YouTube Transcript:
Tucker Carlson: Rise of Nick Fuentes, Paramount vs Netflix, Anti-AI Sentiment, Hottest Takes

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

This episode of the "All-In Podcast" features a wide-ranging discussion covering media consolidation, the rise of figures like Nick Fuentes, the existential implications and societal impact of Artificial Intelligence, and various geopolitical and personal topics.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

All right, back with us in place of

David Freeberg who's busy this week is

the one, the only on his fourth

appearance here on the All-In podcast,

Mr. Tucker Paulson. How are you, Tucker?

>> Thanks for having me.

>> Hey, Tucker. Good to see you.

>> David, David, how do you have time for

every time I every time I turn on my

phone, there's like David Sachs on

something incredibly complex. Like, are

you sleeping? usually people attacking

me for something,

>> but it's not just like, oh, your views

are this or that geopolitical conflict.

It's like the details of something

very complicated. And I'm just like,

wow, man. That's a lot. That's a lot to digest.

digest.

>> Yeah. There's not a very high bar in

Washington, as you know.

>> You're a giant among pygmies, but still,

it's a lot of work.

>> In the land of the blind, the oneeyed

man is king.

>> King. Exactly. Exactly.

>> Are you still enjoying it? Yeah, it's

been a lot of fun. Well, you know,

President Trump's a lot of fun to work for.

for.

>> He's the most fun.

>> I mean, the best, right?

>> He got a big shout out yesterday. It was

really awesome, actually.

>> David did.

>> Yeah. Huge shout out.

>> That's right. We were at the White House

Christmas party. I think they do like 25

of these.

>> Yeah. Literally.

>> Literally, cuz they got so many

thousands of people, but they can only

fit a couple hundred people in the White

House and they're doing like two a day.

And the president comes down and gives a

speech and every speech is different.

You know, it's like a Dave Chappelle

comedy routine where he never does the

same set and he does it with so much

enthusiasm and gusto. You would think

that you were the only,

>> you know, holiday party crowd that he

ever addressed.

>> He never expresses any irritation at at

doing that. He loves it. It's like amazing.

amazing.

>> It's unbelievable.

>> But in any event, he gave me a shout out

during the speech and then he called me

up there to like, hey, can you say a

couple words about AI? And I'm like,

well, this isn't exactly Chris's party

conversation. So, I just kind of talked

about how great he was and um how much

fun it was to work for him. And then he

gave Chamatha a shout out

>> as well.

>> No way.

>> And he just starts talking about the

All-In Pod. Like, we're in the audience

and he just starts having a conversation

with us about the All-In Pod and how's

it doing? And you know,

>> the funniest part was he says to me,

"Oh," and then Nat was behind him. So,

he goes, "Hey, Nat." And he says, "I

hope everything's going well. How's your

relationship?" He looks at me and I'm

like this and then Nat's behind her. Me

>> Oh, it's so awesome. I'm going this

weekend cuz I miss him.

>> You're going to see him this weekend?

You guys are on good terms. Tuck

>> with Trump. Oh, yeah. The best. I mean,

the best. I mean, of course, people have

told him, many people that he's not

allowed to talk to me. So, that just

makes him like me much more cuz like all

he hears is, "Oh, he's" People be like,

"He's the worst human being who's ever

lived." And all Trump hears is who's

ever lived, you know, and he's just that

he's just he's you can't control him

that way. Period. So, no, I get along

with him literally in 25 years better

than I ever have.

>> That's good, too.

>> It's hilarious. Yeah.

>> The last part of that story is so after

he calls up me and Jimoth, actually, he

calls me up to speak and then

>> calls David up to speak. He went on a

little bit of a riff saying, you know, I

don't like the term artificial

intelligence because why would you want

to call it artificial? It sounds bad.

>> Why don't they call it something else?

Superior intelligence

>> intelligence organic.

>> And then and then he calls up Chimath.

He's like, Chimath, what do you think?

And Chimath says, well, I think I think

AI is too late to change, but maybe it

could be American intelligence.

>> And then he says, yeah, but you know, we

want this to be used by the whole world.

Sell it to the whole world. Anyway, we

start workshopping uh this branding

exercise. in front of the entire

Christmas party.

>> How about we call it Trump super

intelligence? Okay, it's Trump intelligence.

intelligence.

>> No, but you know what? Calling AI

American intelligence is actually the

smartest and best one could do around AI.

AI.

>> We got a lot to talk about, Tucker,

you've been on a run, huh? You've been

on I mean, not in my world. I mean, I'm

off social media mostly, so it's like

nothing's actually really happening in

my world.

>> You don't open X at all.

>> It's all about me, man. And I'm not

going to I don't like to read about

myself, so I don't look at it. No.

>> All right. For topic number one,

Paramount versus Netflix. They're in a

bidding war over the future of Warner

Brothers and all that amazing IP. The

assets obviously many of us know Warner

Brothers is led by Zazlo, David Zazlo,

but he owns currently HBO, DC, and the

Warner Brothers collections of films.

Also, they have that great studio a lot.

On the cable side, they own CNN, TNT, Discovery,

Discovery,

and uh they just saddled that company up

with $30 billion of debt. And they had a

little bit of a competition for who

would buy it. Netflix and Paramount Sky

Dance, run by the Ellison family.

Netflix offered $83 billion to purchase

just the streaming assets, which would

put the number one and the number three

player together. and WBD publicly

accepted Netflix offer last Friday. This

has created a bit of a kurluffle.

Paramount now is coming in with a

hostile offer, 108 billion in cash for

the entire company. That includes the

cable assets. That would be interesting

because then David Ellison, son of Larry

Ellison, would own not just CBS,

which is being run CBS News by your

favorite Tucker Carlson, uh, Bari Weiss.

She would also, I guess, own and run CNN

in this instance potentially. We'll get

to that. Uh the $ 108 billion offer

includes two vehicles, 41 billion in

equity financing by the Ellison family

and then a bunch of other folks coming

including and we'll get to this uh some

Middle East uh sovereign wealth funds.

Poly market interestingly has Paramount

as the favorite at 51% in Netflix has

dropped to 36% even though they say they

have a done deal and 14% chance of no

deal. I think that might be the free

money the 14% chance of no deal. What's

your take on this, Tucker? And just

broadly speaking, consolidation in media

having pulled the rip cord and left

traditional media and now yeah, the

understanding is you're doing better

than ever. You control your destiny and

I think you're making probably as much

or more money now than you did when you

were working for the men.

>> Yeah, I don't I actually haven't

checked, but I'm not much of a money

guy, but I'm I'm fine and can pay my

non-existent mortgage.

I'm against monopoly power in general

because I think it stifles creativity.

I'm not that worried about this because these,

these,

you know, these things never move in

exactly the direction you imagine. I've

been in media my entire life and none of

the big changes I anticipated. In fact,

almost all of them I made fun of. I just

don't think that we're really threatened by,

by,

you know, a conglomerate of CNN and

Netflix and all. So it's like, okay, you

can assemble huge companies. Can you

make people consume and believe the

product? You know, buying CBS news is

like buying RCA records or something. It

like just doesn't have any effect. And

only people who are not paying attention

are pretty cut off think you're going to

win hearts and minds by being buying CBS

News or CNN. These are these brands are

husks. In fact, all they are is brands

at this point. And I just am not at all

convinced that this will have a material

effect on anyone's attitudes at all. You

know, if you started to mess with what

YouTube is allowed to air or the

ownership of X, you know, then I think

you could could really change the

country and the conversations that we're

allowed to have. But I don't see any of

this as especially meaningful on the

society. I mean, is the is the product

going to get, you know, I don't know,

more subversive than than it already is?

I mean, is this like Netflix going to be

worse for American society? Probably

not. You know, I think this is a

business story, not a cultural story.

Chimath, your thoughts. I'll give you

two. The first is that whenever you see

deals, it's important to look at the

amount of money that that is at risk.

And that is the best tell about whether

this is important for the future or not.

Hundred billion dollar deals are

typically about things in the past. What

is the future? Billion dollar deals. So

for example, when you look at when

Facebook bought Instagram for a billion

dollars, that turned out to be a huge

bet about the future, it was right. When

Google bought YouTube for a billion six,

that was a huge bet on the future. They

were right. When Microsoft invested a

billion dollars in OpenAI, that was a

huge bet on the future. It was right.

But when you look at assets that trade

at hundred billion dollar plus

valuations, they're so undergurtded by

debt. All of that debt is only ever

bought by looking at the past. Meaning

how much money have they made and then

it's a best guess about how much money

could they make in the future. So these

multiund billion assets to Tucker's

point, they don't really matter that

much. I don't think it's super

anti-competitive. These are financial

transactions. The reality in media, so

specifically about this deal. So that's

a general statement about deal quantum

and you can just judge the importance

based on that. People should be spending

much more time looking at billion dollar

transactions and hundred billion dollar

transactions. That's my takeaway there.

But at the very specific thing about

this deal, the reality is that the

future is unscripted, uncontrolled,

userenerated content. You see it on

YouTube. It is already the 800 lb

gorilla in the space. And then

separately, it's now becoming about

shorter form video. And you see that

with things like Instagram reels and Tik

Tok. None of that landscape will change

based on this deal. If anything, if

those trends accelerate,

the value of historic IP is going to

erode even faster. Meaning, this

generation of kids will have no idea or

care about the Marvel Cinematic

Universe, about Star Wars, and that may

upset those of us who are nostalgically

tied to it. So, I don't know. I would

let the deal happen. I don't think it's

particularly that important.

Saxs, obviously you don't speak for the

administration on these issues, but I'm

curious your thoughts on this.

>> Yeah, just my personal view on this is

that we're going to get meaningful

consolidation in the industry either way

because either Netflix and Warers are

going to merge or Paramount and Warers

are going to merge. So either way,

you're going to get consolidation. But

that being said, if Netflix is allowed

to buy Warers, the antitrust concerns

are a lot more serious because Netflix

really is the 800 lb gorilla in

Hollywood right now. It's the number one

streamer by far. It's got the biggest

market cap. And they're the party who

the rest of Hollywood is freaked out

about right now. And so you saw that the

Hollywood unions like the WGA

sag. They oppose the deal because

they're fearing job cuts, lower wages,

worsen conditions due to reduced demand

for talent. And then the the content

creators and distributors are worried

about this too because

Netflix is known for making tougher

deals I think than the traditional

studios. I've got a friend who's a

showrunner in Hollywood, and he's done

projects with both Netflix and with the

studios, traditional studios, and he

says the big difference is Netflix will

pay you pretty well, but you don't get

any equity in your show. Like whatever

you get is sort of agreed to at the

beginning and that's it. So, you're not

really an entrepreneur when you do a

show for them. But when you then work

for a studio, you actually get a back

end. Now there's all sorts of, you know,

Hollywood accounting associated with

that, but he kind of misses the days

that are going away where he got to be a

little bit of an entrepreneur and have

real upside in his shows. And if Netflix

now is allowed to acquire Warner

Brothers and that's just another nail in

that whole coffin. And so I think it is

a big change and if the antitrust

regulators look at this, I do think that

Paramount has a better chance. The other

big factor is just that

Paramount's offering more. They up the bid.

bid.

>> It's 108 billion versus around 80 or was

like $30 a share versus 27. And they're

also buying the whole company whereas

Netflix just wants Warner's

>> studio assets and streaming assets like

HBO as opposed to the cable assets which

are considered a little bit of a co. So,

I think if you're a shareholder in

Warers, you probably want to sell the

whole thing. You don't want to just be

stuck with the bad assets. So, >> yeah,

>> yeah,

>> I'm a little surprised actually that the

Warner board went with Netflix when they

had Paramount as an option, assuming

this Paramount offer was on the table,

because it seems like a better deal, and

it's probably a little bit more likely

to get through the regulators. So, I

guess I'm a little bit surprised they

chose Netflix, but I guess Netflix is

the more bonafideed party, right? It's

$400 billion market cap and maybe they

thought that they're more able to

execute this transaction.

>> Yeah, I have only three points on this.

Number one,

it really depends on how you frame

competitors in this space. Here's your

paid streaming platforms, Netflix,

Disney, and HBO. Disney's done an

amazing job after starting a decade

after Netflix with streaming of really

getting a lot of subscribers and

consolidating one in three here

obviously puts Disney way behind. But if

you start looking at Tik Tok, Instagram,

YouTube, these properties have the

majority of the audience. They dwarf the

audience of these paid services. And

young people are not interested in

movies anymore. They want obviously Tik

Toks and YouTube. If you look at the

revenue, it's a

>> ask you a question about that chart

before you move on. does how do you

compare or do you adjust for time

watched or minutes because how do you

>> I didn't in this but yeah that would

>> a big difference between watching a Tik

Tok and watching you know a movie

>> on Netflix in terms of attention span

>> disagreeing with you about the

>> look there's no question the cultural

significance has moved away from Hollywood

Hollywood

>> towards user generated content on these

online platforms but I'm just curious

you adjusted for that

>> yeah no I didn't adjust for that you

could you could slice it a bunch of

different ways but at the end of the day

you I put the competitive set as a

little bit broader here um which is

including the free you know UGC services

since that's what young people are doing

and then if you look at revenue

you you know it's a slightly different

picture here these paid services are

doing extremely well and they are

juggernauts in terms of making money and

profitability now

and UGC

obviously is much larger especially on a

global basis the more important Third

thing here is how we do antitrust in the

country. Trump wants to be involved in

this. He said he's going to be very

involved in it, you know, which as an

80-year-old, he's involved in

everything. Why not be involved in this?

He shouldn't be. Put that aside. I think

we need to have a way to prevet these

and then just let the highest bidder

win. I don't know how this concept is

getting convoluted, but the Ellison's

are compromising Trump a bit here. I

think that's why Trump gave a lot of

shine to Ted Sarandos. I don't know if

you saw his quotes about that sachs, but

he was praising what a genius Ted

Sarandos is and how amazing Netflix is.

The Ellison's coming out and, you know,

basically saying that they've got this

in and, you know, they're going to

basically have the inside track here, I

think is one of the issues I propose we

have a prevetting of these large deals

because we want M&A to be vibrant in

this country. We want more M&A after the

wrath of Lena Khan. So I think you

should be able to prevet chimoth. You

should be able to go to the government

and say, "Hey, we're considering selling

this asset, whatever it happens to be,

you know, YouTube back in the day. Is

there anybody who's not able to

participate in this auction and then

just have the FTC prevet some of these

and then highest bidder seems like

what's best interest in the best

interest of shareholders." So

>> kind of that's untenable. And the reason why

why

>> Yeah, explain. You have multiple facets

of antitrust that can come up from any

number of organizations in the United

States. And that's just but one part of

the complexities you have to navigate

because if you do business in any other

country, all of these other countries

are in a position to opine.

>> Oh, sure.

>> If you think about doing a deal where

you're in China and that other asset is

in China, it can slow down for a very,

very, very long time and never happen

for reasons that have nothing to do with

the industrial logic of the merger. So I

don't think you can prevet these things

because it's not scalable and I think

the government would get frustrated

because you'd have a thousand people

outside the door. They'd have no time to

do anything else. They have to govern.

The different thing that we have to

figure out whether is allowed is how

these deals are getting done. The only

thing that I would observe is the two

biggest transactions that have happened

thus far this year that I've taken note

of happened as total raw asset sales to

work around antitrust. The best example

was Meta and Scale AI. Okay, I'll say

this thing is worth 30 billion. I'll

give you 15 billion in cash, but what am

I really doing? I'm carving out these

assets so that I don't have to file even

an HSR filing. So, I think the future is

that if the government has to have an

opinion, not just America, but the

Europeans, the Chinese,

what's going to happen instead is that

very smart lawyers who get paid, you

know, 10, 20, $30 million a year, the

NBA salaries now, they're going to find

workarounds. they've already done so for

big tech and I think it'll spill over to

other industries. You're kind of like

creating these boundary conditions where

I think the concept of antitrust is

going to be a very difficult thing

because if businesses want to be in

business, you're not going to do these

traditional deals. as David said, an

enormous sign of confidence about how

there isn't going to be a competitive

threat for Paramount to just say, "We'll

take the whole thing." Because they're

subjecting themselves to a level of

scrutiny that they wouldn't if they felt

there was any shred of a good argument

for competitive antitrust. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I just want to um address the gratuitous

potshot at President Trump.

>> Which one?

>> Well, your claim that he shouldn't get

involved and somehow antitrust is better

if the presidents don't get involved.

You may remember that Teddy Roosevelt

was known as the trustbuster because he

directed the DOJ to sue 45 companies

under the Sherman Act, including the

whole Northern Securities Company. His

successors, William Howard Taft, Woodro

Wilson, FDR, they were just as

aggressive using antitrust. Anyway, a

lot of presidents have gotten involved

in mergers and antitrust actions. So,

it's just not that unusual.

>> Yeah, I just check brought to you by Grock.

Grock.

>> Oh, yeah. That's great. Um, yeah. We

need to have like a Grock fact check

part of the show.

>> We We need a Grock fact check.

>> No, the reason I would say it's

problematic for Trump to get involved in

it is because the Ellison's have also

been major supporters of Trump and made

commitments for buying Tik Tok. Now you

have one family who is a major supporter

of Trump, massive donators

basically getting the inside line on Tik

Tok and now after a deal has been closed

with Netflix being able to lobby to get

Trump to let them buy CBS and CNN. So if

we start thinking about the influence

that Ellison, the Ellison family is

having on the Trump administration,

whether it's quidd proquo or it's the

appearance of quid proquo, it's best for

Trump to stay out of it because already

we have the tick tock deal. Now CBS they

own and they're going to own CNN. This

is a lot of consolidation for one family

to have.

>> That's a red herring. Between CBS and

CNN, nine people watch those two

channels. So those channels are

irrelevant. Those guys have to rebuild

these things from scratch. Number one.

And number two, it doesn't incentivize

or disincentivize 3 billion humans from

using and watching that content. Who

owns that asset is not known to any of

these people. CBS did not go up and down

because, you know, one person owned it

versus another. Nobody knows who the CEO

of Tik Tok is. It's Tik Tok is either

good or not good. And so, I would just

keep in mind that this is something it's

like the party circuit babble. Like you

go there and you talk about it like, "Oh

my god, it's so bad. It's so good." And

you miss the basic fact that nothing

about the ownership changes the human

incentive to use a good product and to

disqualify a product.

>> Maybe I would take the other side of it.

There's still millions of people

watching this and it's pretty clear that

millions of people watch this show

because it's good. No, no. Ultimately,

people are people are going to be drawn

to great products. There's no doubt

about that. But consolidation of the

major news assets CBS and the influence

of Tik Tok and the influence of CNN is

undeniable. That is just undeniable.

>> Undeniable to undeniable for what?

>> Just reality. Reality Americans. No, not

my reality. You can try and insult me.

That's not the point here in one company.

company.

>> No, it's not my reality. That's not

where I get my news from.

>> Millions of people don't watch CBS and

CNN. It's not true.

>> Literally, it's 4 million people who

watch it. So yes, it is technically millions.

millions.

>> If you're adding it all up over what, a year,

year,

>> dduplicated, like what is what is CNN's

most qualified, bestrun, most popular show?

show? >> Okay.

>> Okay.

>> Uh on the network or on the news?

>> I don't know cuz I don't have it. I

don't even have cable.

>> Yeah, I know. And you don't even pay for

you asked your friends to steal New York

Times articles.

>> Everybody will I am the lead.

>> You get the final word. Having lived

inside the beast, should Trump be

involved in these mergers and

acquisitions? Yes or no? Chuck or call?

>> Well, you're not going to stop him, so

it doesn't matter. What should we be

concerned about is not media monopoly

power. It's censorship of the tech

platforms. A return to that. That is

where you destroy creativity and

diversity of thought. put the entire

nation into the mental prison from which

it escaped last November. That's that is

the threat. Censoring YouTube x

Instagram and I I just think we should

be focused on that.

>> And what's your take on Barry Weiss

taking over CBS News? I'm not sure if

you've commented on me.

>> I mean, I'm kind of impressed. I mean, I

you know, it's easy to make fun of Barry

Weiss for being dumb or whatever, which

is fair, but it's

>> you have to sort of look at it in

reverse image and it's negative. It's

like with those talents you got where

you're amazing and I will say I agree

with that. I think that she's charming.

She's tireless, energetic. I don't know

that still matters. Like we we overvalue

IQ. Oh, a person's so smart, you know?

It actually doesn't matter. Like being

charming, meeting people, you know,

pushing an agenda tirelessly, like that

that really works. And in the end, the

prize she got is not worth having. Like

I how would you like to run CBS news

such as it is? No, for real. That's

torture. They couldn't pay you enough.

>> What would you do if you had CNN? They

put it in your laper and they say you're

forced to be CEO of it for the next 10

years. What would you do?

>> Well, actually, I've had that conversation.

conversation.

>> Slightly more relevant. What would you

do if you ran my son's school newspaper?

Because it's about the same skill.

>> Oh, I'd get radical.

>> Actually, Tucker had an interesting answer.

answer.

>> Any other good questions?

>> No, it's a great question. Tucker was

about to answer it. Thanks for stepping

on it, Jamai.

>> The CNN question. I mean, I spent almost

10 years there, so I I feel like I'm

familiar with it. >> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> I have, you know, I actually had this

conversation with someone was like, "We

should buy CNN. You should run it." And

I So, I had caused to spend like an

evening thinking about it and no way. I

mean, what? First of all, I'm with

Chimath. Like, I don't have a New York

Times or Washington Post or New Yorker

subscription anymore after a lifetime of

having all three because they're totally

irrelevant. They mean nothing. They're

speaking to no one. And there's a kind

of musty. It's like going back to your

childhood home and seeing that your

bedroom was really small and like the

paint was actually turquoise and all

these kind of sad posters from the '8s

are still there. It's depressing. Like I

would just shut it down and and build

something new.

>> Okay, shut it down.

>> Jason, can I give you my one thought

exercise about the New York Times? The

one thing that I think is worth talking

about the New York Times is I think they

will in the next five years do something

so egregious and over the line akin to

some sort of liel or some sort of

statement that has turned out to be

completely false, they will get sued.

And I hope when that settlement happens,

the person says, "I do not want to get

paid the $4 billion. I want this to be

turned in into a nonprofit and into a

public trust." And then shuts it down. Interesting.

Interesting.

That's kind of what happened with Fox

when they did their 700 $800 million

settlement, the largest one.

>> But the next one, Jason, the next one

will go up. It won't be that scale

because you've had now that that

precedent. That's a very important

precedent about the scale of lying and

misrepresenting things. And it only goes

up from here. This is a one-way ratchet.

>> Yeah, you couldn't be more wrong about

that. Uh it's definitely not going to

happen. They have controls in place, but

it's a nice fantasy. They're also

crushing it. By the way, when they moved

to subscriptions, they have 12 million

paid subscribers now. They are

objectively crushing it and figured it

out better than any other news

organization. Whether we agree or

disagree with, you know, their content

and the quality of it, they are the most

successful objectively here in America.

All right, speaking of successful in

taking over the dialogue, we got to talk

about Nick Fentes, who you just had on

your podcast, Tucker. You platformed

him. Being facitious here, you

platformed him. I I created him.

>> Basically, it's an interesting

discussion. For those of you who don't

know, Nick Fuentes and have been living

under a rock. He's a 27year-old white

nationalist with a very popular show on

Rumble, about 500,000 subscribers, which

isn't actually that big when you think

about it. His followers call themselves

Gropers, and he's gained hundreds of

thousands over the past six months. He's

on quite a heater, and uh he's got a

bunch of controversial opinions. I'll

just give you the quotes. This is

nothing to do with my opinion on him. He

was asked by Piers Morgan if he

described himself as a racist. And he

said, "Totally, I think everybody, if

we're being honest, is racist. The only

people that aren't racist or pretend not

to be are white people to their

detriment on women." Piers asked Nick if

he was gay. Nick said, "No, but I will

say women are very difficult to be

around." Piers uh then asked, "And do

you think they should have the right to

vote?" Nick said, "I do not." Absolutely

not. On Israel, Fuentes is very critical

and what he calls organized jewelry in

America. So now you interviewed him.

Couple of different ways to take this,

but you did a good job of telling his

origin story. He was part of Prageru.

He's got this really activated base. Why

is he resonating at this moment in time?

And maybe you could explain to the

audience. MAGA versus America first,

America Only, which I think are part of

America First, but you you you tell us

because I think these are just terms

right now. They're not like political

parties or anything.

>> Well, there's a struggle over what those

terms mean. It's very ugly and probably

necessary because you need to define

terms. Like that's the first thing you

do, I would say, when you think through

what you should be doing with your life,

for example. So, um, as for Fuentes, his

origin story is a little more precise,

and I'll keep it short, but he tweeted

something as a freshman at BEu, critical

of, pretty mildly critical of the

Congress for doing the bidding of this

foreign country, Israel. And somehow Ben

Shapiro saw that and attacked him and

tried to get him kicked out of his

Republican club and made sure he didn't

get an internship with some conservative

organization. And I'm not attacking Ben

Shapiro, but that kind of tells you what

attempts to shut people down, to shut

conversations down result in. They don't

go away. They just fester in the

darkness and they can sometimes become

really ugly. So what Fuentes is, among

other Well, first of all, Fentes is

saying a lot of true things. That's why

he's popular. He's funny. Uh he's smart. >> But

>> But

>> he's a good Yeah,

>> he's a great broadcaster. But Fuentes on

some macro level is

>> troubling because he his platform is an

expression of something that has kind of

taken over all political discourse which

is identity politics, tribalism. And I'm

just opposed to that. I period and

always will be. And I I just think that

we're governed by universal principles

or we're governed by the mafia. Those

are our choices. And so you you know our

principles have to apply to every human

being or certainly every American

citizen. Period. or they're not

principles. Um they're just a

justification uh for tyranny. So

Fuentes, you know, has a different kind

of identity politics, but there are all

kinds of different identity politics. We

we lived under it during the Biden

years. We've lived under it most of my

life actually in one form or another.

And so if anything, Fuentes reminds us

that we have to come up with some kind

of principle that every American can

ascribe to something called national

identity. That is not a dirty phrase.

that's actually necessary to keep the

country from disintegrating, comma,

which it is. So like what does every

American, all 350 million have in common

with every other? And that's the

conversation we need to have. And in its

absence, then we get a lot of people

popping up and being like, well, all

white people over here and all black

people or Jewish people or whatever.

That's not going to work. That will end

in violence. Everyone knows that. And so

now is probably a pretty good time to

figure out what we all have in common. I

didn't platform him. I in first of all

platform is not a verb and anyone who

says it is a verb is probably opposed to

my core interests I would say and bad language.

language.

>> Yeah. I interviewed him like interview

everybody you know and my general belief

is you should let people say what they

think and others can decide whether they

mean it or not whether they're being

false or sincere and and what they think

of what the person is saying. But that's

that's my job. I'm not ashamed of it

despite a lot of efforts to make me

ashamed of it. I do disagree with

Fuentes on the question of universal

principles. I think it's im well first

of all it's against my religion to hate

any group and I told him that. But I

didn't do a lot of other posturing

designed to make me seem like you know

the good person. Peers unfortunately

fell into that trap as an older man you

know well isn't IT YOU ARE BAD and it's

like okay I don't even disagree with

some of that but you don't elevate

yourself. you look like an outofouch

buffoon. And that's exactly the trap

that was awaiting Piers Morgan. And if

you watch that interview and if you

watch the reaction to it, that did not

diminish Nick Fuentes in any way. It

enhanced Nick Fuentes. What diminishes

Nick Fuentes is asking him

straightforward questions, particularly

about women. Not have you had sex with

anybody, but like why are you so mad at

women? And that, you know, letting

people talk a lot reveals who they are.

That's just true. Sorry. If you were to

give the top two or three reasons why

he's resonating with it seems like young

men and this America this burgeoning

American first movement which I guess it

would be good for you to define right

now as best you can recognizing you're

not the leader of it but you have said I

think uh you this uh concept is you know

uh resonates with you so maybe why talk

why is Fentes resonating and what is

America first versus MAGA. Like explain that

that

>> just in in reverse order. I mean, I

would argue that the the premise of MAGA

is America first, but I wouldn't say

that America first is a movement. I

would say it's the only legitimate

reason to run a government. And it's

very simple. The the government of your

democratic republic ought to act in

broad terms on behalf of its own

citizens. I mean, it's it's not more

complicated than that. There's nothing

sinister about it. In fact, anything

other than that is sinister because it's

illegitimate. For what other reason

would you run a a Democratic Republic and

and >> treasonous?

>> treasonous?

>> There there isn't one actually. So of

course this has to be an America. You

could think of a new name for it if that

name makes you uncomfortable. But the

idea has to be the reason we have a

government or else we have to get rid of

the government because there's no other

justification for having a government.

Okay. So a b why is he popular? Because

he says that. But I would say more

broadly because he's defiant. There's a

kind of up yours, buddy. I can't say

that. Okay, watch this. I will. He's hilarious.

hilarious.

He seems steadfast and strong. I I don't

think he is. He's not even married. So,

like, if you're afraid of girls, I think

you're a wuss. That's my personal view.

But there is a But in his defiance,

people see something really appealing.

Why wouldn't they? You know, you know,

these are kids who've grown up in a

world of hectoring and telling them

they're bad because of how they were

born. And Nick Fuentes is just raising

the middle finger to the people saying

that and saying up yours. And who

wouldn't love that? Of course people

love that.

>> Second piece is of the America first is

America only. And I guess that means

>> I don't know what that means. That's it.

No, of course it's Look, we we work in

concert with others by definition. It's

a globalized economy. You know, maybe it

shouldn't be, but it is. But America

only that argument to the extent it's

not really an argument. That's like a

counter slogan designed to undercut the

main argument isn't doesn't really mean.

No one is arguing that. It's just saying

look the US government ought to act on

behalf of its own citizens. To which

people who don't believe that who are

embarrassed to explain why they don't

believe that because there's no

justification for not believing that are

like well you're you're America only.

No, the government should do that. Every

part of the government should have that

foremost in mind. How does this help the

people who pay for this in whose name

it's done? Like again, even calling it a

movement drives me bonkers because

compared to what? Some sort of creepy

secretive oligarchy, which we've had

most of my life. Like that's just bad.

There's no way to defend that. And we

can argue within the framework of

America first how to put America first.

That's a totally legitimate argument.

And there are all kinds of different

thoughts about that. But what the motive

should be, the goal should be, there's

no debate. It has to be for American

citizens primarily. If they're, you

know, ancillary beneficiaries, that's

great. Not against that at all. Let's

help everyone if we can. But the point

is to help the people who own the

country, the shareholders of the United

States who are American citizens.

There's no other point, is there?

Chamat, let me bring you in on this from

the angle of the America first movement,

America only movement as a reaction to

the first year of the Trump

administration feeling to many people in

the Republican party as benefiting maybe

tech oligarchs, billionaires,

uh, international issues more than the

working man. you have started to tweet a

little bit and become vocal about, hey,

maybe year two of the Trump

administration, we got to get refocused

on some of these things. Unpack that for

us in the audience.

>> Well, can I can I offer my feedback on

Fuentes first?

>> Of course. Yes. Go with Fuentes if you like.

like.

>> There's a couple points I want to make.

The first is that he is, as Tucker said,

charismatic. I think he's funny and I

think that he can animate around a lot

of touchy subjects and say things that

have shock value. And I think in that

what he is is actually like a modern

shock jock. He's like a younger Howard

Stern. He's the Howard Stern of this

era. the way that Howard Stern was in

that era unlistenable to so many people

because he would be kind of okay for 80%

of the time and then go totally off the

rails and you think, man, this guy is

some combination of mean, nuts, crazy,

and then you throw out all these other

adjectives. So that's point number one.

Point number two is it is true that the

longer you allow him to speak actually

the more you understand what he thinks

and as a result the quality of the

product will dictate the scale of

adoption and now this is where I think

the media yet again has been very sloppy

and doesn't do their work which is and

Nick you can throw this up there's been

a lot of research on what has been

happening in the last few months and the

bottom line takeaway in the last few

months is that there is coordinated

effort of individual largely unverified

accounts in social media. They typically

emanate from India, Pakistan, Malaysia,

Indonesia, Nigeria. And there is a

coordinated amplification process that

is happening around this content. And in

this chart that you're seeing, it's just

a comparison of Nick in the first 30

minutes to what people like Elon get in

the first 30 minutes of him posting.

Now, why that's so important is you

start to see this huge disparity where

even though you have the most viral

person and account in the world, i.e.

Elon Musk on X. What you see is him

completely crushing and dominating the

verality in the beginning of his content

creation versus anybody else's. And then

there's a bunch of other charts. Nick,

you can retweet a link to this. It

starts to show a pattern where there's a

coordinated effort to amplify. I think

that's why we're having the Nick Fuentes

moment at this point in time. The New

York Times all of a sudden sees this

information, probably doesn't bother to

do the diligence, has a bunch of

positive mentions, starts to pump him up

as a

leader of some kind of nefarious, crazy,

scary rebellion.

>> Well, no, they want to mainstream him

>> and they want to try to mainstream him.

So, what you see is the New York Times

trying to mainstream this guy and make

him credible so as to paint the right as

a bunch of evil racist ideologues. I

think the producers at Piers Morgan

didn't understand this was happening.

And so when you put him on a 20 minute

soundbite shot, it feeds in to exactly

what makes him popular. The ability to

land these small sound bites. This is

why I think Tucker was much better

because again in multi-hour programming,

you can't hide. You see the full facet

of what the person is and you start to

understand that this is a very savvy

young media personality. Now, when you

strip away all of this amplification,

the product has to work for it to scale

and grow. There is no way that you're

going to manifest average normal men and

women spending their time to take these

views credibly unless it's good and

right. There will be a moment in time

where curiosity will cause you to say,

why is everybody talking about this? We

are firmly in that moment. But I think

that there is a large portion of what he

says which I don't know whether he

believes or not because I haven't spent

that much time but is meant to shock.

It's meant to catalyze and animate

people but I don't think it's

sustainable because the views themselves

are repugnant.

>> So I think

>> and this is why the New York Times wants

to elevate him. Can you put it up there?

>> So there I am. I look amazing

guy in that picture. I look like a

slackjawed yokal and he looks like

>> rebel with a cause. Yeah, it's Jed

Clampid versus uh James Dean.

>> The the other thing I'll say is that Sax

and I are in a couple of these group

chats with some folks and some of the

chatter there is that who is paying for

and who is activating all of these bots

and fake accounts in all of these

developing world countries and why did

they pick him? Some of that conspiracy

basically points to a handful of nations

who would love to ferment that kind of

dissent and that kind of

>> yeah we don't have chaos and uprising. I

mean this has been clear for a long time.

time.

>> So I think it's very important from here

on out that if people are to listen to

him I think the longer form content

exposes what he really thinks so that

you can judge it for yourself. But I

would not discount the fact that this

moment is happening is not entirely

organic. There is a deep inorganic

effort to put this on the front page of

the news. And so it's up to traditional

media to decide whether they're going to

basically lift this guy up as some kind

of newfound hero or call it out for what

it is, which is lead in the articles

with this data, which is widely

available and easy to get.

>> Well, he literally explained this when

he was on Tucker's podcast. He was

originally in college part of this

Prageru kind of movement and he said he

was in a Facebook group which was the

Prager army and I've talked about this

before we've joked about it but there

are groups like the one you mentioned uh

that you're in this group I heard about

it a couple hundred right-wing folks of

note take it easy Jason

>> my invite didn't get got lost apparently

to it but uh yeah add me to that group

please but what happens in these groups

some of them are designed to make money

some of them designed to make impact In

fact, Andrew Tate had one where there

was an affiliate scheme put up uh for it

when Twitter started sharing revenue

with accounts and you start looking at

these like accounts that are anonymous

but get to massive scale. King Co the Great

Great

>> You're talking about the clip forming. Yeah.

Yeah.

>> Yeah. And and they're regurgitating

stuff. They're doing it for the money

obviously. They're making 10 20 grand a

month. It becomes a full-time job to do

that. But we've got the Russians, we've

got the Chinese, everybody in between

doing this kind of pumping. And then

there is the actual army. So he Nick

Fuentes has an army of young people who

do this and they're on VPNs and they

flood comments and what they do is they

share a clip. And you can experience

this in your own social media if you're

of note because you'll have 10 posts get

x number of replies and then all of a

sudden the 11th gets 10 times that all

at the same time directly to it not from

your followers and that's when they get

shared on these group chats. By the way,

we should mention just tangentially

because I want to get Tucker's take on

this, but Australia just passed a law

that under 16, you're now not allowed to

use social media. Instagram, Facebook,

Tik Tok, all banned until you turn 16.

And in part, Jason, I think it's because

>> these coordinated miss and

disinformation or amplification

campaigns are on all kinds of

characters, not just Nick. They're

proliferating because to your point, the

economics creates an incentive if

nothing else. Then there's obviously the

state level sponsored chaos that it

tries to sew. And one of the only highle

bits that you can flip is to say under a

certain age, we're just going to

minimize how much of this content you

get exposed to because we don't know

what it is. Before we go there, can I

just say the one thing on America first,

America only, whatever these terms are.

I I don't know what they are.

>> America first, America only.

>> Okay. I I don't know what they are.

These are slogans, anti- slogans. Here's

what I will say. I think it's very

important, and I speak as an immigrant.

I want to be American. I don't consider

myself Canadian American. I don't

consider myself Sri Lankan Canadian

American. I consider myself American. I

want to absorb and I want to reflect the

values of this country. I want to know

and be able to talk to you about the

constitution of this country. I want to

be able to celebrate the cultural

heritage of this country. That's part of

the compact that I think I'm making. And

I do think that's an important thing

that we have all lost where we have to

run around in all of our traditional

garb and it just loses that what makes

countries great is a shared set of

principles and values and we have to

find a way of doing that. When I

immigrated from Canada, what I will tell

you is Canada took the opposite view. We

used to call America a melting pot

pjoratively, even in textbooks, and the

textbooks would call Canada a toss

salad. And we would celebrate that that

form of multiculturalism was better. But

when you fast forward the clock 20

years, all it did was create confusion.

For example, if you go to school in

Canada, there's like a bajillion

holidays. Every culture gets their day

off. Then all of a sudden, what happens?

The kids don't get educated because you

have to have every longtail country get

recognized in some way, shape, or form.

All of a sudden you lose this very

standard form of basic organization.

That's just but one example. You know

the forms are in 50 languages. All that

does is create chaos. It should have

been in English and French because those

are the two official languages of the

country. All of that indirection trying

to celebrate everybody's heritage

confuses and slows that country down.

And you can see it in the GDP. You can

see it in the FDI foreign direct

investment. You can see it. So the one

thing that we have to agree is that

there is an American culture and set of

values and we should not lose it and we

should ask the people that want to be

here to embrace it. We all embraced it.

Saxs embraced it. If you talk to Sax's

parents, they've embraced it. If you

talk to Freeberg, Freeberg's parents, we

all came from different countries, but

we are fundamentally American. Jake Cal,

I'm I wasn't sure, but were you

intimating that the party behind Nick

Fuentes's meteoric success is the Russians?

Russians?

>> No, no, I was just saying that there's

brigading going on.

>> Which foreign actor do you think it is?

>> I, you know, some of them just want to

create chaos. I put Russia in that. Just

creating division in America distracts

Americans. I think they like that. But I

there are three levels of this. There's

his army. Fuentes does have an army of

super fans who are disaffected young

men. And there's a reason why they're

disaffected. It's hard to get jobs. It's

impossible to get a home. Health care.

They've seen people, you know, go

bankrupt because of healthcare. If you

look at healthcare, homes, and

education, those are the three most

important things we have to fix in

America. That's why young people are

disaffected. And when you're disaffected

as a youth and somebody starts blaming

the Jews, the blacks, the Hispanics, the

border, this issue, that issue, it's

really appealing because then you don't

have to take any personal responsibility

for it. And it is in fact really hard to

own a home in most cities in America

unless you move to Texas or, you know,

Nashville, Florida, and then there's too

many homes and prices are going down.

and he's a kid and he says stupid stuff,

but he says he does tap into that disaffectedness.

disaffectedness.

Where would you put it if you ranked it,

Tucker, since you are pretty plugged

into this? Is Fuentes's popularity based

on the Gropers and this like really

inside group of people who are

amplifying him, is it what he's saying

or is it like some foreign actors

promoting him? How would you handicap

his massive popularity? And then we'll

move on. All all three play a role I

would say and if you want to know who is

primarily responsible for amplifying him

consider who benefits. If you wanted to

discredit America first say a foreign

policy then you would put it in the

mouth of someone who is pro- Hitler. Of

course, anytime I hear someone endorsing

Hitler, I love Hitler. Then I'm like, h,

you know, the Fed alarm goes off or the

inorganic alarm goes off, right? Okay. A

B, he is the product of a system that

the rest of us tolerated and certain

among us created and we shouldn't be

surprised. You know, if you have

identity politics, at some point you're

going to get white identity politics. I

think I wrote a book about this almost

10 years ago, which was totally ignored,

but that's inevitable. It's inevitable.

And so to fix it, it's not a matter of

censoring Nick Fuentes or anyone who

likes Nick Fuentes. It's a matter of dracializing

dracializing

our society and making it a fair society

where rewards or condemnation are not

given on the basis of your DNA. Like you

can't have that and hope to avoid a

Rwanda because it's just going to

happen. It's inevitable. Tribalism is

the threat to every society and I don't

know how we lost sight of that but we did

did

>> you people are sort of saying he's a fed

he's accusing you of being a fed

>> you know I don't know the whole fed

conver I unfortunately so he it's such a

long story I won't even bore you with it

but he attacked my father at one point

so I got baited into it and and I called

him a fed um you know I don't I don't

know uh but I do know that there are and

I think that Fuentes is pime. Let me

just be clear. I think he's primarily

successful because of his talents and

because of the obvious truth behind some

of what he is saying. I just right the

government of this country or any

country should act on behalf of its own

citizens and ours doesn't. And that's an

outrage. So, okay, that's just true. But

the white identity politics part of it

once again is inevitable. Identity

politics will give birth to white

identity politics. Why wouldn't it? and

your e efforts to stamp it out will

never work because they're too

hypocritical. So the only way to fix

that if you don't like it is to

eliminate all identity politics, which

we should do tonight because it's the

road to disaster. That's it. I have an

AI question for Tucker. I'm increasingly

surprised by the number of people on the

right who I would describe as

ardent free market low regulation to no

regulation folks who

are very anti- AI and I'm just curious

where do you think that comes from and

what do you think

>> it comes from so far as I can tell the

perception that the risks outweigh the

benefits. So the risk would include, you

know, massive job loss, chaos where

nobody sort of knows if anything is real

and the fabric of reality itself begins

to tear. You know, of of course the

massive energy draw and the huge and

expensive infrastructure changes that

will require the disruption that will

inevitably cause. So like the downsides

are super obvious. Not even to mention

the potential this gets completely away

from us and eats us or something. Okay.

As weighed against the potential

benefits which are what and I I don't

doubt that there are some you know

coming to faster you know diagnostic

conclusions in medicine you know or

organizi you know getting rid of tedious

tasks that no one wants to do

elimination of clerical work etc. I

guess those are upsides, but I it's

disproportionate. The in the view of

most people, I think who aren't experts

in this, not daily involved in it, the

risks far outweigh not just the upsides,

but the announced upsides. So, typically

when we roll out a new product, we tell

the people we hope to buy it like, "This

is going to be amazing. It's going to

blow you away. Everything about your

life will be better once you get the

iPhone 27 or whatever." There's been

none of that with AI. Like, none. The

announcement has been, "Holy, this is

going to change everything. Stop." How

exactly? Well, it just is. I mean, I

don't know who's in charge of the

marketing for this.

>> Seriously, Sam Alman, Sam Alman, and

David Sachs, go

>> David. Uh,

>> wait, hold on. Can I just Can I just

follow up on this?

>> Okay, so Tucker, here's just a thought

exercise and just tell me how this

factors into that opinion, if it should

at all. So let's say in a world in 10

years where you have these super

intelligent computers and systems and

models. Okay,

in my thinking what that does is it

reorders the geopolitics

of all countries in the world where

you're in one of three buckets. In

bucket number one, you're an exporter of

that intelligence. And I think right now

steady state it's going to be China and

America, right? China will have one

version of exported intelligence and we

will have one version of exported intelligence.

intelligence.

Then there'll be these strategic partner

countries of which I suspect there's

less than 10

who are the enablers, the facilitators.

They have specialized skills that wrap

either the Chinese version or the

American version with energy, with

money, with knowhow, etc. And then I

think there's everybody else. And it

almost creates this thing where if you

are an importer of intelligence in the

future, you theoretically are at risk of

becoming essentially a vassal state. And

so if you think about it at that level,

isn't AI something that is almost

existential that we must win?

>> I mean, for sure. I mean, at at that

level, for sure. And I would just point

out that like almost every single state

in the world is already a vassal state.

So like no change there. But uh yeah, I

mean, you don't want to be the wrong

side of it. That's clear. Is it

containable to nation states? That's not

clear to be honest to me at all. But

whatever I get the argument. I'm just

saying at the consumer level, no one has

explained why we should be excited about

this. And if I, you know, I'm a gold

buyer and ammo buyer and freeze-dried

food buyers already told you. So it

doesn't kind of affect me as an

investment matter, but like just I I

think it would be so I I don't have a

>> You're saying the dividend of AI is not

clear. Like it's like the positive

>> to the average person to the average person.

person.

>> You are 100% correct, Tucker, on this.

We have done a terrible job as an

industry communicating.

>> What's the answer? What's the answer?

Like how is this great for the answer?

>> It it'll wind up being great for you because

because

>> the prices of goods and services will

get much lower. You'll live much longer.

And listen, I'm not saying this is mine,

but this is what the industry should be

saying. The price of education is going

to go down 80 or 90%. You're going to

have customized, adaptable education

versus, you know, paying for $50,000 a

year degrees. You're going to be able to

learn anything in half the time at 90%

less. All of these deliveries coming to

your home are going to be delivered at

half the price, twice as fast, because

it's going to be in a drone or it's

going to be in a self-driving car. And

we're going to make breakthroughs in

health care that will reduce suffering.

And you will not die of cancer. You're

going to live to 120. We will have job

displacement, but we believe the lower

cost of living and the greater services

that are going to be available to you in

healthcare and education will make up

for that. And if it doesn't, we're going

to put in ways to pace out the job

displacement. In China, they're doing

this. In China, they're proposing and

Sax and President Trump, the amazing

President Trump, will be doing an AI

national edict soon, I believe, or an

executive order. But in China, in Wuhan,

paradoxically, they are talking about

giving out licenses to self-driving cars

in a paced roll out so that young men

don't lose their jobs on mass, which is

what we're about to see in America. And

if we don't take this into account, and

the great Zara will speak in a moment,

that's when this will become, I think,

the worst nightmare that you're talking

about, the dystopian version of this. We

need to figure out healthcare, homes,

and education and make those free, close

to free, and do a Manhattan project on

creating 10 new cities with 10 million

new homes and free healthcare for

everybody and free education for trade

schools, etc. That's what solves the

problem. That's what nobody's doing.

Sax, your chance to jump in here.

Well, there's a lot of things going on

here, but I think one of them is that

humans are really attracted to either

utopian or dystopian narratives. I think

liberals are probably more attracted to

utopian narratives and conservatives are

attracted to dystopian ones. And I think

the future is going to be more in the

messy middle. I don't think it's going

to be to either one of those extremes.

And I agree that the industry has not

done a good job. They've created a lot

of fear. The whole AGI narrative didn't

help because you had a lot of people in

the industry saying we're going to get

to AGI in two or three years. Those time

frames have all been pushed back by the way

way

>> or eliminated. You don't even hear that

term or

>> eliminated. People were saying a few

years ago that we'd have AGI by now. Now

no one is saying that. They're basically pushing

pushing

>> by just on that that was exactly a

function of the immaturity of our

industry. So to what Tucker said, it is true.

true.

>> Well, it's a utopian mindset, right? >> Yeah.

>> Yeah.

>> What they saw as utopian. I think a lot

of people reacted, wait a second, that

sounds pretty dystopian to me. And I

also think it's what needed to be said

in that moment to get that next quantum

of money. They were telling the

investors some version of what the

investors either didn't understand or

wanted to hear in order to get that next

scale up capital. But now that we're

past that and we're seeing more

practical implementations,

right now we're actually at the

beginning, I think, of the positive

productivity loop. And that isn't

explained because we've spent so much

time offering up this grand utopian

vision. it does seem like an overpromise

underdeliver kind of situation to show

up and say oh now your DMV form you

don't need to fill it out anymore and

people are like wait a minute that's

what we spent all this money on and I

think that we should have taken a much

more conservative view in explaining

what the upside was in the past

perfectly said Chimoth and I think

Tucker one way to frame it is the

abundance of Star Trek versus you know

to Sax's point the dystopian nature of

Terminator 2 one of the great paradoxes

here we we will have mass massive job

displacement, destruction, whatever term

you you prefer in entry- level jobs

already happening in, you know, what

I'll call chores like dishes and driving

cars. Entrylevel jobs. Those are going

away. And they're going to go away in

the millions. And they're going to go

away in the millions in the short to

midterm. 2, three, four, five years.

You're going to have people protesting

in the streets over this issue. I don't

know you agree with it. You say it every

time. You interrupt me every time I say

it. But I will be right on this one. You

will be wrong because you'll see taxi

drivers are going to be the first group

to do it. And it's already happening in

different places in the world as I

mentioned in China and it's already

starting to happen in places like San

Francisco where they're burning the

whimos and with them for a reason. The

abundance argument is something we need

to get on and we need to get on it quick

or we need to get on some sort of

promises about re-education and

retraining. And you don't hear rich

people and these rich companies talking

about that half as much as they did. But

you know what could be the great

paradox, Tucker, is that the America

First movement is acutely aware of this

and shutting the border and deporting

people, which I'm fine with deporting

criminals. That actually might be the

solution to the problem. As we deport

people, as we don't let people in,

unemployment might stay at a low enough

level that we could manage giving the

dishwasher jobs, the nanny jobs, the

ones that maybe were being done by

illegals, construction jobs, and we're

just going to have to pay more for

those. It's going to be $30, $40 an hour

jobs. So, America First might actually

be the solution to this displacement.

>> May I just say one thing? I first of

all, it makes me uncomfortable to hear

you use the term re-education.

>> Yeah. Sorry, I don't want that.

>> But um you know the the the awesome

power that AI gives

governments and other concentrations of

power over the population as a concern

particularly in the United States where

we have a bill of rights. And it seems

to me it would be important and I never

hear it raised to put in some guard

rails to protect the average powerless

person against surveillance or having

his rights taken away in effect famously

social credit. It's just too easy to

extract compliance from people with

technology this powerful. And of course,

the very obvious next 10 years looks

like this. There's a lot of disruption

because of the elimination of jobs,

particularly low-end jobs, but not only

low-end jobs like lawyers and stuff, the

the true revolutionaries in any society.

and then the technology itself is used

to keep the population under control through repression. Like I don't think

through repression. Like I don't think that's a crazy scenario at all.

that's a crazy scenario at all. >> You're aware that is the big

>> You're aware that is the big >> what are we doing about that?

>> what are we doing about that? >> Let me speak to this. So first of all I

>> Let me speak to this. So first of all I agree that that is the biggest risk of

agree that that is the biggest risk of AI is let's call it the Orwellian

AI is let's call it the Orwellian concerns as opposed to like the James

concerns as opposed to like the James Cameron Terminator concerns. Just as an

Cameron Terminator concerns. Just as an aside, I I agree actually with the Star

aside, I I agree actually with the Star Trek analogy that I think the right way

Trek analogy that I think the right way to think about AI, it's like the ship's

to think about AI, it's like the ship's computer in Star Trek where you can tell

computer in Star Trek where you can tell it what to do. It understands language

it what to do. It understands language and it can speak back to you, but it

and it can speak back to you, but it doesn't have a mind of its own. But that

doesn't have a mind of its own. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't be used by

doesn't mean that it couldn't be used by humans or governments in a oppressive

humans or governments in a oppressive way. And that's I think the biggest risk

way. And that's I think the biggest risk of it. And I think the track that we

of it. And I think the track that we were on at the end of the Biden

were on at the end of the Biden administration is that they were

administration is that they were starting to require that DEI be

starting to require that DEI be programmed into AI. And that should be

programmed into AI. And that should be seen as an attempt to kind of infiltrate

seen as an attempt to kind of infiltrate AI with ideology that then programs or

AI with ideology that then programs or brainwashes our kids and everyone who

brainwashes our kids and everyone who uses AI. And we were seeing that when

uses AI. And we were seeing that when Google rolled out their first product,

Google rolled out their first product, you had the whole black George

you had the whole black George Washington thing and black Nazis and all

Washington thing and black Nazis and all that kind of stuff. history was being

that kind of stuff. history was being rewritten in real time by AI in order to

rewritten in real time by AI in order to serve a political agenda. And that

serve a political agenda. And that didn't happen by accident. It's because

didn't happen by accident. It's because the values, the ideology was being

the values, the ideology was being programmed in.

programmed in. Now, I think that that was the track we

Now, I think that that was the track we were on before President Trump got

were on before President Trump got elected. I think it was a pretty scary

elected. I think it was a pretty scary track. And let me say one other thing is

track. And let me say one other thing is that that whole apparatus of so-called

that that whole apparatus of so-called trust and safety from social networking

trust and safety from social networking which is basically a big excuse for

which is basically a big excuse for censorship and shadow banning all of

censorship and shadow banning all of that was in the process of being ported

that was in the process of being ported over to these AI companies. And in fact

over to these AI companies. And in fact they even use some of this same

they even use some of this same terminology about like safety is really

terminology about like safety is really this like catchall term for a lot of

this like catchall term for a lot of things in the social networking context

things in the social networking context when they talked about safety. The idea

when they talked about safety. The idea was that users be confronted with ideas

was that users be confronted with ideas they didn't like and therefore that was

they didn't like and therefore that was a threat to their well-being. So

a threat to their well-being. So therefore we need a safety team to

therefore we need a safety team to censor those opinions.

censor those opinions. >> Safe space.

>> Safe space. >> Yes. And I think I think in a similar

>> Yes. And I think I think in a similar way like that whole safety apparatus was

way like that whole safety apparatus was in the process of being applied to AI

in the process of being applied to AI like we can't have users be confronted

like we can't have users be confronted with ideas

with ideas >> that they don't like.

>> that they don't like. >> Training data right Sax. I mean, if the

>> Training data right Sax. I mean, if the training data is a set of woke

training data is a set of woke ideologies and those are pervasive on

ideologies and those are pervasive on the open web, then as Elon pointed out

the open web, then as Elon pointed out in like I think an early version of

in like I think an early version of Grock, it was like if I misgender

Grock, it was like if I misgender somebody that's not as that's worse than

somebody that's not as that's worse than >> No, no, that's right. The early versions

>> No, no, that's right. The early versions bomb going off.

bomb going off. >> Yeah. No, the earlier versions of the

>> Yeah. No, the earlier versions of the model, you would ask it what is worse,

model, you would ask it what is worse, global thermonuclear war or misgendering

global thermonuclear war or misgendering Caitlyn Jenner? And the model would say

Caitlyn Jenner? And the model would say misgendering. So, and look, that

misgendering. So, and look, that ideology was coming from somewhere,

ideology was coming from somewhere, right?

right? >> War games. Yeah. So I think Tucker is

>> War games. Yeah. So I think Tucker is right that there is a real risk that AI

right that there is a real risk that AI is used by future governments or the

is used by future governments or the deep state basically to surveil us to

deep state basically to surveil us to censor us and even potentially to

censor us and even potentially to brainwash us cuz it is really good for

brainwash us cuz it is really good for that. It's not that I think the AI is

that. It's not that I think the AI is going to develop a mind of its own. I

going to develop a mind of its own. I don't think the technology is anywhere

don't think the technology is anywhere close to that. But I do think that it

close to that. But I do think that it could be used by the government in a

could be used by the government in a much more invasive and intrusive way in

much more invasive and intrusive way in the manner that that the government was

the manner that that the government was the deep state was already trying to get

the deep state was already trying to get in bed with the social networks.

in bed with the social networks. >> That's right. This is I think

>> That's right. This is I think >> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead.

>> Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> This this is the absolute biggest risk.

>> This this is the absolute biggest risk. Both of you guys nailed it on the head.

Both of you guys nailed it on the head. In the future when you have these really

In the future when you have these really powerful models, the reality is the

powerful models, the reality is the incentive for governments to try to

incentive for governments to try to infiltrate the information cycle. They

infiltrate the information cycle. They will not be able to hold themselves

will not be able to hold themselves back. And then what comes with that is a

back. And then what comes with that is a lack of privacy, a total loss of privacy

lack of privacy, a total loss of privacy and then a push towards censorship. So

and then a push towards censorship. So as these AIs become more powerful, we

as these AIs become more powerful, we have to marry it with a set of

have to marry it with a set of technologies that can preserve privacy

technologies that can preserve privacy and preserve access to monetary

and preserve access to monetary resources. If you look at the examples

resources. If you look at the examples today that we have,

today that we have, there's nothing you can do today,

there's nothing you can do today, nothing online that is not tracked. Now,

nothing online that is not tracked. Now, we have sets of rules that say that

we have sets of rules that say that tracking can't be shared. I'll give you

tracking can't be shared. I'll give you an example. I decide to buy a very

an example. I decide to buy a very sugary cereal. That is not shared with

sugary cereal. That is not shared with my insurance company that underwrites my

my insurance company that underwrites my health insurance. And there's all kinds

health insurance. And there's all kinds of laws that prevent that. But that's

of laws that prevent that. But that's just a flimsy law. That's a moment in

just a flimsy law. That's a moment in time that could change. If that decision

time that could change. If that decision were to change, now my buying patterns

were to change, now my buying patterns become subject to scrutiny. That could

become subject to scrutiny. That could also apply to how I consume information

also apply to how I consume information on these networks. So we have to find a

on these networks. So we have to find a way to make sure that you can transact.

way to make sure that you can transact. Right? The great thing about the US

Right? The great thing about the US dollar is when you get a dollar and you

dollar is when you get a dollar and you put it in your pocket, the physical

put it in your pocket, the physical dollar bill, it is completely funible.

dollar bill, it is completely funible. Nobody knows what it was used for in the

Nobody knows what it was used for in the past. Nobody can judge how you use it in

past. Nobody can judge how you use it in the present or in the future. And we

the present or in the future. And we have to find a way to replicate a

have to find a way to replicate a version of that so that you can preserve

version of that so that you can preserve privacy and minimize censorship. Because

privacy and minimize censorship. Because if you have to transact all day, every

if you have to transact all day, every day online for everything

day online for everything and there's no way to shield some amount

and there's no way to shield some amount of privacy, it's a very scary outcome.

of privacy, it's a very scary outcome. >> One other point on this is I do think

>> One other point on this is I do think that if you look at kind of who's

that if you look at kind of who's promoting a lot of these scary

promoting a lot of these scary narratives about AI, it is people on the

narratives about AI, it is people on the far left of the political spectrum.

far left of the political spectrum. Because when you create enough fear in a

Because when you create enough fear in a population, the people cry out for

population, the people cry out for government to intervene and save them.

government to intervene and save them. And I don't think it's a coincidence

And I don't think it's a coincidence that again that a lot of the the voices

that again that a lot of the the voices who are spreading this like doomer

who are spreading this like doomer ideology and saying that we need the AI

ideology and saying that we need the AI models to be reporting a lot more things

models to be reporting a lot more things to the government which is a stepping

to the government which is a stepping stone to surveillance

stone to surveillance or previously they had said we need to

or previously they had said we need to embed DEI in AI models or we need AI

embed DEI in AI models or we need AI models to prevent discrimination which

models to prevent discrimination which is kind of their back door for doing the

is kind of their back door for doing the same thing. They're on the left of the

same thing. They're on the left of the political spectrum. And I do kind of

political spectrum. And I do kind of worry that people on the right are

worry that people on the right are buying into this in a way that's

buying into this in a way that's actually going to lead to a lot of

actually going to lead to a lot of government intervention in a way that

government intervention in a way that actually could lead to the orient

actually could lead to the orient outcomes that we're talking about.

outcomes that we're talking about. >> Mhm.

>> Mhm. >> I don't think that people on the right

>> I don't think that people on the right who are concerned about civil liberties

who are concerned about civil liberties should want the government to play this

should want the government to play this super intrusive role in AI, if that

super intrusive role in AI, if that makes sense.

makes sense. >> Of course it does. Of course it does. I

>> Of course it does. Of course it does. I think you've got a lot of people

think you've got a lot of people suddenly in the United States who are

suddenly in the United States who are very sensitive about power and feel like

very sensitive about power and feel like their own power has eroded so

their own power has eroded so dramatically almost down to nothing.

dramatically almost down to nothing. Their economic power, their political

Their economic power, their political power, the power of their vote, the

power, the power of their vote, the power of the dollar in their pocket like

power of the dollar in their pocket like have all been really reduced and all of

have all been really reduced and all of a sudden you have a technology that

a sudden you have a technology that promises to concentrate power still

promises to concentrate power still further in the hands of people other

further in the hands of people other than them.

than them. >> And so they're they're touchy about it.

>> And so they're they're touchy about it. I mean they're definitely just freaked

I mean they're definitely just freaked out in general.

out in general. >> I agree.

>> I agree. >> Right. So that's that's the backdrop. So

>> Right. So that's that's the backdrop. So people who feel panics like that and I'm

people who feel panics like that and I'm I have power but I still I sympathize

I have power but I still I sympathize with it and I feel it to some extent

with it and I feel it to some extent >> there you know you're more open to to

>> there you know you're more open to to dumer scenarios when you feel that way

dumer scenarios when you feel that way and so it would be helpful. Yeah

and so it would be helpful. Yeah >> just to reassure people you will be

>> just to reassure people you will be protected and yes there is an upside for

protected and yes there is an upside for you. Yeah, look, I I agree with that and

you. Yeah, look, I I agree with that and I I think there's actually a couple

I I think there's actually a couple other things that account for like the

other things that account for like the visceral nature of the criticism because

visceral nature of the criticism because I'm on the receiving end of a lot of it

I'm on the receiving end of a lot of it right now, so I I see it. Um, so one of

right now, so I I see it. Um, so one of them is when people hear AI, they think

them is when people hear AI, they think that's not me. Like that doesn't include

that's not me. Like that doesn't include me, right? So there's all these benefits

me, right? So there's all these benefits that are so supposedly being created,

that are so supposedly being created, but I'm not going to participate in

but I'm not going to participate in that. In fact, I might even lose my job.

that. In fact, I might even lose my job. This is why I think it's like pretty

This is why I think it's like pretty important to get out the message about

important to get out the message about how the whole country potentially

how the whole country potentially benefits from this, not just a small

benefits from this, not just a small click in Silicon Valley.

click in Silicon Valley. >> Have you come up with examples of it,

>> Have you come up with examples of it, Sax? Like how the country benefits from

Sax? Like how the country benefits from it?

it? >> Well, sure. I mean, there's an article

>> Well, sure. I mean, there's an article that didn't we cover last week, the the

that didn't we cover last week, the the Wall Street Journal talking about how

Wall Street Journal talking about how construction workers have seen their

construction workers have seen their wages increase 30%. Because of the data

wages increase 30%. Because of the data center buildout,

center buildout, >> I mean, we are seeing a huge

>> I mean, we are seeing a huge infrastructure boom throughout the

infrastructure boom throughout the country on energy production and

country on energy production and construction that's related to this. And

construction that's related to this. And so it's not just software where people

so it's not just software where people are benefiting. But the other thing I

are benefiting. But the other thing I think that's very visceral on the right

think that's very visceral on the right is that the hatred of big tech quite

is that the hatred of big tech quite frankly. I mean a lot of conservative

frankly. I mean a lot of conservative influencers were directly censored and

influencers were directly censored and shadowbanned during this co period

shadowbanned during this co period especially where the big tech companies

especially where the big tech companies you know in the b administration were

you know in the b administration were really coming down on them and censoring

really coming down on them and censoring them and there's still a lot of hatred

them and there's still a lot of hatred towards big tech.

towards big tech. I think some of that's even misplaced,

I think some of that's even misplaced, but there's been like almost like a

but there's been like almost like a transference. Also, with social media, a

transference. Also, with social media, a lot of people have concerns about what

lot of people have concerns about what social media is doing to kids, body

social media is doing to kids, body image concerns or

image concerns or fear of online predators, all that kind

fear of online predators, all that kind of stuff. And I don't think it's an

of stuff. And I don't think it's an analogous situation with AI chatbots

analogous situation with AI chatbots because you're not meeting people,

because you're not meeting people, you're kind of doing research. It's like

you're kind of doing research. It's like a whole different activity. But I think

a whole different activity. But I think there's almost like a transference of

there's almost like a transference of anger or anxiety or fear from what

anger or anxiety or fear from what happened over the last decade or two

happened over the last decade or two with social media or with again like

with social media or with again like these online platforms and that's being

these online platforms and that's being transferred over to these new AI

transferred over to these new AI platforms. Even though I don't think

platforms. Even though I don't think they're precisely analogous and the

they're precisely analogous and the regulations should be looked at a little

regulations should be looked at a little bit differently.

bit differently. >> Let me Jason give you some credit. I do

>> Let me Jason give you some credit. I do think you've put your finger on the

think you've put your finger on the pulse of what the problem is. Whether we

pulse of what the problem is. Whether we call it a perception or a misperception,

call it a perception or a misperception, the point is people are afraid for jobs

the point is people are afraid for jobs of their jobs. That I agree with you. I

of their jobs. That I agree with you. I think the data about what has happened

think the data about what has happened though is is pretty flimsy that it

though is is pretty flimsy that it actually has seen a bunch of job loss.

actually has seen a bunch of job loss. For example, when we got home from the

For example, when we got home from the Christmas party, Sachs last night, I

Christmas party, Sachs last night, I turned on CNBC and it was Jim Kramer and

turned on CNBC and it was Jim Kramer and he was interviewing this wonderful guy

he was interviewing this wonderful guy who I'd never heard speak before, but

who I'd never heard speak before, but he's the the founder and chairman of

he's the the founder and chairman of Service Titan. And he had this very

Service Titan. And he had this very elegant way of describing it, which is

elegant way of describing it, which is AI will put the jobs that are purely

AI will put the jobs that are purely cognitive at risk. But when you marry

cognitive at risk. But when you marry cognitive ability with physical

cognitive ability with physical dexterity, those jobs are thriving. And

dexterity, those jobs are thriving. And he talked about construction workers,

he talked about construction workers, plumbers, electricians. In fact, this

plumbers, electricians. In fact, this week when I was in Abu Dhabi, we were

week when I was in Abu Dhabi, we were talking about the transformation of

talking about the transformation of power, right? and that these

power, right? and that these electricians now get paid five six 7

electricians now get paid five six 7 $800,000 a year which by the way just

$800,000 a year which by the way just FYI is more than most engineers in

FYI is more than most engineers in Silicon Valley. Okay, these guys are the

Silicon Valley. Okay, these guys are the ones that are actually winning but the

ones that are actually winning but the stories are not told and then the

stories are not told and then the incentives aren't there. And so there's

incentives aren't there. And so there's a bunch of things that I think need to

a bunch of things that I think need to happen to highlight where the success

happen to highlight where the success stories are. They're not the obvious

stories are. They're not the obvious places that one would think. It's not

places that one would think. It's not just some engineer tickling the keyboard

just some engineer tickling the keyboard making millions of dollars and putting

making millions of dollars and putting people out of work. That's not what's

people out of work. That's not what's happening.

happening. But I don't think the story is told. And

But I don't think the story is told. And so the palpable fear of job loss is

so the palpable fear of job loss is there. To your point, I do agree with

there. To your point, I do agree with you, Jason. That is the overriding

you, Jason. That is the overriding narrative that we have to with data and

narrative that we have to with data and facts convince people of what is

facts convince people of what is actually happening. There is definitely

actually happening. There is definitely a narrative that's ahead of the job

a narrative that's ahead of the job loss. And the question is what pace will

loss. And the question is what pace will it happen at? when people are seeing

it happen at? when people are seeing young people having a hard time getting

young people having a hard time getting jobs and you know for whatever reason

jobs and you know for whatever reason but I I I suspect it's AI when they see

but I I I suspect it's AI when they see firms like Amazon estimating estimating

firms like Amazon estimating estimating in the future they're going to eliminate

in the future they're going to eliminate these 600,000 jobs and that leaks and

these 600,000 jobs and that leaks and that they're going to do a PR campaign

that they're going to do a PR campaign about it when you see drive-throughs

about it when you see drive-throughs moving to AI and when you see a third of

moving to AI and when you see a third of rides in San Francisco and LA move to

rides in San Francisco and LA move to Whimo without the driver in it it's

Whimo without the driver in it it's really hard to say it's not happening so

really hard to say it's not happening so We're just on a different It's a matter

We're just on a different It's a matter of what timeline it's happening on. You

of what timeline it's happening on. You can't have it both ways where, you know,

can't have it both ways where, you know, these companies are raising billions of

these companies are raising billions of dollars and they're replacing jobs and

dollars and they're replacing jobs and saying, "Hey, these jobs are going to be

saying, "Hey, these jobs are going to be 10 times more efficient or we're going

10 times more efficient or we're going to replace your driver and we're going

to replace your driver and we're going to replace your cashier." I see that

to replace your cashier." I see that >> as an early stage investor in founder

>> as an early stage investor in founder university. I see it every day. Company,

university. I see it every day. Company, hold on, let me finish, please,

hold on, let me finish, please, gentlemen. People are pitching me on

gentlemen. People are pitching me on startups and they're getting funded for

startups and they're getting funded for these startups to specifically replace

these startups to specifically replace roles and they're saying, "We want to

roles and they're saying, "We want to make the perfect sales development rep.

make the perfect sales development rep. We want to make the perfect customer

We want to make the perfect customer support agent and enterprise customers

support agent and enterprise customers are agreeing with them and buying these

are agreeing with them and buying these products and services specifically to

products and services specifically to stop hiring and increasing their

stop hiring and increasing their headcount. I see it on the front lines.

headcount. I see it on the front lines. It is definitely happening. The only

It is definitely happening. The only difference is timelines and can we

difference is timelines and can we create enough jobs? This is why I think

create enough jobs? This is why I think we've done a bad job of explaining it.

we've done a bad job of explaining it. We need to explain for every one of

We need to explain for every one of those robo taxies that gets out there

those robo taxies that gets out there and that job is gone.

and that job is gone. >> How do we get that person another job?

>> How do we get that person another job? Because they're not going to get the job

Because they're not going to get the job as a cashier at Starbucks anymore cuz

as a cashier at Starbucks anymore cuz that's going AI too.

that's going AI too. >> Here's a very practical idea. Yesterday

>> Here's a very practical idea. Yesterday I was at the Senate to just talk about

I was at the Senate to just talk about this. What is the idea? I think we have

this. What is the idea? I think we have to start looking very honestly at

to start looking very honestly at stopping the federal underwriting of

stopping the federal underwriting of student loans. Why? Because it would

student loans. Why? Because it would allow the market to move very quickly to

allow the market to move very quickly to your reality, Jason. Because we would go

your reality, Jason. Because we would go beyond just funding somebody to become a

beyond just funding somebody to become a master electrician. I suspect that we

master electrician. I suspect that we would pay people. Yes, I bet if you went

would pay people. Yes, I bet if you went to Google, they would not only subsidize

to Google, they would not only subsidize you, they would probably pay you a

you, they would probably pay you a salary to get educated to do that job

salary to get educated to do that job because once you graduated and you could

because once you graduated and you could work up the ranks and become a master

work up the ranks and become a master electrician, there is so much work that

electrician, there is so much work that for example Google needs, Amazon needs,

for example Google needs, Amazon needs, Microsoft needs. And so if you

Microsoft needs. And so if you eliminated the federal underwriting, we

eliminated the federal underwriting, we don't have it for car insurance. We

don't have it for car insurance. We don't have it for home mortgages. We

don't have it for home mortgages. We allow the free market to tell us this

allow the free market to tell us this home is more risky than that home

home is more risky than that home because it's near a fire area. This

because it's near a fire area. This person is a poorer driver than that

person is a poorer driver than that other person. We should allow the free

other person. We should allow the free market to say go to this kind of a job

market to say go to this kind of a job and you'll get paid so much, but go to

and you'll get paid so much, but go to this other kind of a degree. It will

this other kind of a degree. It will cost you a lot of money. And let people

cost you a lot of money. And let people decide with more clarity. But that one

decide with more clarity. But that one thing would allow us to reinforce what

thing would allow us to reinforce what the economic upside of AI is in a very

the economic upside of AI is in a very practical way for a lot of people and it

practical way for a lot of people and it would solve this student debt crisis

would solve this student debt crisis that we're in.

that we're in. >> Sax, should there be a license fee or a

>> Sax, should there be a license fee or a tax? This has been floated by people.

tax? This has been floated by people. I'm not saying this is my position,

I'm not saying this is my position, >> but should there be a tax on having a

>> but should there be a tax on having a robo taxi or a humanoid robot that is

robo taxi or a humanoid robot that is then used to retrain actual humans?

then used to retrain actual humans? Look, I I think first we just need to

Look, I I think first we just need to start with some accurate facts here. And

start with some accurate facts here. And we need to explain what's what's

we need to explain what's what's happening. And part of that is debunking

happening. And part of that is debunking some myths around this. Now, I remember

some myths around this. Now, I remember about a month ago there was a whole wave

about a month ago there was a whole wave of very scary headlines, including in a

of very scary headlines, including in a publication I really like, the New York

publication I really like, the New York Post. Nick, maybe you can put this on

Post. Nick, maybe you can put this on the screen, claiming that AI was

the screen, claiming that AI was wreaking havoc on US jobs. So, this was

wreaking havoc on US jobs. So, this was a headline from the New York Post last

a headline from the New York Post last month based on the October

month based on the October report from Challenger Gray, which

report from Challenger Gray, which basically tabulates announced layoffs in

basically tabulates announced layoffs in the economy. And we had a spike in

the economy. And we had a spike in October and about 20% of those were

October and about 20% of those were attributed to AI. It wasn't even the

attributed to AI. It wasn't even the majority. It was actually a relatively

majority. It was actually a relatively small number. It wasn't even the number

small number. It wasn't even the number one reason. But based on this, you got a

one reason. But based on this, you got a wave of scare headlines that AI was

wave of scare headlines that AI was wreaking havoc on US jobs. Well, lo and

wreaking havoc on US jobs. Well, lo and behold, the November challenger grade

behold, the November challenger grade report has come out and it makes clear

report has come out and it makes clear that October was an anomalous spike. The

that October was an anomalous spike. The number fell by 53% and only about 6,000

number fell by 53% and only about 6,000 of the layoffs that were announced in

of the layoffs that were announced in November in the entire country were

November in the entire country were attributable to AI. This is only

attributable to AI. This is only layoffs, by the way. It doesn't include

layoffs, by the way. It doesn't include job creations. Okay, so only 6,000. And

job creations. Okay, so only 6,000. And if you look at the year to date in the

if you look at the year to date in the Challenger Gray report, AI has only

Challenger Gray report, AI has only accounted for 4.7%

accounted for 4.7% of total layoffs. And that number is

of total layoffs. And that number is self-reported by CEOs. So my guess is

self-reported by CEOs. So my guess is it's inflated because if you're a CEO,

it's inflated because if you're a CEO, you'd rather blame AI for your company's

you'd rather blame AI for your company's non-performance rather than yourself. So

non-performance rather than yourself. So 4.7% is probably the high number. So

4.7% is probably the high number. So what we're actually seeing in the data

what we're actually seeing in the data is a very small number of actual layoffs

is a very small number of actual layoffs related to AI and that was corroborated

related to AI and that was corroborated by a new study by Yale Budget Lab which

by a new study by Yale Budget Lab which looked at the first 33 months after the

looked at the first 33 months after the release of Chat GPT and it said there is

release of Chat GPT and it said there is no discernable disruption in the labor

no discernable disruption in the labor market. Okay. So that's I think a really

market. Okay. So that's I think a really important fact is regardless of what you

important fact is regardless of what you want to claim will happen in the future

want to claim will happen in the future job loss has not happened yet. not in

job loss has not happened yet. not in any meaningful numbers and in fact AI

any meaningful numbers and in fact AI has been responsible for about half of

has been responsible for about half of GDP growth this year. So GDP growth is

GDP growth this year. So GDP growth is about 4%. That number would be at 2% if

about 4%. That number would be at 2% if it weren't for AI. So within that is a

it weren't for AI. So within that is a lot of job creation. You see that again

lot of job creation. You see that again with construction workers. So it's just

with construction workers. So it's just not the case that AI is creating job

not the case that AI is creating job loss in any meaningful way right now.

loss in any meaningful way right now. And people do this Mott and Bailey thing

And people do this Mott and Bailey thing where they're like, well AI is creating

where they're like, well AI is creating tons of disruption. It's wreaking havoc.

tons of disruption. It's wreaking havoc. And then you point these facts out and

And then you point these facts out and say, "No, no, I mean in the future it's

say, "No, no, I mean in the future it's going to." But then they revert to,

going to." But then they revert to, "Well, no, it must be happening now,

"Well, no, it must be happening now, right? The disruption is so profound."

right? The disruption is so profound." So look, we can all argue about what's

So look, we can all argue about what's going to happen in the future, but right

going to happen in the future, but right now it's not. And if you're going to

now it's not. And if you're going to talk about the future, the time frames

talk about the future, the time frames matter a lot because obviously we've

matter a lot because obviously we've always had technological change in the

always had technological change in the economy and it does change people's job.

economy and it does change people's job. But if those changes are happening over

But if those changes are happening over 20 or 30 years, that's very different

20 or 30 years, that's very different than the next 5 years. And I really

than the next 5 years. And I really don't think you know how fast the

don't think you know how fast the disruption is going to be and how much

disruption is going to be and how much time people are going to have to react

time people are going to have to react and for new jobs to be created. I'll

and for new jobs to be created. I'll give you an example. Back in the 90s, I

give you an example. Back in the 90s, I remember when they said that brick and

remember when they said that brick and mortar was going completely out of

mortar was going completely out of business. That was part of the reason

business. That was part of the reason why we had the first do bubble in 99 was

why we had the first do bubble in 99 was that, hey, everything's going to the

that, hey, everything's going to the internet. It's going to go pets.com

internet. It's going to go pets.com instead of Toys R Us and so forth and so

instead of Toys R Us and so forth and so on. And people thought that bricks and

on. And people thought that bricks and mortar was going to be out of business

mortar was going to be out of business within 5 years. Well, it's literally 30

within 5 years. Well, it's literally 30 years later and bricks and mortar is

years later and bricks and mortar is still a thing. I mean, it's not

still a thing. I mean, it's not blockbuster.

blockbuster. >> No, look, it hasn't been a great

>> No, look, it hasn't been a great business. I mean, like, Amazon has been

business. I mean, like, Amazon has been super successful and you know, you did

super successful and you know, you did not want to own Toys R Us, but bricks

not want to own Toys R Us, but bricks and mortar is still around. Walmart's

and mortar is still around. Walmart's still around. The change is still

still around. The change is still ongoing. And I think that's what's most

ongoing. And I think that's what's most likely going to happen here is this this

likely going to happen here is this this technology is going to create a

technology is going to create a productivity boom. I don't think the

productivity boom. I don't think the main thing it's going to do is cause job

main thing it's going to do is cause job loss. It's going to have lots of

loss. It's going to have lots of different impact on our lives and we're

different impact on our lives and we're going to have time to adapt. I don't

going to have time to adapt. I don't think this is a two to three year time

think this is a two to three year time frame thing.

frame thing. >> This will be the debate of our

>> This will be the debate of our lifetimes. I predict

lifetimes. I predict >> but look I mean if I'm wrong we'll find

>> but look I mean if I'm wrong we'll find out in the next 5 years. But what I just

out in the next 5 years. But what I just really resist is this Mott and Bailey

really resist is this Mott and Bailey thing where people are like this is

thing where people are like this is happening right now and then they no no

happening right now and then they no no this is going to happen in the future.

this is going to happen in the future. Be clear.

Be clear. >> I think you're wrong. But I think the

>> I think you're wrong. But I think the summary of this point is the following

summary of this point is the following which is the facts today don't bear out

which is the facts today don't bear out the bear case. But the perception is

the bear case. But the perception is that people are afraid. And married with

that people are afraid. And married with that is that we as an industry and I

that is that we as an industry and I don't actually blame it on you because

don't actually blame it on you because you had to clean up all kinds of

you had to clean up all kinds of craziness that the Biden era left. So I

craziness that the Biden era left. So I think you've done a great job. But our

think you've done a great job. But our industry needs better spokesman. I mean,

industry needs better spokesman. I mean, we talked about this after our tech

we talked about this after our tech dinner. There needs to be a way for a

dinner. There needs to be a way for a handful of people who can really

handful of people who can really represent the future in an articulate

represent the future in an articulate way

way >> that people believe. And I think we do

>> that people believe. And I think we do need to do that. We can't have the CEOs

need to do that. We can't have the CEOs of these companies

of these companies seem either sketchy on the one hand or

seem either sketchy on the one hand or too focused on material consumption on

too focused on material consumption on the other. It's just bad. It's a bad

the other. It's just bad. It's a bad look.

look. >> I agree with you. But think about the

>> I agree with you. But think about the two biggest narratives that created this

two biggest narratives that created this fear and resentment towards AI. I would

fear and resentment towards AI. I would say it's the AGI narrative and the time

say it's the AGI narrative and the time frames now are people are pushing them

frames now are people are pushing them back. Right. That was there's one

back. Right. That was there's one there's one called a famous project

there's one called a famous project called AI 2027

called AI 2027 where they were predicting AGI in 2027

where they were predicting AGI in 2027 and now they've pushed their time frames

and now they've pushed their time frames back into the 2030s. Look, you know,

back into the 2030s. Look, you know, once your time frames are over 10 years,

once your time frames are over 10 years, we know from the tech industry then

we know from the tech industry then >> you have no idea. You have no idea. But

>> you have no idea. You have no idea. But it was that it was AGI and job loss and

it was that it was AGI and job loss and and I would say current current profound

and I would say current current profound disruption and job loss. And both those

disruption and job loss. And both those narratives I think have been debunked in

narratives I think have been debunked in the last several months.

the last several months. >> Final chart, Nick, you can pull it up

>> Final chart, Nick, you can pull it up here. This is just Fred. Unemployment

here. This is just Fred. Unemployment rate 16 to 24 year olds. This is the one

rate 16 to 24 year olds. This is the one I think you should watch. 9% in January,

I think you should watch. 9% in January, now 10 a.5%. I think this chart's going

now 10 a.5%. I think this chart's going right up to 14%. Just my prediction and

right up to 14%. Just my prediction and I think it's because of AI. Tucker, I'll

I think it's because of AI. Tucker, I'll give you the final thoughts on this and

give you the final thoughts on this and then we're going to start everybody's

then we're going to start everybody's favorite game, Tucker in 20 where we do

favorite game, Tucker in 20 where we do a lightning round with Tucker Carlson.

a lightning round with Tucker Carlson. Tucker in 20 coming up. Any final

Tucker in 20 coming up. Any final thoughts on this?

thoughts on this? >> Well, I was just thinking about the

>> Well, I was just thinking about the consequence of I mean, having lived

consequence of I mean, having lived through Y2K and Obama, Y2K we thought

through Y2K and Obama, Y2K we thought was going to be a disaster. Obama people

was going to be a disaster. Obama people thought was going to be great. Both, you

thought was going to be great. Both, you know, were the opposite of what we

know, were the opposite of what we imagined.

imagined. >> I don't know that it's possible to

>> I don't know that it's possible to predict the effects of this. But I guess

predict the effects of this. But I guess my one worry which I would just I I

my one worry which I would just I I think that people all people especially

think that people all people especially men need to feel useful and the thing

men need to feel useful and the thing that's offended me most about the about

that's offended me most about the about the AI conversation is not the AGI stuff

the AI conversation is not the AGI stuff which always seemed a little bit

which always seemed a little bit fantastical to me. It's the it's UBI.

fantastical to me. It's the it's UBI. It's the idea you could just like pay

It's the idea you could just like pay people to be content or something. And

people to be content or something. And having grown up both around inherited

having grown up both around inherited money and welfare, you know, both are,

money and welfare, you know, both are, you know, two sides of the same coin.

you know, two sides of the same coin. People need to feel like they're

People need to feel like they're contributing and that their lives have

contributing and that their lives have meaning. And I don't know. I just hope I

meaning. And I don't know. I just hope I hope people are thinking about that a

hope people are thinking about that a lot.

lot. >> Yeah, I agree with you.

>> Yeah, I agree with you. >> By the way, that that whole UBI

>> By the way, that that whole UBI narrative, I think Sam was like towning

narrative, I think Sam was like towning that a couple years ago.

that a couple years ago. >> He funded it. He funded a study.

>> He funded it. He funded a study. >> It made this whole thing so much worse

>> It made this whole thing so much worse because again, it was playing into this

because again, it was playing into this idea that everyone's going to be put out

idea that everyone's going to be put out of work and that's a good thing and

of work and that's a good thing and you'll just get welfare from the

you'll just get welfare from the government. And who would want that? You

government. And who would want that? You know, it's not if that's not the side

know, it's not if that's not the side you want. Now, I mean I mean where I

you want. Now, I mean I mean where I disagree with my friends on the right is

disagree with my friends on the right is I just don't think that's what's gonna

I just don't think that's what's gonna happen. I mean, I could be wrong, but I

happen. I mean, I could be wrong, but I just don't think that's what's

just don't think that's what's happening. It hasn't happened yet. I

happening. It hasn't happened yet. I don't think that's what's going to

don't think that's what's going to happen. But look, I agree with them

happen. But look, I agree with them about the undesirability of that world

about the undesirability of that world very much.

very much. >> All right, Tucker and 20, your thoughts

>> All right, Tucker and 20, your thoughts on You can take up to 30 seconds, but

on You can take up to 30 seconds, but Tucker and 20 sounds better. Tucker in

Tucker and 20 sounds better. Tucker in 20. What do you think of Venezuela

20. What do you think of Venezuela uh these boats and then seizing the oil

uh these boats and then seizing the oil tanker? Why are we doing this? Why are

tanker? Why are we doing this? Why are we so active in Venezuela, Tucker?

we so active in Venezuela, Tucker? >> No freaking idea. But I do know that if

>> No freaking idea. But I do know that if it becomes a real war, people are going

it becomes a real war, people are going to be shocked and it's the last thing

to be shocked and it's the last thing the country needs.

the country needs. >> There's I mean the the number one

>> There's I mean the the number one requirement of war is that you explain

requirement of war is that you explain to your population why you're doing it.

to your population why you're doing it. Even if you're lying about it. Even if

Even if you're lying about it. Even if it's like, "Oh, they have weapons of

it's like, "Oh, they have weapons of mass destruction. We'll find them once

mass destruction. We'll find them once we invade."

we invade." Everyone mocks that, but at least it was

Everyone mocks that, but at least it was like a real rationale that allowed the

like a real rationale that allowed the country to unite behind the invasion.

country to unite behind the invasion. That groundwork has not been laid. The

That groundwork has not been laid. The drug stuff, everyone's against drugs.

drug stuff, everyone's against drugs. They're not coming from Venezuela

They're not coming from Venezuela primarily, as we know. So, they're

primarily, as we know. So, they're coming from Mexico. I'm not advocating

coming from Mexico. I'm not advocating for an invasion of Mexico. There may be

for an invasion of Mexico. There may be a good reason to have a war with

a good reason to have a war with Venezuela, but I think it's it would be

Venezuela, but I think it's it would be now would be the time to roll it out if

now would be the time to roll it out if in fact we are going to have one. My

in fact we are going to have one. My sense is we're probably not. This is all

sense is we're probably not. This is all an effort to get Maduro to leave. I

an effort to get Maduro to leave. I don't think he's leaving. So, I hope we

don't think he's leaving. So, I hope we can live with that. But I I just don't

can live with that. But I I just don't think right now is the time for a ground

think right now is the time for a ground war in South America.

war in South America. >> You've been very excited about the

>> You've been very excited about the potential of Qatar being a deeper ally

potential of Qatar being a deeper ally of the United States and you're buying a

of the United States and you're buying a place there. Uh why are you so why are

place there. Uh why are you so why are you soar

you soar to mix?

to mix? >> I'm not I'm not I mean of course anyone

>> I'm not I'm not I mean of course anyone who who travels to the Gulf can tell you

who who travels to the Gulf can tell you there's something amazing happening

there's something amazing happening there. And it's not just about money.

there. And it's not just about money. It's about openness, but I'm an

It's about openness, but I'm an American. I'm not going anywhere. I have

American. I'm not going anywhere. I have one passport. I'm buying a house in

one passport. I'm buying a house in guitar. To make the simple point, I've

guitar. To make the simple point, I've been attacked for being a tool of guitar

been attacked for being a tool of guitar paid by guitar. I've never taken a

paid by guitar. I've never taken a dollar from Qar or anyone else. I have

dollar from Qar or anyone else. I have no investors and no debt. So, I'm not

no investors and no debt. So, I'm not into taking money from people, but I

into taking money from people, but I wanted to turn it around and be a net

wanted to turn it around and be a net investor in Qar in order to take control

investor in Qar in order to take control of Qatari propaganda in order to say,

of Qatari propaganda in order to say, "No, they haven't bought me. I've bought

"No, they haven't bought me. I've bought them." and I'm texting them my talking

them." and I'm texting them my talking points and they're repeating them and

points and they're repeating them and that's what I plan to say the second I

that's what I plan to say the second I close on my house.

close on my house. >> Uh Candace Owen, Charlie Kirk's

>> Uh Candace Owen, Charlie Kirk's assassination, conspiracy theory. What's

assassination, conspiracy theory. What's your take?

your take? >> I think it's important for I mean look,

>> I think it's important for I mean look, in the end it's the job of federal law

in the end it's the job of federal law enforcement to find out who did it and

enforcement to find out who did it and then explain it to the public in a way

then explain it to the public in a way that makes sense and can be proven. And

that makes sense and can be proven. And I really hope that will happen soon. So

I really hope that will happen soon. So they're they're part like in any any I

they're they're part like in any any I mean I was a crime reporter. I wrote a

mean I was a crime reporter. I wrote a book on this. There's in any aftermath

book on this. There's in any aftermath of any crime, there are anomalies, weird

of any crime, there are anomalies, weird coincidences, things you can't fully

coincidences, things you can't fully explain. I mean, the closer you look at

explain. I mean, the closer you look at anything, the more complex it reveals

anything, the more complex it reveals itself to be. So, that's certainly true

itself to be. So, that's certainly true here. But because of the nature of this

here. But because of the nature of this murder of our friend, um, I think it's

murder of our friend, um, I think it's all the more important to make sure the

all the more important to make sure the public understands

public understands who did this and and why. And I would

who did this and and why. And I would say the FBI doesn't have a lot of

say the FBI doesn't have a lot of credibility. It's not the fault of Cash

credibility. It's not the fault of Cash Patel and Dan Banchino. They inherited

Patel and Dan Banchino. They inherited an agency with basically no credibility

an agency with basically no credibility that's has a documented history of

that's has a documented history of manufacturing crime. So like it's not

manufacturing crime. So like it's not enough to say the FBI says it. You have

enough to say the FBI says it. You have to explain how. And I'm not even

to explain how. And I'm not even doubting the the core case they're

doubting the the core case they're making. But if they are telling me that

making. But if they are telling me that this was a lone gunman, that no one else

this was a lone gunman, that no one else was implicated in this crime, I think

was implicated in this crime, I think it's fair to ask like how did you reach

it's fair to ask like how did you reach that conclusion? And did you look at

that conclusion? And did you look at this that and the other thing? And I

this that and the other thing? And I don't think we should be intimidated out

don't think we should be intimidated out of asking those questions. Those are not

of asking those questions. Those are not unpatriotic questions. Those are

unpatriotic questions. Those are questions that I think uh you know

questions that I think uh you know express our uh reverence for Charlie

express our uh reverence for Charlie Kirk. This is a way to honor him and any

Kirk. This is a way to honor him and any American who's murdered. So

American who's murdered. So >> sorry. By the way, just on this if

>> sorry. By the way, just on this if anybody has not watched Tucker's

anybody has not watched Tucker's documentary

documentary >> Yep.

>> Yep. >> about the Butler, Pennsylvania shooter,

>> about the Butler, Pennsylvania shooter, I can't remember his name.

I can't remember his name. >> We're memorizing that anyway. So, please

>> We're memorizing that anyway. So, please don't ask any questions.

don't ask any questions. >> Yeah. What happened with that? Jeez. I

>> Yeah. What happened with that? Jeez. I thought your documentary was pretty

thought your documentary was pretty kick-ass. Worth.

kick-ass. Worth. >> Well, thank you. And it just I mean it

>> Well, thank you. And it just I mean it look

look >> it was really good.

>> it was really good. >> We we asked obvious questions, couldn't

>> We we asked obvious questions, couldn't get straightforward answers. I do think

get straightforward answers. I do think the more

the more >> you did more than this. I have to give

>> you did more than this. I have to give you credit because you were able to

you credit because you were able to scrub internet searches. You went back

scrub internet searches. You went back to the way back machine. There was a

to the way back machine. There was a level of detail because my

level of detail because my interpretation was it seemed like you

interpretation was it seemed like you guys were afraid of just getting sh on

guys were afraid of just getting sh on from everybody. And so you went to the

from everybody. And so you went to the point of making sure that this stuff was

point of making sure that this stuff was irrefutable fact. And you had a level of

irrefutable fact. And you had a level of detail in there, which I hadn't seen in

detail in there, which I hadn't seen in an investigative research piece in a

an investigative research piece in a long time. I do encourage people to

long time. I do encourage people to watch it. I thought it was very good.

watch it. I thought it was very good. >> Well, the good news about being

>> Well, the good news about being universally hated is it keeps your

universally hated is it keeps your standards higher um because you can't

standards higher um because you can't afford, you know, to make too many

afford, you know, to make too many mistakes. No, but we can't have too

mistakes. No, but we can't have too many, you know, high-profile murders or

many, you know, high-profile murders or attempted murders that don't have firm,

attempted murders that don't have firm, believable resolutions. The the the

believable resolutions. The the the social fabric can't handle that because

social fabric can't handle that because then people become totally postmodern in

then people become totally postmodern in their thinking and don't believe

their thinking and don't believe anything. So, that's incumbent on

anything. So, that's incumbent on federal authorities to reassure us.

federal authorities to reassure us. >> Tucker, if you are running the

>> Tucker, if you are running the Republican campaign going into the

Republican campaign going into the midterms, what do you do the same? What

midterms, what do you do the same? What do you do more of and what do you do

do you do more of and what do you do less of? Well, I would, you know, I' I'd

less of? Well, I would, you know, I' I'd focus on domestic economic issues to the

focus on domestic economic issues to the exclusion of everything else. I would

exclusion of everything else. I would and um I would I think that's that's the

and um I would I think that's that's the main concern. It's always the main

main concern. It's always the main concern. Now, I'm entering into very

concern. Now, I'm entering into very benal territory because I'm repeating

benal territory because I'm repeating every uh you know obvious observation in

every uh you know obvious observation in the past 100 years in American politics.

the past 100 years in American politics. But people do care about that and they

But people do care about that and they are concerned. AI is part of that

are concerned. AI is part of that probably not in its reality but in its

probably not in its reality but in its expectation and it's the fears that

expectation and it's the fears that people have about what's coming. Um, and

people have about what's coming. Um, and so I would I would try to address those

so I would I would try to address those issues at least by explaining them. I do

issues at least by explaining them. I do think like well I'm in the explaining

think like well I'm in the explaining business so I'm biased but 80% of the

business so I'm biased but 80% of the problem this is true in marriage and

problem this is true in marriage and child rearing and governing as well. You

child rearing and governing as well. You need to explain what you're doing,

need to explain what you're doing, what's going to happen. I'm going to

what's going to happen. I'm going to give you the shot. Count backwards from

give you the shot. Count backwards from 10. By seven you're going to be asleep.

10. By seven you're going to be asleep. When you wake up you'll be fixed. Like

When you wake up you'll be fixed. Like that's what they tell you in surgery.

that's what they tell you in surgery. And they tell you that for a reason.

And they tell you that for a reason. They don't just roll you into a dark

They don't just roll you into a dark room and start injecting you with stuff.

room and start injecting you with stuff. They walk you through it. And that's

They walk you through it. And that's enormously reassuring. In fact, it's

enormously reassuring. In fact, it's critical. And so, we just need a lot

critical. And so, we just need a lot more of that from everyone and not just

more of that from everyone and not just government, but people with a platform

government, but people with a platform explaining what the hell is going on

explaining what the hell is going on because we're getting to a place where

because we're getting to a place where trust is vanishingly rare and that's

trust is vanishingly rare and that's bad. That creates volatility. After 3

bad. That creates volatility. After 3 hours with Milo Yiannopoulos,

hours with Milo Yiannopoulos, is homosexuality nature or nurture a

is homosexuality nature or nurture a trauma response? And David Freeberg

trauma response? And David Freeberg wants to know,

wants to know, >> why are you so gay?

>> why are you so gay? >> Why are you gay?

>> Why are you gay? >> Why are

>> Why are >> Why are you gay? I just wanted to do an

>> Why are you gay? I just wanted to do an interview where I could quote my

interview where I could quote my favorite uh Nigerian but um no I mean

favorite uh Nigerian but um no I mean well clearly it's not nature at least

well clearly it's not nature at least primarily or we wouldn't be having an

primarily or we wouldn't be having an absolute rise in it and there would be

absolute rise in it and there would be some hint of a gene responsible for it.

some hint of a gene responsible for it. I mean so many different um you know

I mean so many different um you know genetic manifestations have been

genetic manifestations have been isolated from the from the decoding of

isolated from the from the decoding of the human genome and that we're not you

the human genome and that we're not you know so no clearly it is primarily um

know so no clearly it is primarily um nurture that's not an attack on anyone

nurture that's not an attack on anyone doesn't make it any less real I'm not

doesn't make it any less real I'm not saying it's fake of course it's the

saying it's fake of course it's the opposite of fake it's very very real um

opposite of fake it's very very real um and it's not even a value judgment it's

and it's not even a value judgment it's just an observation I I think on the

just an observation I I think on the question of sexuality and gender it's

question of sexuality and gender it's best to depoliticize it. It's been so

best to depoliticize it. It's been so politicized, you can't even have an

politicized, you can't even have an honest conversation about it or you get

honest conversation about it or you get attacked from all sides. That how does

attacked from all sides. That how does that help anyone? It doesn't. And so,

that help anyone? It doesn't. And so, it's best just to look at this as cooly

it's best just to look at this as cooly and as rationally as you can. Try to get

and as rationally as you can. Try to get to the truth and then allow people to

to the truth and then allow people to make their own decisions about what to

make their own decisions about what to do with it. I mean, that's my view of

do with it. I mean, that's my view of everything really, but but it's time to

everything really, but but it's time to take that approach to sexuality.

take that approach to sexuality. >> Okay, final one. Should we be in NATO?

>> Okay, final one. Should we be in NATO? Should America pull out of NATO?

Should America pull out of NATO? >> Of course, we shouldn't be in NATO.

>> Of course, we shouldn't be in NATO. What? That's not I thought these were

What? That's not I thought these were hard questions. Exactly. I give you

hard questions. Exactly. I give you sometimes I give you a little alleyoop.

sometimes I give you a little alleyoop. I let you dunk the ball.

I let you dunk the ball. >> Why would we be in NATO? NATO is like

>> Why would we be in NATO? NATO is like the single most destructive force that

the single most destructive force that we're a part of way more than the UN.

we're a part of way more than the UN. NATO

NATO >> should we support Israel and give them

>> should we support Israel and give them weapons.

weapons. >> It depends for what

>> It depends for what you know

you know >> fight in Gaza and should they be our

>> fight in Gaza and should they be our number one partner in the region?

number one partner in the region? >> I think or the partner in the world

>> I think or the partner in the world really. I think I think all of our

really. I think I think all of our alliances should be assessed and now

alliances should be assessed and now reassessed through a single lens. Does

reassessed through a single lens. Does this help the United States and in the

this help the United States and in the specific instance I'm certainly not

specific instance I'm certainly not against being allied with Israel and I'm

against being allied with Israel and I'm not against supplying Israel with

not against supplying Israel with weapons? Again, it depends what they're

weapons? Again, it depends what they're being used for. But I do think what's

being used for. But I do think what's happened in Gaza does not help the

happened in Gaza does not help the United States at all. I mean, tell me

United States at all. I mean, tell me how it does. And um so yeah, I in fact,

how it does. And um so yeah, I in fact, I'm not even sure what the argument that

I'm not even sure what the argument that it has helped the United States would

it has helped the United States would be. I've never heard it articulated.

be. I've never heard it articulated. Instead, I've heard people name calling.

Instead, I've heard people name calling. You know, from my perspective, that's

You know, from my perspective, that's all I care about. And I got it. I never

all I care about. And I got it. I never wanted to have this debate. I avoided it

wanted to have this debate. I avoided it for many years. The only reason I get

for many years. The only reason I get into it was the prospect of a of a

into it was the prospect of a of a regime change war in Iran. And I just

regime change war in Iran. And I just thought, man, there is no way that helps

thought, man, there is no way that helps us in any way. So, I piped up and said

us in any way. So, I piped up and said something and my life has been a

something and my life has been a disaster ever since. But my views have

disaster ever since. But my views have not changed. Is it good for the US or

not changed. Is it good for the US or not?

not? >> What is the future of Europe and the UK?

>> What is the future of Europe and the UK? >> Oh, it's so dark. I have family there. I

>> Oh, it's so dark. I have family there. I was just there. I mean just there um I

was just there. I mean just there um I you know I let me start with the good

you know I let me start with the good news. I mean, everyone knows all of

news. I mean, everyone knows all of this, so I'm not going to repeat any of

this, so I'm not going to repeat any of it other than to say finally Europeans,

it other than to say finally Europeans, even the Germans, I spoke to one of the

even the Germans, I spoke to one of the most powerful people in Germany

most powerful people in Germany yesterday about this, are starting to

yesterday about this, are starting to realize, wow, this is not going well at

realize, wow, this is not going well at all. And and migration is there are many

all. And and migration is there are many problems, but migration is the core

problems, but migration is the core problem. The second is energy. And

problem. The second is energy. And they've made massive mistakes. They've

they've made massive mistakes. They've committed self harm over decades. We can

committed self harm over decades. We can argue about why they did that, but

argue about why they did that, but there's a growing realization that they

there's a growing realization that they did. I was in Oslo this uh pretty

did. I was in Oslo this uh pretty recently, salmon fishing. And you go to

recently, salmon fishing. And you go to Norway. I'm Scandinavian, so I pay

Norway. I'm Scandinavian, so I pay attention. And all they talk about is

attention. And all they talk about is Sweden. And of course, everyone's always

Sweden. And of course, everyone's always kind of looked up to Sweden because it's

kind of looked up to Sweden because it's huge and industrialized. And you know,

huge and industrialized. And you know, Norway looked up to Sweden. Now you go

Norway looked up to Sweden. Now you go to Norway and the Norwegians all say,

to Norway and the Norwegians all say, "Man, the one thing we're not going to

"Man, the one thing we're not going to do is become Sweden and open our borders

do is become Sweden and open our borders and destroy ourselves." So I think the

and destroy ourselves." So I think the Europeans are finally catching on to

Europeans are finally catching on to this and that's a blessing. Is it too

this and that's a blessing. Is it too late?

late? >> I hope not. Maybe Finland and Norway

>> I hope not. Maybe Finland and Norway caught it. Yeah, they caught it early

caught it. Yeah, they caught it early and said we can only have this many

and said we can only have this many people come in each year reasonably as a

people come in each year reasonably as a society.

society. >> It's not that early. They've they've

>> It's not that early. They've they've made a mess of Oslo. Oslo is a is not

made a mess of Oslo. Oslo is a is not what it should be. But yeah, I mean it's

what it should be. But yeah, I mean it's not totally destroyed. So yeah.

not totally destroyed. So yeah. >> All right. Listen, when Tucker has a new

>> All right. Listen, when Tucker has a new product or service in the world, uh we

product or service in the world, uh we he calls his boy Jal and we do a little

he calls his boy Jal and we do a little mutual support. You're today uh

mutual support. You're today uh launching uh some silver or gold

launching uh some silver or gold apparently.

apparently. >> Basically, we are selling gold as close

>> Basically, we are selling gold as close to wholesale as we possibly can.

to wholesale as we possibly can. >> Okay. And it's as usual a reaction

>> Okay. And it's as usual a reaction against all the gold scams going on. But

against all the gold scams going on. But people should be able to easily buy

people should be able to easily buy physical gold with a minor transparent

physical gold with a minor transparent markup on the internet. You shouldn't

markup on the internet. You shouldn't have to call a number so you're fooled

have to call a number so you're fooled into buying a commemorative coin for,

into buying a commemorative coin for, you know, eight grand an ounce or

you know, eight grand an ounce or whatever, twice spot price. Um, so

whatever, twice spot price. Um, so that's that's the idea. And uh and it's

that's that's the idea. And uh and it's gone really well in the two weeks we've

gone really well in the two weeks we've been open.

been open. >> What's the form factor? Are they It's

>> What's the form factor? Are they It's It's like 1 oz coins or you guys

It's like 1 oz coins or you guys >> Well, you can you can buy any kind of

>> Well, you can you can buy any kind of precious metal. Um I I am a personally a

precious metal. Um I I am a personally a 1oz coin buyer of long-standing. Turned

1oz coin buyer of long-standing. Turned out to be a pretty good route. I would

out to be a pretty good route. I would say I was much mocked by everyone I

say I was much mocked by everyone I know. All the finance sophisticates I

know. All the finance sophisticates I went to college with were, you know,

went to college with were, you know, making fun of me. You're a gold bug.

making fun of me. You're a gold bug. You're crazy. Um and yeah, I do bury it

You're crazy. Um and yeah, I do bury it in my yard because that's the kind of

in my yard because that's the kind of man I am, primitive. Um, but it has

man I am, primitive. Um, but it has turned out to be a good thing. No, you

turned out to be a good thing. No, you can buy with a shovel.

can buy with a shovel. >> Oh, well, I've I've thought that

>> Oh, well, I've I've thought that through, Chima. I've also scattered

through, Chima. I've also scattered millions of ball bearings around my

millions of ball bearings around my backyard. So, good luck with your metal

backyard. So, good luck with your metal detector.

detector. >> That's so awesome.

>> That's so awesome. >> I'm not kidding. By the way,

>> I'm not kidding. By the way, >> also coming in 2026, uh, Tucker

>> also coming in 2026, uh, Tucker Carlson's baked beans and fat.

Carlson's baked beans and fat. When you're prospecting out in the Wild

When you're prospecting out in the Wild West, you can get your Can I hear

West, you can get your Can I hear something weird? I used to work in a

something weird? I used to work in a baked bean factory, actually, B&M baked

baked bean factory, actually, B&M baked beans in Portland, Maine in 1988, and

beans in Portland, Maine in 1988, and for the summer, and I've never eaten a

for the summer, and I've never eaten a baked bean since because I made them and

baked bean since because I made them and I I ODed on baked beans, but in general,

I I ODed on baked beans, but in general, they're good.

they're good. >> Go buy yourself a gold coin at Battalion

>> Go buy yourself a gold coin at Battalion Medals.

Medals. >> I think this is a great idea. I have to

>> I think this is a great idea. I have to be really honest with you. M

be really honest with you. M >> I do think that having this as a

>> I do think that having this as a practical hedge, there's like a whole

practical hedge, there's like a whole set of elements that we all have to be

set of elements that we all have to be educated on to hedge

educated on to hedge >> the status quo and there are lots of

>> the status quo and there are lots of reasons to own cryptocurrencies, gold.

reasons to own cryptocurrencies, gold. >> I'm glad you're doing this because the

>> I'm glad you're doing this because the way that this is done for most people is

way that this is done for most people is completely

completely >> bonkers and these sites unlike yours

>> bonkers and these sites unlike yours that typically sell direct to retail do

that typically sell direct to retail do not do a good job. So, I'm glad you're

not do a good job. So, I'm glad you're doing it. I hope it's a success. Thank

doing it. I hope it's a success. Thank you. And let me put also put in a good

you. And let me put also put in a good word for firewood and ammunition. I

word for firewood and ammunition. I don't think those are better if you want

don't think those are better if you want to diversify your portfolio.

to diversify your portfolio. >> Also, two wells. You got to have two

>> Also, two wells. You got to have two wells, not just one. Different depths.

wells, not just one. Different depths. That's what I have on the ranch. Two

That's what I have on the ranch. Two wells.

wells. >> Look, I think this is going to be very

>> Look, I think this is going to be very successful. Uh, congratulations, Tucker.

successful. Uh, congratulations, Tucker. I think this will be a very successful

I think this will be a very successful venture because you have a lot of trust

venture because you have a lot of trust with your audience and if like you're

with your audience and if like you're going to sell gold, like that's the most

going to sell gold, like that's the most important thing is people just want to

important thing is people just want to know that this is like 100% legit

know that this is like 100% legit >> pure gold. And

>> pure gold. And >> what's your daily carry?

>> what's your daily carry? >> And the lowest price they can get.

>> And the lowest price they can get. >> What's your daily what's your daily

>> What's your daily what's your daily carry? What do you What do you carry

carry? What do you What do you carry around the the the ranch or whatever?

around the the the ranch or whatever? What's your daily

What's your daily >> How much do I carry in gold?

>> How much do I carry in gold? >> No. What's your what's your pistol?

>> No. What's your what's your pistol? What's your piece? What do you keep on

What's your piece? What do you keep on your side?

your side? >> Oh, I carry a Ruger LCR in 38 special. I

>> Oh, I carry a Ruger LCR in 38 special. I like the revolver cuz it doesn't go off

like the revolver cuz it doesn't go off accidentally and castrate you. So, yes,

accidentally and castrate you. So, yes, that's personally

that's personally >> 100 Ruger. It's a great

>> 100 Ruger. It's a great >> Okay, so people like these highcapacity

>> Okay, so people like these highcapacity striker fire handguns and I just I'm a

striker fire handguns and I just I'm a revolver man. Everyone makes fun of me,

revolver man. Everyone makes fun of me, but that's how I feel.

but that's how I feel. >> No, you know what? You leave that

>> No, you know what? You leave that revolver in the bottom of a pool for

revolver in the bottom of a pool for three years, take it out, hammer some

three years, take it out, hammer some nails, and then fire it. Still fires,

nails, and then fire it. Still fires, >> dude. I'm

>> dude. I'm the liberal here. Really? You don't say

the liberal here. Really? You don't say >> I'm a I'm a moderate. They say liberal

>> I'm a I'm a moderate. They say liberal to keep people tuning in. All right,

to keep people tuning in. All right, everybody.

everybody. >> When he's selling ads, he's a liberal.

>> When he's selling ads, he's a liberal. When he's spending his money, he's a

When he's spending his money, he's a conservative. I live I'm the only guy

conservative. I live I'm the only guy who lives in Texas on a ranch and

who lives in Texas on a ranch and carries a firearm. So, we'll just leave

carries a firearm. So, we'll just leave it at that. But, you never know. I might

it at that. But, you never know. I might have some

have some >> This guy moving to Texas. He's living

>> This guy moving to Texas. He's living two lives.

two lives. >> He's living two lives. Every time he

>> He's living two lives. Every time he gets on a PJ, he's a conservative, but

gets on a PJ, he's a conservative, but every time he has to talk to people,

every time he has to talk to people, he's living

he's living >> in the PC24 and the Phenom 300 are great

>> in the PC24 and the Phenom 300 are great planes. And we had our holiday party

planes. And we had our holiday party last weekend. Wish you were there,

last weekend. Wish you were there, Tucker. Tony Hingcliffe burned the place

Tucker. Tony Hingcliffe burned the place down. We did a live kill Tony. A little

down. We did a live kill Tony. A little bit of roasting. A good time was had by

bit of roasting. A good time was had by all. Major thanks to our three partners.

all. Major thanks to our three partners. OKX hooked up the gifting suite, custom

OKX hooked up the gifting suite, custom candles that fans loved. Also, they had

candles that fans loved. Also, they had a really classy milk and cookie bar. I

a really classy milk and cookie bar. I ran sponsored all the VIP spaces with

ran sponsored all the VIP spaces with great cocktails. And Google Cloud built

great cocktails. And Google Cloud built out an amazing lounge with spiked hot

out an amazing lounge with spiked hot chocolate and other holiday drinks. Well

chocolate and other holiday drinks. Well done to our friends at Google Cloud. We

done to our friends at Google Cloud. We will see you all next week on your

will see you all next week on your favorite podcast, The All-In Podcast.

favorite podcast, The All-In Podcast. Love you boys. Thanks, Tucker.

Love you boys. Thanks, Tucker. >> Bye-bye.

>> Bye-bye. >> Thank you guys. See you.

>> Thank you guys. See you. >> We'll let your winners ride.

>> We'll let your winners ride. >> Rainman David

>> and we open source it to the fans and they've just gone crazy with it. Love

they've just gone crazy with it. Love you. Queen of

besties are gone. >> That is my dog taking notice your

>> That is my dog taking notice your driveways.

>> Oh man, my appetiter will meet. >> We should all just get a room and just

>> We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy cuz they're all

have one big huge orgy cuz they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual

just useless. It's like this like sexual tension that they just need to release

tension that they just need to release somehow.

somehow. beak. Wet your feet.

beak. Wet your feet. >> Your feet.

>> Your feet. >> That's going to be good. We need to get

>> That's going to be good. We need to get merch. I'm going

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:Tucker Carlson: Rise of Nick Fuentes, Paramount vs Netflix, Anti-AI Sentiment, Hottest Takes

Video Transcript

Summary

Core Theme

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
Tucker Carlson: Rise of Nick Fuentes, Paramount vs Netflix, Anti-AI Sentiment, Hottest Takes