Rogan Warns Tech Elites Risk Violent Revolt Over AI Job Losses
PowerfulJRE
Unchecked automation and concentrated tech profits will fracture the social contract and trigger violent civil unrest unless productivity gains are shared across displaced workforces.
European heat-related deaths reached an estimated 61,672 during a single summer, yet cold mortality remains significantly higher at roughly 364,000 annually across 30 European countries. (10:08)
The United Kingdom generates roughly 1% of global carbon emissions but has enacted the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, handicapping domestic manufacturing and data center expansion. (15:06)
The 2026 Alaska Permanent Fund dividend distributed approximately $1,200 per resident (including an energy relief payment), underscoring concerns that cash dividends alone will fail to offset widespread identity loss from AI-driven job displacement. (126:25)
Between 10 and 20 million migrants entered the United States across the southern border over a four-year period without comprehensive vetting, prompting bipartisan concerns regarding domestic security and resource allocation. (109:35)
Detailed notes
## Background
Published on YouTube by PowerfulJRE on October 31, 2026, this episode of the Joe Rogan Experience features comedian Francis Foster and political commentator Konstantin Kisin, co-hosts of the "TRIGGERnometry" podcast. The conversation explores topics ranging from contemporary political polarization and media incentives to historical upheavals, artificial intelligence, and the psychological pursuit of human purpose.
## TL;DR
Joe Rogan, Konstantin Kisin, and Francis Foster examine how social media monetization, bot farms, and outrage-driven news models distort civil discourse and fracture public consensus. The trio delve into the geopolitical realities of conflicts involving Iran, Russia, and the West, while contrasting modern societal anxieties with historical atrocities from the Mongol Empire to Soviet totalitarianism. Turning toward technological displacement and economic disenfranchisement, they discuss the rise of automation, the risks of AI wealth concentration, and the necessity of shared dividends like Universal Basic Income. Throughout the dialogue, they emphasize personal accountability, finding meaning through voluntary struggle and craftsmanship, and anchoring human connection in family, timeless storytelling, and humility.
## Atmosphere & style
The discussion carries the unhurried, candid rhythm of an extended late-night parlor conversation among seasoned podcasters who balance dark geopolitical realism with stand-up comedy levity. Kisin contributes precise, analytical critiques of institutional amorality and historical cycles, while Foster offers grounded, humanizing anecdotes from his years teaching in East London classrooms. Rogan steers the exchange with energetic curiosity, seamlessly toggling between ancient civilizational mysteries, visceral athletic philosophies, and grim warnings about corporate technocracy, creating an introspective yet thoroughly entertaining listening experience.
## Bulletin
- [10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=608s) European heat-related deaths reached an estimated 61,672 during a single summer, yet cold mortality remains significantly higher at roughly 364,000 annually across 30 European countries.
- [15:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=906s) The United Kingdom generates roughly 1% of global carbon emissions but has enacted the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, handicapping domestic manufacturing and data center expansion.
- [02:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7585s) The 2026 Alaska Permanent Fund dividend distributed approximately $1,200 per resident (including an energy relief payment), underscoring concerns that cash dividends alone will fail to offset widespread identity loss from AI-driven job displacement.
- [01:49:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6575s) Between 10 and 20 million migrants entered the United States across the southern border over a four-year period without comprehensive vetting, prompting bipartisan concerns regarding domestic security and resource allocation.
## Key takeaways
- [04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=278s) Social media platform algorithms prioritize hostility and outrage-baiting over humor or nuanced discussion because anger drives higher commercial engagement.
- [21:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1263s) Secular political movements often function as surrogate religions, lacking traditional moral guardrails like the Ten Commandments while labeling ideological opponents as heretics.
- [15:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=906s) Climate modeling relies on multi-variable estimates rather than fully calculable physical laws, leading to aggressive decarbonization policies that drive up energy costs for working-class populations.
- [36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2164s) High-density urban living induces pathological behaviors reminiscent of Desmond Morris's 'The Human Zoo,' separating humans from the evolutionary grounding found in nature and dark skies.
- [48:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2931s) Apportioning Congressional seats and electoral votes based on total population counts, rather than citizen status alone, introduces political incentives that discourage federal resolution of immigration crises.
- [51:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3093s) Unchecked crime rates and lax enforcement create manufactured public consent for expanding domestic mass-surveillance apparatuses, such as automated license plate reader networks.
- [01:42:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6128s) Modern asymmetric warfare, particularly cheap swarming drones and tethered fiber-optic suicide munitions, can neutralize multi-billion-dollar military installations and make traditional ground invasions impractical.
- [01:43:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6234s) Airstrikes against adversarial sovereign nations create overwhelming structural incentives for targeted regimes to achieve rapid nuclear breakout as an existential survival deterrent.
- [01:58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7090s) Historical violent revolutions invariably devour their instigators because the disruptive personality traits required to dismantle existing regimes are unsuited for stable governance.
- [02:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7585s) Universal Basic Income and cash checks cannot replace the human neurochemical necessity for meaningful craft, internal motivation, and voluntary struggle.
- [02:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8441s) Physical disciplines like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu serve as equalizing developmental tools by providing direct exposure to iterative failure, humility, and gradual self-mastery.
- [02:37:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9470s) Advanced artificial intelligence wealth must be broadly distributed throughout society to avoid extreme destabilization and social revolt against concentrated tech oligarchies.
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1s) Political Chaos in Brazil and Disinformation
Joe Rogan opens the conversation by asking Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin if they have been following the unfolding political situation in Brazil. The discussion centers around the legal fallout following the election between Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro, specifically touching on rumors concerning Bolsonaro's son, Flávio Bolsonaro, having his passport confiscated or potentially fleeing to the United States. While they acknowledge hearing these reports online, they note that the lack of concrete evidence makes it difficult to separate fact from social media chatter. Konstantin mentions Lula’s previous rhetoric warning his opponents they would end up behind bars—drawing a comparison to Donald Trump’s infamous debate remark to Hillary Clinton, except carried out in practice.
Rogan brings up allegations regarding a Brazilian Supreme Court justice—formerly Lula's defense attorney—who allegedly extended voting hours by two hours, a move critics claim tipped the outcome in Lula’s favor. While Konstantin recalls seeing the same claim, both host and guests emphasize how exhausting it has become to establish basic facts in the modern information ecosystem. As Konstantin reflects on the difficulty of trusting breaking reports on platforms like X and Facebook:
> “This is the thing is like you have to really do a lot of research now to even know the basic facts of anything.”
---
[01:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=105s) Bot Farms, AI Fakes, and Narrative Warfare
Rogan remarks that his feed is saturated with all-caps "breaking" stories that are completely fabricated, featuring AI-generated images of public figures in handcuffs. Even though platforms have moved to demonetize explicitly false content to curb financial incentives, state-sponsored entities and partisan groups continue spreading lies purely for ideological disruption. Rogan points out that their true purpose is not financial profit, but political destabilization:
> “What we want to do is muddy up the waters so nobody knows what the fuck is real.”
Rogan suggests that once an automated check such as Grok confirms a viral claim is false, the platform should simply remove the post rather than forcing users to sift through the replies to discover the correction. Konstantin argues that foreign bot campaigns are devastatingly effective because ordinary citizens form their worldview by observing prevailing social trends rather than engaging in hours of independent political analysis. He proposes a concept of “digital border enforcement” to expose geographic origins of coordinated comments. Foster notes that suspicious accounts with generic handles like "Bob67432" reliably swarm fabricated stories with manufactured outrage, reinforcing false impressions of public sentiment.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Online Disinformation Cycle
accDescr: Diagram showing how fake news, bot amplification, and monetization distort public perception on social platforms.
subgraph Origin["Content Creation"]
A["Fabricated Stories & AI Images"]
B["Bad-Faith Contrarian Takes"]
end
subgraph Impact["Public Impact"]
E["Illusion of Popular Narrative"]
F["Distorted Public Opinion & Confusion"]
end
A --> C
B --> D
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
```
---
[04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=278s) Outrage-Baiting and the Economics of Social Engagement
The hosts examine the professional incentives behind radical and absurd takes on social media. Foster observes that prominent influencers repeatedly push preposterous statements solely because outrage drives astronomical engagement numbers. Rogan agrees, noting that being contrarian and aggravating people is the easiest shortcut to virality. Foster points out that platform monetization schemes directly reward hostility:
> “If you piss people off, if you say something that's outrageous, that's far easier to then get people engaging with you than to do something funny.”
Kisin jokingly protests that leaning into outrage has been their business model on TRIGGERnometry for eight and a half years. Turning serious, he highlights recent diverse bookings on their show—including progressive commentator David Pakman, libertarian comedian Dave Smith, and conservative Steven Crowder—aimed at escaping online polarization and hosting civil discussions anchored in shared facts. Kisin praises Rogan for consistently managing to book voices across the entire political spectrum without facing the friction other platforms encounter.
---
[07:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=424s) Good-Faith Conversations vs. Political Theater
Rogan explains that his single criterion for hosting someone is finding people who converse in good faith rather than functioning as partisan mouthpieces. He expresses utter disdain for hyper-partisan operatives who talk over interlocutors to derail thoughts, specifically criticizing the style popularized by television shout-fests:
> “I don't want to have on these people that I think are full of shit, that are propagandists, that are loyal to a party to the point where they'll just distort facts or obfuscate or talk over you when you're trying to make points like the Piers Morgan model.”
Rogan explains he feels no obligation to dedicate his show to staging confrontational gotcha interviews to expose obvious liars. Instead, he prefers discussing issues with people he genuinely finds interesting, citing his willingness to host Bernie Sanders again despite their political disagreements. Drawing on a stand-up comedy analogy, Rogan compares Sanders’s recurring talking points—like his rhetoric on climate change—to a comic running a bit so many times that it loses personal meaning and becomes completely mechanical:
> “You've been doing a bit for a long time and then the bit stops losing meaning. You just say it the way you've always said it, but it doesn't have any meaning to you anymore and the bit starts to get stale.”
[09:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=547s) 1970s Ice Age Panics and Leonard Nimoy’s "In Search of..."
The conversation turns to the shifting narratives around global climate and how difficult it is to get clear answers. Joe Rogan notes that anyone who dives deeply into climate science quickly realizes how confusing and non-linear the system actually is. He references a recent article arguing that modern global warming may have inadvertently prevented an imminent ice age, pointing out that in the 1970s, the dominant media narrative was not catastrophic heat, but global cooling.
Joe fondly recalls the classic 1970s television series *In Search of...*, hosted by *Star Trek* actor Leonard Nimoy. The show offered a sensational mix of UFO investigations, Bigfoot hunts, doom-and-gloom forecasts, and an episode warning of an approaching deep freeze. Between extreme cold and extreme heat, Joe argues that plunging temperatures pose a vastly greater threat to human survival, remarking, “It's a fucking terrifying proposition that the world freezes over again cuz if it gets hot, you just move to the places that used to be cold and get air conditioning, right?” Francis Foster immediately undercuts the premise by noting that England lacks the basic technology required to handle heat: “We don't have air conditioning, Joe.”
[10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=608s) European Heat Deaths vs. US Firearms and the Winter Cold Reality
Joe brings up a striking comparative statistic: more people die across Europe from heat during the summer than die from firearm violence in the United States over an entire year. Francis and Konstantin Kisin admit the claim sounds plausible after recent brutal European summers, though Konstantin notes that green policies discourage air conditioning adoption because the units draw substantial electric power, which climate advocates oppose.
Young Jamie pulls up official numbers on screen to verify the claim. The comparison holds true: a study found an estimated 61,672 heat-related deaths across Europe during a single summer, whereas the CDC recorded just over 48,000 firearm deaths in the United States across an entire twelve-month period—a figure that encompasses suicides, homicides, accidents, and police shootings combined. The table shifts when examining mortality from freezing temperatures. Jamie pulls up a 2024 study showing that an estimated 364,000 people die each year from cold across 30 European countries (based on historical annual averages from 1991 to 2020). Konstantin stresses that domestic energy policy in the UK directly worsens this winter mortality:
> “Well, this is what people don't understand about the the climate change agenda is it's it's pushed electricity prices up and so and gas prices and so energy is much more expensive. So you literally have pensioners freezing to death in winter cuz they can't afford to heat their home properly cuz we're saving the planet.”
- **European summer heat deaths**: Estimated at 61,672 in a single summer.
- **US firearm deaths (annual total)**: Over 48,000 recorded by the CDC across an entire year (inclusive of homicides, suicides, and other firearm discharges).
- **European annual cold deaths**: Estimated average of roughly 364,000 per year across 30 European countries.
[13:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=792s) British Houses, Heatwaves, and Cultural Adjustments
Konstantin jokes that the UK simply needs the Second Amendment and air conditioning to solve its issues. Francis quips that having an air-conditioned flat in London has become the ultimate dating status symbol. Konstantin mentions he is currently paying to install air conditioning in his newly purchased house, though British domestic life has historically treated mechanical cooling as an unnecessary luxury. While Austin, Texas, endures persistent triple-digit heat, the typical British summer averages highs around 70°F (roughly 21°C) in July and August.
Recent years, however, have seen anomalous spikes reaching 37°C to 40°C (104°F). Francis explains that the real suffering stems from national infrastructure rather than purely absolute temperature. British homes, brick buildings, and subway trains are engineered specifically to trap and conserve heat for damp winter months. While 40°C on an Italian vacation is accommodated by open architecture, shutters, and coastal breezes, that same temperature trapped inside insulated, unventilated British housing stock creates unlivable conditions.
[15:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=906s) Climate Complexity, Computer Modeling, and Britain’s 1% Share
Joe argues that public panics over short-term temperature spikes ignore the vast, chaotic history of planetary climate. Earth’s historical temperature records show dramatic wild swings, including past geological epochs where atmospheric carbon concentrations were significantly higher than today while global temperatures remained far cooler. He emphasizes that the climate system depends on intricate differential equations involving cloud cover, wind patterns, greenhouse gases, and fluctuating solar activity, making dogmatic claims of "settled science" absurd.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Empirical Science vs. Climate Science
accDescr: Diagram contrasting laboratory physical science with speculative climate system modeling.
subgraph HardScience["Empirical Physical Science"]
A["Universal Laws (Gravity, Mechanics)"] --> B["Measurable & Repeatable Calculations"]
B --> C["100% Predictable Outcomes"]
end
subgraph ClimateModeling["Climate Projection Modeling"]
D["Multi-Variable Systems (Sun, Wind, CO2)"] --> E["Computer Simulations & Assumptions"]
E --> F["Estimations & Approximations"]
end
```
Konstantin, drawing on his background with family members who are physicists and biochemical engineers, points out a fundamental public misunderstanding of what the label "science" actually means:
> “When we think about science, we think about something that's 100% predictable, measurable, calculable. You can go if we change this, then this is going to happen. Climate modeling is not like that. It's it's an approximation and an estimate based on a lot of assumptions. And we don't know how accurate those assumptions are.”
Konstantin points out the self-destructive futility of current British environmental regulations given the math of global emissions. The UK accounts for approximately 1% of total global carbon emissions:
> “So if we reduced it to zero, we'd not have any impact on the climate at all while just destroying our economy, killing people. And that's what we've done. We have the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. That's why you can't you can't build anything in the UK.”
He notes that while the US debates power generation for new artificial intelligence data centers, Britain has priced itself out of building industrial businesses or computing infrastructure altogether. Joe adds another inconvenient reality: the measurable phenomenon of "global greening," where elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide has driven widespread expansion of planetary leaf cover and plant growth. Joe concludes that the alarmist rhetoric surrounding climate policy is fundamentally driven by financial incentives, government mandates, and corporate subsidies rather than genuine benevolence.
[18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1116s) Corporate Incentives, Greenwashing, and Economic Monopolies
Joe Rogan argues that the corporate interests backing green initiatives are not driven by altruism or a desire to save the planet, but by raw profit motives. He mocks the well-meaning liberal in East Austin driving a Prius with a "Science is Science" bumper sticker, contrasting individual good intentions with corporate reality. Boardrooms analyze financial spreadsheets to see how much money can be generated if legislation restricts competing energy sectors to promote their own, even when alternatives like wind turbines are radically inefficient and harmful to the environment. These corporations fund politicians and bankroll political advertisements under banners like "A Greener Texas" purely to enrich themselves. As Rogan puts it: “They're vampires. They're vampire people.”
Konstantin Kisin agrees, pointing out the historical precedent where oil companies funded anti-nuclear advocacy to protect market share. In Britain, Kisin observes a similar phenomenon with government incentive structures: tax write-offs make it possible to purchase an electric car through a business that is twice as good for the same money, directly funneling wealth to vehicle manufacturers.
Rogan connects this manipulation to Texas legislation, where lobbyists are pushing to ban hemp-derived THC and marijuana products because alcohol sales are experiencing a steep decline. Rogan notes this drop in alcohol consumption is exacerbated by the massive rise of GLP-1 agonists like Ozempic. Millions of people are on these appetite suppressants, and millions more hide it by claiming dramatic weight loss is merely "calorie restriction," masking an enormous shift in consumer habits.
---
[21:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1263s) Slogans as Substitutes for Knowledge and the Secular Vacuum
Francis Foster highlights that much of the societal divide stems from a basic lack of education and comprehension. When people lack the deep knowledge required to navigate complicated geopolitical issues like climate change or war in the Middle East, an internal vacuum forms. To function socially and publicly, individuals must fill that void, often reaching for the simplest available catchphrase. Foster observes: “So they don't have their own opinions, so they simply reach for something. And you know what you're going to reach for? You're going to reach for a slogan, right?”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The ideological vacuum and political dogmatism
accDescr: Chart illustrating how a lack of education and religious scaffolding leads to secular ideological zealotry.
subgraph Vacuum ["Internal Vacuum"]
A["Lack of deep education"] --> B["Void in personal worldview"]
C["Secularization & loss of traditional religion"] --> B
end
subgraph Substitution ["Filling the Void"]
B --> D["Adopt simplified political slogans"]
B --> E["Political causes become surrogate religions"]
end
subgraph Dogmatism ["Dogmatic Expression"]
D --> F["Inability to defend nuanced arguments"]
E --> G["Treating opposing viewpoints as heresy"]
F --> H["Hostility toward dissent"]
G --> H
end
```
Rogan builds on Foster's point to theorize why elements of the modern political left have embraced extreme and contradictory ideas. While recognizing that the political right has its own absurdities, Rogan argues that the progressive left's looniness is distinct because it is overwhelmingly secular, operating without traditional moral scaffolding. While acknowledging religion has flaws, Rogan notes that structures like the Ten Commandments establish humility, worship of a higher power, and a shared community code.
To illustrate, Rogan points to the civility observed in church parking lots, where drivers politely take turns letting each other exit: “I'm like just that alone proves that Christianity can work and that there's something to that. I guarant-fucking-tee you if you went to like some trans rights rally and you parked your car and tried to leave. It would not be so kind.” Rogan, speaking from his perspective at 59 years of age, asserts that the human psyche evolved over thousands of years to require religious belief. In the absence of traditional faith, progressive political causes become the surrogate religion, turning political opponents into infidels and heretics.
---
[25:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1505s) Religion as Social Technology and the Flaws of Polling Data
Konstantin Kisin references an unreleased conversation from *TRIGGERnometry* with psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who, despite being non-religious, has come to view religion as an essential social technology for maintaining group cohesion. Kisin stresses the psychological benefits of Christian gratitude practices: consciously acknowledging how fortunate one is every day grounds the mind and prevents people from turning into deranged zealots who scream at ideological opponents in the street. Rogan and Foster agree that screaming in someone's face is both radically ineffective and entirely incapable of changing someone's mind.
Jamie Vernon pulls up demographic data from Pew Research comparing religious identification between political parties:
- **78%** of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents identify with a religion.
- Roughly **60%** of Democrats identify with a religion.
- About **39%** of Democrats identify as religiously unaffiliated.
- Roughly **1%** across the board refuse to answer polling questions.
Rogan identifies with that 1%, calling poll refusers the most intelligent cohort because productive people with families, jobs, and hobbies do not waste time answering phone surveys. As a result, Rogan argues that political polling systematically samples from the narrow subset of people who are foolish enough to participate. Foster adds that this mirrors academic psychology studies, which produce skewed insights into human nature because they rely almost exclusively on university undergraduates. Rogan concludes by noting how the progressive political movement has begun colonizing religion itself, pointing to progressive and LGBT pastors who reinterpret scripture to assert that abortion is acceptable or that God is non-binary.
[28:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1700s) Religion, Scriptural Edits, and Ancient Incense
Joe Rogan critiques modern attempts to update religion with progressive ideas, arguing that picking and choosing modern sensibilities misses the more glaring historical issues embedded in sacred texts. He points out that if people are going to depart from literal orthodoxy, they should address other topics first: “There's a lot of stuff that's in there we should probably concentrate on first before we start saying God's non-binary.” Francis Foster agrees, reflecting on his Catholic upbringing and attending Church of England services. He remarks that churchgoers want the authentic ritual—comparing it to wanting “the Marlboro Reds” or hearing the Latin mass—so they can sit in the pews thinking, “Fuck, I'm going to hell and it's going to be awful.”
The conversation shifts to historical religious practices, with Rogan asserting that early church censers used cannabis rather than modern incense to relax congregants. Francis jokingly responds, “No wonder they're trying to ban it in Texas, man.”
[29:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1785s) Cannabis Economics, Colorado Taxes, and High-Potency Weed
Rogan attributes the opposition to cannabis legalization in Texas to the influence of the alcohol lobby, pointing to traceable donations to politicians like Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick. He contrasts the high cost of alcohol with cannabis, referencing Colorado's rollout as the first state to legalize recreational weed. Colorado placed a steep tax (around 39%) on sales to fund public schools, which consumers happily accepted because cannabis remains comparatively cheap per use.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Cost and Consumption Comparison Between Alcohol and Cannabis
accDescr: Visual flowchart contrasting the high cost and rapid intake of alcohol against the potency and low per-session cost of modern cannabis.
subgraph Alcohol["A Night Out Drinking"]
A1["Group of friends at a bar"] --> A2["Tabbing rounds throughout the night"]
A2 --> A3["$500 to $600 total bill"]
end
subgraph Cannabis["Modern Cannabis Consumption"]
C1["$15 to $20 single pre-roll"] --> C2["High THC potency infused with kief crystals"]
C2 --> C3["Extremely long-lasting intoxication"]
end
```
Rogan illustrates the math: spending $500 to $600 on drinks during a night out with five friends is easy, whereas smoking $600 worth of cannabis would incapacitate someone for a month. Young producer Jamie Vernon notes that in California, a single joint costs roughly $15 to $20. Rogan observes that modern growers have turned cultivation into a science, creating joints dipped in THC crystals and dusted with kief. He jokes that whenever comedian Ron White brings these super-potent joints to the Comedy Mothership, he warns, “Get that out of here before everybody dies. No one can handle this.”
[31:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1897s) The Physical Toll of Alcohol and Supplement Strategies
Francis notes that younger generations simply lack the disposable income to drink heavily the way older generations did. Rogan adds that online health influencers have helped expose the physiological downsides of alcohol. After taking an eight-month break from drinking, Rogan noticed significant improvements in his day-to-day energy, sleep, and well-being. Konstantin Kisin observes that alcohol yields diminishing returns: after the first glass of wine, additional drinks do not improve the evening and guarantee a hangover the next day.
To counter hangovers, Rogan advises taking liposomal glutathione, explaining that it is more bioavailable, along with amino acids and electrolytes to combat dehydration and immunosuppression. When Francis quips that needing a handful of pills is a terrible sales pitch for wine, Rogan defends daily supplementation. He recalls a past encounter with an out-of-shape physician: “I had a doctor with a pot belly once tell me that you get everything you need from a balanced diet. I'm like shut the fuck up.” Francis shares his own parallel example, noting that his cousin was a cardiologist who smoked 40 cigarettes a day.
[34:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2079s) Medical Malpractice, British Reserve, and Customer Service
The dialogue moves into structural differences between healthcare in the UK and the United States. Rogan asks whether British doctors face the same crushing malpractice insurance fees as their American counterparts. Francis explains that higher education tuition in the UK kicks in at university, but medical liability costs are far lower because the UK lacks America’s aggressive litigation culture. British patients generally avoid suing unless an error is catastrophic.
However, Konstantin points out the downside to this cultural reserve: British customer service is notoriously indifferent, resembling the Soviet Union far more than the United States. In the USSR, shop workers acted as though they were doing customers a favor by serving them. Konstantin contrasts this with Texas, where restaurant staff are openly friendly and welcoming, admitting it takes him a week to adjust whenever he visits. Rogan attributes Texas warmth partly to lower population density compared to overcrowded places like California.
[36:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2164s) Urban Density and Desmond Morris’s *The Human Zoo*
The trio discusses urban congestion and the global collapse of fertility rates. Rogan jokes that while society worries about birth rates, Elon Musk is single-handedly trying to fix the problem by having numerous children, while Konstantin mentions he has hit the replacement rate with two children of his own.
Konstantin connects overcrowding to the work of British primatologist Desmond Morris, specifically his book *The Human Zoo*. Morris argued that confining human beings to dense urban cities produces the exact same pathological behaviors observed in caged animals:
- Spikes in interpersonal violence
- Increased rates of depression and mental illness
- Declining reproductive drives
Konstantin reflects on having moved out of town into a rural area, noting that returning to a crowded town on a Saturday now makes him feel overwhelmed within ten minutes. Rogan agrees that massive populations packed into tight spaces fundamentally warp human psychology.
[37:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2222s) Escaping the City Buzz: Nature, Fire Island, and Manhattan Tolls
Francis Foster admits that he now avoids London whenever possible, going in only for work before immediately retreating to hide in his house. The trio compares the relentless overstimulation of modern urban living to social media addiction, noting that both produce an uninterrupted dopamine loop that leaves people incapable of handling quiet moments. Joe Rogan shares an anecdote about a close friend who has lived in Manhattan for over thirty years: ten to fifteen years ago, the friend acquired a retreat on Fire Island, where cars are essentially absent, travel happens by ferry or bicycle, and life slows down. The friend confessed that without that rural counterbalance, he would have surrendered his Manhattan apartment long ago.
While Rogan enjoyed the 24-hour frenzy of New York when he was a 23-year-old bachelor shooting pool at Chelsea Billiards or eating 4:00 a.m. steak dinners at sit-down restaurants, he finds living there unlivable as an adult. Konstantin Kisin notes that even when staying in a friend's luxury Manhattan apartment, genuine rest is impossible when people are screaming obscenities outside at 3:15 a.m. Kisin points out that life priorities transform dramatically once domestic life takes root, observing: “Like I would rather spend half an hour with my son walking in the woods over, you know, whatever the best New York has to offer.”
- Francis Foster only enters London for mandatory work tasks and leaves promptly.
- Rogan recalls that before COVID-19 curtailed late-night culture, places like Chelsea Billiards and high-end sit-down diners provided full meals and activities at all hours of the night.
- Rogan recounts moving out of Los Angeles proper to an adjacent county on multiple acres, where seeing bobcats, mountain lions, deer, and circling hawks replaced the oppressive audio-visual noise of urban centers.
---
[40:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2455s) Inner-City Children in Nature and the Void of Night Skies
Francis Foster reflects on his previous career as a schoolteacher in a disadvantaged area of East London. Each year, the faculty took inner-city students out to the countryside for a one-week residential trip. Foster observed a profound behavioral shift: in their everyday environment surrounded by concrete tower blocks, the 10- and 11-year-old kids arrived at morning lineup on edge, amped up, and braced for conflict. After spending just one week engaged in outdoor countryside activities, their demeanor softened completely, revealing an entirely different side of their personalities.
Rogan ties this directly to evolutionary biology, arguing that humans evolved alongside nature and religion, and modern society is unraveling because both have been stripped away. In particular, light pollution separates urban populations from the awe-inspiring cosmos. Rogan recalls a recent conversation with comedian Colin Quinn (misremembered in conversation as Colin Tyrell), who talked about stargazing in Big Bend in South Texas—one of the darkest regions in the country. Being confronted by the unpolluted Milky Way instills perspective and humility, whereas city dwellers live under a perpetually light-bleached sky, trapped in a myopic, self-obsessed bubble.
---
[42:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2563s) Online Distortions, Media Lies, and the Cost of Public Visibility
Konstantin Kisin explains that because of their jobs, they are forced to remain digitally connected, which makes social media attacks exhausting. He finds solace in his garden looking at two 300-year-old trees, which immediately restores perspective on online controversies. While Rogan treats harsh public feedback as the unavoidable price of putting out content, Kisin draws a sharp line between legitimate criticism and fabricated smears: “The lies piss me off because I'm like I am happy to be criticized for mistakes I make. I'm happy to be criticized for things that I said inarticulately. I'm happy to be criticized by people who don't like my world view. But don't fucking lie about don't make up shit about me and and tell other people that that's what I am.”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Online Outrage vs Real-World Nuance
accDescr: Diagram illustrating how short-form social media distorts public perception compared to long-form conversation.
subgraph DigitalMachine["The Clip Economy"]
A["Twitter Hot Takes & 15s Clips"] --> B["Caricatured Worldviews"]
B --> C["Partisan Extremes (Left vs. Right)"]
C --> D["Anxiety & Warped Reality"]
end
subgraph LongFormNuance["Human Conversation"]
E["Uncut Long-Form Podcasts"] --> F["Time & Space for Subtlety"]
F --> G["One-on-One Disarmament"]
G --> H["Grounded, Reasonable Human Beings"]
end
```
Rogan observes that both major political parties are now judged entirely by their most extreme fringes—the far left identified with open borders and trans athletes in women's sports, and the far right associated with xenophobia and Christian nationalism. Absorbing these caricatures online distorts real-life interactions. Rogan argues that long-form podcasting serves as a vital antidote: someone exposed only to sensationalized clips on X (Twitter) might despise a creator, but upon hearing them speak at length in an unhurried setting, they realize the person is nuanced and reasonable. The problem, Kisin concludes, lies in the perverse incentives of clip culture, where actors chasing clicks and engagement have abandoned any interest in truth.
[46:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2762s) Long-Form Podcasts vs. Outrage Bait and Vicious Attack Ads
The conversation begins by examining how the digital economy rewards outrage over substance, and why long-form podcasting has emerged as an alternative. While polarized takes, rage-baiting, and divisive content are notorious for driving massive engagement and revenue, Joe Rogan pushes back against total pessimism, pointing to the massive cultural footprint of shows like his and *TRIGGERnometry*. Rogan emphasizes:
> “It's like it's clear that there's a thirst for this. There's a hunger for people having discussions and for people that say, 'Oh, well, I see this point of view. I see why you would think that way. This is what I think and let's talk.'”
Konstantin Kisin notes that political partisanship invariably warps rational discourse. He shares that when *TRIGGERnometry* first launched, they maintained a strict foundational rule to never invite sitting politicians on the show. However, as their interest grew and access expanded, having political figures on caused audiences to pigeonhole them into polarized tribes, unleashing full partisan hostility.
Konstantin recounts sitting in an Airbnb the previous day preparing for an interview without being logged into their YouTube account, which exposed them to unfiltered American political attack ads running ahead of the upcoming elections. Both Konstantin and Rogan marvel at the sheer vitriol of these campaigns, highlighting extreme attack lines leveled against figures such as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Texas State Representative James Talarico:
- Accusations in ads reaching grotesque extremes, ranging from labeling Ken Paxton as someone who "loves pedophiles" to claiming James Talarico wants to attack your children and transition them.
- A humorous riff on the partisan polarization: imagining a future thirty years down the line when cultural dynamics flip, Republicans become the ones transitioning children, and straight people are forced into hiding, living in secret while being hounded by TMZ for being caught kissing women in public.
---
[48:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2931s) Immigration Incentives, Gerrymandering, and Rogan’s Fact-Check on *The View*
The conversation pivots to the real-world consequences of partisan governance, centering on illegal immigration and border policy. Rogan reflects on being fact-checked by Sunny Hostin on ABC's *The View* after publicly explaining his decision to vote Republican. On the show, Hostin claimed the border was secure and noted that President Biden had publicly told migrants not to come. Rogan rejects this framing, detailing the operational realities on the ground:
> “The border was wide open and that people were fucking coming through. And fucking Sunny Hostin fact-checked me and actually was saying that Biden told people not to come—like, but they did.”
Rogan highlights several contributing factors to the crisis:
- Texas Governor Greg Abbott busing incoming migrants to self-proclaimed sanctuary cities like New York City to force northern leadership to handle the policy consequences firsthand.
- Non-governmental organizations and the Red Cross providing migrants with maps, logistical routing into the United States, EBT debit cards, mobile phones, plane tickets, and accommodations in luxury hotels upon arrival.
- Disproportionate settlements in key swing states, such as the influx of Haitian migrants into Springfield, Ohio.
- **The Constitutional Incentive**: The U.S. Census counts all residents regardless of citizenship status to apportion Congressional districts and electoral votes, creating a systemic partisan incentive to bring in millions of migrants to solidify long-term legislative power.
- **Political Strategies for Power**: Kamala Harris’s proposals to pack the Supreme Court and grant statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, which Rogan argues are transparent maneuvers designed to secure permanent majority rule.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Political Incentives of Undocumented Migration
accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how border arrivals feed into census apportionment and legislative seats.
subgraph Influx["Border Movement & Placement"]
A["Unchecked Border Crossings"] --> B["Logistical Aid (NGOs, Transit, Hotels)"]
B --> C["Settlement in Swing States & Cities"]
end
subgraph Mechanism["Constitutional Apportionment"]
C --> D["U.S. Census Counts All Inhabitants"]
D --> E["Expanded Congressional District Allocation"]
end
subgraph Strategy["Electoral Outcome"]
E --> F["Consolidation of Legislative Power"]
end
```
---
[51:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3093s) Urban Crime Reporting and the Stigma on Venezuelan Migrants
Evaluating the state of public safety, Rogan discusses law enforcement metrics under the new administration's federal leadership, noting the debate over FBI crime statistics. While paper metrics reflect dropping numbers, Rogan and Francis Foster argue that metropolitan reality feels radically disconnected from the data:
> “Everybody that I know that lives in Los Angeles says it's fucking Gotham City now. It's fucking nuts.”
Rogan contends that this purported decline is heavily driven by rampant under-reporting: in major jurisdictions like Los Angeles, citizens no longer bother reporting car break-ins, burglaries, or street theft because police do not respond or prosecute. Residents continue voting for policies that steadily degrade urban life because they are entrenched in ideological groupthink.
Francis Foster offers a personal perspective rooted in his Venezuelan heritage. Whenever he meets Venezuelan Uber drivers and workers, they urge him to use his media platform to separate ordinary people seeking an honest living from criminal elements:
- Venezuelan working-class immigrants express frustration that illegal immigration and open borders allow violent gangs—such as the notorious *Tren de Aragua*—to enter undetected, unleashing drug running and violent crime that destroys the reputation of all Venezuelan arrivals.
- Rogan questions whether allowing unchecked migration alongside criminal elements is purely an unintended byproduct of Congressional seat expansion, or a calculated strategy: destabilizing public order to manufacture consent for widespread surveillance infrastructure, such as Flock automated license plate recognition cameras and expanded digital phone monitoring, sold under the premise of restoring community safety. Francis concludes by noting the sheer operational difficulty of vetting or separating bad actors once the physical border is opened.
[55:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3314s) The Bipartisan Political Machine and Border Inaction
Konstantin Kisin recounts a recent conversation with Andrew Yang, pointing to why Yang stepped away from the traditional Democratic and Republican two-party structure. Yang told him that neither party genuinely seeks to fix foundational problems like border security. According to Yang, some Republicans deliberately stonewall Democratic attempts to close or secure the border simply to ensure it remains a potent campaign wedge issue. Joe Rogan notes that Representative Anna Paulina Luna confirmed the same political dynamic to him directly, explaining that politicians intentionally keep issues unresolved because campaign fundraising hinges on having unsolved crises in the repertoire.
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: Broken Political Incentive Cycle
accDescr: Diagram showing how political parties maintain unsolved crises to sustain fundraising and campaign talking points.
subgraph Incentives["Political Incentive Model"]
A["Unresolved National Issues\n(e.g., Border Security)"] --> B["Campaign Fundraising\n& Talking Points"]
B --> C["Electoral Advantage\n& Power Retention"]
C --> D["Deliberate Inaction\n& Policy Stonewalling"]
D --> A
end
```
Konstantin notes that this dynamic highlights why traditional leftist critiques of concentrated power and corporatism resonate with him. He reflects that the more political figures and insiders they interview on *TRIGGERnometry*, the more convinced he becomes that political and institutional behaviors are steered entirely by greed rather than moral values. Konstantin remarks: “They’re not even saying they’re immoral. I think they’re worse. They’re amoral. They don’t give a fuck as long as they win the election, they make money, they increase their bonus.” He finds this entrenched amorality and concentration of institutional authority far more frightening than overt, deliberate malice.
---
[56:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3413s) Corporate Greed and the Diffusion of Responsibility
Joe explains that this amorality stems from the culture embedded inside large corporate machines, driven by an extreme diffusion of responsibility. An individual sitting at a desk in Dallas running spreadsheets for a manufacturing giant does not perceive themselves as personally culpable for toxic waste being dumped into a river in Cambodia. People rationalize their work by pointing to their narrow functional duties: a defense attorney focuses solely on acquitting a guilty client, while a corporate manager answers only to quarterly margins, shareholder dividends, and 16-hour workdays fueled by Adderall. Joe observes that people postpone morality in favor of climbing the corporate ladder toward massive golden parachutes: “The culture is all about making the most money pop as possible. And when you’re around a bunch of other people that are doing that, it seems fine. The responsibility of being moral is completely removed.”
Francis Foster adds that individuals with an active moral conscience inevitably self-select out of these corporate or institutional systems because they cannot stomach the dissonance. When people hit that breaking point, Joe jokes, their only recourse is to quit and “write an article for *The Atlantic*” that nobody will ever read.
- In massive corporations, specialized desk workers separate their daily administrative output from real-world environmental or human harm.
- Personal ethical considerations are deferred behind corporate benchmarks, executive bonuses, and shareholder obligations.
- Conscientious workers drop out of bureaucratic and corporate hierarchies rather than shifting institutional behavior from within.
---
[58:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3527s) Podcasting Responsibility vs. The Outrage-Bait Business Model
Konstantin draws an analogy between independent podcasting and operating a family-run restaurant. Creators are serving intellectual nourishment and conversation to an audience, which carries an inherent ethical duty not to poison the product with toxic substitutes simply to inflate profit margins. While booking inflammatory, polarizing figures could easily multiply their viewership tenfold, Konstantin emphasizes that *TRIGGERnometry* intentionally refuses to embrace bad-faith sensationalism.
They examine how mainstream media incentives reward conflict. While Joe defends Piers Morgan's long-form interviews as occasionally brilliant when granted sufficient time, the hosts criticize the standard cable and digital model where guests are brought on exclusively to shout over one another for brief segments. Konstantin recalls an idea shared by their mutual friend Chris Williamson regarding modern content consumption: “There’s a thing you know that postnut clarity. Yes. This post content clarity. And when you watch something that’s outrage porn, you get that postcontent like why have I spent 15 minutes watching, you know?” Francis explains that he actively avoids clip-farming videos where one pundit supposedly “destroys” another, setting a personal rule to consume only content directly vetted and recommended by trusted friends.
---
[01:00:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3656s) Reality in the Classroom vs. Culture Wars, and Audience Attention Spans
Francis recalls promoting his book, *(Un)educated: My Life as a Teacher, and Why You Should Never Become One*, where interviewers repeatedly asked why he did not center the text around trending culture-war flashpoints like gender identity or decolonization in the curriculum. Francis highlights the absurd gap between media obsession and everyday working-class life, noting: “Mate, I was teaching in a in a fucking ghetto in East London. We didn’t have time to talk about decolonization cuz you can’t do it. How are you going to talk about decolonization when a kid’s throwing a chair at your head?” While refusing to lean into fashionable culture-war talking points sacrificed easy viral exposure, Francis and Joe agree that chasing algorithmic outrage cheapens the product.
Konstantin reflects on the ethical weight of steering a platform approaching two million subscribers: “If somebody says something that is actually, you know, that you think isn’t right, it’s your duty to challenge him. It’s also your duty to, you know, to make sure that the interview is prepped properly so that when they have their arguments, you can go, ‘Well, actually, what about this? What about that?’” Rogan pushes back against the common media assertion that the public’s attention span has fundamentally shrunk. Pointing to the booming popularity of long-form audiobooks and podcasts—which prompted Spotify’s massive investments in spoken-word media—Joe argues that people remain hungry for nuanced, extended discourse as long as the substance is compelling.
[01:03:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3824s) Media Consumption, Podcasts, and the Rise of YouTube Over TV
Joe Rogan reflects on the shifting desires of modern media consumers, arguing that audiences crave substantive content rather than passive entertainment. While negative stimulation like outrage easily hijacks an audience's attention, he notes that constructive or intriguing ideas leave a lasting impact. Rogan shares how he often turns off the radio in his car after hearing a compelling conversation just to contemplate the ideas, pointing out: “I think there's millions of people out there like that. They're just that desire is not being fulfilled. So, it gets their attention gets hijacked by horseshit.”
Konstantin Kisin notes that although legacy media commentators dismiss online media by claiming television numbers still eclipse individual podcasts or YouTube channels, the overall momentum is irreversible: television is on a downward trajectory while podcasting and online video continue to climb. Rogan argues that YouTube is already vastly more popular than any traditional television show, though Kisin counters that much of YouTube's massive view counts come from toy unboxing or niche outdoor survival content rather than thoughtful discussions.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Media Consumption Dynamics
accDescr: Diagram contrasting legacy television engagement driven by rage with long-form digital media engagement driven by contemplation.
subgraph Legacy["Traditional Broadcast Media"]
A["Outrage & Sensation"] --> B["Hijacked Attention"]
B --> C["Declining Long-term Audience"]
end
subgraph Digital["Digital & Long-Form Podcasting"]
D["Substantive Conversations"] --> E["Positive Brain Stimulation"]
E --> F["Deep Contemplation & Sustained Growth"]
end
```
[01:05:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3919s) The Trap of Viral Fame and the Case of *Outdoor Boys*
The conversation turns to viral YouTube channels, specifically Luke Nichols' channel *Outdoor Boys*. Konstantin mentions discovering the channel—where videos routinely rack up tens of millions of views camping in snow igloos or wilderness survival—only to realize the creator recently walked away from regular uploads despite having over twenty million subscribers. The panel discusses how sudden, monumental fame can completely overwhelm a creator, especially an ordinary outdoorsman who reads the comments and suddenly finds himself under intense global scrutiny.
A major complication arose when Nichols incorporated his young children into the camping videos. Francis Foster and Rogan discuss the heavy ethical and practical concerns of putting children on camera before they are old enough to understand the consequences:
- **Lack of informed consent:** Young children cannot comprehend the long-term ramifications of entering the public eye.
- **Social fallout:** Children still have to attend regular school and navigate peers knowing their private lives.
- **Exposure to bad actors:** Millions of public viewers inevitably include unstable individuals and stalkers.
- **Parasocial disorientation:** Strangers approaching young kids with an assumption of intimacy can be deeply disconcerting.
Rogan expresses strong disapproval of broadcasting children, observing: “When I see people getting their children involved in their television shows, I'm like, 'Please don't do that.'”
[01:07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4032s) The Psychological Damage of Child Stardom
Rogan expands on the psychological toll of early fame, drawing parallels to child actors. Having recently spent time with Zac Efron at his comedy club, Rogan describes Efron as a kind person who speaks candidly about the disorientation of growing up famous. Rogan uses an analogy to describe the incomplete psychological development of child stars: “I liken it to when you make cement and you don't put all the ingredients in and then it kind of forms, but you can never fix it.” He observes that among the former child actors he has met, almost all struggle with adulthood, noting that Macaulay Culkin was perhaps the most grounded despite his documented hardships.
Foster asks why growing up famous causes such severe emotional instability. Rogan explains that normal childhood teaches people to earn social approval through behavior, skill, and mutual reciprocity. In contrast, child stars are adored unconditionally at age six, catered to by an entire television production staff, and insulated from consequences, discipline, or normal adolescent socialization:
- **Unearned validation:** Instead of learning social grace or developing talent organically, young stars receive worship purely for their image.
- **Absence of boundaries:** Tantrums and destructive behavior are excused rather than corrected, mirroring the entitled behavior of rock stars trashing hotel rooms.
- **Financial exploitation:** Parents and opportunists routinely mishandle or siphon the child's earnings, an experience Rogan notes happened to a personal actor friend who discovered his parents had stolen millions.
- **The early peak:** As Foster notes, child stars experience more attention and wealth than most people ever see, only to lose work and adoration around age sixteen as puberty alters their appearance.
To shield himself from the inevitable influx of pitches and opportunists that target wealthy people, Rogan explains his blanket rule: “I get confronted all the time with stupid ideas and I just I don't invest in anything. I'm like that's the best way for me to just diffuse it all.”
[01:11:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4263s) Tutankhamun: The Boy King and Inbreeding
The discussion of peaking young takes an absurd historical tangent when Rogan brings up Pharaoh Tutankhamun, who ascended the throne of Egypt around the age of nine. Konstantin jokes that the boy king was not truly ruling, quipping, “Yeah, he wasn't really running. It was like Joe Biden.”
The trio discusses the pharaoh's fragile physical state, noting that historical and forensic evidence reveals severe congenital issues:
- Tutankhamun suffered from severe physical deformities, bone conditions, and genetic frailties.
- Rogan notes that royal families throughout history routinely engaged in incest to protect bloodlines.
- A 2010 DNA analysis cited by Rogan confirmed that Tutankhamun's parents were full brother and sister, with his father identified as Pharaoh Akhenaten.
[01:12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4327s) King Tutankhamun and the Mystery of Lost Pharaoh Tombs
Reading from research on King Tutankhamun, Joe Rogan notes that his mother was identified as an unnamed mummy known as the "Younger Lady," who was likely also his sister. Tutankhamun’s physical remains differed sharply from the idealized portraits of royal propaganda: he suffered from a clubfoot and bone damage that impaired his ability to walk, an assessment supported by the numerous walking sticks found interred inside his tomb. Ascending the throne around age nine and dying around eighteen or nineteen, his cause of death remains unresolved, though DNA analysis detected malaria parasites, suggesting a fatal combination of malaria, congenital bone disorders, and a fractured leg.
Turning to folklore and historical speculation, Rogan brings up a theory regarding why Tut’s tomb remained hidden and intact while nearly every other major pharaoh's tomb was ransacked across millennia. The theory suggests Tutankhamun was so thoroughly disrespected and despised toward the end of his short reign that his caretakers covered his tomb entrance with loose rubble to deliberately erase him from public visitation, reasoning: “Fuck this guy. Like, ‘Yeah, we did what we had to do, but let’s just cover the whole thing with rubble.’” Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster find the irony hilarious—countless historical emperors obsessed over building eternal legacies only to be forgotten, yet the frail child ruler became the quintessential face of ancient Egypt simply because his sealed tomb survived. This prompts Rogan to wonder what unfathomable treasures must have filled the lost tombs of truly powerful pharaohs like Ramesses II if a minor, discarded king had such an elaborate golden burial.
- King Tutankhamun took the throne around age 9 and died around 18 or 19.
- Physical remains showed severe bone pathology, a clubfoot, and malaria parasite DNA; walking sticks in the tomb corroborate mobility impairment.
- Rubble piled over his tomb entrance kept it hidden from looters for thousands of years.
---
[01:14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4444s) Ancient Kings Lists, Lifespans, and Calendars
The conversation shifts to the staggering chronologies recorded in ancient king lists. Rogan points to the Egyptian *Zep Tepi* tradition and royal lists, which span back over 30,000 years into deep antiquity before transitioning abruptly into the standard, academically accepted dynastic eras. A bizarre commonality shared by both the ancient Egyptian records and the Sumerian King List is that rulers reigning prior to modern dynastic history are credited with reigning for tens of thousands of years—sometimes 35,000 to over 100,000 years. Foster wonders whether these numbers represent mistranslations, calculation errors, or symbolic language akin to the extreme lifespans recorded in the Old Testament, where figures like Noah are said to have lived past 600 years.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Ancient King Chronologies
accDescr: Comparison of pre-dynastic mythological reigns with historical dynastic records across Egypt and Sumer.
subgraph DeepAntiquity["Deep Antiquity (30,000+ Years Ago)"]
A["Sumerian King List & Egyptian 'Zep Tepi'"]
B["Rulers reigning 30,000 to 100,000+ years"]
A --> B
end
subgraph RecordedHistory["Standard Dynastic Eras"]
C["Accepted Historical Pharaohs & Kings"]
D["Lifespans normalize to typical human limits"]
C --> D
end
DeepAntiquity -.->|"Transition to documented dynasties"| RecordedHistory
```
Rogan explains that with cuneiform, scholars can accurately read the script and verify that later figures had accurate historical lifespans, meaning the disparity is not simply an illiterate blunder. Instead, ancient societies operated on fundamentally different timekeeping models, such as a 13-month lunar calendar consisting of 28-day months (364 days per year), which aligned neatly with natural moon cycles before arbitrary switches were made to 12-month calendars with uneven 28- and 31-day months. Rogan also suggests these vast spans might simply be ancient hyperbole for being unimaginably old, comparing it to modern exaggerations: “It’s like saying, you know, ‘Oh, I got a million friends.’ It’s just a lot. They’re just saying a lot. It’s like a substitute for a lot.”
---
[01:17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4623s) Megalithic Engineering, Tool Marks, and the Water Erosion Hypothesis
Recalling a trip to Egypt, Foster highlights the staggering technical sophistication of sites like the Temple of Abu Simbel, where the entrance was deliberately calibrated so that beams of sunlight enter the dark inner sanctum at a precise angle and time of day to illuminate the sacred altar. Rogan argues that modern explanations fail to account for the scale of quarrying, long-distance transportation of massive stones, and the physical tool marks left on stone surfaces. He notes evidence of core-drilled holes indicating high-speed rotation and enigmatic cuts that look like scooped-out granite, arguing these exceed the capabilities of simple copper saws, sand, and hand friction.
Rogan cites geologist Dr. Robert Schoch from Boston University, who famously argued that the deep, rounded vertical fissures along the enclosure walls of the Great Sphinx were caused by thousands of years of heavy precipitation rather than wind or sand erosion. Because torrential rainfall in the Nile Valley dates back at least 9,000 years, Schoch's work suggests the core monument may be 10,000 to 12,000 years old, or perhaps even older. Rogan also references the massive subterranean complexes documented by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who recorded that the subterranean labyrinths of Egypt surpassed even the spectacle and scale of the Giza pyramids.
- Abu Simbel’s solar alignment purposefully illuminates its inner sanctuary on specific calendar dates.
- High-speed drilling marks and scoop patterns in hard igneous rock present engineering mysteries that copper chisels and sand abrasive theories struggle to fully explain.
- Dr. Robert Schoch’s water-erosion analysis pushes the construction of the Sphinx enclosure to at least 9,000 to 12,000 years ago.
- Herodotus reported that Egypt's underground labyrinths rivaled or exceeded the grandeur of the pyramids.
---
[01:19:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4777s) Syncretic Gods, Imperial Control, and Genghis Khan's Pragmatism
Foster connects ancient statecraft to a British Museum exhibit detailing the aftermath of Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt, when the ruling Greek Ptolemaic elite faced a fractured society divided between Greek and Egyptian pantheons. Fearing sectarian civil war, political elites engineered syncretic hybrid deities that both Greek settlers and indigenous Egyptians could revere simultaneously, bridging the cultural divide while letting each group maintain their traditional gods underneath.
Rogan observes that manufacturing religious consensus has always been an imperial survival tool, drawing a parallel to Emperor Constantine adopting Christianity to unify a fractured Roman Empire: “It’s like got to bring everybody on the same page. This is people have always done this.” In stark contrast, Rogan notes that Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire maintained cohesion through ruthless secular pragmatism rather than spiritual enforcement. The Mongol doctrine was straightforward: worship whatever deity you choose, pay tribute, obey laws, and contribute warriors to the imperial army. Kisin jokes that Genghis Khan was remarkably “tolerant” in his own bloody way, prompting Rogan to bring up podcaster and historian Dan Carlin's deep-dive historical analysis of the Mongol conqueror.
> “Genghis Khan said, ‘I don’t give a fuck what your religion is. Come on board.’” — Joe Rogan
[01:21:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4875s) Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, and the Curse of the Tomb
The conversation begins with a reflection on how history often balances horrifying brutality against empire-building achievements. Joe Rogan points out the absurdity of how one of the most prolific killers in human records is viewed through a positive lens: “also killed 10% of the population like it's kind of crazy that one of the biggest mass murderers in the history of the human race documented is also thought about in the positive impacts that he had on civilization.”
Konstantin Kisin shares a personal story of taking his father back to Uzbekistan, where his father grew up and where Konstantin himself lived for four years. In the heart of Tashkent stands a massive statue dedicated to Timur, or Tamerlane, whom Konstantin describes as a brutal “mini Genghis Khan.” Konstantin jokes that the locals have no interest in modern revisionism: “And they c they're not decolonializing that shit. They're like, 'This is what this is our boy, you know.'” Tamerlane’s empire spanned from Constantinople to China, Russia, and India, though it fractured quickly after his death because his successors lacked his ferocity.
Konstantin then recounts the eerie urban legend surrounding Tamerlane's tomb in Samarkand. When Soviet archaeologists prepared to exhume the conqueror's remains, local elders warned them against it, pointing out an inscription warning that whoever opened the tomb would unleash an invader greater than Tamerlane. The archaeologists pried open the tomb anyway, and the very next day—June 22, 1941—Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union. As Konstantin notes, the Soviet forces spent the first eighteen months of the war being completely steamrolled, watching million-man armies surrender and seeing German tank forces arrive at the literal gates of Moscow, where tank traps still stand today. The story goes that after the devastating losses, the archaeologists realized their error, reinterred Tamerlane with a full Islamic burial, and resealed the tomb. The very next day, Soviet fortunes turned at the decisive Battle of Stalingrad, ultimately leading to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Rogan reacts in disbelief, calling it real-world evidence for "simulation theory."
- Konstantin lived in Uzbekistan for four years and notes that Tashkent and Samarkand feature massive, pristine monuments, madrasas, and mosques reminiscent of a "Muslim Rome."
- Operation Barbarossa was launched on June 22, 1941, allegedly the day after Soviet scientists unsealed Tamerlane's burial site.
- Historians widely argue that had Adolf Hitler not made crucial tactical errors and captured Moscow where Joseph Stalin had remained, the Soviet Union likely would have collapsed.
---
[01:24:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5088s) The Brutality of Mongol Conquests
Transitioning from Central Asia back to Genghis Khan, Rogan highlights how the Mongol invasion effectively erased centuries of cultural and scientific advancement in the Islamic world. In 1258, the Mongol forces sacked Baghdad, leaving the Tigris running red with blood and wiping out entire populations, setting Mesopotamia back by centuries.
Rogan recalls a harrowing account famously detailed by Dan Carlin on *Hardcore History*. An envoy sent by the Shah of Khwarazm traveled toward Jin dynasty China. In the distance, the travelers spotted what looked like a snow-capped mountain glistening in the sun, only to discover upon closer inspection that it was a gigantic mountain of human skulls and bones left behind by Genghis Khan’s army, which had wiped out over a million inhabitants. The devastation was so total that the expedition's wagons could no longer travel down the roads; the dirt had dissolved into an impassable mud composed entirely of rotting human corpses and decaying flesh.
---
[01:26:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5179s) Historical Calamity and the Modern Age of Anxiety
Francis Foster reflects on why speaking with historians provides such a stabilizing perspective on current events. Whenever modern media proclaims that the world is facing completely unprecedented chaos, a historian can effortlessly point to the 1820s or earlier centuries where identical crises unfolded, which Francis notes brings an immediate sense of calm. Rogan agrees, remarking: “People have always been fucked up like always.”
Rogan brings up Alan Watts’s 1951 work *The Wisdom of Insecurity* (which he refers to as *The Age of Insecurity*). Watts wrote in the early 1950s about the paralyzing anxiety people felt because culture, technology, and social mores were shifting too fast to process. Rogan observes that modern society looks back on the 1950s with rose-tinted nostalgia—imagining idyllic picket fences, friendly milkmen, and devout families—while completely ignoring the deep existential dread people actually lived with at the time. Humanity has always been messy, chaotic, and anxious; the only modern difference is a heightened awareness driven by the internet and digital propaganda.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Historical Perspective on Societal Anxiety
accDescr: Diagram showing how modern panic contrasts with historical precedent, leading to perspective through historical study.
subgraph Cycles["Historical Cycles of Anxiety"]
A["1950s: Rapid Tech & Cultural Shifts<br>(Alan Watts: Wisdom of Insecurity)"]
B["Past Eras: Wars, Invasions & Collapse<br>(1800s, Mongol Conquests)"]
end
subgraph Modern["Current Era"]
C["Present Panic:<br>'Unprecedented Times'"]
D["Internet & Information Saturation"]
end
subgraph Outcome["Historical Grounding"]
E["Studying History with Experts"]
F["Realization: Human Nature Is Constant"]
end
A --> C
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
```
- Konstantin points out that despite our complaints about modern generations lacking resilience, child-rearing has fundamentally improved compared to the Soviet era, where five-year-olds were beaten routinely for simple misunderstandings.
- Rogan stresses that while human misbehavior remains a constant, emerging technologies like artificial intelligence represent an unprecedented accelerant that will hypercharge cultural instability.
---
[01:29:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5343s) Geopolitical Tensions and Post-Midterm Escalation
The conversation shifts toward contemporary international flashpoints. Rogan voices growing concern over quiet geopolitical rumblings suggesting that the United States might resume direct military strikes or escalate operations against Iran following the upcoming midterm elections.
Rogan notes the strange media blackout surrounding military engagements already taking place in the Middle East, particularly around critical maritime choke points: “And what is going on with the Strait of Hormuz? Like boats are getting through, but they have to be ushered, you know, they have to be guided by battleships and shit. And like are they fighting off people all the time? I hear they are, I hear people are trying to attack these battleships all the time.” Rogan and the guests discuss the domestic political incentives at play, noting that initiating a major conflict beforehand would lead to an electoral wipeout, but if leadership waits until the votes are counted, the geopolitical fallout could rapidly turn ugly.
[01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5410s) UK Preparedness, Geopolitics, and Geography's Hard Realities
Francis Foster describes a recent speech by the British defence minister urging the public to stockpile three days' worth of essential supplies. Francis notes that while three days sounds modest, it reflects genuine vulnerability in Britain’s domestic infrastructure, which has been neglected and constrained by stringent green policies. Joe Rogan immediately draws a parallel to early pandemic messaging, asking, “Isn’t 3 days the modern version of two weeks to stop the spread?” After a brief pause for a bathroom break, the conversation restarts over vape pens and studio banter. Francis quips, “Nothing like three white guys talking about geopolitics,” which prompts mock outrage from Rogan and Konstantin Kisin over injecting race into the discussion.
Rogan pivots to the literal meaning of the word *geopolitics*, having Jamie pull up the foundational definition. Rather than merely describing diplomatic relations or treaties, the original discipline of geopolitics examines how physical geography—such as coastlines, mountain borders, natural resources, and access to sea lanes—determines national power and state behavior. The group agrees that modern political discourse often ignores this fundamental reality in favor of abstract ideology. For instance, Rogan points out that Western passion for Ukraine cannot be separated from the trillions of dollars worth of critical minerals within its soil. Konstantin adds that geography dictates Russian imperial strategy just as forcefully: roughly 80% of Russia’s economic and political core sits within its westernmost 20% of territory. Lacking natural barriers on the North European Plain, strong Russian regimes have historically pushed westward to establish strategic buffer zones, making an invasion of Ukraine predictable through a geographic lens.
- The UK defense minister publicly warned British citizens to keep at least a three-day stockpile of food and necessities due to fragile infrastructure.
- Formal definition: Geopolitics studies how geographical factors—including physical location, topography, ocean access, and natural resource distribution—shape foreign policy and international power.
- Ukraine possesses trillions of dollars in critical mineral reserves, adding a tangible resource dimension to international interest.
- Russia's strategic posture is shaped by the fact that 80% of its population, industry, and critical assets are concentrated in the westernmost 20% of the nation, prompting cyclical westward expansion to establish defense depth.
[01:33:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5588s) The "Escalation Trap" and Iran's Path to Regional Hegemony
Turning to the crisis involving Iran, Rogan and Konstantin observe that Washington policymakers repeatedly fall prey to wishful thinking. Rogan compares the current situation to the shift between the 1991 Gulf War—which was swift, focused, and decisive—and the post-9/11 invasion of Iraq, which bogged the United States down in a twenty-year quagmire driven by the naive assumption that Western democracy could simply be transplanted into a country with no institutional history of it. They note that the administration likely expected a rapid collapse similar to past operations, only to find themselves ensnared.
Konstantin references military and air power analyst Robert Pape, who appeared on *TRIGGERnometry* to describe what he terms the "escalation trap." According to this framework, Washington trapped itself into escalating military confrontations, inadvertently putting Iran on the path toward becoming an undisputed regional hegemon. By pressuring international shipping lanes, Tehran has demonstrated the capability to effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz. While Saudi Arabia built an East-West pipeline to bypass Hormuz by routing crude directly to the Red Sea, Houthi strikes have targeted that alternate conduit as well. Konstantin explains that Tehran now exercises an economic stranglehold over the West:
> “And you see that now where Iran is in a position we they’ve basically got a like they’ve got uh the global economy in a rear naked choke.”
Konstantin argues that rising domestic fuel and diesel prices in the United States stem directly from the Iranian theater rather than Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries. For Iran, the conflict represents an existential battle akin to the Soviet Union resisting invasion in 1941—they are willing to absorb massive hardship and losses because their survival is on the line. Conversely, American leadership faces tight political clocks, including midterm elections, the threat of losing congressional majorities, and looming investigations. Knowing that domestic political pressure mounts with every spike at the pump, Iranian leaders believe time and leverage are entirely on their side as they push for their core strategic demand: the complete expulsion of American military bases from the Middle East.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Escalation Trap in the Persian Gulf
accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how maritime disruptions and pipeline attacks produce global economic pressure that Iran leverages against US domestic political timelines.
subgraph Bottlenecks["Chokepoints Under Pressure"]
A["Strait of Hormuz Blockade"]
B["Houthi Attacks on Saudi Red Sea Pipeline"]
end
subgraph EconomicImpact["Global Market Disruption"]
C["Global Oil & Diesel Supply Contraction"]
D["Surging Domestic Fuel Prices in US"]
end
subgraph Leverage["Strategic Divergence"]
E["Iran: Existential Survival Fight<br>(Willing to endure prolonged pain)"]
F["US Leadership: Political Clock<br>(Midterms, Investigations, Price Sensitivity)"]
G["Strategic Objective:<br>Expulsion of US Bases from Middle East"]
end
A --> C
B --> C
C --> D
D --> F
E --> G
F -->|"Eroding Leverage"| G
```
- Analyst Robert Pape warned on *TRIGGERnometry* that US military overcommitment created an "escalation trap" accelerating Iranian regional dominance.
- Iran has contested the Strait of Hormuz, while allied Houthi forces have targeted the Saudi overland pipeline running across the Arabian Peninsula to the Red Sea.
- Global diesel and gasoline spikes align directly with military escalation surrounding Iran rather than the ongoing four-year war in Ukraine.
- Iran's operational objective in prolonging the crisis is to force the total withdrawal of American military installations from across the Middle East.
[01:38:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5888s) Asymmetric Warfare and Vulnerabilities of Middle Eastern Bases
The discussion shifts to the physical security of American military installations scattered across the Middle East. Foster and Rogan point out that Iran-backed strikes have targeted more than twenty regional sites housing American service members, inflicting extensive structural damage that could take decades to fully repair. Because public video coverage of these remote base attacks remains restricted, the broader public fails to grasp how compromised the American defensive footprint has become.
Rogan emphasizes that modern asymmetric warfare has outpaced standard defensive doctrines. Traditional base defenses and missile shields struggle against low-cost, coordinated drone swarms. In Ukraine, operators have adopted monofilament fiber-optic tether lines to pilot suicide drones, making them physically unjammable by standard electronic-warfare systems. Rogan stresses that large, fixed-target facilities such as traditional airfields are sitting ducks when adversaries deploy low-cost, unjammable precision munitions directly onto hangars and flight lines.
- More than 20 military facilities housing American personnel in the region have been struck by drone and missile salvos.
- Air defense installations and bases face long-term infrastructural degradation that will take significant time and capital to reconstitute.
- Ukrainian drone operators pioneered the use of spooling monofilament fiber-optic wire for guidance, rendering drones completely immune to radio frequency jamming and electronic countermeasures.
- Rogan observes that large, fixed military targets like air bases are fundamentally exposed to inexpensive, tethered or autonomous asymmetric strike craft.
[01:39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5945s) The New Reality of Modern Warfare and the Delusion of Regime Change
The conversation opens with reflections on how drastically military conflict has shifted, referencing how strikes can eliminate expensive hardware—like Russian planes—in a single night, inflicting billions of dollars in damage. Traditional missile exchanges, where air defense systems like the Iron Dome intercept incoming fire, have been superseded by drone technology, completely rewriting military dynamics.
Francis Foster relates a conversation he had with a former Special Forces operator about whether Western forces could ever mount a ground invasion of Iran. The soldier laughed off the premise, explaining that once politics are removed, no serious military planner would ever greenlight boots on the ground due to Iran’s extreme, mountainous terrain. He added a broader historical reality—an observation Foster notes was also echoed by Robert Pape: “There has never been a regime change achieved solely through air strikes. It doesn't happen.” This prompts Foster to question whether current foreign policy moves are grounded in a coherent strategic blueprint or merely driven by uncalculated impulses and "vibes."
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Tactical Reality vs Foreign Policy Assumptions
accDescr: Diagram illustrating the disconnect between tactical realities on the ground and strategic military assumptions.
subgraph Reality["Military & Strategic Realities"]
A["Extreme Mountainous Terrain"] --> B["Ground Invasion Deemed Impossible"]
C["Air Strikes Alone"] --> D["No Historical Record of Regime Change"]
E["Drone Warfare"] --> F["Billions in Damage Overnight"]
end
subgraph Assumptions["Policy Assumptions"]
G["Overconfidence from Venezuela"] --> H["Belief Population Will Rise Up"]
H --> I["Decision-Making Based on 'Vibes'"]
end
```
[01:40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6020s) Flawed Intelligence, "Vibes," and the Precedent of Putin
When asked what he means by operating on "vibes," Foster explains that policymakers fail to prepare for branching outcomes: if scenario A, B, or C happens, there seems to be no contingent strategy in place. Instead, leadership gets overconfident—becoming "high off Venezuela" and assuming that because Nicolás Maduro was pressured or toppled, another adversary can easily be smashed next.
Joe Rogan and Konstantin Kisin discuss how information reaches top decision-makers like Donald Trump, questioning what he was told and who controlled his access. Kisin draws a direct parallel to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine: “This is why Vladimir Putin is 4 years deep into a three-day mil special military operation in Ukraine cuz he was told you're going to go in there. We're going to get Zelenskyy out. We're going to land paratroopers in Hostomel... and the people are going to rise up and support us.” They note that the exact same flawed promise was recycled regarding Iran—namely, the claim that taking out leadership leads directly to a popular uprising. Kisin notes that insiders confirm high-level deliberations rarely weigh information equally; instead, a simplistic "we're on a roll, what's next?" momentum takes over.
- Decision-makers often rely on one-sided briefings rather than rigorous deliberation of second-order consequences.
- The expectation that targeted strikes will prompt an oppressed populace to revolt and install a pro-Western government has repeatedly proven false in Ukraine and the Middle East.
- Flattery and historical legacy entice leaders: Rogan observes that being remembered as the president who eliminated the Iranian regime is intensely alluring to someone wanting to leave their mark.
[01:42:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6126s) Conflicting National Interests and Global Economic Fallout
Rogan points out that Israel spent decades lobbying successive administrations—including Barack Obama's—to confront Iran, an agenda that aligns with Israel's direct security priorities. While recognizing why foreign nations pursue their own survival, Kisin argues that US leadership must recognize where its own interests diverge: “Everybody I understand why different countries pursue their own interest, but it's the job of the American presidential administration to do what's right for America.”
The fallout of military action spreads far beyond the immediate combat zone, triggering severe global economic strain. Kisin emphasizes that while the United States experiences the bite of inflation and fuel instability, it remains largely insulated compared to the rest of the world. In Australia, farming friends struggle to access basic diesel, and Europe faces intense shortages. While many nations maintain roughly a year’s worth of energy reserves, Kisin notes that the United Kingdom was sitting on only about two months of diesel supply.
- The United States possesses greater energy independence and geographic isolation than allies in Europe and Oceania.
- British fuel reserves sit in a precarious position compared to nations with long-term strategic stockpiles.
[01:43:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6234s) The Nuclear Escalation Trap and the Flawed Road to Deterrence
Discussing potential paths forward, the group considers whether Trump could negotiate a settlement and simply declare victory. Even if the resulting terms are subpar, Rogan and Kisin suggest that packaging it as the "greatest deal ever" would be widely accepted if it stopped an escalatory cycle.
The conversation pivots to the underlying justification for action: preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Rogan notes the rationale that a regime executing its own citizens for protesting should not possess weapons of mass destruction, but questions whether military escalation effectively halts that ambition. While Scott Horton previously argued on Rogan's podcast that Iran remained far from weaponization, Kisin points out that modern knowledge makes weapon assembly far quicker than during the Manhattan Project, as demonstrated historically by India and Pakistan. Foster raises the Iranian Supreme Leader's religious fatwa against developing weapons of mass destruction, though the panel remains skeptical of taking the Ayatollah’s pronouncements at face value.
Ultimately, Kisin argues that strikes produce the opposite of their intended effect. Once targeted by foreign airstrikes, a targeted nation's overriding incentive is self-preservation: “In fact, it seems to me now inevitably if you are Iran, you you do everything you can to survive and then you do everything you possibly can to get a nuke as quickly as possible so that this can never happen again.” Striking facilities without a long-term strategy merely guarantees that the regime will race toward nuclear breakout as an existential shield.
[01:47:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6454s) The Iranian Threat, Imperial Psyche, and Nuclear Realism
The conversation begins with Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster discussing the broader strategic challenge of confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions. When Joe Rogan asks what a better alternative approach would have looked like, Konstantin references foreign policy scholar Robert Pape, who advocates regional balancing by bolstering nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates so regional power dynamics dissuade an escalation to the nuclear threshold. However, Konstantin expresses profound skepticism that any strategy can permanently prevent Iran from acquiring the bomb. He points out that Iran is not an insignificant state; it has 90 million people, vast natural resources, and strategic control over one of the world's most critical transit corridors for oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and petroleum products.
Francis expands on this dynamic by pointing to national heritage, noting that cultures with an imperial past maintain deeply ingrained pride and honor. In the same way that Russia draws on its imperial legacy, Iranians look back to the immense power of the Persian Empire. Because of this historical memory, they react with intense defiance when they feel pushed around by outside powers, embodying an attitude of "This is the Persian Empire. This is where we came from. This is who we are, and we are going to fight you." Konstantin despairs that once the underlying technology exists, a large, determined nation will inevitably obtain it, remarking:
> “I but I haven't heard anyone convincingly explain how you avoid that.”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Middle East Nuclear Strategy Dilemma
accDescr: Flowchart contrasting the regional balancing strategy against Iran's historical and economic persistence.
subgraph Balancing ["Pape's Regional Balancing"]
A["Strengthen Regional Allies (Saudi Arabia, UAE)"] --> B["Create Regional Balance of Power"]
B --> C["Deter Direct Nuclear Escalation"]
end
subgraph Realities ["Iranian Imperial & Resource Realities"]
D["Control Over Strategic Arteries & Energy"] --> E["Persian Imperial Pride & Psyche"]
E --> F["Refusal to Back Down from Pressure"]
end
C -.-> G{"Inevitability Question"}
F --> G
G --> H["Eventual Nuclear Acquisition"]
```
---
[01:49:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6575s) Domestic Vulnerabilities, Secret Service Deployments, and Sleeper Cells
Joe voices deep unease about the potential aftermath of the upcoming midterm elections, explaining that warnings urging citizens to store extra food and water feel uncomfortably plausible. While Konstantin doubts Iran possesses the military capability to drop conventional bombs on American cities, Joe highlights asymmetric warfare vectors, emphasizing cyberattacks directed at the critical electrical grid and potential attacks orchestrated by embedded sleeper cells. He points out that with an estimated 10 to 20 million people having crossed the southern border over the previous four years, intelligence agencies have no realistic accounting of who has entered or whether hostile operational networks are quietly established across the homeland.
The hosts then review a current news report detailing heightened security maneuvers by the Secret Service, including the deployment of surface-to-air missile systems around Mar-a-Lago and the nearby airport in Palm Beach. Joe notes that while conspiratorial circles immediately predict false flags to engineer public consent for military action, the constant geopolitical brinkmanship carries real consequences. In Joe's words:
> “And it seems like we've been fucking around and it seems like they're telling us, hey, you might might want to store some food in case we have to find out.”
- **Border Estimates Discussed**: 10 million on the low end over four years, with some political estimates claiming over 20 million.
- **Defensive Deployments**: Surface-to-air missile batteries stationed around Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate and the local airport following heightened threat intelligence.
---
[01:51:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6695s) The Architecture of Protests: Organic Outcry vs. Coordinated Funding
Konstantin recalls visiting Austin and Los Angeles two years prior right around the presidential election. At the time, locals warned them that Los Angeles would devolve into chaotic riots. Instead, when the election results rolled in—sweeping the presidency, the House, the Senate, and both the Electoral College and popular vote—Los Angeles remained completely quiet. Joe argues that significant civil unrest in the United States is rarely organic; instead, massive protests are heavily organized, funded, and deployed by political interest groups with specific objectives. Because there was no strategic benefit to wrecking Los Angeles after that decisive result, no demonstrations were organized.
Joe contrasts this with public sentiment regarding military intervention in Iran: while wide swaths of the American public oppose entanglement, mass street protests are conspicuously absent because nobody is bankrolling them. He describes encountering professional protesters who treat demonstration appearances as full-time employment, pointing out that printed, uniform picket signs appearing within 24 hours of an event reveal pre-planned logistical backing. Young, unmoored people drift into activist circuits because it functions like a paid occupation where they can scream, carry signs, and socialize. Jamie then pulls up a Reuters article showing demonstrations in 145 cities over the strikes on Iran. After looking at photographs showing crowds carrying uniform, professionally printed signs and upside-down American flags, Joe acknowledges the protests took place but notes they lacked the media coverage and overwhelming national scale seen during the massive demonstrations of 2020. Emphasizing the nature of the industry, Joe observes:
> “And there's people that show up at every protest and those people make a living protesting a career now.”
---
[01:54:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6893s) Alternate Legacies and the Precedent of Militarized Federal Policing
Konstantin reflects on political legacy, comparing Trump's trajectory to a scenario like Tony Blair's premiership without the disastrous invasion of Iraq. In an alternative timeline, had the administration stuck to domestic and Western hemisphere policy wins—securing the border, dealing with issues in Venezuela or Cuba, and steering clear of the Middle East—the political narrative would have been radically different. Francis agrees that border security was widely viewed as a clear achievement, but striking Iran jeopardized that entire legacy.
Joe shifts focus to the enforcement mechanisms used on the domestic front, warning that the conduct of federal enforcement agencies creates perilous precedents. He points out that ordinary Americans are deeply uncomfortable with masked, militarized law enforcement units operating without visible name tags or identification to detain individuals off the streets. Even among those who favor strict border enforcement, failing to oppose these anonymous tactics endangers future civil liberties. Joe warns that once a society condones armed, unidentified agents operating with impunity, those same powers can eventually be weaponized against anyone, arguing:
> “Now we've set a precedent. You're allowed to have a militarized police force with masks on and they don't have any identification and they're snatching up [people].”
[01:56:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6970s) Gang Violence, Immigration, and Undermining Democratic Trust
The discussion opens with the perilous trade-offs of extreme law enforcement measures. While recognizing that cartels and violent foreign syndicates like Tren de Aragua have infiltrated the United States—engaging in illegal activities, kidnappings, and cartel violence within American borders—Joe Rogan warns against ignoring due process and basic civil liberties in the name of expediency. Justifying collateral damage to citizens with the cliché of cracking eggs to make an omelet sets a dangerous precedent that normalizes state overreach, effectively opening the henhouse and letting chaos loose.
At the same time, the panel addresses how political disillusionment fuels societal decay. Donald Trump built much of his political appeal on marketing himself as a complete outsider who would fundamentally dismantle the establishment status quo, promising an end to "forever wars" and prioritizing domestic American issues. When leadership turns around and pursues foreign entanglements like Iran, the public interprets it as proof that the political system is immutable regardless of who sits in office. Konstantin Kisin explains the corrosive nature of this betrayal on the civic compact: “The problem is when you do Iran, what you say to people is it's just more of the same. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're still going to get these types of wars. And so what happens is that people then feel more and more disenfranchised that they not connected, that it doesn't matter who they vote for, you're undermining democracy.” Francis Foster adds that once citizens believe democratic systems no longer represent them, they disengage completely, creating a vacuum where fringe factions advocate for authoritarian rule or fractured splinter groups.
[01:58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7090s) The Fallacy of 'Burning It Down' and Misunderstanding Revolutions
Rogan expresses utter bewilderment at young agitators who casually call to "burn it all down and start from scratch" without having any viable strategy for what comes after. Konstantin contextualizes this destructive urge by challenging how modern culture romanticizes revolutions. He argues that labeling the American Revolution as a true "revolution" is historically inaccurate and misleads naive political thinkers. A true revolution, like the Russian Bolshevik uprising or the French Revolution, involves overthrowing the domestic regime, executing the monarch or aristocracy, and imposing a totalitarian reset—processes that almost inevitably descend into widespread terror, paranoia, and bloodshed.
By contrast, Konstantin points out that the American founding was actually a war of independence and regional secession, akin to Scotland peacefully or politically breaking away from the United Kingdom to govern itself. Genuine historical revolutions consume their own architects because people obsessed with tearing down institutions possess no aptitude for constructing durable systems. Stalin’s purges, for instance, were designed specifically to eliminate the psychotic revolutionary vanguard who knew only sabotage rather than governance. Konstantin makes his revulsion toward the modern anarchist mindset clear: “Revolutions actually usually end very badly. It's a very bad thing that happens. They're very violent. Lots of people get killed. The people who did the revolution usually get killed off first.” Rogan compares the reckless impulse to an unprovoked punch in a street fight: anyone foolish enough to smash the existing system fails to foresee the immediate violent retaliation and catastrophic downstream collapse that follow.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Comparison of True Revolutions vs Wars of Independence
accDescr: Flowchart contrasting violent internal regime overthrow with regional separation.
subgraph TrueRev ["Historical Revolutions (Russian / French)"]
direction TB
A["Overthrow Domestic Regime"] --> B["Violent Purges & Executions"]
B --> C["Destructive Revolutionary Class in Power"]
C --> D["State Terror & Societal Collapse"]
end
subgraph Independence ["War of Independence (American Model)"]
direction TB
E["Regional Separation from Empire"] --> F["Self-Determination & Continuity"]
F --> G["Creation of New Constitutional Government"]
end
```
[02:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7203s) The Naivety of Modern Socialism and the Cuban Alleyway Lesson
Rogan highlights the stark contrast between young Western socialists and immigrants who have personally endured Marxist regimes. Anyone who has lived under actual communist rule in Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, or Eastern Europe is universally horrified by the ideology. Francis shares an encounter from 2018–2019 when he was writing stand-up comedy and frequently debated politics with a Cuban exile running a local coffee shop. Frustrated by the sudden resurgence of socialist dogma in Western universities and media, Francis asked the man how to effectively counter the trend and talk sense into its supporters.
The coffee shop owner gave a somber, fatalistic assessment about the privileged innocence of young Westerners. He explained that someone raised in the comfort and prosperity of the West cannot comprehend totalitarian misery purely through intellectual arguments. He likened it to warning a sheltered, wealthy child against walking down a dark, dangerous alleyway at night: words bounce off them entirely. The coffee shop owner explained that the only way that child will ever grasp the danger is to walk down the alley, take a pipe to the back of the skull, and taste their own blood on the pavement. Francis observes that until Western activists experience the tangible suffering of their ideas, reasonable debate remains largely futile because some people simply must suffer their own mistakes.
- Immigrants from former socialist and communist states (Cuba, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, and Eastern Europe) almost unanimously reject Marxist revivalism.
- Young Western adherents often lack the visceral context of poverty, rationing, and police-state oppression, mistaking ideological theory for real-world functionality.
- Experiential reality, rather than reasoned political rhetoric, is often the only mechanism that shatters ideological romanticism.
[02:02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7355s) Economic Disenfranchisement, Generational Divide, and the Threat of AI
Despite their vehement opposition to communism, the hosts acknowledge that Western radicalism stems from legitimate economic despair. Konstantin points out that Western economies fractured around the 2006–2008 financial crash: those who owned assets before the crash enjoyed massive wealth appreciation over the following two decades, while younger generations were locked out of affordable homeownership and crushed by spiraling student debt. Without a tangible stake in society, young people inevitably gravitate toward radical doctrines. Francis highlights that Britain’s approach of issuing state welfare handouts to keep the unemployed quiet fails to address the underlying psychological need for purpose, dignity, and upward mobility.
Konstantin reflects on his and Francis's personal trajectory, emphasizing how close they were to that exact financial precarity: “For our generation, we are in our early 40s now. For our generation, I'll be like Joe, if we hadn't started TRIGGERnometry and haven't had the amazing success that we've had that we're so grateful for, we'd be in that same boat. We'd be in the exactly same boat and we'd be struggling now going like this thing it doesn't work anymore and I think that's where a lot of this stuff is coming from.”
Looking ahead, Konstantin warns that artificial intelligence will amplify this systemic destabilization. Even if technological revolutions eventually create new employment sectors over decades, the intermediate displacement will be brutal. Referencing Andrew Yang’s early economic platform, Konstantin stresses that allowing five massive tech conglomerates to capture virtually all AI-generated wealth while the majority of the population is shut out will spark immense social upheaval unless society constructs a mechanism ensuring ordinary citizens still retain real opportunities and a viable future.
[02:04:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7499s) The Broken Social Contract and Generational Anger
The conversation opens on the deep resentment building among younger demographics who feel excluded from economic success despite following the rules. Francis Foster compares modern society to a structured game where adherence to the guidelines is supposed to yield rewards, arguing that the social contract has fundamentally snapped for the younger generation. Francis observes:
> “The problem is is if for young people, which is very very true, they feel they're not getting the rewards and everybody else is and they're working just as hard, if not harder than everyone else, eventually they're going to go, you know what, fuck your game.”
Joe Rogan connects this societal disillusionment to cultural flashpoints, noting that this dynamic explains why the film *Joker* resonated so strongly with audiences and why there was public cheering when Luigi Mangione shot the UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Konstantin Kisin notes that higher education fuels this volatile environment by romanticizing revolutionary narratives and teaching students to despise their own culture and history. While the situation appears dangerous, Konstantin insists that the only way forward is proactively figuring out how to bring people who feel locked out back into the societal framework.
[02:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7585s) AI Automation, Universal High Income, and the Loss of Identity
Joe shifts the discussion toward artificial intelligence and how tech leaders describe the economic future. He cites Elon Musk’s concept of "universal high income," which envisions every citizen receiving an equity stake in AI productivity. To illustrate the model, Joe brings up existing dividend programs, such as the revenue distributed to Native American tribal members from casinos or the oil dividends distributed to residents in Alaska. Joe points out that automation is already aggressively visible on the streets of Austin, Texas, through the prevalence of Waymo autonomous vehicles and self-driving Cybercabs, which are rapidly displacing commercial truck driving and taxi jobs.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Economic and Psychological Impacts of AI Automation
accDescr: Flowchart tracing how AI automation leads to job loss, identity crises, and societal depression despite universal dividend payouts.
subgraph ProposedFix["Economic Proposals"]
B --> C["Universal High Income / Dividends<br/>(e.g., Alaska Model, Tech Stakes)"]
end
subgraph HumanCrisis["Psychological Fallout"]
B --> D["Erosion of Occupational Purpose & Pride"]
C -.->|"Money Alone Insufficient"| E["Surge in Depression & Drug Addiction"]
D --> E
end
```
Joe warns that technological displacement is only just beginning, calling current autonomous vehicles “the first raindrops of the storm that is the consequences of AI completely taking over every aspect of society.” He stresses that the looming crisis is existential rather than purely financial: when an individual's occupation disappears, their sense of self-worth and utility collapses. Joe cautions:
> “If all of a sudden your occupation is automated and you don't exist anymore, massive amounts of depression, massive amounts of drug addiction, and then you just give them a check, I don't know if that's going to be enough.”
- Jamie Vernon looks up the figures for the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend: in 2026, eligible Alaska residents receive approximately $1,200, which includes a $200 energy relief payment. Joe emphasizes that while it is a payout, it is far from enough to live on.
- Konstantin notes that relying purely on tribal or resource payouts historically produces bleak social and psychological outcomes when unaccompanied by meaningful work.
[02:09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7770s) Purpose, the Pencil Sharpening Lesson, and Internal Motivation
The group interrogates what happens if tech moguls like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Sam Altman replace human labor and hand out huge sums like $10,000 a month or $500,000 a year. Konstantin argues that unearned income cannot solve the fundamental human need for agency, joking about Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" and AI girlfriends before emphasizing that society will crumble without genuine purpose.
To demonstrate human psychology, Francis shares a personal story from his former career as a schoolteacher. He once disciplined a low-ability student named Chris who suffered from low self-esteem and frequently acted out. Instead of giving him an idle detention, Francis assigned him the task of sharpening every single ordinary and colored pencil in the classroom to perfection for an upcoming art lesson. After completing the chore, the student beamed with pride, transforming completely because he had executed a task to a high standard and felt genuinely useful. Moved to tears, the boy asked Francis:
> “Can I come back tomorrow and do more?”
Drawing from Francis's classroom story, Joe considers how education must be overhauled if AI eliminates material scarcity. Instead of conditioning children through rote memorization to sit obediently for an eventual desk job, schooling will need to prepare people for a post-labor reality where food and shelter are guaranteed and life centers on pursuing personal interests. Joe explains that growing up poor historically acted as a "superpower" by providing an intense external drive that wealthy trust-fund kids often lack. Therefore, future education must systematically cultivate internal drive:
> “So, we're going to have to teach people to have internal motivation instead of external motivation.”
- Joe argues that students must be trained to embrace voluntary struggle, learning the psychological benefit of delaying gratification and sacrificing in the present to achieve fulfillment in the future.
[02:13:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8027s) Meaning, Human Reward Systems, and Werner Herzog's Siberia
Joe Rogan and Francis Foster reflect on where humans derive genuine purpose when survival and money are taken out of the equation. Foster observes this psychological principle in his young son, noting that the activity the boy loves most is not playing a video game, but painting a fence together. He explains that working on a physical task side by side offers visible progress, shared accomplishment, and a feeling that what they are doing is genuinely valuable. Rogan agrees, pointing out that modern corporate existence—commuting to a city, sitting in an office cubicle, and working a menial job—is an extremely recent aberration in human history. For the vast majority of our evolutionary existence, people engaged in immediate, tactile tasks like hunting, fishing, and growing food, which naturally satisfied human neurochemistry.
To illustrate the contrast, Rogan brings up Werner Herzog’s documentary *Happy People: A Year in the Taiga*, which follows trappers, hunters, and fishermen living deep in the Siberian wilderness. Despite surviving one of the harshest, most brutal climates on the planet through pure subsistence labor, these individuals exhibit virtually no mental illness and remain deeply content. Rogan contrasts their grounded happiness with modern office workers who endure endless anxiety in pursuit of paychecks just to stay afloat. He asks whether society is mistakenly viewing cubicle employment as the only legitimate way to organize human life.
If emerging technology removes the necessity for mandatory labor, Rogan argues that society might witness a massive renaissance in art, innovation, and personal mastery rather than passive degradation. He clarifies that he is not advocating for flat, state-enforced communism where wealth is simply redistributed to cap everyone at an identical income like $500,000 a year. Instead, he envisions a baseline where basic survival needs are solved, leaving people free to channel their natural competitive instincts toward creative pursuits, craftsmanship, and meaningful accomplishments, while still retaining the ability to earn extra money on top. As Rogan summarizes: “Now instead of worrying about hunting and gathering food, the next stage of being a human is pursuing interest.”
[02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8280s) Danny Drinkwater and the Trap of Status
Foster brings up the story of retired English soccer player Danny Drinkwater to illustrate society's warped view of purpose and status. Drinkwater achieved one of the greatest underdog feats in sports history when he won the Premier League title with Leicester City, going on to have a prominent, lucrative career. However, toward the end of his playing days, Drinkwater struggled with mental health and alcohol issues. Sometime after stepping away from professional football, photos circulated online showing him working on a construction site, leading to widespread public mockery and cruel tabloid headlines sneering at how far the former champion had fallen.
In an interview, Drinkwater pushed back against the ridicule, explaining that he had decided to train as an electrician and was genuinely happy. He found fulfillment in mastering a tangible craft and discovered the exact same locker-room camaraderie with fellow tradesmen on the job site that he had missed after leaving professional football. Rogan points out the bizarre double standard: nobody insults a person who starts out as an electrician, but if an athlete or actor voluntarily chooses trade work, people treat it as an embarrassing collapse. Rogan calls this mockery “transparently pathetically jealous,” noting that people get resentful when someone who once had elite athletic status chooses a humble, relatable job. Foster references Will Storr’s book *The Status Game*, pointing out that people obsessively rank professions—Premier League footballer sits high on the social ladder while electrician sits lower—and insecure observers derive cheap schadenfreude from seeing a high-status individual descend to their level.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Transition from High-Status Career to Meaningful Craft
accDescr: Diagram tracing Danny Drinkwater's path from athletic peak and crisis to rediscovering purpose in manual trade work.
subgraph Elite_Sport["Elite Sports Career"]
A["Premier League Champion<br/>(Leicester City)"] --> B["Career Wind-down &<br/>Personal Struggles"]
end
subgraph Transition["Career Shift"]
B --> C["Leaves Professional Soccer"]
C --> D["Begins Training as Electrician<br/>on Building Sites"]
end
subgraph Responses["Divergent Perspectives"]
D --> E["Public Mockery & Scorn<br/>(Viewed as Status Demotion)"]
D --> F["Personal Fulfillment<br/>(Camaraderie & Concrete Mastery)"]
end
```
[02:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8441s) Failure Culture and the Humbling Education of Jiu-Jitsu
Foster contrasts the British tendency to celebrate another person's downfall with the American appetite for resilience, praising the US mindset where business failure is treated merely as a prerequisite step toward future success. He notes that serial entrepreneurs who fail on their first or second attempt have dramatically higher chances of succeeding on their third venture because each misstep teaches valuable operational lessons. Konstantin Kisin jokes that serial pivoting might be Elizabeth Holmes’s exact post-prison strategy, with Foster noting that her husband lives in Austin, making an appearance at the Comedy Mothership a humorous possibility.
Foster argues that culture would benefit immensely if prominent figures spoke openly about their failures, explaining: “If you fail and fail and fail again and finally something works, you just number one what that teaches you is gratitude.” Transparent discussions of past defeat demystify success and encourage ordinary people to persist through their own career setbacks.
Rogan ties the character-building power of failure directly to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Outside of its practical self-defense utility, Rogan views jiu-jitsu as one of the ultimate equalizers because every single beginner, regardless of physical gifts, starts out terrible. While raw strength or previous martial arts training might provide a slight initial buffer, it cannot prevent a newcomer from being utterly dominated on the mats. Rogan recalls his own early days: despite holding black belts in Taekwondo and possessing extensive kickboxing experience, he was immediately and thoroughly mauled when he first stepped onto the grappling mats.
- Foster highlights Will Storr's *The Status Game* to explain why spectators enjoy watching elite figures experience an apparent decline in social standing.
- Rogan notes that despite decades of prior striking expertise, his entry into Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu resulted in him being completely humbled and mauled.
[02:22:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8558s) Humility, Jiu-Jitsu, and the Power of Failing
Joe Rogan reflects on the humbling reality of martial arts training. Early on, people walk around delusional, thinking certain techniques could never work on them, only to discover how deeply vulnerable they actually are when tested on the mats. Rogan notes that anyone who sticks with Brazilian jiu-jitsu undergoes an undeniable transformation: beginners who initially look completely terrible reappear a couple of years later, effortlessly manhandling and tapping out new students. Witnessing that progression—and the look on a practitioner's face when they realize they conquered something that once felt like an insurmountable mountain—is one of the most rewarding sights in the sport.
Many people quit because their self-esteem cannot handle falling down after taking their very first step. Rogan stresses that forcing yourself to endure that cycle—failing, learning, improving slightly, failing again, and iterating—is the single greatest template for personal development. Once mastered, the exact mindset used to improve at jiu-jitsu can be applied to any human flaw, whether fixing a ruined diet, quitting alcohol, or putting an end to self-sabotaging behavior.
> “You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life.” — Joe Rogan
---
[02:24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8655s) Eddie Izzard’s Grind: From "No Laughs Eddie" to Marathons
Francis Foster connects Rogan's lesson on failure to the comedy world. Nearly a decade earlier, Foster opened for Eddie Izzard on a European tour. Whenever people asked Foster about his biggest comedic influences, he always cited Izzard. When Izzard started performing in the London comedy circuit during the late 1980s and early 1990s, other comics dubbed him "No Laughs Eddie" because his sets routinely bombed. Foster explains that Izzard transformed his career purely through relentless focus and willingness to adapt when things were not working, rather than letting the failure defeat him.
Rogan asks whether Izzard's breakthrough happened before or after performing in women's clothing. Foster clarifies that the early struggles predated that transition, though Rogan observes that openly dressing as a woman likely granted Izzard emotional freedom and authenticity on stage. Foster emphasizes that 99.99999% of people are not natural geniuses who step onto a stage or a soccer field and instantly dazzle audiences; virtually everyone must absorb hits, shed their ego, and accept that life is predominantly failure. Rogan highlights Izzard's documentary where he ran across the entire UK doing back-to-back daily marathons with zero prior endurance training. His feet were torn to raw, bleeding flesh, forcing him to take only one or two rest days while nurses treated the open wounds before he ran another 26 miles the following morning.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: The Process of Growth Through Failure
accDescr: A step-by-step cycle showing how embracing failure and discomfort leads to mastery across comedy, martial arts, and life.
subgraph Mindset ["The Mindset"]
A["Starting Out: Humbling Reality & Incompetence"] --> B["Iterative Failure: Taking Hits Without Resentment"]
end
subgraph Progression ["The Work"]
B --> C["Relentless Grind & Incremental Adaptation"]
C --> D["Deferred Gratification: Resisting Easy Comfort"]
end
subgraph Outcome ["The Result"]
D --> E["High-Level Mastery & Authentic Identity"]
end
```
- In his London stand-up beginnings, Eddie Izzard was nicknamed "No Laughs Eddie" by fellow circuit comics.
- Izzard completed an ultra-endurance run across the entire UK, running 26-mile marathons daily with almost no training, powering through shredded, bleeding feet with only one or two days off.
- Rogan contrasts this endurance with modern "TikTok culture," where people chase instant celebrity, quick riches, or rapid weight loss via pills like Ozempic instead of earning growth.
> “Most of life is failure. Most of the time you do things, it's not going to work out in quite the way you want.” — Francis Foster
> “It's the process that makes you into the person you're supposed to be.” — Francis Foster
---
[02:28:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8914s) Putting Miles on the Clock and the Trap of Comfort
The group turns to the necessity of paying dues. Foster and Konstantin Kisin discuss hosting *TRIGGERnometry*, noting that if they had been handed high-stakes interviews with major public figures at the beginning of their podcast, they would have crashed and burned. Building an interview show requires putting "miles on the clock": mastering the instincts to challenge guests, fact-check claims, steer a dying conversation, and handle mistakes with humility. Parachuting unseasoned talent into big TV productions usually fails for precisely this reason.
Kisin points out that life ultimately boils down to deferred gratification—specifically the willingness to surrender comfort rather than just raw pleasure. Rogan agrees, warning that comfort is what destroys people; sitting on the couch is comfortable, yet remaining there rots physical and mental health. Rogan questions what will happen if society institutes a Universal High Income or Universal Basic Income (UBI), fearing that people will simply refuse to leave their comfort bubble. Kisin counters with personal experience: while lounging, playing video games non-stop, or bingeing feels great on day one or two, long stretches of pure vegetative comfort inevitably turn sour, eventually forcing people to seek real meaning.
> “It's that process that gives you the ability to actually perform at a high level because you've been there. You've fucked up. You've made mistakes. You've learned from them. You've grown as a person.” — Konstantin Kisin
> “You get comfortable and it's a lot more comfortable to sit at home on the sofa. It's terrible for you, but it's comfortable.” — Joe Rogan
[02:31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9074s) Arrested Adolescence, Fatherhood, and Universal Basic Income
The conversation opens on the topic of maturity and lifestyle choices. Rogan reflects on how people party away their twenties, noting that 99% of people eventually grow out of it. However, he observes that in stand-up comedy, many individuals never do: “I know a lot of comedians that are basically like 45 year old boys.” Because stand-up offers an unstructured schedule without traditional corporate accountability, many comics work a weekend at a comedy club, earn enough cash to pay their monthly rent, and spend the remaining time drinking, eating poorly, and playing video games in a state of suspended youth. Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin agree, pointing out that settling down, finding a partner, and having children are usually what snaps people into adulthood. When someone becomes a father, the reality of setting a practical example hits home, because children do not learn from words alone—they observe actions.
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: Potential Societal Effects of AI-Driven Universal Basic Income
accDescr: Diagram illustrating how extreme wealth and automation lead to universal basic income, mitigating basic survival stress and crime.
subgraph Automation["Technological Shift"]
A["Extreme Wealth from AI & Automation"] --> B["Displacement of Traditional Jobs"]
end
subgraph Policy["Economic Baseline"]
B --> C["Universal Basic Income Implemented"]
end
subgraph Outcomes["Societal Outcomes"]
C --> D["Eradication of Starvation & Basic Debt Stress"]
D --> E["Reduction of Need-Driven Property Crime"]
D --> F["Need to Redefine Meaning & Daily Fulfillment"]
end
```
Rogan connects this absence of daily survival pressure to the future concept of Universal Basic Income (UBI) fueled by artificial intelligence. He predicts that while there would be an awkward transitional period due to deeply ingrained habits and personality flaws, society could see profound benefits:
- **Elimination of destitution**: Starvation and severe bill anxiety would vanish.
- **Decline in crime**: A drastic drop in necessity-based crime would follow once people are no longer desperate for survival. Rogan and Foster joke about politicians claiming shoplifters are merely stealing loaves of bread to feed their families when they walk off with Lacoste trainers, yet Rogan maintains that removing extreme economic disparity will soothe baseline public hostility.
- **Psychological shift**: Society must teach people how to actually enjoy life rather than viewing it merely as a grueling cycle of working miserable jobs just to buy consumer goods. If people end up playing *Call of Duty* all day, Rogan suggests that as long as they are happy and not harming others, it beats grinding away in misery until death.
---
[02:34:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9277s) Adaptability, Meaningful Work, and Shared Humanity
Konstantin emphasizes that human beings are fundamentally resilient and adaptable. The essential requirements for fulfillment have remained steady throughout human history: family, deep social bonds, and purposeful physical activity. He shares personal habits, explaining that while he could easily pay someone to deliver chopped firewood or paint a fence, he prefers chopping the wood and doing home maintenance himself alongside his son:
> “The things that matter to us are the things that have always mattered to us. Uh it's family, it's human connection, it's meaningful work or meaningful activity at least.”
Rogan warns that the tech creators building advanced AI must deliberately plan to distribute the upside broadly across society. If the wealth and abundance generated by automation are hoarded by a small corporate elite, Rogan cautions, “there's not enough robot defenders in the world who are going to guard your mansion.”
Foster grounds the topic of human connection in his background as a schoolteacher. Whenever he taught the *Odyssey* and Greek mythology to classrooms filled with first- and second-generation immigrant students from impoverished, disparate cultural backgrounds, every single child was completely captivated:
> “We didn't have shared culture, vastly different experiences, some of whom were incredibly poor. But you taught like the Odyssey, boom, they were all locked in. And why is that so special? It's so special because it talks about the human condition. It talks about struggle. It talks about overcoming.”
Foster relates this enduring mythic resonance to modern cinema, pointing out that when directors like Christopher Nolan adapt classic heroic journeys, audiences flood theaters not because of culture-war labels, but because people hunger for stories about confronting personal demons, protecting family, and rising above adversity. He urges that despite ideological rhetoric, people across the political spectrum largely want a fairer world, and viewing political opponents as caricatures or avatars only prevents collective progress.
---
[02:37:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9456s) Closing Banter and Sign-Off
The discussion wraps with humorous self-deprecation. Kisin jokes that they have managed to solve all the world's problems in one sitting, prompting Rogan to tease a presidential run with the slogan “Francis Foster for president.” Foster immediately pushes back, laughing that his presidency would end with a swift execution, while Kisin playfully scolds him for undercutting their earnest philosophical ending.
Rogan thanks them both for coming on the show, praising their podcast, *TRIGGERnometry*, and complimenting their work. Foster and Kisin express their gratitude, exchange warm goodbyes with Rogan, and the episode draws to a close.
## Notable quotes
> [04:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=278s) If you piss people off, if you say something that's outrageous, that's far easier to then get people engaging with you than to do something funny. — Francis Foster
> [01:39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5945s) There has never been a regime change achieved solely through air strikes. It doesn't happen. — Francis Foster
> [02:24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8655s) Most of life is failure. Most of the time you do things, it's not going to work out in quite the way you want. — Francis Foster
> [02:22:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8558s) You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life. — Joe Rogan
## Mentioned
Akhenaten, Alan Watts, Alaska Permanent Fund, Alexander the Great, Andrew Yang, Anna Paulina Luna, Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Big Bend, Brian Thompson, Call of Duty, CDC, Chelsea Billiards, Chris Williamson, Christopher Nolan, Colin Quinn, Comedy Mothership, Constantine, Dan Carlin, Dan Patrick, Danny Drinkwater, Dave Smith, David Pakman, Desmond Morris, Dire Straits, Donald Trump, Eddie Izzard, Elizabeth Holmes, Elon Musk, Facebook, Flávio Bolsonaro, Francis Foster, Genghis Khan, Great Sphinx, Greg Abbott, Grok, Happy People: A Year in the Taiga, Hardcore History, Herodotus, Hillary Clinton, In Search of..., Jair Bolsonaro, James Talarico, Jamie Vernon, Joe Biden, Joe Rogan, Joker (film), Jonathan Haidt, Joseph Stalin, Kamala Harris, Ken Paxton, Konstantin Kisin, Leicester City F.C., Leonard Nimoy, Luigi Mangione, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Luke Nichols, Macaulay Culkin, Mar-a-Lago, Mark Zuckerberg, Nicolás Maduro, Odyssey, Outdoor Boys, Ozempic, Pew Research, Piers Morgan, Prius, Ramesses II, Red Cross, Reuters, Robert Pape, Robert Schoch, Ron White, Sam Altman, Scott Horton, Spotify, Steven Crowder, Sumerian King List, Sunny Hostin, Supreme Court, Tamerlane (Timur), Temple of Abu Simbel, Tesla Cybercab, The Human Zoo, The Status Game (book), The View, The Wisdom of Insecurity, Tony Blair, Tren de Aragua, TRIGGERnometry, Tutankhamun, UnitedHealthcare, United States Secret Service, (Un)educated: My Life as a Teacher, and Why You Should Never Become One, Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Waymo, Werner Herzog, Will Storr, X, Younger Lady, YouTube, Zac Efron, Zep Tepi
## Video description
Comedian Francis Foster and political commentator Konstantin Kisin host the "TRIGGERnometry" podcast. Francis also hosts "The Francis Foster Show" and is the author of "(Un)educated: My Life as a Teacher, and Why You Should Never Become One." Konstantin is the author of "An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West."
In a wide-ranging conversation with TRIGGERnometry hosts Francis Foster and Konstantin Kisin, Joe Rogan argues that distorted economic and media incentives increasingly alienate individuals from empirical reality, physical community, and purposeful effort.
Media Incentives and the Reality Gap (4:38)
The discussion opens on the professional and financial mechanics that warp public discourse. Foster and Rogan contend that social media monetization models prioritize outrage and contrarian provocation over substance, because aggravating users generates rapid engagement. This digital feedback loop produces polarized caricatures that contrast with long-form dialogue, which Rogan argues allows for nuanced, good-faith inquiry. In institutional journalism and corporate settings, this distortion manifests as a diffusion of responsibility, where individuals pursue immediate metrics or quarterly profits insulated from moral accountability.
Climate Modeling, Energy, and Cold Mortality (10:08)
Evaluating public policy, the group reviews how dogmatic narratives around climate change clash with empirical realities and economic trade-offs. Jamie Vernon pulls data indicating that European heat-related deaths reached an estimated 61,672 in a single summer—higher than total annual US firearm fatalities of roughly 48,000—while European cold mortality claims an estimated 364,000 lives annually based on 1991–2020 averages. Kisin asserts that aggressive green energy transitions raise domestic fuel and electricity costs in the United Kingdom, intensifying winter vulnerability. Rogan further questions treating climate modeling as settled certainty, noting that historical records demonstrate major climatic shifts driven by complex solar, atmospheric, and greenhouse variables.
Urban Density, Disconnection, and Social Contracts (36:04)
The hosts examine how dense urban environments alter human psychology, referencing Desmond Morris’s *The Human Zoo* to illustrate how overcrowding breeds anxiety, aggression, and declining reproductive drives. Rogan and Kisin note that leaving dense metropolitan centers like London and New York reveals how modern city life subjects residents to constant sensory overstimulation and perceived breakdown in civic safety. Concurrently, younger generations face disillusionment as traditional pathways to economic stability erode. Foster warns that when hard work fails to yield equitable participation in the social compact, civic resentment inevitably surges.
Foreign Intervention, Escalation, and State Enforcement (93:08)
Addressing foreign policy, the panel questions US military involvement concerning Iran. Referencing military analyst Robert Pape’s concept of the 'escalation trap,' Kisin and Foster argue that relying on airstrikes cannot achieve regime change and risks provoking regional hegemonic control over critical maritime transit points like the Strait of Hormuz. Rogan expresses concern that prolonged external conflicts divert focus from domestic vulnerabilities, such as unvetted southern border crossings. He also warns against domestic enforcement precedents involving masked, unidentifiable federal personnel, arguing that suspending due process for expediency threatens foundational civil liberties.
Purpose, Automation, and the Value of Struggle
Turning to the rise of artificial intelligence and proposals like Elon Musk's universal high income, Rogan and Foster argue that monetary support cannot solve the psychological crisis caused by the displacement of traditional labor. Drawing on Werner Herzog’s documentary *Happy People: A Year in the Taiga*, Rogan points out that humans derive fundamental well-being from direct, tactile accomplishments rather than passive comfort. They contend that enduring progressive failure—exemplified by disciplines like Brazilian jiu-jitsu or mastering a skilled trade—is essential for mature identity, warning that an absence of struggle leaves adults in states of prolonged, destructive adolescence.
While the panel identifies cultural and technological solutions in craft, family life, and physical discipline, it leaves unresolved how societies can economically reintegrate younger generations displaced by automation and institutional stagnation.
## Background
本期节目由频道 PowerfulJRE 于 2026 年 10 月 31 日发布在 YouTube 平台。视频简介介绍，嘉宾为播客《TRIGGERnometry》的两位联合主持人——喜剧演员 Francis Foster（著有《(Un)educated》）与政治评论员 Konstantin Kisin（著有《An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West》）。
## TL;DR
对谈深入剖析了中东地缘政治危机与美国潜在军事干预风险，探讨了地理决定论、无人机变革对现代战争形态的重塑，以及欧美基础设施与能源供应链的脆弱性。三人进一步反思了民粹主义浪潮、公众对民主体制的信任崩塌，以及年轻一代面对资产固化时的破坏冲动。针对 AI 自动化对劳动力市场的全面冲击，讨论指出仅靠全民基本收入（UBI）无法解决社会尊严与内部驱动力的缺失，呼吁通过教育重构内在价值，并借助巴西柔术等对抗挫折的成长心智应对文明转型期的阵痛。
## Atmosphere & style
整场对话在深沉凝重的忧患意识与脱口秀演员独有的黑色幽默之间自如切换。针对地缘战争、阶层割裂和 AI 冲击的讨论充满危机感与历史厚重感，而转向个人成长、育儿心得与柔术训练时又洋溢着真诚、克制而发人深省的温情。三人各抒己见且节奏张弛有度，给听众带来一种在宏大时代风暴前既冷峻剖析现实、又努力在微观生活中探寻韧性与意义的心智体验。
## Bulletin
- [01:33:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5588s) 美伊地缘冲突面临“升级陷阱”，军事专家指出常规空袭无法促成政权更迭，反而倒逼伊朗加速拥核自保并加剧霍尔木兹海峡封锁风险。
- [01:42:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6160s) 欧洲能源供应链极度脆弱，英国本土战略柴油库存仅能维持约两个月，国防部已建议民众常备三天生存物资。
- [01:36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5790s) 现代无人机技术变革重塑战场形态，采用单丝光纤遥控等新型低成本无人机可规避常规无线电干扰，对传统军用基地造成毁灭性打击。
- [02:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7388s) AI与自动化技术加速岗位淘汰，单纯发放全民基本收入（UBI）无法解决社会尊严缺失，科技寡头需探索更广泛的生产力红利共享机制以防社会撕裂。
## Key takeaways
- [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5468s) 地理区位与资源禀赋是决定国家战略行为的核心动力，俄罗斯向西扩张及乌克兰关键矿产争夺皆受地缘逻辑驱动。
- [01:39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5945s) 美军容易陷入速胜主义带来的认知偏差，在伊朗复杂的多山地形与坚韧的历史心理面前，单一空袭根本无法实现政权更迭。
- [01:44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6278s) 常规军事威慑无法消除核技术认知，持续的外部极限施压反而成为促使伊朗跨越核门槛的最强动机。
- [01:49:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6575s) 基础设施安全风险上升，美国特勤局在海湖庄园及周边机场部署防空导弹，本土电网亦面临严重网络威胁。
- [01:54:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6893s) 缺乏明确身份标识的准军事化警力介入执法开创了危险先例，当反战与反体制政客同样深陷泥潭时，选民对民主制度的信任加速流失。
- [01:58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7090s) 传统社会革命往往由擅长破坏而非建设的群体主导，盲目幻想“推倒重来”在历史上多以残酷内耗和治理崩溃告终。
- [02:04:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7499s) 代际资产断层使年轻一代无法通过既定规则分享经济红利，这种制度失效感直接滋生了激进破坏心理与极端主义思潮。
- [02:06:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7570s) 人类的尊严感高度依赖于“被社会所需要”，现金救济只能保障温饱，无法替代内在自我价值与社会认同。
- [02:09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7770s) 面对AI主导的未来，教育体制亟需打破工业流水线式的服从训练，转向培养个体的内在驱动力与延迟满足能力。
- [02:13:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8027s) 朝九晚五的企业工位制度背离了人类自然的神经奖赏机制，西伯利亚针叶林自给自足的传统劳作反倒呈现更高的幸福感。
- [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8280s) 公众习惯通过贬低转行的名流来满足自身的阶层心理平衡，《地位游戏》揭示了人类深层的嫉妒与评判机制。
- [02:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8441s) 巴西柔术的挫折教育能帮助人直面初期的无能与狼狈，这种在试错中积累里程的心态可无缝迁移至人生的各项挑战。
- [02:31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9074s) 脱口秀演员自由松散的工作节奏容易导致“冻结青春期”，组建家庭和承担抚养责任是迫使个体走向成熟自律的关键节点。
- [02:34:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9277s) 科技寡头必须主动思考如何向全社会共享AI红利，极端的财富分化无法单靠私人安保和机器人防御维持长期稳定。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1s) 巴西政治风波与社交媒体假新闻的泛滥
节目伊始，Joe Rogan 向 Francis Foster 和 Konstantin Kisin 询问他们是否了解巴西正在发生的事情。Francis Foster 提到前总统 Jair Bolsonaro 的儿子 Flávio Bolsonaro 曾是选举候选人之一，并在大选结束后护照遭到吊销，随后据传已逃往美国。Joe 对此表示虽然听闻此事，但怀疑这可能只是 Twitter 上的传言，并无确凿证据。然而，官方直接扣押护照的举措依然令人震惊。Konstantin 补充说，现任总统 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva 曾发出类似警告，这与当年 Donald Trump 对 Hillary Clinton 说“你要去坐牢”类似，不同的是巴西政府确实执行了这种手段。
谈及巴西司法与选举过程中的争议，Joe Rogan 指出 Lula 提名了自己的前辩护律师出任巴西最高法院大法官，而该人随后下令将投票站延长开放两小时，这一关键变动直接助推了 Lula 的胜选。Francis 指出，如今人们即便想了解任何基本事实，都必须做大量的独立研究；如果仅仅浏览 X（原 Twitter）或 Facebook 等社交平台，第一眼看到的信息往往令人存疑。Joe 对此深表赞同，表示自己每天在时间线上都能一眼识破大量全大写字母标注“突发新闻”（BREAKING）的虚假故事。尽管平台针对此类内容取消了创作者广告分成以减少经济诱因，但面对国家实体或政治势力精心策划的宣传攻势，金钱收益根本无关紧要。其核心战略就是故意把水搅浑，让公众完全摸不清事实真相，进而在大选中受到误导与操纵。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 假新闻与政治认知操控机制
accDescr: 展示政治势力如何利用假新闻、机器人与算法搅浑信息环境并操控公众认知的流程图
subgraph Manipulation ["操控机制"]
A["地缘政治/政治势力介入"] --> B["制作假新闻/AI生成图片"]
B --> C["机器人与水军评论放大声量"]
end
subgraph Impact ["公众影响"]
C --> D["营造出全网支持的虚假共识"]
D --> E["普通选民认知混乱并盲从跟风"]
end
```
- 假新闻制造者的核心策略正如 Joe Rogan 所言：“What we want to do is muddy up the waters so nobody knows what the fuck is real.”（我们想做的就是把水搅浑，让所有人根本搞不清什么是真实的。）
- 社交媒体上充斥着利用 AI 生成的虚假图片，例如捏造公众人物被戴上手铐逮捕的画面。
- 尽管平台针对造假内容取消了收益分成，但以地缘政治和选举操纵为目标的幕后黑手完全不在乎平台流量收益。
---
### [03:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=209s) 机器人水军、数字边境管控与流量变现机制
针对社交平台上机器人账号（如“Bob67432”）铺天盖地推波助澜的现象，Konstantin Kisin 提出了一种潜在的技术解决方案——“数字边境管控”（digital border enforcement），即强制公开评论者的真实物理来源与地理位置。Konstantin 解释道，绝大多数普通民众的政治观点并非来源于长达数小时的深度思考，而是直接跟风他人，心想“这似乎就是大家的普遍看法”；因此，通过虚假账号制造虚假民意，对大众极具诱导性。Joe Rogan 也指出，常常能看到明显充满偏见乃至纯属捏造的推文下方，挤满了大量机器人账号跟帖声讨，要求严惩当事人。此外，许多网红（influencers）为了蹭流量，反复抛出荒唐离谱的暴论，而帖文下方高得惊人的转发与点赞量更令人怀疑其真实性。
Francis Foster 强调，X 平台推行的创作者变现计划（X Monetization）进一步加剧了信息环境的恶化。金钱利益驱使博主极力制造能够博取互动的内容，而最立竿见影的手段就是“负面互动”（negative engagement）。只要发表激怒大众的离谱暴论，就能在瞬间引爆评论区与转发量，这种吸睛方式远比用心创作幽默或深刻的内容要轻松得多。Konstantin 调侃这正是他们自己做节目八年半以来的“商业模式”，现场气氛一时颇为轻松，但也直指如今网络环境奖赏极端、惩罚理性的现实痛点。
- Konstantin Kisin 阐述了群体盲从与虚假声量的危险性：“This seems to be what everyone thinks. And that's where this kind of manipulation is so powerful because you're creating the idea that a narrative is popular.”（“这似乎就是所有人的想法。”这种操控之所以如此强大，正是因为你在制造某种叙事广受欢迎的假象。）
- 为博取互动，部分极端言论账号完全放弃诚意交流，纯粹依靠荒谬的逆向观点（contrarian takes）挑起愤怒以换取流量收益。
- 自动化事实核查（如 Grok）在核实假新闻后，若不直接下架原推文，虚假信息依然会在时间线中无限蔓延。
---
### [06:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=376s) 对话的诚意：为何拒绝党派宣传与对骂模式
谈及内容创作的方向，Francis Foster 指出《TRIGGERnometry》播客近期接连邀请了左翼评论员 David Pakman、自由意志主义喜剧演员 Dave Smith 以及右翼主持人 Steven Crowder，成功实现了让不同政治立场的人共坐一堂的初衷。Francis 对 Joe Rogan 长久以来能够广纳各路嘉宾表示赞赏，坦言他们在英国起步时曾极难约到左倾嘉宾。面对两极分化的舆论场，真正有价值的是在承认基本事实的前提下，把立场迥异的人聚集起来展开理性交流。
Joe Rogan 明确表示，自己如今对访谈对象的核心考量是“诚意”（good faith）。他极度反感那些毫无诚意的政客与党派传话筒，这些人对所属党派死忠到不惜扭曲事实、刻意混淆概念，甚至采用类似 Piers Morgan 电视节目的对骂模式——在别人发言时强行打断以扰乱思维。Joe 直言自己只愿意跟真正感兴趣的人探讨问题，正如他曾再次邀请 Bernie Sanders 一样。虽然 Joe 在许多观点上并不认同 Bernie，但他坚信 Bernie 并非坏人，而是一个依旧怀揣理想、试图改善工人阶级生活的老派政客。不过，正如脱口秀演员讲了太久的段子会逐渐失去灵魂、演变成机械背诵一样，Bernie 在年复一年重复谈论气候变化等议题时，也呈现出类似脱离现实感、仅仅在走过场的疲态。
- Joe Rogan 对邀请嘉宾的原则给出了明确态度：“I don't want to have on these people that I think are full of shit, that are propagandists, that are that are loyal to a party to the point where they'll just distort facts or obfuscate or talk over you when you're trying to make points.”（我不想再邀请那些满嘴鬼话的人、那些宣传机器、那些对党派盲目忠诚到宁愿歪曲事实、混淆视听，甚至在你试图陈述观点时强行打断你的人。）
- 电视辩论中为了阻断对方思路而故意插话打断的作风被 Joe 斥为“极其愚蠢且令人厌烦”。
- 脱口秀表演比喻：当一段包袱表演太久失去了原本的生命力与真诚度时，聪明的喜剧演员会选择将其封存下架；而某些政客在谈论核心议题时，也陷入了这种机械化复读的境地。
### [09:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=547s) 气候变化的叙事演变与冰期恐惧
Joe Rogan 提到，气候变化如果往深了探究，其实非常复杂且令人困惑。他透露当天有人发给他一篇文章，指出全球变暖可能意外阻止了一场原本迫在眉睫的冰期降临。这让人联想到 1970 年代的主流气候叙事，当时最广泛的公众恐惧并非变暖，而是地球即将迈入新的冰河时代。
Joe Rogan 回忆起由饰演《星际迷航》（*Star Trek*）中史波克（Spock）的 Leonard Nimoy 主持的老派探索纪录片节目《In Search of...》。那部节目融合了各种末日论调、大脚怪、UFO 等猎奇题材，其中就有一整集专门讨论迫在眉睫的冰期。Joe Rogan 直言：“It's a fucking terrifying proposition that the world freezes over again cuz if it gets hot, you just move to the places that used to be cold and get air conditioning, right?”（世界再次冰封是个极其可怕的前景，因为如果变热，你大不了搬到以前寒冷的地方，装上空调就行了，对吧？）
### [10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=608s) 欧洲空调普及率与极端天气致死数据
Francis Foster 与 Konstantin Kisin 随后指出，在英国绝大多数家庭根本没有空调。Joe Rogan 感到不可思议，并抛出了一个大胆的对比假设：他认为全欧洲在夏季死于中暑（高温）的人数，甚至超过了美国全年的枪支暴力死亡人数。
为了验证这一说法，制作人 Jamie 现场检索了对比数据：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 欧洲极端气温死亡与美国枪击死亡数据对比
accDescr: 图表对比了欧洲单年夏季高温死亡估算、美国全年各类枪击死亡总数，以及欧洲每年因寒冷死亡的年均数据。
subgraph US["美国年均数据"]
US_Gun["美国枪支致死总数<br/>约 48,000+ 人/年<br/>(含自杀、他杀、执法致死等)"]
end
subgraph Europe["欧洲相关数据"]
EU_Heat["欧洲单年夏季高温致死估算<br/>约 61,672 人"]
EU_Cold["欧洲30国年均寒冷致死<br/>约 364,000 人<br/>(1991-2020年均估算)"]
end
EU_Heat -.->|"超过"| US_Gun
EU_Cold -.->|"远超高温致死"| EU_Heat
```
检索结果证实了 Joe 的直觉：
- 在所对比的单一年份中，欧洲夏季与高温相关的死亡人数估计达到 61,672 人。
- 同期根据美国疾病控制与预防中心（CDC）的数据，美国全年枪支致死人数略高于 48,000 人（涵盖自杀、凶杀、意外以及警务行动中击毙犯罪分子等全部情况）。
- 进一步查证因寒冷致死的人数时，一项 2024 年的研究显示，在欧洲 30 个国家中，基于 1991 至 2020 年的年均估算，每年死于寒冷的人数高达约 364,000 人。
Konstantin Kisin 指出，在英国本土，死于严寒的人数其实一直远多于死于酷暑的人数。这正是当下气候政策面临的荒谬现实：激进的“环保”措施推高了电力与天然气价格，导致能源变得极其昂贵，“So you literally have pensioners freezing to death in winter cuz they can't afford to heat their home properly cuz we're saving the planet.”（因此你真的会看到退休领养老金的老人在冬天被冻死，就因为我们要‘拯救地球’，导致他们根本负担不起足额的取暖费。）Francis 顺势调侃称，看来英国不仅需要空调，可能还需要引入美国宪法第二修正案；而且在英国要是单身男士去约会，只要声称自己公寓装了空调，就能成为极具竞争力的求偶优势。
### [13:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=825s) 英国建筑环境与气候科学的“模型”局限
几人讨论了英国的气温特点。英国夏季平均白天最高温通常只有 70°F（约 21°C）左右，但近年来偶有极端天气，气温会飙升到 37°C、38°C 甚至 40°C（约 104°F）。Konstantin 解释道，英国的房屋、火车和公共基础设施在设计初衷上都是为了在漫长冬季锁住热量，因此一旦遇到 40°C 的罕见高温，缺乏隔热循环和制冷设施的室内环境便会变得难以忍受。
当公众因几天的异常酷暑而陷入气候恐慌时，Joe Rogan 认为这种反应过于狭隘。地球历史上的气温一直在剧烈波动，甚至在地质历史上的某些时期，大气中的碳含量远高于今天，气温却比现在低得多。气候是一个极其复杂的系统，涉及微分方程、大气环流、太阳辐射周期及温室气体等多重变量，单纯归咎于碳排放并将复杂问题教条化的做法违背了真正的科学精神。
Konstantin Kisin 补充道，普通人对科学的理解往往建立在确定性上：
> “When we think about science, we think about something that's 100% predictable, measurable, calculable. You can go if we change this, then this is going to happen. Climate modeling is not like that. It's it's an approximation and an estimate based on a lot of assumptions. And we don't know how accurate those assumptions are.”
他进一步阐明英国政策的脱节：
- 英国的全球碳排放占比仅约 1%。
- 即使英国将自身排放清零，对全球气候大局毫无实质影响，却换来了“全球最高的工业电价”。
- 极端高昂的能源成本导致本土工业失去竞争力、制造业外流，甚至连美国如今热火朝天建设的数据中心产业，英国都完全无法承接参与。
### [17:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1060s) 全球变绿现象与绿色产业的利益链条
在谈话的末尾，Joe Rogan 提出了一个常被环保议程忽略的事实：随着大气中二氧化碳浓度的上升，地球实际上正经历广泛的“全球变绿”（Global greening），全球的植被覆盖和叶面积相比过去大幅增加，因为植物本身需要光合作用吸收二氧化碳。
Joe Rogan 尖锐地批评了制造恐慌背后的经济动机。他直言，许多政客和机构蓄意渲染危机，本质上是为了从中谋取暴利。一旦建立起强制性的绿色法令与行政规章，特定的能源游说集团、承包商便能分食巨额补贴和商业合同。归根结底，这场运动并不是真正出于对地球生态的纯粹关怀，而是一场打着道德旗号的利益再分配。
### [18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1116s) 绿色能源游说与政策背后的企业牟利机制
Joe Rogan 犀利地剖析了环保与新能源浪潮背后的利益链条。他直言，许多推动绿色转型倡议的人并非真正为了拯救地球。他戏谑地举例称，在东奥斯汀开着丰田普锐斯（Prius）、保险杠上贴着“科学就是科学”贴纸的自由派女士，或许确实是个好心肠的人，但那些在幕后大力游说政策的资本完全是两码事。这些决策者坐在董事会会议室里，紧盯着电子表格，精确计算某项法案通过后能赚多少钱。如果某项法案能够限制传统能源，同时补贴和扶持他们的产业——即便像风力涡轮机这类技术对环境破坏严重且极度低效——只要有利可图，他们就会不惜重金向政客进贡政治献金，大肆投放所谓的“为了更绿色的得克萨斯”等形象广告。Joe Rogan 一针见血地指出，这些出资的大企业根本不在乎生态环境，他们本质上就是唯利是图的吸血鬼。
Konstantin Kisin 赞同这一观点，指出这种商业模式由来已久，正如早年石油巨头暗中资助反核运动一样。他以英国当下的政策为例分享了自己的经历：由于政府设立了针对电动汽车的税收激励机制，他即将购置一辆电动汽车；若以公司名义购买，通过大额税收减免，可以用同样的成本换来性能好上一倍的车。Konstantin 指出，制度设计让遵循规则的人省下大钱，而终极获益者永远是生产这些特定产品的企业。
> “They're sitting in boardrooms and they're showing spreadsheets of how much money they'll make if a certain bill goes through because if the certain bill restricts one type of energy and promotes their type of energy, even if their type of energy, like windmills, is terrible for the environment and radically inefficient, they're going to profit.” —— Joe Rogan
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 能源法案与商业利益循环流程图
accDescr: 展示企业如何通过资金游说政客立法，进而扭曲能源市场获取暴利的循环模式。
subgraph Lobbying ["游说与政策操纵"]
A["能源资本与董事会"] -->|"政治献金与游说资金"| B["政客制定能源法案"]
B -->|"限制特定传统能源<br/>补贴特定新能源"| C["政策结构倾斜"]
end
subgraph Market ["市场与公众层面"]
C -->|"税收减免与行政激励"| D["企业与公众采购 (如电动车/风电)"]
A -->|"出资赞助宣传广告<br/>(例如'绿色得克萨斯')"| E["引导公众舆论与选民道德认同"]
end
subgraph Profits ["利益闭环"]
D -->|"巨额商业收益"| A
end
```
---
### [20:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1220s) 得州大麻争议、GLP-1 减肥药与公众认知空洞
话题转向消费行为与政策制定的隐秘动机。Joe Rogan 指出得克萨斯州目前正试图全面禁止大麻产品，而背后真正的驱动力其实是传统酒精饮品销量的断崖式下滑。不仅如此，很多人忽视了另一个巨大变量：GLP-1 受体激动剂类药物（如 Ozempic 等降糖减肥药）的爆发式普及。全美有数以百万计的人正在使用这类药物，还有数百万人偷偷用却死不承认。Joe Rogan 模仿身边认识的人调侃道：看着某人暴瘦变帅，问他怎么做到的，对方却轻描淡写地宣称是靠“热量限制（Calorie restriction）”。虽然严格来说热量摄入确实减少了，但隐瞒打针事实纯属掩耳盗铃。
Francis Foster 借此引申指出，在探讨任何公共议题时，最根本的瓶颈在于民众认知的匮乏。人们对事件的底层现实缺乏深入了解，内心因而形成了一个知识真空。在当代信息环境下，无论面对气候变化、中东局势还是地缘战争，没有独立见解的人必须找东西填补真空，于是他们最直接的本能就是照搬口号，直接拾取由最显眼的名人或媒体抛出来的现成标签。
- **酒精销量下滑与大麻政策**：得州禁止大麻的游说背后存在传统酒水行业受冲击的商业博弈。
- **Ozempic 与 GLP-1 现象**：降糖减肥药显著抑制食欲，正在无形中重塑酒精和食品消费习惯。
- **信息真空效应**：公众因缺乏专业知识，倾向于用简单的政治口号代替深度思考。
---
### [21:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1303s) 宗教消退与政治意识形态的“狂热替代品”
Francis Foster 抛出了自己的观察：为什么当下的左翼显得愈发荒唐？他承认右翼同样充满疯狂，但左派的一些主张往往完全脱离常识。他认为根源在于现代左翼几乎彻底世俗化，推崇“我们过于聪明而不再需要宗教”的科学理性人设。然而，一旦脱离了宗教的道德脚手架，人就容易陷入迷茫。Francis 认为，不论具体教规如何，传统宗教（如十诫）提供了一整套基于敬畏更高力量的行为规范，而崇拜的过程孕育了谦逊与集体约束。他打了个生动的比方：教堂的停车场正是基督教发挥正面作用的明证，散场时大家都礼貌谦让，秩序井然；相反，如果是去参加某场激进的跨性别平权集会，停车场里开着贴有美国国旗的皮卡车，很可能会遭遇极其恶劣的辱骂和粗暴对待。
Joe Rogan 结合自己 59 年的人生经历深入剖析了人类的心智结构。他认为人类的大脑经历了数万年的演化，天生就存在一块专门为“宗教”保留的心智区域。当正统宗教从生活中抽离后，必然会有其他意识形态取而代之来行使宗教职能。所谓的“进步主义”（Progressive）、激进环保等政治议题，实质上已经变成了世俗者的全新宗教；而任何持不同政见的人，在他们眼里都不再是正常的争论对象，而是必须被钉在耻辱柱上的“异端（Heretic）”或“异教徒（Infidel）”。
Konstantin Kisin 分享了他们刚录制的一期播客，嘉宾是著名社会心理学家乔纳森·海特（Jonathan Haidt）。海特坦言自己虽不是信徒，但早已放弃过去那种对宗教的傲慢态度。海特将宗教定义为一种促成群体凝聚力的“社会技术”（Social technology）。Konstantin 进一步指出，基督教文化中极其核心的一项修行为“感恩（Gratitude）”。每天花时间确认自己的幸运，能够从根本上重构生命体验。如果一个人常怀感恩之心，就极难沦为在大街上冲着异见者狂怒咆哮的政治狂热分子。三位嘉宾一致认为，当街对着别人狂吼根本没有任何说服力，既极端低效，也无法改变任何人的立场。
> “And that thing that does the job of religion is being progressive or being whatever you're being... Climate change, whatever it is, find a thing that becomes your religion. And anybody that is confronting that with an alternative perspective is a heretic.” —— Joe Rogan
---
### [26:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1581s) 民调样本偏差与自由派基督教的教义重构
播客制作人 Young Jamie 调出了美国党派与宗教认同的实际调查数据：在共和党及倾向共和党的独立人士中，约 78% 的人认同某种宗教；而在民主党中，这一比例为 60%；另外无宗教信仰者占约 39%，有约 1% 的受访者拒绝回答。
Joe Rogan 对这“拒绝回答的 1%”大加赞赏，戏称他们才是地球上最聪明的人群，因为理智且生活充实的人绝不会把时间浪费在回答民调电话上。他指出，凡是有工作、有家庭、有爱好和朋友要见的人，接到陌生调查电话的第一反应都是直接挂断。因此，民调统计反映的往往是一群无聊到愿意配合问卷的极度边缘群体的意见。一旦某个议题显示“49% 赞同”，实际意味着连这群无聊受访者中都有一半人不认同，这根本不能代表真实民意。Konstantin 也补充道，大学里的许多学术社会心理学实验同样严重失真，因为它们过度依赖在校大学生作为样本，导致对普遍人性的理解产生严重偏差。
话题最后回到左翼与宗教的融合异化现象。Joe Rogan 指出，近年来左翼内部涌现出一大批 LGBTQ+ 牧师和激进进步派神职人员，正在系统性篡改传统教义。他们宣扬一套迥异于传统经典的言论，主张“上帝是非二元性别的”或用圣经来为堕胎背书。这让正统圣经学者大跌眼镜，完全无法理解他们究竟是从哪一章节、哪一页引申出这些离奇解读的。
> “That is the most intelligent group on earth. The about 1%. The 1% that will not answer polls... Anybody with a life, anybody that has like a family and stuff to do and hobbies they enjoy and friends they want to hang out with, they don't sit around answering some [__] poll.” —— Joe Rogan
### [28:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1700s) 宗教传统的“觉醒化”与古老仪式的熏香真相
Joe Rogan 谈到如今某些牧师将一种“觉醒式的怪异风潮”（woke weirdness）引入宗教，他对此感到十分困惑。Rogan 指出，如果现代教会决定不遵循原本的教义，那为什么不先剔除那些真正恶劣的内容，比如蓄奴以及屠杀妇女儿童的记载，反而急着用“上帝是非二元性别”这种观念来哗众取众。Francis Foster 对此表示赞同，他提到自己从小接受天主教熏陶，后来去过几次英国国教会（Church of England）的礼拜，感觉完全变了味。在他看来，去教堂做弥撒就该追求最纯粹、最原始的体验，就像抽万宝路红盒（Marlboro Reds）或者必须听到全拉丁文念诵一样，坐在那里心惊胆战地想着“该死，我要下地狱了，而且那一定会糟透了”。
随后对话转向了宗教仪式的历史根源。Rogan 戏谑地指出，如果真要追求原汁原味，教会应该还原古代在过道上摇晃香炉的做法，因为早期使用的熏香实际上就是大麻（Cannabis）。当时的人们拿着巨大的香炉四处熏烤，把所有信徒都熏得飘飘欲仙，这样大家才能彼此和睦相处。Francis 打趣说怪不得德州要想方设法禁止大麻。
- Joe Rogan 直言批评现代宗教改革的偏颇：“There's a lot of stuff that's in there we should probably concentrate on first before we start saying God's non-binary.”（里面有太多内容是我们应该先着手解决的，而不是急着宣称上帝是非二元性别。）
- Francis Foster 形象地比喻人们对宗教纯粹性的渴望：“You want the real deal. You want the Marlboro Reds. You want to hear the Latin.”
---
### [29:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1785s) 酒精游说集团的阻挠与现代高强度大麻
谈及德州对大麻的禁令，Joe Rogan 明确指出这背后完全是酒精行业的金钱利益在作祟。他提到这笔资金的流向可以明确追溯到副州长丹·帕特里克（Dan Patrick）等政客身上。传统酒类产业深知，一旦大麻合法化普及，就会直接蚕食他们的营业额。作为对比，科罗拉多州作为全美首个实现大麻合法化的先锋，通过设立高达约 39% 的重税，将所得税收全部投入学校和各项公共建设，赢得了公众的普遍接受。从经济角度来看，大麻的开销远低于酒精：五六个好友去酒吧畅饮一晚，大家轮流买单，账单很容易飙升到五六百美元；但若换算成价值 600 美元的大麻，足以让人整整一个月动弹不得，只能瘫在床上怀疑人生。
Young Jamie 提到，在加州买一支现成的大麻烟卷（Joint）大概需要 15 到 20 美元，这足够让人“被烤焦”一整晚。Rogan 和 Francis 感叹现代科技已经彻底重塑了大麻产业，现在的产品根本不是以前那种普通的大麻烟卷。喜剧演员罗恩·怀特（Ron White）偶尔会把加州的大麻烟卷带到喜剧俱乐部 Comedy Mothership，上面厚厚地裹着一层 Kief（大麻花粉粒）和 THC 结晶，劲大到令人窒息，甚至有单支售价高达 100 美元的高浓度烟卷，一旦碰了就可能彻底失能。Francis 补充说，现在的年轻人普遍囊中羞涩，再也无法像老一辈年轻时那样无所顾虑地挥霍泡吧了。
- Joe Rogan 揭露大麻合法化受阻的本质：“The Texas thing is all about the alcohol. It's like traceable money to Dan Patrick and some other people.”（德州这档子事全是为了酒精利益。这背后的资金流向完全可以追溯到丹·帕特里克和其他几个人身上。）
- 对比饮酒与吸大麻的消费代价：600 美元去酒吧只是普通的一夜欢聚，但若是 600 美元的大麻则足以让人一个月无法正常生活。
---
### [31:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=1905s) 酒精的身体代价、戒酒体验与谷胱甘肽解酒法
Francis Foster 指出，互联网和各类健康博主带来的一个正面影响，是让大众逐渐认清酒精对人体的实质毒害。他透露自己戒酒长达八个月，身体状态发生了惊人的改善：不仅白天的精力更加充沛稳定，早晨醒来时也不再痛苦昏沉。Joe Rogan 也认为，尽管喝酒有其社交娱乐的成分，但从收益与代价的比例来看，酒精可以说是一种相当低劣的毒品。除了佐餐喝一杯葡萄酒之外，喝第二杯、第三杯不仅不会增加晚上的乐趣，反而会极大地破坏次日的身体状态；到了他们这个年纪，哪怕只喝一杯葡萄酒，第二天醒来都会明显感到不适。
为了缓解酒精的毒性，Rogan 极力推荐补充谷胱甘肽（Glutathione），尤其是生物利用度更高的脂质体谷胱甘肽（Liposomal Glutathione）。他建议在饮酒前、饮酒中和饮酒后都要补充，同时还应摄入电解质和氨基酸，以对抗酒精引发的脱水和免疫抑制作用。Francis 调侃道，如果酒厂销售员在卖酒的同时附带推销五种保健品，那画面实在滑稽。Rogan 随后痛批某些不负责任的肥胖医生，回忆起曾有一位大腹便便的医生信誓旦旦地告诉他“只要饮食均衡就无需任何补充剂”，让他十分恼火，因为大量同行评审的研究早已证明了维生素和膳食补充剂的显著益处。
- Francis Foster 谈到戒断酒精后的直观变化：“I noticed a big difference the moment I stopped drinking. I just felt way better. Felt better throughout the day. I felt like my energy levels were much more consistent.”（从停止饮酒的那一刻起，我就注意到了巨大的变化。我感觉好多了，整个人一整天都更舒服，精力水平也稳定得多。）
- Joe Rogan 对酗酒代价的犀利定性：“I would say alcohol is kind of a shit drug in terms of the good versus the bad.”（从利弊平衡来看，我认为酒精算是一种非常垃圾的毒品。）
---
### [34:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2060s) 英国与美国的医疗压力、诉讼文化与服务态度
Francis 顺着话题分享了自己家族的一桩趣事：他有一位身为心脏病专家的表亲，自己每天却要抽多达 40 支烟。Rogan 感慨医生承受的巨大职业压力和高昂的账单开销。谈到英美两国的医疗制度差异，Francis 解释说在英国直到大学之前教育都是免费的，但攻读医学等高等学位依然需要自费。至于医疗事故责任险，英国并不像美国那样令人难以承受，很大程度上是因为英国缺乏美国的“滥诉文化”（litigious culture）；除非遭遇极端严重的事故，普通的英国病人极少会叫嚣着要把医生告上法庭。
然而，这种缺乏诉讼压力的社会环境也带来了负面代价。Konstantin Kisin 尖锐地批评道，英国的服务业水平“客观上令人作呕”，其体验甚至更接近前苏联，仿佛店员给顾客提供服务是在施舍恩惠。相比之下，美国（尤其是德克萨斯州）的商业服务极为热情周到。Konstantin 坦言，自己刚走进德州的餐厅时，面对服务员发自内心的欢迎甚至感到极不适应，需要整整一周时间才能习惯这种善意与亲切。
- Konstantin Kisin 对英国服务业现状的尖锐评价：“There's a trade-off to, which is like our service culture in the UK is objectively disgusting. It's a lot closer to the Soviet Union than it is to America.”（这也是有代价的，那就是我们在英国的服务文化客观上令人作呕。它更接近苏联，而不是美国。）
- 英国与美国在诉讼倾向上的鲜明反差：英国患者极少动辄起诉医生，这降低了执业保险门槛，但也弱化了服务端的敬业动力。
---
### [35:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2145s) 大城市的人口重压与《人类动物园》的心理异化
针对德州居民表现出的友善态度，Joe Rogan 认为除了文化差异外，最根本的原因在于人口密度的区别。奥斯汀只有大约 100 万人口，生活节奏适中，而加利福尼亚等地则挤满了密密麻麻的人群。Rogan 坚信，无论个人的性格有多坚强，长期处于庞大人口的无休止包围之中，都会对人类心理产生不可逆的负面刺激。
话题由此延伸到全球断崖式暴跌的生育率。Francis 打趣说埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）正身体力行地拼命生孩子来拯救这一危机，而他自己也育有两个孩子，达到了人口世代更替水平。Konstantin 随即提到了英国著名灵长类学家德斯蒙德·莫里斯（Desmond Morris）的经典著作《人类动物园》（*The Human Zoo*）。莫里斯在研究中指出，现代大都市环境对人类产生的病理影响，与动物园圈养对野生动物造成的异化如出一辙——两者都会引发人际暴力剧增、精神疾病高发、严重抑郁以及繁殖意愿急剧下降。Konstantin 分享了亲身感受：在搬离大城市居住后，有一次周六他返回城里购物，仅仅过了 10 分钟，嘈杂压抑的人流就让他产生强烈的窒息感，恨不得立刻逃离。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 现代城市与动物园圈养的心理异化对比
accDescr: 展示灵长类学家德斯蒙德·莫里斯在《人类动物园》中提出的环境刺激与负面反应逻辑链
subgraph ENV["环境压力源"]
A["高密度大都市空间"]
B["野生动物圈养环境"]
end
subgraph SYMPTOMS["病理表现 (人类动物园效应)"]
C["人际暴力发生率激增"]
D["严重抑郁与心理疾病"]
E["生育意愿与繁殖率骤降"]
end
A -->|"模拟圈养压迫"| SYMPTOMS
B -->|"非自然空间剥夺"| SYMPTOMS
```
- Konstantin Kisin 引用灵长类学理论阐述现代城市的异化：“He studied great apes and he wrote a book called The Human Zoo which was all about how the city creates in human beings the kind of responses that a zoo creates in animals: high rates of interpersonal violence, higher rates of mental illness, lower reproductiveness, higher rates of depression.”（他研究大型类人猿并写了一本名为《人类动物园》的书，全书都在探讨城市如何在人类身上制造出与动物园在动物身上所引发的完全相同的反应：极高的人际暴力发生率、更高的精神疾病发生率、更低的繁殖率以及更高的抑郁倾向。）
- 德州奥斯汀人口规模（约 100 万人）带来的宽松生活空间，被视为维持友善社会氛围的重要物理基础。
### [37:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2222s) 城市喧嚣、多巴胺依赖与逃往自然
Francis Foster 谈到自己如今极少进伦敦，除了工作之外基本都躲在家里避世。Konstantin Kisin 指出，人很容易对大城市的刺激习以为常，但这并不健康。他将这种对城市喧嚣的沉迷与刷社交媒体直接类比：二者都是源源不断的多巴胺轰炸，让人时刻处于搜寻下一个刺激点的状态，以至于许多城里人在环境安静下来时反而感到无所适从、无法承受。
Joe Rogan 随即分享了一位在曼哈顿生活了三十多年的好友的经历。那位朋友十到十五年前在火岛（Fire Island）置办了房产，并坦言若非有火岛这个退路，他根本无法继续在曼哈顿撑下去。火岛是个不通汽车的小岛，居民和游客搭乘渡轮抵达后只能骑自行车，环境极为幽静；正是这种从纯粹安宁到满街鸣笛叫骂的剧烈反差，才让他在大都会的生活变得可以忍受。Rogan 感慨，那位朋友早年曾狂热迷恋纽约的狂躁能量，而 Rogan 自己的性格则完全相反——他热爱树林、宁静，喜欢坐在山头眺望飞鸟，打心底排斥被困在拥挤、彼此情绪相互摩擦的人堆里。他认为纽约偶尔去玩很有趣，但长久居住并在此睡觉会让人付出惨痛代价。Foster 对此深表赞同，提到他们借住朋友位于曼哈顿的豪华公寓时，哪怕到了凌晨三点十五分，街头依旧充斥着刺耳的脏话与叫喊声，直言这种永不停歇的环境把人都逼疯了。
- 城市喧嚣与社交媒体机制类似，都会使人陷入持续的多巴胺成瘾与过度刺激状态。
- 火岛因禁止机动车通行、主要依靠轮渡与自行车出行，成为纽约客从高压都市抽离的典型缓冲地带。
- 居住在超高密度的大都市会对心理和生理产生持续的消耗，缺乏安宁让人难以获得深度睡眠。
---
### [39:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2348s) 24小时都市、人生阶段的转变与回归荒野
Rogan 回忆起自己23岁单身时的纽约生活，感叹那是一个名副其实的“24小时不夜城”。当年像切尔西台球馆（Chelsea Billiards）这样的地方全天候营业，就像一个永不打烊的成年人游乐场；人们甚至能在凌晨四点走进高档餐厅坐下来享用一份正经的牛排大餐（虽然许多这类全天营业的场所都在疫情期间消失了）。Kisin 承认纽约很有魅力，他们访美时也会花上一周光顾心仪的雪茄吧，但他强调一旦步入婚姻、有了孩子，内心的衡量标准就会彻底颠覆：“I would rather spend half an hour with my son walking in the woods over, you know, whatever the best New York has to offer.”（我宁愿陪我儿子在树林里散步半小时，也不要纽约所能提供的任何最好的东西。）
Rogan 赞同这种转变，讲述了自己搬到洛杉矶后的居住选择。他越住离市区越远，而随着距离拉开，整个人也越发放松。后来他在加州常住的地方甚至不在洛杉矶县境内，而是买下了带大片土地的宅邸，周边常能见到美洲狮、短尾猫和鹿。走出户外听到的不再是城市的机械杂音，而是鸟鸣以及峡谷上空盘旋搜寻野兔的苍鹰。
随后 Foster 分享了自己过去在伦敦东部贫民区教书的经历。学校每年都会带那些十岁、十一岁的孩子去乡村进行为期一周的寄宿活动。在城里时，孩子们在被混凝土和摩天高楼包围的操场上，从一大早开始就精神紧绷、充满攻击性与对抗情绪；然而仅仅在乡村生活了一周，大自然就唤醒了他们性格中完全不同的一面。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 城市生活向自然栖居的心理转变
accDescr: 展示从过度刺激的高压城市转向自然环境对身心状态与价值观的重塑过程
subgraph Urban["都市环境与高刺激阶段"]
A["24小时运转的都市<br/>（高密建筑、噪音、持续多巴胺）"]
B["单身青年阶段<br/>（全天候台球馆、深夜牛排、感官狂欢）"]
C["慢性心理代价<br/>（情绪紧绷、易怒、对抗性增强）"]
end
subgraph Shift["转折驱动力"]
D["家庭与育儿责任建立"]
E["主动远离城市核心圈"]
end
subgraph Nature["自然生态环境"]
F["开阔荒野与自然原野<br/>（鸟鸣、野生动物、开阔视野）"]
G["身心状态重置<br/>（松弛感、情绪平复、本真状态释放）"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
F --> G
```
---
### [41:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2494s) 进化断层、星空视角与恶评舆论的解毒剂
Rogan 阐述了人性的进化适应问题：人类既是伴随着宗教演化而来的，也是在大自然中演化而来的，而当今现代社会同时剥离了这两者，导致人们陷入普遍的挣扎。在他看来，现代都市最大的剥夺之一是“光污染”。他提到近期做客节目的单口喜剧演员 Colin Quinn 曾谈及去德州南部的大本德（Big Bend）地区，那里是全美观赏夜空的绝佳地点之一。当人赤裸裸地面对横跨天际的银河与漫天繁星时，那种宇宙的宏大感会瞬间抚平焦躁，让人看清自己在宇宙中的渺小坐标。相反，在光污染严重的都市里，夜空只剩下一片漆黑的幕布，人们视野受限，目光只能狭隘地局限在吃喝享乐、党同伐异与互骂“法西斯”的微观泥潭中。
Kisin 谈到像他们这样从事播客与自媒体的人，由于工作性质不得不保持高度的数字接入，每天花大量时间看手机。他回忆一两个月前社交媒体和报纸上又充斥着对他们的攻击与谩骂，但当他放下手机走到自家花园，看着那两棵树龄超过三百年的参天大树时，内心的烦躁立刻烟消云散，觉得网上的口诛笔伐根本微不足道。Rogan 补充道，承受公众舆论正是这份工作的固有成本：只要你公开发声，人们就会形成看法；其中一些看法会很糟糕，另一些荒谬绝伦，甚至还有纯粹为了摧毁你而捏造的谎言。对此，Foster 直言其他批评他都能坦然接受，唯独无法容忍谎言：“Don't [ __ ] lie about don't make up [ __ ] about me and tell other people that that's what I am.”（别他妈造谣撒谎，别编造那些烂事再四处跟别人说我就是那种人。）
---
### [43:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2626s) 极化政治、信息茧房与长音频播客的价值
针对虚假指控与党同伐异，Rogan 指出病根在于意识形态偏见：只要谎言符合本阵营的政治叙事，人们就会全盘接受而绝不公开纠错。如今美国不幸陷入两党制，而两个政党都正被各自阵营中最极端、最疯狂的人所定义——提到左翼，公众联想到的是主张跨性别女性参加女子体育、共产主义与全面开放边境的人；提到右翼，公众联想到的则是宗教原教旨主义、要把《圣经》塞进每所学校以及叫嚣纯白人基督教国家的仇外群体。
Rogan 认为，整天在网上吸收这些极端信息会彻底扭曲个人的世界观。更糟糕的是，大多数现代人的现实社交也已被这种网络毒性污染，如果不是一对一单独交流，三个人围攻一个人时，他们就会表现出在私下一对一独处时绝不敢有的攻击姿态。他强调了长形式播客无可替代的价值：真正的观点交流是一件极度耗时且需要细致入微（nuance）的事情。在短视频与社交媒体时代，如果一个人仅凭 Twitter 上的火爆言论或断章取义的切片（clips）去判断公众人物，就会产生严重扭曲的负面认知；而当他们真正坐下来完整听完一期播客时，往往会惊叹对方不仅讲理而且友善。相反，如果一个被工作和义务榨干、身心疲惫的人只靠短切片和极端网帖获取信息，就会彻底锁死在一个充满虚妄与焦虑的假象世界中。而那些靠生产火爆言论和短视频切片谋生的人，从根本的激励机制上就毫不在意真相。
- 现代两党政治往往被各自最极端的边缘群体所绑架并被公众以此定性。
- 群体交流容易诱发网络式的极端对抗，而一对一的现实沟通往往更显理智与克制。
- 依靠社交媒体极端言论和短视频片段了解世界的受众，极易被困在焦虑导向的信息茧房中。
- 制造病毒式短视频与极端锐评的内容创作者，其核心激励在于博取眼球，而非探求事实真相。
### [46:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2762s) 长音频对话与流量至上主义的对抗
Francis Foster 指出，当今网络世界完全由互动量、观看次数和金钱驱动，这导致即便真相至关重要，但它带来的流量却远不如煽动性或极化观点的“劲爆言论”（hot takes）。Joe Rogan 对此提出了反驳，他认为像《TRIGGERnometry》和《The Joe Rogan Experience》这样长播客的成功正是最直接的抗衡证明。Rogan 强调公众对深入探讨存在着极大的饥渴感，人们渴望听到理性交流，渴望了解“我明白你的观点，也能理解你为什么这么想，而这是我的看法，让我们聊聊”。虽然网络上充斥着为了圈钱而发布虚假或极端偏见内容的投机分子，但仍有庞大的人群在追求真实的对话。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 播客对话模式与算法流量模式对比
accDescr: 对比网络极端吸睛帖与长篇播客真实对话在动机和受众反馈上的差异
subgraph 流量算法机制
A["追求即时收益与互动量"] --> B["发布煽动性/极化言论"]
B --> C["制造对立与算法狂欢"]
end
subgraph 长音频播客生态
D["理性长篇探讨"] --> E["理解多方视角与观点"]
E --> F["满足受众对深度交流的渴望"]
end
```
### [47:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2820s) 政治极化与荒诞的抹黑广告
Konstantin Kisin 谈到，政治一旦介入，整个交流环境就会发生彻底的变质。他提到《TRIGGERnometry》创办初期立下过绝不邀请在职政客的规矩，但随着播客关注度提高并接触到更多政治人物，观众立刻就会将他们归类站队。Konstantin 讲述了前一天在 Airbnb 准备采访时，因未登录账户而在 YouTube 上看到美国中期选举攻击广告的震撼经历。那些广告的极端措辞让他这个外来者深感荒唐与震惊，例如指责德州总检察长 Ken Paxton 支持恋童癖，或是指控 James Talarico 要伤害并强迫他人孩子变性。
三人随后顺着这类荒谬的宣传展开戏谑，畅想如果 30 年后政治光谱完全倒转会是怎样的一番景象：到那时可能是共和党强迫孩子变性，而人们在满大街都是同性恋的社会里偷偷做异性恋，甚至被八卦媒体 TMZ 曝光与女性接吻，宛如置身于《天外魔花》（Invasion of the Body Snatchers）的电影情节中，或者因为偷偷看“异性恋成人影片”而被社会声讨。
- Konstantin Kisin 评价美国竞选广告的极端程度时感叹：“bro. It is if you show that to a person who's not used to it, like it is shocking to me.”
- 荒诞设想反映出政治两极化宣传在辞令上已经失控，脱离了正常的人际交流常识。
### [48:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=2932s) 边境危机、人口普查与制度权力的争夺
话题转入高风险的现实政治议题，Joe Rogan 谈及民主党执政期间严重的非法移民危机。他批评《The View》节目针对他投票给共和党的言论进行事实核查（fact check），声称边境是关闭的且拜登告诫过移民不要来。Rogan 指责上届政府并非拜登在掌舵，而是由幕僚操盘。尽管德州州长 Greg Abbott 确实将部分非法移民用大巴送往纽约，但红十字会等机构也设立了站点提供地图，联邦层面更是发放机票、EBT 福利卡、手机并安排入住豪华酒店。更关键的是，大量非法移民被不成比例地安置在关键摇摆州（例如俄亥俄州的突发事件）。
Rogan 分析这背后的深层动力是选区重划与权力锁定：美国人口普查统计的是辖区内的“人口总数”而非“合法公民数”，这意味着只要某个地区人口基数增加，就能获得更多的国会席位。叠加此前讨论过的增加最高法院大法官席位、推动华盛顿特区和波多黎各建州的主张，其核心意图在于长期把控政权。关于治安问题，Rogan 提到在新任 FBI 局长 Kash Patel 的治理下统计犯罪率下降，但也有观点指出这纯粹是由于洛杉矶等城市受害者放弃报案造成的漏报。他直言不讳地指出，洛杉矶如今如同“哥谭市”（Gotham City），而选民却深陷思想怪圈，不断选出破坏秩序的政策。
> “The census counts humans. It doesn't count legal citizens. So if there's 10 million humans and half of them are illegal, doesn't matter. That indicates how many congressional seats you get.” —— Joe Rogan
### [52:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3167s) 委内瑞拉移民的声誉与开放边境的动机推演
Francis Foster 结合自己的委内瑞拉背景，谈及无序移民对合法移民社群造成的巨大伤害。他回忆起一位优步（Uber）司机的恳请，希望他能在播客上为绝大多数勤劳打拼的委内瑞拉人正名。由于边境门户大开，大量犯罪分子涌入，尤其是臭名昭著的黑帮组织“阿拉瓜火车”（Tren de Aragua）在美国各地制造毒品和暴力犯罪，导致整个委内瑞拉移民群体遭受污名化，让那些守法打工的人背负恶名。
随后，对话探讨了政府放任非法移民与罪犯涌入的动机：究竟这仅仅是为了增加国会选区席位而产生的“意外附带后果”，还是一种经过精心算计的治理策略？即利用犯罪率飙升所引发的公众恐慌，名正言顺地推行高压监控体系（如广泛安装 Flock 牌车牌识别摄像头、监听公民手机），以“让街头重归安全”为借口收紧对社会的全面控制。Francis 指出，在边境完全放开的状态下，在边境线上想要把守法者与罪犯区分开来原本就极其困难。
- 委内瑞拉黑帮组织 Tren de Aragua 的渗透在全美引发了恶性案件，直接连累了当地合法移民的形象。
- 讨论指出利用治安恶化顺水推舟强化监控手段，是现代权力扩张的一种潜在逻辑。
### [55:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3314s) 党派政客与大企业制度下的道德沦丧
Konstantin Kisin 谈到他们最近采访了 Andrew Yang。Yang 透露了自己脱离传统民主党与共和党两党建制体系的核心原因之一：两党本质上都不想彻底解决边境等现实危机。一些共和党人甚至会故意阻挠民主党去关闭边境，因为边境问题是极佳的竞选杠杆，能持续为他们提供抨击对手的说辞。Joe Rogan 也表示，众议员 Anna Paulina Luna 曾向他亲口解释过这一底层逻辑：“有很多问题他们根本不想解决，因为那是他们募集竞选资金的工具；他们可以借此竞选，这成了竞选话术，是他们必须揣在口袋里的底牌。”
Konstantin 指出，这正是左翼批评大企业与政府权力集中时切中要害的地方。他年轻时自认为是左派，而如今随着主持《TRIGGERnometry》、采访了越来越多处于权力核心的圈内人后，他越发看清这类人的行为纯粹是由贪婪而非道德驱动：“这些人毫无道德底线；我甚至不愿说他们是不道德的，我认为更糟的是他们是‘非道德’的（amoral）。他们根本不在乎任何事，只要能赢下选举、赚到钱、增加年终奖就行。”在他看来，这种冷漠的“非道德”比单纯故意作恶更加可怕，因为极少数人正在将庞大的权力垄断在自己手中。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 两党制与官僚体系的问题制造闭环
accDescr: 描述政客与大企业如何利用未解决的社会问题来获取选票、资金与奖金的运作机制。
subgraph Incentives["利益驱动机制"]
A["社会现实危机<br/>(例如：边境非法移民)"] --> B["故意拖延与阻挠解决"]
B --> C["制造竞选议题与筹款筹码"]
C --> D["赢得选举 / 捞取企业利润与奖金"]
D -->|"持续需要危机维持基本盘"| B
end
subgraph Culture["企业文化层面的责任扩散"]
E["大机器体系运作"] --> F["员工个体情感隔离<br/>(‘我只是在办公室填报表’)"]
F --> G["系统性作恶却无人承担道德责任"]
end
```
Joe Rogan 进一步拆解了企业体系中的“责任分散（diffusion of responsibility）”机制。当一家跨国制造巨头将有毒废料倾倒在第三世界国家的河流中时，坐在达拉斯办公室里对着电脑填 Excel 表格的普通白领绝不会认为自己是杀害柬埔寨游鱼的恶棍，他们会觉得这与自己无关。在现代企业狂热追求股东利润、人人超负荷工作 16 小时并依赖阿德拉（Adderall）提神的文化下，道德早已被挤出考量范围：
- 执业律师会抱着“明知委托人有罪，我的职责也是替他脱罪”的念头行事。
- 华尔街高管一心只想着前任 CEO 离职套现了 6 亿美元，自己也要买汉普顿的豪宅、私人游艇和公务机。
- 任何内心尚存道德底线、无法承受这种冷血体系的人，往往会选择“自我淘汰（self-select out）”，离开体制去写一篇发表在《大西洋月刊》（The Atlantic）上却无人问津的自省文章。
---
### [58:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3527s) 抵制愤怒流量：从“贤者时间”到家庭餐馆式做播客
Konstantin Kisin 将他们运营的《TRIGGERnometry》比喻为一家独立经营的“家庭餐馆”。播客是在向公众投喂信息与思想，内容创作者对受众的“精神摄入”负有严肃责任，绝不能为了提升口感或多赚钱，就往食物里掺入铅和汞。他坦言团队心知肚明请哪些极具争议的嘉宾能让播放量瞬间翻十倍，但他们坚决拒绝这种纯噱头。Francis Foster 也认同这一理念，认为绝不能把做播客变成诱敌入坑的猎巫陷阱（gotcha game）。
谈到传统媒体的炒作模式，他们提及了 Piers Morgan 的商业套路——把一堆立场极度对立的人塞进一个演播间，让他们互相咆哮撕咬以博取眼球。虽然 Piers 在做深度长访谈时偶有出色表现，但在快节奏电视体制下，愤怒经济学往往占据主导。Konstantin 引用了好友 Chris Williamson 提出的概念——正如男性射精后的贤者时间（post-nut clarity）一样，互联网时代也普遍存在一种“内容贤者时间（post-content clarity）”：受众在看完挑动仇恨的“愤怒色情（outrage porn）”之后，内心只会充满空虚与懊恼，反问自己为什么要把生命浪费在毫无意义的 15 分钟骂战上。
Joe Rogan 分享了自己的“信息过滤机制”：
- 坚决屏蔽标题带有“某某在辩论中彻底摧毁对手”之类的挑衅视频。
- 绝大部分网路内容只阅读那些由自己认可、觉得有趣酷炫的朋友直接分享过来的文章。
- 唯一的例外是在马桶上刷手机时会偶尔失守放任一下，但他调侃道：“马桶正是坏事滋生的地方。”
---
### [01:00:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3656s) 拒绝文化战标签：深度内容与受众专注力的长远价值
Francis Foster 谈到了他撰写自传《(Un)educated》时的真实经历。在图书宣发期间，许多人反复追问他：“你有没有在书里写文化战争对教育的影响？有没有写教室里的跨性别议题？”Francis 对此感到荒谬，因为他当年执教于伦敦东部治安极度恶劣的贫民窟学校：“老兄，我在伦敦东部的一个操蛋贫民窟教书，当一个学生正拿椅子砸向你的脑袋时，你根本没工夫去讨论去殖民化（decolonization）。”为了真实，他拒绝向充斥着激进化议题的市场炒作妥协，即便这意味着放弃大量引流片段和曝光收益。
Joe Rogan 用餐饮逻辑打了个生动的比方：如果一家素食餐馆坚持自己的烹饪原则，就没必要眼红隔壁靠卖劣质牛排大发横财的店家。事实上，在垃圾内容遍地的环境下，《TRIGGERnometry》提供的高质量理性对话更像是真正的优质牛排，而网民热衷追捧的愤怒片段不过是让人吃了生病的假素食汉堡。随着《TRIGGERnometry》订阅量逼近 200 万大关，Konstantin 与 Francis 愈发感受到沉重的社会责任感——一旦嘉宾在节目中发表事实错误的言论，主持人的职责绝不是顺水推舟，而是必须通过前期的充分研读与准备，在录制中直接进行有理有据的交锋与推敲，因为公众确实会将节目传达的信息当作事实来消化。
在面对“现代人的注意力跨度比以往任何时候都要短”的普遍悲观论调时，Joe Rogan 表达了强烈质疑。他认为人性从未发生根本改变，自己钟爱收听长篇有声书，广大受众同样如此。听众对长篇深度内容的渴望始终存在，而这也正是当年推动流媒体巨头 Spotify 敏锐捕捉到长音频流播趋势、全力下注进军播客生态的决定性原因之一。
### [01:03:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3824s) 深度内容的需求与媒体形态的代际更迭
乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出，受众早已不再仅仅满足于音乐等单调娱乐，现代人渴望获取信息并让大脑受到积极启发。情绪固然很容易被愤怒等负面刺激所劫持，但真正能给人带来充实感的是那些具有启发性、引人深思的内容。罗根分享了自己的日常体验，提到自己在车里收听长篇对话播客时，经常会在关掉音响后继续沉思方才听到的观点。他认为千千万万的普通人都有这种探索世界的渴望，只是主流媒体长期忽视这一需求，才导致大众注意力经常被毫无营养的垃圾信息所霸占。针对传统媒体与网络媒体的格局，康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）提出了不同维度的观察，指出传统电视的整体收视底数虽仍庞大，但不可逆的下滑趋势已成定局；罗根则更直接地指出，网络视频的实际影响力早已对电视形成降维打击。
谈及 YouTube 平台庞大的受众群体时，基辛提到了知名荒野生存频道“Outdoor Boys”。该频道坐拥约两千万订阅者，单个视频播放量动辄高达数千万，但频道主理人在达到流量顶峰时却选择抽身停更。罗根与基辛分析，面对这种难以承受的名气冲击和互联网上海量的评论，普通人极易产生心理压力。主理人本身只是个热爱户外生存的普通人，在视频创作中逐渐把年幼的孩子们也拉入了镜头。全家人共同出镜固然增添了亲和力，但对于心智尚未成熟的未成年人而言，被迫背负数千万人的审视与注视，无疑是极其沉重且令人不安的负担。
- 传统媒体与网络流媒体的走势对比中，康斯坦丁·基辛断言：“Well, if you look at the absolute numbers that they are way up here, right, than collectively than than than YouTube and podcast, but the direction of travel is only one way from here.”
- 乔·罗根强调长篇播客对思维的持久触动：“I love when I listen to a podcast, I listen to a conversation and I carry that thought with me like I'll shut the the radio off and I'm driving.”
- YouTube 顶级生活类博主如“Outdoor Boys”拥有近 2000 万订阅量，部分视频观看量接近 9000 万，但主创在巅峰期因家庭与名气压力选择急流勇退。
---
### [01:06:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=3975s) 聚光灯下的童年异化与童星的心智发育缺陷
弗朗西斯·福斯特（Francis Foster）与罗根对未成年人过早曝光于公众视野的现象表达了强烈忧虑。福斯特指出，几岁的孩子根本无法真正理解“知情同意”的含义，也完全预估不到过早成名对自己整个人生造成的长远后果。当成名后的孩子走在路上，面对陌生人充满“我们彼此很熟”的狂热目光时，心智成熟的成年人尚能将其理性拆解，但儿童往往会陷入无所适从的认知混乱。罗根直言，让孩子参与电视节目的行为极其不负责任，不仅让他们在校园生活下面临同龄人的排斥和霸凌风险，更将他们赤裸裸地暴露在网络世界的偏执狂与各类疯子面前。
这种聚光灯下的异化在好莱坞童星身上体现得尤为惨烈。罗根提到自己近期在俱乐部结识的演员扎克·埃夫隆（Zac Efron），后者在私下坦承了童年迅速成名带来的巨大痛苦。罗根用搅拌水泥的过程打了个生动的比方：如果配料尚未添加齐全就强行让水泥凝固，这种骨架将永远存在致命缺陷，再也无法修复。多数童星在成年后都会面临精神崩溃，哪怕像麦考利·卡尔金（Macaulay Culkin）这样经历复杂的著名童星，也公开承认过自己跨越心智创伤时的极度不易。罗根剖析了其中的根本机制：在正常的成长路径中，人际尊重与喜爱必须通过后天的努力、才华或品行逐步赢取；而童星在几岁时就无需付出任何努力便能获得数百万人的崇拜，这种虚假的溺爱完全打碎了正常的社会反馈机制。
- 乔·罗根用形象的水泥搅拌比喻揭示童年成名对人格结构的不可逆破坏：“I liken it to when you make cement and you don't put all the ingredients in and then it kind of forms, but you can never fix it.”
- 正常人在青春期需要经历求偶受挫、社交摸索、被同龄人纠错等现实洗礼，而片场长大的童星身处全员讨好的封闭温室，甚至连最基本的违规惩罚机制都被剥夺。
- 麦考利·卡尔金与扎克·埃夫隆等童年成名的影视演员，成年后均公开提及自身在心理健康与自我认同重建方面的严峻挣扎。
---
### [01:09:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4154s) 缺失边界的放纵、财产掠夺与年少掌权的宿命
随着话题深入，罗根指出童年或青年过早成名的另一大恶果是“安全边界”的彻底丧失。就像老派摇滚明星在酒店里毫无顾忌地砸烂电视、拆毁房间一样，他们之所以为所欲为，完全是因为外界从不对其恶劣行为设置任何后果。年仅几岁的儿童在片场若大发雷霆、肆意妄为，周围的大人为了利益仍旧只会百依百顺。更令人心碎的是原生家庭的剥削，罗根透露自己有一位童星朋友，成年后才震惊地发现自己的亲生父母利用监管漏洞秘密侵吞了他数百万美元的合法收入。福斯特补充道，一旦外界察觉到你年少多金，身边立刻会涌现出成群结队的掮客，绞尽脑汁兜售各类离谱的商业点子，试图合法卷走你的财富。
成名过早的另一个残酷现实在于“16岁即巅峰”的断崖式落差。当青春期的身体发育打破了童年特有的甜美外貌，公众的喜爱往往在一夜之间化为乌有，少年们不得不拖着迷茫、自卑的身躯面对冷酷的现实世界。罗根由此联想到了古代历史上那些被迫年少掌权的统治者，比如九岁即位的古埃及法老图坦卡蒙（Tutankhamun）。罗根调侃其年幼登基如同木偶，就像拜登（Joe Biden）的幕后政治运作一样，图坦卡蒙不可能拥有实权，而且由于古代王室普遍盛行近亲通婚以保证所谓“血统纯洁”，图坦卡蒙不仅身体畸形且身患重疾。2010 年的法医 DNA 研究进一步证实，图坦卡蒙的亲生父母极大概率就是一母同胞的亲兄妹，其父很可能就是阿肯那顿（Akhenaten）。
- 弗朗西斯·福斯特揭露社会对年轻新贵财富的系统性觊觎：“It's one of the things that happens when people see you being successful and you have money or they think you have money.”
- 乔·罗根感叹年幼掌权者的荒谬处境：“You peak at 15, but imagine being like Tuton Common became the pharaoh of Egypt at nine.”
- 2010 年对图坦卡蒙木乃伊的基因研究证实其父母为全同胞兄妹，这种近亲结合直接导致了这位少年法老终生饱受生理缺陷与疾病的折磨。
### [01:12:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4327s) 图坦卡蒙的残缺遗骸与被瓦砾掩埋的陵墓
对话首先梳理了关于古埃及法老图坦卡蒙（King Tut）的考古与病理学事实。医学研究指出，图坦卡蒙的生母据推断是被称为“年轻女士”（The Younger Lady）的无名木乃伊，极可能是他父亲的亲姐妹。图坦卡蒙的真实躯体与古埃及艺术中理想化的王室形象相去甚远：他患有马蹄内翻足（内翻足），足部骨骼伴有严重病变，导致生前行走困难，而墓中出土的大量拐杖印证了这一推论。他大约在 9 岁登基，于 18 或 19 岁便撒手人寰。尽管研究人员在其遗骸中提取出了疟原虫 DNA，推测其死亡可能是由于疟疾、骨病以及腿部骨折复合所致，但确切死因至今仍无定论。
随后，Joe Rogan 与嘉宾探讨起这位年轻法老戏剧性的身后名声。与历史上大量惨遭洗劫的法老陵墓相比，图坦卡蒙的陵墓之所以能完整保存，很可能是因为他生前备受冷落与厌弃。民间有一种推测认为，古埃及人在将其下葬后，直接用大量碎石瓦砾将墓穴盖了个严严实实，甚至抱着“去他的吧”的态度彻底将入口掩埋，使其与世隔绝。嘉宾打趣道，历史上无数雄心勃勃宣称要建立不朽帝国的帝王早已湮没无闻，而图坦卡蒙不过是个“该死的小国王”，年仅 9 岁登基且毫无作为，却因为陵墓完好无损而成了现代大众心中最著名的古埃及法老代表。这也引出了更大的历史疑问：如果一个微不足道的小法老都能拥有如此穷奢极侈的随葬品，那么像拉美西斯大帝（Ramesses）这样真正伟大的帝王，其墓葬当年究竟有多么不可思议？那些消失的黄金又究竟流向了何方？
- 图坦卡蒙大约 9 岁继位，约 18 至 19 岁去世，随葬品中包含多根供其行走的拐杖。
- 遗骨检测出疟原虫 DNA，腿部骨折并发骨骼畸变被视为主流致死假说之一。
- 陵墓因被瓦砾掩埋而躲过了数千年的盗墓狂潮，成为几乎唯一完整保留至今的法老陵寝。
---
### [01:14:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4444s) 漫长寿数之谜：从《苏美尔王表》到古老历法
话题顺势转向古埃及与两河流域更为久远的未解历史。古埃及时期至少可以追溯至 6000 年前，而诸如“第一时代”（Zep Tepi）的埃及王表记录更是延伸到了三万多年前。主流学界往往将早期记载视为神话，直到历史进入普遍公认的王朝时期才将其当作信史。最匪夷所思的是，这些古老王表中早期统治者的在位时间与寿命极长，动辄统治几万年甚至几十万年。无独有偶，《苏美尔王表》（Sumerian King List）也呈现出惊人一致的结构：后期的历史人物寿命完全符合普通人范畴，而早期统治者的统治周期同样动辄长达三万五千年。
嘉宾提出疑问，这种跨越成千上万年的寿命记载，以及圣经中挪亚活了 600 岁之类的说法，是否仅仅源于语言翻译误差或早期历法换算的偏差。Joe Rogan 解释称，楔形文字（Cuneiform）记录了真实存在且寿命正常的人物，因此单纯的语言差错难以完全解释早期那些夸张的数字。古代早期曾广泛使用 13 个阴历月的历法体系——每月 28 天，一年共 364 天，配合偶尔的闰年来对齐天文周期。这种与自然周期高度契合的算法不知在何时被改造成了 12 个月、月份天数在 28 到 31 天之间摇摆不定的现代历法。另一方面，夸张的数字可能只是古代语言中的修辞习惯，就像人们随口抱怨“我爸活了 15 万岁”来形容极其衰老，或者某些宗教典籍中所谓的“72 位处女”本质上只是表达“数量极多”的代名词，不应被机械地理解为精确字面含义。
---
### [01:17:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4623s) 远古精工工程、水蚀论与神明“合成”术
谈及古埃及的建筑奇迹，嘉宾分享了自己参观阿布辛贝神庙（Abu Simbel）的震撼经历：神庙规模极其宏大，内部经过精密设计，在特定的时刻会有一道阳光笔直穿透黑暗照射在祭坛上，体现出极其骇人的天文与工程造诣。Joe Rogan 强调，古埃及工程在石料开采、超远距离搬运以及加工工具方面处处透露出反常细节，许多花岗岩表面留有疑似高速钻孔与瞬间“挖切”岩石的切削痕迹，其施工效率远非铜器加石英砂研磨理论所能解释。
针对文明的真实年代，波士顿大学地质学家罗伯特·肖赫（Robert Schoch）博士曾提出石破天惊的假说：吉萨狮身人面像周围围墙上的深沟属于典型的长期雨水侵蚀痕迹。然而，尼罗河流域最后一次拥有持续强降雨气候至少是在 9000 年以前，这意味着狮身人面像乃至整个遗址的建造时间很可能早于 1 万年甚至 1.2 万年前。此外，古希腊历史学家希罗多德（Herodotus）在著作中记载的庞大地下迷宫，据其描述其壮丽程度甚至超越了地面的金字塔，至今仍充满未知。
紧接着，嘉宾由古埃及延伸到宗教融合的政治手段。他提到大英博物馆的一场展览曾揭示，当古希腊人接管埃及后，定居埃及的希腊人与本土埃及人各自信仰截然不同的神祇。当时的统治精英为了避免两个族群分裂引发内战，展现出了精明的政治智慧，人为创造出能够融合两派信仰的折中神明。Francis Foster 总结了统治者面对信仰冲突时的实用主义考量：“‘你知道吗？我们面临一个大麻烦。如果我们不做点什么来把社会黏合在一起，我们就会爆发内战。’于是，他们人为创造出了两个群体都能共同崇拜的神明。”
---
### [01:20:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4832s) 从君士坦丁的宗教聚合到成吉思汗的帝国铁腕
Joe Rogan 指出，通过统一或重塑宗教来巩固政权是历史上反复上演的古老手段。古罗马皇帝君士坦丁推行基督教并将其确立为国教，其核心逻辑同样在于让帝国境内各怀异心的不同群体统一在同一个意识形态框架之下。
然而，蒙古帝国的成吉思汗则采取了截然相反的统治哲学。成吉思汗对被征服民族的精神信仰毫不在意，完全不强求思想上的同化。正如 Joe Rogan 绘声绘色地转述成吉思汗的态度：“成吉思汗说：‘我才不管你信什么宗教。乖乖加入我们。只要交税，别到处乱搞事，咱们一起去杀敌。’”成吉思汗对待宗教表现出了极度冷酷却极度实用的“宽容”——只要顺从纳税、维持秩序并提供军力，他丝毫不在乎臣民心中敬奉哪一位神灵。对话最后还提及了著名播客历史学者丹·卡林（Dan Carlin）对成吉思汗的独到见解，指出当今历史学家在重新审视这位征服者时，往往会发现其残暴统治背后不可思议的现代性与矛盾面。
### [01:21:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=4875s) 帖木儿墓穴诅咒与残酷征服者历史
谈话从成吉思汗对帝国的积极影响切入——成吉思汗打通了通往东方的贸易路线，但 Joe Rogan 指出其荒诞之处：“成吉思汗杀害了当时全球 10% 的人口；人类有记录历史上最大的刽子手之一，竟然还会因为对文明带来的正面影响而被人们传颂，这太疯狂了。”Konstantin Kisin 随即分享了自己带着父亲回乌兹别克斯坦的旅行经历。他在乌兹别克斯坦生活过四年，当来到首都塔什干市中心时，赫然矗立着帖木儿（Tamerlane）的巨型雕像。帖木儿如同一个“小成吉思汗”，统治版图西起君士坦丁堡，东抵中国，北涉俄罗斯，南至印度。乌兹别克斯坦人绝不会“去殖民化”拆除雕像，反而将其视作民族英雄。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 帖木儿墓开棺与巴巴罗萨行动事件关联
accDescr: 展现1941年苏联考古学家开启帖木儿陵墓后引发的二战事件走向
subgraph 开棺与侵略
A["1941年6月：苏联考古学家准备开启撒马尔罕帖木儿陵墓"]
B["碑文警告：开棺者将释放比帖木儿更强大的征服者"]
C["1941年6月22日：纳粹德国发动“巴巴罗萨行动”，苏德战争爆发"]
end
subgraph 战局逆转
D["德军逼近莫斯科城下，苏军初期溃败"]
E["考古学家以正统伊斯兰仪式重新安葬帖木儿遗骨并封墓"]
F["次日：斯大林格勒战役迎来关键转折，苏军开启反攻"]
end
A --> B
B --> C
C --> D
D --> E
E --> F
```
Konstantin 讲述了关于撒马尔罕帖木儿陵墓的传奇故事：1941年6月，苏联考古学家准备开棺，当地居民极力阻拦并指出墓碑上的诅咒铭文——“谁打开这座陵墓，就将释放出一个比我更可怕的征服者”。考古学家并未理会，开棺次日，即1941年6月22日，希特勒便发动“巴巴罗萨行动”入侵苏联。苏军在战争前一年半内节节败退，数百万人被俘，德军甚至推进至莫斯科郊外。直到斯大林格勒战役期间，考古学者深感不妥，按照伊斯兰教规将帖木儿遗骸重新下葬封存。令人惊叹的是，重新安葬的次日正是斯大林格勒战役的重大转折点，自此苏军展开大反攻直至胜利。Joe 笑着惊叹这简直是“模拟人生理论”（Simulation theory）。
- 撒马尔罕保留有帖木儿陵墓，乌兹别克斯坦的巨型清真寺与宗教学校（madrasa）展现了曾经灿烂的伊斯兰文明风貌。
- 德军一度兵临莫斯科郊外，至今莫斯科外围仍立有三座巨大的防坦克反坦克拒马（tank traps）。若斯大林留守莫斯科被擒，二战局势本可能彻底改写。
---
### [01:24:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5088s) 蒙古西征的惨烈与历史的周期性焦虑
Joe Rogan 提到成吉思汗及其后继者入侵美索不达米亚（攻陷巴格达）使伊斯兰世界遭遇毁灭性倒退，底格里斯河被鲜血染红，整个文明几乎倒退回石器时代。Joe 引用知名历史播客主播 Dan Carlin 讲述的骇人史实：花剌子模沙阿派使节出使金朝，在途中远远看到一座“雪山”，走近才发现那是成吉思汗屠城后堆积如山的超百万具白骨；使团甚至不得不遗弃马车，因为遍地腐烂的人体血肉将道路彻底变成了无法通行的尸浆烂泥。
Francis Foster 指出，这正是他们在播客中热衷于采访历史学家的原因：深入历史能让人看清人性与社会的本质，抚平当下对未知的恐慌。人们总以为如今处在“前所未有的动荡时代”，但与历史学家交谈就会发现，眼前的困境往往在1823年或更早的某个节点早已上演。Joe 对此表示赞同，提到自己刚读完阿兰·瓦茨（Alan Watts）在1952年写就的著作《不安的智慧》（*The Wisdom of Insecurity*，节目中口误称作 *The Age of Insecurity*）。书中详述了1950年代人们因技术与文化激变而产生的极度焦虑，戳破了所谓“过去送奶工上门、人人信仰上帝、毫无烦恼”的怀旧滤镜。Joe 总结道：“只要有人类存在，就永远存在问题。”
- 花剌子模使节沿途所见的“雪山”实为堆叠过百万遇难平民骨骸的白骨山。
- 人类社会往往带有盲目美化过去的怀旧倾向，但每个历史阶段都充斥着当时的混乱、技术变革与生存焦虑。
---
### [01:28:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5282s) 代际养育差异、AI冲击与中东地缘隐忧
Konstantin 谈到现代社会的显著进步，尤其体现在儿童养育方式上。他提到上一辈人在苏联时期的成长境遇：“就像对待牲口一样，五岁的小孩做错了一件他根本不知道不能做的事，就会平白挨一顿毒打，而当时所有人都觉得这完全正常。”现代人更加理解暴力管教对心理的深远创伤，整个文明在人道层面大有改善。然而，技术的不确定性依然带来了全新危机。尽管 Francis 认为历史总在重演，Konstantin 却坚信人工智能（AI）是完全不同层级的挑战：AI 将使一切剧烈加速，人类很快将步入极其怪异且陌生的新局面。
随后，Joe 转向对美国地缘政治与外交动向的担忧。他注意到有关期中选举后美国可能再度向伊朗开火的流言，并对此表达强烈不安：
> “我和他们一样非常担心期中选举之后可能发生的事情，我听到的一种风声是，期中选举结束后，美国可能会再次开始袭击伊朗。” —— Joe Rogan
当前美国仿佛已然处于战争状态，却极少被主流媒体公开讨论。霍尔木兹海峡的商船如今必须由军舰护航才能通行，战舰遭遇骚扰和袭击的传闻不绝于耳。执政当局若在期中选举前采取激进军事行动必将在选票上惨败；但一旦选后清算，局势极可能迅速滑向丑陋的失控边缘。
- 现代社会在育儿心理学与反暴力侵害方面的认知较20世纪中叶有了本质飞跃。
- 霍尔木兹海峡持续处于高军事戒备状态，常规航运严重依赖战舰护航应对袭击。
### [01:30:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5410s) 英国的物资储备建议与中场休息
Francis Foster 谈到了英国国内最近发生的一件事：英国国防大臣在一场公开演讲中提出，英国民众需要开始储备物资，哪怕只是储备三天的生活必需品。Francis 指出，虽然听起来夸张，但这其实在情理之中，因为英国的基础设施极度脆弱；受所谓绿色能源和环保议题的影响，该建的大量基础设施根本没有动工。Joe Rogan 对此打趣道，所谓的“储备三天物资”，听起来就像是当年新冠疫情期间“居家两周阻断传播”的翻版。随后，Francis 提出想要暂停去上个洗手间，节目进入了短暂的幕间停顿。
### [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5468s) 什么是真正的“地缘政治”：从地理格局看大国博弈
重回录制后，三人就中东局势尤其是伊朗问题继续深入探讨。面对“三个白人坐在这儿聊地缘政治”的自我调侃，Joe Rogan 查阅并重新审视了“地缘政治”（Geopolitics）一词的真正源头。他指出，现代人常常把这个词泛化为国与国之间的外交互动，但其原本的含义是研究地理要素——诸如国家的地理区位、边界轮廓、自然资源以及出海口——如何深刻影响着政治权力和国家行为。Konstantin Kisin 完全认同这一点，直言当代人往往遗忘了地理决定论的底层力量，而“地缘”才是国际博弈中最坚硬的现实：
> “Geography very much affects how countries behave.” —— Konstantin Kisin
例如，外界对乌克兰的狂热支持，不可能完全脱离其地底蕴藏的数万亿美元关键矿产资源；而对于俄罗斯来说，其国家核心命脉的 80% 都集中在最西部的 20% 国土上，因此纵观历史，俄罗斯一旦强大，本能反应就是向西扩张以扩大战略缓冲带，入侵乌克兰在俄罗斯的历史惯性中几乎是一种必然逻辑。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 地理因素驱动的大国战略行为示意
accDescr: 解释地理、资源与战略安全如何驱动大国的军事扩张与地缘博弈
subgraph GeoDef["地缘政治的本质"]
A["地理区位 / 边界 / 资源 / 出海口"] --> B["国家生存空间与战略驱动力"]
end
subgraph CaseStudies["历史与现实案例"]
B --> C["俄罗斯：80%核心集中在西部20%国土<br/>必然向西推移以建立战略缓冲"]
B --> D["乌克兰：数万亿美元战略矿产蕴藏<br/>大国地缘博弈焦点"]
B --> E["伊朗：霍尔木兹海峡咽喉枢纽<br/>卡死全球能源命脉"]
end
```
### [01:33:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5588s) 伊朗冲突与“升级陷阱”：美国重蹈历史覆辙
谈到当前的伊朗局势，Francis Foster 认为美国政府在决策上显然有些冲昏了头脑，他们误以为能像处置委内瑞拉那样速战速决。Joe Rogan 接着指出，这与当年伊拉克战争犯下的错误如出一辙：1990 年代的“沙漠风暴行动”（Operation Desert Storm）干脆利索，给美国军政精英留下了轻敌的幻觉；以至于“9·11”事件后美军再次杀入伊拉克时，没人料到会陷入一场长达二十年的泥潭。当时的政客天真地以为可以给从未经历过民主的国度强行套上“民主”体制，甚至指望在电视上公开绞死萨达姆之后，当地就能毫无腐败、平稳地迈向繁荣。
Konstantin Kisin 随后提到了他们此前邀请的军事空中力量专家罗伯特·派普（Robert Pipe）。派普在战事爆发前就提出过“升级陷阱”（escalation trap）的理论，精准预判了当前的走向。派普认为，美国在这次危机中不仅没能压制对手，反而一步步将自己套牢，亲手将伊朗推向了地区霸主的宝座。通过这场冲突，伊朗获得了封锁霍尔木兹海峡的道义与现实借口，并在与沙特阿拉伯、阿联酋以及以色列的博弈中获得了更强的话语权；尽管沙特建有通往红海的输油管道试图绕过海峡，但胡塞武装对管道的密集轰炸让这条备用通路瘫痪。
- 美军在海湾战争中的速胜造成了严重的战略误判，促成了后来长达二十年的伊拉克泥潭。
- 试图将西方式民主强加给毫无民主基础的国家，忽视了部落、宗教和权力结构的现实。
- 罗伯特·派普提出的“升级陷阱”指明：美方过深卷入反而赋予了伊朗卡死关键航道的筹码。
### [01:36:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5790s) 全球经济的“裸绞”与无人机时代的基地毁灭
Konstantin Kisin 分析称，伊朗目前如同给全球经济锁上了一记致命的“裸绞”（rear naked choke）。国际油价与柴油价格的飙升根源正在于此，而并非特朗普口中所谓泽连斯基轰炸俄罗斯炼油厂的结果——乌克兰危机持续了四年油价并未失控，真正的暴涨始于伊朗战局。对于伊朗政权而言，这场对抗关乎生死存亡，其坚韧程度就像 1941 年卫国战争初期的苏联，即使伤亡惨重也绝不后退；而美国政府却要面临中期选举的紧迫倒计时，选举之后执政者可能失去众议院乃至参议院，面临无休止的调查与弹劾程序。在这种不对称的政治承受力下，伊朗拖延的时间越长，掌握的政治筹码就越多，直到迫使美军基地彻底撤出中东：
> “Every day that this goes on, we've got more leverage.” —— Konstantin Kisin（模拟伊朗的博弈心态）
Joe Rogan 补充指出，驻中东的美军基地事实上已经遭受了极具破坏性的打击。美军驻扎的基地已有二十余处遭到轰炸，损坏程度深重，甚至需要几十年才能修复。现代非对称战争的形态彻底改变了游戏规则：常规的防空和对抗措施对低成本的自杀式无人机打击几乎束手无策；尤其是乌克兰战场上已经成熟的利用单丝光纤（monofilament line）有线遥控的无人机，根本无法通过无线电信号实施电子干扰，让现代化空军基地在精准突防面前几乎处于完全裸露的危险境地。
### [01:39:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5945s) 无人机改变战争与伊朗难以地面入侵的现实
Joe Rogan 谈到现代战争形式的剧变，特别提到乌克兰袭击俄罗斯机场并炸毁大量战机的战例。他感叹如今只用一个晚上就能造成数十亿美元的毁灭性损失，世界早已不是只靠发射传统导弹、再由“铁穹”（Iron Dome）系统在空中拦截的时代，“无人机技术已经改变了一切（Drone technology has changed everything）”。随后 Francis Foster 分享了他与一位前特种部队成员的对话。Francis 曾问对方是否有可能在伊朗部署地面部队，对方直接笑出了声，并表示若抛开所有政治因素单纯看军事地理，伊朗的地形极其多山，根本不可能达成地面占领。那位军人以及专家 Robert Pope 还指出了一条残酷的历史规律：历史上从来没有任何一次政权更迭是仅凭空袭就能完成的。这引发了 Francis 的质问：这场对抗到底该如何收场？决策者究竟是有宏大的战略规划，还是纯粹靠“感觉”（vibes）在行事？
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 空袭与地面入侵在伊朗的战略困境
accDescr: 展示为何仅凭空袭无法完成伊朗政权更迭以及地面入侵的客观阻碍
subgraph GroundReality ["地面现实"]
G1["多山险峻地形"] --> G2["地面部队入侵几乎不可能"]
end
subgraph HistoricalRule ["历史规律"]
H1["仅凭空袭行动"] --> H2["历史上从未单独促成政权更迭"]
end
subgraph ModernWarfare ["现代战术"]
M1["无人机廉价突防"] --> M2["一晚造成数十亿美元战损"]
end
G2 --> Question["对伊战略：深谋远虑还是纯靠感觉？"]
H2 --> Question
M2 --> Question
```
- 现代无人机突袭能够在一夜之间瘫痪价值数十亿美元的军机，打破了原有的导弹与防空拦截成本平衡。
- 军事专业人士认为，由于伊朗全境山峦起伏、地形极为复杂，派遣地面部队（boots on the ground）在战术上完全不具备可行性。
- “历史上从来没有仅靠空袭就实现政权更迭的先例，这种事根本不会发生。”（Francis Foster 引述特种部队成员与 Robert Pope 的观点）
---
### [01:40:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6020s) 决策层的盲目乐观：从委内瑞拉到乌克兰误判
Francis 进一步阐述了他所谓的“靠感觉”：决策高层是否真正做过沙盘推演——如果发生 A 情况该怎么办？出现 B 情况或 C 情况又该如何应对？还是说他们仅仅是因为在委内瑞拉成功打击了马杜罗政权，就自信心爆棚，觉得可以依样画葫芦直接对伊朗动手？三人探讨了在白宫内部，特朗普究竟掌握了多少关于轰炸伊朗后果的真实情报，以及各种利益集团是如何控制和筛选递交给他信息的。Konstantin Kisin 指出，这种高层决策脱离现实的现象屡见不鲜，正如普京深陷乌克兰战场一样——普京最初以为那只是一场为期三天的“特别军事行动”，深信伞兵降落在戈斯托梅利机场（Hostomel）后，泽连斯基政权就会垮台，当地民众也会夹道欢迎。而关于伊朗的叙事如出一辙：“干掉领导人，人民就会起义推翻政权。”然而现实往往大相径庭，在涉及国运的重大决策中，深思熟虑的推演过程往往被盲目的胜利情绪所取代。
- Francis Foster 形象地讽刺决策高层的冲动心态：“委内瑞拉进展非常顺利，我们势头正盛，下一个是谁？”（“Venezuela event went very well. We're on a roll. What's next?”）
- Konstantin Kisin 强调在面对这种量级的决策时，信息的呈递往往是不平等的，缺乏外界所期盼的审慎研判过程。
- Joe Rogan 指出对于任何渴望名垂青史的领导人来说，“拿下邪恶的伊朗政权”并将其写进历史政绩清单，都是一种极具诱惑力但充满危险的诱饵。
---
### [01:42:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6160s) 外交利益分歧与全球能源危机
讨论转向了以色列与美国在中东战略利益上的脱节。Joe 和 Konstantin 都认为，以色列为了自身的地缘安全，历来都极力劝说美国历任政府（包括奥巴马政府）对伊朗动武，这符合以色列自身的国家利益；然而美国政府的核心职责理应是维护美国自身及其盟友的利益。Konstantin 警告称，冲突爆发后美国本土因能源独立而相对受到保护，但全球其他地区正在承受巨大的经济重创。例如他在澳大利亚经营农场的朋友已经极难获取柴油，而欧洲的能源储备更是命悬一线——许多欧洲国家尚有一年左右的战略储备，但英国本土的柴油库存实际上只能支撑两个月左右。
- 以色列多届政府均曾试图推动美国对伊朗采取直接军事打击，但此前多任美国总统因风险过大而拒绝。
- 全球柴油供应链因中东局势遭受重击，澳大利亚农业部门面临燃料短缺，英国战略柴油储备仅剩两个月，能源断供风险迫在眉睫。
- 关于局势如何体面降温，Francis 调侃称最好的办法是特朗普发挥他一贯的商人做派，同伊朗达成一项协议并对公众宣传这是“有史以来最伟大的协议”；Joe 则附和道：“特朗普，如果你在听的话，这就是脱身的妙计：直接宣布你赢了，我们大家都会跟着你附和，只要别让局势继续升级。”
---
### [01:44:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6278s) 核门槛的现实与越炸越要拥核的逻辑悖论
三人深入探讨了阻止伊朗获取核武器的合理性与实际手段之间的矛盾。虽然大家都一致同意一个镇压抗议、处死国民的神权政权绝不应该拥有大规模杀伤性武器，但当前的军事手段是否能达到目标令人怀疑。Joe 援引反战评论家 Scott Horton 在其节目中的分析指出，尽管伊朗的浓缩铀丰度超过了民用能源标准，但浓缩材料与将其武器化制造出实战核弹头之间隔着巨大的技术鸿沟，伊朗此前远未达到造出核弹的阶段。Francis 提及伊朗最高领袖曾发布禁止制造核武器的宗教法令（Fatwa），但 Konstantin 认为不能对其言论抱有幻想。Konstantin 提到自己的物理学家祖父曾告诉他，在当代世界，一旦掌握了浓缩裂变材料，制造核武器本身并不像曼哈顿工程时期那样困难，正如印度和巴基斯坦相继掌握核武一样。Konstantin 总结道，这场战争反而走进了逻辑死胡同：持续的空袭无法消除技术，反而会倒逼伊朗下定决心、用尽一切资源尽快造出核武器来保命，“如果换作你是伊朗，这就是你会做的事情”（“If you were Iran, that's what you would do”）。
- Scott Horton 曾详细论证，将高浓缩铀转化为可实战部署的核弹头需要高度复杂的工程整合，伊朗此前距离核武实战化仍有相当距离。
- 曼哈顿计划虽然艰难，但在原理早已公开的今天，跨过技术门槛扩散核武已成为已被印巴等国验证的现实。
- Konstantin Kisin 犀利指出当前对伊军事行动在战略上的自相矛盾：“在我看来，现在不可避免的结果是：如果你是伊朗，你不仅要想尽一切办法活下去，还要竭尽全力以最快速度搞到核武器，免得这种挨炸的事情再次发生。”
### [01:47:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6454s) 伊朗的核威胁与帝国记忆
Konstantin Kisin 与 Joe Rogan 探讨了如何应对伊朗的核问题。Konstantin 提到，如果询问学者罗伯特·佩普（Robert Pape），其观点通常是建立“区域均势”（regional balancing），即通过加强沙特阿拉伯和阿联酋（UAE）的实力，在海湾地区形成力量平衡，从而遏制核冲突的升级。但 Konstantin 坦言，自己无法断定这种理论是否奏效，真正核心且棘手的问题在于究竟该如何阻止伊朗获取核武器。他感叹技术一旦问世，扩散几乎是不可逆转的规律：“once this thing has been invented, eventually people are going to get it.” 伊朗并非边远角落的小国，而是一个坐拥海量自然资源、扼守全球能源、化肥、天然气与塑料核心贸易大动脉的庞然大物。他指出，或许延缓进程或签署条约是可能的，但至今没有人能给出令人信服的方案来彻底杜绝伊朗拥核这一糟糕后果。
随后，Francis Foster 补充指出，拥有帝国历史的民族往往保留着深层的骄傲与荣誉感。正如俄罗斯人念及昔日的沙俄与苏联帝国一样，波斯人对波斯帝国辉煌的历史记忆同样根深蒂固。这种民族心理使得他们在感到遭受西方欺压时绝不会轻易屈服，甚至会激起“我们是伟大的波斯帝国，我们必将抗争到底”的强烈意志。Konstantin 也提醒道，伊朗拥有近 9000 万人口，体量远超英国本土。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 对伊核问题的现实困境分析
accDescr: 展示伊朗地缘优势与历史心理如何让外部遏制方案陷入困境
subgraph GeoPower["伊朗的现实地缘实力"]
A["战略要道控制权<br>(能源/化肥/天然气等)"]
B["9000 万人口体量<br>与庞大自然资源"]
end
subgraph Psyche["历史帝国心理"]
C["波斯帝国荣誉感"] --> D["绝不接受外部霸凌与屈服"]
end
GeoPower --> E{"外部遏制方案"}
Psyche --> E
E -->|"区域均势/签署协议"| F["无法根本杜绝核技术获取"]
```
---
### [01:49:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6575s) 本土安全隐患、防空部署与中期选举担忧
Joe Rogan 表达了他近期极为沉重的不安情绪，他担心局势在期中选举后彻底失控。他坦言自己有种强烈直觉，官方提醒民众储备食物和水绝非空穴来风，一旦电网遭受网络攻击甚至本土城市遇袭，美国将会陷入极其疯狂的混乱。面对 Konstantin 提出的“伊朗目前并不具备轰炸美国本土实力”的质疑，Rogan 强调潜在风险来自于针对关键基础设施的大规模网络攻击，以及潜伏在境内的休眠恐怖单元（sleeper cells）。
Rogan 进一步谈到，过去四年间穿越边境进入美国的人口极其庞大，保守估计为 1000 万人，部分共和党人甚至认为超过 2000 万。在如此巨量且缺乏完全筛查的人流中，根本无法确知究竟混入了多少恐怖分子。随后节目屏幕显示了当天的一则新闻：美国特勤局因“威胁环境升级”，在海湖庄园（Mar-a-Lago）及唐纳德·特朗普国际机场部署了地对空导弹防空系统。Rogan 戏称虽然阴谋论者总会猜测这是否是自导自演的假旗行动（false flag），但现实规律就是“如果你一再胡搞，终有一天会自食恶果”：“And it seems like we've been [fucking] around and it seems like they're telling us, hey, you might might want to store some food in case we have to find out.”
- 边境非法移民基数估计：低端统计约为 1000 万人，共和党部分政界人士估算上限超过 2000 万人。
- 安保升级动态：特勤局在海湖庄园及相关国际机场部署防空导弹防御系统，官方发言人声称处于“高度威胁环境”。
---
### [01:51:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6695s) 抗议活动是自发民意还是有偿产业链？
Konstantin 回顾了两年前总统大选前夕的情景。当时他在奥斯汀时人人都警告他去洛杉矶会遇到骚乱，然而当特朗普以横扫总统、参众两院、选举人票及普选票的绝对优势胜选后，洛杉矶街头反而风平浪静。Rogan 随即指出，美国的大规模抗议在很大程度上并非自发，而是高度有组织、有资金赞助的产物。他反问道，如果民众对轰炸伊朗普遍感到不满，为什么大街上见不到大规模的反战抗议？答案就是背后没有人出资去组织推动。
Rogan 谈到他曾与极左派朋友辩论，指明现实中那些整齐划一的抗议标志往往在突发事件后 24 小时内就由大篷车成批运抵，这显然是有预谋的运作，甚至存在专门以此谋生的“职业抗议者”。此时制作人 Jamie Vernon 在线搜索相关抗议的新闻，指出路透社报道称全美有 145 个城市爆发了针对袭击伊朗的抗议活动。Rogan 浏览新闻图片后坦承自己此前的观察存在盲区，但他也敏锐地指出，画面中那些统一印制的标语标牌、甚至倒挂的美国国旗，依然带有鲜明的组织化运作痕迹，且其在主流新闻中的热度与 2020 年席卷全美的示威完全不在同一量级。
---
### [01:54:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6893s) 特朗普的地缘政治遗产与执法争议
话题重新转向大选后的政治格局。Konstantin 提到胜选次日罗伯·施奈德（Rob Schneider）做客节目时神情欢欣，那种乐观情绪与当下形成鲜明对比。他设想了一种架空的历史走向：如果特朗普当年将精力集中在美洲西半球，比如拿下委内瑞拉或古巴，专注于稳固本土周边并获取显而易见的胜利，其历史评价将截然不同——就好比“没有伊拉克战争的托尼·布莱尔”（Blair without Iraq）。
Rogan 赞同尽管特朗普在边境封锁上取得了实质成果，但轰炸伊朗的决策却彻底打乱了一切。更让公众不安的是国内执法的激进化演变，尤其是美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）的执法方式。Rogan 严厉警告，即便是支持严格执法的群体，也必须认清滥用权力的可怕先例：“They could use that in another way. Now we've set a precedent. You're allowed to have a militarized police force with masks on and they don't have any identification and they're snatching up [people].” 一支戴着面罩、隐匿身份标识的准军事化警力随意抓人，为未来极权式权力的蔓延开启了极其危险的潘多拉魔盒。
### [01:56:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6970s) 执法边界、对外战争与民主信任危机
讨论从执法权力的界限与边境执法的现实矛盾切入。有人主张“要煎蛋就得打破几个鸡蛋”，但如果执法人员抓走所有人，其中甚至包括美国公民，这种做法一旦在社会中被正常化，就如同打开了鸡舍大门，后果不堪设想。但与此同时，现实中也确实存在极其危险的跨国犯罪集团，例如委内瑞拉黑帮“阿拉瓜火车”（Tren de Aragua）等各类黑帮团伙渗入边境，从事绑架和非法牟利活动，将贩毒集团级别的暴力带入美国境内，这也是为什么公众对美国移民和海关执法局（ICE）打击犯罪行动的支持度依然很高。
随后话题转向政治体系对选民信任的侵蚀。唐纳德·特朗普当年的核心号召力之一在于他将自己标榜为政坛“局外人”，承诺带来截然不同的执政方式，包括“终结无休止的战争”以及彻底践行“美国优先”，集中精力解决国内迫切的现实危机。然而，当政权介入像伊朗这样的外部冲突时，传递给选民的信息无异于换汤不换药。选民会觉得投谁的票都没用，体制永远在输出同一种战争，民主的根基因此遭到侵蚀。Francis Foster 指出：“And that's a really dangerous place to be because once people feel that democracy doesn't res doesn't represent them, then they start disengaging.”（那是一个非常危险的境地，因为一旦人们觉得民主不再代表自己，他们就会开始脱离政治冷漠退出。）这种权力的真空若无法通过正常体制填补，就会诱使人们产生寻找“铁腕君主”或各自为政的极端念头，导致社会分崩离析。
- 边境渗透黑帮“阿拉瓜火车”（Tren de Aragua）等组织将暴力犯罪带入美国本土，成为 ICE 执法强化的现实动因。
- 选民对建制派承诺破灭的挫败感，是造成社会政治冷漠与体制合法性流失的根源。
---
### [01:58:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7090s) “推倒重来”的革命幻想与历史代价
针对当下部分年轻人叫嚣“把一切彻底烧光推倒重来”的思潮，Joe Rogan 讽刺这些人根本拿不出任何切实的长远方案。Konstantin Kisin 从历史概念的混淆入手展开剖析，他认为将“美国独立战争”称为“革命”（Revolution）在词义上并不准确，从而误导了很多人。在他看来，严格意义上的革命是指推翻本国既有的统治政权并建立新体制，如同俄国十月革命推翻沙皇、法国大革命斩首国王和贵族；而美国的建国斗争本质上是一场“独立战争”，类似于苏格兰脱离英国，是北美殖民地宣布脱离母国自行组建政府，并没有颠覆英国本土政权。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 真正革命与独立战争的区别
accDescr: 对比传统社会革命与美国独立战争的运作模式与历史后果
subgraph 传统社会革命 ["传统社会革命 (如法俄革命)"]
A["颠覆本土既有政权"] --> B["推翻君主/处决旧统治阶层"]
B --> C["嗜血革命者掌权但缺乏建设能力"]
C --> D["残酷内部清洗与社会灾难"]
end
subgraph 美国独立战争 ["美国独立战争 (建国历程)"]
E["寻求主权独立与地理分离"] --> F["摆脱宗主国管辖并不颠覆母国本土"]
F --> G["建立全新制度与法治建设"]
end
```
这种概念区分至关重要，因为真正的“革命”在历史上几乎总是以极其惨烈的悲剧收场。激进的革命者擅长摧毁旧世界，却完全缺乏建设新社会的技能；当摧毁完成后，他们往往会沦为下一轮内部清洗的受害者，斯大林时期的大清洗正是此类典型。针对年轻一代民主社会主义者和马克思主义者“打碎体制”的冲动，Joe Rogan 用街头冲突打比方：看到有人惹你不爽就想上去揍一拳，但你完全没有预判对方反击、对方叫来帮手、或者路边有人把你推进车流的连带连锁反应。一旦社会秩序被彻底摧毁，金钱体系、市政基础设施和公共服务将彻底瘫痪，根本无人能够收拾残局。
- 真正的革命往往伴随着血腥屠杀与政权内部的残酷清洗，执行革命的狂热分子通常最先被消灭。
- 街头推倒一切的空想忽视了经济体系运作、货币流通与城市治理等复杂的现代社会基础支撑。
---
### [02:00:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7242s) 资本断层、共产主义盲区与 AI 时代的经济出路
当面对西方年轻人宣称自己是社会主义者时，Konstantin 往往建议他们去和古巴人、委内瑞拉人或东欧经历过共产主义浩劫的人谈谈。Francis Foster 回忆起 2018 至 2019 年间社会主义思潮抬头时，他在咖啡馆与一位古巴裔老板的深谈。那位古巴老板直言，生活在西方富裕社会中的人根本无法理解共产主义的残酷，就如同告诫一个从未受过挫折的富家子弟不要走黑巷子一样无济于事；唯有当他们亲自走进暗巷、后脑勺挨上一记重击并尝到嘴里的血腥味时，他们才会真正醒悟。
与此同时，Konstantin 强调体制必须正视民众产生反叛心理的经济现实。在 2006 年全球金融危机之前就拥有资产的人，在过去 20 年中财富增长迅速；但危机之后年轻一代面临买不起房、背负巨额学生贷款的困境，完全被排斥在财富增值之外。Konstantin Kisin 直言：“I mean I I think communism is the most evil ideology that's ever been tried just numerically speaking it's a fact right but you have to make sure that it's not looking after people because it's what we do in Britain we just go here's a handout you know you don't need to work just here's some money shut the fuck up right that doesn't work.”（我的意思是，仅仅从数字统计来看，我认为共产主义就是人类尝试过最邪恶的意识形态，这是事实；但你必须确保体制不能只靠施舍打发人，就像我们在英国做的那样，政府扔下一笔救济金说‘你不用工作了，拿钱闭嘴吧’，这种做法根本行不通。）如果社会无法提供公平向上流动的机会，陷入困境的一代人就会产生强烈的被剥夺感。他坦言自己和 Francis 如果没有创办《TRIGGERnometry》并获得成功，在这个年纪也同样会在社会底层艰难挣扎。这种焦虑在 AI 技术浪潮下变得更加严峻：即便 AI 长期来看可能创造新就业，但中短期的剧烈颠覆不可避免；若少数科技巨头垄断了 AI 创造的全部财富，而绝大多数普通人看不到生存希望，社会走向极端化的危险将急剧增加，这也正是安德鲁·杨（Andrew Yang）此前警告并提出分配方案的核心原因所在。
- 资产代际分化严重：2006 年前持有资产的人充分享受了增值红利，而后续世代在住房与教育贷款重压下丧失了社会归属感。
- 英国式被动发放救济金的福利模式被证明无法解决尊严与公平问题，真正需要的是提供普遍的阶层流动与参与机会。
- AI 产业正在使前五大科技巨头集中空前的社会财富，必须在中短期技术冲击期为大众找到共享红利和机会的路径。
### [02:04:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7499s) 规则破裂与愤怒的年轻一代
Francis Foster 谈到当今年轻人所感受到的被剥夺感、愤怒与背叛。他认为社会本质上就是一场游戏：你遵守规则、完成应尽的责任，最终理应获得回报。然而现在的现实是，年轻一代虽然拼命努力，甚至比其他人工作得更加辛苦，却看不到任何回报，反而是其他人拿走了一切。在这种情况下，他们最终的选择就是掀翻整个棋盘。Joe Rogan 随即赞同这一观点，指出电影《小丑》（The Joker）之所以能引起强烈共鸣，正是击中了这种社会心理；这也解释了为什么当 Luigi Mangione 枪击联合健康集团（UnitedHealthcare）高管时，会有许多年轻人拍手叫好。Francis Foster 进一步补充，大学里所推行的叙事往往在将这种革命思维浪漫化，让反叛看起来很“性感”，再加上几代人以来学校都在教导年轻人仇恨自己的社会、历史和文化，各种危险因素混合在一起，形成了一个极其动荡的局面。
- Francis Foster 阐述游戏规则的崩溃：“And you know you follow the rules, you do what you have to do and you will get the rewards at the end of it. The problem is is if for young people, which is very very true, they feel they're not getting the rewards and everybody else is and they're working just as hard, if not harder than everyone else, eventually they're going to go, you know what, [fuck] your game. And the board goes up in the air.”
- Joe Rogan 对社会极端情绪的观察：“Sure. That's why they cheered when Luigi shot that United Healthcare guy. And that's crazy to me, but that's where it's coming from.”
### [02:06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7585s) AI 自动化浪潮与“全民高收入”的幻象
讨论转向技术奇点对劳动力市场的冲击。Joe Rogan 提到埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）所描绘的“全民高收入”（Universal High Income）构想——让每位美国公民都持有 AI 创造财富的股份，定期获取分红，形式类似阿拉斯加州的石油分红或印第安原住民保留地的赌场收益。但现实中，AI 和自动化正在以极其惊人的速度摧毁就业岗位。Joe Rogan 以奥斯汀街头随处可见的 Waymo 无人驾驶汽车和 Cybercab 为例，指出商业卡车运输、物流配送和日常客运的工作正在迅速消失，而这仅仅只是 AI 全面接管人类社会各领域的前奏暴雨。他们当场查证了阿拉斯加永久基金分红（Permanent Fund Dividend）的具体数据：2026 年每位合格居民预计领取约 1,200 美元（包含 200 美元的能源补贴），这笔微薄的收入根本无法支撑体面的生活，印第安保留地的社会现状也往往充斥着各种困境。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: AI自动化与全民高收入构想的冲击
accDescr: 展示技术替代人类岗位、现金补偿构想及其导致的认同危机路径。
subgraph TechImpact["技术替代与失业"]
A["Waymo / Cybercab 落地"] --> B["司机与物流岗位消失"]
B --> C["全行业自动化冲击"]
end
subgraph ProposedFix["政策构想"]
C --> D["全民高收入 (马斯克构想)"]
D -.->|"对比现实案例"| E["阿拉斯加分红 / 保留地收益"]
end
subgraph SocialCrisis["心理与社会后果"]
C --> F["职业身份丧失"]
F --> G["大规模抑郁与成瘾"]
D -.->|"无法填补精神空虚"| G
end
```
- 阿拉斯加永久基金分红（PFD）数据：2026 年每位符合条件的居民获得 1,200 美元分红，其中包含 200 美元的能源救济补贴（energy relief payment）。
- Joe Rogan 对自动化现实的警告：“You already see it all over Austin. You see these uh Waymos and cyber cabs. It's kind of nuts... These are the first raindrops of the storm that is the consequences of AI completely taking over every aspect of society which it'll probably do and do much better than what humans do.”
### [02:09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7770s) 被剥夺的“有用感”与教育范式的重构
Konstantin Kisin 与 Francis Foster 强调，仅仅依靠科技巨头（如马克·扎克伯格、埃隆·马斯克、山姆·奥特曼）每月给每个人发放一万甚至几十万美元，根本无法维持健康稳定的社会，因为人类的意义感主要来自“感觉自己有用”。Francis Foster 分享了自己过去当老师时的亲身经历：班上曾有一名学习能力极弱、成绩严重垫底的男孩 Chris，经常因为自尊心受挫而在课堂上捣乱。一次课后留校惩罚时，Francis 没有让他干坐着无聊度过，而是命令他把全班所有的普通铅笔和彩色铅笔全部削好，以备下午的美术课使用。Chris 完美地完成了任务，并满脸自豪地将铅笔交回，甚至动情地问：“我明天还能来削更多铅笔吗？”这件事深刻证明了人类对自身价值的渴望。
针对这一困境，Joe Rogan 提出未来教育必须进行根本性转型。如果未来的资源丰富度彻底解决了温饱与住房问题，金钱不再是生存的前提，学校就不该继续培养学生像流水线工人一样死记硬背、坐在椅子上服从命令以迎合未来老板。相反，必须从小培养孩子由内而发的“内部驱动力”（internal motivation），因为过去贫穷所带来的饥饿感是一种超能力，而免于匮乏的环境容易让人丧失动力。社会需要引导年轻人学会为了长远目标延迟满足、通过克服困难与牺牲来探索自身热爱。
- Francis Foster 讲述削铅笔学生的触动：“Finally he got given a job that he could do he could do to a very high standard and he was useful and part of something and he said something to me that actually kind of teared me up. He went, 'Can I come back tomorrow and do more?'”
- Joe Rogan 探讨贫困的驱动力与动机转化：“Growing up poor is a superpower because it gives you a motivation like a drive that I don't think you get if you're a trust fund kid. Your parents are worth a lot of money. So, we're going to have to teach people to have internal motivation instead of external motivation.”
### [02:13:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8027s) 工作、意义感与原始生活的幸福感
三人讨论了现代社会中“工作”与人类心理需求的错位。当基本生存不再需要担心钱时，并不意味着人不需要为生活寻找目标；关键在于找到能让自己产生意义感的事情，在探索自我的过程中获得满足感，并引导他人寻找真正的兴趣，而不是被困在一份只能勉强糊口、让人抑郁的琐碎工作中。Francis Foster 分享了自己和儿子的生活细节：他发现儿子最喜欢和他一起做的事竟然是“刷篱笆”，对他而言那是最快乐的亲子时光。Francis 指出：“对他来说，比起玩电子游戏，他更愿意跟我一起刷篱笆。”因为在刷篱笆的过程中，孩子能真切看到成果、学到技能，并体会到与父亲共同完成某事的成就感与价值。
Joe Rogan 随即指出，每天打卡上下班、在写字楼隔间里对着电脑屏幕的生活方式，在整个人类历史上其实是非常短暂的新生事物。相比之下，传统的自给自足型部落之所以普遍比现代人更快乐，是因为人类的奖赏机制从古至今就是为了打猎、捕鱼和亲手种植食物而设计的。Rogan 举了 Werner Herzog 的纪录片《快乐的人们：针叶林深处的岁月》（Happy People: A Year in the Taiga）为例：生活在西伯利亚残酷气候下的猎人和渔民完全依靠自然自给自足，但他们身上几乎没有任何现代人常见的心理疾病，过得非常充实自在。Rogan 发问：“我们的目标到底是不是快乐？因为我们所创造的这些企业工位与工作制度，对我们而言并非真正自然的生活方式。”如果未来的技术消除了人类被迫出卖劳动力糊口的必要性，人类或许将迎来创造力、艺术与创新的巨大爆发；即便不再竞争金钱，人类内心深处的竞争驱动力也会转向艺术造诣、创意成就或个人追求。
---
### [02:18:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8280s) 丹尼·德林克沃特、社会地位与贬低他人的心理
Francis Foster 提出了前英超足球运动员丹尼·德林克沃特（Danny Drinkwater）的例子。德林克沃特曾代表弱旅莱斯特城队（Leicester City）不可思议地夺得英超冠军，创下了足坛奇迹，但职业生涯后期他陷入酗酒泥潭。退役后，社交媒体上流传出他在建筑工地上干活的照片，许多网民纷纷冷嘲热讽，说他堂堂英超冠军竟然沦落到去工地搬砖。然而德林克沃特在随后的采访中明确表示，自己正非常开心地学习成为一名电工，他在工地上找回了像以前更衣室队友般的兄弟情谊与成就感。Francis 指出：“他其实是通过做这件事重新找到了生活的意义。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 社会地位与对职业评价的偏见
accDescr: 展示公众对高地位跌入蓝领职业的心理投射机制
subgraph StatusMismatch["社会地位认知差距"]
A["精英运动员 / 影视明星<br>(高社会地位)"]
B["蓝领电工 / 建筑工人<br>(基础技术工作)"]
end
subgraph PublicReaction["公众心理反应"]
C["直接从事蓝领：没人指责"]
D["从高处转行蓝领：遭受冷嘲热讽"]
E["出于嫉妒与自身不如意<br>通过看他人‘跌落’获得心理安慰"]
end
A -->|"职业转变"| B
B --> C
A -.->|"跨阶层转变"| D
D --> E
```
Joe Rogan 对此深表同感，直言这种冷嘲热讽背后是极度可悲的嫉妒心：“如果你去对一个本来就是电工的人说‘你做电工是个失败者’，这不可思议；但如果一个当过电影明星的人后来决定做电工，大家就会开始说三道四。”社会没有教育人们用有益的心态来构建认知，反而放任这种把别人拉下神坛的恶毒冲动。Francis 提到作家 Will Storr 的著作《地位游戏》（The Status Game），解释称这是典型的地位阶层心理：大众认为英超球员地位崇高，而电工地位卑微，当看到曾经站在顶端的人跌落下来时，那些自己没能在生活中取得成功的人就会获得一种“原来不只我一个人失败”的扭曲满足感。
- **丹尼·德林克沃特（Danny Drinkwater）**：曾随莱斯特城夺得英超冠军，退役后选择转型为电工并在建筑工地工作，坦言找回了工作成就感与团队归属感。
- **《地位游戏》（The Status Game）**：Will Storr 所著书籍，探讨人类对等级与社会地位的狂热追求如何支配群体行为。
---
### [02:20:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8441s) 拥抱失败的文化与巴西柔术的挫折教育
讨论随后转向英美文化在对待“失败”上的态度差异。Francis Foster 称赞美国社会有一种非常健康的商业容错文化，即把失败视为通往成功的垫脚石。许多人在美国创办第一家企业失败，紧接着创办第二家，直到第三家终于取得成功。Francis 引用数据提到，连续创业者在经历过失败之后，后续创业成功的概率往往显著高于第一次创业。随后他打趣道：“我想这大概就是伊丽莎白·霍姆斯（Elizabeth Holmes）出狱后的商业策略吧。”并顺带提到霍姆斯的丈夫目前就住在奥斯汀，未来搞不好大家还会在 Comedy Mothership 喜剧俱乐部碰到她。
Francis 强调，大家应该更多公开讨论自己的失败，因为一帆风顺并不能让人学会感恩；唯有经历接二连三的挫折并最终突围，才能建立真正的感恩之心，同时也能给其他遭遇困境的人带来希望。Joe Rogan 将这一逻辑引申到巴西柔术（BJJ）的训练体验上。Rogan 强调，柔术带给人除了防身之外最重要的心智财富就是“学会接受自己一无是处”：“除了防身技能之外，我认为很多人能从柔术中获得的最核心收获就是：每个人刚开始练时都糟糕透顶。”无论体格多强壮、过去是否有其他格斗背景，在踏上柔术垫子的最初阶段都难逃被彻底压制的命运；Rogan 坦承即使自己当时练了多年的跆拳道和自由搏击，刚接触柔术时依然被完全碾压蹂躏。正是这种无可回避的挫败体验，重塑了练习者的自尊心与韧性。
### [02:22:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8558s) 巴西柔术的挫折与成长规律
Joe Rogan 讲述了自己在练习巴西柔术（Jiu-Jitsu）时的体会：那种被彻底压制的经历虽然极其令人难堪，但在心理上却能起到绝佳的谦卑与磨炼作用。许多人平时心存幻想，以为格斗技对自己不起作用，直到亲自上垫才发现自己有多脆弱。然而，任何坚持下来的人都会发生脱胎换骨的改变。Rogan 提到，他曾目睹许多初学者起步时表现糟糕透顶，但经过两三年的持续训练，他们已经能够轻松制服新手并令其拍垫认输（tap out），脸上洋溢着“原来我也能掌握一项起初看似不可能的技能”的自豪感。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 克服挫折的成长循环
accDescr: 展示从遭遇失败、自尊受挫到坚持复盘、最终将经验推广至全生命维度的递进过程。
subgraph Mindset["心理门槛"]
A["面对极高门槛与惨痛失败"] --> B{"自尊心能否承受？"}
B -->|否| C["中途放弃 / 止步不前"]
B -->|是| D["持续接受挫败并复盘反省"]
end
subgraph Growth["成长与迁移"]
D --> E["技术提升并建立真实信心"]
E --> F["掌握延迟满足与抗压心智"]
F --> G["将方法论迁移至饮食、习惯与整个人生"]
end
```
这种成长往往伴随着极大的心理门槛，因为许多人的自尊心无法承受连续不断的挫败感，从而选择中途放弃。Rogan 强调，如果一个人能够强迫自己经历这个由“失败—学习—进步—再度失败—再度学习”构成的循环，就会明白成长是一场漫长的修行。更重要的是，这套在垫子上磨炼出的心智模型，可以无缝迁移至生活的各个领域。正如 Joe Rogan 所言：“You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life.” 无论是克服生活中的自我毁灭倾向、修正不良饮食习惯，还是戒酒，都可以通过这套底层逻辑获得解决。
### [02:24:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8655s) Eddie Izzard 的早期挣扎与跨界毅力
Francis Foster 分享了自己近十年前为喜剧演员埃迪·伊扎德（Eddie Izzard）在欧洲巡演开场时的经历。Francis 将 Eddie 视作自己最大的启蒙榜样之一，因为 Eddie 在 20 世纪 80 年代末至 90 年代初的伦敦单口喜剧圈出道时，一度毫无反响，甚至获得了“没有笑声的埃迪”（No laughs, Eddie）这一充满嘲讽意味的外号。面对 Rogan 提问其事业转折是否源于开始男扮女装（cross-dressing），Francis 澄清这完全是因为 Eddie 展现了极其惊人的专注度与韧劲；他在遭遇瓶颈时迅速意识到当前的模式行不通，必须主动调整与革新。
Rogan 随后谈及，Eddie 穿女装登台或许赋予了其心理上的极大自由度，从而能够更好地探索自我边界并展现舞台魅力。Francis 指出，绝大多数人在起步阶段都会历经泥潭，最重要的是不能将挫折感个人化，正如 Francis Foster 所总结的那样：“You've got to accept that this is what life is teaching you. If you want to do that, you've got to take the hits and you've got to accept failure.” 真正的天才在现实中连 0.0001% 都不到，绝大多数成功都依赖日复一日的痛苦试错。
- 80 年代末至 90 年代初，Eddie Izzard 在伦敦演出时一度因笑声稀少被同行讥讽为“No laughs, Eddie”。
- Rogan 指出 Eddie 后来在缺乏长跑专业训练的情况下挑战环英国长跑，以惊人毅力完成连续多天每天一场全程马拉松（26 英里）的壮举。
- 在那次长跑挑战中，Eddie 双脚脚皮大面积脱落、创口血肉模糊，但他在医护人员包扎后仅休息一到两天便再度启程，完成了看似荒谬的生理极限跨越。
### [02:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=8880s) 延迟满足与全额基本收入的潜在陷阱
讨论转向当代“TikTok 时代”普遍存在的速成心态。如今许多人极度渴望一夜成名、迅速成为网红，甚至在减重时也只想依赖 Ozempic（诺和泰）等药物走捷径，从而剥夺了通过长期攀爬高山所换来的内心充实感。Francis Foster 联系到自己与 Konstantin Kisin 共同制作的访谈节目《TRIGGERnometry》，坦言如果他们在创播之初就直接接手顶级重量级嘉宾的专访，缺乏临场应变、节奏把控与观点交锋经验的他们必然会把节目搞砸；正是长期在失误中摸索积累的“里程数”（miles on the clock），才赋予了团队应对复杂局面的从容与谦卑。
双方由延迟满足（deferred gratification）进一步延伸至人类对“舒适”的致命沉溺。Rogan 指出，真正毁掉一个人的往往不是追求纯粹的享乐，而是对舒适区的依赖；整天躺在沙发上虽对身心无益，却极度惬意。正因如此，Rogan 对未来推行“全额高收入”（Universal High Income / UBI）的前景感到担忧，认为一旦失去了生存倒逼机制，大众很可能会沉沦于舒适中不再去创造。对此 Konstantin Kisin 则提出了不同的观察视角：正如一个人若连续一整周不吃不喝猛打电子游戏，前两天或许十分过瘾，但到最后必定会深刻体会到荒诞与空虚。因此，即便是普及了无条件收入，人们在经历长时间的无所事事后，终究也会迎来幡然醒悟的时刻。
### [02:31:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9074s) 延迟成年与喜剧演员的“冻结青春期”
对话延续着关于心智成熟的讨论。许多人将二十几岁的岁月花在无休止的派对玩乐中，但随着年龄增长，绝大多数人（99%）都会自然脱离这种状态。然而，乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）指出在脱口秀喜剧圈存在一种极其普遍的反常现象：许多喜剧演员到了45岁依然活得像个小男孩。因为喜剧演员的工作时间非常自由开放，只要晚上能上台表演，很多人完全没有纪律约束，也不需要承担过多日常责任。
弗朗西斯·福斯特（Francis Foster）与康斯坦丁·基辛（Konstantin Kisin）对此深表认同，笑称脱口秀演员只需要在周末去俱乐部演几场，赚到的钱就足够付整月的账单，随后整月都处于无忧无虑的儿童状态——整天打电子游戏、半夜喝酒、吃垃圾食品。康斯坦丁形容这是一种“冻结的青春期”（frozen adolescence）。不过他们也观察到，一旦这些人遇到严肃的恋爱关系，特别是迎来自己的孩子，人生轨迹就会彻底改变。乔·罗根强调：“孩子是最大的转变点。”（“Children's the big one.”）康斯坦丁则指出，面对一个需要照料的小生命，人们会意识到不能再成天胡闹，更关键的是要以身作则：“他们不是从你对他们说什么来学习，他们是通过他们看到的来学习。”如果当父亲的成天瘫坐在沙发上，孩子根本学不到积极向上的品格。
### [02:32:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9151s) 全民基本收入（UBI）与摆脱生存劳作的未来
话题转向自动化与全民基本收入（UBI）的社会前景。乔·罗根描绘了UBI可能带来的积极蓝图：消除饥饿、保障基本温饱、免除无力支付账单的恐惧。尽管经历漫长的社会转型期是必然的——人们长期养成的不良行为模式和性格缺陷需要时间修复——但随着物质匮乏引发的生存恐慌逐渐平息，社会犯罪率有望出现大幅下降。
席间他们谈及美国政界（如亚历山大·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯，AOC）曾声称街头零元购盗窃是为了“给家庭偷面包”的荒谬言论，弗朗西斯讽刺道难怪这些小偷都穿着拉科斯特（Lacoste）名牌球鞋。但乔·罗根认真地指出，极端的贫富对立往往让许多国家陷入阶层固化的绝望，而当未来超级财富被AI彻底激发、多数传统工作被取代后，只要通过某种机制让大众免于生计担忧，整个社会的怨恨与恐惧就会显著减轻。
乔·罗根认为，如果未来人类的生活就是成天打《使命召唤》（Call of Duty），只要他们享受自己的生命，其实无可厚非。当下的社会文化反而过于扭曲：
> “我们需要训练人们去享受他们的生活，而不是认为你的生活就是一件操蛋的事，你去做它只是为了赚钱，好让你能买东西，让你对自己做操蛋的事感到好受一点，然后有一天你就死了。”（“...we need to train people to enjoy their life and not think that your life is just a thing you do that sucks so you can make money so that you can buy stuff so it makes you feel good about doing the thing that you do that sucks and then one day you die.” —— Joe Rogan）
### [02:34:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9277s) 人性的适应力、动手实践与科技领袖的责任
康斯坦丁·基辛从人性的韧性角度回应，认为人类具有极强的适应能力。无论时代与技术如何变迁，真正重要的事情始终不变：家庭、人际连接以及具有意义的活动。康斯坦丁分享了自己的生活哲学：他家里可以花钱买现成的柴火，但他偏要买需要劈的原木，因为他享受劈柴的过程，也享受带着儿子一起干活并传授技能；他完全可以雇人刷篱笆或油漆墙壁，但他宁愿亲力亲为。这些微小的劳动实践是维系心理健康与家庭纽带的核心。
对于掌控AI革命的科技精英，乔·罗根表达了直接的告诫：
> “如果我是他们，我会思考：我该如何尽可能多地把这些成果分享出去，让每个人都觉得身在其中；否则，世界上根本没有足够的机器人防卫者能守住你的豪宅。”（“And if I were them, I'd be thinking, how do I give as much of this away as I can so that everybody feels included in this thing. Otherwise, there's not enough robot defenders in the world who are going to guard your mansion...” —— Joe Rogan）
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: AI时代社会财富分配与稳定机制
accDescr: 展示技术红利分配与社会秩序稳定的关联逻辑
subgraph TechSurplus["AI 与超级自动化"]
A["生产力爆发与财富高度集中"]
B["传统工作岗位大规模消失"]
end
subgraph DistributionPath["财富分配选择"]
C["全民基本收入 (UBI) / 普惠共享"]
D["寡头垄断 / 极度贫富对立"]
end
subgraph Outcome["社会终局"]
E["生存压力消除<br/>底层犯罪大幅减少<br/>大众投身意义感活动"]
F["民怨沸腾<br/>机器人安保无法抵御社会动荡"]
end
TechSurplus --> C
TechSurplus --> D
C --> E
D --> F
```
### [02:36:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=9363s) 《奥德赛》、跨文化人性连接与终场告别
弗朗西斯·福斯特分享了自己曾经教书时的真实经历。他所任教的学校大多数学生是一代或二代移民，背景各异，文化背景与贫富差距悬殊，彼此之间几乎没有共同的文化积淀。然而每当他讲授希腊神话与荷马史诗《奥德赛》（The Odyssey）时，所有孩子都听得全神贯注。弗朗西斯指出，《奥德赛》之所以能够跨越文化打动所有人，是因为它直面了人类最底层的共性——面对挣扎、战胜恶魔、家庭的召唤以及人性的升华。
弗朗西斯进一步借由当代电影文化（包括克里斯托弗·诺兰作品所蕴含的母题）反驳了社会上泛政治化的标签争端。人们总喜欢把作品贴上“反觉醒”（anti-woke）或各种政治标签，但优秀的艺术从来都只是在讲述一个人如何战胜内心的恶魔并守护家庭。他呼吁大家不要掉入将同胞视为“仇敌”或“抽象网络化身”（avatar）的陷阱中：
> “如果我们能看到彼此身上的同理心，实际上无论左翼还是右翼，绝大多数人只是想要一个更公平、更美好的世界，我们只是通往那里的路径不同而已。”（“But if we see the humanity in each other and actually left, right, most people just want a fairer, better world. We've just got different ways of approaching it.” —— Francis Foster）
这一深沉的落点引发了全场共鸣。随后气氛迅速转回经典的英式幽默：康斯坦丁打趣说“乔，我们刚才把世上所有问题都解决了”，弗朗西斯开玩笑高呼竞选总统，又调侃下一幕可能就是自己被执行死刑。在一片欢声笑语中，乔·罗根向两位嘉宾表达了赞赏与感谢，完成了整场节目的愉快收尾。
## Notable quotes
> [02:00:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7241s) 除了防身技能之外，我认为很多人能从柔术中获得的最核心收获就是：每个人刚开始练时都糟糕透顶。 — Joe Rogan
> [02:03:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7427s) 我们的目标到底是不是快乐？因为我们所创造的这些企业工位与工作制度，对我们而言并非真正自然的生活方式。 — Joe Rogan
> [01:56:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=6970s) And that's a really dangerous place to be because once people feel that democracy doesn't res doesn't represent them, then they start disengaging. — Francis Foster
> [02:06:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7563s) But if we see the humanity in each other and actually left, right, most people just want a fairer, better world. We've just got different ways of approaching it. — Francis Foster
> [01:31:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=5468s) Geography very much affects how countries behave. — Konstantin Kisin
> [02:02:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0&t=7358s) You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life. — Joe Rogan
## Mentioned
Joe Rogan, Francis Foster, Konstantin Kisin, Dan Carlin, Alan Watts, Robert Pape, Scott Horton, Rob Schneider, Andrew Yang, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, Luigi Mangione, Danny Drinkwater, Will Storr, Elizabeth Holmes, Eddie Izzard, Werner Herzog, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Christopher Nolan, Jamie Vernon, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, UnitedHealthcare, Waymo, Tesla Cybercab, Comedy Mothership, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Secret Service, Tren de Aragua, Reuters, Lacoste, TRIGGERnometry, The Wisdom of Insecurity, The Status Game, (Un)educated: My Life as a Teacher, and Why You Should Never Become One, An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West, Happy People: A Year in the Taiga, The Odyssey, Joker, Call of Duty, Alaska Permanent Fund
## Video description
Comedian Francis Foster and political commentator Konstantin Kisin host the "TRIGGERnometry" podcast. Francis also hosts "The Francis Foster Show" and is the author of "(Un)educated: My Life as a Teacher, and Why You Should Never Become One." Konstantin is the author of "An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West."
https://www.youtube.com/@triggerpod
https://www.youtube.com/@Francisfosterpod
https://www.youtube.com/@KonstantinKisinPod
https://www.triggerpod.co.uk
https://www.francisfoster.co.uk
https://www.konstantinkisin.com
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2K-AHeZ3o0)
Source quotes
[120:41] Joe Rogan: 除了防身技能之外，我认为很多人能从柔术中获得的最核心收获就是：每个人刚开始练时都糟糕透顶。
[123:47] Joe Rogan: 我们的目标到底是不是快乐？因为我们所创造的这些企业工位与工作制度，对我们而言并非真正自然的生活方式。
[116:10] Francis Foster: And that's a really dangerous place to be because once people feel that democracy doesn't res doesn't represent them, then they start disengaging.
[126:03] Francis Foster: But if we see the humanity in each other and actually left, right, most people just want a fairer, better world. We've just got different ways of approaching it.
[91:08] Konstantin Kisin: Geography very much affects how countries behave.
[122:38] Joe Rogan: You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life.
Source quotes
[4:38] Francis Foster: If you piss people off, if you say something that's outrageous, that's far easier to then get people engaging with you than to do something funny.
[99:05] Francis Foster: There has never been a regime change achieved solely through air strikes. It doesn't happen.
[144:15] Francis Foster: Most of life is failure. Most of the time you do things, it's not going to work out in quite the way you want.
[142:38] Joe Rogan: You can apply the same strategy that you learn to get good at jiu-jitsu to anything in life.
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] >> Always good to see you guys. Um, I
[0:14] haven't talked to anybody about this, so
[0:15] I'd like to talk to you guys about this.
[0:16] Do you know what the [ __ ] is going on in
[0:19] Brazil?
[0:20] >> No, not not not intimately.
[0:22] >> Not specifically. Not specifically, but
[0:24] the the Flav Balsinaro,
[0:28] who is the son of the guy Jay
[0:30] Balssonaro,
[0:31] >> right?
[0:32] >> He was one of the candidates in the
[0:34] election and then the moment the
[0:36] election finished, they took his
[0:38] passport away and I think he's ended up
[0:41] fleeing to the US now. Is that right?
[0:43] >> I don't know. I've heard that he fled,
[0:45] but I don't know if there's any
[0:47] evidence.
[0:48] >> Yeah.
[0:48] >> I mean, that's just like Twitter talk.
[0:51] >> Yeah. But that's but first of all, just
[0:53] taking his passport right away is kind
[0:55] of crazy.
[0:56] >> And I think they did warn him as well.
[0:57] They said uh the the Lula said if I'm
[1:01] elected, you know, it was kind of like
[1:03] you're going to be in jail when Trump
[1:04] said it to Hillary, but they followed
[1:06] through.
[1:07] >> But what was the what are the charges?
[1:08] Like what are they u
[1:09] >> I don't know the details of it, Joe.
[1:11] >> But the whole thing was So it was
[1:14] someone that was his Lula's former
[1:16] defense attorney. He elected to the
[1:20] Supreme Court of Brazil and then that
[1:23] person opened up the polls for an
[1:25] additional two hours and that allowed
[1:27] Lula to win. Is that accurate?
[1:29] >> I think so. Yeah, that bit I think is is
[1:32] that's what I saw. But this is the thing
[1:33] is like you have to really do a lot of
[1:35] research now to even know the basic
[1:37] facts of anything. So if you see
[1:39] something on X or Facebook or whatever,
[1:41] >> I I I am hesitant to believe it now off
[1:44] the top. Do you know what I mean?
[1:45] >> 100%. I I read stories all day that I
[1:49] know are fake immediately
[1:50] >> and it's like breaking and then you read
[1:53] the thing all caps you read you're like
[1:55] oh this a fake story and there's a lot
[1:57] of them they're all they're all over the
[1:59] place and I think they've done something
[2:01] where you don't get monetized for those
[2:04] so you can't make money off of them so
[2:06] there's less of an incentive but if the
[2:08] goal is just propaganda
[2:11] then they don't care about the money
[2:12] like if these are if this is a country
[2:15] or a government that's involved in doing
[2:17] this or someone you know with a vested
[2:21] interest in [ __ ] up American politics
[2:24] or Brazilian politics or whatever. You
[2:26] just who cares if we're making money.
[2:30] What we want to do is [ __ ] up the
[2:31] waters. We want to muddy up the waters
[2:33] so nobody knows what the [ __ ] is real.
[2:35] >> Um if there's, you know, people that are
[2:37] voting, we want them to be completely
[2:39] confused or lied to where they have a
[2:42] totally incorrect narrative of what's
[2:44] going on. And you see so much of it and
[2:47] you don't know like I feel like
[2:50] maybe when there's a fact check like
[2:53] like a Grock fact check and it proves to
[2:56] be absolutely incorrect. Maybe they
[2:58] should like just take it down
[3:00] >> so that you don't have to go into the
[3:03] thread cuz I'll go into the thre. I'll
[3:05] read something like that's fake and I'll
[3:07] go into the thread. I'm like where where
[3:09] does someone ask Grock? And someone asks
[3:11] Grock and it says no this is not
[3:13] correct. And then Grock lays it out,
[3:15] maybe then they should take it down,
[3:16] >> right? Because you just there's it's
[3:18] just your timeline's just flooded
[3:20] >> by straight horseshit, completely made
[3:23] up stories about, you know, people being
[3:25] arrested and you'll have AI photos of
[3:28] someone handcuffed. It's crazy.
[3:29] >> It's really crazy.
[3:30] >> And then amplified
[3:33] by bots or foreign foreign actors as
[3:36] well. I mean, that's that's one of the
[3:37] interesting areas where I think there's
[3:38] probably a solution, which is kind of
[3:40] like digital border enforcement, where
[3:43] you actually know that people are
[3:45] commenting on this and where they're
[3:47] commenting from,
[3:48] >> right?
[3:48] >> Because I think most people get their
[3:50] political opinions from other people.
[3:52] They don't necessarily have a they don't
[3:55] sit down for 3 hours and think about
[3:57] this stuff. They just go,
[3:58] >> "This seems to be what everyone thinks."
[4:00] And that's where this kind of
[4:01] manipulation is so powerful because
[4:03] you're creating the idea that a
[4:05] narrative is popular,
[4:07] >> right?
[4:07] >> And a lot of people then go, "Well,
[4:08] maybe that's what I should believe."
[4:10] >> Especially with the bots, cuz you'll
[4:12] have a story that's clearly either
[4:13] biased or full of [ __ ] totally. And then
[4:17] you'll have a bunch of bots agreeing
[4:18] with it and, you know, saying what
[4:20] should be done to these people and this
[4:22] is a this is an outrage. And then you
[4:24] find out it's completely fabricated.
[4:26] You're like, well, what are they doing?
[4:27] Like what's happening here? like why are
[4:29] there so many of these, you know, Bob
[4:31] 67432
[4:33] >> people that are commenting on this and
[4:35] what are they trying to prove or what
[4:36] are they trying to push?
[4:38] >> And it's not just that. It's also you
[4:39] get certain influencers and you see them
[4:42] come up on your timeline time and time
[4:44] and time again with these takes that are
[4:46] just straight out ridiculous. But they
[4:49] and then you look underneath and you
[4:50] look at the amount of retweets. You look
[4:51] at the engagement. You go to you think
[4:53] to yourself that that that just can't be
[4:56] real cuz that is such a ridiculous take
[4:59] that they've just given you. But the
[5:02] engagement is unreal. And then you see
[5:04] it time and time again from the same
[5:06] influences.
[5:07] >> Yeah. Well, I think just becoming
[5:09] outrageous is profitable, right?
[5:11] >> Yeah.
[5:12] >> That's the problem.
[5:13] >> Yeah. So like you could just have a take
[5:16] like so let's take out fake stories. So
[5:19] you could just have a contrarian take
[5:21] that's preposterous and just gets you
[5:22] angry the moment you read it and then
[5:24] you see a [ __ ] you and then but that's
[5:27] that's engagement and that's what these
[5:29] people want. And some people on Twitter
[5:32] are they just enga exist for engagement.
[5:35] >> They're not good faith actors. They're
[5:36] just weird people that, you know, are
[5:39] probably on all sorts of weird drugs and
[5:42] they're somewhere just [ __ ] tweeting
[5:44] up a storm.
[5:45] >> Yeah. And it's also as well because uh
[5:47] now you can monetize your ex. Yeah.
[5:49] >> That means that that's incentivized
[5:51] people to create posts that are going to
[5:53] get more engagement. Yeah.
[5:55] >> And what's the what's one really easy
[5:57] way of guaranteeing engagement is
[5:59] negative engagement. If you piss people
[6:01] off, if you say something that's
[6:02] outrageous, that's far easier to then
[6:05] get people engaging with you than to do
[6:07] something funny or to
[6:09] >> All right, man. Take it easy. That's
[6:10] been our business model for eight and a
[6:11] half years. You're [ __ ] ruining it.
[6:16] >> But actually, I mean, we're joking.
[6:17] Obviously, I'm actually really happy we
[6:19] this in the last few episodes that we've
[6:21] put out on trigonometry, you've got um
[6:23] we've got David Pacman, who's a leftwing
[6:25] guy, Dave Smith, who's like a
[6:27] libertarian guy, and we've got Steven
[6:29] Crowder coming out uh soon. So, like we
[6:32] actually got to the point where we
[6:33] always wanted to be where we're talking
[6:34] to everybody. It's what I always really
[6:36] enjoyed about you and the way you do it,
[6:38] you've always been able I actually kind
[6:39] of marveled at how you were able to do
[6:41] it because when we started, we had a
[6:43] very hard time getting more of the left
[6:46] leaning guest on. Yeah,
[6:47] >> you never seem to have that problem. You
[6:49] just get everybody on and they're happy
[6:50] to come on and talk. Um, and I that's
[6:53] what actually you need more of in the
[6:54] world. I think the outrage stuff you're
[6:56] talking about, it really pushes people
[6:58] apart. We were really interested in how
[7:00] do you bring people together to have one
[7:02] conversation based on an agreed set of
[7:04] facts.
[7:04] >> I think as long as you're getting people
[7:07] that are honest, that are good faith
[7:09] conversationalists, you know, and I
[7:11] think that's that is an issue and I
[7:13] that's what I don't want to do anymore.
[7:15] I don't want to have on uh these people
[7:18] that I think are full of [ __ ] that are
[7:19] propagandists, that are that are loyal
[7:22] to a party to the point where they'll
[7:24] just distort facts or obfiscate or talk
[7:26] over you when you're trying to make
[7:28] points
[7:28] >> like the Pierce Morgan model where you
[7:31] see like someone will be saying
[7:32] something and the other person just
[7:33] chime in and just talk over them to try
[7:36] to disrupt their pattern of thinking.
[7:38] It's very annoying and stupid and I'm
[7:40] I'm not interested in that at all. Yeah.
[7:42] And I I'm not interested in talking to
[7:45] people that I think are just outright
[7:46] liars unless like I have some [ __ ]
[7:49] obligation to expose them, but I don't I
[7:52] don't want to I don't I don't want that
[7:54] to be a thing that I want to do all the
[7:56] time where it's just bring on people
[7:57] that I know you're full of [ __ ] and like
[7:59] say I've got the facts. Like
[8:01] >> I like to talk to people that I'm
[8:02] interested in talking to
[8:04] >> and that's my business model. I mean
[8:05] it's not a business model. It's just
[8:07] like it's what I started doing and
[8:08] that's what I want to keep doing. And if
[8:10] that, you know, like I I was very
[8:12] interested in talking to Bernie again.
[8:14] >> You know, I don't agree with him on a
[8:16] lot of things, but I don't think he's a
[8:17] bad person, you know, and I think he,
[8:19] you know,
[8:20] >> he's an older guy with some ideals that
[8:23] just didn't pan out. And I think he
[8:26] still believes that there's like a way
[8:28] to do this that's different and better
[8:30] for the people and for the working
[8:32] people. But I think after a while you
[8:35] say these words like you know what it's
[8:37] like when you have an act and you've
[8:38] been doing a bit for a long time and
[8:40] then the bit stops losing meaning. You
[8:43] just say it the way you've always said
[8:45] it
[8:46] >> but it doesn't have any meaning to you
[8:48] anymore and the bit starts to get stale
[8:50] >> and it starts to die off. And if you're
[8:52] smart you pull it out of the act you put
[8:54] it on the shelf and you go I got to
[8:55] rework that thing or something. It's
[8:57] like I don't I'm not attached to it
[8:59] anymore. It doesn't feel real. I'm just
[9:00] saying it to go through the motions.
[9:02] That's how I feel like when he starts
[9:04] talking about climate change and stuff
[9:06] like that. I go, "Okay, what are we
[9:07] talking about? How much have you looked
[9:09] into it?" Cuz if you really look into
[9:11] climate change, it's very [ __ ]
[9:12] confusing. Like, it's not as simple as
[9:16] >> like there was just an article today
[9:17] that someone sent me that they think
[9:18] that global warming may have stopped uh
[9:21] an imminent ice age that was coming,
[9:25] which was one of the things that they
[9:26] were talking about like during the
[9:27] 1970s. That was a big thing. It was a
[9:30] big narrative about climate change. That
[9:31] was the big fear was that a new ice age
[9:33] was coming.
[9:34] >> In fact, uh, an episode of that Leonard
[9:36] Nemoy show. Did you ever watch that? In
[9:38] search of great [ __ ] show. It was
[9:41] great because it was a mix of like
[9:43] horseshit, doom and gloom, Bigfoot,
[9:45] UFOs, all kinds of stuff. But it was
[9:47] Leonard Nemoy, you know, Spock from Star
[9:50] Trek.
[9:51] >> And uh, he had a whole article about
[9:52] eminent ice age
[9:55] >> and that like that's the thing that we
[9:57] really should be afraid of. It's a
[9:58] [ __ ] terrifying proposition that the
[10:00] world freezes over again cuz if it gets
[10:02] hot, you just move to the places that
[10:04] used to be cold
[10:05] >> and get air conditioning, right?
[10:07] >> Yeah. And get air conditioning.
[10:08] >> We don't have air conditioning, Joe.
[10:10] >> In England? No. At all?
[10:11] >> No. No. Well,
[10:12] >> that's why you guys die every year.
[10:13] Yeah.
[10:13] >> Like more people die in England from I
[10:16] think this is a fact. I think more
[10:18] people die in in not in England but in
[10:21] Europe in all of Europe from heat stroke
[10:24] during summer than gun violence in the
[10:27] United States.
[10:29] >> I might have made that up.
[10:30] >> Yeah, you know, but to actually there is
[10:34] a serious point in what you're saying.
[10:36] >> I think it's a high number though
[10:38] because I was just going to say I was
[10:40] just going to say like that just sounds
[10:42] real.
[10:43] >> That sounds real after the summer we've
[10:45] had.
[10:45] >> Yeah, it must be true.
[10:46] >> Yeah. Well,
[10:47] >> it sounds real.
[10:48] >> I don't understand why people haven't
[10:50] adopted air conditioning. Is it a a
[10:54] money thing?
[10:54] >> Well, it's the same green uh nonsense
[10:56] that you're talking about.
[10:58] >> Oh, no.
[10:58] >> Because air conditioning consumes a lot
[11:01] of energy and it it therefore causes
[11:04] more climate change, quote unquote.
[11:06] Actually, more people die in in England
[11:09] from cold in winter than they die from
[11:11] heat.
[11:12] >> Here we go. Europe had an estim Okay.
[11:15] Yes. If you mean deaths attributed to
[11:16] heat rather than specifically heat
[11:18] stroke.
[11:19] >> European heat death estimates can exceed
[11:21] the total number of US firearm deaths.
[11:25] But the compar comparison needs a few
[11:27] qualifications. Same year comparison.
[11:29] Europe had an estimated 61,672
[11:33] heat related deaths during the summer.
[11:35] That's [ __ ] crazy. United States
[11:38] recorded more than 48,000 firearm deaths
[11:41] over the entire year according to the
[11:43] CDC. That includes suicides, homicides,
[11:46] and other firearm deaths, not just
[11:48] murders, including also cops shooting
[11:50] bad guys. So in that year, yes, uh even
[11:54] Europe's summer heat death estimate
[11:56] exceeded America's full firearm death
[11:59] count. I Well, heat stroke, we don't
[12:01] have to say heat stroke. That was a
[12:02] maybe a bad terminology, but just from
[12:04] heat. What about from cold? How many
[12:07] look Look up how many Europeans die from
[12:09] cold every year?
[12:12] What do you guess? think it's more.
[12:15] >> I don't know about Europeans. In
[12:16] Britain, I know more people die from
[12:18] cold and heat in Britain specifically.
[12:20] >> Wow, that's crazy.
[12:23] >> I I imagine in Italy less so.
[12:26] >> That's crazy.
[12:27] >> Like in the in the South.
[12:29] >> It's confused because you spelled year
[12:30] wrong, Jamie.
[12:31] >> Figure it out.
[12:32] >> There you go, Joe.
[12:34] >> 364,000
[12:36] people a year die from cold,
[12:39] >> right? across 30 European countries
[12:41] according to a 2024 study. Wow.
[12:45] That is an estimated annual average
[12:48] based on 1991 to 2020, not a count for
[12:51] the LA latest year. That is really crazy
[12:54] though.
[12:54] >> Well, this is what people don't
[12:56] understand about the the climate change
[12:58] agenda is it's it's pushed electricity
[13:00] prices up and so and gas prices and so
[13:03] energy is much more expensive. So you
[13:04] literally have pensioners freezing to
[13:06] death in winter cuz they can't afford to
[13:08] heat their home properly cuz we're
[13:09] saving the planet. Anyway, your point I
[13:12] think is we need the second amendment
[13:14] and air conditioning in the UK.
[13:17] >> That would help a lot.
[13:18] >> That would help you guys a lot. A lot of
[13:20] things would change.
[13:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean the fact that we
[13:24] don't the majority of places don't have
[13:26] air con. Like if you're if you're dating
[13:28] Joe and you want to bring a lady back to
[13:30] your flat, all you need to say is you've
[13:31] got air con.
[13:33] So it is available to some. Yeah. So
[13:36] like imagine if you move into a place
[13:38] and it doesn't have air conditioning.
[13:39] How much hoops and ladders do you have
[13:42] to go through to get air conditioning
[13:43] into your into your place?
[13:45] >> Well, so now I I'm having air
[13:46] conditioning installed in my house right
[13:48] now.
[13:48] >> You don't have it right now?
[13:49] >> Uh I just bought a house that doesn't
[13:51] have it. Um but it you know the the
[13:54] climate is not like here in Austin. Like
[13:56] it is survivable. Uh you know it's hot.
[13:59] >> It's hot, right? Right. Um
[14:00] >> like what is a what is a hot Fahrenheit
[14:02] day in England?
[14:03] >> I don't know what I don't know
[14:05] Fahrenheit.
[14:05] >> Give me Celsius.
[14:06] >> Uh 30. We've had like 37 38 maybe up to
[14:09] 40 this year.
[14:10] >> Okay. So that's like in the 90s.
[14:12] >> That's high. Yeah. Yeah. It's high.
[14:14] >> What is that Jamie?
[14:15] >> What is Let's uh let's
[14:17] >> let's say 40. What is 40 Fahrenheit or
[14:19] 40 Celsius rather?
[14:20] >> 40 is probably about 100 degrees cuz 40
[14:23] is when you're having a if you have if
[14:24] your body temperature is 40, you've got
[14:26] a very bad fever.
[14:27] >> It's 104.
[14:28] >> 104. Okay. So you g you guys have 104
[14:31] days
[14:32] >> like one or two over the course of a
[14:33] year.
[14:34] >> Yeah.
[14:34] >> But you got to remember though, Joe, is
[14:36] like the infrastructure and the houses
[14:38] and the trains and all the public
[14:39] transport, they're not built for that
[14:41] kind of climate, right?
[14:42] >> So if you go to on holiday in Italy and
[14:45] it's 40, that's one thing. If it's 40 in
[14:49] the UK in houses that are built to keep
[14:51] the heat in during winter, it's a
[14:53] different conversation, you So, the
[14:55] average daytime high in uh July and
[14:58] August is 70°.
[15:02] >> But we have had very hot days the last
[15:03] couple of summers. Very hot.
[15:05] >> Anyway,
[15:06] >> and that's when people start freaking
[15:07] out about climate change. But that's
[15:09] just so narrow-minded. And it's not that
[15:11] we shouldn't be concerned if the earth
[15:13] gets warmer. That's not what I'm saying.
[15:14] But I'm saying it's never been static.
[15:16] So this idea that oh my god this is
[15:19] we're doing this like are we do you know
[15:23] do you know about the entire history of
[15:25] the world's temperature because it
[15:27] varies insanely. Not only that there's
[15:30] been many times in earth's history where
[15:32] there was way more carbon in the air and
[15:34] it was way cooler. Doesn't make any
[15:37] sense. And if you don't understand
[15:39] differential equations, if you don't
[15:41] understand like the way the wind blows
[15:43] and solar activity and all these
[15:45] different variables that come into play
[15:48] along with greenhouse gases, along with
[15:51] carbon, there's so many different
[15:52] variables that come into play like this.
[15:54] These narratives are so unscientific for
[15:58] the people that want to say trust the
[15:59] science. Well, the science on climate
[16:02] change is [ __ ] incredibly complex or
[16:05] just climate period. forget about the
[16:06] word climate change
[16:08] >> and you it's so interesting you use the
[16:09] word I'm scientific because I often
[16:11] think about this most of my family are
[16:13] scientists physi physicists biochemical
[16:16] engineers the thing with like when a
[16:19] normal person hears the word science
[16:21] what they think is if I pick up this
[16:23] phone and drop it is going to fall at a
[16:25] predictable speed because we understand
[16:27] the rules of gravity we can calculate it
[16:29] we can calculate the speed the
[16:30] acceleration all that stuff climate
[16:32] science is modeling modeling
[16:35] >> right
[16:35] >> that's Not the I'm not saying it's not
[16:38] science exactly, but that's not what we
[16:41] think about as normal just ordinary
[16:43] people. When we think about science, we
[16:45] think about something that's 100%
[16:47] predictable, measurable, calculable. You
[16:50] can go if we change this, then this is
[16:52] going to happen. Climate modeling is not
[16:54] like that. It's it's an approximation
[16:56] and an estimate based on a lot of
[16:58] assumptions. And we don't know how
[17:00] accurate those assumptions are. But even
[17:02] if you accept all that, what's
[17:03] interesting is in Britain is, do you
[17:05] know what percentage of global carbon
[17:06] emissions Britain produces?
[17:08] >> Oh god, it's got to be minuscule.
[17:10] >> 1%.
[17:11] >> Yeah.
[17:12] >> So if we reduced it to zero, we'd not
[17:15] have any impact on the climate at all
[17:17] while just destroying our economy,
[17:20] killing people. And that's what we've
[17:21] done. We have the highest industrial
[17:23] electricity prices in the world. That's
[17:24] why you can't you can't build anything
[17:26] in the UK. You can't run a business, an
[17:28] industrial business. You can't make
[17:29] anything. Um, you know, it's funny. You
[17:32] guys are having this big battle over
[17:33] data centers here.
[17:35] >> Yeah.
[17:35] >> We don't have that cuz we're not [ __ ]
[17:37] building any.
[17:40] >> Yeah. The other super inconvenient thing
[17:42] when it comes to carbon is that there's
[17:45] more vegetation, more leaf coverage in a
[17:48] in the world now than there has been in
[17:51] a long [ __ ] time.
[17:52] >> Global greening.
[17:53] >> Yeah. It's because of carbon. Because
[17:56] plants actually consume carbon dioxide.
[17:58] It's like like what are we doing? Like
[18:01] what are we what are we freaking out
[18:03] about? Well, we're freaking out about a
[18:05] bunch of people that have engineered a
[18:06] narrative to get us to freak out about
[18:08] it so they can profit off of it. And
[18:10] that's the reality of it is that all of
[18:12] these green deals and all this green
[18:15] energy, these people get contracts and
[18:18] these and then there's mandates for what
[18:22] you can and can't use and what you
[18:24] should and shouldn't do. And then people
[18:26] profit off of these directions that we
[18:28] go in. And that's the real problem. It's
[18:30] not like we're looking out for the
[18:31] world. Shut the [ __ ] up. When people say
[18:34] that we need to look out for the world,
[18:36] like none of these people pushing this
[18:38] are looking out for the world. Just so
[18:39] you know. You might be. You liberal lady
[18:42] in East Austin with the [ __ ] science
[18:44] is science bumper sticker on your
[18:47] [ __ ] Prius. Maybe maybe you really
[18:50] are a genuinely good person looking out
[18:51] for the the people that are pushing that
[18:53] are not. They're trying to profit.
[18:55] They're sitting in boardrooms and
[18:57] they're showing spreadsheets of how much
[18:59] money they'll make if a certain bill
[19:01] goes through because if the certain bill
[19:03] restricts one type of energy and
[19:06] promotes their type of energy, even if
[19:08] their type of energy, like windmills, is
[19:10] terrible for the environment and
[19:12] radically inefficient, they're going to
[19:14] profit. And that's what they're thinking
[19:16] about. And so then they're going to pay
[19:18] politicians to push certain narratives.
[19:20] They're going to fund these people.
[19:21] They're going to put out advertisements
[19:23] for a greener Texas, you know, paid for
[19:25] by a greener Texas. Who's paying that?
[19:29] Corporations. People making large
[19:32] amounts of money and they don't give a
[19:35] [ __ ] about your environment. They want
[19:37] to make money. They're vampires. They're
[19:39] vampire people.
[19:40] >> And it's always been that way. Like oil
[19:42] companies funded anti-uclear.
[19:44] >> Right. Right.
[19:46] >> It's just that's how it works in Britain
[19:48] now. So I am actually going to get an
[19:50] electric car soon, right? And the reason
[19:52] is they've created the incentive
[19:54] structures whereby if you get an
[19:56] electric car, especially through your
[19:57] business, you can basically get a car
[20:00] that's twice as good for the same money
[20:03] because you get so much tax write off
[20:05] because like you said, people have
[20:07] created a structure whereby if you
[20:09] encourage people to do this, they save
[20:12] money, right?
[20:13] >> And who benefits from that? Well, it's
[20:15] it's it's the it's the people who who
[20:17] are producing that type of vehicle
[20:19] >> 100%. In Texas, we have an issue right
[20:21] now where they're trying to ban
[20:22] marijuana and why they're trying to do
[20:24] that because alcohol sales are way down.
[20:27] Like way down, like disturbingly down.
[20:30] And uh one factor that a lot of people
[20:33] aren't taking into consideration is
[20:36] GLP1s. It's OMIC. There are [ __ ]
[20:40] millions of people on GP and millions
[20:43] more that are lying about being on.
[20:47] >> I saw a guy that I know is on him. I
[20:50] said, "Dude, you're looking great. What
[20:51] are you doing?" He's like, "Oh, calorie
[20:52] restriction."
[20:55] >> Well, technically you're not lying.
[20:57] You're lying. You're [ __ ] You
[21:00] know what you're doing.
[21:01] >> Yeah. It's
[21:03] >> embarrassing. You know, I always feel
[21:05] like when you talk about any issue, a
[21:07] lot of it just comes down to education.
[21:09] You know, people don't have a good grasp
[21:12] of actually what's happening. So, what
[21:14] it is that people have inside them is a
[21:16] vacuum and eventually something has to
[21:18] fill that vacuum because you can't
[21:21] operate particularly now with a going
[21:23] when someone asks you about whatever it
[21:24] is, climate change, the Middle East, the
[21:26] war in whatever subject you want to talk
[21:28] about, most people simply don't have
[21:31] >> the education, the answers. So they
[21:33] don't have their own opinions, so they
[21:35] simply reach for something. And you know
[21:37] what you're going to reach for? You're
[21:38] going to reach for a slogan, right?
[21:39] >> And it's going to come from the most
[21:41] prominent person there is.
[21:43] >> I have a theory about why the left is so
[21:45] much more loony
[21:48] currently. I mean, it's not like the
[21:49] right isn't loony. The right is very
[21:51] [ __ ] loony, but the left is loony and
[21:54] some like things that don't make any
[21:55] sense. And um I think it's because the
[21:58] left is secular like almost universally.
[22:03] Like when you think about the left, you
[22:05] generally don't think about like
[22:06] Christianity or any any religion really.
[22:10] It's more of like a science-based like
[22:12] we're too smart for that thing. And I
[22:14] think they're just lost. There's no
[22:17] there's no moral scaffolding to hold on
[22:19] to. There's no not and I'm not saying
[22:22] you know religion is 100% great but what
[22:25] I am saying is there's something about
[22:27] having a structure like ten commandments
[22:30] or what you know whatever they have in
[22:33] whatever religion we're talking about
[22:34] where there's rules to abide by because
[22:36] there's a higher power and then you
[22:38] worship and in worshiping there's
[22:41] there's a humility to that and a
[22:42] humbleness to that and then there's this
[22:45] community where everyone's drawn
[22:46] together and we're all agreeing on
[22:47] certain rules like I always talk about
[22:49] like the church parking lot is proof
[22:51] that Christianity works cuz everybody's
[22:53] so nice. They all let you go. Like you
[22:55] go, you go. Like it's all so orderly.
[22:57] Like nowhere on earth. I'm like just
[23:00] that alone proves that Christianity can
[23:03] work and that there's something to that.
[23:04] I guarant [ __ ] tee you if you went to
[23:06] like some trans rights rally and you
[23:09] parked your car and tried to leave. It
[23:11] would not be so kind. It would not be
[23:13] the same. It would not especially if you
[23:14] were like in a pickup truck or something
[23:16] with an American flag on it. You're
[23:18] right. they'd be rude as [ __ ] to you.
[23:20] Whereas,
[23:22] >> I think a part of what's wrong with this
[23:26] this side of our politics when you look
[23:29] at the two sides, the left and the
[23:30] right, is that the left is almost like I
[23:33] would have I would I wanted to know like
[23:35] what percentage of people who identify
[23:37] as progressive
[23:39] have any religion.
[23:42] >> Um,
[23:42] >> we could probably find that out, J.
[23:44] >> Yeah, let's find out.
[23:45] >> Would be interesting. It's what you were
[23:46] talking about with a vacuum. So I think
[23:50] this is my belief at 59 years of age
[23:53] that there's a part of people that
[23:56] almost like is designed a part of the
[23:59] the human psyche that's designed for
[24:01] religion
[24:02] >> and we have had it for so long. We have
[24:04] had it for so many thousands and
[24:06] thousands and thousands of years. I just
[24:08] think it's the way the human mind works.
[24:10] And I think in the absence of religion,
[24:13] we find something that Stop that for a
[24:15] second. We find something that does the
[24:17] job of religion. And that thing that
[24:20] does the job of religion is being
[24:23] progressive or being whatever you're
[24:25] being, you know, like find find a cause.
[24:28] Find a thing. Climate change, whatever
[24:29] it is, find a thing that becomes your
[24:32] religion. And anybody that is
[24:35] confronting that with an alternative
[24:37] perspective is a heretic. That's a bad
[24:40] person. That's the evil. That's an
[24:41] infidel.
[24:42] >> And that's how they behave. They behave
[24:44] like religious zealots regard like I'm
[24:48] sure you've seen these conversations and
[24:49] you've had them with people. You just
[24:50] confront people in the street and start
[24:52] asking them questions. If if you don't
[24:54] agree with them, even if like you you're
[24:55] great at it because you're so calm and
[24:57] rational. YOU SEE THEM JUST [ __ ]
[25:00] THEY JUST don't want to be confronted by
[25:02] alternative perspectives. They're very
[25:04] much like a religion.
[25:05] >> No, it's totally. And it's interesting.
[25:07] We just had Jonathan height uh on back
[25:09] on the show. We haven't released it yet,
[25:10] but it's one of the things we talked
[25:12] about. We we talked about religion and
[25:14] he's not a religious person, but he was
[25:16] like, I used to be very snooty about it
[25:18] and now I just go whatever you believe.
[25:21] It's a social technology for achieving
[25:24] cohesion within a group and for giving
[25:26] people and you know on a personal level
[25:28] as well I think one of the things that
[25:31] Christianity in particular is very very
[25:33] good at is gratitude which is just a
[25:37] practice that forget about God and all
[25:40] the rest of it. The practice of
[25:42] acknowledging how fortunate you are at
[25:45] any point in your life is something that
[25:48] changes how you experience life. And if
[25:50] you do that every day, I think it's much
[25:52] much harder to be a deranged lunatic who
[25:57] who who thinks that they're polit like
[25:59] there's political causes I feel very
[26:00] strongly about. But I'm not going to go
[26:03] on a march and scream at people who
[26:04] don't agree with me
[26:06] >> cuz I just that's not it's not coherent
[26:09] to my worldview of what it is to be
[26:11] human.
[26:12] >> It's also radically ineffective
[26:14] >> and completely ineffective.
[26:15] >> Never changes anybody's opinion
[26:17] >> ever. Ever. No one screams in your face.
[26:18] You go, "Wow, I see your point." What
[26:21] are the What are the stats you were
[26:22] trying to pull up earlier, Jamie?
[26:25] >> So, here we go. Affiliated with a
[26:27] religion. 78% of Republicans, Republican
[26:30] leaning independents identify with a
[26:32] religion. So, with Democrats, it's about
[26:35] 60%.
[26:37] >> Wow.
[26:37] >> Interesting. It's a lot more than I
[26:39] thought. Religiously unaffiliated, about
[26:41] 39%
[26:43] did not answer about 1%. Like, what was
[26:45] that? [ __ ] off. 1% across the board.
[26:50] I'm in that group. That is the most
[26:52] intelligent group on on earth. The about
[26:54] 1%. The 1% that will not answer polls.
[26:58] That was my take on polls always. I was
[27:00] like, here's the problem with polls.
[27:02] Most people don't answer polls. If
[27:04] somebody calls you up and said, I'd like
[27:06] a few moments of your time to ask you a
[27:07] few questions. [ __ ] you. Anybody with a
[27:10] life, anybody that has like a family and
[27:11] stuff to do and hobbies they enjoy and
[27:13] friends they want to hang out with, they
[27:15] don't sit around
[27:17] answering some [ __ ] poll. So you're
[27:19] literally getting the opinion the people
[27:21] so [ __ ] stupid they answer polls. So
[27:23] add it out of those people like if you
[27:25] if there's an issue like 49% agree that
[27:28] means less than half of the people that
[27:31] are so [ __ ] stupid they're answering
[27:33] polls agree with you. That's not good,
[27:36] >> right?
[27:37] >> Yeah.
[27:37] >> You know it's the same with studies that
[27:39] they do at colleges because they always
[27:40] use college students. So like you're
[27:42] getting a very skewed perspective on
[27:44] humanity.
[27:45] >> Yes. Yeah. if that's how you're
[27:47] measuring what human beings respond to.
[27:49] >> Another thing that's interesting with
[27:51] the religious thing when it comes to the
[27:53] left is there's been this uh larger than
[27:57] normal presence of uh these like LGBT
[28:02] pastors and these people that are
[28:04] promoting a very different Christianity,
[28:08] you know, and they're they're talking
[28:09] about things that, you know, biblical
[28:11] scholars are like, "Hey, wait, what page
[28:13] is this on? What? Where where does it
[28:15] say abortion's okay? Like, how are you
[28:17] getting to that? Where does it say God's
[28:18] non-binary? You know, there's a lot of
[28:20] this weirdness that this woke weirdness
[28:24] that sort of entered into religion in
[28:26] some some pastors are doing it. And you
[28:30] go, okay, is that good? I don't know if
[28:32] that's good. I mean, is it because
[28:34] you're not following the original stuff?
[28:37] So, if we're going to not follow the
[28:39] original stuff, shouldn't we go and take
[28:43] out the slavery part first? Like,
[28:45] shouldn't we go and take out the
[28:47] slaughtering of women and children
[28:49] first? Cuz that's in there. There's a
[28:51] lot of stuff that's in there we should
[28:52] probably concentrate on first before we
[28:54] start saying God's non-binary.
[28:57] >> But,
[28:58] >> you know what I mean?
[28:58] >> Yeah. It's true. It's true. It's like
[29:01] cuz I was raised Catholic and and I go
[29:03] to a church. I went once to a couple of
[29:05] times to a Church of England mass and
[29:07] it's like look if you're going to mass
[29:09] you want the product, right?
[29:11] >> You want the you know you want the real
[29:12] deal. You want the Marbor Reds.
[29:14] >> You want to hear the Latin.
[29:15] >> Yeah. You you want the good stuff.
[29:19] >> Yeah. You want to sit there and think to
[29:21] yourself, "Fuck, I'm going to hell and
[29:23] it's going to be awful."
[29:24] >> We really should get the original the
[29:26] original version when they would come
[29:27] down the aisle with incense. It was
[29:29] cannabis. They would have these big
[29:31] [ __ ] like things where they handle
[29:33] you know those things they
[29:36] >> Yeah, it was cannabis.
[29:37] >> It was cannabis. What church are you
[29:38] going
[29:39] >> high as [ __ ] They're getting everybody
[29:40] high so they get along with everybody.
[29:42] >> No wonder they're trying to ban it in
[29:43] Texas, man.
[29:45] >> The Texas thing is all about the
[29:46] alcohol. It's all about alcohol. It's
[29:48] like traceable money to Dan Patrick and
[29:51] some other people. It's traceable. Like
[29:53] you could see how these people support
[29:54] him and you see that they want this and
[29:56] because it's like it's hurting their
[29:58] business. And if people can just get
[29:59] high and you know, like here's the thing
[30:02] about marijuana. Even if they do what
[30:04] like Colorado did. So Colorado was the
[30:07] first, shout out to Colorado, the first
[30:09] to legalize cannabis. And one of the
[30:12] things they did is say, "We're going to
[30:13] put a crazy tax on it and just use that
[30:15] tax for [ __ ] schools and all kinds of
[30:18] other stuff." Everybody be happy because
[30:20] you got all this new tax revenue. I
[30:21] think it was like 39%. Which is really
[30:23] And everybody's like, "Great, fine."
[30:25] Because marijuana is relatively
[30:27] inexpensive for what? Like if you go out
[30:29] drinking with some buddies,
[30:31] >> [ __ ] man. You bring five buddies, you're
[30:33] picking up a tab, they're picking up a
[30:34] tab, you guys are having fun, you're
[30:36] drinking, you're ordering, but you have
[30:38] five $600 at the end of the night. Easy.
[30:40] Easy. Right. Easy.
[30:42] >> Mhm.
[30:43] >> Marijuana. $600. You're dead.
[30:47] You smoke $600 of the weed will [ __ ] you
[30:49] up for a month. You'll be just lying in
[30:52] YOUR BED GOING, "WHY did I do that?"
[30:54] Yeah,
[30:55] >> that's that's not going to happen. It's
[30:57] a different thing. It's like one joint
[30:59] like what is a joint these days, Jamie?
[31:01] You're a young fellow.
[31:02] >> In California where you completely buy
[31:04] them probably in the range of 15 to $20,
[31:07] I bet.
[31:08] >> Yeah. 15 20 bucks. You're barbecued for
[31:09] the whole night.
[31:10] >> Yeah.
[31:10] >> Especially California cannabis.
[31:13] >> The they've got scientists that have
[31:15] been working on this [ __ ] for a long
[31:17] time, man. They are not normal joints.
[31:19] Every now and then, Ron White will bring
[31:21] one by the mothership. being like, "Get
[31:23] that out of here before everybody dies.
[31:26] No one can handle this." They all dust
[31:28] them with kef. They they they have THC
[31:30] crystals all over them. It's like
[31:32] >> they're going too hard. They sell they
[31:34] sell some joints that are like
[31:35] guaranteed to [ __ ] you up. They're like
[31:36] a hundred bucks.
[31:37] >> And it's also as well, it's like young
[31:39] people don't have the money to go out
[31:40] boozing like we did when we were young,
[31:43] when when everything was much cheaper.
[31:45] Well, there's also, I think, and this is
[31:47] a positive aspect of the internet, um,
[31:49] and all these, uh, health and wellness
[31:53] influencers, is that a lot of people are
[31:55] realizing like, hey, alcohol is actually
[31:57] bad for you. I like it. I took a long
[31:59] time off of it. Took like eight months,
[32:01] which is a long time for me. And, um, I
[32:04] noticed a big difference the moment I
[32:05] moment I stopped drinking. I just felt
[32:07] way better. Felt better throughout the
[32:08] day. I felt like my energy levels were
[32:11] much more consistent. I felt better
[32:13] waking up.
[32:14] >> It's better. It's not good to poison
[32:15] yourself all the time, right?
[32:16] >> But it's also fun,
[32:18] >> right? It's like it's like all drugs.
[32:20] It's got good and bad. I would say
[32:23] alcohol is kind of a [ __ ] drug in terms
[32:24] of the good versus the bad. I'd like a
[32:27] glass glass of wine with dinner or
[32:28] something, but beyond that, the
[32:30] trade-offs go way down. Like the second,
[32:32] third, like you're not
[32:34] >> it's not improving your enjoyment of the
[32:36] evening.
[32:36] >> No, it's
[32:38] very expensive. Then you and at our age
[32:40] you wake up the next day after I I'm
[32:43] like I after one glass of wine I wake up
[32:45] the next day I'm like h you know even
[32:47] one glass of wine.
[32:48] >> Yeah that'll do. I
[32:50] >> you know what it'll help you
[32:51] >> glutathione.
[32:52] >> Yeah.
[32:53] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um especially liposomaal
[32:56] glutathione is more um bioavailable. But
[32:59] uh glutathione is really good for
[33:01] >> you. Take it the night when you're
[33:02] drinking.
[33:02] >> Take it while you're drinking.
[33:03] >> Take it before you're drinking. Take it
[33:05] after you're drinking.
[33:06] >> All right. I'm back on the source.
[33:07] Thanks Joe.
[33:08] But also there's an one of the issues
[33:10] with alcohol is dehydration. Yeah.
[33:12] >> And it's an amunosuppressant. So you
[33:14] should be taking amino acids. Uh you
[33:16] should be taking um definitely some
[33:18] electrolytes but uh also glutathione.
[33:21] >> It's a kind of mixed sales pitch.
[33:23] Imagine you were like a rep for an
[33:24] alcohol company. You can you can have a
[33:25] glass of wine, but you need to take
[33:26] about five supplements in the same time.
[33:29] >> Well, listen, I think everybody should
[33:30] take supplements anyway. I I really do.
[33:33] I think uh there's a lot of uh
[33:35] misleading doctors out there that you
[33:37] shouldn't listen to that'll tell I had a
[33:39] doctor with a pot belly once tell me
[33:40] that you get everything you need from a
[33:42] balanced diet. I'm like shut the [ __ ]
[33:43] up.
[33:44] >> You you shut the [ __ ] up. I didn't say
[33:46] that to him, but I really wanted to. I
[33:47] was kind of gentle about it. I said,
[33:49] "Sir, uh I have been taking vitamins for
[33:51] a long time and I notice a market
[33:53] difference between the when I take them
[33:54] and when I don't take them. There's a
[33:56] lot of benefits and there's a lot of
[33:57] peer-reviewed studies that show benefits
[33:59] of vitamins. Yeah. So, let's just stop
[34:01] talking about this before I get [ __ ]
[34:02] angry at you. You fat [ __ ]
[34:06] >> Fat [ __ ] giving out health advice.
[34:08] >> Yeah. Thanks for looking at me when you
[34:09] said that, Joe. I appreciate this fort.
[34:14] >> And then you looked at me while you said
[34:15] that.
[34:15] >> I had to look at you. I'm being joking.
[34:17] I'm a polite host.
[34:20] >> But um like you know, one of my uh one
[34:23] of my cousins, this is a true story. Uh
[34:25] he was a cardiologist. He used to smoke
[34:27] like 40 a day.
[34:28] >> Great.
[34:29] Perfect. He's probably stressed out.
[34:32] He's probably got bills to pay and
[34:34] [ __ ] I don't know what you guys have
[34:35] over there because you have your your
[34:37] education isn't free.
[34:39] >> No.
[34:39] >> Up to what level?
[34:40] >> Up to like So to get a a doctor's
[34:43] degree,
[34:45] it's free up until college.
[34:47] >> Yeah. But then you have to pay.
[34:48] >> Um and then what about liability
[34:51] insurance? Do you guys have outrageous
[34:53] liability insurance for doctors? Because
[34:55] that's a giant issue with doctors. don't
[34:56] think it's as outrageous as it is here
[34:58] because we our laws are different and
[35:00] we're also not such a latigious culture.
[35:02] Like a British person who's had a bad
[35:04] experience unless it's really really bad
[35:07] will not be like I'm suing the [ __ ]
[35:08] like we don't tend to
[35:09] >> Wouldn't that be nice?
[35:10] >> Yeah.
[35:11] >> Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't that be
[35:12] nice?
[35:13] >> Yeah. But you there's a trade-off to
[35:15] which is like our service culture in the
[35:17] UK is objectively disgusting.
[35:20] >> It's a lot closer to the Soviet Union
[35:21] than it is to America. Like in the
[35:23] Soviet Union when basically if you went
[35:25] to a shop, they would treat you like
[35:27] they were doing you a favor.
[35:29] >> And Britain is much closer to that than
[35:32] it is to America where really
[35:33] >> Yeah. where people are like happy to see
[35:35] you. Like I walk into a restaurant in
[35:37] Texas, they're happy to see I'm like
[35:39] what the [ __ ] Where? And it takes me
[35:41] like a week to adjust to the fact that
[35:42] people are nice.
[35:43] >> Well, people are nice here in general.
[35:45] Like much nicer than California. And I
[35:47] think one of the reasons is there's less
[35:49] people. M
[35:50] >> I really believe that there's an effect
[35:52] that it has on humans no matter who you
[35:55] are when there's an enormous number of
[35:57] people surrounding you all the time. I
[35:59] think it's just
[36:00] >> I totally agree.
[36:01] >> I think it's this place is only a
[36:03] million people.
[36:04] >> Well, you know, there was a guy I talk
[36:05] about this all the time when we talk
[36:06] about, you know, everyone's concerned
[36:08] about plummeting birth rates and all of
[36:10] that and a lot of people
[36:11] >> everybody but Elon, he's pumping them
[36:13] out, man. Um he's
[36:16] >> But he is concerned. That's why he's
[36:17] doing it.
[36:17] >> He's doing something about it. Uh I'm I
[36:19] I'm at replacement rate with my family
[36:21] now with two.
[36:22] >> Good job.
[36:23] >> Uh but I but I think uh my sense has
[36:26] always been I read this great book by a
[36:27] guy called Desmond Morris. He was a
[36:28] primatologist. He studied great apes and
[36:31] he wrote a book called the human zoo
[36:33] which was all about how the city creates
[36:36] in human beings the kind of responses
[36:39] that a zoo creates in animals.
[36:42] >> High rates of interpersonal violence,
[36:44] higher rates of mental illness, lower
[36:46] reproductiveness, higher rates of
[36:47] depression. All of this stuff
[36:49] >> totally makes sense.
[36:50] >> And I've moved out of a the small town
[36:52] that I lived in outside and I already
[36:55] noticed a difference. Like we went in on
[36:57] a Saturday to do some shopping and I was
[36:59] like get me the [ __ ] out of here. Like
[37:01] after 10 minutes it was just like too
[37:02] many people. I only go into London now
[37:05] for work, do the work, come out and just
[37:08] hide in my house now.
[37:09] >> Yeah. So you become accustomed to that
[37:12] buzz of the city, but it's not
[37:14] necessarily good for you.
[37:15] >> It's not good for you. I don't think
[37:16] it's good for you. I don't think it
[37:18] >> being accustomed to the buzz of the city
[37:20] is like being accustomed to social
[37:22] media. It's constant dopamine. It's
[37:24] constant constant constant you always
[37:27] looking for the next thing. You're
[37:29] always looking for something to
[37:30] stimulate you. It's why a lot of people
[37:32] in the city when things go quiet they
[37:34] can't handle it.
[37:35] >> Right. Yeah. I have a good friend who's
[37:37] lived in Manhattan for boy more than 30
[37:41] years and he recently got a place on
[37:43] Fire Island. not recently, like within
[37:45] the last 10, 15 years. And he said
[37:47] without that place in Fireland, he
[37:48] wouldn't even be able to keep his place
[37:50] in Manhattan. He said he can't deal with
[37:51] it anymore. But Fire Island's like a
[37:53] small island. I don't think they even
[37:55] have cars. I think you get there on a
[37:57] ferry and everybody rides bikes and it's
[37:59] like
[38:00] and so he goes there
[38:03] and then he comes back. Beep beep. [ __ ]
[38:05] you. But you just you the contrast of
[38:08] the two of them makes it liveable. Yeah.
[38:10] >> Whereas when I first met him, he was
[38:13] like, I [ __ ] love it. I love the
[38:14] energy of this city. And I was there
[38:16] like, I've got my own energy. I got to
[38:18] get the [ __ ] out of here. I don't like
[38:19] this. I I like woods.
[38:21] >> I like peace. I like to be able to sit
[38:23] on top of a hill and see birds fly
[38:24] overhead. That's what I like. I like
[38:27] nature. I do not like being in like a
[38:30] cramped [ __ ] group of all kinds of
[38:32] people stacked, feeling each other's
[38:34] energy. It's fun occasionally. New
[38:36] York's fun to visit,
[38:38] >> but living there, sleeping there,
[38:41] >> it pays you pay a toll. you you do pay a
[38:44] toll because that city like we've got a
[38:46] friend who lets us use his apartment and
[38:48] it's a beautiful apartment in Manhattan
[38:50] but you can never really sleep cuz what
[38:52] YOU SAID IT'S LIKE [ __ ] YOU [ __ ] you in
[38:56] the ass
[38:59] >> and it's like YOU GO WHAT'S GOING ON and
[39:01] it's like it's 3:15 do you know what I
[39:03] mean
[39:04] >> and you're going the people are insane
[39:06] they're driven insane by this
[39:08] >> well it's also a 24-hour city a
[39:10] legitimate 24-hour city
[39:12] >> you know And when I was single, it was
[39:14] great cuz uh pool halls are open in New
[39:16] York City 24 hours a day. So, you know,
[39:19] Chelsea Billiards, which is where we
[39:20] would go, was like this crazy place that
[39:22] was like a a playground that was open 24
[39:25] hours a day. Like, this is nuts. And
[39:27] then you can go to a diner. You can go
[39:28] to you you could get a real meal.
[39:30] Apparently, a lot of this died during
[39:32] CO, but you can get like a steak dinner
[39:34] at 4:00 a.m. like a nice restaurant. You
[39:37] could sit down. Like, this is crazy.
[39:39] This place is nuts. It was fun when I
[39:41] was 23.
[39:42] >> It's fun. It's fun. New York is a lot of
[39:44] fun. We We have a good time. We're there
[39:45] for a week. We go to our favorite cigar
[39:47] bars, you know? You know, all of that.
[39:49] It's fun.
[39:50] >> It's fun.
[39:50] >> But I think it's also once you get
[39:52] married and you have kids, then the
[39:54] calculus changes completely. Like I
[39:56] would rather spend
[39:58] >> half an hour with my son walking in the
[39:59] woods.
[40:00] >> Yeah.
[40:00] >> Over, you know, whatever the best New
[40:02] York has to offer. You know what I mean?
[40:03] It's just
[40:04] >> for sure. Well, it's for me too. a lot
[40:06] changed um as I when I'm when I got uh
[40:10] on moved to Los Angeles, I started
[40:12] moving further and further away from the
[40:14] city.
[40:15] >> And as I moved further and further away
[40:16] from the city, I became more and more
[40:18] relaxed.
[40:19] >> I was like, I think there's something to
[40:21] this. And so where I lived most of the
[40:23] time when I was living in um LA was not
[40:26] even in LA County. I was living in the
[40:28] neighborhood county, neighboring county.
[40:29] I had plenty of acres. I had mountain
[40:32] lions and bobcats and all kinds of [ __ ]
[40:34] in my neighborhood. deer in my
[40:35] neighborhood. It's way more relaxed. It
[40:37] was just I could go outside and just
[40:39] hear birds and, you know, and see, you
[40:41] know, a hawk circling over a canyon
[40:43] looking for a rabbit. It was awesome. I
[40:45] loved it. It was just so much better
[40:47] than just being inundated with sounds
[40:51] and movement and activity. It's just
[40:53] like,
[40:55] >> you know, when I when I was teaching, I
[40:57] remember every year cuz I was teaching a
[40:59] really rough part of East London. We
[41:01] used to take the kids away for a oneweek
[41:03] residential in out in the countryside
[41:06] and they would do activities and
[41:07] whatever else. And you would literally
[41:09] see a different side to these kids
[41:11] >> 100%.
[41:12] >> You would when you saw them on the
[41:14] playground, they were surrounded by
[41:15] concrete and just skyscrapers and tower
[41:19] blocks. They everybody even when you
[41:21] started the day everybody and these some
[41:22] these were 10 11 year old kids everybody
[41:25] just felt amped like they were ready to
[41:27] conf for concentration they were ready
[41:29] to go
[41:30] >> after a week in the countryside you saw
[41:32] a different side to these kids
[41:34] >> yeah cuz that's how people are supposed
[41:35] to live that's how we evolved just like
[41:38] we evolved with religion we also evolved
[41:40] in nature and I think we're struggling
[41:43] with the absence of both of those things
[41:45] in our society and the big one to me the
[41:49] biggest one is not just nature but is
[41:51] also light pollution.
[41:53] >> And you know, we were talking about the
[41:54] other day uh Colin Tyrell, hilarious
[41:57] standup comedian was on and uh he was
[41:59] talking about how he goes to uh Big Ben
[42:01] and uh goes down to uh there's an area
[42:04] of Texas and South Texas that is like
[42:06] one of the best places to see the sky,
[42:08] the night sky, and how [ __ ] insane it
[42:11] is. You just just you're just confronted
[42:13] by the Milky Way and all these stars.
[42:15] >> I think that chills people out, too.
[42:18] That puts that puts your place in the
[42:20] universe in perspective. And in the
[42:21] cities, that's the most absent. You
[42:23] can't see any stars. So in the cities,
[42:25] everything's bright. You just see a
[42:26] black sky. Who gives a [ __ ] what's up
[42:28] there? Let's go eat. Let's go do this.
[42:30] Let's go do that. [ __ ] these people.
[42:31] Like you [ __ ] fascists or you
[42:34] whatever it is. It's like you're you're
[42:36] living in this this very
[42:39] tiny blindered world. I think for people
[42:43] like us as well who who by virtue of
[42:45] what we do are digitally plugged in like
[42:47] we have to kind of pay attention a
[42:49] little bit to what's going on. So I
[42:50] certainly spend a lot of time on my
[42:52] phone when you know I remember a month
[42:54] or two ago there was some [ __ ] going on
[42:56] people talking [ __ ] about as always
[42:58] about us on social media or in the
[43:00] papers what and then I just sit in my
[43:01] garden and I see these two giant trees
[43:03] that are like 300 years old.
[43:05] >> Who gives a [ __ ] Yeah. When you're
[43:07] there you just go who gives a [ __ ] It's
[43:09] you know
[43:09] >> it's also the cost of what we do. Yeah.
[43:12] >> The cost of what we do is people are
[43:13] going to have opinions. You want them to
[43:15] have opinions. Some of the opinions are
[43:16] going to suck and some of them are going
[43:18] to be completely outrageous and some are
[43:20] going to be just outright lies where
[43:21] they just want to take you down. That's
[43:22] okay.
[43:23] >> Yeah.
[43:23] >> Yeah. The lies piss me off. I I'll be
[43:26] honest. The lies piss me off because I'm
[43:27] like I am happy to be criticized for
[43:30] mistakes I make. I'm happy to be
[43:31] criticized for things that I said in
[43:33] articulately. I'm happy to be criticized
[43:35] by people who don't like my world view.
[43:38] But don't [ __ ] lie about don't make
[43:40] up [ __ ] about me and and tell other
[43:43] people that that's what I am.
[43:45] >> That pisses me off.
[43:46] >> That we should reject that from everyone
[43:48] from both sides. And the problem is if
[43:50] it aligns with your ideology, you won't
[43:53] call it out and you accept it and it's
[43:54] fine.
[43:55] >> It's just like, you know, I always say
[43:58] that these parties that, you know,
[44:00] unfortunately we only have two are
[44:02] defined by the craziest members of those
[44:05] parties. Like when you think about the
[44:06] left, what do you think about people
[44:08] that want trans women in sports and
[44:10] communism and an open border? And then
[44:12] when you think about the right, what do
[44:13] you think about like patriot and
[44:15] [ __ ] you know, religious
[44:17] fundamentalists that want the Bible in
[44:19] every school and, you know, xenophobic
[44:22] people that think this is a white
[44:23] Christian nation and that's it.
[44:27] >> It's just so exhausting. And if you
[44:29] spend enough time absorbing all of this
[44:31] online, it completely warp your world
[44:35] view instead of just basing your world
[44:38] view on how you interact with people in
[44:40] real life,
[44:41] >> you know, and most people now are
[44:43] tainted by this. So even interacting
[44:45] with them in real life is a problem,
[44:47] especially if you don't catch them
[44:48] one-on-one.
[44:49] >> Yeah.
[44:50] >> You know, it was three of them and one
[44:51] of you, then it's a problem. Like, why
[44:52] are you talking to me like this? Like
[44:53] you you would never talk to me like
[44:54] this. It was you and me and we were
[44:56] alone. This is crazy. This is a crazy
[44:57] way to talk to people if you have an
[44:59] opinion about something and we both have
[45:01] the the time which is another thing to
[45:04] actually discuss this like this is a
[45:06] timeconsuming
[45:07] nuance discussion like let's if which is
[45:10] a beautiful thing what we're allowed to
[45:13] do we can sit down and have those
[45:15] discussions and I think it's super
[45:17] beneficial for other people to be able
[45:19] to listen because if someone sees some
[45:21] Twitter hot take on you they can get a
[45:23] very distorted perception of who you are
[45:26] and then they hear you on on a podcast,
[45:27] they go, "Wait a minute, this guy is
[45:29] pretty reasonable. He's seems like a
[45:31] nice guy." Like, the [ __ ] is going on in
[45:34] the world?
[45:34] >> Right?
[45:35] >> But if you're only a clips person and
[45:37] you're only a Twitter person and you're
[45:39] only a hottake person, you just and
[45:41] you're tired. You're you're working all
[45:43] day. You have a [ __ ] whole bunch of
[45:45] obligations. You're going to like lock
[45:47] into a fake version of the world. And
[45:50] that version of the world is going to
[45:51] give you anxiety. But it's also about
[45:53] incentives because if you are a hot
[45:55] takes person, if you are a clips person,
[45:57] you actually don't care about the truth
[45:58] because that's not what you're aiming
[46:00] for. What you're actually aiming for is
[46:02] engagement. It's views. It's all the
[46:04] rest of it. It's money. So
[46:06] unfortunately, as we all know, there's
[46:09] the truth is important, but it doesn't
[46:12] generate it doesn't engage people as
[46:14] much as a hot take, as much as something
[46:16] that is potentially devised.
[46:17] >> Here's how I'd push back on that. The
[46:19] success of podcasts like yours. M
[46:21] >> and mine like this is the difference,
[46:24] right? It's like it's clear that there's
[46:26] a thirst for this. There's a hunger for
[46:28] people having discussions and for people
[46:31] that say, "Oh, well, I see this point of
[46:33] view. I see why you would think that
[46:34] way. This is what I think and let's
[46:36] talk."
[46:36] >> There's a hunger for that. Obviously,
[46:38] >> yeah,
[46:39] >> it's not just that the only interaction
[46:41] that humans are having is these [ __ ]
[46:44] artists that are making these fake posts
[46:47] or these these very biased post just to
[46:49] get engagement because that's how they
[46:51] make their money, which are that's a
[46:52] it's a sizable population online, but
[46:55] there's also plenty of people that are
[46:57] having real conversations.
[46:58] >> Yeah. And it's like you said, I think
[47:00] politics is what what changes all of it.
[47:03] And and maybe that's where I
[47:04] acknowledged that we like when we
[47:06] started the show we had a rule that we
[47:08] would never have sitting politicians on
[47:09] the show
[47:10] >> and then you know we we got interested
[47:12] in more politics and we had access to
[47:14] more politicians and suddenly we talked
[47:16] to a few and then people go oh okay so
[47:19] this is like you're on a team you're on
[47:21] the other team and now the gloves are
[47:23] off man it is crazy like we were sitting
[47:26] in Airbnb uh yesterday preparing for one
[47:28] of our interviews watching something on
[47:30] YouTube but because we weren't logged in
[47:31] with our own account You get YouTube ads
[47:34] and right now as we're recording this,
[47:36] it's the midterms coming up
[47:38] >> and the political attack ads. Have you
[47:40] seen this [ __ ]
[47:40] >> Oh, I've seen a lot of them in America,
[47:42] >> bro. It is if you show that to a person
[47:45] who's not used to it, like it is
[47:47] shocking to me. It's like Ken Paxton
[47:49] loves pedophiles. Like, whoa. Right.
[47:51] That's And the other way too, right?
[47:53] James Tallerica wants to take your
[47:55] daughter and rape her and then trans
[47:57] her. Like, whoa.
[47:59] is since like imagine imagine talking
[48:02] about people like that.
[48:04] >> Right. Right.
[48:05] >> Imagine you came on here and you were
[48:06] just like the Republicans want to trans
[48:08] your kids and the dem or the Democrats
[48:10] want No, that would be crazy. The
[48:12] Democrats want to trans
[48:13] >> Well, listen, give it another 30 years,
[48:15] right?
[48:16] >> It could completely flip
[48:18] >> swing. When the Republicans are transing
[48:21] your kids, that's when you know you
[48:22] really are [ __ ]
[48:23] >> Well, that's when we know that the world
[48:24] is a changed place. When they're
[48:25] secretly straight people,
[48:27] >> right?
[48:28] >> Yeah. So, like there's someone living a
[48:30] gay lifestyle because it's super
[48:31] popular, but he's secretly straight and
[48:33] we have to like find him and TMZ catches
[48:35] him making out with a woman
[48:38] like Donald S. They're living in an
[48:40] invasion of the body statures.
[48:43] >> Somebody gets outed for watching
[48:45] straight porn.
[48:46] >> Yeah. One day, one day, one day if the
[48:48] the Democrats have their way out,
[48:51] >> but then but then like you said, I mean
[48:52] the stakes I also see it the other way
[48:54] though cuz the stakes are high. Like if
[48:56] you if you take illegal immigration like
[48:59] that was a real problem in this country
[49:01] under the Democrats like gigantic,
[49:03] right?
[49:03] >> Gigantic.
[49:04] >> Not according to the view by the way.
[49:06] >> The view fact checked me on that. In
[49:08] fact, the border was closed. That was
[49:10] one of Yeah. Oh my god. They did a fact
[49:12] check of me saying why I voted
[49:15] Republican. And I said there's there was
[49:17] so many things that were going the wrong
[49:19] way with the past administration. One of
[49:21] them you knew that it wasn't Biden
[49:22] running it. It was who whoever was in
[49:24] his cabinet. they were running the
[49:26] country. Wasn't Biden. He was out of his
[49:27] [ __ ] mind. We all know that. We
[49:29] accept it. There's a bunch of people who
[49:31] have come out and said that that we're
[49:32] working there now. So, that was one. The
[49:34] other one was the border was wide open
[49:36] and that people were [ __ ] coming
[49:38] through. And [ __ ] Sunny Host fact
[49:40] checked me and actually was saying that
[49:42] Biden told people not to come like
[49:45] but they did. Yeah. And yeah, look, uh,
[49:49] Greg Abbott, our governor, did bust
[49:52] people to New York City because like,
[49:54] look, you guys have passed these
[49:55] policies. You want this border wide
[49:56] open, you [ __ ] handle these people.
[49:59] And that is true, but it was also true
[50:01] that the Red Cross had stations that
[50:04] were set up where people give people
[50:05] maps, tell them how to get in. That once
[50:08] people did get in, they were given plane
[50:10] tickets, they were given EBT cards, they
[50:12] were given cell phones, they were put up
[50:14] in luxury hotels. All this is true. Not
[50:17] not just that, but a disproportionate
[50:20] amount of people who moved in who came
[50:22] here illegally moved to swing states.
[50:25] >> Kind of crazy. Seems a little odd. Seems
[50:28] a little odd that you got a large
[50:29] portion of them set up in Ohio and set
[50:31] up in a bunch of these different places
[50:33] like the Haitians in Ohio. It's a famous
[50:34] part, but it's like there's clearly an
[50:37] incentive. You know what the incentive
[50:39] is? The census counts humans. It doesn't
[50:43] count legal citizens. So if there's 10
[50:46] million humans and half of them are
[50:47] illegal, doesn't matter.
[50:49] >> That's that indicates how many
[50:51] congressional seats you get.
[50:54] >> That's real. So if you just flood a
[50:57] place that you're already in control
[50:59] with illegal immigrants that you're
[51:01] paying for, this isn't rocket science
[51:05] that's going to help you stay in power.
[51:07] And that's what was going on. And I felt
[51:09] like that is crazy. So Kla Harris was
[51:13] recently talking about how they need to
[51:15] add more people to the Supreme Court and
[51:17] then then they need to turn DC and
[51:19] Puerto Rico into states. And why do you
[51:23] want to do that? Because if you do that,
[51:24] then you have control forever, right?
[51:26] And that's that's the reality that I was
[51:28] confronted with with the choices between
[51:31] Kla Harris and Donald Trump. It's
[51:33] something that like I looked at this the
[51:35] Trump administration, I say, "Well, this
[51:37] is perfect. This is exactly what we
[51:39] want." I I love it when he has a a
[51:41] picture of himself as Jesus and he
[51:43] posted up on truth. This is great. I
[51:46] think some of the things he's done are
[51:47] good for sure. And I think some of the
[51:50] things the FBI has done, this is one of
[51:52] the things that the the left does not
[51:54] want to confront. There's been a
[51:55] significant drop in crime. Significant
[51:58] significant drop in crime, measurable
[51:59] drop in crime because of the FBI under
[52:02] Cash Patel in this new administration.
[52:04] Now, I don't know why. I don't know what
[52:05] it means. Some people say it's because
[52:07] of under reporting, which is an issue
[52:09] because especially places like Los
[52:12] Angeles, no one gives a [ __ ] if you get
[52:14] robbed. No one gives a [ __ ] if your car
[52:16] gets broken into. They're not going to
[52:17] do anything. So, it's under reportported
[52:19] crime. And so, they say crime is down.
[52:22] But, is it?
[52:23] >> No. Not Not if you talk to people. They
[52:25] Everybody that I know that lives in Los
[52:27] Angeles says it's [ __ ] Gotham City
[52:29] now. It's [ __ ] nuts.
[52:30] >> Whereas it wasn't 15 years ago. So, what
[52:33] happened? What happened was the same
[52:35] policies that you [ __ ] people keep
[52:37] voting for keep going further and
[52:39] further and further and further down the
[52:40] line and the further they go the more
[52:43] things get shitty and no one wants to
[52:45] change because you're in a cult.
[52:47] >> Yeah. It's also worth it, you know,
[52:50] people say these policies are kind that
[52:53] it's the right thing to do morally. as
[52:55] you know, as somebody who talks to
[52:58] whenever I see a Venezuelan person, I
[53:00] always want to talk to them because I
[53:01] want to see how they how they're doing,
[53:03] how they feel the country is doing, how
[53:05] Venezuela is doing.
[53:06] >> Because you're from Venezuela, always
[53:07] tell people that.
[53:08] >> Yeah. And one thing that I remember this
[53:10] conversation I had with an Uber driver
[53:12] and he was talking to me and he said to
[53:14] me, "Look, when you go on the pods, cuz
[53:17] I follow your pod and I listen to Joe
[53:19] and I follow all these pods, please tell
[53:22] people that Venezuelan people. We're not
[53:25] criminals. We're not people coming here
[53:27] to cause trouble. The vast majority of
[53:29] us only want to come here to work." And
[53:31] he goes, "But those are the people who
[53:33] do it legally. the other people who come
[53:36] in. Now, I'm sure that some of them just
[53:37] want to come in. A lot of them want to
[53:39] come in just for a better life. But
[53:40] you're also allowing a portion of people
[53:42] to come in who are criminals who are
[53:45] going to cause trouble. And that's going
[53:47] to give a bad reputation to every single
[53:50] Venezuelan person who is here. Because
[53:52] the moment you hear Venezuelan, you
[53:54] think, oh, Taragua, which is the very
[53:56] famous gang which is causing hu which
[53:59] was causing huge amounts of problem in
[54:00] America, drugs, killings, gang activity.
[54:04] So immediately when you think of a
[54:05] Venezuelan, you got old trend. You don't
[54:08] think of the guy who's coming along,
[54:10] who's going to work for you, who's going
[54:12] to drive your Uber, who's just doing
[54:14] what he can to make ends meet.
[54:16] >> Now, let me ask you this. Do you think
[54:18] that allowing the illegals in and the
[54:21] criminals in, not just the illegal,
[54:22] let's say, because everyone who comes in
[54:25] that doesn't do it the right way is
[54:26] illegal. So allowing criminals to come
[54:29] through as well, knowing that this will
[54:32] increase violent crime. Do you think
[54:35] that that is just an unintended side
[54:37] effect of the goal they're trying to
[54:39] achieve, which is get more congressional
[54:42] seats, control districts, make it so
[54:44] that the other party can't win? Or do
[54:47] you think that they have calculated this
[54:50] and said that this would probably be a
[54:52] way that we can institute much more
[54:54] control like flock cameras and have the
[54:57] ability to tap into people's phones,
[55:01] find out if they're doing illegal
[55:02] activity, and that people will actually
[55:04] allow us to do this because we'll do it
[55:06] under the premise that we're making the
[55:08] street safe again.
[55:09] >> And it's probably quite hard to separate
[55:11] the criminals from the noncriminals as
[55:12] well. If the border is open, then they
[55:14] just come, right? How would you know? Um
[55:16] the other thing we we had Andrew Yang on
[55:18] recently and this is where it gets even
[55:20] worse because one of the reasons he left
[55:22] the sort of conventional Republican
[55:24] Democratic party model was he said
[55:26] actually neither party wants to solve
[55:28] the problem and he was saying some
[55:31] Republicans will deliberately avoid
[55:34] allowing Democrats to close the border
[55:36] because it gives them something to run
[55:38] on.
[55:38] >> Of course. Yeah.
[55:39] >> And that's [ __ ] crazy.
[55:41] >> Yeah.
[55:41] >> That that is [ __ ] crazy.
[55:43] >> Yeah. And Anna Paulina Luna explained
[55:45] that to me.
[55:46] >> Yeah.
[55:46] >> She was like, "There's a bunch of issues
[55:48] that they don't want resolved because
[55:50] that's how they
[55:51] >> that's how they raise finances.
[55:52] >> They can run on
[55:53] >> they run on them. It's campaign talking
[55:54] point. It's like you got to have it. You
[55:56] got to have it in your bag."
[55:58] >> See, this is where I think the left has
[56:00] a lot of very good points actually,
[56:01] which is the accumulation of power
[56:03] within big corporations and government.
[56:06] That's why when I was younger, I always
[56:08] thought of myself, and I haven't really
[56:09] changed my opinions very much. I thought
[56:11] of myself as being on the left because
[56:13] the more actually we do our show and and
[56:15] the more people we speak to who are in
[56:17] positions to know, the more I'm just
[56:19] confronted by how much behavior in that
[56:22] part of our society is driven by greed
[56:26] and
[56:28] not morality. These people are not
[56:29] moral, right? I'm not even saying
[56:30] they're immoral. I think they're worse.
[56:32] They're amoral. They don't give a [ __ ]
[56:34] as long as they win the election, they
[56:36] make money, they increase their bonus.
[56:39] That's that is so scary to me. It's much
[56:42] scarier actually than people
[56:43] intentionally doing bad things uh in a
[56:46] way. Uh and that accumulation of power
[56:49] in the hands of very small number of
[56:51] people. U that's a real thing, man.
[56:53] >> It's a real thing and it's also a part
[56:54] of the culture of those groups of
[56:56] people, right? Like there's a diffusion
[56:58] of responsibility aspect of being a part
[57:00] of a corporation that's doing things
[57:02] that are [ __ ] up. Like say if you're
[57:04] working for a corporation and they
[57:06] manufacture something and you find out
[57:08] that these people are dumping
[57:11] >> some sort of toxic waste in the third
[57:13] world
[57:14] >> like uh not me. I'm in Dallas. I'm
[57:17] working on I'm at my desk. I'm doing
[57:19] spreadsheets, you know. I But you're a
[57:21] part of this corporation, right? But you
[57:23] don't think, oh my god, I'm a part of an
[57:24] evil movement that's killing fish in a
[57:26] river somewhere in Cambodia or whatever.
[57:28] That's not how you think. You're you you
[57:31] are a part of this culture and you if
[57:34] you're a lawyer, hey, I know he's
[57:36] guilty. I got to get him off. This is
[57:37] the job. If you're working in a
[57:39] corporation, hey, we're here to make
[57:40] money. Like, this is what we do. We have
[57:42] shareholders. We're working 16 hours a
[57:44] day. We're on [ __ ] aderong, you know?
[57:47] We don't have time for morals. Okay,
[57:50] maybe one day I'll be moral, but right
[57:51] now I want a house in the Hamptons. I
[57:53] want a I want a yacht. I want a I want a
[57:55] [ __ ] jet. And I think I can get there
[57:57] because I know that the guy who used to
[57:58] be the CEO, he left. He got $600
[58:01] million. And this is what the culture
[58:03] is. The culture is all about making the
[58:05] most money pop as possible. And when
[58:08] you're around a bunch of other people
[58:09] that are doing that, it seems fine. The
[58:11] responsibility of being moral is
[58:13] completely removed. You're part of a
[58:15] giant machine that you can't stop. And
[58:17] so, listen, you know, we are, you know,
[58:19] Xerox or Rathon, whatever it is. You
[58:21] don't think, you know, oh, I can I can
[58:24] have an effect on the world with my
[58:26] decisions and I should probably do the
[58:28] right thing. Like, there's none of that
[58:30] going on.
[58:31] >> No. And and also as well, the people
[58:33] that do think like that, they're going
[58:35] to self- select out of that system
[58:37] because they're going to be there going,
[58:38] "Oh, I I dude, we're doing this. I can't
[58:41] live with this."
[58:41] >> They'll leave. They'll write an article
[58:42] for The Atlantic. Nobody will read it.
[58:45] >> That's it. That's the end of it.
[58:47] >> It's how I think about what we do,
[58:48] though. It's like I think of of of
[58:50] trigonometry is like a family-owned
[58:52] restaurant, right? We're feeding people
[58:54] information, right? Or conversation or
[58:57] whatever it is, but we are providing
[58:59] something that people ingest.
[59:01] >> Yeah.
[59:02] >> There's a responsibility that comes with
[59:04] that,
[59:04] >> right? You shouldn't put, you know, lead
[59:07] and mercury and all kinds of [ __ ] in
[59:08] there to make it
[59:10] >> taste better or make more money or
[59:11] whatever. And we we know there's people
[59:13] we could have on our show that would get
[59:15] 10 times the views, right? But it's just
[59:17] not it's not what we do, you know.
[59:19] >> Yeah. No, and I respect that. I think
[59:22] it's clear in your conversations that
[59:24] that's not what you're trying to do.
[59:25] You're not going to play gotcha.
[59:26] >> Whereas, no disrespect to Pierce Morgan,
[59:28] that's his business model. His business
[59:30] models, have a bunch of people on, have
[59:32] them [ __ ] yell at each other, we
[59:37] >> It's also a time thing, I think, when
[59:39] people have a very short period of time.
[59:40] It inevitably becomes that. If you ever
[59:43] see uh Pierce uh doing long form
[59:45] interviews, some of them are incredible.
[59:47] >> Oh, sure. I'm not even talking about
[59:49] him. I'm talking about his
[59:50] >> Yeah, the model. Yeah. Yeah. No, I get
[59:52] it.
[59:52] >> Yeah, I can slack off Pierce. It's no
[59:54] problem. You douchebag. No. Um yeah, the
[59:58] model I agree that model is is what it
[60:01] does is it attracts attention. But I
[60:03] think once you've watched it, I think it
[60:06] was actually our mutual friend Chris
[60:08] Williamson told me about this. He said
[60:09] there's a thing you know that postnut
[60:11] clarity. Yes.
[60:12] >> This post content clarity.
[60:13] >> Oh yeah.
[60:14] >> And when you watch something that's
[60:15] outrage porn,
[60:17] >> you get that postcontent like why have I
[60:20] spent 15 minutes watching, you know?
[60:23] >> Yeah. I try not to I when I see people
[60:25] like, you know, destroyed this guy on
[60:28] this like
[60:29] >> I don't want that in my life. I'm not
[60:31] interested. If some if something's
[60:32] particularly interesting, someone will
[60:33] send it to me. So this is my filtration
[60:36] system now for online content. If some a
[60:38] friend doesn't send it to me that I
[60:40] think is a cool and interesting friend,
[60:42] I don't read it.
[60:43] >> Yeah.
[60:43] >> So most of what I get unless I'm on the
[60:46] toilet, I'm getting from my if I'm on
[60:47] the toilet, I will just give
[60:49] >> the toilet is where bad things happen.
[60:50] >> I will give in and go whatever.
[60:53] >> But it's made my life infinitely better.
[60:55] >> Yeah. Infinitely.
[60:56] >> But the the the issue is the incentives
[60:59] are baked all the way through. Like when
[61:01] I I wrote my book, Uneducated, I
[61:03] remember people saying to me, "Oh, are
[61:05] you going to write about the culture
[61:06] wars and education?" and talking about,
[61:08] you know, what the how the culturals
[61:09] affected you in your classroom. I was
[61:11] like, mate, I was teaching in a in a
[61:14] [ __ ] ghetto in East London. We didn't
[61:16] have time to talk about decolonization
[61:19] cuz you can't do it. You can't do it.
[61:21] How are you going to talk about
[61:22] decolonization when a kid's throwing a
[61:24] chair at your head?
[61:25] >> You know what I mean? But it would have
[61:26] been And then when you go and promote
[61:28] the book, people like, "Well, did you
[61:30] talk about trans in the classroom?" I'm
[61:31] like, "No, mate. I was trying just to
[61:34] have a lesson." Yeah.
[61:37] But the moment you know that you're
[61:40] going to forsake a large part of what of
[61:44] outrage, you know, interest in in what
[61:47] you do because you're not playing that
[61:49] game, right?
[61:49] >> And you're forsaking the clips for that.
[61:52] >> Yeah, but who cares? It's like that's
[61:54] not what you're into anyway. It's like
[61:55] if you run a vegetarian restaurant and
[61:58] you're that's what your thing is. I have
[61:59] the look of a man who who runs a
[62:01] vegetarian restaurant.
[62:03] >> But you don't get upset if someone else
[62:04] is, you know, making money selling
[62:06] steak. Like that's what they do. If you
[62:07] wanted to sell steak, you'd sell steak.
[62:09] >> Yeah.
[62:10] >> Not that's a bad comparison cuz what you
[62:12] guys do is better. It's like you're the
[62:13] steak.
[62:13] >> We're the steak.
[62:14] >> Yeah. It's like someone's out there
[62:16] buying vegan burgers and getting really
[62:18] sick.
[62:19] >> No, it's And that's what we try to do.
[62:21] It's, you know, you realize, I know it
[62:24] sounds kind of hacky, but you when your
[62:26] platform goes to a size like we're about
[62:28] to hit 2 million subscribers now, and
[62:30] you do an interview, you think, "Oh,
[62:31] fuck." Like, we've got a real
[62:33] responsibility here.
[62:34] >> If somebody says something that is
[62:36] actually, you know, that you think isn't
[62:39] right, it's your duty to challenge him.
[62:42] It's also your duty to, you know, to
[62:44] make sure that the interview is prepped
[62:47] properly so that when they have their
[62:48] arguments, you can go, "Well, actually,
[62:50] what about this? What about that?
[62:51] >> Right?
[62:52] >> All of these things because you realize
[62:55] what you're putting out into the world.
[62:57] It it matters. People are going to
[62:58] consume it and they're going to take it
[63:00] as fact.
[63:01] >> Yeah, it does matter. And if you abandon
[63:03] that feeling of responsibility just
[63:06] because you want the outrage clicks.
[63:08] It's like you're just a part of the
[63:10] problem.
[63:11] >> Yeah. I mean, you got to be able to have
[63:13] conversations with people. And this this
[63:15] is why I push back against the idea that
[63:16] people have a shorter attention span
[63:18] than ever. Like, do they though? I feel
[63:21] like they're the just people. I feel
[63:22] like people are just people. I don't
[63:24] think I'm unique.
[63:25] >> I think I like listening to audiobooks
[63:27] because I think they're interesting and
[63:29] I think I'm not alone. I think they're
[63:30] very popular. They sell a lot of audio
[63:33] books. It's one of the big reasons why
[63:35] Spotify got into podcasting is because
[63:37] their audiobook uh sales or or streams
[63:40] rather.
[63:41] >> They were a lot of people were streaming
[63:43] audiobooks. They're like, "Wow, a lot of
[63:44] people just didn't they don't just want
[63:46] music. Let's get into other things."
[63:48] People like to be informed and and have
[63:51] their brain excited. It's good. And you
[63:54] can have it excited in a negative way,
[63:56] like get outraged. That's a problem. It
[63:58] can hijack your concentration in that
[64:01] way. It can hijack your attention. But
[64:03] also, what's more fulfilling is getting
[64:06] your brain stimulated in a positive way
[64:08] or at least an intriguing way, something
[64:10] that like really makes you think about
[64:12] things. I love when I listen to a
[64:14] podcast, I listen to a conversation and
[64:16] I carry that thought with me like I'll
[64:18] shut the the radio off and I'm driving.
[64:20] I'm like, "Wow, okay." And I'll just
[64:22] contemplate and think about things, you
[64:24] know, and I think there's I'm not alone.
[64:26] This is not a unique thing that I have.
[64:28] I think there's millions of people out
[64:30] there like that. They're just that
[64:32] desire is not being fulfilled. So, it
[64:35] gets their attention gets hijacked by
[64:37] horseshit.
[64:38] >> Well, and and I think the direction of
[64:41] travel is clear. I mean a lot of people
[64:42] in our space like to be oh TV's dead.
[64:45] Well, if you look at the absolute
[64:46] numbers that they are way up here,
[64:49] right, than collectively than than than
[64:51] YouTube and podcast, but the direction
[64:53] of travel is only one way from here.
[64:55] They're going to go down. We're going to
[64:56] go up. I think
[64:57] >> do you think that the the views on
[64:59] television are higher than the views on
[65:01] like say YouTube? I don't even think
[65:03] that's
[65:04] >> interesting. I
[65:05] >> YouTube is infinitely more popular than
[65:07] any television show. Yeah, but it's not
[65:09] all like most of the views on YouTube
[65:12] are like guys kids un unboxing toys and
[65:17] you know guys going camp. There's I I
[65:19] discovered this channel the other day
[65:20] called Outdoor Studios. Are you
[65:21] familiar? Or Outdoor Boys Outdoor?
[65:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. Guys, I think he stopped
[65:24] doing it.
[65:25] >> He stopped doing it. I was like this guy
[65:27] he 20 million subscribers. Every video
[65:29] is like 90 million views. And he just
[65:31] was like, "Yeah, I don't want to do this
[65:32] anymore."
[65:32] >> Well, I think the popularity thing is
[65:34] overwhelming and the like fame it freaks
[65:37] you out. And I think he probably reads
[65:39] the comments unfortunately. And uh he
[65:42] was just a regular guy that's really
[65:43] into survival,
[65:45] >> you know, stuff and doing amazing
[65:47] contact and he seems like a really nice
[65:49] guy.
[65:49] >> Seems like a lovely guy. I think maybe
[65:50] the one thing that that pushed him in
[65:52] that direction just doesn't just
[65:54] watching it is he kind of got his family
[65:56] involved. So a lot of it would be like
[65:58] him with the kids going to places. And I
[66:00] imagine if you never fully signed up for
[66:03] 20 million subscriber fame,
[66:05] >> right? and you're a 5-year-old or a
[66:07] 10-year-old or now you're an
[66:08] 18-year-old, that's a whole different
[66:10] ballgame.
[66:11] >> Yeah.
[66:12] >> And that's probably extremely
[66:13] disconcerting and unpleasant.
[66:15] >> Well, I don't think that's wise. I don't
[66:17] think that's wise at all to do that.
[66:18] Yeah. I mean, when I see people getting
[66:20] their children involved in their
[66:21] television shows, I'm like, "Please
[66:23] don't do that."
[66:24] >> Yeah.
[66:24] >> So, like, you're you're you're you
[66:26] didn't ask them and they're going to
[66:27] have to go to school and then deal with
[66:29] the consequences of it and all the
[66:30] [ __ ] that come. I mean, it's pretty
[66:32] straightforward show. other guy's just
[66:34] like, you know, camping in a [ __ ]
[66:36] igloo. No big deal. But even then,
[66:39] you're still exposing yourself to
[66:41] schizophrenics and crazy people and the
[66:44] the world the whole world out there.
[66:46] >> Yeah. And also as well, number one, they
[66:49] can't consent because they're too young.
[66:50] So, they don't understand actually what
[66:52] it means to consent to something like
[66:54] that and what are going to be the
[66:55] long-term implications.
[66:56] >> But also, it's just weird. It does get
[67:00] it takes you a while when people come up
[67:02] to you and they go, "Oh, I feel I know
[67:04] you
[67:05] >> and you go, you obviously don't." But I,
[67:07] as an adult, I can rationalize that.
[67:10] Imagine what it must be like as a kid.
[67:12] >> Well, that's the real problem with child
[67:13] stars, right? They all get [ __ ] up.
[67:16] Like I've become friends with Zack Efron
[67:19] lately. Uh he's been coming to the club.
[67:21] Very nice guy. but talks openly about
[67:23] it. Like just like becoming famous when
[67:25] you're young, when like you're really
[67:26] young, you're a kid. It's just so [ __ ]
[67:29] up for you. I can't I liken it to when
[67:32] you make cement and you don't put all
[67:35] the ingredients in and then it kind of
[67:38] forms, but you can never fix it. So,
[67:40] it's never fully formed.
[67:41] >> And I think this is an issue with I've
[67:43] met a lot of child actors that became
[67:46] adults and every one of them was [ __ ]
[67:49] up. Um, McCaulay Kulkin was probably the
[67:51] least [ __ ] up, oddly, but he he talks
[67:55] openly about the struggles that he's
[67:56] had.
[67:57] >> And what is it that makes somebody
[67:59] really struggle with life having been
[68:00] famous as a kid? Like
[68:02] >> you get adored for no reason,
[68:05] right? You're you're six and everybody
[68:06] loves you. You're supposed to earn that,
[68:08] right? You're supposed to have it from
[68:10] your family and then the way you behave
[68:13] is supposed to dictate how people treat
[68:15] you in the real world
[68:17] >> and what you're good at. So like maybe
[68:19] if you're good at art or you're good at
[68:21] music, people are like, "Jimmy, I love
[68:23] how you play guitar." And then so then
[68:25] people like you for that and then you
[68:26] like you want more of that. So you work
[68:28] really hard and then you go through this
[68:30] whole process of becoming an adult and
[68:33] dating and girls don't like you just cuz
[68:35] you're on the cover of Team Beat. They
[68:37] like you because hopefully they think
[68:39] you're attractive looking and then they
[68:41] think you're funny or you're smart or
[68:43] you're nice to them and then you go on a
[68:44] date and you guys jive and it's a
[68:47] learning process and you don't go
[68:49] through that at all when you're a
[68:51] 9-year-old and you're on the set of a
[68:53] television show that's in your name and
[68:55] then everyone around you is catering to
[68:57] you. Everyone's kissing your ass. Tommy,
[69:00] can we get you anything? Would you like
[69:01] a juice? Would you like anything? Like
[69:03] everybody loves you. Nobody is telling
[69:05] you you have to do something. you have
[69:06] to do this, you have to do that.
[69:08] Nobody's punishing you. Nobody's Nobody
[69:10] is like bullying you at school. It's
[69:12] like your world is weird.
[69:14] >> And people tolerate your shitty
[69:15] behavior, I imagine.
[69:16] >> 100%. You could throw temper tantrums
[69:18] and [ __ ] smash windows and they I
[69:20] mean that's why rock stars [ __ ] tear
[69:22] apart hotel rooms. Why they do that? Cuz
[69:24] they can.
[69:25] >> They go into that hotel room just
[69:27] [ __ ] throw a TV through THE WINDOW.
[69:29] WOO! ROCK AND ROLL. I MEAN, it's in it's
[69:31] in all these movies, right? Why they do
[69:33] that? Because they're out of their
[69:34] [ __ ] minds. because there's no
[69:36] guardrails and to have no guard rails as
[69:39] you're growing up and to also be
[69:42] completely wealthy by the time you're
[69:45] 10, you know, and then usually the
[69:47] parents are involved in some sort of a
[69:49] shitty scenario. Like I have a friend
[69:51] who's a child actor and his parents
[69:53] stole money from him and he didn't find
[69:55] out until he's an adult like millions of
[69:57] dollars from him
[69:58] >> and he's had like this [ __ ] up
[69:59] relationship with them anyway and then
[70:01] he found out that they were they were
[70:03] mishandling his money and stealing from
[70:04] That would be so horrible.
[70:06] >> He suspected it though. He was like, "Oh
[70:07] yeah, what?"
[70:08] >> It's one of the things that happens when
[70:09] people see you being successful and you
[70:11] have money or they think you have money.
[70:13] Suddenly like all these people emerge
[70:14] out of everywhere who've got like these
[70:16] amazing ideas
[70:17] >> for how to convert your money into their
[70:20] money. You know, there brilliant ideas
[70:21] for that
[70:23] >> and there's a lot of them.
[70:24] >> I Yeah. I I get confronted all the time
[70:26] with stupid ideas and I just I don't
[70:29] invest in anything. I'm like that's the
[70:31] best way for me to just diffuse it all.
[70:33] like I'm not interested.
[70:35] >> I'm not buying that.
[70:36] >> And also with the child star thing is
[70:38] you have all of this success which is
[70:40] more success than the vast majority of
[70:42] people will ever encounter in their
[70:43] life.
[70:44] >> Mhm.
[70:44] >> And you're done by the time you're 16
[70:46] because you fundamentally changed the
[70:48] way you look.
[70:49] >> So you you've now become an adolescent
[70:51] with all you know the awkwardness and
[70:53] the horrificness that goes through all
[70:55] of our teenage years.
[70:56] >> Yeah.
[70:57] >> Yet you look back at a time when
[70:58] everybody loved you and now no one does.
[71:01] >> Yeah. You peak at 15, but imagine being
[71:04] like Tuton Common became the pharaoh of
[71:06] Egypt at nine.
[71:08] >> Oh, what? You're running Egypt.
[71:11] >> What? Huh?
[71:13] >> Yeah, he wasn't really running. It was
[71:14] like Joe Biden.
[71:16] >> Well, he was he seemed comprom.
[71:19] >> Yeah,
[71:20] >> it seemed like he might be inbred or two
[71:22] in common.
[71:23] >> Yeah, there was something wrong with
[71:24] him. He was very odd.
[71:28] >> Sorry, I'm choking on something.
[71:30] Yeah, I think um analysis of his uh
[71:33] bones, I think they said that he he
[71:36] might have he might have suffer. I think
[71:38] that's some speculation. People try not
[71:40] to be offensive when they talk about
[71:41] that, but obviously inbreeding amongst
[71:44] royal families is not a unique thing.
[71:46] It's not like what wait a minute, you
[71:49] know, like and so the possibility that
[71:52] he was inbred here. One of the most
[71:54] striking things about Tutonama was his
[71:56] parentage.
[71:58] 2010 DNA study concluded that his
[71:59] parents were probably brother and
[72:01] sister. The researchers identify his
[72:03] father as most likely Pharaoh Akenatan
[72:07] and his mother as an unnamed money as an
[72:10] unnamed mummy known as the younger lady
[72:12] and that was probably his sister. The
[72:14] body uh differed from the idealized
[72:16] royal image. Researchers reported a club
[72:19] foot and damage to bones in his foot
[72:21] suggesting that he had difficulty
[72:23] walking. Walking sticks found in his
[72:25] tomb support that interpretation. Uh
[72:28] these are medical interpretations of
[72:29] ancient remains rather than a complete
[72:31] certain picture of his health. He became
[72:34] king around age nine, died around 18 or
[72:37] 19. Exact cause of death remains
[72:38] uncertain. Researchers detected malaria
[72:41] parasite DNA and proposed that malaria,
[72:44] bone problems, and a fractured leg may
[72:46] have contributed to not any single cause
[72:49] was conclusively established.
[72:53] Apparently, um the reason why they found
[72:56] his tomb versus uh all the other pharaoh
[72:59] tombs that had long been looted was that
[73:01] he was uh very disrespected and that
[73:04] once they uh buried him and they put him
[73:07] in his tomb, they covered it with rubble
[73:09] so that no one could visit it. They were
[73:10] like, "Fuck this guy." Like, "Yeah, we
[73:12] did what we had to do, but let's just
[73:14] cover the whole thing with rubble."
[73:15] That's one of the one of the one of the
[73:17] pieces of speculation.
[73:18] >> That's so funny. There's so many guys in
[73:20] history who are like, "I'm going to
[73:21] build an empire. I'm going to call. No
[73:22] one knows that name.
[73:24] >> This dude was a [ __ ] king.
[73:26] >> I know. He's a [ __ ] king. 9 years old.
[73:28] And that's the one that everybody thinks
[73:29] about when you think about an Egyptian
[73:31] pharaoh. You think about King Tut
[73:33] >> because they found his tomb intact.
[73:36] >> So the real question is what happened to
[73:38] all of those other tombs and is where is
[73:41] all that gold? Where where are all
[73:42] those? I mean, if if that guy had such
[73:46] an elaborate burial and he was a [ __ ]
[73:48] king, like what you know, what did what
[73:51] did Ramsay's what did his pharaoh what
[73:54] what did what did that guy's burial look
[73:56] like?
[73:57] >> I mean,
[73:58] >> well, it's been like 6,000 years, right?
[74:00] Or ancient Egypt is 6,000 years ago
[74:03] >> at least.
[74:04] >> At least
[74:04] >> there's a lot of real weird stuff when
[74:07] it comes to that. Real weird, you know.
[74:09] Um, there's also the the actual kings
[74:12] list, what they the Zeppi kings list in
[74:15] in Egypt that it's super weird because
[74:18] it goes back 30 plus thousand years and
[74:21] they want to talk about that as if it's
[74:22] myth and then it gets to a certain age
[74:24] where it's agreed upon that this is the
[74:27] the time in which these dynasties
[74:29] existed that people accept. And so this
[74:32] is very it's very weird stuff and you I
[74:34] think you have to really understand
[74:36] hieroglyphs to be able to even comment
[74:38] on it. So, I'm not going to. But one of
[74:39] the weird things about it is the ages of
[74:42] the older people. The people from 30
[74:44] plus thousand years ago, they're like
[74:47] living 200,000 years, 50,000 years. It's
[74:50] very odd. They reign for a long time.
[74:52] And that aligns with the Samrian kings
[74:56] list, too, which is also super [ __ ]
[74:58] strange. The Sumerian kings list has the
[75:01] same sort of properties where you have
[75:03] accepted historical figures that are
[75:06] later that live a normal lifespan, but
[75:09] then when you go way way back, you have
[75:11] kings that are ruling for 35,000 years.
[75:15] >> Isn't it the same in the Bible where
[75:16] it's all like way extended? And so,
[75:18] isn't is that maybe just a like a
[75:22] language thing or like a calculation?
[75:24] >> It's probably a bunch of things, right?
[75:25] the the real problem is you have uh
[75:28] cuniform right so you have the ancient
[75:30] Samrian writing so there's not like a
[75:33] language issue then because you have
[75:35] them detailing the ages of the people
[75:37] that are historically accurate where we
[75:39] know that they existed the real problem
[75:42] is like what were they talking like in
[75:45] the Bible like when Noah was 600 years
[75:47] old okay what is a year to you like what
[75:49] does that mean right is it every is
[75:51] every season a year is it an actual
[75:54] calendar here. Do you have a Gregorian
[75:56] calendar? Like what are you what are you
[75:58] using?
[75:59] >> Cuz they used to use a different
[76:00] calendar entirely in ancient history
[76:02] used to use a 13 lunar cycle calendar.
[76:06] So it was a 13-month calendar. It was a
[76:09] 28 day calendar, which is 364 days. So
[76:13] they would have to have a leap year
[76:14] every now and then. But when you think
[76:16] about that, that actually kind of makes
[76:17] more sense because that really does
[76:19] align with the cycles. But somewhere
[76:21] along the line, they decided to make it
[76:23] 12 months. And some months are 31 days
[76:25] and some months are 28 days. Like what?
[76:28] Like what what happened here? Like what?
[76:31] So it's like what do you mean when you
[76:32] say he's 600 years old? You know, did
[76:35] you just mean he's old as [ __ ] You see
[76:37] Noah like that dude's like a [ __ ]
[76:38] million years old. Like like how old's
[76:40] my dad? My dad's 150,000 years old
[76:43] >> and and he [ __ ] hates this. You know,
[76:45] like you know what I mean? Like people
[76:47] talk in a certain like the whole 72
[76:49] virgins thing, right? You know, when
[76:51] they say you get 72 virgins when you
[76:53] make yourself a martyr, they don't mean
[76:55] the number 72. It's like saying, you
[76:57] know, oh, I got a million friends. It's
[76:59] just a lot. They're just saying a lot.
[77:01] It's like a substitute for a lot.
[77:03] >> You know, one of the interesting things
[77:05] is when when you actually go to Egypt is
[77:07] genuinely how much we don't know about
[77:09] that about about their civilization, the
[77:12] engineering, how they constructed the
[77:14] pyramids. I remember I went to the
[77:16] temple of Abu Simbel. I don't know if
[77:18] you've ever seen this temple. It's huge.
[77:20] It's absolutely massive. And at the
[77:23] there's a certain point in time
[77:25] >> during the day where there is a beam of
[77:27] light that comes into the temple and a
[77:30] lights I think it's at the altar.
[77:32] >> Mhm.
[77:32] >> They So they did that specifically. That
[77:34] was a choice that they made and they
[77:36] designed the temple for that to happen.
[77:39] And you go, well, how did they do that?
[77:40] >> Yeah. It's super sophisticated
[77:42] engineering and um it's also at a scale
[77:46] when when you're dealing with how far
[77:48] they moved the stone,
[77:50] >> how they quarried the stone, what tools
[77:52] they use. There's also really clear
[77:55] evidence of ancient tool use.
[77:57] >> Um and not just tool use, but high-speed
[78:00] drills.
[78:02] Um some sort of uh unknown technology
[78:06] that seems to be able to scoop sections
[78:09] out of rock. Um, it looks like it was
[78:12] moving far quicker than what they would
[78:15] achieve with copper and sand and
[78:17] friction and all the different theories
[78:20] that people have proposed to how they
[78:21] did it. It doesn't make any sense. It
[78:23] doesn't make any sense. And I think it's
[78:25] way older than they think it is. I think
[78:26] it's way way way older. And I think um
[78:29] one of the first uh people to propose
[78:31] that was Dr. Robert Shock from Boston
[78:34] University. He's a geologist and he
[78:37] looked at the weathering of the the
[78:41] temple where the sphinx is carved out of
[78:44] and he said this is water erosion like
[78:48] thousands of years of water erosion has
[78:50] led to these deep fissures on the sides
[78:52] of these walls. And then the furthest
[78:55] back you get where you have rainfall
[78:58] like heavy rainfall in the Nile Valley,
[78:59] you got to go like 9,000 years. So
[79:02] that's 9,000 years and then you have to
[79:04] deal with thousands of years of rainfall
[79:06] to achieve that. So when was it actually
[79:08] built? It might be 10,000 years old,
[79:10] might be 12,000 years old. It also might
[79:13] be newer than some of the other stuff
[79:14] that's there, which is even crazier. And
[79:16] then you have the stuff that's
[79:17] underground and you go, "Hey, like
[79:20] what?" like the the the things that they
[79:23] know about like the labyrinths that they
[79:25] they've discovered that there these that
[79:27] Herodotus wrote about that these
[79:29] enormous labyrinths that he said was
[79:31] greater than the spectacle of Giza like
[79:33] greater than the pyramids he said
[79:35] underground was even more preposterous
[79:37] >> you know and going back to our religious
[79:39] conversation I never knew this so I went
[79:41] to an exhibition at the British Museum
[79:43] where they were talking about the
[79:44] ancient Greek Empire took over the
[79:46] ancient Egyptian Empire and there was a
[79:49] fusion of the two and What they had at
[79:51] one point was the Greeks who were living
[79:53] in Egypt worshiping their gods and the
[79:55] Egyptians worshiping their gods and the
[79:58] elites then turned around and went, "You
[80:01] know what? We've got a major problem
[80:02] here. If we don't actually do something
[80:05] to help bind society together, we're
[80:07] going to have a civil war." So, they
[80:09] artificially created gods that both
[80:12] sections could worship.
[80:14] >> Which gods? I can't remember the name of
[80:16] the gods, but um
[80:18] >> they've made up some gods and
[80:19] everybody's like, "Oh,
[80:21] >> yeah.
[80:21] >> Thank god you found the bridge,
[80:23] >> you know, and it's a kind of a genius
[80:25] like solution cuz you could still
[80:26] worship your Greek gods. They could
[80:28] still worship their Egyptian gods, but
[80:30] there was a gods in the middle that
[80:31] everyone could worship."
[80:32] >> Well, that's a age-old tactic, right?
[80:35] >> I mean, this is sort of how Constantine
[80:38] pushed Christianity through Rome,
[80:40] >> you know? It's like got to bring
[80:42] everybody on the same page. This is
[80:44] people have always done this. Whereas
[80:45] the Mongols had a totally different
[80:47] approach. Genghaskhan said, "I don't
[80:48] give a [ __ ] what your religion is. Come
[80:50] on board.
[80:51] >> Just pay taxes and don't [ __ ] around.
[80:52] >> Pay taxes. Don't [ __ ] around. Let's kill
[80:54] folks."
[80:57] >> He didn't care what you believed in. He
[81:00] didn't give a [ __ ]
[81:00] >> Very tolerant. Genghaskhan.
[81:02] >> Yes. Very tolerant. It's It's really
[81:04] interesting. Dan Carlin had this great
[81:06] take on him where he was he was saying
[81:10] that if you historians today talk about
[81:13] Genghaskhan as like Genghaskhan there
[81:15] was a lot of positive aspects to his
[81:17] empire and one of the things that he
[81:18] opened up trade to the east
[81:20] >> like right also killed 10% of the
[81:25] population like it's kind of crazy that
[81:27] one of the biggest mass murderers in the
[81:30] history of the human race documented is
[81:32] also thought about in the positive
[81:34] impacts that he had on civilization.
[81:37] >> Well, it's funny. I took my dad to
[81:38] Isbekistan because my dad would grew up
[81:40] in Isbekistan and I lived in Isbekistan
[81:42] for four years. So, we did like a father
[81:43] and son trip there. When you get to
[81:45] Beckistan, you get to Tash Tash Kent.
[81:48] Right in the heart of the city, there's
[81:49] this giant statue of Tamilain Tim. He
[81:53] see most people don't even know who the
[81:55] guy was. He was basically like a mini
[81:57] Gangghis Khan.
[81:58] >> And they c they're not decolonializing
[82:00] that [ __ ] They're like, "This is what
[82:03] this is our boy, you know." Uh, and by
[82:07] the way, that dude, he was as vicious.
[82:09] And his empire stretched as far as
[82:11] Constantinople on the one side to China
[82:14] to Russia to India at one point. It just
[82:17] didn't last as long because he was a
[82:19] badass and most of his descendants were
[82:21] not. But he controlled this giant swave
[82:24] of the of the of the Central Asia in
[82:26] particular. And uh in Samarand they
[82:29] still have his tomb that the tomb is
[82:32] there. And there's a story I I don't
[82:34] know if I told you this before. Do you
[82:35] remember about the the Soviet the German
[82:38] invasion of the Soviet Union? Did I tell
[82:39] you this before?
[82:40] >> Maybe.
[82:41] >> Um basically uh Soviet archaeologists
[82:44] were opening about to open this tomb and
[82:47] all the locals were like don't don't
[82:48] touch it. Don't touch it cuz on the tomb
[82:50] it said whoever opens this tomb will
[82:53] unleash a conqueror greater than I. They
[82:56] opened it and the next day Hitler
[82:58] invaded Soviet Russia.
[83:00] >> Whoa.
[83:02] The next day.
[83:04] >> The next day.
[83:05] >> I think you did tell me this.
[83:06] >> Yeah, I probably did.
[83:07] >> That's crazy.
[83:07] >> June 22nd, 1941, Operation Barbarasa.
[83:11] Here's the interesting bit as well.
[83:13] >> The Battle of Stalenrad
[83:15] was the turning point in the war. So,
[83:18] Soviet Union, I don't know if you
[83:19] remember this, but the Soviet Union was
[83:21] basically getting its ass kicked for the
[83:23] first uh year and a half of the war. Uh
[83:26] absolutely steamrolled. Million men
[83:28] armies surrendering on mass. The Germans
[83:30] were kicking ass. They got as far as the
[83:33] gates of Moscow. If you go to Moscow,
[83:35] there's these three giant tank traps
[83:36] outside. That's how close the Germans
[83:39] came. And a lot of historians actually
[83:41] argue that if Hitler had taken Moscow,
[83:43] which he was very capable of doing if he
[83:45] if he didn't make mistakes, that would
[83:47] have been it because Stalin stayed in
[83:49] Moscow. And so Stalin would have been
[83:51] captured, probably killed, and the
[83:53] Soviet Union would have lost the war.
[83:54] Anyway, fast forward to the Battle of
[83:56] Stalingrad.
[83:58] The archaeologist eventually thought,
[84:00] you know what, we've dug this up. We
[84:01] should have opened it. And they gave him
[84:03] a proper Islamic burial, put him back in
[84:06] the tomb, covered everything up and the
[84:08] next day that was the pivotal day in the
[84:10] battle of Stalenrad. And from then on,
[84:12] the Soviet Union basically pushed
[84:15] forward and won the war.
[84:16] >> Simulation theory,
[84:17] >> right? In effect,
[84:18] >> it's insane, man. But I I you know what,
[84:20] Beckistan, you talk about spreading
[84:22] trade and stuff. It was that part of the
[84:25] world at that time. If you go there
[84:27] today, I loved going there as a tourist
[84:29] because it's kind of like the Muslim
[84:30] Rome. It's just this like incredibly
[84:32] beautiful testament to the greatness of
[84:34] their civilization at one point. Um
[84:36] these beautiful madrasas, beautiful
[84:39] mosques, gigantic. Absolutely gigantic.
[84:42] People are really friendly. Food is
[84:44] amazing. It was a really cool place to
[84:46] go. I really liked going back there.
[84:48] >> Well, I think one of the things that set
[84:49] back the Islamic world hu in a huge way
[84:53] was Genghaskhan invading Iraq.
[84:56] >> How so? I
[84:56] >> when he invaded Well, I don't even think
[84:58] it was Iraq back then. What was it?
[85:00] Mesopotamia. Yeah. So
[85:02] >> Baghdad, they took the Mongols took
[85:05] Baghdad and the the river flowed red
[85:08] with blood. The way they describe it,
[85:10] they just slaughtered everybody. They
[85:12] they they knocked civilizations back to
[85:14] the stone age. There's a famous story
[85:17] that Dan Carlin talks about. It's one of
[85:19] the scariest ones of the uh Shaw of
[85:22] Corisma sent uh an envoy to go to visit
[85:25] Jin, China. And as he's making his way
[85:28] to Jin, China, they see what they think
[85:30] is a snowcapped mountain in the distance
[85:33] that as they get closer, it turns out to
[85:35] be a pile of bones and that Genghaskhan
[85:38] had arrived before they got there and
[85:40] killed everyone in the town, everyone in
[85:43] in the city and stacked their bones on
[85:45] over a million people stacked their
[85:47] bones on top of each other.
[85:49] >> Wow. And then they had abandoned their
[85:51] carts along the way because the the
[85:53] roads had become so degraded from
[85:56] rotting human flesh. So rotting human
[85:59] flesh had turned everything into mud. So
[86:00] there were so many dead rotting bodies
[86:03] in the road that they couldn't get their
[86:05] carts through. They couldn't get the
[86:08] wheels to turn through the sludge of
[86:10] dead humans.
[86:13] >> Maybe not that tolerant then.
[86:15] >> Yeah. Let up trade the West.
[86:19] You know, that's why we love
[86:21] interviewing historians so much on our
[86:23] show because when you talk to
[86:24] historians, you go, "Oh, number one,
[86:26] what we're going through, like people
[86:28] have been going through this since year,
[86:30] do
[86:31] >> you just get to understand so much more,
[86:33] not only about your society, but also
[86:36] about yourself and human nature and who
[86:38] we are as people." Like, you know, we
[86:41] always talk, oh, these are unprecedented
[86:43] times. Nothing like this has happened
[86:44] before. But you go through history and
[86:46] you talk to a historian and like well
[86:48] it's kind of similar to 1823 when you
[86:50] look about it because A B CDE E and F or
[86:52] whatever it may be you're going all
[86:54] right and that that gives there's a
[86:56] calmness that comes from that.
[86:57] >> Yeah. People have always been [ __ ] up
[87:00] like always and it's you know I've
[87:02] talked about this a bunch of times. I
[87:03] apologize if you guys have heard it. Um
[87:05] but I've been reading this I finished it
[87:06] this Alan Watts book called The Age of
[87:08] Insecurity. uh and it's about the 1950s
[87:12] and it it's essentially he's talking
[87:14] about how societyy's changing so quickly
[87:16] because of technology and culture
[87:18] shifting radically and people are so
[87:19] anxious. He's talking about this in
[87:22] 1952, I believe it was, and you read it
[87:25] and it applies totally today and you
[87:27] realize like, oh, there's never been a
[87:28] time where everybody's like, "Life is
[87:30] great." And then we have this nostalgic
[87:32] view back to those days go, "Oh, back in
[87:34] those days when I was a boy, the milkman
[87:37] came and he delivered your milk and
[87:38] everything was beautiful and everybody
[87:40] believed in God and there was no
[87:41] problems." No, there's always been
[87:43] problems. People have always been
[87:44] people. People are messy and sloppy and
[87:46] crazy and they're always going to cause
[87:49] chaos. And as long as there have been
[87:51] people, there have been problems. And
[87:53] this is just a much more aware version
[87:56] of society than ever before. And maybe
[87:59] propagandized and maybe confused because
[88:01] of the internet,
[88:02] >> but also a lot better. I mean, if you
[88:04] look at we can talk about, you know, Gen
[88:08] Z and not as resilient and all of that
[88:09] [ __ ] which is true,
[88:11] >> but also the way we're raising children
[88:12] now. Like when I think about the way my
[88:15] parents and grandparents were raised in
[88:17] the Soviet Union,
[88:18] >> like animals,
[88:19] >> right?
[88:20] >> Right. Right. You know,
[88:22] >> like you you a 5-year-old did something
[88:25] they didn't know not to do. Get a
[88:27] [ __ ] beating for just for that.
[88:28] Right. And that that was normal.
[88:30] >> Yeah.
[88:30] >> Completely normal. And think how we
[88:33] understand a lot more about the impact
[88:34] of [ __ ] like that now.
[88:36] >> And that's why we we don't do it. Um so
[88:39] in the world has improved in so many
[88:41] ways but we are in the age of anxiety
[88:45] and insecurity because I mean you say
[88:47] Francis you know all of this has
[88:49] happened before. I think AI is a
[88:51] different level
[88:53] >> it's a different level of challenge to
[88:55] humanity
[88:55] >> that's going to hypercharge everything.
[88:57] It's it's going to be very very very
[88:59] very weird really soon and maybe sooner
[89:02] than we'd like.
[89:03] >> Yeah. I'm a little concerned um about
[89:07] what might happen post midterm. And one
[89:09] of the rumblings that I'm hearing post
[89:12] is after the midterms, the United States
[89:14] might start attacking Iran again.
[89:18] I don't know if this is true or if this
[89:20] is just speculation, but good lord, I
[89:22] hope it's not true. So, I don't know
[89:24] what it is, but I'm really concerned
[89:26] because this whole Iran thing is like
[89:28] we're at war, but no one talks about it
[89:30] anymore. It's been this like stagnated
[89:32] thing in the media. And what is going on
[89:34] with the straight of Hormoose? Like
[89:36] boats are getting through, but they have
[89:38] to be ushered, you know, they have to be
[89:41] guided by battleships and [ __ ] And like
[89:44] are they fighting off people all the
[89:45] time? I I hear they are I hear people
[89:47] are trying to attack these battleships
[89:49] all the time. So like what what happens
[89:51] after the midterms? Because right if
[89:53] they did it right now, they'd get
[89:54] crushed in the midterms.
[89:55] >> And there's a lot of speculation they're
[89:56] already going to lose in the midterms.
[89:58] So if that if they're waiting until
[90:01] after that's over before they do this,
[90:03] things can get real ugly.
[90:04] >> Well, you got Sorry, go ahead.
[90:06] >> I was going to say, well, you you say
[90:08] that I take that and I raise what's
[90:10] happened in the UK. Uh our defense
[90:14] minister came out in when he was speech.
[90:17] I can't remember the exact context of
[90:19] where the speech was being uh held, but
[90:21] he was talking about how we need to
[90:23] start how British people need to start
[90:25] stockpiling.
[90:27] He did say let's he said three days
[90:29] worth of whatever. But it kind of makes
[90:31] sense because our infrastructure is very
[90:33] vulnerable. Uh we haven't built a lot of
[90:35] the [ __ ] that we should be should have
[90:37] been building because we're very green
[90:38] and all of this other stuff.
[90:39] >> But isn't 3 days the modern version of
[90:41] two weeks to stop the spread.
[90:43] >> Right. Right.
[90:44] >> You know what I mean?
[90:45] >> And um Joe, before we do run, can I have
[90:47] a piss?
[90:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's we'll pause.
[90:48] We'll pause. We'll be right back, ladies
[90:50] and gentlemen.
[90:52] >> Um so where were we? We were on Iran
[90:54] talking about Iran. Uh,
[90:56] >> are we back on air now or not?
[90:58] >> Yeah, we're back on air.
[90:58] >> Okay, cool, cool, cool. Let me just do
[91:00] this.
[91:03] >> Here you go, Matt. Do you want to do
[91:04] that?
[91:04] >> Uh, I've already I'm doing the triangle,
[91:06] I think.
[91:07] >> Okay.
[91:08] >> Nothing like three white guys talking
[91:10] about geopolitics.
[91:14] >> Why' you have to racialize
[91:16] this one?
[91:17] >> That's going to be one of the comments.
[91:18] >> You have to today. You have to today.
[91:20] Today it's very Is that working?
[91:22] >> No, it's I think it's dead. Yeah. I'm
[91:24] filling the sucker up. I'll give you
[91:25] this two two seconds. Um, geopolitics is
[91:29] actually that's not really correct. When
[91:32] I read the original term of geopolitics,
[91:34] it's sort of wildly used to talk about
[91:36] different countries, but it's really
[91:37] about like resources and geology,
[91:41] which makes sense. Like what is the act
[91:44] pull that up? What is the actual
[91:46] original term of geopolitics?
[91:52] I'm pretty sure
[91:55] It's wasn't originally
[91:58] about like how countries get along with
[92:00] each other. I think it was about
[92:01] resources and about like uh
[92:05] you know geo
[92:07] >> I mean you can argue that the resources
[92:09] is how about how countries interact with
[92:11] each other right
[92:11] >> study of how geography right
[92:13] >> such as a country's location borders
[92:15] natural resources and accesses to ocean
[92:18] influences political power.
[92:19] >> See we don't think about it that way we
[92:21] think about it as like the relations
[92:22] between countries. Yeah.
[92:24] >> And actually, I think we we're living in
[92:26] a time where people totally forget that
[92:28] geography very much affects I've got it.
[92:30] Thanks, brother.
[92:31] >> Geography very much affects how
[92:32] countries behave. And
[92:34] >> it's the real thing.
[92:35] >> It's the real thing.
[92:36] >> Why we love Ukraine so much? Does it
[92:38] nothing to do with the fact they're on
[92:39] trillions of dollars in minerals?
[92:41] >> Yeah.
[92:41] >> Nothing.
[92:42] >> Well, and for Russia, the reason they
[92:43] feel so passionate about it is, I think
[92:45] we've talked about this before, 80% of
[92:48] all the [ __ ] that matters in Russia is
[92:50] in the western most 20% of the country.
[92:53] So Russia always tries to expand
[92:55] westwards to expand its buffer zone and
[93:00] that's basically what has historically
[93:01] happened every time they've been strong.
[93:04] So invading Ukraine is a kind of
[93:06] expected thing for them to do as well.
[93:08] But coming back to Iran, I mean the
[93:10] geography of Iran is what this is all
[93:13] about. Uh because it seems like from the
[93:16] conversations we've had with people um
[93:19] the administration got a little carried
[93:21] away here. Uh they
[93:23] >> the American administration, how dare
[93:24] you come to my country and tell us we're
[93:27] doing things wrong. [ __ ]
[93:29] >> I'm not sure about wrong, but um uh the
[93:32] >> Yeah, I think they thought it was going
[93:34] to be like Venezuela.
[93:35] >> That's exactly what they thought.
[93:36] >> This is the same mistake they made from
[93:38] Operation Desert Storm, you know, to
[93:42] when when we went in in the 1990s in
[93:45] Iraq, it was quick and easy. Bang, bang,
[93:47] got it done. Kick some ass. So when the
[93:50] 2000s came around after 9/11 and we went
[93:54] back into Iraq,
[93:56] I don't think anybody expected it was
[93:57] going to be this prolonged [ __ ] show
[93:59] that it became. I think the people
[94:01] supported it because they thought, yeah,
[94:02] well, they're doing it. That's how 9/11
[94:04] happened. Let's go in there and kick
[94:05] some ass. And then it's like, oh my god,
[94:07] we're there 20 years later. What the
[94:09] [ __ ] is this?
[94:10] >> But it's also this idea that you could
[94:12] bring democracy to Iraq. You know, a
[94:14] country that has never had democracy
[94:16] that doesn't understand it. Yeah.
[94:20] U
[94:23] democracy.
[94:27] Hey guys, we got this magic system.
[94:28] Everyone's going to go, "Yeah, that's
[94:30] great." And then what? We're going to
[94:31] They're all going to live in paradise.
[94:33] >> And definitely there won't be any
[94:34] corruption. That's really important.
[94:36] When a country comes in and [ __ ]
[94:38] hangs your leader on television, you
[94:40] know, afterwards, everybody's cool.
[94:43] >> Well, this is the interesting thing with
[94:44] with with Iran, right? because there
[94:48] were people so right last time we were
[94:50] here it was right around the time that
[94:51] the war started.
[94:52] >> Yeah.
[94:53] >> And then we had this guy called Robert
[94:55] Pipe on the show. I don't know if you've
[94:56] seen his stuff. He's a he's a military
[95:00] air power analyst and he basically said
[95:03] exactly how it would going to how it was
[95:04] going to go.
[95:05] >> This is before the invasion.
[95:07] >> Yeah. Yeah. And we just we we we just
[95:10] had him on just now to talk about it and
[95:12] u he he calls it the escalation trap and
[95:14] he talks about how effectively America
[95:17] trapped itself in this situation
[95:19] particularly with Austral.
[95:21] And actually his argument is now look
[95:23] I'm not I can't judge whether it's true
[95:25] or false but so far everything he said
[95:27] to us worked out is this is put Iran on
[95:30] the path to become a regional hegeimon.
[95:33] They are now going to be in a position
[95:35] where they're way more powerful than
[95:36] they were before this conflict started.
[95:38] >> How so?
[95:39] >> Because they are they have been given
[95:41] the legitimacy to block the straight off
[95:43] from us
[95:44] >> and they are now becoming more powerful
[95:47] against Saudi Arabia, the UAE who are
[95:49] their primary opponents and also Israel.
[95:52] >> Uh they control a lot of the oil uh and
[95:55] where that goes and the Houthies as
[95:57] well. The problem is the Saudis have
[95:58] this pipeline that goes to the Red Sea.
[96:00] So the idea is you don't need the strap
[96:02] from you, you can go around it, but the
[96:03] Houthies are bombing the [ __ ] out of
[96:04] that pipeline right now.
[96:07] >> Uh so it's um it's a trap. It it was a
[96:11] trap according to his analysis and
[96:14] that's why coming back to your point,
[96:16] the war isn't over and you have to find
[96:19] a way to resolve it. And his argument
[96:21] was you got to get out of this as
[96:24] quickly as possible
[96:26] or it's going to get worse and worse and
[96:28] worse and worse. And you see that now
[96:30] where Iran is in a position we they've
[96:32] basically got a like they've got uh the
[96:34] global economy in a rear naked choke.
[96:37] That's that's what that's why gas prices
[96:39] are what they are. That's what diesel
[96:40] prices are what they are. It's why you
[96:42] know Trump talks about oh you know
[96:44] Zilinski is it's not Zilinski bombing
[96:46] Russian refineries that's causing the
[96:48] the diesel price to get to this point.
[96:51] The war in in Ukraine's been going on
[96:53] for 4 years. But it the price started
[96:55] really going up when the war in Iran
[96:57] started. And this is where all these
[96:59] problems are coming from. And Iran can
[97:01] do this as long as they want. It hurts
[97:03] them too. But his argument is they can
[97:05] carry on doing this because for them
[97:07] it's about survival. It's like Russia in
[97:11] 1941. You're taking casualties, millions
[97:14] of people being captured. But you're for
[97:16] you this is about survival. You know
[97:19] Trump's got the midterms to worry about.
[97:21] You know after the midterms he's not
[97:23] going to have the House, may not have
[97:24] the Senate. He's going to be up to his
[97:26] eyeballs in investigations,
[97:28] congressional committees, impeachment
[97:30] proceed, all of that [ __ ]
[97:32] >> So, this war has now put America in a
[97:36] weaker position or its leaders, maybe
[97:37] not America, but its leaders in a weaker
[97:39] position. That means you've got more
[97:40] leverage. And you can see in the
[97:43] rhetoric now with, like I said, the
[97:45] Zilinski thing and all the rest of it,
[97:46] there's a lot of flailing about. There's
[97:48] a lot of flailing about trying
[97:50] desperately to get gas prices down. And
[97:52] Iran knows this. They're not dumb.
[97:54] They're watching this and going, "Every
[97:56] day that this goes on, we've got more
[97:57] leverage."
[97:59] >> And it's in their interest to carry on
[98:02] that until they get the deal they want,
[98:04] which is get American bases out of the
[98:06] Middle East entirely.
[98:08] >> Well, they've already [ __ ] up the
[98:09] American bases in the Middle East to a
[98:11] point where it's going to take decades
[98:12] to fix them, right?
[98:13] >> Is that right?
[98:14] >> So, we were reading I don't know what do
[98:16] I know, but they have bombed bases where
[98:21] American troops have. It's more than 20
[98:22] of them. We we pulled it up the number
[98:24] the other day. It was a it's a large
[98:26] number and you got to think like how
[98:27] much destruction like we're we're not
[98:30] seeing videos where they're detailing
[98:32] all the different things that happened.
[98:33] And from what I hear it's pretty
[98:35] extensive. And the problem with this
[98:37] these this asymmetrical warfare, the
[98:40] problem with drone bombing, the problem
[98:42] with all this stuff is that it's like
[98:45] regular counter measures don't seem to
[98:48] work. You know, like what they figured
[98:51] out in Ukraine where they're using the
[98:52] monofilament line to control these
[98:54] drones, so you can't even use anti-
[98:55] drone weapons,
[98:57] it's like you're almost exposed. And so
[99:01] if you have an air base and like the
[99:04] attack that the Ukrainians did on the
[99:05] Russians where they blew up all those
[99:06] planes,
[99:07] >> like that's kind of wild that you can go
[99:10] in there and do billions of dollars
[99:11] worth of damage in one night. It's like
[99:13] this is a different world we're living
[99:15] in. We're not living in a world where
[99:16] just you have to launch missiles. They
[99:18] see the missiles coming, they shoot them
[99:20] out of the sky with the Iron Dome.
[99:21] That's not the It's not the same thing
[99:23] anymore. Drone technology has changed
[99:25] everything.
[99:26] >> One of the things that I love about our
[99:28] job is that we get to meet so many
[99:30] interesting people either because
[99:31] they've been on the show or just because
[99:33] their friends are friends. I was talking
[99:35] to an ex- special forces guy and I said
[99:38] to him, "Could we put I said, "I don't
[99:40] agree with this, but could we put boots
[99:41] on the ground in Iran?" And he just
[99:43] laughed. He went, "Let's take all the
[99:46] politics out of it." He goes, "Nobody
[99:48] would agree to that because the terrain
[99:50] is so mountainous. How are you going to
[99:53] achieve that? It's it's impossible.
[99:55] You're not going to do that." And he and
[99:57] he also said to me, I think Robert Pope
[99:59] echoed this, "There has never been a
[100:01] regime change achieved solely through
[100:04] air strikes. It doesn't happen." So you
[100:07] go, "Well,
[100:10] what how is this going to evolve? How is
[100:12] this going to actually evolve? Does does
[100:15] anybody know? Is this just vibes? Is
[100:17] there a bigger plan? What's going to
[100:19] happen? Because
[100:20] >> what do you mean by is it just vibes?
[100:22] >> Is it by vibes is like did they actually
[100:24] think this through? Did they think if
[100:27] this actually happened, A could happen,
[100:29] B could happen, C could happen? And if A
[100:32] could happen, what's our strategy for A?
[100:33] If B could happen, what's our strategy
[100:35] for B? If C could happen, what's or or
[100:38] were they just like basically high off
[100:40] Venezuela and they were like, hey, we
[100:42] smashed Maduro. Let's go in. Well, it's
[100:45] also how much does Trump know about how
[100:48] this all could possibly play out if they
[100:50] started bombing Iran and what was he
[100:53] told
[100:54] >> and what did he how did he manage the
[100:56] information that he got or how did the
[100:58] people get access to him or not get
[101:01] access to him because that's also part
[101:03] of this conversation. The same with this
[101:05] is why Vladimir Putin is 4 years deep
[101:08] into a three-day mil special military
[101:10] operation in Ukraine
[101:11] >> cuz he was told you're going to go in
[101:13] there. We're going to get Zilinski out.
[101:15] We're going to land paratroopers in
[101:17] hostel. Uh land all our [ __ ]
[101:20] Everybody's and the people are going to
[101:22] rise up and and support us, which is
[101:23] exactly what they said about Iran, by
[101:25] the way, right? Take out the leader, the
[101:26] people will rise up, take over and
[101:28] whatever. Um and it seems to be that
[101:31] that's not how it works. And quite often
[101:33] you get these situations from what we
[101:36] are told where not all of the
[101:38] information is presented equally. There
[101:41] is not the process of deliberation that
[101:42] I think we'd all hope
[101:44] >> there is for decisions of this
[101:46] magnitude.
[101:47] >> It's more like Francis said, Venezuela
[101:49] event went very well.
[101:51] >> We're on a roll. What's next? M
[101:55] >> you know and that sounds shocking and
[101:57] simplistic and whatever but that is
[101:59] literally what people we have spoken to
[102:01] who who are close to to the decision-m
[102:04] process have told us.
[102:06] >> Well, it's also very enticing if you're
[102:08] a guy who wants to leave his mark on
[102:09] history to be the guy who took down the
[102:11] evil Iranian regime.
[102:13] >> You know, we took down Venezuela, you
[102:16] know, and then you you can go in there
[102:17] and have that too as your list of
[102:19] accomplishments. And if someone's
[102:21] blowing enough smoke up your ass and if
[102:23] you believe it, and we all know that
[102:26] Israel tried to get a bunch of different
[102:30] presidents to try to do the same thing.
[102:32] >> I mean, they tried to do it with the
[102:33] Obama administration. They tried to do a
[102:35] lot of administrations. Like, why don't
[102:37] we do this? And they were like, h, I
[102:39] don't like it.
[102:40] >> Which which is for me, that's why the
[102:42] ultimate responsibility rests with the
[102:44] people who who pull the trigger, right?
[102:46] Cuz everyone's going to present you with
[102:48] all kinds of information. Um,
[102:50] >> and it's within, you know, Israel's
[102:52] interest to to do it. I mean, they they
[102:54] would like us to do that.
[102:56] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think that's
[102:57] true. And I think that's where there's a
[102:59] divergence between the foreign policy
[103:01] interest of Israel and the foreign
[103:02] policy interest of the United States and
[103:04] the world, right? And everybody I
[103:07] understand why different countries
[103:08] pursue their own interest, but it's the
[103:10] job of the American presidential
[103:11] administration to do what's right for
[103:13] America.
[103:14] >> Yeah. How how crazy. What a wild
[103:16] thought.
[103:17] >> Yeah. Um, so it's complicated, but it
[103:20] it's having a massive uh impact
[103:23] economically across the world. Uh, and
[103:25] as bad as it is in the US, you are
[103:27] actually way more insulated from the
[103:29] consequences of this war than we are in
[103:30] the rest of the world. In Europe, uh, I
[103:33] have friends who are like farmers in
[103:34] Australia.
[103:36] They are really struggling to get
[103:38] diesel,
[103:40] >> you know, and same with, you know, the
[103:43] the European situation. Uh most
[103:46] countries have a lot of supply for like
[103:48] a year's worth. The UK has two months
[103:49] worth of diesel supply.
[103:51] >> Oh god.
[103:51] >> Yeah. So it's it's been a a big problem.
[103:54] And the reason you say they might strike
[103:57] again is cuz what else do you do?
[103:59] >> What?
[104:00] >> Right. Do you do you just let it keep
[104:02] stagnating?
[104:03] >> Well,
[104:04] >> like what do you do? Well, you or you
[104:06] have to I mean I thought the best way
[104:09] out here was for Trump to do what Trump
[104:11] does, which is to sell
[104:15] to sell a deal that he did with Iran.
[104:17] And that deal probably would have been
[104:18] worse than what was in place before cuz
[104:21] you just bomb the [ __ ] out of their
[104:22] country. They're angry, a little bit
[104:24] unhappy about that. But you do a deal
[104:26] with them and then you just go, "This is
[104:27] the greatest deal ever, you know."
[104:28] >> Right. Right. Right. Yeah. That would be
[104:30] nice.
[104:30] >> Yeah.
[104:31] >> Trump, if you're listening,
[104:33] >> that's the move. just say you won. We'll
[104:35] all we'll all go with you. We just don't
[104:36] want this to escalate.
[104:37] >> Yeah.
[104:38] >> You know, and then the the narrative is
[104:39] always they can't we can't allow Iran to
[104:42] have a nuclear weapon, which is okay. I
[104:44] agree with that. Doesn't seem like it'd
[104:46] be a good idea to have a
[104:49] a regime that kills their own citizens
[104:51] if they protest. It doesn't seem like
[104:53] they would be the kind of people that
[104:54] you would want to be able to just kill
[104:56] enormous groups of people with one
[104:58] missile. And that's really the question
[105:00] because I understand that logic which is
[105:02] why I understand the Israeli position
[105:03] which is like these guys want to kill
[105:05] us. We can't have them have a nuclear
[105:07] weapon. And I understand a lot of
[105:08] Americans would also agree with that.
[105:10] >> Of course
[105:11] >> the question is though was this the
[105:13] right strategy to achieve that outcome.
[105:15] >> Also was the question the question is
[105:17] were they really capable of doing that
[105:19] and were they they definitely were um
[105:22] enriching uranium past the point they
[105:24] needed for energy.
[105:25] >> Yeah.
[105:25] >> Right. but they weren't at the point
[105:27] where they needed it for nuclear
[105:28] weapons. And then converting it into
[105:31] nuclear weapons is a completely
[105:32] different ballgame. And Scott Horton
[105:34] laid that out on my podcast and I'll
[105:35] butcher it if I try to repeat it,
[105:37] >> but it was pretty complex and pretty and
[105:39] and he was pretty clear that they were
[105:41] nowhere near doing that.
[105:43] >> Also, hadn't the Ayatollah issued like a
[105:46] fatwa against the construction of
[105:48] nuclear weapons?
[105:50] >> Yeah, but the question is,
[105:51] >> what was that like?
[105:52] >> Well, right, how much do you trust the
[105:54] Ayatollah? I mean, stereotypically
[105:56] speaking, they don't seem to be entirely
[105:58] consistent what they say. My
[105:59] understanding is different on the
[106:00] nuclear weapons.
[106:01] >> I mean, with some things they are
[106:04] >> Yeah. beheading you for dancing.
[106:07] >> He you know,
[106:08] >> I'm very consistent on that. Uh but uh
[106:11] my understanding on on how easy it is to
[106:13] get I remember talking to my granddad
[106:15] who was an astrophysicist about this
[106:16] like it's not that hard to get from
[106:18] you've got enriched material to you've
[106:20] got a nuclear weapon. It doesn't take
[106:21] that long in today's world. The first
[106:24] one that took a lot of effort with the
[106:26] Manhattan project, but now that
[106:27] everybody knows how to do it.
[106:28] >> Well, this is why India and Pakistan got
[106:30] nuclear weapons.
[106:31] >> Right.
[106:32] >> Right. It wasn't they we thought that
[106:34] you'd have nuclear power. Great. And
[106:36] they're like, "Look what we figured
[106:37] out."
[106:37] >> Yeah. Miraculously. So, I totally
[106:40] understand the concern. I haven't heard
[106:43] a great explanation of how this conflict
[106:47] was supposed to achieve that. This is
[106:49] why the 12-day war made perfect sense to
[106:51] me. like you bomb their nuclear
[106:52] facilities, you see if you get it,
[106:54] that's the percentage play, right?
[106:56] >> Right.
[106:57] >> But this just I it doesn't seem I I no
[107:00] one ever explained how one would lead to
[107:03] the other,
[107:04] >> right?
[107:04] >> How doing this conflict this way would
[107:07] achieve non-nuclear run. In fact, it
[107:11] seems to me now inevitably if you are
[107:13] run, you you do everything you can to
[107:16] survive and then you do everything you
[107:18] possibly can to get a nuke as quickly as
[107:20] possible so that this can never happen
[107:22] again.
[107:23] >> Right.
[107:24] >> Yes.
[107:24] >> If you were Iran, that's what you would
[107:26] do.
[107:26] >> Yes.
[107:27] >> So, there's been a miscalculation it
[107:30] feels like to me here. And I'm not sure
[107:32] that when people say, "Well, you got to
[107:34] deal with Iran's nuclear threat." I
[107:37] agree with them. I'm just not sure this
[107:39] was the right way to do it. And it
[107:42] became very quickly apparent to us early
[107:44] on in this conflict that that was gonna
[107:46] >> What do you think could have been the
[107:47] right way to do it?
[107:49] >> If you ask Robert Pape, he says
[107:51] something like you've got to have
[107:53] regional balancing. So you got to
[107:55] strengthen Saudi Arabia and the UAE so
[107:57] there's some kind of balance in the
[107:58] region and no one wants to escalate the
[108:01] whole region to nuclear level. I don't
[108:03] know enough to say whether that's right
[108:04] or wrong. And I think that's the real
[108:06] big question here is how how are you
[108:09] supposed to get Iran to not have nuclear
[108:11] weapons? And maybe the truth here is
[108:12] Joe,
[108:15] once this thing has been invented,
[108:17] eventually people are going to get it.
[108:19] You know, Iran is not they're not some
[108:21] shitty little country in the middle of
[108:22] nowhere. It's a giant country which has
[108:24] control over a huge amount of its own
[108:26] natural resources but also then the the
[108:28] one of the biggest arteries in the world
[108:30] for energy and fertilizer and gas and
[108:32] plastic and all of that stuff.
[108:35] You know maybe the reality here is that
[108:38] you there's no way that you can maybe
[108:40] extend it, you can do deals, but
[108:43] ultimately they they are going to get
[108:44] them and that that's a terrible outcome.
[108:46] I but I haven't heard anyone
[108:48] convincingly explain how you avoid that.
[108:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and one of the things
[108:53] that's interesting as well is that you
[108:55] look at countries that have had an
[108:56] empire, you know, they still have this
[108:59] sense of pride and honor in themselves.
[109:02] Like you look at the Russians, you know,
[109:03] the Russians have had a great empire.
[109:05] You look at the Persians. I mean, you
[109:07] don't need to be historian to look and
[109:09] you know, the the Persian Empire was
[109:11] once very very powerful. So there is
[109:14] still something in their psyche where if
[109:16] they feel that they're being pushed
[109:18] around, it's not like a smaller country,
[109:20] but they there's still how dare you.
[109:22] This is the Persian Empire. This is
[109:23] where we came from. This is who we are,
[109:25] and we are going to fight you.
[109:26] >> Yeah, it's 90 million people. It's a
[109:28] bigger country than Britain.
[109:30] >> That's crazy.
[109:31] >> Our empire was speak.
[109:35] >> Yeah, it's it's disturbing to think that
[109:38] this could pop off after the midterms.
[109:41] It really is. It it's been bothering me
[109:43] a lot the last few days.
[109:44] >> Why does it bother you so much, Joe?
[109:46] >> Cuz I have a feeling that this uh
[109:48] preparing for uh you know, having food
[109:51] and water is there's a real concern. I
[109:53] have a feeling there's a real concern.
[109:55] And um if the power grid does get
[109:58] attacked and if we if cities do get
[109:59] bombed, it could get really [ __ ]
[110:02] crazy in this country.
[110:04] >> I don't think Iran is in a position to
[110:06] do to bomb America, though. I think
[110:08] that's probably
[110:09] >> well cyber attacks with the grid, but um
[110:13] sleeper cells like we we really have no
[110:15] idea how many people came in over the
[110:17] last four years and how many of them are
[110:20] in a terrorist cell and it's this is not
[110:23] right-wing speculation. You're just
[110:25] dealing with a number that is it's so
[110:27] massive, right? So the lowend number is
[110:30] 10 million. That's the low end
[110:32] >> in four years, right?
[110:33] >> In four years. And so some Republicans
[110:36] think the high end is over 20. We don't
[110:39] know. It's just pure speculation.
[110:41] There's the ones that they've counted.
[110:43] Secret Service cites heightened threat
[110:45] environment as air defense systems
[110:47] deployed at Mara Lago and airport. This
[110:49] today,
[110:50] >> yeah,
[110:50] >> surfacetoair missile systems have been
[110:52] deployed at Mara Lago and Donald Trump
[110:55] International Airport at the request of
[110:57] the US Secret Service. I didn't even
[110:59] know there was a Donald Trump
[111:00] International Airport. the spokesperson
[111:02] said the agency is operating in a
[111:04] heightened threat environment. Right.
[111:06] So, I think something's about to go down
[111:09] >> and um
[111:10] >> I mean all the the when you go super
[111:13] kooky, tighten up that tinfoil hat,
[111:16] people think that it's a false flag and
[111:18] that we, you know, this is so we will
[111:20] support this and that and I don't know,
[111:22] but uh I do know that if you keep
[111:25] [ __ ] around, one day you find out.
[111:27] And it seems like we've been [ __ ]
[111:28] around and it seems like they're telling
[111:31] us, hey, you might might want to store
[111:32] some food in case we have to find out.
[111:35] >> What's fascinating to me is how because
[111:37] we we don't live in the US, so we come
[111:39] here a couple of times a year. We see
[111:40] you. We do a bunch of interviews. I
[111:43] remember being here two years ago on the
[111:46] eve of the presidential election and
[111:48] everybody in Austin was like, "You you
[111:51] guys are going to LA next park. No, no,
[111:53] there's going to be riots. It's going to
[111:54] be crazy. Do what you do." And we get
[111:56] there, the election happens, and it was
[111:59] so overwhelming because it was the
[112:01] presidency, the house, the senate, the
[112:04] college, the electoral college, the
[112:06] popular vote.
[112:07] >> There was nothing in LA. Everybody was
[112:09] chill because like America voted for
[112:11] this. Like that's that's what America
[112:13] did.
[112:13] >> Well, people were very upset. But I
[112:15] think one of the real issues in America
[112:17] when it comes to protests is they're
[112:18] organized and paid for.
[112:20] >> Yeah.
[112:21] >> No question. And there there was nothing
[112:23] to be gained by tearing up Los Angeles
[112:26] after the presidential election.
[112:28] >> That's a good point.
[112:29] >> There listen where's the protests about
[112:33] us bombing Iran?
[112:37] >> Where are those? If if protests are
[112:39] organic, most people are very unhappy
[112:41] with us going into Iran. But where are
[112:43] the protests?
[112:44] >> Well, there's no one organizing and
[112:46] paying for those protests, so they don't
[112:48] exist.
[112:49] >> That's interesting. Yeah,
[112:51] >> that that's I hadn't thought about that
[112:52] is actually legitimately a very good
[112:54] point.
[112:54] >> It's so hard for people on the left to
[112:56] accept this and and I have friends that
[112:58] are very left and I I talked to them
[113:01] about paid protesters and they push back
[113:02] and I'm like, "Listen, man, you just got
[113:04] to understand when you see those vans
[113:06] pull up and you see those signs come out
[113:07] and those signs are already printed out
[113:09] in advance and this is about an event
[113:11] that just happened 24 hours ago. What's
[113:13] the odds that someone's not paying for
[113:16] all this?" And then when you talk to
[113:17] people that actually say they are paid
[113:19] to protest. Yeah.
[113:21] >> And there's people that show up at every
[113:23] protest and those people make a living
[113:26] protesting a
[113:26] >> career now.
[113:27] >> This is a career. This is a real job. If
[113:30] you're a nerd dwell and you're also like
[113:33] you know sort of peripherally political
[113:35] like yeah man [ __ ] the fascist like you
[113:37] can you don't have to work. You could
[113:39] just go to protest and scream and yell
[113:40] and they give you a sign and now you
[113:42] have a job
[113:43] >> and it's a great place to meet girls
[113:45] which I imagine.
[113:46] >> Oh bet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Not not for
[113:48] the long term.
[113:49] >> I actually saw A LADY I SAW there going
[113:52] to be a little unstable.
[113:53] >> If you're into mental instability who
[113:55] isn't but what is this Jamie?
[113:59] >> I just Googled protests about it and
[114:00] there was an article in Reuters about
[114:02] >> about the bombing in Iran.
[114:03] >> Yeah. Lots of protests. Lots of people
[114:05] died in other countries about it.
[114:06] >> Right. But in America
[114:07] >> Yeah. 145 different cities,
[114:09] >> right? What kind of demonstrations they
[114:10] had? I didn't see any of them. I didn't
[114:12] certainly didn't see them on the news.
[114:14] >> No.
[114:14] >> Were they small demonstrations? Like how
[114:17] many people were in these
[114:18] demonstrations?
[114:18] >> Oh, you had a map there, Jamie. Would
[114:20] you mind scrolling back up?
[114:21] >> Well, there's there's maps on this about
[114:22] a bunch of stuff and all right about
[114:25] >> But it's interesting. Okay, so there's
[114:27] ones with big signs that were printed
[114:30] out in advance clearly. Like look at all
[114:32] those signs all uniform. Like who got
[114:34] who made the signs? How'd you get them?
[114:37] United States flag upside down.
[114:40] That's interesting. So, I was wrong. Um,
[114:42] it just hasn't been in the news. I
[114:44] haven't seen it like the no kings
[114:45] protests were huge.
[114:46] >> Well, this is your point. It's about
[114:48] scale, right? Like you're not seeing it
[114:50] overwhelm the country in the same way
[114:51] like you had in 2020 for example.
[114:53] >> Right. That's But coming back to my
[114:56] point about going to LA two years ago, I
[114:59] remember the mood. We had Rob Schneider
[115:00] on the show like the day after the
[115:02] election. He was like really happy. the
[115:04] the mood was different. And I just
[115:07] wonder in an alternative reality if
[115:10] Trump does Venezuela and then doesn't do
[115:13] this or does Cuba next and it's like
[115:15] Venezuela and it's just like you lock
[115:17] down your your hemisphere. You you get
[115:20] the easy wins.
[115:22] It's a whole different legacy,
[115:24] >> right?
[115:25] >> Yeah.
[115:26] >> You know,
[115:26] >> it's it's basically Blair without Iraq.
[115:29] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know how
[115:30] much sense that'll make to Americans,
[115:31] but it's it's like you came in, you
[115:34] closed the border cuz you got to give
[115:35] credit where it's due.
[115:37] >> He's closed the border,
[115:38] >> right? It was the Iran decision that
[115:40] [ __ ] everything.
[115:40] >> Yeah.
[115:41] >> Yeah. Because even the ICE stuff,
[115:43] >> look, most people in this country don't
[115:46] like the idea of a militarized police
[115:48] force with no identification just
[115:50] pulling people over. It opens up a world
[115:53] of problems. It It sets terrible
[115:56] precedents. And this is what people that
[115:57] are pro-ICE don't seem to understand.
[116:00] They could use that in another way. Now
[116:02] we've set a precedent. You're allowed to
[116:04] have a militarized police force with
[116:05] masks on and they don't have any
[116:07] identification and they're snatching up
[116:10] people and some of them happen to be
[116:11] American citizens. Like if you're
[116:13] supporting this cuz I got to crack a few
[116:15] eggs to make an omelette. Okay. Well,
[116:18] you just opened up the [ __ ] hen house
[116:20] and now the chickens are running all
[116:22] over the place. Like you could do
[116:23] whatever you want now if if you're
[116:25] allowing that. and that's normalized in
[116:27] society. That's not good. But on the at
[116:30] the same point, you do have a bunch of
[116:32] very dangerous criminals, the trend to
[116:34] aragwa people. There's a lot of
[116:36] different gangs that have gotten in and
[116:38] they're setting up illegal activities
[116:39] and kidnappings and all kinds of [ __ ]
[116:41] cartel violence inside American borders.
[116:44] That's real, too. So, like support of
[116:47] ICE to go after that is pretty strong.
[116:49] But it's also as well what it does to
[116:51] your democratic process because one of
[116:54] >> people part of Trump's appeal as we all
[116:57] know is that he marketed himself as the
[116:59] outsider. I'm not part of the political
[117:01] system. You're going to get a radically
[117:03] different presidency with me. I'm not
[117:05] going to be the other ones. And one of
[117:07] the promises was Here you go, Joe.
[117:08] >> No, I got one.
[117:10] >> Uh, one of the promises was like, no
[117:12] forever wars. We're not going to go
[117:14] around. We're not going to do these
[117:15] wars. I'm going to put America first.
[117:17] It's going to prioritize American people
[117:20] because we've got real issues in this
[117:22] country that we need to sort out. And
[117:25] the problem is when you do Iran, what
[117:29] you say to people is it's just more of
[117:32] the same. It doesn't matter who you vote
[117:34] for, you're still going to get these
[117:36] types of wars. And so what happens is
[117:38] that people then feel more and more
[117:40] disenfranchised that they not connected,
[117:42] that it doesn't matter who they vote
[117:44] for, you're undermining democracy.
[117:46] >> Yeah. And that's a really dangerous
[117:48] place to be because once people feel
[117:50] that democracy doesn't res doesn't
[117:53] represent them, then they start
[117:55] disengaging. And again, it goes back to
[117:57] that argument about vacuums. That power
[117:59] vacuum still needs to be filled. And
[118:01] then you have people going, well, what
[118:03] we actually need is a king or what we
[118:05] really need is to do our own thing. And
[118:08] that's how the fractures appear within
[118:09] society.
[118:10] >> And you got those weird kids today that
[118:12] think we should burn it all down and
[118:13] start from scratch. It's like, "Okay,
[118:16] show me your plan.
[118:18] What's what's your [ __ ] plan? What's
[118:20] your burn it all down like long range
[118:23] strategy?"
[118:24] >> Well, that's why I always um look, I'm
[118:26] not a historian, but it's it's something
[118:28] I've always thought about. I think
[118:29] calling the American Revolution a
[118:31] revolution is uh inaccurate and that
[118:34] leads to a lot of confusion because it
[118:36] wasn't a revolution. To me, a revolution
[118:39] is when you overthrow the existing
[118:41] regime in your country, right? The
[118:43] Russian Revolution,
[118:44] >> right?
[118:44] >> You have Thesar and then the Bolsheviks
[118:46] come in, they overthrow the Zar, they
[118:48] install a new government, right? In the
[118:50] French Revolution, you have a monarchy.
[118:52] The revolutionaries come in, they
[118:54] execute the aristocracy and the king.
[118:57] They institute a new government. The
[118:58] American Revolution is really a war of
[119:00] independence. It's you guys saying,
[119:02] "We're going to separate away and in our
[119:05] part of the world, we're going to have
[119:06] our own government. You guys do whatever
[119:08] you want."
[119:09] Uh so America was not actually created
[119:12] in a revolution. It's just people
[119:15] seeking independence. It's like if
[119:16] Scotland broke off from the United
[119:18] Kingdom, right? Uh and that I think
[119:20] changes the mentality because
[119:22] revolutions actually usually end very
[119:24] badly.
[119:26] >> It's a very bad thing that happens.
[119:28] They're very violent. Lots of people get
[119:30] killed. Uh the people who did the
[119:32] revolution usually get killed off uh
[119:34] first. Then they kill off the people who
[119:36] came. This is what Stalin did. I mean,
[119:38] his purges were just about, you know,
[119:40] you've you've the revolution has
[119:42] happened and now you've got all of these
[119:44] psychotic revolutionaries who don't know
[119:46] how to build anything. They just want to
[119:47] tear everything down because that's what
[119:49] revolutionaries do
[119:50] >> and now we got to get rid of them.
[119:52] >> The revolutions are generally not the
[119:55] sort of thing you want to be around for
[119:56] when they happen. Um, and so yeah, the
[119:59] tearing tear it all down thing that
[120:01] doesn't appeal to me at all.
[120:03] >> Well, it's just young kids that are
[120:05] saying this. It's like this is these are
[120:07] the young Democrat socialists and
[120:09] Marxists. They want to tear it all down.
[120:11] It's a great message that resonates
[120:14] without actually having thought it
[120:15] through. It's like you see that guy's
[120:17] pissing you off. Go punch him in the
[120:18] face. Okay. What if he punches you back?
[120:21] What if his friends show up? You know
[120:23] what? If what if there's a guy in a car
[120:26] across the street who sees it and he
[120:27] grabs you and throws you into traffic?
[120:29] Like there's a lot that can h Let's play
[120:31] this out. Let's think this through. If
[120:33] you [ __ ] destroy America, what what
[120:36] takes its place? Where does the money
[120:38] go? Where does your money go? Where who
[120:40] takes care of the streets? Like,
[120:42] >> you know, and I always say to these
[120:44] people who are like, you know, I'm a
[120:46] socialist. I'm go, you ever talk to a
[120:47] Cuban?
[120:49] >> Talk to a Cuban.
[120:50] >> Talk to a Venezuelan Russian. Talk to a
[120:53] Russian. If it or talk to anybody from
[120:55] Eastern Europe,
[120:56] >> anybody who's really experienced actual
[120:58] communism, they're not fond of it.
[121:00] >> No. No, they're not. I remember I used
[121:02] to go to the a coffee shop uh when when
[121:05] I was doing when I was writing for
[121:07] standup and I I got a um I had a I got
[121:10] to know a guy who ran the coffee shop.
[121:11] He was a Cuban guy and we used to talk
[121:14] about communism all the time. You know,
[121:16] it's one way to pass the day. And he
[121:19] actually said something to me. He goes
[121:21] and because I was getting very
[121:22] frustrated at this point that around
[121:24] about 2018 2019
[121:27] this the talk of socialism came back and
[121:29] and it was very triggering to me on a
[121:31] personal level
[121:32] >> and and I was very upset and I was
[121:34] saying to him he was getting really
[121:36] [ __ ]
[121:37] >> dead
[121:38] >> and it was and I said to him like how do
[121:41] I how do how do you fight this and he
[121:43] goes you can't and I go what do you mean
[121:45] he goes look Francis you know when you
[121:49] argue with somebody from the west who
[121:51] has grown up surrounded by this and
[121:54] you're saying about communism, they
[121:57] can't understand it. They can't
[121:58] comprehend it. It's like saying to a
[122:00] really rich kid, look, don't walk down
[122:02] that alley. Don't walk down it at night
[122:04] cuz something's bad going to happen to
[122:05] you. He goes, the only way they will
[122:07] ever truly understand is if they walk
[122:09] down the alley, they get hit on the back
[122:11] of the head, they feel the taste of
[122:13] blood in their mouth, that's when they
[122:15] get it. M
[122:16] >> until then, I hate to break it to you,
[122:19] but you're fighting a losing battle. And
[122:21] I'm talking as someone who grew up in
[122:23] Cuba, whose most of their family is
[122:24] Cuban, and have tried this time and time
[122:27] again. There is a part of me that is
[122:29] slightly fatalistic that goes,
[122:32] >> sometimes people need to see the
[122:34] mistakes for themselves.
[122:35] >> You have to fall down. You have to hurt
[122:37] your knees to realize like, oh, don't do
[122:39] that. I also think we have to be honest
[122:42] and say that there is a thing going on
[122:45] in a lot of western societies where if
[122:48] you had assets in 2006 before the great
[122:52] financial crash you've done very well
[122:54] for the last 20 years but if you didn't
[122:58] your ability to buy a house to pay off
[123:00] your student loans all of that it's
[123:02] become more difficult and it's it's why
[123:04] that portion of society who feel that
[123:06] they've been locked out
[123:08] >> u are feeling like they don't have a
[123:10] stake because they don't have a stake in
[123:12] society and that's when this kind of
[123:16] thing happens and I think that's
[123:17] something people people on the right and
[123:20] people like us who who I mean I I think
[123:22] communism is the most evil ideology
[123:24] that's ever been tried just numerically
[123:26] speaking it's a fact right but you have
[123:29] to make sure that it's not looking after
[123:32] people because it's what we do in
[123:33] Britain we just go here's a handout you
[123:35] know you don't need to work just here's
[123:37] some money shut the [ __ ] up right that
[123:39] doesn't work. But what you have to do is
[123:41] make sure that society feels fair to
[123:44] everybody or to as as great a number of
[123:46] people as possible and that there's
[123:47] opportunity to advance. And for our
[123:50] generation, we are in our early 40s now.
[123:52] I for our generation, I'll be like Joe,
[123:54] if if we hadn't started trigonometry and
[123:56] haven't had the the amazing success that
[123:58] we've had that we're so grateful for,
[124:00] we'd be in that same boat. we'd be in
[124:03] the exactly same boat and we'd be
[124:04] struggling now going like this thing it
[124:08] doesn't work anymore and I think that's
[124:09] where a lot of this stuff is coming
[124:11] from. So
[124:12] >> yes,
[124:13] >> it's it's one of the things that I think
[124:16] people in the AI world don't really
[124:17] think about enough.
[124:20] What happens when even if we don't if
[124:22] even if we accept that actually in the
[124:24] long run jobs aren't going to all
[124:26] disappear and like all technology you
[124:29] create new jobs with it and all in the
[124:31] interim it's going to get very
[124:33] disruptive and in that time I really
[124:36] think Andrew Yang was on to something
[124:38] when he talked about the need to find a
[124:41] way yes you're creating all this
[124:43] beautiful wealth these five companies
[124:45] are creating all the wealth but you've
[124:47] got to find a way that the rest of
[124:50] society feels like they they've got a
[124:51] shot as well. They've got an
[124:53] opportunity. Um, and unless we do that,
[124:56] I think this path down to where a lot of
[124:59] people feel really locked out and angry
[125:01] and and frustrated and betrayed, I think
[125:04] that that it's understandable that they
[125:06] >> It's totally understandable. That's why
[125:07] the movie The Joker resonated so well.
[125:09] >> Yeah.
[125:10] >> Yeah, it was. It was. And I always say
[125:13] this, it's like society is basically a
[125:16] game. and you know you follow the rules,
[125:19] you do what you have to do and you will
[125:20] get the rewards at the end of it. The
[125:23] problem is is if for young people, which
[125:26] is very very true, they feel they're not
[125:27] getting the rewards and everybody else
[125:29] is and they're working just as hard, if
[125:31] not harder than everyone else,
[125:33] eventually they're going to go, you know
[125:35] what, [ __ ] your game.
[125:37] >> Yeah.
[125:38] >> And the board goes up in the air. And
[125:40] that's I think what we're seeing with
[125:41] young people.
[125:42] >> Sure. That's why they cheered when Luigi
[125:44] shot that United Healthcare guy. And
[125:46] that's crazy to me, but that's where
[125:48] it's coming from. Yeah. You know, that's
[125:50] crazy.
[125:50] >> It makes sense. And it's also that's the
[125:52] narrative that's being promoted in
[125:54] universities, you know, that kind of
[125:56] thinking, that revolutionary thinking,
[125:57] making it sexy.
[125:59] >> Yeah. Yeah. And so when you when you
[126:01] combine that and also the other things
[126:03] they've been taught for generations now
[126:04] is to hate their own society, its
[126:06] history, its culture. You put all that
[126:08] together, it's a dangerous mix.
[126:09] >> Fun times.
[126:10] >> So, but but
[126:11] >> but I really think that there is a way
[126:13] to address it.
[126:14] >> Yeah. which is that we have to think
[126:18] this is coming. People are locked out.
[126:22] How do we make sure they are included
[126:24] again?
[126:25] >> Yeah. Well, the if you ask the AI
[126:27] people, it's going to get super weird.
[126:29] Um because the universal high income
[126:34] thing that you that you hear Elon talk
[126:36] about
[126:38] that would be that every citizen of the
[126:41] United States would have a stake in
[126:43] artificial intelligence and that you
[126:45] would get just like if you live in
[126:47] Alaska you get money from the oil
[126:49] companies you get a check people maybe
[126:51] people don't know this but if you live
[126:52] in Alaska you just you get a check
[126:55] >> and uh
[126:55] >> when when you're born or
[126:57] >> no you get every every month.
[126:59] >> Yeah. You get a you get an income.
[127:00] >> Wow.
[127:01] >> Let's find out how many people in Alaska
[127:03] get it and what's the parameters.
[127:05] >> Um you know, if you live on Native
[127:07] American reservations, like they get
[127:09] checks.
[127:10] >> Mhm.
[127:10] >> If you're Native American, you know, you
[127:12] can get a check if you're a part of a
[127:14] tribe that has a casino.
[127:16] >> You know, you get a piece of the casino.
[127:18] And this is kind of what's going on with
[127:20] the United States when it comes to the
[127:22] consequences of AI and taking over
[127:25] automation, taking over jobs, taking
[127:27] over shipping, taking over commercial
[127:29] truck driving. You already see it all
[127:31] over Austin. You see these uh Whimos and
[127:34] cyber cabs. It's kind of nuts. I mean, I
[127:37] see as many of them sometimes as I do
[127:39] regular cars. They're It's really nuts
[127:42] how many Whimos you see. Um so those
[127:45] jobs are gone. They're taking jobs and
[127:48] this is just the beginning of the storm.
[127:50] These are the first raindrops of the
[127:52] storm that is the consequences of AI
[127:54] completely taking over every aspect of
[127:57] society which it'll probably do and do
[127:59] much better than what humans do. Then
[128:02] then becomes the problem of your
[128:04] identity like how do you think of
[128:06] yourself as a person who works and you
[128:08] are you proud of that? Is that that who
[128:10] you are? you know, you're you're proud
[128:12] to be useful and you're you know, you
[128:15] get great satisfaction out of your
[128:16] occupation. If all of a sudden your
[128:18] occupation is automated and you don't
[128:20] exist anymore, massive amounts of
[128:22] depression, massive amounts of drug
[128:23] addiction, and then you just give them a
[128:25] check, I don't know if that's going to
[128:26] be enough.
[128:26] >> Well, to your point about Native
[128:28] American reservations, from what I
[128:29] understand, the kind of social outcomes
[128:31] of that are not great.
[128:32] >> So, here it is. Uh, no, not Well, the
[128:34] Native American one is particularly
[128:36] bleak, but we can get into that. Alaska
[128:38] pays eligible residents an annual
[128:40] dividend called the permanent fund
[128:42] dividend. For 2026, it's $1,200 per
[128:46] eligible person, including a $200 uh
[128:49] energy relief payment. So, it's 1,400
[128:51] bucks a year. That's not much.
[128:53] >> Um, but it's a little something
[128:55] >> per What's that, J? Oh, per eligible
[128:56] person.
[128:57] >> Includes a 200,200.
[128:59] >> Oh. Oh, sorry. Includes a 200 including
[129:02] a $200 energy relief payment. So, it's
[129:04] just 1,200 bucks.
[129:06] >> Yeah.
[129:07] >> Um So, if there's two people in your
[129:09] household that are eligible, like two,
[129:12] well, how many how old do you have to be
[129:14] to be eligible? Who receives it? Um, do
[129:17] you have is it a certain age?
[129:21] Is there an age requirement or is it all
[129:23] citizens or is it like voting citizens?
[129:27] Either way, um, it's not enough.
[129:30] >> No. Um, now the the real question is
[129:34] when you're dealing with AI and this
[129:36] infinite amount of wealth it's going to
[129:38] generate, how much is enough? You know,
[129:41] when when Elon says universal high
[129:43] income, what are we talking about here?
[129:45] Like what is what does that mean? Are
[129:47] you saying you're going to give
[129:48] everybody $500,000 a year? I'm not I'm
[129:50] on board. Okay. So then what happens?
[129:52] >> Are you Joe? This because this is the
[129:54] flip side of this conversation, which is
[129:55] you mentioned the Native American
[129:57] situation. It's like you know yourself.
[130:01] >> You take a lot of meaning from the
[130:03] things that you do.
[130:04] >> Mhm.
[130:05] >> So just getting money.
[130:08] >> It's a dire straight song.
[130:10] >> Money for nothing. Yeah.
[130:11] >> Yeah. And the chicks for free. Money.
[130:14] >> I'm not sure they Well, with AI
[130:15] girlfriends, maybe you're going to get
[130:16] the chicks for free.
[130:17] >> They were talking about it. They were
[130:18] talking about guys complaining about
[130:20] people on MTV. That wasn't really what
[130:23] the song was.
[130:23] >> Yeah. No, I know. But I guess I think
[130:25] what I'm saying is there's a difference
[130:28] from saying, "Hey, I'm um you know, Mark
[130:30] or I am Elon or I am Sam and I've taken
[130:32] your job and I'm Elon, I'm Mark, I'm
[130:34] Sam. I've taken your job. Here's $10,000
[130:36] a month."
[130:37] >> Mhm.
[130:37] >> There's a big difference there.
[130:39] >> Yeah.
[130:39] >> Um and unless that problem, unless we as
[130:42] a society work out a way to do that,
[130:46] uh you don't have to be a genius to work
[130:48] out that's not a recipe for a stable,
[130:50] healthy society. Oh, so I I'll give you
[130:52] an I'll give you an example of
[130:54] something.
[130:56] So when I was teaching, I taught a kid.
[130:58] He was very low ability. He really
[131:00] struggled academically. So we I gave him
[131:03] work which was, you know, which was less
[131:05] challenging than other kids. Sometimes
[131:08] he would be okay. Sometimes he would
[131:09] play up cuz he understandably had
[131:11] self-esteem issues. One day he was
[131:14] playing up really, really badly. And I
[131:16] said, "Chris, look, you're going to be
[131:18] in detention." And I wanted to I I never
[131:21] believed in just detention getting kids
[131:24] to be bored. I wanted him to be useful.
[131:26] And I was giving him what I thought was
[131:28] a punishment. I said, "Chris, you see
[131:30] all the pencils in the classroom? Every
[131:32] single pencil, I'm talking about colored
[131:34] pencils. I'm talking about ordinary. I
[131:36] want them sharpened and I want them
[131:38] perfect cuz we've got an art lesson
[131:40] after lunch." He went and did it. And
[131:43] when he brought the pencils back to me,
[131:45] he was so happy. He was so proud of
[131:47] himself
[131:47] >> because he felt useful. cuz he felt
[131:49] useful and he said and I saw a side of
[131:52] him that I'd never seen before because
[131:54] finally he got given a job that he could
[131:56] do he could do to a very high standard
[131:59] and he was useful and part of something
[132:02] and he said something to me that
[132:03] actually kind of teared me up. He went
[132:05] can I come back tomorrow and do more?
[132:09] >> So he felt good. He felt good that he
[132:12] was useful and I think most people do.
[132:14] >> Yeah. The real question is, is it
[132:16] possible to teach people differently in
[132:18] school? So, instead of teaching people
[132:20] facts that they need to memorize and
[132:22] having to sit in a chair and making sure
[132:24] that you're doing everything that you're
[132:26] told cuz someday you're going to have to
[132:27] have a job and that's you're going to
[132:29] have to learn how to behave this way. Is
[132:31] it possible that you could teach people,
[132:33] listen, money is not the problem
[132:36] anymore? Resources in terms of like your
[132:38] ability to feed yourself and put a roof
[132:40] over your head, that's not an issue
[132:41] anymore. Now your life is about pursuing
[132:44] your interests. But we have to teach
[132:46] people that from the jump. We have to
[132:49] teach people that from the time they're
[132:50] very young. The older people that are
[132:52] set in their ways, they're going to have
[132:54] a very difficult time changing and
[132:55] adapting. But and then also people are
[132:59] going to have a very hard time having
[133:01] the same kind of motivation that people
[133:04] have when they grow up poor. That's a
[133:06] superpower. Growing up poor is a
[133:08] superpower because it gives you a
[133:09] motivation like a drive that I don't
[133:11] think you get if you're a trust fund
[133:13] kid. Your parents are worth a lot of
[133:14] money. So, we're going to have to teach
[133:15] people to have internal motivation
[133:18] instead of external motivation. And
[133:20] we're going to have to teach people that
[133:21] there is a great benefit to to doing
[133:24] things that you don't want to do and
[133:26] then seeing the result to, you know,
[133:29] just putting off any sort of enjoyment
[133:33] that you might possibly have in the
[133:35] present time so that you can have more
[133:37] enjoyment in the future because you did
[133:40] that. You sacrificed and you figured
[133:41] something out. But we have to teach them
[133:43] how to that that way of thinking. And if
[133:45] you could teach them that listen man,
[133:47] you don't have to worry about money
[133:48] anymore. But that doesn't mean you don't
[133:50] have to worry about life. Like there's a
[133:51] lot of cool things that you can find
[133:53] that you can do with your life. But now
[133:55] do those things and get a sense of
[133:57] purpose from you learning about yourself
[133:59] while you're pursuing whatever it is.
[134:02] Whether it's becoming an author or
[134:03] whether it's, you know, whatever, making
[134:05] things, whatever it is, find a thing
[134:07] that you like and then teach people how
[134:09] to find the thing that interests them
[134:11] rather than finding just some menial
[134:14] [ __ ] job that's going to keep them
[134:16] depressed and just barely pay their
[134:19] bills.
[134:20] >> I noticed this with my son. The thing he
[134:22] loves to do with me the most is like
[134:24] paint the fence. To him, that's like the
[134:26] happiest time that we have together.
[134:28] >> See progress. we we we go and do
[134:30] something together that he feels is
[134:32] valuable. He's learning. He's doing it
[134:34] with me. Obviously, it's, you know,
[134:35] father and son time as well.
[134:37] >> But but he would much rather paint a
[134:39] fence with me than he would play a game.
[134:42] >> Much rather
[134:43] >> interesting.
[134:43] >> It's more it's more meaningful for him,
[134:44] >> right? He's accomplishing something.
[134:46] >> Yeah.
[134:47] >> And learning a skill like you said, you
[134:49] know.
[134:49] >> Yeah. There's stuff that people can do.
[134:51] We have only been doing this thing, this
[134:55] show up at a job and and doing working
[134:57] in an office and show going to a city.
[135:00] This is super [ __ ] recent in human
[135:02] history. It's one of the reasons why
[135:04] subsistence tribes are so much happier
[135:06] than us because we've been doing that
[135:08] forever. And the human reward systems
[135:10] are structured in a way that like if you
[135:12] hunt and fish and grow your own food,
[135:15] that's normal. Like you're you you have
[135:17] very little anxiety. That's that the
[135:19] great Wner Herszog documentary Happy
[135:21] People.
[135:22] >> You know that documentary about the
[135:24] people that live in Siberia?
[135:25] >> Tell me about it.
[135:25] >> Oh, it's called Happy People, Life in
[135:26] the Tiger. And it's all about these uh
[135:29] fishermen and trappers and hunters that
[135:31] live in Siberia that have like no mental
[135:33] illness. They're all just happy and they
[135:35] live a completely subsistence lifestyle
[135:37] in one of the most brutal climates on
[135:39] Earth, [ __ ] Siberia. And you know,
[135:42] and they they're fine. Like they're
[135:45] having a good time. We're [ __ ] up and
[135:47] we think, "Oh my god, I could never live
[135:49] like that." But you're not happy. But
[135:51] they are happy. What is our goal? Is our
[135:53] goal to be happy? Because this thing
[135:55] that we've created, these jobs in in in
[135:59] corporations and in cubicles and this
[136:01] thing that is normal for us is not
[136:03] really normal for us. And we've kind of
[136:07] decided somewhere along the way that
[136:09] this is the only way that you have to
[136:10] have a job. And without a job, what do
[136:11] we do? What about the idea that
[136:15] something that the human race has
[136:17] created no longer makes it necessary for
[136:19] you to do a job anymore? Now instead of
[136:22] worrying about huntering hunting and
[136:24] gathering food, the next stage of being
[136:27] a human is pursuing interest. I mean, it
[136:30] could be a gigantic explosion of
[136:33] creativity and of innovation and art and
[136:37] who knows what people can do, especially
[136:39] with the access to technology that we
[136:41] have today and all the different things
[136:43] that people can we could we're just
[136:45] assuming that this way that we live that
[136:47] sucks that everybody hates is the only
[136:49] way to live. And I just don't buy that.
[136:53] I mean, clearly I'm biased because
[136:56] clearly I went through all those process
[136:58] of being poor and struggling and
[137:00] figuring out a way in life and then
[137:02] trying a bunch of very difficult things
[137:04] that other people avoided and finding a
[137:05] path. But I don't know if that's the
[137:08] only way to live. And I don't think it
[137:10] is. I think there's a a a competitive
[137:13] drive in people that exist no matter
[137:15] what. And if we're not competing over
[137:17] finances anymore, maybe we'll compete
[137:19] over art or accomplishments or
[137:23] creativity or fill in the blank like
[137:25] whatever you decide to pursue. And of
[137:28] course, you're probably going to make
[137:30] more money doing that on top of the
[137:32] money you already get. It's not like
[137:34] we're going to go into a full communist
[137:35] day where the entire population only get
[137:38] $500,000 a year. We take from the
[137:41] billionaires. We distribute evenly. No,
[137:44] that's not what we're saying. We're
[137:45] saying like you start out with the
[137:46] 500,000 whatever it is. I don't know
[137:48] what the number is going to be. Start
[137:49] out with that and then you can still
[137:51] make money on top of that if you want.
[137:53] But do you have the drive to live a
[137:56] special life to live a fulfilled and
[137:58] interesting life?
[137:58] >> Well, there's there's a soccer player,
[138:00] former soccer player called Danny
[138:01] Drinkwater, and he uh name it is a great
[138:04] name. He won the Premier League with
[138:06] Leicster City, which is a very very
[138:09] small team. It was one of the biggest
[138:11] surprises in football that no one ever
[138:13] predicted that this team would win. And
[138:15] he went on to have an amazing career.
[138:17] And towards the end of his career, he
[138:19] was struggling. He became he was be
[138:21] struggling with alcohol. And then all
[138:24] these pictures started to emerge of him
[138:26] after he finished his career on a
[138:28] building site. And people were taking
[138:30] the piss out of him going, "Ah, look how
[138:32] far Danny's fallen. He was a Premier
[138:34] League champion. Now he's working on a
[138:36] building site." And he there was an
[138:38] interview where he was like, I love my
[138:39] life. I'm training to be an electrician.
[138:42] I love doing this. I get a sense of
[138:44] achievement out of it. I get the same
[138:46] camaraderie that I got in the dress room
[138:48] with the boys on the on the building
[138:50] site. I'm actually happy. This is what I
[138:53] want to do because he realized that he
[138:56] still needed something.
[138:58] >> He still needed to achieve something.
[139:00] But because in our own kind of [ __ ] up
[139:03] way we see playing elite sport as
[139:07] somehow less than building something
[139:09] that it's lesser then. But he's actually
[139:11] found a purpose by doing that.
[139:13] >> Well, it's interesting that you would
[139:15] never go up to someone who's working as
[139:17] an electrician go you [ __ ] loser
[139:19] working as an electrician. But if that
[139:22] person had been a movie star and then
[139:24] you know stopped doing movies and said I
[139:26] think I'd rather be an electrician. Then
[139:28] well you're allowed to talk [ __ ] about
[139:29] them. But it's just shitty humans are
[139:33] one of the biggest problems we have is
[139:34] we're not teaching people how to think
[139:36] or not I don't want to say teaching
[139:38] people how to think but informing them
[139:42] on the more beneficial ways to construct
[139:45] your life through thoughts and instead
[139:48] we're allowing these stupid kind of like
[139:52] that kind of like tear them all down
[139:54] behavior to go unchecked. Like you
[139:56] really, you know how transparently
[139:58] pathetically jealous that is to want to
[140:00] go up to a guy who is like an elite
[140:01] soccer player and you're upset cuz he
[140:03] has a job that's like yours. You know
[140:06] how [ __ ] nuts that is? That's nuts.
[140:08] >> It's a status thing. I think we had this
[140:10] great guy on called Will Stalker. He
[140:12] wrote a book called The Status Game. Are
[140:13] you familiar with it? Yes.
[140:14] >> Yeah. This is the This is the reason
[140:17] people do this, I think, is it's a
[140:19] status thing. So, Premier League
[140:21] footballer, high status, electrician,
[140:24] low status. And also, let's be honest,
[140:27] if you haven't got to where you've got
[140:29] to, where you wanted to in life, and you
[140:32] haven't got the status that you want,
[140:34] it's kind of satisfying for some people
[140:36] to see someone else fall down.
[140:38] >> Oh, yeah.
[140:39] >> And then you go, "Oh, I'm not the only
[140:40] one."
[140:41] >> Sure.
[140:41] >> It's actually one of the things I do
[140:43] really like about America. you have a
[140:45] kind of failure is just the step to the
[140:48] next success attitude here. A lot of
[140:50] people have that here. So, it's very
[140:52] normal for people to start a business,
[140:54] business doesn't work, they start the
[140:55] next one, doesn't work, start the next
[140:56] one, it pops. And actually, I was seeing
[140:59] stats, I can't remember where I got it,
[141:00] so I hope this isn't BS. Maybe Jamie can
[141:02] check. But I think um with every
[141:04] business you start and fail, it
[141:06] increases your chance of succeeding.
[141:08] Well, not it increases, but if you start
[141:10] by the time you start the third
[141:11] business, your your chance of that
[141:13] business being successful is
[141:14] significantly higher than the first one.
[141:16] >> I think this is Elizabeth Holm's
[141:17] strategy when she gets out of jail.
[141:21] >> By the way, her uh husband lives in
[141:23] town,
[141:24] >> lives in Austin, so we might be seeing
[141:26] her at the mothership one day.
[141:32] But I I think it's a really important
[141:34] thing that and I think we should all do
[141:36] it. We should we should all talk about
[141:38] our failures more because it's part of
[141:41] the journey.
[141:42] >> Yeah.
[141:42] >> You know, if success isn't as sweet when
[141:46] you get it first time round because you
[141:48] don't appreciate it. But if you fail and
[141:51] fail and fail again and finally
[141:53] something works, you just number one
[141:56] what that teaches you is gratitude.
[141:58] Number two is it shows other people, oh
[142:01] [ __ ] if he's failed and failed and
[142:03] failed and then made it, maybe I can do
[142:05] that. Maybe not in the same field, but
[142:07] maybe my journey is going to be like
[142:09] that in a different way.
[142:10] >> It's one of the main things that I think
[142:13] a lot of people can get out of
[142:14] jiu-jitsu, other than self-defense, is
[142:16] that everybody starts out terrible. M
[142:19] >> you you you you I mean you have a little
[142:21] bit of an advantage if you're strong,
[142:23] you know, you have a little bit of an
[142:24] advantage if you've maybe done some
[142:26] other martial art before, but not much.
[142:29] I mean, even me, I I'd started out I had
[142:32] years of taekwond do and kickboxing and
[142:34] all. I got mauled. Just mauled. I mean,
[142:38] I was it was so humiliating, but
[142:39] humbling in a great way where I was
[142:41] like, "Wow, I had no idea I was that
[142:44] vulnerable. I was walking around all
[142:46] delusional thinking that shit's not
[142:48] going to work on me. He might work
[142:50] great.
[142:52] But everybody who you train with, if
[142:54] they stick it out, you see them growing
[142:57] and getting better and we all you you
[142:59] all go on this path together where then
[143:03] all of a sudden I've seen guys that they
[143:05] started out they were terrible and then
[143:07] and a couple years later I see them
[143:09] rolling with the new guys and
[143:11] manhandling them. I go this is amazing.
[143:14] like look at this guy. Like now he's
[143:16] like tapping people out that are new.
[143:18] And then you see the look in in his face
[143:20] like wow I can this is real. I learned I
[143:23] got better at something that I thought
[143:25] was impossible in the beginning. You're
[143:27] so the mountain is so high like [ __ ]
[143:29] You take one step you fall down. You're
[143:31] like this is terrible. And for a lot of
[143:33] people their self-esteem can't handle it
[143:35] and they never go through that process.
[143:36] But if you could force yourself to go
[143:38] through that process, it's one of the
[143:40] very best processes of a failure and
[143:43] then learning from failure and then you
[143:44] get a little bit better and then more
[143:46] failure and then learning and then a
[143:47] little bit and you keep going and you
[143:49] realize like oh this is a journey and
[143:51] along this journey I can apply these
[143:54] same principles to essentially anything
[143:56] in my life and get better just even
[143:59] about just being a human. just better at
[144:02] being a human, realizing the dumb [ __ ]
[144:03] that you do that sabotages your life or
[144:06] [ __ ] up your diet or gets you drinking
[144:09] again, whatever it is, you can apply the
[144:12] same strategy that you learn to get good
[144:14] at jiu-jitsu to anything in life.
[144:15] >> You know, I remember when um I was this
[144:19] nearly 10 years ago, I was uh opening
[144:21] for Eddie Isizard on his European tour
[144:24] and I remember people go to me like,
[144:27] "Who's like one of your biggest
[144:28] influences?" And Eddie was that person
[144:30] because when Eddie started out doing
[144:33] comedy in London way back when, like
[144:36] late 80s, early 90s, you know what his
[144:38] nickname was on the circuit?
[144:40] >> What?
[144:40] >> No laughs, Eddie.
[144:42] >> That's what it was. Like he would come
[144:44] on and everyone's like, "Oh my god, it's
[144:46] this guy." Oh, [ __ ]
[144:50] >> Was that before or after he started
[144:52] dressing like a chick?
[144:53] >> That was before.
[144:54] >> So, did the dressing like the chick turn
[144:55] it all around?
[144:56] >> No. No. I think what actually turned it
[144:58] around is that he was just and when I
[145:00] spoke to him he was like look I was
[145:02] relentlessly driven and focused. I knew
[145:05] that this was what I wanted to do. I
[145:07] knew that this is what I wanted to
[145:08] achieve and what was happening is that
[145:12] at the beginning it wasn't working for
[145:14] me. So I needed to change in order to
[145:16] get to where I wanted to go.
[145:18] >> But I know he likes dressing like a
[145:20] woman. So maybe that legitimately
[145:24] I love that guy but it's weird cuz he is
[145:26] a guy like I think now maybe he's
[145:28] changed
[145:29] >> but he told me he likes women and I'm
[145:31] like cool you know like he came on the
[145:33] podcast he was great I've I've done a
[145:35] couple podcasts with him but the point
[145:36] is like that is what he enjoys doing and
[145:39] to stop him from doing that in the past
[145:41] maybe allowed him to be freer on stage
[145:44] which allowed him to be better on stage
[145:46] because it is a journey of
[145:47] self-discovery when you try to figure
[145:48] out what is it about your act that
[145:50] doesn't work. What is it about this that
[145:51] the people are not buying? Like, and
[145:54] maybe that was a part of it for him.
[145:55] >> Maybe it was a part, but he was also
[145:57] trying to do something radically
[145:59] different at the time that nobody else
[146:01] was doing.
[146:02] >> But once he nailed it, he kind of he
[146:04] just exploded for him. But I I always
[146:06] remember that lesson that I took from
[146:08] him, which was
[146:09] >> you've got to go through the [ __ ] You
[146:12] have to. That's just part of the
[146:13] process. And you've also as much as
[146:16] possible not got to take it personally
[146:18] because you've got to accept that this
[146:20] is what life is teaching you. If you
[146:22] want to do that, you've got to take the
[146:24] hits and you've got to accept failure.
[146:25] Most of life is failure. Most of the
[146:27] time you do things, it's not going to
[146:29] work out in quite the way you want. But
[146:31] then you take the lessons from it and
[146:32] then you move on. And it's gradual. It's
[146:35] not like we all want to be the guy who
[146:37] steps on stage, gets on a soccer field,
[146:39] touches the ball, everyone goes, "Wow,
[146:41] what a genius." 99.99999%
[146:45] of us ain't like that.
[146:46] >> Yeah. And even the 1% are probably the
[146:48] the point
[146:51] whatever it is 1% they're not either.
[146:54] >> It's all [ __ ] It's 100%. It's like
[146:56] some people have a better start than
[146:58] others, but everybody has to learn and
[146:59] grow along the way. And it's interesting
[147:01] with Eddie, like he applied that same
[147:04] sort of grinding strategy to a lot of
[147:06] like crazy physical feats that he did,
[147:08] like when he ran around the entire UK
[147:11] and he didn't train for it.
[147:13] >> Have you seen that documentary?
[147:15] >> No. No. I remember the story.
[147:17] >> Insane. It was one of the most
[147:19] impressive things I've ever seen cuz
[147:20] literally the skin on his feet were
[147:22] falling off. Like he had to take a
[147:25] couple of days off. He's running a
[147:26] marathon a day with no training. and uh
[147:28] he had to take some days off because his
[147:31] feet were so destroyed he couldn't stand
[147:33] on them. Never the forget about running
[147:36] 26 miles. I mean you're seeing the raw
[147:39] open skin. It's horrible. And he's got a
[147:42] doctor or a nurse tending to his wounds.
[147:45] It's terrible. I mean just like raw torn
[147:48] apart feet. Next day 26 miles. Took a
[147:51] day off, maybe a two, maybe two days off
[147:53] in the entire time he did it. It was
[147:55] nuts. And it's like that same thing like
[147:57] just keep going. You can do it. And in
[148:00] this tick- tock generation where
[148:02] everybody wants everything to happen
[148:03] really quickly. You want to be an
[148:04] influencer, you want to get famous, you
[148:06] want to get this, you want to get that.
[148:07] I don't want to get fat. Oh, take a
[148:09] pill. Bang. You know, whatever it is or
[148:10] ompic. There's this desire to have
[148:13] something happen to you very quickly
[148:15] versus the satisfaction that you get
[148:17] from knowing like the jiu-jitsu mountain
[148:19] like look, I started down there. I
[148:21] started down there. Now I'm all the way
[148:22] the [ __ ] up here.
[148:24] >> Right? And that process is just makes
[148:27] you into the person you're actually
[148:28] supposed to be. Yeah.
[148:29] >> It's it's the process that makes you
[148:31] into the person you're supposed to be.
[148:32] >> Yeah. And anything difficult.
[148:34] >> We often we often talk about this, you
[148:36] know, with our show cuz sometimes we
[148:37] we're doing interviews with people.
[148:38] We're like, "This is a serious thing
[148:40] that we're doing here. Serious person.
[148:41] This is going to be big. It's important
[148:43] we get it right." If you had catapulted
[148:46] us when we started the show into the
[148:48] position of interviewing that person, we
[148:50] wouldn't know what the [ __ ] to do and we
[148:52] would screw it up very badly. Oh, for
[148:54] sure.
[148:55] >> It's the process that gets you to the
[148:57] point where you're actually able to have
[148:58] a conversation on a high level. And it's
[149:00] different things. Sometimes it's about
[149:02] being prepared to challenge people, call
[149:04] out certain facts. Sometimes it's just
[149:06] about like the conversation's dying out
[149:08] a little bit. Where do we go to? All of
[149:10] that stuff you learn along the way. And
[149:13] if you haven't got the miles on the
[149:14] clock up till that point being
[149:17] parachuted into that position, this is
[149:19] why it's actually probably very very
[149:21] hard to like start a TV show and get the
[149:23] right talent or whatever cuz they
[149:25] haven't got the miles on the clock to
[149:29] actually be able to do the job. And it's
[149:30] that process that gives you the ability
[149:33] to actually perform at a high level
[149:35] because you've been there. You've [ __ ]
[149:37] up. You've made mistakes. You've learned
[149:39] from them. You've grown as a person.
[149:41] You've become more humble. The process
[149:43] of doing stuff humbles you. Like you
[149:44] said, cuz
[149:45] >> no doubt,
[149:46] >> you go, "Oh, wait. I had this idea and
[149:48] it totally didn't work. Maybe I need to
[149:50] revise how I think about this." And I
[149:52] think life is just this one long lesson
[149:54] in what you talked about, which is
[149:55] deferred gratification. I'm going to
[149:57] give up pleasure or comfort. And
[149:59] comfort's a big one, Joe. It's not even
[150:01] pleasure, is it? It's comfort.
[150:03] >> That's what kills you. You get
[150:05] comfortable and it's a lot more
[150:07] comfortable to sit at home on the sofa.
[150:09] It's terrible for you, but it's
[150:11] comfortable. And it's overcoming that
[150:13] and learning to get out of your comfort
[150:14] zone. Like all the good stuff, it's on
[150:17] the other side of that. That's going to
[150:18] be the real problem with giving people
[150:20] universal high income is that like
[150:22] people don't like to just leave comfort
[150:25] and they're not going to want to do
[150:26] anything other than just take the money
[150:28] that they get and then
[150:30] >> I don't know party.
[150:32] >> I think so. But I also think we've all
[150:35] been I don't know, we've never talked
[150:37] about it, but I imagine there's been
[150:39] times when your life in your life when
[150:42] you've gone down that route. You've
[150:44] taken some time to just veg, you know,
[150:47] and you do it for a bit and it, you
[150:50] know, you play a video game for a week
[150:52] non-stop and you're just immersed in
[150:53] that and whatever and then you realize
[150:56] it sucks.
[150:57] >> Mhm.
[150:58] >> Like the first day you do it, it's kind
[150:59] of fun. and the second day is fun, but
[151:01] eventually you get to the point where
[151:02] you realize this sucks. And I think with
[151:05] having this universal high income or
[151:08] universal basic income or whatever,
[151:10] people will get to the point where they
[151:11] go, "Actually,
[151:14] this has been fun." It's like partying.
[151:15] A lot of people spend their, you know,
[151:17] 20s doing that. Eventually, you grow out
[151:20] of it. 99% of people do.
[151:21] >> Hopefully.
[151:23] >> Yeah.
[151:24] >> You've met a lot of people who haven't
[151:25] grown out of it.
[151:26] >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, especially
[151:28] me because I know a lot of comedians
[151:30] that are basically like 45 year old
[151:32] boys.
[151:33] >> Yeah.
[151:33] >> Yeah.
[151:33] >> Because especially if you don't have any
[151:36] responsibility other than getting on
[151:38] stage at night, you know, comics have
[151:40] the most open-ended schedules and a lot
[151:42] of them have zero discipline and they
[151:45] don't have to. They can play video games
[151:46] all day.
[151:47] >> They work at a comedy club for a
[151:49] weekend. They make enough money to pay
[151:50] their bills for a month. They don't have
[151:52] to worry. And so they just they're
[151:53] childlike and they just drink at night
[151:55] and [ __ ] eat terrible food and play
[151:57] video games.
[151:59] >> Do they eventually though get married
[152:00] and have kids and settle down?
[152:01] >> Some of them do. Yeah. Some of them
[152:03] don't.
[152:04] >> It's a weird like sort of frozen
[152:06] adolescence.
[152:07] >> I think once you get to the kids thing
[152:10] and we see it with, you know, people
[152:11] that work with us. You start, you get a
[152:13] serious girlfriend, suddenly the
[152:14] attitude shifts. They get a little bit
[152:16] more serious.
[152:17] >> Children's the big one.
[152:18] >> Yeah. It just lets you go, oh boy, I
[152:20] have to take care of a tiny little
[152:21] person. like this is not the same fun
[152:23] and games anymore.
[152:24] >> And set an example. Yes. Because they
[152:25] don't learn from what you tell them.
[152:26] They learn from what they see,
[152:28] >> right?
[152:28] >> And so if daddy's sitting on the sofa,
[152:30] what are they learning?
[152:31] >> Well, hopefully the world will learn,
[152:33] right, in that regard. Like, so if
[152:36] universal income becomes a thing, well,
[152:38] I think there's a lot of pros that come
[152:40] out of it. Here's the pros. Starvation
[152:43] ends goes away. The lack of food ends
[152:46] goes away. The uh struggling to pay your
[152:49] bills ends. So all that stress ends. So
[152:53] how much crime do we lose because of
[152:55] that? I bet we lose a lot. I bet there's
[152:57] a long transitional period because
[152:58] people have been ingrained to certain
[153:00] types of behaviors and actions and they
[153:02] have uh personality flaws they've
[153:04] developed over the years. But once
[153:06] society settles into the concept, I bet
[153:10] crime radically gets reduced.
[153:11] >> You mean like
[153:13] necessity? Yeah. because they're I mean
[153:16] like you know the the silly one was the
[153:18] AOC one where they're you know stealing
[153:20] stuff from stores they just need bread
[153:22] for their family like right
[153:24] >> that's why they've got the Lacost
[153:25] trainers. Yeah. Right. No, there that's
[153:28] not necessarily what's going on, right?
[153:30] Um but once society settles and then
[153:33] there's not a halves and halves not
[153:35] situation at the same extreme that we
[153:37] have today because the extreme that we
[153:39] have today, not as much in this country
[153:40] because it's kind of thought of as the
[153:42] land of opportunity, but there's a lot
[153:44] of countries where like if you don't
[153:45] have, you will never have and this is
[153:47] just how it goes. If that becomes
[153:50] something that's adopted and employed by
[153:52] all nations is that the the amount of
[153:54] wealth it generates is so [ __ ]
[153:56] extreme that and jobs are gone and that
[154:00] people now have money but you never have
[154:03] to worry about working. So the fear and
[154:05] the anger at least gets significantly
[154:10] mitigated.
[154:11] >> I mean that's the hope. That's the real
[154:14] hope. And if they just want to play Call
[154:15] of Duty all day, like who [ __ ] cares?
[154:18] >> As long as they like their life, it's
[154:20] like, but you know, it's like we need to
[154:23] train people to enjoy their life and not
[154:25] think that your life is just a thing you
[154:27] do that sucks so you can make money so
[154:29] that you can buy stuff so it makes you
[154:31] feel good about doing the thing that you
[154:33] do that sucks and then one day you die.
[154:36] Like that's
[154:37] >> the encouraging thing about human beings
[154:39] is I think we are very adaptable. We are
[154:42] very adaptable. And I think the things
[154:44] that matter to us are the things that
[154:46] have always mattered to us. Uh it's
[154:48] family, it's human connection, it's
[154:50] meaningful work or meaningful activity
[154:53] at least. It might not be work. It might
[154:54] just be activity. You know, I love
[154:56] chopping wood to to to like I could buy
[154:59] wood, but I don't. I buy wood that I
[155:01] have to chop because I like chopping the
[155:02] wood.
[155:03] >> You know what I mean? I like and I like
[155:05] doing it with my son and I like teaching
[155:06] him how to do it. I could pay a guy to
[155:08] paint the fence. I could pay a guy to
[155:10] paint the wall. if there's little things
[155:12] that I can do with him or I can do
[155:14] myself, I actually prefer to do that.
[155:16] And I think it's a it's actually some so
[155:19] we will I think we will find a way to
[155:21] adapt uh because it's what we've always
[155:24] done. That's that's I think the big
[155:25] hope. But I do think the transition is
[155:28] going to be a big challenge. Yeah.
[155:30] >> And I think I really hope the people who
[155:33] are doing this AI stuff think about this
[155:36] a lot. I I think it's going to be them
[155:39] who's going to have to think about this
[155:41] a lot. And if I were them, I'd be
[155:43] thinking, how do I give as much of this
[155:45] away as I can so that everybody feels
[155:49] included in this thing.
[155:50] >> Yeah.
[155:51] >> Otherwise,
[155:52] there's not enough robot defenders in
[155:54] the world who are going to guard your
[155:55] mansion,
[155:56] >> right?
[155:57] >> Is is what how I think about it. And um
[155:59] yeah, I think we'll get to that. I think
[156:01] people will realize that's the reality
[156:02] of this.
[156:03] >> I hope so. Do you know what always gives
[156:05] me hope is that when every time I taught
[156:09] Greek mythology to the kids and we did
[156:12] the Odyssey, everybody got locked in.
[156:15] And I taught in a place where most kids
[156:18] were first or second generation
[156:19] immigrants. We didn't have shared
[156:21] culture, vastly different experiences,
[156:24] some of whom were incredibly poor. But
[156:25] you taught like the Odyssey, boom, they
[156:28] were all locked in. And why is that so
[156:30] special? It's so special because it
[156:32] talks about the human condition. It
[156:34] talks about struggle. It talks about
[156:35] overcoming. And I think one of the
[156:37] things particularly nowadays is we we
[156:39] all think we're so incredibly different.
[156:42] Yet when Christopher Nolan does a a
[156:44] retread of the Odyssey and puts it on
[156:47] the big screen, people flock. And I
[156:50] people talk about, oh, it's an anti-woke
[156:52] movie or it's this or it's that. No,
[156:54] because it's a story about a man
[156:57] confronting his own demons and
[156:59] overcoming them. and the importance of
[157:01] family. And I think we that's a really
[157:04] important bit. That's a really important
[157:06] bit. The things that as Constance says
[157:08] that matters have always mattered. And
[157:11] this idea that we're more divided than
[157:13] ever and that we hate each other and
[157:16] we've got to believe that we can
[157:17] overcome that. We really do. Because if
[157:21] we just see each other as an enemy or as
[157:23] an avatar, we're never going to be able
[157:25] to transcend. But if we see the humanity
[157:28] in each other and actually left, right,
[157:30] mo most people just want a fairer,
[157:32] better world. We've just got different
[157:34] ways of approaching it.
[157:36] >> Here, here. And on that note,
[157:38] >> we solved everything, Joe.
[157:39] >> We solved it all.
[157:41] >> Francis Foster for president.
[157:44] >> No, you don't want that. Trump,
[157:46] >> we were ending on such a nice thought
[157:48] and you had to ruin it.
[157:50] >> Cut to me getting executed.
[157:52] >> It's always fun talking to you guys. I
[157:54] really appreciate it. Love your show.
[157:55] You guys are cool as [ __ ] It's always
[157:57] fun.
[157:58] >> Great to see you, brother. Thanks for
[157:59] having
[157:59] >> It's always a pleasure, mate.
[158:00] >> Bye, everybody.
