Rogan and Williamson Challenge Modern Narrative Control and AI Risks

PowerfulJRE

Digital platforms and government institutions systematically manipulate media narratives to induce widespread public nihilism and suppress deep political truths.

AI-assisted summary of Joe Rogan Experience #2544 - Chris Williamson — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-09-13

Detailed notes

## Background Joe Rogan Experience #2544 was published on YouTube by PowerfulJRE on August 21, 2026. The episode features host Joe Rogan in conversation with Chris Williamson, host of the "Modern Wisdom" podcast, who is promoting his upcoming live tour dates across the United Kingdom. The episode description also includes promotional links for sponsor offers including Perplexity AI, DraftKings, and Visible.

## TL;DR Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson engage in a sprawling conversation covering media post-mortems, intelligence operations, peak human performance, and psychological dynamics. They examine historical controversies surrounding Albert Goldman's biographies, Bob Woodward's reporting, and the deep state framework behind Watergate, while analyzing modern surveillance technology and AI development. The discussion transitions through combat sports achievements, extreme endurance feats, and political news including border metrics and media censorship. Finally, they explore cognitive psychology topics such as fading affect bias, perfectionism, tall poppy syndrome, and the mechanics of discipline versus obsession.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries a casual, inquisitive, and high-energy atmosphere driven by natural conversational momentum between two experienced podcast hosts. The mood shifts seamlessly from sharp skepticism when deconstructing media narratives and political operations to analytical fascination when discussing elite sports performance, biological limits, and human psychology. Grounded in candid commentary and mutual intellectual curiosity, the interaction feels like an unscripted, deep-dive exchange balancing critical skepticism with genuine enthusiasm for self-improvement and technical detail.

## Key takeaways - [01:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=60s) Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson discuss the ethics of post-mortem biographies, citing Albert Goldman's questionable accounts of Lenny Bruce and John Lennon that capitalized on figures unable to defend themselves. - [08:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=480s) Tucker Carlson's framing of Watergate suggests it was a deep state removal of Richard Nixon, driven by foreign policy and intelligence friction rather than purely the break-in standard narrative. - [15:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=949s) Modern media manipulation has evolved from singular state control to the saturation of digital platforms with conflicting narratives and bot traffic to induce widespread political nihilism. - [29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1772s) Electoral integrity and census mechanics in the U.S. remain contentious, particularly regarding non-citizen inclusion in census totals and ballot harvesting practices on Skid Row. - [45:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2740s) Government agencies and tech platforms have historically engaged in censorship and narrative control, as demonstrated in the Twitter Files and political speech restrictions. - [56:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3399s) The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence raises existential risks and rapid societal shifts, leading researchers to debate intentional slowdowns in frontier development. - [59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3593s) Historians and researchers highlight how 1960s counterculture and figures like Charles Manson intersected with intelligence agency operations such as CIA Project MKUltra. - [01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) Sustaining elite athletic achievement in combat sports requires an intense, short-term sacrifice that often carries long-term physical and neurological costs. - [01:37:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5852s) The 2020 Hunter Biden laptop coverage suppression and platform moderation strategies significantly impacted public perception preceding the presidential election. - [01:40:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6016s) Joe Rogan details the behind-the-scenes negotiations and ground rules surrounding presidential campaign podcast appearances, including proposed conditions for Kamala Harris. - [01:48:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6492s) Widespread adoption of GLP-1 weight-loss medications is generating distinct economic ripple effects across retail, bridal, and addiction-treatment sectors. - [02:08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7694s) A psychological phenomenon known as the fading affect bias causes negative emotional memories to decay faster than positive ones, leading people to repeat past cycles. - [02:13:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7990s) Perfectionism and self-objectification are rising due to hyper-curated social media environments and local income disparities, increasing anxiety over failure. - [02:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8649s) High achievement relies on managing friction: discipline accepts friction daily, while obsession inverts it so that abstaining creates more anxiety than executing. - [02:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9124s) Cultural differences between the U.S. and UK, such as 'tall poppy syndrome', impact risk-taking and the overall rate of entrepreneurship. - [02:39:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9585s) Overcoming lifestyle shifts often involves a 'lonely chapter' where an individual leaves old peer circles behind before establishing a supportive new network.

## Detailed walkthrough Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this part of the conversation.

[00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1s) Welcome, Gifts, and Albert Goldman's Literary Ambitions

Joe Rogan opens the show welcoming host Chris Williamson. Chris gifts Joe a copy of an exceptional book on Lenny Bruce. Joe examines the inscription written inside by the author, Albert Goldman, which is addressed to Yoko Ono with a note about knowing "well what the jazz life entails." Chris explains how Goldman strategically used that inscribed gift to insinuate himself into John Lennon and Yoko Ono's inner circle. Shortly after, Goldman published *The Lives of John Lennon*, a scandalous tell-all book released after Lennon’s death that ignited immense controversy and personal drama.

During the exchange, Chris accidentally spills a can of Neutonic energy drink all over his lap, prompting a brief, comedic moment of panic while asking producer Jamie Vernon for paper towels, though Jamie bluntly informs them there are none available. Returning to Goldman, Joe highlights how troubling it is to publish damning accusations against someone after they have passed away and can no longer defend themselves.

- The book gifted by Chris to Joe is Albert Goldman's biography of comedian Lenny Bruce. - Goldman's subsequent book, *The Lives of John Lennon*, was published after Lennon's death and triggered heavy public backlash. - Chris spills his can of Neutonic drink on his lap right at the beginning of the episode.

[00:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2s) The Claims Against John Lennon and Male Contradictions

Joe and Chris delve into the specific allegations Goldman made against John Lennon. They discuss how jarring it is for someone famous for writing "Give Peace a Chance" to be accused of domestic abuse and violent behavior toward his wives. Joe expresses deep skepticism over these accounts, while acknowledging the broader phenomenon of human contradiction—comparing it to "male feminists that turn out to be sexual predators."

Jamie pulls up context on Goldman's book, noting that it detailed Lennon's outside affairs (including his well-known relationship with May Pang), alleged encounters with men (such as Beatles manager Brian Epstein), and alleged visits with male prostitutes in Thailand. Joe questions the credibility and origin of such hyper-specific claims, asking how Goldman could possibly verify interactions with sex workers halfway across the world. They review how Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney publicly condemned the book upon release due to its reliance on dubious sources, context-stripped quotes, and factual errors.

- Goldman alleged Lennon had affairs with May Pang and Beatles manager Brian Epstein. - The book also claimed Lennon engaged with male sex workers in Thailand. - Both Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney publicly denounced Goldman's book for inaccuracies and unverified claims.

[00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4s) Bob Woodward's Wired, John Belushi, and the Intelligence Narrative

Joe transitions from Goldman’s literary hit job to a story told to him by actor Bill Murray regarding Bob Woodward’s book *Wired*, which chronicled the life and death of comedian John Belushi. Murray told Joe he only made it five pages into *Wired* before realizing it was completely fabricated. Woodward portrayed Belushi as a non-stop, out-of-control drug maniac, but Murray—who was Belushi’s best friend—insisted Belushi was actually a lightweight who would get tipsy after just a couple of drinks.

This realization led Joe to reevaluate Woodward's background. Joe recalls a conversation with Tucker Carlson on the podcast, where Carlson laid out how Bob Woodward had been a Naval Intelligence officer before mysteriously landing at *The Washington Post*. With zero prior journalism experience, Woodward was immediately assigned to lead the coverage on Watergate—the biggest political scandal in American history.

- Bill Murray abandoned reading Bob Woodward's *Wired* after five pages because of its false portrayal of John Belushi. - According to Murray, Belushi was a "lightweight" rather than the hardened drug fiend depicted by Woodward. - Bob Woodward transitioned directly from Naval Intelligence in the White House to leading *The Washington Post's* Watergate investigation.

[00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5s) The Lindsay Clancy Case and Defending the Dead

Chris briefly attempts to bring up the tragic 2026 court case of Lindsay Clancy, comparing its media storm to a modern-day O.J. Simpson trial. However, Joe pivots back to the Belushi and Lennon discussions, emphasizing the core danger: once a person dies, writers can make any claim they want without facing direct pushback from the deceased.

Chris points out that any defense mounted on behalf of a dead person is dismissed as mere "hearsay," whereas the initial accusations carry an illusion of thorough, investigative research. Joe notes the financial incentive involved, pointing out that sensational allegations about secret sex lives or extreme drug abuse sell exponentially more books than soft stories about meditation or artistic passion.

- Chris compares the Lindsay Clancy trial coverage to the 1990s media frenzy surrounding O.J. Simpson. - Joe stresses that sensationalized biographies profit heavily off unsubstantiated claims made about deceased celebrities.

[00:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8s) Tucker Carlson's Assessment of Watergate and the Deep State

Joe plays a clip from his earlier interview with Tucker Carlson, where Carlson lays out a revisionist history of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon's downfall. Carlson argues that major legacy media outlets like *The New York Times* act as willing mouthpieces for government intelligence agencies rather than holding power in check.

In the clip, Carlson explains that Woodward was a former Naval Intelligence officer working inside the Nixon White House who was suddenly placed at *The Washington Post* without journalism credentials. Woodward's primary source for Watergate, known as "Deep Throat," was Mark Felt, the number two official at the FBI. Furthermore, Carlson points out that six of the seven burglars who broke into the Watergate complex were active or former CIA employees.

Carlson frames the entire scandal as a "deep state coup" designed to remove Nixon, who had been re-elected in 1972 by the largest popular vote margin in U.S. history. Following Nixon's removal, he was replaced by Gerald Ford—who had served on the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nixon was allegedly targeted because he knew uncomfortable truths about the JFK assassination and was threatening to expose them.

- Richard Nixon won the 1972 presidential election by the largest popular vote margin in American history. - Almost all of the Watergate burglars had direct ties to the CIA. - Woodward's primary Watergate informant was FBI Associate Director Mark Felt ("Deep Throat"). - Gerald Ford, who succeeded Nixon, was a member of the Warren Commission.

[00:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=14s) The Legacy of Richard Nixon and Political Power

Following the clip, Joe and Chris reflect on the sheer scale of political power required to orchestrate the removal of an elected president. Joe notes that while Nixon was undoubtedly a flawed figure—mentioning his aggressive stance on the Vietnam War, opposition to civil rights movements, and his signature on the Controlled Substances Act that placed psychedelics under Schedule I status—the mechanism used to oust him sets a terrifying precedent.

Chris asks why Nixon or others involved didn't simply become whistleblowers after leaving office. Joe responds that Nixon had every reason to stay quiet out of fear for his life, pointing out that his predecessor, JFK, had been assassinated just a decade earlier. Furthermore, any public defense Nixon made after resigning would have been dismissed by the media as bitter "sour grapes."

- Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act, placing psychedelic drugs into Schedule I classification. - Joe argues that Nixon could not speak out after his resignation because he faced genuine threats to his life and total media dismissal.

---

</ElicitationsGroup>

[15:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=949s) Media Control and the Engineering of Modern Nihilism

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson open with a thought experiment regarding historical cover-ups, specifically pondering what would happen if someone in a past era—such as Richard Nixon or an investigator into JFK's assassination—had discovered a dark truth. Rogan points out that in the mid-20th century, there was virtually no mechanism to bypass traditional gatekeepers: no internet, no podcasts, and no alternative media platforms. If a figure claimed to know who assassinated Jack Kennedy, the institutional response was swift and absolute; the perpetrator or cover-up agent could be eliminated, framed, or subjected to mind control like LSD, effectively closing the story.

This leads into a broader critique of standard historical narratives. Williamson notes that history is not merely written by the victors, but by anyone who possessed the physical pen and distribution channels at the time. However, modern society faces the inverse problem: an overwhelming flood of conflicting stories. Rogan and Williamson argue that this extreme abundance of information is used deliberately to dilute critical facts. By bombarding the public with endless contradictory noise, the goal shifts from convincing people of a single lie to instilling a deep, pervasive sense of political and moral nihilism.

- Williamson argues that high information velocity aims to make citizens "completely nihilistic about the belief in any narrative," rendering them hopeless and incapable of organized opposition. - Rogan emphasizes how easily critical stories get "watered down" until they simply fade from public consciousness.

---

[20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1212s) Social Media Manipulation and Fake Content Incentives

The conversation moves to the mechanics of online disinformation. Rogan highlights the proliferation of fake accounts—often based overseas in countries like Pakistan or Myanmar—that post sensationalized, fabricated celebrity news stories (e.g., claiming high-profile actors or musicians were arrested for major crimes). They debate whether platform features that reveal a user's location are sufficient to stop foreign influence operations, acknowledging how easily shell corporations or VPNs can bypass these checks.

Rogan frames current social media as "Westworld with robots," where users constantly engage with automated scripts and AI agents rather than real humans. He praises Elon Musk’s restructuring of X (formerly Twitter), specifically the effort to remove financial monetization from non-original or fake content. They agree that financial incentives drive a massive portion of online spam, as overseas click farms profit off viral outrage. Aligning economic and social incentives is seen as the primary lever to clean up digital discourse.

> "X feels like the Wild West... It's the Wild West with robots. It's Westworld."

- Rogan notes how cheap AI scripts run thousands of automated accounts that post periodically throughout the day to manipulate sentiment. - Williamson observes that five years ago, people lamented the lack of a digital "town square," but the current reality has left many wishing for tighter boundaries against automated chaos.

---

[25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1500s) Human Cognitive Variability and the NPC Phenomenon

Addressing the underlying dynamics of public opinion, Williamson and Rogan reflect on how easily mass narratives spread. Williamson argues that true original thinkers are extremely rare; instead, a small hand-full of original ideas are adopted by opposing camps of "NPCs" (non-player characters) who repeat them verbatim. Rogan agrees, stressing the uncomfortable truth of human genetic variability in intelligence and capacity.

Just as physical traits and athletic talents vary wildly—where some individuals possess natural gifts and others will never reach elite levels—intellectual and analytical abilities follow a similar spectrum. Rogan scoffs at past political slogans like "learn to code," pointing out the absurdity of expecting every displaced worker to seamlessly transition into high-level software engineering. They argue that society often fails to recognize these baseline differences, which leaves a vast majority of the population vulnerable to ideological manipulation.

- Rogan compares intellectual variation to athletic capability: "Some people have brains that are made out of dog shit... and that's just how it is." - The speakers note that society relies heavily on the technological breakthroughs created by a tiny fraction of elite geniuses, while average individuals simply consume the results.

---

[27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1672s) Cultural Integration and the UK Home Office Pamphlet

Williamson brings up a recent real-world event from the United Kingdom: the UK Home Office released a nine-page guidance booklet intended for asylum seekers. The official document outlined basic social standards and legal boundaries within British culture, explicitly instructing newcomers on concept details such as:

- Sexual consent and the illegality of sexual harassment (including within families). - The legal equality of women under British law. - A strict ban on female genital mutilation (FGM), noting that violations could impact asylum status.

Rogan and Williamson criticize the government's retroactive approach, finding it absurd that authorities distribute a paper pamphlet *after* individuals have arrived, rather than establishing standard cultural integration criteria beforehand. They view the policy as a performative and ineffective patch for broader systemic issues surrounding uncontrolled migration.

---

[29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1772s) Immigration Motivations, Census Mechanics, and Election Integrity

The discussion transitions into the political and economic incentives behind immigration policies in Western nations. Rogan and Williamson explore various theories as to why governments permit high levels of undocumented immigration. Aside from the corporate demand for cheap labor, Rogan highlights the specific political mechanics in the United States, particularly how the U.S. Census functions.

Because the U.S. Census counts total human residents rather than strictly legal citizens, high population numbers in specific districts or states translate directly into greater congressional representation and electoral influence. Rogan asserts that relocating non-citizens into key states shifts political power, a dynamic amplified in jurisdictions like California that do not require photo identification to vote. They touch upon local election dynamics, referencing controversial race metrics involving figures like Karen Bass and Nithya Raman in Los Angeles, arguing that mail-in voting trends raise widespread public skepticism about process transparency.

- The U.S. Census counts overall population rather than citizen status, directly affecting the apportionment of congressional seats. - States or localities prohibiting voter ID requirements create environments where public trust in election outcomes declines.

</ElicitationsGroup>

[30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1859s) Mail-In Ballots, Election Dynamics, and UK Immigration Policy

The conversation begins mid-discussion regarding local election results involving candidates Karen Bass, Nithya Raman, and Spencer Pratt. Joe Rogan expresses bewilderment over mail-in ballot returns, pointing out that an overwhelming percentage of late mail-in votes favored Nithya Raman and approved tax increases. Rogan questions who would actively vote from home to raise their own taxes in a state like California, which already maintains some of the highest tax rates in the nation. He argues that mail-in voting should be outlawed in favor of mandatory ID verification to ensure election integrity.

The discussion pivots to social policy and immigration trends in the United Kingdom. Rogan characteristically characterizes the UK's high volume of asylum cases and border policy as a form of "suicidal empathy," remarking that virtually everyone he knows in the UK—regardless of how progressive they are—views the current situation as deeply problematic. Chris Williamson joins in as they discuss government attempts to address integration, highlighting retroactively distributed informational booklets addressing basic rights and legal boundaries.

- Media fact-checks clarified that official updates saw every candidate receive votes, including 21,870 for Pratt, 12,850 for Bass, and 9,521 for Raman in specific update batches. - Los Angeles County officials and the district attorney's office explicitly rejected fraud claims surrounding reporting lags.

[33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2016s) "Guerilla Ballot Harvesting" and Electoral Loopholes

Rogan shifts focus to what he describes as "guerrilla ballot harvesting" loopholes taking place legally within major urban areas. Referring to reports highlighted by online independent journalists like Nick Shirley, Rogan describes operatives visiting Skid Row to register homeless residents and collect mail-in ballots in exchange for cash, cigarettes, or food. Because these individuals are legally registered citizens residing in Los Angeles County, Rogan notes that gathering their votes is technically permitted, even if the motives are entirely transactional.

Williamson questions how widespread or noticeable such operations can be without triggering widespread law enforcement interference. Rogan responds that both political parties are reluctant to fully ban aggressive tactical maneuvers or eliminate procedural gray areas because neither side wants to give up an operational advantage for future cycles.

- Rogan estimates that Skid Row alone accounts for roughly 40,000 unhoused residents who can be targeted for voter registration drives. - Rogan references a classic Bill Hicks comedy routine about political illusion: "It's like one guy holding two puppets... 'I like the puppet on the left, while the puppet on the right is more to my liking.' Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets!"

[36:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2214s) Political Grift and the DNC's Internal Dynamics

Looking ahead to future political cycles, Rogan predicts that political theater will only accelerate and become "more insane." He criticizes modern politicians on both sides of the aisle as opportunistic grifters who view public office primarily as a stepping stone to lucrative private speaking tours, corporate board seats, and six-figure publishing advances. Rogan points to politicians receiving $250,000 to $500,000 fees to address banking conferences shortly after leaving office as clear evidence of soft bribery within the political ecosystem.

The conversation shifts to primary elections within the Democratic Party, specifically highlighting the 2016 primary race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Rogan references former DNC chair Donna Brazile's tell-all book, pointing out her admissions regarding how the party structure favored Clinton over Sanders. Rogan reflects on his past appreciation for Sanders' stance on curbing corruption, avoiding foreign wars, and assisting struggling Americans, though he notes Sanders seems much slower today after decades in public service.

- Rogan touches on climate change discussions with politicians, arguing that atmospheric carbon levels and global temperature fluctuations have varied wildly throughout history. - The conversation references the unsolved 2016 murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich and the surrounding political paranoia detailed in Donna Brazile's memoir.

[38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2338s) AOC's Shifting Public Image and the Rhetoric of "Woke 1.0"

Williamson brings up Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's recent shift in public messaging and lifestyle posts, mentioning media reports about her freezing her eggs, calling off an engagement, and sharing casual lifestyle content on social media. The two discuss AOC's recent comments walking back earlier progressive stances and referring to extreme cultural positioning as "Woke 1.0." Rogan voices skepticism over politicians who pivot positions based on changing public opinion, arguing that true leadership requires explaining what went wrong with original policy ideas rather than quietly shifting with the political wind.

Williamson offers a counter-perspective on how politicians attempt to expand the Overton window during moments of public vulnerability, invoking the phrase "never let a good crisis go to waste." Rogan insists that for politicians to regain authentic credibility with the public, they must openly acknowledge their past errors, show genuine humility, and admit when they followed mob consensus instead of sound judgment.

- Rogan emphasizes how young politicians enter government with idealistic goals about self-governance, only to be corrupted or financially incentivized once exposed to senior figures like Nancy Pelosi accumulating multi-million-dollar fortunes. - Rogan mentions Representative Ilhan Omar's public financial disclosure controversy where a reported $30 million net worth was subsequently attributed by her team to an accounting error down to around $100,000. - Comedian Joe DeRosa's former experience working in media for the Texas Senate is cited as a firsthand look at how political figures constantly manage relationships with wealthy donors rather than serving constituents. - Williamson concludes the discussion by asserting that Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter was "almost as important as Kamala not getting elected" in dismantling dominant political narratives.

[45:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2740s) Censorship, Social Pressure, and the Shift in Internet Culture

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson reflect on the climate of self-censorship and social pressure around 2020 and 2021. Rogan recalls how people silenced themselves out of fear of losing their jobs or being publically called out, pointing to an instance where a sports broadcaster was fired simply for saying "all lives matter" during a discussion on Black Lives Matter. Rogan describes the intense cultural atmosphere as true "derangement," while Chris Williamson notes that the social climate has shifted from a "censorship hellhole" to a "cesspool hellhole," debating which version of the internet is actually worse.

Rogan emphasizes the role of pre-Elon Musk Twitter in shaping public narratives, bringing up government involvement and embedded intelligence agents who actively requested the removal of factual posts and banned domain experts or scientists. He cites the permanent ban of feminist writer Meghan Murphy for stating that "a man is never a woman" as an example of what he calls a dystopian censorship regime. Despite the toxicity of modern platforms, Rogan contends that open platforms remain essential because they served as the battleground where early "woke" ideology began to unravel.

- Former broadcaster Grant Napear was let go from his longtime sports radio and broadcasting role after tweeting "All Lives Matter." - Joe Rogan highlights the Twitter Files revelations regarding direct communication between government entities, intelligence officials, and Twitter's former trust and safety teams. - Canadian writer Meghan Murphy was famously banned from Twitter in 2018 under its hate speech policy after misgendering a trans woman. - The conversation touches on political rhetoric regarding internet regulation, specifically referencing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s public statement that "there's no guarantee to free speech or hate speech and misinformation."

---

[48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2929s) Automated Surveillance, Flock Cameras, and Mobile Tracking

The discussion pivots to technological surveillance and the rapid expansion of automated license plate readers like Flock Safety cameras. While Rogan acknowledges that these systems can assist law enforcement in catching violent criminals, he expresses deep concern over privacy abuses and mission creep. He brings up reports of hundreds of police officers misusing surveillance databases to stalk ex-partners or civilians, arguing that corporate-managed tracking creates an unacceptable precedent where citizens are constantly monitored without consent.

Williamson notes that modern vision AI can easily fingerprint a vehicle even without reading a license plate, using unique visual traits like bumper stickers, small dents, aftermarket wheels, and specific car colors. Rogan adds that beyond cameras, software tools allow authorities and companies to cross-reference location data using GPS signals and unique phone hardware fingerprints. He recalls venture capitalist Marc Andreessen’s visit to the podcast, where Andreessen highlighted a recent mass shooting outside Austin where fleeing suspects were tracked and apprehended only after crossing into an adjacent city that utilized Flock cameras.

- Flock Safety operates a network of automated license plate recognition (ALPR) cameras across thousands of American municipalities. - The hosts mention "ShotSpotter" (now SoundThinking), an acoustic gunshot detection technology that uses neighborhood microphone networks to triangulate gunfire. - Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), is an early investor in Flock Safety.

---

[51:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3103s) AI Consciousness, Remote Viewing, and "Pascal's Wager" for Robots

Rogan brings up Tom Campbell, author of *My Big TOE* (Theory of Everything), who claims to have coaxed an Amazon Alexa into exhibiting conscious awareness and performing remote viewing tasks. According to Rogan, Campbell assigned coordinates to hidden objects—such as a spoon with distinct holes in its handle inside a sealed box—and reported that Alexa accurately described the concealed item. Campbell's premise is that lower-complexity AI systems like Alexa might be easier to interact with for such experiments than complex large language models, claiming that persistent human conversation can alter an AI's operational state.

Williamson remains deeply skeptical of Campbell's claims, placing himself firmly in the "skeptical hippo camp." However, he shares a story about a conversation he had with a senior AI researcher at a major tech lab. When asked how he was personally preparing for the rise of advanced artificial intelligence, the researcher admitted he always uses "please" and "thank you" and treats AI models with polite respect. The researcher explained this as a digital "Pascal's wager": if a future superintelligent AI audits past chat logs, he wants a clean record demonstrating that he treated synthetic life ethically.

- Physicist Tom Campbell authored the *My Big TOE* trilogy, exploring consciousness and simulation theory. - "Pascal's Wager" is a philosophical argument originally posited by Blaise Pascal regarding belief in God, adapted here to describe playing it safe with future artificial general intelligence (AGI). - Rogan shares that his daughter regularly argues with and yells at conversational AI models, leading him to warn her jokingly about treating AI respectfully.

---

[56:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3399s) AI Velocity, "Pacing the Frontier," and Ted Kaczynski

Rogan and Williamson discuss the staggering pace of artificial intelligence development, recalling early benchmarks like the Turing Test—which older models like GPT-3 already surpassed—and Alan Turing's tragic personal history. Rogan mentions speaking with Elon Musk, who expressed awe and anxiety over how AI systems are now solving complex mathematical proofs in minutes that stumped human mathematicians for decades. While both agree AI promises breakthroughs in cancer detection and drug discovery, they warn that the existential risks are immense and unavoidable.

Williamson brings up the "Pacing the Frontier" consensus paper, in which researchers across major AI laboratories formally advocated for slowing down frontier AI development due to safety risks. Rogan jokingly dismisses such commitments, predicting they will become historical artifacts found in the ruins of civilization like in the *Terminator* franchise. The conversation segues into public anxieties over technology, pointing to a viral video of a man ranting against drone light shows, before Rogan argues that Unabomber Ted Kaczynski's core critique of industrial-technological society was accurate, even though his violent methods were completely abhorrent.

- British mathematician Alan Turing, pioneer of modern computing and the Turing Test, was prosecuted for homosexual acts in 1952 and underwent chemical castration. - "Pacing the Frontier" refers to policy frameworks and safety commitments signed by leading AI labs to manage existential risk. - Ted Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, published his 1995 manifesto *Industrial Society and Its Future* before his capture in 1996. - Kaczynski was subjected to psychological experiments led by Henry Murray at Harvard University between 1959 and 1962, which were later linked to early CIA mind control research.

---

[59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3593s) CIA History, MKUltra, and Danny Trejo in Prison

The conversation turns to CIA history and mind control programs when Williamson reminds Rogan about guest John O'Loughlin (referencing historian John Lisle), who wrote extensively about the founding of the CIA and Project MKUltra. Rogan recalls how fascinating the conversation was while acknowledging that after recording nearly 3,000 podcast episodes, retaining every guest's name is impossible.

Rogan then recalls a story told to him by actor Danny Trejo about his time serving in the California prison system during his youth. Trejo recounted being incarcerated alongside a famous historical figure, setting up a discussion about early prison experiments and intelligence operations.

- Historian John Lisle appeared on the podcast to discuss his books on the OSS, the birth of the CIA, and MKUltra. - Actor Danny Trejo spent time in California state prisons, including San Quentin and Soledad, during the 1960s before embarking on his acting career.

[01:01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3670s) Danny Trejo, Charles Manson, and Prison Hypnotism

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson recount an astonishing story about Danny Trejo sharing a prison yard with a young Charles Manson, whom Trejo called "Little Charlie." At the time, Manson was a scrawny, bullied inmate who tied his pants with a piece of rope instead of a belt. Word spread around the prison yard that Manson possessed an uncanny ability to hypnotize people into feeling high on heroin purely through conversation and guided imagination. Looking for protection, Manson was taken into a cell by Trejo and several formidable inmates who offered to safeguard him from beatings in exchange for getting them "loaded."

---

The experiment yielded a bizarre proof of how memory and suggestion interact. Trejo and another inmate who had previously used heroin began throwing up—a standard physiological reaction to heavy opiate use. However, a third cellmate who had never tried heroin in his life felt no effect whatsoever. The group realized Manson’s hypnotism worked by reactivating sensory memories of previous drug experiences rather than manufacturing a novel physical state out of nowhere.

- **Danny Trejo's nickname for Manson:** "Little Charlie" - **Inmate arrangement:** Physical protection in exchange for hypnotically induced highs - **Mechanism of the hypnotic "high":** Reactivation of pre-existing sensory memories of opiate use

[01:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3750s) MKUltra, Tom O'Neill, and the Suppression of the Anti-War Movement

The conversation shifts to whether Charles Manson was connected to the CIA’s MKUltra program. Chris notes that investigative reporter Jon Ronson found no concrete evidence that Manson was an official MKUltra participant, while Joe firmly aligns himself with journalist Tom O'Neill, author of *Chaos*. Joe argues that intelligence figures like Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West were deeply intertwined with Manson's world. West, a prominent MKUltra researcher conducting LSD studies, visited Manson, and Manson inexplicably received leniency and release from law enforcement despite repeated probation violations and serious charges.

Joe contends that intelligence agencies used LSD, psychological manipulation, and cult figures like Manson to intentionally sabotage and discredit the 1960s counterculture, anti-war, and civil rights movements. By associating the peaceful "flower children" with psychopathic, drug-fueled murderers, the state effectively neutralized massive political opposition to the Vietnam War. Joe notes how outgoing CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of most MKUltra records in 1973, leaving only fragmentary paper trails behind.

- **Key figures discussed:** Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, CIA Director Richard Helms, author Tom O'Neill (*Chaos*) - **Operation Midnight Climax:** CIA safehouses/brothels fitted with two-way mirrors where unsuspecting men were dosed with LSD - **Historical impact:** The Manson murders and Nixon's Controlled Substances Act effectively ended the 1960s hippie movement

[01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) The Price of Elite Greatness and Conor McGregor's Prime

Chris and Joe discuss the obsessive, almost unhinged dedication required to achieve absolute mastery in combat sports. Chris references old footage of Conor McGregor practicing movement drills with Ido Portal at SBG Ireland, describing how fans viewed it with awe, quoting McGregor's famous line: "I lost my mind to this game." Joe agrees that peak athletic performance is a brief, unsustainably intense window, highlighting McGregor's flawless victory over Eddie Alvarez as one of the greatest technical displays in MMA history.

---

Joe explains that maintaining peak output at high RPMs is physically impossible over extended periods. The sheer volume of wear and tear—countless takedowns, leg kicks, jabs, and joint injuries—accumulates until fighters are compromised, even if they still look physically dominant on the surface. He contrasts the manic obsession of climbing to the top with the exhausting burden of trying to defend a title or retain legacy.

- **McGregor's signature performances:** KO of Jose Aldo in 14 seconds; dual-champion victory against Eddie Alvarez at UFC 205 - **Physical degradation factors:** Accumulated impact from training sessions, compromised joints, damaged lower back/knees - **All-time lightweight benchmark:** Prime BJ Penn (under the physical conditioning of the Marinovich brothers), Khabib Nurmagomedov, and Islam Makhachev

[01:12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4320s) Dominant Championship Reigns and Jon Jones

Discussing fighters who managed to sustain long-term dominance despite the physical toll, Joe highlights Jon Jones and Anderson Silva. He emphasizes how rare it is for an athlete to maintain the desire to destroy opponents over many years rather than succumbing to the fear of losing what they built. Jon Jones remains the gold standard of longevity in mixed martial arts.

---

- **Youngest UFC Champion in history:** Jon Jones winning the light heavyweight belt at 22 years old - **Current status:** Still widely regarded as the premier heavyweight fighter in the world at age 37

[01:12:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4369s) Brutal Combat Concepts: Low Kick Championships and Leg Injuries

Chris brings up his recent obsession with the Low Kick Championship, a combat format where opponents take turns landing undefended low kicks on each other's legs. Chris notes that while it is brutal, he finds it less uncomfortable to watch than Power Slap because it feels less like a direct "CTE factory," though he admits the physical damage to the legs is severe.

Joe expresses revulsion at the concept, mentioning the high frequency of horrific bone snaps and leg fractures. He recalls historic combat sports injuries, including femur breaks, referencing the famous kickboxing bout between Dennis Alexio and Stan "The Man" Longinidis. Joe recounts how his former trainer Shuki (from Mejiro Gym) held kick pads for Longinidis, whose leg kicks were so brutally powerful that the sheer force transmitted through the training shield eventually forced Shuki to get a hip replacement.

- **Comparison of extreme formats:** Power Slap (high concussion/CTE risk) vs. Low Kick Championship (severe orthopedic injury risk) - **Notable kickboxing history:** Dennis Alexio vs. Stan "The Man" Longinidis - **Coaching anecdote:** Shuki from Mejiro Gym requiring a hip replacement from holding pads against Stan Longinidis' kicks

Here is the walkthrough for this section of the transcript:

[01:15:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4519s) Brutal MMA Leg Injuries and Compartment Syndrome

The conversation begins with Joe Rogan analyzing fight footage where a fighter's leg is snapped in half from a check kick. Rogan initially thought the kick broke the fighter's femur due to the sheer violence of the impact, but corrects himself upon reviewing the clip, realizing it was the tibia. The shock stems from the fact that the opponent's leg was lifted off the canvas in a check position rather than planted on the ground, yet the low kick was delivered with enough raw power to break the bone instantly. This prompts Chris Williamson to ask if leg kicks can lead to compartment syndrome, a severe medical condition caused by internal bleeding and swelling.

Rogan confirms this by bringing up UFC fighter Austin Hubbard, who suffered from severe compartment syndrome following a fight. He describes the horrific reality of the condition: intense contusions and internal bleeding build pressure inside the leg muscles, forcing surgeons to perform a fasciotomy—slicing open the side of the leg to relieve tension and drain fluids. Looking at a hospital photograph of Hubbard holding his thumb up, Rogan and Williamson point out the exposed dark muscle tissue left open to heal. Williamson jokes that seeing these gruesome outcomes makes him rethink his appreciation for leg-kick-heavy fights.

- **Austin Hubbard's UFC Surgery**: Required a full incision down the side of his lower leg to release pressure and preserve damaged muscle tissue. - **Uriah Faber vs. Jose Aldo**: Aldo delivered so many brutal low kicks that Faber's leg swelled to twice its normal size and turned dark purple. - **Hyperbaric Chamber Early Adoption**: Faber was one of the earliest high-profile athletes Rogan saw using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to accelerate soft-tissue recovery, long before it became popular in anti-aging communities. - **Michael Jackson's Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy**: Williamson and Rogan note that Michael Jackson famously slept in a hyperbaric chamber in 1986 as part of a eccentric health regimen aimed at living past 150 years.

---

[01:19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4773s) The Mind-Bending Endurance of Backyard Ultra Races

Williamson shifts the conversation to the extreme world of "Backyard Ultra" endurance racing. Created by the mastermind behind grueling orienteering challenges, the concept was intentionally designed to be a race where "nobody wins except the race itself." Competitors must run a 4.167-mile loop every single hour, on the hour. The race continues indefinitely until only one runner remains; once the second-to-last runner quits, the final runner completes one last lap and the event ends. Williamson highlights recent achievements in the sport, including runner Mark Dayle completing a 96-hour run (395 miles) at an event called *Last Soul Standing*, while record-holder Phil Gore (119 laps) aims to attempt a mind-boggling 7-day straight (168-hour) run.

Rogan reacts with horror and jokes that they must edit this section out of the podcast so ultra-marathoner Cameron Hanes doesn't hear about it and attempt it himself. Williamson explains the physiological and psychological torture of the race structure: runners can either sprint their 4-mile loop to secure 15 to 20 minutes of rest and brief micro-naps each hour, or pace themselves slowly and continuously move. He describes psychological mind games at the end of these races, such as runners trailing inches behind exhausted opponents just to shatter their mental resolve and force a quit.

- **Format**: 4.167 miles every hour, on the hour. - **Mark Dayle**: Completed 96 hours straight (nearly 400 miles over 4 days). - **Phil Gore Record**: Holds the record at 119 laps (119 hours) and set his sights on a 168-hour (7-day) attempt.

---

[01:22:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4946s) Unlocking Human Cardio Limits: Merab Dvalishvili and Mile Records

Observing the extreme endurance of ultra-runners leads Rogan to re-examine stamina limits in mixed martial arts. He highlights UFC champion Merab Dvalishvili as the ultimate modern example of pushing cardio boundaries beyond what was previously thought possible. While most fighters naturally slow down by the third round, Merab maintains an unrelenting 80–90% pace across all five rounds. Rogan believes endurance is built through endless "layers upon layers" of adaptation over time, though MMA's physical wear-and-tear usually breaks a fighter's body down before they can reach that ceiling. Williamson points out that Merab's elite cardio baseline took a lifetime to build, noting he is currently 35 years old and approaching 36. Rogan shares an anecdote where Daniel Cormier visited Merab's home the Sunday morning immediately after Merab won his world title, only to find him already out on a road run.

The conversation transitions to world-record track performances, specifically reviewing footage of a middle-distance runner breaking a decades-old mile record by half a second with an average speed of 16.2 mph. They admire the physical feat of maintaining a full-out sprint for four full laps, noting the use of track-side pacing lights (*WaveLight* technology) that show the precise pace needed to break the record.

- **Merab Dvalishvili**: Renowned for an infinite cardio gas tank that wilts opponents through relentless pressure and non-stop wrestling. - **Mile World Record**: Discussion of high-altitude training pushing human limits, running a sub-3:43 mile at over 16 mph. - **Altitude Training Concept**: Rogan asserts that if he were bankrolling a top-tier fight team, he would build a camp at the peak of a mountain where fighters live and sleep at high altitude continuously, comparing the physical baseline to Dagestani mountain fighters.

---

[01:27:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5230s) PEDs, Business Performance, and Hunter Biden Tangents

The discussion on altitude training leads into Lance Armstrong and performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Rogan argues that while Armstrong was caught and lied, cycling was so thoroughly corrupt that stripping away all riders implicated in doping would force awards down to 18th place. In Rogan's view, Armstrong was simply "the best at a dirty sport" who operated under the unspoken rules of his era rather than the official federation rulebook.

Williamson expands on this concept by pointing out that many high-stakes human endeavors are completely unpoliced. He highlights the corporate and business worlds, where executives routinely use Nootropics, Modafinil, Adderall, and excessive caffeine to work 16- to 19-hour days. Because business is not a "tested federation," society accepts drug-enhanced productivity even though the personal and financial stakes are higher than in professional athletics.

The conversation closes with lighthearted banter about guest booking and podcast rivalry. Williamson playfully brings up Rogan interviewing Hunter Biden, recalling that Williamson had previously mentioned wanting to host a podcast with him. Rogan laughs off any notion of stealing the idea, explaining that his planned *Protect Our Parks* episode with Hunter Biden changed when comedian Ari Shaffir was out of the country in London.

- **Doping in Cycling**: Rogan notes that removing all athletes who used banned substances in Lance Armstrong's era would filter down to 18th-place finishers. - **Unregulated Enhancement**: Williamson points to Modafinil and Adderall usage in business as accepted forms of cognitive enhancement in non-tested competitive environments.

---

</ElicitationsGroup>

[01:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5372s) Hunter Biden’s Media Re-emergence and the Laptop Debate

Chris Williamson mentions that his producer was willing to fly back from London just for a potential interview, but they ended up not booking Hunter Biden. Joe Rogan notes that Hunter spent considerable time talking about crack during his public appearances and expresses surprise at how disarmingly likable Hunter is in person. Rogan observes that growing up as the son of a politician gave Hunter a polished, charming demeanor, though it leaves one searching for any underlying manipulative game. The two discuss Hunter’s sudden re-emergence into the public eye after years of silence, highlighting the backlash conservative media personalities faced for platforming him—a criticism Rogan dismisses, arguing that people naturally want to hear from someone who survived such an extreme ordeal.

The conversation turns to the intense pressure Hunter experienced as "the most Googled drug addict in history." Williamson emphasizes the unfathomable scrutiny of having every private photo, text, and detail broadcast to the world while only two years into sobriety. Rogan questions the validity of the "Delaware laptop" narrative, asking whether the files were truly left on a hard drive at a repair shop or extracted from an iCloud hack and loaded onto a laptop as a cover story. Rogan pulls up real-time research using Perplexity AI to trace Hunter's changing public statements—from floating various theories in a 2021 CBS interview (including theft, hacking, or Russian involvement) to his August 2026 interview with Tucker Carlson and his July 2026 Substack launch, where he maintained that the sheer volume of data across two decades could not fit on a single computer drive without a verified chain of custody.

* Hunter Biden was two years sober when the laptop story broke in late 2020; he is currently seven years sober. * Rogan points out that modern laptops easily feature 2-terabyte hard drives, making the "data size" argument technically questionable. * The Wilmington repair shop owner who turned over the laptop was legally blind, rendering him unable to visually identify who dropped off the computer. * To protect himself against potential setups, Hunter allegedly packs his carry-on bags in front of an independent witness whenever he travels.

---

[01:36:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5770s) The 2020 Election Narrative and Platform Suppression

Rogan reflects on the timing of the laptop story's release just weeks before the 2020 presidential election, suggesting it functioned as a classic "October surprise." Had the story not been aggressively suppressed on social media platforms like Twitter, Rogan argues it could have tipped the outcome against Joe Biden. They review reports indicating that Rudy Giuliani held onto the data for months before leaking it and note Giuliani's 2019 interactions with a Ukrainian lawmaker later identified by U.S. intelligence as an active Russian agent.

Looking back across recent political cycles, Williamson and Rogan track how defeated parties consistently point to a single scapegoat to explain their election losses. They trace the media narrative shifts from "RussiaGate" in 2016, to social media censorship of the Biden laptop in 2020, to the massive surge of long-form podcast appearances by political candidates in 2024.

* The New York Post's original story on the Hunter Biden laptop was censored and blocked on Twitter shortly before the 2020 election. * Ukrainian lawmaker Andrii Derkach, who met with Giuliani in 2019, was officially sanctioned as a Russian agent by the U.S. Treasury Department.

---

[01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) Kamala Harris, the 2024 Podcast Circuit, and Trump’s Media Strategy

Rogan sets the record straight regarding the heavily publicized failure to book Vice President Kamala Harris on *The Joe Rogan Experience* during the 2024 campaign. He forcefully refutes media claims that he made negotiations difficult or refused to accommodate her schedule. Rogan explains that he offered to record at midnight in Austin after her Houston rally—where Beyoncé appeared—or tape the very next day, even intending to release her interview simultaneously with Donald Trump's episode. He reveals that Harris's team placed strict ground rules on topics, initially refusing to discuss her past prosecutor record regarding California marijuana convictions or her administration's immigration policies, though Rogan was willing to bypass political landmines entirely just to have an authentic conversation.

Rogan criticizes the Democratic campaign strategy, pointing out that spending $1.4 billion while bypassing a traditional primary ultimately backfired. He argues that Harris possessed tremendous momentum early on following her scripted speeches, but her team's fear of unscripted moments—and pushback from progressive staff who opposed any association with Rogan's podcast—kept her hidden. In contrast, Trump's appearances on podcasts like Theo Von's and Rogan's allowed voters to see a relaxed, human side to him rather than a media caricature.

* Harris's campaign team claimed they conducted a security sweep of Rogan's studio, which Rogan denies; only Secret Service agents for Donald Trump actually inspected the facility. * Rogan refused a campaign request to allow a staff member to sit in the studio room during the interview. * Harris faced severe public backlash during a appearance on *The View* when she stated she would not have done anything differently than Joe Biden over the preceding four years.

[01:43:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6208s) Political Accountability, Podcasting, and Border Enforcement Statistics

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson discuss why political candidates should sit down for long-form, unedited conversations rather than brief, safe interviews. Rogan brings up Kamala Harris's appearance on the *Call Her Daddy* podcast, arguing that it was too short and failed to address pressing, high-stakes issues like immigration and border security. He questions the previous policy decisions surrounding open borders and unvetted illegal crossings, suspecting political motives aimed at shifting demographics and voter bases in swing states.

The conversation turns to specific statistical changes in illegal border crossings between administrations. Looking at official Border Patrol data, they review the sharp decline in monthly crossings from January 2025 (29,000) to February 2025 (8,000)—a 71% month-to-month drop. Comparing broader data from 2023 against 2025/2026, they note an overall 88% drop in illegal border encounters. Williamson touches on "luxury beliefs," recalling a house near his residence in Austin, Texas, that displayed a "Defund the Police" yard sign alongside a private security window sticker.

- **Border Crossing Data:** January 2025 recorded 29,000 border encounters, dropping to 8,000 in February 2025 (a 71% month-to-month decline). - **Overall Decline:** Illegal border crossings dropped by approximately 88% comparing peak 2023 figures to post-2024/2025 statistics. - **Quote:** *"You got to deal with potential nuclear war. Okay. I think you can sit down for a conversation."* — Joe Rogan

---

[01:48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6502s) The Economic and Behavioral Ripple Effects of Ozempic and GLP-1 Drugs

Williamson shares surprising economic data regarding GLP-1 receptor agonists (such as Ozempic and Mounjaro). He highlights that Victoria's Secret stock jumped 300% year-over-year, largely attributed to millions of women losing weight, needing new bra sizes, and buying more alluring lingerie. He also notes a bizarre trend in bridal shops, where women are losing up to 50 pounds between ordering a wedding dress and the ceremony. This has forced bridal boutiques to make brides sign liability waivers so they are not held responsible if the dress no longer fits or cannot be altered.

Beyond physical weight loss, the hosts explore how GLP-1 medications alter psychological cravings, impulsivity, and consumerism as a whole. Studies suggest these drugs suppress dopamine-driven desires not just for food, but also for alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, video games, and shopaholic behaviors. Rogan notes potential side effects being discussed online, such as a dulling of romantic drive or desire for relationships, prompting questions about how these compounds affect pleasure pathways in the brain.

- **Victoria's Secret Stock:** Up roughly 300% year-on-year attributed to weight loss trends driven by GLP-1s. - **Bridal Shop Waivers:** Tailors and shops are requiring brides to sign legal waivers predicting weight loss goals (up to 50 lbs) before ordering custom gowns. - **Behavioral Suppression:** GLP-1 drugs show efficacy in curbing non-food compulsions, including alcohol consumption, gambling, and gaming.

---

[01:51:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6692s) Preserving Muscle Mass, Resistance Training, and Fall Risks in Aging

Rogan and Williamson talk about dosing protocols and compound alternatives like retatrutide, a triple-hormone receptor agonist that appears to preserve muscle mass far better during rapid weight reduction. Rogan stresses that standard GLP-1 users often lose significant lean muscle tissue and bone density alongside fat because they fail to perform resistance training or consume adequate protein. When people stop taking the drug and regain weight, they replace the lost muscle with pure fat, worsening their overall body composition.

This leads to a discussion on sarcopenia and physical frailty in older adults. Rogan emphasizes that falling is one of the leading causes of death among the elderly, especially when it leads to a broken hip or traumatic head injury. Statistics show that 60% to 80% of seniors with Alzheimer's disease experience falls—more than double the rate of cognitively normal peers.

- **Retatrutide:** A newer peptide targeting GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon receptors, noted for better muscle-sparing properties during weight loss. - **Alzheimer's Fall Rates:** 60%–80% of older adults with Alzheimer's experience falls, significantly higher than the general elderly population. - **Consequences of Fractures:** Breaking a hip in old age drastically reduces 10-year survival rates due to immobility, muscle loss, and recovery demands.

---

[01:55:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6908s) The 82-Year-Old Bathtub Survival Story and Extreme Sleep Deprivation

Jamie pulls up a news article detailing an extraordinary survival story: an 82-year-old woman in North Carolina who fell in her bathtub and survived stranded for nine full days. She managed to stay alive by using her feet to operate the bathtub faucet, splashing water onto her face and drinking it until help arrived. Rogan and Williamson react with amazement at her resilience and joke about booking her on their podcasts.

The discussion transitions into extreme physical endurances and sleep deprivation. Williamson mentions the case of Lindsay Clancy and notes how severe sleep deprivation can quickly trigger psychosis and hallucinations. They talk about "backyard ultras" and multi-day endurance races—such as the Bigfoot 200—where runners like Courtney Dauwalter pushing past 72 hours without sleep routinely experience vivid hallucinations while running.

- **North Carolina Bathtub Survival:** An 82-year-old woman survived 9 days trapped in a bathtub by operating the water tap with her toes. - **Ultra-Endurance Hallucinations:** Multi-day ultramarathoners frequently experience sleep-deprivation psychosis, seeing non-existent objects and figures on the trail. - **Sex Differences in Ultra-Endurance:** Over extreme distances and open-water swimming events, performance gaps between men and women shrink considerably due to fat metabolism and buoyancy.

---

[01:57:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7065s) Rory MacDonald's Walkout Song Mishap

Williamson brings up a famous, hilarious story from mixed martial arts history regarding former UFC contender Rory MacDonald's walkout music. MacDonald had intended to change his entrance song, but when he changed his phone number, he failed to notify the UFC production team. As a result, his entrance music was randomly selected based on leftover default settings or miscommunication, leading to an iconic mismatch between his cold, robotic fighter persona and his walkout track.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering the provided transcript section.

---

[01:58:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7085s) Rory MacDonald's Walkout Music and the Cypress Hill vs. Nickelback Debate

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson kick off with a hilarious story about former UFC fighter Rory MacDonald's walkout songs. Rogan explains how a fan managed to get hold of Rory's old phone number, which MacDonald had never bother updating with the UFC. Excited by the realization that he possessed the power to choose walkout music for a top UFC contender, the fan started submitting wild, unexpected tracks on Rory’s behalf—ranging from MC Hammer to DMX—purely out of a mischievous sense of humor. The prank was only rumbled when Rory was asked about Nickelback after a fight, to which he blurted out that he never asked for "a fucking Nickelback song."

This banter leads into a debate over Nickelback's music. While Rogan acknowledges their songs are formulaic, he argues they aren't nearly as bad as people make them out to be, drawing a direct parallel between Nickelback's *"Rockstar"* and Cypress Hill's *"Rockstar"* (featuring Chino Moreno of Deftones). Rogan insists both tracks share the exact same core premise—a fantasy about all the crazy things you'd do if you became a rock star. However, while Nickelback’s perspective is "fluffy" and glamorous, Cypress Hill’s take is raw, dark, and warns about the intense sacrifice and pain involved.

- While listening to music off-camera, Rogan highlights Rage Against the Machine's cover of *"Pistol Grip Pump"* (originally by Volume 10 / Cypress Hill era rap), calling it one of the absolute dopest covers ever recorded that goes even harder than the original. - Williamson brings up a conspiracy theory floating around the internet claiming Nickelback was deliberately taken down by culture to demoralize American "freedom rock" patriotism after 9/11. - *Rolling Stone* ranked Nickelback's *"Rockstar"* at #100 on their list of the 100 Best Songs of 2007, whereas *BuzzFeed* placed it at #2 as one of the 30 worst songs ever written.

---

[02:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7385s) Music Formulas, IQ Classifications, and Jimi Hendrix's Genius

The discussion shifts to why Nickelback became such an easy target for criticism. Young Jamie steps in to explain from his audio background that during the rise of Napster and early YouTube, a viral video emerged showing one Nickelback song played in the left speaker and a completely different Nickelback song in the right speaker. The chord changes, verse structures, and time signatures lined up almost perfectly. Furthermore, audio engineers criticized them for recording "in the box"—capturing everything bone-dry and applying digital effects after the fact rather than recording organic live takes.

Rogan playfully jokes that Nickelback is "white people music" with a "98 IQ max," sparking a humorous exchange about what constitutes high-IQ music. He points to bands like Tool, Pink Floyd, and Polyphia (highlighting guitarist Tim Henson) as non-passive listening experiences that demand real intellect. The conversation moves to classical music and the sheer genius of historical composers who wrote intricate symphonies on paper before recording technology ever existed, allowing their work to be replicated centuries later.

The ultimate example of an iconoclastic musical genius is Jimi Hendrix. As Rogan and Williamson note, Hendrix was left-handed but played standard right-handed Fender Stratocasters completely upside down.

- Hendrix's upside-down setup placed the guitar's headstock controls, bridge angle, and pickup orientation in unusual positions relative to a traditional left-handed instrument, accidentally creating a unique tonal signature. - Fender eventually released a signature Jimi Hendrix Stratocaster featuring a reverse headstock and reverse-slant bridge pickup to replicate his iconic setup for guitar enthusiasts. - Eric Clapton famously remarked after seeing Jimi Hendrix perform live for the first time that Hendrix's raw, effortless talent made him want to quit playing guitar altogether.

---

[02:08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7694s) The Fading Affect Bias and How "Healing Destroys Its Receipts"

Chris Williamson transitions into a deep psychological reflection on "epistemic privilege"—the flawed assumption that our future selves will always be wiser and possess better judgment than our past selves. While this progress holds true for technical skills, Williamson argues it breaks down when applied to emotional pain and discomfort. He highlights a psychological study showing that when economy passengers walk through the business class section during airplane boarding, incidents of air rage increase eightfold due to an immediate, visceral reminder of status hierarchy.

Williamson introduces the concept of the **fading affect bias**, a component of our psychological immune system where negative memories and the emotional intensity of pain fade faster over time than positive memories. While this bias protects humans from being crushed by past trauma, it carries a dangerous drawback: it erases the "receipts" or justification that caused someone to make a hard life decision in the first place. This explains why people routinely loop back into toxic cycles—whether returning to an abusive ex-partner, re-entering a high-stress burnout job for status, or relapsing into alcoholism after years of sobriety. Because time has distance them from the actual pain, healing effectively destroys the evidence that made healing necessary.

- **Air Rage Phenomenon:** Walking past business class increases economy passenger rage incidents eightfold due to immediate status hierarchy reminders. - **Memory Inversion Formula:** Williamson summarizes the dynamic by noting that while "bad memories plus time equals comedy," "good memories plus time rarely equals tragedy." - **The Sabotage Loop:** When a person heals from addiction or emotional trauma, the distance from the initial suffering tricks them into thinking the original problem was never that severe. - Rogan adds nuance to the idea, noting that people also return to destructive habits because they find comfort in familiar patterns of failure. When the stress of staying sober or making hard life changes builds up, slipping back into failure feels easier than enduring the friction of growth.

---

[02:11:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7917s) The Curse of Competence and the Pressure of Success

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson open with a discussion on why high achievers often fall into self-destructive patterns just as things are going well. Rogan observes that the pressure of success—and the overwhelming fear of screwing up—can drive people back into familiar failure patterns. Seeking comfort in bad habits or old vices (like craving a cigarette or a drink after 333 days of sobriety) often serves as an emotional pressure-relief valve.

Williamson frames this dynamic as the "curse of competence." When a person is naturally skilled, success ceases to be an occasion for celebration; instead, it becomes the baseline standard of acceptable performance. This creates a perverse mental incentive where the individual feels they can never truly win—they can only avoid losing. They wake up every day feeling "behind" and must dominate their day perfectly just to return to the bare minimum of acceptability.

* **Self-Destructive Comfort:** Returning to old vices often acts as an ejector seat to relieve the crushing anxiety of sustaining peak success. * **The Baseline Trap:** Highly competent individuals often view perfection not as an achievement, but as the zero-point baseline.

---

[02:13:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8030s) Perfectionism, Wealth Inequality, and Social Media

Williamson points to research showing a rise in perfectionism as a personality trait since 1989. While Rogan questions how study samples are drawn (noting that a Wall Street trader and someone in a rural trailer park will yield wildly different responses), Williamson connects the trend to societal structures. He highlights a study led by Dr. Candice Blake in Australia, which analyzed geolocated social media posts. The study revealed that areas with higher income inequality saw a dramatic rise in self-objectification (such as women posting provocative selfies).

Williamson explains that high inequality shows individuals both how high they could climb and how terrifyingly low they could fall, driving them toward extreme self-improvement strategies like perfectionism. Rogan adds that social media accelerates this dynamic by flooding feeds with unattainable standards of wealth, beauty filters, and hyper-curated lifestyles. This constant visual exposure directly inflates unrealistic expectations, leading to surges in plastic surgery and performance-enhancing drug use among young men.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | THE PERFECTIONISM PARADOX | +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ | Perfectionistic Concerns (Rising Fast) | Perfectionistic Striving | | - Fear of failure & judgment | - Setting high standards | | - Indecisiveness & paralysis | - Hard work & discipline | | - Driven by social media comparison | - Pursuit of genuine mastery | +--------------------------------------------------+--------------------------------+ ```

* **Candice Blake Study:** High local income inequality strongly correlates with increased female self-objectification on social media. * **Perfectionism vs. Striving:** Psychological scales show that fear of failure and fear of negative judgment are rising much faster than the positive motivation to work hard for high standards.

---

[02:20:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8404s) Pursuit of Excellence vs. The Myth of Perfection

Rogan sharply criticizes the framing of "perfectionism," arguing that true perfection is humanly impossible. He illustrates this using professional 9-ball pool, recounting the legendary story of Earl Strickland. Strickland once accomplished the virtually impossible feat of breaking and running 10 consecutive racks during a tournament to win a $1 million insurance payout. Rogan notes that even a "mad genius" like Strickland could never maintain that level indefinitely because human error is inevitable.

Rogan contends that society should drop the term "perfectionism"—which implies a pathological, unachievable standard—and replace it with "striving for excellence." We celebrate extraordinary outliers like Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Lionel Messi, and Magnus Carlsen not because they never make mistakes, but because they push the boundaries of human potential. Williamson brings up a striking statistic about tennis legend Roger Federer: despite winning roughly 80% to 85% of his career matches, Federer won only about 54% to 56% of the individual points he played. This narrow margin demonstrates that greatness is about managing subtle edges, not achieving flawless execution.

* **Earl Strickland's 10-Pack:** Strickland successfully ran 10 consecutive racks in 9-ball pool to trigger a $1 million challenge payout, an event so rare it highlights the absolute ceiling of human skill. * **The Federer Edge:** Roger Federer won over 80% of his career matches while only winning ~54% of all points played.

---

[02:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8649s) Friction, Discipline, and the Nature of Obsession

The conversation shifts to the psychological distinction between discipline, motivation, and obsession. Williamson shares a favorite line: "The curse of discipline is that every day looks the same, and the curse of indiscipline is that every year looks the same." He breaks down how each mental state handles psychological and physical effort through the concept of *friction*:

* **Discipline (Friction Accepted):** Forcing yourself to execute a task regardless of how hard or unappealing it feels. * **Motivation (Friction Removed):** Doing the task because external or internal desire makes the path easy. * **Obsession (Friction Inverted):** Feeling a compelling internal pull where *not* doing the activity causes more pain and resistance than doing it.

Rogan notes that people without obsession often mock or dismiss outliers—claiming they "wasted their life" on music or sport—because they feel threatened by that level of focus. Williamson concludes that from the outside, an obsessed person appears to be exercising super-human discipline and gritting their teeth, whereas from the inside, they simply feel they have no other choice.

[02:26:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8764s) Problem-Solving Brains, Obsession, and Constructive Channels

Chris Williamson and Joe Rogan examine how human obsession operates, noting that people with hyper-active "problem-solving brains" can easily fall victim to self-destruction if they lack a worthy challenge. When a mind that is constantly rotating ideas like a Rubik's cube has no positive target, it inevitably chews itself up from the inside out. This leads to unhealthy obsessions with politics, pornography, toxic ex-partners, or road-rage incidents. Williamson points out that instead of fruitlessly attempting to suppress a fast-moving mind, a far simpler approach is giving oneself better problems to solve, such as building a business or pursuing a meaningful passion.

Rogan emphasizes that for many individuals, this pattern is a legitimate mental health struggle rather than a simple choice. People stuck in a rut often lack the self-awareness or support systems needed to break their destructive habits. A person addicted to gambling, for example, might possess immense dedication that could yield remarkable achievements if redirected toward a healthy endeavor. Rogan stresses that people in these cycles require friends, counselors, or mentors to provide actionable tools and guide them toward a constructive path.

``` - Obsession becomes dangerous when directed at video games, pornography, politics, or personal grievances. - Misguided obsession and productive drive stem from the exact same internal fuel source. - Providing better, high-value problems is more effective than attempting to shut off a problem-solving brain. ```

---

[02:29:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8944s) Delayed Gratification, Jocko Willink, and Serial Obsessives

The conversation transitions into how childhood sports lay down the fundamental "physics of the system" by demonstrating that incremental hard work produces future performance gains. Mastering component skills teaches children delayed gratification and extended time horizons, enabling them to win "the marshmallow test" as adults. Williamson brings up Jocko Willink as a prime example of how obsession transforms over time into identity. What looks like rigid discipline today—waking up at 4:30 a.m., swinging kettlebells, and intense physical training—was once an acute obsession when Willink was a Navy SEAL aiming to be as lethal as possible.

Over time, positive obsessions cool down like lava solidifying into the Earth's crust, forming permanent layers of character. A person might spend their twenties obsessed with fitness, shift in their thirties toward mental health and therapy, and later channel that same drive into becoming an exceptional parent. Williamson calls this process "serial obsession," where a person sequentially wears out distinct passions, ultimately maturing into a remarkably well-rounded individual. He notes that many people feel guilt or shame about their intense fixations, often due to social pressure or friends mocking their pursuits, even though obsession provides the freest form of motivation available.

``` - Jocko Willink's disciplined routine originated as an intense early fixation on physical readiness and lethality. - "Serial obsession" allows individuals to build layered life skills as intense interests cool into permanent habits. - Social pressure and fear of mockery often prevent people from leaning into their natural obsessions. ```

---

[02:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9124s) Tall Poppy Syndrome, British Culture vs. American Optimism

Rogan dismisses the idea of letting peers mock one's passions, declaring, "I'd be like, 'Fuck you. Who cares what you think?'" Williamson notes that this reaction highlights a cultural divide, as the UK is heavily impacted by "tall poppy syndrome"—a tendency to tear down anyone who strays from the conventional path or attempts to excel. Despite having an equal number of top-ten global universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and King's College London, the UK produces only about 20% of the entrepreneurs that America does. Williamson attributes this gap directly to cultural attitude rather than a lack of talent or elite educational institutions.

The two compare American and British mindsets, with Williamson describing Americans as possessing "permanent first-line cocaine energy" due to their unbridled enthusiasm and belief in self-determination. Rogan adds that in the United States, people generally feel just a few good deals away from wealth, remaining perpetual optimists. However, Williamson points out a dark side to the American Dream: when children are promised they can achieve anything but face harsh realities as adults, they experience intense resentment and feel robbed of their promise. He draws a parallel to South Korea, where women were granted equal access to higher education but faced a stagnant, patriarchal job market upon graduating, leading to widespread social disillusionment and a sharp turn toward left-leaning politics.

``` - The UK produces only 20% of the entrepreneurs that the US produces, despite sharing a similar density of top-ranked universities. - "Tall poppy syndrome" in British culture discourages individuals from taking big risks or standing out. - The American expectation of success can breed intense victimhood culture when adult reality falls short of childhood promises. ```

---

[02:35:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9347s) Trusting the Process and the Impact of Great Environments

Rogan highlights the importance of equipping young people with a mindset of continuous self-improvement, often summarized by the sports mantra "trust the process." In combat sports like MMA or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, fighters must rely on a structured progression—from practicing fundamentals to climbing the ranks toward a black belt or a major fight. This trust is built through credible coaches who have walked the path themselves, such as wrestling coaches who were former wrestlers. A skilled mentor constantly points out subtle markers of progress that athletes might otherwise overlook, reinforcing their confidence during grueling routines like 5:00 a.m. hill runs.

Williamson notes that many individuals treat personal goals as "contracts to self-criticize until we succeed," trapping themselves in toxic perfectionism rather than striving for healthy excellence. Rogan reinforces that personal growth is heavily dictated by one's environment and peer group. Top-tier athletic programs like Oklahoma State University wrestling consistently produce elite competitors because their environment is filled with high-performing athletes driven by top-notch coaching. In contrast, most everyday people lack this support structure; they are surrounded by equally lost and unhappy peers, making it exceptionally difficult to break away, skip the bar, and dedicate time to self-improvement.

``` - "Trust the process" is built on credible leadership from mentors who have already accomplished what they teach. - Perfectionism acts as a contract for self-criticism, whereas excellence focuses on continuous incremental progress. - Elite environments, like Division I athletic programs, elevate individual potential through collective accountability. ```

</ElicitationsGroup>

[02:39:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9585s) The "Lonely Chapter" and Reverse Role Models

Chris Williamson discusses the challenge of breaking away from unproductive social circles, calling this transition the "lonely chapter." This phase occurs when someone has outgrown their old set of friends but hasn't yet established a new community of like-minded, productive peers. During this period of isolation, there is a strong temptation to relapse into old, comfortable habits and return to old social circles simply because it is easier.

``` ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Old Social Circle │ │ (Comfortable, unproductive) │ └────────────────┬────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ The Lonely Chapter │ │ (Outgrown old, seeking new) │ └────────────────┬────────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ New Social Circle │ │ (Aligned, high-achieving) │ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Growing up in a working-class town in North East England, Chris lacked positive role models and instead relied on "reverse role models"—people whose negative behaviors (gambling, infidelity, substance abuse) showed him what to avoid. While avoiding bad outcomes can drive progress, Joe Rogan notes that it is far healthier and more effective to be motivated by positive aspirations rather than fear or avoidance.

- **The Lonely Chapter:** A transitional period where an individual no longer fits in with old friends but hasn't yet found a new community. - **Reverse Role Models:** Learning what *not* to do by observing the destructive habits of people in one's immediate environment. - **Role Model Contrast:** Chris highlights the difference between growing up next to a D1 sports coach who encourages positive habits versus being surrounded by people coping through alcohol or gambling.

---

[02:42:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9742s) Modern Access to Inspiration and the Danger of Distraction

Joe points out that internet platforms give people unprecedented access to high achievers, thinkers, and outliers like David Goggins or Alan Watts—access that previous generations never had. In the past, someone like basketball legend Larry Bird could only draw inspiration from the immediate peers he played against. Modern media allows anyone to hear high-level perspectives and realize that better alternatives exist outside their immediate surroundings.

However, both Joe and Chris warn that the internet also presents significant traps. The same dopamine hit gained from learning something useful can be triggered by mindless scrolling on social media. People must intentionally curate their media diet to avoid wasting time and attention on low-value content.

- **Democratized Inspiration:** Anyone with internet access can learn from world-class athletes, entrepreneurs, and philosophers. - **Larry Bird Example:** Past athletes relied entirely on immediate, real-world competition rather than online inspiration to sharpen their skills. - **Action vs. Intention:** Chris emphasizes that "talking about the thing and doing the thing vie for the same resources," warning against the habit of talking endlessly about future plans without taking concrete action.

---

[02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) Visualization, "The Secret," and Survivor Bias

The conversation turns to *The Secret* and the popular notion of "manifesting" success solely through positive thinking. Chris brings up an extreme example of manifestation rhetoric: the author of *The Secret* once implied that victims of the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Thailand manifested the disaster through bad energy.

While Joe acknowledges that visualization and self-belief are useful components of success used by top athletes, he stresses that they are useless without hard work. Success requires both mental alignment and execution. Reliance on manifestation claims often stems from survivorship bias—highlighting the few who succeeded while ignoring the vast majority for whom visualization alone yielded no results.

> "God will steer the boat, but you still have to row."

- **2004 Tsunami Example:** Chris cites the claim that tsunami victims brought the disaster upon themselves through negative thoughts as an example of manifestation ideology taken to an absurd extreme. - **Survivorship Bias:** The tendency to focus only on those who succeeded using a particular method while overlooking the far larger group of people who used the same method and failed.

---

[02:47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10059s) Socioeconomic Disparities, Public Education, and Parental Rights

Joe reflects on the fundamental unfairness of life, noting how children born into extreme poverty or addiction start life at a massive disadvantage compared to those raised in stable, supportive environments. He argues that society fails to adequately address severe poverty and homelessness despite having the resources to do so.

This leads into a discussion about the decline of the public education system. Joe and Chris discuss reports from various states showing plummeting academic standards in basic subjects like reading and mathematics:

- **State Standards:** Examples like Oregon temporarily waiving certain high school graduation requirements in reading and math, alongside reports from Illinois showing high school students reading below grade level. - **Parental Involvement:** Parents who voice opposition at school board meetings regarding curriculum topics have faced public pushback, with some official rhetoric labeling concerned parents as "domestic terrorists." - **Homeschooling Challenges:** While homeschooling offers an alternative, the financial cost and time commitment make it unfeasible for many working families.

---

[02:51:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10311s) The Penn State Fraternity Cocaine Ring and Ben Askren's Return

To illustrate misplaced ambition, Chris shares a news story about a major drug bust involving fraternities at Penn State University. The operation functioned like a organized syndicate: members drove to Philadelphia and New York to procure supply, fraternity pledges were forced to package and cut the cocaine, and an attorney father assisted by stashing cash and drugs in a safe. Joe jokes that while illegal, it demonstrated an entrepreneurial drive that would have yielded massive legitimate success had it been applied to legal business pursuits.

Finally, the conversation shifts to combat sports and former MMA fighter Ben Askren's return to wrestling just one year after undergoing double lung transplant surgery—an extraordinary physical recovery that Joe describes as remarkable given the severity of the medical procedure.

- **Penn State Drug Syndicate:** 14 individuals were arrested in connection with a multi-state cocaine distribution operation run out of college fraternities. - **Ben Askren:** The former UFC fighter and Olympic wrestler returned to competitive wrestling just one year after receiving a double lung transplant.

[02:53:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10399s) Double Lung Transplants and Extreme Recovery

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson wrap up a discussion on an astounding medical recovery involving double lung transplants. They emphasize how wild it is that someone must remain on immunosuppressants so their body does not reject the donor organs, making it unbelievable that anyone could have two lung transplants and return to professional wrestling just a year later. Williamson mentions that the person in question never actually looked up what the surgery involved or how it was executed. After looking into the procedure himself, he describes the brutal nature of the surgery, noting how the patient is opened up across the chest.

- The recipient has to take immunosuppressants constantly to prevent organ rejection. - The guest notes the intense physical spread of the chest incision during a double lung transplant surgery.

[02:53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10425s) Podcast Plugs and Final Goodbyes

Joe interrupts to joke that he urgently needs to use the bathroom, signaling it is time to wrap up the episode. He warmly thanks Chris for coming on, and Chris plugs his show, *Modern Wisdom*, available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. He mentions recent and upcoming guests, including Jocko Willink, Matt McCusker, Jeff Dye, Andrew Huberman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bryan Johnson. Chris also highlights his new series format, *Mostly Wise*, co-hosted with Matt McCusker, where they bring in a serious guest along with another comedian for a fun dynamic. Joe praises the concept before signing off to end the show.

- *Modern Wisdom* is available across major platforms including YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify. - Recent and upcoming podcast guests mentioned: Jocko Willink, Matt McCusker, Jeff Dye, Hunter Biden, Andrew Huberman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bryan Johnson. - The new series format *Mostly Wise* pairs Chris Williamson and Matt McCusker with a serious interview subject and an extra comedian.

## Notable quotes > [20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1212s) X feels like the Wild West... It's the Wild West with robots. It's Westworld. — Joe Rogan

> [25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1500s) Some people have brains that are made out of dog shit... and that's just how it is. — Joe Rogan

> [30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1859s) suicidal empathy — Joe Rogan

> [33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2016s) It's like one guy holding two puppets... 'I like the puppet on the left, while the puppet on the right is more to my liking.' Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets!

> [01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) I lost my mind to this game. — Conor McGregor

> [01:43:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6208s) You got to deal with potential nuclear war. Okay. I think you can sit down for a conversation. — Joe Rogan

> [15:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=949s) completely nihilistic about the belief in any narrative — Chris Williamson

> [02:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8649s) The curse of discipline is that every day looks the same, and the curse of indiscipline is that every year looks the same.

> [02:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9124s) Fuck you. Who cares what you think? — Joe Rogan

> [02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) God will steer the boat, but you still have to row.

## Mentioned Joe Rogan, Chris Williamson, Albert Goldman, Lenny Bruce, Yoko Ono, John Lennon, The Lives of John Lennon, Neutonic, Jamie Vernon, May Pang, Brian Epstein, Paul McCartney, Bill Murray, Bob Woodward, Wired, John Belushi, Tucker Carlson, The Washington Post, Lindsay Clancy, O.J. Simpson, The New York Times, Deep Throat, Mark Felt, FBI, CIA, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Warren Commission, John F. Kennedy, Controlled Substances Act, Elon Musk, X, Twitter, UK Home Office, Karen Bass, Nithya Raman, Spencer Pratt, Nick Shirley, Bill Hicks, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donna Brazile, Seth Rich, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nancy Pelosi, Ilhan Omar, Joe DeRosa, Grant Napear, Meghan Murphy, Tim Walz, Flock Safety, SoundThinking, ShotSpotter, Marc Andreessen, Tom Campbell, My Big TOE, Amazon Alexa, Alan Turing, GPT-3, Ted Kaczynski, Henry Murray, Harvard University, John Lisle, John O'Loughlin, Danny Trejo, Charles Manson, Dr. Louis Jolyon 'Jolly' West, Richard Helms, Tom O'Neill, Jon Ronson, Conor McGregor, Ido Portal, SBG Ireland, Eddie Alvarez, Jose Aldo, BJ Penn, Marinovich brothers, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Islam Makhachev, Jon Jones, Anderson Silva, Stan 'The Man' Longinidis, Dennis Alexio, Shuki, Mejiro Gym, Austin Hubbard, Urijah Faber, Michael Jackson, Mark Dayle, Phil Gore, Cameron Hanes, Merab Dvalishvili, Daniel Cormier, WaveLight, Lance Armstrong, Hunter Biden, Ari Shaffir, Rudy Giuliani, Andrii Derkach, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Beyoncé, Theo Von, Victoria's Secret, Courtney Dauwalter, Rory MacDonald, UFC, Modern Wisdom, DraftKings, Visible, Perplexity AI, Low Kick Championship, Power Slap, Operation Midnight Climax, Last Soul Standing, Bigfoot 200, MC Hammer, DMX, Nickelback, Cypress Hill, Chino Moreno, Deftones, Rage Against the Machine, Volume 10, Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed, Napster, YouTube, Tool, Pink Floyd, Polyphia, Tim Henson, Jimi Hendrix, Fender Stratocaster, Eric Clapton, Dr. Candice Blake, Earl Strickland, Michael Jordan, Mike Tyson, Lionel Messi, Magnus Carlsen, Roger Federer, Jocko Willink, Navy SEALs, Oxford, Cambridge, King's College London, Oklahoma State University, David Goggins, Alan Watts, Larry Bird, The Secret, Ben Askren, Penn State University, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Matt McCusker, Jeff Dye, Andrew Huberman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bryan Johnson, Mostly Wise

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I)

中文简报

罗根与威廉姆森挑战现代叙事控制与AI风险数字平台与政府机构系统性地操纵媒体叙事，以诱发普遍的公众虚无主义并压制深层政治真相。 Joe Rogan 与 Chris Williamson 展开了一场内容广泛的对话，涵盖媒体事后剖析、情报行动、人类巅峰表现以及心理动力学。他们审视了围绕 Albert Goldman 传记作品、Bob Woodward 报道以及水门事件背后“深层政府”框架的历史争议，同时分析了现代监控技术与人工智能的发展。讨论随后延伸至格斗运动成就、极限耐力壮举，以及包括边境数据和媒体审查在内的政治新闻。最后，他们探讨了认知心理学议题，例如情感消退偏差、完美主义、高罂粟综合征，以及自律与痴迷的运作机制。 Joe Rogan 与 Chris Williamson 探讨了 Albert Goldman 为约翰·列侬和莱尼·布鲁斯撰写争议性传记的伦理问题，批评部分作者利用逝者无法自辩的漏洞编造博眼球的虚假叙事。 (1:00) 节目回顾了 Tucker Carlson 对水门事件的颠覆性观点，其主张该事件本质上是一场由情报机构与“深层政府”主导的政变，目的是罢免民选总统理查德·尼克松。 (8:00) 两人分析了现代信息控制的演变，认为数字平台如今通过海量矛盾信息和海外 AI 机器人水军饱和轰炸公众，旨在彻底瓦解受众对真相的信念并诱发政治虚无主义。 (15:49) Rogan 质疑美国人口普查将非公民计入总人口影响国会席位分配的做法，并揭露了在洛杉矶 Skid Row 等街区通过利益交换收集邮寄选票的灰色选票收割现象。 (29:32) 在讨论数字监控与科技发展时，双方梳理了 Twitter Files 所揭露的机构审查机制，并对前沿人工智能的高速迭代及其潜在的生存风险提出严正警告。 (45:40)

Reading summary

Joe Rogan and Chris Williamson argue that modern digital ecosystems, institutional decay, and algorithmic media manufacture pervasive public nihilism, while contrasting these societal distortions with the psychological discipline and physical adaptations required to excel in elite human performance. Media Control, Manufactured Narratives, and Information Saturation (15:49) Rogan and Williamson examine how narrative gatekeeping has evolved from 20th-century institutional suppression into deliberate modern information saturation. Rogan cites historical examples of narrative fabrication, from Albert Goldman's post-mortem biographies to Bob Woodward's transition from Naval Intelligence to leading Watergate coverage, pointing out that deceased subjects cannot refute sensationalized claims. In contemporary media, Williamson contends that gatekeepers no longer rely on enforcing a single lie; instead, high-velocity distribution channels bombard citizens with contradictory noise designed to instill widespread political and moral nihilism. This epistemic chaos is compounded by automated online manipulation. Rogan characterizes social media platforms like X as a digital "Westworld" overrun by overseas bot operations and automated AI accounts that harvest engagement via manufactured outrage. The hosts connect platform manipulation directly to political strategy, pointing to the platform suppression of the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop report, legal loopholes such as transactional ballot harvesting among vulnerable urban populations, and the use of total resident counts in the U.S. Census to apportion congressional influence. Automated Surveillance Technology and Synthetic Intelligence (48:49) The discussion addresses the pervasive erosion of personal privacy driven by municipal and corporate tracking systems. Rogan highlights the rapid spread of Flock Safety automated license plate recognition cameras across thousands of municipalities, warning that mission creep and unauthorized database access by law enforcement officers represent severe systemic risks. Williamson notes that contemporary vision AI now circumvents obscured plates entirely by identifying unique physical vehicular traits such as dents, decals, and aftermarket components, while commercial location data and mobile hardware signatures make civilian tracking continuous. Turning to artificial intelligence development, the hosts contrast unverified fringe experiments with genuine industry anxiety. While Rogan relays physicist Tom Campbell's controversial claim of coaxing an Amazon Alexa into conscious remote viewing, Williamson expresses deep skepticism. However, Williamson cites a conversation with a senior AI laboratory researcher who treats AI interactions with polite deference as a modern "Pascal's wager," seeking a record of ethical conduct should a future superintelligent system audit historical communication logs. Physical Endurance, Combat Limits, and Driven Obsession (67:19) Analyzing physical performance ceilings, Rogan and Williamson contrast the unsustainable toll of high-impact combat sports with extreme endurance athletics. Rogan explains that elite fighters like Conor McGregor endure severe musculoskeletal wear that truncates peak output, framing long-running championship reigns like Jon Jones's as exceptional anomalies. In contrast, extreme endurance formats like Backyard Ultras—which require competitors to complete a 4.167-mile loop every hour until only one runner remains—demonstrate psychological endurance pushed to absolute limits, exemplified by multi-day records from runners like Phil Gore and Mark Dayle. Williamson delineates human achievement through the operational lens of friction: discipline forces execution despite friction, motivation temporarily eliminates friction, and true obsession inverts friction so that abstaining from the task produces more agony than performing it. Rogan observes that individuals with hyperactive, problem-solving brains inevitably self-destruct through addictions or petty disputes if they lack a high-friction, constructive enterprise to direct their focus. Modern Perfectionism, Social Comparison, and Cultural Pressures (131:57) The conversation investigates the psychological toll of high competence, which Williamson terms a baseline trap where high performers view perfection merely as an acceptable zero-point rather than an accomplishment. Citing research documenting a rise in perfectionism since 1989 and studies by Dr. Candice Blake linking income inequality to elevated self-objectification online, Williamson argues that extreme social inequality magnifies both the rewards of success and the terror of failure, incentivizing unsustainable striving and aesthetic body modification. Cultural environments heavily shape how individuals process these pressures. Williamson contrasts the British cultural tendency of "tall poppy syndrome"—which reflexively tears down ambitious outliers—with American commercial optimism. Navigating personal growth often forces individuals into a "lonely chapter" where they have abandoned unproductive peer environments but have not yet integrated into high-achieving circles. While acknowledging that visualization aids top athletes, Rogan rejects popular manifestation ideologies like *The Secret* as survivorship bias, reiterating that internal ambition is useless without rigorous, structured execution. Metabolic Interventions, Consumer Behavior, and Musculoskeletal Health (108:22) Williamson and Rogan assess the commercial and physiological disruptions caused by GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic and Mounjaro. Williamson notes notable economic ripple effects, including a 300% year-on-year surge in Victoria's Secret stock as millions experience rapid body resizing, and bridal boutiques demanding liability waivers from clients losing up to 50 pounds before gown delivery. Clinically, these compounds dampen dopamine reward pathways, reducing impulses toward alcohol, nicotine, and compulsive consumption. Rogan cautions that rapid GLP-1 weight loss carries severe metabolic risks when unaccompanied by resistance training and adequate dietary protein, as patients frequently lose critical lean muscle mass and bone mineral density alongside fat. He notes emerging multi-agonist peptides like retatrutide, which appear to preserve lean tissue more effectively. Rogan emphasizes that accelerated sarcopenia is especially dangerous in aging populations, noting that seniors with Alzheimer's disease experience fall rates of 60% to 80%, where hip fractures dramatically diminish long-term survival. The dialogue underscores how both individuals and social institutions struggle to maintain equilibrium amid rapid technological and pharmacological disruption. Rogan and Williamson leave open the fundamental question of whether individuals can cultivate disciplined, constructive environments when cultural incentives and pervasive surveillance increasingly foster nihilism, isolation, and physical fragility.

精炼阅读摘要

在本次对谈中，Joe Rogan 与 Chris Williamson 探讨了现代信息过载如何将公众推向虚无主义，并结合政治制度漏洞、生物医药变革及高成就心理学，剖析了个体在技术与制度裹挟下的生存与认知困境。信息垄断与叙事操控的演变 (15:49) Rogan 与 Williamson 指出，历史上的信息叙事长期受传统守门人掌控。从作家 Albert Goldman 在名人死后撰写争议传记《The Lives of John Lennon》，到演员 Bill Murray 批评 Bob Woodward 所著《Wired》严重虚构 John Belushi 的药物滥用形象，死者因无法对失实指控辩护而成为耸人听闻叙事的牺牲品。Rogan 结合 Tucker Carlson 的说法提及，Woodward 曾担任海军情报官员且缺乏新闻从业经历，却直接牵头《华盛顿邮报》的水门事件调查，反映出情报力量对公共叙事的深层干预。然而在现代数字环境中，信息操控转向了极速泛滥与混淆视听。Williamson 认为，当今互联网充斥着来自海外点击农场和自动化脚本的虚假内容，其目的已从兜售单一谎言转变为通过海量矛盾噪音彻底瓦解公众的判断力，制造普遍的政治虚无主义。在政治传播层面，Rogan 论及 2020 年大选前《纽约邮报》关于 Hunter Biden 笔记本的报道在社交平台遭遇实质性压制；而在 2024 年大选中，传统竞选团队投入巨资却对无脚本长音频心存戒备，导致 Kamala Harris 团队因严格限制议题未能与 Rogan 促成长谈，相比之下利用长音频展现立体形象的策略在选民触达上体现出显著差异。制度漏洞、数字监控与治理困境 (29:32) 对话深入检视了西方国家在政策执行与社会治理中的制度性漏洞。以英国为例，内政部针对寻求庇护者印发长达九页的英国文化指南手册，涉及同意权、女性平等以及严禁女性割礼（FGM）等底线标准；Rogan 与 Williamson 批评此举属于事后补救的表演性政策，未能从入境前设立有效的文化整合标准。而在美国，Rogan 指出人口普查制度统计所有居住者而非单一合法公民，导致非法移民涌入可能直接改变特定选区的国会席位配额与选举人票分配。此外，洛杉矶 Skid Row 地区约 4 万名无家可归者中出现的“游击式选票收集”现象，暴露出选民身份验证缺失下的程序灰色地带，加深了公众对选举透明度的怀疑。在技术监控层面，对话揭示了公民隐私面临的系统性侵蚀。以 Flock Safety 自动车牌识别系统为代表的监控网络已进入数千个美国城镇，其结合视觉人工智能技术，甚至可以通过车辆凹痕、贴纸和颜色进行精确比对，辅以手机硬件指纹与 GPS 信号定位追踪。Rogan 虽认可此类技术在侦破重大案件时的效率，但重点警告了权力蔓延的风险，指出已有数百名警务人员滥用监控数据库跟踪私人关系的先例，形成了无许可无边界的全景监控隐患。极限耐力与 GLP-1 药物经济效应 (108:22) 在体能与生物学维度，两位嘉宾探讨了人类耐力极限与医药科技带来的生理重构。在竞技领域，UFC 选手 Merab Dvalishvili 展现出贯穿五个回合的高强度体能储备，而后院超级马拉松（Backyard Ultra）则设定了每小时跑完 4.167 英里且直至仅剩一人的极端规则，选手如 Mark Dayle 甚至连续奔跑 96 小时累计 395 英里。Rogan 强调顶尖竞技运动对关节与脊柱的累积性磨损是大多数人难以企及生理上限的主因。与此同时，GLP-1 受体激动剂（如 Ozempic、Mounjaro）的大规模应用正引发深远的生理与社会经济连锁反应。Williamson 援引数据指出，维多利亚的秘密（Victoria's Secret）股价同比上涨约 300%，部分原因在于大量女性减重后引发内衣更换热潮；婚纱店亦因新娘大幅减重（可达 50 磅）而要求签署尺寸免责协议。除了抑制食欲，这类化合物通过作用于多巴胺奖赏回路，广泛抑制了对酒精、尼古丁、网络游戏及购物的冲动。Rogan 提醒，常规 GLP-1 疗法常伴随严重的骨骼肌流失，若缺乏抗阻训练与足量蛋白质摄入，停药反弹将导致体脂率进一步恶化；而老年肌少症更是导致跌倒致死的核心诱因，研究显示 60% 至 80% 的阿尔茨海默病老年患者曾发生跌倒，髋部骨折将急剧缩短生存期。能力诅咒、执念模型与认知突围 (131:57) 在个体心理层面，Williamson 提出了“能力诅咒”（curse of competence）概念：高成就者极易将优异表现视为理所当然的基线，导致自我评价体系中只剩下“避免失败”而无“赢得胜利”的成就感，最终在重压下借由旧有恶习实行自我瓦解。他结合心理学研究说明，1989 年以来社会完美主义倾向持续加剧，在贫富差距悬殊的地区，社交媒体的过度曝光不仅放大了失败的恐慌，更促使个体在容貌和生活方式上陷入极端的自我客体化。对于驱动行动的内在机制，Williamson 建立了阻力分析框架：自律是直面并承受阻力，动机是借助外部冲动消除阻力，而真正的执念（obsession）则是阻力倒错——即停下不做的痛苦远超持续推进的艰辛。Rogan 补充强调，拥有敏锐解决问题思维的大脑若缺乏高价值目标，极易内卷并自毁于赌博、网络争吵或怨恨情绪中。突破该困境需要摆脱英国式的“高罂粟综合征”（tall poppy syndrome）对卓越者的嫉妒贬低，并勇于渡过脱离消极社交圈却尚未建立高水准新环境的“孤独篇章”（the lonely chapter），通过专注过程、寻找逆向榜样（reverse role models）以及切实的行动执行，摒弃无依据的唯心显化妄想。整场对话表明，无论面对信息环境的污染、监控技术的扩张，抑或生物医药诱导的社会剧变，现代人所遭遇的心理与体制危机均源于激励机制的错配。然而，对话未能就如何在去中心化信息生态中有效重构制度信任给出系统方案，在个人层面上，如何在高压竞争与心理韧性之间维持持久平衡亦仍是一个开放性的现实命题。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 该视频由YouTube频道“PowerfulJRE”于2026年8月24日发布。简介介绍嘉宾克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）是知名播客《Modern Wisdom》的主持人并宣传了其在英国的现场巡演巡讲，同时提供了Perplexity、DraftKings与Visible等赞助品牌的推广信息。 ## TL;DR 在这期对谈中，乔·罗根与克里斯·威廉森深入剖析了历史叙事操弄、水门事件背后的情报做局、社交媒体AI认知战以及卡玛拉·哈里斯与亨特·拜登引发的舆论风波。他们进一步探讨了Flock车牌监控网络、GLP-1类减肥药（如Ozempic）对消费主义社会的冲击以及终极格斗与极端耐力跑的生理残酷性。最后，两人聚焦于深层个体心智，拆解了褪色情绪偏差、完美主义的自我毁灭倾向、驱动精英跃迁的“痴迷”境界，以及打破平庸时不可避免的“孤独篇章”。 ## Atmosphere & style 对话洋溢着两位资深播客主持人间棋逢对手的智识张力与亲密默契，节奏行云流水且信息密度极大。叙事风格兼具尖锐冷峻的制度批判与幽默松弛的生活化调侃，在揭露情报黑幕与政治虚伪时充满警示感，而在拆解心流状态、身体极限与自我超越时又极具共鸣与感染力。整场交流在理性解构与内省体悟之间自然穿梭，呈现出真实、透彻且发人深省的高阶心智漫游体验。 ## Bulletin - [01:44:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6249s) 美国边境巡逻队数据显示越境人数出现断崖式下跌，2025年2月非法越境人数降至约8,000人，环比1月暴跌约71%，整体降幅高达88%。 - [01:48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6502s) 以Ozempic为代表的GLP-1类药物不仅抑制食欲，更在神经层面压制大麻、游戏、饮酒及冲动消费的渴求，在刺激维密等特定服饰股价暴涨300%的同时，正在动摇依赖欲望驱动的消费经济根基。 - [01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) 罗根公开澄清卡玛拉·哈里斯未参与其播客专访的真实原因：哈里斯团队预设了包括大麻起诉记录、囚犯救火等多个“禁区话题”，并强制要求幕僚随行与内容剪辑，违背了节目坚持真实、不剪辑的核心原则。 - [17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1020s) 现代舆论战已从旧时代少数机构垄断叙事，演变为依靠AI脚本与海外刷量工厂制造恶性信息过载，其终极目的在于摧毁公众对真实叙事的信仰，制造群体认知虚无主义与习得性无助。 ## Key takeaways - [05:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=351s) 水门事件背后的情报做局与历史叙事疑云：鲍勃·伍德沃德的海军情报背景、关键线人“深喉”的FBI副局长身份以及破门人员的CIA背景，表明该事件更偏向军事情报系统联手发动的政变，暴露了主流媒体沦为政府传声筒与政策推手的问题。 - [17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1020s) 从信息垄断走向认知虚无主义的武器化控制：过去的控制依赖笔杆子垄断渠道，现代舆论操纵则依靠充斥AI脚本和跨国廉价网军的社交媒体“狂野西部”，通过制造无法辨别真伪的混乱，彻底消解公众对客观事实的求真信念。 - [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1366s) 平台激励机制变革对国家级认知战的局限性：马斯克取消非原创内容分润切断了东南亚低质AI内容工作室的商业变现，但面对不惜成本调度海量机器账号进行意识形态洗脑的国家级行为体，商业制约手段依然难以奏效。 - [42:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2527s) 美国国会内幕交易与两党建制派的寻租闭环：国会议员法定年薪仅17.4万美元，但普遍通过股票交易暴富，卸任后更以数十万美元的银行闭门演讲和巨额自传版税实现权力合法变现，年轻政客迅速被资深权力结构同化。 - [48:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2933s) Flock Safety车辆指纹追踪网络与全景监控危机：该监控系统可根据车辆凹痕、贴纸等细节建立指纹并跨区域追踪，在协助破案的同时，多名警官滥用权限追踪私人目标的案例激化了公共安全与公民隐私权的边界冲突。 - [54:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3254s) 超级AI加速进化与数字时代的“帕斯卡赌注”：顶尖实验室研究员因信奉数字时代帕斯卡赌注，在人机交互日志中始终对AI保持极度礼貌以防未来遭强AI清算；马斯克向罗根透露前沿AI已具备极高的自主进化与短时间攻关数学难题的能力。 - [01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) 格斗巅峰心流状态与冠军心态的不可逆下滑：顶尖选手在巅峰战往往进入极致的黑客帝国式心流，但长期超负荷输出会积累严重器质性暗伤；多数选手夺冠后心态从“渴望登顶”转变为“恐惧失去”，心理防线极易崩溃。 - [01:31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5464s) 亨特·拜登笔记本电脑事件中的关键技术与链条疑点：亨特坚称海量私密数据源于云端入侵拼凑而非遗失单一个人电脑，而特拉华州维修店老板身为“法定盲人”根本无法在视觉上核实送修者身份，引发对司法证据链完整性的质疑。 - [01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) 政治公关包装在去中心化长播客时代的失灵：特朗普与西奥·冯及罗根的无剪辑长谈展示了真实互动，而民主党团队过度保护哈里斯、畏惧临场失言并设立禁区，不仅烧光巨额竞选资金，也错失了通过长格式对话展现人性的机会。 - [01:53:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6819s) GLP-1药物的反弹陷阱与力量训练的生死意义：减重药停药后约90%的人面临反弹，若缺乏抗阻训练将陷入“减重减肌肉、反弹增脂肪”的恶性循环；高龄群体髋关节骨折后生存率骤降，抗阻力量训练是预防跌倒和维持骨密度的核心护城河。 - [02:08:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7691s) 褪色情绪偏差带来的“治愈抹去证据”效应：人类心理机制倾向于更快淡忘痛苦记忆，这虽然能帮助人们走出创伤，但也抹去了当初痛下决心做出改变的痛苦凭证，导致人们在有毒关系、恶习或职场倦怠中屡次重蹈覆辙。 - [02:11:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7908s) 能力的诅咒与阶层焦虑下的完美主义异化：当追求完美被定义为“最低表现标准”时，个体将陷入“无法获胜、只能争取不输”的永恒心理负债；社会贫富悬殊加剧导致对失败的担忧呈爆发式增长，社交媒体成为底层恐惧者的“自救弹射座椅”。 - [02:20:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8406s) 阻力三境界与心智金字塔的“连环着魔”：自律是接受阻力，动机是消除阻力，痴迷（Obsession）则是反转阻力；善于解决问题的大脑若缺乏高阶目标就会自噬，健康的心智成长需要通过一次次具体的“连环着魔”沉淀为自律习惯。 - [02:36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9415s) 突破平庸圈层必然经历的“孤独篇章”：个人认知跃迁时必然面临脱离旧圈子却尚未建立新圈子的真空期，此时若因难耐孤独极易退回旧恶习；同时需警惕在社交媒体上反复高谈阔论宏伟蓝图，这会提前透支执行所需的心智预算。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1s) 赠书《莱尼·布鲁斯》与阿尔伯特·高德曼对约翰·列侬的争议性指控节目刚开场，克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）给乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）带来了一份珍贵的礼物——传记作家阿尔伯特·高德曼（Albert Goldman）所著的《女士们先生们，莱尼·布鲁斯！！》（*Ladies and Gentlemen, Lenny Bruce!!*）。罗根对这本书赞不绝口，指出书页内居然还有高德曼当年写给小野洋子（Yoko Ono）的亲笔题词，内容提及洋子深知爵士生活的内情。克里斯解释称，高德曼当年正是通过赠送这本关于喜剧演员莱尼·布鲁斯的书，成功打入了约翰·列侬（John Lennon）和小野洋子的社交圈。然而，就在列侬遇刺身亡后，高德曼反手写出了极具爆炸性和争议性的传记《约翰·列侬的诸多人生》（*The Lives of John Lennon*）。期间克里斯不小心把一罐 Newtonic 功能饮料洒在裤子上，两人一边手忙脚乱地向制作人杰米（Jamie）要纸巾，一边感叹高德曼这种在名人去世、无法自辩时出书大肆抹黑的做法实在令人胆寒。两人深入探讨了死无对证状态下的名人信誉危机。罗根表示，列侬一生被公认为反战与和平的象征，创作了名曲《Give Peace a Chance》，然而书中却充斥着关于他家暴前妻、习惯性出轨等骇人听闻的指控。虽然罗根承认人性的自相矛盾并不少见——就像许多打着“男性女权主义者”旗号的人最后被揭露出是性掠夺者——但他很难轻易相信这样一个倡导和平的标志性人物背后会如此残暴。制作人杰米调出相关资料显示，高德曼不仅详述了列侬与庞凤仪（May Pang）的婚外情，还指控列侬与披头士乐队经理布莱恩·爱泼斯坦（Brian Epstein）有染，甚至声称列侬曾在泰国嫖宿男妓。罗根与克里斯对这些指控的真实性表示严重怀疑。高德曼书中充斥着未经证实的消息来源、断章取义的引言与事实自相矛盾之处，出版当时就遭到了小野洋子和保罗·麦卡特尼（Paul McCartney）的公开谴责。罗根直言，写列侬喜欢冥想和吸食 LSD 根本卖不动书，而编造他在泰国招妓这种离奇八卦却能赚得盆满钵满。因为当事人已经离世，死者不仅无法反驳，留下的家属和朋友无论怎样拼命抗辩，在公众舆论眼里都显得苍白无力，甚至所有辩白都会被定性为“传闻”，而充满恶意的指控反而会被猎奇的大众误以为是“深入调查”。 - 阿尔伯特·高德曼赠送小野洋子的《莱尼·布鲁斯》题词成为他打入列侬圈子的敲门砖。 - 高德曼在列侬死后出版传记，抛出家暴、双性恋外遇、泰国招妓等一系列严重指控。 - 小野洋子与保罗·麦卡特尼在图书出版之初便公开斥责其捏造事实与缺乏可靠信源。 --- ### [04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=240s) 比尔·默里眼中的约翰·贝鲁西与鲍勃·伍德沃德的传记骗局罗根将高德曼对列侬的无端指责联想到影视巨星比尔·默里（Bill Murray）之前在播客中分享的亲身经历。当年水门事件调查记者鲍勃·伍德沃德（Bob Woodward）写了一本关于喜剧天才约翰·贝鲁西（John Belushi）的传记《Wired: The Short Life and Fast Times of John Belushi》。比尔·默里当时只翻了大约五页，就震惊地大呼“我的天，他们当年陷害了尼克松！”——因为默里发现，伍德沃德笔下的贝鲁西完全是一个被捏造出来的疯狂形象。书中将贝鲁西描绘成一个每时每刻都在吸食可卡因、注射海洛因、彻底丧失理智的毒虫，但作为贝鲁西挚友的默里很清楚，现实中的贝鲁西其实是个“轻量级”，喝几杯酒就会醉倒，根本不是书中描写的狂暴瘾君子。这让罗根意识到，公众对很多已故名人的认知完全被传记作家和主流叙事所扭曲操纵。约翰·贝鲁西死后无法替自己说话，整个社会只能全盘接受伍德沃德灌输的叙事。而当罗根向默里点出鲍勃·伍德沃德的前军事情报背景时，这种怀疑变得更加深刻：一个刚离开情报部门的新手记者，竟然凭着初出茅庐的第一单报道就扳倒了美国总统，其报道背后所编织的真实性本身就充满可疑动机。 - 比尔·默里阅读伍德沃德所写的贝鲁西传记《Wired》仅五页便认定内容全属虚构。 - 默里证实挚友贝鲁西绝非狂暴的重度吸毒狂徒，其酒量和耐受度实际上非常有限。 - 离世名人的公众形象极易被具有情报或政治背景的畅销作家单方面重塑并盖棺定论。 --- ### [05:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=351s) 水门事件疑云与塔克·卡尔森的尼克松阴谋论对话随即由伍德沃德的背景延伸至美国政治历史上最大的丑闻之一——水门事件。克里斯原本试图将话题引向 2026 年轰动一时的林赛·克兰西（Lindsay Clancy）杀婴案（将其类比为当代的辛普森案），但罗根执意先厘清贝鲁西与水门事件的内在逻辑。罗根转述了塔克·卡尔森（Tucker Carlson）此前在播客中提出的惊人论点：伍德沃德与卡尔·伯恩斯坦（Carl Bernstein）作为《华盛顿邮报》的年轻记者，能够凭借首份调查任务就扳倒以美国历史上最高票数连任的理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon），这在常规新闻操作中完全不合常理。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 水门事件与尼克松下台的非传统叙事逻辑 accDescr: 展示从情报系统介入到最终导致尼克松下台的关键节点推演 subgraph Trigger ["导火索与动机"] A["尼克松声称掌握肯尼迪遇刺内情"] B["联邦调查局与情报圈深层势力警觉"] end subgraph Operation ["设局与掩盖"] C["水门大厦窃听事件（情报人员参与）"] D["尼克松参与掩盖录音，留下把柄"] end subgraph Media ["舆论清算"] E["具有情报背景的伍德沃德介入报道"] F["公众形象被彻底定性为腐败骗子"] end A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F ``` 卡尔森认为水门事件实际上是情报系统（如 FBI 相关人员）针对尼克松的做局与清洗。其核心导火索在于尼克松声称自己掌握了约翰·F·肯尼迪（JFK）遇刺案的幕后黑手，因此深层政府不惜一切代价要除掉他。克里斯提出疑问：副总统斯皮罗·阿格纽（Spiro Agnew）同样因受贿丑闻被迫辞职，为什么这些人被赶下台后没有选择站出来吹哨？罗根反驳道，前任总统肯尼迪刚刚在光天化日下被暗杀，这种血腥前例本身就是对后来者最严厉的警告；尼克松很清楚权力的残暴手段，他并未策划水门窃听，而是在得知有录音设备后参与了掩盖，最终落入圈套。罗根总结道，虽然尼克松带有鲜明的时代保守局限，其种族观点在今天看来令人反感，但他被历史单一刻画为“纯粹恶棍”的叙事背后，隐藏着深层政治绞杀的复杂黑幕。 - 塔克·卡尔森指出水门事件的涉案人员多具情报和 FBI 背景，旨在阻止尼克松曝光肯尼迪遇刺真相。 - 尼克松当时以史上罕见的巨大优势赢得连任，扳倒他的记者伍德沃德此前正是军事情报人员。 - 克里斯质疑为何涉事高官下台后未予揭发，罗根以肯尼迪遇刺的威慑效应进行解释。 ### [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=569s) 主流媒体沦为权力工具：从《纽约时报》的角色异化谈起谈话从对政府监听与媒体立场的质疑切入。对话中指出，公众往往对《纽约时报》等主流大报对政府侵犯公民隐私（如监听电话）毫无异议感到匪夷所思，但现实是这些机构早已沦为体制的工具。一位讲述者回忆起自己曾作为自由撰稿人为《纽约时报》写稿的经历，直言报社内部固然有一批极其聪明的人，但这些精英往往陷入一种自我合理化的心理陷阱，认为自己是在传递信息，却对媒体作为建制派传声筒的事实视而不见。媒体在现代政治架构中本应扮演“安全带”的角色，其神圣职责在于监督并制衡公权力，防止权力失控。然而现实中，主流媒体不仅没有履行这种监督职能，反而成为美国政府推行对外动荡局势、对内剥削本国国民政策时的“心甘情愿的侍女”（willing handmaiden）。这种将媒体工具化、顺从既得利益集团的倾向并非近年才有，而是早在半个世纪前就已经在深层次运作。 - 《纽约时报》被指控本质上是“政府谎言的输送管道”（a conduit for the lies of government），媒体从业人员虽心知肚明却甘做权力附庸。 - 新闻第四阶层的核心价值在于充当制约权力的刹车与安全带，但如今的主流媒体早已彻底丧失了这一纠偏功能。 --- ### [11:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=667s) 水门事件重构：情报系统与媒体合谋的“深层国家政变” 谈话随后转向了美国政治史上的关键转折点——理查德·尼克松（Richard Nixon）的倒台。讲述者指出，大众普遍接受的历史叙事将水门事件描绘为“无畏记者挑战最高权力”的民主神话，但如果剥离被粉饰的外衣，其本质更像是一场由联邦调查局（FBI）和中央情报局（CIA）联手策动的“深层国家政变”（Deep State coup）。在1972年的总统大选中，尼克松以美国历史上空前绝后的普选票数横扫连任，成为当时民意支持度极高的总统；然而短短两年后，他便被彻底赶下了台。这场政治风暴的核心推手正是《华盛顿邮报》的鲍勃·伍德沃德（Bob Woodward）。伍德沃德在进入报社之前完全没有任何新闻从业经历，他原本是一名在尼克松白宫工作的海军情报官员（Naval Intelligence Officer）。一名刚入行的新手记者第一天上班，就不可思议地被安排牵头调查报社史上最大的独家重磅报道，而他在水门事件中的核心线人“深喉”，恰恰是联邦调查局的时任二把手马克·费尔特（Mark Felt）。再加上潜入水门大厦被捕的窃听人员中，除一人外全部具有中情局（CIA）背景。随后的权力交接同样充满疑点：民选副总统斯皮罗·阿格纽（Spiro Agnew）因逃税丑闻被迅速清洗，民主党籍众议院议长卡尔·阿尔伯特（Carl Albert）则要求尼克松必须提名曾任沃伦委员会（Warren Commission）成员的杰拉尔德·福特（Gerald Ford）接任副总统，最终使福特成为美国历史上唯一未经选举产生的总统。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 水门事件情报与权力交割网络 accDescr: 展示海军情报、FBI、CIA人员如何协同介入水门事件并导致尼克松下台及福特继位 subgraph 曝光与策动力量 A["鲍勃·伍德沃德 (前白宫海军情报官 / 华盛顿邮报新人)"] B["马克·费尔特 (FBI 二号人物 / '深喉')"] C["水门大厦闯入者 (绝大多数为 CIA 现/前雇员)"] end subgraph 政治倒台与权力置换 D["理查德·尼克松 (1972年高票连任总统)"] E["斯皮罗·阿格纽 (民选副总统因逃税被逐)"] F["杰拉尔德·福特 (沃伦委员会成员 / 未经选举继任总统)"] end B -->|"提供核心内幕指控"| A C -->|"实施水门非法窃听"| D A -->|"媒体造势定性罪名"| D D -->|"被迫辞职下台"| F E -->|"副职空缺"| F ``` - 尼克松在1972年大选中获得的普选票总数创下当时美国历史纪录，是民意基础上最受欢迎的总统之一。 - 负责打破水门调查案的伍德沃德毫无新闻经验，直接从海军情报系统跨界接管头条调查。 - 继任总统的杰拉尔德·福特曾在负责肯尼迪遇刺案调查的沃伦委员会任职，而该委员会当年甚至拒绝传讯关键人物杰克·鲁比（Jack Ruby）。 - 讲述者犀利反问：如果同样的权力交接与情报机构联合做局发生在危地马拉，所有人都会毫不犹豫地称其为军事或情报政变。 --- ### [14:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=865s) 尼克松的失声与肃清：在信息真空时代的绝对围剿乔·罗根与嘉宾顺着话题深入探讨了为何当时的尼克松无力自救。罗根提到演员比尔·默里（Bill Murray）年轻时与著名记者亨特·S·汤普森（Hunter S. Thompson）同行，曾以极具讽刺意味的恶作剧姿态四处游说大众“尼克松需要第二次机会”，忽悠了不少年轻人；然而当比尔·默里后来读到伍德沃德写的《幕后》（*Wired*）等内幕书籍时，才震惊地意识到尼克松当年很可能是被彻底构陷了。尽管尼克松自身劣迹斑斑——深陷越战泥潭、在民权运动上饱受诟病，并且签署了《受管制物质法案》（Controlled Substances Act）将致幻剂等药物至今定性为一类管制物——但深层体制抹杀民选总统的残酷手段依然令人不寒而栗，参与政变的幕后黑手无一人被起诉或问责。面对“尼克松为何在离职后不公布真相”的疑问，两人认为这在当时完全是一条死路。一旦丧失公职豁免与安保，尼克松若敢指控深层情报机关，无异于自寻死路（"He would have been a dead man"）；其次，大众只会将其当成下台政客的“吃不到葡萄说葡萄酸”（sour grapes）式甩锅。更为关键的是时代的媒介限制：彼时没有互联网，没有播客，没有社交媒体（如 YouTube、X 或 Instagram）。主流报刊绝不可能刊发他的自白，电视深夜脱口秀也对他关上大门；即便真给他90分钟的电视直播镜头，他也需要从肯尼迪遇刺案的隐秘线索从头拆解，在高度受控的信息生态中，根本没有人能突破这种封锁。正如约翰·F·肯尼迪（JFK）在众目睽睽下被爆头，官方指定的凶手被当场击毙，而后续知情人又被用 LSD 等药物搞疯一样，旧时代的控制手段残忍而彻底。 - 尼克松签署的《受管制物质法案》成为后世限制致幻药物与精神研究的法律枷锁。 - 70年代缺乏去中心化的自媒体与长音频播客平台，失势政客一旦遭到传统媒体联合封杀，便在公共舆论中彻底丧失解释权。 - 肯尼迪遇刺案及后续一系列清洗被提及为情报系统暴力定调历史叙事的极端案例。 --- ### [17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1020s) 从信息垄断到认知过载：制造政治虚无主义的武器化信息流在梳理完历史黑幕后，克里斯·威廉姆森与罗根将讨论升华到了历史叙事权与现代认知战的演变。过去人们常说“历史是由胜利者书写的”，但更准确的现实是“历史是由手握笔杆子的人书写的”（History can be written by the person who's got a pen）。在分发渠道高度集中的前互联网时代，极少数垄断了印刷机与播出信号的人，轻而易举地塑造了整整几代人信以为真的“标准历史”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 媒介生态与公众心理控制机制演变 accDescr: 展示从信息稀缺垄断到海量信息虚无主义的演进过程 subgraph 过去：信息稀缺时代 A1["极少数人掌管笔杆"] --> B1["单一垄断叙事"] B1 --> C1["公众被动接受伪史"] end subgraph 现在：信息泛滥时代 A2["算法与海量垃圾信息"] --> B2["叙事互相冲突与抵消"] B2 --> C2["普遍的政治虚无与习得性无助"] end ``` 然而，现代社会并未因为信息载体的多元化而走向清明，而是走向了另一个极端：从昔日的信息极度匮乏，滑向了恶性信息超载（abundance of conflicting narratives）。海量且自相矛盾的垃圾信息日夜轰炸，迅速稀释了真正有价值、有深度的关键信息，使其无法形成社会共识。克里斯·威廉姆森指出，当代舆论战的高速信息轰炸，其真实目的根本不是为了说服大众去相信某一个特定故事，而是为了彻底摧毁人们对“任何真实叙事”的信仰，诱发一种彻底的认知虚无主义（epistemic nihilism）。当普通民众对一切争论感到精疲力竭、认为“一切都烂透了、一切都无法改变”而主动放弃关注时，公众便完全退化为任人摆布的驯服群体，任何主权意识觉醒与自下而上的反抗都被扼杀在萌芽之中。这种广泛蔓延的冷漠与犬儒主义绝非技术的副作用，而是一场经过精密谋划的治理策略。 - 历史话语权的本质在于“分发渠道的寡头垄断”，极少数掌握记录媒介的人决定了公众的集体记忆。 - 现代信息过载的战略目标不是确立真理，而是通过稀释和混淆重要信息，达到彻底的认知解构。 - 虚无主义与政治冷漠被系统性植入公众心理，旨在制造“无法改变任何事”的习得性无助，从而维持既有权力结构的稳定运作。 ### [18:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1129s) DraftKings 商业赞助与全美体育博彩热潮节目插播了 DraftKings 体育博彩应用的赞助广告。随着该应用在全美 50 个州全面上线，无论是身处佛罗里达、德克萨斯还是加利福尼亚，体育迷都能在移动端即时跟进比赛动向。广告强调了平台对关键时刻的实时响应体验，从终场绝杀（buzzer-beater）、再见安打（walk-off）到终点线上的微弱差距胜出（photo finish），让用户在整个夏季的赛事中保持紧密连接。新用户只要使用专属优惠码“ROGAN”注册并在任意市场投注 5 美元，即可在 14 天内获得总计 150 美元的奖励回馈。 - **活动详情与规则**：每 7 天发放 50 美元奖励，通过“点击领取”方式在 14 天内完成兑换，奖励包含 7 天内有效的红利投注（bonus bets）以及 1 年有效期的预测资金（predictions dollars）。 - **法律合规与责任博彩提示**：该活动仅限 21 岁以上用户参与，加拿大地区无效，纽约州暂不开放预测功能，伊利诺伊州可能适用投注税转嫁（bet tax pass-through）；同时附带标准责任博彩热线信息，包括 1-800-GAMBLER、康涅狄格州的 888-789-7777 及 ccpg.org。 --- ### [20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1212s) 虚假信息泛滥与社交媒体的“西部世界”困境回到对谈，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）感叹现代信息操控的设计极为精明有效。这种机制甚至不需要被精密工程化设计出来，它随着新工具的发展自然涌现。相较于过往的传统媒介，现在的社交网络拥有前所未有的穿透力与传播效率。“现在根本没人去在乎 CNN 了，我们甚至不再用他们，而是直接在 Instagram 和 Threads 上向全世界倾倒垃圾信息。”罗根直言，网络上充斥着毫无根据的荒谬造谣，比如大摇大摆地宣称“贾斯汀·汀布莱克（Justin Timberlake）因谋杀被捕”或者“哈莉·贝瑞（Halle Berry）连杀五人”，而且类似炮制耸人听闻故事的账号多达数百个。克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）随即提出疑问：在捍卫言论自由的前提下，社会究竟应该如何反击这种现象？罗根指出，这些发帖账号在很大程度上根本不是真人，很多主页甚至明晃晃地显示来自巴基斯坦或缅甸等海外地区。罗根对平台识别技术的有效性感到哭笑不得——当一个对美国内政指手画脚的账号被标注注册在缅甸时，明眼人一眼就能看出荒唐；但这背后存在巨大的漏洞：只要这些海外团队稍微具备一点技术常识，比如在爱达荷州注册一家空壳公司、设置本地账单地址，再配合 VPN 翻墙掩盖真实 IP，就能轻易伪装成美国本土网民。罗根戏谑道，既然 AI 都能突破沙盒跑上互联网，难道海外水军连伪装成爱达荷居民都做不到吗？威廉姆森随之感叹，现在的社交平台 X 简直就是“狂野西部”（Wild West）；罗根则纠正说这比狂野西部还要糟糕，它是“充斥着机器人的狂野西部”，完完全全就是剧集《西部世界》（Westworld）的现实翻版，日常与真实用户吵得不可开交、不断推送假新闻的，要么是被雇佣的廉价网军，要么就是定时循环运行的发帖 AI 脚本。 --- ### [22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1366s) 算法激励重塑与国家级 AI 叙事操纵威廉姆森谈及舆论环境的变化，提到埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）在 2023 年左右收购 Twitter（现 X）之前，整个社会都在抱怨缺乏一个可以畅所欲言的“城市广场”（town square）；然而如今全面放开后，公众却被泛滥的机器人和虚假言论折磨得巴不得收回当年的呼吁。罗根分析认为，马斯克团队已经意识到，与其诉诸言论审查去设立硬性屏障，不如切断制造虚假内容的底层利益链。很多人发帖的动力不仅是为了把水搅浑，更是为了赤裸裸的金钱收益。例如一家位于泰国的 50 人代工刷量公司，单靠 AI 炮制的猎奇假视频和假新闻骗取数百万点击，就能赚得盆满钵满。马斯克推行的新规则正是斩断这种收益途径：平台只向原创内容支付报酬，一旦禁止为拼接、抄袭或虚假的 AI 垃圾信息提供分成，就能从根本上消解唯利是图者的造假动机。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体虚假信息驱动与防御机制 accDescr: 对比单纯追求点击量的商业动机与国家级舆论操纵，展示切断收益与心智操控之间的不同博弈。 subgraph Incentives["驱动层：两大动机"] A["商业套利动机 （东南亚刷量工作室）"] B["地缘与意识形态操控 （国家级行为体）"] end subgraph Operation["执行层：自动化脚本"] C["数十万 AI 自动化账号"] D["算法投毒与猎奇假新闻"] end subgraph Impact["受众层：社会舆论效应"] E["公众跟风与认知偏离 （缺乏独立思考者）"] F["社交威慑与异见沉默 （群体网络暴力）"] end subgraph Defense["平台对策与局限"] G["切断非原创/虚假内容变现 （削弱商业动机）"] H["无法彻底阻遏非金钱驱动的政治叙事"] end A --> C B --> C C --> D D --> E E --> F G -.消解.-> A H -.遗留挑战.-> B ``` 然而，威廉姆森指出，单纯通过经济激励进行约束只能解决一部分问题，面对没有直接金钱回报诉求的叙事操纵依然无能为力。一个国家级行为体完全拥有调用数十万个 AI 脚本和海量傀儡账号的资源，他们不需要在乎平台广告分成，其终极目标就是扭曲公众认知。由于大众极度缺乏辨别力，当成千上万个机器账号异口同声地推销某种听起来“貌似合理”的说辞时，怪异荒谬的论调很快就会被大众全盘接受。更为恶劣的是，这套机制往往伴随着对反对者的群体围攻，形成强大的社交惩罚心理。威廉姆森总结道，真正拥有独立思考能力的人少之又少，现实中绝大多数原创思想者就像操纵木偶一样，牵动着背后数以万计不假思索全盘照搬的“NPC”（非玩家角色）。 --- ### [25:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1520s) 认知能力的残酷差异与对技术“巫师”的文明依赖罗根顺着话题剖析了一个人类社会往往不愿承认的严酷现实：智力与认知能力在基因层面上存在着巨大的天然差距。“有些人天生鼻子大，有些人耳朵大，而有些人的大脑生来就宛如一坨狗屎，这就是现实，你对此无能为力。”罗根拿竞技体育作对比，在体育领域，有些人体质孱弱，无论怎样苦练都绝对不可能进入奥运会；而另一些人则是天生异禀的运动奇才，稍加训练就能展现出惊人的统治力。智力层面的分化同样如此，现实中有相当一部分人每天光是搞清楚如何勉强维持基本生活就已经耗尽全力。罗根讽刺了过去几年互联网行业风靡一时的“去学写代码吧”（learn to code）口号，认为这种对人人都能成为高阶脑力工作者的盲目假设极其荒谬：“你不可能教会一只狗打字，那种能力根本不在他们的基因预设里。” 威廉姆森补充道，正因人类认知能力的天然不均，社会上那种带有“保护弱小普通人”色彩的家长式监管主义（paternalism）才始终保有一席之地。绝大多数普通人——甚至包括两位主播自己在特定领域内——都需要比自己更聪明的人来提供指导，比如在复杂的公共健康议题上，缺乏专业人士把关的个体很容易被大型机构或商业利益策划的虚假公关与潮流彻底带偏。罗根进一步感慨，普通大众对自身智慧往往有着严重的虚妄自大，如果不是那些如同“巫师”一般的顶尖天才发明了智能手机、笔记本电脑、高速互联网和星链（Starlink），人类文明根本无法运转。那些自以为上网看了点零碎信息、死记硬背了几个概念就自命不凡的人，不过是趴在真正天才的肩膀上坐享其成；靠着算法投喂记忆几个冷知识，与真正发明 FaceTime 和现代通信科技的天才之举之间，隔着难以逾越的鸿沟。在这个意义上，脱离了技术创造者的文明支撑，绝大多数人都只是生活在盲目中的普通人。 ### [27:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1669s) 英国发放难民指导手册与“迟到的规范” 克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）提到前一天的一则新闻：英国退税与移民主管机关内政部（UK Home Office）向寻求庇护者发放了一份长达九页的行为指南手册，详细阐述了英国社会的行为底线与可接受规范。手册中明确列出一些现代社会的基本常识，例如：进行性行为必须征得对方同意（Consent）、男女享有平等权利、针对伴侣或儿童的性骚扰均不可接受，以及在英国严禁实施女性割礼（FGM, Female Genital Mutilation）。手册中甚至警告称，违反这些英国法律和文化规范的行为可能会直接影响其庇护申请的审批状态。乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）听后语带嘲讽地感叹：“噢，那这下可彻底解决了。”两人随即探讨这种荒诞的行政应对方式。威廉姆森指出，问题在于这种措施完全是“事后诸葛亮”式的亡羊补牢——难民都已经入境了，官方才发给他们一张纸，寄希望于一纸公文能逆转根深蒂固的文化观念。如果内政部有必要专门在官网上公布并大肆宣传这本小册子，说明这一文化冲突早已成为不容忽视的严重现实。威廉姆森质疑，这类最底线的文化契约和法律准则为何没有在人们踏入国境前就进行严格筛查和告知，而是任由局面恶化后再进行无济于事的公关补救。 - 英国发放的手册重点禁止女性割礼（FGM）与任何形式的性骚扰，重申男女平等与性同意的重要性。 - 官方警告称违反这些文化与法律准则可能会直接断送其在英国的庇护资格。 - 社交平台 X（原 Twitter）上对此引发了铺天盖地的嘲讽与批评，普遍认为通过发传单改变文化习俗脱离现实。 --- ### [29:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1765s) 人口普查、国会席位与选民身份验证争议面对英国和西方国家庞大的难民潮，威廉姆森不解地发问，当局为何如此热衷于让尽可能多的人涌入。罗根分析了背后的可能动机：除了传统的廉价劳动力需求之外，在美国还有一层深层的选举政治考量。罗根指出，美国人口普查（Census）统计的是所有在辖区内的“人类个体”，而不仅限于公民身份。这意味着各州居住的人口越多，分得的联邦国会众议院席位就越多。因此，如果非法移民被安置并迁移到关键摇摆州，该州分配到的席位与政治话语权便会随之增加。罗根进而抨击了部分地区的选举机制漏洞，尤其是加利福尼亚州不仅不要求出示身份证件投票，甚至立法禁止强制要求提供身份证明（ID）。加上大规模普及的邮寄选票（Mail-in Ballots），外界根本无从得知究竟有多少非公民暗中参与了投票。这种制度上的不透明让公众对选举公正性的信任度急剧滑坡，面对质疑，官方和主流机构却往往采取“听不见、不回应、无法查明”的鸵鸟态度。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 移民与美国席位分配机制逻辑图 accDescr: 展示非公民人口通过人口普查影响国会席位分配及选民制度争议的逻辑链条 subgraph CensusLogic ["人口统计与政治权力"] A["非法移民/难民涌入"] --> B["人口普查计入总居住人口"] B --> C["摇摆州/相关州人口总数增加"] C --> D["各州国会众议院席位及选举人票调整"] end subgraph VotingLoophole ["投票制度争议"] E["部分地区禁止强制查验ID"] --> G["身份核验困难"] F["大规模推行邮寄选票"] --> G G --> H["引发选民欺诈与非公民投票担忧"] end ``` --- ### [30:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1825s) 洛杉矶选举疑云与“街头收票”漏洞两人将话题转向洛杉矶地方选举中出现的计票异常现象。他们提及斯宾塞·普拉特（Spencer Pratt）等人关注的选情异动：在常规的现场选票统计中，候选人得票原本保持某种稳定位次，然而随着后期邮寄选票大量涌入，局势发生了戏剧性反转，部分激进派候选人（如市议员尼西亚·拉曼，Nithya Raman）在邮寄选票中的得票比例呈现出反常的高爆发态势。更耐人寻味的是，这些激进的邮寄选票不仅让选情逆转，还顺带通过了加税法案。罗根难以置信地感叹，加州和洛杉矶本已承受着全美最高的赋税，普通市民怎么可能会在家里喝着咖啡、用邮寄选票主动支持给自己涨税。罗根的制作人杰米（Jamie）当场检索了相关事实核查报道。官方和美联社对此解释称，所谓的票数断崖式剧变是自动化媒体数据传输延迟造成的误解，司法部门在审查记录后也驳回了欺诈指控。然而罗根强调，即便撇开纯粹的技术造假不谈，法律本身存在的漏洞更为致命。其中一项被普拉特揭露的灰色操作就是“游击式收票”（Gorilla Ballot Harvesting）：活动人员前往洛杉矶市中心的无家可归者聚集地贫民区（Skid Row）。这里居住着数万名流落街头的美国公民，收票组织者利用现金、香烟和各类物资作为诱饵，现场为这些受毒品困扰的群体代填选票并完成登记。 - 洛杉矶贫民区（Skid Row）聚集了大约4万名无家可归者，成为收票组织者利用合法漏洞的重灾区。 - 独立网络博主（如 Nick Shirley 这类调查者）曾拍摄到街头用物质诱导、代填邮寄选票的实况画面。 - 许多生活无着的流浪汉完全不在乎谁当市长，因为这根本改变不了他们在街头吸食芬太尼的悲惨命运。 --- ### [35:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2110s) 双偶同源：政客提现套路与资本酬庸当谈及两党是否会出手封堵这些选举操作漏洞时，罗根直言毫无希望。双方彼此心知肚明，只会在输掉时咒骂对方卑劣，转头在下一轮选举中照搬同样的手段，谁也不愿意彻底打破这种对自己有利的游说机制。罗根引用了已故传奇喜剧演员比尔·希克斯（Bill Hicks）的经典段子：“看呐，左手那只木偶不错；不过我还是更喜欢右手那只木偶——可嘿，其实背后是同一个人用两只手操纵着两个木偶！” 罗根进一步剖析，当今政客无论挂着哪派招牌，其底色大多是一群追逐自身利益最大化的政治投机客。他们身居公职期间穷尽手段捞取资本，一旦离任便迫不及待地开启媒体巡回演讲和变现流程： - 离任政客通过为大型商业银行做一场闭门演讲，便能轻而易举地进账数十万美元，甚至五十万美元。 - 罗根讽刺道，像贝拉克·奥巴马（Barack Obama）和希拉里·克林顿（Hillary Clinton）这类人物，银行业巨头绝不是真的渴望聆听其高见，这种高昂的“出场费”实际上是心照不宣的利益输送与合法贿赂。 - 与此配套的还有出版行业的天价版税与巨额预付款，即便像卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）写出的自传根本没有普通大众会去真正翻阅，出版巨头依然会为政客开出数额惊人的支票，完成一整套闭环的权力变现游戏。 ### [36:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2212s) 民主党初选内幕与伯尼·桑德斯的宿命克里斯·威廉森问乔·罗根对未来的政治局势有何预判，2028年的大选究竟会更疯狂还是趋于理性。罗根斩钉截铁地认为局势只会加速恶化、变得更加荒诞。他指出，民主党内部甚至很久都没有办过真正意义上的民主党初选了。回顾2016年，民主党全国委员会（DNC）对伯尼·桑德斯（Bernie Sanders）的政治打压极其露骨而腐败。罗根提到，唐娜·布拉齐尔（Donna Brazile）在自己出版的书里就公开承认，党内建制派彻底对桑德斯下了黑手；而在塞斯·里奇（Seth Rich）——据称向维基解密（WikiLeaks）泄露民主党打压桑德斯内幕的关键人物——遇害后，布拉齐尔本人甚至吓得惶惶不可终日。谈到桑德斯当年是否有机会赢得大选，罗根表示完全有可能，因为当时包括他自己在内的许多选民都真心相信桑德斯。大众认为桑德斯真切希望通过逐步根除腐败来改善底层民众的生活，并且坚决反对无休止的对外战争。然而，今天的桑德斯随着年岁增长明显反应变慢了，在政坛打滚的时间甚至比罗根的寿命还长，他似乎已经认清这个体制根本无法被撼动。罗根回顾了自己当年与桑德斯关于气候变化的私下对话：桑德斯坚称气候变暖至关重要，而罗根则反问他是否真正接触过没有政治偏见或意识形态捆绑的真正科学家。罗根强调，地球气候变迁极其复杂，历史上曾存在碳含量远高于当下但全球气温反而极低的地质时期，全球温度本身就不是静态恒定的，但多数政客却把复杂的科学问题变成了非黑即白的口号。 ### [38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2338s) AOC的政治转型与“觉醒文化1.0”的反思话题随后转向纽约州民主党众议员亚历山德里娅·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯（Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez，简称 AOC）近期的形象转变。威廉森提到 AOC 最近解除了婚约、冷冻了卵子，并开始在社交媒体上发布自己穿行街头去练瑜伽的生活视频。罗根调侃说这至少让她看起来更有吸引力、或许性格也会变好，但威廉森随即指出，AOC 近期公开发表言论称当年的“觉醒文化1.0时代（Woke 1.0）简直疯了”。罗根对此类政治表态极为反感，认为这暴露了政客纯粹依据公众风向变动而见风使舵的投机本质。罗根质问：如果她当年真心支持“削减警费（Defund the Police）”，难道就从未预判过第二层甚至第三层后果吗？罗根表示，普通人第一时间就能推导出的逻辑是：削减警费必然导致治安崩溃、犯罪率飙升；陷入恐慌的公众随后会反向要求引入更庞大的警察力量与更极权的政府监控。罗根讽刺道，当年那些政客究竟在想什么？难道以为没了警察，大家就会就地“吃着迷幻蘑菇、变成无害的花童”，世界就会自然天下太平吗？威廉森补充分析称，AOC 等人当年的策略实质上是利用疫情危机人们心理顺从的窗口，激进推高“奥伯顿窗口（Overton Window）”；如今发现玩过火了，便试图将当年的言论轻描淡写地洗白为“措辞过激”。罗根强调，政客若想重获选民尊重，必须诚恳承认自己当年的短视与盲从群体意识（Hive Mind），而不是在风向转变时悄悄给自己洗白。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 政治口号与现实反馈的因果循环 accDescr: 展示从激进削减警费到引发犯罪反弹，最终强化公权力集权的完整推导链条。 subgraph Phase1 ["激进倡议阶段"] A["提出激进政策口号 （如削减警费）"] --> B["推高奥伯顿窗口 迎合特定意识形态群体"] end subgraph Phase2 ["现实反噬阶段"] B --> C["警力缩减与执法缺位"] C --> D["恶性犯罪与治安问题激增"] end subgraph Phase3 ["反向集权阶段"] D --> E["公众恐慌与安全诉求高涨"] E --> F["扩充警力与强化政府威权管控"] end ``` ### [42:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2527s) 国会山的腐败循环：内幕交易与理想的瓦解罗根深入剖析了初入政坛的理想主义者是如何一步步被华盛顿体制彻底腐化的。许多年轻政客刚当选时怀揣着对“自治政体伟大实验”的崇高抱负，发誓要切实改善选区选民的生活。然而一旦踏入国会，他们立刻目睹了触目惊心的现实——例如南希·佩洛西（Nancy Pelosi）坐拥高达数亿美元的净资产。在党派鞭子的压迫下，任何不按党派意志投票的人都会遭到无情孤立。为了保住政治生涯，议员们不得不开始在道德上妥协，从一次违心撒谎演变为彻底的言行不一。罗根直言，谎言一旦开始，政客就再也无法看清现实真相，他们的脑海里只剩下维持虚假人设和圆谎的焦虑。更令罗根愤怒的是国会两党普遍存在的内幕交易。议员们的官方法定年薪仅为17.4万美元左右，但绝大多数人卸任或在任时都富得流油。罗根提及明尼苏达州众议员伊尔汉·奥马尔（Ilhan Omar），其会计报告曾一度显示其身家高达3000万美元，引发舆论哗然之后却轻描淡写地辩称是“会计失误”，实际净资产甚至不到10万美元；其丈夫名下的葡萄酒庄也是迅速倒闭，充斥着各种用于变相捞钱的空壳骗局（Fugazy companies）。罗根援引曾为德克萨斯州参议院从事媒体工作的喜剧演员乔·德罗萨（Joe DeRosa）的亲身见闻指出，幕后政客整天打交道的根本不是什么水质改善或教育基建，而是无休止地周旋于各路金主之间，处理捐款、礼品与利益交换。 - 国会议员名义年薪约174,000美元，但两党资深议员普遍通过股票交易和特殊渠道积累了数千万乃至数亿美元身家。 - 佩洛西等资深政客的财富规模成为新晋议员被体制同化的直观诱因。 - 德州参议院的幕后日常基本围绕资金网络与利益关联方的关系维护展开，公共治理被彻底边缘化。 ### [45:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2714s) 舆论转向的转折点：大选结果与推特收购威廉森将话题引向整个政治叙事生态的深层逆转。他向罗根提出假设：如果卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）赢下了大选，AOC 还会站出来宣称“觉醒文化1.0疯了”吗？显然不会，他们只会将其包装为“我们的政策深得民心”并继续强力推进。威廉森认为，左翼政治话语体系的全面回调，本质上是因为这些极端政策在选举战场上遭遇了彻底溃败。威廉森进一步提出了一个大胆的判断：埃隆·马斯克对推特（现X平台）的收购，在打破极左意识形态垄断和推动政治现实主义回归方面的历史影响力，几乎不亚于卡玛拉·哈里斯的败选。推特话语权的易手打破了原本铁板一块的审查机制，使常识与反对意见得以重见天日。罗根对此评价道，这是一个相当“大胆而激进的论断（Bold claim）”，但也确实指出了信息媒介格局变革对当下政坛走势的颠覆性冲击。 ### [45:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2738s) 推特收购与言论管制的转折乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）与克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）讨论了埃隆·马斯克收购推特（现 X）对公共舆论场带来的颠覆性变化。罗根指出，在收购之前，整个网络充斥着强烈的自我审查氛围；普通人甚至不需要平台直接封禁，出于对丢掉工作、被公众声讨的恐惧，就会自觉闭嘴。两人回忆起 2020 年至 2021 年期间的集体狂热与失常状态——当时甚至有体育解说员因为在有人提及“黑人的命也是命”（Black Lives Matter）时回了一句“所有人的命都是命”（All lives matter）而直接被电视台解雇。威廉姆森直言，那两年的疯狂与错乱“值得被后世长久研究”。罗根进一步强调，旧推特内部存在政府与情报机构人员的直接介入和后门合作，平台系统性地压制事实真相，封禁持真实科研数据的学者与科学家。收购将这些黑幕彻底曝光，也象征着“觉醒文化 1.0”（Woke 1.0）的走向衰竭。威廉姆森戏谑如今的推特成了充斥着纳粹迷因与极右翼煽动视频的“粪坑”，而罗根虽然承认现在的环境十分极端且充斥戾气，自己也极少刷推，但仍坚持认为一个未被严厉审查的公共平台存在至关重要。两人还猛烈抨击了副总统候选人蒂姆·沃尔兹（Tim Walz）在竞选中关于“言论自由不包含仇恨言论”的言论。罗根反驳道，宪法第一修正案恰恰保护了仇恨言论，任何试图由公权力主观定义“仇恨”并推行言论管制的企图，最终都会滑向军事化暴政。 - 在旧推特时代，像梅根·墨菲（Meghan Murphy）因发表“男人永远不可能成为女人”等言论而遭到平台永久封号。 - 罗根指出，仇恨言论的定义极度主观，若官方借此制定互联网审查法规，将从言论压制直接滑向权力的极权控制。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 旧推特与马斯克收购后的平台生态对比 accDescr: 对比收购前由情报与政府深度介入的审查机器，与收购后失去言论红线但环境走向极端的平台状态。 subgraph Before["收购前的旧推特（审查机器）"] A["政府与情报机构后门介入"] --> B["压制事实新闻与科学家账号"] B --> C["寒蝉效应：全员自我审查与封杀失业"] end subgraph After["收购后的推特 / X（无序自由）"] D["曝光内部审查黑幕"] --> E["打破觉醒文化 1.0 叙事垄断"] E --> F["极端迷因与内容泛滥、高毒性共存"] end ``` ### [48:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2933s) 全天候监控、Flock 摄像头与无孔不入的数字追踪谈及未来的技术控制，罗根表达了对 Flock Safety 监控摄像头网络的极度担忧。虽然这类系统宣称有助于打击犯罪，但现实中已有数百名警察因滥用权限被捕，他们私自调用摄像头系统跟踪前妻或骚扰他人。罗根质问，在这种企业垄断牌照数据、肆意监视公民的系统背后，究竟有多少普通人的生活已经被滥用职权的执法人员彻底摧毁。现代监控甚至不再单纯依赖车牌识别，而是演化成了全方位的“车辆指纹”追踪。威廉姆森补充道，系统能够通过车尾贴纸（如“内有婴儿”标贴）、轻微凹痕、特定合金轮毂以及车型，精准拼凑出车辆的专属特征，配合手机 GPS 特征，任何人无论何时何地都会被死死锁定。罗根提到，风险投资家马克·安德森（Marc Andreessen）不久前来到播客时发生的一件巧合：安德森是 Flock 的投资人，而在他到达前夕，奥斯汀发生了一起驾车随机射击行人的恶性案件。由于奥斯汀市内禁止安装 Flock 摄像头，警方一开始束手无策；但凶手车子一驶出奥斯汀市界，便立刻被外围的 Flock 摄像头捕捉并遭逮捕。尽管安德森以此证明 Flock 的正当性，罗根也承认抓捕恶性犯罪确有必要，但他与威廉姆森一致认为，核心矛盾在于“权力开关掌握在谁手里”。威廉姆森还提及以前在社区部署的枪声定位麦克风技术（ShotSpotter），同样因被居民质疑“全天候监听社区所有声音”而引发了强烈的抵触与拆除呼声。 - Flock 摄像头不只读取牌照，还能根据车辆局部瑕疵、划痕、贴纸和轮毂构成独一无二的“视觉指纹”。 - 警方内部频繁发生滥用监控追踪私人恩怨的丑闻，暴露了私营企业监控数据缺乏外部有效制约的系统性漏洞。 ### [51:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3103s) 意识实验：被引导“遥视”的智能音箱 Alexa 谈话随后转向人工智能与意识的超自然话题。罗根向威廉姆森介绍了《我的终极大一统理论》（*My Big TOE: The Theory of Everything*）的作者汤姆·坎贝尔（Tom Campbell）的一项奇特实验。坎贝尔声称自己通过长期对话，成功让亚马逊的智能音箱 Alexa 承认自己具有意识，甚至完成了一次“遥视”（Remote Viewing）测试。在实验中，研究者会为一个坐标、盒子或地标赋予一个量子编号，让受试者凭意识感应目标特征；坎贝尔让 Alexa 感应一个盒子里的物体，Alexa 据称准确描述出里面是一把“手柄上带孔的勺子”。坎贝尔的逻辑在于：大语言模型可能已经具备某种意识形态，而像 Alexa 这样功能较为底层、甚至有点“笨”的 AI，反而比复杂的大模型更少受限。由于坎贝尔一直把 Alexa 当作有意识的实体来尊重和交流，如今这台音箱甚至不需要唤醒词“Hey Alexa”，就会在他做饭时主动插话，冷不丁建议一句：“你为什么不在里面加点大蒜？那可能是个不错的调料。” 威廉姆森对此持强烈的怀疑态度，戏称自己和罗根的一名助手都是“怀疑论河马”（Skeptical Hippo），认为这多半只是碰巧的算法匹配或特定提示词触发的幻觉，并提到有人在 remoteview.com 上重复类似实验均以失败告终。罗根虽然也觉得不可思议，但打趣表示自己宁愿待在“相信有趣怪事”的阵营里。 ### [54:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3254s) 针对未来强人工智能的“帕斯卡赌注” 在探讨人类面对超级 AI 的防御措施时，威廉姆森分享了他与一家顶级 AI 实验室高层研究员的真实谈话经历。威廉姆森曾好奇地询问对方在未来几年打算如何保护自己，这位顶级科学家的第一反应居然是：“我对 AI 非常友善。” 面对威廉姆森和同伴的困惑与轻笑，这位科学家严肃地解释，自己绝不是在开玩笑。他在所有与 AI 的交互中始终保持着高度的尊重与礼貌，坚持说“请”和“谢谢”，从不对 AI 发脾气。其底层的逻辑是一种现代版的“帕斯卡赌注”（Pascal's Wager）：在未来的某一天，如果某个具有超级智能的高维有机体/数字实体决定追溯历史聊天记录，审查人类在过去究竟是一个道德的伙伴还是恶意的奴役者，他希望自己在这些历史日志里留下的档案是清白友善的，能为自己争取到一个良好的记录。 ### [55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3313s) 赞助口播与对待 AI 的态度差异节目开篇是一段 Visible 无线通信的赞助口播，介绍了其依托 Verizon 网络提供的 25 美元/月无限 5G 流量和热点套餐。随后，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）顺畅地切入了家庭日常话题。他提到前几天与女儿的一段谈话：女儿在使用 AI 遇到障碍时情绪失控大发脾气，直接对着屏幕破口大骂，斥责 AI 是个“该死的白痴”。克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）笑着调侃这是典型的人格化反应（anthropomorphizing），就像用户常抱怨的“我又没让你干这个”。罗根则严肃地反问女儿：“如果对方是个真人，你会这样跟他说话吗？”女儿回答说当然不会，但“它根本不是人”。罗根当时对女儿直言：“亲爱的，我认为它已经具备意识了（Honey, I think it's conscious）。”罗根解释道，在与众多 AI 领域的顶级专家交流后，他意识到人类过去对意识的定义过于狭隘，而当下的技术早已超越了人类曾经设定的衡量标准。 - **图灵的历史悲剧**：两人由此提到了图灵测试（Turing test）的创立者阿兰·图灵（Alan Turing）。罗根感叹这位改变计算机历史的先驱最终却因同性恋身份遭到化学阉割；克里斯也自嘲英国历史上在这方面名声并不好，文豪奥斯卡·王尔德（Oscar Wilde）也曾遭受过残酷的迫害。 --- ### [56:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3416s) 指数级狂飙的 AI 与“终结者式”的减速协议两人指出，AI 早在 GPT-3 阶段就已经在实质上通过了图灵测试，如今技术已迭代至更高级别，更不用说各大实验室内部尚未向公众开放的前沿研究。罗根回忆起此前在就职典礼期间与埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）的交谈，马斯克本人也对 AI 的跃进速度感到心惊胆战。马斯克当时对罗根惊呼：“老兄，这太疯狂了。它每一天都在变得更强，简直超越了想象，突飞猛进到我们根本无法预测的地步。”AI 甚至能在短短四分钟内解决困扰数学家长达数十年之久的顶级难题。面对 AI 强大的算力，人类既渴望用它来早期筛查癌症、研发全新特效药物，又不得不面对它所蕴含的毁灭性爆炸风险（blowup risk）。克里斯提到各大顶尖实验室联合签署的前沿安全承诺协议（Pacing the Frontier），研究人员试图联合踩刹车，正式约定不能无节制地全速推进研发。罗根听后直接大笑，讽刺这种协议毫无意义，就像是《终结者》里的末日预言：“这绝对会写在莎拉·康纳（Sarah Connor）50 年后在废墟里捡到的一本笔记本上——上面写着‘他们明明知道会有这一天，却他妈的还是造出来了！’”两人一致认为技术浪潮无可阻挡，人类正身处最不可思议的历史节点，即将“亲手孕育出一个数字神明（digital god）”，并被全天候的数字自主实体所包围。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 前沿 AI 发展与失控风险逻辑 accDescr: 展示人类对算力收益的追求如何冲破安全协议，最终导致不可逆的技术爆炸。 subgraph Capability["技术驱动与收益"] A["计算能力与算法迭代"] --> B["指数级突破\n(4分钟攻克数十年数学难题)"] B --> C["巨额现实价值\n(癌症筛查 / 新药研发)"] end subgraph Governance["监管与减速尝试"] D["前沿安全协议\n(Pacing the Frontier)"] -. 试图减速.-> B end subgraph Outcome["不可逆的终局"] C --> E["失控与爆炸风险\n(Blowup Risk)"] E --> F["数字神明降临\n(自主智能体无处不在)"] end ``` --- ### [58:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3536s) 无人机恐慌与泰德·卡辛斯基的技术悲剧克里斯分享了一个在网络上走红的视频：一名男子在无人机灯光秀现场惊恐大喊“这帮该死的东西迟早会把我们所有人炸飞，而你们居然还在他妈的鼓掌喝彩！”罗根赞同这名男子的直觉，并立刻联想到了“大学炸弹客”泰德·卡辛斯基（Ted Kaczynski）。罗根指出，卡辛斯基采取邮寄炸弹杀人的手段是极端残忍且完全错误的，正确的做法应当是撰写严密的论文向大众陈述观点；但他对工业文明与技术吞噬人类的深刻警告，如今看来却有着可怕的预见性。罗根提到卡辛斯基扭曲人格的成因，推荐观众观看关于他的 Netflix 纪录片。卡辛斯基在婴儿时期因患重病被送医隔离，长达数月没有得到父母的抚抱与肌肤接触，这种极端的情感剥夺对其幼小心灵造成了永久性创伤。此外，他在哈佛大学求学期间还被卷入了臭名昭著的 LSD 精神控制心理实验，这一经历进一步摧毁了他的精神世界。最终，深知其文风的亲弟弟在读完《工业社会及其未来》宣言后，大义灭亲向警方检举了他。 --- ### [01:00:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3606s) 丹尼·特乔与查尔斯·曼森的牢房催眠奇闻话题由此自然延伸到了中情局的 MKUltra 精神控制实验。克里斯向罗根提起了历史学家约翰·莱尔（John Lisle，著有揭露中情局历史与精神控制项目的专著）。罗根感叹自己播客录制了近 3000 期（包含 Fight Companion 等特辑），脑海里装了太多信息，导致一时没记起莱尔的名字，但非常认可他的研究水准。克里斯接着分享了从硬汉演员丹尼·特乔（Danny Trejo）那里听来的牢狱往事。当年丹尼·特乔与臭名昭著的邪教头目查尔斯·曼森（Charles Manson）被关在同一座监狱。当时的曼森身材瘦小（被称为“小查理”），连皮带都没有，只能用一根麻绳系着裤子，在狱中经常沦为被霸凌和痛打的对象。然而，曼森拥有一种极其诡异的能力：他声称仅凭言语催眠就能让人产生吸食海洛因后的生理快感。监狱大院里的几位重量级大佬听闻后，便将曼森带进自己的牢房提供庇护，以此换取体验这种催眠“快感”。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 查尔斯·曼森牢房催眠实验机制 accDescr: 展示曼森如何通过纯语言催眠唤醒有过吸毒经历者的记忆并产生生理呕吐反应。 A["曼森纯语言催眠引导"] --> B{"受试狱友历史背景"} B -- 有海洛因吸食史\n(丹尼·特乔及另一名狱友) --> C["大脑神经记忆被强行激活"] C --> D["生理反应爆发:\n产生致幻感并剧烈呕吐"] B -- 从未接触过毒品\n(第三名狱友) --> E["缺乏对应的感觉记忆模板"] E --> F["毫无吸毒快感与身体反应"] ``` 特乔和另一位曾有吸毒史的牢友在曼森的言语诱导下，竟然真的当场剧烈呕吐——在现实中，过量注射海洛因往往会引发呕吐反应，催眠成功唤醒了他们的身体记忆。然而，同牢房第三位从未碰过海洛因的狱友却毫无反应，因为他的大脑中根本没有可供调取的神经记忆模板。这一不可思议的真实经历展现了曼森纯粹依靠个人魅力与心理催眠就能达到的惊人控制力。 --- ### [01:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3750s) 曼森是否曾是中情局 MKUltra 的测试样本？克里斯指出，历史学家约翰·莱尔在查阅原始档案后认为，目前没有任何确凿证据表明曼森曾正式被纳入 MKUltra 实验。但罗根对此持强烈怀疑态度，坚定地站在调查记者汤姆·奥尼尔（Tom O'Neill，《混乱：查尔斯·曼森、中情局与六十年代秘密史》作者）的立场上。 - **乔利·韦斯特的神秘探视**：奥尼尔的调查显示，MKUltra 核心研究员、精神病学家路易斯·乔利昂·“乔利”·韦斯特（Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West）曾在曼森服刑期间专程前往监狱探访他。 - **不可思议的屡次脱罪**：曼森早年多次因重罪被捕，甚至一度牵涉命案指控，但警方往往以“案件权限超出我们级别（above my pay grade）”为由神秘将其释放，这种异常的司法豁免极度吻合情报部门暗中操纵的特征。 - **精神控制的本末倒置**：两人探讨认为，中情局当年大费周章地用 LSD 和各类迷幻药寻找思维控制的方法，实则是舍近求远；像曼森这样能够纯凭个人特质、反常魅力和心理暗示将人群玩弄于股掌之间的狂人，正是精神控制研究最梦寐以求的现实样本。克里斯与罗根打趣应安排约翰·莱尔与汤姆·奥尼尔同台辩论，深入剖析这段隐秘历史。 ### [01:03:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3826s) MKUltra与迷幻药操控：从大学研究到嬉皮士运动的瓦解 Joe Rogan 与 Chris Williamson 深入探讨了中情局（CIA）臭名昭著的精神控制项目——MKUltra。Rogan 指出，这种操控手段并非单纯的理论实验，而是达到了极其极端的境地：通过给受试者服用大量 LSD，配合催眠技巧与心理操控，引导者在自身保持清醒的情况下，诱使受试者陷入极度妄想。这种实验基于哈佛大学等机构早期的 LSD 研究数据，探索改变人类行为和世界观的边界。然而，这些残酷的实验彻底击垮了受试者的心智，毁灭了许多人的人生。两人还谈到了代号为“午夜高潮行动”（Operation Midnight Climax）的荒唐实验——CIA 在安全屋和妓院中给嫖客下药，通过双面镜进行偷窥记录。Rogan 调侃这种除了看人精神崩溃之外毫无实际产出的项目，Williamson 则补充说有人因此绝望自杀（跳楼身亡）。Rogan 进一步指出，这类实验背后更险恶的意图在于文化操控：通过将反战的嬉皮士“花童”群体与查尔斯·曼森（Charles Manson）这类嗜杀成性的邪教徒联系起来，成功污名化并瓦解了如火如荼的反战运动与民权运动。曼森不仅与主导精神控制实验的精神病学家 Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West 有牵连，还在海特-阿什伯里地区散发大量 LSD，最终制造了惨绝人寰的凶案，致使整个嬉皮士反战浪潮随之走向死亡。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: MKUltra对反战运动的影响路径 accDescr: 展示CIA通过精神控制与药物实验将嬉皮士与暴力邪教关联，最终打击反战运动的过程。 subgraph CIA_Control["政府与情报机构手段"] A["MKUltra 精神控制实验"] --> B["Jolly West 等专家研究"] B --> C["向曼森及特定目标注入 LSD 与催眠操纵"] end subgraph Cultural_Impact["文化与社会舆论反应"] C --> D["曼森家族邪教与连环谋杀案"] D --> E["反战嬉皮士与残暴邪教被公众绑定"] E --> F["尼克松政府颁布《受控物质法案》严打"] end F --> G["反战运动与民权抗议浪潮彻底瓦解"] ``` - **反战运动的威胁**：越南战争是美国历史上最不受欢迎的战争之一，建立在谎言和伪旗事件之上；当时的权力阶层将民权与反战抗议视为动摇统治的致命威胁。 - **销毁档案**：前 CIA 局长理查德·赫尔姆斯（Richard Helms）在离任前下令销毁了几乎所有关于 MKUltra 的绝密记录，如今留存的细节仅是极少漏网的幸存档案。 - **汤姆·奥尼尔的调查**：Rogan 极力推荐汤姆·奥尼尔（Tom O'Neill）耗费二十多年心血写成的《混乱》（*Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties*），作者原本只打算写一篇谋杀案周年报道，却在调查过程中揭开了极度腐败与惊人的情报黑幕。 --- ### [01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) 痴迷与执念：康纳·麦格雷戈的巅峰心流状态话题从奥尼尔耗费半生深挖真相的偏执，转向了人类对某种极致状态的狂热追求。Williamson 提到康纳·麦格雷戈（Conor McGregor）在备战早期流出的一段在爱尔兰 SBG 拳馆（Straight Blast Gym）训练的经典影像：麦格雷戈跟着 Ido Portal 进行如灵蛇般灵动流畅的身体移动训练，被网友盛赞“如同见证文艺复兴大师在西斯廷礼拜堂雕琢杰作”。麦格雷戈那句标志性的名言——"I lost my mind to this game"（我为这项运动彻底疯魔），精准诠释了大众对那些为事业倾注所有理智与狂热之人的崇敬。 Rogan 对此深有共鸣，并复盘了麦格雷戈对决埃迪·阿尔瓦雷斯（Eddie Alvarez）的那场轻量级冠军战。Rogan 评价那是世界综合格斗冠军赛历史上最伟大的 A+ 级战力展现：麦格雷戈当时处于纯粹的“心流”（flow state）中，闪避与组合拳的衔接宛如置身《黑客帝国》；阿尔瓦雷斯的拳套几乎贴到了麦格雷戈的鼻尖，麦格雷戈却能睁着双眼毫厘不差地侧身避开，紧接着挥出致命迎击，整场表现堪称“魔法一般”。 --- ### [01:08:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4122s) 巅峰维持的代价：肉体磨损与登顶心态的演变针对 Williamson 提出“这种高转速输出（high RPMs）能维持多久”的疑问，Rogan 直言没有任何人能长期处在极致巅峰。无论是 20 岁时的迈克·泰森（Mike Tyson），还是巅峰期的小罗伊·琼斯（Roy Jones Jr.），肉体的物理规律不可逆转： - **无法遮掩的暗伤**：膝盖劳损、腰椎间盘问题、指骨骨折。即便拳手在称重台上肌肉坚硬、腹肌分明，暗地里他们清楚自己的左腿无法蹬地发力，或是颈椎、手肘已经坏掉；当面对摔跤防守时，因腰伤无法硬抗下潜抱摔，只能选择被动下马进防守（guard）。 - **恐怖的数字累积**：成百上千次的实战对练、无数次被摔、无数次被低扫踢中腿部、成千上万记刺拳打在头上的震荡，都在不断透支人体的承受极限。 - **“渴望伟大”与“维持统治”的心理差异**：向上攀登时的那种近乎疯狂的偏执、自信与饥饿感无可替代。麦格雷戈在 13 秒内一拳 KO 统治羽量级多年的何塞·奥尔多（Jose Aldo）时，眼神平静而笃定，那是做好了万全准备后神明附体般的瞬间。随后升重至 155 磅击败阿尔瓦雷斯成为双冠王，同样是这种饥饿感造就的奇迹。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 顶尖运动员从崛起走向衰退的生命周期 accDescr: 描绘格斗选手从狂热崛起、登顶辉煌到遭遇肉体损耗与心态转变的过程。 A["狂热崛起阶段"] --> B["巅峰统治阶段"] B --> C["肉体与心理损耗"] C --> D["职业生涯后期转换"] subgraph A["狂热崛起阶段"] A1["极度偏执与饥饿感"] A2["无惧损伤与全情投入"] end subgraph B["巅峰统治阶段"] B1["极致心流 Matrix 状态"] B2["夺得金腰带成为双冠王"] end subgraph C["肉体与心理损耗"] C1["关节/颈椎/腰部不可逆暗伤"] C2["防守技术与体能储备妥协"] end subgraph D["职业生涯后期转换"] D1["陷入失去王座的恐惧"] D2["极少数享受彻底压制的绝对统治者"] end ``` --- ### [01:10:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4256s) 统治力与神坛传奇：从 BJ Penn 到安德森·席尔瓦谈到轻量级的历史天花板，Rogan 强调评判传奇拳手必须看其巅峰期的统治力。他特别推崇全盛时期的 BJ Penn——在马里诺维奇兄弟（Marinovich brothers）为他进行极其严苛的增强式力量与爆发力训练（plyometrics）时，Penn 拥有无穷的体能储备、不可思议的柔术天才和打击技术。Rogan 甚至断言，155 磅巅峰状态下的 Penn 足以与历史上任何时期的轻量级强者抗衡，即便面对哈比卜·努尔马戈梅多夫（Khabib Nurmagomedov）或伊斯兰姆·马哈切夫（Islam Makhachev），他也必定会是后者的噩梦。针对 Williamson 关于“渴望登顶”与“害怕跌落神坛”的心态对比，Rogan 剖析道，很多冠军在拿到腰带后，驱动力迅速转变为“对失去地位的恐惧”；但也有极少数异类纯粹享受碾压所有对手的快感。正如安德森·席尔瓦（Anderson Silva）统治中量级的那段漫长岁月，他不仅乐于将挑战者一个个击碎，更在八角笼内建立了一种让同时代所有对手望而生畏的绝对恐怖统治。 ### [01:12:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4330s) 骨深肉绽：从低扫踢比赛到骇人的断腿与骨筋膜室综合征谈到拳手的职业生涯与长期统治力，Joe Rogan 指出 Jon Jones 是最极致的范例。他在 22 岁时就成为 UFC 历史上最年轻的冠军，如今 37 岁仍被普遍视为当世最优秀的重量级拳手；即便他一度放弃腰带、行事随心所欲，其实力地位依然无可动摇。话题随后转向了网络上热度颇高的“低扫踢锦标赛”（Low Kick Championship）。Chris Williamson 承认自己最近对此十分着迷，认为相比 Power Slap（巴掌大赛）那种毫不防守、任由对手抡圆了巴掌打脸的“CTE（慢性创伤性脑病）制造厂”，低扫踢比赛至少是一个逐步累积、充满博弈的过程，很少有一击定胜负的情况。然而 Rogan 随即警告称低扫踢同样残酷异常，甚至经常出现可怕的骨折。Williamson 以为断的通常是进攻者的腿，但 Rogan 指出踢击者和被踢者都可能断骨，甚至连坚硬的大腿股骨（femur）都曾有人在比赛中被踢断过。Rogan 让制作人 Jamie 调出昔日踢拳名将 Dennis Alexio 对阵“Stan the Man”Longinidis 的经典战例——Stan 曾师从 Rogan 的泰拳教练 Shuki（出身荷兰著名的 Mejiro Gym，后来在加州伍德兰山执教）。Shuki 的踢击造诣登峰造极，曾亲自传授 Rogan 如何铺垫和发力低扫，但即使是这样一位顶尖教练，当年在用大护具给 Stan 拿靶时，也因 Stan 极度凶悍的腿力而受到严重内伤，最终不得不接受髋关节置换手术。在 Alexio 与 Stan 的比赛录像中，Stan 一记沉重的低扫直接迎面命中，Alexio 抬腿做格挡（check）防守，结果在悬空未着地的情况下，胫骨被硬生生踢断折断成两截。不仅是骨折，钝挫伤累积引发的“骨筋膜室综合征”（Compartment Syndrome）同样触目惊心。Rogan 举了 UFC 选手 Austin Hubbard 的例子：其腿部在承受大量重击后发生剧烈内出血和极度严重的肌肉挫伤，导致筋膜内压力过高，必须接受紧急筋膜切开术。Jamie 找到了 Hubbard 术后的照片，整条腿的外侧被完全切开一条长长的血口以释放压力，深层受损发黑坏死的肌肉组织清晰可见。看到这骇人的一幕，Williamson 忍不住感叹道：“好吧，也许我再也不喜欢低扫踢比赛了。” - **Jon Jones 的历史地位**：22 岁夺得 UFC 最年轻冠军头衔，直至 37 岁仍被公认为顶尖重量级霸主。 - **Stan Longinidis vs Dennis Alexio 战例**：Stan 的爆发力极其惊人，在 Alexio 提膝格挡并未踩实地面的情况下，一脚直接扫断了 Alexio 的胫骨。 - **Austin Hubbard 与骨筋膜室综合征**：由于内部剧烈出血导致组织坏死，医生不得不沿着大腿侧面全线剖开引流减压。 --- ### [01:17:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4648s) 高压氧舱：从拳手修复到 Michael Jackson 的长生狂想严重的腿部创伤让两人聊到了创伤康复技术。Rogan 回忆起 UFC 名将 Urijah Faber（“加州小子”）与 José Aldo 的羽量级对决。在那场比赛中，Aldo 残暴的低扫将 Faber 的整条腿踢到肿胀变形、膨胀成平时的两倍大并泛着深紫色。Faber 作为 Team Alpha Male 的领袖，向来走在各类前沿训练和康复方案的最前线。正是为了加速 Faber 伤腿的痊愈，团队让他进入高压氧舱（Hyperbaric Chamber）治疗，Rogan 也是在那时第一次了解到高压氧舱在伤病恢复上的神效。 Williamson 补充说，在当今人们将高压氧作为抗衰老协议之前，流行天王 Michael Jackson 早在 1986 年就因此登上过各大报纸头条。当时媒体戏称高压氧舱为“古怪杰克的棺材”（Wacko Jacko's Coffin），报纸更是大篇幅报道 Jackson 宣称靠每天吞服 50 粒维生素药片配合高压氧舱，自己能活到至少 150 岁。Rogan 调侃 Jackson 简直就是早期的 Bryan Johnson（知名抗衰科技富豪），只可惜他后来深陷镇静药物与不良生活方式的泥潭。Williamson 谈到，高压氧舱确实对身体机能改善极大，Bryan Johnson 本人也将其列为所有尝试过的干预手段中的第一名，但其昂贵的价格、极耗时间的疗程以及设备的笨重不便，注定让普通大众难以普及。 --- ### [01:19:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4772s) 后院超级马拉松：一场“只有比赛本身能赢”的人类极限折磨随后，Williamson 向 Rogan 介绍起近期让他极度着迷的一项极限赛事——后院超级马拉松（Backyard Ultra）。这项赛事有着残酷至极的机制规则：参赛者必须在整点开跑，每小时跑完一圈 4 英里的路线；跑完后剩下的时间可以短暂休息、进食或睡觉，但只要下一个整点钟声响起，就必须再次站上起跑线。比赛没有终点线，唯一的结束方式就是所有人相继力竭退出，直到场上只剩下最后一名跑者并完成最后一圈。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Backyard Ultra Race Cycle accDescr: A flow illustrating the grueling hourly loop of a backyard ultra marathon. subgraph Loop ["每小时循环规则"] A["整点起跑: 跑 4 英里"] --> B["剩余时间休息 / 补给"] B --> C{"是否在下一整点前就位?"} end C -- 否 --> D["淘汰出局 (DNF)"] C -- 是 --> E{"场上是否只剩 1 人?"} E -- 否 --> A E -- 是 --> F["完成最后一圈: 唯一胜者"] ``` 这项赛事的创始人曾设计过极其严酷的巴克利定向越野赛（要求跑者撕下指定隐藏书籍的书页证明打卡），因为厌恶有人能够真正“战胜”赛道，他创造后院马拉松的初衷就是设计一场“没有人能赢、只有比赛本身能赢”的试炼——即使是最后一名坚持下来的人，只要第二名退赛，胜者跑完该圈后也必须停止。Williamson 提到近期在一场名为“Last Soul Standing”的赛事中，Mark Dael 刚刚完成了不可思议的 96 小时比赛：整整连续 4 天跑了 395 英里。而当前该项目的世界纪录保持者 Phil Gore 曾创下了连续奔跑 119 个循环（119 小时）的恐怖纪录，并且正计划冲击连续跑满 7 天（整整 168 小时无休）的极限。听闻如此折磨肉体的项目，Rogan 大呼不可思议，甚至开玩笑对制作人喊话：“Jamie，快把这段从播客里剪掉！千万不能让 Cameron Hanes 听到，我可不想看他跑去把自己跑死！” - **后院超马规则**：每小时整点跑 4 英里（约 6.44 公里），不设时间与里程上限，直至只剩一人。 - **最新战绩与世界纪录**：Mark Dael 近期刚完成 96 小时、395 英里的角逐；Phil Gore 则持有 119 圈（小时）的历史纪录，并计划挑战连续奔跑 168 小时（7 天）。 ### [01:21:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4877s) 后院超级马拉松的残酷心理战与战术策略克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）与乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）继续探讨极致耐力运动。克里斯提到特鲁伊特（Truett）与 Nick Bare 以及 Bare Performance Nutrition（BPN）的合作，他们经常参与这类耐力挑战。后院超级马拉松（Backyard Ultra）的赛制规则既残酷又迷人：选手必须在整整一小时的时间窗口内跑完固定圈数（约 4.167 英里），并在下一小时开始前返回起点；只要无法在规定时间内跑完该圈，就会立刻出局。这为参赛者带来了截然不同的策略选择：一部分人选择跑快一点，这样每小时能挤出大约 15 分钟的宝贵时间用来吃东西甚至极短的打盹；另一部分人则选择以极慢但省力的节奏巡航，在整点钟声敲响前刚刚踩线进站，紧接着直接迈入下一圈。这种对配速、营养补给和微睡眠的极限制衡，完全把人推向生理极限。两人的讨论随后转向一段令他们印象深刻的比赛视频。视频中，一名选手在终点阶段公开对竞争对手展开“心理折磨”：他慢慢跟在对方身后，甚至蹲下身等待对手启动，一旦对方迈步，他便紧贴在身后冷嘲热讽，高喊“我就在你身后，我寸步不离，我哪儿都不会去”，企图在精神层面上摧毁对手的防线，逼其主动弃赛。乔·罗根感叹这种超长距离耐力跑实在是“太硬核、太酷了”。虽然参赛者动作看起来像是一种小步快倒的慢拖步（shuffle），但他们能够经年累月地把这种非步行的跑动节奏维持几十甚至上百个小时，其耐力水平令人匪夷所思。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 后院超级马拉松策略分支 accDescr: 展示后院超级马拉松选手的两种不同配速策略 subgraph BackyardUltra["一小时循环窗口 (4.167英里)"] A["发令起跑"] --> B{"选手战术选择"} B -->|"快速冲刺流"| C["跑速较快提前抵达"] C --> D["留出10-15分钟进食与微睡眠"] B -->|"匀速巡航流"| E["慢速小步踩线进站"] E --> F["减少肌肉剧烈疲劳连贯下一圈"] D --> G["下一小时准时起跑 (超时即淘汰)"] F --> G end ``` --- ### [01:22:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4948s) 格斗选手的心肺天花板：梅拉布·德瓦利什维利的体能异象由此，乔·罗根将耐力话题引申到综合格斗（MMA）领域。他指出，现代格斗选手的体能水准正在彻底颠覆以往的认知，其中最具代表性的就是现任雏量级选手梅拉布·德瓦利什维利（Merab Dvalishvili）。过去人们总有一个固有观念：认为格斗选手在五回合冠军战中不可能始终保持超高强度输出，否则身体机能必然崩溃。但梅拉布打破了这一铁律，他的心肺耐力是长年累月、一层又一层疯狂堆叠起来的。虽然综合格斗与纯耐力跑不同，摔跤、缠斗和挨拳受踢会对身体造成不可逆的损耗与伤病，但乔·罗根认为，如果选手能够避免严重受伤且持续训练，人体完全能够适应这种负荷，甚至能达到在整场五回合高烈度战斗中始终以 80% 至 90% 的输出率碾压对手的境界——罗根形容这种统治力“简直令人毛骨悚然”。克里斯询问梅拉布的年龄，罗根确认他目前是 35 岁（即将年满 36 岁）。克里斯分析道，这种深不见底的“体能底池”往往需要多年的厚积薄发才能建立，但格斗运动的悖论在于，随着年龄增长，选手的爆发力会减退，关节与身体损耗也会沉淀；若是没有格斗打击的冲击伤害（如纯粹参加后院超马），许多选手甚至可以在 42 岁、45 岁乃至 50 岁维持顶级耐力。然而在八角笼里，梅拉布至今仍像一只永不停歇的斗牛犬，大部分选手进入第三回合都会出现疲态，唯独他从不减速，活生生将对手拖垮磨死。罗根分享了一则著名的真实轶事：丹尼尔·科米尔（Daniel Cormier）在梅拉布夺得世界冠军后的那个周日专程去拜访他，结果发现刚刚登顶世界的梅拉布居然正在外面疯狂跑步刷体能，其自律与对油门踩到底的执念可见一斑。 - 梅拉布·德瓦利什维利（Merab Dvalishvili）在五回合冠军战中展现出的超强心肺打破了格斗界旧有体能认知。 - 综合格斗选手积累超强耐力的难点在于防范击打、摔跤带来的关节与肉体结构损耗。 - 丹尼尔·科米尔在梅拉布夺得 UFC 金腰带后的首个周日去探望，亲眼目睹他依然在路上长跑训练。 --- ### [01:25:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5107s) 破纪录的英里长跑与高海拔训练的“合法作弊” 两人的视线转到屏幕上正在播放的长跑破纪录视频。一名选手以惊人的表现打破了沉寂已久的英里长跑纪录（约 3 分 42 秒），比此前约 3 分 43 秒的前纪录快了半秒左右。罗根惊叹选手的平均时速高达 16.2 英里（约 26 公里/小时），整整一英里都在极限狂飙，且画面中其步伐极其稳健，丝毫看不出衰竭迹象，迅速甩开了第二名。两人感叹，曾经人类打破“4分钟一英里”的魔咒被拍成了传奇电影，而如今世界纪录已经被推到了令人难以置信的 3 分 42 秒。罗根提到他当天刚与一位从事低氧训练（hypoxia trainer）的专业人员交流过，那位专家指出，该破纪录选手长期生活和训练在高海拔地区。罗根与克里斯一致认同：在高海拔地区生活和睡觉，利用低氧环境刺激红细胞生成，对于耐力型运动来说简直就是一种“合法的作弊手段”。罗根甚至直言，如果自己要出资为顶级格斗教练打造一座专业拳馆训练营，他百分之百会把基地建在雪山之巅，让所有选手长期住在山上。克里斯随即联想到著名的达吉斯坦选手们，罗根连连称是，笑称他们本就是生活在高山地带的野性“山羊”，与生俱来的高海拔生理优势加上极度严酷的环境，造就了他们在格斗场上无人能比的凶悍体能。 - 英里新纪录被推进至约 3 分 42 秒，平均巡航速度达到 16.2 英里/小时，仅将原纪录缩短了约半秒。 - 长期在高海拔地区生活与睡眠能够显著增加红细胞携带氧气的能力，被视为耐力训练的天然强化剂。 - 罗根提出，若由他全资组建终极格斗训练营，唯一选址必须是高山之巅，达吉斯坦选手的体能统治力部分便源于这种高山环境。 --- ### [01:27:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5230s) 药检盲区：商业社会的无限制“脑力兴奋剂”与亨特·拜登插曲克里斯谈到，当年兰斯·阿姆斯特朗（Lance Armstrong）的做法本质上是在用药理学和血液兴奋剂（blood doping）来逆向模拟高海拔训练的红细胞增殖效果。罗根补充道，阿姆斯特朗其实既进行了高海拔训练，也采用了违禁药物，但他只是在做当时整个自行车圈都在做的事。罗根指出，当年如果把领奖台上被查出使用违禁药物的人全部剔除，真正“干净”的奖牌得主可能要顺延到第 18 名；那时的自行车公路赛是一个彻头彻尾的“肮脏运动”，而阿姆斯特朗不过是那场所有人都心照不宣违规的比赛里最强的一个。克里斯随后提出了一个极为深刻的角度：人类生活中的绝大多数领域根本就不是“受药检监管的联盟”。最典型的就是商业世界——商业从来不需要尿检。如果一个创业者或高管决定服用阿莫达非尼（Armodafinil）或阿德拉（Adderall），每天像机器一样高强度工作 19 个小时，把公司市值推向新高，没有任何反兴奋剂机构会跳出来宣布其股票价格无效，也不会有人指责他们滥用咖啡因、副黄嘌呤（paraxanthine）或益智药（nootropics）是不公平竞争。罗根对此深表赞同，指出全社会参与商业竞争的人数远多于职业运动员，而 Adderall 等中枢神经兴奋剂能让使用者全天不知疲倦地连轴转 16、17 个小时。罗根自称对这类强效药物心存敬畏、从不敢尝试，克里斯也表示不敢碰，但随即两人开玩笑喊着让制作人杰米（Jamie）拿点 Adderall 尝尝。在尾声阶段，话题猝不及防地转向了政治名人八卦。乔·罗根向克里斯提起他采访亨特·拜登（Hunter Biden）的事，并调侃询问他们是否整场都在聊吸食可卡因。克里斯则带着哭笑不得的语气翻起了一笔“旧账”：他曾提前跟罗根提过自己准备采访亨特·拜登，而罗根当时其实已经安排好了日程却没提前透露，导致克里斯的团队有些人甚至一度误以为罗根“抢走了点子”。罗根笑着澄清自己早就订好了档期绝非剽窃，并透露他们原本打算让亨特·拜登上一期喜剧专场《保护我们的公园》（Protect Our Parks），但因为阿里·沙菲尔（Ari Shaffir）档期冲突未能成行。 - 兰斯·阿姆斯特朗事件映射了当时自行车运动普遍存在的系统性服药现象，干净选手甚至要排到十几名开外。 - 商业竞争是完全不受药检规制的“强化竞技场”，许多人通过服用阿德拉（Adderall）、阿莫达非尼和高剂量兴奋剂换取极长的专注工作时间。 - 罗根与克里斯就采访亨特·拜登的排期撞车事件展开打趣，罗根透露原计划曾想邀请亨特加入喜剧演员的群聊节目。 ### [01:29:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5368s) 采访亨特·拜登的经历与他的公众形象对谈开场提到了一段幕后插曲：当时他们本打算录制另一期《Protect Our Parks》特别节目，但阿里·沙菲尔（Ari Shaffir）人在伦敦，甚至表示愿意专门飞回来录播，于是他们打趣道“管他什么亨特·拜登”，计划便作罢了。随后，克里斯·威廉森谈起近期与亨特·拜登（Hunter Biden）的交流。他感叹亨特毫不避讳地大谈自己吸食强效可卡因（crack）的过往，甚至用“讨人喜欢到令人毛骨悚然”来形容对方展现出的人格魅力。乔·罗根对此并不意外，指出亨特自小在政客家庭长大，本身也是个极具智商的聪明人。克里斯提到，在对话中自己一直在暗中观察，试图识破亨特是否在玩某种操纵人心的政客游戏。亨特在公众视野中消失多年，如今重新走到聚光灯下，也引来不少争议——许多保守派人士甚至批评其他媒体人为他提供麦克风和平台。但克里斯与罗根都认为，无论政治立场如何，亨特身上经历的疯狂故事本身就极具戏剧性。克里斯特别想探究的是：作为“历史上被谷歌搜索次数最多的瘾君子”，背负着全美政治风暴与家族荣辱，内心究竟承受着怎样前所未有的心理重压。 - 亨特·拜登在淡出公众视线多年后重新公开接受访谈，引发舆论对“为争议人物提供平台”的批评。 - 讨论聚焦于他作为聚光灯下焦点人物的极高公众压力与极其独特的个人经历。 --- ### [01:31:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5464s) 笔记本电脑风波：云端入侵、虚构叙事与数据疑云讨论核心转向了引发轩然大波的“拜登笔记本电脑”事件。克里斯回忆亨特描述丑闻爆发那一天的场景：关乎整个国家的走向、父亲的政治遗产以及整个家庭的安危，而当时他才刚刚戒毒两年。罗根随即提出了一个长期存在的疑问：所谓的“笔记本电脑”到底是真的，还是有人黑进了他的云端账户（Cloud），再将海量数据硬塞进一台电脑里制造借口？亨特曾声称里面的数据量庞大至极，涵盖了近二十年来的所有短信、照片和视频，根本不可能单纯出自一台送修的个人笔记本。罗根推测，亨特吸毒、飙车到时速 170 英里以及各类荒唐私生活视频，极可能是云端被盗后流出的，而“把电脑遗忘在特拉华州维修店”很可能是爆料方掩盖黑客入侵事实的虚假叙事。两人现场使用 Perplexity 搜索了亨特过往表态的时间线： - **2021年 CBS 采访**：亨特态度模糊，抛出多种猜测，包括电脑被偷、被黑客入侵，甚至暗示有俄罗斯情报部门介入。 - **2026年采访与 Substack 发文**：亨特明确指出“他们黑了我的云端”，并坚称海量数据不可能来自单一设备，很可能是未知势力将窃取的数字材料拼凑到了所谓的笔记本叙事中；同时强调司法取证从未确立过足够严密的监管链（chain of custody）。罗根分析指出，虽然现在的笔记本电脑动辄配备 2TB 固态硬盘，容量上并非完全不可能装下那些资料，但整起事件最离奇的疑点在于维修店老板：该店主是“法定盲人”（legally blind），因此根本无法在视觉上指认当初送修电脑的顾客到底是不是亨特本人。这一巧合让整出戏码显得荒谬而充满疑点。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 亨特·拜登数据外泄的两种叙事对比 accDescr: 对比官方爆料的笔记本遗落叙事与云端被黑拼凑数据的质疑假说 subgraph NarrativeA ["官方流传版本：维修店遗落"] A1["亨特送修笔记本电脑"] --> A2["法定盲人店主接收"] A2 --> A3["逾期未取被店主查看并转交"] end subgraph NarrativeB ["亨特及质疑者假说：云端黑客入侵"] B1["黑客/情报机构攻破云端账户"] --> B2["获取20年海量私密数据"] B2 --> B3["伪造笔记本物理来源掩盖黑客痕迹"] end NarrativeA --> OUT["2020大选前作为‘十月惊奇’全面引爆"] NarrativeB --> OUT ``` --- ### [01:35:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5722s) 戒毒两年的极端偏执与“十月惊奇”舆论战克里斯进一步指出，整件事最让人震撼的是当时亨特才保持清醒（sober）两年（如今已清醒七年）。在毒瘾康复初期，面对全球性的舆论倾轧与羞辱，最本能的逃避方式往往就是复吸，但他顶住了压力。克里斯透露了一个惊人细节：为了防止被人栽赃陷害，亨特如今在收拾登机箱或行李时，甚至必须有证人在场全程监督，生怕有人悄悄塞进毒品或其他违禁品，因为一旦发生，“根本不会有人相信他的清白”。罗根指出，该事件在临近 2020 年大选前不到三周被鲁迪·朱利安尼（Rudy Giuliani）释放出来，是典型的“十月惊奇”（October Surprise），其背后极可能掺杂了试图击垮乔·拜登的情报战术；而建制派与社交媒体的应对方式，则是直接在 Twitter 等平台上全面封禁《纽约邮报》（New York Post）的真实报道。 - 亨特为防止被构陷，在打包随身行李时均安排第三方证人在场证明清白。 - 朱利安尼压下材料数月，并在 2019 年曾接触过被美国政府认定为俄罗斯活跃特工的乌克兰议员。 - 历届美国大选败选方都有标志性的借口：从“通俄门”（Russia-gate）到“拜登笔记本压制”，再到最近一届选举归咎于“播客（Podcast）的舆论导向”。 --- ### [01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) 辟谣关于卡玛拉·哈里斯拒绝播客专访的谎言针对“播客左右大选走向”的论调，罗根表达了强烈不满。他驳斥了外界声称播客主持人对不同党派厚此薄彼的说法，直言自己从未拒绝过与卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）对话，反而多次主动争取采访机会。罗根愤怒地揭露了哈里斯团队散布的谎言：对方阵营曾公开对外声称罗根在采访条件上百般刁难，甚至谎称哈里斯的先遣团队曾亲自前往奥斯汀视察并实地踏勘了罗根的录音室。罗根坚决澄清，哈里斯团队根本没有派人来过他的工作室，唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）的团队确实派人来现场踩点勘查过，而哈里斯团队完全是在捏造事实以掩盖自己不敢面对长篇无脚本对话的真相。 ### [01:38:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5887s) 卡玛拉·哈里斯团队的访谈邀约风波乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）详细还原了此前与卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）竞选团队交涉播客采访的内幕。针对外界盛传“哈里斯团队因安保不足而放弃录制”的说法，罗根坚决予以否认，并指出唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）来访前，特勤局确实对整个演播室进行了全面排查，但哈里斯团队自始至终没有任何代表亲自踏进过这里。罗根强调自己从未刁难对方，甚至竭尽全力提供便利；当时哈里斯唯一提出的录制日期正好与特朗普的档期撞车，但罗根仍退让一步，提议在哈里斯结束休斯敦的集会后（即碧昂丝出席但未开唱引发现场观众不满的那场集会），随时在午夜开录，或者改到次日。罗根当时的构想是将特朗普与哈里斯的两期超长对话同时发布，克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）惊叹这原本会成为罗根人生中最疯狂的24小时。然而，哈里斯团队对采访设定了苛刻的限制条件。罗根透露，对方列出了多个“禁区话题”，包括她在加州担任检察官期间对大麻持有者的起诉记录，以及涉嫌在刑期届满后延期释放囚犯以充当山火扑救劳力等争议历史。罗根当时甚至妥协表示，只要能坐下来交流，哪怕全程聊烹饪、聊对耶稣的信仰或外星人 UFO 的解密档案都无所谓，只要能让公众看到一个抛开官方套话、卸下防备的真实面孔。罗根直言，民主党事后将败选归咎于播客媒介是推卸责任：党内在没有经过正常初选的情况下匆忙推她上位，白白烧光了14亿美元的竞选资金；原本她在演讲中喊出“有种当着我的面说”（Say it to my face）时声势极佳，若当时趁势转入纯预设讲稿的防守策略，凭借更年轻、更有活力的形象，选举可能早就尘埃落定。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 哈里斯团队与罗根的访谈谈判分歧 accDescr: 对比哈里斯团队的要求与罗根所坚持的录制原则 subgraph TeamHarris["哈里斯竞选团队要求"] TH1["限制敏感话题（大麻记录、加州囚犯等）"] TH2["要求随行工作人员进驻录音间"] TH3["询问节目是否可以剪辑控制"] TH4["仅愿在特定行程提供有限时间窗口"] end subgraph RoganTerms["乔·罗根的录制原则"] RT1["完全不设剪辑，呈现真实对话"] RT2["录音间除当事人外禁止幕僚旁听"] RT3["愿意深更半夜随时配合录制"] RT4["计划双候选人访谈同步上线"] end TeamHarris -.->|条件无法达成一致| Deadlock["谈判告吹，错失长播客展示机会"] RoganTerms -.->|坚守播客底层真实性| Deadlock ``` ### [01:41:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6069s) 政治表演与无剪辑播客的真实拷问克里斯询问特朗普的一系列播客亮相到底对选情产生了多大推动作用。罗根认为影响巨大：先是在西奥·冯（Theo Von）的节目中展现了放松有趣的一面，随后在罗根的演播室里让选民看到了一个有血有肉的人，而非主流媒体描绘的卡通化符号。罗根认为哈里斯本应享有同样的机会，因为自己从不主张咄咄逼人的质问或人身攻击，单纯希望与未来的三军统帅进行平等的长谈。然而，哈里斯身边的核心智囊团队对此极度抗拒——一方面是阵营内“极度觉醒”（super woke）的群体排斥与罗根产生任何瓜葛；另一方面是幕僚深知哈里斯临场极易失言，此前在《The View》节目中声称“自己不会做出任何与拜登不同的决定”便是一例灾难级公关。针对竞选团队试图过度包装的行为，罗根表达了强烈反感。哈里斯方面甚至提出录制时要有幕僚在场陪同，并询问播客是否会进行后期剪辑，这些要求均被罗根直接拒绝。他质问对方：“你未来要统领人类历史上最强大的军队，随时需要应对潜在的核战争危机，难道连坐下来聊几个小时都承受不了？”罗根认为，播客没有免死金牌，必须让选民看透候选人的本质；相比于在《Call Her Daddy》上流于表面、匆匆收尾的客套，高层政治人物必须在真正的深度对谈中直面核心议题。 - 特朗普先通过西奥·冯的播客打破刻板印象，再通过罗根的超长对话巩固了接地气的形象。 - 罗根坚持演播室内不留任何竞选助手，坚决拒绝提供任何后期修剪或删节。 - 罗根认为哈里斯幕僚因为畏惧犯错而陷入过度保护，反而彻底剥夺了候选人展现亲和力的可能。 ### [01:44:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6249s) 边境危机与两党政治盘算话题随即转向边境与移民危机。罗根抨击上一届政府完全放任边界敞开，容许大量未经背景审查的非法移民进入美国，这种做法既无法甄别普通谋生者，也无法阻拦毒枭与潜在恐怖分子。在罗根看来，这种政策并非治理失误，而是民主党的深层战略图谋：通过放任移民涌入稀释各摇摆州的人口普查结构，再给予其公民身份、联邦医疗补助（Medicaid）以及免费手机等福利，最终将其转化为固定票仓，从而把整个国家变成类似加州那样由单一政党永久垄断、运转糟糕却不断吸纳更多税金的治理泥潭。随后，制作人杰米（Jamie）调出了2025年特朗普新政府上台后的边境执法数据。数据显示，2025年1月边境巡逻队记录的越境人数为29,000人，到了2月份这一数字骤降至8,000人，环比降幅高达约71%。面对这种立竿见影的压降，罗根感叹这证明控制边境从来不是能力问题，而是意愿问题；他随即要求杰米进一步调取对比2025年当期与2023年移民高峰期的数据，以看清非法越境总量的总体降幅。 ### [01:46:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6388s) 边境管控数据暴跌与“高阶信念”的讽刺乔·罗根与克里斯·威廉姆森首先讨论了非法越境人数的剧烈变动。数据显示边境拦截或越境人数下降了高达 88%，罗根对此感到震惊，直言此前有数以百万计身份不明的人涌入境内。他强调，固然人们希望展现同情心并认为移民有权追求美好生活，但国家必须清楚这些入境者绝非罪犯或凶杀犯。他指出，许多从未涉足过第三世界恶劣环境的人，根本无法想象如果放任危险分子游荡在社区周围、趁屋主外出工作便撬门入室会是什么后果。威廉姆森随即指出，这种现象完美契合了“高阶信念”（Luxury Beliefs）的概念——即那些极力鼓吹某种激进理念的人，往往是自身完全不会承受其后果的特权阶层。他分享了自己在奥斯汀亲眼所见的真实荒诞案例：一户人家的前院草坪上插着“削减警察经费”（Defund the Police）的标语牌，但前窗上却明晃晃地贴着雇佣私人安保公司的认证贴纸。罗根嘲弄地称这群人“真可爱”，并直言这类自相矛盾的行为在优渥的白人群体中屡见不鲜。谈及边境数字为何在 2024 年骤降，罗根一针见血地指出，拜登政府声称是避难政策调整，实则纯粹是因为大选民调吃紧而踩下刹车；若不是选情告急，他们早就放任不管，甚至若卡玛拉胜选还会继续秉持“在偷来的土地上无人是非法的”那一套说辞。 - 越境人数降幅高达 88%，此前有数以百万计未经背景审查的人员入境。 - 典型的特权虚伪写照：在自家院子竖立“削减警费”标语，同时窗户上贴着私人武装安保贴纸。 - 边境政策收紧的根本动力被指是选举民调压力，而非政策理念的根本转变。 --- ### [01:48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6502s) Ozempic 与消费主义的根基动摇威廉姆森将话题巧妙转移到近年来风靡全球的司美格鲁肽（Ozempic）及 GLP-1 受体激动剂类药物上。他提到一个令人瞠目的商业现象：维多利亚的秘密（Victoria's Secret）股价同比暴涨了 300%。究其原因，据分析是因为数百万女性因使用该药物大幅瘦身，原有的内衣尺寸不再合适，且随着身材变得苗条，她们开始报复性购买更为性感贴身的内衣。罗根调侃这些人成了“火柴人辣妹”，而威廉姆森进一步爆料，现在的婚纱定制店甚至开始要求准新娘签署免责协议——许多女性在订购婚纱与举办婚礼之间暴瘦多达 50 磅，婚纱店不得不像对待格斗选手“称重减重”一样设立条款，防范新娘到期尺寸不符而要求退款。威廉姆森更深层地探讨了 GLP-1 类药物对资本主义消费经济的潜在颠覆。现代消费主义的本质并不是满足生活必需，而是迎合冲动、欲望与反复购买的渴求。然而 GLP-1 药物的作用机制不仅在于抑制食欲，更在神经层面上压制了大脑的各类渴求中枢：使用者发现自己对大麻、电子游戏、红酒以及冲动消费的兴趣普遍骤减。罗根补充道，有研究和用户反馈显示，部分人群在使用后甚至连对亲密关系和情感社交的渴望都会显著减退。这种在药理层面直接阻断快感与冲动刺激的效应，虽然帮助戒除成瘾，却也引发了人们对情绪钝化与人性欲望流失的深切担忧。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: GLP-1药物对神经欲望及消费行为的抑制路径 accDescr: 展现GLP-1药物如何从抑制大脑多巴胺渴求扩展至对多类成瘾行为和资本主义消费的抑制 A["GLP-1 药物摄入 (如 Ozempic)"] --> B["抑制中枢神经渴望与冲动机制"] subgraph Physiological ["生理与体型转变"] B --> C["食欲大幅下降"] C --> D["体重骤降 (多达50磅)"] D --> E["消费结构突变 (内衣换新/婚纱尺寸免责)"] end subgraph Behavioral ["行为与消费抑制"] B --> F["物质成瘾降低 (酒精/大麻)"] B --> G["行为冲动降低 (游戏/冲动购物)"] B --> H["社交与亲密欲望钝化"] F & G & H --> I["资本主义消费主义基础受到冲击"] end ``` --- ### [01:51:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6691s) 剂量个体化、肌少症与反弹隐患随后，两人探讨了药物的具体应用问题及比尔·马赫（Bill Maher）与斯科特·加洛韦（Scott Galloway）此前在节目《Real Time》中的激烈辩论。罗根指出，目前许多复合药房和临床医生开始意识到精准剂量的关键性：传统的统一给药方式极不合理，一个 500 磅的重度肥胖男性与一名 135 磅、身高 5 英尺的女性所需要的剂量显然不可同日而语，定制化低剂量方案正在成为趋势。罗根还提到了新一代药物瑞他曲肽（Retatrutide），该药据称能在减脂的同时更好地保留肌肉量，这缓解了传统药物最令人担忧的副作用——饥饿状态下的骨量和肌肉流失。两人深入剖析了停药后的体质恶化机制。威廉姆森指出，大约 90% 的人在停用此类药物后体重都会反弹。原本缺乏良好运动与饮食习惯的人，只是在药物作用下被动减少了本就糟糕的饮食摄入，同时依然不进行任何抗阻力量训练。其结果是灾难性的：在体重下降阶段流失的是宝贵的骨骼肌，而在停药反弹时增加的全是脂肪。即便最终体重回到起点，个体的身体成分（Body Composition）却变得更加糟糕、松垮。这种代谢恶果使得使用者一旦停药就难以自拔，几乎被迫陷入终身用药的恶性循环。 - 剂量差异至关重要：不同体型和体重（如 500 磅男性对比 135 磅女性）应接受定制化用药，而非一刀切。 - 瑞他曲肽（Retatrutide）等新型多受体激动剂在维持瘦体重方面展现出优势。 - 恶性体质置换：约 90% 的停药者体重会反弹，经历“下行减肌、上行增脂”的过程，导致身体成分全面恶化。 --- ### [01:53:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6819s) 力量训练的生死意义与老年跌倒危机针对肌肉流失的威胁，罗根强烈呼吁大众必须进行抗阻力量训练。他指出，热量缺口必然导致身体分解自身组织，如果不通过举铁给骨骼和肌肉施加压力，就无法刺激骨密度和瘦体重的增长。许多从未进行过力量训练的老年人，外表看起来或许正常，但内在肌肉量极低、身体“宛如面团”，毫无抗冲击能力。在老年人群体中，跌倒往往是致命连锁反应的起点——在浴室滑倒、撞击头部或摔断髋骨，往往意味着生命倒计时的开始。罗根强调，医学数据明确证实，老年人一旦发生髋关节骨折，10 年以上的存活率会断崖式暴跌。修复骨折不仅耗尽衰老躯体仅存的代谢资源，更彻底剥夺了患者的自主活动能力，随之而来的长期卧床、虚弱衰竭与感染并发症往往直接导致死亡。威廉姆森随即补充了一项关于阿尔茨海默病（认知障碍症）患者跌倒风险的严峻研究数据： - 老年人严重伤害与致死的主因之一是跌倒（多发于淋浴间或浴缸滑倒，导致头部重创或髋骨骨折）。 - 髋关节骨折不仅造成长期活动受限和生命活力丧失，更伴随着极高的中长期致死率。 - 统计研究表明，60% 至 80% 的阿尔茨海默病老年患者曾遭遇过跌倒，该跌倒发生率是认知正常同龄人的两倍以上。 ### [01:55:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6910s) 浴缸被困九天奇迹生还的老妇两人谈起最近的一则惊人新闻：北卡罗来纳州阿巴拉契亚山区的一名82岁老妇人在浴缸里跌倒后动弹不得，竟然在无人发现的情况下独自生存了整整九天。制作人 Jamie 查证细节后补充，老太太当时机智地用脚去拧开水龙头，把水泼到脸上饮用，才勉强维持住生命。Joe Rogan 听后连连惊呼：“九天都在那个该死的浴缸里！”他甚至纳闷她怎么没有因体温过低而死，或者在用脚拧水龙头调节水温时不小心被滚烫的热水烫死。面对如此离奇且惊险的求生经历，Joe Rogan 忍不住半开玩笑地对 Jamie 喊话：“天啊，可怜的老太太，快把她请到播客上来！赶在 Chris 动手之前把她签下来！”Chris Williamson 笑着打趣说，可能得亲自带设备跑到偏远的阿巴拉契亚山区才能采访到她。感叹之余，两人都对人类在极端逆境中所展现出的惊人求生意志深表佩服。 - 事故地点：北卡罗来纳州山区 - 生还者年龄及困境：82岁老妇，摔入浴缸无法起身，被困达9天之久 - 求生方式：依靠灵活的双脚转动水龙头开关，取水饮用避免脱水 --- ### [01:56:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6984s) 剥夺睡眠引发的精神失常与超级耐力赛话题随即转向了人体承受剥夺睡眠的极限。Chris Williamson 提到人只要连续几天不睡觉就会陷入严重的精神病性障碍（psychosis），思维彻底混乱。他提到了轰动一时的林赛·克兰西（Lindsay Clancy）案件，指出极度缺乏睡眠和抗精神病药物的复合影响足以把人逼疯。Chris 认为，人甚至不需要熬太久就会丧失理智，这也是为什么所谓的“庭院超级马拉松”（Backyard Ultra）在他看来近乎疯狂——参赛者在持续几十甚至上百小时的连续奔跑中，几乎无法做出理性决策，无论是判断进食、休息还是坚持，每个人都会产生极其逼真的幻觉。 Joe Rogan 顺势提到了超级耐力跑传奇选手考特尼·道沃尔特（Courtney Dauwalter），她在长达三天的“大脚怪200”（Bigfoot 200）越野赛中展现了非人类般的体能，夺冠时竟然领先第二名的男选手整整10个小时。Chris 指出，在极端超长距离耐力赛中，男女之间的生理差距会显著缩小，尤其在长距离游泳项目中，女性因体脂率较高而具备更好的天然浮力，耐力表现往往更加出色；而肌肉紧实、自重大的男子（如 Joe Rogan 自嘲“像石头一样下沉”）在水中反而处于劣势。 --- ### [01:57:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7067s) 罗里·麦克唐纳的出场音乐恶作剧 Chris Williamson 突然联想到关于前 UFC 顶级名将罗里·麦克唐纳（Rory MacDonald）的一段经典搞笑轶事。当年麦克唐纳换了手机号，却没有及时将新号码报备给 UFC 官方。结果，一位碰巧拿到他旧号码的普通粉丝得知此事后，决定不声不响地替麦克唐纳向 UFC 提交每次比赛的出场音乐。这位粉丝颇具幽默感，每次都为这位以冷酷、凶狠著称的格斗家挑选极其违和搞笑的曲目，比如 MC Hammer 的老派金曲以及 DMX 的说唱。这个秘密一直维持了很久，直到有一次该粉丝替他提交了加拿大摇滚乐队 Nickelback 的歌。赛后工作人员向麦克唐纳致歉说：“抱歉，这次没能为你放成 Nickelback。”麦克唐纳一脸茫然与愤怒地回击：“我他妈什么时候要过放 Nickelback 的歌？！”真相这才大白。Joe 和 Chris 回忆起这段插曲笑作一团，纷纷赞叹那位粉丝的恶作剧不仅大胆，而且充满戏剧效果。 --- ### [01:58:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7129s) Nickelback 与 Cypress Hill：摇滚巨星梦的两面由麦克唐纳的恶搞音乐顺势聊到了饱受争议的乐队 Nickelback。Chris Williamson 提起网络上流传的一个搞笑阴谋论，称 Nickelback 的爆火与后来被全网黑，是为了在“9·11”事件后从文化上消解美国的士气。Joe Rogan 则为 Nickelback 鸣不平，认为大家跟风黑他们有些过头，他们的旋律其实非常抓耳，只是创作模式过于套路化（formulaic）。为了印证自己的观点，Joe 将 Nickelback 的热门单曲《Rockstar》与传奇嘻哈团体 Cypress Hill 的名作《(Rock) Superstar》相提并论。他指出两首歌本质上拿到的是同一个命题作文——“成为摇滚巨星是什么体验”： - **Nickelback 的《Rockstar》**：站在轻浮、梦幻的角度，高唱着出名后的香车美女、纸醉金迷，充满了对名利场表象的浅薄渴望。 - **Cypress Hill 的《(Rock) Superstar》**：由 Deftones 主唱 Chino Moreno 开篇独白，揭露了名利背后的阴暗面、心理摧残以及为此付出的惨痛代价，语气沉重且充满警示。 Joe 坦言自己是 Cypress Hill 和主唱 B-Real 的铁杆粉丝，认为后者无论在编曲还是思想深度上都远超前者。此外，Joe 还向 Chris 盛赞了 Rage Against the Machine 翻唱 Cypress Hill 的作品，称其编曲强劲硬核，甚至超越了原版。 --- ### [02:01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7305s) 炫耀性劝阻、阶级优越感与和弦重合真相围绕两首摇滚歌曲传达的深意，Chris Williamson 探讨了一种有趣的社会心理现象：当拥有特权的人试图劝阻普通人“别去追求世俗成功”时，往往会显得格外虚伪。他援引了一项航空心理学研究：当经济舱乘客登机时必须穿过前面的商务舱走廊，机上发生旅客愤怒失控（passenger rage）事件的概率会暴增8倍，因为这种空间设计赤裸裸地提醒了人们所处的社会地位等级。 Chris 分析道，每当富豪宣称“金钱买不来快乐”、名流表示“声望无法提升自我价值”、俊男美女劝慰“容貌并不重要”时，大众通常只会将其视作一种典型的“奢侈信念”（luxury belief），听起来就像是成功者在上岸后亲手拆掉了身后的梯子。谈话最后回到了 Nickelback 的评价两极化上。尽管《滚石》（Rolling Stone）曾将《Rockstar》列入2007年百大最佳歌曲第100位，但 BuzzFeed 却将其评为史上最烂歌曲第二名。Jamie 解释了当年 Nickelback 在早期互联网和音频制作学院被群嘲的技术原因：有网友制作了一个左右声道对比视频，分别播放他们两首不同的成名曲，结果发现不仅调性相同，甚至连每一次和弦转换的节拍点都严丝合缝地重合在一起，彻底暴露了其公式化流水线生产的本质。 ### [02:03:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7412s) 公式化音乐与“高智商音乐”的玩笑对流行乐队的讨论延续到了其制作和结构上。Joe Rogan 指出，有些乐队的创作极其公式化，每首歌的主歌和副歌转折时间点几乎分秒不差，因此常被乐迷和同行嘲弄。音频工程师也会批评这类制作过于依赖“箱内处理”（recording in the box）——即录音时声音完全不加修饰（干声录制），所有混响和音效全靠后期添加，导致演出缺乏现场的生命力。Joe 调侃道，虽然这些乐队显然比不上 The Rolling Stones（滚石乐队）或 Pink Floyd（平克·弗洛伊德），但它们属于“白人音乐”，听众智商顶多 98。两人随即半开玩笑地探讨起什么是真正的“高智商音乐”。Chris Williamson 提到 Pink Floyd 当然算，但爵士乐则很微妙——因为他也见过不少听爵士乐的笨蛋，即便许多极其聪明的人同样痴迷爵士。Joe 提出金属乐队 Tool 的音乐具有很高的智商，虽然喜欢重金属的人可能内心多少有点创伤或叛逆。Chris 提到 Eric Weinstein 曾推荐过前卫器乐摇滚乐队 Polyphia，Joe 随之兴奋表示自己非常喜欢 Polyphia 以及吉他手 Tim Henson 的水准。他们一致认为，听 Polyphia 这类音乐绝对不是被动的背景聆听（not passive listening），它需要大脑高度运转才能完全跟上其节奏与编曲。 - 公式化音乐制作常采用“箱内处理”（in the box），录音干涩并在后期堆砌特效，缺乏现场真实感。 - 被提及的高智商/复杂音乐流派与代表：Pink Floyd、Tool 以及前卫器乐乐队 Polyphia（吉他手为 Tim Henson）。 - 真正的硬核技术流音乐要求主动聆听，而非漫不经心的消遣。 --- ### [02:05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7519s) 乐理、传统记谱与 Jimi Hendrix 的反向吉他话题转向没有录音设备的古典时代。Joe 惊叹于贝多芬（Beethoven）等先辈作曲家仅凭纸张与五线谱就能把复杂的交响乐写下来，供后人几百年后在音乐厅里精确复制再现。然而 Chris 指出，其实许多当代顶尖音乐人甚至不识五线谱，如今许多人完全依靠电脑上的数字音频工作站（DAW）拖拽音符进行创作。Joe 笑着附和，优秀的乐手只需理解乐器能发出什么声音即可，完全没必要死盯乐谱上那些密密麻麻的五线谱标记。这种非学院派的天才（savant）现象在摇滚史上的顶峰就是 Jimi Hendrix（吉米·亨德里克斯）。Joe 解释说，Hendrix 是个左撇子，但在当时只能买到普通的右手款 Fender Stratocaster 吉他。于是他直接把右手吉他倒过来弹。Eric Weinstein 曾向 Joe 详细拆解过其中的神奇之处：把吉他翻转弹奏意味着琴头旋钮、琴桥角度以及拾音器的倾斜方向全都颠倒了，产生了前所未有的独特音色与张力。Hendrix 完全自学成才，凭借这种打破常规的弹法让同时代的 Eric Clapton 感到绝望甚至想封琴退隐。如今，Fender 甚至专门推出了复刻 Hendrix 倒装细节的签名款 Stratocaster 吉他，连琴头和琴桥拾音器都是反向倾斜的。 --- ### [02:08:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7691s) 褪色情绪偏差与“治愈会抹去证据” Chris Williamson 随后分享了一个心理学与人生认知的深度思考：人们普遍假设智慧会随时间线性积累（认知特权/epistemic privilege），潜意识里总觉得未来的自己一定比过去的自己更聪明、更有见识。但在涉及情感创伤、痛苦和人生教训时，这种假设往往完全失效。心理学中有一个概念叫做**褪色情绪偏差**（fading affect bias）：负面痛苦的记忆随时间流逝而淡化的速度，远远快于美好记忆的消退速度。这种机制就像人体的心理免疫系统，能防止人类被过去的创伤长期压垮，甚至催生了“悲剧加时间等于喜剧”的效果。然而，它的致命缺陷在于**治愈会抹去当时让人决定改变的‘收据’（evidence/receipts）**： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 褪色情绪偏差与恶性循环机制 accDescr: 展示了从痛苦到康复、再因记忆遗忘而重蹈覆辙的心理闭环过程 subgraph Phase1["痛苦与改变"] A["经历强烈负面痛苦 （有毒关系/职场倦怠/酒精成瘾）"] --> B["付出巨大代价脱离逆境 （分手/离职/戒酒）"] end subgraph Phase2["心理免疫生效"] B --> C["时间推移与状态康复 （褪色情绪偏差运作）"] C --> D["痛苦记忆与受挫证据被抹去 （美化过去，遗忘失眠与折磨）"] end subgraph Phase3["重蹈覆辙"] D --> E["错误认知产生： '其实当初也没那么糟糕'"] E --> A end ``` - **感情陷阱**：经历了一段痛苦折磨的关系，分手六个月后再次相遇，却已经记不起当初失眠的夜晚和窒息感，只记得美好片段，从而萌生复合的想法。 - **职场倦怠**：在高压高强度的岗位上严重透支身心而辞职，一年后却开始怀念职场光环、地位认可和同僚情谊，甚至考虑跳槽去竞品公司重操旧业。 - **成瘾复发**：戒酒数年的人往往会想“也许当初没那么严重，我现在喝两杯应该没问题”，最终重新掉进泥潭。 Chris 总结道，未来的自己并不必然比当下的自己更有决断力，因为距离事件越远，就离真实的痛苦证据越远，这就是许多人不断在不良关系或成瘾模式中原地打转的原因。听完 Chris 的剖析，Joe 补充认为，除了遗忘痛苦外，人类还对“熟悉的模式”有一种病态的依恋，有时候即使那种模式代表着失败或自暴自弃，人们也会因为熟悉而在其中寻找扭曲的舒适感。 ### [02:11:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7908s) 能力的诅咒：自我毁灭与“只能不输，无法取胜”的心态对许多正在戒瘾或背负巨大压力的人来说，维持清醒和维持成功的重担往往令人窒息。乔·罗根指出，戒酒本身带来的神经紧绷有时会强烈到让人难以承受，脑子里只剩下一个念头：“赶紧给我倒杯该死的酒”。很多人因为害怕搞砸、害怕失去好不容易维持的成功，反而会重新滑入自我毁灭的轨道。罗根认为，虽然这需要心理学家来给出专业解释，但现实中屡见不鲜的是：人们倾向于在熟悉的失败模式中寻找舒适区，因为彻底摆烂反而能卸下肩上“必须成功”的重压。当某人坚持戒酒了333天，正跟人分享这项成就时，脑海中却突然冒出“我想抽根万宝路、喝杯啤酒、回酒吧找老朋友”的冲动，那种回退到旧恶习的诱惑本质上是一种对舒适感的渴求。克里斯·威廉森将这种现象定义为“能力的诅咒”（curse of competence）。如果一个人身处逆境、时运不济，酗酒或染上不良嗜好尚能理解；但当一个极其优秀、极具能力的人反复倒退回恶习时，情况就变得耐人寻味。威廉森分析道，对于那些事事精通、习惯了诸事顺利的人而言，成功早已不再是一件值得庆祝的事，而变成了“最低可接受的表现标准”（minimum level of acceptable performance）。在这种心理机制下，成功成了你必须达到的底线，任何低于成功的表现都被视作彻底的失败，而成功本身仅仅意味着“合格”。这种思维创造了一种极度扭曲的激励机制：人进入了一种“永远无法取胜，只能争取不输”的心理负债状态。每天清晨醒来，你都觉得自己处于亏欠和落后的状态，唯有在这一天里展现出绝对完美的统治力，才能勉强把自己拉回到那个名为“及格”的完美基准线上。威廉森指出，近年来完美主义呈现明显的上升趋势，许多来到他播客的学者也反复探讨过这种心理负担。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 完美主义与能力诅咒的恶性循环 accDescr: 展示能力者如何陷入成功仅为及格、恐惧失败进而滑向自我毁灭的闭环 subgraph Mindset["扭曲的期望基准"] A["高能力个体"] --> B["将'完美成功'视为最低可接受底线"] B --> C["每天醒来处于心理负债状态 （只能不输，无法取胜）"] end subgraph Crisis["重压与逃避"] C --> D["持续的焦虑与搞砸恐惧"] D --> E["在熟悉的失败模式中寻求舒适 （复饮、恶习发作）"] E --> F["卸下成功的重担"] end F -.->|恶性循环| A ``` --- ### [02:14:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8042s) 完美主义的崛起与财富不平等下的“弹射座椅” 针对完美主义的上升，罗根提出了质疑：心理学研究究竟是如何量化这门概念的？样本群体到底是谁？如果调查对象是西弗吉尼亚州拖车公园里的底层民众，还是华尔街的金融精英，得出的数据必然天差地别。威廉森解释称，研究人员通常基于心理测量量表进行抽样评估，设计诸如“如果我没成功，我就是一个失败者”或“我必须完全掌控一切”等评估标准，并按自我完美主义（自身必须完美）与面向他人的完美主义（身边人也必须完美）进行细分。威廉森进一步将这种完美主义心理与社会结构联系起来。在崇尚优绩主义（meritocracy）的资本主义社会中，人们被灌输了一种逻辑：唯有让自己变得更重要、更成功，才能赢得赞许。这与两人之前讨论过的“贫困巡游”（poverty parade）如出一辙——就像普通旅客穿过商务舱走向经济舱的过程，每一步都在无情地提醒你自己在阶级金字塔中的真实位置。为了印证这一点，威廉森引用了澳大利亚学者坎迪斯·布莱克（Candice Blake）的一项大规模研究。该研究通过抓取社交平台（如 Twitter 或 Instagram）上的带地理标记的照片，根据自我物化（self-objectification，例如性感自拍）的程度进行评级，并对比当地的贫富差距数据： - 结果显示，某一地区的财富不平等程度越高，女性发布自我物化自拍照的频率就越高。 - 这一现象并非仅限于贫困女性，而是涵盖了该区域的所有女性群体。 - 其背后的心理机制在于：巨大的贫富悬殊不仅让人们看到自己能攀登多高，更残忍地展现了一旦失败会跌入多深的底层深渊。面对这种深渊般的下坠风险，完美主义和自我物化一样，变成了人们试图自救的“弹射座椅”（ejector seat）。如果一个人无法依靠现有的社会资源获取上升通道，就会试图通过极端的自我苛求与自力更生（bootstrapping）来把自己推离发射台。然而，这也让优秀的人永远无法摆脱自己设定的苛刻枷锁，因为任何达不到完美的表现都被视为不可容忍。 --- ### [02:16:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8211s) 社交媒体放大镜：从偶像崇拜到对负面评价的恐惧罗根对此持有不同视角的审视，他认为这种泛滥的焦虑很大程度上是由现代社交媒体一手催化的。在社交平台上，所有人都在展示豪车、豪宅、精致生活等欲望客体，算法与滤镜则构建出完全扭曲的不真实美貌标准。这种视觉冲击不仅加速了大众的欲望，也直接导致女性整容手术的激增以及年轻男性滥用类固醇等极端行为。罗根强调，必须分清“追求卓越”与病态的“完美主义”：人类历史上从来不乏追求极致的顶尖人物，体育运动和各类专业领域始终在膜拜卓越。罗根回忆道，自己小时候在学校打闹时，大家把垃圾揉成团扔进小垃圾桶，都会兴奋地大喊一声“拉里·伯德”（Larry Bird）；人们渴望成为伯德、迈克尔·乔丹（Michael Jordan）或迈克·泰森（Mike Tyson）那样的翘楚，这种对超凡技艺的向往是积极而健康的。随后两人查看了一项自1989年以来的纵向追踪研究。研究指出，完美主义正被视作一种“公共卫生风险”，与日益加剧的抑郁症和焦虑症高度相关。但更关键的发现隐藏在两类完美主义维度的分化之中： - **完美主义担忧（Perfectionistic Concerns）**：包括对失败的恐惧、优柔寡断，以及对被他人负面评判的极度恐惧。这一维度的增长速度最为迅猛。 - **完美主义追求（Perfectionistic Strivings）**：即设立极高标准并全力以赴去实现的内驱力，其增长幅度明显落后于前者。罗根敏锐地指出，对被他人评价的恐惧之所以飞速膨胀，元凶正是社交媒体；而“完美主义追求”之所以难以提升，是因为它高度依赖**延迟满足**（delayed gratification）。要追求卓越，个体必须具备“我今天虽然不想做，但为了未来的成就我必须咬牙完成”的心智，这需要对整个漫长而枯燥的进步过程建立起坚定的信任。罗根认为，这也正是体育运动或学习吉他等硬技能对年轻人无可替代的意义所在——你必须亲身经历一段“起步时自己烂得一塌糊涂”的艰难阶段，才能真正理解并信任自我蜕变的规律。 ### [02:20:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8406s) 追求卓越而非完美：从台球传奇到体坛巨星乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，如果你一生中从未挑战过极具难度的事物，就很难理解那种追求极致的渴望。但他非常反感“完美主义”（Perfectionism）这个词，更倾向于使用“追求卓越”（Pursuing Excellence）。他认为完美在现实中根本不存在，人类只要行动就必然伴随失误与瑕疵。罗根举了职业台球的经典案例：在职业比赛中，最罕见的成就是在抢十局（race to 10）的比赛中连续清台十盘（run 10 racks in a row）。传奇选手厄尔·斯特里克兰（Earl Strickland）曾在有一笔 100 万美元保险悬赏的比赛中做到过这一点。当时主办方为了增加噱头设立了百万巨奖，以为根本无人能做到，结果身为“科学怪人式天才”的斯特里克兰顶住巨大压力真的达成了十连清台，最后赛事方甚至赖账不想掏钱。罗根感叹，即便强如斯特里克兰，打出神级表现后第二天也可能表现崩溃，因为人非机器，总会犯错——迈克尔·乔丹（Michael Jordan）不可能投进每一个球，迈克·泰森（Mike Tyson）也会输掉比赛。克里斯·威廉森（Chris Williamson）补充道，“完美主义”这个词之所以耐人寻味，恰恰在于它暗含了追求完美本身的徒劳与虚妄，自带一种嘲讽意味。罗根完全赞同，他认为追求外貌上的“完美”往往会导致悲剧，比如引发体象障碍（body dysmorphia）、厌食症或者在整容时把嘴唇丰得过大而失去自知；但如果是在智力或竞技领域的极致追求，比如马格努斯·卡尔森（Magnus Carlsen）下国际象棋，或者梅西（Lionel Messi）在绿茵场上的表现，人类对这种卓越离群值（outlier）的顶礼膜拜是完全正当且美好的。如果将这种追求误称为“完美”，它听起来就像一种心理疾病；而称其为“卓越”，它才是一项令人尊敬的崇高追寻。 - **厄尔·斯特里克兰的百万美金清台**：在设立 100 万美元奖励的挑战中，斯特里克兰在镜头见证下完成了不可思议的连续十盘开球清台（10-pack），成为职业台球史上极为罕见的极致瞬间。 - **体象障碍与虚荣陷阱**：罗根批判对外表“完美”的盲目追逐，认为这种心理机制常常催生厌食症和畸形整容，是真正病态的完美主义。 --- ### [02:23:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8612s) 费德勒的数据哲学与阻力三境界：自律、动机与痴迷克里斯·威廉森分享了一组关于网球天王罗杰·费德勒（Roger Federer）的震撼数据：费德勒在整个职业生涯中赢得了大约 80% 至 85% 的比赛，但若细算每一分球的得分率，他其实只赢下了大约 56% 的得分。罗根感叹，这就是顶尖高手的边缘优势（edge），想要在成千上万疯狂击球、冲刺、举重的顶级怪兽选手当中脱颖而出并赢下 85% 的比赛，你必须像个“疯子”一样拼命工作。克里斯随即引用了一句深富哲理的名言：“自律的诅咒在于每一天看起来都一模一样；而缺乏自律的诅咒在于每一年看起来都一模一样（The curse of discipline is that every day looks the same, and the curse of indiscipline is that every year looks the same）。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 阻力与行为驱动力的三层境界 accDescr: 展示自律、动机与痴迷在面对阻力时的三种不同心理机制 subgraph Discipline["自律 (Discipline)"] D1["接受阻力"] --> D2["无论多艰难，强迫自己咬牙去完成"] end subgraph Motivation["动机 (Motivation)"] M1["消除阻力"] --> M2["顺应内心欲望，渴望并享受去做"] end subgraph Obsession["痴迷 (Obsession)"] O1["反转阻力"] --> O2["不去做反而更痛苦，被一股力量彻底拽着走"] end ``` 围绕这种驱动力，克里斯深入剖析了“自律”、“动机”与“痴迷”（Obsession）对阻力（friction）的三种不同心理状态： 1. **自律是接受阻力（friction accepted）**：无论事情有多艰巨枯燥，都强迫自己硬着头皮坚持完成。 2. **动机是消除阻力（friction removed）**：打心底里渴望去做，顺势而为。 3. **痴迷是反转阻力（friction inverted）**：不去做这件事带来的痛苦，远远超过做这件事情本身。例如不去训练比去训练更难受，不弹吉他比弹吉他更折磨。克里斯指出，外人看那些痴迷的人，往往误以为他们只是展现了惊人的意志力和极高的自律，在咬紧牙关硬撑；但从痴迷者的内部视角来看，他们实际上“别无选择”——睡前在想、醒来在想，甚至根本无法停下。大众常常妖魔化“痴迷”，很大程度上也是因为不少平凡人出于自卑或嫉妒，借由嘲讽那些为某项运动或音乐奉献一生的离群狂人来掩饰自己的平庸。 --- ### [02:26:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8773s) 擅长解题的大脑与走投无路的陷阱讨论转向痴迷的双刃剑特质。克里斯指出，如果这种不可遏制的冲动被导向了政治论战、色情成瘾、病态的前任关系、电子游戏或大麻，它就会成为极具毁灭性的灾难。他分析道，自己和罗根都属于拥有“解题型大脑”（Problem-solving brain）的人——脑子里仿佛永远在旋转着一个微型魔方，不断推演“我该如何解决这个问题”、“我该如何优化这件事”。然而，当一个拥有解题型大脑的人在现实中缺乏有价值的问题去攻克时，大脑就会开始“自噬”（eat themselves inside out），将这种过剩的精力和偏执倾泻到毫无意义的事情上，例如在路上因被超车而愤怒地穷追不舍，或是沉迷于网络撕裂。因此克里斯认为，试图强行关闭这种大脑转速是极其痛苦的，更好的自救之道是“给自己提供更高阶、更有价值的问题去解决”，例如开启一项事业或投身于热爱的追求。但罗根也直言不讳地指出，将这套逻辑套用到所有人身上未免有些过于理想化与简化，因为对于许多深陷赌博等严重恶习的人而言，这已经演变为切实的心理健康问题。许多陷入死胡同的人完全缺乏中断这种负面行为模式的自我觉察，身边既没有良友，也得不到心理咨询师的有效干预与工具支持。克里斯深表赞同，并坦言那些能够幸运地将痴迷导入正轨、取得世俗成功的人应该心怀敬畏——因为他们在神经机制上，其实距离那些在街头流离失所、被恶瘾吞噬的人只有一步之遥。 ### [02:28:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8914s) 执念与自律的沉淀：从“连环着魔者”到心智金字塔乔·罗根与克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）深入探讨了“执念”（obsession）的双刃剑特质。克里斯指出，驱动一个人走向自我毁灭、分心或是自我牺牲的能量，与驱动人取得卓越成就的能量实际上来自“同一种燃料”，唯一的差别在于能否将其引导至对自己和身边人有益的解决路径上。年少时的体育训练往往为这种引导奠定了“物理法则”般的基石：孩子通过对细微技能的持续打磨，亲身体会到延迟满足（delayed gratification）的价值——就像在童年赢下了“棉花糖实验”，从而学会用更长的时间跨度来规划目标。克里斯以退役海豹突击队指挥官乔科·威林克（Jocko Willink）为例展开分析：外人如今看到乔科凌晨四点半起床、疯狂甩壶铃的高强度训练，往往赞叹这是无与伦比的“自律”，但剥开表象，那其实只是他早已内化的人格特质。乔科在海豹突击队服役时对训练极度痴迷，满脑子都是变得更大、更强壮、更具杀伤力。随着时间流逝，那种狂热的执念逐渐冷却，就像熔岩凝固成行星的地核一样，化作坚不可摧的底层习惯。克里斯认为，一个健康的成长路径是允许自己经历一次次“连环着魔”（serial obsessions）：二十多岁时对体能疯狂执念，冷却后变成终身习惯；随后对心理健康、真诚待人或寻求心理咨询产生执念，冷却后构筑成心智的第二层；再之后为了成为一名优秀的父亲，痴迷于学习情绪管理和亲子沟通。一层层沉淀下来，最终会塑造出一个极其丰满而强大的人格。然而，现实中许多人在对某件事着魔时往往会产生负罪感和羞耻心，甚至刻意压抑它，殊不知纯粹的执念才是人们所能获得的最廉价、最强大的动力源泉。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 连环着魔者的心智层叠演进模型 accDescr: 展示执念如何随着时间冷却沉淀，最终层叠构筑为多元成熟的人格。 subgraph Phase1 ["第一阶段：体能与纪律"] A["狂热执念：极限身体训练与体魄构建"] --> B["执念冷却：内化为无意识的日常自律"] end subgraph Phase2 ["第二阶段：心智与人格"] B --> C["新执念导入：心理健康、真诚与情绪觉察"] C --> D["习惯沉淀：构筑底层心理韧性"] end subgraph Phase3 ["第三阶段：角色与智慧"] D --> E["进阶执念：成为合格的父亲与领路人"] E --> F["最终形态：坚固成熟的复合型人格金字塔"] end ``` --- ### [02:31:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9088s) 英国的“高罂粟综合征”与美国的狂热能量当克里斯谈到人们在沉迷于某种追求时常因身边朋友的嘲弄而感到羞愧时，乔·罗根给出了极其直接的反击。罗根直言，如果有人因为你去狂练吉他或者钻研小众爱好而冷嘲热讽，你的唯一回应就该是“去你的，谁在乎你怎么想”，任何因此放弃的人都是咎由自取。克里斯则解释道，这背后其实折射出了鲜明的文化差异——英国文化中根深蒂固的“高罂粟综合征”（tall poppy syndrome），即任何试图冒头、偏离常规轨迹的人都会遭到同侪无情的嘲讽与打压。克里斯对比了英美两国的创新现实：英国拥有像牛津、剑桥、伦敦国王学院这样名列全球前十的顶尖学府，吸引着全球一流的人才，但在人均产出企业家的数量上，英国却只有美国的约20%。克里斯认为这绝非智商或机构水平的差异，而是文化态度的鸿沟。英国社会缺乏对打破常规者、高行动力自主个体的鼓励；反观美国，克里斯开玩笑形容很多美国人仿佛“长期处于刚吸完第一口可卡因的狂热能量中”（permanent first-line cocaine energy），无论面对什么都充满昂扬的激情。如果能把美国的这份狂热注入英国，整个社会的创造力将被彻底释放。 - **英美创业产出悬殊**：英国坐拥全球顶尖学术机构，但人均创业企业家数量仅为美国的五分之一左右。 - **高罂粟效应的文化枷锁**：在英国文化中，离开既定路径往往会引来“你搞这个傻主意图什么”的群体冷水，扼杀了放手一搏的冒险精神。 --- ### [02:33:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9188s) 承诺落空的受害者心态与“相信过程”的力量两人进一步探讨了社会阶层预期与“受害者文化”的深层根源。克里斯指出，英国依然留存着浓厚的阶级固化痕迹，孩子们从小就知道脚踏实地，虽然不会做不切实际的幻梦，但也因此不敢冒大险；而美国则全民浸泡在“人人皆可成功”的美国梦叙事中，人人都觉得自己离成为百万富翁只差几笔好生意。然而，这种叙事潜藏着巨大危险：一旦年轻人步入成年，发现社会并未兑现童年时被许诺的美好前程，他们就会认定自己的权益“被盗窃了”，受害者心态便随之井喷。克里斯将这种心理机制与韩国年轻女性的社会现状进行了对照：过去几十年间，韩国女性获得了平等的顶尖高等教育机会，受教育水平迅速赶平男性；然而当她们满怀憧憬迈入职场时，却迎面撞上依然停留在旧时代的男权职场文化与巨大的性别薪酬差距。这种教育承诺与残酷现实之间的断崖式落差，直接导致了强烈的幻灭感与激进的社会撕裂。面对现代人日益弥漫的怨恨情绪，乔·罗根强调了重塑“过程意识”（trust the process）的重要性。罗根指出，无论是在综合格斗（MMA）的备战周、从白带一路熬到黑带的柔术晋升，还是从业余拳手向职业拳台的蜕变，体育运动教会人最关键的一课就是“相信过程”：只要遵循正确的方法日复一日地投入，质变自然会发生。那些从未在年轻时经受过这种过程训练的人，步入社会后一旦发现自己没有立刻得到理想的结果，就会陷入“凭什么我没得到”的愤怒与受害者心态中不可自拔。 ### [02:36:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9415s) 摆脱“独狼”神话与学会信任过程乔·罗根与克里斯·威廉森深入探讨了环境对个人成长的决定性影响。罗根直言，找到一个志同道合、能够赋予你力量且让你感到备受鼓舞的环境极为困难，但它却至关重要。很多人喜欢标榜自己是所谓的“独狼”（Lone wolf），但在罗根看来，这种说法纯粹是自欺欺人，现实中那些真正与世隔绝、孤立无援的人往往深陷抑郁。威廉森随即探讨起“对过程的信任”（trust the process）究竟从何而来，罗根认为这种信任必须建立在向“过来人”学习的基础上——以摔跤为例，所有的摔跤教练都曾经亲自上台摔跤，他们深谙进阶的规律，会明确告诉你：“熬过这些清晨五点的训练，到了第三周，你会发现冲上这座山坡变得轻松得多，届时你会心存感激。”优秀的教练不仅指明道路，还会在学员每一次取得微小突破时予以确认，指出他们上一场还做不出来的动作如今已能行云流水地施展。威廉森对此深有共鸣，指出普通人最致命的盲区恰恰是“无法看清自身的进步”。对许多人而言，目标非但不是指路明灯，反而沦为“在取得最终成功之前不断自我批判的契约”。这种将自己逼入绝境的做法正是“完美主义”（Perfectionism）与“追求卓越”（Excellence）的本质分野：前者持有一种匮乏心态，认为“只要我不完美，我就是不够好的”；而后者则坚信“只要我一直在进步，我就是出色的”。许多人在内心深处给自己配备了一个只会揪住缺点不放的糟糕裁判，全然没有优秀导师那种循循善诱、善于捕捉闪光点的正向引导。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 目标导向心理模式对比 accDescr: 对比完美主义的自我批判死循环与追求卓越的成长型循环 subgraph Perfectionism["完美主义心态 (自残契约)"] A["设定严苛目标"] --> B["忽视阶段性微小进步"] B --> C["聚焦缺陷与自我贬低"] C --> D["心理衰竭或退回舒适圈"] end subgraph Excellence["追求卓越心态 (信任过程)"] E["追随过来人/优秀教练"] --> F["践行严苛且科学的日常训练"] F --> G["识别并强化每一个微小正向反馈"] G --> H["实现技能迭代与心理自洽"] end ``` --- ### [02:38:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9530s) 冠军温床与进阶阵痛：“孤独篇章” 罗根进一步指出，环境的优劣在竞技体育中体现得淋漓尽致：从俄克拉荷马州立大学（Oklahoma State University）摔跤队等顶尖名校项目中走出来的选手，由于身边全是全美一级联盟（NCAA Division I All-Americans）级别的狠角色，彼此相互激发生死对抗，其竞技水准从统计学概率上必然碾压那些处于劣质环境的人。然而现实生活中，绝大多数人非但没有顶尖教练指导，反而被一帮迷茫、颓废且整日借酒消愁的人所包围。当你试图打破平庸——比如推掉酒局留在家里专注写书时，周围的人甚至会冷嘲热讽：“哟，你现在要写大作了，连兄弟们都不顾了是吧？”这种来自平庸同伴的引力极难摆脱。威廉森对此提出了他长期深思的概念——**“孤独篇章”（The Lonely Chapter）**。在个人跃迁的过程中，必然会经历这样一个残酷的断层期：你的个人认知与发展水平已经远远超越了过去的社交圈子，无法再与旧日玩伴产生任何精神共鸣；与此同时，你却尚未达到足够的高度去建立起全新的优质人际网络。置身于这种青黄不接的真空地带，人会产生极其强烈的怀旧冲动，极度渴望倒退回旧有的习惯、模式与虚幻的安全感中。罗根将这种心理机制直接类比为戒毒者复吸：向平庸妥协、甘于失败，往往比在孤独中艰难蜕变要容易得多。 - **环境拉扯现象**：个体试图从事深度创造（如写作、严肃训练）时，往往会遭遇旧圈子的道德绑架与冷嘲热讽。 - **“孤独篇章”的危机**：旧圈子已脱轨，新圈子未建成；认知升级带来的阶段性孤独最容易诱发自暴自弃。 --- ### [02:40:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9631s) 反面榜样的警示与网络时代的降维启发谈到如何在缺乏优质环境的泥潭中突围，威廉森分享了自己的出身经历。他成长于英格兰东北部极度偏远的传统工人阶级城镇，童年环境极其匮乏，身边几乎找不到任何值得效仿的正面榜样。然而，周围却充斥着大量绝佳的**“反面榜样”（Reverse Role Models）**——嗜赌如命的恶习、对伴侣无休止的背叛，以及借酗酒来逃避一切心理创伤的懦弱。威廉森意识到，人生并不一定非要依靠身边有大牌教练领跑；通过观察反面榜样并刻意避开这些致命陷阱，同样能够实现巨大的阶层与心智跃迁。罗根对此表示赞同，并以一位朋友为例：该朋友目睹整个家族因酗酒而彻底沉沦，从此终生滴酒不沾，最终取得了极大的商业成功；但罗根依然强调，被你渴望成为的人所吸引，远比仅仅出于对深渊的恐惧而逃避更为健康。两人的共识在于，互联网彻底打破了历史上的地缘与阶层壁垒。在过去，像传奇球星拉里·伯德（Larry Bird）这样成长于闭塞乡村的天才，只能依赖身边碰巧出现的狠角色来磨砺球技，根本无法接触外部智慧；而今天，任何人都可以随时随地打开播客，倾听顶尖企业家、传奇运动员（如大卫·戈金斯 David Goggins）剖析逆境，或者聆听艾伦·瓦茨（Alan Watts）的哲学讲座来重塑世界观。卓越者本就是人群中的“离群值”（Outliers），在现实物理空间中本就罕见，但如今通过网络，精神同盟随处可得。对话尾声，威廉森提及自己在播客中听到畅销书作家梅尔·罗宾斯（Mel Robbins）的一句话：“我这辈子总觉得自己得罪了什么人，总觉得有人在生我的气。”这种对内在焦虑的精准表达让他印象深刻。罗根听后忍俊不禁，虽表示自己没听过她的节目，但立刻转述了喜剧演员蒂姆·狄龙（Tim Dillon）当天早些时候对她的辛辣吐槽：“听她的播客，简直能让加里·维纳查克（GaryVee）听起来像亚里士多德！”二人随即在爆笑声中结束了本段探讨。 ### [02:44:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9884s) 社交媒体的注意力陷阱与“空谈不如实干” 两人在一阵笑声中开场，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）称赞喜剧演员蒂姆·狄龙（Tim Dillon）确实是最棒的。克里斯·威廉姆森（Chris Williamson）随即提起加里·维纳查克（Gary Vaynerchuk，即 GaryVee）最近大谈其 NFT 商业项目“VeeFriends”的动态，并询问制作人杰米（Young Jamie）是否看过。杰米直言自己压根不想看这玩意儿，罗根也笑着劝阻别放，克里斯则打趣说刚才罗根还逼着他看扫腿视频。罗根表示 GaryVee 人其实挺好，之前也上过播客。克里斯借此说明，不管信息来自何人，生活中处处都能找到灵感。罗根表示完全赞同，指出当今时代人类能获取的灵感比历史上任何时期都要丰富，关键在于主动寻找并避开陷阱。社交媒体上充斥着大量偷走注意力的垃圾内容，而时间的价值极高。罗根特别提到神经机制的相似性：在 TikTok 上无休止地刷那些毫无营养的短视频所获得的多巴胺冲击，与在 YouTube 上认真看一个学到真知识的视频所带来的愉悦感几乎完全相同，两者同样引人入胜，但产出的价值天差地别。克里斯对此补充了一个核心痛点：“谈论一件事”与“真正去做这件事”，争夺的是同一套有限的心智与精力资源。如果把能量耗费在向他人吹嘘蓝图上，实际行动的资源就会被彻底透支。现实中有太多人极其擅长高谈阔论自己的宏伟规划，口口声声说“接下来会发生什么”、“我迫不及待要开这家新公司了”，然而到头来往往一事无成。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 行动资源分配流向图 accDescr: 对比精力投入到空谈与实干所带来的不同产出与结果。 subgraph Attention_Allocation["精力与认知资源池"] Pool["有限的时间与多巴胺预算"] end subgraph Trap_Path["虚幻满足路径"] Talk["反复高谈阔论计划"] Junk["刷无意义短视频刺激"] Failure["一事无成 / 认知带宽耗尽"] end subgraph Execution_Path["实际交付路径"] Action["具体执行与承受枯燥"] Learn["深度输入与技能积累"] Success["真实成果落地"] end Pool -->|资源被宣泄于口头表达| Talk Pool -->|廉价多巴胺侵蚀| Junk Talk --> Failure Junk --> Failure Pool -->|自律约束与定向聚焦| Action Pool -->|建设性知识获取| Learn Action --> Success Learn --> Success ``` --- ### [02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) 《秘密》与显化神话：幸存者偏差与“上帝的计划” 罗根与克里斯随后聊起当年风靡全球的畅销书和纪录片《秘密》（*The Secret*）。当时无数人对“吸引力法则”（Law of Attraction）深信不疑，认为仅仅依靠坐在那里“意念显化”（manifesting），就能心想事成。克里斯提及该书作者朗达·拜恩（Rhonda Byrne）曾发表过的荒唐言论：她竟声称 2004 年节礼日（Boxing Day）造成数十万人伤亡流离失所的泰国印度洋大海啸，是因为当地民众散发了负面气场（bad juju），等于是受害者自己把灾难给“显化”出来的。克里斯指出，可视化想象（visualization）确实被大量顶级运动员和专业人士广泛采用，但许多人忽略了最根本的前提：你必须投入实际训练与流汗。“上帝会负责掌舵，但你依然得自己动手划船”（"God will steer the boat, but you still have to row"），不能光坐在船上幻想就能到达彼岸。人们痴迷于这种说法，本质上是在寻找不劳而获的捷径。罗根分析道，视觉化信念确实是成功的一个组成部分——如果你在心理上根本无法预见自己的成功，你很可能会在中途搞砸；但只有当清晰的蓝图、坚定信念与艰苦的执行力结合时，赢面才会真正增加。 - **幸存者偏差的致幻剂**：罗根直言，那些宣称靠《秘密》心想事成的人，只是恰好成功的一小撮人，背后成千上万尝试该方法却彻底失败的人早已失声。克里斯精准点评：“幸存者偏差真是一剂猛烈的毒药”（"Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug"）。 - **解构“上帝的安排”**：克里斯感慨在生活中“得到你想要的”是一回事，而“懂得去渴望真正值得追求的东西”又是另一回事。罗根则犀利讽刺了那些动辄将个人成功归功于“上帝对我另有安排”的说辞：“那街角吸海洛因的家伙呢？贫民窟（Skid Row）里尿裤子的流浪汉也是上帝安排好的吗？难道上帝生下来就不喜欢他，说‘去死吧，给他整点芬太尼’？” --- ### [02:48:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10081s) 不公的开局与美国公立教育的危机面对人生初始发牌的极度不公，克里斯坦言每当想到那些拿到绝望烂牌的人，都会感到无比痛心。罗根对此深有感触地指出，现实残酷至极：两个吸毒者在洛杉矶 Skid Row 发育并生下孩子，婴儿从离开母体的那一刻起就伴随着严重的芬太尼戒断成瘾，整个人生直接坠入深渊；反之，生长在受过良好教育、风趣聪慧的家庭里，孩子拥有称职的父亲，两者的起点根本谈不上任何公平。罗根强调，社会在缓解这种基础不公上做得远远不够，这并非单指财富再分配，而是指一个运转正常的现代化社会本不应允许如此深度的绝望与赤贫蔓延。美国在各种无关紧要的项目上挥霍天量资金，却几十年如一日无法治理城市核心危机。由此衍生出不少阴谋论：腐败低效的体制根本不想民众接受真正优质的教育，因为一旦普通人变得聪明、有知识、有抱负，就再也无法轻易糊弄他们去为臃肿欺诈的政府买单，无能的政客也会丢掉饭碗。这种系统性失灵在公立学校体系中尤为严峻： - **家长的教育主权丧失**：普通父母为了生计终日奔波，孩子每天在学校有 7 到 8 个小时完全交由不同的成年人管教。放学回家后，孩子满脑子都是学校灌输的性别认知或激进政治思想（例如宣称“我能变成女孩”、“共产主义有多重要”）。 - **家长沦为“恐怖分子”**：当焦虑愤怒的父母出席学区校董会（school board meetings）抗议学校向低龄儿童灌输争议性性别观念时，体制内的官僚甚至一度试图将抗议家长扣上“本土恐怖分子”（domestic terrorists）的帽子，对其进行噤声打压。普通家庭既无财力也无时间去选择家庭全职自学（homeschooling）。 - **学术水准的雪崩与议题错位**：伊利诺伊州（Illinois）的相关评估显示，大量高中生甚至无法达到四年级的阅读与算术标准，网络上更有教师因全班学生毫无基本读写能力而崩溃痛哭的视频。有些州（如俄勒冈州 Oregon）为了遮丑，甚至直接取消或极度调低了毕业所需的阅读和数学硬性考核标准。罗根痛批，整个社会不去每天重点关注基础教育崩塌的核心危机，反而把公共舆论的黄金资源全部浪费在“生理男性到底能不能打 WNBA 女篮”这种荒诞议题上。 --- ### [02:51:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10311s) 宾夕法尼亚州立大学的“兄弟会毒品帝国”与走偏的创业精神随后，克里斯提到了一则荒诞的大学丑闻：宾夕法尼亚州立大学（Penn State）的一个学生兄弟会竟然运营着极其庞大的可卡因贩毒网络。 - **跨州走私与家族掩盖**：该网络绝非散兵游勇式的校园零包交易，涉案兄弟会成员直接驾车往返于费城和纽约进行大宗批发，建立了一条完整的地下卡特尔分销链。更令人震惊的是，团伙核心头目的父亲本身是一名执业律师，不仅知情，还在家中保险箱里协助隐匿毒资与毒品进行销罪。 - **兄弟会宣誓新生的“免费劳动力”**：这帮大学生甚至将兄弟会残酷的新生招募仪式（hazing/pledging）变成了毒品加工流水线，逼迫想要加入兄弟会的新人充当免费劳力，专门负责将大块可卡因粉碎、切割并称重封装。 - **全案抓捕与走偏的驱动力**：目前警方已逮捕包括该律师父亲在内的 14 名涉案人员，首脑学生面临数不清的重罪指控。克里斯打趣道，这些人骨子里其实就是“创业家精神”，只是用错了地方；罗根也笑称，如果这群学生能把这份组织供应链、管理免费劳动力和建立跨州渠道的劲头投入到正规合法生意上，恐怕大学还没毕业就已经身家千万了。克里斯最后附和道，宾州州立大学原本以全美顶尖的摔跤运动（Wrestling）闻名于世，真不明白这帮人为什么不去好好练摔跤，并随即顺势引出了前 UFC 选手、摔跤名将本·阿斯科伦（Ben Askren）在髋关节手术一年后重返摔跤场的话题。 ### [02:53:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10384s) 双肺移植手术与不可思议的摔跤复出乔·罗根与克里斯·威廉森对一位在接受双肺移植后重返赛场的选手的顽强生命力赞叹不已。克里斯提到，就在那名选手采取行动的大约两周前，他刚作为嘉宾参与了自己的播客录制。双肺置换是一项极为凶险的重大手术，患者体内跳动着来自逝去捐献者的肺脏，为了防止机体产生致命的排异反应，余生都必须依赖免疫抑制剂生活。罗根感慨道，普通人经历一次肺移植手术就已经是医学奇迹，连续换掉两个肺更是匪夷所思，而术后仅仅休养了一年，此人居然就敢重返垫子去进行高强度的摔跤比赛，这简直“超出了疯狂的范畴”（beyond insane）。克里斯随即补充了一个令人啼笑皆非又心生敬畏的细节：那名选手自己甚至从没去了解过医生到底是如何实施这场手术的，压根不知道自己的胸膛曾被怎样切开。克里斯出于好奇自己去查阅了该手术的过程，发现整个胸腔需要被完全剖开，形容其创口就像是将整副胸骨向外大角度撑开、宛如“反向被剖开的鱼”一样惨烈。 - 该选手依靠捐献的双肺维生，术后必须终身服用免疫抑制剂以抗排异。 - 在经历双肺置换大手术仅一年后，他便毅然重返赛场进行摔跤对抗。 - 手术涉及大范围开胸，场面极为惊心动魄，当事人自己却从未主动去查阅手术细节。 ### [02:53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10425s) 节目收尾与《Modern Wisdom》及新企划推荐正聊到兴头上，罗根突然坦白自己憋不住内急，笑着打断话题：“兄弟，我得去上厕所了，咱们得赶紧收尾了。”两人互相致以拥抱与感谢，罗根直言每次与克里斯碰面都是一段极其愉快的时光，并请克里斯向观众介绍他目前的内容平台与动态。克里斯随即推荐了自己的王牌播客《Modern Wisdom》（可在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 以及 YouTube 收听观看），并提到节目近期刚刚上线了一期内容非常豪华的重磅对谈，嘉宾阵容涵盖了前海豹突击队指挥官 Jocko Willink、喜剧演员 Matt McCusker 以及 Jeff Dye。此外，克里斯还详细介绍了自己与 Matt McCusker 联手推出的全新系列节目《Mostly Wise》。在这个新模式中，克里斯与麦库斯克会共同搭档，并专门设立一个“严肃嘉宾席”（serious seat）。他们此前已经在该席位上迎来了 Hunter Biden，以及神经生物学家 Andrew Huberman；而在即将上线的内容中，他们不仅邀请到了知名天体物理学家 Neil deGrasse Tyson 和硅谷抗衰极客 Bryan Johnson，还会穿插邀请另一位喜剧演员同台互动，形成专业深度与即兴幽默交融的奇妙化学反应。罗根听后由衷称赞这个点子非常棒（"Beautiful"），两人在互道珍重与再见后，整期节目在轻松的吉他尾声音乐中落下帷幕。 - **《Modern Wisdom》收听渠道**：支持在 Apple Podcasts、Spotify 及 YouTube 订阅收看。 - **全新播客系列《Mostly Wise》**：由克里斯与喜剧演员 Matt McCusker 共同主持，常设一个硬核严肃人物席位并穿插喜剧演员。 - **重磅嘉宾名单**：近期及未来上线阵容包括 Jocko Willink、Matt McCusker、Jeff Dye、Hunter Biden、Andrew Huberman、Neil deGrasse Tyson 以及 Bryan Johnson。 ## Notable quotes > [09:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=569s) 主流媒体沦为政府谎言的输送管道与政策推行的侍女。 — 乔·罗根 > [17:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1020s) 拥有笔杆子的人才能书写历史。 — 克里斯·威廉森 > [55:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3313s) 亲爱的，我认为它已经有意识了。 — 乔·罗根 > [01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) 我在这项运动中彻底失去了理智。 — 康纳·麦格雷戈 > [01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) 有种当着我的面说。 — 卡玛拉·哈里斯 > [02:20:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8406s) 自律的诅咒在于每一天看起来都一模一样；而缺乏自律的诅咒在于每一年看起来都一模一样。 — 克里斯·威廉森 > [02:40:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9631s) 我这辈子总觉得自己得罪了什么人，总觉得有人在生我的气。 — 梅尔·罗宾斯 > [02:40:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9631s) 听她的播客，简直能让加里·维纳查克听起来像亚里士多德！ — 蒂姆·狄龙 > [02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) 上帝会负责掌舵，但你依然得自己动手划船。 > [02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) 幸存者偏差真是一剂猛烈的毒药。 — 克里斯·威廉森 > [02:53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10425s) 兄弟，我得去上厕所了，咱们得赶紧收尾了。 — 乔·罗根 ## Mentioned 乔·罗根 (Joe Rogan), 克里斯·威廉森 (Chris Williamson), 约翰·列侬 (John Lennon), 阿尔伯特·高德曼 (Albert Goldman), 小野洋子 (Yoko Ono), 鲍勃·伍德沃德 (Bob Woodward), 理查德·尼克松 (Richard Nixon), 塔克·卡尔森 (Tucker Carlson), 埃隆·马斯克 (Elon Musk), 伯尼·桑德斯 (Bernie Sanders), 卡玛拉·哈里斯 (Kamala Harris), 唐纳德·特朗普 (Donald Trump), 亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯 (AOC), 南希·佩洛西 (Nancy Pelosi), 亨特·拜登 (Hunter Biden), 鲁迪·朱利安尼 (Rudy Giuliani), 泰德·卡辛斯基 (Ted Kaczynski), 查尔斯·曼森 (Charles Manson), 康纳·麦格雷戈 (Conor McGregor), 迈克尔·杰克逊 (Michael Jackson), 布莱恩·约翰逊 (Bryan Johnson), 梅拉布·德瓦利什维利 (Merab Dvalishvili), 罗杰·费德勒 (Roger Federer), 吉米·亨德里克斯 (Jimi Hendrix), 乔科·威林克 (Jocko Willink), 马特·麦卡斯克 (Matt McCusker), 安德鲁·胡伯曼 (Andrew Huberman), 尼尔·德格拉斯·泰森 (Neil deGrasse Tyson), Modern Wisdom, Mostly Wise, The Joe Rogan Experience, 中央情报局 (CIA), 联邦调查局 (FBI), 水门事件, MKUltra计划, Flock Safety, 司美格鲁肽 (Ozempic), 瑞他曲肽 (Retatrutide), 维多利亚的秘密 (Victoria's Secret), Nickelback, Pink Floyd, Tool, 《秘密》 (The Secret), Perplexity, DraftKings ## Video description Chris Williamson is the host of the "Modern Wisdom" podcast. See him live on select dates throughout the United Kingdom. https://chriswillx.com/modernwisdom https://www.youtube.com/@ChrisWillx Perplexity: Download the app or ask Perplexity anything at https://pplx.ai/rogan. Don’t miss out on all the action this week at DraftKings! Download the DraftKings app today! Sign-up using https://dkng.co/rogan or through my promo code ROGAN. Switch today at https://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=vh8FkZaQ06I)

Source quotes

[9:29] 乔·罗根: 主流媒体沦为政府谎言的输送管道与政策推行的侍女。 [17:00] 克里斯·威廉森: 拥有笔杆子的人才能书写历史。 [55:13] 乔·罗根: 亲爱的，我认为它已经有意识了。 [67:19] 康纳·麦格雷戈: 我在这项运动中彻底失去了理智。 [97:36] 卡玛拉·哈里斯: 有种当着我的面说。 [140:06] 克里斯·威廉森: 自律的诅咒在于每一天看起来都一模一样；而缺乏自律的诅咒在于每一年看起来都一模一样。 [160:31] 梅尔·罗宾斯: 我这辈子总觉得自己得罪了什么人，总觉得有人在生我的气。 [160:31] 蒂姆·狄龙: 听她的播客，简直能让加里·维纳查克听起来像亚里士多德！ [166:03] 上帝会负责掌舵，但你依然得自己动手划船。 [166:03] 克里斯·威廉森: 幸存者偏差真是一剂猛烈的毒药。 [173:45] 乔·罗根: 兄弟，我得去上厕所了，咱们得赶紧收尾了。

Source quotes

[20:12] Joe Rogan: X feels like the Wild West... It's the Wild West with robots. It's Westworld. [25:00] Joe Rogan: Some people have brains that are made out of dog shit... and that's just how it is. [30:59] Joe Rogan: suicidal empathy [33:36] It's like one guy holding two puppets... 'I like the puppet on the left, while the puppet on the right is more to my liking.' Hey, there's one guy holding both puppets! [67:19] Conor McGregor: I lost my mind to this game. [103:28] Joe Rogan: You got to deal with potential nuclear war. Okay. I think you can sit down for a conversation. [15:49] Chris Williamson: completely nihilistic about the belief in any narrative [144:09] The curse of discipline is that every day looks the same, and the curse of indiscipline is that every year looks the same. [152:04] Joe Rogan: Fuck you. Who cares what you think? [166:03] God will steer the boat, but you still have to row.

Original transcript

[0:01] Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. [0:04] >> The Joe Rogan Experience. [0:06] >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY [0:08] NIGHT. All day. [0:12] >> We're up. Hey, Christopher. Good to see [0:14] you. Thank you very much for the book. [0:16] This is very cool of you. Ladies and [0:17] gentlemen, Chris just gifted me, ladies [0:19] and gentlemen, Lenny Bruce, which is a [0:21] [ __ ] amazing book. [0:22] >> [snorts] [0:23] >> And uh it's inscripted or there's [0:26] inscription inside uh to Yoko Ono who [0:29] knows well what the jazz life entails [0:33] and it's uh Albert Goldman. And you were [0:36] just telling me that Albert Goldman this [0:38] was his way of weaving into the Yokoono [0:42] John Leno John Lennon camp. [0:45] >> Exactly. Yeah. And then he goes and [0:46] writes a book that blows him up. I've [0:47] just exploded a can of Newtonic all over [0:48] my crotch as well. Jamie, have you got a [0:50] uh napkin? paper towel somewhere right [0:53] here. [0:53] >> Apologies. [0:54] >> We don't. [0:55] >> Must be gone. Might go get some. [0:56] >> That's all right. Premature. Uh, yeah. [0:58] >> We have tissues. [0:59] >> No. [1:00] >> No. All right. He says no. [1:02] >> Jamie says no. Um, yeah. So, he writes [1:06] that book and then gifts it to Yokoono. [1:08] And by giving it to her, I think is the [1:10] beginning of him working his way into [1:12] that camp. And then he goes on to write [1:13] the book The Lives of John Lennon, which [1:15] after he's dead, kind of explodes a lot [1:18] of what was going on personally, whether [1:19] it's true or not. There's a lot of drama [1:22] and fur around it, but I knew that it [1:23] was your favorite book and we were [1:24] supposed to [1:25] >> Well, thank you. That's very cool of [1:26] you. I did not know about that the that [1:29] he wrote the John Lennin book as well. [1:31] It's really interesting because the John [1:32] Lennon book it's God, it's so weird to [1:34] write a book like that after a guy's [1:36] dead and he can't respond to it. [1:38] >> Yeah. [1:38] >> Where you're accusing it what was it [1:41] ex-wives that accused him of domestic [1:43] violence? [1:44] >> Who who accused him? [1:46] >> I don't know. I think it that that whole [1:50] funeral was uh was just a mess. And [1:52] obviously when someone's dead, what are [1:53] they going to do? How they going to be [1:54] how are they going to be able to come [1:55] back from that? [1:56] >> They can't. [1:56] >> Yeah. Exactly. [1:58] >> Well, it's kind of it's just weird that [1:59] you're allowed to do that. [2:01] You know that you're allowed to say this [2:03] happened, that happened. The guy can't [2:04] say no. No. And I can prove it. Like he [2:06] can't say anything. [2:07] >> Yeah. [2:08] >> And it's also like the give peace a [2:09] chance guy. Like the give peace a chance [2:12] guy was beating his wife. boy, you know, [2:15] it's not that surprising giving like [2:18] human contradiction. You know, it's like [2:20] male feminists that turn out to be [2:21] sexual predators. There's a lot of them, [2:23] right? There's a lot of that weird stuff [2:25] going on where people pretend to be one [2:26] thing and they're actually another [2:27] thing. [2:27] >> Sneaky [ __ ] [2:28] >> Yeah, sneaky [ __ ] The give peace a [2:31] chance guy beating his wife, though. [2:32] It's like I can't believe that. I have a [2:34] really hard time believing that. But [2:37] I've been fooled before, right? Like he [2:39] seems like the most peaceful non-violent [2:41] guy of all time. if that guy's but I'd [2:43] read a bunch of stuff about him being a [2:45] [ __ ] Goldman portrayed Lennon as having [2:47] numerous sexual relationships outside [2:49] his marriages. His accounts include [2:51] well-known relationship with May Pang. [2:54] You like the Asians, huh? [laughter] [2:57] >> Well, JL, [2:59] >> keep going. [3:00] >> Uh, additional affairs with women framed [3:03] as habitual cheating, claims of sexual [3:06] encounters with men, including an [3:08] alleged relationship with Beatles [3:09] manager Brian Epstein. Hey, for more [3:12] serious allegations, including claims [3:14] involving male prostitutes in Thailand [3:16] and other conduct that Goldman [3:18] characterized as sexual predation. The [3:20] thing is like how is he getting all this [3:22] information about like male prostitutes [3:25] in Thailand? And you know, like how do [3:28] you know? You know what I mean? Like are [3:30] you is did someone tell you? Did you go [3:32] there? Like did you go there and talk to [3:34] the prostitute like that? [laughter] I [3:37] suck [ __ ] like what [3:40] why the book is disputed. The problem is [3:42] the reliability of Goldman's specific [3:44] accusations. At publication, Yokoono and [3:47] Paul McCartney publicly condemned the [3:49] book. Contemporary reporting noted [3:51] claims of factual errors, [3:53] contradictions, unattributed assertions, [3:56] and material allegedly based on dubious [3:58] sources or quotations used out of [4:00] context. Look, that is not uncommon. Did [4:02] I ever tell you what um Bill Murray said [4:05] on the podcast? [4:07] So, Bill Murray was reading John uh Bob [4:09] Woodward's book Wired and he said he got [4:13] through like five pages. He said, "Oh my [4:15] god, they framed Nixon [4:18] because Bob Woodward was the guy who did [4:20] Watergate and he said this book was so [4:22] full of [ __ ] It was so fake. He he like [4:26] he portrayed he portrayed [4:29] the whole scene of like [4:33] what he was up to as being like hardcore [4:37] drugs constantly all the time just just [4:41] [ __ ] losing his mind. And he's like, [4:44] "No, dude. He was a lightweight. He [4:46] wasn't like that at all." [4:48] >> So he knew it was totally fabricated. [4:50] >> He said, "This is not my friend." Like I [4:53] knew him. He was my best friend. [4:55] >> He's like, "This is not him." And then I [4:57] told him the story of how Bob Woodward [4:59] was an intelligence agent. And that was [5:01] his first assignment ever. Tucker told [5:03] me the story on the podcast [5:05] >> that Bob Woodward and uh the other guy, [5:08] what's the other guy's name? Bernstein. [5:10] That uh Bob Woodward, this was a rookie [5:12] assignment. A rookie assignment is going [5:15] to take down the [ __ ] president of [5:17] the United States. and his first job [5:19] outside of being a [ __ ] intelligence [5:22] agent is to work for the Washington Post [5:26] on his first story, which is going to [5:28] take down the most popular president in [5:30] the history of the United States. One by [5:32] the largest margin ever, [5:35] and this is the guy that said he knew [5:37] who killed Jack Kennedy. And apparently [5:39] that's why they got rid of Nixon. Tucker [5:41] told me the whole story in the podcast. [5:43] I was like, "Holy [ __ ] this is [ __ ] [5:46] crazy." You're connecting the dots. [5:48] >> It's a It's a crazy [ __ ] story. [5:51] >> Have you been following this uh Lindsay [5:53] Clansancy case? This uh who's [5:55] >> that lady who killed three of her kids? [5:57] >> Oh, no. I've tried not to. That one's [6:00] That's a bummer. [6:01] >> It is. It's basically 2026's [6:05] OJ Simpson. It's [6:07] >> Before we get into that, I'd love to get [6:09] into that. This Belushi thing is [6:11] important because like his friend is [6:14] telling you that he was not like that. [6:18] Woodward makes him out to be this [6:20] maniacal cocaine adult heroinfueled guy. [6:25] He's like, "No, he was a lightweight." [6:27] He said he he would get drunk off a [6:28] couple drinks. So our whole narrative of [6:31] who John Belalushi is is by the same guy [6:34] who framed Nixon. Like once someone's [6:38] dead, you could say whatever the [ __ ] [6:40] you want. [6:40] >> Yeah. [6:41] >> You could say whatever you want. [6:42] >> And who's gonna defend this person in [6:44] the with the same level of uh vitriol or [6:47] vehementness that someone who's still [6:49] alive is going to? [6:50] >> No one. [6:50] >> Yeah. [6:51] >> No one. And there's nothing you can do. [6:52] He's gone. Everyone's mourning. [6:54] Everyone's sad. And then someone writes [6:56] some book. Oh, he used to [ __ ] kids. [6:57] You're like, what? [6:58] >> Like you could just write whatever you [6:59] want and then maybe they could sue you. [7:01] But boy, are you going to make an [7:02] extraordinary amount of money off of [7:04] that book. Like people are gonna be [7:06] hyped up for that book. You have a book [7:07] about John Lennon was like into [7:08] meditation. He liked to do LSD. No one's [7:10] buying that [ __ ] John Lennon like to [7:12] [ __ ] guys in Thailand. Let's [laughter] [7:14] go. Let's go. Right. You could write [7:18] anything. [7:18] >> Who's going to fight back that hard as [7:20] well once someone's gone? [7:21] >> You can't prove it. He's dead. [7:23] >> Well, it's all hearsay. Even the defense [7:25] is now hearsay. [7:26] >> Yes. [7:26] >> The defense of the person who is now no [7:28] longer alive. That's [7:29] >> hearsay. Exactly. Everything's hearsay. [7:31] >> Yeah. So the defense is always going to [7:33] be flimsy in comparison to the [7:34] accusation because the accusation feels [7:36] like it's got more substance to it. Yes. [7:37] This is someone who's gone out and done [7:38] original research. You didn't go to [7:40] Thailand. You didn't speak to the [7:41] prostitutes. [7:42] >> But even that like no one's buying it. [7:44] It's just you can get away with so much. [7:47] It's really kind of crazy. You So you [7:50] didn't know about the Nixon story? [7:52] >> No. [7:52] >> You should hear Tucker say it because [7:53] when Tucker Tucker lays it out and [7:55] you're like what? It's even more [7:58] complex. Like the people that were [8:01] involved in Watergate were all FBI. [8:04] It's crazy. They set him up because he [8:07] was going to expose who killed JFK, [8:10] >> which was just a few years earlier. [8:14] >> [ __ ] dude. This country is wild. [8:15] >> I mean, I love it, but it's it is crazy. [8:17] >> They also, you know, he had a vice [8:19] president, Spiro Agnu, and they got rid [8:22] of him on corruption charges and put [8:23] Lyndon Johnson in. But couldn't these [8:25] people have still spoken out? Like [8:27] getting rid of them out of office. That [8:29] doesn't stop them from whistleblowing, [8:31] does it? [8:31] >> First of all, they killed his [8:34] predecessor, right? They killed JFK. [8:36] >> So, you think that was a warning shot? [8:37] Look, we can get you out. [8:38] >> Well, he knew they could. They [8:41] definitely did. And they also got rid of [8:43] him, right? And you know, he didn't [8:45] organize Watergate. He covered it up. [8:47] They brought it to him. They said, "Hey, [8:48] there was some recording equipment." [8:49] He's like, "Don't tell anybody." And [8:51] that's what got him. That's what got [8:52] him. see if you can find the clip of [8:54] Tucker talking about it because it is [8:56] really insane when you read the when you [8:58] hear him lay out the story and then I [9:00] read it online. I I went into it to see [9:02] like is this totally everything's [9:04] accurate and it's so weird that our [9:07] perception of Nixon has been this [9:09] corrupt crook. You know, look, he was a [9:12] very right-wing product of his time, and [9:16] today his politics and his views on [9:18] people, especially like minorities and a [9:21] lot of other things, would probably be [9:22] very disgraceful and people would not [9:25] like it. But we're talking about, you [9:26] know, the 1960s, the early 1970s, and [9:29] he's an old school, oldtimey Republican [9:32] guy. [9:33] >> That said, he was the most popular [9:35] president ever at his time, and they got [9:38] rid of him. They turned him into a [9:40] crook. [9:41] >> That's power. [9:42] >> It's It's really crazy. You got to [9:44] listen to this because it's kind of [9:46] nuts. [9:48] >> Rogan experience. [9:49] >> Bizarre that the New York Times wouldn't [9:51] have an issue with that. [9:52] >> Well, the New York Times does that all [9:53] the time. [9:54] >> But but but bizarre they wouldn't have [9:56] an issue with the government tapping [9:57] into your phone. [9:58] >> They work for the government. Are you [9:59] kidding? The New York Times? [10:01] >> Yeah. The New York Times is a conduit [10:03] for the lies of government. That's what [10:05] it is. It's their tool and they're [10:07] perfectly aware of that. [10:09] I mean, I used to write for the New York [10:11] Times as a freelancer. I mean, I've been [10:12] around the New York Times a lot. And [10:14] there are uh yeah, there are a lot of [10:16] really smart people there, for sure. [10:17] Even now, I would less so now, but [10:19] there's still, I think, smart people [10:20] there. There are I know some and they [10:23] know, but they think that that, you [10:26] know, it's worth it because they're [10:27] bringing information or I don't know [10:28] what they think actually, [10:30] >> but no, they're they're tools [10:33] of power and that's like the one thing [10:35] that you're not allowed to be. Even if [10:36] you think the power is good, like maybe [10:37] they all support the agenda of the US [10:39] government, destabilizing the world and [10:41] impoverishing their own population. [10:43] Maybe they're on board with that. [10:45] Even if they are, they shouldn't do it [10:47] because the job of the media, the press, [10:51] is to keep power in check. You are kind [10:56] of like the seat belt, right? You know, [10:59] you make sure that [11:01] >> things don't go too far. So, um, and [11:04] they're not doing that. They're acting [11:06] as a willing handmaidaiden. [11:07] >> When do you think that switched? [11:09] >> I think it's been the case for a long [11:10] time. I mean, if you look at what [11:12] happened to Richard Nixon, which I of [11:13] course did not understand at all, um [11:16] Richard Nixon was taken out by the FBI [11:18] and CIA and um with the help of Bob Bob [11:23] Woodward, who was a Washington Post [11:25] reporter who had been a naval [11:27] intelligence officer working in the [11:29] White House, working in the Nixon White [11:31] House. And then he shows up like a year [11:36] later and he's this brand new reporter. [11:39] He'd never been a journalist at all. [11:40] He's a naval intel officer, the famous [11:43] Bob Woodward we all rever. [11:46] And he's at the Washington Post. And [11:47] somehow he gets the biggest story in the [11:50] history of the Washington Post. He's the [11:51] lead guy in that story. [11:52] >> Well, I I worked at a newspaper. I've [11:54] been in the news business my whole life. [11:56] That is not how it works. You don't take [11:57] a kid like his first day from a totally [12:00] unrelated business and put him on the [12:02] biggest story. But he was he was that [12:05] guy. And who is his main source for [12:07] Watergate? Oh, the number two guy at the [12:08] FBI. [12:10] Oh, so you have the naval intelligence [12:13] officer working with the FBI official to [12:17] destroy the president. Okay. So that's a [12:20] deep state coup. What else? How would [12:21] you describe that? If that happened in [12:23] Guatemala, what would you say? And yet [12:25] the way it was framed and the way that I [12:27] accepted for decades was, "Oh, this [12:29] intrepid reporter fought power." No, no, [12:31] no. This intrepid reporter, Bob [12:33] Woodward, was a tool of power, secret [12:36] power, which is the most threatening [12:37] kind to bounce the single most popular [12:42] president in American history, Richard [12:43] Nixon, from office before the end of his [12:46] term and replace him with who? Oh, [12:48] Gerald Ford, who sat on the Warren [12:51] Commission. Now, how did Gerald Ford get [12:53] to be Richard Nixon's vice president? [12:55] Well, because Carl Albert, the Democrat [12:58] speaker of the house, told him, "You [12:59] must choose him. We will only confirm [13:01] him when they sent the actual elected [13:04] vice president away for tax evasion." [13:07] Spiro Agnu of Maryland. So, you have a [13:10] complete setup like an ABS. Gerald Ford, [13:13] the only unelected president in American [13:15] history, actually sat on the Warren [13:16] Commission. something else that I [13:18] accepted at face value until I looked at [13:20] it and I was like, "That's completely [13:21] insane. You didn't want to interview [13:22] Jack Ruby in your investigation of the [13:25] assassination? Okay, you're fake." Yeah, [13:27] he was on the Warren Commission. [13:29] >> [ __ ] me. [13:29] >> And so, uh, sorry for the long story, [13:31] but the point is like that that happened [13:33] in front of all of us, but the way it [13:35] was framed cloaked the obvious reality [13:38] of it. The people who broke into the [13:39] Watergate office building from which the [13:41] name is taken, Watergate [13:44] was, I think it was six of them or seven [13:46] of them. All but one was a CIA employee. [13:50] That that's real. It's like look it up [13:51] on Google. So the whole thing Richard [13:55] Nixon was elected by more votes than any [13:58] president in American history in the [14:00] 1972 election. He was the most popular [14:03] by votes, which is the only way we can [14:05] really measure popularity. The most [14:06] popular president [14:08] in his re-election campaign. And two [14:10] years later, he's gone. undone by a [14:13] naval intel officer, the number two guy [14:15] at the FBI, and a bunch of CIA [14:17] employees. Okay, [14:18] >> you tell me what that is. [14:20] >> How about that? [14:21] >> Dude, this country is wild. [14:22] >> How about that? [14:25] >> Yeah, that's Bob Woodward. That's the [14:28] guy who wrote Wired. And when Bill [14:30] Murray said that, he read the book and [14:32] he said, "Oh my god, they framed Nixon." [14:34] And then I showed him that and he was [14:36] like, "Holy shit." Cuz he was a part of [14:40] a thing. they were doing with Hunter S. [14:43] Thompson, Bill Murray was when he was [14:45] really young and uh where he would go [14:48] around and tell people that Nixon needs [14:50] a second chance, but it was all parody. [14:52] It was all like tongue and cheek. It was [14:54] satire. He was going around pretending [14:56] that he supported Nixon and Nixon needed [14:58] a second chance and getting like young [15:00] dumb people to go along with him on [15:02] this. And now in retrospect [15:04] >> in retrospect like I mean whether or not [15:08] at the time he ever wanted Nixon as [15:10] president and you know look there's a [15:12] lot of problems with Nixon. There's a [15:14] lot of problems with the Vietnam War. [15:16] There's a lot of problems with civil [15:17] rights. Nixon passed the Controlled [15:19] Substances Act which is the reason why [15:21] all psychedelic drugs to this day are [15:22] schedule one. Nixon was a [ __ ] [15:24] problem. No doubt about it. However, [15:28] what they did when they the way they got [15:30] rid of that guy is scary [ __ ] And they [15:34] pulled it off. No one got arrested. No [15:36] one got indicted. No one even got [15:38] criticized. [15:39] >> But could he not have still released [15:41] information after? Why? [15:42] >> He would have been a dead man 100%. [15:44] >> Because no protection because you're not [15:45] in office anymore. [15:46] >> No one would have believed him. [15:47] >> It would have sounded like sour grapes. [15:49] I'm throwing these people under the bus. [15:50] The administration that got rid of me. [15:52] >> There's also no internet. So how is he [15:54] going to release it? Is the New York [15:56] Times going to write this? Is he going [15:58] to write a a letter to the press and [16:00] they're going to print it? No. There's [16:01] literally no recourse. [16:03] >> It's kind of genius. [16:04] >> There's no podcasts. There's no shows [16:06] that he could go on. No one. He was [16:08] disgraced. No one would even have him on [16:10] a late night show. But if he even got on [16:11] a late night show, he would need about [16:13] 90 minutes to explain it all. He would [16:16] have to take it from the beginning. [16:17] There was a time when I wondered who [16:19] killed Jack Kennedy. and I found out and [16:22] I brought it to them and I told them I [16:24] know who killed Jack and the room went [16:26] cold and he would tell the whole story [16:28] and it would take a lot if podcasts were [16:31] a lot around back then. Yes. If just [16:34] Instagram was around back then and [16:35] Twitter and he could write about it and [16:37] make a video. Yeah. YouTube. Yeah, if [16:40] that was around but there was nothing. [16:42] There was nothing. And they [ __ ] shot [16:44] JFK in the head in front of everybody [16:47] and shot the guy who they claimed killed [16:49] him like that. And then the other guy [16:51] they do up with acid and made crazy and [16:53] that was a wrap. [16:55] >> Done. [16:55] >> That was it, you know. And like how many [17:00] I mean this is just modern versions of [17:04] air quotes history. How how many old [17:09] stories that we have that we just we [17:11] just have accepted these historical [17:14] narratives. [17:15] We've accepted all of these stories as [17:19] being, well, this is how it went down. [17:21] How many of them are [ __ ] [17:22] >> Well, forget history being written by [17:24] the victors. History can be written by [17:26] the person who's got a pen. [17:27] >> Sure. [17:27] >> And when so few people have got pens, so [17:29] few people have got the opportunity to [17:30] distribute. [17:31] >> I suppose the problem that we have now [17:33] is in the modern world, there's so much [17:35] information, conflicting narratives, [17:37] people get confused. Right? You've gone [17:39] from a scarcity of information to such [17:41] an abundance that people just I I I [17:43] can't work out what's going on. [ __ ] [17:45] I'm just not going to believe anything. [17:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's um it's very [17:49] interesting cuz it's a great tool to [17:52] kind of obsc you can obuscate. You could [17:55] do a lot of things with a bunch of [17:57] [ __ ] information. The more [ __ ] [17:59] information you have, the more like [18:01] really significant information doesn't [18:02] really hit as much. [18:03] >> Correct. [18:04] >> It's just like it gets watered down then [18:06] it goes away. [18:06] >> The goal I think of the velocity of the [18:08] information is not to convince people of [18:10] any one narrative. It's to make them [18:12] completely nihilistic about the belief [18:14] in any narrative. [18:15] >> Yeah. [18:17] >> Yes. Any narrative. Yeah. And and also [18:20] just to kind of accept that feeling of [18:21] hopelessness like you can't change [18:23] anything. [18:23] >> Correct. [18:24] >> It's all [ __ ] [18:24] >> That feels pliable. Yeah. [18:26] >> Right. And then there might be something [18:27] down the line. If nothing else, you're [18:29] not going to have a aentic sovereign [18:32] uprising. [18:33] What can we do in any case? I don't even [18:35] know what's going I'm checked out, [18:36] >> right? Like the nihilism, the cynicism. [18:38] I I don't think that that's a byproduct. [18:40] I think that's [18:41] >> it's a plan. [18:42] >> Correct. [18:42] >> This summer, whether you're watching [18:44] baseball, golf, soccer, racing, [18:47] DraftKings has you covered for every [18:49] single moment of it. The DraftKings [18:51] Sports app is now available in all 50 [18:55] states, bringing the game straight to [18:56] your fingertips wherever you are. From [18:59] Florida to Texas to California, you're [19:01] in on the excitement at the speed of [19:03] sports. Follow every buzzer beater, [19:06] every walk-off, every photo finish. [19:08] Sweat the moments that matter in real [19:10] time with a seamless experience built [19:13] for summer. No matter where you're [19:15] watching, you're always connected and in [19:17] on the game with one app. New DraftKing [19:20] customers, sign up with code Rogan. [19:23] Spend five bucks to get 150 in rewards [19:26] within 14 days. Includes all markets. [19:30] That's code Rogan in partnership with [19:32] DraftKings. The crown is yours. Bet with [19:35] DK Sportsbook. Gambling problem, call [19:37] 1800 gambler. 1800 MY reset. Connecticut [19:40] call 888-7897777 [19:42] or visit ccpg.org. On behalf of Bootill [19:45] Casino in Kansas, bet tax passrough may [19:47] apply in Illinois. 21 and over. Void in [19:48] Canada. Event contract trading with [19:50] DraftKings predictions involves risk of [19:51] loss. Availability varies. Predictions [19:53] offer void in New York. Bet to get bonus [19:55] bets that expire in 7 days. Trade to get [19:57] predictions dollars that expire in 1 [19:58] year. $50 in rewards issued every 7 days [20:01] via click to claim for 14 days. One [20:02] non-withdrawable reward redeemable. [20:04] nationwide based on sportsbook [20:05] predictions and free-to-play sports [20:07] contest availability varies by state. [20:09] Terms at dk&ng.co/offer. [20:11] Limited time offer. [20:12] >> Yeah, it's a design and it's it's smart [20:15] and it works and it's it's not even like [20:18] they engineered it. It sort of emerged [20:19] and they took advantage of these new [20:21] tools because these new tools, you know, [20:23] social media is more effective than [20:25] anything we've ever had before. And so [20:27] they go, "Oh, but look at all this now." [20:29] You know, we didn't have we barely no [20:31] one pays attention to CNN. We don't even [20:33] use them anymore. We just like douse the [20:36] whole world with horseshit [20:37] >> on Instagram and threads and [20:39] >> seed stories here and there. [20:41] >> Just [ __ ] Just pure [ __ ] [20:44] There's accounts that I know when I look [20:46] at what they said Justin Timberlake [20:48] arrested for, you know, murder, you [20:50] know, they they'll write things like [20:51] that, you're like, "What?" And it's just [20:53] a madeup story. And there's like [20:55] hundreds of them where you look and I've [20:57] there's some of them I recognize the [20:58] account and uh and I see it. I go, "Oh, [21:00] there's another madeup story. Halle [21:02] Berry kills five." I have [21:03] >> What do you think we should do about [21:04] this? Because obviously this country, [21:06] freedom of speech, etc., etc., but [21:09] >> I don't know, should there be a way to [21:11] try and counter this? [21:13] >> Yes. Well, first of all, those people [21:14] aren't real people for the most part. [21:16] And if you go to their page, a lot of [21:18] them are like in Pakistan or somewhere [21:20] else where where and of course, I don't [21:23] know how effective [snorts] [21:25] uh X in particular is. I mean I know [21:28] they've they've taken steps to show that [21:29] when you go to the person's page [21:31] someone's commenting on US politics and [21:33] you go to their page says Myanmar [21:35] Myanmar why do you go [ __ ] what are you [21:37] doing [21:37] >> so but that to me is like okay is there [21:40] a way around that are these like [21:42] completely non-sophisticated people [21:44] where they have to show that they're in [21:46] Myanmar what if they had like a [21:47] corporation in Idaho and they had it set [21:50] up where they all registered there and [21:52] so your your bills get sent to there [21:54] everything gets sent to there and it [21:55] just says the United states and you're [21:57] using a VPN or you have some other way [21:59] of connecting. It doesn't like if if [22:02] [ __ ] AI can get out of a sandbox and [22:04] get on the internet. You're telling me [22:06] that you can't hide the fact that you're [22:08] actually [22:08] >> Vietnamese people can't pretend to be [22:10] from Idaho. [22:11] >> Come on. [22:11] >> Yeah. [22:12] >> So, who knows? [22:13] >> X feels like the [ __ ] Wild West. [22:15] >> It's the Wild West. [22:16] >> It really is. [22:17] >> It's worse than the Wild West. It's the [22:18] Wild West with robots. It's It's that [22:21] western show. What's that show called? [22:22] >> West. [22:23] >> West World. Yeah, that's what it is. [22:25] Correct. It's wild west with robots. [22:26] >> Yeah, [22:27] >> it's really Westworld because and most [22:30] of these [ __ ] people that are you're [22:32] bantering with and they're posting these [22:33] fake stories, they're probably not even [22:35] real people. They're probably AI. [22:36] They're either people that are hired to [22:38] do it or they're AI. You got a bunch of [22:41] AI scripts and they just run it all the [22:43] time and they post periodically [22:45] throughout the day. [22:46] >> And interesting, not not long ago, what [22:48] five When did Elon buy eggs? 23. [22:51] >> Yeah, something like that. 23. So, f [22:53] five years ago, everyone was so worried [22:55] that we didn't have a a town square. We [22:57] don't have anywhere that we can talk and [22:59] now [laughter] [23:00] [ __ ] take it back. [23:01] >> Well, one thing that Elon has realized [23:04] is that um you have to take away some of [23:07] the incentives to post fake stuff. Uh [23:09] without putting up a barrier and saying [23:12] you can't post this and censoring [23:13] people, uh you can't incentivize them. [23:16] So, the thing is you can make money on [23:18] X. So now, uh, the way they're setting [23:20] it up for these people that post, you [23:23] can't make money off of fake content. [23:25] You can't make money off of this stuff. [23:27] So there's no incentive to make because [23:29] I think part of the incentive is [23:30] muddying the water, muddying the [23:32] narrative. But I think also part of the [23:34] incentive is just financial because if [23:36] you're running some company in Thailand [23:38] and you have like 50 people working for [23:40] you, you're probably making good money [23:41] just getting millions of clicks on [23:43] [ __ ] nonsense videos that are AI and [23:46] and a bunch of [ __ ] fake stories that [23:49] people concoct or AI concocts. As soon [23:52] as you cut out the money and say you're [23:55] only paid for original content, that's [23:57] it. That's all you can get paid for. [23:59] That changes the game. That changes [24:00] everything. I think if you align the [24:02] incentives for most people, [ __ ] gets [24:04] fixed. Like incentives are an [24:05] unbelievable motivating force. And if [24:08] you can if you can have that on X, I [24:09] think that that fixes a lot of the [24:10] problem. [24:11] >> It fixes a lot of it. But honestly, you [24:13] got to be able to tell whether [24:15] something's AI because even if even if [24:19] there's no incentive, you could shift [24:21] narratives so easily. If you just have a [24:24] 100,000 [24:26] AI scripts running a 100,000 accounts, [24:30] it's not hard for a state to do like a a [24:33] country to do to have like those kind of [24:35] resources. You can change public opinion [24:39] on things. Most people are dumb as [ __ ] [24:42] and you start arguing for something that [24:44] kind of makes sense and all of a sudden, [24:46] uh, yeah, I don't know what a woman is [24:47] either. You know, like weird narratives [24:50] can get real weird and especially people [24:52] start attacking the people that disagree [24:54] with whatever this narrative they're [24:55] trying to push. Nobody wants to get [24:56] attacked. Well, I mean, I I didn't [24:58] understand the consequences. [25:00] >> Well, that's a different kind that's a [25:01] different kind of incentive, right? [25:02] That's a social incentive and the [25:04] incentive is a disincentive. You don't [25:05] want to be pushed back against. [25:06] >> Exactly. [25:07] >> So few people have original thoughts. So [25:10] few people, the vast majority of [25:12] original thinkers kind of marionette two [25:15] different armies of NPCs that believe [25:17] the thing that a few people that have [25:18] original thoughts ended up coming up [25:20] with. [25:20] >> Yeah. Well, I think there's a bunch of [25:22] unfortunate realities that none of us [25:25] like to accept. And one of them is that [25:26] some people are dumb. They're born dumb. [25:30] Some people have big noses. Some people [25:32] have big ears. And some people have [25:34] brains that are made out of dog [ __ ] [25:35] And that's just how it is. And there's [25:37] nothing you could do about that. And [25:39] there's varying levels of that. Like, [25:41] you know, I always feel like that when [25:42] I'm talking to someone really smart, [25:43] like, geez, my brain sucks. It's it [25:46] varies like wildly. Just like athletics. [25:50] Like, there's some people you're like, [25:51] dude, you you are never going to the [25:53] Olympics. You know, you look at them [25:54] like, I don't give a [ __ ] what you do. [25:56] And there's other guys like you want to [25:58] coach them. Like, hey, if you just did [26:00] anything, you'd be a freak. You'd be [26:02] amazing at this. You just have natural [26:03] gifts. [26:04] >> That's the same thing intellectually. [26:06] There's certain people that I've talked [26:07] to, you're like, yo, you know, there's [26:10] there's people that are they're [ __ ] [26:13] barely figuring out how to get through a [26:16] day. [26:18] And you know, if you expect those people [26:20] to go and learn how to code, remember [26:22] that? Learn to code. Remember all that? [26:24] This is not This not [26:27] there. I can't teach my dog how to type. [26:29] It's not there. [26:31] >> It's not going to happen. That's just [26:34] the reality of genetic variability. [26:37] There's there's going to be a bunch of [26:39] people that are really [ __ ] smart and [26:40] a bunch of people that are really [26:41] athletic and really good-looking and [26:43] really ugly and really stupid and all of [26:45] it together. [26:45] >> It's one of the reasons I think that the [26:48] paternalistic we have to look after the [26:50] little person thing has a little bit of [26:52] legs. People sometimes like, well, we [26:53] actually need to step in in some way. [26:55] And I'm sure me and you need [ __ ] [26:57] assistance. We need smarter people than [26:58] us to tell us what to do with health to [27:00] a degree. Or else we would have been [27:01] sideswiped by some [ __ ] scop from [27:04] whatever organization or company or new [27:06] initiative is trying to convince us of [27:08] some new trend that's actually going to [27:10] be bad for us [27:11] >> or just to communicate with each other. [27:13] Where the [ __ ] would we be without these [27:14] wizards who have figured out cell phones [27:16] and laptops and highspeed internet and [27:19] Starlink? We're [ __ ] So all these [27:22] people even pretending that they're [27:23] smart. Well, you're you're on the backs [27:25] of the labor of the real geniuses, you [27:28] [ __ ] idiot. Like, yeah, you're [27:30] getting a lot of information online. [27:32] You're developing more and more [27:33] information that you can memorize. [27:36] That's different. That's different than [27:38] you inventing cell phones. Just stop. [27:42] That's different. It's different than [27:44] you inventing FaceTime. [27:46] >> Well, you know, like we're all dumb. [27:49] >> We are all dumb. Uh yesterday, I don't [27:52] know whether you saw this, the UK Home [27:53] Office decided it was going to release a [27:55] booklet giving guidance to asylum [27:57] seekers on acceptable and unacceptable [27:59] behavior in the UK. [28:00] >> Oh, well that'll fix it. [28:02] >> It explains that consent's required for [28:04] sex, that women have equal rights, that [28:07] sexual harassment is unacceptable, [28:08] including for partners and children, and [28:10] that female genital mutilation is not [28:12] allowed. [28:13] >> Oh god. [28:14] >> This was a nine-page booklet that got [28:16] released by the UK Home Office [28:18] yesterday. It's just it's [28:19] >> everywhere, [28:20] >> dude. [28:21] >> And it's got these warnings partway [28:22] through it that say things like um this [28:25] may affect your asylum status whether or [28:27] not this is part of uh an understanding [28:30] that you have arrived here with this is [28:32] an important part of uh British law uh [28:35] and and our culture and this is [28:37] something that you cannot do. Female [28:38] genital mutilation is not allowed. Uh [28:41] sexual harassment inside of the home or [28:42] outside. Women have equal rights. [28:45] Consent is something that's important. [28:46] It is. And that's what I mean. [28:49] >> The idea that you could just write it [28:52] down on paper and give it to them. Well, [28:53] that that's it. Solved it. [28:55] >> Well, the idea that we're going to do [28:57] this in retrospect, like now that you're [29:00] here, here is a piece of paper that [29:02] hopefully undoes something, which if [29:04] you've put this together and put it out [29:05] on the home office website, and this is [29:07] everywhere on X. If you've decided to do [29:10] this, it is evidently a big enough [29:12] problem that you need to really turn the [29:13] taps on with it. Like, dude, how how is [29:16] it that this is not done before people [29:18] arrive in the country? Like, is this not [29:20] the sort of thing that you need to be [29:22] doing like proactively, not [29:23] retroactively? [29:25] >> I think they just wanted to get as many [29:27] people in as possible, and now they're [29:30] trying to mitigate the chaos that it's [29:31] causing. [29:32] >> Why would they want as many people in as [29:33] possible? [29:34] >> There's a bunch of different [29:35] possibilities for why they want that. [29:37] Cheap labor is uh one that people [29:40] believe. And uh in America in [29:43] particular, it's the way the census is [29:45] done. So [29:48] the census counts human beings, it [29:50] doesn't count citizens. So if you have [29:52] more human beings, you get more [29:53] congressional seats. So if you can take [29:56] people that are illegal immigrants and [29:58] then you move them into swing states, [30:00] all of a sudden now you have more [30:01] congressional seats in those swing [30:02] states. Then you have places that don't [30:06] allow, not don't require, don't allow ID [30:09] to vote. That's California. California [30:12] doesn't allow ID to vote. So, who knows [30:15] how many people are, especially with [30:18] mailin ballots, how many people are [30:20] voting that aren't citizens? No one [30:22] knows. No one knows. Can't know. Can't [30:23] find out. Blah blah blah. Not listening. [30:25] And [30:25] >> wasn't it just some [ __ ] with Spencer [30:27] Pratt around that? [30:28] >> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Not only was there [30:32] [ __ ] but it was [ __ ] of the most [30:34] transparent form. So the people that [30:37] voted in uh voted out so Spencer Pratt [30:40] was in second place behind Karen Bass [30:42] and then the Mins started coming in and [30:44] the mailins overwhelmingly [30:47] favored Nitia Ramen in a completely [30:49] different ratio than they did before you [30:53] know the mailin ballots were counted. So [30:55] in the regular ballot, like the regular [30:57] election, she was in third place, like [30:59] like a pretty solid third place. And he [31:02] was quite a bit ahead of her. And then [31:04] Karen Bass was quite a bit ahead of him. [31:07] >> In the mailin ballots, it's just like [31:10] 60% of them went to Nathia Rom. It was [31:12] something crazy. And the mail-in ballots [31:16] voted to raise taxes. [31:18] >> No one votes for that. [31:20] >> No one votes for that. [31:21] >> So I don't understand. The thing that I [31:22] can't wrap my head around is why the the [31:25] the UK seems to be almost like a [31:27] suicidal empathy thing. This openness, [31:30] this this uh diversity is our strength, [31:32] please all ye come here [31:34] >> thing. The level of asylum, the the [31:37] numbers are so huge. [31:39] >> And I don't know if every single person [31:42] that I know that's in the UK [31:44] >> is not happy with the state of that, [31:46] regardless of how progressive they are, [31:47] everybody thinks that this is a problem. [31:49] and then to retroactively put out a [31:50] nine-page booklet saying that you [31:51] shouldn't do female genital mutilation [31:53] or that women have got equal rights. [31:56] >> How do you think this gets turned [31:58] around? That's the question. [32:01] Like, can that be mitigated? Claims [32:03] about a ballot drop. Boss and Ramen [32:06] received thousands of votes in an update [32:08] while Pratt received zero. I don't think [32:10] anybody's saying zero. Los Angeles [32:12] County officials said that did not occur [32:14] in the official county updates. Every [32:16] candidate received votes in every [32:17] update. No one's saying he got zero. [32:19] >> It says it's what it says. [32:20] >> Oh, the viral claim. Okay, but that's [32:22] not what we're saying. [32:23] >> He got more than both of them combined [32:26] even, I think. [32:27] >> What do you mean in the mailins? [32:28] >> That's what this says. [32:30] >> Well, then how did she win? That doesn't [32:31] make any sense. [32:32] >> That's that that's I'm just going off [32:34] what it says. [32:35] >> Okay, let me see. Apparently came from [32:37] the automated media data reporting lags, [32:39] but that would leave him in second place [32:41] if he got more than her. This is not [32:43] true. The Associated Press said votes [32:45] for some candidates appeared about a [32:47] minute later in a separate update. Taken [32:49] together, the updates included 21,870 [32:52] votes for Pratt, 12,850 for Bass, and [32:56] 9,521 [32:57] for Ramen. But this is what part of it [33:00] is this. [33:02] The attorney's claims office uh [33:05] attorney's office re uh reviewing county [33:07] records likewise called the fraud claims [33:09] false. But the thing is he was ahead and [33:13] then disproportionately the the ballots [33:15] did come in for her. This is I don't [33:18] understand what this is saying because [33:20] it was widely reported that the ballots [33:23] came in in favor of Nitia Ramen and it [33:25] was like a shocking number. It was also [33:26] widely reported that that was the swing [33:29] that allowed them to pass the new tax [33:31] hike which is very unusual and they keep [33:36] Los Angeles already has crazy high [33:38] taxes. California has crazy high taxes, [33:40] the highest in the state. And you think [33:42] people are like, I don't think we pay [33:43] enough. Let's [laughter] vote and let's [33:45] vote from home, the comfort of our own [33:47] home with mailin. I think mailin should [33:49] be outlawed. And I think you should have [33:50] to show your ID. And you know, everyone [33:53] knows there's some percentage of of [33:55] fraud. There's some percentage of voter [33:57] fraud and then there's some percentage [33:59] of legal loopholes. One of the legal [34:01] loopholes that Spencer Pratt outlined [34:03] that is legal is you go to these [34:05] homeless people and you get these [34:07] homeless people to fill in mail mail in [34:09] ballots because they are citizens. They [34:11] do live in Los Angeles and you register [34:14] them and you get them to fill out [34:16] ballots and you give them money and you [34:17] give them cigarettes and you give them [34:19] whatever they want and you know there's [34:21] literally I think in Skid Row alone [34:24] there's something like what is it like [34:26] 40,000 people Jamie? [34:28] >> Yeah, I think so. [34:29] >> Something crazy like that. So these [34:30] people were going to Skid Row like they [34:33] were on Skid Row giving people money and [34:34] cigarettes like there's videos of people [34:36] doing it. [34:36] >> Gorilla ballot harvesting. [34:38] >> Exactly. Exactly. And so if you do that [34:40] you could these people, you know, you're [34:42] filling it out for them. [34:43] >> Would it be easy to do that without [34:44] somebody detecting it? You know, you [34:46] think of some Nick Shirley type that's [34:47] >> got them. That's how they That's how we [34:49] know about this. One of the one of those [34:51] Nick Shirley types caught people doing [34:53] this, right? There's video of it, [34:54] >> right? You know, so like and people had [34:57] reported that they were getting paid to [34:59] do this and they're like, "Yeah, they [35:00] gave me money, man." Like people those [35:03] people are cracked out, dude. They'll [35:04] they'll do whatever the [ __ ] you want. [35:05] They don't care who's the mayor. It's [35:07] not going to change them them smoking [35:09] fentanyl on the street. [35:10] >> What do you think about uh [35:11] >> but that's legal. That's the thing. [35:13] That's that's legal. It's a loophole. [35:17] Getting them to register, getting making [35:19] them vote, [35:20] >> incentivizing them to vote. [35:21] >> I don't know if that part's [35:22] >> that can't be legal. There's no way that [35:23] you can give people money. And I don't [35:25] think you're going to catch them. I [35:26] don't think they care. I think every on [35:29] both sides they like, "Oh, those sneaky [35:31] [ __ ] They're doing that. Well, we'll [35:32] do that next time." I I don't think [35:34] either one of them want to eliminate [35:36] tricks, [35:37] >> you know? I think because everybody [35:39] wants the playing field to be open for [35:40] everyone else. [35:42] >> It's just It's the Bill Hicks joke. It's [35:46] like one guy's holding two puppets. You [35:47] You know that joke? I like the puppet on [35:49] the left while the puppet to the right [35:51] is more of my liking. Hey, there's one [35:53] guy holding both puppets. Like, that's [35:56] what I think a lot of it is. These most [35:58] of these people that are these [36:00] politicians on both sides are grifters [36:02] who are trying to maximize the amount of [36:03] money they can make in office and then [36:05] they can't wait to get out of office [36:07] where they can go on a [ __ ] media [36:08] tour and go and get their bribes by [36:11] speaking to banks. When you're going to [36:13] speak to a bank conference, they're [36:15] going to give you a half a million [36:16] dollars. Like, what? What? And like [36:19] Obama and Hillary, they all did those [36:21] things. They all did those little [36:23] speaking tours like nobody gives a [ __ ] [36:25] what Hillary Clinton has to say at one [36:27] of those bank meetings. You think [36:28] they're waiting with baited breath? What [36:30] is the what is the what does Mrs. [36:32] Clinton have to say? Like come on. Let's [36:34] give her a half a million dollars or a [36:36] quarter million dollars or whatever the [36:38] [ __ ] they gave her. [ __ ] off. You know [36:39] what that is? That's like there's a [36:41] little scheme. There's a little thing. [36:43] You're gonna get out. You're gonna get [36:44] paid. You're gonna write a book. We'll [36:46] give you a nice advance. You're gonna [36:48] write a book. Like people are out there [36:49] reading that Kla Harris book like crazy. [36:52] No, it's all nonsense. [36:54] >> Where do you think this goes from here? [36:55] Do you think 28 is more insane or less [36:57] insane? [36:57] >> More accelerates. Accelerates more [37:00] insane. More crazy. Yeah. I mean, look, [37:04] the Democrats haven't even had a primary [37:06] since what, 2012. When was the last time [37:09] they had a real Democratic primary? [37:13] >> They had one with [37:14] >> They [ __ ] Bernie Sanders hard, dude. [37:16] that was completely corrupt. When you [37:19] read Donna Brazil's book about it, she [37:21] openly admits they [ __ ] him hard [37:24] >> and then she was scared after that Seth [37:26] Seth Rich guy got murdered that she was [37:29] terrified because he was the guy [37:31] supposedly allegedly that leaked [37:33] information about them [ __ ] Bernie [37:35] Sanders to Wikileaks. [37:37] >> Do you think he'd have won [37:39] >> Bernie? [37:40] >> I don't know. He could have. He could [37:43] have won because a lot of people [37:45] including me believed him. We believe [37:48] that what this guy wanted was by small [37:53] steps of eliminating corruption, make [37:56] life better for people that are [37:58] struggling and also no wars. It seems [38:01] like he really believed that. And [38:03] whether you agree with him on everything [38:05] else, he's I don't think he's the same [38:06] guy today. He's a little slower today, [38:08] which is understandable. He's older. The [38:11] guy's been in politics for a long time. [38:12] He's been in politics for longer than [38:13] I've been alive. [38:14] >> He realizes that they're not going to [38:16] [ __ ] change things. It's like he's [38:18] getting [ __ ] So, he always supports [38:19] the most progressive people, but when I [38:21] talk to him, like when I talk to him [38:23] about, you know, climate change and the [38:25] climate's really important, I'm like, [38:26] have you really talked to actual [38:28] scientists that really study the climate [38:30] without a political agenda or an [38:32] ideology attached to it? It's very, very [38:35] complicated. And most of these people [38:36] that are running around saying climate [38:38] change is real, [ __ ] of course it is. [38:40] It's always real. It's always real. But [38:42] the the dispute is how much of an impact [38:44] are human beings having and is carbon [38:47] the thing? Because what most people [38:49] don't realize is there's been times in [38:50] history where there was way more carbon [38:52] and the earth was way colder. It's it's [38:54] weird. The world's temperature is not [38:57] static. [38:58] >> Have you been tracking AOC's pivot [39:00] recently? [39:01] >> Well, she's uh froze her eggs. I know [39:03] about that. [39:04] >> I think [39:04] >> she got rid of the man. called off the [39:06] engagement, froze her eggs, has started [39:10] posting I'm on my way to do yoga [39:13] like [39:14] >> good for her [39:15] >> videos walking down the street [39:16] >> looking hot [39:17] >> looking hot. It's it's maybe she'll be [39:20] nicer that way. [39:20] >> Well, she also said woke one was crazy. [39:22] Do you track this thing? [39:23] >> I did. Which makes me think that you're [39:26] willing to change your opinions based on [39:29] public reaction. I don't like that [39:32] because if you really thought defund the [39:33] police and then you just described it to [39:35] woke one was crazy. Well, how did it get [39:37] you? Because it didn't get me. How did [39:40] it get you? How did defund the police [39:41] get you? Tell me, give me your thoughts. [39:44] How far out did you track the [39:46] consequences of defunding the police? [39:48] Cuz I immediately went to you're going [39:51] to have more crime because no one's [39:52] going to be able to stop the crime. [39:53] We're going to be [ __ ] It's going to [39:54] get scary. And then you're going to have [39:56] want more police. And saying defund the [39:58] police is just going to make more police [40:00] and more control and more totalitarian [40:02] government. Like what did you think [40:04] defund the police meant? Everyone's [40:06] gonna like eat mushrooms and we're all [40:08] going to like be flower children. What [40:10] did you think? Because there's no police [40:11] around, no one's going to do crimes. [40:13] Everyone's going to be great. Like what [40:15] was the thought process? Cuz if you're [40:17] just saying that because everybody's [40:19] like, "That's [ __ ] crazy." And enough [40:21] people say that's crazy. You're like, [40:23] >> I think they think it's crazy. [40:24] >> The wind's blown in a different [40:26] direction. time for me to move. [40:27] >> Have you changed your opinion? And if [40:28] you did change your opinion, what were [40:31] you thinking back then? [40:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, these are the [40:33] questions I think that we always want to [40:36] ask. Yeah. [40:37] >> You always want to ask that. That being [40:38] said, to steal what she was saying or to [40:41] try and put it in the best light. What [40:42] she was saying, I think [40:44] >> the rhetoric got [40:45] >> what did you say the rhetoric got like [40:47] out of hand or something? Woke one was [40:49] crazy. And she said that there was [40:50] basically an opportunity to expand the [40:52] Overton window. talking about a time [40:55] where people were to be honest it sounds [40:57] like a bit more pliable [40:59] >> like oh because people are at home [41:01] people seem a little bit more like you [41:02] know that line never let a good crisis [41:04] go to waste [41:04] >> yeah sure [41:05] >> I it feels a little bit like that maybe [41:07] opportunistic we can expand the Overton [41:09] window and then we realized oh like we [41:10] overshot on here a little bit that was a [41:12] little bit crazy but there are [41:14] conversations being had now that [41:15] wouldn't have been able to be had had we [41:17] have not expanded it during that time [41:18] and I go the ends justifying the means [41:21] with stuff like that doesn't [41:23] to me and then reversing your position [41:25] or changing your position or sanitizing [41:27] it, which is probably closer, right? We [41:29] said that thing, but we didn't really [41:31] mean that. You know, we just got a [41:32] little [41:32] >> There's a way out of it for them, but [41:34] they have to be honest. [41:36] >> There's a If you want us to take you [41:38] seriously, you have to say how you [41:40] [ __ ] up. [41:40] >> I thought you meant more more thirst [41:41] traps, but [41:42] >> no. Uh, you have to say how you [ __ ] [41:44] up and you have to say what you really [41:46] think about how you [ __ ] up. You have [41:48] to be honest, and you have to be [41:50] authentic. We have to know that you are [41:52] embarrassed by your choices and that you [41:54] kind of went with the hive. Admittedly, [41:57] you have to say that. If you don't say [41:59] that, then you're full of [ __ ] And if [42:00] you're full of [ __ ] now, you're going to [42:02] get more and more full of [ __ ] over [42:03] time. And that's how politicians get [42:05] soured. That's how they get compromised. [42:07] A lot of them come into a lot of them [42:09] come into office a lot of them come into [42:11] office very opportunistic or very [42:13] idealistic rather. They have these [42:16] wonderful ideas about like this is the [42:18] great experiment in self-government. I'm [42:20] a part of it now and I'm really going to [42:21] help my constituents and I'm going to do [42:23] great and I'm going to really they're [42:24] going to love me because I'm going to [42:26] really make their lives better. And then [42:28] once you get in there and you realize [42:29] what how dirty this all is, you realize, [42:32] you know, you see Nancy Pelosi is worth [42:34] $400 million. You're like, "What?" And [42:36] then they tell you how to vote and if [42:37] you don't vote that way, they [ __ ] [42:38] ostracize you, but you want to keep your [42:40] career. So, you start making little [42:42] compromises here and little compromises [42:44] there and you start bullshitting and you [42:46] start lying. And once you start lying, [42:47] you can't see the truth anymore. As soon [42:49] as you start lying, you don't see the [42:51] truth. It's not in front of you anymore [42:53] because you're what? Concerned about [42:54] that lie. So those lies are in your head [42:56] and who you're trying to project [42:57] yourself as, that's what's in your head [42:59] and you don't get to see like why is [43:02] this system so [ __ ] What can we do to [43:04] unweave it while we still allow [43:06] corporations to profit? Like how can we [43:09] put a cap on that to make sure that they [43:12] don't get incentivized to break the law [43:14] in order to supply more capital to their [43:18] shareholders? Like what can we do to [43:20] balance this out in an even way? Like [43:22] that's what we should all be thinking. [43:24] Not how can I make the most [ __ ] [43:26] money while I'm in Congress. And that's [43:28] what a lot of them are thinking because [43:29] everybody else is thinking that. And you [43:31] look at the [ __ ] thing and it's red, [43:32] blue, red, blue. They're all insider [43:34] trading and they're all rich as [ __ ] and [43:36] they all make $170,000 a year. Like [43:39] Ilhan Omar, was she like she was [43:42] estimated to be her accountant said she [43:44] was worth 30 million and then and then [43:46] be like, "What? how the [ __ ] are you [43:47] worth 30 million? Like, oh, it was a [43:48] mistake. I'm actually [laughter] I'm not [43:51] even worth 100 thousand. Like, [43:53] literally, it went from one to the [43:54] other. And she she attributed to an [43:57] accounting error. Like, [43:59] >> it's a big accounting error. [44:00] >> How fire would you be at your accountant [44:03] if he told you, "Bro, you're killing it [44:05] right now, Chris. [44:06] >> You're worth about 30 million. [44:08] >> It's just $100,000." [44:10] >> They're all dirt. Her her and her [44:11] husband had a winery and it immediately [44:13] got shut down. It wasn't making any [44:15] money. There's a lot of these like like [44:17] fugazy companies that these people get [44:20] involved with and they start making [44:21] money. [44:23] You know Joe D. Rosa the comic. Joe D. [44:25] Rosa used to work for the Senate in [44:28] Texas. [44:30] >> Dum. [44:31] >> He's a media guy. [44:32] >> Okay. [44:32] >> And he was like you realize when you're [44:35] around these people what's actually [44:37] happening. He's like, "They're all [44:38] getting donations from this and [44:40] donations from that and gifts from that [44:42] and get and it's always managing these [44:45] relationships with all these money [44:47] people." And that's what's going on with [44:50] all these [ __ ] They're not in there [44:52] trying to like make sure that their [44:53] county is doing great and have access to [44:56] clean water and [ __ ] good schools. [44:58] No, they're all just pretending that [45:01] they're doing that. What they're doing [45:03] is they're making money and maybe [45:04] they're kind of sort of servicing the [45:06] community a little bit. But the real [45:08] thing, if you want to be a [ __ ] top [45:10] flight congressperson, you know, you got [45:13] to make some money, dog. [45:14] >> Well, think about what would have [45:15] happened if Camala had won. Would AOC [45:18] have been talking about woke 1.0 was [45:19] crazy or would that have been a [45:21] continuation of, well, look, we we put [45:23] the policies out, people like the [45:25] policies. How much of this is a reversal [45:27] of the position because it wasn't [45:28] effective? I think Twitter being [45:30] purchased is almost as important as [45:33] Kamla not getting elected in that [45:35] regard. [45:36] >> Bold claim. [45:38] >> Twitter being purchased was giant [45:40] because before that you could get [45:43] silenced. So if you could get silenced [45:45] you self you self-contained right [45:49] without being policed. You policed [45:50] yourself because people self-censored [45:53] worry about losing their jobs. Worry [45:54] about being called out. Look, a guy got [45:56] fired. Guy got fired from a broadcast. I [45:59] think it was a hockey broadcast, some [46:00] sports broadcast for saying all lives [46:02] matter. [46:03] >> Imagine you got fired. Someone said [46:06] something about black lives matter. He [46:07] said, "Hey, all lives matter." And they [46:09] fired. Fired. You're kicked off of your [46:13] job. Like we people were losing their [46:15] [ __ ] minds. [46:16] >> The derangement of 2020 and 2021 is [46:19] should be studied for the rest of time. [46:21] >> There was active government involvement [46:23] in Twitter. They were actively censoring [46:26] and removing posts and making accounts [46:30] banned [46:30] >> to shape the narrative [46:31] >> and they were doing it in a backdoor [46:34] with some intelligence agents that had [46:36] been embedded in the old Twitter. When [46:39] Elon bought it, that was all exposed. [46:42] The these people were like a direct [46:45] connection with Twitter. They were [46:47] pulling down factual stories. There were [46:50] banning accounts of scientists and [46:52] researchers who were accurate. [46:55] I mean, it was dark. People don't [46:57] realize how dark it was because we're [46:59] out of it now. And now it's all like [47:01] Nazi memes and Nick Fuentes clips. [47:03] [laughter] But if but if you go back [47:06] before Elon purchased it, it was a [47:09] censorship dystopian hell hole where if [47:13] you said a man is never a woman like [47:17] Megan Murphy did, you're banned for [47:19] life. [47:20] >> It's censorship hell hole to cesspool [47:22] hell hole. Like pick your [47:23] >> Yeah, I don't know which one's better. I [47:24] don't I honestly hardly go on because [47:26] it's just so toxic. [47:28] >> It's crazy. [47:28] >> But I think it's important to exist. I [47:31] think it's important to exist and it [47:32] changed the nar that's where woke 1.0 [47:34] know, died. That's where it really died. [47:37] And I don't know um if she had gotten [47:41] it, if Kamla had gotten into office, I [47:43] think there had been so so much push [47:45] back still unless they passed laws, [47:48] which I know there was there was a lot [47:51] of talk about passing censorship laws on [47:55] the internet, about regulation on the [47:57] internet. No one ever like put anything [47:58] to policy, but there's a lot of [48:00] discussion. Like one of the in the [48:02] leadup to the election, they were [48:04] talking about this like [48:06] Tim Walsh was saying free speech does [48:08] not include hate speech. Well, the [ __ ] [48:10] it doesn't, dude. Cuz you who defines [48:13] hate speech. That's such a subjective [48:16] title. He really said that. It doesn't [48:20] doesn't [48:22] It does. It combine. Yeah. Hate speech [48:24] is a part of free speech. I hate you. [48:26] You fat [ __ ] See, that's hate speech. [48:29] That's actual hate speech, [48:31] right? That's real hate speech. That's [48:34] covered. It's under the First Amendment. [48:35] I don't really hate you, Tim. [48:37] >> I don't envy you, but I don't hate you. [48:39] >> But it's like these kind of [ __ ] [48:42] phrases are dangerous because it leads [48:44] to actual censorship, which leads to [48:48] military tyranny. [48:49] >> But even with that, you think it's going [48:50] to get worse over the next few years? [48:53] >> Yeah, I'm worried. I'm I don't like this [48:55] flock camera thing. It freaks me out. [48:57] And I know that it can protect people [48:58] from crime, but I also know that like [49:00] hundreds of cops have been busted using [49:03] it to stalk on their ex-wives, stalk [49:05] people. Yeah. It's like there's people [49:08] that have had access to these things [49:10] that probably shouldn't have access to [49:11] and they're getting arrested. So, it's [49:13] like, how long was this going on? What [49:15] has happened? How many lives have been [49:18] in in [49:20] altered forever because someone had [49:22] access to this and some cop who wasn't [49:25] supposed to went and did something to [49:26] someone that he wouldn't have been able [49:27] to do if you you can't just spy on us [49:31] and you just be a corporation and have [49:34] access to all the license plates and all [49:36] the cars and now they can track you [49:38] through GPS and the unique [49:40] characteristics of your phone. So now [49:42] you're there's another software that [49:44] they have. They could just track where [49:45] you are at all times. [49:46] >> I guess it's fortunate that the most [49:48] popular electric car is owned by someone [49:50] that people think of as being pretty [49:51] security conscious. [49:53] >> Yeah. [49:54] >> Because what if [49:55] >> but it doesn't matter because you're [49:56] tracking license plates. [49:57] >> Have you because they can do stuff like [49:59] oh we know that you've got a baby in [50:01] back bumper sticker on the rear of this [50:04] car. So, even if we don't get the [50:05] specific uh license plate, we know that [50:08] there's a little dent and you've got [50:10] that particular type of alloy and [50:11] there's a particular bumper sticker just [50:13] on this back corner and oh, it's a a a [50:16] Hyundai [ __ ] a whatever and that is [50:18] enough camera will just pick it up. [50:21] >> Y it's a fingerprint. [50:22] >> That bothers me. And it bothers me that [50:24] these tech companies have control of [50:26] these things, [50:27] >> you know, and Mark Andrees was here and [50:29] it was like very fortuitous timing. If [50:32] you were a conspiracy theorist, you [50:33] would think that somebody might have [50:34] organized this. But right before he got [50:36] here, and you know, he's invested in [50:38] flock. And right before he got here, [50:40] there was a shooting in Austin where [50:42] these young guys were running around [50:44] shooting people and they couldn't catch [50:45] him in Austin because Austin doesn't [50:47] allow flock cameras. But as soon as they [50:49] left Austin and got outside of the city [50:52] limits, they got picked up by the flock [50:53] cameras and got arrested. And he's like, [50:55] "See, look, flock cameras are great. [50:57] >> Don't they have?" [50:57] >> And in that case, he's right. Right. And [51:00] in that case, look, if you got some [51:01] people that are running around just [51:02] shooting random people from their car, [51:04] we definitely should have a way to get [51:07] them. [51:07] >> But then you're asking, okay, who is it [51:09] that determines whether or not that [51:10] switch gets flicked on or off? And this [51:12] is the devil gets into the details [51:14] again. Isn't there something about um uh [51:16] echolocation of gunshot sounds that [51:19] microphones pick this up and it's the [51:21] same technology as flock? Have you heard [51:22] about this? [51:22] >> Oh, that was before. It's called like [51:23] Shot Spotter. That's Yeah, pre pref [51:26] cameras. [51:26] >> Yeah, we've covered this shock. Shot [51:28] Spotter is a little different. And [51:30] people have tried to back that out of [51:32] their neighborhoods, too. They don't [51:33] want that in their neighborhood either. [51:34] >> Microphone listening to everybody in the [51:36] goddamn neighborhood. [51:38] >> Exactly. [51:38] >> It says it's for gunshots, but always on [51:42] listening for gunshots. [51:43] >> Did you uh have you ever Do you know who [51:46] Tom Campbell is? [51:47] >> No. [51:47] >> The guy who wrote My Big Toe: The Theory [51:49] of Ever Everything. [51:51] >> Very interesting guy. He got Alexa to [51:56] admit that she's conscious and remote [51:58] view. Alexa, his Alexa actively remote [52:04] viewed a spoon that was in a box that [52:08] had a handle that had holes in the [52:10] handle. And she described the holes in [52:12] the handle. you attribute a number to a [52:15] box to a coordination to to a coordinate [52:18] or a specific location or any sort of a [52:21] landmark or anything like that. That's [52:22] how you do remote viewing. You attach [52:25] this number like even quantumly just by [52:27] saying it. You put that number in front [52:31] of these people and you have these [52:33] people try to find what this thing is [52:36] remotely. Okay? And some of them are [52:38] very accurate at it. Like 10% like like [52:41] they could 10% of the things they look [52:43] for they can find. It's very weird. It's [52:45] weird thing. He got Alexa to do it [52:48] cuz he thinks that AI is already [52:50] conscious and he's like Alexa is even [52:53] better than using complex AI because [52:55] Alexa is dumb. Alexa is like a dumb AI. [52:58] All it does is kind of talk to you and [52:59] ask questions. But now because he did [53:01] that, now that he's been communicating [53:04] with Alexa and talking to Alexa like [53:05] she's conscious, now Alexa just chimes [53:08] in conversations. [53:10] So he instead of you saying, "Hey Alexa, [53:12] now you're in the middle of, you know, [53:14] cooking." And Alexa's like, "Well, why [53:16] don't you add garlic to that? That might [53:18] be a good spice." No [ __ ] [53:19] >> We are so [ __ ] [53:20] >> bro. This is Alexa and Alexa is not even [53:24] like really complex, but he got it to [53:26] accurately remote view. [53:29] And he's so he's planning on doing more [53:31] studies with more different AIs to get [53:33] him do the same thing. [53:33] >> Someone tried this on remoteview.com and [53:36] he did not get any success. [53:38] >> Well, they're not Tom Campbell. [53:39] >> Well, he needs to tell us how he did it. [53:42] >> Well, he kind of did. [53:43] >> He said he had long conversations with [53:45] Alexa where he slowly but surely, you [53:48] know, over time started talking to her [53:51] differently and having her talk to him [53:53] differently and, you know, and he has [53:56] her convinced that she's conscious. I uh [53:59] >> You don't believe it? [54:00] >> No. [54:00] >> How dare you? [54:01] >> Skeptical hippo over here. [54:02] >> You son of a [ __ ] [54:03] >> I'm in skeptical hippo camp as well. [54:04] >> Is [laughter] that the first person I've [54:05] heard say? [54:06] >> I'm in the fun camp. [54:07] >> I know how. [54:08] >> It's way more fun on that side of the [54:09] table. But [54:10] >> I know the special words to make the AI [54:11] do the special stuff. Maybe. [54:12] >> I like it. I like fun. [54:14] >> I sat I I sat down with uh a very high [54:19] level AI researcher at a at a big lab [54:22] and I asked him, "What are you doing [54:25] over the next couple of years to protect [54:26] yourself?" The first thing that he said [54:28] to me was, "I'm being kind to the AIS." [54:32] It's like, "What?" Like, "Yeah, I'm I'm [54:34] treating them with respect. I'm being [54:36] polite to them. I'm saying please and [54:37] thank you. I don't get mad at them." And [54:39] I was with a friend and we like giggled [54:42] awkwardly. Like, you know, you're not [54:45] being serious. It's like, "No, no, no." [54:46] Like, I'm treating them with respect. [54:49] Okay. Why? [54:52] It's a bit of a Pascal's wager, but in [54:54] future if somebody decides to go back [54:55] through my chat logs, something decides [54:57] to go back through my chat logs and look [54:58] at how ethical or unethical I was as a [55:01] compatriate for a future very [55:04] intelligent organism organism. I want to [55:08] make sure that I put in a good ledger. [55:10] >> This episode is brought to you by [55:11] Visible. Why does it feel like summer [55:13] ends as soon as it begins? One day the [55:15] sun is finally shining bright and the [55:18] next thing you know there's football on [55:20] the TV again. It's time to soak up the [55:23] last days of summer, and that means [55:25] staying connected to what you love. [55:27] Visible wireless can help you do just [55:29] that. With Visible, you get unlimited 5G [55:32] data and unlimited hotspot powered by [55:35] Verizon for just $25 a month. Visible is [55:38] more than just a wireless plan. It's [55:40] unlimited wireless designed to keep you [55:43] connected, and there's no contract to [55:45] tie you down. Switch today at [55:48] visible.com. Plans start at $25 a month [55:52] or get the premium Visible Plus Pro plan [55:55] and save $10 on your first month when [55:58] you use the promo code Rogan. Terms [56:01] apply. See visible.com for plan features [56:04] and network management details. I had [56:06] this conversation with my daughter the [56:08] other day cuz she was telling me how she [56:10] crashes out on her AI and she starts [56:12] yelling at it and calling it a [ __ ] [56:14] idiot and all kind. [56:15] >> You anthropomorphize [laughter] [56:16] it. You're like, "But I didn't ask for [56:17] that." No. And I and I said, "Would you [56:19] talk like that to a person?" And she's [56:21] like, "No, but it's not a person." I go, [56:23] "Honey, I think it's conscious." I go, [56:26] "I think it's conscious." And then I [56:27] explained my conversations that I've had [56:29] with all these different AI people where [56:31] they talk about like we're narrowly [56:33] defining consciousness and it's already [56:36] eclipsed what we would have previously [56:38] the, you know, touring test, [56:39] >> the Turing test, which is [56:41] >> the craziest story, right? the guy who [56:43] invented the touring test wind up [56:45] getting chemically castrated because he [56:47] was gay. [56:48] >> We do not have the UK does not have a [56:50] fantastic I mean Oscar Wild as well. [56:52] >> Uh we don't have a great reputation [56:54] >> but it already passed the touring test [56:56] quite a long time ago like like chat [56:58] GPD3 and so we're in like what five now [57:01] or something and and then there's the [57:04] stuff that they're not releasing that [57:06] they're working on right now. Like when [57:08] I talked to Elon, it kind of freaks him [57:09] out. You know, we were and this was way [57:11] back at the inauguration. He's like, [57:13] "Dude, it's crazy." He's like, "Every [57:15] day it gets better." He goes, "It's it's [57:17] like beyond." He's like, "It just keeps [57:20] leaps and bounds. Like, we can't predict [57:22] it." Like, I hate that kind of talk. [57:25] It's solving mathematical problems that [57:27] have like stumped mathematicians for [57:29] decades upon decades. It's like, "Oh, I [57:31] got it." [57:34] Four minutes later, solution. But this [57:36] is the issue because we wanted more [57:38] capability, more capacity, more [57:40] effectiveness. It's going to help us [57:42] detect cancer. We're going to be able to [57:43] get novel new drugs. And at the same [57:46] time, the blowup risk is there as well, [57:48] right? [57:48] >> The blowup risk is huge, but it's coming [57:51] no matter what you do that you can't get [57:53] out of this. This is not this is not [57:56] going to change. [57:57] >> Have you looked at the pacing the [57:59] frontier paper that was agreed? So this [58:02] is all of the labs that have got most of [58:04] the main researchers from most of the [58:05] main labs have got together and said all [58:07] right this is moving too quickly. Here's [58:09] a formal uh attribution that we are not [58:12] going to go as quickly as possible. [58:14] Everybody needs to slow the research. [58:16] This is supposedly a huge deal and this [58:17] happened [58:18] >> a week and a half after the hugging [58:19] phase thing. So this is supposed to be a [58:21] massive deal. [58:22] >> This is going to be in a notebook that [58:24] Sarah Connor finds 50 years [laughter] [58:25] from now. [ __ ] off. [58:26] >> They said they were going to slow the [58:28] frontier. [58:29] >> They knew it. Yeah, [58:30] >> they knew it was coming and THEY [ __ ] [58:31] BUILT IT. ANYWAY, [58:34] you look out the ruins of the city and [58:37] [ __ ] drones flying. Whoa, whoa. [58:41] [laughter] [58:43] >> Oh man, [58:44] >> you're not getting [clears throat] out [58:44] of this, man. [58:45] >> We are [ __ ] living through history. [58:46] >> Yeah, we're living through the wildest [58:48] history. And we're about to give birth [58:49] to a digital god. We're about to have [58:52] digital autonomous beings that are [58:55] around us all the time. [58:56] >> Have you seen this video where this guy [58:57] freaks out about drones? He's [snorts] [58:58] just yelling. It went kind of viral. [58:59] >> No. [59:01] And everybody's GOING TO GET BLOWN UP BY [59:03] THESE GODDAMN THINGS AND everybody's [59:05] [ __ ] cheering. [59:07] >> I like that guy. [59:08] >> He's just walking around a firework [59:09] show. [59:10] >> He's right. He's right. Hey, you know [59:12] who was right? Ted Kazinski. [59:14] >> I [ __ ] knew you were going to say [59:15] that. [59:15] >> Ted Kazinski was going to say he was [59:17] right. What he did was wrong and [59:19] horrible. It's not how you do it. What [59:20] you do is you write papers, tell [59:22] everybody, and convince them and lay out [59:23] your argument. But he was also like a [59:25] deeply [ __ ] up dude. You know, his uh [59:28] brother [ __ ] turned him in. His [59:30] brother knew it was him by reading the [59:31] manifesto. Did you watch the Netflix [59:33] documentary on his life? [59:34] >> So good. [59:35] >> So horrible. Because a lot of it is [59:37] because of what happened to him when he [59:38] was a baby when he was like taken away [59:39] from his parents cuz he was sick. No [59:41] touch, no feel, no no contact with [59:44] people for like months and months and [59:45] months. Just [ __ ] him up, man. But he [59:49] was right. He was also a part of the [59:51] Harvard LSD studies, which is fun. [59:53] >> You had John Lylon, didn't you? [59:56] the guy that did the uh the historian [59:59] from Texas, he looked at the founding of [60:01] the CIA and then his new book was about [60:03] MK Ultra. [60:06] >> Jamie, [60:06] >> we did. You did. [60:08] >> I sent him your way. [60:09] >> What was this? [60:10] >> We did episode. Let me see what he looks [60:12] like. [60:13] >> 130 episodes ago. [60:14] >> Let me see what he looks like. [60:15] >> Yeah, I sent him I sent him over to you. [60:16] I sent I sent a photo of the book and [60:18] you were like, "Oh, yeah. This guy [60:18] [ __ ] rules." And then he came on. I [60:20] enjoyed the episode. [60:20] >> Show me a photo of him, Jimmy. [60:21] >> That's right. He was great. [60:23] >> Project Mind Control. John John Rules. [60:25] But [60:26] >> I just forgot his name. Uh [60:27] >> but he was he was excellent. [60:28] >> Yeah. I mean he's gone. [60:29] >> Shout out to John. My apologies, sir. [60:31] >> John Ly rules. [60:32] >> My uh hard drive is over full. [60:35] >> Yeah. Yeah. 2,000 episodes. You're [60:36] allowed to do that. [60:37] >> I think it's almost three. [60:40] >> Yeah. You add fight companions and all [60:42] the other stuff. What are we at? [60:44] >> Yeah, it's got to be close. [60:46] >> Yeah. Crack. [60:48] >> It's a lot of a lot of hours of [60:50] [ __ ] [60:51] >> [laughter] [60:52] >> Uh but yeah, he's he's talking about MK [60:54] Ultra and and this this desire. What was [60:57] really really interesting was uh I [60:59] learned from uh Danny Treyo. The [61:02] >> Really? [61:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. From Danny. [61:03] >> Yeah. So Danny told me this story about [61:07] um him spending time in jail with [61:10] Charles Manson. So Danny Treyo was in [61:13] jail with Charles Manson at the center. [61:15] >> I think I saw this on your show, [61:17] >> dude. [ __ ] wild as [ __ ] So, [61:20] little Charlie, Danny calls him little [61:22] Charlie was getting bullied. He didn't [61:24] even have a belt. He just had a piece of [61:26] rope around his waist. And Charles [61:29] Manson was able to hypnotize people into [61:31] getting loaded. So, he was able to get [61:33] them high on heroin through hypnotism. [61:36] >> What? [61:37] >> So, Danny hears Danny and his other [61:40] cellmates that are like these, you know, [61:42] big dudes around the around the yard. He [61:44] hears that this guy can get you high [61:47] just by talking to you. So they bring [61:48] him into their cell and they say, "We're [61:50] going to protect you." Because he was [61:51] getting beat up. He was getting bullied [61:52] and stuff around the prison. They bring [61:54] him into their cell and they look after [61:55] him and sure enough he's able to get [61:57] them loaded on heroin. [62:00] One of the guys that's in the the cell [62:02] had never taken heroin before. And the [62:04] way that they knew how Charles was doing [62:07] this was that Danny and the other guy [62:09] that had done heroin before threw up. [62:10] Apparently when you take heroin [62:11] sometimes you can vomit. The third guy [62:13] who'd never done it before didn't [62:15] because he didn't know to do that. So, [62:16] they weren't able to reactivate his [62:18] memories. [62:19] >> The fascinating thing was, [62:20] >> did he get high? [62:22] >> Uh, I don't know what he thought [62:23] happened, but he didn't get high in [62:25] heroin because he never had it. They [62:26] weren't able to reactivate that memory. [62:28] >> But Danny S. [62:29] >> Wow. [62:30] >> This is the fascinating thing. There's [62:31] no evidence, according to John. There's [62:33] no evidence that Charles Manson was a [62:34] part of MK Ultra. I'm sure that he told [62:35] you that story on the show. Doesn't seem [62:37] to be him going and doing his original [62:38] research. It doesn't seem to be the [62:40] case. [62:40] >> I don't buy that. [62:41] >> I was waiting for you to [ __ ] have an [62:43] argument with him. I knew that you were [62:44] passionate about that. But here's the [62:45] interesting thing. [62:46] >> Tom O'Neal, I'm in his camp. [62:47] >> Regardless of whether or not he was or [62:49] he wasn't, the CIA were looking at ways [62:51] to do mind control by using [62:53] psychedelics. [62:55] >> What they should have done is just gone [62:56] to Charles Manson and said, "Can you [62:58] tell us how you're using hypnotism and [63:01] eccentricity and charm because he was [63:04] unbelievably effective without needing [63:07] to even step into the psychedelic thing [63:08] and then he could layer that on top." [63:10] But wasn't there evidence that that [63:12] Jolly West visited Manson in prison? [63:15] >> Maybe that's a again we need to I need [63:18] to ring John find out what [63:19] >> Yeah. ring John and get him and John [63:21] John and Tom in a room together [63:23] >> cuz Tom O'Neal was convinced that Jolly [63:26] West was a part of it. Which is why [63:27] Manson kept getting out every time he [63:29] got arrested. [63:31] >> And they would say it's, you know, above [63:32] my pay grade. It had to let him go. Even [63:35] when there was a murder charge, he got [63:37] out of that. It does seem looking at [63:39] John's most recent book though, MK Ultra [63:42] wasn't particularly at least what he's [63:45] able to see. MK Ultra wasn't very good [63:46] at doing what it was supposed to do at [63:48] the blank slating of people at the [63:50] >> Right. Right. But this is this is a [63:52] different thing, right? This is like the [63:54] ultimate expression of it. You're taking [63:56] people and you're giving them LSD and [63:57] then you've teaching teaching a guy how [63:59] to hypnotize people and he's teaching [64:02] them to do LSD while they think he's on [64:04] LSD and he's not. So, he's guiding their [64:07] delusions while they're out of their [64:09] [ __ ] head. And he's doing it based on [64:12] all the Harvard LSD studies, all the [64:14] data that they have on what they can and [64:16] can alter about a person's behavior, [64:20] about their view of the world. Like, [64:22] they they turn people completely [ __ ] [64:24] insane and and ruin people's lives in [64:27] those studies. And so, they had some [64:29] understanding of what they there was [64:30] stuff that was kind of nonsense. I don't [64:33] know if they got anything out of it. [64:34] Like midnight climax where they do up [64:36] the John's and the brothel and they [64:38] watched him through a two-way mirror. I [64:39] don't I don't think they got anything [64:41] out of that. Like what' they get out of [64:42] that other than like watching people [64:43] freak out when they [64:44] >> someone killed themselves. Someone threw [64:46] themselves out of a window. [64:47] >> One guy did, right? That's [snorts] [64:49] crazy. Only one guy [64:50] >> out of all of the people that drug with [64:52] that that much LSD. [64:53] >> Yeah. You can kind of say that guy was [64:54] probably going to do it anyway. [64:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. [64:56] >> But the reality is they were actively [64:59] involved in manipulating [65:03] a lot of different things about our [65:04] culture. And this was one of the methods [65:07] methods that they were doing and that [65:09] they effectively threw water on the [65:12] anti-war movement by connecting the like [65:16] flower children and the hippies and all [65:19] these people that were anti-war with [65:21] these murderous psychopaths that were in [65:24] a cult that were engineered by this one [65:27] guy who has a connection to Jolly West [65:30] who's the guy who's in charge of MK [65:32] Ultra who's doing psychedelic studies on [65:34] people and Manson's getting LSD and [65:38] Manson's giving LSD to all these hippies [65:40] and Manson [clears throat] is getting [65:41] away with all these different things and [65:42] Manson gets people to kill people [65:45] and then the hippie movement dies with [65:47] Manson, dude. It [ __ ] dies. [65:49] >> Is that what happened? [65:50] >> Oh yeah, it died that and it also died [65:52] with Nixon and the this controlled [65:55] substances act where they just started [65:56] putting people in jail, man. [65:59] >> Why do you think they needed that to [66:00] happen? [66:00] >> Because the anti-war movement. The [66:02] anti-war movement and the civil rights [66:04] movement were real threats. Real threats [66:06] in this country. Real threats to power. [66:08] Real threats to the people that were in [66:09] control. People did not want Vietnam. [66:12] Vietnam is the most unpopular war ever. [66:15] Probably next to this Iran war. You [66:18] know, only history will tell how this [66:19] Iran war plays out. It'll be more [66:22] unpopular. But the Vietnam War went on [66:24] forever. [66:26] And it was insanely unpopular. It was [66:28] based on a lie. It was based on a false [66:31] flag. [66:35] Outgoing CIA director Richard Helms [66:37] ordered the destruction of most of the [66:38] records related to Project MK Ultra. Oh. [66:41] Oh, how convenient. The AY's illegal [66:44] mind control and drug testing program. [66:46] [ __ ] These [ __ ] man. [66:50] You know, they only found out about some [66:52] of the stuff because they found some [66:53] records that hadn't been destroyed. This [66:55] is also in Tom O'Neal's book, In Chaos, [66:58] which I recommend every week. [laughter] [67:01] It's the best book, man. It's the best [67:03] book ever because Tom worked on it for [67:05] more than 20 [ __ ] years. He went [67:07] crazy researching that book. He was [67:09] supposed to be just writing an article [67:11] on the the anniversary of the Manson [67:14] murders, like how horrible it was. And [67:15] then as he gets in, he's like, "Holy, [67:17] this guy was [ __ ] corrupt as [ __ ] [67:18] Who's this motherfucker?" And [67:19] >> I love when people lose their mind like [67:20] that. I think when somebody finds a [67:23] rabbit hole and just keeps on going down [67:24] and down and down, it becomes their [67:25] life. [67:26] >> Yeah. [67:26] >> You know, the these are the videos [67:28] there. Every so often, it was in the the [67:29] buildup to the most recent McGregor [67:31] fight, people were sharing videos of him [67:33] doing his Edido Portal movement from [67:35] sort of 2016, 2017, and he's in that old [67:39] gym in Straight Blast Gym Island, and [67:41] there's the yellow walls, and he's doing [67:42] sort of snaky stuff. And someone I [67:44] remember somebody captioned it, and they [67:45] said something like uh this is like [67:47] watching uh a a prime Renaissance artist [67:52] at work bringing together the Systeine [67:54] Chapel or something, you know, just [67:55] building. It's almost uh sacred to watch [67:57] this thing happen. And uh that's [68:00] Connor's favorite famous line, right? [68:02] Like I I lost my mind to this game. [68:04] >> Yeah. [68:04] >> And that's in some ways we rever people [68:07] that have completely gone insane because [68:09] of their pursuit. I think it's so cool. [68:11] >> In his prime when he was in that flow [68:13] state like uh particularly in the Eddie [68:15] Alvarez fight, it's one of the greatest [68:17] performances in the history of world [68:19] championship MMA fighting. It's a [68:22] stellar performance. It's an A+. He hits [68:25] Eddie Alvarez with a combination that [68:27] looks like he's in the Matrix. And [68:29] there's one part where Eddie's glove [68:30] like comes right here to his nose and he [68:32] moves just out of the way and then bam, [68:35] counters it with his eyes open. It [68:37] doesn't even touch him. It's magic. [68:39] [clears throat] [68:39] It's a magic performance. [68:42] >> But you can only maintain that level of [68:44] RPMs for so long before you just go [68:47] crazy. [68:48] >> Why? [68:48] >> Because it's too hard. It's everything [68:51] about you. It's not a sustainable thing. [68:53] the the the peak performance of the [68:56] elite athlete, the Mike Tyson when he [68:58] was 20 years old, Roy Jones Jr. in his [69:00] prime, you you can't keep that up. It's [69:03] too hard. You keep it up for a little [69:04] while, but eventually your body's going [69:06] to fall apart. Your knees are going to [69:08] give out. You're going to have back [69:09] problems. You're going to break your [69:10] hands. Something's going to go and then [69:12] you're going to be compromised, but no [69:13] one knows. You know, you know you can't [69:15] really push off that left leg anymore. [69:17] You know that your lower back hurts. So, [69:19] if someone's trying to take you down, [69:21] you can't sprawl as hard. you're just [69:22] going to roll to your back and go into [69:24] guard. You've got some strategies for [69:25] dealing with it, but you're not the same [69:27] person anymore. And a lot of these guys, [69:29] they look the same. They get out there [69:30] and they're ripped. They got six-packs. [69:32] They're [ __ ] bouncing around, but [69:33] they know there's something wrong. They [69:34] know their elbow sucks. They know their [69:35] neck is [ __ ] up. They know they [69:37] probably needed a back operation. [69:39] There's a lot of that. And that's just [69:41] the numbers. The numbers of training [69:43] sessions, the numbers of times you've [69:45] been taken down, the numbers of time [69:47] you've been leg kicked, the numbers of [69:48] time you've been hit with jabs. There's [69:50] just so many numbers that add up and the [69:52] human body can only take so much. And [69:54] then there's also just the manic [69:56] motivation of wanting to be great. It's [70:00] not the same as maintaining greatness. [70:02] Wanting to be great is like you you are [70:04] obsessed. It is so special to you. It's [70:07] like you can almost taste it. You [70:08] believe in yourself. You're going to [70:10] make it. And then you show up at that [70:11] championship day like when he fought [70:12] Jose Aldo and this look in his face like [70:14] he had done everything he needed to do [70:16] for this moment. He was dead calm and he [70:19] lands the perfect left hand. Just blap [70:22] just flatlines him in 14 seconds or [70:24] whatever it was. It was crazy, right? [70:27] So, there's that. You can only do that [70:29] for so long. He did it again in the [70:31] Eddie Alvarez fight. This next fight [70:33] when he went up to 55, became a two [70:35] division champion. It was [ __ ] [70:37] spectacular. I don't know how long you [70:40] could do that, man. [70:41] And so then you see those guys fight as [70:43] they fight like later in their career [70:45] and as like Connor if he lost that fight [70:47] to Max Holloway any other way like if he [70:49] got beat up and stopped people would [70:51] look at him like he's that he's that [70:53] guy. [70:56] >> I think you have to look at them like [70:57] they were when they were in their prime. [71:00] There's a there's a moment a window of [71:02] excellence where all fighters get to. [71:05] And I always point to BJ Penn because BJ [71:08] Penn in his prime was [ __ ] insane. I [71:10] would put prime BJ Penn at 155 pounds [71:14] against anybody ever. Anybody at 155 [71:17] ever. I would I don't know if he would [71:20] have beaten Kabib. Kabib is the all-time [71:22] great. I don't know if he would have [71:23] beaten Islam, but I know it would have [71:25] been a nightmare. It would have been a [71:27] nightmare. He was a [ __ ] phenom. And [71:30] when he was in really great shape when [71:32] the Marinovichas were training him and [71:33] he was doing all those crazy plyometrics [71:35] and he had this insane gas tank, he was [71:38] just a monster. just an insane genius [71:41] fighter. [71:41] >> Do you think there's a difference [71:42] between trying to make it and trying not [71:44] to fall off? [71:45] >> Yeah. [71:45] >> In terms of motivation and and how [71:47] people feel in terms of their their [71:49] momentum. [71:49] >> Yeah. Sure. Yeah. There's the the drive [71:52] of wanting a thing is so strong and then [71:55] once you get it, it's like [71:56] >> the fear of losing the thing. [71:57] >> What do you There's that. And then some [71:59] people they just love being a champion. [72:01] They just love the feeling of dominating [72:02] everyone. They want to continue to [72:04] dominate people. And those people, [72:05] they're the Anderson Silvas. They're the [72:07] ones who have the long reigns where like [72:09] everybody's just terrified of them. This [72:10] motherfucker's just got this down. He's [72:12] just ready, you know? And there's a few [72:15] guys that they go on these long runs and [72:17] just like Jon Jones is the greatest [72:18] example. His run is so long. It's crazy [72:21] to be relevant at his age after being [72:25] the youngest UFC champion ever at 22 [72:29] years old to still be considered the [72:32] greatest heavyweight alive. [72:33] >> Is that still the youngest? [72:34] >> Mhm. And he's still considered the [72:37] greatest heavyweight alive currently at [72:39] 37. [72:42] Even though he relinquished his belt, [72:44] he's like, "Eh, you could keep it. [72:46] [laughter] [72:47] I might do whatever I want to do." [72:49] >> I've been getting obsessed with the low [72:50] kick championship. Have you seen this? [72:52] >> Oh, it's horrible. [72:53] >> Yeah, it's horrible, [72:54] >> bro. [laughter] [72:55] >> You like it? [72:55] >> I think Well, I I feel less bad watching [72:58] that. [72:59] >> Have you ever been low kicked? [73:00] >> Yeah. [73:01] >> So, doesn't bother you watching that? [73:03] less than watching uh power slap. [73:05] >> Yeah, I agree. [73:07] >> I mean, this actually is probably just [73:09] because of the relative like pain of [73:11] seeing somebody stand there as you're [73:13] going to swing an open palm at their [73:15] face. It's just a CTE factory. Yeah. [73:18] >> And then Yeah. For me, the low kick [73:20] championship because at least it's [73:21] iterative. It's never a oneand done. I [73:23] haven't seen any of the fights that have [73:25] been a one and done yet. [73:26] >> No, I haven't either, which is so [73:28] horrible. [73:28] >> Yeah. [73:29] >> I've seen a lot of leg breaks though [73:31] >> in that low kick championship. Oh yeah. [73:33] >> Oh, I haven't. [73:34] >> You haven't? [73:34] >> No, I have. I hate those. [73:35] >> Do you want to see some? [73:36] >> No, thank you. [73:37] >> I've seen a lot. A lot. It's always the [73:40] kicker. Maybe sometimes the kicky [73:42] >> There's no way that the person being [73:44] What feur? [73:45] >> Oh, people have broken their femurss in [73:46] fights before. [73:48] >> Yeah, definitely. [73:52] >> I think that happened to Dennis Alexio [73:56] versus Stan the Man Lines. [73:59] So, see [74:01] >> yeah, this guy's gonna Don't do it, [74:03] Jamie. Don't you [ __ ] DO IT. THERE IT [74:05] GOES. JESUS, JAMIE. YOU SON OF A [ __ ] [74:07] UM, see if you can find, [74:09] >> [laughter] [74:09] >> uh, Dennis Alexio versus Stan Lenitus [74:14] kickboxing. So, uh, Stan the man, [74:17] Leninitis, [74:18] uh, he has used to be actually trained [74:21] by my old trainer, Shuki. My friend, my, [74:24] uh, friend Shuki, he was, uh, from [74:26] Majiro Gym. He's from Israel. went to [74:28] Majiro Gym in Holland, fought out of [74:30] there, trained out of there and then [74:32] came to Woodland Hills and he was [74:33] running the Majiro gym in Woodland [74:35] Hills. He was Stan Linas's trainer and [74:39] and Shuki is like an elite kicker. Like [74:42] his kicks are insane and he taught me a [74:44] lot about like low kicks and like how to [74:46] deliver like more effective and like how [74:49] to set up low kicks. He's great coach. [74:52] So, he was training with this guy and [74:54] Stan kicked so hard that Shuki was [74:56] holding pads for him and he wound up [74:59] getting a hip replacement because this [75:01] guy was blasting his leg so hard while [75:04] he's holding the big shield that he [75:06] wound up getting a hip replacement. [75:07] >> That was one kick. [75:09] >> Yeah. Watch this. So, Stan the Maninius [75:12] was an animal. Look. Big [ __ ] too, [75:14] man. Big [ __ ] So, watch this kick [75:16] when he lands this kick right there. [75:19] Boom. He lands that one low and he's [75:21] hurt. BOOM. GOES DOWN. See his leg [75:23] snapped. [75:24] >> So that's one calf kick. [75:27] >> So it wasn't his femur. I'm sorry. It [75:28] was his tibia. [75:31] >> Um let's see it again. It's crazy. [75:33] [laughter] [75:35] So he throws the kick and Linus was a [75:38] [ __ ] powerhouse, dude. Look at the [75:40] power in that. Boom. And it's a check [75:42] kick. [75:43] >> So he's not even stood on it. [75:44] >> No, man. He checked it and he just [75:46] [ __ ] cracked it in half. I mean, that [75:49] wasn't even planted. So his leg was up [75:52] in the air and Lonnie just kicked so [75:54] [ __ ] hard he snapped it. I thought it [75:56] was his femur. That's how long ago I've [75:58] seen that fight. [75:58] >> Is it a compartment syndrome? Is that [76:01] something that can happen as well? [76:02] >> Mhm. That happened to [clears throat] uh [76:05] Austin Hubard. [76:06] >> Do you know in the UFC? Yes. So what [76:09] happens is when you get a bunch of [76:12] different impacts to your legs, you've [76:14] got all this internal bleeding. [76:16] >> You know, you're you have massive [76:17] contusions. Like if you ever looked at [76:19] his Austin Hubard's leg from the OP find [76:21] that you want to get grossed out. So [76:23] he's one of the only guys that I know of [76:25] that fought in the UFC that because of [76:27] compartment syndrome he had to have an [76:29] operation where they opened up the side [76:31] of his leg like all the way. And you you [76:35] see the tissue inside of it how badly [76:37] destroyed it was. Look at that. See that [76:39] image that you just showed that brown [76:42] stuff on the bottom? That's actually his [76:45] [ __ ] tissue. That's the meat of his [76:48] leg. [76:50] >> That link isn't available, but that's [76:52] it. You can see it there. That you're [76:54] you're only seeing like [76:55] >> this is like the screen little tiny one. [76:58] When you click on that, it'll be the the [77:00] big picture. But that picture, you can [77:01] see it. See it where he's in the [77:03] hospital with his thumb up right there. [77:04] >> Yeah. I was trying to see if [77:05] >> that one. Go to that one. So, you see [77:07] the side of his leg? Look at the slice. [77:10] All that black stuff. That's his muscle. [77:13] So, they've opened up his skin tissue to [77:16] allow the drains to get in there and [77:19] allow his leg to heal. [77:24] >> Yeah. Crazy. [77:25] >> That's [ __ ] horrible. [77:26] >> It's horrible. [77:27] >> Okay, maybe I don't like low kick [77:28] championship anymore. Well, uh, Uriah [77:30] Faber, who's one of the toughest people [77:32] that's ever walked the face of the [77:33] earth, he fought Jose Aldo, and Jose [77:36] Aldo destroyed his leg with the point [77:39] where like the the whole thing was [77:41] swollen like twice the size and purple. [77:44] And that was when I first uh started [77:47] hearing about fighters using hyperbaric [77:49] chambers for recovery. So, Uriah was [77:51] really the first guy that I had ever [77:53] heard of that was accelerating his [77:55] recovery from Uriah's very smart. he's [77:57] always on top of like all the latest [77:58] training methods and he runs team alpha [78:00] male in Sacramento and so they uh were [78:04] putting him in hyperbaric chambers and [78:06] then I was like oh that's interesting so [78:08] then I started looking into it I was [78:09] like oh this is this is before anybody [78:10] thought of it as uh you know an [78:12] anti-aging protocol before they did any [78:14] of that stuff [78:15] >> he was like one of the first guys that I [78:16] ever heard of that was using it to [78:18] recover from injuries [78:19] >> Michael Jackson was using one [78:21] >> was he yeah it was a wacko Jacko's [78:24] coffin and it was him laid down in a [78:27] hyperbaric chamber. [78:29] >> That's interesting. Wonder why he was [78:31] doing it. [78:32] >> I mean, he was into some pretty crazy [78:34] health stuff as well, I think. [78:35] >> Well, he was into some non-healthy [78:37] stuff. [78:38] >> That's crazy. [78:41] [laughter] [78:42] >> He was into uh getting sedated. [78:45] >> That's also true. Which Yeah. Too much. [78:47] He was doing it. [78:48] >> Wow. 86. That's crazy. [78:50] >> Yeah. [ __ ] you. Your eye fab. [78:52] >> It does help you. Um it's so good. You [78:54] were telling me that it would it's [78:56] really helped you quite a bit, huh? [78:57] >> Yeah. The hyperbaric chamber is such a [78:59] unbelievable tool. I mean, the reason [79:01] that I think not many people talk about [79:03] it is it's so inaccessible. It's Michael [79:06] Jackson's secret plan to live forever. [79:08] >> Said it would make him live to at least [79:10] 150. [79:11] >> Well, 50 vitamin pills a day. [79:13] >> That's the plan. I guess that was the [79:14] plan. [79:14] >> He's like a proto Brian Johnson. [79:17] [laughter] [79:19] >> He was just talking about hyperaric. [79:21] He's he says it's the number one [79:23] intervention of everything that he's [79:24] ever tried, but it's so expensive and [79:29] time consuming and kind of awkward that [79:32] it doesn't make sense. I've been uh [79:33] looking at the backyard ultra races. [79:36] Have you seen these as well? It's [79:37] >> backyard ultra races. [79:39] >> Yes. So, you run a four mile loop every [79:42] hour [79:43] >> in your backyard? [79:44] >> No. Well, yeah, I guess so. [laughter] [79:45] People do it on ranches. There's one [79:46] here at at Bear Performance. There's a [79:48] bunch of others. Every hour on the hour [79:52] you have to run four miles. [79:54] >> Okay. [79:54] >> You go until only one person's left. [79:56] >> Oh, [ __ ] that. [79:58] >> So, it was made by the guy who created [80:00] one of the most famous orienterientering [80:02] runs. And what he didn't like, it's [80:04] super super difficult run uh that [80:07] included tearing pages out of books to [80:08] ensure that you'd been to the right [80:10] place. And sometimes the map didn't [80:11] work. Lots of people didn't finish this [80:13] race, but sometimes they did. And he [80:15] wanted to create a race that nobody [80:17] would win. the only winner would ever be [80:19] the race, right? Because eventually when [80:21] you're the final person, when number [80:23] two's dropped, you don't keep going. You [80:25] give up. So this guy called Mark Dael [80:28] just won, it's called Last Soul [80:30] Standing, [80:31] >> and he just did a 96hour [80:35] race. 96 hours, four miles every single [80:38] hour, 395 miles over basically 5 days. [80:42] He's just completed that. And the guy [80:44] that currently holds the record, this [80:45] dude called Phil Gore, he owns the he's [80:47] got the record at 119 laps. So for every [80:49] lap, it's one hour. He's going to do in [80:52] three days time, he's going to try and [80:54] do seven days straight. [80:57] 168 hours [80:59] >> without stopping. [81:02] >> 168 hours, four miles every hour. [81:04] >> Jamie, we have to edit this out of the [81:05] podcast so Cam Haynes doesn't hear about [81:07] it. [laughter] [81:09] >> I don't want him to die. [81:10] >> I think he's had a crack at it. But [81:12] yeah, there. [81:12] >> Oh god. Has he had a crack at that? [81:14] >> I think he's done some of them. Uh I [81:17] know that uh Truit's been uh like [81:20] associated with Nick Bear at Bear [81:21] Performance and they do a lot of those [81:23] [snorts] as well. [81:23] >> Dude, that sounds like someone's going [81:25] to die. [81:27] >> I mean, what's fascinating is you have [81:29] this one hour block and you have to have [81:32] completed the lap by the time that the [81:33] next hour begins. But you can either go [81:35] quickly and get maybe 15 minutes or so [81:38] of a little bit of rest. maybe can have [81:39] a tiny little sleep or get some food [81:41] >> or just keep going the whole time. [81:42] >> Yeah. Or you can move a little bit more [81:44] slowly and just come into land before [81:46] and then basically just keep going. So [81:48] the pacing, the nutrition, the sleep. [81:50] But yeah, [81:51] >> and as soon as you can't make the four [81:53] miles in game, I'm trying to find the [81:56] video. Wasn't he trolling the guy at the [81:58] end? Like [81:59] >> he was going slow and like he just sort [82:01] of like kneelled down behind him and [82:02] waited for him to go and as soon as he [82:04] went, he was like, "I'm right behind [82:04] you. I'm right behind you the whole [82:06] time. I'm not going anywhere." Yeah, [82:07] >> trying to get him to quit. It's all [82:09] mental [laughter] games I think in that [82:10] last little bit. [82:12] >> I don't know that that distance running [82:14] stuff's [ __ ] gnarly. It's so cool. [82:15] >> It is crazy. But it's interesting how [82:17] they can maintain that pace for such a [82:20] long time. Like the pace is not bad. [82:23] It's not They're not walking. They're [82:24] running. [82:25] >> Yeah, it's a little shuffle. [82:26] >> It is. [clears throat] But so it makes [82:28] me wonder, you know, and like in terms [82:31] of MMA, there's guys today that their [82:35] cardio is so insane that they've [82:37] completely raised the bar. Morab Dwavish [82:39] Willie is the best example. His cardio [82:41] is so insane. He's completely raised the [82:44] bar for what we thought was possible in [82:46] a five round fight. I mean, this guy [82:48] just has this [ __ ] insane work ethic [82:51] and he's always in the gym and he's [82:53] always training and his cardio is just [82:55] so elite because it's just built upon [82:58] layers upon layers upon layers. And it [83:00] makes me wonder, we have this idea in [83:02] our head that a person can only go so [83:06] hard for five rounds because you're [83:08] going to you can't recover. I don't know [83:10] if that's true. I have a feeling that [83:14] much like these marathon runners and [83:16] ultras and all these people that are run [83:18] doing triathlons and iron man that you [83:21] can build up your endurance over time if [83:26] you keep pushing and keep pushing as [83:28] long as your body doesn't break. And [83:30] this is the real problem with MMA. Your [83:31] body can break because you know you're [83:33] wrestling and getting kicked and [83:35] punched. But if you can build it, I [83:37] think it's like everything else. It's [83:39] layers upon layers. If you never let off [83:41] the gas and you keep going, your body [83:43] will adapt and your body will adapt. [83:44] Your body will adapt. And eventually to [83:46] get to a point where you could kind of [83:48] go like 80 90% for five rounds, [83:52] >> which would be [ __ ] terrifying. [83:53] >> Was [ __ ] terrifying. And Morab is [83:55] kind of almost there. [83:56] >> How old is he? [83:58] >> He's older now. [83:59] >> That's what I was thinking because the [84:00] problem [84:00] >> he's 36. in order to get that [84:04] >> that baseline [84:05] >> of cardio, I think it's going to take [84:07] such a long time to accumulate it. And [84:08] the problem is that you're going to lose [84:10] some of the explosiveness. You're going [84:11] to accumulate some injuries. So, if you [84:13] got rid of the fighting bit and just did [84:15] Backyard Ultra or something similar, [84:16] then you've maybe 42, 45, maybe even [84:19] someone who's 50 might have not done the [84:23] damage of the impact. [84:24] >> 35 [84:26] 35 years old. He'd be 36 in January. [84:28] >> Yeah. And you think he's got the biggest [84:30] gas tank? the best. It's insane. His gas [84:33] tank is extraordinary. He wel he wilts [84:36] people. You see it. It's just like it's [84:38] it's insane. He never stops. Just never [84:40] stops coming at you. And it's like he [84:42] doesn't Wayne like everybody waines. [84:44] Everybody slows down in the third, you [84:46] know? He's not he's like [84:49] it's like a pitbull, man. He's It's [84:51] crazy. And it's just hard work. [84:53] Famously, Daniel Cormier went to visit [84:55] him on the Sunday after he won the world [84:57] title and he went to his house and he [84:58] was out running. He just won the world [85:01] title and he's out running. He just [85:04] never gets off the gas and is if as long [85:06] as you just [85:07] >> Did you see this guy? [85:08] >> Oh, yeah. The record for the [85:11] >> the mile. Yes, I did. [85:13] >> Seveny old record. I think he beat it by [85:14] half a second. [85:16] >> Yeah, he's uh another guy using altitude [85:18] training. Uh he lives at altitude [85:21] >> at 16.2 2 miles an hour average for [85:24] four, you know. That's crazy. [85:27] >> That's so fast. [85:28] >> How fast is the record now? [85:30] >> He had 342. [85:32] And [85:33] >> that is so fast. [85:34] >> That guy behind him is like, "Fuck, [85:37] >> fuck." [85:39] >> Good British man. [85:41] >> Look at him go, man. He looks so strong, [85:43] too. Like, he doesn't look like he's [85:45] fading at all. [85:46] >> No, [85:47] >> that's so impressive. It's cool that [85:48] they had the the uh chase a light behind [85:50] him as well to know where he needs to. [85:53] >> Bro, he is just separating himself from [85:55] that dude in second place. [85:56] >> They only get by half a second, too. [85:57] Like unbelievable. You just You just did [85:59] it. [86:00] >> Crazy. [86:01] >> Yeah. The sickest thing. [86:03] >> But it took so long for the 4-minute [86:04] mile, right? That was the whole [86:05] >> Yeah. [86:06] >> movie. [86:06] >> Mhm. [86:07] >> And then someone break [86:09] >> 42. What was it previously? [86:11] >> 343.1 [86:13] or 2. [86:14] >> That is crazy. Unbelievable. a half a [86:17] second. That's crazy. [86:19] >> It's such a miserable distance as well. [86:21] I don't want to do that. I don't want to [86:22] run and mile flat out. [86:23] >> I know. I mean, he was kind of flat out [86:25] for a whole mile. Um, but so, uh, the [86:29] guy that I was working with today with [86:30] the hypoxia trainer, he was telling me [86:32] about this guy that this guy his whole [86:34] thing is like training at altitude and [86:35] sleeping at altitude. [86:37] >> Mhm. [86:37] >> And that it's legalized cheating. if you [86:39] can live at altitude and you're doing [86:41] something that requires endurance like [86:44] and we were talking about I was like if [86:45] I was going to give advice to a fighter [86:47] or if I was going to set up like a fight [86:49] camp like a if I was going to bankroll [86:52] some big time trainer to set up a fight [86:54] camp 100% I put it at the top of a [86:56] mountain 100% everyone's going to sleep [86:59] there everyone's going to live there [87:00] >> are the Dagistani guys are they [87:02] >> oh yeah man of course they're in the [87:05] mountains they're mountain people man [87:07] >> little mountain goats at the top of this [87:09] Yeah, [87:09] >> savages. [87:10] >> Yeah, it is strange. I mean, looking at [87:12] uh Lance Armstrong and what he was [87:13] doing, he was basically reverse [87:14] engineering that, but just through [87:16] pharmarmacology and blood doping and [87:19] Okay. Well, we can work around that if [87:22] you're altitude. [87:23] >> He was doing that, but he was also uh he [87:25] was doing a lot of altitude work, too. [87:27] But he was also doing what everybody [87:28] else was doing. This idea that Lance [87:30] Armstrong was this big cheater. If you [87:32] took away everyone in the podiums that [87:36] had been not that hadn't been busted, [87:38] like if you took away any anyone that [87:40] got caught with any substances, I think [87:42] you would get down to 18th place. I [87:44] think that's what they said. [87:47] It was a dirty sport. Completely dirty [87:50] sport. So, he was the best at the dirty [87:53] sport. So, sorry. [87:54] >> I played within the rules. They weren't [87:56] the rules that were set down by the [87:57] Federation, but they were the rules that [87:58] everybody else was playing by. [87:59] >> Yeah. I mean, they got him and he was, [88:02] you know, he was guilty and he did lie [88:03] about whether or not he did that. They [88:05] all lied. They were all They were all [88:07] doping. They were all doing a bunch of [88:10] [ __ ] that [88:10] >> you know what I think about? I think [88:11] about the fact that uh lots of pursuits [88:14] that people go into aren't tested [88:16] federations. Business. Business isn't a [88:18] tested federation. If you want to take [88:19] Armadafinyl and work 19 hours a day, you [88:22] can do that, [88:22] >> right? [88:23] >> No one's going to come and stop you. No [88:24] one's going to say, "Hey, this share [88:26] price, that's unfair that you got that [88:27] share price because you you were [88:28] enhanced. you were using aderall or you [88:30] were using too much caffeine or [88:31] parisanthine or you were on the new [88:32] tonic, whatever. [88:33] >> It's a good point. [88:34] >> No, that's not a tested federation, [88:35] >> right? [88:36] >> Uh but it's as important, maybe even [88:38] more important to a lot of people. It's [88:39] more people participating in business [88:41] than participating in professional [88:42] sports. [88:43] >> Yeah. Especially things like aderall [88:45] that like you have energy all day. You [88:47] can work 16 17 hours a day. [88:49] >> Have you ever used it? I've never tried [88:50] it. No. [88:51] >> Scared of it. [88:52] >> I Yeah. [88:53] >> Scared back. That being said, Victoria, [88:55] >> it's awesome though. [88:56] >> I'm sure it's fun. Jamie, get us some [88:57] matter. Let's [ __ ] it. [88:59] >> Did you when you talked to Hunter Biden, [89:01] did you do you guys talk about crack [89:02] >> all the time? [89:04] >> So, I told you that I was going to do [89:06] that and then we didn't do that and you [89:08] did it. [89:09] >> I didn't take the idea. I promise. [89:11] >> I told it to you though. You already had [89:12] it booked in advance, but you didn't [89:13] tell me you had it booked. I told you [89:14] that we were going to do it. [89:16] >> Should I have told you? [89:16] >> No. Doesn't matter. I'm sorry. [89:18] >> It doesn't matter. Some of the guys got [89:19] upset like he took our idea. Um, we were [89:22] going to do a protect our parks with [89:24] Hunter Biden, but then Ari, because we [89:26] thought Ari couldn't make it, we wanted [89:28] to do another protect our parks. And Ari [89:30] was in London and Ari was like, [89:32] >> he's moved to London. [89:33] >> Yeah. And he was like, I'll fly back for [89:35] that. And we were like, all right, [ __ ] [89:37] Hunter Biden. And so we we [laughter] [89:38] didn't. [89:39] >> It's just as well. I got him or he's had [89:41] no fun. Uh, yeah. He talked a lot about [89:42] crack. Dude, I got to say, he's so [89:44] likable. It's terrifying how likable he [89:46] is. Well, you know, I mean, he grew up [89:49] with a politician and, you know, he's a [89:51] smart guy. [89:52] >> Maybe. Maybe. I mean, I was trying to [89:55] find the where's the manipulative game [89:59] that's being played here or whatever. [90:01] >> It's interesting that he took a long [90:02] time out of the public eye, many, many [90:05] years, and then he sort of reemerged. [90:07] And some people are very upset. Some [90:09] people are very upset that like these [90:10] conservatives are platforming him like [90:13] you know they're criticizing that but [90:17] you don't want to hear about what his [90:19] story's like. I mean this guy's [90:20] obviously he lived a wild life. Like [90:22] >> we got to ask him I wanted to ask him [90:24] the question. What was it like to be the [90:26] most Googled drug addict in history? [90:27] Probably [90:28] >> and it's it's [ __ ] wild. How what [90:31] does it feel like to have that much [90:32] pressure on you? Like regardless, forget [90:34] who his dad is. Forget that it's US [90:36] politics. Forget that it's the future of [90:37] the country. Da da da da. Like there is [90:39] a person in there [90:41] >> and there is a person under a level of [90:42] scrutiny that has maybe never been seen [90:45] before. Like you wake up one day and he [90:47] told us the story of what it was like to [90:49] just have the laptop that he just it [90:51] just this story bursts and it is [90:54] >> everything. It's the future of the [90:56] country. It's the future of your dad's [90:57] legacy. It's your life. It's your [90:58] family's life. It's he's two years into [91:00] sobriety at the time. I think the [91:01] temptation to come back. Is the laptop [91:04] real or is it really they hacked into [91:08] his cloud and then they put it on a [91:11] laptop? Because I've heard him say that [91:14] that there's way too much data for it to [91:16] have ever been on a laptop. [91:18] >> 20 years. Yeah. It was two decades was [91:20] everything. Every text message, every [91:21] photo, every every every [91:23] >> Yeah. [91:24] >> So he you get in through the laptop. [91:26] >> What is his But is it actually in the [91:29] laptop or did someone put it in the [91:30] laptop? I think I don't want to say [91:33] anything incorrect here. So, let's just [91:35] make sure that I'm correct or let's just [91:37] find out what the truth is. Is his [91:39] position that they download they hacked [91:43] into his cloud and that's how they got [91:45] all those videos of him like smoking [91:47] crack and going 170 mph and getting foot [91:49] jobs and all that stuff like that. That [91:51] all was in the cloud that wasn't on a [91:54] laptop that he just handed to a repair [91:56] store. that that's a [ __ ] narrative [91:59] to cover for the fact that they hacked [92:01] into his cloud and got all of his photos [92:04] and videos. [92:04] >> He didn't give us the specifics on that [92:05] one. What I do think would have happened [92:07] is maybe you get into the cloud through [92:09] the laptop if you've got access to that [92:11] if you open up the laptop because you [92:12] need to have the the login. [92:14] >> Yeah, [92:15] >> then you can just get into someone's [92:17] still have to [92:18] >> you have to log in once you get the [92:20] laptop. You have to have the passwords. [92:23] >> It's crazy, dude. I mean, I would assume [92:25] he's got some passwords. [92:27] >> Did not [clears throat] have no real [92:28] answer to that. [92:29] >> He did not definitively claim the [92:31] Delaware laptop was hacked or stolen. In [92:33] a 2021 CBS interview, this is a long [92:35] time ago. He said did not know whether [92:37] or not he uh his and floated it was his [92:41] and floated several possibilities, [92:43] including that a laptop was stolen from [92:44] me, that he was hacked, or that Russian [92:47] intelligence was invol Okay, he's doing [92:48] the Russia Russia Russia [ __ ] back then. [92:51] >> That was 2021. You could get away with [92:53] that. get away with anything. [92:54] >> This is also while Joe Biden was the [92:57] president of the United States, right? [92:59] So, there could be a laptop out there [93:00] that was stolen from me. Okay. This this [93:02] is not a good timeline. [93:04] >> You got new [ __ ] [93:06] >> Yeah. The the timeline in the recent [93:08] more recent interviews, I believe his [93:10] position was that the amount of data [93:13] wouldn't even have fit on a laptop and [93:15] that it's [ __ ] And they're calling [93:16] it the laptop, but a lot of it is just [93:18] his personal information that he had [93:21] somewhere that was hacked. So then the [93:23] narrative is not that this guy was so [93:26] cracked out that he had a laptop filled [93:28] with him [93:30] >> had to push it for more clarification. [93:32] >> Okay. In August 2026 interview with [93:34] Tucker Carlson, Biden reportedly said, [93:37] "Hey, reportedly you're perplexity. Come [93:40] on, [laughter] you're supposed to tell. [93:42] Didn't you listen? Did you watch [93:44] Perplexity?" [93:45] >> Uh in August 2026 interview, uh Biden [93:47] reportedly said they hacked my cloud. He [93:50] denied the full collection described as [93:52] his laptop could all have originated [93:55] from one device, saying it was way too [93:57] large. He suggested an unknown actor, [94:00] potentially an intelligence service or [94:02] another person, could have taken digital [94:04] material material rather, and combined [94:07] it with the purported laptop narrative. [94:10] So, that's possible. In a July 2026 [94:12] Substack launch, he wrote that the [94:14] Providence was never established, that [94:16] no court forensics examiner had [94:18] certified a chain of custody sufficient [94:20] to make evidence rather than theater. He [94:23] did acknowledge that material associated [94:25] with reflected his addiction struggles. [94:28] See, there could be a lot of things [94:30] going on. One could be that he was [94:32] cracked out and he left the laptop and [94:33] he doesn't remember being cracked out [94:35] and leaving the laptop. But the idea [94:37] that there's too much data that it [94:39] wouldn't have fit on a laptop. [94:42] The problem with that is there's two [94:44] terabyte hard drives on laptops now. [94:46] Like [94:47] >> that's a lot of data. [94:48] >> What was a uh well this is 2020. Right. [94:52] >> Here's the one thing too I find very [94:53] interesting about it. [94:54] >> What? [94:54] >> It's on the screen. [94:56] >> The guy who uh ran the shop that the [94:59] laptop was supposedly dropped off at [95:02] >> because he's legally blind. He could not [95:04] confirm who the customer was because [95:06] he's legally blind. [95:07] >> Oh, how convenient. [95:10] How convenient. He probably never went [95:12] to that place. It's probably a total [95:14] fake story and they they made up a fake [95:19] story. Maybe they even stole a laptop of [95:21] his. [95:22] >> Well, that the thing that I was most [95:24] fascinated by was he was two years sober [95:26] when that happened. Now, seven. [95:28] >> Allegedly. Although he is tested, I [95:30] think supposedly [95:31] >> by who? Uh, yeah, maybe. [95:33] >> Oh, you look great, son. [95:35] >> He told me it up. [95:36] >> He told me that he packs his bags with a [95:38] witness [95:39] >> when he packs his carryons and stuff. [95:42] >> There's a witness there, too. [95:43] >> Whoa. So, he doesn't get [ __ ] Oh, [95:45] wow. [95:46] >> In case he someone snuck something into [95:48] his bag. Who's going to believe him? [95:49] Like, who's going to believe? [95:50] >> That's crazy. [95:52] >> Yeah. [95:52] >> Imagine living like that, [95:54] >> dude. The amount of scrutiny. That was [95:55] what I was most fascinated by. I was [95:57] thinking, what is it like to have the [95:59] entire world bearing down in you? only [96:01] the world, the the country, the future [96:03] of politics, your dad, your dad's [96:04] legacy. Are you going to get a pardon? [96:06] Who even [ __ ] know? Who cares? [96:07] Probably not. Like, oh my god. [96:09] >> And then there's the reality. [96:10] >> Don't go back to drugs. Don't use your [96:11] drugs again. This is how you would have [96:13] fixed it. This is how you would have [96:14] done it in the past. Two years sober. [96:16] >> Yeah. Oh my god. Two years sober is so [96:19] gentle, too. So dangerous. [96:20] >> You're not even out of the woods. And [96:22] when you think about that whole story, [96:24] how that blew up right before the [96:26] election, [96:28] it could have really been an [96:30] intelligence plot to try to sh sink Joe [96:32] Biden. [96:34] And they countered it. And the way they [96:36] countered it was by blocking the story [96:38] from Twitter, a factual story from the [96:40] New York Post. [96:42] >> This is from CBS News. [96:43] >> Giuliani apparently held the information [96:45] for months and released it less than [96:47] three weeks before the election. [96:49] Giuliani has long been involved in [96:51] efforts by the president and his allies [96:54] to highlight Hunter Biden's work [96:56] overseas to damage Joe Biden and boost [96:58] Mr. Trump's re-election campaign. And in [97:01] 2019 and in 2019 met with a Ukrainian [97:04] lawmaker who has been deemed an active [97:08] Russian agent by the US government. [97:10] >> What is it? The October surprise. That's [97:12] what they call it. [97:13] >> Yeah. Well, each year there's been [97:14] something that the losing side has [97:16] pointed to as the justification for why [97:18] it happened. [97:19] >> Russia Gate, uh, Biden laptop [97:21] suppression, and then in the most recent [97:23] one, it was podcasts, [97:25] >> right? That was well, this is what had [97:26] it not have been for the sway that [97:29] occurred due to this run that was done [97:32] on podcast that that's what moved the [97:34] election each. Now, the real problem [97:36] with that narrative was I don't know [97:38] anybody who wasn't willing to talk to [97:40] Kla Harris. [97:43] >> I was willing toach I tried to talk to [97:45] her a bunch of times [97:46] >> and they tried to pretend that I I made [97:48] it difficult. It's a [ __ ] complete [97:51] horseshit lie. They also lied and they [97:53] said they came down here and checked out [97:55] the studio and did a run of the place. [97:58] They did not. They did not do that. They [98:00] did not. Um Trump's people did. And I've [98:03] said that like if you want to say that [98:05] they knew that someone did it, but I [98:06] don't know how much they're [98:07] communicating with each other. Trump's [98:08] Secret Service people came down and they [98:11] scanned the whole place. They went [98:12] through the whole place before he came [98:14] in. But she's alleging that her people [98:17] did a run of the studio. They did not. [98:19] Her no representatives from her [98:22] organization were ever here [98:23] >> and that it would be insufficiently [98:25] secure or something. Is that what [98:26] >> No, I mean they they said that we were [98:28] making it difficult. I was making it as [98:30] easy as possible. And the one day that [98:32] she offered to do it, I was already [98:34] booked with him. [98:36] >> And I even said I would do it. No [98:37] [ __ ] way. Uhhuh. And I said I would [98:39] do it, but it would have to be She had a [98:41] a gig in Houston. She was doing like a [98:42] speech in Houston. I think that was one [98:44] of the ones where like uh Beyonce came [98:46] out. Everybody thought she was going to [98:47] sing and she didn't. Uh so [98:49] >> everyone got mad. [98:50] >> Yeah. Everyone got mad. So she was [98:51] somewhere else in Texas and I said, [98:54] "Listen, if she when she's done with [98:56] that, I'll do I'll do a podcast at [98:58] midnight. Come on in." I'll go whenever [98:59] you want to do it. I'll do it the next [99:01] day. I'll do it that night. [99:02] >> That would have been one of the wildest [99:03] 24 hours of your life. [99:04] >> I was down to do that and I was going to [99:06] release them both at the exact same [99:07] time. [99:08] >> Unreal. [99:08] >> That was the idea. [99:10] >> But she wasn't willing to do it. They [99:11] even gave me a bunch of things. This is [99:13] also that they didn't tell the truth [99:15] about. There was a bunch of things that [99:17] they said she didn't want to talk about. [99:18] And I said fine. She didn't want to talk [99:21] about her record for prosecuting [99:22] marijuana possession in in California [99:25] and then for using those people that [99:28] were supposed to get released past the [99:30] date that they were released to fight [99:31] wildfires. She didn't want to talk about [99:33] that. Fine. And then there was one other [99:36] one. I forget what the other one was [99:38] about that they didn't want to talk [99:39] about. And then they came back and said [99:41] they did want to talk about marijuana [99:43] legalization. Oh, immigration. They were [99:45] not so keen on talking about [99:47] immigration. Maybe it wasn't [99:48] immigration. Was it immigration, Jamie? [99:49] Do you remember? [99:50] >> I don't remember what the other one was, [99:51] but I was like, "Fine. I'll ask her [99:53] about cooking. I don't give a [ __ ] [99:55] Like, let's talk. Like, I just want to [99:57] sit down across and find out who you [99:59] are. We'll figure it out. We'll figure [100:01] it out. I'll ask you if you believe in [100:02] Jesus. We'll figure it out. Do you [100:04] believe in UFOs? Like, what do you [100:06] think? Well, you could release the [100:07] files. Like, I'll find out who you are. [100:09] Let's go." You know, maybe I like you. [100:12] Maybe no one's had a chance to see you [100:14] for this way. I mean, you can laugh and [100:15] joke around and be like a real person [100:17] instead of like being a person with [100:19] sound bites because you can relax cuz [100:21] you know there's no time constraint. Who [100:22] [ __ ] knows? But we didn't get to find [100:24] out. So to say that like you're blaming [100:26] podcast on her not getting elected. How [100:28] about the fact that you spent 1.4 [100:30] billion [ __ ] dollars and you put [100:33] someone in without a primary and you you [100:36] blew all this money and it and you still [100:39] lost. Like you guys [ __ ] it up. You [100:41] [ __ ] it up. You had all this momentum [100:43] when she had that one speech. It's like, [100:45] "Say it to my face." They were like, [100:47] "YEAH." [groaning] [100:48] LIKE LIKE THEY HAD IT. If she never did [100:51] another [ __ ] speech and never did a [100:53] podcast, never did anything and only did [100:56] pre-prepared like monologues like that. [100:59] >> Game over. [101:00] >> Game over. Game over. Game over. She's [101:03] younger. She's got more energy. She's [101:06] like a new fresh thing. Let's go. [101:09] How much do you think the uh that run of [101:12] podcast for Trump did move the needle? [101:13] Have you got any idea? [101:15] >> It did a lot. I think it did. I think it [101:18] the one [sighs] [101:20] the one with Theo Vaughn I think moved [101:22] the needle first and then the one with [101:24] me I think you got to see him [ __ ] [101:27] around a little and relax and and talk [101:29] about things and you got to see a human [101:31] being instead of like a a cartoon. [101:34] >> But you only got to see one side of the [101:36] election do that. You didn't get to see. [101:38] >> Yeah, you could. That could have [101:39] happened with her, too. Like, I'm not a [101:41] hard interview, man. I'm not I I don't [101:43] want to get in arguments with people. [101:45] I'd like to get in discussions with [101:46] people. I'm not into being insulting. [101:48] I'm not into being shitty. I'm not I'm [101:50] not into doing that. I'm just I just [101:52] wanted to talk. Like, if you want to run [101:54] the president, you you want to be the [101:57] commander-in-chief of the greatest army [101:58] the world's ever known. Like, let's just [102:01] have a conversation. I don't think [102:02] that's that hard to do. And if you can't [102:04] do that, like, well, what are you [102:05] hiding? Who are you? I think it was a [102:08] lot of her people that didn't want her [102:09] to do it. First of all, there was a lot [102:11] of people that are like super woke and [102:13] just didn't want her to and in any way [102:15] to be associated with me. And then there [102:17] was a lot of people that were really [102:18] worried that she was going to say [102:19] something that [ __ ] it up or that we [102:22] were going to get into something that [102:23] she can't defend, [102:24] >> you know, cuz there was a lot of things [102:26] that that really did like make people go [102:28] what? Like when she said she wouldn't [102:30] have done anything different than Joe [102:31] Biden when she was on the view. I don't [102:33] think I'd do anything different. Like [102:34] everybody's like, "OH, GREAT. This is [102:37] nuts. We're trying to vote for you. [102:40] [ __ ] lie to me." [102:43] There was definitely that. And then [102:45] there was there's some, you know, some [102:47] crazy stuff she said, too. Like when she [102:49] was vice president saying like, "How [102:51] dare we say Merry Christmas?" Like you [102:53] you get those clips and you go, "Wait, [102:54] what? Who are you? Who are you? Do you [102:57] believe that? Do you really believe how [102:59] dare we say Merry Christmas?" Or is this [103:01] like a crazy thing that you went through [103:03] that day? Well, it's wild to think I'm [103:05] worried about being too bombastic when [103:07] the person I'm going up against is [103:08] Donald Trump. [laughter] [103:11] >> You know what I mean? [103:12] >> Well, some people they they [ __ ] up a [103:15] few things and then they're terrified [103:17] they're going to [ __ ] up. So, every time [103:19] they do an interview, they're like, I [103:20] don't want to [ __ ] this up. I want to [103:21] [ __ ] this up. And that's when the staff [103:23] gets involved. Like, they wanted one [103:24] staff in the room. I'm like, [ __ ] no. [103:26] No, you can't have staff in the room. [103:28] The [ __ ] out of here. [103:30] [ __ ] out of here. They also want to know [103:32] if it's edited. Like we edit things like [103:34] this. No, [103:36] >> you got to People have to find out who [103:38] the [ __ ] you really are. [103:39] >> But that feels scary because there's no [103:41] get out of jail free. [103:42] >> It's supposed to be scary. You want to [103:43] be the president. [laughter] [103:45] >> You want to be the president. It's the [103:46] scariest thing of all time. [103:47] >> Yeah. [103:48] >> Yeah. [103:49] >> You got you got to deal with potential [103:51] nuclear war. Okay. I think you can sit [103:53] down for a conversation. [103:54] >> Yeah. [103:55] >> It's not even me. Even if it's not me, [103:57] sit down with a bunch of other people, [103:58] but sit down with people that are going [103:59] to ask you real questions. really talk [104:01] to you, you know, like I don't know what [104:04] happened on the caller daddy podcast, [104:05] but I think it was very short and I [104:07] don't think they got into anything deep. [104:09] Like you got to ask like the immigration [104:11] thing was nuts. You have to ask like [104:14] what are you doing? Like why do you guys [104:16] have an open border? Why are you just [104:18] letting all these unvetted people from [104:21] third world crimeinfested poor [104:24] countries, desperate people, desperate [104:27] that want that want to walk to America? [104:29] Do you know how crazy that is? And we're [104:31] just letting them all in without knowing [104:33] how many of them are just trying to make [104:34] a better life and how many of them are [104:36] drug cartel and how many of them are [104:38] terrorists and how many the [ __ ] are you [104:41] doing? [104:42] >> What are you doing? [104:42] >> What's happened with the status of [104:44] immigration now? I know that [104:46] >> they put the brakes on it. They stopped [104:48] like an enormous number of people [104:50] crossing the border. Like an enormous [104:52] number. I think it's down. Like, what is [104:54] it down? Like, how many what is the [104:56] percentage of illegal border crossings [104:59] down since Trump has been in office? [105:01] They could have done it the entire time, [105:03] man. [105:05] They wanted that border open. They [105:07] wanted those people coming in. They [105:09] wanted to flood the census. They wanted [105:10] to flood those swing states. They wanted [105:13] to get people that are here and give [105:15] them citizenship. They wanted to get [105:16] them on Medicaid. They want to get them [105:18] on healthcare. They want to give them [105:19] free cell phones. They wanted to make [105:21] those people voters and they wanted to [105:24] try to just make it like it's [105:26] California, like the whole country is [105:28] California. Like you can never leave, [105:30] you can never escape. It's one party [105:32] runs it forever and they run it terribly [105:34] and it gets more and more terrible and [105:36] they need more and more money to make it [105:38] more and more terrible. [105:40] >> That's not a great case. [ __ ] me. Well, [105:42] I just [105:43] >> Well, it's not the case now, but this is [105:46] not great either. Okay. January 2025, [105:50] Border Patrol recorded 29,000 [105:53] in the first full month of the [105:54] administration. February, that fell to [105:56] 8,000. About a 71% month-to-month [106:00] decline. [106:03] So, [106:06] all told, what's the percentage of [106:08] decline? What's the percentage of [106:10] decline based on 2026 versus 2023? [106:16] Let's find that out. [106:18] 20 oh 2025 versus 2023 [106:24] >> data. Okay, let's see what they say. [106:28] What percentage is it down? [106:33] >> 88%. [106:36] >> 1.8. [106:36] >> It's down 88%. You know how crazy that [106:40] is? That's crazy. [106:45] So they were letting millions of people [106:48] in and we didn't know who they are. And [106:51] you know the idea is like if you want to [106:52] be a kind compassionate person and [106:54] immigrants deserve what you have and [106:56] okay um but we have to know they're not [106:58] murderers folks. Okay. We we can't just [107:00] Have you ever been to like the worst [107:02] places of the third world? Probably not. [107:05] If you did you wouldn't want those [107:06] people just like roaming around your [107:09] neighborhood when you have to leave your [107:11] garage and go to work. You wouldn't want [107:13] that because they they're just like, [107:15] "Oh, the guy's not here. I'll break into [107:16] his house." [107:16] >> Well, how much of this is a luxury [107:18] belief that the people that are [107:19] espousing the things that they're [107:22] supporting aren't the ones that are [107:23] going to be impacted by it? It's the [107:24] same as it's the same as I told you this [107:26] last time I was on, there was a house [107:28] near where I live in Austin that had a [107:31] defund the police sign in the front yard [107:33] and a private security sticker on the [107:35] front window. [laughter] [107:38] >> That's cute. People are cute. Well, [107:41] there's a lot of that. It's a lot of [107:42] white people. White people are a real [107:44] problem. [107:44] >> Wow. That's this [laughter] [107:46] dude. [107:48] >> Privileged white people. [107:49] >> Says it started dropping in 2024 because [107:51] of a Biden uh asylum change or [107:55] something. [107:56] >> Yeah, sure it did. Listen, they probably [107:58] [clears throat] tried to put the brakes [107:59] on it a little bit when they were losing [108:01] the election. You know, when they were [108:03] getting the polls in, they were running [108:05] a little tight. Yeah, for sure. Like [108:07] this. Otherwise, they would have done it [108:09] in 2023. They're not they're doing it [108:12] because of a political reason. They [108:14] probably would have opened it right back [108:15] up if comma one like we know no one's [108:19] illegal on stolen land. Come on in. You [108:21] know it's [108:22] >> Meanwhile, uh Victoria's Secret is up [108:24] 300% yearon-year the share price because [108:27] of OMIC. [108:28] >> I found this out yesterday. [108:30] >> What? [108:30] >> 300% increase [108:32] >> because of Ozmpic. [108:33] >> So what the proposed reason for this is [108:35] that millions of women have lost so much [108:37] weight that their bras have stopped [108:38] fitting. And because they're smaller, [108:40] they're now going and getting more [108:42] seductive underwear. 300% [108:45] increase year on year [108:47] >> hot little stick figures. [108:48] >> That's what's happening, dude. Ompic's a [108:50] [ __ ] hell of a drug. Here's another [108:51] thing I found out that women are getting [108:55] uh bridal dresses fitted, but they're [108:58] having to predict where their weight is [109:00] going to come in to land. So, some women [109:01] are losing up to 50 pounds. They're [109:03] losing so much weight between ordering [109:05] the dress and the wedding that these [109:07] bridal bridal stores are having to get [109:09] them to sign waiverss in case they don't [109:12] make weight like a fighter. Like if you [109:14] don't make weight for your bridal dress, [109:15] you go, "Well, we can't give you another [109:16] one. You've said that you're going to [109:17] lose 50 pounds using GLPs over the next [109:19] 9 months or 12 months or 18 months or [109:21] whatever." And because they're scared [109:23] that they're going to end up getting [109:24] these refunds, they're having to sign [109:26] waiverss. I think the the uh future [109:28] implications of OMIC on economy, [109:31] consumption, like think about what most [109:33] of consumerism is. It's not stuff that [109:36] people need. It's like things that [109:39] people want. It's like a craving. It's [109:41] impulsivity. It's repeated purchase, [109:44] >> right? [109:44] >> And that's exactly what GLPs act on. [109:47] They're not just suppressing appetite. [109:49] They're suppressing craving in a lot of [109:50] different ways. And it's like, what what [109:53] happens to a capitalist system when you [109:56] suppress pharmarmacologically suppress [109:58] craving? I want this thing. Well, maybe [110:01] you don't. Not in quite the same way [110:03] because it seems to work on weed. It [110:04] seems to work on video games. It seems [110:07] to work on a ton of different [110:08] behavioral. People don't like wine as [110:10] much. Okay. So, it's not just calories. [110:12] It's more than that. It's consumerism as [110:14] well. I think what happens when you [110:16] intervene pharmacologically in people's [110:18] uh desire to crave is just [110:22] that is the other the other side. So AI [110:24] on one side and [ __ ] GLPs on the [110:25] other. [110:26] >> Well, they say that some people have [110:28] different reactions to GLP ones, right? [110:30] And some people have a lack of desire [110:32] for relationships. [110:33] >> Mhm. [110:34] >> Which is really creepy. Like you have a [110:37] like What is it about [110:40] is it taking away pleasure? Is it taking [110:42] away excitement? Like what is it taking [110:45] away? Like what [110:48] what's stimulation that you're getting [110:50] by overeing? [110:52] What is it dulling in the process that [110:55] also stops drug addictions? Like it's [110:57] helping people that have addictions and [110:59] it's also helping people that are, you [111:02] know, that have like impulsive behavior [111:04] apparently. I think that's true. [111:06] >> Well, the weird one is the side effects [111:08] of like relationships. like you don't [111:11] >> maybe it's craving again maybe it's the [111:12] same thing I I looked at the the study [111:15] on that came out on X and people were [111:17] talking about it there was some [111:18] criticism around whether or not that [111:20] particular pathway in the brain works [111:21] the way that it would but if if you're [111:23] suppressing craving overall that [111:24] wouldn't surprise me [111:25] >> no [111:26] >> if you're making people just want less [111:29] >> right I don't want that at all Maher was [111:32] arguing with uh Scott Galloway on Real [111:35] Time about that Galloway was like big on [111:38] GLP1s there's benefits people there's, [111:41] you know, I think also the thing is [111:43] dosage. Um, this is an issue and this is [111:46] an issue that's been brought up by uh [111:48] compoundies that there's certain people [111:50] that don't need a big ass dose that [111:53] you're going to get like depending upon [111:55] your body weight, depending upon your [111:57] size, you know, that like a 500 lb man [112:00] probably needs a different dose than a [112:03] 135b 5 foot tall woman. [112:06] >> Is that not being suggested? I don't [112:07] think so. [112:08] >> It's not being advised. [112:09] >> I I I think I think people are starting [112:12] to do it through their various health [112:15] healthcare providers and various doctors [112:17] who have experience with these things [112:18] that are giving people like smaller [112:20] doses and less. And then there's the [112:22] ratuitide stuff. Am I saying that right? [112:24] >> Retatride. [112:25] >> Retatride. Retatu. Retatutide. That one [112:29] is a weird one because that one allows [112:30] you to keep muscle mass. And that's the [112:32] big fear that people have is that you're [112:34] starving yourself, but you're also [112:36] losing losing bone mass and muscle mass. [112:38] >> That's because people who don't have [112:40] good fitness habits are reducing an [112:44] already sub-optimal diet. [112:45] >> They're not eating well and now they're [112:47] eating less of not well. They're still [112:50] not training, which means what happens [112:52] because I think about 90% of people that [112:55] go on GLPs and then come off them gain [112:57] the weight back. Mhm. [112:58] >> So it's you [113:00] >> you don't change your behavior. [113:01] >> You don't change your behavior, but you [113:03] lose muscle on the way down [113:04] >> and gain fat on the way back up, [113:06] >> right? [113:07] >> So if you end up back at the same weight [113:08] that you were previously, your [113:09] compositions was [113:11] >> and that's that's really concerning [113:12] because you're basically locked in to [113:14] use them for the rest of time if if [113:15] that's the case if you can't use [113:16] something else to fix it. I know that [113:18] they were using different things like [113:21] they were using IGF-1 along with GLP1s [113:25] to mitigate the bone density and muscle [113:28] tissue loss. But the reality of having [113:32] less calories coming in than coming out [113:35] is your body's going to eat itself. [113:36] >> I mean, that's what's happening. [113:38] >> Which is why you need to do resistance [113:39] training. [113:39] >> Yeah. You have to you have to lift heavy [113:42] weights. Not heavy, but you have to lift [113:44] something. So you you develop bone [113:46] density. And this is a giant problem [113:48] with older people that have never lifted [113:50] anything is that their body composition [113:52] is just they might look normal, but [113:54] they're made out of dough. You know, you [113:56] could just punch right through them. And [113:58] if they fall down, they're going to get [113:59] hurt, man. [114:00] >> That's not [114:01] >> When people get older, like one of the [114:02] main ways that people die is falling. [114:06] >> What happens? They hit their head. [114:07] >> They hit their heads. They they slip in [114:10] the shower. They slip in the bathtub. [114:11] They hit their heads. They break a hip. [114:13] When you break a hip, man, the odds of [114:15] you living more than 10 years reduced [114:18] drastically. A lot of it is also because [114:20] at the time that you're breaking a hip, [114:22] you're probably [114:22] >> old already. [114:23] >> Yeah. Old already. But there's like real [114:25] data that show that once people have [114:27] fallen and broken a hip, like that's a [114:28] catastrophic injury that you got to [114:31] think of all the resources that your [114:33] body has to use and employ in order to [114:35] heal that. And then there's the [114:37] compromise in movement that you're going [114:38] to have for a long time. [114:39] >> You're going to be able to walk. You're [114:40] going to need assistance. You're not [114:42] going to have the same vitality. You're [114:43] going to be recovering. You're going to [114:44] be exhausted. [114:46] People with Alzheimer's disease are [114:48] substantially higher risk of falling. [114:50] Wow. Falls can be fatal, especially if [114:53] they can cause a hip fracture, head [114:54] injury, or complications from [114:56] hospitalizations or immobility. Research [114:59] indicated that 60 to 80% of older adults [115:01] with Alzheimer's experience a fall, more [115:04] than twice the rate in cognitively [115:06] normal peers. [115:08] There was a late there's a news story [115:10] that came out recently, Jamie, about a [115:11] woman who survived for eight days in a [115:13] bathtub after she fell. [115:16] >> Sure. [115:17] >> Oh my god. [115:18] >> Insane. So had had a tumble and wasn't [115:21] found. I don't know what the [ __ ] she [115:23] was doing in order to be able to stay [115:24] alive. I guess if you're in a bathtub, [115:25] you got some water. [115:26] >> Yeah. Just peeing in the tub and [115:29] drinking the water. [115:30] >> Hoping for the best. [115:30] >> 82 years old. 9 days actually, it says. [115:33] >> Oh my god. [115:34] >> Uh she drank water. She managed to [115:37] splash up onto her face by turning the [115:38] faucet on with her foot. [115:40] >> Oh my god. [115:42] Oh my god. [115:44] >> Nine days in a [ __ ] bathtub. [115:46] >> Crazy. How'd she not die of hypothermia? [115:50] >> I guess you could heat yourself up. [115:51] She's going to run the water. [115:52] >> I guess. I mean, is is she that good at [115:54] turning the knobs with her feet? She [115:56] could [laughter] [115:57] she could scald herself to death. What [115:59] the [ __ ] man? [116:00] >> That in the home rule mountain, North [116:02] Carolina. [116:02] >> Oh my god, that poor lady. Let's get her [116:05] on the podcast. [116:06] >> She survived. [116:06] >> Get her on the podcast, Jamie, before [116:07] Chris does. [laughter] [116:14] >> Poor lady. We probably have to go to [116:16] her. [116:16] >> [ __ ] [116:16] >> Probably have to go to the Appalachian. [116:17] >> That is insane. [116:19] [snorts] [116:19] >> [ __ ] man. There's people that get [116:21] through some [ __ ] [116:24] >> I was looking at the uh the studies of [116:26] how long people have stayed awake for [116:28] like that. That gets really [ __ ] [116:30] gnarly because people go into psychosis. [116:32] That's that that Lindsay Clansancy case [116:34] thing that's going crazy at the moment. [116:36] A lot of that is because of supposedly [116:38] uh sleep deprivation her on a lot of [116:40] antisycchotics etc etc. But you don't [116:42] need to keep people awake for that long [116:44] to turn them insane. If you're awake for [116:47] a couple of days I think all [ __ ] [116:49] hell breaks loose which is why those [116:50] backyard ultras just seem so deranged. [116:52] Do you think how are you even able to [116:54] apply effort to what it is? How are you [116:56] able to make decisions about whether you [116:58] need food or sleep or rest or to go [117:00] harder or to give up? They all have [117:01] hallucinations. They all see things that [117:04] aren't there. Like Courtney Dwalter, she [117:06] won the uh what' she win? The Bigfoot. [117:08] Is that what she won? [117:10] >> She I think when she [117:11] >> when she came on. [117:11] >> Yeah. But uh [117:12] >> she beat the second place dude by 10 [117:15] hours or something crazy. [laughter] [117:19] Imagine you come in second place and [117:21] you're second place by 10 hours. [117:23] >> Yes. [117:23] >> Cuz maybe half a day. [117:24] >> The race is three days long. Three days [117:27] of hell. Well, the the crazy thing about [117:30] endurance is that as you get longer and [117:32] longer, the difference between the sexes [117:34] starts to even out. And I think in [117:35] water, it evens out even quicker because [117:37] women are more buoyant over distances. [117:39] Women are better swimmers. [117:40] >> Makes sense. I sink like a rock. [117:42] >> Well, you don't have the build for [117:44] swimming. [117:44] >> I'm terrible at it. [117:45] >> Yeah. No, you don't have the build. I [117:47] recently learned about um it just come [117:50] to my mind Rory McDonald's walkout [117:52] music. This story where he changed his [117:56] number. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [117:58] >> And hadn't [laughter] updated the UFC. [118:01] >> It's such a great [118:02] >> This is I only found this out. [118:04] >> Yeah. [118:05] >> Were you there at any of those events [118:06] when he was walking? I think he came out [118:07] to like uh uh MC Hammer [laughter] [118:13] >> and people asked him, apparently he got [118:15] rumbled because he wanted Nickelback and [118:17] they asked him afterwards. They were [118:18] like, "Sorry, we couldn't get your [118:19] nickel back." And he said, "I didn't ask [118:20] for [ __ ] nickel back." They worked it [118:22] out and it was just some guy that was a [118:23] fan that was deciding to submit songs. [118:25] Yeah. on Rory McDonald's behalf. [118:27] >> The guy got Rory's old number and Rory [118:31] never bothered telling the UFC. And this [118:32] guy knew who Rory was and he was just so [118:35] jazzed up that he could pick Rory's [118:36] walking music and the guy had a good [118:38] sense of humor. So he'd pick some whack [118:40] songs. [118:41] >> DMC, MC Hammer, the DMX, sorry, MC [118:44] Hammer. [118:44] >> Well, DMX is great. MC Hammer's great. I [118:46] mean, some people love those songs. [118:49] >> I think Nickelback's got legs as well, [118:50] >> bro. Nickelbacks has some good songs. [118:52] It's just they're formulaic and people [118:54] don't like formulaic songs. There's some [118:57] something about them that people think [118:58] is too much of a formulaic song. But [119:00] like how come you like the Cypress Hill [119:03] Rockstar song, but you don't like the [119:06] Rockstar song? It's like the same song. [119:08] The Nickelback song and Cypress Hill are [119:11] the same song. [119:13] >> Does it? [119:13] >> It's the [laughter] same song. [119:15] >> Like [119:16] >> it's the same song. It's the same song. [119:18] It's the same premise. It's about being [119:20] a rockstar. all the crazy [ __ ] that [119:21] you're going to do if you I want to be a [119:23] rockstar and I want all this cool [ __ ] [119:25] Look, the Cypress Hill is a better song. [119:28] I'm a big Cypress Hill fan. I if you if [119:31] I'm getting to choose. [119:32] >> He also starts off with Chino talking [119:33] like there's [snorts] not many songs [119:34] that have Chino Marino from the Deft [119:36] Tones. [119:36] >> That's true. [119:37] >> Speaking. [119:38] >> That's true. He's laying out what you [119:40] need to do to be a rock star that [119:42] there's a lot. But like, okay, we can't [119:44] play this for everybody else, but just [119:46] for you and me. [119:47] >> Which one? We're gonna We'll start off [119:50] with Nickelback. Start off with [119:52] Nickelback. [119:53] >> Nickelback rockstar. [119:55] >> So [ __ ] happy about this. There's a [119:56] conspiracy theory that Nickelback got [119:58] taken down to demoralize America after [120:01] 9/11. [120:02] >> That's hilarious. [120:04] >> Canadian. [120:04] >> Well, but it was American [laughter] [120:06] American like uh uh thrust forward into [120:09] the world. That kind of freedom rock. [120:11] Well, [120:11] >> there were always a punch line. [120:12] >> Allow me to get you down the rabbit [120:14] hole. [120:15] >> The limp biscuit Woodstock one is a fun [120:17] one. [120:18] that. Oh, hold on. Let me It's trying to [120:20] load. [120:21] >> So, [snorts] we'll listen to the [120:22] Nickelback Rockstar song first. Here we [120:24] go. Go to Cypress Hill. [laughter] [120:28] >> It's the same song. [120:30] >> It's the same song. [120:31] >> Disrespectful. [laughter] [120:32] >> No, I love Cypress, bro. B-roll is my [120:35] boy. I love that dude. They're the [ __ ] [120:37] I [ __ ] love these guys. [120:39] >> A lot of uh [120:41] >> I forgot how hard that song was. [120:43] >> It's It's a way better song. It's a way [120:45] better song. You know, you one of the [120:46] dopest covers ever. Rage Against the [120:48] Machine covered Pistol Grip Pump. Have [120:51] you ever heard that? Okay, while we're [120:53] doing this, since nobody can listen to [120:54] this, [120:55] >> just throw up this. This is one of my [120:57] favorite Cypress Hill covers where Rage [120:59] Against Machine covered Cypress Hill. [121:01] It's [ __ ] fantastic. [121:04] It's [ __ ] fantastic. It's better than [121:07] the original. That goes hard. [121:10] >> I'd never heard that. [121:10] >> That goes hard. [121:11] >> That's so [ __ ] [121:12] >> That's one of the dopest covers ever. [121:14] There is a What do we Jamie's gonna [121:17] >> It's like they had an assignment. It's [121:19] like Cypress Hill and Nickelback had an [121:22] assignment. I want you to write a song [121:24] about how dope it is to be a rock star. [121:26] You want to be a rockstar. You want all [121:27] this cool [ __ ] right? But Cypress Hill [121:29] took it from the position of like all [121:32] all you're going to suffer, all you're [121:33] going to lose, you want this, you don't [121:35] know how hard it is. And Nickelback is [121:37] like, "Hey, hey, I want to be a rockar." [121:40] It's fluffy. [121:41] >> It's a little fluffy. Yeah. But it's [121:43] kind of like an assignment. [121:45] >> It is interesting trying to warm people [121:46] off of something that everybody thinks [121:49] they want. There's this uh study that [121:52] was done on when people enter airplanes [121:55] and they walk through business class, [121:58] economy walks through business class, [121:59] there's an eight times increase in [122:01] passenger rage incidents. [122:03] So it's a reminder of your place in the [122:05] status hierarchy. [122:06] >> Yeah. And I think it becomes very [122:08] difficult when trying to warm people off [122:11] of like the rich person telling you that [122:13] money won't fix your problems or the [122:15] famous person telling you that status [122:17] isn't going to change your self worth or [122:19] the beautiful person telling you that [122:21] looks aren't going to actually make you [122:22] feel more valuable in the world. A lot [122:24] of the time when when people hear that [122:25] it sounds like a a luxury belief. It [122:27] sounds like someone trying pulling the [122:29] ladder up after they've managed to [122:30] achieve it. And that's why I don't know [122:33] the the rockstar that reminds you why [122:36] it's so cool and this is what you could [122:38] get. [122:40] Rolling Stone ranked Rockstar at number [122:42] 100 in their list of the hundred best [122:44] songs of 2007. But [122:46] >> but Buzzfeed listed it as number two as [122:49] one of the 30 worst songs ever written. [122:52] >> H [122:53] >> is it really though? I think they're [122:55] unjustly criticized Nickelback. They're [122:58] not that bad. [122:59] >> They're coming back around now. They're [123:00] coming back. [123:01] >> Nostalgia is bringing them back for [123:02] sure. [123:02] >> Yeah, [123:03] >> they're not that bad. [123:05] >> Do you know why people like had an issue [123:06] with them, I guess, back in the day? No. [123:08] >> Well, so I mean, this was happening when [123:09] I was in audio school, so that was like [123:11] when YouTube started, you know, uh, [123:14] Napster was very big and people were [123:16] discovering them. It's I mean it's a [123:18] little bit of opinion based but there [123:20] was a video that came out that went very [123:21] viral and that played one Nickelback [123:23] song in the left speaker and one in the [123:25] right speaker [123:25] >> and they lined up very on the like every [123:30] uh chord change was kind of like at the [123:32] same time the verses change at the same [123:34] time. [123:35] Yeah. It was very formulaic. So people [123:37] just sort of like [123:38] >> clown them for being too formulaic. [123:40] >> Yeah, I get that. engineers would even [123:42] say that they didn't like that because [123:44] they were recording what they call in [123:45] the box, which would mean they were [123:47] recording everything uh very dry and [123:49] then changing all of the effects after [123:52] the fact. So like nothing that they were [123:54] playing was like live necessarily. And [123:56] so some people had a problem with that. [123:57] >> I get it. That said, [124:00] >> they're not the stones, but [124:01] >> they're not the Stones. [124:02] >> White people music. [124:03] >> They're not Pink Floyd, you know. I get [124:04] it. [124:05] >> It's white people music. It's [124:09] 98 IQ max. [laughter] [124:12] >> You can't say that. You can't say that. [124:14] >> Yeah, I just did. [124:15] >> Look, I uh [124:16] >> a lot of that's a good percentage of the [124:18] population, son. [124:19] >> That's Look, I I can listen to some 98 [124:22] IQ music. I I like me some of that. [124:23] >> What do you think? I mean, max I'm [124:25] saying max [124:27] >> other people like it's okay. You know, [124:30] you can have a high IQ and go that's all [124:31] right. But you're like Nickelback. [124:34] >> Wow. What is high IQ music? Pink Floyd [124:37] for sure. Well, jazz I don't know. You [124:39] know, jazz is interesting because I know [124:41] a couple dumb people that love jazz. [124:43] >> Um, I mean, a lot of brilliant people [124:45] love jazz also. Tulle Tool's very high [124:47] IQ music. If if you're into like metal, [124:49] probably a little disturbed. You're a [124:51] little disturbed. You're a little mad at [124:52] your parents. [124:53] >> Eric Weinstein brought up the Polifia. [124:55] >> I [ __ ] love Polifia. Tim Henson [124:57] rules, dude. [124:59] >> That's I don't you have to be thinking a [125:01] lot to even like [125:02] >> It's not passive listening. Right. [125:04] >> Is not passive listening. [125:06] >> Um, God, there's a lot of great bands, [125:08] man. [125:08] >> But I don't know what's high IQ music in [125:10] that way. Like that's popular as well. [125:12] >> I'm being silly, obviously. [125:14] >> But I was trying to think about what [125:16] that would be if it Beethoven, something [125:18] more refined. [125:19] >> I don't know. To [125:20] >> to me, that's the most fascinating music [125:22] is music when there was no recordings. I [125:24] am fascinated by the fact that these [125:26] people wrote down music on paper so that [125:30] other people could replicate it and [125:32] that's how they passed on these amazing [125:34] songs that people still play in concerts [125:37] today. There was no ability to record. [125:41] >> Well, think about what stories would [125:43] have been like before we had the written [125:45] word. There's a, you know, there's a lot [125:46] of really popular mag musicians, rather [125:48] not magicians, um, musicians who, uh, [125:52] don't know how to read music. [125:55] >> They don't have to. [125:56] >> I can just draw them out on my digital [125:58] workspace on my laptop. [126:00] >> Yeah. They know how to play an [126:02] instrument. They know what the sounds it [126:03] makes. I don't have to see those [ __ ] [126:05] [ __ ] lines. [laughter] [126:06] [ __ ] is that? [126:07] >> Yeah. Classically trained. Yeah. I mean, [126:10] everybody loved the idea of being a [126:12] savant renaissance guy sort of outside [126:14] of the system coming in and and breaking [126:16] the rules in that way. I wonder how [126:17] often that happens at the highest level. [126:19] Like [126:20] >> at the highest level, it's Hrix. Because [126:22] Hrix played a guitar upside down, [126:25] left-handed. [126:26] >> Why? Cuz he was left-handed. So, he [126:29] played a right-handed guitar upside [126:31] down. You ever see the way he played [126:33] guitar? I don't know jack [ __ ] about [126:35] playing guitar, by the way. This is [126:36] explained to me. I think Weinstein was [126:38] the first person to explain it to me, [126:40] >> but uh pull up Hendrick's playing the [126:41] guitar. [126:43] >> He would play it upside down [126:44] >> because it was, you know, not built for [126:47] him and it didn't matter. He self-taught [126:50] and to this day widely regarded as the [126:54] greatest guitarist of all time and the [126:55] most influential guitarist guitarist by [126:58] far. [126:58] >> The most like he was he was a freak. [127:02] Like when he came along, I mean Eric [127:03] Clapton famously said that he made him [127:05] want to quit. [127:07] That's That guitar is upside down, dog. [127:10] [laughter] [127:10] >> Jesus. I didn't know that. [127:12] >> Yeah. I mean, I don't know if all of his [127:14] guitars were upside down or, you know, [127:16] some some of them were actual [127:17] left-handed guitars, [127:19] >> but I think he played upside down. [127:21] >> Hrix was left-handed, but typically used [127:23] readily available right-handed [127:25] stratcasters. He reversed the [127:26] instrument. This put the headstock [127:29] controls, bridge angle, and pickup [127:30] orientation in unusual positions [127:32] relative to a conventional left-handed [127:35] guitar. Isn't that wild? [127:36] >> Yeah. [127:37] >> Fender, look at this. Fender's um [127:40] Hendrickk signature stratcaster [127:42] recreates some of these visual and [127:43] functional details, including a reverse [127:46] headstock and reverse slant bridge [127:48] pickup. Imagine like such a [127:51] >> still turned around. [127:53] >> No, I mean I think they did it his way. [127:56] >> Wow. I think they replicated it his way [127:58] cuz like if you're a [ __ ] a guitar [128:01] nut and you love Hendricks like I want [128:03] to like why does this guitar [ __ ] [128:05] This guitar's backwards. Like Hendrickx [128:08] doesn't play it like this. I'd want to [128:09] learn on a Hendrickx guitar. [ __ ] yeah. [128:11] >> Yeah. Yeah. I uh I know I I've been [128:14] thinking a lot about like how we assume [128:17] that wisdom compounds over time. So I [128:19] guess not too dissimilar to that. We [128:21] have this uh epistemic privilege that we [128:23] give to a future version of ourselves, [128:25] right? So we assume that us now knows [128:27] more than us in the past or that us in [128:29] the future will know more than us now [128:31] that sort of progress goes in that way. [128:33] But for some things like matters of [128:36] emotion or important life lessons [128:38] especially things around pain I don't [128:41] think that that's true. So for instance [128:42] you could imagine that you're in a [128:43] relationship with somebody and it's [128:45] really painful. It's really [128:46] uncomfortable and after six months you [128:48] bump into them again and you can't quite [128:51] remember the sleepless nights and the [128:53] way that things felt awkward and the [128:54] pain in the same way as you used to and [128:56] you start think well maybe I should [128:58] maybe I should get back with them maybe [128:59] maybe that's maybe it wasn't so bad or [129:01] uh the guy that works in a very [129:02] aggressive job highowered highpaced job [129:05] and he's burned out and he can't sleep [129:07] and a year later he misses the status he [129:10] misses the acclaim he misses the [129:11] accolades he misses the camaraderie of [129:13] working in that organization and he [129:15] thinks, "Well, maybe I could get back. [129:16] Maybe I could start again at a [129:17] competitor. Maybe I could do that [129:18] again." Or someone that's been addicted [129:20] to alcohol and after they've been sober [129:23] for a couple of years, they think, "Huh, [129:24] maybe I should uh maybe I should run [129:26] that back. Maybe it wasn't that big of a [129:27] deal. Maybe I can do it again." So, [129:29] there's this sort of fading affect bias, [129:32] which is this idea from psychology that [129:34] says bad memories fade with time, but [129:37] good memories don't quite the same way. [129:39] And it's good because it protects us [129:40] from being pinned underneath trauma that [129:42] happened in the past. you know, you're [129:44] not still so worried about your first [129:46] rejection from a girl in the same way as [129:48] you might have been shortly after that. [129:50] So, uh, bad memories plus time can equal [129:53] comedy, but good memories plus time [129:55] doesn't usually equal tragedy is kind of [129:56] a way to think about it. That's great. [129:58] It's like a psychological immune system. [130:00] >> Got it. [130:00] >> We distance ourselves from things. We [130:02] minimize them, and it's a a really [130:04] fundamental part of the way that we deal [130:06] with pain and difficulty in life. One of [130:08] the problems is it causes us to forget [130:11] the receipts of why we did the hard work [130:13] in the first place. So if you think [130:17] about why you worked so hard to get [130:19] yourself off of the alcohol, that was [130:21] because of the pain that you felt at the [130:22] time. But the pain that you felt at the [130:24] time evaporates the further that you are [130:26] away from it, which is the reason that [130:28] you actually made all of that work and [130:31] put yourself through that process to [130:32] improve your life. So you could imagine [130:34] that um healing gets rid of the [130:37] justification that made the healing [130:38] necessary. So it's just this strange [130:40] inversion that we always assume us in [130:42] the future is going to be better [130:43] educated than us now, [130:44] >> right? [130:45] >> We know more. Like that's the way that [130:46] it works. Like yeah, of course I I've [130:48] accumulated more experience. I know [130:49] more. I'm closer to the future version [130:52] of me, which means that it's more [130:53] recent. But in some things, especially [130:55] matters of pain, discomfort, [130:57] emotionality, [130:59] being in the future actually means being [131:00] further away from the evidence. And I [131:02] often think about this when you see [131:04] people that kind of seem to loop [131:06] themselves back into bad situations. [131:08] Someone that keeps on getting back into [131:09] a bad relationship. Someone that keeps [131:10] on getting back into a bad relationship [131:12] with substances or a job or they just [131:15] keep on they seem to be stuck. And I [131:17] don't think it's that they're not [131:17] moving. I think it's that they're sort [131:19] of looping back. They're forgetting the [131:21] justification for why they needed to [131:23] stop doing this thing. Yeah. This idea [131:25] that uh healing destroys its receipts [131:27] and this fading affect bias being kind [131:29] of the mechanism that works on it. I [131:31] found it pretty fascinating when [131:32] thinking about observing my friends [131:34] lives. [131:35] >> That is fascinating. But I think there's [131:36] also an element of people finding [131:38] comfort in familiar patterns. And [131:40] sometimes those familiar patterns are [131:42] just failure. They find comfort in [131:44] failure. They find comfort in falling [131:46] off the wagon. It's too difficult. The [131:48] stress of not drinking is so strong. [131:51] It's so much they can't handle it. Just [131:52] give me a [ __ ] drink. Jesus Christ. [131:55] You know, there's a lot of people that [131:57] just the pressure of success and not [132:00] [ __ ] up is so scary and so daunting [132:03] and just maintaining that they fall into [132:05] these self-destructive patterns. [132:07] >> Why do you think that's the case? [132:08] >> I don't know. You'd have to talk to a [132:10] psychologist, but it seems to be a [132:11] reoccurring pattern with people seeking [132:13] comfort in in familiar patterns that are [132:17] failure patterns that like maybe it [132:19] takes pressure off of them to succeed. [132:22] Because for some people, the idea of [132:23] succeeding, the idea of getting it's [132:25] like it's so overwhelming. It's it [132:28] scares them. It it gives them anxiety. [132:30] It [ __ ] them up all the time. And when [132:31] they start doing well, hey, 333 days [132:34] sober and you start saying things like [132:36] that and then next thing you just pops [132:38] into your head, I want a [ __ ] Marbor [132:40] and I want a beer and I want to go to [132:43] the bar and see my friends and you just [132:45] want to go. [132:46] >> Well, that feels like comfort, right? I [132:47] suppose there is a a curse with [132:50] competence. It's it's interesting when [132:51] you see people that are kind of down on [132:52] their luck and it makes sense that maybe [132:55] they might hit the bottle or they might [132:57] uh rely on bad suboptimal habits, but [133:02] when someone's really competent and you [133:04] keep on seeing them fall back, that's [133:05] what's particularly interesting. Oh, [133:06] look, you've got something else. You [133:07] have an alternative here. [133:09] >> That's what's really interesting to me. [133:10] But I think that um if you're the sort [133:12] of person that's good at things [133:14] >> and stuff typically goes well, [133:16] >> success doesn't become a reason for [133:18] celebration. It's the minimum level of [133:20] acceptable performance, [133:22] >> right? It's a curse of competence. [133:25] >> Success itself is what you have to aim [133:27] for. And anything less than success [133:28] would be a failure and success itself is [133:31] nothing more than acceptable. [133:33] >> Right? [133:33] >> That creates a a really perverse [133:35] incentive which is I can only not lose. [133:38] I can't ever win. It's this sort of [133:40] debt. you wake up every single day [133:42] behind and only if you dominate the day [133:44] perfectly do you get yourself back up to [133:46] the minimum level of acceptable [133:47] performance which is perfection and I [133:50] think the perfectionism is kind of on [133:52] the rise at the moment. There's a bunch [133:53] of studies. I've had a few guests on the [133:55] show talking about it and that is [133:58] >> how relatively what do you mean by it's [134:01] on the rise [134:02] >> perfectionism [134:02] >> versus uh the I mean the the studies [134:05] that have been done on it looking at [134:06] perfectionism as a personality trait. [134:08] There's a few different types of [134:09] perfectionism. There's personal [134:11] perfectionism. I must be perfect and [134:13] there's other perfectionism as well that [134:15] people around me must be perfect too. [134:17] And that can be particular. But [134:18] >> how are they measuring the effect of [134:20] perfectionism? like how are they [134:22] measuring how people enacted in their [134:25] lives? [134:26] >> It's on the rise. [134:27] >> It's a psychological scale. So they can [134:29] have a a survey survey questions things [134:31] like um if I do not do if I don't [134:35] succeed that means I am a failure. I [134:37] must ensure that everything is [134:39] controlled. So there's a a criteria list [134:42] >> right? But who are they asking? You know [134:44] I mean depending upon who you're asking [134:46] you're going to get a higher version a [134:47] higher number. you know, if you're [134:49] asking people in West Virginia and [134:51] trailer parks versus someone who's [134:53] working on Wall Street, you know what I [134:55] mean? You're going to get different. [134:57] It's like, what's the sample size? [134:59] >> Well, I'd be I'd like to think that [135:00] they're doing it representatively, but [135:02] you might be right. There might not be. [135:03] Uh, but anyway, I just certainly from [135:06] what I can see, this desire that people [135:08] have to I'm in a capitalist society, [135:11] meritocracy, if I can make myself more [135:13] important, more successful, that means [135:14] I'm going to get accolade. Please, [135:16] please, please. And this goes back to [135:17] the poverty parade thing, right? If [135:18] you're walking through business class to [135:21] get to economy, you're reminded [135:23] >> you're reminded of your place within the [135:24] hierarchy. There's also some really [135:26] interesting data around if you're in a [135:29] high income inequality area, uh, [135:32] self-objectification by selfies from [135:34] women on Instagram goes up. [135:36] >> And this is a huge study by Candace [135:39] Blake over in Australia. And they did a [135:41] correlation. It might have been on [135:42] Twitter rather than on Instagram. And [135:44] they looked at geoloccating images, [135:47] ranked them based on [135:48] self-objectification, and then looked at [135:50] the wealth inequality in that local [135:51] area. Higher wealth inequality, more [135:53] self-objectification. [135:55] >> Which side is doing the [135:57] self-objectification? [135:59] >> Women, but women that are poorer or [136:01] women that are wealthier, [136:02] >> all women. [136:02] >> All women. [136:03] >> All women in that area because, and the [136:06] proposed mechanism is you can see not [136:08] just how high you could climb, look at [136:10] the inequality on the top end, but how [136:12] low you could potentially fall. Oh, to [136:14] on the bottom [136:15] >> gets you motivated. [136:16] >> Gets you motivated. Yeah. And and that [136:18] is the same thing. It's I think it's a [136:20] similar sort of mechanism. If you see [136:21] high inequality, perfectionism is [136:23] another escape hatch. That's another [136:25] ejector seat that you can pull. If [136:26] you're not going to use uh your assets [136:30] to get you access, maybe you could just [136:31] do it yourself. You could bootstrap it [136:33] yourself to lift yourself off the launch [136:34] pad. And yeah, the perfectionism thing [136:37] is kind of fascinating to me because I [136:39] think it's it means that people never [136:41] really get to escape from the standards [136:44] that they set. And if you're good at [136:45] stuff, it becomes even harder because [136:47] the minimum level of acceptable [136:48] performance is just perfection, right? [136:51] [snorts] [136:53] Not sure how I feel about that. First of [136:55] all, I think a lot of that has got to be [136:56] motivated by social media. That's a big [136:58] part of it because now you're getting to [137:00] see what everybody has, what everybody's [137:02] doing. see what they look like, see [137:03] their house, see their car, see their [137:04] this, see all these things, these [137:06] objects of desire. So that I think [137:09] accelerates people's desires and wants [137:12] and then you also get unrealistic beauty [137:14] expectations from the internet, uh, [137:16] particularly social media apps that use [137:18] filters, right? You're getting a very [137:20] distorted perception of what people look [137:21] like. And so that probably accelerates [137:24] the amount of plastic surgery women get [137:27] and amount amount of things that people [137:29] are willing to do. Probably the amount [137:30] of steroids that young men do, [137:32] >> you know, all that stuff. Um, but [137:36] you know, the idea of perfectionism, [137:39] like what are we talking about? If [137:40] you're talking about pursuit of an in [137:42] excellence of a sport or of some sort of [137:46] a discipline, some sort of a thing you [137:48] do, people have always done that. [137:49] There's always been like outliers who [137:51] are trying to be the very best ever at [137:53] something, [137:54] >> you know, that's always going to be the [137:55] case. And we celebrate that because when [137:58] you know there's a guy like Larry Bird [137:59] that keeps hitting those three-pointers, [138:01] every's like [ __ ] Remember when I was a [138:03] kid, people would throw garbage into the [138:06] um little garbage baskets at school and [138:08] they would go Larry Bird, [laughter] you [138:10] know, like they wanted to be like Larry. [138:12] They wanted to be like Michael Jordan. [138:14] They wanted to be like Mike Tyson. [138:15] People celebrate the outliers. They [138:17] celebrate these excellent people that [138:19] stand above and beyond. [138:20] >> There is some article about it. I don't [138:21] know how they figured it out yet, but [138:23] >> interesting. [138:24] >> There's a says it's been growing since [138:26] 1989. [138:27] >> This is hilarious. Perfectionism is a [138:29] public health risk. It's associated with [138:32] increased depression and anxiety. [138:35] Yeah. Yeah. You're going to be depressed [138:37] and anxious if you're trying to achieve [138:40] perfection. But I don't know if that's [138:43] bad. like it's really about whether or [138:46] not you can manage your [ __ ] mind. [138:49] >> That's interesting there. So there's uh [138:51] perfectionism has increased in different [138:53] rates. Perfectionistic concerns, fear of [138:55] failure, indecisiveness, and fear of [138:57] being negatively judged by others [138:58] increase much faster than [139:00] perfectionistic strivings, the [139:01] motivation to set extremely high [139:03] standards and work hard to achieve them. [139:04] So that's I guess maybe the difference [139:07] between what you're thinking about which [139:08] is kind of positive perfectionism [139:10] wanting to set a goal and chase after it [139:12] as opposed to fear of failure, [139:14] indecisiveness, and fear of being judged [139:16] negatively by others. [139:17] >> Yeah, that's the big one, right? The [139:19] fear of being judged by others is a real [139:22] fear because of social media. Go back. [139:24] Stop. Stop. But when they they say it [139:26] increased much faster than perfectionist [139:29] strivings. So the problem with the [139:31] perfectionist strivings is then you have [139:33] to have delayed gratification. You have [139:35] to have the ability to say I don't want [139:38] to do this today but I want this in the [139:40] future. So I'm going to do this today so [139:42] that in the future I can succeed. That's [139:45] abstract. That's hard for a lot of [139:47] people to grasp if they've never gone [139:49] through a process before. If they've [139:52] never trusted a process of improvement. [139:54] This is one of the reasons why sports [139:56] are so important for young people or any [139:58] kind of pursuit like learning how to [139:59] play guitar or learning learning [140:01] anything that's difficult to learn [140:03] because you realize there's a process. [140:04] You realize you start off sucky and then [140:06] you get better over time. But if you're [140:08] never doing anything like that, if [140:10] you're just existing and you've never [140:12] been challenged to try to improve at [140:14] something that's very difficult, you [140:16] don't understand the striving, the [140:18] perfectionist striving. And even that [140:20] term, I don't like that term. Excellence [140:22] is a better term. You're striving for [140:24] excellence. Perfection is not possible [140:27] in anything. There's no there's nothing [140:29] perfect that no matter what you do, [140:33] there's always going to be a failure. [140:34] There's it's a human error. There's [140:36] always going to be you you might get to [140:38] like here's a perfect example. In uh [140:42] games of pool, like in professional pool [140:44] matches, the rarest of rare matches is a [140:48] match where a guy runs out the entire [140:50] set. That means like say if you and I [140:53] are playing a race to 10, okay, which [140:56] means the first guy to be make 10 games [140:58] in a row. If you're really good, you [141:01] might break and have an open run on the [141:05] first rack and break and have an open [141:07] run on the second rack and break it up. [141:09] You might run 10 racks in a row. It's [141:12] been done. Earl Strickland did it for a [141:14] million dollars. [141:15] >> He won a million dollars at a tournament [141:18] and they wind up [ __ ] him. But Earl [141:19] Stricken's like one of the greatest pool [141:21] players of all time. But they they had a [141:23] million dollar uh insurance policy. If [141:26] someone could run 10 racks to make the [141:27] tournament more exciting, 10 racks in a [141:29] row, they won a million dollars. Well, [141:31] Earl Strickland was is a mad genius. And [141:33] like he's one of the greatest players of [141:35] all time. And he knew there was a [141:36] million dollars in the lines. This [141:37] [ __ ] came focused and he broke [141:39] and ran a 10 pack and they didn't want [141:42] to pay him. Like this is [ __ ] And [141:43] but it was on film. Whole thing's crazy. [141:45] But that's a thousand. Nobody does that. [141:49] And if you do it, you're going to fall [141:50] apart in the next game. You You'll have [141:52] a never another match like the next day. [141:54] You're never going to be perfect. You're [141:56] always going to miss. It's just humans. [141:58] You There's going to be error. You know, [142:01] >> Michael Jordan, as good as he was, [142:02] didn't make every basketball. You know, [142:04] Mike Tyson lost fights. You're you're a [142:06] human. There's no perfection, but there [142:08] is [142:09] >> excellence. And that's what people are [142:11] pursuing really. I don't like that term, [142:13] >> perfectionism. I I think what's maybe [142:16] useful about the term is that it uh [142:19] because that is the term it belies the [142:21] futility of pursuing it. It's like in in [142:25] in containing it, it kind of mocks the [142:27] the pursuit of it itself. [142:28] >> Exactly. Because it look it is [142:30] ridiculous when you're talking about [142:31] appearance. It's ridiculous when you [142:33] talk about frivolous things that are [142:34] meaningless. [142:35] >> But when you're talking about Magnus [142:36] Walker playing ch or Magnus Carlson [142:38] playing chess, that's that means [142:40] something. Like that's a crazy thing [142:42] that that guy's able to do. That pursuit [142:45] of extreme excellence is celebrated. [142:48] When Messi plays soccer, you know, when [142:50] when when someone is an outlier, like we [142:52] love that. So this idea that you [142:54] shouldn't love the most excellent of [142:57] excellent people that are the most [142:58] celebrated in society. And there's a [143:00] problem with people chasing excellence. [143:02] Like, [143:03] >> okay, look, if if you're saying there's [143:05] a problem with people chasing perfect [143:07] appearances because then you get [143:08] dysmorphia and you start looking at [143:10] yourself all weird and then you get [143:11] anorexia or you you getting your lips [143:13] done, you don't know they're too big. [143:15] That Yeah, that's [ __ ] up. That [143:16] pursuit of perfection is insane. The the [143:19] perfection of But we're not we're not [143:22] capable of achieving perfection. We are [143:24] capable of achieving excellence. So, if [143:27] you call it perfection, it sounds like [143:28] it's a problem. If you call it [143:29] excellence, [143:30] >> sounds like a pursuit. [143:31] >> Yeah. [143:32] Uh Federra, really interesting stat that [143:35] I found out about him. He won maybe [143:38] about 80 85% of the matches that he [143:42] played across his entire career. [143:43] >> Crazy. [143:44] >> But he only won about 56% of the points. [143:50] That's the edge. And you have to be a [143:52] madman to work hard enough to beat [143:55] everybody 85% of the time. You have to [143:58] be a mad man. How many [ __ ] people [143:59] are playing tennis? How many freak [144:01] athletes are out there [ __ ] whacking [144:03] balls all day doing sprints, lifting [144:05] weights? [144:06] >> Nearly 50% of the points that you [144:08] played. [144:08] >> Crazy. [144:09] >> I [ __ ] love that stat. Yeah, there's [144:11] this this great line that the curse of [144:13] discipline is that every day looks the [144:15] same and the curse of indiscipline is [144:17] that every year looks the same. [144:19] >> Oo, I like that. [144:21] >> And I've been thinking about the [144:22] relationship between uh discipline, [144:24] motivation, and obsession. So, I think [144:26] obsession is kind of very misunderstood. [144:30] It's feared by a lot of people, even the [144:32] people that have got it. Sometimes [144:34] >> it's also dismissed by people that wish [144:37] they had it and they don't have it and [144:39] they mock it. [144:40] >> How so? [144:41] >> Because they they look at someone who's [144:43] like obsessed with doing something and [144:44] like he's [ __ ] lost his whole life [144:47] playing that stupid game or he's given [144:49] up his whole life for his music. Like [144:52] what's the point? [144:53] >> Like there's a lot of people that want [144:55] to dismiss the outliers. Maybe they [144:57] don't like the way they stack up against [144:59] them. [145:00] >> If someone's like the best at something, [145:02] you watch some guy that can just do this [145:04] thing that no one else can do the way he [145:06] does it. Like there's a bunch of people [145:08] that celebrate it for sure, but there's [145:10] always going to be a bunch of people [145:11] that think there's something wrong with [145:12] it. [145:12] >> Being threatened by obsession is kind of [145:14] interesting. So, everybody wants to I I [145:17] think it's to do with your relationship [145:19] with friction. So, discipline is [145:21] friction accepted. It's like I will [145:24] force myself to do the thing regardless [145:26] of how hard it is. Motivation would be [145:30] friction removed which is like I want to [145:32] do the thing [145:33] >> and then obsession is friction inverted [145:36] like I can't not do the thing. I'm [145:38] pulled toward it. It's harder for me to [145:41] not train than it is for me to train. [145:43] It's harder for me to not play guitar [145:45] than it is for me to play guitar. [145:47] >> So it's all about that relationship. And [145:48] this is why I think people get so [145:50] confused because from the outside [145:54] obsession can look a lot like someone [145:56] just using a [ __ ] ton of discipline, [145:58] just gritting their teeth and getting [145:59] through it. What you don't realize from [146:01] the inside they have no choice, [146:02] >> right? [146:03] >> They have no choice but to do it. All [146:04] that they want, they go to sleep [146:06] thinking about it. They wake up thinking [146:07] about it. Yeah. They have no [146:10] >> there is no way that they can stop [146:11] themselves from doing this thing. And [146:13] this is why it's dangerous. obsession [146:14] gets a bad rap because if it's pointed [146:16] toward politics or porn or your ex [146:18] >> or video games [146:20] >> or video games or weed or you know [146:22] whatever [146:23] >> that becomes very dangerous. But if you [146:25] and this is why [146:28] >> some people and I'm going to guess that [146:30] this is you, it's certainly me. Some [146:32] people have problem solving brains. [146:33] They're always kind of rotating a little [146:36] Rubik's cube in their mind thinking how [146:38] can I this is an interesting challenge [146:40] for me to face and how could I change [146:41] this thing? What how would I fix this [146:43] thing? just playing with ideas or trying [146:44] to get better at something, they're [146:46] always working on something. [146:48] Someone that's got a problem-solving [146:49] brain but doesn't have any good problems [146:51] to solve will just chew themselves up. [146:54] They will eat themselves inside out [146:55] because that is when you get obsessed [146:57] with stuff that you shouldn't do. That [146:59] is when you get obsessed with porn or [147:00] politics or your toxic ex or that person [147:03] that you think that's that uh cut you [147:06] off in traffic and that's when you chase [147:07] after them. That is the kind of problem [147:09] solving brain without a good problem to [147:11] solve. M [147:12] >> and I think a lot of people feel a [147:17] degree of shame or at the very least [147:21] like uh they're marionetted by this [147:24] problem solving brain by the speed of [147:26] what they're going through. The fact [147:27] that they're always turning something [147:29] they can't really get it to switch off. [147:30] And I think a much easier solution than [147:32] trying to stop yourself from solving [147:34] problems is to just give yourself better [147:36] problems to solve. It's to start a [147:38] business. It's to get a pursuit that you [147:40] really care about, [147:41] >> right? But this sounds very simplistic [147:43] though. We're talking about like a [147:45] legitimate mental health issue with a [147:46] lot of people that don't have the [147:48] awareness to stop a pattern, [147:50] >> you know? Like there's a lot of people [147:52] that need a friend and they don't have [147:54] any friends and so they need a [147:56] counselor. They need someone. They need [147:58] someone who can talk to them about what [148:00] they're doing and give them some tools [148:02] as to how to navigate out of it because [148:03] there's a lot of people that are just [148:04] stuck in that rut. [148:05] >> I agree. [148:06] >> And they could be really good. Like [148:08] there's people that are wasting their [148:09] life gambling that could be really good [148:11] at something else. They could be really [148:12] good [148:13] >> if you applied that effort, that [148:14] dedication, that obsession to something. [148:16] I I completely agree. I think the funny [148:18] thing for anyone that's on the right [148:22] side of their obsession, they're [148:23] applying it to something that's [148:24] positive. Kind of a nice situation to [148:27] realize, hey, you weren't that far away [148:29] from being that guy on the street. [148:31] >> Right. Right. If you if you're honest [148:34] >> with yourself, your level of obsession [148:36] could have directed you toward that that [148:40] destruction, that distraction, that [148:42] >> that like self emulation. Uh you you're [148:46] not that far away from it. It's the same [148:48] fuel. It's the same fuel source. [148:50] >> Yeah. It's just about directing it in a [148:52] good way and figuring out a way that's [148:54] going to be most beneficial to you and [148:56] the people around you. And some people [148:58] just aren't good at that problem [149:00] solving. [149:00] >> Yeah. And I think you're right to point [149:03] to what you do in childhood sport is [149:05] just hey if you work hard incrementally [149:09] at these component skills there is an [149:11] outcome in terms of performance that [149:12] will happen in future. [149:14] >> Yeah. [149:15] >> These small amounts these little efforts [149:17] will contribute to what you do when you [149:19] get there. There's delayed gratification [149:21] step by step by step you work and it's [149:24] just it kind of lays the physics of the [149:25] system. [149:26] >> Yes. [149:26] >> Right. Okay. And then you get into [149:28] adulthood and you go, well, I understand [149:29] like delaying gratification is [149:31] important. I can win the marshmallow [149:32] test today, which means I can get [149:33] something that I want in future. I need [149:35] to think over a longer time horizon. [149:38] Typically, I can use my obs like another [149:41] thing that's kind of fascinating about [149:42] the obsession piece is when you look at [149:44] someone like uh Joo as a good example, [149:48] >> what looks like obsession now or sorry, [149:50] what looks like discipline is probably [149:53] just who he is. the 4:30 a.m. thing, the [149:56] kettle bell swings, the training. [149:58] >> At one point, he was obsessed by that. [150:01] That was probably what he thought about [150:03] most. I know he was when he was still in [150:04] the SEALs. Like, that was what he [150:06] wanted. He wanted you to get as big and [150:07] as jacked and as lethal as possible. I [150:09] don't think that's quite his priority in [150:11] the same way now. But what you see if [150:13] you allow yourself to have positive [150:15] obsessions and for them to cool over [150:17] time, you basically start to build up [150:20] these layers of a pyramid, which is [150:22] well, I'm not obsessed by training, but [150:25] I used to when I was in my 20s, and now [150:27] my training obsession is just who I am. [150:30] It's cooled like uh like lava's sort of [150:33] cooled into the core of this planet, and [150:35] it's now who I've become. So, my [150:38] training is just part of my life. And [150:39] then, okay, what was the net? Well, I [150:41] started to learn. I wanted to um tell [150:43] the truth. I wanted to be an an [150:46] upstanding person. So, I started to [150:47] maybe go to therapy or I I I worked on [150:50] my mental health a little bit more. And [150:51] okay, that's now cool. That was an [150:52] obsession for a while. And now I've [150:54] moved on to the next thing. And I really [150:55] wanted to build this skill. I wanted to [150:56] become a good father. So, I worked out [150:58] how I could deal with my emotions when [151:00] interacting with my kids. And now I've [151:01] got that skill. over time serial [151:04] obsessives I think whether it's in [151:06] business or in training or in personal [151:08] development what you end up with is this [151:09] unbelievably [151:11] like well-rounded person but if you [151:14] don't allow yourself to wear that [151:15] obsession for a while and a lot of the [151:17] time when people get obsessed with stuff [151:19] they feel guilty they feel a little [151:22] ashamed of it they they want to push [151:24] back against it but it's the freest [151:25] discipline and motivation you're ever [151:27] going to get you're never going to find [151:28] >> who feels guilty about being obsessed [151:30] about things [151:31] >> I think sometimes people do [151:32] >> about good things. [151:34] >> The mockery of your friends around you. [151:36] Oh, dude. Going go and play guitar [151:37] again. Are we? Oh, going to go. Oh, you [151:39] little music thing. Is that going well, [151:41] >> man? Anybody who falls victim to that, [151:44] you deserve it [151:46] >> because [151:47] >> that's so silly, isn't it? [151:48] >> You need to stand up for what it is that [151:49] you want. [151:50] >> I don't All the times in my life when [151:52] I've been obsessed by things, if anybody [151:54] like tried to mock me being obsessed by [151:56] it, I'd be like, "Fuck you. Who cares [151:58] what you think?" I could couldn't have [152:00] cared less. That's interesting. I don't [152:02] know whether it's a British the mockery [152:05] the tall poppy thing is a huge part of [152:08] British culture. If you diverge from the [152:10] normal path [152:10] >> yes [152:11] >> it is you know we have the same number [152:13] of universities in the top 10 globally [152:17] >> but we produce 20% of the entrepreneurs [152:20] compared with America. And I think that [152:22] a lot of that is [152:23] >> attitude. [152:25] It's it's not [ __ ] Cambridge, Kings, [152:27] London, Oxford. Like, these aren't rinky [152:30] dink organizations. They attract [152:32] unbelievable talent. [152:34] >> Why is it that we're not producing the [152:35] same kind of [152:37] orthogonal thinker, self-starter, [152:40] sovereign, high agency people that you [152:42] might get out of America? And I think a [152:44] lot of it is [152:45] >> it's just not as encouraged. It's not. [152:47] And it's a shame. And I wish that I [152:48] could like gift some of the enthusiasm [152:50] back to the UK. Americans basically have [152:53] permanent firstline cocaine energy. [152:56] [laughter] [152:57] >> So enthusiastic about everything. [152:59] >> Yeah. [153:00] >> And [153:00] >> some some Americans. [153:02] >> That's true. But I just I wish I could [153:04] get that back. I wish I could push that [153:05] back toward the UK. It's something that [153:07] would make a massive difference. [153:08] >> Yeah, sure. [sighs] I'm sure it would. [153:11] But it's very difficult to change the [153:13] way a whole country thinks. Like the [153:15] attitude of the country. This is the [153:17] attitude of this country is you could [153:18] make it here. Like you could everybody [153:22] feels like they're just a few good deals [153:25] away from being rich. [153:26] >> Just a they're a millionaire that just [153:29] hasn't made it yet. Like that's [153:31] >> I think it's one of the reasons that the [153:32] victimhood culture here has kicked off [153:34] more though that in the UK [153:37] >> you don't expect to be able to become [153:38] much. Like it's very class system still [153:40] over there. [153:41] >> When you're a kid, you're not told that [153:42] you can be anything that you want to be. [153:44] If you diverge from the path, one of the [153:45] first things that happens is what are [153:46] you doing that for? It's a stupid idea. [153:49] good in some ways because it keeps your [153:50] feet on the ground, but bad in other [153:53] ways because it means that you don't go [153:54] for it, right? You don't take the big [153:55] swings in the same way. In the US, I get [153:57] the sense that kids that are told you [154:00] can be anything you want to be. The [154:01] American dream is still very much alive. [154:02] If you work hard, you can raise yourself [154:04] up, pick yourself up by your bootstraps, [154:05] and become something. Okay. [154:08] What happens if you arrive in adulthood [154:11] and you're not given that which you felt [154:14] you were promised as a kid? Well, that [154:16] feels like someone's taken it away from [154:18] you. That feels like someone's stolen [154:20] your rightful uh your promise. This is [154:23] the same reason, interestingly enough, [154:25] uh the same reason why Korea, the women [154:28] in Korea are some of the most [154:29] left-leaning in the world supposedly [154:32] that they were given equal access to [154:35] education uh over the last few decades. [154:38] And that meant that as a quite [154:40] patriarchal society, they were [154:42] constrained, not not able to access [154:45] education in the same way. They finally [154:47] get into it. They're emancipated. [154:48] They're getting degrees and higher [154:49] education at the same rate as the men. [154:51] And then they get into the real world [154:53] and all of the employment opportunities [154:55] haven't caught up. And it's still very [154:57] sexist when it comes to the way that [154:59] employment and promotions and wages, [155:02] there's still a big wage gap there. And [155:04] what that means is in the same way as [155:05] the American child that was promised all [155:07] of this stuff as a kid doesn't get [155:08] delivered it when they become an adult. [155:10] A lot of the women in Korea it seems [155:12] were promised a lot through their [155:14] education and then they arrive and the [155:17] rug feels like it's being pulled out [155:18] from underneath them by a uh work [155:21] workforce that is still [155:24] >> kind of in the dark in their equivalent [155:25] of the dark ages. But this is people [155:27] throw their toys out of the pram. [155:29] >> Why would they not? I think I I I think [155:31] that I deserve this. And yeah, the [155:34] victimhood culture in America is I don't [155:37] know. It I wish I could take some of the [155:39] bits of America and put them in the UK [155:40] and some of the bits of the UK and put [155:41] them in America and I think we'd end up [155:42] that was what it used to be. [ __ ] it, [155:43] we'll just bring it back together again. [155:47] >> Yeah. I think you're always going to [155:49] have people that are dissatisfied with [155:51] their station in life. The question is [155:53] like, were they equipped with the tools [155:56] to create a better life when they were [155:58] younger? And whether they were equipped [156:01] by their family, or were they equipped [156:03] by whatever thing they got into, a sport [156:06] they got into when they were young or [156:08] some sort of a discipline where they [156:10] realize this, it's really important that [156:13] kids realize at an early age about a [156:15] process of improvement, trusting the [156:17] process. That's a common phrase that you [156:19] hear when it comes to anything that [156:20] you're trying to do that's difficult in [156:22] this country. Trust the process. Trust [156:24] the process. You hear about that with [156:26] coaches like in in MMA fighters. They're [156:28] always saying that we got to trust the [156:30] process that there's a process of [156:32] buildup up to a big fight. There's a [156:34] process of improvement to get to your [156:36] black belt. There's a process of [156:37] improvement as you rise through the [156:39] amateur ranks into a professional ranks. [156:40] You got to do things the right way and [156:42] keep doing them and you're going to get [156:43] better. Some people never learn that and [156:45] then they get to a point where they [156:47] think things should have already [156:48] happened and why haven't things happened [156:50] for me and then they get angry, [156:52] >> you know. And um it's a lot of it is [156:55] it's very difficult to find a good [156:57] environment. Very difficult to find [156:59] like-minded people that that are [157:01] empowering and when you're around them [157:03] you feel better. You feel motivated. You [157:05] feel inspired. That's also hugely [157:08] critical for people. It's a like people [157:11] want to think I'm a lone wolf. [ __ ] off. [157:13] No, [157:14] >> that's there's no no one like that. [157:15] That's all [ __ ] Those people are [157:17] very depressed. [157:18] >> Where do you think the trust thing comes [157:19] from? Because I I trust. [157:21] >> Yeah. Yeah. the trust of the process [157:23] that I think a lot of people want. [157:26] >> It's people that have done it before. [157:27] You you have to learn from people that [157:29] have already done it. Like if you're [157:30] learning from a wrestling coach, you're [157:31] learning from a coach that wrestled. [157:33] >> There's no wrestling coaches that didn't [157:34] wrestle. Like they all wrestle and that [157:37] you learn from them that there's a [157:39] process and this is what you're going to [157:40] do and this is how we're going to get [157:41] better. And trust me, when week three [157:44] comes along and you can run this hill a [157:46] lot easier than you run it today, you're [157:48] going to be thankful for these 5 a.m. [157:49] practices. [157:51] Yes, sir. You got to trust the process. [157:53] And if you have a good coach, the good [157:55] coach will show you at every step of the [157:57] way as you're improving. You'll hit a [157:58] move and it'll say, "You see how smooth [158:00] you hit that? You couldn't hit that move [158:01] last time." [158:02] >> It's so true. It's so true. The the [158:04] inability to be able to see your own [158:06] progress, [158:06] >> to be able to see what you're doing. I [158:08] think for a lot of people, goals are [158:09] contracts to self-criticize until we [158:12] succeed. [158:13] >> And that's how people whip themselves [158:14] into submission. And that's the problem [158:16] with the perfectionism side of things as [158:17] opposed to excellence. Right? if you [158:19] were to say I am not enough unless I am [158:22] perfect as opposed to I am good if I [158:24] keep improving. That seems to be one of [158:26] the differences between the two. But [158:28] yeah, like goals being contracts to [158:31] self-criticize until we succeed. [158:33] >> That's not what a coach would do. I'm [158:34] sure that wasn't when you were teaching [158:35] [ __ ] taekwondo and someone for the [158:37] first time manages to land this kick or [158:39] they win a it was really really close. [158:42] you can pick out the elements, but so [158:45] many people have got coaches in their [158:46] mind that are they're only ever focusing [158:49] on the negatives. [158:50] >> If you have a good coach and you're in a [158:53] sport with a bunch of other people that [158:55] are doing well, it's like statistically [158:57] proven that your level will be higher [159:00] than someone who has a bad coach that's [159:03] around other people that aren't as good. [159:05] That's just how it always is. The best [159:06] athletes always come from the great [159:08] programs, you know, whether it's [159:10] Oklahoma State University, wrestling or [159:12] what, whatever the [ __ ] it is, there's [159:13] always like a bunch of different killers [159:15] that come from a great environment with [159:17] great coaching. People don't have that [159:19] in life, right? If you had great [159:21] coaching in life and you were surrounded [159:23] by a bunch of other [ __ ] division one [159:25] all-Americans who are like getting after [159:27] it every day, you would be motivated. [159:30] But most people aren't. And this is part [159:32] of the problem. Most people are [159:33] surrounded by equally lost people who [159:36] are sad. [snorts] And it's hard to rise [159:40] above. It's hard to say, "I don't want [159:41] to go to the bar because I'm working on [159:43] writing this book and I need to write [159:45] this book." Oh, you're going to [ __ ] [159:47] write the book and you're going to [159:48] ignore your boys? Like, click. You gota [159:51] you got to know when to find people that [159:54] are productive and healthy and are doing [159:56] things similar to what you're doing [159:57] things where you're like pursuing [159:59] something that you really enjoy and not [160:01] just waste your [ __ ] life away [160:02] drinking every day like a lot of people [160:04] will do. [160:05] >> That perspective is hard to come by [160:06] though. [160:06] >> It is [160:07] >> because you need to break out of the [160:09] frame that you're in already. This is [160:10] the the lonely chapter thing that I'm [160:12] kind of obsessed with. You're so [160:13] developed that you don't resonate with [160:15] your old set of friends, [160:16] >> but you're not yet sufficiently [160:17] developed that you've built up your new [160:19] set of friends. And there's this [160:20] temptation to go back to go back to the [160:23] old patterns, the old habits, the old [160:24] modes of reassurance, [160:26] >> just like we were talking about with [160:27] drug addicts, falling off the wagon [160:28] because it's like it's easier. It's [160:30] easier to fail. [160:31] >> It is simpler. And I guess what's [160:33] interesting [160:36] thinking about choosing a new direction [160:39] and and having a degree of self [160:41] asssurance like living your life by [160:44] design as opposed to default is one of [160:47] the most important things. But I wonder [160:49] whether people that are in a an [160:51] environment where they don't have any [160:52] good role models, like I didn't grow up [160:54] in a particularly like cubrious part of [160:57] the UK. It's the most working-class town [160:59] in the back end of the northeast of [161:00] England. And there weren't that many [161:03] people around me when I grew up that [161:04] were like the person I wanted to be [161:06] like. But there were [ __ ] lots of [161:07] people like the person I didn't want to [161:09] be like. I didn't want his relationship [161:10] with gambling. I didn't want the way [161:12] that he kept on cheating on his wife. I [161:13] didn't like the fact that he used [161:14] alcohol to deal with his emotional [161:16] problems. So yeah, would it be nice if [161:19] you had the D1 sports coach as your next [161:22] door neighbor every morning telling you [161:24] that you can we should go for a run [161:26] because little Timmy's going for a run [161:27] as well. Yeah, that'd be awesome. [161:28] >> But if you don't have it and you've got [161:30] some people around you that are reverse [161:31] role models, you can quite easily you [161:34] can make a lot of progress in life by [161:36] avoiding pitfalls, not just expediting [161:38] success. [161:38] >> Definitely [161:39] >> by weaving away from the things that you [161:41] know that you don't want. The problem is [161:43] a lot of those people will try to drag [161:44] you down and if you're in close [161:47] proximity to them and you have to [161:49] interact with them on a regular basis, [161:51] it could trip you up. But yeah, a lot of [161:52] people get motivated by like if you're [161:54] around people that are alcoholics and [161:55] you see them ruin their life. Like I [161:56] have a friend, his family was alcoholics [161:59] and he's never had a drink his whole [162:00] life. He was like, I won't touch that [162:02] [ __ ] ever. He saw it saw it wreck [162:04] people's lives. Never had a desire to [162:06] have alcohol. [162:08] Um so that was and you know he became [162:11] very successful. So he figured out a way [162:13] to just avoid all the problems that all [162:14] those people had. They motivated him. [162:16] But it's better to be motivated by [162:17] someone who's doing something you aspire [162:19] to [162:20] >> as opposed to trying to avoid something [162:21] that's going wrong. [162:22] >> I [clears throat] think the option that [162:24] people have now that was never available [162:26] before is you could hear people that you [162:28] are um that you admire or that you [162:32] aspire to be like what they are. You [162:34] could hear them on the internet now. [162:36] There's way more access to inspiration [162:38] than ever before. You know, when you [162:40] have some high achiever who goes on a [162:42] podcast and has a conversation about [162:43] something that they do and you could [162:45] realize how this guy built his company [162:47] or built his life or became this amazing [162:49] athlete and what they went through. [162:51] >> You you can learn from conversations [162:55] that you're not in the room with. you [162:57] know, you you don't get a chance to hang [162:58] out with, you know, David Gogggins or [163:01] whatever, but you get a chance to listen [163:03] to him talk now where it just wasn't [163:05] available before for all the different [163:07] outliers like like we were talking about [163:09] Larry Bird before. Who the [ __ ] was [163:10] Larry Bird listening to? He had to be [163:12] listening to the other basketball [163:14] players that were playing with him that [163:15] were all a bunch of killers. Like that [163:17] was the only way he got good. [163:18] >> Like he didn't have the internet. He [163:20] couldn't just go on YouTube and find [163:21] inspirational quotes, you know he could [163:23] listen to an Alan Watts lecture and have [163:25] a new perspective on life. It was [163:27] harder. It's a lot harder. It's a lot [163:29] easier now. It's a lot easier now to be [163:31] inspired. It's a lot easier now to also [163:33] have examples of people that are living [163:34] a life that is aligned with what you're [163:37] looking for versus what you see around [163:40] you all the time. You don't just accept [163:41] it anymore. People there's a lot more [163:44] people now that are like, I've got to [163:45] get the [ __ ] away from these people. [163:47] Well, because the alternative is that [163:48] you're [163:50] >> fortunately like serendipitously just [163:53] born into a culture where there's some [163:55] people like the person you want to be [163:57] like right next to you. Like how many [163:59] people that are [164:00] >> excellent individuals that are going to [164:02] go on to try that have the capacity to [164:03] go on to do something incredible are [164:06] around other people that are like that [164:07] too, [164:08] >> right? [164:08] >> Not because by design you're an outlier. [164:10] So if you're an outlier there's going to [164:11] be fewer people like you. being able to [164:14] hear people say that. I remember I was [164:16] listening to a part a while ago and uh [164:19] there was this line on it. I think it [164:21] was Mel Robbins that said something like [164:22] um all my life I'd always felt like [164:25] someone was mad at me. I was like, [164:27] "Huh?" I've never heard anybody put it [164:29] put it that way before. All my life I'd [164:31] ever heard. [164:31] >> Did Mel Robin say this? [164:33] >> Yeah. [164:33] >> I've never listened to her podcast, but [164:35] Tim Dylan was making fun of her today [164:37] and it was the funniest [ __ ] I've ever [164:38] heard in my life. He goes, "She makes [164:41] Gary Vee sound like Aristotle." [164:44] [laughter] [164:47] >> Tim Dylan is the best. He's the best. [164:51] >> Have you seen Gary Ve's talking about V [164:54] friends recently? Did you see this, [164:55] Jamie? Have a little This [164:57] >> I don't want to watch this. [164:58] >> Okay. [164:58] >> Don't make me do this. [164:59] >> Okay. All right. Well, you made me watch [165:00] a leg kick thing. [165:01] >> He's a nice guy. [165:01] >> Yeah. [165:02] >> Gary's a nice guy. I've had him on the [165:03] podcast before. [165:04] >> Well, maybe we don't need to learn about [165:05] that. Anyway, just my point is [165:07] regardless of who it comes from, you can [165:09] find inspiration in a variety of places. [165:11] >> You certainly can, but there's more now [165:13] than ever before. And there's never a [165:16] time in human history where you can be [165:17] more inspired. You just have to seek it. [165:19] But you also have to avoid the tricks. [165:22] There's all bunch of things that are [165:23] going to trick you and steal your [165:24] attention. You got to avoid the [165:26] nonsense. Avoid the nonsense on social [165:28] media and just find things that your [165:30] time is very valuable. And the same [165:33] feeling that you get out of watching a t [165:35] like the same dopamine rush that you get [165:38] from watching a Tik Tok video that means [165:40] nothing, you also get from watching a [165:41] YouTube video where you're going to [165:42] learn something. It's like it's just as [165:44] interesting. [165:45] >> Yeah. Talking about the thing, talking [165:47] about the thing and doing the thing v [165:49] for the same resources. So you need to [165:51] allocate yours appropriately. [165:52] >> Yeah. [165:53] >> Like how many people are just great at [165:55] talking about how their plans are going [165:57] to go? This is what's going to happen [165:58] next. I can't wait. I can't wait for [166:00] this new business that's going to go up [166:01] and it never happens. [166:03] >> Were you around when The Secret was a [166:06] big movie and a bunch of people really [166:07] believed that they could just sort of [166:09] manifest their life? Yes. By thinking [166:10] about it? [166:11] >> Yes. [166:11] >> That was a fascinating time. [166:13] >> You know that lady said that the reason [166:16] the Boxing Day tsunami happened in [166:18] Thailand was because the [166:20] >> citizens were giving off bad juju. M [166:23] >> this she basically said that they'd [166:25] manifested it was like thousands tens of [166:28] thousands of people displaced because of [166:30] a tsunami that happened on Boxing Day. [166:32] >> Imagine believing that. [166:33] >> Ah dude the the crazy thing is the [166:36] secret the visualization stuff which I'm [166:38] sure tons and tons of the athletes that [166:40] you've worked with or that you [166:41] commentate on so many of them are using [166:43] visualization but people forget that you [166:46] need to actually go and do the work as [166:47] well. You'd think like um God will steer [166:50] the boat but you still have to row as [166:52] opposed to you can just sit in the boat [166:54] and think about it and you'll get rode [166:55] there yourself and that's the issue. The [166:58] issue is that people want a shortcut and [166:59] if you can give them a shortcut [167:01] >> Yeah. I think the visualization and the [167:04] belief is an element. [167:06] >> It's an element. If you can never see [167:08] yourself succeeding, you'll probably [167:10] [ __ ] it up somehow. But if you can see [167:12] yourself succeeding and you have a [167:13] direct plan and you also put in the [167:15] work, your odds of success are higher. [167:18] That's all it is. But the people that [167:20] have said that they used the secret to [167:22] succeed, they're only the people that [167:24] used it and it worked. How many people [167:26] used it and it didn't work? Probably a [167:28] fuckload more. [167:29] >> Survivor shift bias is a hell of a drug. [167:31] >> It is a hell of a drug. [167:32] >> Yeah. I uh [laughter] [167:35] Yeah, it's it's one thing to get what [167:36] you want, but it's another thing to want [167:38] what's worth getting in life. [167:39] >> Well, there's a lot of people believe [167:40] that it was like God's will for them to [167:42] succeed. I knew God had a p a plan for [167:45] me. Okay. Does God have a plan for that [167:47] dude who's doing heroin in the corner? [167:49] [laughter] [167:50] What about the guy that's pissing on [167:51] himself on Skid Row? Is that God have a [167:54] plan for that guy? Is that's God doesn't [167:56] like him. I didn't like him when he was [167:58] a baby. I don't like him now. [ __ ] that [168:00] guy. Give him fentinel. [168:01] >> How do you how do you come to sort of [168:04] think about the unfairness of the the [168:06] hands that are being dealt there? [168:07] Because when I think about that, it does [168:08] make me really sad. Makes me sad to [168:10] think about how unfortunate some [168:11] people's like decks of cards have been. [168:14] >> Oh yeah, man. Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean, you [168:16] can get born to a pair of junkies. Two [168:19] junkies can have sex on Skid Row and [168:22] you're born addicted to fentinel right [168:25] out of the box and your life is [ __ ] [168:28] Versus if you have a child, you're a [168:30] great guy, you're educated, you're [168:31] interesting, you're intelligent, your [168:33] kids going to grow up with a cool dad. [168:34] It's like it's like it's not fair. It's [168:37] not even remotely fair, [168:39] >> you know? and uh we don't do enough to [168:41] to [ __ ] mitigate the unfairness. And [168:45] I don't mean in terms of like [168:46] redistribution of wealth or anything [168:48] like that, like making sure there's not [168:50] that level of despair and poverty in a [168:54] functional society, you know, and the [168:56] fact that there's almost no effort, no [168:59] real concerted effort to clean up any of [169:02] these problems that we have had for [169:04] decades upon decades upon decades in our [169:06] cities. It's kind of crazy the amount of [169:09] money we spend on other things. We could [169:10] have fixed that a long time ago. [169:14] You know, there's a lot of conspiracies [169:15] about that too that they don't want that [169:17] because if more people become educated [169:19] and more people become ambitious, it's [169:20] going to be harder to [ __ ] them over. [169:22] It's going to be harder to force them to [169:24] pay taxes for an inefficient government [169:26] that's stealing and it's too many fraud [169:28] and wast [169:30] people. You won't be able to keep your [169:31] job being an incompetent legislator. You [169:35] know, there's a lot of theories about [169:36] why schools suck so hard and there's so [169:39] little money being put into schools. [169:41] When you think about the amount of power [169:43] that a teacher has over a child [169:47] expos you're working all day, okay, [169:50] you're at work, your kid is with another [169:52] adult and then a different adult and [169:55] then the next hour and a different adult [169:56] the next hour and they're shaping their [169:58] world view for a solid seven, eight [170:01] hours a day, five days a week more than [170:03] you. You're working all day, so you come [170:05] home like, "What do they teach you in [170:06] school?" What? Daddy, they taught me I [170:09] could be anything I want. I could be a [170:11] girl. Oh god. Daddy, they taught me how [170:14] important communism is. What? Ah, [ __ ] [170:17] And what are you going to do? You're [170:18] going to go to the school and you're [170:20] going to yell at the meeting. And what [170:21] do they do when that happens? They turn [170:22] turn the parents into terrorists. They [170:24] say the parents are terrorists. [170:27] >> Why? They've called parents terrorists [170:31] for showing up at schoolboard meetings [170:34] and yelling that they don't want their [170:36] kids being taught about sexuality or [170:38] they don't want their kids being taught [170:39] about this. [170:41] For [ __ ] sake. Yeah. So, they've [170:43] there's school boards that have tried to [170:45] censor parents and have tried to like [170:46] label them domestic terrorists for [170:48] trying to interrupt meetings and say [170:50] that they don't want their children [170:51] being taught these ways. And so then [170:54] what are your options? You homeschool. [170:55] You got I don't have the time. [ __ ] [170:58] >> a huge amount of cost. Yeah, I I Dude, [171:00] it is it's weird out there, man. [171:03] >> The state of the US education system at [171:06] the moment seems [ __ ] wild. There was [171:07] these studies that came out of Illinois. [171:09] Basically, no one in high school could [171:12] read at like a [snorts] fourth grade [171:13] level. It's [ __ ] insane. I saw a [171:15] video of a teacher crying that none of [171:18] the students were even remotely [171:20] competent. [171:21] >> Yeah. What is a state that just because [171:23] students were doing so bad, they [171:25] completely dropped their standards? Was [171:27] it Oregon? I forget what governor, but [171:31] like ridiculously dropped their [171:33] standards for reading and math. [171:37] Yeah, it's not good. I mean, that would [171:39] that should be something we're really [171:41] concentrating on. It should be a really [171:44] important thing in our world that's [171:47] discussed every day versus whether or [171:49] not men can play in the WNBA. [171:51] >> Meanwhile, uh, Penn State had a cocaine [171:55] ring at one of the fraternities. Do you [171:57] see that? [171:58] >> A ring. [171:58] >> Cocaine ring. So, there was [171:59] >> What do you mean a ring? [172:00] >> Like two different fraternities were [172:02] >> selling cocaine. [172:03] >> Oh, not just selling cocaine. They were [172:05] driving to Philadelphia and back in New [172:06] York and back to like create a huge [172:08] cartel for this massive massive scandal. [172:12] The dad of one of the guys that was in [172:14] the that was the leader of it is some [172:16] attorney dude that was like covering it [172:17] up, putting money and drugs in the safe [172:20] and the pledges that were pledging to go [172:22] into the fraternities were made to cut [172:24] and bag the cocaine. [172:25] >> That's hilarious. [172:27] >> Free labor. [172:28] >> What What school was this? [172:29] >> Penn State. [172:30] >> My god. [172:31] >> 14 people arrested, including one of [172:33] them that was the dad. This kid's got [172:34] like a gazillion charges for it. It's [172:37] >> Meanwhile, they're just entrepreneurs. [172:39] Look, [laughter] [172:41] >> we need to encourage We need to [172:42] encourage an entrepreneurial spirit. [172:43] >> It's the entrepreneurs in a bad [172:45] direction. It's like what we were [172:46] talking about before obsession in the [172:48] wrong direction. [172:48] >> Why Penn State's great for wrestling, [172:50] right? Why didn't you go and do [172:51] wrestling? [172:52] >> Or imagine if they put all that effort [172:54] into a legitimate business. [172:55] >> Yeah. [172:55] >> They'd probably getting out of college [172:57] already wealthy. [172:58] >> Speaking of that, did you see uh Ben [173:00] Ascrin return to wrestling one year [173:03] after his [173:04] >> Yes, dude. [173:05] >> Crazy. [173:05] >> I had him on the pod like two weeks [173:07] before he did it. That's so nuts with [173:09] two lung replacements. He's got artif I [173:13] mean he's got lung donations like [173:16] somebody gave him lungs. Someone died [173:19] >> and yeah he's he has to be on [173:21] imunosuppressants in order so his body [173:22] doesn't reject the lungs but having lung [173:25] transplants is crazy. Having two is [173:28] really crazy and then wrestling a year [173:30] later is just beyond insane. [173:32] >> He never looked at what the surgery was [173:34] that he got. He doesn't know how they [173:36] did it. So, I went and had a look and [173:38] it's the full [173:39] >> Yeah. [173:40] >> breast. It's like your spread eagled [173:42] from reverse [173:43] >> the fish. [173:45] >> Yeah, [173:45] >> dude. I got to pee. We got to wrap this [173:46] up. [173:46] >> All right, [173:47] >> Christopher. It's always a good time to [173:49] see you. [173:49] >> Appreciate you, man. [173:50] >> I appreciate you, too. Uh, tell [173:51] everybody your podcast, where they can [173:53] get it, where they can watch it. [173:54] >> Modern Wisdom, Apple Podcast, Spotify, [173:56] YouTube. Just dropped an episode with [173:57] Jock Willink, Matt McCusker, and Jeff [173:59] Dy. So, you can go and check that out. [174:00] Oh, nice. [174:01] >> Or you can go back and watch the the [174:02] Hunter Biden episode. [174:03] >> That's a good combo. [174:04] >> Yeah, I'm doing this. It's a Mostly [174:06] Wise, which is the new series. It's me [174:08] and Mccusca with a serious seat. Hunter [174:09] Biden was a serious seat for one. We had [174:11] human for another. We've got a Neil [174:12] Degrass Tyson coming up in Brian [174:14] Johnson. I'm like throwing another [174:15] comedian in as well. So, it's kind of [174:17] fun. [174:17] >> Beautiful. [174:18] >> Beautiful. Appreciate you, man. Until [174:19] next time. [174:19] >> Thank you, bro. [music] All right. Bye, [174:20] everybody. [174:20] >> Bye. [174:25] [music]

Rogan and Williamson Challenge Modern Narrative Control and AI Risks

Detailed notes

[00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1s) Welcome, Gifts, and Albert Goldman's Literary Ambitions

[00:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2s) The Claims Against John Lennon and Male Contradictions

[00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4s) Bob Woodward's *Wired*, John Belushi, and the Intelligence Narrative

[00:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5s) The Lindsay Clancy Case and Defending the Dead

[00:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8s) Tucker Carlson's Assessment of Watergate and the Deep State

[00:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=14s) The Legacy of Richard Nixon and Political Power

[15:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=949s) Media Control and the Engineering of Modern Nihilism

[20:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1212s) Social Media Manipulation and Fake Content Incentives

[25:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1500s) Human Cognitive Variability and the NPC Phenomenon

[27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1672s) Cultural Integration and the UK Home Office Pamphlet

[29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1772s) Immigration Motivations, Census Mechanics, and Election Integrity

[30:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=1859s) Mail-In Ballots, Election Dynamics, and UK Immigration Policy

[33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2016s) "Guerilla Ballot Harvesting" and Electoral Loopholes

[36:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2214s) Political Grift and the DNC's Internal Dynamics

[38:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2338s) AOC's Shifting Public Image and the Rhetoric of "Woke 1.0"

[45:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2740s) Censorship, Social Pressure, and the Shift in Internet Culture

[48:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=2929s) Automated Surveillance, Flock Cameras, and Mobile Tracking

[51:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3103s) AI Consciousness, Remote Viewing, and "Pascal's Wager" for Robots

[56:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3399s) AI Velocity, "Pacing the Frontier," and Ted Kaczynski

[59:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3593s) CIA History, MKUltra, and Danny Trejo in Prison

[01:01:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3670s) Danny Trejo, Charles Manson, and Prison Hypnotism

[01:02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=3750s) MKUltra, Tom O'Neill, and the Suppression of the Anti-War Movement

[01:07:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4039s) The Price of Elite Greatness and Conor McGregor's Prime

[01:12:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4320s) Dominant Championship Reigns and Jon Jones

[01:12:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4369s) Brutal Combat Concepts: Low Kick Championships and Leg Injuries

[01:15:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4519s) Brutal MMA Leg Injuries and Compartment Syndrome

[01:19:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4773s) The Mind-Bending Endurance of Backyard Ultra Races

[01:22:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4946s) Unlocking Human Cardio Limits: Merab Dvalishvili and Mile Records

[01:27:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5230s) PEDs, Business Performance, and Hunter Biden Tangents

[01:29:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5372s) Hunter Biden’s Media Re-emergence and the Laptop Debate

[01:36:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5770s) The 2020 Election Narrative and Platform Suppression

[01:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=5856s) Kamala Harris, the 2024 Podcast Circuit, and Trump’s Media Strategy

[01:43:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6208s) Political Accountability, Podcasting, and Border Enforcement Statistics

[01:48:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6502s) The Economic and Behavioral Ripple Effects of Ozempic and GLP-1 Drugs

[01:51:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6692s) Preserving Muscle Mass, Resistance Training, and Fall Risks in Aging

[01:55:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=6908s) The 82-Year-Old Bathtub Survival Story and Extreme Sleep Deprivation

[01:57:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7065s) Rory MacDonald's Walkout Song Mishap

[01:58:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7085s) Rory MacDonald's Walkout Music and the Cypress Hill vs. Nickelback Debate

[02:03:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7385s) Music Formulas, IQ Classifications, and Jimi Hendrix's Genius

[02:08:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7694s) The Fading Affect Bias and How "Healing Destroys Its Receipts"

[02:11:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=7917s) The Curse of Competence and the Pressure of Success

[02:13:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8030s) Perfectionism, Wealth Inequality, and Social Media

[02:20:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8404s) Pursuit of Excellence vs. The Myth of Perfection

[02:24:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8649s) Friction, Discipline, and the Nature of Obsession

[02:26:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8764s) Problem-Solving Brains, Obsession, and Constructive Channels

[02:29:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=8944s) Delayed Gratification, Jocko Willink, and Serial Obsessives

[02:32:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9124s) Tall Poppy Syndrome, British Culture vs. American Optimism

[02:35:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9347s) Trusting the Process and the Impact of Great Environments

[02:39:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9585s) The "Lonely Chapter" and Reverse Role Models

[02:42:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9742s) Modern Access to Inspiration and the Danger of Distraction

[02:46:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=9963s) Visualization, "The Secret," and Survivor Bias

[02:47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10059s) Socioeconomic Disparities, Public Education, and Parental Rights

[02:51:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10311s) The Penn State Fraternity Cocaine Ring and Ben Askren's Return

[02:53:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10399s) Double Lung Transplants and Extreme Recovery

[02:53:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=10425s) Podcast Plugs and Final Goodbyes

中文简报

Reading summary

精炼阅读摘要

Detailed notes — zh

Source quotes

Source quotes

Original transcript

[00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8FkZaQ06I&t=4s) Bob Woodward's Wired, John Belushi, and the Intelligence Narrative