Stay Free - Russel Brand - Russell Brand & Sam Harris Respectfully DISAGREE: Trump, Religion & Big Pharma! - Stay Free #203

00:00:00.000 So, it's a very, very good opportunity to get out there and get involved in the community.

00:00:07.000 So, I'm going to go ahead and get started.

00:30:01.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:30:13.000 Hello there, you awake and wonder.

00:30:15.000 Thanks for joining me for a very special episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:30:19.000 It's our conversation with Sam Harris, the intellectual, neurologist, writer and thinker, creator of the Waking Up With Sam Harris app.

00:30:28.000 He gives away some fantastic free memberships to our community.

00:30:32.000 So stay to the very end and become an awakened wonder by pressing the red button at the bottom

00:30:36.000 of your screen right now to experience things like that.

00:30:39.000 Now of course this conversation has already gone viral, particularly for those of you

00:30:43.000 that watch it on Locals.

00:30:45.000 You can watch these things first if you are an awakened wonder and a member of our Locals

00:30:50.000 community.

00:30:51.000 Now if you're watching this on YouTube, the first 15 minutes will be here, but then I'm

00:30:54.000 going to click over exclusively to the other place when we start talking about Trump, RFK

00:31:00.000 the rise in populism.

00:31:02.000 This has gone viral for a reason because it was a great conversation but if you stay all the way to the end to the bit in Locals you'll see that we meditate together and even after quite a hot conversation we find peace together.

00:31:14.000 Also there's a fantastic episode of Here's the News where we look at Biden's new drug negotiations and whether or not he really beat Big Pharma You won't believe Kamala Harris's grandstanding speech and how it contrasts with the muted regulations and legislations that have been passed.

00:31:29.000 Outrageous claims there.

00:31:30.000 You're going to love all of it.

00:31:32.000 But without further ado, let's move straight into our conversation with Sam Harris.

00:31:36.000 Remember, if you're watching this on Rumble, give us a rumble.

00:31:38.000 Press the red button at the bottom of your screens right now and become an Awake and Wonder like the people that are watching this live.

00:31:46.000 That's how they do those screen grabs and let it go viral on Twitter or Excel.

00:31:49.000 Are you calling it X yet?

00:31:50.000 Let's welcome Sam Harris for the show.

00:31:52.000 Thank you for joining us, Sam Harris, you beautiful man.

00:31:56.000 That's something I'm quite worried about.

00:32:00.000 I'm not sure you and I would view the remedies in the same way.

00:32:05.000 How do we get beyond this cavalcade of my experts versus your experts, my flag versus your flag?

00:32:09.000 By acknowledging that we are all an expression of one unitary force.

00:32:16.000 There's a methodology by which we would resolve those differences and this shattering of our information space is making it very difficult to apply that methodology.

00:32:26.000 The thing that I intuit is we are on the precipice of new models.

00:32:29.000 No one is conducting that research at Pfizer precisely because it isn't profitable.

00:32:34.000 Let's have a little look around the Wuhan Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and check out how it's funded and how it's regulated.

00:32:42.000 But Sam, more important than that, mate.

00:32:44.000 These are domains of relative knowledge.

00:32:47.000 Do you agree we should start by addressing the most powerful interests in the world that seem to benefit more than ordinary people?

00:32:55.000 Energy companies benefit when there's an energy crisis.

00:32:58.000 The military-industrial complex benefits when there's a war.

00:33:01.000 We have to address this.

00:33:02.000 We should let them get rich, right? 0.67

00:33:04.000 No, no, this is wrong.

00:33:06.000 This year I have to contest with Sam.

00:33:08.000 Thank you for joining us, Sam Harris, you beautiful man.

00:33:19.000 Happy to be here.

00:33:20.000 It's great to see you, Russell.

00:33:21.000 When I met you, I remember in LA, you introduced me to Hiron Gracie, who became my BJJ teacher, along with my teacher Chris Clear over here in the UK.

00:33:35.000 I'm now a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.

00:33:37.000 You still rolling?

00:33:38.000 Fantastic.

00:33:40.000 No, I have not rolled since COVID actually.

00:33:44.000 Yeah, since I mean, I was racking up a bunch of injuries.

00:33:48.000 And just, you know, at some point it seemed like a choice between aging somewhat gracefully and not, you know, I just was getting neck injuries and hip injuries.

00:34:00.000 And so I just, I mean, and through no fault of Hiron's, obviously, I mean, he's, he's the perfect person to roll with.

00:34:06.000 It's just, I was, it was just gravity at a certain point is not your friend.

00:34:10.000 Yeah.

00:34:10.000 So, um, yeah, I mean, I love it.

00:34:13.000 I w it's, it's just one of the great losses of my life that I'm, I'm not currently rolling and I keep, Fantasizing about going back, but it does worry me to go back.

00:34:23.000 How have you been holding up?

00:34:24.000 How's your body?

00:34:25.000 Pretty good.

00:34:27.000 Right now, my knee hurts a little bit, my left knee, and my left shoulder hurts a little bit.

00:34:32.000 What I try to do when rolling is, very near the beginning of the session, establish a rapport with my opponent that I hope will translate into them, on some level, holding back slightly.

00:34:45.000 Yeah, well, I mean, listen, at some point, I was only rolling with Huron, right?

00:34:50.000 So, I mean, obviously, he has nothing to prove.

00:34:53.000 He can win at will.

00:34:56.000 He was the perfect teacher and grappling partner, but it's just bad luck.

00:35:04.000 I ascribe it to bad luck and bad genes.

00:35:07.000 Mate, as this online space continues to evolve, the relationship that you have with Jordan Peterson, where two people with opposing views, with perfectly valid perspectives on both sides, has somehow been mapped onto the entire internet space, but perhaps without the congeniality and goodwill that I assume exists.

00:35:29.000 I wonder what your fears are as we increasingly find ourselves in some irresoluble cultural polemic that seems to be fuelled by a will to impose, centralise, to accrue authority, to defeat without grace the opponent.

00:35:52.000 How do you feel about this advancing space and how can we engage in conversations with people we don't agree with In good faith.

00:36:00.000 How can we take on board the views of those we disagree with and advance a mutual conversation?

00:36:06.000 Or do we just accept now that centralised democracies such as America and the UK are finished and we have to start moving towards decentralised cultural and political models because there's just too much agitation elsewise?

00:36:21.000 Well, I share your concern about all this.

00:36:23.000 That's something I'm quite worried about.

00:36:24.000 I'm not sure you and I would view the remedies in the same way, but I'm just going to sketch out what I think the remedy is.

00:36:34.000 I think we need to collectively develop the ability to worry about more than one thing at a time, right?

00:36:43.000 So what I keep confronting are people who focus on one part of a troubling dichotomy.

00:36:52.000 Take the tension between censorship, which I know you're worried about, and misinformation.

00:36:59.000 Right now, I would acknowledge that free speech is almost an intrinsic good.

00:37:05.000 It's certainly the best error-correcting mechanism we have, and that we should protect it at almost any cost, certainly politically.

00:37:14.000 And yet there is this tension between misinformation And really waking up in a society that's one day ungovernable on the basis of misinformation with a way where you just cannot converge on a fact-based discussion about anything because people are so siloed into their delusional echo chambers.

00:37:31.000 And on the other side, our efforts to correct for misinformation, which increasingly look like censorship and increasing their intention with, again, the almost intrinsic good of free speech, which we protect much better here in America than you do over there in the UK.

00:37:50.000 So what I'm continually finding are people, you know, we can talk about the left and right poles of the political spectrum as shorthand, it is not perfectly accurate now, but people on the left and the right can only focus on one of these bright shiny objects at a time, right?

00:38:07.000 They're only worried about misinformation or they're only worried about censorship.

00:38:12.000 They're only worried about wokeness or they're only worried about Trumpism.

00:38:15.000 They're only worried about Uh, you know, respect for tradition or, you know, innovating on everything.

00:38:22.000 So there's all of these things that are, that represent trade-offs that, that where there, it's not a landscape of, of very clear distinctions between right and wrong and good and evil, but we, where we just have to figure out how to tune things and, uh, you know, or a trade-off between individualism and a commitment to the common good.

00:38:22.000 Right.

00:38:42.000 Right.

00:38:42.000 I mean, like if you, if you privilege individualism above everything else, You begin to lose your ability to create a society that any sane individual would want to live in, right?

00:38:53.000 So it's like if we respect your right to put smoke in the air above everything else, we have undermined my right to breathe clean air, right?

00:39:01.000 There is a trade-off here.

00:39:03.000 There's some amount of regulation I have to impose on you so that your enterprise doesn't fuck it up for everybody.

00:39:09.000 And so again, there's a tension here and what I continually find I mean, it feels like 95% of people can focus on one problem and can't dignify any mention of the opposing trade-offs with even a single sane sentence, right?

00:39:30.000 And our online space has devolved into a polarized conversation about this landscape of trade-offs.

00:39:39.000 I agree with you that these media silos are contributing to the inability to take on the perspective of the opposing side.

00:39:49.000 And I think no one's more guilty of creating these spaces than what are commonly colloquially known as mainstream media spaces.

00:39:56.000 Just today we were Looking at a broadcast on MSNBC where it was openly posited and quite enthusiastically so that were Trump to win the election in 2024 that he would immediately declare himself president for life and therefore any opportunity to indict or indeed imprison Donald Trump will be lost forever.

00:40:18.000 So nothing less than the future of democracy hung in the balance in the forthcoming 2024

00:40:25.000 election.

00:40:26.000 Now this was the claims that were being made specifically on MSNBC and in particular it

00:40:31.000 was Rachel Maddow and I feel like it perhaps would be more beneficial if what you want

00:40:35.000 to encourage is a rational discourse to engage in, to present rational arguments and in particular

00:40:42.000 to be candid, open and utterly transparent about the shortcomings of the side that you

00:40:47.000 yourself advocate for.

00:40:49.000 Freedom of speech means anything.

00:40:50.000 It means the freedom of speech of your opponents and I think we've seen over the last few years

00:40:56.000 terms like misinformation, malinformation and disinformation enter the public discourse

00:41:01.000 not solely because there are now miracles around communication and technology that mean

00:41:05.000 anyone with an idea and a rhetorical flourish can reach previously unprecedented audiences,

00:41:11.000 but also because these new models precisely mean that centralising and controlling any

00:41:17.000 particular narrative is almost impossible, and the veracity of opposing information is

00:41:24.000 indeed difficult to verify. I completely agree with you that we can't have single-issue

00:41:30.000 orators governing our space with Sturm, Drang and Bombast.

00:41:35.000 We do need to encourage, I would say, inclusive discourses where people are, as I said in my

00:41:43.000 initial question, are deliberately favouring the views of their opponent, willing to see where

00:41:50.000 they can concede, willing to accept that my freedom may at some point impede on your

00:41:54.000 freedom.

00:41:55.000 What am I willing to sacrifice?

00:41:56.000 Now, these ideas are precisely the kind of things that I turn to meditation for, Sam, and I know that you're here in part to talk in depth about your meditation app, which I admire and I love and I use.

00:42:07.000 And I feel that There's precisely this kind of access to inner terrains that might provide us the ability to move beyond these spaces.

00:42:15.000 One thing I'd also like to challenge, if I may, is that the distinction between left and right devolving into periphery versus centre, to use Martin Gurry's terms there from his book Revolt of the Public, is significant. What we have now is anti-authoritarianism

00:42:33.000 versus authoritarianism.

00:42:35.000 And I feel that once that gets mapped into a meaningful political system, it's going to mean

00:42:40.000 to a degree the devolution of power, further federalisation and an ability for communities to

00:42:46.000 govern themselves. I said a lot there Sam, but I know you can handle it, so

00:42:49.000 please let me know what that provokes.

00:42:51.000 Yeah, no, I would take that reframing certainly up to a point that,

00:42:57.000 you know, as I said, left and right don't really cover the landscape very well at this point.

00:43:02.000 And so there is this anti-authoritarianism.

00:43:06.000 I would say there's a contrarianism, there's an anti-establishment bias now, both on the right and the left.

00:43:14.000 There's a distrust of power, there's a distrust of institutions.

00:43:21.000 And it's understandable because our institutions have failed us in obvious ways.

00:43:26.000 Certainly they have proven themselves at moments untrustworthy.

00:43:32.000 So the loss of trust is understandable.

00:43:34.000 But what I would say is that the corrective we need is not to tear everything down.

00:43:41.000 We need institutions we can trust.

00:43:42.000 We need to figure out how to reboot our institutions so that they are trustworthy, so that they're worthy of trust, and so that people actually trust them.

00:43:50.000 And what I'm worried about now, given the online tools we have, and the democratization of everything, and this almost, you know, apocalypse of contrarianism, is that even if we had trustworthy institutions across the board, we couldn't get a majority of people to trust them on any one point.

00:44:12.000 Certainly not a point that is politically polarizing, right?

00:44:16.000 So if we have a new pandemic, how do we get 90% of people to trust the mainstream medical message about what the facts on the ground really are?

00:44:29.000 And how do we get people to trust Government, public health organizations, as they give us up-to-the-minute information insofar as they know it.

00:44:39.000 And again, the basis for distrust is totally understandable because we witnessed one pratfall after another during COVID.

00:44:47.000 But what I'm saying is that we need to get to, we absolutely need, and to speak locally in the U.S.

00:44:52.000 now, We need a CDC that we can trust.

00:44:55.000 We need an FDA that we can trust.

00:44:57.000 The fact that we feel that we can't trust these organizations is absolutely corrosive to the maintenance of a healthy society.

00:45:07.000 And it certainly will put us in a position to fail once again to respond intelligently to the next pandemic.

00:45:15.000 And what I worry about, again, my concerns about COVID have, apart from the first few months when no one really knew what the hell was going on, My concerns about COVID have always been that it's a kind of dress rehearsal that we were obviously failing, right?

00:45:31.000 and I worry that we're not learning the lessons of that failure, because I think it's just

00:45:35.000 inevitable that we will one day have a pandemic that's quite a bit worse, and we will need to

00:45:40.000 be able to respond with coherence and learn to cooperate at a global scale, and I'm not sure

00:45:49.000 we're putting ourselves in a position to do that. I do recall both in our nation and in yours, Sam,

00:45:54.000 an incredible moment of goodwill at the commencement of the pandemic period, where people

00:46:00.000 sort of intuitively understood that we were facing something unprecedented.

00:46:04.000 And indeed, the principles of every measure, whether it's masking or lockdown or medications, is human life is, if not sacred, I'm aware of who I'm talking to, certainly valuable in a somewhat unique way, which if not sacred... I like sacred.

00:46:18.000 You can use sacred with me without apology.

00:46:20.000 Because if it isn't sacred, we're going to have to work out what the hell it is that makes human life so worthy of preservation.

00:46:26.000 So we'll go with sacred for the purposes of this conversation.

00:46:30.000 And any personal imposition is as nothing compared to our collective value and our joint duty to protect the vulnerable.

00:46:38.000 But of course, what we saw, and these are just a few points I'm tracking, and I know that you're a busy man, but I'm sure you're broadly aware of the kind of media that I engage with and convey, is that Albert Baller, CEO of Pfizer, said it will be reprehensible if there were any profits made by Pfizer and

00:46:52.000 I think we all know that there were profits made by Pfizer that the that their

00:46:56.000 legal indemnity for any potential vaccine injury caused a lot of suspicion. The

00:47:01.000 very fact that the FDA is significantly funded by the pharmaceutical industry

00:47:04.000 causes a great many people concern skepticism and cynicism. There are

00:47:08.000 figures within the CDC and NIH that have a well this is to one of our viewers

00:47:13.000 here on the locals platform Primal Collins says you know that to get the kind

00:47:17.000 of trust that we require you would want no revolving door between

00:47:20.000 corporations and in this instance big pharma and if you are right and you know who's

00:47:27.000 It's certainly across infinite time you are, that there is another, that there will be another pandemic.

00:47:34.000 I suppose, personally, what I would want is a real, transparent, candid mea culpa about this is how we handled it.

00:47:41.000 This is what we did wrong.

00:47:42.000 This is what we'll never do again.

00:47:44.000 This is what we exploited.

00:47:45.000 This is how it was handled incorrectly.

00:47:47.000 These were people that were shamed, that shouldn't have been.

00:47:48.000 That should never have been said.

00:47:49.000 These companies should never have profited.

00:47:51.000 Moderna should not have been invested in by a person who's now the Prime Minister in the UK, set up a hedge fund that funded Moderna.

00:47:58.000 None of those companies should have profited from a disaster of this nature.

00:48:03.000 Certainly public politicians shouldn't have been partying during a time while the rest of us were locked down

00:48:09.000 and we must radically redress the ability that Big Pharma has to influence policy

00:48:15.000 because I recognize that no one's gonna trust these government medical agencies until that's remedied.

00:48:22.000 If that kind of conversation took place, I think that that would go some way.

00:48:26.000 way towards it. Do you think that's a possibility and do you think that's a fair assessment?

00:48:32.000 I agree with the spirit of that. It would be hard to fashion a mea culpa so comprehensive

00:48:39.000 that it satisfied everyone who was waiting for it because I think we're going to, as

00:48:45.000 a society, we're going to disagree about what the facts are still.

00:48:48.000 We're not in possession of the same set of facts.

00:48:51.000 Like if I were to ask you or your listeners how many people they think died in in America or the UK from COVID.

00:49:00.000 Right.

00:49:01.000 I think we would see something like a bell curve distribution of assumptions, and we would find it very difficult to agree even just about that simple, you know, propositional claim.

00:49:12.000 Just how many people died from COVID, right?

00:49:14.000 We're suddenly going to have a conversation about the difference between dying from COVID and with COVID, and can we, you know, and were people perversely incentivized to report deaths that were, you know, one versus the other.

00:49:26.000 But what you pointed to in your comments about pharma there are A set of perverse incentives that we have to worry about.

00:49:34.000 And so the profit motive in pharma is something that many of us, probably all of us when we look at it, are uncomfortable with.

00:49:45.000 But it's also not clear how to incentivize drug discovery in a way that works, that dissects out that perverse incentive, right?

00:49:54.000 So yes, I was totally uncomfortable with the idea of a pharmaceutical company Enjoying windfall profits during a pandemic and racing vaccines to market, knowing that billions of dollars were waiting to hit the cash register.

00:50:10.000 It's easy to see what could go wrong with that.

00:50:13.000 And again, this is why we need an FDA and a CDC and other regulatory organizations we can trust.

00:50:18.000 And your revolving door comment is totally valid, except The issue is there are only so many domain experts, right?

00:50:26.000 So what sort of jobs do they get when they transition, right?

00:50:29.000 And who do we want to be doing this research and to be deciding about regulation apart from people who know all of the details of this research?

00:50:41.000 Take a simple case.

00:50:42.000 Let's take it off COVID for a second because that's so highly politicized.

00:50:45.000 But take the fact that We as a society desperately need to create a new generation of antibiotics, right?

00:50:55.000 For as long as you and I have been alive, we've lived in this bright, shiny moment where infectious disease has been radically curtailed by us having a very solid armamentarium of antibiotics that work.

00:51:13.000 If the first antibiotic doesn't work, there's one behind that, and there's one behind that, and there's one behind that.

00:51:13.000 Right?

00:51:18.000 But in the last, I don't know, 25, 30 years or so, we have witnessed this growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria And we know we don't have a good pipeline for developing new antibiotics.

00:51:32.000 The reason why we don't have a good pipeline is because the drug companies can't be appropriately incentivized to do the work and to spend the money to develop these drugs because this next antibiotic, you know, the seventh antibiotic in line, when all the other ones fail, when you get some weird lung infection, right?

00:51:50.000 And you've gone through six antibiotics and they haven't worked and we got one left, right?

00:51:55.000 That drug, whose name no one can pronounce, that is a drug that maybe you will take once in your life for 10 days, right?

00:52:03.000 It's not like Prozac, where you can take it for the rest of your life, or Viagra, where you can take it.

00:52:07.000 It's something that that most people are never going to take, and those of us

00:52:11.000 who are unlucky enough to need it will take it once for 10 days, right? So there's not enough

00:52:16.000 profit in this thing, and it takes a billion dollars to discover this drug, right, and bring it

00:52:21.000 to market. So how do you get companies to do this? And what...

00:52:27.000 And if we were going to make governments do this, how badly would they handle that project, right?

00:52:33.000 So, again, this is a problem of incentives and trade-offs, and we have to figure out how to untangle all this in a way that preserves public trust in institutions, and it is a hard problem.

00:52:45.000 It's astonishing to me that it was once the role of the left to offer very aggressive critiques of those kind of models and now they are entirely bereft of them whether it's on the subject of war or the sort of immersive and disruptive power of Big Pharma.

00:52:59.000 It no longer seems to be there you know whilst earlier on I did offer a alternative to those labels as we discussed.

00:53:06.000 It seems to me that any attacks on the militarism, particularly with regard to Ukraine-Russia conflict,

00:53:13.000 and the role of pharma and corporations more broadly, seems to be coming from the right.

00:53:19.000 And that's sort of extraordinary for me with my own particular political and cultural heritage.

00:53:23.000 And I'd also like to add, while I've got this opportunity, that I take neither Prozac nor Viagra on a daily basis.

00:53:29.000 It's at most once every other day.

00:53:32.000 Chance would be a fine thing.

00:53:34.000 We're gonna leave YouTube now, so if you're watching us on YouTube,

00:53:37.000 please click the link in the description to join us on Rumble, where I'll be asking Sam Harris

00:53:43.000 about the popularity of figures like Donald Trump, about whom he has spoken extensively,

00:53:47.000 and Robert F. Kennedy.

00:53:49.000 Why are we seeing this rise in populism?

00:53:51.000 If you want to see how Sam's going to respond to that question, click on the link.

00:53:54.000 Also, Sam's going to be giving away access to his Waking Up With Sam Harris meditation app, which is fantastic, so join us.

00:54:02.000 over on Rumble. If you're watching us on Rumble, press the red button and join us in our locals

00:54:05.000 conversation and consider becoming an awakened one that we get access to all sorts of additional

00:54:10.000 content and for a limited time only, a pair of underpants, which I will be offering you

00:54:15.000 in a moment or two, Sam. But first, I want to get your perspective on the rise of populism

00:54:20.000 and what that suggests about the decline in establishment trust, which we've touched on.

00:54:26.000 I feel like, you know, like Trump's a runaway leader in his own pie. I feel like 80 percent

00:54:31.000 of Republicans want to vote for Trump and something like 19 or 20 percent would vote

00:54:34.000 for RFK in spite of the lack of mainstream media coverage of his campaign. So you have

00:54:40.000 a significant number of Americans from across the political spectrum. Narrow, though, I

00:54:43.000 would contest that political spectrum is when you consider what's possible if you're a regular

00:54:47.000 meditator. What does this tell us about how bereft we've become of alternatives and what

00:54:53.000 new ideas, what new conversations and what new alliances need to emerge in this new media

00:55:00.000 space and how this could evolve into new political movements.

00:55:02.000 But perhaps if we start with what you think underwrites the sudden surge in populism, whether it's left or right wing.

00:55:14.000 Well, I think there are a few variables.

00:55:16.000 One is this siloing into echo chambers that has been enabled by the Internet broadly, but social media in particular.

00:55:24.000 I think it's possible to stay in a silo now in a way that it simply wasn't a generation before, even though, yes, there was There was an opportunity to have your biases enshrined in just how you decided to use the media, you know, in the past.

00:55:44.000 But it's just gotten worse and worse to the point where there's almost no Darwinian corrective to misinformation and lies now.

00:55:53.000 Like you really can swim in an ocean of lies for as long as you want and nothing from the outside is going to intrude or certainly need not intrude.

00:56:03.000 And so you have these hermetically sealed Spaces of information and misinformation.

00:56:09.000 And so we're not converging on anything like a fact-based discussion about anything of importance now.

00:56:19.000 And so you take somebody like Trump, who to my eye is It's not an exaggeration to say that he is the most relentlessly dishonest person we have ever seen in public life.

00:56:34.000 He just lies at a velocity that doesn't even make any sense.

00:56:40.000 Many of his lies aren't even self-serving.

00:56:42.000 They don't serve his purpose.

00:56:43.000 It's just this automaticity that he distorts the truth.

00:56:48.000 You know, he'll contradict himself in the span of 30 seconds, and he has cultivated an audience that simply doesn't care, right?

00:56:57.000 This is not an audience that likes him despite his failures of personal integrity.

00:57:03.000 It's an audience that mostly likes him because he is this chaos machine, right?

00:57:07.000 That he's this kind of wrecking ball that is swinging through our institutions and our political norms and disrupting everything.

00:57:18.000 So the question really is, why do so many millions of Americans want to see everything disrupted in this way?

00:57:25.000 And it does come back to what we were talking about a few minutes ago about distrust in institutions, some of which has been well-earned.

00:57:35.000 I think the role that wealth inequality and a sense of loss of opportunity is playing is rarely remarked upon.

00:57:43.000 It's amazing to me how little We grapple on either side of the political aisle that we grapple with the implications of wealth inequality now.

00:57:51.000 And so I think that's that is a certainly a variable.

00:57:56.000 But it's not it's not a straightforward one.

00:57:59.000 There are a lot of people who are not, you know, not at the bottom of our economic stratum that, you know, support Trump or support the disruption of everything and support this kind of populism on the right.

00:58:14.000 I think it's I mean, for me, to the bright line with Trump and whatever you want to say about his character, and I've said many things about, you know, I've banged on for hours about Trump to the boredom of millions.

00:58:27.000 For me, there was a bright line that was crossed that I think everyone who cares about the future of democracy and the maintenance of American democracy in particular should acknowledge.

00:58:42.000 And it is this.

00:58:43.000 We had a sitting president Who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

00:58:48.000 And repeatedly, he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the run up to the 2020 election.

00:58:48.000 Right.

00:58:54.000 And lo and behold, we did not have a peaceful transfer of power based on the lies he told about that election.

00:59:02.000 Now, you can dispute some of this.

00:59:04.000 You know, a partisan who believes that the election was stolen from Trump.

00:59:09.000 Which for which there is no evidence.

00:59:11.000 You know, to the contrary, what was happening is he was trying to steal an election all the while claiming it was being stolen from him.

00:59:18.000 Believe that aside, even a partisan who believes that the election was stolen from Trump has to admit that in the run up to the election, literally six months before the election was run, we had a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

00:59:35.000 Now that single act, I would say, it was so corrosive.

00:59:40.000 It was such a violation of our most sacred political norms, our most sacred and useful political norm, right?

00:59:46.000 This is something that even Ronald Reagan, somebody who used to be a darling of everyone right of center, acknowledged.

00:59:56.000 He said this somewhere in the late 70s.

01:00:00.000 He said, the greatest miracle of our country Is the peaceful transfer of power is the thing that makes us the envy of the world.

01:00:07.000 It's the thing that if you're sitting in some, you know, developing dictatorship.

01:00:13.000 Outside America's borders, it is the basis for your envy of America, or at least it was traditionally, that we could accomplish a peaceful transfer of power every four years despite our political differences.

01:00:25.000 As far as I know, this is the first time in American history we had a sitting president who would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

01:00:31.000 And so that was such a dangerous desecration of our political landscape that I think It should make it impossible to support Trump.

01:00:40.000 Whatever else you think about any other political figure, whatever you think about Hunter Biden's laptop, there's nothing else that rises to that level of concern.

01:00:49.000 And that has always been at the center of my argument against endorsing Trump in any way.

01:00:56.000 This is what I feel is comparable.

01:00:59.000 Whilst the sort of ongoing questioning around the Biden family business deals, I'm sure to anyone who's already encamped within one of those partisan scenarios will just cling to their own rhetoric and their own pre-existing beliefs.

01:01:18.000 This is what my response is, which is Like live tautology, actually, because I'm going to give you the response now.

01:01:25.000 It's that now Biden is in office and this inequality is continuing and this polarisation is continuing and we are not seeing anyone say, look, we got carried away with Russiagate and that's probably really damaged your trust.

01:01:39.000 And over the course of the pandemic, we've seen a lot of shifting narratives and we have not been as transparent as we ought to have been.

01:01:46.000 And our lack of trust in institutions, as you have said, Sam, is something that needs to be addressed.

01:01:51.000 And I recognise now that this ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine is hemorrhaging popularity and many of you query, is this the humanitarian war that many claim in order to stop the criminal Putin?

01:02:06.000 Or is this like so many other?

01:02:08.000 American wars, like the one in Iraq, like the one in Afghanistan, like the one in Korea, like all American wars up till now, actually motivated by unipolar objectives, a globalist corporate agenda, the advancing of the interests of the military-industrial complex, an explicit plan for BlackRock to rebuild Ukraine post-war, and your tax dollars are paying for it, and the only person that Be it empty oratory and yet more lies, you know, I would,

01:02:36.000 you know, I recognize what you, you know, what you're saying about Trump

01:02:39.000 and I'm certainly not going to try and change your perspective on anything like that because for me

01:02:42.000 None of these figures are the answer. Radical systemic change has to be immediately discussed and we have to

01:02:47.000 acknowledge that what's happening in media has to be replicated with what's happening with

01:02:51.000 politically immediately We have to find ways of altering our systems of governance

01:02:55.000 and having the maximum amount of democracy and access to power for ordinary people rather

01:03:00.000 than this continual mudslinging I would say that the only person or one of the few people 1.00

01:03:04.000 who's willing to say this war must end is Donald Trump if I was to extract the name and the face

01:03:09.000 Donald Trump from his rhetoric around the war and how he would bring

01:03:12.000 About diplomatic solution. I would say this is the only person who's talking sensibly and I just cannot extract

01:03:17.000 everything I know about what happened in 2014 in that coup about what

01:03:22.000 Putin has publicly said about if If there's any infringement on Crimea about the

01:03:28.000 complexities about ethnicity within Ukrainian territory all of that and with great respect and

01:03:33.000 love and Solidarity and support for those suffering in Ukraine for

01:03:36.000 the half a million that have died in that conflict so far for me

01:03:40.000 Dancing closer and closer to the apocalypse with dubious motivation, claiming once again that it's a humanitarian endeavour, seems outrageous to me.

01:03:50.000 And the fact that, for me, the fact that this is the alternative is a much bigger problem than anything Trump has done or said, because I do see him as an outlier, as an extraordinary public figure.

01:04:04.000 But I see him primarily, and above all else, a response to institutional corruption, entropy within our institutions.

01:04:11.000 When Biden is able to meet with his donors and say nothing will fundamentally change when he succeeds Trump, and as he does succeed Trump, for all of your concerns about the lack of a peaceful transition, I would say that is the problem.

01:04:25.000 If Donald Trump dies tomorrow, where are we?

01:04:29.000 Addressing the kind of systemic problems that I'm wrestling with, I think, could meaningfully alter the dilemma that you and I are trying to tackle.

01:04:39.000 Well, I certainly have different priors than you do about the war in Ukraine, right?

01:04:45.000 So, for instance, left out of your analysis is what the Ukrainian people themselves say they want, right?

01:04:51.000 So, this is an autonomous, or it was an autonomous, It was attacked by their neighbor, right?

01:05:02.000 And certainly it seems that most of the people in Ukraine were not eager to be absorbed by Russia.

01:05:10.000 They were eager to maintain their autonomy and their sovereignty as a society.

01:05:16.000 Now, I don't consider myself an expert on Ukraine, You know, I've gotten up to speed more or less as everyone else has in recent years.

01:05:26.000 I've spoken with purported experts on my podcast several times.

01:05:30.000 You know, somebody like Timothy Snyder, who takes a very different view of this war than you just articulated.

01:05:35.000 Very pro-defending Ukraine view.

01:05:40.000 And other people like Ann Applebaum and, you know, I mean, these are people who are subject matter experts.

01:05:46.000 But from, I would imagine, your point of view and the point of view of your audience, and certainly Trump's point of view, they're part of the blob that would be arguing for this war in the first place.

01:05:56.000 But I would just make a few simple points.

01:05:58.000 One is we're not fighting this war, the Ukrainians are, right? 1.00

01:06:02.000 We are arming them, right?

01:06:03.000 So it's different than having American boots on the ground fighting this war.

01:06:08.000 And I would agree that that is a bright line we really should not cross.

01:06:13.000 The other point here is that I think this is, once again, a domain of trade-offs.

01:06:19.000 There's not at every moment clearly right and wrong answers to these very hard questions.

01:06:25.000 There's a trade-off between giving in to nuclear blackmail and the whims of an authoritarian psychopath, and not giving in to it, and holding the line, even in spite of threats to usher in the end of the world, to hold the line in defense of a rules-based international order.

01:06:49.000 Now, whether we get that right or not is of some consequence, right?

01:06:53.000 I would argue that It is worth worrying about what Putin's going to do with his nukes as the temperature increases over there.

01:07:03.000 But it's also worth worrying that giving in to nuclear blackmail sets a terrible precedent, right?

01:07:09.000 So how we navigate that is, again, it's hard.

01:07:15.000 And what you want are not Impetuous know-nothings steering the ship at that moment.

01:07:24.000 You want actual experts who understand the history of these kinds of conflicts and Understand everyone's relevant capacities and lack thereof.

01:07:35.000 Understand what's likely to be bluffing.

01:07:37.000 Understand the incentives.

01:07:39.000 Understand what Putin's likely to do next.

01:07:43.000 And still that's not a science.

01:07:46.000 That's an art.

01:07:47.000 And we should be very, you know, the bigger picture here is we should be very worried about the nuclear status quo.

01:07:52.000 The fact that we have a world that is, for as long as we've been alive, rigged to explode.

01:08:00.000 Forget about intentional nuclear war.

01:08:02.000 We have a world that can explode on the basis of misinformation and just sheer accident, right?

01:08:11.000 Just radars that malfunction can steer us into a nuclear conflict.

01:08:17.000 It's terrifying and it's something that we have to figure out how to address, but to treat Putin Like, he's just a normal actor with rational interests who we can deal with like any other leader of a free society.

01:08:32.000 It's just not accurate.

01:08:34.000 He is a person who murders his political opponents. 0.97

01:08:37.000 He murders journalists. 0.98

01:08:38.000 He's not a normally corrupt politician. 0.82

01:08:42.000 He's an autocrat.

01:08:43.000 And he's an autocrat who's armed with nuclear weapons who threatens to use them.

01:08:48.000 It's something that we have to treat as categorically different then we would treat a disagreement between us and France or

01:08:57.000 the UK, us being America in this case.

01:09:00.000 I do have a concern that pathologising the opponents of the hegemony as maniacs, whether that's Trump or Putin,

01:09:14.000 is a shortcut to looking at some of the complex historical arguments,

01:09:17.000 notably including the infringement upon the not treaty but deal between the former Soviet Union and America

01:09:25.000 not to infringe on former NATO territories.

01:09:29.000 And of course the rights of the people of Ukraine, incredibly important, is after all them that are living and dying and their intentions and their desire about their national sovereignty is utmost in everybody's concerns and considerations.

01:09:44.000 And like whilst you cited the people you had conversations with, I would cite Jeffrey Sachs, who came on here

01:09:50.000 with a couple of other Pulitzer Prize winning journalists, who now would be lucky if they get a job on the internet

01:09:56.000 with this curiously altering online space and media space.

01:10:00.000 And what I feel has to be our shared obligation, if indeed what we want is to bring people together

01:10:07.000 who have currently opposing perspectives, is to critique and address the systems

01:10:13.000 rather than the individuals involved.

01:10:14.000 Russia is a unique country, as perhaps all countries are, with a unique history.

01:10:19.000 And this truly has the potential to be a global conflict and should be handled with extreme caution.

01:10:26.000 And I would suggest that we have to be open to the possibility that the declared incentives

01:10:33.000 and intentions of American unipolar interests are distinct from their actual interests.

01:10:41.000 Privately, it's pretty clear that whether it's been acknowledged

01:10:44.000 that the Ukraine counter offensive is not going well.

01:10:47.000 I think it's pretty plain that the military industrial complex

01:10:51.000 asserts incredible power.

01:10:54.000 Over the direction of American foreign policy.

01:10:56.000 And I say that I would address this precisely how I would have looked at the conflict in Iraq.

01:11:02.000 Who is benefiting from this?

01:11:03.000 What are the relations between military industrial complex and then Cheney, Bush, Wolfowitz?

01:11:08.000 And now, you know, the hue and flag and mule and elephant may have switched, but I see the same subcutaneous interests apparently running the show.

01:11:17.000 But part of what we're discussing more broadly now, Sam, is that You could bring a host of perspectives and opinions and I recognize you have a great deal of academic heft in your own particular area of expertise and I occupy an entirely different space and my intention is I don't think that either political party is the answer.

01:11:37.000 I don't have any alliances.

01:11:39.000 The thing that I intuit is we are on the precipice of new models that allow us to forego The needless and irresolvable cultural conflicts that are currently dominating this space.

01:11:50.000 I think we have to get beyond our judgment of one another for individualism whether that's from a right-wing libertarian perspective or a left-wing identity politics perspective.

01:11:59.000 I think we have to find a new way to navigate these spaces so that we can start addressing the truly significant issues that define our times which may be sort of apocalyptic Regardless of how you approach this apocalypse, because that too would have a cultural flavor.

01:12:17.000 Yeah, my concern is that the starting point for addressing any of those problems is a fact-based discussion about what the problems themselves are, right?

01:12:27.000 So for instance, if you think climate change is a hoax, Right?

01:12:32.000 And someone else thinks climate change is one of the most pressing problems we have to address as a society.

01:12:39.000 Somebody's wrong.

01:12:41.000 I mean, there's, you know, there's, there's a, and there's a, there's a methodology by which we would resolve those differences.

01:12:41.000 Right?

01:12:49.000 And this, this shattering of our information space is making it very difficult to apply that methodology.

01:12:57.000 I actually feel that even something as complex and hotly contested as that issue could be resolved with this type of dialectic.

01:13:09.000 Do you agree that when looking for solutions for problems that affect all of us, we should start Start by addressing the most powerful interests in the world that seem to benefit more than ordinary people.

01:13:21.000 Always check what the measures are that are suggested in order to solve these problems.

01:13:26.000 If the measures are, we are going to impede the freedoms of ordinary individuals as a priority.

01:13:31.000 We are going to tax ordinary people more highly. 0.69

01:13:35.000 That is going to engender cynicism.

01:13:36.000 And even the way the problem is described.

01:13:38.000 I think most people, particularly in our country, conservatism, the right-wing political movement, Is environmentalist.

01:13:45.000 They want to conserve the environment, England's green and pleasant lands.

01:13:49.000 Most Republicans are nationalist.

01:13:51.000 We can find ways of not like bludgeoning people with like my science versus your science.

01:13:57.000 Why did the inventors of MRNI vaccines get censored at the beginning of the pandemic?

01:14:02.000 Why did these Johns Hopkins experts get censored?

01:14:05.000 Why did these experts flourish?

01:14:06.000 You know, instead of going on and on ad infinitum about that.

01:14:09.000 So we Are going to have to live on this planet together.

01:14:13.000 It appears that there are a set of interests that continually benefit from crises.

01:14:17.000 Energy companies benefit when there's an energy crisis.

01:14:20.000 The military industrial complex benefits when there's a war.

01:14:22.000 Big pharma benefits when there's a health crisis.

01:14:25.000 We have to address this.

01:14:26.000 We can't have an ongoing system that is punitive to ordinary people with every single advancing crisis.

01:14:33.000 That has to change, otherwise you're going to have ongoing cynicism and people, ordinary

01:14:37.000 people, that wear different livery but have ultimately the same interest attacking one

01:14:42.000 another while nothing significantly changes.

01:14:44.000 In a sense, I think we have to find careful ways of moulding the clay of the argument

01:14:49.000 with the intention of resolution rather than the intention of winning.

01:14:54.000 That I think might be an important way that you and I, for example, could contribute.

01:15:00.000 Yeah, again, it is truly difficult.

01:15:02.000 I mean, what you're talking about are the effects of perverse incentives, and it is, to my knowledge, no one has figured out a way to categorically clean this space up, right?

01:15:17.000 So again, I'll come back to the very simple and non-politicized example I brought up a few minutes ago.

01:15:25.000 Developing the next family of antibiotics, right?

01:15:28.000 It is massively resource intensive, right?

01:15:33.000 It costs a billion dollars to bring one new antibiotic to market.

01:15:38.000 Who do we incentivize to take to that risk?

01:15:41.000 Most of these drugs don't pan out, right?

01:15:43.000 So you're a company like Pfizer.

01:15:45.000 I would say we need a company like Pfizer to do that work, right?

01:15:49.000 The alternative is to say the government should do that work.

01:15:52.000 Now, the very same people who who recoil from the perverse incentive of you know windfall profits to Pfizer when we have a you know when we have a pandemic are some of the same people who will laugh at the prospect of of entrusting the government to develop our next generation of medical therapies right there's this there's this well understood principle that

01:16:18.000 Capitalism and the profit motive and the free market are among all the terrible ways to incentivize people.

01:16:24.000 They're the best ways we've discovered to incentivize creative people to get up early every morning and make the personal sacrifices they have to make so as to do the work that we need them to do to produce this new knowledge generation.

01:16:41.000 And so there's some trade-off between Remunerating people for the risks they take and the work they do, and allowing, despite the obvious possibility of weird incentives, allowing for people to get spectacularly wealthy when they get lucky, based on their own intelligence.

01:17:06.000 They produce something that's immensely valuable to us, a new antibiotic, I would like to express an alternative, but also outline a few things within your hypothesis.

01:17:13.000 alternative to that, we'll by all means express it, but to my knowledge we haven't found one.

01:17:20.000 I would like to express an alternative but also outline a few things within your hypothesis.

01:17:24.000 No one is conducting that research at Pfizer precisely because it isn't profitable. So

01:17:29.000 this tells us precisely the mentality that governs at Pfizer. And when indeed there is

01:17:34.000 innovation, you might find that it came from BioNTech in Germany, who were funded by the

01:17:40.000 German taxpayers. And you might find that Pfizer's profits were garnered by charging

01:17:45.000 the American taxpayers, who paid for that Pfizer innovation, apparent Pfizer innovation,

01:17:50.000 but actually a BioNTech innovation. Anyway, so what I would say is, it's not like the

01:17:55.000 government, you get a bunch of giddy, silly, owned, revolving door, civil servant corruptos 0.99

01:18:01.000 in on the gig. 0.97

01:18:02.000 No, the way that Pfizer would fund universities, the way that Shell Oil fund our exhibitions,

01:18:08.000 you would fund at the level of taxation in response to referenda, in response to a mandate

01:18:13.000 derived from the people of America or the country of relevance, and say we want to spend

01:18:17.000 this on developing this new antibiotic that we believe is going to help people.

01:18:23.000 It's not going to be profitable for Big Pharma.

01:18:25.000 You saw how those guys carried on in the last few years, right?

01:18:27.000 So something needs to be radically re-evaluated and we, as sensible public intellectuals and

01:18:32.000 true leaders, are offering you an alternative.

01:18:35.000 We're going to in fact offer a one-time windfall tax that takes back the profits from Pfizer

01:18:40.000 and Moderna.

01:18:41.000 We're nationalising those companies right now.

01:18:43.000 and we will pay for our fine academic academies at Stanford, John Hopkins, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge

01:18:49.000 to do this research and when it works, and by God it will work, you who will benefit from it,

01:18:55.000 not Pfizer, not Moderna, you the good people of America.

01:18:59.000 Mark the X in the box, we'll make sure we count every single vote. That's what I would suggest,

01:19:04.000 Sam, but the very fact that that research isn't undertaken of course identifies the glitch in the

01:19:09.000 machine that has to be addressed before all else.

01:19:12.000 Well, there is a glitch there.

01:19:15.000 The market is... Hold on one second.

01:19:17.000 I've got to silence the phone here.

01:19:20.000 Sam, we can use this opportunity to transition to the next part of our conversation.

01:19:25.000 Sam, I want to talk a little bit about... Actually, Russell, I need to make one point because I think it's very important.

01:19:31.000 There's a very strange double standard that we all feel in this space where we think it's somehow morally appropriate for someone to get spectacularly wealthy when they create the new iPhone.

01:19:45.000 I don't know.

01:19:48.000 That was funded by the government.

01:19:49.000 That was funded by taxpayers.

01:19:50.000 I don't think that's right either.

01:19:54.000 They're next on the list.

01:19:55.000 All of them.

01:19:55.000 And Google.

01:19:56.000 Okay, but unless you're unless you're gonna stigmatize wealth itself or private property itself unless you're a

01:19:56.000 Gargantuan wealth.

01:20:02.000 communist Gargantuan wealth. Not communism. Most people have this

01:20:04.000 double standard.

01:20:04.000 No, no, no, no.

01:20:07.000 This is wrong.

01:20:07.000 I have to contest this, Sam.

01:20:09.000 Google was funded by public money, so was iPhone, and the public should own it if they pay for it.

01:20:15.000 Let me just lay out what I think most people feel.

01:20:18.000 Most capitalists feel this.

01:20:21.000 That there's a difference between getting wealthy by, if you're James Cameron and you create the Terminator franchise, right?

01:20:29.000 That's okay to get wealthy doing that.

01:20:33.000 Because we all want to see, you know, fun movies every summer, right?

01:20:36.000 So what could be wrong with that?

01:20:38.000 And yet the person who cures cancer shouldn't get wealthy, right?

01:20:43.000 There's something corrupting about getting wealthy in the service of a true benefit to humanity, right?

01:20:52.000 The person who's running a A global relief organization that's responding to famines in Africa.

01:21:00.000 The CEO of that charity shouldn't be making $5 million a year, but the CEO of General Motors should be, because how else are you going to recruit them?

01:21:09.000 And what we have with that double standard We systematically recruit less talented people to solve our most pressing social and scientific problems, right?

01:21:21.000 Let me just lay on the plane here.

01:21:23.000 We give every smart college student A forced choice between getting rich by working for Goldman Sachs or following what might might in fact be their their ethical vocation into philanthropy but making a obvious economic sacrifice at the outset no matter how high they get in the organization running

01:21:46.000 You know, care or, you know, Doctors Without Borders.

01:21:50.000 They know they're not going to get rich because there's a taboo around doing that.

01:21:53.000 And again, this is an incentive problem.

01:21:55.000 I think we probably want our smartest people working on our hardest problems.

01:22:00.000 And it's not obvious how to incentivize them, apart from requiring that they be saints.

01:22:06.000 And I think saints are in short supply.

01:22:09.000 Because we are not organising society to generate them.

01:22:12.000 Now I would say that if we prioritise materialistic models, materialistic rewards and incentivisation models that are predicated on that modality, then we will be doubling down on this false progressivist myth that's driving us ever further towards the kind of apocalypse That both of us, I think, sense he's coming in different ways.

01:22:34.000 You for this set of reasons, me for that set of reasons.

01:22:37.000 And I would say that, you know, let's face it, the main reason that we're having this conversation, Sam, other than both guys that like having a chat and we love the jujitsu and we can handle a gentle quarrel, Is to talk about your Waking Up app.

01:22:51.000 Now, what is the point of meditating if it is simply to make yourself a more efficient unit within a pre-established machine that's only going to evolve along predetermined lines?

01:23:01.000 The reason I meditate is because I believe in change.

01:23:03.000 I believe in the ability to change myself, to become a better man, to overcome my previous limitations, foibles and flaws.

01:23:09.000 And I believe in radical change for society.

01:23:12.000 And when I say radical change, I don't mean disruptive change that's going to hurt people.

01:23:15.000 I mean true progress.

01:23:17.000 Way inclusive progress, where we're able to look at the big picture and say, whilst this aspect of the pandemic period was a reasonable error to have made, this one appears like the type of error that benefited certain institutions and interests.

01:23:30.000 Whilst this part of the narrative is being excluded, perhaps in good faith, it seems to me that this is being de-amplified precisely because it does offer a challenge to globalist interests.

01:23:41.000 What I want is a society where you are absolutely free to believe whatever you want, I'm free to believe whatever I want, and we Only need to argue where our shared interests are being challenged.

01:23:51.000 And I reckon we would find that that's not so many issues as we might assume.

01:23:56.000 And one of the ways we might get there, and where surely we agree, is on the subject of meditation and by the method of meditation.

01:24:02.000 I meditate in order to access Dimensions, framings, phenomena, frequencies, even space that is inaccessible to me if I remain within the rational, logistical, materialistic part of my mind.

01:24:18.000 Why do you meditate, Sam?

01:24:19.000 And why should we meditate?

01:24:23.000 Well, the main reason to meditate, I think there are two doorways into meditation and just finding it of interest and paying attention to it long enough to discover that there's a there there.

01:24:36.000 The first door could just be intellectual curiosity, wanting to know what's real about the nature of the mind.

01:24:42.000 I mean, it just makes sense.

01:24:44.000 If you want to understand yourself better and the nature of your own experience better, it makes sense to pay attention to it.

01:24:52.000 And meditation is really just the act of paying close attention to what it's like to be you moment to moment.

01:24:57.000 So I think you can get there purely On the basis of intellectual interest, but the most common route, and I think the route that is certainly more

01:25:06.000 persuasive to most of us is the doorway of psychological suffering.

01:25:13.000 Becoming interested in the mechanics of your own suffering.

01:25:18.000 How is it that thoughts about the past or the future can exert this overwhelmingly coercive influence on your mood in the present, right?

01:25:31.000 You think about something you regret or that embarrasses you.

01:25:35.000 Or you think about something in the future that you're worried about, that produces anxiety.

01:25:40.000 How is it that that change in the character of your mind is accomplished?

01:25:45.000 And is it necessary, right?

01:25:47.000 Is there an alternative to that?

01:25:48.000 Is there a way of relating to the flow of thought such that You don't get pushed around in the same way.

01:25:55.000 And what is it that gets pushed around?

01:25:58.000 Is there a self in the middle of this storm that is actually vulnerable to changes in experience?

01:26:07.000 Or is there just experience?

01:26:09.000 And are you just identical to the totality of experience moment to moment?

01:26:15.000 And so there's something to discover there about the mechanics of your own unhappiness.

01:26:21.000 And it really is freeing.

01:26:23.000 I mean, you really can be liberated from a certain kind of suffering that is truly unnecessary.

01:26:30.000 If you take it far enough, you discover that virtually all of your psychological suffering has been unnecessary.

01:26:38.000 It's been a kind of dream, right?

01:26:41.000 It's very much analogous to being asleep and dreaming And not knowing it, right?

01:26:47.000 You're not in the situation you think you're in moment to moment.

01:26:51.000 And that discovery is quite freeing.

01:26:54.000 It's beautiful and as profound as anything I can imagine discussing.

01:27:01.000 If in this realm of consciousness you can discover that you're my entire identity and all our dilemmas and indeed all culture are a kind of construct relevant only within a particular framing or within a particular paradigm, what does that suggest about the nature of consciousness and awareness and do you ever query The perhaps unique status of consciousness, given the number of times it brings us to dead ends of inquiry, i.e.

01:27:32.000 where does it come from, what is the significance of the presence of a conscious observer in some particular experimentation, obviously, and most particularly in the instance of the double slit experiments and variations and progressions of that experiment, and the recent Nobel Prize in physics that discovered that there ultimately is no Local reality.

01:27:53.000 Or at least posits that.

01:27:54.000 It's pretty difficult thing to prove.

01:27:56.000 And I ask this, Sam, in particular in relation to what you've just said, that you can experientially and subjectively free yourself.

01:28:03.000 Like, you know, given the last half hour where you and I've gone, oh, I think this, I think that, or the war's this, the war's that, or the pandemic was this, pandemic's that.

01:28:09.000 And both of us are saying, ultimately, it is all a construct.

01:28:14.000 Surely this will participate in the provision of a solution for the previous bloody 40 minutes.

01:28:21.000 Hmm.

01:28:22.000 Yes.

01:28:24.000 Well, I wish it were that easy.

01:28:25.000 I mean, I think much of it is extremely difficult.

01:28:28.000 No, but even even in success, I mean, just to take take the examples of success where, you know, I've had, I was lucky enough to study with some of the greatest meditation teachers of the 20th, late 20th century.

01:28:42.000 And I spent a lot of time in India and Nepal studying with With people, I mean, I've had teachers who spent 20 years in a cave, right?

01:28:49.000 I mean, there's these wonderful Tibetan lamas who in the meditation space are analogous to the, you know, Hiron and Henner we just spoke about in jujitsu, right?

01:28:57.000 You get on the mat with Hiron and Henner and you know, you're in the presence of knowledge.

01:29:03.000 That you don't have and a kind of refinement of technique and an expertise that took, uh, certainly took 10,000 hours to accomplish.

01:29:11.000 And, and it might also require a certain kind of natural talent, right?

01:29:15.000 Maybe, you know, maybe not everyone can be as good as, as, uh, the best people.

01:29:21.000 Uh, certainly if there's a, there's, if it's like analogous to anything else in human life, there's a range for, for talent.

01:29:28.000 Um, but.

01:29:30.000 Many of these people, I would say all of these people, if I think of the greatest meditation masters I ever studied with, at least one of them might have thought the world was flat, right?

01:29:40.000 I mean, these are people who are not educated with respect to 21st century science or politics or anything else we've been touching upon here.

01:29:51.000 And there's nothing about getting really good at untying the knot of self that that necessarily gives you specific knowledge about any domain of expertise that we need to explore in order to solve our specific problems, right?

01:30:10.000 So to just take like, what does it take to identify A pathogen that's jumping from bats into humans and make that no longer be a problem.

01:30:20.000 Or what is it going to take for us to solve the... Have a little look around the Wuhan Laboratory for Infectious Diseases and check out how it's funded and how it's regulated.

01:30:31.000 But Sam, more important than that, mate...

01:30:33.000 I'm saying these are domains of relative knowledge that have to be solved on their own terms.

01:30:38.000 But to use your own argument, if you can undo the knot of self, then surely you will acknowledge that all that takes place on the material plane in this shared cultural space, which is nothing more than an amalgam of our shared cultural and personal experiences, the marketplace of ideas, the Media, meteorology, of all of these colliding entities, all of which have passed through the consciousness of individuals just the same as you and I, be they historic or be they present now, this is our shared experience.

01:31:05.000 To quote the famous quote around Schindler there, he who changes one life changes the world entire.

01:31:11.000 If we begin to change the prakriti The prima materia of reality, consciousness itself, we can of course adapt and evolve systems.

01:31:21.000 They will have to reflect those changes in reality.

01:31:24.000 Even you are talking about a shared hysteria when it comes to the phenomena of Donald Trump. 0.99

01:31:28.000 In spite of all this he didn't do a peaceful transition, yet somehow he reaches deep down into the spiritual cojones of Pretty near 50% of Americans, and they don't give a shit. 0.98

01:31:40.000 Now, if we can't find a way of hacking, bypassing this constant conflagration, we are doomed. 0.98

01:31:47.000 Otherwise, what is it?

01:31:48.000 50% are gonna subjugate the other 50%?

01:31:50.000 Is that the solution?

01:31:51.000 Not gonna happen, is it?

01:31:52.000 We're gonna have civil war?

01:31:53.000 Are we ever gonna have an election in your country again that doesn't end with the other side going, oh, it was Russiagate, oh, it was stolen.

01:32:00.000 That's just, that's just the deal now.

01:32:02.000 So, we have to find something else.

01:32:04.000 Where else is it gonna come from?

01:32:06.000 This is a time to revivify the spiritual traditions and to note that all of these traditions emerge out of cultures where they believe in a deep, unitive experience.

01:32:16.000 That what you experience, and of course there's no way of proving this, and I'm sure that you as a sort of a, I don't mean this offensively, materialist, rationalist, will say that your inner peace is a contrivance of neurological stuff that's highly personal and just within your personal skin, and I would offer What you experience in that meditative piece is what I experience in that meditative piece.

01:32:36.000 There is a true unity.

01:32:38.000 And from that place, from our shared humanity, the same way as skeletally you and I are more or less the same, in spite of our superficial cutaneous differences, we can find some archetypal unity to share together, to build upon.

01:32:52.000 Now, I know that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to become experts in building nuclear power stations or whatever particular solution you or I might think we should pursue, But it does mean we might be able to establish a crucible of good intent based on that.

01:33:07.000 Otherwise, what is the point?

01:33:08.000 Personal peace while the world burns?

01:33:12.000 So I think there are two levels, at least two levels, on which we have to address these existential problems, right?

01:33:12.000 No, no.

01:33:18.000 One is the individual level, and the other is the level that you have addressed at various points here of systems and their consequences.

01:33:28.000 And these are fundamentally different, which is to say that no matter how good you get at playing the individual game of untangling your problems and untying your knots, again, you could spend 20 years in a cave and come out radiantly happy and filled with compassion and just having nothing but good intentions for the world, and yet You have not done anything that necessarily has much greater significance until you can interface with a system level and make change at that level.

01:34:03.000 And the reason why the systems are so important, and I would argue that the greatest ethical and political changes we're going to make are going to be at the system level, because what we need are systems where Systems that make it easier and easier for ordinary, conflicted people to behave better and better.

01:34:24.000 To behave more and more like saints.

01:34:26.000 And what we have are systems, very much of the time, that are so perversely incentivized that you essentially have to be a saint to behave like a normal human being.

01:34:38.000 Right?

01:34:39.000 I mean, take social media.

01:34:40.000 Take something like Twitter, or what used to be known as Twitter.

01:34:43.000 The reason why I left Twitter is I was experiencing it as a space where completely normal people were incentivized to behave like psychopaths.

01:34:54.000 I mean, I would look at my Twitter feed and I recognized, and it took me way too long to recognize this, but I recognized after some years that I was staring into a funhouse mirror where people were showing me their most grotesque faces.

01:35:11.000 And I just knew there couldn't be that many psychopaths in the world.

01:35:14.000 But I was seeing psychopath after psychopath in my Twitter feed.

01:35:18.000 You know, coming from the left, coming from the right. 0.80

01:35:20.000 The most toxically dishonest behavior. 0.81

01:35:24.000 It was just gaslighting and insanity.

01:35:27.000 And I recognized that this was having an effect on me.

01:35:31.000 I didn't want to see... I didn't want this false advertisement.

01:35:36.000 on an hourly basis to be getting into my head where I was forming an image of humanity that I actually believe is inaccurate, right?

01:35:43.000 But yet people were behaving terribly in ways that they never would behave in person, right?

01:35:49.000 Because I knew it.

01:35:50.000 The reason why I knew it for sure is that I had met some of these people in person, right?

01:35:54.000 I had dinner with some of these people.

01:35:56.000 And yet they're professionally behaving like psychopaths because of the incentives that Twitter was delivering to them.

01:36:03.000 So My point is, Twitter is a system, among many systems.

01:36:08.000 Social media is a system.

01:36:09.000 And what we need, in this case, we need a system of communication that is making it easier and easier for even normal people to have truly enlightened and enlightening conversations, where the wisdom is built into the system layer.

01:36:26.000 We have the opposite of that. 0.98

01:36:27.000 We have the corruption and the dishonesty and the bad incentives built into the system layer where you basically you have to be You know, fucking Gandhi not to be an asshole on Twitter, at least some of the time, right? 0.99

01:36:41.000 And so that's an answer to your question. 0.98

01:36:46.000 No matter how good you get at the meditation game privately and personally, no matter how ethical you get privately and personally, society is still going to be at the mercy of bad systems.

01:36:59.000 And we have to, so we have to, you know, we have to play both games.

01:37:04.000 The reason why you play the individual game and commit so much time and attention to that is because it is the closest point of contact to the difference between happiness and suffering in your case.

01:37:16.000 When you wake up in the morning at four in the morning and are the prisoner of your thoughts, right?

01:37:22.000 Not only is the system not going to help you, your friends can't even help you, your family can't help you, you are alone in the privacy of your own mind, right?

01:37:33.000 All of us are in solitary confinement all the time with respect to our own mind and only a technique like meditation that allows you to break the spell of your identification with thought Can help you there.

01:37:47.000 And that help does play out in how you are in the rest of your life.

01:37:51.000 But again, it's not going to solve our system level problems if millions of us start meditating.

01:37:56.000 It just won't.

01:37:57.000 Well, there is actually some data that suggests that it will.

01:38:01.000 Funded by the David Lynch Foundation in Chicago.

01:38:03.000 And I won't send you those studies because when this ends I'll bloody well forget this happened.

01:38:08.000 But Sam, now listen you beautiful man.

01:38:12.000 This is what I'm saying.

01:38:14.000 Perhaps the reason that these esoteric traditions have always existed, from the Rishis to the Sufis to the Saints, is because they intuit and perhaps even experience that subjectivity can be a portal to a universal experience.

01:38:30.000 But this transcendence of self that gives us relief from the incarceration of the ego, from the An enchilada of ever-carooming thoughts that become unbearable, ricocheting off the walls of the ego.

01:38:45.000 This can be undone through these practices, perhaps because we access an ulterior power.

01:38:53.000 Curious to me that each tradition has its own version, be it via the mantra or the breath, a way out.

01:39:00.000 The only way out is in.

01:39:02.000 It's curious too that these traditions often accrue moral and ethical principles that find perennial truth.

01:39:11.000 And this perennial truth, on a pragmatic level, Sam, on a pragmatic level, we should believe in this.

01:39:17.000 On a pragmatic level, we shouldn't...

01:39:20.000 We should apply the rigour of investigation and the zeal of faith to what we discover in those spaces.

01:39:28.000 Because what you said about that's the only place that can find you peace, you know, where you can find peace and succour, is not with a double C-O-U-R, not K-E-R. 0.99

01:39:38.000 Peace and succour is in that intimacy.

01:39:41.000 That, semantics aside, is no different from what any one that believes in God would tell one another.

01:39:47.000 There within you, there is the deep imminence, there is the imminent and transcendent, that peculiar paradox that plays out between waves and particles, plays out within you.

01:39:58.000 There down in the Vedas, we find in poetics, that which could never be tracked, Through materialistic observation, for we do not have the instruments when it comes to the apparently external world.

01:40:10.000 But within, there are solutions.

01:40:12.000 Now I believe, I have to believe, that this will map onto reality.

01:40:18.000 For reality, surely, is a projection of our faith and belief.

01:40:22.000 if it comes to design or culture or music, all things conceived of and constructed in

01:40:26.000 this space that can be a personal hell or a private heaven can be projected out with

01:40:32.000 via, via the will, via the will. You can will yourself to do many things, but you can't

01:40:39.000 will yourself to will. And I feel that if personally and individually we endeavour in

01:40:45.000 good faith to find this new resource, this accessible and often ignored latent resource,

01:40:51.000 We can solve precisely the problem that you and I have been talking around.

01:40:55.000 How do we get beyond these silos?

01:40:56.000 How do we overcome this cultural cynicism?

01:40:58.000 How do we get beyond this cavalcade of my experts versus your experts?

01:41:02.000 My flag versus your flag? 0.88

01:41:03.000 By acknowledging that we are all an expression of one unitary force.

01:41:08.000 And if we want to neglect that conclusion, then all we are going to do is sit on the fireside of Armageddon and just sort of say, well, I was right, now I was right.

01:41:17.000 And that doesn't seem like a nice way to go out.

01:41:20.000 I mean, I've got kids.

01:41:24.000 There's a reason why I resist the religious framing of these transcendent experiences.

01:41:30.000 I do not doubt the importance and the accessibility of the transcendent experiences themselves because I've had them and I have them.

01:41:39.000 It's patently obvious to me that the ego As it is generally experienced, is an illusion, right?

01:41:47.000 And on the other side of dispelling that illusion, there's this landscape of mind that is well worth exploring.

01:41:54.000 And meditation is one way to do that.

01:41:56.000 Psychedelics are another way. 0.97

01:41:57.000 There's a very interesting conversation to have about how those two projects are related.

01:42:05.000 But I would say that We should be slow to make metaphysical assertions about how all of this landscape of experience relates to the cosmos at large.

01:42:20.000 So it's like somebody like Deepak Chopra is very quick to say, okay, this experience of consciousness without ego is what preceded the Big Bang, right?

01:42:31.000 Like he'll just jump into cosmology, right?

01:42:35.000 I see no reason to do that.

01:42:36.000 One, it doesn't seem intellectually honest for me to do that.

01:42:39.000 I mean, there's nothing about this insight into the freedom of consciousness prior to egocentricity There's nothing about that that tells you about quantum mechanics or about cosmology or about the status of the singularity that preceded space-time, right?

01:42:57.000 And it doesn't resolve any of the paradoxes or disputes in any of those specific fields.

01:43:03.000 What it does do is tell you something very direct about what you are subjectively.

01:43:10.000 Like, there are objective claims we can make about human subjectivity.

01:43:14.000 Right, we can say there's an infinite number of things we can say about the nature of the mind, from the first person side, from the side of felt experience, that are not merely subjective, they're actually objective.

01:43:26.000 Like you can make claims about the way the mind is through direct experience.

01:43:31.000 And for instance, you can make a claim about Impermanence, right?

01:43:37.000 Every state of mind you've ever had prior to this moment has arisen and passed away, right?

01:43:42.000 You know, the anger you felt two weeks ago isn't here anymore, right?

01:43:46.000 And it comes back in the next moment, that's a newly arising phenomenon, which again will pass away.

01:43:52.000 And the connection between the feeling and the thoughts is something that we can inspect from a first-person side and make objective claims about, right?

01:44:01.000 So I'm not saying this is all a space where there's no truth.

01:44:07.000 There are very deep truths, first-person truths to be discovered here,

01:44:11.000 but they're different truths than the truths of cosmology.

01:44:14.000 Absolutely, of course, of course.

01:44:17.000 But on that point, Sam, let me offer you this.

01:44:20.000 There are also sort of medical claims about sort of, you know, wellness, blood pressure, cardiovascular benefits that could be made, that could not possibly have been medically understood by the people that conceived of these techniques.

01:44:33.000 And yet somehow they knew.

01:44:35.000 and yet somehow they knew.

01:44:36.000 And I don't think that we can just extract these technologies

01:44:41.000 from their traditions without honoring and acknowledging many of what they declared to be the implications

01:44:49.000 of this technology, particularly when they are such beautiful declarations.

01:44:54.000 Love, beauty, unity.

01:44:56.000 Now, whilst you say that it's fanciful and doubtless conjecture to make cosmological claims on the basis of a personal subjective experience in meditation, it is similarly conjecture to say that there is nothing before the Big Bang.

01:45:10.000 There's exactly the same amount of proof.

01:45:13.000 One of them is optimistic, one of them is pessimistic.

01:45:15.000 I see as much zeal and devoutness in the realm of materialism, and to some degree it's been sort of offered many times, you know, notable and brilliant atheists like yourself and Hitchens and Dawkins, all men that I very much revere and respect and I know that you know stuff I don't know.

01:45:33.000 But there is certainly a devoutness to the, I don't want to call it pessimism because that's unfair in its pejorative, but the materialism and the rationalism and the insistence that Just because what I offer is this.

01:45:47.000 There are realms and frequencies for which we do not have the instruments.

01:45:51.000 But because we don't have the instruments, that doesn't mean the data isn't there.

01:45:55.000 And even someone much more popular and populist, in a different sense, figure like Neil deGrasse Tyson or Brian Cox, friends of mine in science entertainment, say stuff like, if it can't be measured, it isn't there, and eventually we will be able to hold this knowledge.

01:46:11.000 But knowledge is limitless.

01:46:12.000 The potential for knowledge is infinite and we will remain finite.

01:46:17.000 Yet in this space where we transcend the personal self, I believe that we do exactly access

01:46:23.000 a super state of possibilities.

01:46:25.000 And certainly, if you can create a cultural bloody phenomena like Pokemon Go or bloody

01:46:31.000 the, you know, Jesus Christ, the excitement and fanfare around the Super Bowl, you can

01:46:37.000 use this prima materia, this prakriti to create better cultures, particularly if there's

01:46:42.000 a goodwill about it.

01:46:43.000 And also, I would say that down here in this place, we meet to the archetypes.

01:46:48.000 We meet the perennial.

01:46:49.000 We meet stories, folklore and dreams, which while being certainly housed within the metaphysical,

01:46:54.000 have enough ubiquity, I would suggest, Sam, to warrant investigation.

01:46:59.000 and even if investigation isn't the right tool, maybe this short, abrupt

01:47:03.000 Well, so I take a slightly different line through this than the one you expect.

01:47:12.000 I'm not a devout materialist of the sort that you imagine.

01:47:16.000 I just see that There's a third option, which is to acknowledge what you don't know, right?

01:47:25.000 I think we all stand before an ocean of ignorance and we broadcast across that ocean rather often metaphysical claims that are unwarranted, right?

01:47:36.000 We do science on the seashore and we explore the ocean with respect to certain physicalist assumptions, but we also, science is

01:47:48.000 bigger than that. Ultimately, if physicalism is limited and it turns out to be untrue or

01:47:53.000 partial or otherwise misleading, we will, there will be a rational accounting of that, of

01:48:00.000 how we wandered into error there, right?

01:48:03.000 It's not irrational to speculate that maybe mind is not what it seems, right?

01:48:09.000 And maybe it's dependency on the brain is not what it seems, right?

01:48:12.000 So all of this is fair game.

01:48:14.000 But to pretend to know any specific thing to be true in this area, I think is intellectually dishonest.

01:48:22.000 And specifically, but this is the one piece that is truly seditious with respect to the religious project, and which is the basis of my atheism, is One thing that the jury is no longer out on is the merely human origins of our religious institutions and our religious literature, because they broadcast their provinciality and their merely human origins on every page.

01:48:50.000 You read the Bible, And ask yourself, how hard would it have been for an omniscient being to have put in a single page of this text evidence of his omniscience?

01:49:02.000 It would be trivially easy to have done that, and there's not a single passage like that in the Bible.

01:49:07.000 Everything in the Bible could have been written by a first-century human being or somebody who lived in the 5th century B.C.

01:49:13.000 or 1000 B.C., depending on On what book we're talking about.

01:49:18.000 And so it is with every other religious scripture.

01:49:20.000 So what we know is that the foundational claim, certainly of Abrahamic religion, of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the foundational claim that a specific book has a non-human origin, right?

01:49:35.000 That is the claim that gives you Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 0.92

01:49:39.000 We know that that claim is is specious and indefensible at this point in history.

01:49:46.000 And what we need, therefore, is a truly 21st century conversation about everything we've been talking about, about the possibility of self-transcendence, its implications for running a sane society.

01:49:57.000 How do we get billions of people to solve these coordination problems of cooperation and converge on common projects so as to not make themselves needlessly miserable?

01:50:06.000 All of this is a project that requires a 21st century intellectually honest framing.

01:50:13.000 And so the reason why I dispense with religion to begin that conversation is that all of our religious scriptures are intrinsically at odds with one another.

01:50:23.000 They're mutually incompatible.

01:50:24.000 their divisiveness is right there on the surface.

01:50:33.000 I mean, just take one example.

01:50:34.000 I mean, I see that you're resisting this claim, but... Stop being a Bible Grinch! 0.99

01:50:37.000 You're Bible Grinching, you're Koran Grinching. 1.00

01:50:40.000 No, because I would say this... If you're going to pander to the religious... If you're going to pander to the religious biases of traditional religious people, right?

01:50:51.000 If you're going to tell Muslims that they're not wrong to be Muslim, and Christians that they're not wrong to be Christian, right? 0.90

01:50:57.000 These are totally valid projects.

01:50:58.000 I believe that they're right.

01:50:59.000 What you have done is...

01:51:01.000 is enshrine a zero-sum contest between muslims and christians because islam and christianity at their core are incompatible and i'll tell you why at their core jesus christian every christian real christian asserts that jesus was divine and every real muslim asserts that he wasn't How do you square that zero-sum contest? 0.97

01:51:23.000 You can't.

01:51:23.000 Honestly, you can't.

01:51:24.000 How I would do this is I would say that your unconscious framing, when you say from a 21st century perspective, enshrines the notion of progressivism, that we're at some current apex now, rather than a temporal gateway, a liminal space, where we, like the Hellenists who had to address the peculiar motions of the spheres, were precisely inverse to what they had ensumed, Like those that preceded Galileo, who had to acknowledge that amidst the devices and new lenses, new realms have been uncovered.

01:51:54.000 We cannot judge the semantic devices by which these models and modalities are interpreted in the same way that we might adjudicate their cultural and social baggage.

01:52:09.000 your numerous yogis and Sufis and their 20 year spells in caves that I hope were free of bats because that's apparently the only way anyone can catch Covid.

01:52:09.000 I.e.

01:52:19.000 I hope that they may not have been able to describe and delineate those experiences using the limited tool of language.

01:52:29.000 But I would say there is sufficient data in Buddhism, in Hinduism, In Islam, in Judaism and Christianity to suggest that what we have to overcome is precisely the individual that you have made a personal discovery about with your own meditative journey.

01:52:45.000 The cultural afflictions and inflections of a religion are an easy way to dismiss them but I think what is lost in that analysis is real hope, real God and what I mean by God is love and the hope and possibility that somehow Now, we can turn the tide of this thing.

01:53:04.000 For me, it doesn't matter if you are an atheist.

01:53:06.000 Some of my greatest teachers are atheists.

01:53:08.000 But what matters to me is that we revere and honor and re-sacralize the Earth.

01:53:14.000 Otherwise, how do we save it?

01:53:16.000 Nothing means anything.

01:53:16.000 Hello, everyone.

01:53:17.000 You're gonna die.

01:53:18.000 You're in limitless space.

01:53:19.000 Now, for God's sake, do something about climate change.

01:53:22.000 Why? 0.99

01:53:22.000 Who gives a fuck? 0.99

01:53:25.000 Because God is real. 0.99

01:53:26.000 You are God.

01:53:27.000 The Earth is real.

01:53:28.000 The Earth is God.

01:53:29.000 We are participating in a miracle right now.

01:53:32.000 Now sit down and meditate and learn to love and recognize that you are the number one problem in your life. 1.00

01:53:38.000 And then we can start overcoming some of this bullshit. 0.99

01:53:41.000 It doesn't matter if someone loves Trump. 0.99

01:53:42.000 It doesn't matter if someone hates Trump.

01:53:44.000 What matters is love itself. 1.00

01:53:45.000 Now, come on, let's get on with this bullshit. 0.96

01:53:47.000 Now, if we can't have that kind of conversation, we're just gonna sit watching the plane go down, Sam, and just, you know, querying who the pilot was. 0.98

01:53:56.000 Is it consciousness itself?

01:53:57.000 Or was it CIA-sponsored agents that came out of Saudi Arabia?

01:54:03.000 Or did they come out of Iraq?

01:54:04.000 And what are we in this war for anyway, baby?

01:54:09.000 Well, it's not going to surprise you that I think it's a little more complicated than that, but I agree with you about the power of love.

01:54:16.000 I totally agree with you about the primacy and the power of love, but we need to acknowledge that culture is a kind of operating system that we're all entangled with, and it's possible to have a pathological culture.

01:54:33.000 And I think you would agree that we're suffering from the pathologies of culture.

01:54:39.000 And it is therefore possible to have love, real love, channeled in ways that are pathological.

01:54:46.000 Right?

01:54:47.000 I mean, this is a topic I occasionally am forced to return to.

01:54:53.000 Happily, it's been many years since it's been in the news in a big way.

01:54:57.000 But you take the link between Between the doctrine of jihadism in Islam and suicidal terrorism.

01:55:06.000 The link is very direct, despite the fact that many people on the left would doubt it.

01:55:12.000 It's by no means all economics and politics driving people to be jihadists and suicidal terrorists in the Muslim world.

01:55:20.000 Ask yourself about the state of mind of a jihadist just before he pushes the button on his bomb when he's on a bus filled with non-combatants or he's about to fly a plane into a building or any other moment where he's about to commit a suicide.

01:55:36.000 What is, from the outside, I think appropriately judged as a suicidal atrocity.

01:55:42.000 I think it is actually quite likely that that person is experiencing real ecstasy Real love.

01:55:50.000 Real love for his fellow Muslims.

01:55:52.000 A real expectation of entering paradise.

01:55:55.000 Real faith.

01:55:56.000 Real joy.

01:55:57.000 My friend!

01:55:58.000 What does that matter?

01:55:59.000 But Sam, I can recognise what you're saying.

01:56:01.000 I've worked out the rest of this conversation.

01:56:01.000 I'm not stupid.

01:56:03.000 Sam, what do you think the drone operator in Nevada is thinking when they bomb a bunch of Muslim kids in Iraq? 0.99

01:56:11.000 Does it matter if they're cheerful?

01:56:13.000 It's the same death.

01:56:14.000 It's the same system.

01:56:15.000 One set of deaths rationally undergirded.

01:56:18.000 One set of deaths ecstatically undergirded.

01:56:20.000 What's the difference between ecstasy and rationalism?

01:56:23.000 Same dead children.

01:56:26.000 No, no, you're taking the wrong side of my point.

01:56:28.000 That's not the point I'm making.

01:56:29.000 My point is love isn't enough, right?

01:56:33.000 Because love can be channeled pathologically.

01:56:39.000 Love is absolutely necessary for a good life, but it's not sufficient, right?

01:56:46.000 A sense of community, a sense of solidarity with other human beings is, I would say, generally necessary for a good life.

01:56:54.000 It's not sufficient.

01:56:55.000 Right?

01:56:56.000 You can be feeling love and solidarity as a Nazi among Nazis. 0.81

01:57:02.000 That is a psychologically possible frame of mind.

01:57:02.000 Right?

01:57:06.000 We need to discourage Nazism. 0.97

01:57:08.000 It's not real love, actually.

01:57:09.000 It's not real love.

01:57:10.000 At the cultural level.

01:57:11.000 Sam, I'm going to contest that mad claim, because whilst I acknowledge... You don't think it's possible for a Nazi to love his children?

01:57:18.000 And love his wife?

01:57:19.000 And love Wagner?

01:57:21.000 I've looked a lot at the Nazis.

01:57:22.000 You had a tear over Wagner at the end of the day?

01:57:23.000 This is what I would say.

01:57:24.000 The Nazis were clearly in their giddy genocide having a hell of a time. 0.80

01:57:29.000 But what I would suggest is if Nazis were instructed in the true nature of love that that might have given them some recourse. 0.72

01:57:37.000 and some pause in their dreadful genocidal projects. And I would say there's more than

01:57:41.000 one way to skin a cat. The motives and psychological state of a jihadi, as opposed to the psychological 0.96

01:57:49.000 state of people running neat, neat, beautiful, little rational drones, is of no comfort to 0.91

01:57:56.000 those on the arse end of murder, whether it's rationally and state-sanctioned, or whether

01:58:00.000 it's sanctioned by an ecstatic religious experience. 0.98

01:58:03.000 Listen, let's meditate together because it's late in my country and I've got to go home.

01:58:06.000 I've got like three kids.

01:58:07.000 My youngest kid's like four weeks.

01:58:09.000 Sleep is the ultimate meditation.

01:58:10.000 Yeah, and I will be actually meditating as well.

01:58:12.000 Should we do a quick meditation now?

01:58:14.000 Me and you, like you lead it.

01:58:16.000 Sure.

01:58:16.000 Oh, sure.

01:58:17.000 We're going to leave now.

01:58:18.000 Those of us on our locals platform, me and Sam are going to do a meditation.

01:58:21.000 Let us demonstrate that in spite of differences, we can find unity and peace in a meditative space.

01:58:26.000 You can join us by clicking the red link and join us over on locals.

01:58:30.000 Stay free!

01:58:31.000 Thank you for choosing Fox News.

01:58:33.000 No.

01:58:33.000 We're just gonna...

01:58:34.000 Here's the fucking news! 0.99

01:58:36.000 We beat Big Pharma this year! 1.00

01:58:39.000 Did Joe Biden and Kamala Harris beat Big Pharma?

01:58:42.000 Or did they kowtow to Big Pharma with a mealy-mouthed bill that benefits no one?

01:58:49.000 Now, do you remember when Joe Biden was campaigning?

01:58:52.000 In fact, even in administration, we beat Big Pharma this year.

01:58:55.000 Remember this?

01:58:56.000 We beat Pharma this year!

01:58:58.000 We beat Pharma this year!

01:59:01.000 And it mattered!

01:59:02.000 Well, guess what that amounts to?

01:59:04.000 It isn't a victory over Big Pharma.

01:59:06.000 The bill has been watered down, mitigated, almost as if somehow Pharma

01:59:10.000 supports and funds the Democrat party, and the Democrat party are unable to successfully legislate

01:59:16.000 on behalf of the electorate that they were voted in to serve, whose taxes they require and

01:59:21.000 whose problems they ignore.

01:59:22.000 Except for of course saying stuff.

01:59:24.000 I mean, we can all say stuff baby.

01:59:26.000 Let's have a look at how the mainstream media are presenting this latest catastrophe.

01:59:30.000 We're going to go to the White House now, the president talking about the drug price

01:59:37.000 adjustments.

01:59:38.000 This is so important now.

01:59:39.000 I'm bummed, isn't it?

01:59:40.000 The news is we're going over live. 0.99

01:59:44.000 I've grown my forehead a bit bigger, especially for this piece of news where some bullshit's 0.99

01:59:49.000 about to be conveyed to you. 0.98

01:59:51.000 Good afternoon, everyone.

01:59:54.000 Good afternoon.

01:59:56.000 Please have a seat.

02:00:00.000 Good afternoon.

02:00:01.000 It's a room full of leaders.

02:00:04.000 I'm looking at three people on the stage and none of them are leaders.

02:00:08.000 Well, thank you everyone for being here and for all the work that you have done leading up to today.

02:00:13.000 You've said leading too many times already.

02:00:15.000 I want to thank, of course, our nation's champion.

02:00:18.000 President Biden. 0.99

02:00:20.000 Hyperbole, nonsense, bullshit instead of actual substance. 0.99

02:00:23.000 Now pay attention to the hyperbole being conveyed because what's about to be expressed is that a bill that began as we are going to meaningfully control Big Pharma, particularly after the Purdue crisis, the fentanyl epidemic, the exploitation of the pandemic that you funded. 0.98

02:00:40.000 We're going to reign Big Pharma in.

02:00:42.000 86% of Americans or thereabouts want to see caps on drug prices.

02:00:46.000 We said we're going to deliver.

02:00:47.000 Look at what Only the mainstream media would tell you that this is anything like a success.

02:00:53.000 Only the mainstream media would tell you that this is anything like what you voted for.

02:00:57.000 Because this is as watered down and diluted and as ineffective as some of the ...that we've been offered in recent years.

02:01:04.000 For your leadership and commitment to lowering costs for working families in every way.

02:01:09.000 Lower costs to working families in every way.

02:01:13.000 Let's see what gets delivered.

02:01:13.000 Quite a claim.

02:01:15.000 So we are here today with the firm belief that in the United States of America, no senior should ever have to choose between whether they are able to fill a prescription That's what he's come down to!

02:01:33.000 This is a great new policy!

02:01:35.000 What it is, if you're senior, that's very old, not you, you're great, you're a champion, carry on.

02:01:40.000 If you're another old person, not Mitch McConnell...

02:01:45.000 Or that lady that had to be nudged into voting yes. 1.00

02:01:48.000 Just say aye.

02:01:49.000 Okay.

02:01:50.000 Aye.

02:01:50.000 An old person that's not running the country, and if you are old and you'd like to run the country, come on in!

02:01:55.000 You can't be too old!

02:01:56.000 We've proved that!

02:01:57.000 If you're an old person, you don't have to choose between expending your remaining resources with Big Pharma or putting a couple of groceries in your fridge that you can't afford to keep chilled because your energy bills are so high.

02:02:11.000 Democracy!

02:02:13.000 We beat Big Pharma this year!

02:02:15.000 That's it.

02:02:16.000 That's the offering.

02:02:17.000 That's the offering.

02:02:17.000 That's what we're all getting so excited about.

02:02:19.000 This is what all the vilification of Trump's about.

02:02:21.000 This is what we don't need to consider Robert F. Kennedy or Marianne Williamson or Cornel West or people that at least seem to understand humanity from a better perspective.

02:02:30.000 A very, very old person, if they're not too busy running the country, will be able to both get a couple of apples and continue to funnel their remaining dollars into the hands of Big Pharma.

02:02:40.000 Thanks for the democracy.

02:02:41.000 How's the war going?

02:02:42.000 Do you need any more money for that?

02:02:45.000 Yeah, no, it is.

02:02:47.000 And we do clap that because I clap when I can afford both drugs and food.

02:02:52.000 Yippity-doo-dah! 0.78

02:02:56.000 Yeah, no, actually, because this is real democracy.

02:02:59.000 Democrats may tout this is a victory against Big Pharma.

02:03:01.000 Oh, they are.

02:03:02.000 I mean, they're applauding, they're pleased as punch.

02:03:04.000 That fridge that they're talking about is full of their farts.

02:03:07.000 Here, have some more farts!

02:03:08.000 Mmm! 0.89

02:03:09.000 Mmm! 0.89

02:03:10.000 Oh, it's going so well! 1.00

02:03:11.000 The smell of democracy that's come out of my ass! 1.00

02:03:11.000 Mmm! 1.00

02:03:14.000 Mmm! 0.89

02:03:15.000 But all 10 of the drugs up for negotiation are already being sold in other countries at fractions of what pharmaceutical companies are charging for them in the United States.

02:03:24.000 The victory is you will pay much more money than other countries.

02:03:29.000 Yeah, thanks.

02:03:30.000 I know, I know, I know.

02:03:33.000 We beat Big Pharma this year!

02:03:35.000 Not compared to Algeria or Sweden or Iceland or Somalia, but you know, we're just America, right?

02:03:42.000 And drug makers are reporting huge revenues from those foreign sales, so they're able to spread the costs internationally because they're globalists, like your government.

02:03:51.000 In some cases, Americans whose tax money subsidizes the development of virtually all medicines approved for sale in the United States are just... Sorry, did I not mention it?

02:04:00.000 You've already paid for the drug once, and you're going to pay for it again, much more than other countries, but are you not going to... Why are you not... Why are you not applauding for... Because this is progress, remember?

02:04:09.000 What about the champion?

02:04:10.000 Don't you think they deserve...

02:04:12.000 A little round of applause?

02:04:14.000 Are being charged 1,000% more than foreign patients for the same drugs.

02:04:18.000 You're 1,000% worse than foreign people. 1.00

02:04:20.000 Don't go building that wall.

02:04:21.000 You're going to need those guys.

02:04:23.000 The cash haul disclosed in drug makers' earnings reports suggests that pharmaceutical companies will still be able to reap enormous windfalls even if Americans can finally access prices closer to those charged on the global market for some drugs.

02:04:36.000 What's been negotiated is a deal with their donors in Big Pharma to adjust the administration so that across a quarter or a year their profits remain unaffected.

02:04:46.000 You think that Albert Baller, Moderna, Pfizer, all those guys, the FDA, don't have tight relationships with the government?

02:04:52.000 What power do you think this government, look at them, look at them, what power do you think they have to protect you?

02:04:58.000 Let me know in the comments.

02:04:59.000 Americans pay the highest prices per capita among residents of wealthy countries for prescription drugs, even though the American public subsidizes research and development, R&D costs, on essentially every drug approved for sale in the United States.

02:05:11.000 Hello there!

02:05:12.000 We're going to introduce some new drugs.

02:05:13.000 Going to need your money, going to need your money.

02:05:15.000 Oh, actually, I don't feel too well.

02:05:17.000 I'm going to need some of those drugs.

02:05:18.000 Going to need some more money.

02:05:19.000 Oh, so what does it cost over there in Tangiers or Wales or Scotland?

02:05:23.000 Oh, just a thousand percent less, but you're Americans, so we're gonna need a little bit more from you. 0.98

02:05:28.000 We beat Big Pharma this year!

02:05:30.000 President Joe Biden pledged during his 2020 campaign to repeal the existing law explicitly barring Medicare from negotiating lower prices with drug corporations.

02:05:39.000 Last year, Democrats finally passed a drug price negotiation provision, but the measure was much more limited than lawmakers originally proposed.

02:05:39.000 Hmm.

02:05:46.000 I wonder what happened.

02:05:47.000 I wonder what kind of conversations took place.

02:05:48.000 Let me know in the comments if you think maybe Big Pharma was somehow, I can't imagine how they're able to assert control and influence.

02:05:54.000 I mean, God, is there any record of Joe Biden just before his election in 2020 telling a room full of donors in New York Nothing will essentially change.

02:06:02.000 There is.

02:06:03.000 That did happen.

02:06:04.000 And that is what's happening now.

02:06:06.000 As you can see.

02:06:07.000 As you can experience.

02:06:08.000 Kamala Harris or your own lion eyes? 0.93

02:06:08.000 Who are you going to believe? 0.93

02:06:11.000 The new law will allow Medicare to begin negotiating prices effective starting in 2026.

02:06:16.000 Come on, most of those seniors would be dead by then.

02:06:18.000 Is it from or with old age?

02:06:20.000 I don't know, they're dead anyway.

02:06:21.000 On a select handful of expensive drugs that have no generic competition and have been on the market for at least nine years.

02:06:27.000 That's how your country works.

02:06:28.000 And I say this as a person that loves your country, that's lived in your country, that cares about America.

02:06:33.000 That's what's negotiated.

02:06:34.000 Well, could we only do with the drugs that have no generic competition?

02:06:38.000 Okay.

02:06:38.000 And have been on the market for at least nine years?

02:06:40.000 Sure.

02:06:41.000 That's the conditions.

02:06:42.000 That's who they work for.

02:06:43.000 You pay, they profit.

02:06:45.000 Four of the ten drugs on the Biden administration's target list may not even have their prices negotiated in the end, thanks to incoming generic or biosimilar competition.

02:06:53.000 So what they've done is like lawyers, they've tied it up and sewn it up in every conceivable way so they cannot lose.

02:06:58.000 That's what it means, corporatist democracies such as the ones that we have.

02:07:02.000 We have a similar thing in our country as well.

02:07:04.000 It means they cannot lose.

02:07:05.000 No matter who you vote for, you think that, ah, right, what I'm going to do is vote for them.

02:07:09.000 Yeah, we thought that might happen, so we formed comparable relationships with those guys. 0.97

02:07:14.000 It's not going to be, oh, drat, damn, oh, look, they voted for the other ones. 0.96

02:07:17.000 Oh, no, we only funded this one. 0.98

02:07:19.000 They fund both.

02:07:21.000 The companies making the 10 drugs on the Biden administration's target list have been selling the products for far less elsewhere.

02:07:27.000 See the injury?

02:07:28.000 Here's an insult.

02:07:29.000 In 2021, a government analysis found the pharma industry should emerge mostly unscathed from the Build Back Better bill.

02:07:35.000 The cost to the industry and its pace of innovation will be minimal, the analysis found.

02:07:39.000 That's the deal that's been done.

02:07:40.000 In all, the Build Back Better Drug Pricing Framework is not a bad outcome for the industry, investment company Evercore ISI analysts wrote in a note to clients.

02:07:49.000 Most drugs wouldn't be affected by negotiations, the analysts said, and the caps could ultimately entice drug makers to boost their products' launch prices, the Evercore team said.

02:07:58.000 Pharmaceutical companies in the US raised drug prices 1,186 times in 2022.

02:08:04.000 This is very curious because essentially it shows you how the system functions.

02:08:08.000 There's a little bit of fanfare and some celebratory rhetoric, some nauseating hyperbole, but actually backstage where the real governing happened, a deal has been done to ensure that the government is able to fulfil its promises to say some words in public without ever impacting the pharmaceutical companies.

02:08:28.000 Is it me or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?

02:08:32.000 Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery, my cats keep having kittens.

02:08:36.000 The last one's personal.

02:08:37.000 For those who are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.

02:08:43.000 American Hartford Gold make it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.

02:08:48.000 With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.

02:08:58.000 American Hartford Gold is the highest-rated firm in the US with an A-plus rating from the BBB and thousands of satisfied clients.

02:09:05.000 Right now, they will give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.

02:09:11.000 This offer is only for US customers.

02:09:13.000 Call 866-505-8315.

02:09:13.000 That's 866-505-8315.

02:09:14.000 505 8315. That's 866 505 8315 or simply text brand to 99 88 99. Get up to $5,000 of silver

02:09:14.000 Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.

02:09:26.000 and protect your future in this crazy, crazy world with some solid precious metals literally

02:09:32.000 made in stars. The pharmaceutical and health products industry spent $263 million on lobbying

02:09:38.000 in Washington in 2021.

02:09:40.000 But I doubt that has any impact on these kind of decisions, do you?

02:09:44.000 In 2021, Democrats accounted for roughly 60% of the $177 million in pharmaceutical industry lobbying and campaign donations.

02:09:52.000 So that would make an impact, I suppose, in the way they regulate and legislate.

02:09:55.000 That's how we go from rhetoric around we beat Big Pharma and we're going to cap drug prices to we're going to cap drug prices in a way that doesn't impact the profits of drug companies and therefore cannot meaningfully improve your life.

02:10:08.000 According to Open Secrets, in 2020, the biggest recipient of donations from the pharmaceutical industry was, drumroll please, it's America's champion, Joe Biden, who received $8.6 million.

02:10:18.000 A growing number of Americans are delaying important medical care because of the high cost of treatment, a recent survey shows.

02:10:25.000 We beat Big Pharma this year?

02:10:26.000 We beat Pharma this year!

02:10:28.000 It's extraordinary, really, isn't it?

02:10:30.000 That's the real impact.

02:10:31.000 Even in my own anger and outrage, forget that what we're talking about is the real life of real Americans.

02:10:36.000 Why don't you let me know in the comments who you know who is impacted by the soaring cost of drugs?

02:10:41.000 Let me know if you know someone who is affected or even died as a result of the fentanyl crisis.

02:10:45.000 Let me know how you think pharmaceutical companies were able to assert influence over the last couple of years.

02:10:50.000 Let me know if you're impressed with this bill or not.

02:10:53.000 In 2022, 38% of Americans said they or a family member skipped or delayed medical care according to an annual health care poll from Gallup.

02:11:01.000 The jump reflects an increase of 12 percentage points compared to 2021 and marks the highest year-to-year increase in Americans delaying health care.

02:11:08.000 So things are bad and they're getting worse.

02:11:10.000 That's what should have happened up there.

02:11:11.000 This is an alternative to what we just saw Kamala Harris do. 1.00

02:11:14.000 Listen, you know we promised you that we were going to cap drug prices.

02:11:17.000 We sort of are a bit, but only in a handful of drugs under these specific conditions that there's no generic competition and that the drugs have been on the market for at least nine years.

02:11:25.000 You're still going to be paying a thousand percent more than other foreign countries and things are getting a lot worse for Americans.

02:11:32.000 This is from David Sirota from The Leather, a left-wing publication.

02:11:35.000 Let's remember, pharmaceutical companies aren't altruistic charities that offer their products abroad at a loss.

02:11:40.000 On the contrary, they are still making healthy profits at lower world market prices.

02:11:45.000 So if you have a feeling that you're being ripped off, you're right!

02:11:48.000 You are!

02:11:49.000 For all the pharmaceutical industry's self-congratulatory rhetoric about its own innovations, the federal government uses your tax dollars to fund a lot of that innovation, research, and development.

02:11:58.000 A study from the National Academy of Sciences tells that story.

02:12:00.000 The federal government spent $100 billion to subsidize the research on every single one of the 200-plus drugs approved for sale in the United States between 2010 and 2016.

02:12:09.000 $100 billion in subsidies.

02:12:11.000 Obviously, though, that wasn't your money, because America has this taco stand on the border, and they sell tacos there, and they must have got that $100... Hold on a minute, they don't have a taco stand on the border!

02:12:20.000 It must be your money!

02:12:21.000 Because we, the public, invested early in these medicines, we reduced the R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies.

02:12:26.000 Therefore, on the back end, the public should have received some sort of return in the form of affordable prices.

02:12:31.000 Good point.

02:12:32.000 After all, we took the initial risk.

02:12:34.000 Yeah, capitalism.

02:12:35.000 You take the risk, you get the benefits.

02:12:36.000 You hear that all the time.

02:12:36.000 No?

02:12:37.000 That's how capitalism works.

02:12:38.000 It's the only game in town.

02:12:39.000 It's the worst of all, except for all the other... You know, you've heard this stuff.

02:12:42.000 This isn't capitalism.

02:12:43.000 This is corruption.

02:12:44.000 This is corporate status corruption, where you've got no options, where they come out and celebrate with a pack of lies.

02:12:49.000 Meanwhile, your senior citizen family members or loved ones, well, they're not going to meaningfully have their lives improved, are they?

02:12:54.000 After all, we took the initial risk and we lowered the overhead costs that the drug companies might need to recoup through higher prices.

02:12:59.000 In business terms, the public is the early venture investor in these products, and we deserve a share of the returns when the product proves valuable.

02:13:06.000 But I reject even that model.

02:13:08.000 Health should not be for profit.

02:13:10.000 But how else are you going to incentivise people?

02:13:12.000 How about humanity?

02:13:13.000 How about we're here together and we're going to die together?

02:13:15.000 How about some values?

02:13:16.000 How about some meaning?

02:13:17.000 How about some principles?

02:13:18.000 How about we use academia and expertise to fund it by the state and have it owned by the state?

02:13:23.000 Or even if you outsource it to a big pharma, outsource it with strict, stringent legal conditions?

02:13:28.000 Oh, that's impossible.

02:13:29.000 It would never work.

02:13:30.000 Why not?

02:13:31.000 However, in the mid-1990s, drug lobbyists persuaded the Clinton administration to repeal rules that allowed federal officials to require government-subsidized drugs to be offered to Americans at a reasonable price.

02:13:45.000 A few years later, Congress, with then-Senator Joe Biden, Joe Biden's help, voted down legislation to reinstate these rules, and later the Obama administration rejected House Democrats' request that federal officials at least provide guidelines to government agencies about how they can exercise their remaining powers to combat drug price gouging.

02:14:04.000 Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama.

02:14:06.000 Triumvirate of heroes.

02:14:08.000 We're the free musketeers!

02:14:09.000 We take the risk of investing early in the product, but instead of that investment reaping us something valuable like affordable prices, we're rewarded with price gouging by the drug makers, the bankroll, the lawmakers who've rigged the rules, and aim to keep them rigged.

02:14:21.000 That's not a free market.

02:14:22.000 It's a top-down command economy perfectly calibrated for price gouging, and the pharmaceutical industry and its puppet politicians want to keep it that way.

02:14:29.000 Seems like a pretty accurate appraisal.

02:14:29.000 Hmm.

02:14:33.000 Kamala Harris is literally almost crying about a piece of legislation that is wretched and basically worthless.

02:14:40.000 Because we know for years, far too many of our seniors, millions of our seniors across the country have struggled to afford their prescriptions.

02:14:51.000 And too many of our seniors risked their health as they may have delayed to refill their prescription or they cut their pills in half to try and stretch out the length of time.

02:15:05.000 Cut in half to stretch out?

02:15:07.000 What's happened to America?

02:15:08.000 What's happened to this magnificent country filled with brilliant men and women?

02:15:12.000 Full of genius and innovation everywhere you looked in music, in the arts, in culture.

02:15:17.000 A country where people came together to build the greatest nation in earth.

02:15:20.000 Reduced to this spectacle.

02:15:22.000 So since we took office, President Biden and I and our administration has taken historic, historic action to cut the cost of prescription medication for our seniors.

02:15:33.000 That's the news that comes up.

02:15:35.000 No senior should ever have to choose between medicine and food.

02:15:37.000 What's the news today, honey?

02:15:39.000 No senior should have to choose between medicine and food.

02:15:42.000 Oh, will they have to?

02:15:44.000 We capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month.

02:15:44.000 Yes.

02:15:50.000 What are you so pleased about?

02:15:51.000 Listen.

02:15:52.000 Listen to the actual fact.

02:15:53.000 It's not meant to be a performance.

02:15:55.000 How dare you complain that a charismatic performer of a president like Donald Trump has garnered the attention and affections of many Americans when they're doing the same thing but less well.

02:16:04.000 We will cap the total cost of prescription drugs at $2,000 a year.

02:16:16.000 And we have made vaccines free of charge.

02:16:19.000 When I say free of charge, you know the taco stand at the border?

02:16:22.000 You're paying for those vaccines.

02:16:24.000 And we've finally allowed Medicare to negotiate the price of medications with Big Pharma.

02:16:32.000 Okay, you can negotiate.

02:16:34.000 Negotiate!

02:16:35.000 And as many of you know, we've worked together over the course of my career.

02:16:38.000 I've seen the stakes of this fight firsthand when I was Attorney General of California.

02:16:43.000 And now, after that ridiculous cyborg-like address, I'm going to humanize myself with an anecdote.

02:16:49.000 I met with countless families who are often quietly suffering because they or a loved one could not afford the medication they needed.

02:16:57.000 I or a loved one cannot afford medication I or they needed.

02:17:01.000 All that to say, there are many factors that drive up health care costs and make medications more expensive.

02:17:09.000 Yeah, profit and subsidy.

02:17:11.000 And President Biden and I will continue to use every tool at our disposal to bring these costs down.

02:17:18.000 We're going to break away from this because it actually doesn't make sense in light of the facts.

02:17:28.000 I mean, given that it's only a few drugs, all of that rhetoric has been organized to make it sound better than it is.

02:17:34.000 And even I, as a mainstream news reporter, are struggling to remain enthusiastic about this vile propaganda.

02:17:40.000 Oh wait, my forehead's growing.

02:17:42.000 Is that a side effect?

02:17:43.000 There's a discussion of reducing Medicare prescription drug costs.

02:17:46.000 We're going to break away, take a quick break, and come back when President Biden takes the post.

02:17:50.000 So there you go!

02:17:51.000 I almost myself am astonished to imagine that these two sets of facts, what I've seen on the screen and what we've read from the leather and elsewhere, actually align.

02:18:01.000 Can this be possibly true?

02:18:02.000 I feel like I just watched someone introduce some historic legislation, but the facts appear to reveal that only minuscule changes Pledges are taking place, presumably because of the effective power of lobbying and the influence that pharmaceutical companies appear to have.

02:18:17.000 Pledges were made, then negotiations happened, then pledges were made that obfuscated the fact that these changes are minimal.

02:18:24.000 And I'm going to make a great deal of difference.

02:18:26.000 That's as good as it's going to get, watching Kamala Harris do that and think, wow, she seems happy about something, surely something good must be happening, and maybe occasionally glance at the peeling, yellowing president of your country.

02:18:37.000 As good as it's going to get.

02:18:38.000 Because your drug prices ain't going to significantly change in 2026.

02:18:42.000 Not based on these hard facts.

02:18:44.000 But that's just what I think.

02:18:45.000 Let me know what you think in the chat.

02:18:46.000 Remember, I'm doing stand-up in the UK in September.

02:18:49.000 Just five intimate gigs.

02:18:50.000 Come see me there.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - September 08, 2023

Russell Brand & Sam Harris Respectfully DISAGREE: Trump, Religion & Big Pharma! - Stay Free #203

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript