质变，家长们的反应会变得极其激烈、焦虑甚至带着深深的无力感。家长们不知道该如何应对接踵而至的冲击：从屏幕、社交媒体、电子游戏，到现在甚至要面对与 AI 对话、用 AI 代写作业。罗根赞同并指出，电子游戏实际上远比社交媒体更加让人沉迷，却罕有人试图去取缔它。而社交平台最可怕的地方在于它能够潜移默化地改变公众舆论和思维模式。罗根直言，如今许多年轻人盲目推崇“民主社会主义”乃至自称马克思主义者，完全是社交媒体操控和算法灌输的结果；现实中根本没人真正去啃原著并深思熟虑，这些人对历史上社会主义实践导致的严酷后果一无所知——一旦把所有权力让渡给国家，掌控枪杆子的国家政权便会剥夺民众的一切并实施极权统治。罗根同时强调，这并不意味着资本主义完美无缺，残酷的资本主义同样必须设置必要的防护栏（guardrails）。 - 选民对传统经济议题（税收、油价）的反应相对程式化，但对孩子沉迷屏幕、游戏和 AI 表现出强烈的愤怒与无助。 - 罗根批评社交媒体推动了激进思潮的泛滥，多数跟风者并不清楚历史上国家权力过度扩张的悲惨教训。 --- ### [26:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1570s) 福利困境与全民基本收入（UBI）的保守主义雏形希尔顿回忆起自己小时候在匈牙利生活的经历，当时那是共产主义国家，街角只有国营杂货店，他每天早上帮外婆去排队买物资，那种匮乏和萧条的体验令人窒息。罗根坦言自己对“社会安全网”（social safety nets）的看法非常矛盾：一方面，面对遭遇不幸的群体（例如丧夫独自抚养孩子、毫无收入的母亲），社会必须提供救助；但另一方面，福利网络又容易滋生依赖，彻底消磨个人的进取心。希尔顿表示，这也是他长期反对普遍意义上的全民基本收入（UBI）的原因。不过两人探讨了 UBI 最早由右翼学者（如米尔顿·弗里德曼的负所得税理论、查尔斯·默里等）提出时的初衷：由政府直接发放固定数额的现金，以此**彻底取代**所有其他复杂的政府福利、医疗补助及庞大的官僚行政体系。罗根认为这种方案在财政上更有效率，不仅能大幅削减冗余的政府机构，还能砍掉掌控他人生活的官僚中间层，直接把钱给到个人。希尔顿随后提及自己在 2015 年出版的书籍《More Human》（更具人性）中探讨过的困境：如今许多按最低工资拼命工作的人根本无法维持生计，福利制度现存的另一大问题在于给的钱往往少到让人只能苟延残喘，反而把人困在贫困陷阱中。 ### [28:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1721s) 商业友好型生活工资与加州畸形的高生活成本史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）谈起加州普通劳动者的艰难处境：许多人极其勤奋地打两份工，却依然入不敷出、无法维持生计。希尔顿指出这种社会现实极为病态，“如果你如此努力工作，就应该能够靠它体面地生活”。为此，他提出了一个名为“商业友好型生活工资”（business-friendly living wage）的政策构想，主张将最低工资提升到足以维生的合理水平。当罗根问及这一工资标准具体是多少时，希尔顿表示加州各地差异极大，在生活成本高昂的地区，这一数字甚至需要达到每小时30至40美元。罗根对此大为震惊，希尔顿随即解释称，加州若干县政府官方划定的“低收入”（low income）门槛如今已经飙升到了年薪10万美元。罗根感叹，在自己成长的小时候，年薪10万美元绝对算得上是“走上人生巅峰”，而如今这一数字却只是加州的贫困边缘线。希尔顿提到，在自己竞选加州州长之初，核心税收政策之一就是对年收入10万美元以下的群体免征州所得税，并将其命名为“工人阶级减税”。然而，这一政策在全美范围内引来了“为何补贴富人”的质疑，而在加州初选的实际反馈中，选民反而认为门槛定得太低了——在洛杉矶等地，年薪12万美元的人照样难以负担日常开销。鉴于此，他最终将这一免税门槛提升至年薪15万美元。 - **加州官方低收入线**：在加州部分高成本县，年薪10万美元已被官方列为“低收入”标准。 - **希尔顿的税收主张**：计划对年收入15万美元以下的加州居民彻底免征州所得税。 --- ### [30:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1835s) 砍掉政府“中间人”与最低工资上涨的恶性后果希尔顿承认，如果单方面强制要求小企业支付每小时30至40美元的薪资，企业根本无法生存。他曾开过餐馆，深知沉重的用工支出会直接击垮餐饮业。但他指出了当前体系的荒谬之处：企业向全职员工支付着无法糊口的薪水，同时又向政府缴纳着巨额的工资税（payroll tax）；随后，政府再设立庞大的机构，把这些税款转化为社会福利和救济金发还给工人。希尔顿的构想是“砍掉政府这个中间人”（cut out the middleman），免去企业的相关税收，让企业直接把这笔钱作为更高的薪资发给员工，从而在企业净支出不变的前提下大幅提高员工收入。随后两人讨论了加州现行的最低工资法案。加州普通最低时薪刚刚上调至16美元出头，而快餐行业则强制提高到了每小时20美元。罗根与希尔顿一致指出，这项政策一出台便引发了灾难性后果——快餐店随即展开大规模裁员并加速推进自动化设备。罗根强调，社会必须为年轻人保留基础的“入门级岗位”（entry-level jobs），其核心意义在于让青少年学习准时出勤、遵守工作纪律，并在领到工资条发现被扣税时体验现实，这些岗位本就不是用来养家糊口的；但如果是一名全职从事园林绿化等重体力劳动的成年人，每周工作40小时仅拿15美元时薪，境况确实十分残酷。希尔顿指出，问题的根源在于加州建立的巨型官僚机构。政府通过汽油税、各类名目繁多的住房附加费等隐性税收无休止地吸血，推高了一切成本，却没有带来任何实效。希尔顿将加州民主党执政者的政策逻辑形容为一个死循环：执政者意识到底层民众生活困顿，其唯一解法却是增加救济福利，为了筹资又进一步增税，最终导致物价更加昂贵，却从未想过去“削减成本”或减轻民众负担。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州政策的厄运循环 accDescr: 展示民主党政府提高税收以发放福利、进而推高物价并引发更多救济需求的恶性循环 subgraph DoomLoop ["加州政策的'厄运循环' (Doom Loop)"] A["工薪阶层生活成本高昂、陷入困境"] --> B["政府扩大福利救济与再分配规模"] B --> C["对企业与民众提高税收及隐性收费"] C --> D["企业成本转嫁，物价与生活成本进一步暴涨"] D --> A end ``` - **快餐业最低工资法案**：加州对快餐行业推行20美元最低时薪，导致从业人员被裁员且行业全面加速自动化。 - **隐性税费泛滥**：汽油税及名目繁多的住房建设附加税，直接推高了普通人的生存成本。 --- ### [33:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=1990s) 官僚小金库与“流浪汉产业复合体”的利益输送罗根直言不讳地指出，加州庞大的政府体系本质上就是一个巨型的“小金库”（slush fund）。他提到一个惊人的事实：尽管加州的人口正在流失缩水，州政府的规模和支出却整整翻了一倍；政客们宣称的所谓“创造就业”，很多时候不过是巧立名目，把纳税人的钱转移给依附于政府的各类非营利组织（NGO）。罗根举例谈到Instagram上一位博主的视频：洛杉矶会展中心计划投入50亿美元进行翻新，而这笔资金规模大到如果直接分发，足以给洛杉矶贫民窟（Skid Row）的每一个流浪汉发放一笔天文数字的款项。两人揭露，所谓的解决无家可归问题已经彻底沦为某些人的暴利生意——从事无家可归救助的非营利机构高管平均年薪高达数十万美元。希尔顿补充说，上周刚被曝光的一位负责流浪汉救助NGO的女性负责人，年薪竟高达160万美元；前一天又有另一家非营利组织负责人被曝出年薪260万美元。罗根尖锐地指出，最关键的问题在于，拿了如此巨额薪资的机构不仅没有解决任何问题，加州的无家可归危机反而愈演愈烈；在私营部门，如果一个企业CEO持续巨额亏损且从未完成既定目标，早就被解雇了。然而加州政客非但不去审计欺诈与浪费，反而叫嚣着要开征“亿万富翁财富税”。希尔顿指出，加州前1%的最富有人群已经承担了全州近一半的个人所得税，这种激进的政策不仅无法解决财政黑洞，反而正在将这一极小规模的核心税基群体吓跑。 - **政府规模失控**：加州常住人口出现净流失，但州政府的财政与机构规模却翻了一倍。 - **高管薪酬悬殊**：解决流浪汉问题的非营利机构负责人年薪达到160万至260万美元不等。 - **税基高度集中**：加州收入排名前1%的富人群体承担了该州约50%的个人所得税。 --- ### [35:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2153s) 一党专政下的问责缺失与大麻税金的去向谜团在谈及政府官员缺乏绩效约束时，罗根回顾了自己在新冠疫情期间提出的观点：市长的薪资应当与城市的GDP直接挂钩。在埃里克·加塞蒂（Eric Garcetti）担任洛杉矶市长期间，防疫政策导致该市70%的餐馆倒闭，罗根认为“加塞蒂就应该被扣掉70%的薪水”；只有切身承受经济损失，政客在出台压制商业的法令时才会慎重。希尔顿对此表示赞同，并指出加州在民主党长达16年的一党独大统治下，政客坚信自己的权力牢不可破，对民生疾苦和经济衰退已然完全不在乎。随后，罗根提到了地方选举中的种种异常现象，指出前议员选举（如斯宾塞·普拉特 Spencer Pratt 涉及的讨论，以及市议员尼西亚·拉曼 Nithya Raman 在邮寄选票中得票异常反超凯伦·巴斯 Karen Bass、且选民居然反常地“投票支持加税”等怪象）。罗根痛斥邮寄选票被操弄，希尔顿则表示建制派已经将这些钻空子的游戏“合法化”了。为了说明这种假借公益之名的财政收割，希尔顿以加州合法化大麻的“第64号提案”（Proposition 64）为例：当年该提案在向公众兜售时，承诺大麻税收将专门用于“药物滥用预防”；然而希尔顿的团队调查资金流向后发现，其中高达3.5亿美元的专项税款最终竟直接拨给了一家名字动听的“健康类”非营利组织，再次沦为合法转移公众财富的小金库。 - **挂钩政客薪资的提议**：建议市长收入直接与城市经济表现挂钩，城市失去多少比例的企业，市长就扣除同等比例的薪酬。 - **加州第64号提案（Prop 64）资金疑云**：原本承诺用于预防药物滥用的3.5亿美元大麻专项税款，被直接输送给了特定非营利机构。 ### [38:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2295s) 非营利组织资金黑洞与失控的加州预算 Steve Hilton 揭露了加州庞大的非营利组织资金链条运作模式。政府将大量税款切分成数十万到上百万美元不等的小额拨款——“这里一百万、那里七十五万”，直接分发给大约500家非营利组织。然而细究这些机构的实际业务，往往充斥着选民登记、选票收集（ballot harvesting）等政治活动，实质上是用纳税人的钱建立政治机器。Joe Rogan 随即直言不讳地指出，这本质上就是“在偷钱”。 Hilton 进一步列举了令人震惊的预算数字：过去十年间，加州的总预算翻了一倍以上，从十年前的1700亿美元飙升至今年的3500多亿美元，但州内各项公共治理状况反而全面恶化。另一个荒唐的例子是监狱系统：加州一直在关闭监狱，监狱服刑人口几乎减少了一半，但监狱系统的总预算却反常地翻了一番。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州公共资金向政治非营利组织的流向链条 accDescr: 展示加州纳税人税款如何通过政府预算转变为非营利组织资金并回流至政治操作 subgraph Gov["加州政府预算体系"] Tax["纳税人税金投入 (总预算翻倍至3500亿美元)"] Grants["财政补贴与专款切分 (每笔75万至100万美元)"] end subgraph Orgs["非营利组织网络"] NPO["约500家非营利机构 (含火灾援助等名目)"] Action["政治运作活动 (选民登记与选票收集)"] end subgraph Outcome["最终结果"] Victims["受灾民众与大众福利 (无实质资金援助)"] Power["巩固执政联盟与机器运作"] end Tax --> Grants Grants --> NPO NPO --> Action Action --> Power NPO -.->|未能惠及| Victims ``` - 加州年度预算从十年前的约1700亿美元暴涨至超过3500亿美元。 - 监狱服刑人口减半的同时，监狱部门的财政开支却同步翻倍。 - 洛杉矶山火援助款项丑闻：善心群众捐献的大笔慈善救援资金流向了约200个不同的非营利组织，而真正失去家园的灾民却没有拿到分文补偿。 --- ### [39:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2394s) 挑战哈维尔·贝塞拉与加州政治版图的松动面对制度被合法化盘剥的现状，Hilton 强调在执政改革之前，唯一的解决途径就是“争取每一张选票”。外界普遍认为共和党在深蓝的加州绝无胜算，但他坚信民众内心的愤怒早已积聚到临界点。他将自己的竞选团队比作“精简敏捷的初创公司”，而对手背靠着庞大的政党机器与公职人员工会。 Hilton 的竞选对手是拜登政府的前卫生与公众服务部长哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）。初选刚结束时，民调差距曾高达 61% 对 36%；但随着 Hilton 团队揭露贝塞拉在联邦卫生部长任内的真实政绩，两人的差距迅速收窄至 55% 对 37%，最新的内部民调显示分差已缩小至10个百分点以内。Rogan 提到从2020年到2024年的大选地图可以看出，大量以往支持民主党的县已经翻红，唯独高密度的都市圈依然被自由派意识形态主导，尤其是占全加州选票高达23%的洛杉矶县。 - 初选后民调为贝塞拉 61%、Hilton 36%，近期民调已收窄至分差不足10个百分点。 - 洛杉矶县选民规模占整个加州总票仓的约23%，是决定全州选举走向的核心都市圈。 --- ### [42:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2531s) 药物泛滥的都市：SSRIs 抑郁药与精神健康迷局讨论转向洛杉矶选民的心态时，Rogan 现场用 Perplexity 搜索洛杉矶县究竟有多少人正在服用 SSRI 类抗抑郁药。他认为大城市选民之所以在糟糕的政策面前麻木不仁，很大程度上是因为大量人群处于抗抑郁药、抗精神病药和抗焦虑药所导致的“僵尸般的迟钝状态”，缺乏清醒的感知，身处封闭的信息茧房之中。 AI 搜索给出的估算显示洛杉矶县约有50万至70万成年人服用 SSRI，但 Rogan 认为这一数据严重低估，现实中可能有数百万人在服药。Rogan 批评了长期以来医药行业宣传的“脑内化学失衡”理论，指出该假说早已被科学界推翻，但在商业利益驱动下依然大行其道。实际上，久坐不动、垃圾饮食才是让人情绪崩溃的直接根源，真正的解药是运动、多喝水和健康的社交圈子，而非一味依赖药片。 - 洛杉矶县总人口约1000万，其中成年人约为780万至800万人。 - 搜索模型推算全县约11%至17%的成年人服用抗抑郁药，其中60%至70%为 SSRI，估算区间为53万至95万人；Rogan 凭个人经验推测实际数字远高于此。 - 喜剧演员 Ehsan Ahmad 曾创作段子讽刺抗抑郁药广告：广告里的人服药后去打篮球、多喝水、享受生活，殊不知“打球、喝水和享受生活本身才是治好抑郁症的根本方法”。 --- ### [45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2701s) 医药联合体卡特尔与被忽视的健康常识 Hilton 回顾了自己在2015年出版的书籍《More Human》中对健康议题的探讨。当年他在英国唐宁街10号担任首相首席政策顾问时主管内政，英国全民医疗系统（NHS）由纳税人百分之百出资，与其他预算项目相互竞争。为了压低医疗开支，Hilton 当时极力推行预防医学与健康促进，召集了包括各大皇家医学院专家在内的医疗权威开会。令人哭笑不得的是，几个月的专家研讨得出的终极结论极其质朴——想要保持健康，无非就是良好的饮食营养、规律适度的体育锻炼和充足的饮水。谈话最后聚焦于美国过度医疗导致的悲剧。近期一名患有严重产后抑郁症的母亲在服用了医院开出的海量抗抑郁药物后精神失常，最终杀害了自己的孩子；其短信记录显示新药反而加剧了她的极端焦虑。Rogan 与 Hilton 痛斥整个医药产业链：抑郁症药物的广告免责声明中竟然赫然写着“可能导致自杀意念”这一自相矛盾的副作用。Rogan 愤怒地将其定性为“受到体制庇护的公开上市卡特尔集团”，指责大型制药公司通过政治献金收买政客、操纵监管规约，形成了一条合法的利益收割链条。 ### [48:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2905s) 萨克拉门托的“政治机器”与被游说集团绑架的立法体系史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）感叹，亲眼目睹加州首府萨克拉门托（Sacramento）的政治运作令人大开眼界，其犬儒与腐败程度超乎想象。在那里，利益集团通过政治机器肆意买通议员，定制符合自身私利的法案。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）对此深表认同，指出这就是加州社会现状毫无改变的根本原因：普通老百姓根本搞不清楚立法细节，直到荒唐的法律在现实中生效，人们才目瞪口呆地质问：“这他妈到底是怎么发生的？”而真相往往是三年前某位说客代笔撰写了法案，连挂名赞助的议员自己都未曾读过一眼，恶果便已悄然成为法律。罗根随即追问希尔顿：假设选民觉醒、甚至连自由派都暗地里投票支持他当选加州州长，面对这台庞大扭曲的既得利益机器，他究竟有多大空间能够将其拆解？ ### [49:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=2987s) 哈里斯挪用保守派口号，以及贝塞拉的“迪士尼逻辑” 谈及选战必须压倒性获胜时，希尔顿提到了前副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）近期的滑稽表现。罗根嘲讽哈里斯在挥霍了14亿美元竞选资金后输掉了所有摇摆州，如今却又在公开场合试水再次参选总统。希尔顿指出，哈里斯在《The View》节目中被问及“执政若能重来会有何不同”时，答复竟是“脑子里想不出有任何不同”；而希尔顿在加州州长竞选中的对手哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）在接受 CNN 采访时如出一辙。面对主持人列举加州位居全美50个州之首的高失业率、高贫困率以及居高不下的生活成本，贝塞拉竟然辩解称局势绝没那么糟，“因为人们还在涌向迪士尼乐园和海滩”，因此拒绝做出任何政策改变。更为荒诞的是，哈里斯在一次活动中煞有介事地把特朗普和 MAGA 阵营标志性的竞选口号“Too big to rig”（大到无法被操纵）当作自己的全新发明抛了出来，呼吁选民大规模投票以防共和党“作弊”和“重划选区”。罗根与希尔顿对此大为震惊，直呼这套指控简直是把民主党自己干过的事倒打一耙。罗根强调选举舞弊的概率“绝不可能是零”，并指出2020年拜登获得的选票数高得异乎寻常。两人随后讨论到当权派打击政治异见的肮脏手段：任何不顺从体制叙事的人都会遭到铺天盖地的道德抹黑与性丑闻指控；希尔顿则自嘲地表示，建制派至今还没对自己下手，纯粹是因为觉得他毫无胜算。 - **加州多项指标垫底**：拥有全美50个州中最高的失业率和极高的实际贫困率，居民生活成本居高不下。 - **贝塞拉的奇葩回应**：面对 CNN 摆出的经济硬指标，以“加州迪士尼乐园和海滩依然游客爆满”为由，坚称无需对政策作任何实质修正。 - **哈里斯的竞选反讽**：花费14亿美元竞选却痛失全部摇摆州，随后在公开演讲中照搬特朗普阵营的口号“Too big to rig”。 ### [53:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3220s) 加州商会的权力倒戈与企业出走潮希尔顿强调，加州政商体系的腐败远超常人认知，加州商会（CalChamber）的表现就是最荒谬的例证。在《首席执行官》（Chief Executive）杂志对全美各州商业环境的年度评比中，加州已连续12至13年位列第50名（倒数第一），商业环境甚至逊于阿拉斯加州、北达科他州和南达科他州。严苛的监管与高昂成本迫使大量企业逃离，不仅包括埃隆·马斯克旗下的企业，连加州本土标志性的 In-N-Out 汉堡都在外迁，每天都有大中小企业主对希尔顿坦言：“我们还在苦苦支撑，就看你能不能选上；选不上我们就彻底撤离加州。” 按常理推断，代表企业界利益的加州商会理应支持一位亲商候选人。希尔顿在选票官方候选人介绍里，根据自己自1990年从牛津大学毕业后36年的创业经历，合法使用了三词描述——“小企业主”（small business owner）。然而在背书遴选中，加州商会却公开放弃了主张大幅减负、改变方向的希尔顿，转而背书公开宣称“绝不作任何政策改变”的贝塞拉。希尔顿揭露，商会给出的背书声明满嘴都是虚伪的“促进团结”等政治套话，其背后真相是商会高层完全被权力逻辑裹挟：他们认定建制派的贝塞拉赢面更大，为了日后能够分得政商特权的一杯羹，甘愿出卖加州企业的真正利益。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州政商背书与利益绑定逻辑 accDescr: 展现建制派政客、特殊利益集团与选民负担之间的恶性闭环 subgraph Business_Climate ["加州商业与政治现实"] A["加州商业环境全美连续12-13年倒数第一 企业与富豪持续外逃"] --> B["企业主面临抉择：等待选举转机或彻底离开"] end subgraph The_Endorsement_Game ["背书利益交换"] C["加州商会 (CalChamber) 理应代表商业利益"] -->|押注胜率以换取政治特权| E["背书维持现状的贝塞拉 (Becerra)"] D["警察协会工会 (PORAC) 追求自身利益最大化"] -->|交换更高退休金法案承诺| E F["希尔顿 (Hilton) 主张削减官僚、法治秩序、控制财政"] -.->|拒绝不正当私下交易| G["遭建制派利益集团集体排斥"] end subgraph Consequence ["最终代价转嫁"] E --> H["公共养老金黑洞持续扩大"] H --> I["教育与民生经费被严重挤占 高税负下家长自费购买基础耗材"] end ``` ### [56:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3390s) 警察工会的利益交易与吞噬加州财政的养老金黑洞更让希尔顿感到震惊的是警察工会（如加州警察官员协会 PORAC）的背书机制。希尔顿自身政治立场坚定主张“法律与秩序”，强烈反对近年来席卷加州的“削减警费”（defund the police）运动、反思治安恶化政策并主张停止关闭监狱；而贝塞拉在此议题上几乎毫无建树，继续纵容混乱局面。然而，警察工会最终却决定背书贝塞拉。工会内部事后坦白，原因非常纯粹：贝塞拉答应为他们推动一项能够大幅提高警察退休金的法案。罗根质疑希尔顿为何不顺水推舟答应他们的法案要求，希尔顿直言这正是拖垮加州财政的罪魁祸首，绝不能妥协。他以加州的公共教育系统为例痛斥这一黑洞：加州居民承担着全美最高水平的州所得税和房产税，彩票收入按规定也专项补贴教育，然而在全州各地，家长们却被公立学校要求自费购买纸张、课本甚至清洁消毒用品等最基本的物资。希尔顿指出，公众缴纳的巨额教育经费中，大约有整整五分之一（20%）在流入学校课堂之前，就已经被庞大的教师退休金制度直接吞噬。这种不可持续的养老金负债正是加州税负惊人、公共服务却全面溃烂的核心根源。 ### [58:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3518s) 消失的数百亿公款与被否决的无家可归危机审计对话从公共预算与警察待遇切入。罗根坦言，在公共养老金问题上自己内心十分纠结，因为他坚信警察等一线执法人员理应享有优厚的退休保障；但他更想知道，纳税人的钱到底有多少比例被用在刀刃上，又有多少巨额资金像蒸发一样消失得无影无踪——其中最典型的黑洞便是加州的无家可归问题。史蒂夫·希尔顿指出，加州在无家可归危机上至少耗费了 240 亿美元，但令人难以置信的是，当外界两度试图推动对这笔巨额资金的去向进行官方审计时，加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）竟然两次行使否决权，硬生生阻拦了审计程序的推进。类似荒唐的戏码在洛杉矶同样上演。市中心商业地产业主曾提起联合诉讼，法官随后责令对洛杉矶市涉及约 20 亿美元的无家可归相关支出进行专项审计，然而洛杉矶市长卡伦·巴斯（Karen Bass）同样一意孤行地否决了该审计要求。罗根感慨道，试想如果把这被浪费吞噬的 20 亿美元转投给洛杉矶警局（LAPD），用于升级警员培训、改善执勤环境、提振整体士气、保障退休待遇，并吸引更高素质的人才入职，加州的治安面貌将发生天翻地覆的变化。两人一致认为，加州早已有法可依，在公共区域搭设帐篷营地原本就是非法的，核心症结根本不在于缺乏法律，而在于执政者完全放弃了执法。希尔顿强调，他的竞选纲领首要任务就是“严格执法”。 - 加州政府在无家可归议题上支出已突破 240 亿美元，州长纽森两次否决了独立审计法案。 - 洛杉矶因商业地产业界诉讼被法官要求审计 20 亿美元资金，市长卡伦·巴斯同样否决了审计。 - 现有法律明文禁止在街头搭建帐篷营地（homeless encampments），但执法部门被限制采取行动。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州无家可归资金与审计否决流程 accDescr: 图表展示了加州与洛杉矶巨额公共资金投入无家可归危机后审计屡遭行政否决的恶性循环 subgraph 巨额资金流动 A["加州财政资金: 240+ 亿美元"] B["洛杉矶地方资金: 约 20 亿美元"] end subgraph 监管受阻 C["州议会审计诉求"] -->|"纽森两次否决"| E["资金去向成谜 / 缺乏问责"] D["司法诉讼与法官裁定"] -->|"巴斯市长否决"| E end A --> C B --> D E --> F["执法不力、营地蔓延、治安恶化"] ``` --- ### [01:00:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3606s) 沦为“僵尸之城”的洛杉矶市中心与破败的 Skid Row 两人的话题顺势转向洛杉矶市中心（Downtown LA）惨不忍睹的现状。作为全美第二大城市的核心腹地，洛杉矶如今却拥有全美唯一一个几乎彻底瘫痪、失去商业生机的市中心。罗根坦言，市中心虽然有些极高水准的餐厅，但周边的街道却“诡异危险到了极点（sketchy）”。他分享了一次亲身经历：有一次他带孩子们去市中心买甜甜圈，步行在街道上时，每迈出一步都令人提心吊胆，心里不断打鼓：“那个人会不会突然扑过来攻击我们？那个家伙是不是疯了？” 希尔顿紧接着分享了自己前两天的遭遇。他因行程深夜入住洛杉矶市政厅旁边的酒店，由于酒店没有夜宵，他在周六晚上八九点出门找吃的，眼前的景象让他惊骇不已：街头游荡着如行尸走肉般的“僵尸人群”，空气中弥漫着令人作呕的排泄物恶臭，“到处都是屎尿”，已经演变为极其严重的公共卫生灾难。希尔顿愤怒地质问：加州是全球最富裕国家里最富庶的州，税率全美最高，纳税人被层层盘剥，最终换来的却是这样的溃败。雪上加霜的是，即便洛杉矶刚刚上调了地方销售税，LAPD 却警告称，距离 2028 年洛杉矶奥运会仅剩两年多时间，届时洛杉矶警员数量可能只有应有编制的一半。罗根进一步指出 Skid Row（贫民区）对经济生态的毁灭性打击。这个盘踞了 50 多个街区的重灾区彻底成了死地：没有任何开发商敢买楼，没有任何商家敢开店，更没人敢签长达 10 年的租约，因为门前随时会被帐篷营地占领，游民在台阶前随地便溺，店主甚至没有任何合法手段驱逐他们。希尔顿回忆自己曾跟随一家真正的民间慈善机构探访 Skid Row。该机构由一位多年前偶遇受虐动物的女士创立，旨在救助当地流浪动物——在极端恶劣的环境下，甚至有吸毒者拿狗来测试毒品烈度与纯度，以防自己因芬太尼过量暴毙。希尔顿激动地表示，面对这种骇人听闻的人间炼狱，市长和州长怎么还有脸去谈别的工作，“在彻底清理干净这片烂摊子之前，你怎么还能心安理得去干别的事？” --- ### [01:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=3788s) 塞西尔酒店的诡异阴影与“减少伤害”政策的纵容罗根回顾起 Skid Row 的漫长历史，指出这一区域的溃烂冰冻三尺非一日之寒。早年他主持《挑战恐惧》（Fear Factor）时，许多剧集就选在洛杉矶市中心的废弃大楼里拍摄，原因正是 Skid Row 扩散导致的大量建筑空置，加之当时洛杉矶的制造业大举外迁。罗根回忆道，早在 2004 或 2005 年左右，他某次深夜开车拐错路口，赫然发现整条街塞满了纸箱、帐篷和堆积如山的垃圾，景象宛如末世。谈及市中心的衰退，罗根提到了关于塞西尔酒店（Cecil Hotel）的纪录片。那起著名的蓝可儿水箱溺亡案最终被证实是当事人精神分裂症发作、停药后产生的精神错乱悲剧，但该纪录片深刻揭露了这栋历史老建筑的尴尬处境：许多外国游客以为这是一栋始于上世纪二三十年代的典雅历史酒店，满怀憧憬预订入住，到达后才惊恐地发现自己正处于 Skid Row 的核心死角，四周充斥着肮脏、堕落与绝望，甚至重新爆发了百年来罕见的中世纪传染病。罗根解释道，Skid Row 最早其实是地方政府用来维持比弗利山庄等富人区光鲜的“隔离区”——警方把在富人区抓到的流民直接押运丢弃在市中心并将其封锁在内。然而时至今日，危机早已冲破隔离边界蔓延全加州。希尔顿猛烈抨击了政府推行的所谓“减少伤害（Harm Reduction）”政策。政府不仅没有帮助这些人戒毒，反而在官方收容点发放用于替代芬太尼的阿片类药物，甚至免费派发吸食毒品的用具（如裂变烟斗 crack pipes）。希尔顿提到曼哈顿研究所（Manhattan Institute）的学者克里斯托弗·鲁福（Christopher Rufo）曾潜入这些机构卧底拍摄，揭露了政府以纳税人的钱纵容吸毒的荒诞内幕。希尔顿在全州各地奔走时深切感受到，这种 squalor（污秽与堕落）正侵蚀着这片美丽的土地；罗根也补充道，即便在比弗利山庄这样光鲜依旧的富人区，恶果也以另一种方式显现——破门盗窃与入室抢劫（home invasions）的发生率正在疯狂暴涨。 ### [01:07:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4031s) 蒙面犯罪加重刑罚与加州司法乱象史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）就加利福尼亚州治安恶化展开讨论。希尔顿指出，现在的入室盗窃等犯罪活动中，罪犯几乎无一例外都戴着口罩或面罩，这在过去并不常见。为了打击这一现象，他们正在推动一项方案：只要罪犯在作案时遮挡面部，就必须在量刑时直接予以刑期加重（sentencing enhancements）。然而，加州体制内部对解决此类问题似乎毫无兴趣。罗根对此表示赞同，并尖锐地抨击加州当前的司法运作：体制内不仅不打击犯罪，反而表现出极大的热情去释放犯下暴力罪行的罪犯——“如果我想彻底摧毁一座城市，我就会完完全全像他们现在这样搞”。罗根直言，要摧毁一座城市，最快捷的办法就是聘用那些无论发生什么都愿意放人的极左激进地方检察官（progressive DAs），然后抛出一堆“系统性种族歧视”（systemic racism）等词汇当作挡箭牌，为那些在过去12年里抢劫了近百次的惯犯开脱罪责。不过，希尔顿提到目前有一丝转机：洛杉矶新当选的地方检察官内森·霍克曼（Nathan Hochman）表现不错。希尔顿曾为他站台支持，前几天也刚刚见过他，这证明民众的选票实际上是能够带来改变的。然而，希尔顿也承认，霍克曼正在与整个深陷疯狂意识形态的政治系统对抗。加州目前绝大多数政策崩溃的根源，正在于“意识形态凌驾于任何实际常识之上”。 - 针对罪犯戴面罩作案的普遍现象，希尔顿主张引入法定加重刑罚条款。 - 罗根批评激进地方检察官将种族与歧视议题武器化，作为纵容惯犯开释的借口。 - 新任地方检察官内森·霍克曼（Nathan Hochman）的上任被视为扭转司法乱象的一个积极信号。 --- ### [01:08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4125s) 意识形态绑架与两党制的政治极化希尔顿谈到，在加州的政治体系中，所有人必须绝对服从既定叙事，否则就会遭到严厉惩罚。他举了一个令人震惊的真实例子：大约几年前，圣克鲁斯（Santa Cruz）一带有一名民主党州议员，仅仅是因为在某项涉及政府工会利益的法案上投了反对票，触怒了工会（可能是大学教师工会），工会便立即转头出资资助其共和党对手的竞选活动，目的就是给所有人上一堂“别想脱离队伍”的惩罚课。罗根进而将话题引向美国两党制的整体弊病。他指出，两党体制正在将国家撕裂，而温和或理性的选民无处可去。罗根坦言自己的立场在两边都有交集：他赞同左翼倡导的很多理念，也赞同右翼提出的许多主张，但两党各自推行的一些极端议题又都极其荒谬可笑。最终的结果是，选民不得不被各自阵营中最糟糕的群体所定义——一边是极端的 MAGA 信徒，一边是波特兰街头的激进分子；一边是纠结于各类非二元性别标签的人，另一边则是声称“美国是基督教国家、要把穆斯林全赶出去”的狂热分子。两党政治强行把选民压缩在两种极端选择之间。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两党极化与选民困境机制 accDescr: 展示两党体制如何通过惩罚异见与推向极端，将普通选民困在两种极端之间 subgraph Discipline ["党内纪律与利益绑架"] A["温和/理性议员投票偏离路线"] --> B["利益集团/工会报复 (资助政敌)"] B --> C["全员被迫盲从既定叙事"] end subgraph PolarizedPolitics ["两党制下的极端化"] C --> D["选民只能二选一"] D --> E["被极端形象代表: 极左意识形态 vs 极右狂热"] D --> F["大量中间选民/常识派无代表诉求"] end ``` --- ### [01:10:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4219s) 希尔顿的竞选考量与迈克尔·谢伦伯格的先例谈到政治标签，希尔顿表示，曾有人劝他以独立候选人（Independent）的身份参选加州州长，而不是代表共和党。希尔顿自认具有独立思考能力，从未担任过公职，也不属于既有的政治机器，因此他有话直说，甚至由于外界普遍认为共和党在加州绝无胜算，他反而没有任何包袱，“不妨放手一搏，直抒胸臆”。但罗根直截了当地指出，走独立候选人道路是绝对不可能赢的。罗根以小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪（Robert F. Kennedy Jr.）以及曾两次以独立身份竞选加州州长的知名调查记者迈克尔·谢伦伯格（Michael Shellenberger）为例。罗根表示，自己曾邀请谢伦伯格上播客帮忙宣传，但谢伦伯格自己恐怕心里也明白不可能胜选；参选更多是借此平台发声、揭露虚伪黑幕并推动事业。然而，希尔顿严肃地反驳称，自己绝不是为了陪跑或作秀，而是“真正相信自己能够赢下这场选举”。罗根坦言，鉴于加州当前的糟糕现状，希尔顿确实有可能迎来机会。罗根回忆起以前在加州生活时的情形：当时的“自由派”是正常的自由派，就像 1990 年代的比尔·克林顿（Bill Clinton），支持同性恋平权、女性权益、民权和基本的社会保障网。然而如今如果把比尔·克林顿或希拉里·克林顿当年关于非法移民和福利的公开言论拿出来，甚至比今天的共和党和特朗普（MAGA）还要强硬，例如他们当年明确表示“不能向非法移民提供免费医保，否则会激励更多人非法涌入”。罗根感叹，政治人物宣称的“支持科学、支持民权”不过是骗取选票以便分肥利益的幌子，两个政党本质上都在欺骗民众，只是掠夺的方式各不相同。 - 独立候选人在现有选举体制下面临极高的制度壁垒，极难取得突破。 - 1990年代民主党的传统纲领（克林顿时期）在边境管理和福利政策上，比现今主流民主党立场更为保守。 - 罗根指出政客利用意识形态口号获取选票，本质上是为了幕后的利益输送与资金掠夺。 --- ### [01:12:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4377s) 打破一党专政：加州政治生态的权力制衡希尔顿深入剖析了萨克拉门托（Sacramento，加州首府）州议会的权力格局。他指出，长期以来，议会中的多数议员要么被利益集团驯服，要么早已灰心放弃。但如今，加州共和党内部已经涌现出一批志同道合的新面孔，例如卡尔·德马约（Carl DeMaio）、戴维·坦加帕拉（David Tangipa）、以及新任州众议院领导人亚历山德拉·梅多（Alexandra Macedo）。他们结成同盟，誓言与彻底俘获政府的大企业、大工会等特殊利益集团抗争。希尔顿解释，加州过去十多年来一直处于民主党的绝对多数（三分之二超级多数，supermajority）统治之下，这使得立法机关完全能够随意通过任何议案，共和党人在客观上被彻底边缘化。他当前的目标是通过选战多夺回几个席位，打破这种不可挑战的“超级多数”，并在自己当选州长后逐步削弱这种盘根错节的腐败格局。罗根与希尔顿达成强烈共识：**绝不能让任何一个政党获得绝对不受制衡的统治权**。罗根强调，这并非单纯针对民主党；如果让共和党在加州享有长达十六年的绝对控制，同样会滋生出属于共和党的腐败、敛财和严重制度问题，因为“当缺乏权力制约时，人类的行事逻辑就是如此”。希尔顿罗列数据指出，过去16年中，加州所有全州性直选公职（州长、总检察长等）、州议会两院的三分之二超级多数、所有大城市和核心县的控制权，乃至州最高法院的法官任命（6比1的民主党任命优势），全被单一政党垄断。这种长期的政治垄断滋生了极端的傲慢，使得掌权者肆无忌惮，深信无人能够挑战他们的权威。 - 民主党在加州州参众两院维持三分之二“超级多数”已超过十年，导致所有法案缺乏制衡机制。 - 加州司法系统高度单一化，州最高法院中民主党任命法官与共和党任命法官比例达到 6 比 1。 - 无论左翼还是右翼，缺乏制衡的长期一党独大必然导致制度性腐败与施政傲慢。 ### [01:15:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4547s) 一党专政的腐败与加州失踪的240亿美元游民资金讨论从长期权力垄断带来的系统性腐败切入。Joe Rogan 指出，当一个政党获得绝对控制权、完全无人能挑战其权力地位时，其运作机制便与威权政府毫无二致。掌权者不仅可以为所欲为，背后还有庞大的竞选金主网络，充斥着各种利益输送和亲属商业交易。Steve Hilton 随即以匈牙利总理欧尔班·维克多（Viktor Orbán）的执政经历作为对照。由于家人仍生活在匈牙利，Hilton 对该国政局十分熟悉，他提到欧尔班掌权了16年，恰好与加州民主党彻底掌控政权的时间跨度相当，而最终呈现出来的都是极其惊人的腐败程度。两人深入探讨了加州在游民治理上的审计丑闻。加州在游民问题上投入了高达240亿美元的巨额资金，但州审计长随后发布报告指出，这笔钱的去向根本无法追踪，如同凭空蒸发。面对这一震惊公众的发现，州长竟直接动用权力阻止进一步深究。更讽刺的是，最初要求州审计长立案调查的虽是共和党议员，但审计报告出炉后，连民主党占三分之二超级多数的州立法机构也一致认为必须进行彻底审计。然而，州行政层面却以“没有必要”为由进行推脱和否决。Rogan 愤慨地表示，不仅240亿美元花得毫无成效，加州的游民数量反而在同期大幅飙升，如果这都不算彻底腐败，那什么才算腐败。 - 匈牙利欧尔班执政16年与加州民主党掌控政权的时长完全一致，均滋生了不受监督的系统性腐败。 - 240亿美元专项财政资金去向不明，在加州两党立法院一致支持彻查的情况下，州政府依然试图粉饰太平。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 游民资金黑洞与利益链运作机制 accDescr: 展示加州游民专项资金如何流向非营利机构与高成本开发商并导致恶性循环 subgraph FundFlow["财政资金流向与政策闭环"] A["加州财政拔款 (240亿美元)"] --> B["非营利机构 (Housing First 模式)"] A --> C["特权开发商 (高价建设单元)"] end subgraph Problem["实施后果与恶性循环"] B -.->|"法律禁止强制戒毒/工作要求"| D["游民毒瘾与行为问题未改善"] C -.->|"单套成本高达60万~100万美元"| E["巨额成本吞噬纳税人资金"] D --> F["安置单元沦为'第二居所'"] F --> G["返回街头吸毒贩毒，游民人数持续上升"] end ``` --- ### [01:17:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4660s) “游民产业复合体”的暴利闭环与 Housing First 的荒谬谈及为何240亿美元毫无成效，Steve Hilton 直指核心问题在于“游民产业复合体”（Homeless Industrial Complex）的双重暴利机制。第一部分是寄生在财政拨款上的非营利组织。Hilton 指出，加州法律实际上“把解决问题变成了违法行为”——根据加州推行的“住房优先”（Housing First）政策，任何要求受助者做出积极改变（如强制戒毒、康复治疗或就业培训）的机构，都被法律明文禁止获取州政府资金。Rogan 对此极为不解，直言在街头80%的游民饱受芬太尼摧残的情况下，把这一切单纯归结为“住房短缺问题”简直荒谬透顶。第二部分更为庞大的资金黑洞则是勾结政客的特权开发商。这批极少数的建商专门承接所谓的“永久支持性住房”（Permanent Supportive Housing）。由于必须遵守繁杂的政府审批程序、环保条款以及强制使用特定工会合同的规定，一套安置单元的建设成本被推高到极其离谱的水平：保守估计每套单间造价在60万美元左右，在洛杉矶和旧金山湾区更是高达90万至100万美元。Hilton 引述一位在湾区建造普通公寓的朋友的说法称，如果没有政府强加的层层荒唐规矩，私人开发每套单元的成本大约只需25万美元，而政府项目却贵了整整四倍。更令人触目惊心的是实际落地效果。Hilton 提到自己在威尼斯海滩（Venice）随同一家真正的慈善机构走访的经历。该机构创办人曾有吸毒史，保持清醒长达23年，他自费租用 Airbnb 带领成瘾者进行集体康复训练。这位负责人直言，政府发给街头游民的永久支持性住房对他们来说就像“第二套度假屋”，因为这些成瘾者的行为习惯没有任何改变，他们依然会每天跑回街头买毒品、卖毒品，政府的高额投入完全沦为空谈。 - “住房优先”（Housing First）政策在法律上剥离了对戒毒和康复的要求，导致资金无法触碰芬太尼危机的本质。 - 永久支持性住房单套建造成本高达60万至100万美元，远超正常私人建筑成本（约25万美元/套）。 --- ### [01:20:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4807s) 精神病院的消亡与 Medicaid 16张病床限制（IMD规则）话题延伸到游民危机背后深层次的精神疾病问题。Rogan 回忆道，早在里根执政时期，政府打开了精神病院的大门并切断资金，导致大量失去收容和照护的精神病患者流落街头，这对公共卫生和安全而言是一场灾难。Hilton 补充道，这种“反收容所”的思潮后来在社会上根深蒂固，公众普遍认为设立疯人院（Insane Asylums）是野蛮残忍的行径，主张将患者分散在社区中照顾，这一理念最终被彻底固化在联邦医疗补助（Medicaid）的法案中。 Hilton 剖析了导致今天无法建立现代大型精神照护机构的法律枷锁——“精神疾病机构规则”（Institutions for Mental Diseases Rule，简称 IMD 规则）。该联邦法规严格规定：任何拥有超过16张床位的精神疾病治疗机构，都无法获得联邦 Medicaid 的报销资助。正是由于这条僵化的限制，全美各地根本没有任何财政动力去建造现代化、大规模、标准化的精神卫生设施，只能拆散成无数规模极其有限的微型诊所，从而彻底丧失了应对大规模严重精神疾病和毒瘾危机的能力。 --- ### [01:21:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=4898s) 警惕“精神卫生工业复合体”：温哥华街头强制带走事件虽然缺乏大型精神设施，但 Rogan 对走向另一个极端的危险性同样保持警惕。他指出，大众对潜在的“精神医疗工业复合体”（Medical Health Industrial Complex）滥用权力剥夺公民自由抱有合理的怀疑与恐惧。为了说明这种危险，Rogan 提到了网络上疯传的一段令人不寒而栗的加拿大视频。在这段发生在温哥华的视频中，一名男子在驾车途中被警察和随行人员拦截。对方当场声称该男子被评定为“心理健康不健全”，必须立刻被押送带走。然而，整段录像中，该男子在面对警方的离奇要求时表现得极其冷静、理智且逻辑严密，甚至极度宽容克制，温和地询问能否通过正常预约到诊所接受检查，并质问究竟是谁、依据何种合法裁决认定自己精神异常。Rogan 指出，即便该男子可能在网络上发过一些举止怪异的视频，或者存在躁郁症倾向，但在没有任何官方正式精神鉴定和司法裁决的情况下，执法部门仅仅依据道听途说的举报就在路边剥夺一个人的人身自由，这种缺乏正当程序（Due Process）的做法极其恐怖。随后制作人 Jamie 调出视频，Rogan 让 Hilton 戴上耳机一同观看。视频开篇展示了名为“Car 87”的联合响应小组，由一名来自温哥华沿海卫生局（Vancouver Coastal Health）的高级精神科住院医（Dr. Emory）与温哥华警察局警官共同组成，他们正准备以心理评估为由将该男子控制并带走。这一真实的执法场景引发了两人对公权力打着精神健康旗号肆意践踏个人权利的深切忧虑。 ### [01:24:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5081s) 加拿大网红强制送检事件与精神卫生法争议乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）正在观看并讨论一段在网络上引发广泛争议的视频。视频中，一名叫 Nicholas 的男子正与医疗人员及警察对峙。一名医生根据加拿大的《精神卫生法》（Mental Health Act）认定该男子存在精神健康问题，并要求对其进行强制认证（certified）。医生指出，大约三四周前，泰勒医生（Dr. Taylor）曾在一家咖啡馆见过他，并随后联系了他的家人获取更多信息，如今埃默里医生（Dr. Emory）到场准备将其带入医院的受控环境中进行精神检查。当事男子坚持手持镜头记录整个过程，坚称自己有合法权利拍摄，并反复声明自己非常配合，从未拒绝就诊：“我愿意去赴约，我从未获得过参加预约的机会……他甚至没给我做精神评估，就看了我一眼说我被强制认证了。”现场警官试图安抚他，承认 Nicholas 一直很配合，但解释决定权完全在医生手中。视频随后切到他在精神科病房的画面：他展示着早晨吃的鸡蛋，抱怨房间甚至没有窗帘，整夜光线直射导致失眠，他不得不向院方索要胶带把窗户封上才能睡觉，自嘲这里简陋得宛如“香格里拉（Shangri-La）”。罗根与希尔顿对这段视频感到极度匪夷所思。医生仅凭在咖啡馆的偶遇和一些零碎信息，就能直接剥夺一个人的人身自由，将其送入精神病院。罗根质疑该男子究竟是一名真正的“保守派网红（conservative influencer）”，还是媒体为了制造愤怒流量（rage bait）而贴上的标签。 - 涉事法律依据为加拿大的《精神卫生法》（Mental Health Act），赋予医生无需当事人同意即可将其强制送医评估的权力。 - 视频中当事人 Nicholas 强调自己此前从未被给予正常预约门诊的机会，也未接受过正式的精神状态评估。 - 当事人被收治后拍摄病房环境，因没有遮光帘导致彻夜无法入睡，只能用胶带封贴窗户。 --- ### [01:27:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5228s) 威权主义蔓延、公立医疗与AI虚假视频的困境罗根指出，加拿大不仅实行全民公立医疗体制，其政府公权力的过度干预和过度扩张（government overreach）也十分严重。事发地点温哥华被罗根形容为“打了类固醇的波特兰（Portland on steroids）”，充斥着激进的左翼思潮。罗根讽刺道，如果一个言行怪异的保守派在网上兴风作浪，公权力立刻就能以精神问题为由将其收容；而街头无数更加疯狂的左翼流浪者或激进分子，却从未被送进精神病院。不过，罗根也保持了一定的客观审慎。他提到网络上流传该男子一些更出格的言论视频，但当下深伪与人工智能（AI）泛滥，网上的离谱视频真假难辨。观察当事人的车内环境，后座堆满了纸箱和杂物，这确实可能是有精神紊乱倾向的迹象，除非他恰好在搬家。但从谈吐来看，该男子言语清晰、逻辑严密、态度克制，绝不像对自己或他人具有即时危险性的人。希尔顿深有感触地指出，这正是人们必须对威权主义向政府机构渗透保持高度警惕的原因，如今将一切社会问题“过度医疗化（medicalization）”所带来的非人道趋势，正在走向极为黑暗的方向。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 公权力干预与精神医疗流程对比 accDescr: 对比加拿大强制收治案例中展现的争议流程与正常医疗评估流程 subgraph Normal["正常评估程序"] A["社区随访与预约"] --> B["专业面诊与精神评估"] B --> C["自愿治疗或具备危险性时收治"] end subgraph Case["视频中的争议干预"] D["咖啡馆偶遇/网络言论"] --> E["与家属简短交流"] E --> F["直接依据法案强制认证 (Certified)"] F --> G["警医协同上门强制送医收治"] end ``` - 加拿大温哥华的社会与政治氛围常被拿来与美国俄勒冈州波特兰相类比，反映出深刻的意识形态分歧。 - 罗根提醒现今网络舆论面临 AI 生成内容的挑战，真假发疯视频在缺乏验证机制下极易误导公众。 - 希尔顿认为此类案例体现了官僚体制下人性的丧失，医学和公权力结合后容易沦为压制异见的威权工具。 --- ### [01:29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5383s) AI 巨头的末日论、监管垄断与《机器的慈悲》谈及对人性的漠视与冰冷的制度化管控，希尔顿将话题转向了当下人工智能领域的舆论风暴，特别是 Anthropic 创始人兼首席执行官达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）。近期在知名科技播客《All-In Podcast》中，有嘉宾批评阿莫代伊不断向公众和政府兜售 AI 毁灭人类的“末日论（doom scenario）”，其真实目的是为了游说政府出台严苛的监管政策，从而利用合规门槛阻击竞争对手，巩固行业巨头的垄断地位。面对“末日先生”的指责，阿莫代伊在社交平台 X 上发表长文反驳，并引用了他此前撰写的长达 1.4 万字的宏文《机器的慈悲》（Machines of Loving Grace），试图证明自己对 AI 的未来持积极乐观态度。然而，希尔顿在细读该文后感到毛骨悚然：在这篇所谓的“积极设想”中，阿莫代伊预测人类未来将无法再为经济做出任何有意义的贡献，无所事事的大众只能沉迷于电子游戏；谈及失去存在价值的下一代时，他甚至轻描淡写地表示，人类已经掌握了利他林（Ritalin）等药物来调节抑郁与情绪，即使没有成就感也能用药物抚平痛苦。希尔顿感叹，把“用药物麻痹无用阶层”当作乐观图景，这不仅不是希望，反而是彻头彻尾的赛博朋克噩梦。 - Anthropic 联合创始人兼 CEO 达里奥·阿莫代伊（Dario Amodei）撰写了长达 14,000 字的论述长文《机器的慈悲》（*Machines of Loving Grace*）。 - 文章被指描绘了人类丧失经济生产力后沦为“无用阶层”、依靠电子游戏度日、依赖利他林（Ritalin）等中枢神经兴奋剂与抗抑郁药物维持心理平衡的黯淡图景。 - 科技界围绕 AI 安全的辩论，背后往往交织着通过政府强监管来构筑行业护城河的商业动机。 --- ### [01:32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5535s) 程序员的出逃与硅谷顶层的虚无主义罗根与希尔顿进一步探讨了整个 AI 前沿领域蔓延的虚无主义与生存危机。罗根提到，现在不少顶尖的 AI 核心程序员由于在开发过程中意识到技术可能已经触碰甚至诞生了某种自我意识，陷入了深刻的哲学与精神危机。有一位核心开发人员在离职前发表了一份告别声明，阐述人类文明即将面临的毁灭性灾难，随后彻底放弃硅谷的科技生活，搬迁至爱尔兰等地隐居并靠写诗度日。希尔顿对两大 AI 巨头掌门人——Anthropic 的达里奥·阿莫代伊和 OpenAI 的山姆·奥特曼（Sam Altman）的行为逻辑提出强烈质疑：如果他们自己都坚信 AI 极有可能带来人类的终结，那为什么还要日以继夜地推动它的研发？这种“一边声称它会毁灭世界，一边加大投入制造它”的行径极度精神分裂。罗根随后提到了投资人彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）在公开访谈中的著名一幕：当被问及“人类是否应该继续生存下去”时，蒂尔竟然陷入了长达 15 秒令人窒息的迟疑与停顿。这种硅谷精英对人类生命价值的冷漠，与用药物（如利他林）来改造或平抑人类情感的技术官僚思维一脉相承，展现出科技乌托邦背后令人不寒而栗的技术反乌托邦本质。 - 报道称有顶尖 AI 工程师因技术带来的终极危机感离开美国前往爱尔兰隐居，选择以写诗逃避技术奇点的降临。 - 讨论点名了当前 AI 领域两位最具影响力的关键人物：Anthropic 的 Dario Amodei 与 OpenAI 的 Sam Altman。 - 罗根回顾了彼得·蒂尔（Peter Thiel）在面对“人类是否应该繁衍存续”这一根本道德问题时罕见的漫长犹豫。 ### [01:33:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5625s) AI 赋能精神健康药物与对 SSRI 滥用的反思对话从探讨人工智能在神经科学中的应用展开。有人推测，由 AI 驱动的生物学突破不仅能让利他林（Ritalin）等药物的效果大幅提升，更可能彻底改变未来的认知与心理健康干预手段。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，虽然这听起来像是在设法让人们依赖更强大的药物，而非通过生活本身去寻找意义和目标，但科学层面的进步确实可能挽救生命。罗根分享了身边朋友的真实经历：一位曾陷入重度抑郁并有严重自杀倾向的朋友，在精神科医生的帮助下通过 SSRI（选择性 5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂）稳住了状态，随后逐步减药，如今已彻底恢复并重回正常生活轨迹。罗根讽刺道，如果这位朋友身处加拿大，当地的医疗系统甚至可能“鼓励”他去接受安乐死。然而，罗根与史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）一致认为，当前最大的危机在于精神类药物被严重过度开药。现代医学过度依赖化学手段，却忽视了最天然、完全免费的人类解决方案——运动、营养摄入与社区支持。罗根直言，俯卧撑和自重深蹲不需要花费一分钱，更不需要去药店排队。相比之下，各类精神药物不仅普遍具有极强的成瘾性，长期使用更会彻底摧毁人体的自然平衡系统。他提到另一位服用长达 20 年的朋友，虽然一度停药，最终却因神经系统受损严重而不得不重新依赖药物；此类药物还会引发人格异化、做出冲动决策，以及生殖器麻木、无法达到性高潮等严重的性功能障碍。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 心理健康干预路径对比 accDescr: 对比传统自然疗法与过度依赖精神类药物的利弊 subgraph Natural["天然自然疗法（免费且可持续）"] N1["运动锻炼 （俯卧撑/深蹲）"] N2["优质饮食营养"] N3["社交联结与社区支持"] end subgraph Medical["药物干预路径（利弊共存）"] M1["短期应急介入 （救助严重抑郁/自杀倾向）"] M2["AI 驱动的新型生物学干预"] M3["过度开药与长期依赖"] end subgraph Risks["药物长期副作用"] R1["不可逆的神经与生理成瘾"] R2["情绪钝化与自我认知丧失"] R3["严重性功能障碍（生殖器麻木）"] end M1 -->|康复后逐步减停| Success["恢复正常生活"] M3 --> Risks ``` - 罗根强调自己并非完全否定 SSRI，对于处于自杀边缘的极端患者而言，它是救命稻草，但绝不能作为应对普遍生活压力的常规万灵药。 - 滥用精神药物会导致患者感觉“自己不再是自己”，并在缺乏真实情感反馈的情况下做出鲁莽冲动的决定。 --- ### [01:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5757s) 温哥华抗议者事件、中加关系指控与现实中的间谍丑闻两人的讨论转向了加拿大温哥华的一桩离奇事件。根据核查网站 Snopes 的信息，一名在 Instagram 上拥有约 6.7 万粉丝的评论人士在发布了一份文件后遭到了逮捕。这份公开发布在 Google Docs 上的文件带有强烈的法律警告，指控中国与腐败的加拿大政府合谋，企图通过设立非法的海外警察局、利用原住民协议将温哥华出卖给外国势力，甚至直接指控政治人物存在叛国行为。罗根与希尔顿探讨，这名男子究竟是彻底精神失常，还是因为触碰到了真实的政治敏感内幕而被扣上“精神异常”的帽子予以收监。希尔顿随即指出，现实中的间谍渗透往往比阴谋论更加荒唐。例如加州阿卡迪亚（Arcadia）的前市长近期被曝出涉嫌间谍活动；而众议员埃里克·斯沃韦尔（Eric Swalwell）与中国间谍方芳（Fang Fang）的绯闻更是震动政坛。斯沃韦尔此前长期否认两人存在不正当肉体关系，但近期新闻报道称他终于承认了与方芳的关系。希尔顿笑称，在他准备参加加州州长竞选的首场电视辩论时，一直琢磨着一定要当面用“Fang Fang Bang Bang”这个押韵梗狠狠调侃斯沃韦尔一番，可惜斯沃韦尔最终以参加国会投票为由缺席了那场辩论，让他未能如愿。 - 网上流传的涉案文档声称中国已被北约（NATO）、北美防空司令部（NORAD）、五眼联盟（Five Eyes）及加拿大网络安全中心等列为高风险对手。 - 罗根指出，当权者若想让一个揭露深层腐败的人闭嘴，最常用的手段之一就是将其描绘为需要强制进行心理健康评估的疯子。 --- ### [01:38:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5920s) “阴谋论”与现实：从梅尔·吉布森电影到经典喜剧《太坏了》希尔顿表示，作为一个幅员辽阔、思想多元的国家，美国本身就充满了一种“美妙的疯狂”。在竞选巡回演讲的路上，经常有人往他手里塞信封或各类手写资料，他每次都会认真翻阅——虽然其中一半内容可能属于毫无根据的阴谋狂想，但另一半却往往蕴含着极具启发性的民间智慧，甚至促使他从全新角度思考政策。罗根则感叹，有时候唯有那些偏执狂般追查线索的人才能揭露隐藏的真相，这就像梅尔·吉布森（Mel Gibson）与朱莉娅·罗伯茨（Julia Roberts）主演的经典老电影《阴谋论》（Conspiracy Theory）里的情节：主角虽然看似疯癫，但他的怀疑却全都是真的。话题随后轻松地转向了漫长竞选车程中的文化补课。希尔顿提到，为了打发加州长途驾驶的枯燥时间，他和竞选团队成员埃里克开始恶补一些美国经典流行文化电影。几天前，他第一次观看了著名的青春喜剧片《太坏了》（Superbad），并被其精彩绝伦的剧本彻底折服。罗根也深有共鸣，直呼该片是“有史以来最优秀的喜剧片之一”；罗根还自嘲道，自己曾在孩子只有 10 岁和 12 岁时试图带他们看这部电影，结果开场才三分钟，就因为片中极其露骨的对话和那个在课堂上疯狂画男性生殖器的荒唐桥段，不得不赶紧关掉电视。希尔顿与罗根最后达成共识，在如今政治正确盛行、好莱坞创作力被全面绑架的环境下，不仅当代制片厂绝不可能再拍出像《太坏了》这样纯粹搞笑的喜剧，甚至连当年制作这部电影的原班人马如今也失去了创作这种作品的勇气。 - 希尔顿在加州全境展开竞选巡回，长途车程让他得以接触到以往错过的美国经典影视与市井流行文化。 - 罗根认为亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）式的偏执人物在现实中往往扮演着类似的角色，有时疯癫与敏锐的洞察力仅有一线之隔。 ### [01:41:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6115s) 意识形态枷锁与好莱坞喜剧电影的衰落乔·罗根与史蒂夫·希尔顿探讨了意识形态对喜剧创作的毁灭性冲击。罗根指出，左翼阵营被某种狂热的意识形态所绑架，导致好莱坞在当下的环境中再也拍不出过去那种纯粹逗笑观众的经典喜剧电影。观众看喜剧只是为了看一个荒诞离奇的人物说出疯言疯语并让人捧腹大笑，根本没人会把银幕上的疯话当成创作者的真实人生主张，更不可能因为看完一部电影就跑去作恶，“艺术作品不是这么运作的”。他打趣道：“这就像鲍勃·马利（Bob Marley）唱了歌，但他并没真的开枪打死治安官（I Shot the Sheriff）。” 传统电影产业深度捆绑在好莱坞体系内，因而受制于严苛的审查和政治正确标准；相比之下，单口喜剧（脱口秀）幸运地借由互联网找到了生路，彻底摆脱了好莱坞的控制。然而，正因脱口秀不迎合这种规训，如今往往被扣上“右翼”的帽子。罗根强调，他不愿称之为“反觉醒”（anti-woke），因为那只是纯粹的喜剧。喜剧的天职本就是反建制与讽刺掌权者，如今建制派被某种教条完全占据，一旦有人宣布“这个话题你们不能拿来开玩笑”，那它本质上就已经演变成了一种不允许任何亵渎的宗教。类似《宿醉》（The Hangover）或金·凯瑞主演的《神探飞机头》（Ace Ventura: Pet Detective）这类曾在院线随处可见的作品，在当今的审查风气下已彻底绝迹。 - **喜剧电影与艺术本质**：荒诞喜剧是艺术宣泄而非社会宣教，将虚构情节与现实恶行挂钩摧毁了整个创作流派。 - **单口喜剧的独立性**：脱口秀演员凭借互联网平台甩开传统制片厂束缚，无需再为好莱坞的文化教条妥协。 --- ### [01:44:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6254s) 从 MTV 主持人到自由意志主义评论员话题随后转入媒体名人的转变与英国老喜剧的闲聊。希尔顿提到福克斯新闻（Fox News）的主持人肯尼迪（Kennedy，原名 Lisa Kennedy Montgomery），称赞她极其风趣，并透露肯尼迪以前总爱把时任美联储主席珍妮特·耶伦（Janet Yellen）比作英国老牌滑稽演员本尼·希尔（Benny Hill），导致希尔顿后来一看到耶伦的照片脑海里就浮现出本尼·希尔的模样。罗根感叹肯尼迪的职业轨迹颇具传奇色彩：她最早在 1990 年代是 MTV 频道的知名音乐主持人（VJ），当时戴着黑框眼镜，让人天然以为她会是个典型的激进进步主义者（progressive）；未曾料到多年后她转型成为福克斯的重量级评论员。希尔顿和罗根都指出，肯尼迪并非盲目的党派传声筒，而是一位坚定且极其聪颖的自由意志主义者（libertarian），还在自由盛会（FreedomFest）等活动中担任重要角色。 --- ### [01:45:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6320s) 路易·C·K（Louis C.K.）的争议与喜剧大师本色谈到顶尖脱口秀演员时，希尔顿提到自己的儿子埃里克（Eric）非常迷恋路易·C·K（Louis C.K.），自己深入了解后也深深折服于其惊人的编剧与表演才华。罗根对路易赞不绝口，称其为“史上最伟大的脱口秀演员之一”。对于当年路易卷入的性丑闻，罗根给出了客观而直白的剖析：路易确实有当着别人面自慰的怪癖（kink），但他事前征求了对方的许可，并没有像比尔·考斯比（Bill Cosby）那样进行有组织、流水线式的系统性侵犯或下药掠夺。罗根表示，虽然当着年轻女性的面自慰确实“恶心且古怪”，路易本人对此也坦承不讳，但如果有观众因此被冒犯而决定不再看他的演出，那是个人合理的自由。然而从艺术角度而言，路易在重返舞台后的专场中正面直面这起风波的表演堪称绝妙，其文本功力和喜剧水平依然处于行业天花板级别。 --- ### [01:47:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6441s) “喜剧母舰”俱乐部设计与脱口秀乌托邦罗根进一步透露，当他在得克萨斯州奥斯汀筹备自己的脱口秀俱乐部“喜剧母舰”（Comedy Mothership）时，路易·C·K 在俱乐部还是毛坯房状态时就亲自到场，给予了至关重要的建筑与声学建议。路易建议把小剧场的舞台面积缩小，并把原本就很低的天花板进一步压低至门楣齐平，同时还对吸音和降噪设计给出了专业指导，以确保场内的笑声与人声具备最佳共鸣和清晰度。罗根还解释了“喜剧母舰”两间演出厅分别命名为“胖子”（Fat Man）与“小男孩”（Little Boy）的渊源：这绝非取笑广岛与长崎遭受原子弹轰炸的惨剧，而是因为俱乐部采用 UFO 主题；在美国不明飞行物民俗史中，1940 年代核武器计划落地后全美目击 UFO 的频率骤增，并在 1947 年爆发著名的罗斯威尔事件。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 喜剧母舰俱乐部设计决策流程 accDescr: 展示乔·罗根如何吸纳路易·C·K及其他同行喜剧演员的专业意见打造喜剧俱乐部的流程图 subgraph Advice ["同行智慧与声学规划"] A["路易·C·K 现场勘测"] --> B["压低小剧场天花板"] A --> C["缩小舞台面积以聚拢气场"] A --> D["顶级声学吸音与清晰度处理"] end subgraph Council ["演员共治与功能落地"] E["演员智囊团投票 (罗恩·怀特 / 托尼·欣奇克利夫 / 布赖恩·辛普森)"] B & C & D --> E E --> F["后台休息室安装实时舞台监视器"] end subgraph Welfare ["行业颠覆性福利与运营"] E --> G["全员免费心理咨询与精神健康医疗"] E --> H["远超行业标准的演员演出分成"] end ``` 罗根强调，“喜剧母舰”不是以利润最大化为驱动的商业项目，而是旨在打造一个“绝不亏损、全心服务于演员”的行业典范。他邀请了罗恩·怀特（Ron White）、托尼·欣奇克利夫（Tony Hinchcliffe）、布赖恩·辛普森（Brian Simpson）等常驻好友共同投票决定场馆设施： - **后台体验升级**：在演员休息室配备多块高清监视器，使候场同行能实时掌握台上的现场节奏。 - **全方位健康福利**：为全体俱乐部员工提供免费的心理辅导、精神科及心理学家咨询服务，并配备完善的医疗保险。 - **尊重创作者收益**：向登台脱口秀演员支付远高于传统喜剧俱乐部的演出报酬。正如罗根所总结，路易·C·K 极其聪明且富有远见，虽然像很多天才一样身上带有某种怪诞的特质，但正是这些顶尖同行的合力才铸就了极致的喜剧舞台。 ### [01:50:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6618s) 脱口秀的本质是古怪与打磨：从后台闲聊到舞台“实验室” 乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，凡是伟大的单口喜剧演员，骨子里无一例外都是“彻头彻尾的怪人”（weirdos）。不论是戴夫·查普尔（Dave Chappelle）、克里斯·洛克（Chris Rock）、托尼·欣奇克利夫（Tony Hinchcliffe）还是肖恩·吉利斯（Shane Gillis），他们都各自以独特且迥异的方式呈现出怪诞的一面。正在竞选加州州长的史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）深有感触地表示，自己在过去几天里多次面对数百名选民发表演讲，虽然主要谈论政治且素材信手拈来，但维持全场观众的兴趣和娱乐性极其困难；相比于自己偶尔穿插一两个政治段子或自嘲笑话，整场演出全程保持幽默的难度让他对喜剧演员产生了极高的敬意。罗根则引用乔伊·迪亚兹（Joey Diaz）的名言回应：“这是你做过的最他妈难、却又最简单的事情。”当一个人在台上进入“心流”（flow）并且炸场时，表演变得轻而易举，但背后构建打磨素材的过程却无比艰辛。罗根深入剖析了喜剧素材的诞生流程：演员需要耗费海量的时间独自静坐思考、对着电脑或笔记本反复琢磨，但同时也离不开在休息室（green room）里与同行好友们的胡扯插科打诨。喜剧演员们彼此督促，例如布莱恩·辛普森（Brian Simpson）前几天随口说了一句话，大家立刻起哄逼他“赶紧记下来，这绝对是个炸裂的段子”，结果辛普森搬上台后果然大获成功。然而，将脑海中初生的想法搬上舞台去测试时，能活下来的几率往往只有一半；而在笔记本上草拟的构思，最终能派上用场的甚至不到二十分之一，罗根调侃其通过率堪比“加拿大医疗协助自杀（MAID）”。这种将未成熟想法直接推向观众检验的机制，就是一个不断试错的微型实验室。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 单口喜剧素材孵化与打磨流程 accDescr: 展示从孤独构思、同行碰撞到舞台检验与修辞打磨的喜剧创作闭环。 subgraph Ideation["灵感孕育阶段"] A["独处思考与笔记整理"] B["后台休息室同行扯淡"] end subgraph Testing["舞台实验室检验"] C["未经验证的构想上台实测"] D{"观众现场反馈"} E["效果极差 / 淘汰"] F["产生共鸣 / 存活保留"] end subgraph Refining["细节打磨与结构调整"] G["词序调整与语气重塑"] H["段落倒置或开场重构 (如 Louis C.K. 式试验)"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D -- "50% 失败" --> E D -- "50% 成功" --> F F --> G G --> H H -.-> C ``` - 优秀单口喜剧演员的特质：必须拥有特立独行的性格与怪异思维。 - 乔伊·迪亚兹（Joey Diaz）的名言：“这是你做过的最他妈难、也是最简单的事情”（"It's the hardest, easiest thing you'll ever do."）。 - 素材淘汰率：从纸面构思到登台可用，淘汰率极高，经常写二十条才能挑出一条可用的段子。 --- ### [01:53:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6788s) 语言的微调与现场的专注：播客与脱口秀的暴露感希尔顿认为单口喜剧是一种将自己完全置于险境的“终极暴露”（putting yourself out there）。罗根则指出，其实做播客聊天的暴露程度可能更甚，因为在此刻对着数百万人直播或录音时，你是在完全没有预设的情况下大声思考、亮出观点；而买票进剧场的观众所看到的脱口秀段子，其实早已被演员打磨了无数遍。曾经写过书和电视脚本的希尔顿对此极有共鸣，他热爱文字与语言，惊叹于仅仅调整句子里某个词的先后顺序，就能决定一个笑话的成败。罗根对此深表赞同，并提到路易·C·K（Louis C.K.）经常玩弄这种结构反转：有时把一个笑话倒过来讲，甚至把自己最炸裂的段子放在最开场，从而逼迫自己在后面的演出中拿出更出色的表现来超越开局。在舞台表演的状态把控上，希尔顿询问罗根在台上是否能看清观众的面孔，罗根解释称通常前几排观众的表情是清晰可见的，这能带来极大的现场反馈。罗根解释道，自己的工作相对轻松一些，因为他上场前通常已有其他开场演员将场子炒热，观众本身就是带着开心期待来的；演员的核心任务是与观众建立连接（connection），并彻底专注于眼下所说的这件事情本身。你不能在说话的同时盘算“待会儿要用什么腔调说下一句”，必须全神贯注于眼前的现实。尽管事前有既定的表演清单（set list）与顺序，但优秀的演员必须保持柔韧度，根据现场突发状况灵活插入插曲或调整顺序，把未讲的素材顺延。 - 播客与脱口秀的对比：播客是面对数百万人的无防备实时发声；脱口秀则是经过无数次微调、排练的精雕细琢。 - 语言的精密性：颠倒一个词或调换逻辑顺序就能彻底改变包袱的喜剧张力。 - 登台心境原则：沉浸在当前讲述的情境中，绝不在讲述当下内容时分心去设计下一个动作的表演技巧。 --- ### [01:56:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6974s) 政治集会与剧场气场：从川普的单口风范到环形舞台的魔力希尔顿将喜剧的节奏与自己的政治演讲相类比，比如自己关于加州“高铁项目”（California High-Speed Rail）的批评演说就分为长版和短版，有时在台上情不自禁讲了长版，就得临时在脑中删减后续内容来卡紧时间。罗根随即指出，唐纳德·川普（Donald Trump）在集会上也常常像在表演单口喜剧，例如川普曾即兴模仿乔·拜登（Joe Biden）在讲台上迷失方向、四处徘徊的滑稽举动，引得全场哄堂大笑。希尔顿赞同川普这种信手拈来的剧场感，但他强调自己更喜欢在物理距离上更靠近人群的场地，而不是站在冷冰冰、远离听众的高大舞台上。关于舞台形式对表演互动的影响，罗根坦言传统单面、高高在上的大型体育馆舞台是他最不喜欢的形式，因为那种平面布局让人感觉极其抽离，变成了单向灌输而非双向连接。相比之下，罗根特别推崇在万人体育馆搭建“环形舞台”（in the round）。在环形舞台中央表演时，四周的所有观众不仅在看演员，还能越过舞台互相看见彼此的欢笑反应；在拥有一万六千个座位的场馆里，环形舞台能让内圈聚集数千人，演员能够直视多达六千多名观众的双眼，使巨大的竞技场呈现出奇妙且震撼的亲密感（intimate）。同样，适度规模的剧院也能带来这种深度的连结体验。 - 川普的演讲风格：频繁使用脱口秀式的即兴“段子”（bits），将政客模仿与舞台喜剧融为一体。 - 希尔顿的加州高铁演讲：拥有长短双版本机制，需根据演说限时动态调整台本。 - 环形体育馆舞台（In the round）的心理学优势： - 观众与演员的物理距离被大幅拉近； - 观众之间能够互相观察表情与笑声反馈，形成类似蜂巢的群体狂欢共鸣； - 破除高台单向宣讲的冷漠与疏离感。 ### [01:58:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7122s) 面对数万观众演讲与脱口秀演出的震撼体验乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）聊到了面对海量观众登台的心理感受。希尔顿坦言，面对台下数百人注视并爆发出热烈欢呼的感觉非常奇妙且陌生，因为自己以往从未经历过这种场面；他提到自己经历过的最大场面是在加州贝克斯菲尔德（Bakersfield）的一座体育馆里为梅根·凯利（Megyn Kelly）的现场秀助阵。罗根则分享了自己主持过的最疯狂场面——在白宫南侧的椭圆形草坪（The Ellipse）担任 UFC 称重仪式的主持人，台下聚集了整整 80,000 人。罗根笑称，虽然登台只是高声宣读选手姓名和官方体重、用“女士们先生们”等口号煽动现场情绪，流程本身并不复杂，但 80,000 人汇聚在一起散发出的巨大声浪与能量场令人感到不可思议。随后，罗根提到了脱口秀好友谢恩·吉利斯（Shane Gillis）刚在费城完成的壮举——在能容纳橄榄球赛的巨大体育场里举办专场，狂揽 76,000 名观众，一举打破了脱口秀演出的现场人数世界纪录。希尔顿赞叹罗根如果愿意也能轻松做到，但罗根谦虚地表示在体育场办专场绝非易事，谢恩不仅声名大噪，而且极其纯粹、才华横溢。罗根兴奋地提到谢恩关于“乔治·华盛顿博物馆”的段子，尤其是华盛顿装铅制假牙的包袱，称自己每次见到谢恩都会点名让他讲这段。在罗根眼中，谢恩身上散发着感染全场的派对能量，是真正全身心热爱脱口秀的喜剧天才。 - **UFC 白宫椭圆形草坪称重**：现场观众达 80,000 人，是罗根主持生涯中面对的最大规模人群。 - **谢恩·吉利斯费城专场**：在一座橄榄球体育场售出 76,000 张门票，创下脱口秀现场演出的纪录。 - **华盛顿假牙段子**：谢恩关于乔治·华盛顿铅制假牙（lead false teeth）的经典讽刺包袱，被罗根推崇备至。 --- ### [02:01:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7271s) 疫情时期的迁徙浪潮与奥斯汀喜剧生态的崛起罗根谈到如今在德克萨斯州奥斯汀聚集了众多像谢恩这样优秀的脱口秀演员，这里俨然成为了一个巨大的喜剧蜂巢（hive）。虽然希尔顿认为这完全是由罗根一手打造的，但罗根澄清这是大家共同促成的结果。在罗根筹备开设自己的喜剧俱乐部（Comedy Mothership）之前，包括汤姆·塞古拉（Tom Segura）和罗恩·怀特（Ron White）在内的许多同行就已经搬到了奥斯汀；如果大家没有率先来到这里，罗根单凭个人号召力也不可能凭空把整个群体从外地硬拉过来。这股大迁徙的根本诱因是新冠疫情期间各州政策的巨大反差。脱口秀演员对舞台表演有一种“成瘾”般的极度渴望，急需寻找能够登台表演的容身之处。德克萨斯州和奥斯汀当时提供了更宽松的自由度，在经历了短暂且轻微的封锁后便迅速宣布“重返工作”，允许餐厅和商户正常营业；反观加利福尼亚州，整个社会被“我们快要死绝了”的恐慌情绪笼罩，陷入了长期、严苛的管控。即便到今天，加州依然能看到很多人独自一人开着车还紧紧戴着口罩，这种鲜明对照让两人哭笑不得。 --- ### [02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7355s) 福奇与功能获得性研究争议话题由此转向了安东尼·福奇（Anthony Fauci）以及新冠病毒溯源的内幕。希尔顿回顾了自己在福克斯新闻（Fox News）主持评论节目的经历，表示自己虽非传统新闻调查记者，但在病毒溯源这一议题上做了扎实的事实挖掘。当时他依托在斯坦福大学任教时建立的学界人脉，系统梳理了福奇与病毒起源的千丝万缕联系。罗根也表达了极大的愤慨，痛斥福奇在明知怀孕早期（第一孕期）可能导致流产风险的情况下，依然公开向孕妇大力推销疫苗，而这类流产案例甚至从未被正式计入疫苗伤害数据之中。两人还顺带提到了此前做客节目的调查记者安妮·雅各布森（Annie Jacobsen）及其关于生物战的探讨。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 福奇推动功能获得性研究与政策规避链条 accDescr: 展现福奇从2011年力挺高危病毒改造，到绕过2014年奥巴马暂停令及特朗普P3CO审查的历程。 subgraph Advocacy ["学术倡导与理论背书"] A["2011年与柯林斯联名撰文: 宣称改造高危病毒是'值得冒的风险'"] --> B["力挺 Ralph Baric 等团队的 雪貂等冠状病毒功能获得性实验"] end subgraph PolicyEvasion ["规避政策与行政监管"] C["2014年奥巴马政府出台 功能获得性研究暂停令 (Moratorium)"] --> D["福奇主导的既有冠状病毒项目 被指违规继续推进"] D --> E["特朗普政府恢复研究 并设立 P3CO 独立审查机制"] E --> F["涉事项目续期时 绕过独立同行审查规定"] end Advocacy --> PolicyEvasion ``` 希尔顿强调，外界至今仍未真正认识到福奇卷入此事的直接程度——人们往往误以为他只是消极被动地为下属的某些科研拨款签字，但实际上，福奇多年来一直是全球“功能获得性研究”（Gain-of-Function）最核心的倡导者与推动者。早在 2011 年底，面对拉尔夫·巴里克（Ralph Baric）等学者用雪貂实验改造病毒所引发的“可能导致全球大流行”的学界质疑，福奇就与时任美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）院长弗朗西斯·柯林斯（Francis Collins）联名撰文，公然声称在实验室改造潜在危险病毒是“值得冒的风险”（a risk worth taking）。不仅如此，福奇在后续推动中更涉嫌屡屡践踏行政红线： - **违反 2014 年奥巴马禁令**：奥巴马政府于 2014 年对功能获得性研究下达了暂停令（Moratorium），要求涵盖当时正在进行的所有项目，但最终导致新冠疫情的相关研究链条并未停止。 - **架空特朗普时期的 P3CO 协议**：特朗普政府虽然解除了前述禁令，但配套设立了“潜在流行病病原体照护与监督”（P3CO）框架，明确要求项目在续期时必须接受独立专家审查，而福奇主导的相关拨款项目再次被指违背了该独立审查规定。 - **推行特定叙事压制异见**：福奇在疫情暴发后强推“自然起源论”，将所有关于“实验室泄漏”的学术讨论扣上阴谋论甚至种族主义的帽子。 - **免责与法律特权引发质疑**：罗根最后抨击了针对福奇这类高级官员的预先豁免倾向，调侃某些先发制人的赦免涵盖长达十年的一切行为；而在本应无法援引宪法第五修正案免于自证其罪的情况下，相关官员在听证会上却对所有实质问题闭口不谈，甚至“连领带的颜色都要援引第五修正案拒绝回答”。 ### [02:07:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7642s) 福奇、加州封锁内幕与斯坦福学者的遭遇乔·罗根与史蒂夫·希尔顿谈到了安东尼·福奇（Anthony Fauci）。罗根指出，福奇是个极其诡异的人，而在2020年大众居然把他奉为救世主般的英雄，这恰恰反映出当时人们在恐慌中寻求解药的心态有多么病态。民众根本不知道福奇的历史，更不知道他在当年艾滋病危机期间的所作所为。希尔顿对此深表赞同，直言福奇傲慢得令人恐惧，而最让他愤怒的是如今主流舆论对封锁、关闭学校、摧毁小企业和教堂的开脱之词——政客和官员们常常推脱说“我们当时什么都不知道，事发仓促，只是谨慎行事”。希尔顿反驳道，事实绝非如此，早在2020年3月“延缓传播的15天”结束前，科学界就已经掌握了真相。希尔顿提到，自己当时通过斯坦福大学结识了杰·巴塔查亚（Jay Bhattacharya）和约翰·约阿尼迪斯（John Ioannidis）等敢于直言的流行病学者。他们在加州圣克拉拉县（Santa Clara County）进行了一项血清抗体流行率研究（Seroprevalence study），这项研究也是全美最早的一批本土调查，直接用实际社区数据证明了新冠病毒的真实感染致死率远低于官方宣传的吓人数字。罗根补充道，福奇自己的泄露邮件和日记也证实，他心里完全清楚实际致死率非常低，却依然在公开场合不断煽动恐慌。希尔顿进一步揭露了圣克拉拉县在全美率先启动封锁背后的权力寻租与学术迫害。当时全美第一个出台居家封锁令的就是圣克拉拉县，次日整个旧金山湾区各县跟进，随后加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）便推向了全州。而强推该政策的圣克拉拉县公共卫生总监萨拉·科迪（Sara Cody），其丈夫正是斯坦福大学医学院的高层。当巴塔查亚拿出真实数据反驳科迪的严苛封锁政策时，斯坦福医学院高层随即展开了恶毒的公权力打压——巴塔查亚不仅在推特上遭到审查与限流，更在校内遭到停职、立案调查和百般羞辱。罗根感叹这种自上而下的滥权令人毛骨悚然，甚至福奇在卸任后急迫谋求总统特赦的做法更暴露出其内心的惶恐，两人还讥讽拜登是通过自动签字笔（autopen）稀里糊涂签下特赦令，且联邦特赦并不能彻底免除州级层面的追责。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州早期封锁与学术打压链条 accDescr: 展示圣克拉拉县封锁政策的推行以及对反封锁学者的学术打压流程 subgraph Decision["决策与推广"] A["圣克拉拉县卫生局长 萨拉·科迪强推封锁"] --> B["旧金山湾区各县跟进"] B --> C["加州州长纽森推向全州"] end subgraph Research["科研反证与利益冲突"] D["斯坦福学者巴塔查亚等人 开展血清流行率研究"] --> E["证实病毒真实致死率极低"] E -.->|"学术反驳"| A A -.->|"夫妻利益关联"| F["斯坦福医学院领导层"] end subgraph Suppression["压制与迫害"] F --> G["对巴塔查亚启动调查与停职"] E --> H["社交平台推特限流与封禁"] end ``` - **全美封锁发源地**：加州圣克拉拉县率先宣布封锁，促成加州乃至全美各地的连锁反应。 - **科研证据遭压制**：斯坦福大学巴塔查亚等人的血清流行率研究表明，病毒致死率被严重夸大，但研究人员随即遭到社交媒体封禁与校方政治审查。 - **特赦争议**：福奇试图获取联邦免责保护，但两人讨论了公职人员豁免权界限以及自动签名笔签署特赦的合法性争议。 --- ### [02:10:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7855s) 艾滋病危机中的 AZT 黑历史与福奇的执念罗根认为福奇本质上具有反社会人格（sociopath）。他回顾了福奇在20世纪80年代艾滋病危机期间的历史罪行：福奇当时极力推广齐多夫定（AZT，一种化疗药物）。作为医生的福奇完全知晓，AZT 最初因其高毒性、杀人速度甚至快于癌症本身而被撤下临床肿瘤治疗，但为了应对当时被称为“同性恋癌症”（gay cancer）的新型疾病，FDA 迅速批准重新启用该药。福奇曾公开宣称选择 AZT 是因为它是“唯一既安全又有效的药物”，罗根愤怒质问：“有效在什么地方？有效杀死无症状患者吗？” 罗根指出，当年的操作手法与新冠疫情期间如出一辙：他们利用极高扩增循环数导致超高假阳性率的检测手段制造恐慌。PCR 检测的发明者凯利·穆利斯（Kary Mullis）生前曾在公开视频中痛斥福奇是个“满嘴胡话的官僚”，明确强调 PCR 绝不能用作诊断疾病的标准工具，因为只要无限放大循环周期，可以在任何人体内测出任何残留碎片。在艾滋病早期，许多仅仅测出假阳性、本无大碍的人，由于被强制或诱导服用了高剂量的剧毒药物 AZT 而惨死。希尔顿提到，在马修·麦康纳主演的经典电影《达拉斯买家俱乐部》（*Dallas Buyers Club*）中，福奇的原型就是那个横加阻挠患者寻求替代疗法的大反派，因为他当时一心只想研发疫苗。希尔顿和罗根补充谈到小罗伯特·肯尼迪（RFK Jr.）在其著作《真正的安东尼·福奇》中的披露：当年福奇的机构甚至在纽约的寄养孤儿身上秘密进行艾滋病疫苗临床试验，导致多名儿童死亡。罗根强调：“如果小肯尼迪书里写的都是谎言，为什么福奇等人从来不敢起诉他诽谤？”这种明目张胆的邪恶行径之所以没有被清算，纯粹是体制庇护的结果。 - **AZT 药害历史**：原本因致死率高而被淘汰的化疗药物，被包装为治疗艾滋病的唯一特效药，导致大批假阳性患者因药物毒性丧命。 - **PCR 诊断滥用**：发明人凯利·穆利斯曾公开痛批福奇不懂科学，指出过高循环阈值会导致80%以上的假阳性，不可用于临床疾病确诊。 - **纽约孤儿人体试验**：小罗伯特·肯尼迪书中记载的纽约寄养儿童艾滋病疫苗测试致死事件，至今未被涉事机构在法律层面推翻或起诉。 --- ### [02:13:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8003s) 药企广告赞助与主流媒体的“保护伞” 希尔顿对主流媒体如何选择报道议题感到困惑：为什么某些残酷的真相永远无法得到主流媒体的大规模曝光？罗根直接点破了这背后的核心商业逻辑：“原因非常简单，就是处方药电视广告。”罗根指出，全世界只有两个国家允许在电视上投放处方药直接面向消费者的商业广告，一个是新西兰（且监管极严），另一个就是美国。罗根分析称，大型制药企业在 CNN、MSNBC 等主流新闻台砸下巨额广告费，推销的往往是一些针对极罕见病症、普通观众根本用不到的药品。药企真正的目的根本不是向观众卖药，而是在“购买媒体网络”。只要药企占据了电视台广告预算的极大份额，这些媒体就永远不会调查制药行业的丑闻、副作用数据，也不会报道有多少原本获批的药物后来因致命副作用被 FDA 紧急撤市。考虑到当今主流新闻台的收视率已经惨淡不堪，高昂的广告投放完全违背常规商业逻辑，其本质就是收买媒体闭嘴的保护费。希尔顿对此深表赞同，并调侃起美国处方药广告的滑稽画风：无论旁白念出的副作用有多么恐怖，画面上的人们永远在后院开烧烤派对、欢声笑语。希尔顿还赞赏了此前妮可·沙纳汉（Nicole Shanahan，小肯尼迪独立参选时的副总统搭档）自制的一则网络爆火恶搞广告——她将“特朗普臆想综合征”（Trump Derangement Syndrome, TDS）做成了惟妙惟肖的大药厂广告讽刺短片，精准戳破了药企宣传与政治宣传的荒诞同构。 - **全球唯二**：美国是全球极少数允许处方药直接在公众电视媒体播放广告的国家之一。 - **广告即“公关保护费”**：药企高额赞助主流新闻台的目的不是转化终端患者，而是建立利益绑定，封锁不利于药企的新闻调查与副作用曝光。 - **文化讽刺**：药企广告标配的“阳光烧烤派对配恐怖副作用免责声明”，成为政界讽刺流行文化（如沙纳汉的 TDS 恶搞短片）的素材。 --- ### [02:15:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8123s) 边境无人陪伴儿童危机与贝塞拉的渎职希尔顿将话题转向他竞选加州州长面临的政治对手——加州前总检察长、现任拜登政府卫生与公众服务部（HHS）部长的哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）。希尔顿指出，人们往往只关注边境非法越境的成年人，却极少有人知道在贝塞拉任内发生的极其黑暗、令人心碎的无人陪伴儿童危机。在现行联邦体制下，所有独自穿越南部边境的未成年非法移民，依法全部由卫生与公众服务部负责接管安置。希尔顿指出，官方有据可查的数据显示，在拜登政府执政的四年开放边境政策期间，进入美国的无监护人陪伴未成年儿童总数高达惊人的 **479,000 人**。这意味着近五十万没有任何父母看护的儿童全部沦为贝塞拉部门的法定监护对象。面对如此汹涌的人流，联邦体制完全崩溃。HHS 在南部边境设立了大量临时帐篷营地，管理陷入极度混乱。希尔顿向罗根强调，当他向选民提起这近五十万儿童的惨淡境遇以及贝塞拉的严重失职时，绝大多数普通民众对此居然一无所知，这正是主流媒体选择性失明所造成的恶果。 - **责任主体**：无人陪伴的越境未成年人（Unaccompanied minors）在法律上直接归属于 HHS（卫生与公众服务部）管理。 - **核心数据**：拜登执政四年内，穿越边境的无人陪伴儿童官方记录总数达 **479,000人**。 - **政治问责**：希尔顿将此视为直接竞争对手哈维尔·贝塞拉任内不可推卸的重大行政过失与人道灾难。 ### [02:16:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8192s) 无人陪伴移民儿童收容营与审查机制的瓦解史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）揭露了美国处理边境无人陪伴儿童机制中的惊人内幕。政府在佛罗里达州、德克萨斯州设立了临时营地，加州当地也有三处（分别位于长滩、圣迭戈和波莫纳）。建立这些营地的初衷本应是将儿童安全移交给经过核查的担保人、亲属或监护人，但涌入的儿童数量彻底压垮了收容系统。营地内部秩序失控，充斥着严重的身体虐待与性侵丑闻；一些十七八岁、有黑帮背景的年长青少年混杂其中。希尔顿提到波莫纳（Pomona）展览馆的营地场景惨不忍睹，多达上百名孩子挤在简易行军床上。由于特朗普执政时期民主党曾猛烈抨击“把孩子关进笼子里”，时任美国卫生与公众服务部（HHS）部长哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）为了政治形象，急于将这些儿童转移出去以平息负面舆论。希尔顿指出，《纽约时报》早在2023年就曾凭借报道该丑闻获得普利策奖，曝光了贝塞拉如何一手拆除了原本严格的审查体系。这导致成千上万的孩子行踪成谜，许多人直接落入童工贩子与性贩卖团伙之手。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 无人陪伴移民儿童移交审查失效机制 accDescr: 展示从儿童涌入到政治施压，最终导致审查瘫痪并引发人口贩运的链条 subgraph SystemOverload["收容系统瘫痪"] A["大量无成人陪伴儿童涌入"] --> B["加州/德州/佛州集中营地"] B --> C["营内发生性侵、黑帮混杂与虐待"] end subgraph PoliticalPressure["政治压力与放宽审查"] D["贝塞拉等官员担心负面舆论"] --> E["推行'速度优先于安全'方针"] E --> F["废除家访、身份核查等背景审查"] end subgraph CatastrophicOutcomes["灾难性后果"] F --> G["儿童被交给虚假地址/犯罪分子"] G --> H["迫入血汗工厂做童工 / 沦为性奴"] G --> I["HHS 记录显示超33万儿童失联"] end C --> D ``` ### [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8280s) “速度优先于安全”：吹哨人的证词与失踪危机当被问及为何会发生这种崩溃时，希尔顿表示原因非常荒谬——仅仅是因为“移送速度不够快”。一名在波莫纳担任个案工作者的吹哨人向他们透露，原本的规范要求进行严格的身份验证、家庭走访等流程，但上级下达的硬性指令却是“速度优先于安全（Speed over safety）”。当个案工作人员提出异议并警告潜在危险时，非但没有得到纠正，反而直接遭到解雇： - **虚假地址与货柜场**：曾有报告指出多达200名儿童被送往同一个登记地址，调查后发现那里竟是一个集装箱堆场，纯粹是人口贩运团伙的幌子。 - **国际刑警通缉犯领养**：甚至有儿童被批准移交给一名被国际刑警组织（Interpol）通缉的女性黑帮成员。 - **庞大的失联与死亡数字**：根据 HHS 披露的统计数据，至今仍有约33万名儿童处于下落不明的状态，并已有至少40名儿童在移交后死亡。面对这起极其严重的失职事件，贝塞拉非但没有被追究问责，反而在日后成为了加州州长的热门候选人，媒体与政坛对此几乎保持沉默。 ### [02:19:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8376s) 伪造证件、“突击小组”与受害者的悲惨遭遇希尔顿亲自参与了对吹哨人长达两小时的深度访谈录制。该个案工作者透露，在贝塞拉视察波莫纳营地并做足表面公关宣传之后，下辖部门随即成立了“突击小组（strike teams）”，强硬要求基层人员加快运转，甚至明令禁止核实证件。当工作人员指出担保人的身份证件明显是自拍伪造的假证时，上级的答复却是不必理会、赶紧放行。《纽约时报》的普利策获奖报道揭露了一名十三四岁男孩在肉类加工厂遭遇工伤、整条手臂被机器硬生生扯断的惨剧。另一位站出来公开指证的受害女孩来自萨尔瓦多或危地马拉，她在营地被强行带走且不准携带随身行李，随即被送上一架飞机。在目的地下机后，三个素未谋面的陌生男子将她塞进车内，直接带往一处住所。她在那里被迫每天从事20小时的繁重劳动，并被强迫与四名成年男子同挤在冰冷的地板上睡觉。小罗伯特·F·肯尼迪（Robert F. Kennedy Jr.）曾对此直言：贝塞拉实际上把卫生与公众服务部（HHS）变成了“有史以来最大规模的儿童人口贩运网络”。 ### [02:21:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8508s) 政客的冷血伪善与性剥削黑幕乔·罗根与希尔顿对这种恶劣行径感到出离愤怒。希尔顿回忆在过往的政治辩论和活动中与贝塞拉在后台打交道的经历，直言对方平日里看着像个笑眯眯、温和无害的技术官僚，但剥去外表后，展现出的却是职业政客毫无底线的冷酷本色——为了免遭媒体批评自己“管理无能”，不惜将无辜孩童推入火坑。罗根指出，这种系统性的漠视带有赤裸裸的种族歧视色彩，直言“如果这几十万孩子是来自挪威的金发碧眼幼童，他们绝不敢如此草率对待”。波莫纳的吹哨人也证实，该营地周边本就是臭名昭著的儿童街头性剥削集散地；在收容营建立之前，街头的受害者主要是非裔女孩，而营地落成放水后，周边被性剥削的群体迅速全盘变成了拉美裔幼女。此外，官方虽然给移交的儿童发放了一份印有求助热线的信息单，但该热线实际上形同虚设——后台竟有高达6.5万通呼救电话从未被接听，而敢于揭发热线失灵的工作人员同样被迅速开除封口。 ### [02:25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8700s) 边境危机背后的意识形态与政治算计谈及边境政策为何会演变至如此荒谬的地步，希尔顿起初认为这是极左意识形态作祟，许多民主党人将一切针对移民的限制措施都扣上“种族主义”的帽子，认为阻止逃离苦难的人入境是不道德的。但乔·罗根直指其背后更为赤裸的权力算计： - **摇摆州布局与人口普查漏洞**：联邦政府用飞机将大批非法越境者运送至关键摇摆州。由于美国十年一度的人口普查（Census）统计的是该辖区内的“总居住人口”而非“合法公民人数”，因此大量涌入的人口将直接增加该州的联邦国会众议院席位与选举人团票数。 - **政治庇护换取铁杆票仓**：南希·佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）和查克·舒默（Chuck Schumer）等民主党高层公开主张给予这些人公民身份。通过提供免费医疗、救济金和居住安置，民主党正在打造一批高度依赖政府福利的稳定票仓。在面对承诺遣返的共和党与提供救济的民主党之间，这些获得投票权的新群体绝大多数只会投票给民主党，从而彻底锁定选举胜局。 ### [02:26:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8819s) 选民身份证争议与加州一党专政的选举操弄史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）谈到了埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）经常提出的一个悲观警示：民主党试图把他们在加州建立的“彻底且完全的一党专政”模式复制到整个美国。在加州，投票时要求出示身份证件甚至被立法视为非法，罗根直言这种荒谬规定背后只有一个目的——“就是为了作弊”。希尔顿对此深表赞同，并透露加州即将在11月大选就“选民出示身份证”（Voter ID）的公投提案进行表决。然而，加州现任总检察长罗伯·邦塔（Rob Bonta）却在选票印制前夕，动用职权篡改了选票指南上的官方描述。原本经系统审批的公投提案摘要是一段中立陈述，大致为“本提案将要求选民在投票时出示身份证件”；然而邦塔在印刷前的最后关头，将其改成了极具引导性和负面色彩的措辞，写成类似“本提案将禁止选民投票，除非持有……”的形式。希尔顿痛批邦塔是个不折不扣的“政治钻营者”（political hack），整天忙于针对派拉蒙发起诉讼或是搞政治作秀，却对加州失控的治安视若无睹。希尔顿还顺带提到了自己的竞选对手、前加州总检察长哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）——贝塞拉当年在犯罪率飙升期间担任加州最高执法官，如今对外夸耀的唯一“政绩”竟然是任内起诉了特朗普多少次。罗根指出，要求出示身份证在日常生活中无处不在且合情合理：开车需要驾照，买酒需要身份证，希尔顿也打趣说自己竞选期间每晚入住汉普顿酒店（Hampton Inn）都必须出示身份证。然而左派阵营却把要求选民提供身份证扣上“歧视”乃至“种族主义”的帽子。希尔顿表示，自己平时尽量用善意去揣度政治对手，但看到民主党人在选民身份证问题上那副“扭捏挣扎”（wriggle and squirm）的窘态时，不得不承认这纯粹就是为了攫取选举优势的极度犬儒之举。 - 加州法律禁止在投票站要求选民出示身份证，引发关于选举公正性的长期争议。 - 加州总检察长罗伯·邦塔在11月大选选票付印前，将选民身份证公投提案的说明篡改为负面倾向的叙述。 - 希尔顿批评前加州总检察长哈维尔·贝塞拉只知沉迷于“起诉特朗普”，对全州治安恶化毫无作为。 --- ### [02:30:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9046s) 全美最高油价与“气候伪善”：从克恩县到亚马逊雨林两人将话题转向加州民众最切身、最痛苦的民生问题——高昂的汽油价格。加州的油价长期稳居全美之冠，甚至远超孤悬于太平洋中央、一切物资皆依赖外运的夏威夷。希尔顿直言这种现象极其荒谬，因为加州本土原本拥有极其丰富的石油储量，但州政府却选择逐步关停本土的采油作业，转而从大半个地球之外进口石油。目前加州高达80%的原油依赖长途海运，主要来源地甚至包括伊拉克和亚马逊雨林地区。这种舍近求远的政策暴露出加州左翼政客惊人的“气候伪善”。加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）一边大张旗鼓地飞往亚马逊雨林参加气候大会，站在道德高地上教训全世界减少碳足迹，另一边由于加州严苛的气候法规导致本土减产，亚马逊雨林反而被迫扩大原油开采来满足加州的能源缺口。希尔顿愤慨地指出，承受油价重压的根本不是那些整天坐在马林县（Marin County）豪华公寓里敲着笔记本电脑的“气候斗士”，而是每天必须开着皮卡和汽车奔波谋生的普通蓝领工人。每当民众对畸高油价表达不满时，执政当局便惯性地甩锅给外部事件。随着中东局势紧张以及对伊冲突的升级，民主党官员立刻将其归咎为“特朗普的战争”或国际局势动荡。希尔顿反驳道，战争固然在客观上推高了全球油价，但无法解释为何加州的每加仑油价始终比全美其他任何州都要高出整整2美元。罗根总结道，这正是单一政党长期缺乏制衡、彻底掌控政权后的必然下场：政府规模无限膨胀，税负被无限度加码，最终让老百姓买单。 --- ### [02:32:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9160s) 加州油价高企的四大推手与 CARB 的隐形税负罗根调出资料，解释了加州燃油的特殊性：加州空气资源委员会（CARB）强制要求全州必须使用一种经过严格监管的特殊“精品清洁配方混合油”（boutique blend），以减少雾霾和温室气体。加州在能源网络上宛如一座“孤岛”，没有任何州际输油管道与外部燃油网络相连，所有特殊配方汽油都必须在本地炼油厂精炼。希尔顿随即拆解了造成全美最高油价的四大核心推手： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州油价高企的四大推手与原油供应链对比 accDescr: 对比加州被叫停的低碳本土管道输送，与高污染跨洋油轮运输，并列出推高油价的四大制度因素。 subgraph FourDrivers["加州高油价的四大成因"] D1["全美最高汽油税 （州议会立法征收，持续上调）"] D2["炼油厂严苛环保法规 （CARB强制精品配方混合油）"] D3["隐性政策税负 （低碳燃料标准 & 资助高铁的限额投资计划）"] D4["舍近求远的能源供应链 （关停本土开采，依赖跨洋海运）"] end subgraph SupplyChain["原油供应链荒谬对比"] subgraph LocalSupply["本土清洁供应（被政府打压关停）"] L1["克恩县 / 贝克斯菲尔德开采 （遵循全球最高环保监管标准）"] -->|约100英里本地管道安全直达| L2["长滩与托伦斯炼油厂"] end subgraph ImportSupply["跨洋进口路线（当前实际执行方案）"] I1["伊拉克 / 亚马逊雨林开采"] -->|跨洋超大型油轮运输 燃烧高污染船用重油 bunker fuel| I2["加州港口并输入炼油厂"] end end ``` 第一大推手是全美最高的汽油税。希尔顿无奈地指出，加州民主党人整天高喊要解决“生活成本危机”，转头却在州议会继续投票通过上调汽油税，而州长根本无法单方面推翻立法机关的税案。其余三大推手则源于行政机构的官僚监管：第二是针对本土炼油厂的繁文缛节；第三是各种巧立名目的隐性附加税，例如所谓的“低碳燃料标准”（Low Carbon Fuel Standard）以及名义上叫“限额投资”（Cap-and-Invest）、实际上却被挪去填补加州高铁那个无底洞的碳配额项目；第四便是彻底扭曲的原油进出口逻辑。加州原本可以在贝克斯菲尔德所在的克恩县（Kern County），以全球最严格的环保标准开采本土原油，通过短短约100英里的管道直接输送至长滩（Long Beach）和托伦斯（Torrance）的炼油厂。但加州政府却下令封杀本土开采，任由油轮从伊拉克等中东国家跨越重洋运油。这些大型货轮使用的是航运界最肮脏的“船用重油”（bunker fuel），全程排放出海量温室气体。希尔顿痛斥道：“他们打着气候保护的幌子，实际上却在成倍增加碳排放，仅仅是为了让自己看起来像是在与化石燃料搏斗的‘气候勇士’，这简直是疯了。” --- ### [02:35:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9312s) 气候教条、美德表态与加利福尼亚的政治宗教罗根与希尔顿深刻剖析了隐藏在政策背后的政治心理学。希尔顿直言，加州现在的政策根本配不上被称为“气候政策”，其本质完全是“气候姿态”（climate posturing）——政客们根本不在意减排的实际成效，他们唯一关心的只是在镜头前维持自己崇高而正义的道德姿态。罗根表示，这种思维已经彻底沦为一种现代宗教教条。在加州左翼的意识形态准则里，人们必须像背诵信条一样宣称“气候变化是真的”、“科学就是科学”、“爱就是爱”，甚至在前院草坪上插满写着“在这所房子里我们相信……”的道德标语。希尔顿补充道，这早已超越了普通的“美德表态”（virtue signaling），实际上是一种“宗教教条表态”（reliology signaling）。两人还引用了硅谷著名投资人马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）的观点：加州现行的极左意识形态与邪教无异，任何敢于偏离教条、提出理性质疑的人都会立刻被开除教籍（excommunicated）。希尔顿分享了自己几天前在州府萨克拉门托参加一场气候与绿色能源研讨会的经历。他回忆称，自己平时一贯主张心平气和地摆事实、讲道理，并寻找政策共识，但在那场会议上，整个体制内建制派身上散发出的那股高高在上的优越感和自命不凡的傲慢（smugness），令人感到极度的窒息与荒谬。 ### [02:36:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9379s) 离岸浮动风机与天然气电厂的荒谬现实史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）就加州的能源政策展开了激烈讨论。希尔顿明确表示自己绝不反对创新，但他强烈反对在加州大力推行风力涡轮机。罗根随之附和，直言风力发电机效率极其低下，寿命仅有短短数年；退役后整根叶片只能运往垃圾填埋场深埋入地下，由于材料特性永远无法降解，更不用说它们在运转中频繁发生起火事故以及大量扑杀鸟类的生态灾难。希尔顿随即抛出了加州最新的离岸风电计划——在莫罗贝（Morro Bay）中海岸和北部的洪堡（Humboldt）外海修建浮动式海上风电机组。由于加州沿海海域极深，这些风机无法打桩固定，只能采用浮动平台，而机组本身高达1000英尺左右，几乎相当于埃菲尔铁塔的惊人高度。相关提案甚至计划建造多达10,000座这样的“浮动埃菲尔铁塔”，场面匪夷所思。虽然特朗普此前叫停了该项目，但加州方面目前正提起诉讼试图重启。面对这种对所谓“清洁能源”的狂热追求，希尔顿指出了加州电力体系中一个极其荒谬的现状：加州现有的天然气发电站实际装机容量完全绰绰有余，足以提供全州所需的全部电力，甚至还有结余。全州每年大约只需要270吉瓦左右的电力，而现有天然气电站的潜能达到300吉瓦以上；然而在实际操作中，这些天然气电厂只被允许以10%到20%的低负荷运转，仅仅作为风能和太阳能电网不稳时的后备补充。希尔顿强调，如果直接满负荷运行这些现有的天然气电厂，加州甚至不需要耗费资金新建任何设施，就能彻底满足所有用电需求。但出于意识形态的偏执，政府宁可去造浮动风电，导致加州普通民众承担着全美除夏威夷外最高的电价，账单开销足足是全美平均水平的两倍。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州现有电力供给与绿色政策现实对比 accDescr: 流程图展示了加州现有天然气电厂与离岸浮动风能政策的鲜明对比及对民众造成的高额账单后果。 subgraph SensibleApproach["现实可行路径（常识）"] GasPower["现有天然气发电厂\n(年产能 300+ GW)"] --> RunFull["全负荷平稳运转"] RunFull --> MeetNeeds["超额满足全州需求\n(需求仅约 270 GW)"] end subgraph SacramentoAgenda["加州政客意识形态路径"] Curtail["限制天然气机组\n仅作为 10%-20% 备用"] --> Backups["强推高成本新能源"] Backups --> FloatingWind["莫罗贝与洪堡浮动风机\n(1000英尺高，多达10,000座)"] FloatingWind --> HighCost["推高全州能源基准成本"] end HighCost --> Result["普通工薪阶层承受苦果\n加州电价达到全美均值两倍"] ``` - **离岸风电规模**：加州提议在莫罗贝（Morro Bay）及洪堡（Humboldt）近海建设数以千计高达1000英尺（约等于埃菲尔铁塔高度）的深海浮动式风电机组。 - **发电产能倒挂**：加州全州电力需求约为270吉瓦左右，现有天然气发电厂总发电能力可达300吉瓦以上，却被强制压制在10%至20%的负荷运转以迁就风光电并网。 - **高昂民生负担**：加州的居民电价在全美位列第二，仅次于孤悬海外的夏威夷群岛，平均电费达到全美中位数水平的两倍。 --- ### [02:38:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9510s) 气候意识形态对工薪阶层的无情碾压希尔顿谈到自己近期在萨克拉门托（Sacramento）参加的一场会议，会场内的精英与官员对他大肆围攻，指责他反对所谓的“可再生能源目标”。希尔顿反驳道，他所要求的不过是常识与商业可行性；这套绿色政策真正惩罚的绝不是在萨克拉门托吹着空调开会的高谈阔论者，而是每天辛苦维生的底层蓝领工薪家庭。希尔顿回顾自己在全加州参加的上百场竞选集会，见过数以千计的居民，他们眼神中透露出的不是普通的客套祝愿，而是一种背水一战的紧迫感——“你必须赢，我们已经无路可退”。过去十年间加州生活成本的恶化使得普通人举步维艰，而政客们却极度冷血且漫不经心地推高电费和油价，仅仅是为了满足自己的道德虚荣心。当会议现场的人群再次冲他怒吼时，希尔顿当面质问他们：“退一万步讲，就算我全盘接受你们关于气候变化的所有预测，你们能不能告诉我，加州搞这一套浮动风电和能源自残，对全球气温的变化到底能产生多大影响？”全场顿时一片死寂，因为科学事实上的影响完全是“零”。面对哑口无言的局面，有人又祭出加州政客惯用的托词，声称加州必须承担“全球气候领导力”的角色。希尔顿直接嘲讽道：“你们在大步流星地‘领导’，但后面有谁在跟风吗？根本没有！”罗根指出，中国在能源布局上毫不讲求虚伪的“道德标榜”（virtue signaling），其体制不会为虚幻口号浪费巨资，反而在大举新建燃煤电厂；具有讽刺意味的是，正是这些煤电生产出来的廉价太阳能电池板，被成批海运到美国，让加州政客买去贴在屋顶自我感动。两人一致指出，市场私营部门做事必须考量盈亏，而加州大政府却在毫无问责机制的官僚体系下肆意挥霍。 --- ### [02:41:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9704s) “换胎令”与大政府监管的手伸向私家车谈到加州官僚机构无休止的监管欲望，罗根和希尔顿立刻提到了加州最新出台的离奇法规——轮胎替换能耗禁令。加州能源委员会（California Energy Commission, CEC）一致表决通过了一项全新规定，旨在淘汰那些不符合严格能耗标准的替换轮胎，限制加州车主自由购买汽车轮胎的种类。委员会声称这是为了“保护消费者长期免受高油耗成本的影响”，但轮胎制造商和业界一致警告，这一政策将直接导致生活成本再度飙升，并彻底封杀目前加州市场上所售轮胎中多达70%的型号。罗根让其制作人杰米（Jamie）当场把新闻调到屏幕上细看条文。该法规的核心指标是轮胎的“滚动阻力”（rolling resistance），加州政府规定自2033年起将滚动阻力上限从每千牛9.1牛顿进一步压低到7.2牛顿，强求市售替换胎的阻力必须极低，以此强行替燃油车或电车省下微乎其微的能耗。罗根在演播室内展开分析：轮胎的滚动阻力本质上就是摩擦力，而摩擦力恰恰是车辆行驶抓地力（traction）的直接来源。高性能运动轮胎之所以磨损快，就是因为采用了质地较软的橡胶配方来换取高抓地力和操控安全；而为了省油把滚动阻力降到极低，意味着轮胎胶质变硬、抓地性能遭到削弱。希尔顿与罗根感叹，加州政府庞大的公务员体制为了保住饭碗，只能源源不断地发明荒谬的新规来干涉百姓日常；这项政策不仅将彻底扼杀越野车爱好者（Off-road）合法购买越野胎的权利，还将市场上便宜实惠的平价轮胎一网打尽，最终迫使普通工薪族去为昂贵且缺乏抓地力的轮胎买单。 - **轮胎禁售规模**：加州能源委员会的新规将直接导致该州目前市场上销售的约70%的替换轮胎型号沦为非法产品。 - **能耗阻力硬指标**：法规限制轮胎的最大滚动阻力标准，并计划在2033年将阻力上限强行压低至7.2 N/kN。 - **安全与爱好受限**：高抓地力的高性能运动轮胎以及抓地纹路深厚的硬派越野轮胎因阻力偏高面临淘汰，严重剥夺车主的选择权。 ### [02:45:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9921s) 加州拟禁售70%轮胎：荒唐的微观监管与深层危机两人谈到加州近期引发轩然大波的一项轮胎监管规定。史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）指出，根据 KCRA 电视台资深调查记者阿什莉·扎瓦拉（Ashley Zavala）的深度追踪报道，加州拟议出台的新能效标准可能会直接禁售目前市面上高达 70% 的在售替换轮胎。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）对此感到困惑，询问厂家是否会直接研发新型越野轮胎，并调侃在洛杉矶市区到底有多少机会去开越野车。希尔顿直言，即便自己不开，也有大批爱好者对越野性能有刚性需求，但更关键的问题在于加州政府彻底错位的发展重心与管理失控。希尔顿难掩愤怒地痛陈加州现状：街道上遍地是无家可归者的帐篷，全美最高的税负压得民众喘不过气，企业和资本几乎每天都在逃离，经济已陷入真正的紧急状态。加州不仅拥有全美最高的失业率和贫困率，还承受着最高的生活成本，而加州执政当局与官僚机构却把全部精力倾注在微观管制轮胎这种荒诞不经的议题上。这项长达 20 年无人问津的陈规陋习，由前伯克利州参议员南希·斯金纳（Nancy Skinner）从故纸堆中翻出，未经选民任何公投参与，就由脱离民意的官僚机构强行推行，令人难以理喻。 ### [02:47:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10025s) 能效标准还是气候意识形态？豁免清单与争论为了探究政策细节，罗根在节目中通过 Perplexity 实时查询了加州能源委员会（Energy.ca.gov）官方发布的监管依据。政府文件声称，车主首次更换的替换轮胎通常能效较低，导致全州司机每年多支付近 10 亿美元的额外燃油费用；若实施新标准，每年可减少 200 万公吨二氧化碳排放（相当于减少 40 万辆燃油车上路）、节省 1.41 亿加仑汽油以及 0.9 太瓦时（TWh）的电力需求。罗根推测，更高效的轮胎往往更昂贵，低效轮胎可能抓地力不足或易打滑，从而降低燃油经济性。然而，罗根随后读出了官方提案中长达一长串的豁免清单。这项拟议规则几乎对所有特殊用途轮胎大开后门：赛车轮胎、冬季雪地胎、全季冬季高性能胎、翻新胎、深花纹胎、ATV 与越野车胎、99 英里时速以下的大型越野胎、摩托车胎、应急备胎、13 英寸小轮圈轮胎、限量生产轮胎、紧急救援车用胎、高载重指数轮胎以及设计极速低于 50 英里时速的轮胎等全被排除在外。罗根疑惑既然有如此多豁免，强推此举是否真的能逼迫厂商不再生产劣质轮胎；希尔顿则坚决反驳，民众的本能反应早已是厌烦透顶的“他们又来指手画脚了”（Here they come again）。这根本不是为了给老百姓省钱，而是政客官僚利用极端气候意识形态进行无休止微观管制的典型恶政。 - **监管波及范围**：加州能源委员会拟推行的新标准可能导致全州货架上 70% 的常规乘用替换轮胎下架禁售。 - **官方宣称收益**：预计每年为消费者节省约 10 亿美元燃油与电力支出，减少 200 万公吨温室气体排放，节省 1.41 亿加仑燃油。 - **历史立法渊源**：该项监管并非最新制定的法案，而是萨克拉门托官僚机构尘封长达 23 年（源自 2003 年的一项立法）后重新翻炒出来的产物。 ### [02:51:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10274s) 橡皮图章与无序官僚：如何破除萨克拉门托的立法怪圈谈到加州立法机制的彻底失灵，希尔顿揭露了州府萨克拉门托缺乏制衡的权力黑洞。仅在上一立法周期的短短数月内，加州议会就打包通过了整整 1,118 项法案。希尔顿的团队曾将这批法案全部打印出来，堆叠起来的高度竟是他身高的两倍。根本没有任何议员或州长完整阅读过这些条文，州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）往往大笔一挥全盘签署，无数特殊利益集团通过游说在法案夹带私货，最终演变成数十年后从天而降的苛刻行政指令。面对罗根关于“新州长能做些什么”的提问，希尔顿阐述了重塑行政体系的两大核心抓手： 1. **重组行政部门与清理官僚机构**：这些激进规章全由行政部门下辖的委员会制定。州长直接领导行政体系，有权撤换委员会内部尸位素餐的官僚，任命具备常识的管理者，并通过合并重组彻底精简臃肿机构。 2. **重塑否决权的威慑力**：尽管民主党在州议会拥有三分之二的超级多数，理论上可以推翻州长的否决，但加州议会自 1979 年以来就从未成功推翻过任何一位州长的否决案。希尔顿指出，议员们害怕公开辩论，一旦法案被否决，他们就必须站在聚光灯下向公众公开解释那些荒谬的特权条款，隐蔽暗箱操作的利益输送将无所遁形。 ### [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) 烧掉2300亿的“高铁惨剧”：先坐普铁、再换高铁、最后坐大巴希尔顿强调，州长手中掌握着至关重要的州预算编制权，他刚刚公布了名为“零浪费行动”（Operation Zero Waste）的施政纲领，首要目标就是全面叫停臭名昭著的加州高铁项目（High-Speed Rail）以及停止使用纳税人资金为非法移民提供免费医保。当罗根询问高铁项目迄今为止的开销时，希尔顿给出的答案令罗根啼笑皆非：加州目前已经在该项目上烧掉了 150 亿美元，换来的成果却微乎其微。希尔顿梳理了加州高铁从雄心勃勃到沦为国际笑柄的全过程：2008 年该项目获批时，规划总预算仅为 300 亿美元，承诺到 2020 年正式通车，实现旧金山到洛杉矶全程仅需 2.5 小时。然而最新评估显示，全线若能建成至少要拖到 2030 年代末，总预算更已疯狂飙升至惊人的 2,300 亿美元。更滑稽的是目前妥协出的第一阶段分段运营路线：旅客首先从旧金山搭乘现有的老旧常规火车晃荡到中央山谷北端的默塞德（Merced）；随后换乘仅在中央山谷乡间运行的高铁区间到贝克斯菲尔德（Bakersfield）；最后一段从贝克斯菲尔德前往洛杉矶的高峰路段，竟然安排旅客换乘长途大巴，在常年严重拥堵的特洪隘口（The Grapevine / I-5 公路）上堵上两个半小时。这笔花费 2,300 亿美元拼凑出来的怪胎工程，生动诠释了加州公共财政支出的极致荒唐。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 加州高铁名不副实的荒谬换乘方案 accDescr: 图表展示斥资千亿美元的高铁规划最终退化为常规列车、高铁与长途大巴三段拼凑路线的过程。 subgraph Route["旧金山至洛杉矶拟议运营规划"] A["旧金山 (SF)"] -->|"现存常规慢速铁路"| B["默塞德 (Merced)"] B -->|"新建中央山谷高铁线"| C["贝克斯菲尔德 (Bakersfield)"] C -->|"长途大巴（穿越常年拥堵路段）"| D["洛杉矶 (LA)"] end ``` ### [02:55:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10501s) 加州高铁项目的政治闹剧与预算黑洞史蒂夫·希尔顿（Steve Hilton）谈到了加州高铁项目（High-Speed Rail）的荒诞现状。他指出，自己的竞选对手哈维尔·贝塞拉（Xavier Becerra）前不久去了弗雷斯诺（Fresno），在现场信誓旦旦地宣称该项目将“按时且按预算完成”。然而现实极其讽刺：所谓的“按时”在六年前就早已逾期；而原本规划的预算如今已膨胀到不可收拾的地步，在耗费了巨额公帑后，甚至根本连一截铁轨都没有真正铺设好。希尔顿讥讽加州州长加文·纽森（Gavin Newsom）的做法是“纽森式经典操作”——因为纽森显然志在竞选美国总统，为了掩盖高铁项目的尴尬局面并塑造舆论叙事，他特意在有火车轨道的地方召开发布会，试图营造出项目正在推进的假象。纽森甚至在讲话中冠冕堂皇地声称“加州现已正式进入铺轨阶段”，但实际上现场根本没有实质计划，这个所谓的“阶段”可能还得再拖上整整十年。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 加州高铁项目的困境与现实 accDescr: 展示加州高铁在政治宣传、实际推进、地理地质障碍以及资金来源之间的矛盾链路 subgraph Propaganda["政治宣传与叙事"] A["加文·纽森与贝塞拉宣称: '按时按预算进入铺轨阶段'"] end subgraph Reality["实际工程阻碍"] B["至今未铺设实质铁轨"] C["山脉穿越需开挖4座隧道 (总长达28英里)"] D["穿越圣安德烈亚斯断层 (存在重大地震隐患)"] E["因无法贯通需临时换乘大巴"] end subgraph Funding["纳税人代价"] F["耗资超千亿但延宕无期"] G["资金来源: '限额与投资'/燃气税"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E B --> F F --> G ``` 两人随后探讨了工程无法贯通的物理障碍：列车根本无法轻易穿过山脉，在官方目前的折中方案里，乘客甚至可能不得不“中途下车改乘大巴”。据相关资料显示，若要真正打通山路，需要开凿总长达28英里的4座独立隧道，这不仅工程量浩大，更致命的是隧道必须横穿极度危险的圣安德烈亚斯断层（San Andreas Fault）。罗根对此惊叹，这种盲目开山不仅破坏自然，甚至可能诱发地震。希尔顿提到，曾有埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）旗下的相关人员表示，无聊公司（The Boring Company）仅需50亿美元就能搞定打洞，但加州体制却将其变成了无底洞式的政治丰碑：不断吸纳资金、肆意挥霍、一事无成且无休止地推迟。 - 贝塞拉在弗雷斯诺承诺“按时按预算完成”，但项目早在六年前就已错过原始交付工期。 - 整个工程预算飙升至上千亿美元，但实际动工的核心路段连基本的铁轨都尚未铺设。 - 山区穿越方案需要建设4条总长度达28英里的隧道，且必须直面圣安德烈亚斯断层的地震风险。 - 加文·纽森在2015年担任副州长期间，曾公开坦承该项目是个彻头彻尾的笑话；如今却继续靠“限额与投资”（Cap and Invest）以及加州高昂的燃气税向纳税人搜刮资金来粉饰太平。 - 纽森因任期限制（已满两届）无法再竞选加州州长。 --- ### [02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) 临别寄语：“皮囊下的蜥蜴人”与就职典礼的承诺访谈接近尾声，乔·罗根向史蒂夫·希尔顿表达了由衷的祝愿，半开玩笑地表示：“如果你真能赢下加州州长，那场面绝对会极其精彩、滑稽。”希尔顿打趣地问罗根想在加州政府担任什么职务，甚至表示自己参选的唯一动力就是为了把罗根吸引回加州；罗根则大笑着果断拒绝，直言自己绝不可能搬回加州，因为德克萨斯州的生活实在太惬意了。尽管如此，罗根十分真诚地鼓励希尔顿，认为希尔顿确实有胜选的机会，因为希尔顿的执政逻辑合情合理，在当今荒诞的政治环境中格外难能可贵。罗根高度评价了希尔顿的人品，强调在希尔顿还没有任何政治野心之前两人就已相识，希尔顿自始至终都是表里如一的“好人”，而非政坛中随处可见的虚伪政客。罗根嘲讽沙加缅度（Sacramento）充斥着大量虚假的政治机器，讽刺他们简直就是“套着人皮的蜥蜴人”（lizards in skin suits），缺乏真正的人性和真诚。希尔顿对此深有同感，并顺势向罗根发出正式邀请，希望他能出席自己的加州州长就职典礼。罗根爽快答应并立下承诺：“只要你赢了，我一定会去现场。”两人在轻松热烈的笑声中互道感谢，向观众道别结束了整场长谈。 ## Notable quotes > [01:35:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=5757s) 当权者常将揭露深层腐败的人扣上精神异常的帽子以使其闭嘴。 — 乔·罗根 > [01:41:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6115s) 观众看喜剧是为艺术宣泄而非接受宣教，将虚构情节与现实恶行挂钩摧毁了喜剧创作流派。 — 乔·罗根 > [01:50:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6618s) 这是你做过的最艰难、也是最简单的事。 — 乔伊·迪亚兹（乔·罗根引述） > [01:53:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=6788s) 播客是面向数百万人的实时大声思考，而脱口秀是经过无数次反复微调与排练的精雕细琢。 — 乔·罗根 > [02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7355s) 值得冒的风险。 — 安东尼·福奇 / 弗朗西斯·柯林斯（史蒂夫·希尔顿引述） > [02:10:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=7855s) PCR不能用作诊断疾病的标准工具。 — 凯利·穆利斯 > [02:13:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8003s) 药企在新闻台投放罕见病广告的本质是购买媒体网络，充当公关保护费以封锁负面调查。 — 史蒂夫·希尔顿 > [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=8280s) 速度优先于安全。 — 史蒂夫·希尔顿 > [02:45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=9905s) 他们又来了。 — 史蒂夫·希尔顿 > [02:53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10398s) 加州高铁项目是个笑话。 — 加文·纽森（史蒂夫·希尔顿引述） > [02:58:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA&t=10684s) 萨克拉门托建制派政客是套着人皮的蜥蜴人。 — 乔·罗根 ## Mentioned 史蒂夫·希尔顿 (Steve Hilton), 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 埃里克·斯沃韦尔 (Eric Swalwell), 方芳 (Fang Fang), 《太坏了》 (Superbad), 《宿醉》 (The Hangover), 《神探飞机头》 (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective), 金·凯瑞 (Jim Carrey), 肯尼迪 (Lisa Kennedy Montgomery), 珍妮特·耶伦 (Janet Yellen), 本尼·希尔 (Benny Hill), 路易·C·K (Louis C.K.), 比尔·考斯比 (Bill Cosby), 喜剧母舰俱乐部 (Comedy Mothership), 罗恩·怀特 (Ron White), 托尼·欣奇克利夫 (Tony Hinchcliffe), 布赖恩·辛普森 (Brian Simpson), 谢恩·吉利斯 (Shane Gillis), 乔伊·迪亚兹 (Joey Diaz), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 乔·拜登 (Joe Biden), 汤姆·塞古拉 (Tom Segura), 安东尼·福奇 (Anthony Fauci), 弗朗西斯·柯林斯 (Francis Collins), 杰伊·巴塔查亚 (Jay Bhattacharya), 约翰·约阿尼迪斯 (John Ioannidis), 萨拉·科迪 (Sara Cody), 加文·纽森 (Gavin Newsom), 凯利·穆利斯 (Kary Mullis), 小罗伯特·肯尼迪 (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.), 妮可·沙纳汉 (Nicole Shanahan), 哈维尔·贝塞拉 (Xavier Becerra), 罗伯·邦塔 (Rob Bonta), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 加州空气资源委员会 (CARB), 加州能源委员会 (CEC), 加州高铁 (California High-Speed Rail), 无聊公司 (The Boring Company) ## Video description Steve Hilton is a businessman, political commentator, author, and Republican candidate for governor of California. https://www.youtube.com/@stevehiltonx https://www.stevehiltonforgovernor.com Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Use code ROGAN at https://BlueChew.com to get 10% OFF + Free Overnight Shipping on your first order. Switch today at https://www.Visible.com for just 25/mo. Or Save $10 on your first month of Visible+ Pro with code ROGAN. [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYVQfLi6wMA)

Source quotes

[95:57] 乔·罗根: 当权者常将揭露深层腐败的人扣上精神异常的帽子以使其闭嘴。 [101:55] 乔·罗根: 观众看喜剧是为艺术宣泄而非接受宣教，将虚构情节与现实恶行挂钩摧毁了喜剧创作流派。 [110:18] 乔伊·迪亚兹（乔·罗根引述）: 这是你做过的最艰难、也是最简单的事。 [113:08] 乔·罗根: 播客是面向数百万人的实时大声思考，而脱口秀是经过无数次反复微调与排练的精雕细琢。 [122:35] 安东尼·福奇 / 弗朗西斯·柯林斯（史蒂夫·希尔顿引述）: 值得冒的风险。 [130:55] 凯利·穆利斯: PCR不能用作诊断疾病的标准工具。 [133:23] 史蒂夫·希尔顿: 药企在新闻台投放罕见病广告的本质是购买媒体网络，充当公关保护费以封锁负面调查。 [138:00] 史蒂夫·希尔顿: 速度优先于安全。 [165:05] 史蒂夫·希尔顿: 他们又来了。 [173:18] 加文·纽森（史蒂夫·希尔顿引述）: 加州高铁项目是个笑话。 [178:04] 乔·罗根: 萨克拉门托建制派政客是套着人皮的蜥蜴人。

Source quotes

[110:09] Joey Diaz: It's the fucking hardest, easiest thing you'll ever do. [127:38] 15 Days to Slow the Spread [133:13] Trump Derangement Syndrome [135:23] Xavier Becerra: speed over safety [135:23] kids in cages [135:23] Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: the largest child trafficking operation in history [145:20] Rob Bonta: prohibit voting [152:40] Cap-and-Invest [158:56] Steve Hilton: What is the impact of any of this on climate change... What is the impact on global temperatures? [158:56] Steve Hilton: Who's following? No one, because it's crazy. [161:44] California Energy Commission: shelter the public from higher costs in the long run [173:18] Steve Hilton: Operation Zero Waste [178:04] Joe Rogan: It would be hilarious if you win. [178:04] Joe Rogan: You're not like some weird lizard person... There's a lot of these people that are just skin suits. [178:04] Joe Rogan: If you win, I'll come.

Original transcript

[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. [0:13] >> Come on. What's going on? [0:16] >> For people who don't know, you and I [0:18] have been friends for god more than 10 [0:21] years. [0:22] >> How many years has been? [0:23] >> I think it's I think it's the year we [0:25] got here, [0:26] >> which is 14 2012 when we moved from [0:28] England. We met in Hawaii on the beach [0:30] with our kids. [0:31] >> Okay. So, what's your memory? I was just [0:32] thinking about that cuz I have a very [0:34] particular memory of that. [0:35] >> Um, my memory was uh that my children [0:39] and your children were playing on the [0:41] beach. [0:41] >> Exactly. [0:42] >> That's how we met. [0:43] >> Mhm. [0:43] >> It was just they were like digging in [0:45] sand. They were real little. They were [0:46] the same age. [0:48] >> And uh then we just said hi. [0:51] >> Yeah. But I remember Okay. I have a [0:53] slightly different memory. Okay. What's [0:54] your [0:54] >> which is like that's exactly right about [0:56] the kids. [0:57] >> Yeah. Two girls for you, two boys for [0:59] me. And your wife was there first before [1:03] >> Yes. I think I was in the gym and then I [1:05] >> And I just remember [1:08] just like remember I've just moved from [1:10] England and it's a whole different world [1:13] and a different culture and I just [1:16] remember you walking down the beach and [1:17] I remember I I've never seen anyone like [1:19] this before. Just like the it was just [1:22] an amazing cultural moment. And then [1:26] >> you'd never seen anyone. [1:27] >> Well, just like the way, no, just the [1:28] way you were, you know, you, you know, [1:30] just the way I remember thinking, who's [1:32] this guy? I remember I'd never heard of [1:35] you. And then I was explaining [1:38] um to people I'd Oh, Joe, Joe Rogan. You [1:41] met Joe Rogan? It was just an amazing [1:43] thing. [1:45] And then the other thing that makes me [1:48] laugh doing this is that [1:51] >> we then did the the podcast. [1:53] >> Yes. at some point around then. [1:54] >> This is before you had any aspirations [1:56] of running for governor or anything like [1:58] that. That was a long time ago. [1:59] >> I just moved I was teaching at Stanford [2:02] just very normal kind of [2:04] >> lowkey life and I really remember doing [2:08] the podcast not knowing what a podcast [2:10] was. I literally didn't know. So we came [2:12] in and I again I my experience was I'd [2:15] been in England um you know I'd worked [2:18] in business run a restaurant or two that [2:20] kind of thing but most recently I'd been [2:22] in politics and government and so I'd in [2:24] the media I was aware of all of that and [2:28] so you know it wasn't like I was [2:29] completely naive but I didn't know what [2:31] a podcast was and I literally thought it [2:33] was like a radio show or something. I [2:36] remember coming in, this is back in LA, [2:38] and we sat down and we were chatting for [2:42] a few minutes and I literally was [2:44] thinking, when's the next guest coming? [2:47] Like, this seems to be going on a really [2:50] long time. And it's like 10 minutes and [2:53] then 15. Wow, this is a long time. [2:55] Normally, you get like 10 15 minutes [2:57] maximum, right? [2:58] >> Half an hour. What? An hour? 3 hours. [3:03] >> I couldn't believe it. Well, back then [3:06] >> I really didn't know. [3:08] >> No one knew what a podcast was, right? [3:09] >> So, what year was it that Steve was on? [3:12] >> On episode 509 20 was June July 3rd of [3:16] 2014 somewhere. [3:17] >> 2014. [3:18] >> Yeah. [3:18] >> Whoa. [3:19] >> Okay. [3:20] >> 2014. Episode what? [3:22] >> 509. So, we're already [3:24] >> 509. [3:24] >> Yeah. [3:25] >> 509. So, we've had 2,000 podcasts since [3:29] then. [3:29] >> Incredible. [3:30] >> And [3:32] wow. The other 12 years that's 12 years [3:35] ago. That's crazy. [3:36] >> It's crazy. The other thing just [3:38] remembering, you know, I'd never really [3:40] done anything public. [3:41] >> I was like a behind thescenes guy, [3:43] >> right, [3:44] >> in politics and government and I just [3:47] come out of that and I was very kind of [3:49] cautious about everything and and and [3:50] you were just talking like you do which [3:53] again I didn't really know. Um, and you [3:56] were it was I remember thinking, "God, [3:58] this is like we talk about sex and you [4:01] were cursed and like, wow, what is [4:04] this?" Like, this is so different to [4:07] anything I've ever encountered before. [4:10] But there we are. Yeah. Nobody was [4:12] listening back then. It was nice. [4:16] You could get away with so much more. [4:18] You could just talk and not worry about [4:21] it. And also social media is not a [4:23] thing. I don't think you worry about it [4:25] when you're talking. [4:26] >> Well, I don't pay attention. That's the [4:28] key. That's the key to my success, [4:29] right? This is like don't listen to [4:31] anybody what anybody has to say about [4:33] you. [4:33] >> Just keep moving. [4:34] >> Keep moving and don't pay attention. [4:37] >> I think that's obviously works [4:39] >> well. I think there's a lot of people [4:41] out there that are crippled by other [4:43] people's opinions. I think there's a [4:45] genuine benefit to having a bunch of [4:48] other people's opinions of you and you [4:50] get to see feedback, but there's just [4:53] way too many bad faith actors on the [4:56] internet. There's way too many people [4:57] that have the least charitable takes on [4:59] everybody. the worst the worst like [5:03] public narration like public narratives [5:07] that they they want to promote about [5:10] anyone or anything about any subject. [5:14] There's far too many people like that [5:16] and it's a poison well. [5:18] >> Yeah. [5:18] >> It's like if you went to a restaurant [5:20] and you knew that 20% of their food [5:23] would literally [ __ ] kill you, would [5:25] you ever eat there? No. Well, that's [5:27] like Twitter. [5:29] >> Yeah. to 20% of the people there are [5:32] [ __ ] poisonous. They're they're like [5:35] a coral. [5:35] >> I know. But it's so funny because like [5:37] now I've just you know been so when we [5:39] met I was just you know like kind of a a [5:42] regular citizen teaching at Stanford or [5:43] whatever. Then I started a business then [5:45] I got more public. I went to Fox hosted [5:47] a show there. Now I'm a candidate. And [5:49] as that's happened you get more [5:51] prominent. And so you look at these [5:53] comments and I never know whether to [5:56] look. But the the thing that I really [5:58] just makes me laugh now. It's like I'm [6:02] always tempted to do it and I never do [6:03] it. Like the really idiotic just pure [6:07] abuse like go I don't know like I do I [6:11] put something out there and now there's [6:12] a lot more of this and my account is [6:14] like go back to England you [ __ ] [ __ ] [6:18] or you bald whatever. And like I always [6:22] I always want to write good point [6:26] because it's just so tempting and I [6:28] never have. Maybe I should. [6:29] >> Well, there's a lot of it just makes me [6:31] laugh. [6:32] >> There's a lot of sad angry people out [6:34] there that are just lashing out and [6:36] unfortunately those are overly [6:37] represented online because those are the [6:39] type of people that have the time to [6:41] make comments. But then you also have to [6:43] take into consideration whenever you're [6:45] involved in anything political, as you [6:46] obviously are because you're running for [6:48] governor of California, there's a lot of [6:50] the people that are engaging with your [6:52] content that are not real people. They [6:54] are [6:55] >> You mean actual bots? 100%. Okay. That [6:57] part I never have in my mind. That's [6:59] >> You don't? [7:00] >> No, I should. I But I I It's a good [7:02] point. Keep going. [7:03] >> Oh, it's a tremendous amount. It's not a [7:06] small amount. [7:07] >> It's a huge amount. Does Elon [7:10] >> there's nothing you can do about it. It [7:11] was point of contention when he was [7:13] buying Twitter. So when he was buying [7:15] Twitter, Twitter was alleging that there [7:17] was only 5% 5% of Twitter was bots. [7:20] >> But see if you can find that article [7:22] again. There's a a former FBI um God he [7:26] wor did something with digital [7:28] intelligence and he did a forensic [7:31] analysis of Twitter and he said it's [7:33] probably 80%. [7:34] >> 80 80 [7:35] >> jeez [7:36] >> 80. So it's a bunch of bots yelling at [7:39] you and by bots. Okay, some of them I [7:43] think now and this is at the time. So [7:45] this is 2022. [7:47] What when did he buy Twitter? 2023 2024. [7:50] 2024 [7:52] >> I think older than was it [7:53] >> was it 24? [7:54] >> I can't remember. [7:54] >> I think it was like [7:56] >> somewhere in 23 24. Yeah. [7:58] >> Yeah. Okay. So back then AI was not as [8:01] much of an issue, [8:03] >> right? [8:03] >> Like AI is you could automate anything [8:06] now. [8:07] So the claim that 80% of Twitter is [8:09] originates from a 2022 assessment by [8:11] cyber security expert Dan Woods. While [8:14] official company filings have historic, [8:16] >> excuse me, historically claim fake [8:18] accounts represent under 5% independent [8:20] estimates and security specialists [8:21] suggest real figures are higher. Those [8:24] an exact 80% total remains heavily [8:27] debated. It's very debated, but um if [8:29] you read the article, [8:31] >> he goes over it's uh it's very [8:34] meticulous like the way he's describing [8:36] what it's not like he's pulling it out [8:38] of his ass. He's he did it. So what they [8:41] did what Twitter did to come up with 5% [8:43] was they just grabbed a random 100 [8:46] tweets, but also they're trying to sell [8:48] it for [ __ ] billions of dollars. [8:52] Think it's [8:52] >> what was it like 40 billion? [8:54] >> Yeah, [8:54] >> something crazy, wasn't it? I don't [8:56] remember the number. [8:57] >> Wasn't it $40 billion? [8:59] [ __ ] insane amount of money for this [9:02] what is now just chaos, you know? It's [9:04] funny. [9:05] >> So, there's that. And so, this guy's [9:08] saying 80%. So, again, this is a few [9:11] years ago, so you're dealing with actual [9:12] humans who are doing it. So, you have [9:15] these uh state sponsored groups um that [9:18] are there's these bot farms. And what [9:21] these bot farms are, you I don't know if [9:22] you've ever seen them. [9:24] >> Um, but pe people have like gone inside [9:27] and filmed them like whistleblowers. And [9:30] what they literally have is like rows [9:32] and rows of Android phones that are all [9:35] connected to like keyboards. Yes. [9:39] >> And [9:40] >> they'll type one thing and that one [9:43] thing gets tweeted by hundreds and [9:46] hundreds of phones. And there's many of [9:48] these places. And this was back before [9:51] you could get AI to automate things for [9:53] you. [9:53] >> Now that you could do a thing where you [9:56] can essentially start a campaign online, [10:01] like say Steve Hilton's a [ __ ] Pass it [10:03] on. And literally they will you could [10:08] hire a company and this company has bots [10:12] that will go out there and promote that [10:14] Steve Hilton is a [ __ ] and they will put [10:16] it everywhere. They'll they'll hire [10:18] people. They'll pay. This is another [10:20] thing. There's a bunch of like really [10:22] bad actors, really bad faith actors on [10:24] Twitter that are paid to post things. [10:27] And these people have been called out [10:28] many times by other people that are [10:30] independent journalists that say, "Isn't [10:32] it crazy that all these people use the [10:34] same verbage?" Exactly. They're getting [10:36] paid. They're getting paid quite a bit [10:38] of money. Israel pays people. They've [10:40] been pretty pretty open about it, you [10:41] know, and they were saying that we have [10:43] to win the digital war against what they [10:45] what they they call it the woke Reich, [10:47] which is hilarious. Um, [10:49] >> so there's that. So, so you you have to [10:53] like when you're engaging like I know [10:55] real people on Twitter. I know real [10:57] people that I I I read their posts and I [11:00] know there's real independent [11:01] journalists, but there's a tremendous [11:03] amount of just utter horseshit. [11:05] >> Yeah. [11:05] >> I don't have time. I have no time for. [11:07] >> No, I I mean I look at it um so because [11:10] you know like you're running around, [11:12] you're doing all these things for the [11:12] campaign, whatever. So I don't have too [11:15] much time. It's the one I look at, but [11:16] there's all the other, you know, there's [11:18] Instagram and all the rest and I don't [11:19] even look at those. [11:20] >> But one X, you know, for a few hours, [11:23] you know, if you add it up probably half [11:26] an hour in the morning, maybe half an [11:28] hour in the middle of the day, half an [11:29] hour at the end of the day, and you look [11:30] at it then and you just find out what's [11:32] going. I think it's pretty good for [11:33] news, like things that are happening. [11:35] >> It's the best thing in the world for [11:37] news. [11:37] >> So, I that's why I check in with it. You [11:39] kind of see what's happening. [11:40] >> I do that. I go to the front page like [11:42] what's going on? What are what are the [11:44] what are the news stories? But as soon [11:45] as it gets to people's opinions on [11:47] something like blah blah blah, not [11:48] listening. [11:50] >> I just think it's fun. Honestly, the [11:51] abuse stuff, it just makes me laugh. I [11:53] think it's so kind of [11:54] >> That's good. Well, you've always been [11:56] really good digitally. Like for people [11:59] that don't know, like I said, Steve and [12:01] I have known each other for a long time. [12:03] Uh I mean we're we're good friends. Like [12:05] we've taken our families to Disneyland. [12:07] Yeah. Like we've slept over each other's [12:10] homes. This is again way before you were [12:12] running for governor. We I know you and [12:14] you know me and you know my family. We [12:15] know each other. And you've always had [12:18] no phone. You were always impossible to [12:20] reach. I used to have to get a hold of [12:21] your wife to get a hold of you. Exactly. [12:23] It was hilarious for a while. I don't [12:24] even know if you've had a [ __ ] email [12:26] for a while. [12:26] >> I have email. I always had email. [12:28] >> Yeah, you but you never had anything on [12:31] you to check that email. So like I [12:34] remember that one time in San Diego. I [12:37] always said it's fine. Nothing ever goes [12:39] wrong. ARE YOU GOING TO [12:40] >> WHAT WENT WRONG? YOUR WIFE WAS SO MAD at [12:42] you cuz she couldn't get a hold of you. [12:43] You [ __ ] vanished. [12:45] >> But this was the thing is like you were [12:48] well aware that it is a toxic element in [12:51] your life and it's distracting. It keeps [12:53] you from being present. It keeps you [12:55] from being in the moment. And it's very [12:57] hard to have discipline and just put it [12:59] down. And I'm really good at it, but [13:01] then I'm not. Then some some days I'm [13:03] not. I just find myself on the toilet [13:05] for 20 minutes watching murder videos [13:09] >> cuz my Instagram it's actually really [13:12] good right now. Um, [13:13] >> well actual what you mean like true [13:15] crime stuff? [13:16] >> Oh, horrible things. So, one of my best [13:20] friends, Tom Seagura, he and I have had [13:24] this tradition over the last few years [13:26] of sending each other the worst [ __ ] [13:28] [ __ ] that we find online to each other [13:31] just to freak each other out first thing [13:32] in the morning. Like, first thing in the [13:33] morning, I wake up and Tom sent me like [13:36] the other day I sent him these two guys [13:37] were trying to rob an ATM machine and uh [13:41] the guy's pulling on it and they wrapped [13:43] a chain around it and they had a car. It [13:45] sounds like a movie particular scene in [13:48] >> movie. Yeah. So the the the car was [13:50] pulling the the ATM machine out and the [13:52] guy got trapped under it and dragged [13:56] >> with sparks and blood. I mean it's [13:59] [ __ ] horrific. [14:01] >> And I mean I've seen so many people get [14:03] executed. Uh hundreds. Instagram is [14:06] terrible at removing that stuff. I don't [14:08] know if I spend far less time on X [14:12] because X is so much opinions. [14:14] So much of it is just text. Instagram [14:17] for me, it's a lot of it is very [14:19] interesting. Like I find interesting [14:20] historical facts, interesting scientific [14:23] discoveries, cool stuff. There's a lot [14:25] of [14:25] >> it seems to be just generally when I'm [14:26] around, you know, I'm on planes a lot [14:29] and like all the time and you see people [14:32] so just ane just watching people [14:34] Instagram seems to be the thing, you [14:36] know, I'm not watching what they're [14:37] looking at. You can see the logo and you [14:38] can see that seems to be what people are [14:40] most consuming. Yes. On the go. [14:42] Instagram. I think it's probably the [14:43] biggest one. Maybe Tik Tok's probably [14:45] the biggest. [14:46] >> Yeah. And Tik Tok. [14:47] >> I don't know what's the biggest, but [14:48] they're all they're both pretty big. And [14:50] it's it's just my [14:52] >> Tik Tok's probably younger. [14:54] >> Yeah, I think. But there's a lot of [14:55] older people on Tik Tok, too, now. It's [14:58] just very addictive. Tik Tok when you [15:01] open it up, it immediately starts [15:02] playing you something. Yeah. [15:04] >> That's different. You know, like [15:06] Instagram, it opens the page and you go, [15:08] "So, what's going on?" And you you have [15:10] to like put in a little effort. Tik [15:12] Tok's like, "Gotcha." Like immediately [15:14] as soon as you open up the app, it's [15:15] like, "Gotcha. Here's another one. [15:17] Here's another one. Here's another one." [15:18] Next thing you know, an hour's gone by [15:19] and you've wasted it. [15:20] >> I remember when I first read about it [15:22] like years ago. Tik Tok. I think maybe [15:25] even wasn't called Tik Tok. It was bite [15:27] dance were doing it and it was music [15:29] video. It was something to do and that's [15:31] how it started. [15:32] >> It started with [15:33] >> you could make your own video to music [15:35] or something to do with music was the [15:37] focus. [15:37] >> Well, the original Tik Tok was a bunch [15:39] of people dancing. [15:40] >> Yeah. That's right. It was exactly [15:42] >> Yeah. They were dancing and lip-syncing [15:44] >> and I remember reading and and they were [15:46] talking about how viral it's gotten and [15:47] this thing is going to take over. So I [15:49] was like, "Oh yeah, that can't be that's [15:51] not going to happen." And then now look [15:52] where we are. Amazing. [15:54] >> Well, what's really interesting is China [15:57] where Tik Tok originated, they have a [16:00] completely different Tik Tok. Exactly. [16:02] >> Their Tik Tok is curated to um [16:06] >> like martial arts demonstrations, [16:08] scientific discoveries. It's all [16:10] athletic achievements doing music, [16:12] violin, all that stuff. [16:13] >> Exactly. It's all like enriching. [16:15] >> It shows you can do that. [16:17] >> Yeah. And kids aren't even allowed on it [16:19] after 10 p.m. So like you have to put in [16:22] your age when you do it at 10 p.m. it [16:23] bricks you [16:24] >> go to work, [ __ ] Go to sleep, get up [16:26] in the morning, and now [16:28] >> Tik Tok does that or the I can't [16:30] remember. I've read that [16:31] >> the Chinese version of Tik Tok. So the [16:33] Chinese version [16:33] >> the government makes them do that or [16:35] they [16:35] >> Yeah, they're smart. Like it's not good [16:37] to censor people, but if you want to [16:39] have a society that's not captured by [16:41] horseshit, yes, that's the way to do it. [16:43] >> So I remember back, so I'm Hungarian. My [16:45] parents are Hungarian. When I was a kid, [16:47] we'd I was born in England, but we'd go [16:49] back to Hungary. And this thing I always [16:51] remember [16:52] being really pissed off about when I was [16:54] a kid. Um, not that the TV, this is [16:57] before anything, it was just TV. So all [16:59] you had was television. But on Mondays [17:02] in Hungary, there was no television [17:04] because they wanted people to do other [17:06] stuff [17:07] >> just on Monday. [17:08] >> Yeah. It was something maybe I'm getting [17:09] this wrong. It was and it was like go [17:12] out, talk to each other, do stuff, [17:14] sports, whatever. [17:16] >> It was just and it was communist regime [17:18] so they can do whatever they want, [17:19] >> right? [17:20] >> But you think, you know, they were [17:22] thinking [17:23] >> I prefer freedom. But [17:25] >> well, that's what I think all about all [17:27] of this is so hard. Like even when you [17:29] look at like just today there's the um [17:32] this massive trial this Meta trial going [17:35] on. What's going on? Meta there. It's a [17:37] lawsuit. Today's the first day of the [17:38] trial. [17:39] >> What is the trial about? [17:40] >> They're suing Meta for $1.4 trillion [17:42] dollars. [17:43] >> Trillion. [17:43] >> Trillion. Trillion with a T. [17:45] >> Whoa. [17:45] >> I mean, they're not going to get that, [17:46] but that's the claim. It was just today. [17:50] >> Claims it addicted children to social [17:52] media. [17:53] >> And they're doing this through lawsuits. [17:56] and the and I'm just so torn over this [17:58] because I've got a very strong point of [18:00] view about all of this and kids. [18:02] >> Yes. [18:02] >> But there's something about this doesn't [18:04] feel right in terms of just going after [18:09] these big platforms because in the end I [18:11] think it's the phones. It's the [18:13] >> that'll be something else if it's not [18:15] meta. It'll be another thing. [18:16] >> Yes. [18:16] >> I mean I wrote about this year like [18:18] 2015. [18:20] So soon after we did that show, I was [18:22] probably working on at the time I had a [18:23] book called I published a book called [18:25] more human designing a world where [18:27] people come first and the kind of main [18:30] thing in the book was everything's too [18:32] big and bureaucratic and centralized and [18:34] we got to get back to the human scale. [18:36] So it's mainly about other kinds of [18:38] policy areas. But I did write about this [18:40] thing of kids and tech and I said at the [18:42] time we you know kids under 16 I I said [18:45] then shouldn't have smartphones. You can [18:47] give them other phones to stay in touch, [18:49] but smartphones, bad idea, is the [18:51] screens. And so I see all this going on [18:54] and I think, yeah, have a go at Meta or [18:56] whatever WhatsApp or YouTube. I think [18:59] they're coming for as well. [19:00] >> They're coming for YouTube. That's [19:02] interesting. [19:02] >> Definitely. Yeah, they are. There's [19:03] already been a couple. And [19:05] >> this episode is brought to you by Blue [19:07] Chew, man. Let's talk about Blue Chew. [19:10] They're already the number one brand for [19:12] better sex, but what they're doing with [19:14] Blue Chew Gold is completely next level. [19:16] Gold is a 4in-one formula designed to [19:20] make your bedroom noisy again. [19:23] Obviously, it gets you hard like you're [19:25] back in your 20s, and everything is [19:27] handled 100% online, but Gold boosts [19:30] your arousal, getting you ready for sex [19:33] physically and mentally. Plus, it [19:36] dissolves under your tongue for faster [19:38] absorption, so you get that spontaneous [19:40] energy back. Look at the stats. Gold is [19:44] three times stronger, five times faster, [19:46] and eight times longerlasting than old [19:49] school methods. Blue Chew Gold is the [19:52] real deal. Right now, buy two months of [19:55] BlueChew Gold and get the third free [19:57] with my code Rogan. You will also [20:00] receive free overnight shipping. Head [20:02] over to bluechw.com for details and [20:04] important safety information. Check it [20:07] out. This ad and the products being [20:10] advertised are intended for a United [20:12] States audience. [20:13] >> Well, that's like coming for television [20:15] though. [20:16] >> I know. It's [20:17] >> user created television. [20:19] >> I think it's the screens though, [20:21] >> right? But the screen's the problem, [20:22] right? It's not the content creators. [20:24] >> That's what I'm That's what I'm [20:25] >> And then if they are coming after [20:26] YouTube, then they're going to come [20:27] after me, right? Because like I'm making [20:29] people addicted to listening to people [20:31] talk. [20:31] >> Exactly. [20:32] >> Well, how you going to say that that's [20:33] bad? Uh the four states seek substantial [20:36] financial penalties. Reports differ on [20:39] the precise figure with recent [20:41] reportings describing the state's [20:43] position as roughly 200 billion. While [20:45] Meta has cited a possible exposure as [20:48] high as 1.4 trillion, the ultimate [20:50] penalty if Meta loses would be [20:52] determined by the court. They also want [20:55] court-ordered changes to Facebook and [20:56] Instagram, potentially including [20:58] parental verification for teen accounts, [21:01] changes to recommendation algorithms [21:03] characterized as dopamine manipulating, [21:06] removing or limiting like counts, [21:08] infinite scroll, autoplay, appearance [21:11] altering filters, multiple accounts, and [21:14] disappearing content such as stories. [21:17] What people love that [21:18] >> I know. So, they're trying to really [21:20] micromanage. Yeah, but disappearing [21:22] content such as stories is kind of [21:24] interesting sometimes. Like my friend [21:26] Adam Greenree. [21:27] >> Yeah. [21:28] >> He's a bow hunter and he goes uh hunting [21:31] and he's his Instagram stories like [21:34] depict each day of these hunts and it's [21:37] really fascinating because he takes [21:39] these crazy adventures where he goes [21:41] deep into the Colorado Rockies by [21:42] himself for like 28 days and he's like [21:45] camping out in the snow and it's it's [21:47] cool. It's cool to watch. So it's not [21:49] all negative. [21:51] So, our AI sponsor, Perplexity, who is [21:54] uh we've pulled this information from, [21:56] is saying that a loss could mean not [21:59] only a very large financial judgment, [22:01] but also mandated product redesigns [22:04] affecting how miners and potentially all [22:06] users experience Instagram and Facebook. [22:09] The See, the problem is, as soon as the [22:11] government gets involved in mandating [22:14] product redesigns, we're [ __ ] because [22:16] they're not going to make it good for [22:18] us. [22:19] >> I totally agree. There's not a chance in [22:20] hell. [22:21] >> Yeah. [22:22] >> It's just [22:23] >> manipulating. It's it's they get [22:25] involved and they'll probably get them [22:27] to give them some money [22:28] >> and then and then when you start getting [22:30] and you could just imagine these [22:31] bureaucrats sitting around microman I [22:34] mean they've got too much of that [22:35] already. [22:35] >> 100%. Yeah. One of the things that we [22:38] >> So I get it's a problem but this isn't [22:39] the way to go about it. [22:41] >> No. No. You know there's a relaunch of [22:44] MySpace that is Yes. And so MySpace is [22:48] apparently attempting to relaunch and be [22:51] algorithm free. And this is their idea. [22:53] They're they're thinking the algorithms [22:55] are designed to keep you engaged and get [22:58] you dependent and get you hooked. And [23:00] they're doing it by making you outraged [23:02] for the most part, right? And what they [23:04] want to say is, look, why don't you just [23:06] find what you want to find and we'll [23:07] have it on here. [23:08] >> Okay? which is probably a lot better [23:11] because you know my feed would be all [23:13] things only that I'm interested in, not [23:15] things that piss me off. [23:16] >> Well, that was the big change they made [23:18] to the the the news feed versus what you [23:20] were doing [23:21] >> and incredibly conf um incredibly like [23:25] >> potent in its impact on children in [23:27] particular and me. I'm a child. I'm a [23:30] little kid. I [ __ ] I get get hooked. [23:32] We all get hooked. You get hooked on [23:34] nonsense and just paying attention to [23:36] stupid things and it just eats time and [23:39] that's what is that's the commodity. The [23:42] commodity is your attention. [23:43] >> Yeah. Exactly. But you've got with with [23:45] I hear actually all the time it's not [23:47] discussed like a political issue like we [23:50] talk about gas prices whatever. But then [23:52] I I've done a lot of events the last [23:55] whatever year and a half like really a [23:57] lot thousands and thousands of people [23:59] sometimes big events small round tables [24:01] you hear a lot of people and they [24:04] the first set of things they talk to you [24:06] about are what you might because they [24:07] think you're a candidate this is [24:09] politics let's talk about taxes and gas [24:11] prices and the kinds of things that you [24:14] think they you know are sort of assumed [24:16] to be part of the political conversation [24:18] but then when you raise something like [24:20] that like the kids and the screens that [24:23] totally changes the conversation and [24:26] suddenly they're like intense and kind [24:30] of really kind of angry in a totally [24:33] different way. [24:33] >> In what way? [24:34] >> It's like what are we supposed to do? [24:37] It's it's like for parents it's like [24:39] we've it's the screens and the social [24:42] media and then the video games and now [24:44] it's AI and they're talking to AI and [24:46] then the AI is doing the homework. Like [24:48] what are we supposed to do? Well, I'm [24:49] glad you brought up video games because [24:51] video games are far more addictive than [24:55] social media. [24:55] >> Yes, [24:56] >> video games are insanely addictive and [24:58] no one's trying to get rid of them. [25:00] Exactly. It's because these things can [25:01] change the way people think. They can [25:03] change public opinion and they can move [25:06] people in in certain directions. I [25:08] attribute it to the rise of, you know, [25:10] the democratic socialists. I attribute [25:13] it to the rise. I mean, it's a lot of [25:15] this manipulation, these ideas like [25:17] people are really getting, oh, maybe [25:19] being socialist is cool. Like, this is [25:21] all coming out of social media 100%. [25:23] It's not natural that people are sitting [25:26] around, you know, reading marks and [25:29] going, "What a great idea." Like, let's [25:30] implement this. They're not doing that. [25:33] Very few of these quote unquote Marxists [25:36] that you find on social media are even [25:38] aware of the consequences, the [25:40] historical consequences of these these [25:43] strategies and what it ultimately leads [25:45] to, which is like checkers. It's like [25:47] real simple. Like you're going to have a [25:49] military that controls everything you [25:51] do. As soon as you give up everything to [25:53] the state, well, the state has the guns [25:55] and you have nothing and and then they [25:57] tell you what to do. It sucks. It [25:59] doesn't mean that that's the way to do [26:01] it because capitalism is brutal. Yeah, [26:04] capitalism needs some [ __ ] guard [26:05] rails. That's [26:06] >> for sure. Everything needs to be but [26:08] you've got like No, I totally agree. [26:10] Like I always joke about it, but it's [26:12] kind of true is like Mani with the [26:14] state-run grocery stores. Like we had [26:16] that when I was a kid. I literally went [26:18] to them in Hungary. It was a communist [26:20] state. There was only state-run grocery [26:22] stores. I saw them. There's one like at [26:24] the end of the block where my grandma [26:26] lived and I would go there in the [26:28] morning to get the whatever it was and [26:30] it's just terrible, you know, like it's [26:32] really I'm very torn on social safety [26:35] nets. Um I think we should have them [26:38] because I think a person who's down on [26:40] their luck where things go wrong like a [26:42] a woman who has children and her husband [26:44] dies and she doesn't have an income and [26:46] now oh my god I have to feed these [26:48] children. [26:49] >> Yeah, we should have social safety nets. [26:51] I also think social safety debts [26:53] encourage people to rely on them and [26:55] have zero ambition. I think both those [26:57] things are true. [26:58] >> Well, that's why I'm so um I've always [27:01] been against I can see the argument for [27:03] but I've always been against this [27:05] universal basic income type thing. Um [27:08] there's an argument for it where it's [27:10] like quite a low level and there that's [27:12] some the original guy I think that used [27:14] to argue for that was on the right [27:15] Milton Friedman. Yes. And Charles [27:17] Murray, I think, also argued for it, [27:19] coming from the right, but their version [27:21] of it was to replace everything else. [27:24] >> So you wouldn't have any other benefits. [27:26] You wouldn't have any other government [27:28] services, [27:28] >> right? [27:28] >> No Medicaid, no nothing, just an amount [27:31] of money. [27:31] >> Uhhuh. [27:32] >> Based from it's very simple, less [27:34] bureaucratic and that's it. But this is [27:36] not what's being argued. [27:37] >> No, I think that would actually probably [27:39] be like financially more efficient [27:41] because you would radically reduce the [27:43] amount of government. [27:44] >> Exactly. In the bureaucracy. [27:45] >> Yes. radically reduce the amount of [27:47] people that have control over other [27:48] people and you would say, "Listen, we're [27:50] going to cut out the middleman and just [27:52] give the money to people." [27:54] >> That's not a bad idea. [27:56] >> So, I had a I got and it was very funny [27:57] in that like you say these things before [27:59] you ever imagine being a candidate and [28:02] they come back and and it gets sort of [28:04] twisted. [28:05] >> Part of the problem with welfare is and [28:07] this is going to sound completely like [28:09] I'm contradicting myself, but it's not [28:11] enough money. You barely live. Well, [28:13] this is what I was exactly what I was [28:15] saying. So, I was it in that book? I [28:18] think in that book, the 2015 book, More [28:20] Human, I had this idea based on what [28:23] you're talking about, which is actually [28:24] for a lot of people, things like like [28:27] the minimum wage, for example, is just [28:29] you can't live on it, especially like in [28:31] California now, right? [28:32] >> But in a lot of places, it's so low you [28:34] the costs are so high can't live on it. [28:36] And there's a lot of people working [28:38] really hard, like not lazy on the couch [28:41] playing video, seriously hardworking [28:43] people, often two jobs, who can't live [28:45] on what they make. It's like really [28:47] wrong. I think if you work so hard, you [28:49] should be able to live on it. [28:50] >> So I had this idea which was the [28:52] businessfriendly living wage. And the [28:55] idea was you [28:58] increase the minimum wage to a living [29:01] wage, which is calculated. [29:02] >> What do you think that would be? Well, [29:04] in in in Cal it's by area it's different [29:06] everywhere. You know, in in California [29:09] and a lot of places it would be [29:10] incredibly high. You know, 304, you [29:13] know, a lot of really high level [29:14] >> $30 or $40 an hour. [29:15] >> Well, because you've got now in certain [29:17] counties in California more than I think [29:19] it goes up the whole time. The official [29:21] government level for low income is [29:23] $100,000 a year. Low income. [29:26] >> Isn't that crazy? [29:26] >> It's crazy cuz cost is [29:28] >> when I was a kid, if you made a [29:29] hundred,000 bucks, you were killing it. [29:31] >> I know. My dad makes 100 grand. Like, [29:33] whoa. [29:34] >> Okay. So, when I in my in my campaign, I [29:36] had this like one of my first things was [29:38] no state income tax under 100 grand. I [29:41] called it the workingclass tax. A lot of [29:43] people nationally said, "That's so high. [29:47] Why are you rewarding rich people?" [29:50] Actually, the feedback we got in the [29:52] primary was that's too low. And there's [29:54] a ton of people in California making, I [29:55] don't know, 120, that sort of thing, who [29:57] can barely live because everything's so [29:59] expensive if you're in LA or somewhere [30:00] expensive. So we've raised it to 150 [30:03] taxfree. But going back to the living [30:05] wage thing, [30:06] >> that's obviously really tough for a [30:08] business to pay that kind of level. [30:11] >> I used to run I ran a restaurant. You [30:13] know, you'd be killed by that kind of [30:14] high thing. But at the same time as [30:18] >> you've got businesses paying people for [30:20] full-time work that they can't live on, [30:22] the businesses are also paying taxes, [30:25] >> payroll tax, all this stuff. they're [30:27] paying to the government and then the [30:28] government is taking it and handing it [30:31] back to the workers in benefits and [30:35] welfare. So my thing was why don't you [30:37] just cut out the middleman and and have [30:39] the businesses pay the workers not the [30:42] government and then the net effect for [30:44] business is about the same. Well that [30:46] would be the goal. So they're paying [30:48] their workers more tax the same amount [30:51] like are they liter that doesn't make [30:53] any sense cuz like what is minimum wage [30:54] in California right now? Well, it's just [30:56] it's just gone up. It depends what where [30:58] you're looking. So So [31:00] >> $15. [31:01] >> No, 16 and a bit. And then for fast [31:03] food, it's 20 and they wanted it for [31:06] >> that was a recent work. Right. And a lot [31:08] of people pushed back against that and [31:09] it wound up they wound up cutting a lot [31:11] of jobs. [31:12] >> Yeah. That went through. So it's $20 for [31:13] fast food workers [31:14] >> and then it immediately cut a bunch of [31:16] jobs. [31:16] >> Exactly. And put in automation. And [31:19] >> I feel like there's got to be some jobs [31:21] that are entry level jobs for kids. [31:23] >> Yes. And that's the problem is you're [31:26] not supposed to make a living off of [31:28] that. You're supposed to be a kid that's [31:30] learning how to work. You show up on [31:32] time, you know, you get your paycheck, [31:34] you realize the taxes get cut out of it. [31:36] You're like, "What?" [31:37] >> Exactly. [31:37] >> All that stuff. Like, it's good for kids [31:40] to have, but once you get past [31:42] entrylevel jobs, then okay, like if [31:45] someone's a landscaper, if someone's [31:46] like doing this is a job, you work 40 [31:49] hours a week. [31:51] Paying someone $15 an hour to work 40 [31:53] hours a week is kind of brutal. [31:55] >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. [31:56] >> It's horrible. [31:57] >> Exactly. [31:57] >> You barely can get by. [31:59] >> But the but because we've built all of [32:02] this bureaucracy, [32:04] >> certainly in all I really know is [32:05] California and just the level of the [32:08] government in all its forms is so big. [32:11] You're paying all these taxes and the [32:13] taxes are coming out in all these hidden [32:15] ways. gas taxes, housing taxes that they [32:19] don't call a housing tax, but it's the [32:21] everywhere you look, they've got these [32:23] things that they're charging you, [32:25] >> right? [32:26] >> But which makes everything more [32:27] expensive and what what do you get for [32:30] it? This bloated bureaucratic government [32:32] that's not actually helping any actually [32:34] making it harder to run a business, [32:35] harder to build anything. [32:37] >> And so I think that's [32:40] and this is the I used to call it this [32:41] doom loop that the Democrats who are in [32:44] charge even they they get it right. They [32:45] get that people are really struggling. [32:48] People can't afford stuff. So what's [32:50] their response? Oh, we got to, you know, [32:53] make give them more welfare benefit. We [32:55] got to take put taxes up in order to get [32:58] more money to redistribute. But that [33:00] just makes everything more expensive. [33:02] They never think about, well, why don't [33:03] we just cut the costs? Why don't we just [33:06] reduce the amount that we're taking so [33:08] that people can have more? [33:10] >> Yeah. But then they would have to cut [33:11] out their slush fund because that's [33:13] really what it is. It's a big ass big [33:15] ass slush fund. One of the things that [33:17] we pointed out was that the number of [33:19] people that uh moving to California and [33:22] then even living in California, it [33:25] shrank, but government doubled. [33:27] >> Yes. It's there's so many insane facts [33:31] like that, [33:32] >> right? When they say, "Oh, we've created [33:33] so many jobs." Like, [33:35] >> really? Have you [33:37] >> have you really created created an [33:39] actual job or have you figured out [33:42] another way to increase the government [33:44] and make more taxes work for whatever [33:47] the [ __ ] NGO you have or nonprofit you [33:50] have or like [33:52] >> someone pointed out that there's this [33:54] guy this guy these really funny reels on [33:57] Instagram and how much things cost [34:00] versus like what you could get for and [34:03] you know he was talking about like some [34:05] new uh thing they're doing for the [34:07] convention center. It's like a $5 [34:09] billion renovation. And he was like [34:11] listing all the different things and one [34:13] of them that you could give like every [34:15] single person on on Skid Row some [34:17] [ __ ] preposterous amount of money. [34:19] >> And it's you just realize like, oh, they [34:22] don't want to fix any of this. Like the [34:25] people that are working for the [34:26] homeless, he was talking about the [34:27] average salary was like $800,000. [34:30] >> There was just one last week. Uh this [34:32] woman runs a homeless nonprofit, 1.6 $.6 [34:35] million salary. Homeless nonprofit. [34:38] >> Nonprofit. [34:39] >> Exactly. That's [34:40] >> She's killing it. [34:41] >> Exactly. There's another one. [34:42] >> She's a millionaire. [34:43] >> There's another one. Yesterday he's like [34:45] I don't know some business like it's [34:46] again it's a nonprofit. 2.6 million a [34:49] year. You know, it's just [34:50] >> And here's the most important thing. The [34:51] homelessness only got worse. Like if in [34:53] the private sector, imagine if you were [34:56] a CEO of a company that was just losing [34:58] insane amounts of money and never [35:00] completing its tasks, never doing the [35:03] thing that it set out to do. [35:04] >> This is the main thing I think is like [35:06] the more I look at it, the more insane [35:09] it is. And everyone just looks at it and [35:12] I don't No one's ever pointed this stuff [35:13] out like they all just the government [35:16] just makes everything so expensive in [35:19] California. Everyone says, "Oh, it's so [35:21] expensive. What are we going to do? We'd [35:23] better give them more welfare benefits [35:25] because we better have a billionaire [35:27] wealth tax. [35:28] >> Billionaire wealth tax. [35:29] >> Steal money from the most the richest [35:31] people without addressing fraud and [35:34] waste at all. [35:35] >> But by the way, the richest people [35:36] already pay about half the income tax, [35:39] the top 1%. [35:40] >> Yes. [35:41] >> So, [35:41] >> there's a small number of people in [35:43] California alone that are responsible [35:46] for an extraordinary amount of the tax [35:48] base. [35:48] >> Yeah. [35:49] >> Just a very small number of people. and [35:51] you're scaring them away and [35:53] >> but they just they they don't have that [35:55] mentality of cutting costs like every [35:58] normal business [36:00] >> get paid no matter what. This is what I [36:02] said during co I said I think the mayor [36:06] should get paid dependent upon the GDP [36:09] of the city. [36:09] >> Yeah. [36:10] >> So like if the city like if you lose 70% [36:13] of the restaurants which like Los [36:15] Angeles did during Yes. Garcetti should [36:18] have lost 70% of his paycheck. You [36:21] should if you lose like 70% of [36:23] businesses, you should lose 70% of your [36:26] income. And I guarantee you they would [36:28] be more friendly to business if that [36:29] happened. But this but Exactly. And they [36:32] don't care. And this is what happens, I [36:34] think, when you've got this one party [36:37] rule thing that's been going on for 16 [36:39] years now. They've run everything. They [36:41] don't care because they think they'll be [36:44] in power forever and it just doesn't [36:46] matter. [36:46] >> And it seems like they will. Look, look [36:48] what they did to Spencer Pratt. I know [36:50] it's crazy. [36:50] >> What they did to Spencer Pratt was so [36:52] transparent that even Democrats admit [36:56] there's something weird about the fact [36:57] that Nithia Ramen all of a sudden got [37:00] way more votes than Karen Bass. Way in [37:02] the in the mailins and people voted for [37:06] an increase in taxes. [37:08] >> I know it's just [37:10] >> that doesn't make any sense. Nobody [37:12] votes for an increase in tax. [37:13] >> And actually in in recent years in [37:15] California, anything like that has been [37:17] voted down, [37:18] >> right? And just gen in the last [37:20] >> it was only the mail-in ballots that [37:22] turned it. [37:23] >> Well, look, they this is the I always [37:26] say [37:26] >> [ __ ] dirty [37:27] >> people. Well, people bring it up the [37:29] whole time and I say, "Yeah, whatever. [37:32] This is the it's they've made it legal, [37:34] right? This is not illegal." And and the [37:37] scam is so bad. We've looked into a few [37:40] of these. Uh [37:43] we would just, you know, through the [37:44] year we've been looking following some [37:45] of this money. Um, it's just everywhere [37:49] you look. So, cannabis, right? They [37:50] legalize cannabis, Prop 64 in [37:53] California, and there's a tax and the [37:57] tax is part of the selling it to the [37:59] public was we're going to have the tax [38:00] and it's going to pay for substance [38:02] substance abuse prevention. Isn't that [38:04] nice? [38:05] >> Yeah. [38:05] >> So, then they So, we looked into it. [38:07] $350 million of that goes to this [38:10] nonprofit with some nice sounding name [38:13] about health. And then you actually [38:15] track the money. They give out these [38:17] little grants, million each, million [38:18] here, 750,000 there to 500 or so other [38:22] nonprofits. And then you look at what [38:24] they do. Voter registration, ballot [38:27] harvesting, all of this [ __ ] I mean, [38:29] this is what they do. [38:30] >> Stealing money. [38:31] >> And it's and we're paying for it. And [38:34] there's so many example. We've just [38:35] found a few of them. I mean, remember, [38:38] they've doubled the budget of [38:39] California, more than d in the last 10 [38:41] years. These are the numbers. This year [38:43] the budget is just over 350 billion the [38:46] total budget. 10 years ago it was 170 [38:50] and everything's worse. [38:52] >> Crazy. [38:53] >> It's so bad there. My other favorite [38:55] example is that and there's so many. I [38:57] just every day you learn about these [38:58] crazy things. Prisons, right? They've [39:00] been shutting the prisons which I [39:02] totally disagree with because whatever [39:05] that's a different story. But in the [39:07] time they they basically cut the prison [39:10] population. It's not quite half, but [39:12] nearly. The budget has doubled. [39:16] I mean, it's just [39:20] >> Well, I mean, [39:21] >> what is that? [39:21] >> It's so transparent. Like, look what [39:23] they did in Los Angeles with the fire [39:25] relief money. [39:26] >> Yes. Yeah. Fire aid. That was [39:28] disgusting. So disgusting. You had [39:30] people, good-hearted people wanting to [39:33] help their own money that's supposed to [39:35] be charity. Yes. [39:36] >> And it's going into this political [39:38] party. [39:38] >> It went all of it into nonprofits. Yeah. [39:41] >> And not just one nonprofit, like 200 [39:43] different nonprofits. Spencer Pratt laid [39:45] it all out like how they do it and what [39:47] they do. And no money went to anybody [39:49] who lost their home. [39:51] >> None. And and [39:52] >> which is should be illegal. [39:54] >> That's not legalized all of this. That's [39:57] the point. And so I always say, yeah, [39:59] we've got this system, but there's only [40:02] one answer in advance of being able to [40:04] get in power and do something about it [40:05] is we just got to get every vote. We've [40:08] got to get every vote. And I know I [40:10] people look at this race and say, "Well, [40:11] you're never going to win. It's [40:12] hopeless." I don't think that's true. I [40:14] think that actually people are really [40:16] pissed off if you give them a sense that [40:18] we can really this is not a hopeless [40:21] cause. And I think we're showing that [40:22] we've just got a I mean, he's I've got [40:24] this guy running against me who's just a [40:26] complete joke. I mean, he's [40:28] >> Who is it? [40:29] >> He's called Javier Bera. He was Biden's [40:32] health secretary. [40:34] He was I mean I I want to say one thing [40:37] before I say the most important thing [40:39] about him but since we've been just been [40:42] having a go at him telling the truth [40:44] about what he did as Biden's health [40:46] secretary his score has been coming down [40:48] with not that much effort from us and we [40:51] don't have money. We're a scrappy [40:52] startup right they've got this big [40:54] machine the government unions they just [40:57] you know roll on. He's he's like the [41:00] first poll that came out in the in the [41:02] race was just after the primary. It [41:05] looks it's over. What's the point? You [41:07] know, 6136. He had 61. I had 36. The [41:11] next one is like 55. This is just the [41:14] other week. 55. I think I had 37. [41:17] There's one we just heard about where [41:18] the gap's under 10%. So, no one wants [41:22] this to go on in California. There's a [41:24] majority who want to get rid of this, [41:27] but it's just been this sense that it's [41:30] impossible and we just have to put up [41:32] with it or leave. And I think we got to [41:34] if we change that attitude, I think [41:38] people are going to vote these this this [41:40] regime out. It's so bad. Anyway, the [41:42] thing [41:42] >> well, we've seen the the map, the [41:45] electoral map that they put out from [41:47] 2020 versus 2024, and the difference [41:51] being you look at all the counties that [41:53] went red. [41:54] >> Yeah. [41:54] >> That used to be blue, where people are [41:56] freaked out. The problem is these high [41:59] population urban areas where people live [42:02] in these liberal bubbles, [42:04] >> which is Los Angeles, is the craziest [42:06] version of that. And Los Angeles County [42:09] is 23% of the vote in all of California. [42:11] >> Let's put this into Perplexity. Ask [42:14] perplexity. How many people in Los [42:16] Angeles are on SSRIs? [42:21] >> Okay. [42:22] >> I didn't think that's where you were [42:23] going. [42:24] >> I would like to know. [42:25] >> Okay. I well I think there's a lot of [42:26] people that are they're medicated and [42:29] it's it's part of what helps them agree [42:32] to this nonsense is that they're in this [42:34] zombie catatonic state from [42:36] anti-depressants and anti-csychotics and [42:39] anti- this and anti- that and anxiety [42:42] medication and they're [ __ ] cloudy. [42:45] >> They don't see things and they're [42:47] surrounded by this echo chamber of [42:49] people that only agree with them. No [42:51] reliable public count of current SSRI [42:54] users specifically in Los Angeles, but a [42:56] reasonable rough estimate for Los [42:58] Angeles County is on the order of [43:00] 500,000 to 700,000 adults. Not a precise [43:03] head precise headcount. Now, how many [43:05] people are in Los Angeles? [43:07] >> There's 10 million in the county. [43:09] >> Okay. I think that's way low. I think [43:12] that's way low. I bet it's 10 times [43:15] that. [43:17] I bet it's everyone. I think No. No. All [43:20] [ __ ] aside, I I bet there's a few [43:22] million. Los Angeles County has roughly [43:24] 7.8 to 8 million adults. If about 11 to [43:28] 17% take anti-depressants, roughly 60 to [43:30] 70% of anti-depressant users t take an [43:32] SSRI. The implied range is 530 to 950. [43:38] So maybe a million. I think it's [43:40] probably a few million. I know a lot of [43:42] people that are on them, man. A lot. I [43:44] think it's like more represented in Los [43:46] Angeles. There's also this idea that you [43:48] need a medication because you have an [43:50] imbalance. You need medication. [43:52] >> This over medic, it's really bad. [43:55] >> Well, also the imbalance thing has been [43:57] disproven. It's not real. That's not [43:59] what it is. And then there's also [44:01] there's a reality of your physical [44:03] being. Okay? If you live a sedentary [44:05] lifestyle, you eat terrible food, your [44:08] physical body is going to feel like [ __ ] [44:11] and you're not going to be happy. That's [44:13] just how it works as a human being. [44:14] >> Totally right. [44:15] >> That's it. It's like if you're feeling [44:17] down or pissed off, let literally go do [44:19] some exercise. [44:20] >> My friend Asan Amad who's uh you'll see [44:22] him tonight at the Mothership. Hilarious [44:23] comedian. He has a great bit about like [44:26] the people that are in these commercials [44:28] that are playing basketball. They take [44:29] the medication now they're playing [44:31] basketball and drinking water and having [44:32] fun. He goes, "Yeah, that's the actual [44:34] solution to depression." Yes. [44:36] >> It's not take the anti-depression. It's [44:38] [ __ ] do something athletic, [44:41] get active, drink water, have a [44:44] community that you enjoy hanging out [44:45] with. Like, that's what keeps people [44:47] from being depressed. And they've been [44:49] sold this bill of goods that you have a [44:51] chemical imbalance in your brain. Well, [44:53] that that narrative [44:55] >> was never supported by science and has [44:56] now been completely dismissed. [44:58] >> That's not true. [44:59] >> But we're just doing it still. I mean, [45:01] funnily enough, that was what I I I I [45:03] one of the chapters in that book 2015 [45:05] book more human was about health and it [45:08] was all that that's what I wrote about [45:10] which is this is crazy. We've got and in [45:12] fact when I was in 10 Downing Street you [45:15] you know you I was that senior adviser [45:17] of the prime minister and you're getting [45:19] and mainly I focused on domestic policy [45:21] that's what I focused on and you're [45:23] there you're at you know in 10 Downing [45:24] Street you get meeting you can have [45:26] meetings with kind of everyone will come [45:29] in and have a meeting and I was really [45:31] focused you got the national health [45:33] service which is what the left want here [45:34] the Medicare the singlepayer healthcare [45:37] whatever that's what there is in the UK [45:40] and it's funded by the government, by [45:42] taxpayers 100%. And so it's part of the [45:46] budget, which is one of the problems. [45:47] It's always competing for money against [45:50] everything else. And so there's a real [45:53] reason to try and get the cost down [45:56] because you're funding it out of the [45:58] budget for everything else. And so [46:00] health promotion is or should be a [46:02] really big part of it. And I wanted to [46:05] really do much more on that that you [46:06] should actually use the National Health [46:09] Service to try and make people healthy. [46:10] instead of all the sickness stuff. So I [46:12] had all these meetings um trying to [46:14] understand you know the royal college of [46:16] this the royal college of that all the [46:18] cancer people all they all came in it [46:21] was so hilarious after kind of months of [46:24] these meetings of like what do we need [46:26] to do to make people healthy it's the [46:28] simple basic things in the end [46:30] >> what you just said it's like diet [46:32] nutrition exactly eat healthy [46:34] >> take exercise [46:36] enough [46:38] >> um moderate water exactly all of those [46:41] things like all these geniuses of [46:43] science and whatever and I said honestly [46:46] it's so basic. Um but then I I was just [46:50] seeing today there's this awful story [46:52] about the mother who killed the children [46:55] >> awful story the mother and and she had [46:58] really bad depression after postpartum [47:01] depression and was asking for help and [47:04] all this and they just kept giving her [47:06] this medication and she was saying I [47:09] think there are texts to her mother [47:11] saying this new medication they've got [47:12] me on is really making me feel even more [47:16] anxiety and I don't know what's going [47:17] on. Help, help, help. And they and they [47:19] they showed all the medication she was [47:22] on in the run-up to this. It's shocking. [47:25] Like so shocking just the amount of [47:29] stuff they're loading her up with that [47:31] must have [47:33] >> sent her over the edge. I mean when you [47:35] look at the commercials for these things [47:38] and then you see the possible side [47:40] effects [47:41] >> like who [47:42] >> in their right mind would take something [47:45] for depression which has side effects [47:49] which causes suicidal ideation. [47:52] >> What I thought you were curing [47:54] depression [47:55] >> your side effect is I might want to kill [47:57] myself. Like it's like this is a cure [47:59] for depression too. Blow your brains [48:01] out. No more depression. Yeah, [48:04] >> like [48:05] it's uh it's a cartel. It's a cartel in [48:08] the United States. I mean, it is a a [48:10] sanctioned [48:12] >> tax. It's a it's publicly traded. It's a [48:15] [ __ ] cartel. [48:16] >> And they buy off politicians and they [48:19] pass through regulations. [48:20] >> The thing I see, [48:21] >> not just on this, but on on everything, [48:25] again, it's just an eye openener. I kind [48:27] of suspected it, but when you see just [48:30] how cynical it is, this kind of corrupt, [48:36] I don't know what you want to call, you [48:37] know, m machine politics, this, I don't [48:40] know, in Sacramento where they literally [48:43] buy what they want. They buy the [48:45] legislators that pass the bills that [48:48] help their interest, whatever it is. [48:50] >> And that's why [48:53] nothing really changes and no one knows [48:55] what's going on. No one follows it. [48:57] There's all these laws they pass that [49:00] end up with things happening in the real [49:02] world that a normal person would say, [49:03] "How how the [ __ ] did that happen?" [49:05] >> Exactly. [49:06] >> Well, that's, you know, three years ago, [49:08] someone put in a bill that was probably [49:11] written by the lobbyist for whoever it [49:13] was that even the legislator who put [49:16] their name on it probably never read it. [49:18] And then suddenly it's the law and all [49:20] these bad things happen. And that's [49:22] what's going on. Now, what could you do [49:24] differently if you get in office? Like, [49:26] how much of this [49:28] >> crazy entangled machine can you unwind? [49:33] >> Not, let's imagine. Yeah. Yeah. Not [49:36] people wake up, they go, "Steve Hilton's [49:38] making a lot of sense. Let's vote him [49:39] in." And then even the liberals like [49:41] secretly run out and vote you in. It's [49:43] got to be too big to rig. Because that's [49:44] the thing because the the mail-in [49:47] ballots, [49:47] >> by the way, can you did can you believe [49:49] and I will get into it, but did you see [49:51] Kla Harris the other day? [49:53] >> No, [49:54] >> she was at some conference or whatever [49:56] doing her sort of maybe I'll run for [49:58] president again. [49:59] >> Yeah, good luck. [50:00] >> She's I know [50:01] >> the last one was pretty successful for [50:03] only spending $1.4 billion. [50:05] >> She's very um [50:06] >> she lost every single swing state. [50:09] She's my It's very funny there. I sort [50:12] of talk about a lot because um my guy [50:14] Basera, he was asked the same question [50:18] that she was asked. Do you remember when [50:20] she went on the view? [50:21] >> Right. Right. [50:21] >> And it was like [50:22] >> what would you do? [50:23] >> What would you do different? She said, [50:24] "Oh, nothing comes to mind. Just really, [50:29] you haven't thought." So he was asked, [50:31] "But Sarah, my opponent, and the guy, it [50:34] was on CNN. The guy says, "Look, it's [50:37] obvious things aren't going well." To be [50:38] fair, the se and the interview said, [50:41] "Look, we got the highest I can't." He [50:42] listed a few of the things. Highest [50:44] unemployment rate in America, which by [50:45] the way, no one can believe, but we have [50:47] the highest unemployment rate of all 50 [50:49] states. Highest poverty rate, cost of [50:51] living is a nightmare. You know, what [50:53] would you have done differently? [50:56] Um, he says, well, [50:59] it can't be that bad cuz people are [51:02] still coming to Disneyland and the [51:03] beaches. That's what he said. And then [51:07] says, "Well, so no policy changes." No. [51:10] >> Anyway, Carla [51:12] was at this thing the other day and she [51:15] starts talking about the election and [51:17] how and I don't know if she wasn't aware [51:20] that Trump and MAGA had this slogan that [51:24] was a massive part of their thing, too [51:26] big to drink. So she starts saying it as [51:28] if it was a completely new thing. She [51:30] said it the other day. You know, the [51:32] thing that we have to do is make sure we [51:34] get a really, you know, we got to get [51:35] every vote. You know, to coin a phrase, [51:38] we have to make it too big to rig. Like, [51:40] she said it. [51:41] >> No way. [51:41] >> She said it. [51:42] >> No way. [51:43] >> Yeah. [51:43] >> So, she's alleging that it was rigged [51:45] the last time. [51:45] >> I have no idea what she's talking about. [51:48] >> Like, I don't know what amount of [51:51] election fraud there is, but it's not [51:53] zero. [51:53] >> It's not zero. [51:54] >> It's never been zero. And the real weird [51:57] one for me was how many more votes Biden [52:00] got in 2020 than any other president [52:04] ever. We have a lot of work to do [52:07] because you know these folks are [52:08] cheating. They're trying to rig the [52:10] system. They're trying to draw maps. All [52:12] of it. What you mean stuff that the [52:15] Democrats have already done? [52:16] >> It's so hilarious. This is crazy. We [52:19] have to make it too big to rig. We have [52:21] to turn out in big numbers, jump all [52:23] over these obstacles they're trying to [52:24] throw our way. We have to make it too [52:26] big to rig. What are you saying? Like, [52:29] how are they cheating? Like, how how is [52:31] she alleging they're cheating? [52:35] >> The idea that that's the best they can [52:37] do is so insane. It's so wild. [52:42] >> It's so wild. And it's because if you [52:44] want to run for politician, they will if [52:47] you don't follow their narrative and [52:51] their their plan to a [ __ ] tea, [52:54] they're going to come for you and [52:56] they're going to destroy you. And it's [52:57] usually some creepy sexual thing or you [53:00] they're going to find someone who says [53:01] that you did something to them in [53:03] college or high school or whatever it [53:04] is. They and they'll come up with as [53:07] many things and throw them your ways as [53:08] many things as they can find and they [53:10] get rid of you and they get rid of all [53:12] of them. [53:12] >> Well, we'll see. I mean, lucky they [53:14] don't think I've got any chance of [53:15] winning. I think that's why they haven't [53:17] done that. But just that just on that [53:19] though, it's it's interesting. It makes [53:21] me think this this whole system, this [53:23] corrupt thing that that I've encountered [53:26] and I don't want to lose your question [53:28] about um what I would do because I've [53:29] thought about that a lot. But [53:31] >> it just it's a it's sort of amazing but [53:35] not amaz I knew it was like this but to [53:38] see it is something else. [53:40] >> The scale of it. [53:41] >> Yes. So even things you might not [53:43] imagine like um okay a couple of so [53:46] there's the chamber of commerce right [53:48] it's called Cal Chamber in California [53:51] and it's all the big businesses and look [53:54] it's a running a business in California [53:57] is an absolute nightmare that's why [53:59] they're all leaving that's why Elon left [54:01] that's why so many companies leave [54:03] >> lost in and out [54:04] >> and every day there's a new one that's [54:07] announced and then every day I meet [54:10] business owners ers big, small, medium, [54:13] all say who say we're just hanging on to [54:16] see if you can make it and if you don't [54:19] we're out right every day. Chief [54:22] Executive Magazine has an annual survey [54:25] of business conditions but like yet I [54:27] think it was out in April California [54:29] 50th out of 50 states. Okay. And I think [54:32] it's been like that for 12 13 years. So [54:34] it's like a disaster that what's going [54:36] on. The Bera who's running against [54:38] >> 50th out of 50 states for business [54:40] climate. [54:41] >> So [54:42] >> Alaska is better. [54:43] >> Every state in America is better. [54:45] >> North Dakota, South Dakota, Florida, [54:47] Tennessee. [54:48] >> All right. So So you would think [54:51] >> you would think that when you've got a [54:53] choice between two people, right? One of [54:56] whom explicitly says I'm not going to [54:58] change anything. That's Bera. and me [55:02] who's someone with business most of my [55:04] career has been in business when you do [55:06] the ballot you you're allowed three [55:07] words to describe yourself and I [55:10] actually wanted to do it fairly because [55:11] I've done a bunch of different things [55:13] and so I went through every year since I [55:15] left Oxford 1990s 36 years and the [55:18] majority of my career has been in [55:21] business and most of those years running [55:23] my own businesses so I I put small [55:26] business owner that's the three words [55:28] small business owner and [55:31] Like in a choice between that, you would [55:33] think the California Chamber of [55:34] Commerce, which represents business, [55:38] would obviously want the guy who's pro [55:41] business instead of the guy who's going [55:43] to keep up this. [55:45] Anyway, we have [55:47] >> there's the money is still there for now [55:49] and they're getting that money. [55:51] >> Well, there is this kind of it's all of [55:54] that crowd, right? And we have these [55:57] endorsement meetings and then they pick [55:59] him. They they endorse the other guy and [56:02] then they say, "We think their statement [56:05] was so full of [ __ ] It was like, oh, we [56:09] it's time for unifying blah blah." Some [56:12] completely [ __ ] political thing. No, [56:14] of course, because I went in there and I [56:16] said, "We got to change direction. These [56:18] policies are hurting business, [56:20] whatever." I just said what I think and [56:22] they went for him because they all they [56:24] actually care about is the power and [56:26] they think he's going to win and so they [56:28] want to be in with him. [56:29] >> Yeah. [56:30] >> And then the other one that was like [56:31] that that was in a way even more [56:32] shocking was the police. So the police [56:36] whatever it's called police poor act the [56:38] police officers association something [56:40] their union [56:42] same kind of thing they you you go to [56:45] them and you you know try and get their [56:47] endorsement. I by the way I said at the [56:49] beginning of this whole process it's a [56:51] waste of time because they they they [56:54] will only care about their thing that [56:57] they want to get more money for whatever [56:59] it is and so I don't want to give them [57:02] that cuz that's wrong and so they won't [57:04] endorse me. I'm just telling you. Sure [57:06] enough we have this meeting and I'm [57:10] completely on the side of the law and [57:13] order thing. It's gone crazy. the defund [57:15] the police, um the insanity of how they [57:19] deal with crime. We got to reverse all [57:20] that, prison closures, all these things. [57:22] Um and he's not said anything about [57:25] that. He just more of the same insanity. [57:28] They endorse him. And then they told us [57:31] why because he promised to deliver on [57:36] the one thing they really cared about, [57:38] which is some bill that would increase [57:40] their pensions. [57:42] >> Why don't you agree to that bill? [57:43] because we the the the pension one of [57:47] the reasons that the taxes are so high [57:50] and the and and the everything is like [57:53] for example you look at schools um [57:57] everywhere I go parents are saying [58:00] what's going on we pay the highest taxes [58:02] anywhere like state income tax property [58:05] tax all these taxes and then we we have [58:08] to pay the schools are asking us to pay [58:11] for like basic supplies [58:13] like paper, books, like cleaning [58:16] materials and and the lottery money is [58:19] supposed to go to schools as well and [58:20] they're saying what is going on? Parents [58:22] are really furious about it. One of the [58:24] reasons is because of the way they've [58:25] done the pensions for the teachers. You [58:28] know, you want people to have good [58:29] retirement. That's true. But like a [58:31] fifth, I think it's about a fifth of the [58:32] money before it's even spent in the [58:34] schools goes to the pensions. It's a [58:36] really really bad situation. [58:38] >> I'm torn because I think they deserve [58:40] pensions, particularly the police. [58:43] Um, and I think I'd like to know what [58:46] percentage of the budget I mean, think [58:48] about listen, let's let's talk about [58:50] money that's gone to places where it [58:52] vanished, [58:53] >> like the homeless. [58:55] >> $24 billion. [58:56] >> Yeah. At least [58:57] >> at least. And uh even though they've [59:00] tried to get an audit of it, Newsome [59:02] vetoed that, stopped them from vetoed [59:05] it. Exactly. Twice. Right. [59:06] >> And and and in LA, there was a parallel [59:10] in LA. There was a lawsuit that ended up [59:12] with the judge demanding a similar audit [59:15] and the estimate was just for LA. It was [59:18] 2 billion and Karen Bass vetoed the [59:21] audit in LA. [59:22] >> Let's imagine that 2 billion instead [59:24] went to fund the police. Yes. [59:26] >> Better training, you know, better [59:29] conditions, better morale, better [59:31] pensions, higher quality of people that [59:34] you're hiring. [59:35] >> Totally agree with that. We need to [59:37] massively increase the numbers of police [59:39] >> right now. Imagine what an impact that [59:41] would have on the encampments on [59:43] enforcing these laws. Like you already [59:45] have laws. They're just not enforcing [59:47] 100%. [59:47] >> You're not supposed to. [59:48] >> The homeless encampments are illegal. [59:50] >> They're illegal. [59:51] >> That's always saying my first point on [59:53] my plan is enforce the law. They're [59:55] illegal. [59:55] >> Well, imagine what it's done to real [59:58] estate in downtown. You know, [60:00] >> it was the downtown real estate group, [60:02] business group that filed that lawsuit [60:04] that I was talking about for LA. [60:05] Exactly. [60:06] Los Angeles is the only place in the [60:08] country that has a useless downtown. [60:10] It's one of the biggest cities in the [60:12] And [60:13] >> I forgive I mean, forgive me if you have [60:15] a great business in downtown and you [60:17] love the funky aspect of being [60:20] >> there's wonderful restaurants in [60:21] downtown. I've traveled to them, but [60:23] it's [ __ ] sketchy. It's sketch. I [60:25] took my kids once to get donuts in [60:27] downtown and we were walking on the [60:29] street and like every step of the way [60:31] you're like, "Uh, is this guy going to [60:33] attack us? Is that guy crazy? [60:35] >> I literally had it the other night. We [60:36] got in from somewhere [60:39] down. We're staying downtown right by [60:41] city hall. Um, and got in quite late. I [60:45] wanted something to eat. The hotel [60:46] didn't have anything whatever. And so I [60:48] just walk around trying to find it's [60:50] it's a Saturday night about it's not [60:52] super late. It's like 8 9:00 p.m. [60:53] >> It's just unbelievable. Zombies. [60:56] >> Like zombies. The stink of like [61:01] >> [ __ ] and piss. I mean, it's disgusting. [61:03] [ __ ] and piss everywhere and it's a [61:05] public health problem. [61:06] >> And you walk around and you think [61:08] possible. It's the second city of [61:10] America. We're the richest country in [61:11] the world. This is and we're the richest [61:13] state. I mean, you're being ripped off [61:15] like that. And and this is what we end [61:17] up with. [61:18] >> Let's talk about just [61:19] >> But I agree with you on the on the [61:20] police the I mean LAPD is saying that by [61:24] the time the Olympics is two years away, [61:26] they will have half the number of [61:28] officers that they should have. Half. [61:32] And yet our taxes are the highest in the [61:34] country. That's correct. [61:35] >> They've just they've just increased the [61:37] taxes in LA. Local sale sales tax gone [61:39] up. [61:40] >> What I was getting to was imagine Skid [61:42] Row. So Skid Row is roughly 50 something [61:44] blocks, right? So 50 blocks where no one [61:47] wants to buy a building. 50 bucks where [61:49] no one wants to put up a business. No [61:51] one wants to lease a building for 10 [61:53] years if if it's you've got encampments [61:56] right in front of it. Like what? You [61:57] can't even clean them up. You can't tell [61:58] them to move. You can't ask them to not [62:00] [ __ ] on your porch. It's [62:02] >> just unbelievable. [62:03] >> There's nothing you could do. So, just [62:04] think about all the tax revenue that's [62:06] being lost, all the business being lost, [62:08] and all of those areas in downtown that [62:10] are just completely unsafe and [62:12] contaminated. [62:13] >> It's it's it's just unbelievable. The [62:14] last time I went, I've been a few times, [62:16] we went with this [62:18] >> I don't I they they've sort of destroyed [62:20] the word nonprofit now. I don't even [62:21] want to say that. Like an actual [62:22] charity, like a really nice [62:24] >> a real one. [62:25] >> A real one who' done beautiful work. It [62:28] started off they were trying to save the [62:29] dogs and what they're doing with the [62:31] dogs is just unbelievable. Using the [62:33] dogs to test their drugs. [62:35] >> They use the dogs to make sure the drugs [62:36] don't offend. [62:37] >> It's disgusting. Anyway, so they started [62:38] off with that. It was just a a woman [62:40] who's driving by and saw a dog in [62:42] distress. This is a few years ago and [62:44] around that has built this beautiful [62:46] charity is going there. We were there on [62:48] a Sunday. They're giving out clothes and [62:50] stuff trying to help people and she [62:51] knows all the people. But this time, for [62:53] some reason, I was even more infuriated [62:55] than before because it's like, if you're [62:58] the mayor of LA or the governor of [63:00] California and this is going on, what [63:03] are you doing? How can you do anything [63:05] else [63:06] >> before cleaning this up? It's so [63:08] >> Well, it was there when they got there [63:10] and it's sort of accepted that Skid Row [63:13] in particular is always going to be [63:14] there. [63:14] >> So bad. [63:15] >> It's been bad for a long time. You know, [63:17] I did Fear Factor in downtown LA. We we [63:20] filmed a lot of our episodes in downtown [63:22] LA because there was a lot of abandoned [63:24] buildings because of Skid Row. That's a [63:27] big part of it. But also, Los Angeles [63:29] lost a lot of its manufacturing. It just [63:31] kind of like evaporated for whatever [63:33] reasons. [63:34] >> So, uh, one time I was driving home and [63:36] I took the wrong turn and I was like, [63:38] "What the [ __ ] is this?" And it was just [63:40] an entire street filled with people in [63:43] cardboard boxes and tents and garbage [63:46] everywhere. Just piles everywhere. And I [63:48] was like, "This is crazy." And this was [63:51] like 2004. [63:53] >> Yeah. [63:53] >> 2005, maybe. Yeah. [63:55] >> It was bad back then. It's just tucked [63:58] away into this old place. And we looked [64:00] at it. Um there was a documentary about [64:02] the Cecil Hotel because there was a [64:04] woman who drowned in one of the tanks. [64:06] And apparently they thought that she was [64:08] murdered, but then when they got the [64:10] surveillance footage, it it seems like [64:12] she had a schizophrenic episode and she [64:14] stopped taking her medication and she [64:15] jumped into the tank and and drowned in [64:17] there. So, it was this whole thing of [64:20] what the Cecil Hotel used to be like and [64:23] that these people that come from other [64:24] countries, they go, "Oh, we're going to [64:26] rent this hotel in downtown LA. Must be [64:30] nice. It's a historic hotel. It's been [64:33] around since 1835 or whatever the [ __ ] [64:35] it is." Like, "Oh, this should be [64:37] great." And then you get there, you're [64:38] like, "Holy [ __ ] you're in the middle [64:41] of Skid Row." And it was part of the [64:43] documentary was explaining how bad this [64:46] area got. It's so bad. And and it's the [64:49] also there's something about the the [64:51] just the squalor, the filth, the the [64:54] just just the total disrespect. [64:56] >> They have medieval diseases that are [64:58] emerging that we haven't seen in like a [65:01] hundred years. [65:02] >> It's unbelievable. And I just think that [65:06] it's it's amazing to me. It's truly [65:08] amazing that that this just rolls on and [65:12] like nothing happens, [65:13] >> right? It's not a state and national [65:15] emergency. [65:16] >> A scandal of the highest proport, you [65:18] know, [65:19] >> but no one goes there. That's the thing. [65:21] As long as it stays contained, this is [65:24] this was what this documentary was [65:25] alleging is that the practice of moving [65:28] people to Skid Row started a long time [65:31] ago. And what what it was is to clean up [65:33] Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. They'd [65:35] find vagrants, they grab them, bring [65:37] them to downtown, drop them off there. [65:39] >> No, that's how it got started. [65:40] >> And then they kept them there. They [65:42] literally contained them there. [65:43] >> Yeah, but not anymore. I mean, [65:45] everywhere. [65:46] >> Well, they don't have to because now [65:47] they know this is the place where you [65:48] can go and you can get drugs and you can [65:50] get food [65:50] >> and you get drugs from the government. I [65:52] mean, that's the point. You [65:54] >> The government gives them drugs. [65:55] >> Yes, they do. From this what's called, [65:56] you know, this harm reduction they call [65:58] it. [65:58] >> What do they give them? What drugs? [66:00] >> They give um the opioids. They give them [66:02] opioids as a substitute for fentinyl. [66:04] Less less dangerous. or what kind of [66:06] opioids are giving them like methadone [66:09] or which is not really technically an [66:12] opiate? [66:12] >> I can't remember. We went there. Um they [66:14] wouldn't let us in. Actually, we tried [66:15] to film inside. There's a guy just uh [66:17] did get inside. Christopher Rufer from [66:19] Manhattan Institute and and he got in. [66:21] He made a film about the crack pipes [66:23] they're giving out or whatever. [66:24] >> They give out crack pipes. [66:25] >> Yeah, he did a little I mean I don't [66:26] know if that was a [66:28] >> he made a I don't know myself [66:30] >> caring for those people. [66:32] >> But it's just ridiculous. You've got but [66:34] it's everywhere. It's not just Skid. [66:36] That's the thing that's so like this. I [66:40] mean, I'm on the road the whole time. I [66:42] see the whole state like probably not [66:43] many people do. And just there's [66:46] something about the degradation, the [66:48] squalor in so many. Not everywhere, of [66:51] course. It's beautiful. I love [66:52] California. [66:53] >> Beverly Hills is gorgeous still. There's [66:54] still a lot of Yeah. But a whole lot [66:57] more breaking and entering. [66:59] >> Exactly. [66:59] >> A whole lot more home invasions. The [67:01] home invasion is a huge thing. I mean, [67:03] that's why we one of the things again, [67:05] we're just trying to make a difference [67:06] here. You know, you've got um one [67:09] particular thing with these home [67:11] invasions, they're all wearing masks [67:13] now. It's like a really big part, which [67:15] that didn't used to be the case. And so, [67:18] we've been working on a plan that if you [67:19] you get in enhancements for your [67:22] sentencing just for covering yourself up [67:24] because we've got to try and there's [67:27] just there no there's no interest in [67:29] trying to [67:30] >> Not only that, There seems to be an [67:32] interest in letting people out of jail [67:33] who've committed violent crimes, which I [67:36] would only do if I wanted to destroy a [67:37] city. [67:39] >> It's crazy. [67:40] >> If you wanted to destroy a city, you [67:41] would do it exactly the way they're [67:43] doing it. [67:44] >> You would hire the most progressive DAs [67:46] who are willing to let people out no [67:47] matter what. And then you use a bunch of [67:50] words like racism, systemic racism, [67:53] whatever, discrimination. [67:57] This is the reason why Mike has robbed [67:58] 99 people over the last 12 years. [68:01] >> And and well, the one thing that's good [68:03] news though is the new DA is pretty [68:05] good. Nathan, he's good. He's good. I [68:07] supported him. He's I saw him the other [68:08] night. So, he's really doing a good job. [68:10] Shows that you can make a change [68:13] actually, right? [68:14] >> Um I mean, look, he's up against a whole [68:16] system and the political system which is [68:19] still captured by that kind of insane [68:23] ideology. And so much of what you see [68:26] going wrong in California is exactly [68:27] that is ideology over anything that's [68:30] practical. [68:31] >> Yes. [68:31] >> Yeah. And it's also you have to adhere [68:35] to the narrative. [68:36] >> Yes. [68:37] >> Or you will be punished and so [68:39] everyone's scared so they say a bunch of [68:40] things that they, you know, [68:42] >> Yeah. [68:42] >> they they think make sense. [68:45] >> There was a really like unbelievable [68:47] example of it. There was a a Democrat [68:50] state legislator, [68:52] I think somewhere like Santa Cruz, [68:54] somewhere like that, is it a couple of [68:56] years ago, who voted the wrong way on a [68:59] bill that one of the government unions [69:02] was pushing. I can't remember the [69:03] details, but it was that it like [69:06] offended the maybe it was the university [69:07] teachers, something like that. um a [69:11] Democrat and then they then [69:15] funded the campaign of the Republican [69:19] >> just to teach them not to step out of [69:21] line. They [69:23] >> It's amazing just the [69:24] >> Well, there's a bunch of Republicans [69:25] that, you know, they like to call [69:26] rhinos. You know that, you know, [69:28] Republican and name only. There's a lot [69:30] of those folks that it's they're [69:32] basically Trojan horses, [69:33] >> you know. I I think we have a real [69:36] problem in this country where there's [69:37] only two parties, you know. I I just I [69:41] think it's crazy. There's so many [69:42] people, like me, for instance, that [69:44] agree with a lot of the things that the [69:46] left pushes and agree with many of the [69:49] things that the right pushes, but things [69:50] that some of the things the right pushes [69:52] are [ __ ] ridiculous and some of the [69:53] things that the left pushes are [ __ ] [69:55] ridiculous. But you have two choices. [69:57] >> Yeah. [69:57] >> And you're defined by the worst members [69:59] of each party. [70:01] >> You're defined by the dumbest MAGA [70:03] people versus the [ __ ] you know, the [70:06] Portland people. It's like these are [70:07] these are your options. You have to [70:09] completely ridiculous people who believe [70:11] in non-binary folk and then you've [70:14] people that are, you know, think this is [70:16] a Christian nation and we should kick [70:18] out all the Muslims like [70:19] >> Yeah. So we it's it's interesting [70:20] because I I thought about this when [70:23] not not that I didn't think about it [70:26] that much, but there are a few people [70:27] cuz I think for what I'm about to say it [70:29] doesn't work, but a few people say, "Oh, [70:30] you should run as an independent. [70:32] >> You shouldn't run as a Republican." [70:34] Yeah. And and you know, I am [70:35] independent-minded and I' I've never run [70:37] for office. I'm not part of this [70:39] machine. I don't I'll just say what I [70:40] think. Especially because no one thinks [70:42] I'm going to win. I might as well just [70:43] go for it and say what I think. But um I [70:46] Exactly right. You won't win. [70:48] >> Yeah. [70:49] >> You won't win. There's just no way. [70:50] >> Like when Bobby Kennedy was telling me [70:52] that he was going to run as an [70:53] independent, I was like, [70:54] >> "Yeah, like Michael Shelonburg." [70:56] >> Like you [ __ ] can't win. [70:57] >> Do you know Michael Shelonburg? He's [70:59] fantastic. [70:59] >> He's great. And he ran for governor [71:01] twice as an independent. [71:02] >> Yeah. And I remember, you know, I tried [71:04] to help. I put him on my show. [71:05] >> I think he knew he wasn't going to win. [71:07] >> Do you think that was the [71:09] >> Yeah. I mean, he's, you know, it's good [71:10] for his career. Okay. [71:12] >> He and it gives him an opportunity to [71:14] speak his mind. He says a lot of very [71:16] very interesting and intelligent things. [71:18] >> Yes. He's great. [71:19] >> Yeah. I mean, he's he's great at [71:21] exposing a a lot of horseshit. [71:23] >> Yeah. [71:24] >> You know, he's really good at that and [71:25] he's very meticulous. He's a good [71:26] journalist. [71:27] >> No, I'm really doing it because I I [71:29] don't don't laugh. I I really believe [71:32] that I can win for real. [71:34] >> Well, you might be able to because [71:35] California is that [ __ ] California is [71:37] that [ __ ] that I think there's a lot [71:39] of Look, [71:41] >> we lived in a very liberal area when I [71:43] lived in California. Everyone was very [71:45] liberal and it was normal. It was like [71:47] it was normal liberal like what what it [71:49] used to mean like you believed in gay [71:50] rights, you believed in women's rights, [71:52] you believed in civil rights, normal [71:54] stuff. You believed in a social safety [71:56] net. Normal stuff like that was what it [71:58] used to mean to be a liberal. Bill [71:59] Clinton liberal. That's right. [72:00] >> From like the '9s. [72:01] >> If you listen to Bill Clinton talk [72:03] today, he sounds like he's running for a [72:05] Republican. [72:05] >> Nobody. And And on immigration, have you [72:07] seen these clips that people [72:09] >> he's more maga? [72:11] >> All right. She literally there's one the [72:13] other day where she was that I I hadn't [72:15] seen before which was so it's like we [72:18] like we can't have all these illegal [72:21] immigrants and and we have to and it was [72:24] about the healthcare. We can't be giving [72:26] free health care to illegal immigrants [72:28] because we cannot have incentives for [72:30] more illegal immigrants to come. [72:32] >> Republican talking point. [72:33] >> Amazing. [72:34] >> Crazy. But it just shows you it's all [72:36] [ __ ] It's not real. Like this idea [72:38] that if you're on the left, you're [72:40] supporting science. You're supporting [72:42] civil rights. You're supporting They're [72:44] telling you that to get your vote so [72:47] they can steal money. That's all it is. [72:50] That's as soon as you accept that, you [72:52] realize like, oh, both parties are [72:54] completely full of [ __ ] They just [ __ ] [72:56] you in different ways. [72:57] >> There's definitely a one thing I've [72:59] noticed there's um in Yeah, in the the [73:03] the most of in Sacramento and than the [73:06] legislature, they've I think they're [73:07] just I don't know either they don't [73:09] believe it or they've just been beaten [73:11] down and so you've had this they just [73:14] gone along with it. But actually now [73:16] you've got a few Republicans [73:18] in California and they're friends of [73:21] mine and we're working together. You [73:22] wouldn't have heard of any of you know [73:23] people like Carl Deayo, David [73:24] Tangaparta, Ali Medo, the new leader in [73:26] in the assembly really actually have got [73:30] this you know we we're real kind of [73:33] friends and allies in fighting back [73:36] against the corruption. That's the big [73:38] thing I think that you learn when you is [73:40] that the the the interest groups, the [73:43] big business, the big unions, they've [73:46] just completely captured the government [73:49] and and I think it's fair to say the [73:51] Republicans have been part of that. But [73:53] there's a group of us now who really [73:56] don't buy it and we're fighting back. I [73:58] think we can make a big difference if we [74:00] get, you know, if we can. They've got a [74:02] twothirds majority in the legislature. [74:04] They call it a super majority. It's been [74:06] like that for more than 10 years. So [74:08] they can do whatever they want. The [74:09] Democrats and the Republicans have been [74:11] kind of irrelevant. If we can just, [74:14] you know, win a few more seats so they [74:16] don't have a super majority and if I can [74:19] get elected and then we can start to [74:21] chip away at it. For sure. [74:23] >> I think it's important to not let either [74:26] party have complete and total control. [74:28] >> That's exactly right. [74:29] >> And I don't think I don't think this [74:32] this is just the Democrats. I think if [74:34] the Republicans are in their same [74:36] position, we'd have a unique another [74:37] unique set of corruption and problems [74:39] that would be similar and they'd be [74:41] finding other ways to steal money. [74:42] >> I mean, this is the fun 100% agree. I [74:45] mean, that's what I say to [74:48] >> Democrats and we, you know, we we we can [74:49] see it in some of the numbers. I'm doing [74:51] well with independents. We're getting [74:52] Democrats come to my events and one of [74:54] the things I say is like it's just not [74:55] healthy to have one party running [74:58] everything. And for the last 16 years [75:01] they in in California they've had all [75:03] the statewide elected positions governor [75:05] and the other ones attorney general [75:07] whatever twothirds majority in both [75:10] legislative chambers every big city [75:13] every big county the state supreme court [75:16] 61 Democrat appointees they just rubber [75:19] stamp what whatever they want and it's [75:23] just not healthy and it gets into this [75:26] mentality of arrogance where they just [75:29] feel they can do whatever they want and [75:32] no one's ever going to, you know, stop [75:34] them. [75:35] >> Yeah, [75:36] >> that's where we're at. [75:37] >> And again, if the Republicans were in [75:38] the same position of power, you'd have [75:41] another different set of problems. That [75:43] was probably very similar because it's [75:45] just how people operate when there's [75:47] when they have control, when they have [75:48] completely it's just like if you have an [75:50] authoritarian government. Yes. It's [75:52] similarly similar kind of a situation. [75:54] and you have no no one's challenging [75:56] your position of power and you get to do [75:58] whatever you want to do and then you [75:59] have a bunch of people that funded your [76:00] campaign and giving you a bunch of money [76:02] and then they're helping you out with [76:03] this and business deals to your uncle [76:05] and this and that [76:08] just now in Hungary with Victor Orban. [76:11] So I I know Hungary well because it's my [76:13] family still live there [76:15] >> and funny enough it was 16 years he was [76:17] in power same amount of time as the [76:19] Democrats in California and by the end [76:22] it was all exactly what you're talking [76:23] about like just unbelievable levels of [76:26] corruption. [76:27] >> Yeah. And it's always if if they have [76:30] total control they're going to be [76:31] corrupt especially if they don't have [76:33] any oversight. if they can just get away [76:34] with it. Like this homeless thing where [76:36] they've lost the $24 billion and the [76:38] governor can say, "Nope, don't look into [76:39] that stamp. [76:41] >> You could veto that? How are you How is [76:43] that legal? How is it legal that you [76:46] could veto something that [76:47] >> you know?" And actually the amazing [76:48] thing about that is that it was even the [76:51] the Democrat supermajority [76:54] that part that did that, right? So the [76:56] process was the state auditor, it was a [76:58] Republican legislature that asked the [77:00] state auditor to look at it. So it's [77:02] initiated by a Republican state auditor [77:05] publishes the report 24 billion missing. [77:07] The legislature as a whole which is 2/3 [77:10] Democrat run said we need a proper [77:12] audit. It was these guys. It was the [77:14] Democrats. [77:14] >> Yes. It was everyone. [77:15] >> It's crazy. [77:16] >> Yeah. Because those Democrats weren't [77:18] completely corrupt. [77:19] >> It's amazing. You know they like [77:21] >> you'd have to be completely corrupt to [77:23] not look into that. [77:24] >> I know. It's amazing. And and then then [77:26] the [ __ ] excuse that they come out. [77:29] Oh, it's not necessary because of like, [77:31] oh, [77:31] >> oh, it's not necessary to look at where [77:33] 24 billion dollars went and not just [77:37] didn't work, but homelessness increased [77:39] by a substantial margin. [77:40] >> Well, because the money, well, the [77:42] answer to the question is very obvious. [77:43] I mean, when we say you that term [77:46] homeless industrial complex, what is it? [77:48] You look at it, it's basically got two [77:50] parts to it. You got the nonprofits like [77:53] we talked about that just keep getting [77:54] the money for, you know, they've [77:56] actually made it illegal to solve the [77:58] problem. So they've No, no, I'm not [78:01] joking. They've it's illegal to for [78:05] state money to go to any of these [78:07] organizations that require any kind of [78:10] response from the homeless person. So [78:12] you can't require uh addiction [78:15] treatment, recovery, anything like that, [78:17] job training, nothing. It's illegal. [78:20] It's called housing first. [78:22] So like obviously when you've got 80% [78:25] and the fentinel is a really big part of [78:27] >> the idea that it's a housing issue is so [78:29] preposterous too. [78:30] >> So you got the nonprofits but then the [78:32] other part of it which is where actually [78:33] the bulk of the money's going these [78:35] crony developers that there's a very [78:38] small group of developers house builders [78:42] that build these apartment units. They [78:44] called it permanent supportive housing [78:46] the other the you know shelter and [78:50] they're they're charging up to I mean a [78:53] low ball estimate is about 600,000 there [78:56] are some in LA in the Bay Area that are [78:58] 900,000 a million dollars per unit to [79:01] build right I've got a friend that [79:03] builds apartments in the Bay Area p you [79:07] know he said without all the government [79:08] [ __ ] that goes around it the layers [79:11] of nonsense that they put in if it's [79:13] taxpayers money, the union contracts [79:16] that you got to use this kind of [79:17] material, the environmental, all this [79:19] stuff. You could build it for a quarter, [79:21] like 250,000 per door, they call it, [79:24] four times as much. That's where the [79:26] money's going. And then you get the [79:29] unit, whatever, they put the homeless [79:31] person in there who's still addicted to [79:33] fentinel. [79:34] And as I I went again with a real [79:36] charity in Venice. We went round a guy [79:39] who's a recovered addict, recovering [79:41] addict and 23 years clean and he's [79:44] actually trying to help people. He [79:46] actually hire, you know, he rents [79:47] Airbnbs and he does group recovery and [79:50] they have a, you know, recovery program [79:51] they do together. He says like these [79:54] guys that are getting the permanent [79:56] supportive housing, it's like a second [79:58] home because they're going back to the [80:00] street to buy drugs, deal drugs, cuz [80:04] they're addicts. [80:05] >> Yeah. [80:05] >> And you're not changing the behavior. [80:07] >> They're addicts and they're mentally [80:09] ill. And so there's a a massive influx [80:12] of homeless people during the Reagan [80:14] administration where they kind of like [80:16] open the doors of the mental [80:17] institutions say, "Well, we're not going [80:18] to fund this anymore." which is for for [80:21] public health and safety. That is a [80:23] [ __ ] terrible idea. [80:24] >> Yeah. And they but then the other thing [80:26] about that I completely agree is that [80:28] they then that's been incorporated that [80:30] idea that you can't have um mental [80:34] institutions, insane asylums. There's [80:36] this sort of general sense that that's [80:39] barbaric and you don't want people in [80:40] these institutions and it's better to [80:43] have them cared in the community. So [80:45] that's incorporated into into Medicaid. [80:48] And so often with government, you got to [80:49] look at the money flows. And one of the [80:51] things that's still there is this rule [80:54] called IMD, institutions of mental [80:57] disease. And the IMD rule is that [81:00] there's no reimbursement from federal [81:03] Medicaid to any treatment that happens [81:06] in a facility with more than 16 beds. [81:08] It's very specific limit 16 beds because [81:11] they don't it's all based on this [81:13] philosophy of we don't want big mental [81:16] institutions. [81:17] >> Okay. So that means that there's no [81:21] incentive to have modern largecale [81:24] mental health care because there's all [81:26] these small things because you don't get [81:29] any money back if [81:30] >> I think people are also rightly [81:31] suspicious of the potential for a [81:35] medical health industrial complex. [81:38] >> Definitely. And then think of how many [81:40] people imagine if they could just like [81:42] have you ever seen that video of there's [81:43] a guy who gets pulled over and the cops [81:47] on the spot tell him that he's been [81:49] evaluated as being mentally unwell and [81:52] he needs to come in and the guy is [81:55] >> completely calm and rational when he's [81:57] talking to him and he's like well make [81:59] an appointment and I'll I'll go and get [82:01] evaluated. And he's like no we're going [82:02] to bring you in. He's like what what are [82:04] you what are you what are you saying? [82:05] Well, you've been deemed unwell. He's [82:06] like by who? I don't have there's no [82:08] ruling against me. It's really [82:10] interesting. So, apparently there's more [82:13] to it. Um, and this video went viral. [82:15] Apparently, there have been some videos [82:17] of this guy where he posted online where [82:19] he's acting kind of loony. [82:21] >> Uh, I saw a couple of them. I was like, [82:23] it's a little problem. A little [82:24] problematic, but could also be he's [82:27] acting out on camera. I don't know if [82:28] he's doing this in real life, like just [82:30] because someone's doing it in videos. [82:32] So, like a lot of people act out in [82:34] video just for attention or maybe that's [82:36] how he blows off steam, says wild [ __ ] [82:39] like, you know, we need to eat the earth [82:40] or I don't know what the [ __ ] he's [82:42] saying. So, there's but the video is [82:44] very disturbing because [82:46] >> in that moment if the these police [82:49] officers in Canada are supposed to be [82:52] evaluating someone who doesn't have an [82:55] official psych evaluation where he's [82:57] been brought in and they said, you know, [82:59] you have to be institutionalized. So, [83:00] that hasn't happened. Mhm. [83:02] >> And so they're pulling this guy over and [83:04] based on his interaction with them. He [83:07] is completely calm and rational. In [83:10] fact, like charitably so because they're [83:12] saying something [ __ ] totally [83:14] preposterous and he's not yelling. He [83:15] doesn't raise his voice. He's coherent. [83:18] He's articulate. I want you to watch it [83:19] cuz it's kind of crazy. Jamie, I'm sure [83:21] you could find it. [83:22] >> Yeah, I was trying to find the update [83:23] though. [83:23] >> That's really terrifying. Um, but let's [83:25] just look at the actual video itself [83:27] because the video itself is bizarre [83:29] because without any context and again I [83:32] think there is some context. There have [83:34] been some videos where he act nutty and [83:35] this guy might just be manic depressive [83:37] where he's capable of keeping it [83:39] together like to pretend he's normal [83:41] when the cops are there but then as soon [83:43] as he's on his own as no one's watching [83:44] him he goes insane. That is possible. [83:46] >> But what were they b did they have any [83:48] prior knowledge of him? [83:49] >> What was that based on? They would [83:52] someone had told them that he's off the [83:54] rails, so they went in to go get him. [83:56] But the thing is, [83:58] >> shouldn't there be like some sort of an [84:00] official psychiatric evaluation? [84:03] Conservative influencer. Ah, he's a [84:05] conservative influence being held [84:07] captive in Canadian. I don't know if [84:09] that's real or not. I just was trying to [84:10] wait until I could get to the video [84:12] here. [84:12] >> Okay. Well, let's let's watch the video. [84:14] Put your headphones on because the video [84:16] is kind of kooky. [84:18] >> And this is Dr. Emory. He's a resident [84:20] psychiatrist, senior resident. He's on a [84:22] rotation with the CAR87. We're part of a [84:25] a program that includes Vancouver [84:27] Coastal Health and um [84:30] >> uh the Vancouver Police. Okay. And uh [84:33] what we do is we go to people uh when um [84:37] there's different reasons that come up. [84:39] Every case is a little different and we [84:41] go to people to see them where they are. [84:43] Um especially if there's been issues [84:45] with trying to find them and talk to [84:47] them. So, in in your case, um I think [84:51] you were certified under the Mental [84:53] Health Act just I don't know how long [84:55] ago, but like maybe three weeks ago or [84:57] four weeks ago. Were you aware of that? [84:59] Dr. Taylor saw you in a cafe. She didn't [85:01] certify you. I think you filmed part of [85:04] >> Okay. [85:04] >> And this is Dr. Emory. He's a uh and [85:07] then she um uh spoke with your family. [85:10] Um got some more information and um you [85:14] know, you're going to have to turn that [85:15] off. [85:15] >> So, just one one sec. Um, [85:16] >> what the officer just told me is that [85:18] um, you know, you and I can set up a [85:19] meeting and we can chat then, so why [85:21] don't we do that? Okay. [85:22] >> Yeah, [85:23] >> I'm not turning the camera off. I I have [85:24] a legal right to keep the camera on. If [85:26] you don't want to make the appointment [85:27] now, we can do it at another time. But, [85:29] um, I, you know, that's what the officer [85:31] just asked that we do. So, why don't we [85:32] do that? [85:33] >> So, I'm going to certify you under the [85:34] Mental Health Act. We're going to bring [85:36] you to hospital, do testing on you, and, [85:39] um, you're going to talk to a [85:41] psychiatrist in a controlled environment [85:42] because we don't believe that you're [85:44] going to attend an appointment. You've [85:46] been [85:46] >> I won't attend I've never been given a [85:48] chance to attend an appointment. [85:49] >> So he's certified certified. [85:50] >> I've never [85:51] >> uh and then certified. [85:52] >> Yeah. I've never been given a chance to [85:54] attend an appointment. [85:56] >> What What is going on? I haven't I was [85:57] never given a psyche val or nothing. He [85:59] just looked at me and said, "You're [86:00] certified." [86:00] >> Yeah. Okay. So, I don't know why, but [86:03] it's up to the doctor. So, if you [86:04] >> But no, he didn't even give me a He [86:06] didn't even give me an He just looked at [86:08] me and said, "I'm certified now. Please [86:10] consider what you're doing, and please [86:11] think about the fact that I'm more than [86:13] happy to come in for an appointment. I'm [86:15] happy to go through and do everything [86:16] properly. Okay. I just I've been [86:18] completely compliant with everything. [86:20] >> Yes, you've been really good with me, [86:21] Nicholas. But listen, that's his call. [86:23] And unfortunately, we can't go to get [86:25] checked out by you're you're interacting [86:27] with me at a very reg. [86:30] >> So, I had some eggs and stuff for [86:32] breakfast this morning. [86:34] Yeah. I didn't put drapes, so I had to [86:37] tape this up because my window didn't [86:39] have drapes. And so all night there's [86:42] just light beaming into my room. So I [86:45] couldn't sleep last night. So I demanded [86:47] that they give me tape and stuff to put [86:50] on my windows so that I could sleep [86:52] tonight. I'm like one of the only rooms [86:55] that has no drapes. [87:00] >> Oh my god. [87:02] >> Shangerlaw baby. So I had [87:05] >> How [ __ ] strange. [87:07] >> This is crazy. [87:08] >> Strange. So here's the thing. like this [87:12] doctor ran into him somewhere. Yeah. [87:14] >> And said, "I'm certifying you." Based on [87:16] what, [87:17] >> right? And is he really a conservative [87:19] influencer or is that a narrative? Like, [87:21] I don't understand what that means. Like [87:23] if you are quote unquote conservative [87:25] and you have a thousand people on your [87:27] Instagram and you rant and rave, you [87:29] know, in a manic depressive manner, is [87:32] that are you a conservative influencer [87:34] now or is that like rage bait to get [87:36] them to say like But here's the thing, [87:38] like Canada has socialized medicine and [87:41] they also have insane government [87:43] overreach. [87:43] >> Exactly. [87:44] >> And if there was someone who was a [87:46] rabble rouser online and that person [87:48] happened to be acting a little kooky, [87:50] wouldn't that be a great time? But [87:52] meanwhile, how many [ __ ] liberal, [87:55] this is Vancouver, which is like [87:57] Portland on steroids, like how many [88:00] kooky [ __ ] people on the left are [88:03] being pulled into mentalos hospitals and [88:05] making these similar videos. [ __ ] [88:07] zero, which is a little odd, but it [88:09] doesn't mean that this guy's not a [88:11] little off the rails because the videos [88:12] that I saw, see if you can find some [88:14] videos of him off, they might have been [88:16] pulled from the internet, but a bunch of [88:17] people were saying, "Hold on, uh, [88:19] there's more to this." and they were [88:21] showing some of the Here's the other [88:22] problem. I don't know if those videos [88:23] are real. Those videos could be AI. You [88:26] know, in this day and age, it's almost [88:28] impossible to tell. [88:29] >> You could say, you have video of this [88:31] guy. You say have this guy screaming [88:33] stuff about needing of a vagina in the [88:35] middle of his back. You could have [88:37] anything. You could say anything. [88:39] >> But this is why you got to be so careful [88:41] about um authoritarianism creeping into [88:45] government. Yes, it really is. [88:47] >> That right there. First of all, I don't [88:49] like his back seat. All that [ __ ] boxes [88:51] and stuff. That looks a little kooky. [88:54] Like that fits that he might be losing [88:56] his marbles if he's got, you know, [88:58] stacks of stuff. Unless he's like [88:59] leaving an office and moving stuff and [89:02] putting in his back seat temporarily. [89:04] It's a weird sign when the entire back [89:06] seat is filled with boxes and trash. You [89:08] might be losing your marbles. Um, but he [89:10] did sound like there's no, [89:14] in my eyes, listening to him talk, [89:16] there's no indication that this guy's a [89:18] threat to himself and he must be [89:20] institutionalized. [89:22] >> That guy's more than capable of speaking [89:24] in a very rational manner. So even if [89:26] he's nuts, he's not that nuts. There's a [89:29] lot of nutty people [89:30] >> who much more dangerous. There's to me [89:33] this is very like we're talking earlier [89:34] about the medicalization and everything [89:37] and there's a t trend here of this [89:41] inhumity [89:43] that is really really dark. I mean, did [89:47] you see the um I don't know if you [89:49] follow the back and forth on, you know, [89:51] with the AI guys [89:54] on um [89:57] regulating AI and whether AI is positive [90:00] or negative, that whole debate [90:03] >> which uh which [90:04] >> did you see Amade the anthropic guy [90:08] >> what did [90:08] >> just in the last few days there was this [90:10] he he [90:12] was I think it was on on one of the [90:13] other on allin that's right when someone [90:15] was talking about him [90:19] wanting to have government like hyping [90:21] up the doom scenario from from from AI [90:24] >> these guys that are hyping up the doom [90:26] of AI are the actual people that were [90:28] working on it Amade who's the CEO of an [90:32] and the founder of anthropic and he [90:35] replied [90:36] and so the argument was he's hyping it [90:38] up because he wants regulation [90:40] government regulation that will protect [90:44] the kind of big incumbents against you [90:46] know competition. That was the argument [90:48] and then he replied to the argument by [90:51] saying he's had some stuff about [90:52] regulation then he did long posts on X [90:55] and the first one was about the [90:56] regulation but the second one was about [90:58] actually I'm not that I'm not Mr. doom. [91:01] When it comes to AI, I've always said it [91:03] can be really positive. And one of the [91:05] things he pointed to was this essay that [91:08] he wrote called Machines of Loving [91:09] Grace, 14,000 words. And that was his [91:14] response to like being characterized as [91:16] Mr. Negative. When you look at this [91:18] thing, it's so dark. like he's going on [91:21] about well there'll be no um we can [91:25] foresee a time when human beings can't [91:28] make useful contributions to the economy [91:31] um and that people won't have much to do [91:34] and then they can play video games and [91:36] then at one point this what the thing [91:38] that made me think of it um when he was [91:41] raising well what are kids going to do [91:43] and there's an he starts going about we [91:45] have things like rolin and we know how [91:47] to medicate pe people when They're [91:50] depressed, so it's fine if they don't [91:52] have a sense of [91:54] >> rtoin. Are you have a sense of worth [91:56] will numb them? [91:57] >> Literally, that's what he wrote. And and [92:00] that's what he pointed to as him being [92:03] Mr. Positive. [92:04] >> It's just terrifying. [92:06] >> So, this is recently. [92:07] >> This is last within the last week. [92:09] >> Okay. And what is his position in the [92:10] company? [92:10] >> CEO of is the founder of Anthropic. Like [92:13] the main the big two. [92:15] >> The programmers though are the ones that [92:17] are leaving and writing poetry. They're [92:20] giving up on society and they're they're [92:22] hiding and waiting. [92:24] >> You know, you hear about there's one [92:25] lead programmer that read he he wrote [92:28] some [92:29] >> like uh basically a statement as he was [92:32] leaving explaining the impending doom [92:35] that is coming to civilization and how [92:37] he's checking out and he's going to ride [92:39] it out and see what happens. But he left [92:41] the United States. I think he went to [92:43] Ireland or somewhere like that. Okay. [92:44] >> And he said he's going to write poetry. [92:46] >> Okay. [92:47] >> Like Okay. Like I mean this is an [92:48] existential crisis this guy's happen [92:50] having having while he's working while [92:52] he's working on it [92:53] >> working on this thing and realizing this [92:55] thing is conscious [92:56] >> and that's one of the things that I feel [92:58] is so odd about the the two that have [93:01] been most negative are um Amade Daario [93:04] Amade he's anthropic and Sam Olman open [93:07] AI [93:08] >> they're the most negative or have been [93:11] um and if you believe half the things [93:13] they're saying they're like well why are [93:16] you doing it And if you think this is [93:18] the end of the human whatever I know [93:20] they have dialed it back a bit but why [93:23] would you keep building something? [93:24] >> Did you see when Peter [93:26] >> so bad [93:27] >> when Peter Thiel got asked whether or [93:28] not the human race should survive. [93:30] >> What did he say? He paused for like [93:32] [ __ ] 15 seconds like um um [93:36] >> I didn't read this but he says that the [93:39] the mention of rolin is like a good [93:41] thing like we figured out how to uh [93:43] improve ourselves with things like rolin [93:45] and using AI could potentially make it [93:48] even better. [93:49] >> I mean come on [93:50] >> that AI will make rolin even better just [93:52] be on awesome drugs. [93:53] >> No. Yeah. That we'll find better [93:55] versions of drugs that are better than [93:56] rolin. And so instead of people finding [93:58] meaning and purpose in life, just [94:00] >> that's not how it's being talked about. [94:01] >> Well, what is he saying [94:04] is not in the nothing to do and work and [94:05] meaning discussion. It appears the [94:06] speculation is just about the future of [94:08] neuroscience. [94:08] >> Oh, I see what you're saying. So what [94:10] they're saying they're they're talking [94:11] about increasing the potency or making [94:15] these things more effective for mental [94:17] health interventions using AI. [94:21] >> Okay. So he argues that AIdriven biology [94:23] could enable much greater cognitive and [94:25] mental health interventions than those [94:27] available today. That's really wonderful [94:31] if true, right? Like I I personally know [94:33] people that have been saved by SSRIs. [94:35] Like I'm not I'm not a blanket SSRI are [94:37] bad. I I have a friend that was severely [94:39] depressed and suicidal and I got him a [94:41] psychiatrist and he got him and he [94:43] eventually got his life back in gear, [94:45] weaned himself off him. Now he's great. [94:47] So like, who knows? That guy could have [94:49] made a hasty decision and taken his own [94:51] life and if he was in Canada, they might [94:52] have probably [ __ ] encouraged it, [94:54] right? So, he's fine now. [94:56] >> It's just the problem is they're [94:58] ridiculously overprescribed. And there's [95:00] another solution. [95:02] >> The other solution is a natural human [95:03] solution. It doesn't involve medication. [95:06] Involves exercise and nutrition and [95:08] community. And we can all encourage that [95:10] for free. You know, you can [ __ ] do [95:12] push-ups and body weightight squats. [95:14] Doesn't cost you a nickel. You don't [95:16] have to go to a pharmacy. Like all these [95:18] things, all these things are already [95:20] here. Like why are we developing [95:22] addictive chemical solutions? Yes. [95:25] Because they're all addictive. Every one [95:26] of them. They're I have a good buddy [95:28] right now who got off of them. He's [95:29] doing great and now he's back on them [95:31] again. [95:31] >> Cuz he it just his he's [ __ ] His [95:34] system's [ __ ] because he's been on [95:36] them for 20 years. And it's it's scary [95:39] because I know people that have been on [95:41] them that have done rash things and [95:43] they've they just they don't feel like [95:46] they are themselves anymore. And then [95:47] there's also the weird sexual side [95:49] effects, the numbing numbness of the [95:51] genitals, inability to have orgasms. [95:53] There's a lot of [ __ ] weird [ __ ] [95:54] attached to it when there's another [95:56] solution. [95:57] >> That's what's so [95:59] >> uh here's some interesting context. [96:01] According to Snopes, that guy was [96:02] arrested after he posted this [96:04] >> Oh, the Vancouver thing. [96:05] >> After he posted what? this document. [96:07] >> This is not solicitation. If you find [96:09] this document unattended, do not remove [96:11] it from the property where it was placed [96:12] unless you're the owner of said [96:13] property. Removing this document may be [96:15] you criminally liable for indictable [96:17] offense carrying a penalty of up to 10 [96:19] years in prison. So, what is this [96:20] document? [96:21] >> It's on Google Docs. It's uh just the [96:23] the brief like explanation. It's talking [96:25] about how China and uh Canada are [96:28] corrupt and making a a dictatorship. [96:30] China and the corrupt Canadian [96:32] government are trying to turn Vancouver [96:34] into a dictatorship police state. [96:36] China's been classified as high-risisk [96:37] adversary by all long-term democratic [96:40] security alliances, NATO, NORAD, the [96:43] Five Eyes Alliance, the Canadian Center [96:45] for Cyber Security, even Carney himself [96:47] during elections. Carne has committed [96:49] treason via secret Chinese policing and [96:52] law enforcement, [96:54] illegal Chinese police stations in [96:56] Vancouver, selling Vancouver to China [96:58] via the Aboriginal people's unrip. Well, [97:01] is he right? [97:01] >> So that's right. I have no idea if he's [97:03] right or not, but that's it was saying [97:04] he was not maybe an influencer but a [97:06] commentator. He had like 67,000 [97:08] followers on Instagram. [97:10] >> Oh, and this could be why they're saying [97:13] he's nuts, [97:13] >> right? I guess that's [97:14] >> because he's he's uncovering some [ __ ] [97:16] that's probably going on. [97:18] This is not exactly [97:20] >> out of the mainstream to be [97:22] >> listen the [ __ ] mayor of Arcadia in [97:25] California they just found out was a [97:27] Chinese spy. [97:28] >> The mayor of a city in California [97:31] >> just today there was more about um [97:33] Swallwell and Fangf Fang the Chinese [97:36] spy. [97:38] >> The guy wanted to be governor. He's like [97:39] shacked up with [97:40] >> I wanted to make the joke. I was like, [97:42] so the very first debate, the very first [97:44] TV debate, um, you know, you're kind of [97:48] getting ready and think and I really [97:49] wanted to make a sort of fang fang bang [97:52] bang joke. Bang. No, fang fang gang. I, [97:55] you know, it's an obvious joke, right? [97:57] >> Um, [97:58] >> so he admitted to physical relations, [98:00] >> but he denied it for all the time, but [98:02] denied it. [98:03] >> So just today he admitted it. [98:04] >> I think it's just in the news today. I [98:06] don't know what happened. [98:06] >> Well, was he trying to make a comeback? [98:08] >> No. I'm banging the spy. Whoopsies. [98:11] >> But I was Anyway, I was really wanted to [98:14] make this joke um about, you know, the [98:18] fang fang. It's just so you can't resist [98:20] it, right? [98:20] >> It's a funny name. [98:21] >> Exactly. Fang, fang, bang, whatever. [98:23] Anyway, so and and then he didn't show [98:25] up and then and I think, well, he denied [98:27] that it's Can I really say that? You [98:29] know, [98:30] >> you got to be f you got to try and be [98:32] accurate. [98:32] >> Good for you. So Ed, but then he didn't [98:34] show up to the debate cuz he claimed [98:36] that there was, I don't know, he had [98:37] some vote or whatever. So I never got to [98:39] debate him. [98:40] >> The idea that this kid in in Canada is [98:44] being brought into uh for mental health [98:47] evaluation and in prison because he's [98:49] uncovering that. That's not [98:50] unprecedented. [98:52] That's that that's believable. I don't [98:54] know if it's true. He might also have [98:57] been a little kooky. [98:58] >> Mhm. This is again, I don't know if the [99:01] videos that I saw are real, but the [99:04] videos that I again, especially [99:06] considering what we're talking about [99:07] now, if you were trying to make someone [99:09] look insane that was uncovering some [99:11] real serious corruption with a foreign [99:14] government, [99:14] >> right? [99:15] >> Which is possible. [99:16] >> Of course, it's possible. And also, it's [99:17] America, right? We're in a huge country. [99:19] It's like beautifully crazy in many [99:22] ways. people think what then and they [99:24] got the internet and you get people will [99:27] you know honestly all the time people [99:29] are giving me they shove things in my [99:32] hand or an envelope whatever and I open [99:35] it up every single time because half the [99:37] time it's something that's you know [99:40] something conspiratorial that isn't [99:43] right or doesn't seem right and other [99:45] times it's like really good ideas but [99:46] the point is that that actually are [99:48] useful or that make me think about [99:50] something in a different way but the [99:51] point is that Yes, there's lots of [99:53] people out there with, you know, [99:55] somewhat crazy ideas. You can't lock [99:57] them all up. [99:57] >> Well, it's not just that. There's lots [99:59] of real corruption. [100:01] >> And if this guy posts this [100:03] >> and has there been an investigation, do [100:05] we know whether or not this is an act? [100:06] Has it been completely debunked? Because [100:08] if it has, oh well, then maybe you're [100:11] right. Maybe he's crazy. Or if it turns [100:13] out that everything he's saying is true, [100:15] maybe he's a slightly crazy person who's [100:18] also uncovering the truth, which is like [100:20] Exactly. Sometimes it takes obsessive [100:22] people. [100:22] >> That was the premise of that Mel Gibson [100:23] movie. Remember? [100:24] >> Yeah. [100:25] >> He was crazy, but he was actually right. [100:26] >> No. Which one? [100:27] >> I think it was called Conspiracy Theory. [100:29] >> Yep. Yep. [100:30] >> Yeah. Was that with uh [100:31] >> Julia Roberts? [100:32] >> Julia Roberts. Yeah. [100:33] >> It was fun. [100:34] >> That sounds great. Yeah. [100:35] >> I haven't seen it. [100:35] >> He was like a nutty dude who was on to [100:37] things. He's basically like Alex Jones. [100:40] >> That sounds really interesting. [100:41] >> It was a good movie. [100:42] >> I love that. [100:42] >> You know, for the time a little dated. [100:44] you go watch it today, you be like, [100:45] >> well, we do I we one of the things we're [100:47] on the road the whole time, like long [100:49] drives. It's California and um so I find [100:53] some of these, you know, every now and [100:54] again you just want something, you know. [100:56] So the I you want there's a lot of [100:58] movies, it turns out that are big parts [101:00] of American culture that I'm I haven't [101:02] seen. Um we watched what was it the [101:05] other night? Super bad. I'd never seen [101:07] it. I'd never seen it. [101:09] >> It's so good. [101:10] >> It's one of the best comedies of all [101:11] time. [101:12] >> It's so good and I've never seen it. I [101:14] unfortunately tried watching with my [101:16] kids when they were 10 and 12. I'm like, [101:17] "Here, sit down and watch this." And we [101:19] shut it off after three minutes. Like, [101:20] this is Sorry, [101:22] >> I forgot. [101:22] >> So good. [101:23] >> Yeah, I forgot. [101:24] >> Brilliant writing. I mean, it's not just [101:25] like [101:26] >> funny and a kind of slapstick with a bit [101:28] of that. But it was just really clever. [101:30] >> The scene where the kids just sitting in [101:31] class drawing dicks. [101:33] >> It's [101:36] so funny. By the way, could not make [101:38] that movie today. And the people who [101:40] made that movie would not make that [101:42] movie today. We were literally talking [101:43] about so my friend Eric who you just [101:45] he's he's on my team. We become good [101:46] friends. He's um [101:48] >> you met him earlier. [101:49] >> Like that's exactly what we were saying [101:51] like captured. Well, they got captured [101:53] the that's the problem with being on the [101:55] team of the left. They got captured by [101:59] an ideology that destroyed comedy in in [102:01] their world, right? They cannot do that [102:04] kind of comedy anymore. [102:05] >> That kind of Nobody believes that you [102:08] support all the things these people are [102:10] saying. is you're just showing a [102:12] ridiculous human being who's saying some [102:14] crazy [ __ ] and it makes you laugh. It's [102:16] not changing the [ __ ] world. It's not [102:18] altering anybody's opinions and it's not [102:20] going to force people to do anything [102:21] that they wouldn't have ordinarily done. [102:23] No good person is going to watch that [102:25] movie and want to go out and do bad [102:26] things. That's not how it works. It's [102:28] just a piece of art. [102:29] >> It's just like, you know, Bob Marley [102:31] didn't really shoot the sheriff, okay? [102:33] It's a [ __ ] piece of art. It's a [102:35] piece of art. And it's a piece of art [102:36] that we have [ __ ] up. is particularly [102:39] movies because movies are attached to [102:41] Hollywood and then standup comedy [102:44] fortunately has an out and because of [102:46] the internet we don't need Hollywood [102:48] anymore so but because of that we now [102:52] get labeled rightwing [102:54] >> especially standup comedy that's like [102:56] not adherent and I don't want to call it [102:59] anti-woke because that's silly because [103:01] it's not anti-woke it's just comedy yeah [103:03] >> it's just like woke doesn't allow [103:06] certain subjects [103:07] >> it's just it be anti-establishment and [103:10] the when the establishment is taken over [103:12] by an ideology, it happens to be that. [103:13] But you go the other way, [103:15] >> when it's the people in power, it's [103:17] supposed to be against the people in [103:18] power, [103:18] >> it's supposed to be what is funny. [103:21] >> What is funny? Fair enough. [103:22] >> What is funny? Yeah. [103:23] >> Across the board. And as soon as you [103:25] say, "No, you can't make fun of this [103:27] anymore." Like, why? [103:29] >> Yeah. [103:29] >> Why? It's a religion. It's basically [103:32] like it's blasphemy to make fun of [103:34] whatever you whatever you decide. [103:35] >> Goodness. It's we Yeah. And that killed [103:38] that kind of movie. [103:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. [103:41] >> Those [ __ ] movies were everywhere. [103:43] >> Yeah. [103:43] >> The Hangover. There was always a movie [103:45] like that. [ __ ] There's so many of [103:47] them. [103:48] >> And a lot of them I haven't seen. We [103:49] were just talking about it the other [103:50] night. Um Yeah. The the the [103:53] >> pet detective. The whole premise was [103:55] about a transgender woman and you find [103:58] out she was transgender and everybody [103:59] throws up. [104:00] >> Do you remember? [104:01] >> No. I haven't seen I honestly haven't. [104:03] >> You never saw a Ventura pet detective? [104:05] >> No. [104:06] I know we got to do list for the [104:08] >> too busy watching Monty Hall over there. [104:11] >> [ __ ] Benny Hill reruns. [104:14] >> Benny Hill. My favorite Benny Hill [104:15] thing. Benny Hill was like, [104:16] >> so I'm not saying this, but I couldn't [104:18] like the first there's someone there's a [104:20] friend of mine at Fox called she's [104:22] called Kennedy. She's very funny and she [104:24] um used to always do you remember Janet [104:26] Yellen? [104:27] >> Yes. [104:27] >> She was the she always called her Benny [104:29] Hill. [104:30] >> And then the minute I saw that that I [104:33] saw a picture of her next time, I just [104:34] couldn't get [104:36] Kennedy was an MTV VJ. [104:39] >> She's great. [104:40] >> And then she became a Republican talking [104:42] head on Fox. I was like, that's nuts. [104:44] >> She's a real libertarian, though. [104:46] >> But isn't it interesting? Like someone's [104:48] like on MTV with like a a girl with [104:51] glasses on. You're like, "Oh, [104:52] progressive for sure." [104:54] >> And then winds up on. [104:56] >> But she's cool. She's libertarian. She's [104:58] very smart. [104:59] >> She She's great and very funny. She does [105:01] um Freedom Fest. She's like That's a [105:03] She's a big part of that. The the [105:05] libertarian thing. [105:06] >> Okay. [105:06] >> She's great. How'd she go from being a [105:08] VJ like [105:09] >> I don't know. [105:10] >> Here's the next [ __ ] [105:12] >> you know, [105:12] >> she's from LA. [105:14] >> She's great. [105:16] >> She used to Betty Hill. [105:19] >> That's funny. [105:19] >> But I love know the comedy thing like [105:21] that's another joy actually. Um, so I [105:24] used to really So Eric's really into [105:26] Louis CK. So I've I'd seen a bit of him [105:29] obviously, but I've watched a lot now. [105:32] He's so great. I mean, we really enjoyed [105:34] that. [105:34] >> Brilliant comedian. [105:35] >> Brilliant. Brilliant. And [105:36] >> and yeah, it did some [ __ ] ridiculous [105:40] weird [ __ ] but [105:42] >> but the way they described it was so [105:44] different than the actual acts [105:45] themselves. [105:46] >> Also, his response to it was brilliant. [105:47] That show where he addressed it. [105:49] >> Uhhuh. [105:49] >> Was so good. [105:50] >> He had a weird kink where he wanted [105:52] people to watch him jerk off and he [105:54] would ask them and if they said yes, he [105:56] would do it. Look, I don't think you [105:59] should do that. I think it seems crazy [106:01] to be standing in front of a couple of [106:02] girls and jerking off in front of them, [106:04] but I'm not him. Okay. And I also didn't [106:07] say if I said no, open the door, let me [106:09] out, and then you wouldn't let me out, [106:11] that's a different story, but that's not [106:12] what anybody was alleging. It's just [106:14] kind of gross and weird. And I think he [106:17] would probably admit to that. But, you [106:20] know, he did and he he had a very funny [106:22] I thought was brilliant. I can't [106:23] remember exactly but the first big show [106:25] he did after that [106:27] >> when he sort of returned from like being [106:30] >> his art though is like what you got to [106:32] judge like what is he [106:35] >> as long as he's not did what like Bill [106:37] Cosby did like that that's a completely [106:38] different thing. [106:39] >> Yeah it didn't seem [106:41] >> that it was a kind of systematic like [106:45] really machine like predatory thing that [106:49] was just a ongoing thing. [106:51] >> It was a weird kink. [106:52] >> Yeah. He had a weird kink. He wanted to [106:53] jerk off in front of people like, "Okay, [106:56] it's it it's [106:59] so look, I get that people would be [107:01] upset and if you don't want to watch [107:02] this comedy anymore, I get that, too. [107:04] That's fine. Everybody has That's your [107:06] prerogative. But like the comedy itself [107:08] is some of the best comedy that's ever [107:10] been written. [107:11] >> It's it's exactly [107:12] >> ever been done. He's one of the best to [107:13] ever do it. I mean, if you have a top [107:16] whatever group of comedians, [107:18] >> is he in your kind of gang here? How do [107:20] you like [107:21] >> Well, he's in New York. Um, uh, but he [107:23] actually helped me design the club. [107:25] >> Okay, cool. [107:26] >> He came when it was bare bones. Um, and [107:28] we went over the club and he gave me a [107:30] bunch of great suggestions and I [107:32] implemented all of them. [107:34] >> The uh smaller our our rooms are named [107:37] after the nuclear bombs that were [107:38] dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, [107:40] it's uh Fat Man and Little Boy are our [107:43] rooms. There's a reason for that. The [107:45] the reason is actually that the because [107:47] it's the comedy mothership. It's a UFO [107:49] based comedy club. [107:50] >> The UFOs really started showing up in [107:53] America after the nuclear bomb. [107:55] >> So once the nuclear weapons program was [107:57] implemented in the 1940, the amount of [108:00] UFO sightings went through the roof and [108:02] the real big ones were like Roswell, New [108:04] Mexico, which is 47. So right after the [108:06] war, [108:07] >> they start so this is like part of UFO [108:10] folklore. So that's why we did it. Um [108:12] that's why we named them after the [108:13] nuclear and not making light of people [108:14] dying in horrific nuclear bombs. Um, so [108:17] he uh told me to make the stage smaller [108:20] in the little room. It was a great idea. [108:21] I was like, "Right, why is the stage so [108:22] big? Small room." And then he also said, [108:24] "Can you," it was already a low ceiling. [108:26] He's like, "Can you lower it more?" I'm [108:28] like, "We could lower it like right to [108:29] the top of that door." It's like, "You [108:30] should do that." And he gave me some [108:32] advice on sound deadening in the room [108:35] and what to do and make it, you know, [108:37] how to make the sound crystal clear and [108:39] just gave awesome advice. And I, the [108:42] beautiful thing about that club is I [108:43] took advice from every comedian that was [108:45] in town. I I'd bring them there. I'd go, [108:47] "Tell me what you think. What would you [108:49] want?" Like, if you wanted to design a [108:51] comedy club, I'll literally let you like [108:53] just tell me what you think. And we ran [108:55] it through a vote. So, there's a whole [108:57] group of us and it was like me and Brian [108:59] Simpson and Ron White and Tony [109:00] Hinchcliffe and and all these guys that [109:03] were good friends of mine that we [109:04] performed with all the time. I we all [109:07] just sat around. None of the ideas were [109:09] like, I think we should do this. I [109:11] didn't do that with any of them. I said, [109:12] tell me what you guys want to do. Like [109:14] and they were like, "You should have [109:15] this." Like, "Okay, we'll do that. [109:17] >> We should have monitors in the green [109:18] room. We should see the guy on stage. [109:20] Okay, let's do that. What else?" And [109:21] everything anybody said, we did. We [109:24] should have uh um free uh mental health [109:28] services for all the employees. So, we [109:31] did that. So, free availability for [109:33] counseling, psychiatry, we have that. Or [109:35] psychologists, they can they can all go [109:37] to counselors. So, it's that's free. [109:39] Healthcare, take care of everything. [109:41] Give the comedians way more money than [109:42] any other club does. We did that. We [109:44] just like, what do we what do we need? [109:46] What does everybody want? What does [109:48] everybody want? Let's do it and let's do [109:50] it in a way where we're just trying to [109:51] make the best thing possible. We're not [109:53] doing it like let's make the most money. [109:55] >> We're just trying to not lose money. So, [109:57] let's just do it that way. And it [109:58] worked. And it worked because of people [110:01] like Louis CK, all these people that [110:04] came by and gave us advice and told us, [110:06] you know, what they think. [110:08] >> Fantastic. [110:09] >> So, yeah. So, Louis great. I love him. [110:11] He's [ __ ] really smart guy. But like [110:13] a lot of smart guys, he's [ __ ] weird. [110:15] You know, a lot of people, [110:16] >> I think that about these AI. [110:18] >> You want to be a great comedian, you [110:19] have to be a [ __ ] weirdo. You know, [110:21] they're all just weird in different [110:22] ways. Chappelle's weird in his way. You [110:25] know, Chris Rock's weird in his way. [110:27] Hinchcliff's weird in his way. They're [110:28] all weird. Shane's weird. Everyone's an [110:30] incredible thing to do, honestly. Just [110:34] it like really in a tiny way. I'm not [110:38] even comparing it, but I'm comparing [110:40] this in terms of what I'm doing, which [110:41] is you got to go there and you've got I [110:44] don't know, I just did a few the other [110:46] just in the last few days, you got [110:47] hundreds of people and you got to [110:50] entertain them. Now, I'm mainly talking [110:53] about politics, which is much easier [110:55] because you've got, [110:57] >> you know, material that's just obvious [111:00] and out there and it's polit but it's [111:02] >> you got to you got to keep them [111:03] entertained. You can't be boring. You [111:05] can't like and it's you know you got to [111:07] give a good show. [111:08] >> Yes. [111:08] >> And so the thought of doing that and [111:12] being funny for all all of it instead of [111:16] what I do which is throw in the odd [111:18] joke, you know, political joke or [111:21] something or self-deprecating joke, you [111:22] know? [111:23] >> Right. But that's nothing but you're not [111:25] focusing on that. If you focus on that, [111:28] you could do it. [111:28] >> No, but I'm just saying it. I now really [111:31] appreciate how hard it is. just just the [111:34] >> it is and it isn't. Joey Diaz has the [111:36] greatest saying. He goes, "It's the [111:38] [ __ ] hardest, easiest thing you'll [111:39] ever do." [111:40] >> Okay. [111:40] >> Because when you're flowing, it's easy. [111:43] >> You know, when you're up there and [111:45] you're killing, it's so easy. It's hard [111:48] constructing the material. [111:49] >> I was going to say a lot of preparation. [111:51] Yeah, there's a lot of preparation and [111:52] there's a lot of time you have to spend [111:54] alone thinking [111:56] >> and then you have to spend a lot of time [111:57] bullshitting with your friends because [111:59] sometimes like the green room [112:00] conversations [112:01] >> some of us like Brian Simpson said [112:03] something the other day and we're like [112:04] write that down write that down we force [112:06] each other like write dude that's a bit [112:08] that's 100% a bit and he started doing [112:10] it on stage and it's killing like that [112:12] happens too and it's like the [112:14] camaraderie and the fun of like being [112:17] together like it brews comedy [112:19] >> but you also need time in front of the [112:20] [ __ ] computer or the notebook. You [112:21] need you need to be sitting there going [112:23] over your stuff. [112:24] >> If you don't do that, you're not going [112:25] to come up with new material. And then [112:27] you have to try it out and you have to [112:29] be willing to like trot it out there. [112:31] You have this idea that's only existed [112:33] in your head and you're kind of [112:35] >> convinced that there's something there, [112:37] but you're not totally sure. You're [112:38] like, "What do you think about this?" [112:40] And you just throw it out there. And [112:42] sometimes it's great. And it's like [112:44] 50/50. Sometimes it's dog [ __ ] And by [112:47] it's 50/50 to what I bring to the stage [112:50] whether it's even got life. [112:52] >> But writing it down it's like not even [112:54] it's like [112:55] >> you know it's like the Canadian [112:57] healthcare system for maid. It's like [112:59] one one out of 20 one out of 20. Is that [113:02] any good? [113:03] >> I think it's I mean it's just really No, [113:05] I think it's Well, I I I totally [113:07] appreciate [113:08] >> uh what you're saying, but it's very I [113:10] mean to me it seems the ultimate um [113:14] you're just putting yourself out there. [113:15] You're definitely putting yourself out [113:16] there, but you're also doing it this [113:18] way, too. Like, when you're having [113:20] conversations, maybe you're putting [113:21] yourself out there even more [113:23] >> because you're actually putting out your [113:26] opinions and some of them you had no [113:28] idea you were going to discuss, [113:29] >> right? [113:30] >> So, you're just trotting it out there, [113:31] thinking out loud in front of millions [113:34] of people like we're doing right now. [113:36] when you're doing standup like I know [113:39] these by the time anyone sees me perform [113:42] at a club where they're paying money [113:44] >> most of those bits I've been doing. So [113:47] I've been like I'm just trying to add to [113:50] them and hone them and say them the [113:52] right way and and move the order around. [113:54] That's why also I love about it because [113:56] that's what I really do love it and [113:57] that's why I've really enjoyed like I [114:00] said Eric really into it and um just [114:02] he's shown me a lot of comedians I [114:03] didn't know about and it's I just I love [114:07] words and language anyway you know I've [114:08] written but in completely different I've [114:10] written books and whatever TV scripts [114:12] when I did my show that kind of thing so [114:14] I really appreciate language and and I [114:17] love the just how changing the order of [114:20] a word or whatever can just make [114:22] something work or not Oh yeah, it's [114:24] brilliant. Changing the order of a word, [114:27] changing the way you do. Sometimes you [114:28] do a joke like Louis used to do that [114:30] where he would like reverse a joke like [114:33] turn it around and then maybe he would [114:35] like take it and do his best joke and [114:37] open with it so that his jokes [114:39] afterwards had to get better to follow [114:41] his best joke. [114:43] >> Yeah. It's a constant little [ __ ] [114:45] laboratory up there and you need the [114:48] audience in order to find the life in [114:50] whatever the hell you're doing. see [114:52] their faces like can you see or the [114:54] lights too much in your fa can you see [114:56] >> you can see most of the first few rows [114:59] >> right cuz that's important must be for [115:01] >> it helps it definitely helps the um [115:03] >> it's not just listening to the volume of [115:06] laughs is it like what is it [115:09] >> there's both things but obviously [115:10] they're they're there to have a good [115:12] time you've but my job is easier because [115:15] I'm going on after the they're already [115:17] laughing right so there's been a few [115:19] people on before me everybody's having a [115:20] good time and then you're you're [115:23] basically just connecting with them, you [115:25] know, you find them, what's up, how are [115:27] you, you you like let them get [115:30] comfortable, you connect with them, [115:32] >> and then you're just doing the material. [115:33] You're just finding the reality. You you [115:36] have to be like whatever you're saying, [115:38] you have to be 100% thinking about that [115:40] thing only. [115:41] >> You can't be thinking and then I'm going [115:43] to say it like that. No, you have to be [115:44] thinking about the thing. [115:46] >> Yeah. [115:46] >> And that's it. That's the primary [115:48] thought. You know the pacing of it. you [115:50] know what's coming next, but you don't [115:51] think about what's coming next. You [115:52] think about the thing and that's where [115:54] preparation's important. You have to [115:56] make sure that you like have a set list, [115:57] an order, but you also have to be [115:59] flexible because there's going to be [116:00] moments where you want to like dive out [116:02] of that set order and something might [116:04] happen in the audience or something [116:05] might come up and you have another [116:07] thing, another take and you're like, [116:08] "This would go better right here so I'll [116:10] shove this in here." And then you have [116:11] to remember your order and go, "I didn't [116:13] do this. I'll put that later." [116:14] >> It's so funny. It's it's it's not the [116:17] but there's a similarity because you [116:20] know I do all these things and you and [116:21] you've got bits really which is my thing [116:24] on highspeed rail and you know I and [116:26] sometimes and there's a long version of [116:28] it and a short version of it and and [116:31] like and then s suddenly you'll find [116:33] yourself doing it even though I hadn't [116:35] intended to [116:37] >> and then oh oh [ __ ] that's like really [116:38] long and I've got to finish like what am [116:40] I going to cut? So you it's very sort of [116:44] >> I mean it's not the same but it's [116:45] similar. [116:45] >> It's similar. [116:46] >> And I definitely find [116:48] >> Trump does bits. [116:49] >> Oh yeah. And he I mean it goes on for so [116:51] I mean never done anything that long but [116:52] um [116:53] >> remember when he just did this impromptu [116:55] bit about Biden losing himself on stage [116:57] just wandering around not knowing where [116:59] he was. [116:59] >> It's like he's doing standup like [117:01] everyone's laughing. [117:01] >> Exactly. Exactly. But I find it much [117:05] better. I much prefer it when you can [117:07] you're closer to the people like [117:09] physically when you can [117:11] >> you're not on some stage miles away, you [117:13] know, that kind of thing. [117:14] >> Yeah, comedy club is the way to do it. [117:15] That's the real way. However, there's [117:18] something very intimate about doing um [117:21] an arena in the round. [117:24] >> Okay. [117:24] >> So, I've done a bunch of those where [117:26] you're standing on a circular stage [117:29] >> in the center of the people. And what's [117:30] intimate about that is all the people [117:32] over here are looking at all the people [117:34] over here. Everybody sees everybody. [117:36] Yeah. Interesting. [117:36] >> You see each other. It's the right way [117:38] to do it because that way everybody's [117:40] seeing everybody else having fun and [117:42] they're a lot closer than you think they [117:44] are. They're all right there. There's a [117:46] lot of them, [117:47] >> but it all the comedy like sprays out to [117:50] the outer edges, but the center hive all [117:53] around the stage, which is thousands of [117:55] people in a 16,000 seat arena, you're [117:58] looking in the eyes of 6,000 people [118:01] >> plus. Yeah. [118:01] >> And they're and it's like they're all [118:03] seeing each other. It's very intimate, [118:05] oddly [118:06] >> great. [118:07] >> Like it it's fun as opposed to like uh a [118:10] a big arena when you're standing on a [118:13] very high stage and the people are all [118:15] out there. That feels crazy. That feels [118:17] very detached. That's that's a different [118:20] That's not my favorite. That's my least [118:21] favorite is an arena where it's just a [118:23] flat stage and you're not like [118:26] surrounded by them. [118:27] >> Yeah, I I I agree. [118:30] It feels like you're just delivering [118:32] something rather than connecting. [118:34] >> Exactly. But a theater can be pretty [118:36] intimate, too. Like especially when [118:38] you're used to doing arenas of if I do [118:40] like a 30,000 seat theater, it's it's [118:42] kind of intimate. [118:44] >> It's like it's all what you're [118:45] comfortable with, too. That's a part of [118:46] it, too. It's like are you comfortable [118:48] with all these people staring at you? [118:50] >> Well, I never You see, that's the weird [118:51] thing. I would never have suddenly I'm [118:54] doing I've never done it before, [118:56] >> right? And suddenly you have all these, [118:58] you know, and it's amaz I mean I love [119:00] the response but it's it is weird [119:02] because I've gone from nothing to [119:04] >> this and you go in a room there's like [119:06] hundreds of people like cheering. [119:07] >> What's the biggest crowd you've had to [119:08] speak in front of? [119:10] >> Probably well probably when I did Megan [119:12] Kelly's show when Megan Kelly was here. [119:15] Um not here in California and um I did [119:19] >> I did a spot there. [119:21] >> I did the announce [119:22] >> Bakersfield. It was in um an arena in [119:24] Bakersfield. the announcement for uh the [119:27] UFC weigh-ins. So the I I MCed the [119:30] weigh-ins uh at the Ellipse on the White [119:33] House. [119:34] >> Oh. [119:34] >> So it was 80,000 people. [119:36] >> That was [ __ ] nuts. That was the most [119:38] people I've ever [119:40] >> talked to, [119:41] >> right? [119:41] >> And that was a very different way of [119:43] talking cuz all I'm doing is reading [119:45] people's names and their official [119:47] weight. It's very easy. [119:48] >> Yeah. [119:48] >> You know, it's just hyping it up, [119:50] getting everybody pumped up. Yeah. You [119:51] know, you know, like ladies and gently [119:54] to it comes out and everybody goes [119:56] crazy. It's easy, but it's the vibe, the [119:59] feeling of 80,000 people is [ __ ] [120:01] nuts. It's a weird feeling. [120:03] >> You know, Shane Gillis, my buddy, just [120:05] did Standup. He sold 76,000 [120:08] >> Philadelphia, right? [120:09] >> Phil a [ __ ] football stadium. [120:13] >> That had to be insanity. [120:15] >> You could do that easy if you wanted to. [120:17] >> It's It's [120:17] >> You'd get the people. [120:18] >> It's a crazy thing to do. I don't know [120:20] if I could do that easy. It's not easy. [120:22] He broke the world record like and Shane [120:24] is huge and he's really funny. He's like [120:26] one of the funniest guys. [120:27] >> Yeah, that's a good example. I'd never [120:28] seen him before. [120:29] >> Maybe I get him to come down tonight. I [120:30] don't know if he's there. I mean, if [120:32] he's in town, [120:34] that was the first so many good bits. [120:36] Have you seen his bit about George [120:37] Washington's museum? [120:38] >> I don't think so. [120:39] >> Oh my god. It's one of my I would [120:41] request it from him all the time. I'm [120:43] like, please do that bit. It's so funny [120:45] about George Washington's false teeth [120:47] being made out of lead. It's It's such [120:49] cuz they were It's such a crazy bit. [120:52] It's so good. He's He's a great [120:54] comedian. Yeah. [120:55] >> And that's all he cares about. That's [120:57] what he loves. And he's like all in. And [121:00] just an awesome guy, too. When you're [121:02] around him, he's just so fun and like [121:05] everyone always smiles. You're around [121:06] him. He's have he's he's like he's [121:08] contagious, you know? He's a contagious [121:10] party. [121:11] >> Great. [121:11] >> Fun guy. But like we're really lucky [121:14] that there's a lot of those guys here [121:15] now. You know, this is like this is a a [121:17] giant hive of them now. [121:19] >> Well, you've built that. [121:20] >> Well, we all did. Yeah. You know, we all [121:22] came here. [121:22] >> No, I hear what you're saying. They [121:24] contributed, but [121:25] >> Well, we all they had to be here for me [121:26] to be able to do it. This is not a thing [121:29] that I could have ever done and said, [121:30] "Hey, everybody move here now." [121:32] >> It's not It would have never worked. [121:34] They had to already be here. Everybody [121:35] moved here before I even had a club. A [121:37] lot of them did. [121:38] >> Okay. [121:39] >> Yeah. Like Sigura moved here before I [121:41] had a club. [121:41] >> Dun pandemic thing. [121:43] >> Yes. like getting out of places with [121:45] ridiculous. [121:46] >> Yeah. Getting out of places and going to [121:48] a place where you can actually perform. [121:50] >> We're all addicts. You know, standup [121:52] comedy is a very very addictive thing. [121:54] And if there's a place where you can go [121:56] where you can do it and your friends [121:58] already live there and for me it was Ron [121:59] White. [122:00] >> Mhm. [122:00] >> And it was also there's a thing about [122:03] the freess of this city like the freess [122:07] of Texas, the freedom that you had here [122:09] to to be able to go to a restaurant. [122:11] Your businesses could stay open. They [122:13] didn't put the same kind of [122:14] restrictions. They had a small lockdown [122:16] for a short amount of time and they [122:18] went, "Okay, let's get back to work." [122:20] And they did. AND CALIFORNIA'S LIKE, [122:22] "WE'RE GOING TO DIE." AND THEY [ __ ] [122:24] >> So I still driving around their cars [122:27] with I know. It's so crazy. I remember [122:31] it's so funny thinking about cuz all [122:32] this I was reminded of all this because [122:34] of the Fouchy stuff the other day. [122:35] >> Yeah, the Fouchy stuff. That's wild [122:38] >> because I was really honestly I mean I'm [122:40] you know I did the show on Fox News. I'm [122:42] would never say I'm a journalist, right? [122:44] Ever. Um, it was an opinion show. I just [122:46] said what I thought. But I did do some I [122:50] like one piece of journalism like actual [122:52] journalism which is the Fouchy stuff. [122:55] It's infuri you know the origin of the [122:57] virus. I really did you know lay that [122:59] all out in a way that no one else did [123:01] cuz I had these people I knew at [123:02] Stanford. I taught at Stanford. So, a [123:05] lot of that information about Fouchy and [123:07] the origin and the all of that I had for [123:10] and and people helped me piece it [123:12] together. And it's just infuriating that [123:15] he's still [123:16] >> infuriating skating. [123:17] >> Well, the most infuriating to me thing [123:20] was that he knew about the miscarriages [123:22] during the first trimester. He knew [123:24] about that and uh he was still promoting [123:26] it for pregnant women. Like, how many [123:28] women listened to him and got vaccinated [123:30] and then had a miscarriage? I mean, we [123:33] don't even know what the numbers are, [123:34] right? Because those are never reported [123:35] as vaccine injuries. [123:37] >> We have no idea. [123:38] >> Just in I mean, but I was listening to [123:40] who did you have on the other week? Um, [123:41] that lady who wrote the book, you got [123:43] into it with her. She had a book you're [123:46] talking about. I can't remember. She's [123:47] like an investigative [123:49] >> Annie Jacobson. [123:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [123:51] >> She about the uh germ warfare about [123:54] biological warfare. So I was just [123:55] listening to that and then I did like [123:57] you're talking about [123:58] >> we didn't really get into it like we [123:59] didn't argue [123:59] >> a little bit on the on just on the [124:00] origins and the and the gain of function [124:02] and all of that. [124:03] >> Oh well she just probably was trying to [124:05] be politically correct and probably not [124:08] >> well anyway [124:08] >> still trying to sell books or something. [124:10] >> I don't know. All I remember thinking is [124:12] I wanted to is that it's still not I [124:15] don't think understood how directly [124:18] Fouchy was implicated. Like it's still [124:22] you hear this language of oh he you know [124:25] he funded [124:26] >> the gain of he no he in he pushed it [124:30] this was his thing. [124:31] >> Yeah [124:32] >> he really really was the main global [124:35] champion of gain of function. [124:37] >> Not only that he enforced the narrative [124:40] that this was not a lab leak and that a [124:43] lab talking about it as a lab leak was [124:45] racist. Yes, he the thing that every I [124:47] remember when I first laid that out and [124:50] it was you know it's still on the w on [124:53] my Wikipedia I pushed the conspiracy [124:55] theory that you know Fouchy did the [124:58] virus but he did the the I always try [125:00] and show people like when they say well [125:03] why would he do something like that he [125:04] was really the main advocate there's a [125:07] piece he wrote I always start with this [125:10] which is I think it's December 2011 [125:14] Because gain of function had been around [125:16] a few years. They started with the [125:18] ferrets or whatever and they had this [125:19] new technique Ralph Barrick [125:22] >> and all of that. [125:23] >> Yeah. [125:23] >> And then it became very controversial in [125:26] the scientific community. You had a [125:27] whole bunch of scientists saying this is [125:30] crazy. This is going to lead to a [125:32] pandemic. You have people saying that. [125:34] >> Yeah. and Fouchy argued back and he [125:36] wrote this piece at the end of 2011 with [125:39] the other guy Francis Collins who ran [125:41] the NIH saying that engineering I think [125:45] it's almost an exact engineering a [125:47] potentially dangerous virus in the [125:49] laboratory is a risk worth taking. He [125:53] wrote that like he's was pushing this [125:55] stuff and like the thing that everyone [125:59] you it's it was his initiative. It [126:01] wasn't he like passively funded this [126:05] thing that some other minions were [126:07] doing. This was his big thing. [126:09] >> Yeah. [126:09] >> It's just outrageous that it hasn't [126:11] been. And he broke the rules. That's the [126:13] other part that that people forget that [126:16] Obama in 2014 put a moratorum on it. [126:20] >> Yes. [126:20] >> Which included stuff that was already in [126:22] train which included the project that [126:24] led to co and then again [126:28] people often say well Trump lifted the [126:29] mortorium. He did, but he put back a new [126:31] thing which was it was called the [126:34] potential pandemic pathogens thing [126:37] protocol which said that when you renew [126:39] a project it should go to independent [126:41] review. He broke that as well. So he [126:44] broke the rules to push this and he's [126:46] like still not really had to pay any [126:49] price for it unless you say his [126:50] reputation [126:51] >> the well the reputation but he's also so [126:53] old that he's not working anymore [126:54] anyway. But the thing about it was that [126:57] pardon that gave him a pardon for crimes [126:59] that he had not been convicted for, [127:01] which had never happened before. A [127:03] preemptive pardon for and also for 10 [127:05] whole years for everything he did. He [127:07] could have been eating babies for 10 [127:09] years and like no pardon. [127:11] >> Fine. [127:12] >> And then when you have a pardon, you're [127:14] not supposed to be able to plead the [127:16] fifth. And yet he pleads the fifth with [127:18] everything, including the color of his [127:20] [ __ ] tie. [127:20] >> It's just disgusting. [127:22] >> He's a strange guy. And the fact that he [127:24] was a hero really shows how sick people [127:27] were in 2020 looking for some sort of a [127:30] solution. They didn't know his history. [127:33] They didn't know what he did during the [127:34] AIDS crisis. [127:35] >> He's a scary person. He scares me. [127:38] >> The arrogance of it. And the thing that [127:39] I'm also really get really pissed off [127:43] about still is when you hear the [127:45] conversation around this on the going [127:47] back now to the lockdowns and all of [127:49] that and the school closures that were [127:51] such a disaster businesses, churches and [127:53] people say well we didn't really know [127:55] and it was early and we were just being [127:58] we did know. It's not true. I did a [128:01] piece March 2020 like right it was in [128:04] the before the end of 15 days to slow [128:07] the spread right at the beginning [128:09] because I got to know through Stanford [128:11] Jay Bataria John Yianides all these guys [128:14] that were speaking out they did a blood [128:16] whatever call it Sarah prevalence thing [128:18] in Santa Clara County where this whole [128:20] thing started proving everything that we [128:23] now knew and including what Fouchy now [128:26] we know from the whatever the his diary [128:29] knew as Oh, [128:30] >> those Santa Clara County is this the two [128:33] doctors that they they went public with [128:36] this and then they lost their license [128:37] and they were [128:38] >> this is different. This is uh Jay and [128:41] John. They were the So Ian [128:44] >> I know about Jay and then and the the [128:47] crazy thing about him was that he was [128:49] one of the people that was kicked off of [128:50] Twitter. Correct. [128:51] >> Yes. [128:52] >> Yeah. Which is [128:53] >> what and worse than that kicked up [128:56] really persecuted by Stanford. They need [128:58] to be held accountable. That was a crazy [129:00] thing. So the first lockdown in the [129:03] country was Santa Clara County in one of [129:06] the Bay Area counties. Then the next day [129:08] the other Bay Area counties did it. And [129:10] then after that Gavin did statewide. [129:12] That's where it all started. And the [129:14] woman who pushed it was the public [129:16] health go I haven't talked about this [129:18] for ages. The public health director or [129:20] whatever of Santa Clara County Sarah [129:22] Cody and she was married to the head of [129:26] Stamford Medicine. and Jay spoke out [129:29] against what was going on with actual [129:32] data. They did a study of what was [129:34] happening in the community that proved [129:37] that the case fatality rate was far [129:41] lower than what they're saying. [129:42] >> Well, it was also in the leaked emails. [129:44] All of this [129:45] >> he was aware that it was far lower and [129:47] he was still promoting it. [129:48] >> Exactly. But the point is that this it's [129:51] again corruption because he was speaking [129:53] out against the lockdowns that were [129:56] pushed by this woman Sarah Cody. Her [129:59] husband who was head of Stanford [130:00] medicine persecuted Jay. He was treated [130:03] so badly they suspended him. They [130:06] accused him of they had some [ __ ] [130:07] investigation into him. Outrageous that [130:11] that no one's ever done anything about [130:13] that as far as I can tell with Stanford. [130:15] No, it's uh it's creepy to watch that [130:18] top down power in action when you know [130:21] that they're lying and when you're [130:23] seeing these text messages and emails. [130:25] Yeah, the Fouchy thing is very creepy [130:27] when it just shows you why he was [130:29] pushing for that pardon. [130:31] >> But then there's the question of whether [130:32] or not that pardon's even legitimate [130:33] because it's all autopen stuff. Yeah. [130:36] >> And Biden was out of his [ __ ] mind. [130:37] Like it [130:38] >> I know. But the thing I always think is [130:40] also this um [130:42] the state level. It's a federal pardon, [130:45] >> right? [130:45] >> So, states are going to But then there's [130:47] this immunity if you're doing stuff in [130:50] your public role. [130:51] >> You can't be sued for that or something. [130:53] I don't know. [130:55] >> Well, I mean, he lives in hell. I mean, [130:57] he knows, but I I think he's a bit of a [130:59] sociopath. I think there's something [131:01] about him. Like, when he was prescribing [131:03] people act for AIDS, he's a doctor. He's [131:07] well aware that ACT was pulled as a [131:09] cancer medication because it was killing [131:10] people quicker than cancer. They were [131:12] using it as chemotherapy and people were [131:14] dying faster and so they already had [131:16] this FDA approved drug [131:18] >> and so this new gay cancer they [131:20] literally were calling it the gay cancer [131:22] at first [131:23] >> they just started giving it to them like [131:25] well we have a medication for it and [131:26] Fouch's on record saying the reason why [131:28] we prescribe ACT is because it's the [131:31] only medicine that's both safe and [131:33] effective effective or what effective [131:36] killing asymptomatic people they were [131:38] also using the same playbook that they [131:40] used during COVID by using like the [131:43] these testing methods that had an [131:45] enormous amount of false positives. Like [131:47] Carrie Mullis himself was there's a [131:50] video of him. He's the guy who invented [131:51] PCR testing. He's talking about Fouchi. [131:53] Fouchi doesn't know what the [ __ ] he's [131:55] talking about. He's like he's a [131:56] bureaucrat. The guy's full of [ __ ] He [131:58] doesn't know that you should never use a [132:00] PCR to determine whether or not someone [132:02] is ill. [132:03] >> He's like it's not how it works. Cuz if [132:04] you ramp up the cycles enough, you could [132:06] find anything. And that's what they did [132:07] during CO. They felt like it's 80s [132:10] something percent false positives. [132:11] Fortunately, a lot of those people [132:13] weren't forced to take ACT, but there's [132:15] a lot of people that turned positive for [132:17] HIV that probably didn't have it at all. [132:19] They gave them ACT and they were [ __ ] [132:21] dead. [132:22] >> And this is the he's the villain in the [132:25] Dallas Buyers Club, that movie with [132:26] Matthew McConnA that's all about people [132:29] who have AIDS seeking alternative [132:31] treatments and being denied them because [132:34] he was trying to find a vaccine for it. [132:36] Even back then, they were testing the [132:38] vaccine for it on [ __ ] foster kids [132:40] and killing them in New York. It's all [132:42] in RFK Junior's book. [132:46] >> And again, if his books lies, how come [132:49] he hasn't been sued? [132:51] >> It's really amazing [132:54] how [132:56] it's they're able to get away with stuff [132:58] that's truly evil. [133:00] >> Truly evil. Yeah. I mean, [133:02] >> testing the AIDS vaccine on on foster [133:07] kids is crazy. And them dying, [133:09] >> it's crazy. [133:10] >> But this [133:12] thing is crazy. [133:13] >> I don't know what how you know what [133:16] determines, [133:18] you know, when the sort of the media [133:23] mindset towards something or whatever. [133:25] That means that this story gets [133:28] attention and and massive. Oh, it's [133:31] really simple. It's really simple. [133:34] >> Pharmaceutical drug commercials. All [133:36] that would change if they're not allowed [133:38] to advertise. We're one of two countries [133:40] in the [ __ ] world that allow [133:41] pharmaceutical drugs to advertise on [133:43] television. One of them is New Zealand, [133:45] and they're far more restrictive than [133:47] us. And because of that, you look, you [133:49] have ads that you see that are playing [133:51] on CNN that are not even for a drug [133:54] that's commonly used for some weird [133:56] condition that people have. [133:58] >> And, you know, persuade you, you've got [133:59] the condition. That's so what they're [134:02] really doing is not selling drugs. What [134:04] they're really doing is making sure that [134:05] CNN does never talk [ __ ] about the [134:07] pharmaceutical drug companies and [134:08] doesn't do any stories on the adverse [134:11] side effects and doesn't do any stories [134:12] about how many of them get pulled by the [134:15] FDA that initially get approved and they [134:17] find such horrific side effects they [134:19] have to pull them because it's a large [134:20] percentage. [134:21] >> It's [ __ ] nuts, man. And it's who was [134:24] it that brought it up that was [134:25] explaining how, [134:28] you know, he had figured out a long time [134:30] ago that the the reason why they spend [134:32] so much money on advertising is not [134:34] because they're trying to sell drugs. [134:35] They're trying to buy these networks. [134:38] >> Interesting. [134:38] >> Well, it makes sense. It's an enormous [134:40] part of their ad budget, right? And they [134:42] spend so much money on television. And [134:44] who the [ __ ] is watching CNN at this [134:46] stage of the game? You know, what are [134:48] their numbers? Their numbers are pretty [134:50] piss poor for the amount of money that [134:51] these drug companies are spending. And [134:54] then you see so many ads. [134:56] >> So many for this. And everyone's always [134:59] at a barbecue. They're always [135:02] >> I know. [135:02] >> They're always having fun. [135:03] >> They're having fun. And like it's it's [135:06] there was a brilliant parody that um [135:09] Nicole Shanahan did when she was with [135:11] Bobby running uh she did a brilliant one [135:14] for TDS. Do you suffer from TDS? Trump [135:16] derangement syndrome. She did it like a [135:18] farmer ad. [135:19] >> Oh, that's [135:19] >> brilliant. It was really, really great. [135:21] >> That's so crazy. But the thing I was [135:23] thinking of when you like the, [135:25] >> you know, when you got really dark human [135:27] consequences. So, like, you know, [135:29] obviously I'm focused on it because he's [135:31] my opponent, but this the story of Bera [135:34] and the kids, the migrant kids. It's a [135:37] story. I bring it up to people and a lot [135:39] of people have never heard about it. [135:40] Like literally no idea. story when he he [135:44] was Bob he had job Bobby's job and um [135:47] Bobby Kennedy's job HHS secretary and [135:50] you had it was during the four years you [135:53] had the open board and the way it works [135:54] is that had millions of people come [135:56] across the open border we don't know [135:58] exactly how many but the k unaccompanied [136:01] kids are the responsibility of HHS [136:05] that's how the system works so he was [136:07] responsible for them and the total [136:09] number we know because it's recorded 400 [136:12] 79,000 [136:14] kids [136:14] >> unaccompanied [136:15] >> unaccomp kids kids without parents. It's [136:17] an amazing number in the four years of [136:19] the Biden administration. All of those [136:22] kids were like Javier Bera's [136:26] responsibility. So they had they were [136:27] overwhelmed. They set up these camps. Do [136:30] you not know any of this? Have you [136:31] heard? [136:31] >> Yeah. Just keep it's okay. I know. [136:32] >> They have they have these camps they set [136:35] up to process the kids. In Florida, [136:38] Texas, there are three in California. [136:40] And the point was to try and get the [136:42] kids to a safe sponsor, relative, [136:46] someone who'd look after them. And they [136:48] had so many they were overwhelmed. And [136:51] there's really bad stuff going on in the [136:52] camps. There were reports of sexual [136:55] abuse. The older kids, you know, some of [136:57] the older kids were like, you know, [136:59] 17year-old rough, you know, some were [137:02] gang members, whatever. So, there was [137:03] all this [ __ ] going on in the camps, [137:06] sexual abuse, physical abuse. It was [137:08] bad. And it was like pictures of you [137:11] know like we went to one then Pomona one [137:13] of the exhibition halls like 150 kids on [137:16] CS was bad and so Bera [137:20] wants these kids out because it looks [137:22] bad and they'd gone on and on about kids [137:24] in cages with Trump and so he basically [137:28] and we've now got these whistleblows [137:30] coming forward and the New York Times [137:31] reported it. The New York Times broke [137:33] this story but it's just basically not [137:36] gone anywhere. They did it in 2023 [137:39] that he dismantled the vetting that was [137:42] supposed to put the kids with a safe [137:44] place. And so they lost track of [137:48] thousands of kids and many went to child [137:52] sex traffickers, slave labor, child [137:55] labor traffickers. Just horrific stories [137:58] you had. [138:00] >> And what was the rationale for? because [138:02] they were too they weren't moving them [138:05] out of the camps quickly enough. So, we [138:07] had a whistleblower [138:09] come to us cuz these people said, "How [138:11] can he be governor?" Um, who said [138:15] we were supposed to connect the kids [138:17] with the responsible adult, check their [138:19] identity, ID checks, home visits, all [138:23] this. But the the instruction was it's [138:26] going too slowly. We got to get the kids [138:28] out. She said, "Speed over safety." And [138:31] so when they raised flags about it, like [138:35] 200 kids sent to an address that turned [138:38] out to be a container lot, like not a [138:41] real address, it was just a front for [138:43] traffickers. Um, a a kid sent to a woman [138:48] who was an wanted by Interpol, like a [138:51] gang member. Like just crazy. When they [138:54] raised those stories, they were fired. [138:56] Like it's really terrible what happened. [138:59] And still there, I mean HHS just [139:02] published some cuz they're still [139:04] responsible [139:05] numbers from I think it was 2 weeks ago [139:08] that there's 330,000 that they're still [139:10] missing. They don't know where they are. [139:12] 40 kids died. Like it's really bad. And [139:16] yet it's like Fouch is like he's the [139:19] candidate for governor. No one's really [139:23] calling him out on it. It's amazing to [139:25] me. [139:28] Oh, [139:28] >> it's really bad, Joe. Honestly, you've [139:30] got [139:30] >> that is crazy. You could be responsible [139:33] for that many kids and say speed over [139:36] safety. [139:36] >> So, there there's a story again, the [139:38] whistleblower. We've put about the [139:39] videos. I mean, some people, you know, [139:41] this woman said she was a case worker at [139:44] Pomona and Bera actually visited that [139:47] camp, visited, did a photo op, whatever, [139:50] and he's going on about how we're [139:53] doing a good job of finding safe places, [139:56] whatever. Um, and then the interviewer I [139:59] was at the taping. It was she didn't [140:01] she's in a job where she doesn't want [140:03] retaliation. So I was there for the two [140:05] hours we taped the conversation and the [140:07] interviewer asks her did anything change [140:11] after Basera's visit. She said, "Yeah, [140:16] everything was had to speed up." And [140:18] they had strike teams that were set up [140:21] to tell us, "Don't check the," you know, [140:23] when she would say, "This ID is [140:25] obviously a fake ID for this person." [140:27] Like the photo is like a selfie. It's [140:29] obviously fake. Don't worry, just send [140:31] them quick. Get them out. Like really [140:33] bad, [140:34] >> surprised. [140:34] >> And and this even the the New York Times [140:37] story had a boy who she had a few [140:41] examples cuz she tracked them down. Do [140:42] you want to pull it surprise for it? Um, [140:45] a kid who ended up in a I don't know [140:47] meat packing plant, 13, 14 year old had [140:50] his arm ripped off in an accident. [140:52] >> Our our girl, one of those she came [140:55] forward as a whistleblower. She a [140:57] victim. She was on camera. She said, you [141:01] know, she's telling the story. She was [141:02] like put on a plane and they said, you [141:06] know what happens? They didn't let her [141:08] take her stuff. She was met at the other [141:12] end. She said there's a there's three [141:14] guys. They pick she has no idea who [141:16] these people are. She's from I think [141:18] Guatemala. It was El Salvador. Um gets [141:21] in a car with three guys. No idea. Taken [141:24] to a house. She has to work 20 hours a [141:26] day, sleep on the floor with four guys [141:28] in a room. Just a girl from, [141:32] you know, it's just and there's so many [141:34] of these stories. Um, [141:38] Bobby, the way Bobby puts it is that [141:40] Basera turned HHS into the largest child [141:44] trafficking operation in history. [141:47] >> Holy [ __ ] [141:48] >> Yeah, exactly. [141:51] >> And this guy is running for [141:54] California. I remember honestly Joe like [141:56] when we did these debates you know you [142:00] we did a lot and not just debates but [142:02] forums and you meet and I thought he's a [142:04] nice you know I'd see him we chat [142:07] backstage or whatever and I thought [142:10] you know he's kind of nothing he's a [142:13] bureaucrat type person nice guy [142:15] perfectly nice smiley he's a nice [142:18] amiable guy and I just thought he's like [142:20] an amiable non- entity but the more you [142:23] learn about this. It's like really bad. [142:26] Um because it's a classic thing with [142:29] these career politicians. Obviously, all [142:31] that mattered was I don't want to look [142:35] bad. I don't We've got all these kids. [142:38] They're in these camps. The media has [142:40] access to them. It's really look making [142:42] me look bad. Get these kids out. It's [142:45] just shocking. [142:47] >> Oh my god. [142:47] >> It's shocking. [142:49] >> That's so evil. [142:51] >> Yeah, it is. It's so and it's also [142:54] really racist. [142:55] >> All of them were Latino kids. [142:56] >> Yeah, exactly. [142:57] >> Cuz you think about it, if that was all [142:58] kids from Norway, little young boys and [143:01] girls from Norway. Do you think they [143:03] would treat him the same way? [143:04] >> So Pomona, where this camp was, there [143:06] were three in in California, Long Beach, [143:08] San Diego, and Pomona. So, the case [143:11] worker who who did the whistle, she was [143:14] she said, [143:16] um, there's a notorious child sex [143:20] trafficking [143:21] street area near there. [143:25] She said before this, most of the girls [143:29] were African-American, black girls. [143:32] After the camp, [143:35] suddenly it was all Latina girls. [143:38] Like it was just so obvious that that [143:41] was what was happening. [143:43] >> God, [143:44] >> child sex trafficking. [143:45] >> Well, if if there's child sex [143:47] traffickers and there's such an obvious [143:50] vulnerability like hundreds of thousands [143:53] of unaccompanied kids making across the [143:55] border, of course [143:56] >> they're going to sneak in. [143:58] >> Exactly. [143:59] >> The whole thing was insane. [144:00] >> Can I just add one other thing? boy [144:04] the I mean [144:07] they took away their some they had these [144:09] papers that they would send them off [144:11] with and it had a line had information [144:15] on it which included a hotline that they [144:17] set up [144:18] if the kids felt they were in danger to [144:21] kind of trafficking hotline. There were [144:24] 65,000 unanswered calls to the hotline. [144:28] just a [ __ ] like thing that didn't [144:31] work. [144:32] And again, the the people who pointed [144:34] that out were fired. [144:35] >> Oh my god. [144:36] >> It's really bad. It's like to me, [144:37] >> the people that pointed it out were [144:39] fired. [144:40] >> It's just this is to me [144:44] I've, you know, I've been in and around [144:46] politics, media, government, one way or [144:48] another. For a long time, I've never [144:49] seen anything like this. And and he's [144:51] like, [144:52] >> it doesn't even seem like it could be [144:54] real. [144:54] >> That's what I thought. [144:55] >> The numbers are so crazy. It seems like [144:57] some sort of a conspiracy theory that's [144:59] easily disproven. [145:00] >> Exactly. Well, in the first reporting of [145:03] it was the New York Times [145:05] >> 2023. [145:08] >> Holy [ __ ] [145:09] >> And and and it but everything that's [145:11] coming out is it's worse even than that. [145:14] What do you think was going on with the [145:17] whole open border? [145:20] I think that they [145:22] it's I I think they believed [145:26] that any kind of restriction on [145:29] immigration was racist and therefore [145:33] it was part of the ideology around that [145:37] that we can't put people are coming and [145:41] they're fleeing bad conditions and you [145:44] can't stop them because it's racist to [145:46] put restrictions on immigration. I think [145:48] that's what it was mainly. [145:49] >> Okay. So, that is a great way to justify [145:54] flying people into swing states and then [145:58] trying to turn them into citizens, which [146:00] is what they were actively talking about [146:01] doing. Pelosi talked about that. Schumer [146:04] talked about that. They talk about [146:05] getting these people citizenship, which [146:07] means those people can vote. There's [146:09] also moving them into these swing [146:11] states. And if you move them into the [146:12] swing states, the census doesn't count [146:14] whether or not you're a citizen. the [146:16] census counts whether or not you're a [146:18] human being. And so it changes the [146:20] number of congressional seats that are [146:21] available. So there's that and then [146:23] there's also putting these people on [146:26] free healthcare and giving them money [146:28] and setting them up. And then if you can [146:31] get those people to vote eventually, [146:33] you've got a built-in voter and you [146:35] could change like [146:36] >> so I never I don't know about that. [146:38] >> Whatever million people got in over the [146:40] last four years, they're not going to [146:42] vote for Trump. [146:44] How many if you can make those people [146:46] vote, if you can let those people vote, [146:48] how many of those people are going to [146:49] vote for the Republicans that wanted to [146:51] get rid of them with ICE? And how many [146:52] of them are going to vote for the [146:54] Democrats that wanted to fund them and [146:55] help them get across the border? It's [146:57] pretty simple. Even if you don't get all [146:59] of them, you're going to get most of [147:00] them. [147:01] >> Do you think that I mean I I hear that [147:02] often. [147:03] >> This is what Elon thinks. [147:04] >> It seems to me that's so dark and [147:06] cynical. Well, if they wanted to do to [147:09] the whole country what they've done to [147:10] California and have complete and total [147:13] control with one party, well, they've [147:15] already done it in a state. Why not just [147:17] implement it through the entire country? [147:19] >> In California, you can't show ID. [147:22] >> I know it's illegal. I know that crazy. [147:24] >> Why would you do that? Why would you do [147:26] that? There's only one reason. [147:28] >> You want to cheat. [147:30] >> And we've got voter ID on the ballot in [147:32] November in California, [147:34] >> which is crazy that you have to ask for [147:36] that. Exactly. And the attorney general [147:39] of this guy Bontter, I don't know if [147:40] you've been following, he's doing the [147:41] Paramount lawsuit. He's like a total [147:44] political hack. All he ever does, like [147:46] we got out of control crime and all this [147:49] [ __ ] All he does, and the same with, by [147:52] the way, Basera, my I keep coming, he's [147:54] my opponent. He was attorney general of [147:56] California, um, appointed. He didn't get [147:59] elected. All he talks about in terms of [148:03] his record and he was attorney during [148:06] the time when crime exploded is how many [148:09] times he sued Trump. But this guy [148:11] Bontter now there was this ballot initi [148:15] there is a ballot initiative on November [148:17] for voter ID. He just changed the [148:21] description. Did you see this? [148:22] >> No. [148:23] >> So it had a kind of accurate description [148:26] of what it was. you know, this measure, [148:29] you know, on the ballot and the voter [148:31] information, this measure will require [148:33] people to show I blah blah blah. [148:36] Um, and that was approved by the whole [148:39] system [148:42] and just in time before they start [148:44] printing them, he because it's the [148:46] attorney general who decides changed it [148:49] to say like the most negative possible [148:52] thing. this I mean I haven't got the [148:54] exact words you can find it but it was [148:55] like this measure prohibits voting [148:59] unless you have and it goes on to make [149:01] it sound really it's like it's so [149:04] cynical this is just what they do. [149:07] >> Yeah. Well, they were trying to get [149:08] people to look at it in terms of look at [149:10] it through their ideological lens rather [149:13] than through a practical lens. But but [149:15] it's also like it's so crazy that you [149:17] have to have ID for almost everything [149:19] else. It's crazy. And they say, "Oh, [149:21] it's so discriminatory." Like, what are [149:22] you talking? That's racist. [149:24] >> Yeah. What about driving a car? You have [149:26] to have a license to drive a car. What [149:28] about, you know, [149:28] >> check into a hotel? I mean, every night [149:30] I'm at a different Hampton Inn. That's [149:33] where we stay. ID. [149:36] >> Yeah. You have to show ID to buy booze. [149:38] It's like ID's everywhere. It's normal. [149:42] It's like we need to know that you're [149:44] real. It's a very when you watch them [149:48] defend their opposition to it, you it [149:51] really I mean I'm generally not [149:54] at all, you know, I I I really do try [149:57] and see the best, you know, that's just [149:59] their ideology or whatever, then it's [150:00] not really cynical, but when you see the [150:03] way they wrigle and squirm over voter [150:05] ID, it's like, what other explanation is [150:07] there? [150:08] >> Exactly. [150:08] >> It really It's such a ridiculous thing [150:11] to be opposed to. [150:12] >> It's pretty clear. It's pretty clear [150:14] that there's an advantage and the [150:16] advantage is definitely on the side of [150:18] the Democrats, the voter ID advantage. [150:21] It's uh it's just it's just crazy. It's [150:24] just it's just we have lost our [ __ ] [150:26] collective minds. Uh and you know, it it [150:31] doesn't help when you know this [150:32] administration is in this war with Iran [150:34] that makes no [ __ ] sense whatsoever [150:36] and everybody's like, "Oh." So you look [150:38] at that like it just builds up the other [150:41] side's argument. Well, that's what they [150:43] say. So, you have to vote them out no [150:44] matter what. [150:44] >> Perfect example. [150:46] >> Um, massive thing in California for [150:49] everyone is just is gas prices. [150:52] >> Highest in the country by far. Um, [150:57] higher than Hawaii in the middle of the [150:59] Pacific Ocean, even though we have [151:01] abundant oil reserves in California. [151:03] It's like so insane. They're literally [151:05] shipping in they're shutting down [151:06] California oil production. Shipping it [151:09] in from halfway around the world. like [151:11] 80% now ship from Iraq and the Amazon [151:14] rainforest. [151:16] Like Gavin goes to the Amazon rainforest [151:19] to the climate conference to lecture [151:21] everyone about climate because of his [151:23] climate policies in oil drilling in the [151:27] Amazon is now being increased to provide [151:29] California's oil. Anyway, so it's so [151:31] crazy. So they've do all these things [151:34] like right now [151:36] and you know and it's all as a direct [151:39] result of of what they've done right in [151:41] that the gas prices are so high and it's [151:43] regular working people who are screwed [151:45] like people to drive their cars and [151:47] trucks every day for it's not the [151:49] climate warriors you know on their [151:50] laptops in Marin County. Do you know [151:53] what I mean? [151:54] >> Anyway, the war [151:57] is now their go-to response. So, you [152:01] make a point about gas prices. Oh, it's [152:03] Trump's war. And of course, it's true [152:06] that the war has um increased gas prices [152:09] everywhere, but it's still $2 higher in [152:11] California than anywhere else. [152:13] >> Yeah. [152:13] >> But it lets them off the hook. [152:16] >> Well, it's just indicative of the same [152:19] problem that you're going to have [152:20] whenever a single party is running a [152:23] state for that long unchecked. Just like [152:25] you were talking about Hungary or it's [152:28] just like it could be anywhere. You can [152:29] fill in the blank anywhere in the world [152:31] where you get [152:32] >> you get power and you get complete [152:34] control and then you can just tax the [152:35] [ __ ] out of people and then you keep [152:36] increasing government which they keep [152:38] doing. [152:39] >> It's pretty wild. [152:40] >> Would changing this law make it cheaper [152:42] or that be even harder to do? [152:44] >> California gas because it use unique [152:46] strictly regulated clean burning [152:48] boutique blend mandated by the [152:50] California Air Resources Board to reduce [152:52] smog and greenhouse gas emissions. [152:54] specialized fuel must be refined locally [152:57] on an energy island because no pipelines [153:00] connect the state to outside fuel [153:01] networks. It's just more of the same. [153:03] >> Trust that. So that this is important. [153:05] So see that California Air Resources [153:08] Board, Cobb, that's the main agency that [153:11] that's driving the cost of everything [153:13] high when it comes to energy, gas and [153:15] electric. And and actually now your [153:17] earlier question, what can you do? [153:19] There's there's basically four reasons [153:22] the gas prices are high the highest in [153:24] the country. One is the gas tax which is [153:28] the highest in the country that I can't [153:30] do anything about as governor. That's [153:32] the legislature. They just increased it. [153:35] So you got all these Democrats running [153:36] around say affordability. We have to do [153:38] something about the affordability [153:40] crisis. They just increased the gas tax [153:43] in California. So just it's so [153:45] ridiculous. But that's that's the first [153:47] thing I can't do anything about [153:48] directly. All the other things you can [153:50] it's partly that is the regulations on [153:52] the refinery. But it's also these hidden [153:54] taxes like you've got um the lowcarbon [153:58] fuels they all sound good. The lowcarbon [154:00] fuel standard cap and invest they call [154:02] it the cap and invest program that's [154:04] funding highspeed rail. Um these are [154:07] basically taxes on gas that the the [154:10] energy industry is paying. Then you've [154:11] got the fact that we're importing oil [154:13] this oil rather than producing it. So [154:16] instead of producing it in California in [154:19] an in the cleanest regulated standards [154:21] anywhere in the world, right, which is [154:23] what we have because we've got all these [154:25] regulations and and sending it in a nice [154:28] pipeline justund or so miles from near [154:32] Bakersfield, Kern County to the [154:34] refineries in Long Beach and Torrance. [154:36] We are what I said earlier shipping in. [154:39] There's like that said, there's no [154:40] pipeline from outside California [154:42] bringing on tankers from number one in [154:45] the Middle East is Iraq [154:47] >> burning immense amounts of fuel all [154:49] along the way [154:50] >> because they run on bunker fuel which is [154:53] the most dirty form of oil. So they are [154:56] I'm not this is an accurate statement. [154:59] They are increasing carbon emissions in [155:02] the name of climate to make it look as [155:04] if they're climate warriors fighting [155:07] fossil fuels. [155:09] It's just [ __ ] crazy. [155:12] >> Yeah, but it's the ideology. It's not [155:14] even It's so funny. I used to sort of [155:16] talk about their climate policy. It's [155:18] not even the climate policies. It's [155:20] climate posturing. It's like they want [155:22] to look as if they're [155:23] >> Yes. [155:24] >> doing. [155:24] >> Well, it's it's a part of the ideology [155:26] like you said. It's it's a part of the [155:28] doctrine, the religious doctrine that is [155:29] the left. [155:30] >> You have to say that climate change is [155:32] real. [155:33] >> Science is science. You have to say a [155:35] bunch of things. Love is love. You have [155:36] to say a bunch of things [155:37] >> in this house. It's the thing I always [155:39] say that's literally virtue signaling. [155:41] It's [155:41] >> not just virtue signaling. It's kind of [155:44] religious doctrine. It's a reliology [155:46] signaling. That's the accurate. It's not [155:48] such a catchy phrase, but that's what it [155:50] is. [155:50] >> And it's it's kind of religious. And [155:52] like Mark Andre's talked about this. [155:54] It's kind of like a cult. Like the you [155:56] if you don't follow it, you are [155:57] excommunicated. [155:58] >> Yeah. [155:59] >> And I did a conference the other day in [156:01] Sacramento where I went up and there's [156:03] something about it. It was the smuggness [156:06] was so I normally try and be reasonable [156:09] and just you know make my arguments and [156:13] sort of there was something about this. [156:15] It was a kind of climate thing and [156:17] things I agree with. It was green [156:19] energy. I'm all for that. Whatever. [156:22] Great. Let's have innovation. I'm not [156:24] against any of that. I am against the [156:26] windmills. The insane [156:28] >> Oh, they're insane [156:28] >> windmills. like [156:29] >> totally inefficient. Yeah. And then they [156:31] have to go into landfills and they only [156:33] last a certain amount of years. Then you [156:35] have to take them down and then bury [156:36] them in the earth where they never [156:37] degrade [156:38] >> and they catch fire and it's a life. [156:40] >> They kill birds. [156:41] >> Wait, but have you heard the latest [156:44] though? This is the it's actually one of [156:47] my bits um to go back to the thing [156:50] because it's so crazy is the is the new [156:53] plan [156:55] for windmills is offshore windmills in [156:58] California in two parts. Mororrow Bay [157:01] off the central coast Humbult up in the [157:02] north including having them far out [157:06] because the wind is more but except also [157:09] the ocean is deep there. So they're [157:11] going to have floating windmills. Have [157:14] you heard this one? No, [157:15] >> floating. And these windmills are [157:18] they're like big. They're like a [157:20] thousand feet. That's the height of the [157:21] Eiffel Tower pretty much. Floating. And [157:25] the one of the proposals like 10,000. So [157:28] 10,000 Eiffel Towers floating off the [157:32] It's insane. [157:34] Trump's just stopped it and now they're [157:37] suing to reopen it. Oh, [157:41] >> by the way, [157:42] >> clean energy. [157:43] >> But when we have in California today [157:46] existing [157:48] natural gas fired power stations which [157:51] could provide all our more than all our [157:54] electricity needs today, more than all. [157:57] It's like something like 300 g a year. [157:59] We only use about 270 something like [158:01] that. But they're only they're running [158:03] these natural gas power stations at like [158:06] 10 like 20% of their capacity to use as [158:10] backup for the windmills and for the [158:12] solar farms. If you ran them at full [158:14] capacity, what we've already got, you [158:16] don't have to build anything. You could [158:18] more than meet all our needs. But no, [158:20] that's too sensible. So we have the [158:21] floating windmills and and of course we [158:24] have the highest electric bills in the [158:26] country apart from Hawaii, double the [158:28] national average. and who and the reason [158:30] I got cross at this this conference was [158:33] that they were going you you want to [158:36] reduce the renewable goals or something. [158:38] No, I just want common sense. I'm all [158:40] for it. If it makes sense, if you can [158:42] make it pay, great. But the people who [158:44] you're hurting with all of this is [158:47] regular working people, not kind of [158:48] elite people at a conference in [158:50] Sacramento, just workingclass people who [158:53] are just being crushed. And I see it [158:56] every day. and the struggle, you know, [158:58] literally they they the number one thing [159:00] people say to me, it's really striking [159:03] when in all these, you know, I've I've [159:05] really met a lot of people, as I said, [159:07] hundreds of events, thousands and [159:09] thousands of people. They say it's not [159:12] like, oh, good luck. Hope you It's like [159:14] you have to win. There's like this [159:16] intensity. It's really interesting. [159:18] >> Well, because they know it's slipping [159:19] away. They don't want to move [159:20] >> and they're so it's it's gotten [159:23] significantly worse over the last 10 [159:25] years and they don't want to move. Yeah. [159:27] And it's so difficult and the [ __ ] [159:30] sorry, but people just oh [159:33] and it's not even it's so casual and [159:36] cruel the way it's like yeah for our [159:38] ideology we'll jack up your electric [159:40] bills and your gas prices and you just [159:43] have to suck it up because we want to [159:45] make ourselves feel like we're leading [159:47] on climate. That's the other thing I was [159:49] I was having. They were yelling at me [159:50] from this conference [159:53] and I said, [159:55] "You tell me what is the impact of any [159:59] of this on climate change?" I said, [160:01] "I'll give you everything you're saying [160:02] about climate change." Okay, let's I [160:04] agree climate change. We got to fight [160:07] climate change. What is this doing to [160:10] fight climate change? What is the impact [160:12] on global temperatures of any of this? [160:16] and like nothing because the answer is [160:19] zero. It has zero impact on global [160:22] temperatures which is the only thing [160:23] that matters. And then someone shouts [160:25] out, this is where they always go, oh, [160:27] we're leading. We have to have a [160:29] leadership role. We're leading. I said, [160:33] who's following? No one. Cuz it's crazy. [160:37] It's hurting people. All these countries [160:39] are backing off it. [160:40] >> That's the one thing that China has an [160:42] advantage in is that their government [160:44] and their business work like that. Yeah. [160:46] >> And the business works for the [160:48] government and the government controls [160:49] the businesses. It's not a good thing. [160:52] But the one advantage that they have in [160:53] there, they don't do anything stupid [160:55] that's just going to lose money for [160:56] virtue signaling. [160:57] >> Exactly. [160:58] >> They open coal coal fire plants like [161:00] crazy. [161:01] >> Exactly. Which are, you know, part of [161:03] the energy that's going into making the [161:05] solar panels that are shipped across the [161:07] ocean to make these people feel good. [161:11] >> It's true. [161:12] >> It is true. It's wild. I mean, it's just [161:15] wow. I can't believe [161:16] >> it's wild. But I mean, this is the [161:17] problem with a government handling [161:19] something versus the private sector. If [161:21] the private sector handled it, it would [161:22] have to be profitable. It would have to [161:24] make sense. [161:24] >> And they keep saying solar is really [161:26] cheap, you know. I said, great. So why [161:28] do we have the highest electric bills in [161:30] the country apart from Hawaii [161:31] >> if it's also great? I'm not again I'm [161:33] not against it. If you want to have a [161:35] solar panel, a battery, that's great. [161:36] You know, I'm not against any of this. [161:38] But don't force it in a way that just [161:42] raises the cost for regular working [161:44] people. [161:44] >> Well, California just loves to regulate. [161:46] They love it. It's part of the big [161:48] government. [161:50] >> Have you seen to just [161:51] >> the tires? [161:52] >> The tires. Oh, you've seen it. [161:53] >> Yeah, I saw it. I was going to bring [161:54] that up. Yeah. [161:58] >> So, what is the [162:00] >> the tires? [162:01] >> Let's pull it up, Jamie. The new [162:02] California regulations on tires [162:04] restricting the kind of tires you can [162:06] buy. [162:07] Um it's just they keep coming. [162:09] >> They can't help themselves. They need to [162:12] justify all these jobs. There's so much [162:14] government. [162:15] >> But I just want to give you this is a [162:16] good example which is all of these [162:18] things. [162:18] >> California regulators approved new rules [162:20] limiting what replacement tires you can [162:22] buy for your car. So what is the [162:24] rationale behind this? Approved uh new [162:27] rules that will restrict which tires you [162:29] can buy when it's time to replace them. [162:30] Unanimous vote. Cal California Energy [162:33] Commission voted to adopt new rules that [162:35] will phase out the sale of replacement [162:37] tires that don't meet certain energy [162:39] efficiency standards ultimately about [162:42] protecting consumers. I see this as uh a [162:45] sheltering the public from higher costs [162:47] in the long term long run, excuse me. [162:49] Tire manufacturers and the commission [162:51] staff are at odds over whether this will [162:52] add to the cost of living in the state. [162:54] It will. Both sides acknowledge this [162:56] will no longer allow the sale of [162:58] significant portion of the tires [163:00] currently sold in California. [ __ ] [163:03] >> that's 70%. The report. [163:05] >> So, uh, the center of this is a tires [163:08] rolling resistance or how much energy a [163:10] tire uses as it rolls down the road. [163:12] Lower resistance means a vehicle uses [163:14] less gas or electricity. New cars come [163:17] with energy efficient tires, but [163:18] consumers typically replace those with [163:20] higher rolling resistance tires. I [163:22] wonder if that has anything to do with [163:24] performance cars. [163:27] So, [163:28] you know, I would imagine rolling [163:31] resistance. [163:33] So, rolling resistance, what would that [163:34] mean? Does that mean friction? [163:37] >> Yes, basically friction. [163:38] >> Okay. So, friction is traction. So, you [163:39] want more traction. So, you're basically [163:42] making people buy performance tires. [163:43] >> No, the other way around. You Yeah, the [163:45] other way around. [163:46] >> So, traction is less resistance. It's [163:49] more resistance. Maximum resistance is [163:51] traction. [163:52] >> So if if they want they will allow the [163:54] sale of tires with a maximum rolling [163:57] resistance of 9.1 newtons per kiloton. [164:00] Uh it lowers it to 7.2 [164:04] starting in 2033. So yeah, it's making [164:07] it less traction. [164:10] That's what it's saying, right? Rolling [164:12] resistance. I'm not sure what it says. [164:14] What it's what they want is these [164:16] >> energy efficient ensure replacement of [164:18] tires sold in California are at least as [164:21] energy efficient on average as the tires [164:23] that come with the truck. So my [164:25] perception is that a tire with more [164:28] traction would be more more efficient. [164:31] >> No for driving. Yeah. But not for [164:33] climate. [164:34] >> Yeah. But when you go into the store to [164:35] buy them, you just most people are going [164:37] to buy the cheapest thing available. [164:38] They're not going to [164:39] >> Right. And the cheap the cheapest thing [164:40] available would have less traction. [164:42] Correct. can't just be the cheapest [164:43] thing available, [164:43] >> right? The thing about the the cars like [164:47] performance tires, they don't last as [164:49] long because there's a softer rubber and [164:51] the softer rubber grips better. And so [164:53] like if you buy like [164:54] >> that's what they want to get rid of. [164:56] >> That's what they want to get rid of. [164:57] >> Yeah. But that the [164:58] >> but those are the ones that have more [164:59] traction. That's what I'm confused [165:01] about. That would seem to be more energy [165:03] efficient in terms of the use of the [165:05] car. [165:06] >> Well, that that's what they're arguing [165:08] it's for. But they are you're going to [165:11] end up with these these little tires [165:12] that don't I mean all the people that [165:13] want to go off-road or whatever that's [165:15] what you can't [165:16] >> you can't buy off-road tires. [165:18] >> 70% of the of the tires are going to be [165:21] banned that are currently sold. That's [165:23] 70%. That was one of the reporters at um [165:26] KC Ashley Zavala very she's really on [165:30] all these stories very aggressive. She's [165:32] really exposing a lot of this nonsense [165:34] and that was that I think her number [165:35] 70%. [165:36] >> Wouldn't they just make new off-road [165:37] tires then? [165:38] >> Yeah. Yeah, but it wouldn't be as good [165:40] >> if [165:41] >> How often are you driving off road in, [165:43] you know, LA? [165:43] >> Well, I'm not, but some people are. [165:46] There's a bunch of people love driving [165:47] off road and they love having this off [165:50] road by talking. [165:51] >> Hold on. Why he's talking is over you. [165:53] You You've got homeless everywhere, the [165:56] highest taxes in the country. Businesses [165:58] are leaving every single day. It's a [166:00] real economic emergency. We have the [166:03] highest unemployment rate in the [166:04] country. We have the highest poverty [166:05] rate in the country, the highest cost of [166:08] living, and this is what the [166:09] government's focused on. I mean, people, [166:11] we got to wake up, right? This is insane [166:13] that they're focused on this. They're [166:15] churning out absolute nonsense. The [166:19] regulations, the the bureaucracy that's [166:22] this is totally unaccountable. This is [166:24] some bureaucrat that's discovered a [166:26] rule. Nancy Skinner who from Berke used [166:28] to represent Berkeley um found this [166:32] thing in some obscure you know place [166:35] that no one had noticed for 20 years [166:37] suddenly this bureaucratic agency [166:39] decides to bring in this rule not no [166:42] input from the voters but here's my [166:45] question what is this impact going to [166:47] have on like the car market like if you [166:53] sell a car that has a particular type of [166:55] performance tire that no longer fits. [166:57] >> I don't know. I don't know. [166:59] >> Could Could we ask perplexity? Is this [167:02] referring to tires with more traction or [167:04] less traction? [167:05] >> Energy.cal.gov [167:07] second sentence says, "Unfortunately, [167:08] replacement tires are often often less [167:11] efficient. That's why your mileage drops [167:13] the first time you replace your tires. [167:15] an efficiency gap between new tire new [167:17] car tires and replacement tires means [167:19] California drivers are paying nearly a [167:21] billion dollars in additional fuel costs [167:23] which is [167:24] >> so are these inefficient tires less [167:26] expensive is that what it is [167:28] >> yeah I [167:29] >> makes sense right so the more expensive [167:31] tires are more efficient which means [167:32] they would have better traction is that [167:34] what it is [167:36] >> uh [167:37] >> that makes sense right because if it's [167:39] if if the tire has less traction that [167:41] means it slips more if it slips more [167:43] it's not as efficient and you wouldn't [167:45] get as good a gas mileage. [167:47] >> But they're they're not they're doing [167:48] this for climate. That's what they [167:50] they're saying we need to lower [167:52] emissions. That's what it's all about [167:54] because of the use of the gas. [167:55] >> The 70% thing is crazy because if you [167:58] have an like it's let's say if you buy [168:00] like a Chevy truck that's an off-road [168:03] truck, right? That those are not [168:05] efficient tires. So what are you going [168:06] to be able to get for them now? [168:08] >> I don't know. No, I mean if it's it's [168:09] it's it's just come out. So, everyone's [168:11] looking into this and and you just think [168:13] >> and there's no recourse. [168:14] >> No, they've just Well, there will be [168:16] when I'm there because I'm going to get [168:17] rid of these people because this is [168:19] going back to the question earlier. [168:21] >> Oh, okay. Benefits of the proposed [168:23] regulation. Consumer savings proposed [168:25] regulation would save nearly 1 billion [168:27] per year in gasoline and electricity [168:29] costs. Right. Uh air quality by reducing [168:32] fuel consumed. The proposed regulation [168:34] would reduce CO2 emissions by 2.0 0 [168:37] million metric tons per year, which the [168:40] equivalent of taking 400,000 gasoline [168:42] cars off California roads. Would also [168:44] reduce other criteria air pollutants [168:46] such as nitric oxide uh and particulate [168:50] matter. Reduced energy demand. The [168:53] proposed regulation would reduce [168:54] California demand for gasoline by 141 [168:57] million gallons. Also reduce demand for [168:59] electricity by 0.9 terowatts per hour [169:03] each uh oh, excuse me, each year. [169:07] Okay. The following tires are excluded [169:10] from the proposed regulation minimum [169:11] performance standards. Competition tires [169:14] used for motorsports. Winter type snow [169:16] tires. Allseason winter performance [169:19] tires. Used and retreaded tires. Deep [169:21] tread tires. Uh tires designed for ATVs [169:24] or other off-road vehicles. Large [169:27] off-road tires uh for use up to 99 mph. [169:31] motorcycle tires, temporary spare tires, [169:34] uh small tires with 13-inch nominal rim [169:37] diameter, proposed uh limited production [169:40] tires, tires sold for use on an [169:42] emergency vehicle, high load index [169:44] tires, tires not capable of sustaining [169:47] speeds over 50 mph, and space saver [169:50] tires. So, it seems like there's a lot [169:52] of caveats. [169:53] >> No, this is [169:56] >> but because but look at that like that [169:57] list again. Nobody believes that this is [170:00] about saving money. [170:01] >> No, it seems like they're just [170:03] >> this is entirely their ideology for [170:05] climate. This is some [ __ ] [170:08] calculation. [170:08] >> Is there a world where that makes sense [170:10] though? Where they're right and it will [170:12] reduce all that gasoline and it actually [170:14] will be better for everybody and you'll [170:16] force people to make better tires. And [170:20] you know, they just they're they're [170:21] churning out like lowquality tires and [170:24] this this could be mitigated a long time [170:27] ago. [170:28] >> Well, I don't know. I think that the [170:30] reaction to it is exactly the opposite, [170:32] which is here they come again. [170:33] >> Here they come again is real. Yeah. [170:35] >> Yet another thing, as I said, it's just [170:37] been announced, so we we got to dig into [170:39] it. But I mean, it's just to me such a [170:42] kind of crazy example of them endlessly [170:44] micromanaging every everything. [170:48] got these big big problems. [170:50] >> California's new tire rule could wipe [170:52] out 70% of what's on the shelf and [170:54] Sacramento sat on the law for 23 years. [171:03] >> So Sacramento didn't invent a new law on [171:05] Monday. It finally read one it wrote in [171:07] 2003. [171:09] Okay. [171:10] >> I mean, it's just infuriating to [171:12] >> They love to tell you what to do. That's [171:14] part of what California is. They did um [171:16] so we did a thing last year [171:21] they in the legis remember this is the [171:23] point about there's no checks no one's [171:24] stopping anything [171:25] >> right [171:26] >> in the last legislative session last [171:29] year not even the whole year just a few [171:30] months they passed 1,118 [171:34] bills count counted them we printed them [171:37] out it was double my height obviously no [171:41] one's re you know no one can read them [171:43] some signs most of them like the vast [171:45] majority ority. He hasn't read them. It [171:47] has stuff like this in it. And no one's [171:51] paying attention. And the and the and [171:54] the corrupt system, the interest groups [171:57] that want what they want from the [171:59] system, they get these bills written and [172:02] then they get passed and then here you [172:03] are 23 years later, something that's in [172:06] some obscure law. That's how it all [172:08] works. And the answer to the question [172:12] like what could you do about it is [172:14] basically captured in these two things [172:16] like number one all these agencies that [172:18] are pushing out these rules. It's the [172:21] executive branch. So as the governor you [172:23] let you control the executive branch. [172:25] You can fire the people on these boards [172:27] and you can replace them with people [172:29] with some common sense and you can [172:31] actually merge them. You can reorganize [172:33] them. You could cut them back. There's a [172:35] whole bunch of things you could do on [172:36] the bureaucracy because so much of this [172:39] is coming out of the bureaucracy. [172:40] Secondly, you you can veto the [172:43] legislation and the point is always made [172:45] if they have a two-thirds majority, they [172:47] can overturn a veto. That's correct. But [172:50] the last time they overturned a veto [172:52] from the governor was 1979. [172:55] So they don't like doing it because [172:57] suddenly they have to justify all this [172:59] [ __ ] that they that goes through without [173:01] any scrutiny. If you veto it, they have [173:04] they can if they want to overturn it, [173:06] suddenly they have to make the argument. [173:08] And so much of what you get in [173:10] California just goes through without [173:11] anyone noticing. That's the real [173:14] corruption in the system. [173:18] And so the other thing I'd say is that [173:20] that you also write the budget. The [173:23] governor writes the budget and send it [173:25] to the legislature and then you have to [173:27] negotiate. But again, you know, if you [173:30] take out all this waste and you know, we [173:33] just announced last week Operation Zero [173:35] Waste, cancel funding for highspeed [173:37] rail, um, cancel free healthcare for [173:40] illegal immigrants, all these things [173:42] that we've said we do. [173:42] >> How much has been spent on that [173:43] highspeed rail [173:45] >> so far? Total 15 billion. [173:47] >> Oh, that's a bargain. [173:48] >> So, the total [173:49] >> They've gotten a lot done though, right? [173:50] >> Okay. So, that was [173:53] So, it was [173:56] in 2008. It was supposed to be 30 [173:58] billion the total budget and it was [174:00] supposed to be open in 2020 and it was [174:02] two and a half hours from San Francisco [174:05] to LA. So the latest is it's going to be [174:08] open maybe if you're lucky by the end of [174:11] 2030s. It's going to be the new budget [174:14] from 30 billion is now 230 billion. [174:18] Right. The plan, as they laughably call [174:22] it, is the first bit is San Francisco to [174:26] Mercer at the top of the Central Valley [174:28] on the regular train line that's already [174:30] there and then Merced to Bakersfield is [174:33] the highspeed rail and then Bakersfield [174:36] to LA, a bus, [174:40] have you heard that? [174:42] >> That's real. [174:42] >> It's real. [174:44] that drive from Bakersfield to LA which [174:47] I've done a lot. It's through the great [174:48] >> it's already congested as [ __ ] [174:50] >> right? You can take that can take two [174:52] and a half hours if you're unlucky. So [174:54] this is what it's and it's so [174:58] >> 230 billion for that billion. And then [175:01] Basera, my opponent, he went to Fresno [175:04] the other week. He announced that he [175:05] would that he would finish it on time [175:08] and on budget. [175:11] on on time was six years ago [175:15] >> on budget. They've spent [175:16] >> 120 million bucks. Okay. The total the [175:19] budget was 30. They've spent 15 and [175:21] they've not laid any tracks at all. [175:24] Gavin, it's classic Gavin. It's almost [175:26] my favorite. He he did an event because [175:29] obviously he's running for president. He [175:30] doesn't This is embarrassing. He wants [175:31] to sort of shape the narrative. So he [175:34] did this press conference somewhere [175:35] there with trains in the background to [175:38] make it look like this is a real thing [175:41] and they haven't laid any track and [175:43] there's no plans to laid any track but [175:45] he was standing by tracks to sort of I [175:47] think make people think there's tracks [175:49] and he but even he the the phrase that [175:52] he used was [175:54] >> to announce that we are now entering the [175:57] track laying phase phase that could be [176:00] another 10 years it's so ridic [176:03] Ridiculous. [176:04] >> And then you're going to have to get a [176:05] bus. [176:05] >> And the bus, it's real. That is the [176:07] plan. And then [176:08] >> So why is that? Because the just [176:10] logistics, they can't get train through [176:13] the mountains. [176:14] >> That's it. [176:15] >> So you have to have a bus. [176:16] >> Yeah. I mean, or they they I don't [176:18] actually know what the long-term plan. I [176:20] can't believe that's the whole idea. I [176:24] think that's just what's going to be [176:25] available. [176:25] >> It says it's just like the most [176:27] tunneling has to happen on that part. So [176:28] maybe they're just waiting. [176:29] >> I think it's a long It's not the [176:31] eventual thing. So they'll dig some more [176:32] tunnels. [176:33] >> It says it would require the most [176:34] tunneling of the mountain crossings with [176:37] four separate tunnels totaling 28 mi in [176:39] length. [176:40] >> How much of the nature [176:41] >> go across the San Andreas fault, which [176:43] is the biggest problem. [176:43] >> Oh, even better. They're going to cause [176:45] an earthquake. How much of nature is [176:47] going to get destroyed in the production [176:48] of that? [176:49] >> But who even wants this? I mean [176:50] >> tunneling through mountains. [176:51] >> The the other thing is so I some I spoke [176:54] to someone who's works with Elon. Well, [176:56] you couldn't check with Elon. So he said [176:58] that you could do the the you know the [176:59] boring couple could do a tunnel the [177:01] whole thing for five billion. Now I [177:03] don't know if that's true but um it's [177:06] this is such a you know it's such a [177:09] monument to the whole thing right? [177:12] >> Yeah. [177:12] >> Take the money waste it spend it on [177:15] nothing [177:17] endlessly delay. [177:18] >> How come Gavin's not running again? [177:21] >> He can't. [177:22] >> He can't. Oh he did. [177:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. Two terms. [177:24] >> Two terms. Yeah. Yeah. Wow. [177:26] >> It's so crazy. And you've got this [177:29] pretend. This is what's really There was [177:31] just a video that someone found of him [177:33] talking in 2015 when he was lieutenant [177:35] governor about what a joke the whole [177:36] thing was. [177:37] >> Yeah. [177:37] >> On speaking very honestly about it. [177:39] >> Yeah. [177:40] >> And and it's kind of funny and [177:42] ridiculous. Oh, look at that. He says [177:44] that then, now he says. But it's [177:46] actually infuriating because they're [177:48] still taking the money to pay for it. [177:50] They're still pretending and they're [177:53] taking money out of people. The funding, [177:55] like I said, comes from this thing [177:57] called cap and invest, which is the gas [178:00] tax. [178:02] It's just insane. [178:04] >> Steve, I hope you win. We got to wrap [178:06] this up and bring it home, but I hope [178:07] you win. It'll be funny. It would be [178:10] hilarious if you win. [178:11] >> Great. What job do you want, Ch? Let's [178:12] >> I don't want a job. [178:13] >> We'll have you do I don't even like [178:15] going back to California. [178:16] >> Well, okay. The only reason I'm doing it [178:18] is that you moved back. [178:21] I'm never going to move back. [178:22] >> I know. It's too good here. I know. [178:24] >> I love it here. I love it here. [178:25] >> I can see that. [178:26] >> I really hope you win. [178:27] >> Thank you, man. [178:28] >> Yeah, I think you have a chance. I [178:30] really do. I mean, you make you make a [178:33] lot of sense. And that's a lot in this [178:35] in this day and age. It's a lot. You're [178:37] also actually a good guy. Like, I know [178:39] you. You're an actual good guy. You're [178:41] not like some weird lizard person. You [178:44] You know what I mean? Like, there's some [178:45] fake [178:46] >> Yes, I do. I've met a lot in Sacramento. [178:48] You are who you are. You you you are [178:50] really you. I could attest to that. I [178:52] know you. Like I've known you before you [178:53] had any political aspirations. You're [178:54] the exact same person. [178:56] >> There's a lot of these people that are [178:57] just skin suits. [178:58] >> There's skin suits over lizards. There's [179:00] lizards in there. [179:03] >> Whether metaphorically or physically, [179:04] they're [ __ ] lizard people. And [179:06] that's that's a real thing. [179:09] >> So I hope you win. [179:10] >> You can come to my inauguration. [179:11] >> I will. [179:12] >> Just that. Commit to that. [179:14] >> Yeah, I'll come. If you win, I'll come. [179:15] All right. Good. [179:16] >> All right. All right. Thank you. Bye [179:18] everybody.