All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E63: Insurrection indictments, human rights in the US and abroad, groundbreaking MS study and more

Starting point is 00:00:00 Look at freeberg he's like this is so awkward. I can't wait. He's got literally brought popcorn. I did I'm just watching the show you from popcorn. He's like I want to see round three. I have nothing to say today I'm just gonna sit here and watch I brought popcorn. I got my uh Chilly roasted pistachio nuts. I'm gonna sit back and enjoy The Jake Halstack Are we really gonna do this as the top story? I mean, it's the third time we've tried to do this story. Do we give the background sex or no? We wouldn't have had to do it over and over again if you didn't act so hysterical. There we go.

Starting point is 00:00:51 The first one you killed. No, you killed it. No, the first one you killed. Yeah, because it wasn't even on the docket and it wasn't, it wasn't even newsworthy. Okay, and the second one I killed. Because you came across like a star craving lunatic. I spiked it the second time because I was so infuriated by your cavalier attitude towards it What do you worry about my attitude for? Why don't you just focus on making your own good points?

Starting point is 00:01:17 I was so correct. I was so correct the two of you let him go to mouth. Let him go You guys got popcorn. Let's hear this idiot trying to blame his own hysteria on me You said that January 6 was overblown and of course. No, I said it was a disgrace I said it was an embarrassment. It was an embarrassment to the country. I said it was wrong But you want to inflate it you're you're engaging in in classic Washington threat inflation Nope, and and there's two problems with that one is you're gonna take your eye off the ball You're engaging in classic Washington threat inflation. Nope. And there's two problems with that. One is, you're going to take your eye off the ball of the real issues facing the country.

Starting point is 00:01:52 Like inflation, the economy, and economic anxiety, like COVID, like crime, like schools. I mean, these are the issues that Americans care about, not, you know, a riot that happened over a year ago. And if you and the Democrats keep talking about this and focus on it on MSNBC, to the exclusion of the issues that really matter, I'll see you in November because you're going to get slaughtered in this midterm election. It's going to be a landslide. But the other problem with it is with this threat inflation, is that it justifies the expansion

Starting point is 00:02:22 of surveillance powers and prosecutorial powers by the Justice Department, by the Justice Department and other grants for our government who want to basically go after the so-called domestic terrorism. That will lead to an infringement on civil liberties, just like the expansion of those agencies did after 9-11. And so I think we should all be like concerned about it. Now look, are these oath keepers a bunch of idiots? Yeah, there were 11 oath keepers at that rally.

Starting point is 00:02:51 They broke into the capital. Wait a minute, wait a minute, all they see prosecuted. Wait a minute, wait a minute, you're seeing an old fat guy with an eye patch. And that says oath keeper lifetime member is not credible to you? Exactly, I mean, look, these guys are, they're not unlike the Antifa, you know, people in Portland who are trying to burn down buildings or,

Starting point is 00:03:15 or Tasebudeen's parents who are domestic terrorists. I mean, yeah, this is a small number of knuckleheads who broke into the capital. They should be prosecuted. They're guilty of saying this leader is saying intemperate things. small number of knuckleheads who broke into the Capitol, they should be prosecuted. They're guilty of saying, this leader is saying intemperate things, but was this going to be a coup to take over the Capitol? I don't think so. Okay, let me just focus on that to the exclusion of the real issues facing the country.

Starting point is 00:03:37 Like I said, this landslide in November, this red wave is going to be even bigger. Just to your point about my focus every week here on the number one tech podcast on the world and on the number six tech podcast in the world this week and startups, I focus on all of those issues. But let's read, because we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Let's read what happened on Thursday, the FBI arrested 11 members of the Oathkeepers on sedition charges

Starting point is 00:04:01 and the House Committee, subpoenaed Facebook, Google Reddit and Twitter after insufficient responses to the january six rites or insurrection whichever term you prefer the leader of the oath keepers which is an organization that claims over thirty thousand members primarily in the military and police okay well hold on second if this was their big moment to stage a coup and take over the government why were only 11 of the 30,000 there? The 11 were indicted, David.

Starting point is 00:04:27 There were. How many were there? Well, we don't know yet, but last week you said, last week you said there was no coordinated attack and now we have proof that it was. No, that's not what I said. Okay. Look, you can't veto the segment from last week and then try to claim that I said certain things.

Starting point is 00:04:44 Let me just fit it. Can I get through the story or you keep interrupting? My God. From the end I made a wall. You're complaining about interruption. Okay. That's another interruption. May I finish it without the four interruption?

Starting point is 00:04:54 Or would you like to just keep monologue? What are you reading? Why don't you just give us the link to this? Remember every week, guys. He has to go get the actual story. Yeah, that's what I'm trying to do, but you keep interrupting. So here we go. While certain North Keeper members and affiliates inside Washington, DC breached the capital,

Starting point is 00:05:05 grounds and buildings, others remain stationed just outside the city in QRF teams. These are quick response teams that had weapons and they transported firearms into Washington, DC and these in support operations were aimed at using force to stop the law, full transfer of presidential power according to our Department of law, full transfer of presidential power, according to our Department of Justice, which is a majority Republican, obviously law enforcement excuse, Republican, yes it is.

Starting point is 00:05:32 Are you kidding me? Of course you're the Earth keepers, communication occurred on signals. Are you gonna keep interrupting me? Am I God, can I just read two sentences Dave? Get a taste of your medicine pal. Okay fine, signal is an encrypted chat app that's not supposed to have any backdoors,

Starting point is 00:05:44 but obviously there's some plant. Here are some of Rhodes's comments. We aren't getting through this without a civil war too late for that. Prepare your mind-bottied spirit. It will be a bloody and desperate fight. We're going to have to fight this cannot be avoided. If we want to make the January 6th of Rella, first of all, let me just say I see that primarily as a media story. What happened happened. Obviously it was a disgrace and embarrassment of Black Eye for the country. I'm not supporting or defending anyone. I think 10 to think these oath keepers,

Starting point is 00:06:13 it was not like a super organized, concerted effort to take over the government. It's somewhere, it's basically a bunch of loud mouths who engage in a riot. Maybe there was more planning and preparation fine. The court case will bear it out and if they can prove that it was what you said, it was great, let them go to jail.

Starting point is 00:06:31 I have no desire to defend them. But I also think then the grand scheme of things, this whole thing's been blown completely out of proportion. I mean, if you watch MSNBC, it's all January six all the time. And if Democrats are gonna focus on this issue for the next 10 months, and you know, who Roger Stone was photographed on a sidewalk with, which was the big story of the

Starting point is 00:06:50 other day, this red wave in November is going to be an even bigger wave. I'm just telling you right now because it's not what the average voter in the country cares about. I think you're right about that. I think you're right about that. I'll agree with that. I think, you know, MSNBC is focused on this and Fox is focused on fake voter fraud. And we've been pretty clear here that none of us agree with either of the extremes of media coverage. I do think this is an issue worth. Wait, what's fake voter fraud? Are you talking about the guy who's obsessed right now with voter fraud is Biden. He just gave a speech, a very intemperate speech saying that if you don't support his new voting rights acts that you're on the side of bull Connor and Jefferson Davis.

Starting point is 00:07:28 There was some political calculus there. He had to do that because he was also trying to basically bolster the ability to get this, you know, filibuster thing passed in the Senate. So he basically had to play a relatively weak hand. And, and, you know, again, on what happened again legislatively is that his own party said, no, enough. In this case, it was Kristen Siddema who said, no, none of this is going to be. Right. Well, Siddema, I mentioned, won't support him ending the filibuster. So this thing was DOA.

Starting point is 00:07:54 We said it was DOA. When the bill back better, bill collapsed. We said they were going to try and pivot, devoting rights to change the subject, even though it was DOA. But there is something that Biden could do or could have done that I think would be a bipartisan reform, which is to reform the Electoral Count Act. I mean, what happened in November, if you're concerned about Trump and, you know, this version of the potential to subvert the election and the way he tried to influence pens to stop the counting of the electors, if you're concerned about all of that, there is a fix for that,

Starting point is 00:08:23 which is the Electoral Count Act of 1887. It's completely antiquated. Obviously, it's been around for over 100 years. There is bipartisan support for fixing that. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has come out for months. Explain what that is to the audience. Well, it's just a law that governs how these electors in the Electoral College get counted up and certified so that the election gets certified. So, David Brooks had that piece that that Jamass shared in the New York times, which is the problem we have right now is not in the actual voting. It's in the, if you're worried about what happened in this past November, it's in the certification of the voting. And, you know, what Brooks is writing about is there's a lot of social science saying that

Starting point is 00:09:06 a lot of these rules that Democrats and Republicans are really focused on around the convenience of the election don't really influence the number of people who vote. People who want people who want to vote vote, people who don't don't. We're getting hung up on the wrong thing, which is the voter ID laws, what really matters is the certification of the electoral college. And you could find, Biden could find, I think there's a number of Republicans who would support a clarification of that law and updating of it. So that what potentially could have happened in, you know, in January, if Pence had gone along with this plan to basically reject the accounting of the electors, I mean, everyone understood that that was to ceremonial, right? What do you think of that plan?

Starting point is 00:09:48 What did you think of Trump's plan? I think that Trump had a right to air his grievances in court, but once the court threw out his claims and rejected them, and once the Supreme Court denied such a priority, it was over. It was over. The stream court has the final word in our democracy about legal matters. And so, no, Pence never had the authority or the ability under the electoral counteract to reject the county electors. That whole process is ceremonial. But the mere fact this isn't even an issue suggests that we should fix it. We should go back and fix the electoral counteract of 1887. So, and look, Biden could have gotten 60 votes for that, you know. I think that was very doable. He can get votes for that. He can also get votes to stop the insider

Starting point is 00:10:36 trading of members of Congress. He could get that done too. So, why isn't he focused, why isn't he focused on things where he can actually get a bipartisan majority? His one big legislative success as President has been the infrastructure bill where he got a bunch of Republican support, which is a pretty big one. Yeah. Those are the types of issues he should be focused on. And instead he's giving these, you know, speeches, saying that anyone who disagrees with the progressive agenda on voting rights is basically your wall. Speaker 1 Did you guys hear his speech the other day on CNBC about COVID? I mean, he was so incoherent. It was kind of scary.

Starting point is 00:11:11 It feels like he's incognitive. The cognitive decline is, you know, I voted for the guy, anything to get Trump out of office. I thought that was an existential rest. But man, he is cognitively declining quickly. I mean, I think the craziest thing about COVID was this Rachel Wollensky interview. I mean, like, why does it take two years into a pandemic to tell us what we kind of anecdotally knew? But if we had known up front or sooner,

Starting point is 00:11:33 we would have completely... Rachel Wollensky does an interview. She's the head of the CDC and she said, well, it turns out that 75% of all the deaths because of COVID were people that suffered from at least four comorbidities, at least four, not so much to amount one. Yeah, four.

Starting point is 00:11:50 It wasn't all, it was, I think it was a subset defined by, it might have been like vaccinated deaths or something like that. It was one study, but yes, that was basically the conclusion. Absolutely. It's significant comorbidities among people who died. And so if we had known that, don't you think, I mean, Friedberg, you tell me, but wouldn't we have just changed our response

Starting point is 00:12:07 to just mask and just kind of like start living our normal lives and people with poor comorbidities or people at a certain age, or immunocompromised should have stayed home? And we would be in a very different situation. So, you know, I mean, I understand Jason that Biden, didn't the last few speeches have been a little tight, you know, I mean, I think, look, the Quinnipack call poll, Nick, you can post, I mean, look,

Starting point is 00:12:30 his ratings are just plummeting, plummeting. I mean, it's down to Trump levels, right? Every week. And so he is definitely searching for a handful of wins. I don't think he strategically found the right ones. He could have done something on certifying the electoral college. He could certainly do something right now on insider trading laws for members of Congress,

Starting point is 00:12:53 but instead we're focusing on all these random things. But anyway, so. He can't get the insider trading, anything past Pelosi. But yeah, I think it is something that would get a huge bipartisan majority. Look, she's gonna lose anyway, so he might as well just throw under the bus.

Starting point is 00:13:07 You're right. This is about his political salvation over hers. By the way, you guys saw this. I mentioned this in the group chat. Someone floated the trial balloon of dumping Kamala Harris and replacing her with Liz Cheney. This is how bad things have gotten for the Democrats. I mean, they were trying to they floated a trial balloonel of Biden-Chainy in 24.

Starting point is 00:13:26 Cross-over ticket. We talked about this for a couple of years in private and poker. I think a crossover ticket is what the country needs to get back to center. I know it's a crazy concept and it's a 1% chance. I like the crossover. But things have gotten so bad for the Democrats now that I sort of said, sacks floated this or pre-floated it we had a little debate on the twitter but sat I don't have you remember two or three episodes ago sacks that hey listen there's going to be a new appreciation for clinton and not ten days later the wall street journal and a bunch of people are floating hillary coming back to

Starting point is 00:14:00 run uh... i said he'll clinton i didn't mention Hillary. I know that, but either you are in your star chamber and doing a pre-float on all-in, so then the backups and then, you know, a pump Hillary as that, or it's just people who are listening to you and you're that influential. Now, what I'm proposing is that Biden engage in Clintonian, by which I mean, Bill Clinton and Tonya, triangulation, which is he does not have the votes in Congress to enact a progressive agenda. He should be looking for bipartisan wins.

Starting point is 00:14:31 He did it with the infrastructure bill. He could do it with this insider trading thing. He could do it on the Electoral Count Act. These are things that would be progress. Yeah, China policy. And importantly momentum, momentum going into 2024. And maybe good for Americans like I mean his China policy the fact that he came out with a statement on the U.S. I thought was very strong.

Starting point is 00:14:52 You know, it's one of the stronger things he did, but it's not coming up in the polls. And I think that whole Republicans interesting. Nobody cares about what's happening to the U.S. Okay, you bring it up because you really care and I think that's nice that you care not a good person, but I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person.

Starting point is 00:15:09 I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person.

Starting point is 00:15:17 I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm notighurs in China, they care, but it's not top of mind for them. That's not what's

Starting point is 00:15:27 caring. What's not right now is they go to their grocery store and the shelves are empty. Sure. That I care about. Yeah. I care about the fact that our economy could turn on a dime if China invades Taiwan. I care about that. I care about climate change. You know, I care about a bunch of, I care about America's crippling and, you know, decrepit healthcare infrastructure. But if you're asking me, do I care about a segment of a class of people in another country, not until we can take care of ourselves, will I prioritize them over us? And I think a lot of people believe that, and I'm sorry if that's a hard truth to hear, but every time I say that I care about the Uighurs, I'm really just lying if I don't really care.

Starting point is 00:16:04 And so I'd rather not lie to you and tell you the truth. It's not a priority for me. And my response to that is I think it's a state of affairs when human rights as a concept globally, falls beneath tactical and strategic issues that we have to have. We need to have a lot of water- That's another luxury belief.

Starting point is 00:16:20 That's another luxury belief. I don't believe believing in the human declaration of human rights that Eleanor Roosevelt is a luxury belief. It's a luxury belief. I don't think it's another luxury belief. I don't believe believing in the human declaration of human rights, that Eleanor Roosevelt's relationship. It's a luxury belief. I don't think it's a luxury belief to believe that all humans should have a basic set of human rights. I think it's a luxury belief. And the reason I think it's a luxury belief is we don't do enough domestically to actually

Starting point is 00:16:36 express that view in real tangible ways. So until we actually clean up our own house, the idea that we step outside of our borders with, you know, with us sort of like morally virtue signaling about somebody else's human rights track record is deplorable. Look at the number of black and brown men that are far from deplorable. Look at the number of black and brown men that are incarcerated for for absolutely ridiculous crimes. I don't know if you saw this past week, but there is a person that was released from jail because he couldn't even be protected in jail because in some of these cells, they run these fight clubs inside of Rikers Island that are basically tacitly endorsed by the corrections officers

Starting point is 00:17:13 that don't do anything. And the difference? So hold on Jason. So if you want to talk about the human rights of people, I think we have a responsibility to take care of our own backyard first first. And then we can go and basically morally tell other people how they should be running their own countries. The difference is, Chimoff, saying what you just said in China or Saudi Arabia would put you in jail and get you 100 lashes and you would be tortured for a decade. We here in the United States are far from perfect. We still have the death penalty, which is against the United Declaration of Human Rights, which we signed, which Eleanor Roosevelt

Starting point is 00:17:47 created in the UN. And we propagated as Americans around the world. We started that, Chimoff. And we can have these discussions about being better in this country. And what about is him that you're proposing is so just proportional to the equivalent of the Holocaust going on. We're talking about a million Uighurs in concentration camps right now to talk about what we have here that we need to fix and compare it to that or to Saudi Arabia whipping bloggers and throwing gay people off roofs for being gay. These two things are not morally comparable. They are very far and we need to have open discussions and talk about human rights all the time. Because if we do not talk about it all the time,

Starting point is 00:18:30 then your position, which is, I don't have time for that, I want to solve my problems, then gives the green light to dictators everywhere that nobody's watching. We need to have vigilance. And that's what I find and I think we need to work on. Wait, wait, wait, and that's not true. You said you can't get up for it. Yeah, so tell me how I'm not are you saying that the situation with the weavers is the same as the Holocaust people who are Jewish are making that comparison You never know how I'm asking you I think it is

Starting point is 00:19:00 There are upwards of a million people in a concentration camp right now This is getting to numbers that are actually comparable. It is actually a valid comparison. You're saying there are a million people in a concentration camp? That is the numbers that human rights organizations are saying between 300,000 and a million people are incarcerated right now, being tortured, raped, and in doing forced sterilization, reeducation, and when they're released are being tracked in ghettos. And so you say people are bringing this up. Hold on. Are you saying the comparison?

Starting point is 00:19:30 You're saying the entire world is basically decided that that doesn't matter? You just said you can't get up for it. I'm talking about you specifically. But who is getting up? Who is getting up for it? I am very up on it. I talk about it all the time. Okay. What about the US government? What are they doing about it? Biden just said we are going to do a ban and we are going to sanction companies that do business in that region. So Apple and Tesla. I think there will be increased pressure on all companies that are engaging in China over. It's good that our source from those areas, right? Correct. Yes. It's not doing business areas. It's if your supply chain comes from that area

Starting point is 00:20:08 that you're supposed to. So first of all, we won't buy Nazi goods, but we'll sell our iPhones into Nazi Germany. Well, if you want to have a discussion about this, it's how do we disengage from China? We've had this discussion here. What amount of time will it take to disengage from countries

Starting point is 00:20:25 that have brutal dictatorships that are committing human rights atrocities? But again, I think I'm spending a lot of time and money actually trying to fortify America's supply chain. You guys know about some of the things that I'm doing. Absolutely. I'm not doing that from a moral perspective. I'm doing that from a practical capitalist perspective. I think the jobs are better served for Americans.

Starting point is 00:20:45 I think that we should have the ability to build our own businesses just like China has the right to do for themselves without the risk of these things being undercut by policies that we don't understand, which is effectively what you do when you outsource your supply chain to countries where you're not 100% aligned with them. Yeah, and they're dictatorships. So again, I'm not, I'm not even sure that China is a dictatorship the way that you want to call it that.

Starting point is 00:21:10 Again, I think that country that's in the name. Look, you have to understand Jason, there are a set of checks and balances here on China that at the end of the day, I don't think that I have the moral absolutism to judge China. And I would say that when NATO is silent, the United Nations is silent, all of Western Europe is silent, and America is effectively silent, that this issue may be small data points being extrapolated in a way to create a narrative that may be not be true.

Starting point is 00:21:36 And if it is true, Jason, there's a responsibility for those body politics to do something because that is the early warning signal that the rest of the world uses to say, okay, hold on, let me re-prioritize my list of things. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I am not going to be an armchair journalist on this topic. Nor am I going to be the armchair human rights advocate for the world because I just don't know. I can focus on the things that I know about, build the things that I know about, and if something really does get red light status, then other parties will do something. And if something really does get red light status, then other parties will do something. And again, I just want to be clear, NATO is silent, United Nations is silent, America is silent, a press release doesn't change the actual technical

Starting point is 00:22:15 posture on these topics. Okay. If your position is that human rights matters to you, if government, large government organizations or politicians give you the green light to care about it, that's fine I care about it intrinsically every day. Great. I'm fine with you doing that. I thought there was a segue They're talking about the redolio thing that Freiberg cares about. I mean this is I mean this debate that you're having Between kind of realism and idealism and foreign policy is sort of what dolly O'Tackels right Freiberg? Look, I mean it sounds to me like there's, let's just say a red herring. There always needs to be as Chimoff points out of narratives

Starting point is 00:22:53 on framing our enemy when, you know, you're running out of land. I mean, you guys saw this, was it a journal article or New York Times article that came out today that US intelligence revealed that Putin had actually put some actors into the Eastern Ukraine to set up for a reason to have a response and therefore an excuse to invade the Ukraine. So he was trying to create a bit of a fireworks show to give him an excuse. We always need a narrative that we can sell to our citizens. And so there's not gonna be a lot of,

Starting point is 00:23:32 you know, padding on the back of China right now. As we've talked about, there is this, you know, overarching multi-hundred year economic cycle, you know, call it geopolitical cycle, that the United States and China are about to clash on. And in order for them to clash effectively, we need to get the narrative right, which is to paint them as the bad guy and to make things evil. And look, I mean, you may take your ethical framework and say that they are bad and you may be able to take other parts of your ethical framework and looking objectively, call some countries that you consider good

Starting point is 00:24:00 that as well, depending on what story you want to tell yourself and what story you want to be told. And I think that's what's going on and we'll continue to go on for a long period of time. And this weaker thing, as Jamaat pointed out, how do you measure on an absolute basis human rights? I don't think that there's a way to do so. Whether it's one person getting tortured publicly in a street or 100,000 people being suppressed economically and not being able to get jobs. It's hard to say what is appropriate, what is not, what is evil, what is not.

Starting point is 00:24:29 At the end of the day, we create narratives and that narrative allows the bigger picture to kind of play itself out. And I think that's what's going on largely. And I don't think we're going to hear a lot of good news about China for the next decade. From any politician in the United States or anyone that wants to defend our political and economic interests globally, which are certainly being challenged by China right now. I don't know, that's my guy tribe about Padolio. Look, Padolio obviously does a great job of kind of simplifying and eloquently stating what's going on, but I think this is one of many, many manifestations of it. You need only read what the UN

Starting point is 00:25:07 amnesty internationally, human rights watch, the guardian, the New York Times. You know, this is not a for question. Why do you think you're so wound up about this and you're not wound up about what's going on in Somalia? Oh, no, I'm not. Where you're not wound up about what's going on in Saudi Arabia.

Starting point is 00:25:21 Or you're not wound up about. Hold on, hold on. What's going on in Eastern Ukraine? Hold on a second., hold on. Hold on, hold on. What's going on in Eastern Ukraine? Hold on a second. There are human rights violations all over the world. I comment on them and I have commented on them for decades since I worked at Amnesty International, Amnesty International, which is where I started my career. I've been passionate about this since the age of 18 or 19 when I worked at Amnesty International. You said that you cannot grade these things, right? You just said like it's hard to compare these things and this is a problem like.

Starting point is 00:25:47 You can actually do that there are human rights violations like freedom of speech which you know is a great aspiration, but we would say torture murder systematic rape and sterilization are more intense and horrific than just freedom of speech so if you look at Hong Kong. more intense and horrific than just freedom of speech. So if you look at Hong Kong, when they shut down Apple news, that's one level of human rights, right? People have lost their ability for speech. But you're, you're, again, you're telling stories. Hundreds of, this is not stories. These are facts.

Starting point is 00:26:14 Apple news was shut down. You're telling a fact about a particular, a particular set of experiences that are particularly harming a set of people. Let me give you another fact in the United States, where we have a population of let's be generous and say 400 million people. 2.3 million. 240 million. 340 million Americans. 2.3 million of whom are incarcerated.

Starting point is 00:26:36 Absolutely. In China, with a population of 1.4 billion, 1.7 million Chinese are incarcerated. Absolutely. Something we have to deal with. Where is human rights being violated on an absolute basis? It's a very difficult conversation to use facts and figures because at the end of the day, there's a lot of data that can be pointed the other way. And so it all comes down to narratives.

Starting point is 00:26:58 And that narrative always has an objective, which is what are you trying to get people to believe and what are you trying to get them to get behind and get to do? Yes. And what are you trying to get people to believe and what are you trying to get them to get behind and get to do? Yes. And what are you trying to justify? Yes. And the action-

Starting point is 00:27:08 For freeberg, they don't have a drug problem over there because they killed all the drug dealers. Mal put them up against the wall and shot them. So, you know- They just send their fangirling. That's fair enough, but I'm just saying, like, look, and it's a very good point, which is you can actually take the data and you can slice it and tell different stories around it.

Starting point is 00:27:24 But at the end of the day, it's very hard to say there's good and there's evil that we have to go and attack. And that is what is going on. Oh, I never said attack. I never said attack. I didn't say invade China over this and I didn't say invade Saudi Arabia. I think we should talk about it.

Starting point is 00:27:35 Be in peace the temperature, raise the temperature. No, I did not say that either. If you want to know what I think should happen. Political pressure on that, right? I think when people are involved in torture, murder, rape, and sterilizing people, that there should be economic and disengagement that occurs as a first step. And that that is why when people in our circles, in venture capital, take money from somebody who murdered a journalist, Muhammad Bin Saleem, MBS from Saudi Arabia, we should disengage from a country like that.

Starting point is 00:28:07 I believe that that is what we should do. And I believe, I believe people like us, who are capital allocators and craters and who are influencers, should be talking about human rights all the time. And we should be familiar with the universal declaration of human rights

Starting point is 00:28:21 and we should read what's in it and we should aspire to hit those notes in our country and everywhere else. And this me to is I'm sorry this, you know, equivalency problem that you guys keep bringing up. That is a trap. That is an intellectual trap because there is no equivalency from putting a, detaining a million people, putting hundreds of thousands of them and torturing them to what's happening in the United States where we wrote the universal declaration of human rights and where we can have conversations about it.

Starting point is 00:28:49 If you tried to have the conversation, we are having here. Can I disagree with you? We would all be tortured in Saudi Arabia. We would all be tortured and detained inside of China. I just think that there's a very dangerous thing that you're doing, which is you are ranking and which is essentially assigning some sort of, let's just call it economic value to those things that you just just described, torture, rape, forced sterilization.

Starting point is 00:29:13 But I think then you're ignoring how do you actually economically rank systemic racism in the United States, what happens in our inner school system, inner city school system, what happens to black and brown men, what happens to the families of those people, what happens in our inner school system, inner city school system, what happens to black and brown men, what happens to the families of those people, what happens to how the lobbies basically break down the healthcare system? All I'm saying is Jason, if you take your argument to the extreme,

Starting point is 00:29:35 you start to get into all these areas of gray, where it's impossible to assign economic realities to those things so that you can actually rank and rate. That's why I do think that. Yeah, because what do you mean? We're talking about you're numerically ranking these things. No, no, I never use a numerality. Jason, one is proportionally different.

Starting point is 00:29:53 Sure. I'm not putting economic. I never use a term I propose. Those really bad things happen 10 times. And these kind of bad things happen 10,000 times, which ones worse? I think if you asked anybody who is in a weaker prison being sterilized, I'm not asking you, which one's worse?

Starting point is 00:30:09 Yes, I mean, you could actually do this test. Jason, I'm asking you a question. If 10 people, 10 Uighurs were raped or forced sterilized versus 10 million black men fall seeing carcerated, which one is worse? Yeah, this is not the way to do the calculus. You could do it on an individual basis. You can look at an individual inside of a prison

Starting point is 00:30:29 being tortured and an individual living in the United States, every single person who is inside of that torture chamber, being raped, being sterilized would say, I would absolutely love to come to America. That's why everybody wants to come to this country and live in a free democracy where they can speak freely, they can practice whatever religion they want and not be tortured. And what you're doing by adding up all the tiny pain and suffering that we have here in

Starting point is 00:30:49 America, and then, you know, trying to conflate that with these horrific acts, you have to look at exactly how horrific these are on an individual basis, just like we did with George Floyd. We see George Floyd happen. That is something that is absolutely worth being outraged about at a higher level, right? You have to stop for a second and say, oh my God, this has to be resolved. We can do these two things at the same time.

Starting point is 00:31:13 We can refine our education system. No, George Floyd, George Floyd actually the weavers being serialized. I think George Floyd clues my point because there's been innumerable number of black men that have been murdered with nearly a thing that's ever happened in the United States But it happened in an exact moment Where at the sum of all of these other things that happened before

Starting point is 00:31:33 Had just compounded to a point where the whole thing spilled over and enough people decided to basically say the sum total of this damage Yeah, now is the equivalent of a very meaningful human rights violation? You can work on both of these things at the same time, is my point. And this, and this, you're basically giving a pass by kind of conflating these two things in my mind. You can work on both of these issues. You could want to stop abhorrent torture and murder and rape while wanting to make our justice system better, while wanting to make our education system better.

Starting point is 00:32:03 You don't have to pick one, Chimoff. I think you do, actually. No, you do not. We could absolutely create nothing I can do about the Uighurs in China. Zero. Absolutely there is. You could not capital allocate to regions or to companies that are engaged. I don't.

Starting point is 00:32:17 I don't have any shing shanis. Okay. Perfect. And if you do see one, you could do that. And you could also speak up about it. I can't because they can't get out of China. What are you talking about? Do you take money from Saudi Arabia? No. I can't because they can't get out of China. What are you talking about?

Starting point is 00:32:25 Do you take money from Saudi Arabia? No, I can't go to the capital. And did you make a moral decision about that? No. Okay, if you did get offered a billion dollars, would you take it from them? And by the way, to be honest, there's a bunch of my companies that have been supported

Starting point is 00:32:38 by folks who have taken money from them. And I know. And that's a problem. Well, what's a bigger problem is that the solution solution that these guys are that they're designing for mental health or diabetes or, you know, housing or whatever it is the startup does when they take money from soft bank or remember all of a sudden they should be canceled and not be able to do that? I didn't say cancel, just take the money from somebody different. Nobody said canceled. Where? I don't know, co-2. Pick another firm. Goldman, I don't know who it doesn't take Saudi money should the United States create a program

Starting point is 00:33:07 or whenever you get a what you ever get a term sheet from soft bank or anybody with money from didn't say that if you should Just be able to go and redeem it for some somebody else's man. I never said that either I think each individual a capital allocated like yourself and a CEO should make what they believe is a morally right decision Well, they voted and they don't care about this issue should make what they believe is a morally right decision. Well, they voted and they don't care about this issue. They're voting with their dollars every day. And I'm advocating that people should care about human rights and they should care about

Starting point is 00:33:29 who they make money for. I know I'm a lone voice, I know I'm a lone voice, but I believe you should care about your making my voice. I'm not saying, Jason, I'm just saying something very subtle. I'm not saying that what you believe is wrong. In fact, I think it's beautiful and wholeheartedly right. What I'm saying is when everybody else tries to nod their head and agree with you in the moment, they're just

Starting point is 00:33:48 morally virtue signaling. In a luxury belief that they themselves don't exhibit, they don't make any changes towards. And it's largely because they don't believe that this is an issue. And I'm just putting it on the table as it just is true. Based on everybody's behavior, maybe other than you, I agree with you. But everybody else is voting. I would like to change everybody's behavior. And I think you can offer your opinion and maybe you will change some people's minds. I'm sure there are some people listening here

Starting point is 00:34:12 and I know there are some founders who would not take money from Softbank and would not take money from Saudi Arabia. And I know there are some capital allocators who will not take money from dictatorships. I think that you're also forgetting that there has been as it seems again, from very, very far away looking in, a lot of things that they have been able to do that is really constructive.

Starting point is 00:34:32 They've actually created some pretty decent ties to Israel. They've actually started to create a path to normalize relations in the Middle East. They've organized against what could be the real threat there, which is a nuclear empowered Iran. So just to put things in perspective, Jason, it's kind of like you have to look at the totality of the situation. Again, in the United States today, if you just looked at that one simple thing, you can cherry pick all kinds of reasons why many other companies shouldn't expect, shouldn't accept American capital, because we don't really exactly have our shit together right. Proportion of these issues is the I think which I'm not saying is the world the world is complicated I mean we had so under the the previous president they said that it could never be like a piece of the lease or a deal between Israel and

Starting point is 00:35:20 Arab powers and there was the don't agreement where you had three Arab states signing peace trees with Israel and Saudi Arabia allowing flights between Saudi Arabia and Israel for the first time and that's all because of MBS and there was an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about how King Salman actually was holding MBS back on this because you know he's part of the previous generation who was backing the Palestinians and MBS just wants to move forward and actually get a deal done with Israel and if the Palestinians won't make it Then he's willing to move forward without them and this is not me saying this is the Wall Street Journal Yeah, we need to dig up that piece. So all I'm saying look what happened with that journalist was absolutely wrong, but clearly like

Starting point is 00:36:02 foreign Relations is very complicated, especially in the Middle East, and it's not clear that net net. Saudi Arabia probably just did the one wrong thing, which is that every country engages in extra judicial killings. They just got caught, right? Because I don't think it's fair to say that.

Starting point is 00:36:18 But they also killed a journalist. I think that Americans have done that. Okay, we've done that as well as a law. A journalist? Absolutely. I don't think you Americans have done that. Okay, we've done that as well as a law. A journalist. Absolutely. I don't think you actually have any idea of the extent of what we have done during the course of these wars in all of these countries.

Starting point is 00:36:31 I don't think you know. Well, nobody I know. Yeah, so by saying, and I think that the tip of the spear, nobody knows if we chopped up a journalist who criticized the president. Well, who is in Al Graib? Al AguGrey, do you really know? Do you know of all the other? One of the worst things we ever did,

Starting point is 00:36:46 and one of the things we need to aspire to do better, to our hybrid is there. We've gone bloodliding around the Middle East for 20 years now in Afghanistan. And imagine all of us supported warlords in Afghanistan and we were allies with who were raping young boys. I mean, this was like a giant series of articles in the New York Times in New York.

Starting point is 00:37:03 All of our Nibbia and Contra. I mean, we've been doing this since the 80s. But even more recently in Libya, of science series of articles in the New York Times. In Libya. In Iran. In Contra. I mean, we've been doing this since the 80s. But even more recently in Libya, we basically got rid of Giddafi and planted a whole country into civil war and it's never recovered from it. So look, I actually, Jason, I'm somewhere in between, I actually agree with your idealism.

Starting point is 00:37:19 My mind's still blown that you actually work for Amesd International. But I just think that the world is more complicated than that and sometimes we have to make choices. And the thing that concerns me is that that idealism that you're citing has become a prelude in a pretext for war in the over the last 20 years. And to be clear, I'm not advocating. We can go around the globe getting into these conflicts. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. You know, I'm anti-war. You know, I, Iraq, Afghanistan. You know, I'm anti-war. You know I'm anti-war.

Starting point is 00:37:46 You know I'm anti-war. You know I'm not advocating for invading places. I'm advocating that we speak up when we see Saudi Arabia take a blogger, Rafi Badawai, everybody did. Everybody did. I mean, that was universally condemned, but the question is, at the end of the day, who is being camed for writing blog posts. What's the whole term of insati Arabia?

Starting point is 00:38:09 Who's our alternative there? We don't get to pick and choose who the leaders of these countries are. That doesn't mean, I'm talking specifically about entrepreneurs, capital allocators, that doesn't mean we need to engage in business and building their chips back. If you want the sternly worded press release you just got it from Biden to hopefully it's it's it's satisfies it quenches your thirst because the only other solution us talking about actually if you want to know what I want I want to see the three of you speak up for human rights that's what I would like to say I think that human rights in the United States is way more important to me than human rights anywhere else in the globe okay and I think that we have an abysmal track record of taking care of colored men and women in this country.

Starting point is 00:38:48 I don't disagree. And so I have zero patients in tolerance for white men blathering on about shit that happens outside your own backyard, fix your own inside backyard. Because you guys hold on because you guys are in the white center. You do not get to diminish me for being white. No, I understand, but I'm saying that you are uniquely in the position of power in a way that the rest of us are not. And so when you guys clean up the inside, then we can go and fix the outside.

Starting point is 00:39:13 Yeah, I believe we can do both. I believe we can do the same thing at the same time. We could speak about human rights here. We could speak about it in Saudi Arabia, we could speak about in China, and we could talk about the same thing. We could talk about the human right issues from freedom of speech to murder. I do I do constantly If you care so much about journalists, why haven't you spoken up in favor of Sun and Assange the way that Glenn Greenwald has of Julian Assange? Assange and Snowden read Glenn Greenwald's reporting on these topics

Starting point is 00:39:39 Yeah, I think that we need to get to the bottom of both of those in either case we don't know You've acted with complete certainty on Twitter, saying that these guys are traders and should be locked up in US prisons. Oh, no, no, I think we don't know. I don't think we know who they're working for. Do I mean, you spent the time to learn? No, well, I mean, it is a black box in that case.

Starting point is 00:39:58 We don't know in both of those cases what the backstory is. I do think I do have a new answer. I can't know that. You know what's going on with the Uighurs because you read a New York Times article. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's What you want to believe? No, you literally can believe somebody who escaped from the prison. You can believe them, yes. When it comes to Julian Assange, I don't know what to believe exactly because he released

Starting point is 00:40:32 all those data dumps and he didn't do a proper like a journalist where he vetted the information. It's noted. I'm more inclined to think that he was a good actor and I think it's a very nuanced position. So if you want to try to paint to me as like not knowing everything about every human rights violation in the world, every nuanced position of a leaker, that's correct. I don't know everything about everybody, but I do know. I'm going to take that position. I don't know anything about any of these things, which is why I choose to focus on the things that I can control.

Starting point is 00:40:58 And I want to believe that I want to improve my own backyard. Which I think is absolutely great. And I think you can add an end there, which is you should be talking about human rights and Hong Kong should be talking about it so to say and should be talking about it. Okay, not my problem is the problem. Not my problem.

Starting point is 00:41:15 I believe that's part of the problem right now. You said it, you said it perfectly, Jamoth, people don't care about human rights anymore. There's a lot of people I agree with you who do not care about human rights, the way we did. No, I think they care about the local version of human rights. Fine. Yeah. And I think you need to care about all of them and talk about all of them at the same time. The international adventurism around human rights, I don't support in the least. And I do feel

Starting point is 00:41:36 that a lot of this stuff is like the tip of the spear of people who then get morally absolute and say we have to fix this. And the only solution is to invade these countries. And instead, I would just rather them, if they really care about it, let them stand up and do what they need to do. I think we need to fix our own backyard. I mean, look, not to kind of bolster Tamas point, but there is a blind eye turned to that, which we don't want to believe or that narrative, which we don't want to sell. And then we point towards the narrative that we do.

Starting point is 00:42:06 And we see this all the time where the focal point of where should we be addressing human rights issues is where we have economic and geopolitical interests. No one seems to be solving the problem in subalia. No one's getting on stage talking about the issues that people are facing in countries outside of where we have deep rooted trade partnerships and serious economic interests. And so, you know, like we can tell ourselves all day long that we need to be kind of the absoluteists and absolutely take care of the world because we're the beacon for human

Starting point is 00:42:36 rights. But the challenge is we end up being forced to choose where we want to spend our time and our resources and our resources go to where those resources flow back to us. And that's often where we have a geopolitical and economic interest. And I'm sorry, I'll say one more thing like this, if it's important, Jay Cal, because you called us all out. I am an absolute human rightist in the sense that I believe every human on Earth should have a right to do whatever they want within their own sphere of influence, provided their sphere of influence does not intersect with the sphere of influence of others.

Starting point is 00:43:07 End of story. I don't see that happening anywhere on earth. This ends up being a trade-off. You always end up trading off your sphere of influence for that of the greater good or someone else, because power allocates and power aggregates to specific places, often to government, sometimes to organize societal decisions that we say we're gonna trade off

Starting point is 00:43:27 our individual rights and freedoms for that of the greater collective. And it is that judgment and it is that gray area where all of these issues that we individually choose to address and spend our time on arise. And so I have, you know, just to point out, like a very absolute point of view on this, but to me, the challenge is how do you make a discernment,

Starting point is 00:43:46 how do you make a determination that imprisonment of brown and black people in the United States versus the treatment of people by militia in Somalia versus the treatment of the Wiggers in China versus, you know, and you go on and on and on, it's a very difficult moral judgment. Or you could just say they're all wrong. They are all wrong.

Starting point is 00:44:08 They are all wrong. And we're gonna work on all of them. And we're gonna talk it well. See, but you work on all of them, you work on none of them. And I would rather see innovation enable more people to have access to more free speech, to have more resources, to have more of an ability to climb and have the freedom to do the things they want to do with their life.

Starting point is 00:44:26 I think that innovation and technology can bring all of these old-school ways of thinking and behaving out of the medieval ages and the dark ages. And so that's where I choose to spend my time. You know, how can we unleash people's freedom? We got to make things more available. We got to make things more accessible. I just want to make two points and then maybe we can move on on this topic. Point number one is when you're an immigrant, part of what you're doing is you're actually voting against the place that you leave to embrace the place that you come to. And Jason, you know, of all the four of us on this pod, you're the only natural born American, right? You started here, you've lived your entire life here. and that's an incredible blessing

Starting point is 00:45:07 that you were given. And the three of us weren't. And in my case, I had to go through it even more circuitous path. I didn't even come to the United States first. I had to go through Canada. But implicitly, when I look at the places that I left, and specifically when I look at Sri Lanka, who has a very checkered human rights record, in fact, terrible in some ways, and the way that they ended the war against the Tammals atrocious. I have to make a decision, right? I have to make a decision about,

Starting point is 00:45:35 is this something that I'm going to wait into or not? And what I've realized through my own life's journey is these are not my battles. And in many ways, I abdicated my responsibility to vote on that issue when I left. And instead I stay here and I focus on the things that I can control here. And I think that I do have a responsibility to fix the issues of the country that adopted me. And so that's where some of my frame

Starting point is 00:45:59 will come from. Separately, I do want to give all three of us a shout out because I do think that there is an enormous human rights issue that I do think we did bring up and in the last few weeks has become a real groundswell and it started on the year in recap pod where we talked about what's happened to our kids. And I just want to call out that in the last few weeks, the amount of press attention that this issue has gotten, which I do think is a human rights level issue, which is a cognitive impairment of our children, has really come front and

Starting point is 00:46:30 center. And I think that it's really, really incredible all the way to like even nature now, publishing these, you know, and maybe the timing is just coincidental. But these big longitudinal studies that really show that, you know, we have driven a level of retardation in our children. We have held them back from a level of learning and development that we now have thrown our arms up in the air. We don't know what the real long-term impact is. That, I think, is a human rights level issue. And domestically in the United States, I think we're in a position to fix it if we decide to take care of it. So, you know, again, I don't mean to offend you when I say that in my prioritization list, it's below the line, but there are different human rights issues that I care about. And I think to just to be clear, you know, when you said I called everybody out here,

Starting point is 00:47:16 I'm trying to have a productive discussion. Freiburg, I'm not trying to put in a spot. I don't get offended. I'm not trying to have a productive distance. I don't get offended. I'm not here. I'm okay. Okay. Okay. But I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to call out productive discourse. I'm not trying to have a productive discourse. I'm not trying to have a productive discourse. I'm not trying to have a productive discourse. I'm not trying to call out besties here. I'm trying to have a productive dialogue about human rights. Would you say you're my firm prince, Olloweed? He's like one of the largest investors in the world.

Starting point is 00:47:34 You know, I wouldn't. He's just a Saudi investor. Yeah, he's a Saudi investor. So if there's just a citizen of Saudi Arabia, you wouldn't think. If the money comes from a dictatorship from an authoritarian country, I wouldn't 100% when I think he was locked up. He was locked up at the Ritz and he was forced to give a bunch of his money. So it wasn't the mostly lived out of the country anyway.

Starting point is 00:47:51 I mean, like, again, if his money, if you're asking me, let's put inside of a specific person, I'll just tell you my philosophy. Lisa Citizen or a former citizen of that country. He was born there, J.K.O. Yeah, I agree. Let me just tell you, I clearly, I would never take money from an authoritarian regime. Would you take money from a Chinese billionaire? No, I would not take it from a Chinese.

Starting point is 00:48:13 No, I would not take it from a Chinese, if I... No, not an authoritarian regime. The Chinese are not an authoritarian regime. No, we're talking about a Chinese billionaire. If the Chinese billionaire was outspoken about human, I would tell you, it's a great thought question. And I'm just riffing here. It's a great thought experiment. If a Chinese billionaire had left China

Starting point is 00:48:32 and was, you take the money. Would you take the money? Because Chimalt has violated your human rights at the poker table many times. That's true, that's true. He has, he has churned number two, so I haven't gone all in. What I have to pair.

Starting point is 00:48:44 And I'm like, I guess he's got a set. And he just absolutely tortures me. Yeah. So, but no, I would not, I would, if the person was a reformer, yes, I would consider it. I would consider it. Jason, but Jason, I guess what you're saying is like, you and this is your decision to make.

Starting point is 00:48:59 My decision, yes. It's important for you that you understand what people's personal belief systems are When you take money from them. No human rights is important to me Right, there's some saying like their personal belief system like you know You know you you were less if they were an elicit drug user right for somebody else So for example, I'll give you an example So I did take money from a Chinese billionaire when I when I first started social media

Starting point is 00:49:22 I'm not gonna say who it is. Nope. No need take money from a Chinese billionaire when I when I first started social care. I'm not going to say who it is. Nope, no need. But there was a morality clause and there were certain things that were incredibly important to this person. And they were very easy for me to reflect because they were nothing that I cared about. But you know, they explicitly didn't want certain kinds of investments in whether it's gambling cannabis, sex, porn. For. For me, the list was gambling, alcohol. Can anyone, my point is, you're fine signing up to those moral judgments from an investor. Am I?

Starting point is 00:49:54 But not necessarily, you know, silence on, I'm asking you the question. You would be fine signing up for those moral, for moral delineation of what you can and can't do, even if it's not against what you believe, but you have a different issue when it comes to silence on these other topics. Yeah, I'll answer the question. If I'm taking other people's money to invest it and they don't want to invest in the adult,

Starting point is 00:50:14 I don't have a problem with cannabis as an example, I don't have a problem with wagering and gambling. But if I'm building a fund to invest in businesses, those are, that's not an important issue for me, and I don't know that's a great venture investment, and I can also invest outside of it my own money. So it's a more nuanced issue there. Like, I have invested in wadering apps, and I'm thinking about creating a syndicate specifically

Starting point is 00:50:35 for gambling and wadering, and yes, there are LPs who are currently having my previous fund, the active fund, that do not, I do not invest in wadering because of that. So yes. And it's because they just want clarity in some cases on not getting sued for investing in a, in a, in a wagering companies where we don't have a federal mandate yet. So you know, I think comparing, it's, it's a great thought. I was, I was fine, I was fine, I was fine, I was fine, I was fine, I was fine, I was fine

Starting point is 00:51:02 signing up for no alcohol because my father was an alcoholic and so it was it was more aligned and There was a certain investor who At one point tried to be an LP very well-known person who was convicted of domestic abuse and I didn't take that money because I was I had been the victim of domestic abuse as my mom. And so that was a moral issue for me. The point I'm trying to make to Jason is that it's very nuanced. Everybody can be on a bunch of different sides of this thing.

Starting point is 00:51:34 And I tend to think the most consistent, reliable thing is that these are very local beliefs. That when they touch you, you have a point of view on them. And I think that, you know, it's much more practical, and maybe this is just being too practical. To see a world where people want to fix their own backyard first, and I think a lot of why you may be disappointed that a lot of people don't have a strong review on things like China,

Starting point is 00:52:03 as people are little exhausted, with having moral views about things that are so far away, when things in their own backyard are so broken. Yeah, and I can understand that exhaustion. And to be clear, I just feel like human rights is such an obvious and easy one to get behind for all humans. And that really was. From your perspective. And that's what the universal declaration of human rights was about.

Starting point is 00:52:23 Was we were hoping that all countries in the United Nations or Eleanor Roosevelt was that we could all just agree that torture was immoral. And when the United States Waterboarding people and the United States came up with some whether the death penalties immoral. So I mean, you know That's something that you know is our great fail. So we're riddled with hypocrisy. The declaration of human rights here is is an ideal It's a goal. It's something to strive towards. And each country has places where they succeed and fail and you can actually measure it.

Starting point is 00:52:51 And we do measure it actually. We do measure which countries have the worst record on human rights violations and which ones have the best. I mean, I think these one-of-fible scores are crazy. No, no, they're not. You can literally look at how many women are raped in prison in one country versus in another. I understand, but my point is, when you put a not. You can literally talk, look at how many women are raped in prison in one country versus another.

Starting point is 00:53:05 I understand, but my point is, when you put a score to that or count it, you're not counting a bunch of other things that are really bad as well. The scoring system could be refined. Sure. I will give you that. And I think this is the debate we had today, which was an unexpected debate, and I didn't think we would go this deeper. I think it's such an important debate for us to have as humans and as a civilization, we are getting in the weeds on so many other issues whether it's inflation or you know

Starting point is 00:53:31 Innovation or politics that human rights. I feel is something we should all be able to agree on that all people should be Definitioned. It's jckel. Everyone says yes The definition and the prioritization is where all the noise sits. Yeah, that's everything. And how do we deal with violence? There's no one on earth that's gonna say, I don't believe in human rights.

Starting point is 00:53:51 Well, no, we all agree with the ideals. The communist. Everyone agrees with the ideals. The question is how you implement that. Implementation, prioritization, definition. Exactly, for example, I think it's a legitimate position for you to say that you're not gonna take money from dictators, but to then say that any family office from any individual who was born in that country, you're not going to take their money either. I would have to think about it. I didn't say unless they say they're willing to risk their lives by denouncing their own government.

Starting point is 00:54:21 I don't know that they have to do it. I don't know that they have to do it publicly I mean, if I talk to this hypothetical Chinese or Saudi person and they said, I don't agree with this. I'm working against a reformer. I guess I would have to consider it because no, no, but you would want to say enough of the reformer. But Jason, what have they said? I don't have a point of view that I would go with people who would you morally disqualify them? You would disqualify them on moral grounds. That's all the way to make allies, Jake, which is important. You're not letting me. Hold on, I need to answer it. If you could both ask me this question and accuse me of, you know, this, I would have to make a nuance

Starting point is 00:54:55 decision on an individual basis. I would not make a blanket decision. That's my position on this hypothetical situation where somebody is a Saudi citizen as a family office. I would have to make a very new association like you did, Shamath, where you didn't take the domestic abusers and you did take the person. Well, that was an American, but I took the chance. Okay, yeah, but it's the same thing. It's a human rights violation. It's a horrible thing that occurred and you had to make a nuanced decision. And, you know, I, that's what I'm hoping to promote here is that we have a dialogue about human rights again, because when I was growing up in the 80s, this was something that the world was getting consensus on and the West had consensus on.

Starting point is 00:55:29 And I think the West is very weak now. And the fact that the NBA, that, you know, Apple, whatever companies, I don't wanna call out individuals because it's not productive, especially if it gets re-aggregated and you know, I happen to know some of them. It's something that the West has to contend with productive, especially if it gets re-aggregated and you know, I happen to know some of them. It's something that the West has to contend with of what is our strategy here with human rights violators. Do we engage them? Do we, uh, advantage them or somewhere in between? Do we disengage,

Starting point is 00:55:56 engage or, you know, make our feelings heard and try to shape their behavior to bend towards human rights? It's a very complicated, nuanced discussion. I'm glad we had it here today. The time period you were talking about where we supposedly had consensus on this during, said the 1980s during the Cold War. I was talking about it in America. Yeah. Okay.

Starting point is 00:56:15 Well, we talked about it a lot in America is my point. Yeah. Well, I think, actually I think Ronald Reagan did a earlier job with this. He denounced the incredible empire, but said that we should be a shining city on a hill. And we actually avoided a bunch of unnecessary foreign wars. 100%. So, look, I think the best way for us to lead on this issue is just to be an example,

Starting point is 00:56:37 and we're not doing a very good job of that. I mean, your ideals are great, but the world doesn't neatly line up with those ideals and presents us with choices that don't fit those ideals. I mean during the Cold War, we had a choice to support either communist regimes or in a lot of cases authoritarian regimes. And we chose the lesser of two evils. I think today we have choices between, do we want to support Islamic fundamentalist regimes, or we want to support authoritarian regimes who are resisting it. I mean, those are the types of tough choices the world actually presents to us. And I think that's what makes it hard to sort of to sort of to my enemies and any is my friend. It's a complicated chess board and you're better at

Starting point is 00:57:14 chess than me. So I will give you that. And I think it's great that we have discussion. I really do appreciate that you guys were willing to talk about this for so long. It's an important discussion because if we don't stand for human rights and basic human rights, what do we stand for? And I agree that domestic is imposed. I stand for, I stand for me. We know that. We know that. Tell us about the sweater. Tell us about the sweater. No candle today. You know, if you're concerned about the rise of authoritarianism, which actually this was my, one of my big trends in the prediction episodes, I am concerned, dear democracy. Yeah, which was the most negative trend. But then I think you should be concerned about this rising tide we have here of censorship

Starting point is 00:57:50 and the surveillance state. Oh, I'm in a particular care about it. Yes, I'm in agreement. And our federal law enforcement agencies demanding more power. And lockdowns. And lockdowns, and if you have similar liberties, I'm in agreement on this. I'm in agreement on this. It's blowing this whole like January 6th thing out of proportion.

Starting point is 00:58:03 You should be concerned about their attempts to exploit and use that to demand more powers to surveillance. I do not believe in surveillance. And I think you understand that the hysteria created around that event is going to be used, it's going to be exploited to demand these powers. Politicians are exploiting this on all sides of the aisle. I agree with you. The right and the left. The right is diminishing it the left is

Starting point is 00:58:27 exacerbating it the truth in the middle is I think we are in agreement sacks the overwhelming majority of people who went to the capital that day were dipshit who just wanted to protest and they cared about Trump and they went there for the party of it all and then there was a small cohort Who intended harm and who are deranged and who could potentially be dangerous in the way, Chimath framed it, lone wolves or small packs of wolves like the Oklahoma City bombers who murdered a large number of people. And so we have to be very careful in prosecuting one group one way and one the other way. And that's exactly what the Department of Justice has done. In that case, 700 people got pled deals or very minor sentences.

Starting point is 00:59:05 And then these folks are gonna have the book thrown at them and rightfully so because they could have murdered Pence or they could have murdered Pelosi just like that woman got murdered. I'm sorry, the woman tragically got stopped and shot and died. Like that could have been a much different day. If dozens of people had died and those cops had not shown restraint,

Starting point is 00:59:23 we could be sitting here having a much different discussion about the oath keepers. If the oath keepers had done what the Oklahoma City Bombers succeeded in doing, this would be a much different discussion. Right, they didn't, which is why it is a different discussion. Well, thank God for our police and for how brave they were in not unloading their pistols when any reasonable person who was being beaten by that crowd and crushed would have taken their gun out and started firing. They didn't. Thank God those police did not so far. Okay, good. Look, I think the one thing we can agree on is we don't want something like that to happen again.

Starting point is 00:59:53 And there's two simple things that would prevent it. One is reform of the the electoral count act like we talked about. That's what Biden should be going for, not making these speeches about bull corner and George Wallace. You can actually get that done. And the other thing is if the Capitol police had just been a little bit more prepared and had barricades and screens of better security, then it also couldn't happen again. That's all we have to do to solve that problem in January. No, the third thing we have to do is arrest these oath keepers and put them in jail for what they did. That's happened.

Starting point is 01:00:18 Well, they've been indicted. You tell me if they're going to go to jail. They'll convict them of something. Yeah, well, and rightfully so it seems. Hopefully they get their day in court. Maybe we can transition. I want to talk about the other side of the coin on inflation, because I think that we have hammered the point for a long time now that the government was really off-piste by printing in competence, trillions and trillions of like off-peaced by printing incompetent trillions

Starting point is 01:00:45 and trillions of dollars and injecting it into the economy and what it's really created is been this massive bout of inflation, which then could cause an ultimate recession because the Fed has to react. All of those things, I think, are well documented. I just wanted to put on the record, a little element of the counterfactual, which I think is really important. And this is an article in the Wall Street Journal and Nick, you can post this if you can't please, but I'm just going to read this. So I'm just going to look down. The first two rounds of

Starting point is 01:01:13 stimulus payments lifted 11.7 million people in America out of poverty. According to the census bureau, Americans build up $2.7 trillion in extra savings. And some expect that combined with rising wages to provide them with lasting stability, despite the return to more normal spending patterns and rising inflation. So I just want to make sure that all of us have heard that because that's an incredible thing to be able to say that 11.7 million Americans in poverty are no longer in poverty because of the stimulus, which I think when you look at the right way of framing what some of these progressives want to do, I think a lot of the good intentions comes from things like this. And I just think it's important

Starting point is 01:01:55 to acknowledge that that did happen. And that's something that we should really be proud of. And especially if those folks can actually stay in the lower middle and then move up to the middle class, can actually stay in the lower middle and then move up to the middle class. That's an incredible outcome. And, you know, we all supported that, I think, genuinely. And I think that that's good. We knew it was scary and we needed to put something into the economy to keep it from crashing. And it's very hard to know what the right amount was, right, Tramoth? Like, how do you know what the right amount of stimulus is?

Starting point is 01:02:20 In a pandemic that happens every 100 years. And thank God it feels like Omicron is leading us out of this. Okay. Yeah, there's some great examples, by the way, in this article, if you guys, if people want to take the time to read it, of some examples of people that have really done an incredible job in, in like completely changing their financial picture, which I think is. Well, I mean, a lot of people went into freelance. A lot of these young people realized, I don't know if you saw this headline a million less people

Starting point is 01:02:47 Started college this year and enrolled and I think what's happening is so many people who were going into college realized I don't know if I should go into debt I figured out a way to make money at home and more financially literate I'm gonna make a better decision about college and not go 100k to debt Well to be very specific very resilient and being better making better judgments about their own lives because they've been forced to to be specific specific, I think it's made people very resilient and making better judgments about their own lives because they've been forced to. To be specific, I think you mean boys, because the other thing that's happening

Starting point is 01:03:11 is in colleges now, it's becoming very tilted female versus male, especially in some colleges. In some colleges, it's two thirds female, one fifth male. So 65th time we were actually creating this weird launch total pattern here where an entire gender is going to be very miseducated relative to another one. And in fact, it'll be the exact opposite of what it was like in probably the 50s or 60s,

Starting point is 01:03:35 where you had these large swaths of men that are educated, women who typically stayed home, or were undereducated relative to their ability. Here now it's the exact opposite where it's whereas, you know, women are getting undergrads and graduate degrees and boys are learning how to play video games and smoke pot. In cells. Very strange time. I mean, that's what happens when you,

Starting point is 01:03:53 David's, what is that like? You're being an in cell. You were pioneering being an in cell. We made it through the show, so it was so civil. Let's get the Friedberg ratio up. Let's talk about an exciting scientific paper and the implications of it. Let's go to science.

Starting point is 01:04:08 Broom, broom, broom, broom, broom, broom, tell us about this new study from Harvard that revealed Epstein Barvirus could be associated with MS. I'll do a zoom out, then a zoom in. Yes, please. Bear with me for a moment. So, you know, there are over 80 what are called autoimmune diseases.

Starting point is 01:04:22 These are diseases where your body, your immune system attacks your own tissue and causes real problems. One in 20 people worldwide suffer from some sort of autoimmune condition. So, both disease, lupus, which affects your whole system, rheumatoid arthritis where your joints get inflamed, showgren syndrome where your eyes and your mouth get messed up and multiple sclerosis, which we'll talk about here in a second, but these are all diseases that have a similar ideology, which is that your immune system attacks some tissue in your

Starting point is 01:04:52 body. It dysfunctions and it attacks it. And there's always been a big question about kind of what causes autoimmune conditions and what causes immune system dysregulation like this. And there's all sorts of different theories and studies and papers many of which have been well documented genetic risk factors, environmental factors, age. And in particular, as you get older, the thymus, which is supposed to create these helper cells that go out and keep cells in your immune system from attacking your own body, your thymus kind of starts to fade away. Or sorry, a thymus starts to fade away and start

Starting point is 01:05:23 start to stop working. And so, one theory that's been talked about a lot is molecular mimicry, which means that there's some protein from a virus that enters your body or cancer. And that protein looks a lot like some other protein in your body. And so your immune system starts attacking that protein. And as a result, your immune system gets turned on to that protein.

Starting point is 01:05:44 And it actually attacks a similar looking protein somewhere else in your body. And that's a very broad statement about some potential cause of autoimmune conditions and you can find protein mimicry theories coming from the gut where microbes in the gut are triggering this and then also viruses, so in particular cytomegalovirusomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, which we're going to talk about here today. So multiple sclerosis is this disease, one of the autoimmune diseases, where your immune system attacks and destroys myelin, which is, you know, found on your nerve cells and in your brain. And it can actually cause, you know, when this happens and your immune system

Starting point is 01:06:25 starts to attack your brain, you end up with these lesions and really debilitating effects over time. One in 300 people in the US have been diagnosed with MS. It is a brutal disease. It lasts your whole life. And the treatment today, the primary treatment is this drug that destroys B cells in your body. And your B cells make antibodies. and so by destroying the B cells

Starting point is 01:06:46 it gets rid of the cells that are making the antibodies that are attacking your own brain. And this is a really effective treatment. It's been able to reduce the effects of MS significantly, but we still don't know what causes it and what triggers MS. And there's always been this theory going back to the mimicry question that one of these viruses that everyone seems to get as they age is causing it. And so Epstein Bar virus has always been thought to be one of those viruses. It's one of the Herpes viruses. Everyone knows it as mono. So you get mono and you get swollen neck a lot of people do. Most people that get this virus don't end up having any symptoms that are even though they have it. And here's a crazy statistic. 95% of people have Epstein bar virus. And it's known that Epstein bar virus does actually cause some kinds of cancers and lymphoma and so on. So here's the paper that was published yesterday. And again, if

Starting point is 01:07:42 you know that Epstein bar virus is doing some other stuff in your body that's negative, shouldn't this be a reason to look at it for MS. But how do you get the data to do it, given that 95% of people already have Epstein bar virus? So here's what happened. These guys at Harvard went to the military, the US military, the US military basically had 10 million members of the military. Take 62 million blood samples over a period of time from 1993 to 2013. And when they take these blood samples, they run their typical checkup on these people, on the military members, but they save some of the blood sample in a freezer.

Starting point is 01:08:19 And so they've got 62 million blood samples sitting in freezers. The US military does. And so these researchers were able to 62 million blood samples sitting in freezers, the US military does. So these researchers were able to access those blood samples. And they then found 5% of the people that don't have that seen bar virus, because remember 95% of people have it. So they found the 5% that don't. And they went through and they found that during this period of time that they have all this blood data for, they were able to identify 800 people

Starting point is 01:08:45 that started out Epstein-Barr virus negative, and then got MS. A hundred percent of the people that got MS were infected with Epstein-Barr virus during this period of time. And for the group of people that didn't get MS, only about half of them got Epstein-Barr virus infection during this period of time.

Starting point is 01:09:03 And then they looked at this for about 20 other viruses and basically showed absolutely no correlation or difference in risk between all the other viruses if you got MS or didn't get MS. Basically creates a 95% probability that you're 32 times more likely to get MS from Epstein-Barr virus than from anything else. It is from a racially diverse pool, an age-diverse pool, ethnically diverse pool. So a lot of other confounding factors like race or ethnicity or genetics, a lot of other factors like all the other viruses that might be causing MS have been excluded. And it shows that maybe Epstein-Barr virus is the primary cause of MS that triggers certain

Starting point is 01:09:42 people's immune systems to go nuts and attack the brain. And it's interesting because you know, X-T-Barb virus has a bunch of proteins in it that look like other human proteins. So it makes sense why this might happen. MS costs 40 grand a year, there's 30 billion dollars a year spent in the US on MS care. So if we can go in and get it, X-T-Barb virus eliminated from the human body, it would be an incredibly, incredible cost saving and a therapeutic benefit to people with MS. You should talk about the reason why

Starting point is 01:10:10 we don't have a Herpes vaccine though. So HSV1, 2, 3, now 4, none of these things have reasonable vaccines and it's for a very specific reason, which is that the Herpes virus itself is incredibly, incredibly difficult to isolate and find until it activates, and it hides itself and it nests itself inside these nerve cells. So you may want to just talk about how complicated it is to produce it.

Starting point is 01:10:36 But DNA disappears into these nerve cells, and so it's hard to get immune system to go and clear them out permanently. The Epstein Bar Virus hides out in the B cells in your body. And so it's floating around in your body forever. And as your B cells replicate, the virus replicates with them. And then when your immune system starts to get weak, the virus pops out and starts attacking and inflating your body again.

Starting point is 01:10:59 So number one, Epstein Bar Virus has never been a great target, a therapeutic target, because there's not much money to be made, because it's like who the hell cares about mono? Once you get mono, you get over at your fine. But if Epstein Barvirus is in fact causing this problem with MS, there's a reason to go after it, a lot of money to go after it.

Starting point is 01:11:16 And there are several new technologies and therapeutic strategies that are possible, one of which is, you know, Chimac sent out over our group text, a company that's doing T-cell therapies, where you can actually program a T-cell, and the T-cell goes into the body and finds these B-cells with Epstein-Bar virus and wipes them out. There's a steroid, a diuretic steroid that's used to treat high blood pressure that's been shown to stop Epstein-Bar virus from leaving cells.

Starting point is 01:11:41 There's an antiviral drug made by Taquita called Mabrribivir, which has been shown to have high efficacy in eliminating Epstein-Barbirus. So there are now therapeutic strategies that are being actively explored that could unlock the potential of minimizing or eliminating Epstein-Barbirus for broader population than we ever thought should be taking these therapy.

Starting point is 01:12:01 Because the implications may be that if you can stop Epstein-Barbirus from replicating or eliminated from your body, you can stop all these follow-on diseases that occur over time in your life that are super debilitating and costly. Yeah, lupus is another one. Lupus, yeah. And tight to Herpys Simplex IV. And I think the real problem is going to be that two-thirds of the adult population under the age of 55 have Herpes and plucks for.

Starting point is 01:12:26 So you're literally talking about inoculating the entire world. And when we start to think about that grand of a scale, there's a cost issue, there's a manufacturability issue, and then there's an ROI issue that unfortunately will be adjudicated. And that to me is what really stands out. And that is just the healthcare economics of it. Obviously, the science of it is still really complicated. Are we doing an mRNA vaccine for Epstein Bar? And how would that play into this?

Starting point is 01:12:58 Absolutely. So there's a lot of techniques. This is T-cell therapeutics, mRNA, a chemotherapy type drug, a steroid drug, and antiviral drug. Every modality for therapeutics has some candidate or candidates for Epstein-Barr virus. There may be a bunch of ways that you start to identify risk factors and that you give someone one particular therapy that might be really affordable.

Starting point is 01:13:24 This antiviral, maybe super affordable. You know, if we can make it for $5 a pill, you could, you know, get it out to a lot of people prophylaxically that are in high risk. You know, if there's a group that actually is active with MS, a good treatment may be to try and give them the T-cell therapy and see if that helps. And so that's the clinical trials that we'll start now,

Starting point is 01:13:43 because if you can give people a T-cell therapy and eliminate EBV and stop all future need for MS treatment, that'll save 40 grand a year, it'll start to make sense to run clinical studies to see if that's possible and is worth doing. So it opens up a whole new kind of area of interest. Now, by the way, this isn't novel. People have been talking about this for a long time, but this paper has such incredible data and such strong signal that it's really going to, it's really going to catalyze investment. We didn't have the big data based on this study. We would not have gotten here. For once on the show, I will say thank God for the US government and all of the data that

Starting point is 01:14:17 they've, you know, all of these blood samples that they can't, for big data. I want to get you read on the, the human transplant thing that we saw this week where genetically modified pig heart was implanted into 57 Jason you want it 57 year old man you want to read that out. Oh yeah David Bennett a 57 year old man requested special emergency authorization for the experimental surgery from the FDA FDA who was dying and unable to receive a human heart transplant the surgery was performed on January 7th in Baltimore. And this happened as the US is facing a major organ shortage. I mean, we have hundreds of thousands. I mean, people on organ donor registries or needing a transplant, you know,

Starting point is 01:14:56 my father was on a kidney transplant registry for eight years until he passed away. These things are just brutalizing for the individuals and the family around it. And so like, you know, all of a sudden, if you can see a path where you can genetically modify other sources of organs and implant them without organ rejection into the human body,

Starting point is 01:15:17 that's like, that is mind, it's mind-blown. Here's what's really important. It's not just about the availability of these things, but it's about turning off one of the biggest, the big risk factor of organ transplant is rejection, meaning you're putting all this foreign matter into your body. It's foreign proteins. And so when your immune system sees all those foreign proteins,

Starting point is 01:15:38 your body goes, hey, why are you in price to kill it? It's like imagine getting a billion viruses at once. And so there's all these new proteins. And so one of the interesting things you can do, if you can grow these organs and alter the genetics of the cells that are being used to grow the organs, is you can get those cells to match your own

Starting point is 01:16:00 or to basically downregulate all of the proteins that might be triggering immune rejection in your body. So theoretically, you could grow J. Cal's heart with tissue and cells that match your DNA potentially and match your protein structure perfectly. And it's such a hat, hat a heart you could do with him too. Right. There you go.

Starting point is 01:16:20 Good transition. But no, I mean, but that, and by the way, there, there may also be a path here where we grow these organs with your DNA, without even using the entire key of the rest of the animal to do so. So there's a lot of really interesting breakthroughs that are possible, but it's really great to see a highlighted, you know, non, you know, kind of transplanted organ from another body into the human body, because it just, again, it opens up what people have been talking about for decades, which is the possibility of this now that we have gene editing and potentially have the ability to grow biological matter in bioreactors.

Starting point is 01:16:58 It's going to be, it's going to be a tremendous. Jake, what do you think about the Democratic person in the SEC saying that they wanted to basically make the accredited investor laws even stricter? That's incredibly infuriating. That was your big prediction. Yeah, I mean, we really have to get these laws. I mean, I think this is like a Theranos or WeWork over reaction, which is like, oh my God, there are some bad private companies. If you take the number of bad private companies and then look at what is happening in the

Starting point is 01:17:28 country with people wagering on sports and wagering on crypto, slash investing, depending on how you look at it, we need to have one rule for the road, which is people take a test, they get accredited, and then they can do what they want with their money. The equivalent of what I'm suggesting, people can only invest a fraction of the money they have on their last two years tax returns. Let's pick a number, 5% of their two-year average on their tax returns, 10%, whatever you want to pick. They have to take a test.

Starting point is 01:17:59 Would be the equivalent of people having to take a three-hour course and a, you know, I don't know, 50 question test to go to Vegas and play Blackjack and they could only put on the Blackjack table 10% of their total average yearly income for their household in the past year. You'd think about how crazy that would be to tell an American you got to take a Blackjack course and pass a Blackjack test and understand the odd support or whatever to play that game and you can only put if you made $50,000 on hours last years You can only bet five thousand in Vegas had any one time. That's the max chips you combine a year. Those are the two things I'm advocating for in private company investing and That's really if we want to have people move from you know poor to poor to middle class, from middle class to affluent in this country.

Starting point is 01:18:46 There has to be equity participation and equity participation has to start early. Look at what happened with all these young people betting on crypto, betting on stocks or stonks and, you know, doing puts and calls and all kinds of crazy things, you know, in public markets. We would really rather see those people, or at least in addition, be able to invest on LinkedIn if they were a recruiter in year two, or they were in Uber Drive, or be able to buy Uber shares, or if they were an Airbnb host, be able to buy Airbnb shares as a private company. We'll change the entire complexion of upward mobility in the United States

Starting point is 01:19:25 and we really have to keep educating people, not limiting their upside. That's my personal belief. Person who asks you the question, stop paying attention like five minutes ago. Oh, because we were talking about science and hearts. No, Jim, I'll ask you a simple question like 15 minutes ago and like you just been. That was a 90 second monologue. I was. That's for Henry Bellcaster.

Starting point is 01:19:44 Okay. By the way, I got inside information on Sacks. Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh. What's that? You know how Sacks started like doing a little bit of artistic direction. You know, he's got that score, Sezy and him having done the award-winning film, thank you for smoking.

Starting point is 01:19:57 And he got Henry Belkaster on his team. You know the TikTok guys? TikTok guys. Time to make some suggestions. Lightly cheating. I'm making some suggestions. Lightly suggesting. Saks has been directing. Not directing. Our TikTok superfan saying, hey, you might want to make

Starting point is 01:20:12 a TikTok out of this monologue out there. Here's what happened. There's a quote of a segment that somebody liked. They retweeted it. It got a whole bunch of likes. And so I've sent the TikTok guys that I said, this might make a good talk. Right. Yeah, nobody else doing that, but okay.

Starting point is 01:20:28 Okay, we'll go for it. Ah, I'm not editing, but I'm lightly suggesting. Joke out. You've got to sit again. People do think that you have Tucker Carlson's writers writing for you because of my jokes. You say it and people don't know that you're joking. But to be clear, that is a joke. You do not have Tucker Carlson's current writers writing for you because of my jokes. You say it and people don't know that you're joking. But to be clear, that is a joke. You do not have Tucker Carlson's current writers writing for you.

Starting point is 01:20:48 There may be some. I do admit I have a special writing team for Rose. You do. I mean, just for Rose. But do you keep them on retainer? Like if you have a Rose, like you can just ask them to punch up some stuff for you or? Yeah, I've only done it twice.

Starting point is 01:21:02 I did it for you for your Rose, Jake Allen. I did it for Phil Helmus roast. We destroyed Phil. Oh my God. Yeah, actually this is a hysterical. Oh my God. This was the cheapest roast ever. They rented like a junior suite that they got for free at some

Starting point is 01:21:16 there wasn't rent. Yeah, they got it for free. They got it for free. They had like 30 people in a room and they're like, oh, you got to come out for Phil's roast. It was like 30 people in a junior suite at like a B level hotel. And it was so bad.

Starting point is 01:21:30 And Saxon and I came in and we had absolutely a no allegiance to the audience. I lost so much money to destroy everybody. You guys were out of control. It was brutal. Here's the helmet roast. I got the material right here. Oh no.

Starting point is 01:21:42 Oh no. Oh my God. You'd be sure, these aren't our jokes This is what a Comedy Central writer wrote so we have well, okay, so we do not endorse these No, what well okay, so if you might have said that I work so they basically put together some material and then I shape it There's like some back and forth. It's a workshop. You work. Yeah, we workshop it. Yeah, go ahead. It begins We're here tonight to roast the poker player known as the greatest. Unfortunately, Phil Ivy wasn't available. So we sell for Phil

Starting point is 01:22:09 hometh. Hell. In the poker world, Phil is known as the poker breath. The rest of the world just calls him asshole. Phil has mastered the GTO strategy of playing poker for most players, GTO stands for game theory optimal But it in Phil's case it stands for grading toxic and obnoxious Despite all this Phil fancies himself a quote-unquote poker ambassador not to throw out damper on things But calling Phil an ambassador for poker is like calling Bill Cosby an ambassador for Quayloods

Starting point is 01:22:48 ambassador for Quayloods. Oh no you cut that one. Oh that's not that's too okay. Let's face it Phil is nuts. He's the only poker player sponsored by lithium. Phil demands silence to the poker table so you can hear the voices in his head. So good. When Phil was inducted into the poker hall of fame they retired his straight jacket. Oh, God. When Phil was inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame, they retired his straight jacket. Ah! Ah! Now Phil is doing what they can.

Starting point is 01:23:09 It's completely ill, everybody. He's deranged. Now Phil is doing what all people in crisis do, right self-help books. Ah! It's called positivity, which is ironic, because the only thing Phil has ever tested positive for is narcissistic personality disorder.

Starting point is 01:23:24 Ah! So good. Because the only thing Phil has ever tested positive for is narcissistic personality This inspirational tome is a whopping 84 pages over has taken inspirational shit's bigger than this How about this Phil's book on Amazon it says people who enjoyed this book also enjoyed pounding their dick with a meat tenderizer You're your punch up guys for good all right everybody hope you enjoyed sacks is excerpt from the Phil Helmuth Narcissist roast and we'll catch you next week I love you guys. Bye bye. We open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love you, S.S. I'm queen of kilowatt. I'm going on a leash.

Starting point is 01:24:28 What? What are you on a leash? I'm going on a leash. Besties are gone. I'm going through the house. That's my dog taking a wish to drive away. Sixx. We're going to dog.

Starting point is 01:24:39 Oh man. My hamlet, the jasher will meet me. I put it in the seat. We should all just get a room and just have one big huger Because they're all just like this sexual tension But we just need to release that out What you're that beat? What you're a beat?

Starting point is 01:24:53 You're a beat Beat? What you're a beat? We need to get merch I'm going on, Leanne! I'm going on, Leanne! I'm doing all the same.

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg - E63: Insurrection indictments, human rights in the US and abroad, groundbreaking MS study and more

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.