Imagen-Elite Corruption and Political Misinformation: Destiny Debates America's Political Future

Introduction: Finding Truth in a Polarized Political Landscape

In this special election episode of Impact Theory, host Tom Bilyeu sits down with Stephen Bonnell (better known as Destiny), one of the internet's most incisive political commentators and debaters. With the 2024 election approaching, they examine the foundational values guiding voter decisions and explore the increasingly divergent political realities Americans inhabit.

As Bilyeu notes in his introduction, the goal isn't to tell viewers how to vote but to help them "think for yourselves using the same first principles that all of us should be relying on—no BS, just straight talk." What follows is a fascinating conversation that reveals how two people can share fundamental values yet reach dramatically different conclusions about America's political future.

Founding American Values: What Makes the Country Work

Destiny begins by outlining what he considers core American values that have endured through time and made America "the coolest country on the planet." He emphasizes several foundational principles:

"Having a country that is built on core principles of liberalism and capitalism are like some of the most important things that we do as Americans," Destiny explains.

He highlights the importance of a free press protected to publish critiques of politicians and celebrities, the absence of hate speech laws, and America's exceptional ability to integrate diverse populations. Destiny points to our capacity for free enterprise as essential to our success:

"There's a reason why Elon Musk came to the United States to do Tesla and SpaceX. There's a reason why Amazon and Bezos are here... why the United States is the largest exporter of energy in the world. These are all part of the American project."

Bilyeu notes they share these values completely, which sets up the central question of their conversation: How can two people with identical fundamental values arrive at dramatically different political conclusions?

The Disinformation Crisis: Democracy Under Threat

When discussing what threatens these values, Destiny immediately points to disinformation as an existential concern, particularly from alternative media sources:

"Authoritarian or autocratic regimes that have a single point of power don't really need an informed public... A democracy requires a somewhat informed public to be making decisions about what's going on, and disinformation destroys societies like that."

He argues that social media, foreign pressure, and populist movements have created an environment where Americans increasingly "live in totally separate realities." Unlike historical political divides where opponents at least agreed on basic facts, today's polarization involves fundamental disagreements about reality itself.

Destiny makes a striking analogy to the video game Metal Gear Solid, where the protagonist Snake accidentally activates a weapon he's trying to deactivate because he has bad information:

"I feel like this is the world we live in... I don't want to believe that half this country is like full of hateful evil people. They just genuinely believe these things are destroying the country... there are people that really do think that there were these top-down plans to steal the election or that Haitians were eating dogs in Springfield."

Addressing Misinformation: Heavy-Handed Solutions?

When Bilyeu asks about potential solutions, Destiny acknowledges there are no easy answers but suggests several approaches of increasing intervention:

1. Cultural change - The ideal but most difficult solution
2. Corporate responsibility - Currently unlikely with platforms like X (formerly Twitter)
3. Government legislation - Potentially requiring disclosure of nationality and funding sources for media creators

He argues that the fundamental misconception is believing "more speech" solves misinformation problems:

"People say, 'Oh, the solution to these problems, we just need more free speech, more speech, more speech.' But if you step outside of this weird ideological jerkoff bubble... nobody will tell you like, 'This book, I don't understand, this is so confusing.' 'Oh, read a hundred more books.' No! They'd say you need a good teacher, a good mentor."

Bilyeu pushes back, expressing concern about any top-down approach to controlling information: "I don't want anybody deciding whether I'm one of the dumb voters or not... I am prepared to live in a world where things very much do not go the way that I think they should because I am so terrified of people being able to say, to protect you, we're going to make sure that we get rid of misinformation."

Destiny responds by distinguishing between genuine free speech advocates and those exploiting it: "The majority of the people in the United States that carry forward that really strict free speech banner do so maliciously. They do it as a cancer... to pretend that freedom of speech is what they really want, but what they really want is just the ability to lie with impunity."

Cognitive Flexibility vs. Moral Blindness: The Trump Question

The conversation shifts to examining how sincere people can arrive at radically different views of the same events, particularly regarding Donald Trump's actions following the 2020 election.

Bilyeu asks what would convince Destiny that Trump genuinely believed he won the election despite all evidence to the contrary. Destiny methodically outlines the sequence of events leading up to January 6th:

1. Trump primed supporters for a year before the election that mail-in ballots would be rigged
2. Steve Bannon and Roger Stone's leaked calls revealed plans to claim victory on election night
3. Many observers (including Bernie Sanders) predicted the apparent "red mirage" would shift as mail-in votes were counted
4. Everything played out exactly as predicted, yet Trump still claimed victory and fraud

"Do you think that when he made that statement at that point in time... he had any evidence whatsoever that voter fraud had happened?" Destiny asks.

Bilyeu responds: "Evidence, probably not. Do I think that he believed it? Yes."

This leads to a crucial revelation about their differing standards for leadership. Bilyeu suggests that Trump's mindset—a belief he was right despite evidence—is a common entrepreneurial trait that can sometimes lead to breakthroughs against conventional wisdom. Destiny counters that this becomes dangerous when wielded by someone with nuclear codes.

Bilyeu clarifies his position: "If he thought that he won even though he'd seen no evidence of it... he can try to coup the government... I understand why he tried to coup the government."

Destiny is visibly stunned: "That standard of evidence is higher than any standard of evidence for any crime in the world. We never require a confession to convict on a person's state of mind."

Economic Realities: Tariffs, Debt, and Inflation

The conversation pivots to economic policy, where their disagreements become more technical but equally revealing.

On tariffs, Destiny argues that Trump's proposed across-the-board tariffs would be catastrophic: "Protectionism would hurt the American economy in basically every conceivable way... Protectionism through the form of tariffs is just going to make everything in the United States cost more."

Bilyeu suggests Trump's tariff rhetoric might be strategic posturing, and selective tariffs could serve national security interests: "If we're really trying to onshore things or take things that are weapons manufacturing... even if it's slightly more expensive for us to do it domestically, we need to do it."

The most pronounced economic disagreement comes on monetary policy. Bilyeu expresses deep concern about inflation and money printing:

"The reason I'm so morally outraged by printing money is that printing money is a taxation where they don't have to get you to vote on it... I think everybody is okay with the debt cycle, and the debt cycle ends in so much blood and despair."

He suggests returning to the gold standard would be preferable to the current system, which he believes forces average Americans to become stock market gamblers just to preserve their savings.

Destiny strongly disagrees: "The answer is not even close—it would be catastrophic. It would be the most destructive thing... There's a reason why no country in the world doesn't utilize central banking principles."

Leadership and Trust: The Case for Harris vs. Trump

As the conversation nears its conclusion, Destiny makes his case for why voters should support Kamala Harris over Donald Trump, focusing on governance style rather than specific policies:

"When Kamala Harris talks about crazy economic policies, some of which I think she kind of has, I trust that the Democratic party can pull her back from the brink... Biden had a terrible debate performance... and there was pressure from the left-leaning media to get him to step down."

By contrast, he portrays Trump as intolerant of dissent: "When Donald Trump—if anybody questions him, he excises that person from the conservative party. He moves like an autocrat... you're either with him or he will do everything he can to destroy your career."

Destiny points to Trump's former allies who now oppose him: "Where's his last Vice President Pence? Why are all of the people that were in his last cabinet... why won't even 40 of these guys vouch for him and support him anymore?"

Conclusion: Finding Clarity in a Complex Political Landscape

Despite their deep disagreements, the conversation reveals how two intelligent people with shared values can reach dramatically different conclusions based on different weightings of concerns and different interpretations of the same events.

For Bilyeu, the dangers of top-down control of information and economic policies that devalue the dollar through spending outweigh concerns about Trump's character or democratic norms. For Destiny, the existential threat of disinformation and Trump's autocratic tendencies outweigh concerns about Democratic spending or regulation.

What makes this conversation valuable is not that it resolves these tensions, but that it illuminates how sincere people navigate them—and perhaps gives viewers a framework for examining their own political thinking with greater clarity.

Key Points:

1. Democracy requires an informed citizenry to function, while autocracies can survive with uninformed populations—making disinformation especially dangerous to democratic systems.
2. Two people can share fundamental values (liberalism, free speech, capitalism) yet reach dramatically different conclusions about which candidate better protects them.
3. Cognitive biases affect everyone's political thinking—what feels like objective reality to each of us is filtered through our frames of reference and prioritized concerns.
4. The crisis of information reliability has created parallel realities where Americans increasingly don't share basic facts, making democratic compromise increasingly difficult.
5. Economic concerns like tariffs, inflation, debt, and monetary policy reflect fundamental disagreements about how wealth is created and preserved in society.
6. Leadership style—how candidates handle dissent, accountability, and evidence—matters as much as policy positions in evaluating their fitness for office.
7. The preservation of democratic norms requires believing some principles transcend partisan advantage, including peaceful transfer of power and evidence-based governance.

For the full conversation, watch the video here