Ep 48 | Anarchists Don’t Wear Antifa Masks | Tim Pool | The Glenn Beck Podcast

So excited to talk to Tim.

We're going to get to him in a minute.

And the things we're going to talk about really, I think,

freaky, might make you a little paranoid, probably for good reason.

But there is no reason to be paranoid or worried about your safety when you're in your own home.

Simply Safe is our sponsor, and they have award-winning home security that protects every door and every window with 24/7 professional monitoring around the clock.

And unlike any other company, Simply Safe has no contract, no hidden fees, no fine print.

It's $15 a month to protect your home.

But if that's not enough, here's what really makes them stand out.

When you have your home security triggered and it alerts police, police assume it's a false alarm because that's usually what it is.

So it goes to the bottom of the 911 list, but not with SimplySafe, because SimplySafe is the only company that offers video verification technology.

This is included.

This is not something that you have to pay extra for.

They're able to visually confirm that a break-in is happening.

That allows police to get to the scene 3.5 times faster, which is 45 minutes to 7 minutes.

And just for you, they're giving a huge deal away.

Simplysafe.com/slash Glenn Beck.

You'll get a free HD security camera when you order.

That's a hundred dollar value or more.

They'll have eyes on your home 24/7.

Video evidence if somebody tries to get in, and the police will be coming to your house quickly.

Simply safe.com/slash Glenn Beck.

That's simply safe.com/slash Glenn Beck.

As it stands today, journalism is changing and it will never be the same.

Thank God, that's a good thing.

Except, what is it going to change to?

We don't know.

At the moment, the mainstream media is toppling and a whole new cast of people is replacing the old guard.

Today's guest is Proof.

He first rose to attention in 2011 when he live-streamed the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Unlike the high-budget, heavily choreographed reporters and, you know, front-of-whole film crews, he wandered around inside the protests using the new medium.

He gave us a view of the inner workings of a chaotic political movement.

The reporting earned him a spot on the Time 100 list and won him a short award for best journalist in social media.

He's traveled all over the world for various stories.

In 2017, he accepted a challenge made by Paul Joseph Watson, who offered to pay travel costs for any journalist willing to investigate the claim that there were Muslim-dominated no-go zones in Sweden.

Like many of the people who are dismantling mainstream media, he's kind of a black sheep.

He has friends and millions of followers, 6 million per month on YouTube, to be exact.

He has written for The Guardian, Reuters, The New York Times, NBC, and even Al Jazeera English.

He was the founding member of Vice News.

And in 2015, he became the director of media innovation at the TV network Fusion, where he has been tasked with reporting new technology as live streaming aerial drones, mobile software, and hardware, even Google Glass.

He has been attacked by the people on both the left and the right, which usually means that what you're saying is important.

Something that people don't want to hear, something we all need to know.

This is my conversation with Tim Poole, beanie and all.

Hey, Tim.

How's it going?

Thanks for having me.

You bet.

You bet.

How would you describe yourself?

I had no idea.

Roguelike, heterodox,

anti-authoritarian.

What the hell is a heterodox?

Like

against the orthodoxy.

Okay.

I mean, so I don't want to say contrarian because that's not true, you know.

Although I certainly have contrarian positions, but I think for the most part, it's just it's, I, I, I've often reflected on myself like, I don't even know what I am.

I didn't go to school.

Maybe that's why, you know, I dropped out of high school within the first couple months.

Briefly did a homeschooling thing and then just stopped.

Didn't get it, didn't get a GED, didn't go to college.

So did you just educate yourself?

Yeah, yeah.

But I owe it to my mom, I guess.

She, she was homeschooling me.

and my siblings before I even started preschool.

So I got a head start.

So you had

because you're you're not a, you know, when you think of an anarchist now, you just think of somebody, well, dressed all in black

who's, you know, just marching in the street and usually just a numbskull.

It's unfortunate.

It's not an anarchist.

Yeah.

You know, I mean, some of them, actually.

I've actually, I have met some.

I was in San Bernardino.

I met an actual anarchist with Antifa.

who denounced the violence.

And I'm like, then why would you march with these guys?

He's like, a real anarchist is peaceful.

Yeah.

And it's about cooperation things like that.

Whether you're

market forces or your cooperative forces, like anarchists do not hit each other, do not hit people to get their way.

That's the antithesis of anarchy.

But you are

against the orthodoxy.

You question the orthodoxy.

Not necessarily against it, just question it.

If you find it to be true, right?

Right, right, right, exactly.

That's what I think contrarian is probably the wrong way to put it.

So, you know, when I was younger, I was an anarchist skateboarder, very far left.

And what pushed me away from all this was violence.

Like these, these, I was a teenager, and I saw these kids picking fights for no reason.

They wanted to fight the jocks.

I'm like, why would you start a fight with somebody?

They'd yell at people.

And I was like, keep me away from that, man.

That is not...

freedom and liberty and anarchy.

That is violence and that is authority and that's you imposing your will on others.

And so then I found myself more of this kind of like

more of a Bernie Sanders type.

This is when I was younger.

Hey, we should have more, you know, bigger government.

We should have free college.

We should have all these things.

Against the orthodoxy, but

this was when I was like 17 or 18.

Okay.

And then I had this really, this really profound moment.

So I was Catholic from kindergarten until the end of fifth grade.

And then in sixth grade, we transferred to a public school.

So I went to Catholic school.

We were, my family were

great parishioners.

We donated.

We fundraised.

we were the top selling, you know, and my,

put it simply, we were disrespected, as it were.

And for family economic reasons, we decided to move to public school.

And so from there, I immediately became this very atheist, man, these conservative pro-life, you know, these people are idiots.

They're all insane.

And I had that very typical.

And then something happened.

I've been skateboarding my whole life.

And I met.

the skateboarder guy who was prominent in Chicago.

And so I was like, whoa, like, how cool I get to hang out with this guy.

He's like way older and he's really good at skating.

And he said, hey, man, me and my friends, we're going to go jam at my place later.

You want to come with?

And now I'm all like, yeah, like, how cool is this?

Hang out with the cool kids, right?

Right.

And then when I get to his apartment, I walk in his room.

He's got a picture of Jesus on the wall.

And I was like,

we have a picture of Jesus on the wall for you, like Christian or something?

Think I'm all like tough punk rock?

And he goes, no.

And I was like, what, no?

Then why do you have Jesus on the wall?

He was like, oh, I just thought it was cool.

There's a story about a guy who travels around helping people.

And that was like a smack in the face face to me.

And I was like, maybe I'm misunderstanding people by assuming I know what they think and feel.

This guy wasn't Christian.

He just says, cool story, right?

Like he's a cool guy.

He was like really nice to people.

And I'm like,

that is a good story.

He's right.

And so that was like a big wake-up for me as a young person.

And I didn't know.

More churches need to do that.

Right.

So I'm still, I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but.

That was like a moment for me where I realized I better actually start listening to people.

Right.

Because I had all these assumptions about what this meant and who these people were.

And then did that change come?

What year?

Man, I was like, I think I was 18, you know, so this is 15 years ago.

And then from then on, I was more willing to like listen.

So that's the funny story I mentioned off podcast.

I used to work for Greenpeace very briefly.

And then I worked for another, some other environmental nonprofits.

But I remember Greenpeace sent us out in Chicago to go canvas.

So I'm one of those guys on the street corner waving to people like, hey, you want to help the environment.

Now, it's been a long time.

It's been like 13 years.

So I could be getting some of the, it's maybe a bit apocryphal at this point, but

I vaguely recall them being for cap and trade, right?

Government intervention.

And I remember when I was canvassing the books, there's a bookstore next to me with your book.

I think it's

an inconvenient book.

Or yeah, inconvenient book, yeah.

And so I remember like opening up and like reading through it, and it was a very like the free market solutions to or something.

And I was like, this guy's noise he was talking about.

I'm 20.

I know it.

And I go back out and start telling people I have the solution.

I thought it was funny that, you know, now here I am.

Now here you are.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

The problem, I think, just real quickly on that, is that's the attitude of too many people, no matter what side they're on, is I just know better.

I don't even need to read that.

Where, no, no, no, wait, that's kind of important, you know, if you really,

you know, nobody has any credibility with me if you're

if you're asking for government solutions, but you're not a vegan and you don't agree with nuclear energy.

You know, I have a friend and I made them cry because they're far-left anarchist, real anarchists, though, not violent, denouncing violence, but very, very, you know, so we were having conversation and I said basically, My issue with the policies you propose is that you don't care about anyone outside of your community.

Everything you're proposing would just benefit you.

And she was like, no, no, no, I want to make the world a better place.

And I'm like, you're using a MacBook right now.

Look, I under, look, no, no, no, I'm not saying you can't have it, but do you recognize that people at the Foxconn labs were walking off the building because the conditions are so horrifying?

You've got to say no to the MacBook.

You can use a computer, but you've got to avoid the Foxconn stuff.

And I said, listen, you're not making the world a better place by giving your resources to a company that has people committing suicide.

And what they did, they put nets up to catch the bodies.

That was their response.

And that conversation led to her crying when I said, the fact that you're willing to support these horrifying circumstances, but here's the thing.

I recognize that personally.

And it's just,

we have to work to solve that problem.

But I do try to avoid, you know.

You don't use Apple products?

Oh, I hate Apple.

Yeah, I hate Apple too, but they're great products.

I'm pretty sure Foxconn still does Samsung stuff, too.

So it's, do you want the tool or not?

You have to recognize that Americans are wealthy, privileged, and there are are people around the world who don't have access to that.

What are you going to do about it?

That was one of my funny highlights I thought of the Occupy Wall Street movement was that

they were taking down Steve Jobs.

They were taking down.

That's not true.

The ones I saw on video were taking them down, but they were using the products.

But actually, it's worse than that.

When Steve Jobs died, it was during Occupy.

They put up a shrine for him.

There was a Steve, and I'm just like, How is that possible?

Look, Look, it's not like Avern Occupy was marching and locked up.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But some people there,

that guy was a ruthless businessman.

He was really bad.

He's peak capitalism.

Yeah.

He's the dirty kind of capitalist.

Right, right, right.

Capitalism, when it's done right, I think, is a charity almost.

If you know moral sentiments, you know that wealth of nations is just how it works.

But moral sentiments shows you what the invisible hand is going to give.

If you are a society that wants to do good and you're a capitalist who wants to help people,

how can I help them have an easier life?

Oh, I'm going to invent this.

Great.

I think we'll have some disagreements on capitalism for sure.

You and I.

Yeah, but I do agree.

I think, you know, the core of what capitalism is, the right to private property and to free trade for the individual, very simple, makes a ton of sense.

And

socialism and communism will never work.

Never work.

So where do we disagree?

I lean more towards government regulation.

Oh, I'm assuming.

I don't know, actually.

I just made the assumption based on the global warming, free market solutions and stuff.

I think

left unchecked, like laissez-faire capitalism, you end up with

humans put their resources towards

what will trigger their dopamine.

And so we have to have, I think a mixed economy makes a lot of sense.

I think the U.S.

technically leans a little more towards the right in terms of how much taxes go towards government spending.

I probably lean a little bit to the left on a lot of, you know, some of these issues, but I'm rather centrist.

I just think, you know, how much money do we allocate towards curing things like baldness?

And is it, I get it.

You know, you have a right to do it, but baldness isn't the big concern.

It's just kind of a funny thing to poke at.

But I look at toxic waste, dead zones in the ocean, and things like that.

And I absolutely think there can't be market solutions to environmental problems.

But I think, you know, look, left unchecked, humans are going to make virtual reality games where they can just, I'll try not to be crude, but, you know, pleasure themselves.

Oh, no, it's coming.

It's absolutely coming.

And I, no, pun intended.

And I, I,

you know, what am I, what are you going to do about?

What are you going to do about that?

And I, and, and, and this is the, this is the ethical conundrum that exists within me because the media is the best example of capitalism going wrong in that we're at a point now where these companies are in danger.

So they reach to the bottom of the barrel, which is outrage content and ideology.

And you know what their next reach out for is the government protection.

We have to have government protection because we are a valuable asset.

We need bailouts.

We need all of that.

And there's already advocacy for government funding.

Correct.

I mean, wasn't there some program where they were funding journalism?

I don't want to get into it if I don't know the facts, but I'll leave that.

But yeah, I think my big criticism of government, which you probably share, is it's extremely capitalism, is effective in that bad systems die.

You can't make it work, you're gone.

The problem with communist command economy systems is that they just mandate the expenditure and take the resources from someone else by force.

And if your system is failing,

you're draining the system, right?

So, you know, I recently made this critique about Bernie Sanders.

His campaign can't pay his own staff $15

an hour.

So what does he do?

He cuts hours to get the equivalent.

Well, here's the problem.

His staff said $36K a year wasn't enough to buy food.

Did Bernie say, I'll give you more money?

No, he said, okay, then don't work Saturdays.

So do the same amount of work you have to do in shorter time.

Work harder, and we're still not going to pay you more.

And let some of you go to pay.

So some people are quitting.

So he's not going to increase their wages.

He's just saying you better get your work done on time.

It's really funny to come from Bernie.

But the reason I think it's a really good example of how socialism doesn't work is that Bernie doesn't have the input to make the output work.

The only thing he can do is cut hours.

Welcome to business, Bernie.

Right.

You know, his ideology just doesn't function.

So

he will condemn that very act in others

while doing it himself.

Yeah.

So, you know, I was a big fan of Bernie in 2015, 16, but not particularly for his more far-left approaches to like free college.

I think that's a terrible idea.

But it was more so about, for one, he opposed the free trade agreements.

He's for secure borders.

And he has a, he wasn't a flip-flopper.

He was for secure borders?

Oh, yeah.

In 2015, he said, open borders is a Koch brothers proposal.

We can't have that.

And in fact, a few months ago, Bernie Sanders said, he was asked, would you be for open borders?

He said, my God, no.

There's too many poor people in this world.

Bernie said that.

Wow.

And that's why I don't like him today, because I think he's a hypocrite.

I think when he goes on stage and says, we're going to give health care to, you know, undocumented immigrants,

and then you've got Julian Castro saying, decriminalize border crossings, it's tacit open borders.

But it's worse than that.

These people are advocating for a permanent underclass.

That to me freaks me out.

You're saying you're going to have people who aren't citizens

who you won't deport them.

What are they going to do?

They're going to work under the table.

They're going to get government benefits.

But I imagine it's a very ivory tower elite position to welcome that.

And it's not surprising to me.

You can't have...

a welfare state and open borders.

Right, right.

You have to pick one.

You want a welfare state or do you want open borders?

But once you open up and say, hey, free food for everybody, where do you think everybody in the world who has cancer and we happen to be the best at curing cancer, where do you think they're going?

So you know what my conundrum in all this is?

For one, love the environment.

I'm very much an environmentalist.

Like I said, I work for Greenpeace.

You get Ocasio-Cortez on the scene and she proposes this Green New Deal.

Well, when she first did, I was like, I'm down to hear it.

It sounds great.

And then what does she propose?

Free college, free health care, guaranteed jobs, income.

I'm like, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on, hold on.

You're killing the environmental argument here.

So

what I often say to a lot of my less liberal friends, more conservative types, is if, look, if you've got people who don't believe climate change is man-made

and you're coming to them and saying they're stupid or wrong, you're not arguing anything.

If you think we need a massive overhaul to save the planet, And you refuse to accept anything from conservatives, you're not making an argument.

Perhaps the argument is, what can we both achieve even if we disagree?

Is there perhaps a market, you know, a tax incentive program for certain technologies that can bolster business, make the United States more competitive internationally, and help

increase environmental awareness and protect the environment?

Can we agree on something like that?

You don't make.

So, where do we, so where do we

go?

And let me give you:

I'm a demon on global warming.

I'm the worst guy ever.

Except my farm and my ranch are 100% green.

I have

insulation, over-the-top new insulation that makes sure that

you can live in my house at 20 below zero or 100 degrees, and it's going to stay without any real air conditioning and without any fireplace.

I mean, one fireplace, 3,000 square feet, and I can keep it at 10 below zero outside.

I can keep it at 65 with one fireplace.

You were flying on private jets?

Well, I was.

I'm not saying I'm an environmentalist guy.

I'm just saying I care about the environment.

I do care about things that I can do.

There are some things that I'm not going to change my ways on,

but I can afford the expensive stuff for my house.

And

by putting those in my house, I'm helping making them cheaper for other people.

I do believe that man is probably involved.

There's no way man can't be doing all that we're doing and it's not affecting it somehow or another.

Yeah, I agree.

I also think you can look at the thermometer and you know, is it going up or down?

It's hard to track it beyond 1900 because everything was so bad.

And I think some of it is screwy now, but we're getting better at tracking it.

Predicting it, I have no idea.

The climate is always in flux and always changing.

But I'm willing to do the things that I think we should do.

But I don't agree with the solutions to

it's not a solution.

Right, right, right.

Most of it is about crippling the West or keeping the rising economies in poverty, which I think is absolutely immoral.

I don't, I disagree with the first one.

I don't think there's an intention among like many people in power to say, like, we want to hurt America.

AOC?

Well, AOC is different, though.

Right.

She's this far-left socialist type who has this identity.

I mean, look, that Green New Deal was talking about racial equity.

I'm like, what does that have to do with the environment?

It has none of it.

And I'm deeply offended by that.

You know, not like my offense matters to the greater picture, but no, I am.

I mean, I want

greener pastures and bluer skies and all this beauty and everything.

Like I'm sure most people do.

But when she comes out, all she did was make the environmental movement look ridiculous.

And it's, and it, and, and then you get environmentalists just backing her for no reason.

But you know what?

I've, I've talked to some prominent progressives and they asked me if I support the Green New Deal.

And I say, not hers.

And they ask me why.

And then I ask them, did you read it?

And they say, no.

And that's, and there we are.

So they're under the assumption the Green New Deal is going to be this like government investment into solar power.

And I'm like, no, it was like free college and free health care, which had nothing to do with the environment.

In fact,

if we had open borders, or not even, let's clarify the open borders thing because I know the left is going to jump and say, oh, they're lying.

They're misconstruing.

Sure.

If you don't criminalize illegal border crossings and then provide government benefits to people to come here, you are incentivizing the behavior.

And the U.S.

already produces too much carbon, right?

So the last thing we need is more people coming here and increasing the amount of carbon we're producing, right?

Not only that, but they're not vaccinated.

So you've got all these arguments that don't seem to make sense.

I think ultimately

the way I reach out to people who are more conservative on the issue is, look, the government offers you a tax incentive if you buy an electric car.

Good.

Can we do more things like that?

But

aren't the changes, and I'll give you government regulation has encouraged changes,

but haven't the changes in the combustion engine

now a brand new combustion engine is actually better for the environment than an electric car.

Is it?

I'm not.

Yeah, it is.

I can't quote it for you right now, and we'll look it up, but we'll operate.

Yeah, operator

that that's true.

And it's, you know, it's close, but it's still getting better.

Right.

And that's just innovation.

And I think there's, I go back to

the case for moral sentiments, which is, you know, who Adam Smith is, he wrote, you know,

Wealth of Nations.

The first book is Moral Sentiments.

And it says, if you're part of a society that has moral sentiments, good moral sentiments, that can come from just everybody is just in love and everybody somehow or another has just become, you know, Gandhi and Christ all put together, or there is some system that has taught them how to be moral, that is really important

because that will direct what they build and what they want.

I agree.

We are asking and needing more and more, more regulation and more laws because we're screwing this up.

We're not

moral, decent people.

I can't say for the most part, but we're losing that.

I think we're increasingly becoming,

we agree less on what is more on what isn't.

Right.

Yes and no.

I think we're just becoming morally lazy.

Well, I look at it this way.

You go back to the 50s where most people are Christian, you know, and so there's very common values.

And it's really easy to trust someone when you know you have very, very similar base values.

Correct.

Well, things are changing now.

I wouldn't go to Portland.

I wouldn't either.

But it's not because it's Christianity.

It's because

it's because we don't agree on thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill.

Take out thou.

Just make it Bob's safety tips, the big 10.

Give me seven of the 10.

It doesn't matter who said them anymore.

They just don't

agree.

They believe it is moral to lie.

Yes.

I say they, as in the whatever this more vocal and dominating faction on the left is, you know, the antiphotypes, the regressive, whatever you want to call them, they believe by any means necessary, even if it means hurting innocent people.

They don't care.

And so we don't agree on what is moral now.

I certainly don't agree with them.

And I think that's why, you know, there's kind of like this weird alignment between centrists, former liberals, and conservatives today.

We still agree, you know, at least we have these base rules, but this group doesn't have it.

Do you think that's a majority?

I don't think the majority of the left hold these views, but I do think the majority of the left is bowing to it, just ignoring it, backing away.

I mean, you know, I had a conversation with a boomer who is a lifelong Democrat, who told me, I'm scared by what's happening with immigration.

The Democrats aren't doing anything about it, and I can't say anything because I'll be destroyed.

So do you think that plays into

what?

Well,

my friends who voted for bernie felt cheated by the democrats yeah and they're not paying attention they don't care anymore they're just like

i'm done it's pointless and there are other people who are paying attention that i know that feel scared if they speak up they'll be called a nazi right they don't so what are they going to do nothing they uh i've it's will they vote um independent probably so i'm talking about an anecdotal group of rights right right yeah i know you know it's my personal sphere and um my family lifelong democrats and And right now they're all going, what the hell is going on?

You know, we're just, I don't see it.

I have no problem speaking up.

Of course, they call me right-wing, even though

I'm on a lot of issues probably around where Obama was.

And that's, well, that's right-wing today to these people.

Look at the Democrats, the 2020 Democrats.

I mean, we had an article from the New York Times saying the governors are worried because the...

2020 candidates are going so far left.

Promising health care to undocumented immigrants is mind-blowing to me.

Obama promised universal health care at the end of his first term.

Couldn't get it done.

Yet we've jumped over that, and now we're like, we'll just give health care to everybody.

And he promised.

He promised.

It won't go there.

It won't go there.

We will never do that.

You have Nancy Pelosi saying in 2008,

and I believe this is a pretty accurate quote, the last thing we need.

are more undocumented citizens.

Well, first of all, they're not citizens if they're undocumented, but how did you get from there to here?

You know what I think it is?

Twitter.

I really think, you know, Twitter, all these journalists have become addicted to it.

And so they're all writing the same things

and they're listening to these extremist activists.

But you know what it is?

It's a combination of around the 2010s when Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, and these other blogs started to pop up, they were exploiting human sentiment on Facebook for shares.

Outrage generates the most traffic.

It's a fact.

We know this to be true.

So you think about what's going to work in terms of selling content.

Orange man bad.

That's why we're seeing the Trump bump because scare people, shock them, make them angry.

You know, there was a website that I could be getting this wrong.

I want to make sure I clarify that, but.

We got a lot of gray zone stuff here.

Well, I mean, from me,

I say it could be wrong specifically to avoid one lawsuits.

Yeah, okay.

And also, just it's been years since I've gone over the data, but there was a website dedicated to nothing but police brutality on Facebook that cracked like the top thousand websites in the world because people on Facebook would see this police brutality video and click share.

And that was money, money, money.

So they went nuts with it.

And it's, you know,

you see sites like that.

You saw the problem of there was a lot of fake news on the right as well because they were exploiting outrage with fake news.

And then what was left is Vox, BuzzFeed, Huffington Post, these websites that still try and maintain this fringe identitarian ideology for rage, you know, for clicks.

And that's where we're at now.

And so what happens is you take millennials who for the past 10 years have been inundated nonstop with stories about privilege and diversity and police brutality, and now they live in this crazy world of nonsense where they're like, it's a delusional state, if you ask me.

I'll actually give you a real example of how this happened.

So Facebook created an algorithm.

That algorithm shows content based on certain criteria, engagement.

Outrage generates engagement.

So BuzzFeed staff, actually, I'll give you a a real example.

Mike.com, there was an expose where I believe Tablet Magazine did an expose talking to former employees who said, we have a formula.

X does Y to X.

Like basically, this is, we write this and it will get shares.

Humans, trying to cater to the algorithm, which was imperfect, sent people into this weird world of chaos.

But that's hard to parse through.

But this next story isn't.

YouTube created an algorithm.

Parents will give their tablet tablet to a baby and press play on a video.

And then YouTube automatically plays videos that are similar.

The first videos that people were giving to their kids was a song called Finger Family.

I don't know if you've ever heard the nursery rhyme.

It's like finger family, finger family.

And so you'd see these cartoons of someone singing.

Very happy, very normal, very wholesome.

People in India seeing an opportunity to generate traffic because

these videos were getting watched for 30 minutes because the babies can't press buttons.

So they started making really low-quality versions that started getting twisted and deranged.

They wrote programs to create the videos for them.

They sought out keywords in the algorithm that were hot and were more likely to be recommended.

And all of a sudden, babies were sitting in front of tablets where they would watch the incredible Hulk dance with Adolf Hitler while this creepy, muffled voice was singing this very out-of-tune song.

And the parents didn't know their babies were watching it.

Good.

It was automatic.

So YouTube fixed this problem, right?

But that story gives you a better view of what human, like the adults are getting into, not realizing it.

When you look at a video of Hitler dancing with the incredible Hulk while some Indian guy sings into a 1980s microphone, you're like, this is insane.

It was like, it's, and there were different versions of like Spider-Man and Elsa doing it.

We started seeing these really weird videos of Spider-Man and Elsa giving each other injections.

Because it was, yep.

And this got to the point where you actually had a video in Russia where a father held held his daughter down and gave her an injection on camera, and it got millions of views because the algorithm didn't know what was actually good content.

It only knew, like, it gets a lot of watch time, right?

So now think about what we can visibly see as insanity, delusional content where babies are watching just,

it was like an acid trip.

And now you have to realize the stuff that's being fed on Facebook by BuzzFeed Vox, it's very, very similar in its derangement, but it's masked.

Adults can't see that they're being fed this nightmare reality.

And now here we are with the Democrats promising health care to people who aren't citizens, which we can't afford, which makes no sense.

So where does that end?

Oh, man.

Civil war, chaos.

I mean, look,

I'm worried about these babies who were inundated with this nightmarish content.

That affects them.

Oh, yeah.

It's the most impressionable years of their lives.

They're going to grow up with weird things in their heads.

These people, these millennials who were teenagers, late teenagers, started getting inundated with this fringe outrage content, are now living in this nightmare realm that can't be broken out of because they've spent 40% of their life in this world that isn't real.

Okay, so, so, so,

uh, before we go to the future, help me here.

I was just talking to a senator just a couple of days ago, and

very intelligent, very well-read,

constitutional guy.

And we were talking about Google and YouTube and Facebook and everything else.

And he said,

he said, I'm really torn.

He said, because I don't want to regulate them out of business.

He said, because I believe in the free market.

He said, but then again, we have to have some safeguards so this kind of stuff doesn't happen.

And I said, well,

but they are

so fast and things can change so rapidly and it's only going to get worse with machine learning.

It'll just

happen overnight.

And I said, I really believe this election could be

deeply affected by just algorithms that they're designing now.

You know, the creepy line project by the Harvard professor that is documenting just the way they change the recommended videos or by the way, Google stacks the news when you go and search for something, they can swing independents 80% in the other direction.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Out of sight, out of mind, if the only thing you hear is from one side.

So, you know, I've said this before, and it's meant to be a little hyperbolic, but I think if something isn't done, there won't be Republicans as they are today will cease to exist.

By when?

I mean, I'm being hyperbolic.

Within the next couple of elections.

I'll give you a good example.

Donald Trump, he's the president.

A lot of predictions, models say he'll win 2020.

I think that's a fair point.

But Twitter said he breaks the rules.

He's not allowed to be on the platform.

But here's what we're going to do.

Twitter said we're going to put a notice on his tweet if they break the rules.

But you know what they're really saying?

There's a line in the sand as of today.

No one who ever speaks like the president will be allowed to use this platform.

Well, if you can't use Twitter, which is one of the dominant spaces for public discourse, then we will never see the rise of someone like Donald Trump ever again.

Well, that's Google's stated goal.

Facebook has said the same thing.

Internally, the good stuff is that

we can't let this kind of stuff happen again.

They believe that they are right.

And as no offense, but as progressives usually do, they believe they are the right ones.

They have more information.

And so I'm going to just take progressive steps to get you dummies to go along.

There's two ways of looking at progressivism.

That way, okay, if it is good and we all agree.

It's authoritarian progressivism.

Yes.

I disagree with it.

And that's where they are.

That's where they are.

Yep.

I mean, there's a real problem, in my opinion, that is going to happen

before we

even get up to speed to where these companies, and I am for the free market, but these companies are getting double dealt by the government.

They're getting platform status and they're getting publishing status.

So they get all- That's a complicated, a complicated problem, too.

But they've got, but

you can't be protected on all fronts and then start to say, you know what, I want to do good in the world.

And so I believe this is good.

And so I'm going to steer people this way.

We're talking about companies that will not have

no one will have the protection of the Constitution because the Constitution applies to the government, not to private companies.

The tyranny is being outsourced.

Yes.

I find that nightmarish.

So it's funny, you know, you get these woke activists, they'll be like, here comes Tim to the defense of conservatives.

And I'm like, first of all, remember that poem, First They Came For?

Yeah.

Right.

I'm...

I look to the conservatives in this country as doing what conservatives always do.

I've heard the arguments.

I disagree with a lot of them.

But hey, we're all Americans.

And the point is we find that compromise.

The problem now is nothing to do with conservatives.

It's a handful of billionaires running unaccountable corporations with government protection.

Where's the left?

I mean, I grew up with liberals saying corporation bad.

And I'm like, I agree.

I grew up making fun of things like Blade Runner, going, please.

I work for the corporation.

Shut up.

I've always been there.

And for the last 10 years, I find myself with a growing number of conservatives all saying, ah, something's really wrong here.

Yep.

Something's really wrong.

You know what really, what really annoys me is I've had a lot of conversations with in-action conservatives, I'll call them.

Because I'm not saying regulation is necessarily, you know, what has to happen, but something has to happen.

Yes.

And there are so many conservatives that say, no, no, no, we should let them do what they want.

I'm like, okay, great.

You'll be banned first.

I mean, your opinions won't exist anymore.

Right.

You know, here's the thing I noticed.

I was talking to this guy who's a far-left activist.

He told me he was a centrist.

He was a socialist.

Like, socialism is not the center.

Quite literally, on the political compass, socialism is as far left as can possibly, you can go.

And laissez-faire is as far right as you can possibly go.

And I'm talking about the compass, not like American cultural standards.

And he thought it was in the middle.

And so you realize that, and you look at someone like, you know, Jack Dorsey or Sundar Pichai, and they think they're in the middle when they're far left.

So then they go, okay, so Democrats are far right, and communists are far left, left and socialists, you know, socialist Democrats, you know, or Democratic socialists are here in the middle.

We should ban everyone to the right of a Democrat.

That's literally what they're doing.

Man, I got to say, you know what's really scaring me too?

We're going to derail a little bit, I guess, but

I was talking

on the Joe Rogan podcast with Jack Dorsey.

And right away, I said, your rules are biased against conservatives.

And the look on his face, he didn't realize it.

He said, what rule?

He genuinely believed his rules weren't.

And I said, first of all, the misgendering policy.

Like, I understand why you want to protect the trans community.

They have very high suicide rates.

And I can agree with, you know, I can respect that sentiment.

But you have to realize more than half this country, like substantial majority of this country, even liberals, do not agree with a lot of what's happening in this argument, like

transgender women competing against biological women.

I'm like, lifelong Democrats are concerned about that.

When you say you're going to ban every conservative because they hold this view

or they have to bend the knee and never express that view, You've got a rule base that's basically threatening them at any moment.

The sword is Damocles over your head.

You can be kicked off the platform.

Now, what do we see?

In Canada, a trans woman has filed a human rights complaint against a Brazilian waxing salon because the trans woman has male parts and is demanding the female make contact.

The law.

It is this this this um professional waxer has shut down her business and that we we've just gone insane.

That to me

crossing the line.

We are denying reality.

Yeah.

At the same time, we're denying an individual right to say, I don't want to participate in that.

I don't care if you do it, but I don't want to participate.

This right here is like when it came to the baker in Colorado, whether you should make a custom cake for a gay wedding, I've always been like, it's just a cake.

You don't have to, like, my opinion was, if you're accepting public infrastructure, a tax-paying citizen who helps contribute to the pipes, to the sidewalks,

to your safety and fire department, then just make the cake for them, right?

But I got to admit, making a cake is simple.

You might disagree with it, but waxing a male's privates is like state-enforced.

So that's a principle

nightmare.

I mean, you know, art is so sacred.

Well, my father was a cake decorator.

I grew up in a bakery, and his, he, that was his art.

Right, right.

And you're going to force people, their art.

And, you know, you can define that in many, many ways.

What I do to some degree is, is an art form.

You know, you're doing television, you're whatever, it's an art form.

You, you can't tell people

and force people to do the things that are against what they feel, truly feel.

But this has been so crazy for me because, man, even in the past few months, I made videos where I said, listen, you know, that gay couple, they're paying taxes.

Okay.

You're reaping the benefits of their income in our community to turn them away because you don't want to write some words on a cake.

But the issue then becomes, actually, I've got another really great point on this.

We're getting now to this, you know, waxing thing in Canada, and it's stressing my view on the ethics of whether a business should have to do anything.

But I thought about something similar in that it's really easy to hold a principle when you don't challenge the line.

For instance, you're familiar with Blackstone's formulation.

It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.

So I thought about that and I said,

okay,

would you free 10 shoplifters if it meant one innocent person accused of shoplifting would go free?

And most people would say, oh, of course.

Would you free 10 child rapists if it meant one innocent person would go free?

And then all of a sudden, people start questioning Blackstone's formulation because that's 10 people did some nightmarish crime.

And so, you know, it's easy to hold a principle when your perspective is shoplifting.

But you have to.

It has to remain in place.

No matter how bad the crime.

Right.

Otherwise, this is the well, this is the ethical moral conundrum for me because I'm like, am I going to be the person to tell that woman she has to touch that man?

No.

That's that line is hard.

That's hard.

But we have to respect that people have different viewpoints, different lifestyles, different everything.

But

if you don't protect the individual right to be themselves and the individual right

to say,

I disagree with that.

What do you have?

You have mom and dad called into the room every time brother and sister are having an argument, and then they have to decide right they sometimes don't make the right decision you know what I mean yeah you have to say you know what guys you're gonna have to work it out you have to get along because we're all living in the same house you know what's really interesting though is uh

the cake argument as my as I understand it is all is often misunderstood by liberals the left.

I hate saying liberals because let's be real, like the left is not.

But the people on the left think the issue was he said, get out of my store.

And in reality, he said, you can have any cake you want, but you're not going to get me to draw what you want.

What's interesting about that is it's a First Amendment argument.

I can't be compelled to speak.

That's Twitter's argument for banning whoever they want.

Twitter's argument is that speech is coming from Twitter, and we can't be forced to permit it.

It's a First Amendment argument.

But then they are not a platform and should not have platform protections.

But outside of this, right?

Yeah.

The idea is, why should a baker be forced to speak on behalf of the gay couple, but Twitter not be forced to speak on behalf of the citizen?

That's great.

Arbitrary lines, right?

It's it's it's man.

Um,

you know, I think it's funny that there are a lot of people who engage in like political commentary and debate that think you have to have an answer to everything, and they approach everything as a debate where one either is or isn't.

And I'm like, look, I can just flat out say, honestly, I don't know where that line is.

It's a hard, it's a hard ethical, you know, like the pro-choice, pro-life thing for me is one of the hardest ethical issues I've ever, you know, had to even try and figure out.

But we,

we can go to the the platform publisher thing to you know to move on from this hang on let me let me stop at abortion yeah the problem is the problem with this is

I am pro-life but the thing

that I

have the hardest time doing is

at conception

at two weeks,

if it's rape, if it's incest,

I don't want to be the dad that has to go to my daughter who's just been raped.

And so you got to carry that child.

However, for me to be consistent, that's what I have to say, but I don't like it.

And I think there's a lot of people that are there.

They're like, look, I don't want to get involved in somebody else's life.

I don't know all the facts.

And so

they will be mushy there.

But we're not that.

We're not having that conversation now.

We're having the conversation of kill it at any time

for any reason, even after they're born.

I mean, it's

right, right.

So

we'll jump right into this topic.

I've grown up Democrat, Democrat family, pro-choice, except we were always like, there's a limit.

At a certain point, we can't.

And so safe,

safe, rare, and what was the other one?

It was like available or something.

Legal, safe, and rare.

Rare.

Yeah.

And now I remember seeing the segment on, I think her name's Michelle Wolf or something.

I can't remember her name.

Was that the comedian?

She had a show on Netflix, and she was yelling abortions for everyone.

You had Lena Dunham say that she wished she had an abortion.

And for me, that was kind of like,

what's happening?

I saw a person in Seattle, an abortion activist, and she was giving a speech in Seattle.

And she said, you know,

my first abortion was in Seattle.

And it was my best abortion.

And I thought, you go to a doctor, you go to a vet, and the vet says,

ooh, putting your dog down.

That was my first, that was my first euthanizing an animal.

That was a good one.

You go to everybody you know and say, this person has deep issues.

This is a really good,

man, there are so many issues to talk about how the mainstream media-supported left is losing their minds.

Polls show most Americans believe on a limitation at a certain point.

You know, it was like after the first trimester or something.

I don't know.

The way I've always viewed it is I grew up with very, you know, my dad was always kind of conservative.

My mom was pretty much a hippie.

And, but we were Democrat, pro-choice, and all that.

And it was, you know, my dad saying something like, look,

you should never be happy about an abortion.

You know, if you're ever with a woman and something, you know, you have to be responsible and there are certain circumstances where we begrudgingly accept we need the ability to have an abortion.

That was the, growing up, it was like, it was really bad.

And if you had to do it, you had to.

And it was something to be upset about.

Today, it's a joke.

Oh, yeah.

People, like people wearing shirts that are saying like, you know, gonna go get an abortion or something.

But most Americans don't feel that way.

So here I am as somebody who is always been a moderate, you know, Democrat leaning to the left of my family saying, yeah, right.

For me, I'm pro-choice on libertarian grounds, and it's a very, very complicated ethical position.

I am 100% within every inch of my body opposed to the death penalty.

And that makes it really hard when it comes to pro-life.

I believe life begins at conception.

I don't see any way you can argue against that.

It is.

Life exists.

But I also think there's a challenge in having the government mandate that one person share their body with another person.

While recognizing, sure, you can have irresponsible young kids who got themselves in that problem, but you can't have victims of assault who are now being forced by the government.

And I don't know whether I should be involved in the moral, ethical, and health-related decisions of an individual at a governmental level.

I want the cops to go in with guns and force this person to do that thing.

And so all I can really do is say, within me, the only thing I can do is lean towards the more freedom, even though I understand there are two lives at stake.

I can't compel someone to provide their body to someone else.

I just don't know.

I don't know the answer.

That's as best as I can do.

I would see your reasoning

if it stops at rape or incest.

Well, no, not even that.

Not even that.

Because I don't blame the baby for that.

I don't blame the baby.

No, no, no, I know that.

But you're saying

the government can't compel you to have,

well,

okay,

but the government's not compelling you.

Those are your consequences.

You know, I stand on the railroad track.

Well, it's like I'm going to get mowed over by a train eventually.

One of the challenges with later-term abortion is severe deformity or inviability.

And so

it's hard for me to believe the government has the ability to know a one-size-fits-all solution.

And here's the bigger ethical conundrum.

The data, at least I've looked up, shows that majority of abortions are for no reason at all.

And so it's like, how do you that I don't believe there's like a good compromise to this problem at all?

I don't know if there's a solution at all.

Because you either have

there, if you're talking about rape, incest, horrible deformities,

you can at least make a case to all reasonable people

to say

no abortions.

you could make the case to a moral person, but then it breaks apart when you start to add in the human element of, hey, but we don't know everything that's going on.

Exactly.

But the abortion anytime for any reason, I don't see the argument.

Now, here's the problem, though.

When it comes to the arguments of rape and incest, how does the government determine it was or wasn't?

Right.

Is someone lying to get it?

My problem is, is the baby isn't responsible.

Right, exactly.

This is a tough, tough problem.

It is.

And, you know, I think...

But that's.

The struggle to get to an answer is just as important as the answer.

As long as we're struggling to get to the answer.

But I don't think we are.

I think we've just abandoned all good faith.

Well, whatever this left, leftism, there's not even a, like, here we are having a conversation trying to figure out the ethics of what is right and what is wrong, like normal human beings.

And the left is basically saying at any point for any reason.

Right.

And I'm like, wait, wait, hold on.

You, you are in the other room.

We're not, you're not even in a conversation.

What's going on?

You know, for me, it comes down to like,

you have a victim of rape, incest, and do you have to then have them present evidence?

Do they go through some ordeal?

Or is it like between you and your doctor?

I just lean towards libertarian, I guess.

And I don't think I'm right or wrong.

I just, I actually think I'm wrong in a lot of ways on it, but I don't know what to do.

You know what I mean?

So it's, it's a.

I think that's where most people are on on a lot of big issues.

Right.

And they just, what they want is an end to this nightmare of calling people names for, you know, you look at identitarians.

You've been using that word a lot.

And the identitarian of the, of Europe

is wildly misunderstood

in my view.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

There are those who are, you know, Nazi nationalists, blah, blah, blah.

But, and it's happening here in America.

And it's one of the reasons I think Donald Trump won, not for the Nazi reason that they keep putting out, but maybe in one way because of the Nazi thing.

If you believe in your country, if you believe that, you know, this is a good place, you're demonized over in Sweden, you're a racist if you won't fly the EU flag and you want to fly the Swedish flag.

That makes people automatically push back and go, you know what?

My identity is important too.

I don't think, I think,

so let me clarify for those that might not understand, identitarian is identity-based government, right?

So identity meaning, in this instance, your race or the races of individuals.

So in Europe, you have these groups that are concerned about mass migration and the displacement of the indigenous population.

It's actually interesting.

They call themselves indigenous rights activists because white people in France are the indigenous population.

In the U.S., I don't think,

just based on the people I've talked to, that white identitarianism was a major factor to Trump's victory.

So

I'm not talking about white

nationalism.

What I'm talking about are is this feeling, and it's always connected to white nationalism, okay,

by the press and by people who are, I think, being insincere or just not well-read,

the idea that

My culture, I don't care what color you are, my culture is important, not to to the expense of other cultures right right I don't mind come in bring the best of yours and let's blend in but it's underneath the umbrella of America yes and it's and what the problem is is that people are now saying no

all cultures are equally great well you know what there's been some bad cultures that have happened and I don't care what color it is hey what do you think about the culture of the of Germany in the 1930s and 40s it sucked okay so So everything is not equal.

There may be some great aspects of it.

There might be things that you're proud of, but

why do I have to celebrate this and this is torn down?

And that's the problem.

That's the rub that I think people are feeling.

And

many politicians, many groups, and especially the media.

are exploiting it or they just don't understand what this problem is.

First of all, I'll clarify, that's not identitarianism, right?

So, identitarianism is usually about what your identity is, things you can't control, you know, be it male, female, white.

That just

valuing American culture.

Ultrism, I don't know what you want to call it, right?

Right, but what is happening, and you probably will,

I mean, please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

What's happening in, for instance, Brexit, I think there are some people that are part of Brexit that are

white identitarian.

Totally.

Okay.

But there are also people who are so beaten up and see what's happening to their country and see what's going on and no one is recognizing them.

The power is putting them into this group that they just say, you know what?

Nobody is freaking talking about me.

Nobody's helping me.

Exactly.

At least these guys

are not calling me names and I don't like what they stand for, but they're being pushed into that corner.

This is why I think, I do think that at current course, the way the left and, you know, look, the left in this country has gone so far off the path.

And it's not my opinion.

It's the New York Times data.

It's quartz.

It's Pew.

It's Gallup.

It's The Economist.

I've got the charts.

I show them all the time.

The media feels safe for whatever reason with this fringe, far-left, identity-based world.

Which I don't understand.

You know what?

And that's why the center and the right are kind of more aligned and the left is...

The media just thinks it's a safe.

They've always felt it's safe.

I have no idea.

But what do you think happens when you have Sarah Jung?

Do you know who she is?

She was on Twitter for three years

with 80 white racist posts.

The New York Times hires her, gives her a prominent position.

The alt-right responded by saying, bless the New York Times.

I wish we had a thousand more Sarah Jungs.

They didn't hate it.

They loved it.

They wanted that because they know the kind of things she was putting out will force white people to join the alt-right.

Well, they're hoping white people will then come to the alt-right.

Well, if the alt-right

is the media is already saying that the the

uh right supporters supporters are part of the alt-right they are not it is a big there are some people in the alt-right that support donald trump yep but there are very few people that support donald trump that support the alt-right if they know what it is but because the media says you're all alt-right yep

a lot of people just go well i guess it can't be that bad i'm part of the alt-right that's dangerous now that quote's going to get taken out of context because you just said it.

So I've actually talked to some young people who told me they were.

And I was just like, I, you know, I completely disagree.

Where America was not, it's not like, you know, look, it's not a European nation.

White people didn't come from here.

We came to here.

And there are other people that were here too.

And they're like, oh, no, I don't care about race.

And I'm like, wait, what?

Do you know what alt-right means?

Literally, it's like neo-Confederate white nationalism.

And they were like, oh.

All they ever saw was people they thought were funny being accused of being alt-right and assumed alt-right meant like when Ben Shapiro is alt-right oh my god you know

sign me up I guess

that's not what it is but the but you've got you know what I think I think a lot of people on the left are so far left

they look to the right

and they actually I'll put it this way one of the things I describe is this event that happened in Boston where you had the right and the left on one side on the right, you had a guy waving a Confederate flag.

On the other side, you had a guy waving a Soviet flag.

So I was talking to one of the organizers of the protest and I said, you know, I'm sure they would welcome you over there for conversation.

And he was like, are you kidding?

Look, they're flying a Confederate flag.

And I said, oh, that's one guy, though.

And they're like, yeah, but he's there with them.

They support him.

And I'm like, no, it doesn't mean they support him.

I'm like, you guys are flying a Soviet flag.

And he goes, no, we're not.

And then I said, look behind you.

He didn't realize the flag was behind him.

So here's what happens.

On the right side, they look over the hill and they see the big Soviet flag.

And they assume everybody over there must be a communist.

They look over on the right, see the Confederate flag.

So I think that's kind of a good way to explain what happens when the left is so far left.

They look to the right and the center, they can see the people in the center, but then to the far right, they see the flags and assume it's one group.

When actually we're far away from each other, you know, they can't tell the difference.

Let me switch subjects because I hate to have you here and not go deep on

tech.

Yeah, yeah.

China 2020

is, I think, 1984.

Oh, man.

And America, 2020, 20, whenever, I think is brave new world.

I think we're headed the same direction.

And when Peter Thiel, who is not an extremist, says

Google should be at least looked into for treason.

Wow.

I have, yeah, wow.

And I have a hard time not saying,

I don't know about treason.

It's very specific on what that is, but that's really dangerous what they're doing.

You know, I kind of feel like China has a very authoritarian system.

You do what China needs.

Oh, yeah.

But that's good for them in the long run.

While life may suffer for the individual,

I think they're on track to just trounce the United States in a worrisome way.

We've allowed, I mean, first of all, I think we have no purpose.

The United States, millennials, the reason why we're seeing all this fringe, ridiculous activism is because no one is, there's no mission.

You know, they did a survey of the UK and the United States about what you want to be when you grow up americans and and brits said vloggers on youtube chinese said astronauts people in china have a mission they want to be great they want to succeed they want to fly their flag people in america just want people to look at them and so what happens they go on twitter and they say silly things so that says to me you know if young people today don't care about the the strength of our community Why would we have one 20 years?

China will exist.

It's going to be a crappy place to live in, for sure.

But

they're going to have the commanding economy.

They're going to have international power.

But as somebody who watches the tech world,

it says something that Google will assist China in some of the most, some of the worst things we have seen since

fascism in the 1930s, Pol Pot.

I mean,

they are

brutal.

I think Google pulled out of the dragonfly.

There's like two things.

there's there's project maven which was a government i believe was like chinese military in which they're like oh we play a small role

yeah right if if any at all why should you and this is really scary actually so um i believe they did pull out of dragonfly which was censored search but i'll tell you what's really scary is that google starts in the united states built off the back of the united states they now i believe are headquartered in like dublin right what do you think happens if u.s regular regular regulators come into google and say we want you to stop the meddling we want you to stop the search manipulation.

Google can say, we make more money in China.

Screw you.

And then they basically just do what China wants.

What are we going to do?

Go to Ireland, stop them?

We can't.

So what's scary is the authoritarianism of China will force Google to take action, but Google wants the benefit, so they'll bend the knee.

In the United States,

it's an issue of which is more valuable to Google.

Who is Google going to be loyal to if it's an international company at this point?

Is that scary?

Absolutely terrifying.

Think about if

the conflict in the South China Sea, which has been brewing for a long time,

and then China says, listen, Google,

war is bad, right?

Why don't you start weighing things down in the U.S.?

So U.S.

interests.

And then all of a sudden, people in America are like, China's great.

We love China.

You search for China.

What do you see?

It's all this really beautiful things about China.

And Google's saying it's better this way because war is bad.

And then China's interests supersede the United States.

And that's not unrealistic.

I think it's probably already happening.

I do too.

I do too.

Yeah.

So

the China 2020,

what I'm concerned about is

we're just accepting it here.

We're not even really standing up and saying, hey,

that was an episode of the Black Mirror.

Yeah.

And we're accepting it and it's growing bigger and bigger.

Do you see a time where the doors

close,

where these big corporations have the power and there's just no turning back from it?

Absolutely.

And

the thing is, 100 years ago, if the doors closed, somebody would come and knock those doors down.

Can't.

You can't anymore.

You know why?

As I explained earlier with the algorithms, you won't even know the door is closed.

Right.

All you're going to see when you open your phone is lollipops and rainbows and you're going to be like, life is good.

And you're not going to realize it.

It is the matrix.

Right, right, right.

I'll tell you what's scary about it.

Right, at a certain level, we can say, you know what, if we can avoid war, that's a good thing, right?

Google has the perspective, we should stop the bad speech, and eventually there will be no bad speech.

Well, that sounds nice.

Right.

But here's the thing.

As we learned from the YouTube story about Hitler and the Hulk dancing, their algorithms aren't going to lead to what they want.

Right.

So the way I can actually explain it is.

YouTube thought their algorithm would lead people towards funny sitcoms.

That's what they had in their mind.

They were like, what's a good show?

Friends, right?

So let's tell the algorithm things like friends are good.

More than 10 minutes, people watch more than 10 minutes, you know, it's got this amount of likes, this amount of views.

And YouTube instead directed them towards an Indian guy singing into an 80s microphone of Hitler dancing because it didn't know the difference.

So they're doing this now.

They think they're doing the moral good and they're going to be working.

It's going to be this big international thing where it's like, actually, I believe what Jack Dorsey said was we're a global community.

They don't view themselves as catering to the American people.

I've talked to, I don't know, for years I've talked to some of the people in Silicon Valley.

Really

deep thinkers that don't think the same way I do,

but they're fascinating to talk to because they see the world that is coming and they're designing the world that is coming.

They think they are.

Yeah, they think they are.

And they have said to me for years,

Glenn,

you're thinking old world.

We're entering a world where borders won't matter.

It's true, though.

It is.

It is, but not in the way that

we have ever felt borders, you know, the way we think of borders.

They mean

the corporations

have no worry about borders at all.

And

it's a completely redesigned corporate entity.

The corporation will be, I mean, Facebook, if Facebook wanted to right now, they could be the government.

You would never see it.

Look, Elizabeth Warren came out and said she wants to break up big tech, right?

And then what happened almost right away?

Facebook took her ads down and then brought them back up later saying, oops, that was a mistake.

Was it?

Yeah, that's scary.

YouTube, I'm sorry, Google and Facebook control nearly half,

or I believe they control the overwhelming majority, maybe like I mean each control around half of the digital ad market.

They've just monopolized the whole thing.

Biggest ad agency in the world.

Yep.

So when it comes to the internet, they can make you think whatever they want.

You'll never hear a story again.

And then, you know, what blows my mind is why these people in media just love it, defend Google all day and night.

You know what's crazy?

A few weeks ago, a bunch of Trump supporters and conservatives had a protest in D.C.

called Stop the Bias.

Something about, I don't know what it was about.

All I know is they were saying these big corporations are silencing speech.

Antifa shut up to protest the American citizens fighting for their rights against corporations.

The far left came out to protest not authoritarianism, but American citizens complaining and demanding a redress of grievances.

It's like the,

what is it, the internet rules that they tried to get passed and

Pajit changed from the FCC.

I don't know.

But I'll say this.

When it comes to the talk about like China and 1984 and how the algorithms are manipulating us, think about the kind of content that these people, these antifa people see all, all, all day, every day.

World War II imagery, talks of parallels between Trump and Nazism.

Google is whether they're doing it on purpose or not, are manufacturing people.

Twitter is a great example.

They create block lists so you can never see what I have to say.

They only ever see the fringe far left and they are festering in this bubble where they just eventually get big and angry and then think they're morally just and then act in defense of these massive corporations.

What's the solution?

I honestly have no idea.

How do you tell a company they're not allowed to have free enterprise?

How do you tell an individual they're not allowed to have free speech?

I think perhaps

there was one interesting option put forward.

I can't remember which senator did it.

He's saying an algorithmic free mandatory option for all social networks, meaning you can choose to see things as they are without being manipulated.

And then perhaps a guarantee of free speech on these platforms.

Now, the conversation has to be had in a very particular way.

We can't just say you have to have free speech, but we can say publisher platform, right?

This is an important distinction because legally there is no publisher or platform distinction.

The law just says, you know,

a digital service will not be deemed the speaker of

something based on a third person, which is a really interesting conundrum in the United States specifically.

In Australia,

I believe a man recently sued media organizations because they posted to Facebook and then someone commented defamatory information on that post and he said that was the media company's speech.

And Australia said, you're right, it is.

Because they created the space for it.

They were obligated to regulate it.

In the U.S., Section 230 protects them from this.

But I ask if that's true and there's no distinction.

Why can't, so you're saying that the Wall Street Journal can write, you know, Glenn Beck is an alien and make some ridiculous false claim that he's a bigot, racist, and here's proof.

Make it all up.

You can't sue him.

You can, of course.

It's liable.

You can.

But hold on.

Section 230 says you can't you'd have to sue the individual author not the wall street journal

right

because

the they have an editor and so they look at everything before it goes law doesn't say that though pardon me the section 230 doesn't clarify that that's the thing legally there's no distinction between platform or publisher so how can we at a be at a point now where the law accidentally meant gave the new york times immunity right that doesn't make sense right so there needs to be a clarification and And I will make this point, stressing it too.

When the left always says, you know, it's a private business, they can do what they want, I say, that's wonderful.

We create new regulations every day.

End of story.

Sure, today they can do whatever they want.

I'm arguing they shouldn't be able to.

And now we should actually enforce something.

What form regulation takes is a bigger question, but the point is, just because they can do it now doesn't mean they should be able to.

We need to either refine Section 230 to clarify.

We need to pass laws restricting

the banning of speech based on arbitrary, you know, whatever.

But, you know, I guess it is an extremely complicated problem.

It is the development of a new civic within our country that requires the conversation.

And simply saying, do nothing.

It's a private business, I think, is the wrong approach.

Where is the line where we are not going to know

if free will exists?

We might be past it already.

You know, I'll tell you something creepy.

I watch on YouTube anime videos like Dragon Ball Z and One Punch Man.

And I don't watch politics for the most part, even though I make political videos.

I watch skateboarding and I watch cartoons where people, Japanese people, fight each other.

And one day, I got a video about people living in a van.

Van life.

And I thought, that's weird.

I've never watched anything having to do with living off the grid or living in a van.

I clicked it and I thought, wow, this is actually really interesting.

And then all of a sudden, all I've been getting recently, every other video is van videos.

And I started thinking,

why would Google just send me this video?

Now, I'll be honest, I ended up building a van.

I now have a mobile production, you know, slash live shower in it because I thought it was a great idea.

But something else happened.

This woman, her name is like Janelle Elena.

In a couple of weeks with only two videos, has like 1.5 million subscribers on YouTube.

It's one of the fastest growing channels ever for the amount of content she put out, which which is none.

And now a lot of people are saying they believe it's an industry plant.

I'm not saying that's true.

At the very least, we can say, though, whether on purpose or on accident, the algorithm is putting in the minds of young people not to buy homes and to live in vans.

And think about what that's going to do to the housing market in 10 years when millennials are like, I'd rather live in a van.

It sounds fun.

Nobody's right now, millennials aren't buying homes just can't afford it.

So what happens then when no one can sell a home, the market bottoms out, everyone's investment's destroyed.

See, that's where people don't understand

this.

For instance,

it's my understanding that Amazon is really looking to the future of just being a shipping company, a prediction and shipping company.

Once they have enough in their algorithm to predict you 90%, 95% of the time, they'll just start shipping stuff before you even want to order it and it'll be there.

And if you want it,

you'll keep it and pay for it.

If not, you'll ship it back.

But do i really want it or did they shape me exactly with their ads that are were aligned directly to me well there are two two things first there's a story of

a father received uh uh he picked a mail-up from his house and there was some some coupons for his daughter for maternity items

yeah you know the story yeah but tell it anyway he got angry because he was like why are they advertising to my young daughter she'd be a mother and it turned out they actually knew she was already pregnant because of the things she was looking at online the things things she was saying.

They didn't mean anything by it.

They were like, oh, she'll probably want this, not realizing.

But what's really scary is, you know, a lot of people believe that Facebook spies on them because you'll be talking about something and then you'll go on Facebook and see an ad for that very thing.

And you're thinking like they had to have been listening to me.

That's very naive.

The reality is scarier.

Facebook can predict your behavior so well, they knew you were going to talk about it.

And this is true.

There was an article that said, YouTube, I'm sorry, Facebook knows where you're going to eat lunch with a ridiculous accuracy.

They know when you use the bathroom.

They can predict all of these things about you.

And so they're not spying on you.

They don't need to.

When you said to your, you know, to your dad or whatever, man, I'm really interested in getting that new telecaster I saw at the Guitar Center.

And then all of a sudden you see an ad for it, it's because the behaviors before seemingly irrelevant.

I like nachos.

It's raining.

Those behaviors are associated with someone wanting to buy a guitar.

Somehow, in some way, we don't understand.

The AI does.

So you think they're listening to you?

No.

They're predicting your behavior.

Now, you combine that with shaping behavior.

And it could be as simple as

if we show you the post about nachos, we know you'll vote for Obama or whoever, right?

You might not think seeing endless posts about Taco Bell will impact you in a certain way, so you'll never question it.

But they know those seemingly, you know, irrelevant things do guide your behavior.

You know, what's scary is how they can control the stock market.

They can control, which they can, they, you know, it's funny.

Well, AI is most,

most of the stock market now is AI.

Right, right, right.

Well, think of it this way.

If they really wanted to, Twitter, Google, Facebook, whatever, combat global warming or whatever, they could snap their fingers and you'd only see news, you'd only see comments, you'd only see opinions.

They could easily restrict or limit speech.

They're doing it.

On Twitter, you know, people are shadow banned.

On YouTube, I'm sorry, I always met some Google.

You type in a search term, it won't appear.

Right?

So like one common thing right now is you go on Google, type in Ilhan Omar, marriage, nothing comes up.

You go on duckduck go, marriage fraud pops up first thing, because that's the question people are asking.

Google is manipulating what people can see and shaping our behaviors.

They call it the good censor.

That's the document that was leaked and presented by Ted Cruz in Congress.

They know what they're doing.

And what's scary is the example of, you know, Hitler and the Hulk.

They think they're guiding you in a direction that makes sense.

They don't know.

And you're not proposing that you do know.

Oh, I don't.

You're just, yeah.

You know, it's really funny.

People always say, like, you know, YouTube's coming to get me.

I'm next.

I'm going to get censored.

And I'm like, listen, you got to understand YouTube, they could get rid of me at any moment.

They've definitely deranked independent commentary, but my channel is doing better than ever.

So if their intention is to get rid of my voice, I don't think so.

Actually, I have a theory on this, which is kind of a sidestep.

The media calls me right-wing.

I'm clearly not.

Centrist at the very least, but a lot of, you know, I'm supporting Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang.

But you know what they want to happen?

They want the wheel to shift over.

They want me to be conservative so that you, Glenn, are a fringe far-right extremist.

How do they shift the full opinions of everybody?

How do they control that behavior?

They start telling everybody slowly Tim Poole's right wing.

They prop up my YouTube channel and then call it right wing so it's the only thing people can see.

And then people get this view of a moderate liberal as conservative and it shifts the whole wheel to the left.

Wow.

I'm not saying it's on purpose.

It's an overton window move.

Right.

So right now I look at like Tucker Carlson.

You know, he's conservative.

I'm definitely to the left of him and Ben Shapiro.

But Ben Shapiro won't use the proper pronouns for a trans person.

I actually do, because I'm actually a liberal.

They'll now ban Ben Shapiro eventually.

He's high profile, so they have to wait this one out.

But they're gonna they're banning all the lower lower tiered individuals who have less followers who have no protection and no chance of rectifying this for misgendering.

And they say, but you broke the rules of a private platform.

Once they're all gone, then they say, but Tim Poole is a conservative.

Now there's nothing to the right of me, but the extremists who are banned.

And then the whole wheel shifts over one degree.

So why hasn't

why hasn't anyone

done anything to

at least build another platform?

Why is that?

Yeah, they have, they have, yeah, absolutely.

And I think it requires

people to use them, right?

So

I used to have the Twitter logo in my video thumbnails on YouTube because I want people to follow me.

I now use the Mines logo, M-I-N-S.

Mines is kind of like Facebook, YouTube.

You can upload video.

It's kind of like Facebook, but it's decentralized, encrypted, privacy, free speech.

You don't get banned for offensive content.

If you post egregiously offensive things that are like not safe for work, you get a not safe for work tag, which means people have to turn the filter on to see it.

Not a big deal, right?

So they've got, I think, a couple million users.

I actually am working

with the CEO

on a separate project, a news venture.

So it's happening, right?

You've got BitChute, which is video hosting, which is doing pretty well,

which is kind of like a YouTube alternative.

You've got Gab and Parlay, which are Twitter alternatives.

You have Minds.

So, you know, here's the thing.

If Donald Trump right now signed up for minds.com and then posted something related to Iran, the media would be forced to cover it and that would the market would just overnight.

Twitter would lose a massive portion of its share.

Its stock would probably go down.

Right, but they would also immediately be deemed by

media and social media as a far-right, extreme platform.

They're already doing it.

And I think, you know,

I'm not going to claim these people are doing it on purpose.

But I am, it is disconcerting that you have these journalists acting in defense of massive, unaccountable corporations, smearing small businesses, decently small businesses.

But here's the thing.

There's another network called the Fediverse, which stands for Federated Universe.

It's an open source protocol for social media.

You're familiar with Gab, I imagine, right?

Yeah.

Gab did something really brilliant in they overhauled their code and took the open source code from a group, I don't want to call it a company, but an organization called Mastodon.

Mastodon is pretty far left, right?

They have crazy rules.

They even banned Will Wheaton for being a transphobe.

And Will Wheaton is like, right, right.

We know Will Wheaton's kind of far left.

So Mastodon's code is open source.

Gab takes it.

Gab federates, meaning any browser that accesses this open source network can get you to Gab.

Can Google ban a browser because you can go to a bad website?

No.

So now Gab can't be banned or shut down ever.

So this is a step in.

you know, the right direction.

Whether you like Gab or not is not the point.

I'm not talking about the history of Gab, just the idea of unbannable networks.

What's really interesting about this Fediverse option is that you can make your own social media site called Glennbeck.com.

And you can tell people, follow me on the Fediverse, Glenn at Glennbeck.com, like email or a website.

No one can ban you because it's your server hosting your speech.

The only thing that can take you down is a court order.

So this is an alternative to these massive networks and censorship.

What it's going to take, though, high-profile individuals using them.

So I've been promoting and using mines because it's like, I hate Facebook.

It's just for so many reasons but you know the easiest path to changing it is if Trump right now

if Trump made a post on any one of these platforms be it gap mines bit shoot whatever the media would have no choice but to show it front and center on every channel on every website and then you know you know Twitter was bleeding users for a while and then Trump came in

helped prop it back up because now there was a reason to be on the platform they're still kind of losing users but until high profile people say I'm going to use something else well they control everything you know

I want to switch gears and keep it focused on what we're facing in this election right now.

For instance,

I've been warning the audience of deep fakes for a long time.

Once,

it's like people said in Germany,

you know, in

1925, nobody knew what hyperinflation was.

Or 1928, by 29,

that's all anyone was talking about, you know?

And I think it's going to be that way with the first deep fake, the first real deep fake.

I kind of think deep fakes are going to be a really good thing for us.

And I, you know, sometimes the solution to problems are counterintuitive.

Hey, wait, wait, wait.

I think long term, you may be right.

And I want to hear your theory on that.

But I'm talking about the first real critical moment deep fake that everybody thinks is real and could change an election or could start a war.

First one.

I think it'll be a good thing.

Do you?

Why?

So, I mean, look at Covington.

Remember that Covington?

That was real footage.

Right.

And so because it was real footage, there was no fact-checking to determine whether or not what actually happened was real.

They said, of course it's real.

We've seen the footage.

Now, what happens when a video comes out of Trump saying something nightmarish and dangerous?

And then in three or four days, it turns out to be completely fake.

We need something to get, I guess, I don't know if journalists will ever get back on track on this one for whatever reason, but we need to get to a point where people are less trusting of random videos they see on the internet.

So once we get that first big deep fake and the media says, oh my,

that was fake?

Whoa, then people might take a step back for every other video following that.

So

we need something to say, legitimately stop believing everything you see.

Because, you know, you can take a video and it's so easy to strip out not just the context of the sentence, but the cultural context surrounding the conversation.

So it's amazing.

What DARPA is trying to do right now, DARPA's, I'm sure you know more than I do, working on deep fakes.

Because they want to be able to have this algorithm that can spot them and then mark them as deep fakes.

Well,

what you're talking about is true.

I don't need, we don't need a little approved by marking.

We need to have people go back and say, wait a minute, does that make sense?

Where's the original source?

Give me more of that, you know, because you're exactly right.

You don't have to fake someone saying it.

I've been taken out of context.

You've been taken out of context.

for over a decade.

I've been have four decades of me.

It's just as damaging.

What's really interesting about context, too, is it's not just the paragraph you said, right?

Like if you were to say something like, you know, George Washington is quoted as saying in a sentence, they can take that sentence and then say, you said it.

It's actually the cultural context, too.

So in one instance, there was a particular news story the New York Times put out, specifically the New York Times.

And then there was commentary on it from an internet figure.

I said,

I don't trust the New York Times, you know, but I do trust so-and-so.

The cultural context was that that week, a story came out that was, you know, you know, hard to believe.

And I wasn't saying I just don't trust the New York Times, period.

It was in that week we were talking about one issue.

And so it's not even, you know, so it's true in that instance, I didn't trust them, but people will take that and they use it.

Right.

Here's the thing.

Our society is extremely sensitive to whatever pops up on the internet at whatever moment.

You know, there's a story right now of Macy's canceling plates because one person complained.

Our businesses need to get to the point, corporations, marketing, and people, to where they just say, I don't care about your tweets.

I don't care about your video on the internet.

So that's where I kind of wanted to go.

I was reading a book, and I can't remember what it was.

I read it over the summer, and

it was

about how the internet, how some people.

not coordinated, just took someone by association and said, that person's bad, so this person must be bad.

Every day.

Every day.

So this person was being destroyed, and just a regular citizen.

So somebody in the tech world decided the way to fight this is to fight it with fire hose of fire.

Just say

everything about this person

from the believable to the absolutely outrageous and just make it

through algorithms viral so it's everywhere.

And that way, nothing had meaning anymore.

And in some ways, I kind of feel like that's where we're headed.

Not necessarily that somebody's doing it, but because everybody's a racist, everybody's whatever.

It's going to come to a place to where it's a little boy who cried, wolf.

It's not going to mean anything anymore.

But, you know, what's worrying is

I already feel that way as somebody who watches a wide, you know, swath of different news from left to right.

But there are people on Twitter who purposefully block dissenting opinion and only follow people on the left.

This is a uniquely left thing to do.

And so, you know, you'll see something like,

there's an interview I did with some alt-right people, and they prop that up as proof.

I'm secretly friends with these people.

I'm not.

I've done interviews with a former Soviet general, with refugees, but you take one photograph.

And then when you isolate yourself, these people lose their minds.

And so it's one of the reasons why I can't go on the ground and cover things the way I used to.

And now I'm doing, you know, more political commentary and working on like documentary stuff because big breaking news stories, these people believe insane things about me because they're in isolated groups.

And you'll have one or two people who know they're lying, but they don't care.

The ends justify the means by any means necessary.

And that's, that's the way they operate.

So antipho again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And what's it's, it's kind of crazy, you know, in 2011, the first time I got attacked, this may have been early 2012.

by a you know black block anarchist type msnbc had me on and they said wow how could this have happened Today,

where are they at?

They're tacitly supporting it, ignoring it at the very least.

And we're seeing high-profile individuals prop them up and praise them.

We just had The Guardian did a piece, I believe recently, on the John Brown Gun Club.

That guy who attacked the ICE facility was a member of that anti-follow organization.

And they're getting a piece praising them.

I mean, CNN even,

it was,

I can't remember the guy's name, but he has a show on CNN, and he was saying you can donate to them.

I could be wrong about that, but this was before the attack.

At the very least, I'm surprised that...

Could you imagine, are you familiar with the Oath Keepers?

Could you imagine if CNN was like, everybody donate to the Oath Keepers?

Like, that'd be, why?

But they do it with Antifa.

You know, and how many pieces did we get?

There was a CNN piece that said Antifa seeks peace through violence.

They changed the headline eventually.

You know what?

They want to hate Trump so much.

They disagree with whatever he says, no matter what he says, even if they're going to be wrong about it in the end just because that's what they

for whatever reason that's what they're after and then they end up supporting extremists what do you

quickly because I've got very little time what do you think of

uh what's happening on the ground are people waking up on both sides normal people just waking up and going i don't want any of this or are they polarizing and just polarizing i think a lot of people are who are not conservative are moving to join conservatives.

Actually, Vox.com said in the Andy No scenario, the narrative was divided by left and the center and the right.

So here's what I see.

Conservatives and centrists and like moderates are pretty much still in agreement, but the left has veered off in a ridiculous path.

And the data shows it.

It's the New York Times, it's Gallup, Pew,

Axios, Quartz.

All of these polls are the same thing.

So not my opinion.

The left has gone far, far left.

And when the media chases after them, they're going up.

So are those people who were kind of on the moderate left who are Democrats, are they peeling off or are they going with them?

I think they're going to the right, a lot of them.

You know, my friends who are, you know, were Bernie supporters in 2016, count me out.

They're gone.

And then you have a lot of people who are now voted for Obama.

Now they're calling it walk away.

They're saying they're with Trump now.

Back in a minute.

Let me switch to

AI, A-G-I-A-S-I.

Elon Musk, I think, is in it.

What's your opinion on Elon Musk?

I mean, there's a lot to criticize him for, I guess, but I think he's hilarious.

I do too.

He's kind of like, he's like a real version of Tony Stark that's living the life that a billionaire, if you were a billionaire, you'd like to.

I tweeted at him

jokingly, hey, Elon Musk, why haven't you built yourself an Iron Man suit yet?

Right.

And he responded, working on Starship.

That's great.

That's great.

And it went decently viral.

And people were really excited that

he's a funny guy.

He interacts.

So

he was talking about.

Oh, shoot, I can't.

Neural net.

Neuralink.

Neuralink.

I was going to bring this up.

This is a potential solution.

Right.

Now, maybe.

This is what's amazing.

Maybe.

Maybe.

I've always got the catastrophe side for you, so give me the hope side.

Well, I'm going to give you the catastrophe side.

Oh, okay.

I know that one.

I'll give you both.

I'll give you both.

My daughter is currently, she's gone through a year of testing

to be able to have the implants put into her brain.

For Neuralink?

Not for Neuralink.

I want to call Elon or write to Elon and say,

hey,

can she test?

She's got the current technology, which

his is going to be

10,000 times more powerful,

but it carries with it great promises,

but also some really dark stuff.

Well,

you know what I'm hoping for?

What?

Man, if you like VR, imagine if you could actually just

link your brain to a computer and then be in the Matrix world.

Now, The Matrix is a scary movie, but what I mean is like, imagine that fake reality of you could be Superman.

I'm sure people would love to come home from work and just feel powerful for a few minutes, flying around, shooting laser beams.

That sounds fun.

In reality, one of the hopeful things is that by being connected to the net, we won't be overtaken by the net.

Our brain computation will be in sync.

But here's the more nightmare scenario.

The first one is, I go back to the Hitler dancing with Hulk thing.

Just because we hook our brains into that, who knows what our, like, imagine you think

you're going go into a VR world to be Superman and instead it's a nightmare trip of like talking, you know hammers exploding and just weird nonsense

You ever watched Star Trek?

Mm-hmm, you know the Borg?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, so I could be getting it my lore wrong, but my understanding is the Borg started out like humans integrated themselves into technology and eventually it formed a hive mind where they're no longer individuals.

That's exactly how I described it to a friend over the weekend.

It's a, it's a, it is eventually a hive mind.

Almost there already.

Yeah.

Twitter.

You know,

we're not integrated at the speed of light, the speed of electricity, but we open up our phones and we look at that Twitter feed and we're connected to that network immediately to see their thoughts and opinions.

Correct.

What happens when it's all instant to our brains and we can do everything?

And when it's two directions.

I mean, you want to talk about algorithms just nudging you.

I mean, if you read Cass Unstein's work on nudge,

that's dinosaur stuff.

You know, it sounds bad too, but I could maybe envision it being a good thing in some ways.

You know, a lot of...

Cray would be able to speak.

I mean, he talks about being able to affect

language.

I mean, I could go to, I could go visit, you know, Russia and speak Russian and understand it.

And it would,

and it would somehow.

They'd be speaking English.

They'd be speaking Russian, but you'd both hear the.

But I also think, you know, one of the biggest problems in politics is the inability to understand the worldview of the other person.

What if we did?

What if you were like, that's what you think?

And then they really, and so I'll put it in the,

I guess, like the beneficial way to conservatives.

Imagine all the liberals are stupid and wrong, and all of a sudden one day their eyes were opened to the, to everything you knew.

Let me use your let me use your Star Trek analogy.

Yeah.

Did you ever see the Vulcan mind meld

work out poorly?

I mean, when

yeah, I mean, he was, he was always like Vulcan mind meld, and he would come away with some great,

oh, I understand death, I understand

fear.

In reality, I think, you know, left, right, up, down, religious, a-religious, whatever, will, will really understand the perspectives of people and everything if they can truly communicate more quickly.

And, and, you know, when it comes to human speech, look, I've got 15 billion ideas in my head, and I can bring them out in this tiny little string that's really hard.

So, you know, it's, it's, I can tell a liberal, think of all those dumb conservatives, and all of a sudden they know everything you know.

That sounds great, doesn't it?

Because then they'll, then, then they'll know you're right, right?

And you can say the same to conservatives.

In reality, everybody will learn from everybody and maybe stop being at each other's throats.

Although, admittedly, it's like it's the far left and the fringe wackos.

Isn't it the same thing, though, with, I mean, I don't know where you stand on

Libra, but

right?

No,

isn't this Libra for the brain?

Who's controlling exactly?

You You know, if I, if,

you know, Stephen Hawking was so misunderstood at the end of his life, I believe he was absolutely right.

By 2050, there's a good chance that Homo sapiens don't exist.

Doesn't mean man doesn't exist.

It means what we define as a homo sapien today does not exist because of stuff like this.

But if

they can control.

If they're controlling speech, Libra can say, oh, well, you're not,

you're, you're no longer tolerable.

You're bad for the community.

Libra scary.

Libra scary.

First.

But isn't this the same, though, also with the brand?

Absolutely, absolutely.

Just turn you, you're a monkey now.

That's why I think Neuralink is fun for video games and for you choosing what you connect to, but this like constantly on system, it's kind of scary.

But so I'll tell you why Libra is terrifying.

MasterCard,

depending on your source, it's disputed a bit between Patreon and MasterCard, but Patreon says, MasterCard reached out.

You said you have to ban this man, Robert Spencer.

I believe Robert Spencer is his name.

He's an anti-jihad school.

You're familiar?

Oh, yeah.

He used to advise presidents.

Right.

They said ban him.

Patreon said, I'm sorry.

MasterCard forced us to do it.

MasterCard, I think, denied it.

So what happens when banking institutions can tell you you can't use this anymore?

Now it gets worse.

One of the things they're proposing with Libra is speeding up transactions by using Libra.

So MasterCard, when MasterCard wants to send money from the United States, from their bank, they transfer it through all these different systems, and there's like regulation attached to it.

With Libra, it's a finger snap.

It's just a quick currency through Facebook.

What happens when Facebook bans you for being an extremist?

And then you take your MasterCard and you swipe it at a gas station and it says denied, and you call MasterCard, they say, Well, we use Libra to do exchanges, and you're banned from Libra.

So, look,

we have no problem with you.

You can use MasterCard all you want.

Unfortunately, Libra is our intermediary, and you're banned, so you can't use this card anymore.

Now, Facebook is in between

you do and can choose to shut your camera.

You're seeing this already being pushed by state governments with Cuomo

saying to the financial center of the world saying, hey, by the way, we have to send in our state regulators and we're not telling you how to do business, but we think some of these guys who are making guns or selling guns are kind of suspicious.

So it will probably extend your examination every year.

Nobody wants that hassle.

Yep.

And so they're, he's saying, but you can avoid all that if you just don't do business.

Exactly.

And they are following that.

Yeah, it's authoritarianism.

It is.

It's tyranny.

But again, without the government's involvement.

Outsourcing the tyranny.

This is what I find really scary about big tech.

And especially whatever, you know, what's really worrying to me are these people who defend Google and Twitter and Facebook I'm like Elizabeth Warren is coming after them don't you like Elizabeth Warren like

for whatever reason you know so um

but even I worry about that um

because

of the history with uh FDR I mean FDR wanted regulation so let's go to Ford and GM and and Chrysler and ask them how we should regulate well they put all of the small people out of business It bothers me that

Zuckerberg is saying, hey, we need regulation.

Well, who are we going to go to?

He's trying to

steer advisor.

He wants to be the advisor.

One of the more terrifying things if we don't have AI is China.

So there was an interesting point made, I think it was Sam Harris's podcast, where

something to the effect of the moment that AI defeated, I think, Kasparov or whatever, the greatest chess player, there will never be a chess player who can beat our best AI, period.

What happens if China beats us to the race and then declares war?

They declare war because, what is it?

What did Sun Tzu say?

Win before declaring war, something to that effect.

So if they have the AI, they know our output, they know the known-knowns, the unknown unknowns, et cetera.

And then the AI says you have an 87% chance of victory, declare war and follow these steps.

And the U.S.

can't counter that artificial intelligence.

China takes over the world.

You know?

Are you?

Do do you believe that we will get to AGI?

Okay, so AI is artificial intelligence, which what we have.

What you're talking about is at least artificial general intelligence, where, you know, Kasparov was beaten by AI, but it's very narrow.

It can only do that.

Exactly.

So AGI is something that can look at all of it, and ASI is super intelligence.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, absolutely.

You know, one of the things that's really interesting I tell people is

what makes humans better than computers is that when you need to screw something into a piece of wood, a screw, a screwdriver, we take it, we say the point DN goes into the hole, and then we twist until it feels right.

We do very little calculations, but computers, when they do this, have to calculate literally every step.

So when the AI defeats Kasparov, it literally

calculates all of these different outcomes, wasting time and energy.

If it had general intelligence, which I believe I could be in in the right spaces, they could make more assumptions and skip off the wasted time and energy and move faster and more quickly and more directed.

Well, when you add quantum computing,

then it's everything

at once.

You know, it's really funny as a side note.

Are you familiar with Magic the Gathering?

No.

It's a strategy card game.

It's a fantasy strategy card game.

It's similar in realm to like Dungeons and Dragons.

AI can't win

because it's just got so many variables that the computer has to calculate way too much, whereas a human with general intelligence ignores the wasted time and energy.

So the game works like this.

You have 60 cards in each deck.

You have a certain amount.

You can only have four of each individual card.

So the human thinks, I'm playing against this opponent in a professional game.

I know the likelihood they'll use a certain card.

Why would they use this really bad card in their deck?

They wouldn't.

I'll ignore that.

The possibility doesn't exist to me.

It's very simple then for the human to go up against a human.

The computer has to calculate 13,000 different cards because it doesn't understand if someone would or wouldn't use one because it doesn't have the general understanding, the context,

the game,

it doesn't have enough input yet.

Right.

So, for the time being, if it's a very popular, it's one of the most popular card games in the world, I think, in terms of physical card games.

If a computer can't win that game, I'm not super concerned about Global Warfare because that's infinitely more complicated.

Well, they've won Go, which is

a Chinese game that they were.

This is what is concerning.

It's not that they can play those games.

It's when the Go Masters in China, when they did lose to the, they thought that it was cheating

because

it was playing it in a way that no human had ever seen.

So it's what we're dealing with is alien thinking.

It's like alien life.

We can't predict it.

We don't know what it's going to do because it's not going to think like us.

That's another thing I tell people.

They assume a lot of people,

not the experts, obviously, but they assume a Terminator scenario where the robots decide to destroy humans.

No, no, no, no, no, no.

You know what would happen before the Terminator?

The Matrix.

What would happen before the Matrix is a bunch of happy humans gleefully serving their robot overlords, thinking ignorance is like not realizing it.

Like, this is really great.

You know,

Olgotron, the giant robot overlord, loves us and we please him, not realizing they've been manipulated, our behaviors, you know, at this, you know what, I'll say this.

Isn't ignorance bliss, though?

Wouldn't it be great just to bow to your giant robot AI and not be aware at all that you're a slave?

No, that's the way people are now.

A lot of people.

In ways.

It's being built.

It's not there, but it's being built.

And they are.

I remember

in the 1990s saying, There's no freaking way I'll ever give my fingerprints to the government.

Never.

Now you're like on my phone.

Beep.

Yeah.

Now I'm like my face.

Yep.

And

in 2000, I was talking about facial recognition saying, this is really dangerous down the road.

I mean, now we're doing it.

Weren't social security numbers like shocking to people when they came out?

Like, you want the government to number me?

Correct.

Now we're like, we get a card when we're born.

It's normal.

You know,

we're walking down that path towards the Borg, I guess.

Unless we blow ourselves up or something before that.

I actually think,

you know, World War III type scenarios of like international nuclear war, it's ridiculously unlikely due to the decaying nature of borders.

So what's really interesting about the idea of borders today is, you know, you mentioned how they said there won't be any, you know, it's really, listen,

20 years ago, 30 years ago, if you went to Canada and did something to make money, you're in violation of your tourist visa.

Today, I make money through the internet.

When I go to Canada, Americans paying me.

Americans, you know, are the ones paying me, not Canadians.

So I can, I can buy a house in whatever country I want and do the exact same work legally.

And it's really, really weird because it gets even weird.

I'll tell you this.

I have people in the UK who donate to me through like, you know, PayPal or whatever.

I just use Patreon.

I don't use Patreon anymore.

If I go to the UK and make a video about delicious, you know, UK beer or something, and then I receive a donation from a British person, did I just violate a tourist visa?

A British citizen paid me in exchange for producing content, but they paid an American company, which then relayed the money money to me.

Right?

Things are starting to break down in terms of when if we move off of a production-based economy for the most part, anybody who does a job that involves information can live wherever they want and work.

You've got American companies that hire developers like digital coders and stuff in Romania, and they can pay them

you can't really pin down where

who you are, where you, not who you you are, but

where that's supposed to go and how it works, right?

You know the theory of hypothecation, rehypothecation.

Rehypothecation is my signal, head to the mountain.

Whenever you read the word

rehypothecation in a news story, run for your life.

There's not enough gold for all the money that everybody has.

Oh, right, right.

You know, the banks have been, you know,

it's all fiat.

It's all fake.

It's all fake.

It's all just

backed by guns and oil, I guess?

Right.

So it's now, so now when Germany demanded their, their money, their gold from the Fed, it took them five years to give it.

Okay.

They're like, and the Fed was like, we're not going to do this for everyone.

Right.

Because there's not enough gold for everybody.

Right.

Okay.

You, you, you, we printed more, you did more than what you have in gold.

But this goes with all of it.

When you have the the bundles, the tranches, if you will, of CDOs and mortgages and everything else.

I have a mortgage with Chase Manhattan, but Chase Manhattan has sold it to somebody else, yet they're keeping that on their balance sheets as well as an asset.

Then this bank sells it to they.

They've got the asset.

So this bank owns the house, this bank owns the house, this bank owns the house, and you own the house.

Yep.

Who owns the house?

Rehypothecation is

crap.

We have to figure this out.

There's no figuring that out.

No, I don't think so.

I think

it's an ever-exploitable system where people are going to figure out how to sell one thing over another.

And

it's...

This is probably derailing, but it reminds me of what these media companies were doing with what's called traffic assignment.

where

without naming any companies to avoid litigation,

some very prominent high-profile media companies would buy the assignment of viewership from a clickbait website.

So you had, you know,

oh my God, there was one that was called like luckyfarmer.com.

I kid you not, like some ridiculous name.

And they would put up those articles where it's like 25 celebrities who look crazy.

And every time you want to see a new photo, it's a new page.

They're farming those clicks.

Then they sell the assignment to a major network who then claims, we got a billion views this month.

Then they go to advertisers and say, we got a billion views.

Don't you want to buy ads with us when they only had a million?

So it's

the media economy was being built on fake numbers and a manipulation.

And, you know, I was reminded of this just because when you're talking about all these different banks owning different things, what I see are different companies trying to figure out how they can sell something again.

Is this valuable to you?

So the clickbait website already made money off that view.

Now they can claim the view is part of a network.

And now the bigger company can say, our network got X views and your ads will sell against those.

So they're like selling ads twice.

It's just ridiculous.

And that's another reason why these companies kind of started to fall apart.

Because eventually,

if someone pulls the pin on that one bank and then he says, Okay, we got to ask the next bank, we got to ask the next bank, and then eventually it comes back to you, you know, and the fuse.

All right, real quick.

You've already, we have run a longer podcast than

ever, ever before.

And I could talk to you for another two hours.

Let me just do some real quick

rapid fire.

2030.

More free, less free.

Americans.

Obliviously less free.

Press.

Better or worse.

2025.

Ooh, that's a tough one.

I think we're going to see

the press is becoming more and more independent, personality-based.

So I think it'll be not better or worse.

Just very different.

Who is president in 2021?

Trump.

You say that with such conviction.

Look, I'm not a fan of the guy.

That's fine.

He's done some things I think are good.

His character, his foreign policy, I'll be very critical of.

But if you think there's any charismatic Democrat today who's on that stage is going to beat Trump,

I'll take that bet any day of the week.

Thing Thing that keeps you awake at night.

Oh man.

Nothing.

Nothing.

Yeah.

Thing on the horizon you most worry about?

Let me rephrase it.

I'm little things, really.

You know, I...

So freedom of speech, the loss of free speech is not something that keeps you awake at night.

It's constantly there saying, how can we figure this out?

How can we figure this out?

Well, I guess, you know, nothing keeps me awake at night because I'm very

anarchistic still in my personality.

I am ready to go live in the mountains with a dog and go hunting for food.

So it's like, you want to tear down your society, you know.

But I do think big tech is the most pressing issue right now.

Thing that you're most excited about with tech, thing that you think nobody is really...

Role-link virtual reality.

I'd love to fly around a Superman for, you know, punching bad guys and shooting laser beams.

Wouldn't that sound like fun?

A good relaxing?

And, you know, there's a lot of other things they can do, like downloading, like in the Matrix, downloading kung fu,

becoming a master.

Like, think about, you know, I want to learn how to play tennis.

You just plug in and download tennis, and all of a sudden you're champion.

You wouldn't be a champion because everyone would be good.

You'll be good.

You'll be good.

Everybody, you wouldn't be that good because your muscles would still need to be, you know, but you'd know a lot.

You could learn faster.

That sounds exciting.

Last question.

Will you come back again?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

Great.

Great to talk to you.

Of course.

Appreciate it.

Just a reminder: I'd love you to rate and subscribe to the podcast and pass this on to a friend so it can be discovered by other people.