SpaceX IPO Day, We Won The Iran War Again, & US Tops Oil Export List

Key Takeaway

Your cognitive framework shapes your reality more than you realize. When evaluating conflicts between nations or political systems, ask: 'Are they thinking economically or ideologically?' This single distinction explains why seemingly irrational behavior persists. Apply this lens to your own decisions: Are you operating from an economic (pragmatic, future-focused) or ideological (identity-driven, retribution-focused) mindset? The framework you choose determines your outcomes.

Episode Overview

A discussion analyzing potential U.S.-Iran peace negotiations, exploring how cultural and ideological frameworks shape international relations and political decision-making. The hosts examine the disconnect between economic rationality and ideological commitment in geopolitics, drawing parallels to domestic policy debates around election security and constitutional interpretation.

Full Transcript

Transcript of SpaceX IPO Day, We Won The Iran War Again, & US Tops Oil Export List from Impact Theory. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

deal with Iran and they of course deny it. Sort of kind of. We're going to go through all the details. The SpaceX IPO is today and is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. We're definitely going to cover the Globe and Mail's response to that, which is fascinating. And if you guys have been paying attention to Times Square, you know that there's plenty going on there. Racial tensions in the wake of the Carmelo Anthony conviction continue to flare on social media. It has been wild.

If you guys have been seeing some of the clips, we'll definitely be talking about that. The beginning of June has seen some absolutely breathtaking breakthroughs in health and longevity. I am here for it. We're talking about massive age reversal potentially. Man, would that be cool. Some great news for young people. This really is interesting. I think some people are going to respond negatively to this or they're going to think I'm kidding. I am not in the least bit kidding. This is good news. California professors claim they're having to dumb their classes down.

Young people, I have a message for you. So, parents, if you've got kids, at least for that section, bring them in. I am uh going to be going ham on that one as there is real opportunity. And the UK continues to usher in a 1984 style dystopia by calling for censorship instead of addressing the growing immigration crisis, which makes me very sad. Now, shout out to our sponsors today, Humble House. These guys have made an incredibly delicious project uh product. It's absolutely amazing. We have been trying these here.

Uh I am not the only one that is a big fan of these. So, shout out to Lewis Morales who reached out saying that he's an avid fan of the live show. Uh I hope that he's listening today. Uh he said he's been following me since the mindset day. So, truly OG. This is a husband and wife business. you know, I respect that. Started in 2008 with their college savings. Uh they were selling at farmers markets and all of that good stuff. And they've ended up making something that their ingredient list is where I would start reading it.

It's absolutely incredible. But they are delicious. Uh made with just very simple ingredient lists and they are scrumdly. So I'm super pumped. Thank you guys for sponsoring the show today. If you guys at all want to try something with a little bit of spice, uh, an absolutely delicious flavor profile. That was my favorite part. It wasn't like super spicy. Like I love spice, but I hate spice just to make it you sweat. I like I like I like suffering. suffering. suffering. Yeah, I like flavoring and stuff like that.

They killed it. Shout out to Louis. Louis. Louis. Fantastic. Shout out indeed. All right, boys and girls, on that tasty note, which by the way, there's a link you can go to humble food, humble housefoods.co. housefoods.co. housefoods.co. Uh, so give them a try. There's also should be a QR code on the screen. You can get 15% off with code Tom. All right, thanks to these guys. Now, we've got to get on to the brutal reality of whatever is going on in Iran. And let's call it breaking news, you guys.

We're close to a deal. Can you believe it? That would end the war in Iran, except for the fact that we have heard that a literal 38 times before. This is getting This has gone through like the stages of grief. At first it was like, "Okay, I was really getting hopeful." Uh, then it was like, "All right, this is the boy who cried wolf." Then it just plain got boring. Now it's back to this is just funny. I I'm not even sure what to make of this.

Maybe it really is true. But this is what happens when you have somebody cry wolf over and over and over. The only rational response at this point is to be skeptical given that if you believe the other 37 times, you would have been wrong. Uh, now let's hope it's true. Obviously, people should want an end to the hostilities. But the reality is that even if the current messaging about a deal getting close is correct, I want to be very clear about the only thing anybody is talking about is a MOU, which is a memorandum of understanding.

So, it's just like, hey, this is basically where we're at. This is kind of what we agree to. and Iran's semiofficial Myrr news published what it claims is the draft draft 14-point agreement including the US releasing $ 24 billion in frozen Iranian assets during a 60-day ceasefire extension with half of it needing to be upfront. So I think there are so many things in this agreement that would put us in a weakened position that I think actually getting the deal across the finish line would basically be impossible at that point.

But let's go through the 14 points. Now, I advise you to take all of this with a huge grain of salt. Nobody knows if these are the actual deal points. There is so much mism mism mism floating out there on this. Uh but this is the 14 points per myrr. Again, the semiofficial semiofficial semiofficial uh state media for Iran. Okay. One, a permanent and immediate sessation of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon. So that means that they're not letting Israel be their own thing. As much as the US has tried to separate that out, it's got to be all part of one thing.

Two, US commitment to non-inference in Iran's eternal internal affairs and respects for its sovereignty. Now, for me, hiding in that is sovereignty over uh the straight of Hormuz, which they've claimed many times. So, we'll see how that goes. Three, lifting the US naval blockade within 30 days. Uh, which obviously weakens our leverage tremendously. Four, withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, which that one is, I think, um, very interesting. At one point, Iran was saying that a part of the deal for them was that they would completely leave the Gulf.

So, are they saying only on states that border Iran or all across the region? If we agreed to that, that would be shocking. Five, reopening the straight of Hormuz within 30 days with Iranian arrangements. I do not know what that means. If that just means in coordination with Iran, we'll see. Six, suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil and prochemical revenues, making Iranian financial resources fully accessible. So, basically letting them get back up on their feet. Now, unless there are major concessions in terms of visibility into the nuclear program, this would be an obvious step backwards for the US, we would end up being in a much weaker position.

So again, we'll see. Seven, US and allies to draw up reconstruction plans for Iran worth at least $300 least $300 least $300 billion. billion. billion. Now, if they're saying this is the agreement that we've agreed to in principle, that one is going to cost Trump a massive amount of political capital. Eight, 60 days of negotiations to reach a final agreement based on nuclear issues and the complete lifting of sanctions. That one to me just tells you the deal is not going to get done. But maybe I'm being cynical.

Nine, Iran's reaffirmation of its commitment to the nuclear non-prololiferation treaty and its obligations not to produce nuclear weapons. Okay, we'll see. 10. Washington unfreezing 24 billion of Iranian funds during the 60-day negotiation period with half made available before the talks even begin. Again, a lot of give right off the jump. 11. A monitoring mechanism to implement the agreement. Yes. 12. Final agreement to be approved by a UN Security Council resolution. 13. Final negotiations start only after half of Iran's funds are unfrozen, oil sanctions are suspended, and the maritime blockade is lifted.

So basically, we've got to see that all of these things are real, and that these are not just words. 14. Discussions about Iran's missile program and support for resistance groups have been definitively removed from the agenda. Okay. Now, there's still a mountain of negotiating that has to be done. And given the clown show that this has been so far, I cannot imagine in any universe that the negotiations will actually go smoothly and we will get across the finish line. Plus, Galabaths, which is Iran's lead negotiator, uh has said very directly, we have no trust in guarantees or words.

So, only action are the measure that we're going to judge this by. So, no action. opening the straight of Hormuz, accepting limitations on its nuclear program, etc. will be taken before the US acts, so lift the blockade of Iranian ports, eases sanctions, just for instance. So, uh, we've also had push back, by the way, from Iran's foreign minister, uh, ministry spokesperson, excuse me, Ishmael Bakai. I don't know if that's actually how you say it, but hopefully that's close. He said Thrron has reached no final conclusion.

He did however say that most of the text is already finalized. So assuming that those 14 points are the text he's referring to, there really is something here. It doesn't seem to be totally made up. Uh but the question is one of degree. So hey, yeah, we have these 14 points which is littered with things that say we'll talk about this later subject to this etc etc. Uh now the holdup according to him is that the US keeps changing their position and adding new demands. So uh the US of course has said the same thing about the Iranians.

So nobody right now is saying that a deal doesn't exist, but I think everybody is leaving themselves plenty of room to wiggle out. Now the crazy thing is from where I'm sitting the stock markets have reacted to this very positively. Brent crude has dropped 4% on Friday today uh to about $87 still above the $70 pre-war level but it is a huge drop uh from where it's been recently which around the peak was $110. So for my money the big looming question remains whether the deal will actually get across the finish line I'm going to say no way.

Uh Kmeni sign off also is still required and early Friday near the straight of Hormuz, the US shot down Iranian drones. So, while I could definitely see a world in which anou gets signed, I will be absolutely shocked if we get an actual final signed agreement. And if those 14 points are the agreement that gets signed, I think this will be a catastrophic loss for Trump uh that will cost him politically in ways that at this point cannot even begin to be calculated. uh loss of the midterms, Republicans being in a much weaker position coming into uh the next election.

So yeah, this if these are the points, this feels like a concession largely of defeat unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat with just we get every fleck of nuclear dust. Uh that Iran allows for some sort of hyperaggressive monitoring of their um go forward nuclear program. It would have to be something like that for him to even have a leg to claim even something remotely akin to victory. So, I mean, he'll claim it no matter what, but yeah, I I don't know if nuclear dust is worth 300 billion when he was talking [ __ ] about Obama's 1.7.

So, that will be the ringing refrain over and over and over and over. It will make him look so clown show absurd that yeah it it will be a devastating it will be blunt force political trauma to the head. Like yeah this is again if those 14 points are the real 14 points this is such an obvious loss for Trump in just all capital letters. Like what the actual [ __ ] were you doing? Uh so yeah, I again the only hope he has is if there's like some really truly ironclad thing about they now don't have nuclear weapons and won't into the future and then he'll bang that drum that'll give his supporters something to parrot which do not downplay how useful that is.

But anybody paying attention is just like this was ridiculous. We have ended up in a much worse situation than we were especially if you rewind the clock to the JCPOA. So you can it's too nuanced of an argument to say that the JCPOA wasn't really being adhered to and all that. It's just it looks so cataclysmically dumb cataclysmically dumb cataclysmically dumb right now. right now. right now. So So So um Simon Dixon, our friend of the show, Blackpillar, uh says that all of this is just to ensure that the markets are stable so that way we can pump and dump SpaceX, which I've been hitting refresh.

I still can't trade. If anybody has traded it, let us know in the chat. You can't trade because it's just like there's too many hasn't started yet. Got it. it. it. Like it was supposed to start at at 10 Eastern, which is 7 o'clock our time. It's 7:18. I hit refresh, nothing hit. But um apparently this is to calm the markets. Stock markets were up, oil prices were down. Gas prices are still up though. So, you know, you guys have now been bought in. This is another re uh refloor establishing.

It happened in 2001 under George Bush when I ran the first time. Um but I don't want to get into my into my into my The same thing happened with the 1973 oil embargo. oil embargo. oil embargo. Just stair steps up and now from now on, gas prices are this price. They don't go down anymore regardless. They're no longer tied to the price per bail. Like, okay, that's fractal. That's fractal. I want to get back to this other thing. Um, Um, Um, it seems like this was to calm the market in order to pump up SpaceX because we've seen this in the past.

Trump makes an announcement, the market reacts positively. reacts positively. reacts positively. Iran says, "I've never seen 38 times." 38 times, bro. It is so wild. You yelp. You yelp. You yelp. Yep. And every time there's an insider who goes on the inside and makes a buy, Trump tweets, then they make a sale. So yeah, they just skim a little bit more that a little bit more off the top. A little more off the top. Okay. So you said that the only thing that can give Trump some monle of like a success is clearing out the nuclear program.

Is that like that is that the thing that's on the table? Is there anything else he could possibly do? It's the propaganda. So is there anything else? There are other things that he could do. Okay, let me uh as a means of having a document of my own thinking for my sake of nobody else's, here's how I expect this to play out. Um we're going to get a memorandum of understanding. understanding. understanding. There is going to be a breakdown in the negotiations. Um, and during that time, whether it's we're not willing to give them all the things that we want, like they'll give them some things and then they'll say Iran has not responded in the way that they were supposed to.

Um, I don't the one thing I don't think Trump will do is begin drawing down his military forces. He might break the blockade. U, but I would be very surprised if he actually draws down the military forces in the region. And so he'll keep that posture and then I think it things will just reescalate. But this is going to buy will he be able to buy himself time to get on the other side of the midterms? They might be able to drag it out that long.

So 60 days becomes 120 days and we find ourselves um you know trying to get to the other side of the midterms with it as a quagmire but nothing finished him being able to give his supporters something to pair it back so that they can still feel good about voting for him. Maybe something like that. But I really think we're going to see a re-escalation. Um but Trump has to do what he can to a make space for the markets, b um create he has to decide, am I trying to close this before the midterms or am I going to try to push this till after the midterms?

But I don't see this being anything other than in the final analysis a complete and total cluster [ __ ] So now it's just um is there a way somehow for us to spin enough of a tail that uh we can maintain our position in the House uh and the Senate that and whatever weird calculus they run there um I think will ultimately be fruitless. I I think that this is if he cannot show a very concrete win. uh gas prices being very low, uh just a complete and total victory on the nuclear front, um normalizing relationships with Israel, getting the big investment from the GCC countries, the um the actual investments from the GCC countries turning into infrastructure in AI, that turning into actual manufacturing jobs.

If he can't pull all of that together, this just goes down is ridiculous. I don't think him being able to say we stop them from getting a nuclear weapon is going to be enough. They're just wait 38 times. There's just way too many people that now are running an algorithm, speaking personally now running an algorithm that like this is just handled completely poorly. Uh tons of market manipulation saying that we're close when we're clearly not close. Um over and over and over again is yeah just dumb.

And so it reaches a point where people just began to solidify a way of thinking about this that will become so hard to undo like you the victory would need need to be so big that the process itself can be forgotten because right now the process will just um create a feeling in people that this was mishandled from top to bottom. bottom. bottom. You and Booante had a conversation. is coming out next week for the audience. But it was very interesting that you guys talked about the second order consequences of all this.

The fact that you know we did bomb a girl school and 130 something women uh young girls are dead. So we created a whole generation of terrorists cuz one of out of those 137 12 of them got older brothers and 12 of them are like the older brother my little sister was killed by America and I will never love America. And then they're going to have kids and they're going to say you can go wherever you want in the world but hate America. And so as much as Trump is worried about the midterms and to be honest, he'll be dead in five, six years, nobody will care.

Like he's going to be on his way out. Just old age sunseted in that way. But for the next 20, we're going to now have a destabilized U Middle East because of the consequences of this war. Is there anything we can do on a global scale or something like that to kind of mitigate those issues? Because it's easy to say market manipulation, but that's some other stuff we can fix. It's easy to talk about gas prices, that's some of the stuff we can fix. but the other nuances of war that we don't talk about as often.

Do you think there's anything he can do to justify those or remedy those? those? those? Well, so let's run the um extreme sort of flip example of going all the way to Republicans lose. Uh it's all blue all the time in America and we take a completely different approach to the Middle East and we are apologetic. we pay war reparations. Even in that scenario, do I think that we get to the other side of America being um hated by Iran? I do not. And one of the things that I think people have to be really honest about is that that will be perceived as weakness.

Now, we're getting into like the cultural debate and how people see things. And I think I'm just going to have to welcome that. that's going to be a big part of my life for the next couple years as I think this is going to be an increasingly important discussion where people have to understand what is the cultural mindset of somebody and if you understand the cultural mindset uh of of of the US well you can get a better sense of how we're going to act in the future if you get a better sense of the cultural mindset of Iran you're going to get a better sense of how they're going to move forward in the future um given that they are an Islamic republic public.

I don't think that you can understand where they're going to go without understanding that ideology and how that drives them. One of the people that has to sign off on this is the supreme religious leader who believes that he is speaking on behalf of God and saying like, listen, this is how this is meant to play out. And so I think that the if we go and we acquies and we are falling over ourselves and we're saying, "Oh my god, I'm so sorry." They're going to see that as an opening to assert their authority.

They're not going to be like, "Oh my god, thank you." Like that really I feel seen. I feel heard. That is not going to be the response. And so that is not going to protect us from acts of aggression. The only thing that will protect anybody from acts of aggression is if somebody um is thinking economically into the future. And if they're thinking economically into the future as like their highest priority, then they're going to behave very differently. And the problem is historically Iran has not played the economic card first and foremost.

They have played the um theological card first and foremost. And so when you have What do you mean by that? So the reason that Trump is completely confused about why Iran behaves the way that they behave is because when he is sanctioning them to near oblivion, when he is building up a military force and say, "I'm going to blow up all your shit." That the average country would go, "Okay, live to fight another day. That's the most important thing that we need to do here. How do we come to a negotiated settlement so that we don't end up there?

Buy ourselves time. We can figure this out in a diplomatic way down the road." Iran does not do that. Iran says, "Nope, we will meet you with violence. Um, we will meet you with force and we will do everything that we can to back you down." And so if that means that we have to create hardship for the people inside of our country, then we will absolutely do that. But we are simply not going to back down to these threats, we don't let anybody bully us, etc., etc.

Uh, also we have God on our side. So we are going to do what um Allah wants of us and so if that means that we must suffer in the short term in order to be victorious in the long term then we will absolutely do that. That's not somebody thinking economically. The easiest way to look at that for me is if you look at what's going on in Israel Palestine. Palestine. Palestine. So Israel Palestine there's obviously a million different ways to look at this. You can say, okay, you've got Israel.

They are uh a nation that is just completely um enslaving, imprisoning the population of Gaza, and so of course they're going to rise up and do violence to their oppressors. But the other way to look at that that I think is uh a more uh utilitarian view would be to say they tried the whole we're going to back out. Um and if that and I mean all of the stuff about two-state solutions, all the times that um Palestine had an opportunity to say, "Okay, yeah, it's not the exact thing that we want, but we're going to take it.

Just leave us be. We're going to build our state." If like with my value system, my advice to them would be, hey, you've just gotten all this aid from around the world. You're sort of peak. Everybody wants to see something great happen for you guys. Don't build terror tunnels. Don't try to get back. whether you think they're the little Satan, the big Satan, whatever, literally just focus on how do we become uh a thriving economy. And so part of that's going to be we're going to need to do business with Israel.

They're local. Uh they have a thriving economy. They're plugged into the rest of the world. I see what's going on with the normalization of relationships with uh Israel across the Arab nations in the Gulf. Let's join in that. There are going to be tentative moves in the beginning. we're going to have to like really be over the top um to be welcomed into this new world. And it is from their perspective undoubtedly seen as just grotesqually unjust that we have been put through this and that we're not going to get um you know any sort of either literal reparations or karmic reparations, right?

And that would be a very bitter pill to swallow. But that would be the I just care that my kids have an economic future that we have not had so far. And when you see it all play out instead, they build terror tunnels. And what they seek is some variation of some will say just it's justice. I'm just seeking justice. Some will see it as divine retribution. Others will just see it as cold hard revenge. All of it. But when if if your loudest noise is we want to see normalization with the [snorts] uh the larger area so that we can have a positive economic future that is a very different lens than what we're actually looking at.

So if Iran takes the stance of no no [ __ ] you kids you are going to pay pay pay you are going to pay you're going to pay literal reparations you're going to rebuild Iran. Uh, and we will continue to damage you, your allies, even if they're our potential allies, our neighbors, we [ __ ] all of you. Like, you're all going to pay. It is Allah's will. Like, if that's the thing that plays out, then this is just eternal madness. And from from my perspective, with my value system, this is eternal madness.

Of course, they would look at me and say the the way like you're so weak that you're trying to be consiliatory after that. Don't be ridiculous. So, that's what I'm saying. that cultural mindset is uh they are incompatible and they will collide like two atoms in the large hadron collider and they will explode. So what actually ends up playing out is going to be a question of what is the dominant cultural narrative that takes hold of the people who are making decisions. And if that is um a version of religious theocracy that demands retribution then it will be an untenable situation.

So that is in my call it early stages of diving into um the culture in Iran based on their behaviors over this time. That is the more likely outcome. And I think Trump is trying to hedge his bets because ahead of the midterm elections that he's probably not going to win, he is now adding the Save America Act to be attached to the budget reconciliation bill 3.0. So he's porking up the bills, everybody. The reconciliation package only requires a simple majority in the Senate. This means that it could secure our elections with 51 votes, a majority of the Senate.

This is Donald Trump's tweet. No other president has ever done more to commit has been more committed to both rebuilding our great military and saving our great country. And now is the time to make it happen for generations to come. I'm hereby calling on Republicans in Congress to immediately advance and pass the forthcoming $350 billion reconciliation bill, Recon 3.0, know which at the request of our great department of war will include the Save America Act as well. No games, no delays, and no weak compromises. Do this ASAP.

ASAP. ASAP. To me, it is self-evident that if we don't shore up what is going on in our elections, we are toast. So, um yeah, he's very right that we've got to do something to protect our democracy. Now, the only thing that I can see as the push back against the Save America Act is it is too ownorous to make somebody prove that they're a citizen. Um, I think that I would have bought into that argument before I started looking at what is going on in California.

And now I'm like, yeah, we we've got to do something. And given that we have erased a driver's license in terms of proving that you're actually legally viable to vote. Mhm. Mhm. Mhm. That won't work. So it becomes what then is the secondary thing? And the only secondary thing I can think of is proof of citizenship. And so if we can at least have the debate and stop talking about oh it's too ownorous and just start saying should people have to prove that they're a citizen?

just if people give me an answer to that like, okay, we're all gonna say that um making people drop in a uh like a document that shows that they're a citizen, that's too much, but what's going to be we've got this other thing that we can do that proves that they're a citizen. Let's just have that argument. Should people need to be a citizen to vote? And if people say no, then it's like, all right, gotcha, [ __ ] Like, I see now where you're at. And I think that's the reality of the debate is there are there is so much incentive to use immigrants, illegal immigrants, ballot harvesting in order to get the side that is willing to offer more free things to get them into power and to keep them into power.

Uh that that will happen. So either we're all going to step back and go, actually, you know what, Charlie Mer was wrong. Uh if you show me the incentives, I still can't show you the outcome. I think we can all agree, certainly I haven't heard any push back on it till now, that if you show me the incentives, I will show you the outcome. And the incentive right now is for one party to say we're just going to give access to um every free social service that you can imagine, and that's going to uh attract people to the country.

We're going to get them in as easily as we can. We're going to promise them all of these things. Uh we're going to get them to vote for us. We're literally going to canvas the streets uh with ballots and say, "Hey, uh here these people are promising this. Go ahead and sign here or let me sign on your behalf." And it's certainly working in California. Again, you don't even have to assume fraud. You just have to assume that they're using that tactic from a ballot harvesting perspective if you don't require a signature.

if you don't require ID. In fact, if it's illegal to ask for ID and you're carrying a stack of ballots, uh it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there's going to be some percentage of people that end up being uh invalid for voting purposes that are still ending up voting. So, the incentive structure is there. It is way too strong. They end up controlling trillions of dollars of spend. So, it's way too strong of an incentive to think that people will just not use it.

Uh, so we have to do something. And until I hear the other side put forward something that's even better, that's more protective of our democracy, great. Use reconciliation, use whatever you have to, but we've got to have something to protect uh our democracy. Period. Are you like a constitutional like absolutist? Are you do you believe in constitutional amendments? Should we stick to the constitution? Well, the constitution allows for amendments. So if you're a constitutional absolutist, you would of course say uh we have a mechanism by which we're able to get amendments.

So yes, a thousand%. Am I I've never thought of the phrase constitutional absolutist absolutist absolutist like we should thous% thous% thous% I'm I'm acting though. I'm not trying to get get get here's here's here's if with all of my definitions that sounds perfect. Now, the Constitution as written, written, written, A allows for change, B allows for the Supreme Court to interpret. It's like there are all of these mechanisms put in place to make sure that we're um adhering to that. So, yes, I believe in the three branches of government.

I believe that they should be held in dynamic tension. Ya, but even going to the federal state divide because federal elections are held are overseen by federal people. State elections are overseen by the states. States can then implement their own institutions con like however they want to do to organize how they arrange states. Do you think that that should be removed and federal oversight should be on each of the states? Well, so we have um the federal super session. I'm not sure what it's called, but it's like federal law um is over the top of all state laws.

So, you can't have a state law that violates federal. So, um my understanding of the way that the um the constitution is written currently currently currently allows California to do what it's doing. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And my thing is you have something that is both legal and immoral. So, would I want to see a change such that the states are not doing something that is immoral? Something that um is violating the I'll say the spirit of the constitution even if not the letter of the constitution.

Do I want to see this go all the way to the Supreme Court to get a read on it? A thousand%. But hold on, just so I can understand what you just said, you would want the Supreme Court to get a read on. The federal can then dictate what states do. I I wouldn't say it like that. What I want the so the whole idea of the Supreme Court is that they interpret the yes but that the constitution is written in like a really light touch very few words way so that we have a mechanism by which we go okay the world is changing things are different now we have to figure out what was the spirit of this versus the letter of this which is why the letter is so light so then you go to the Supreme Court I want this I want what California is doing from a ballot harvesting perspective from not allowing ID all of that stuff to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Um, given that you're not But the the thing the thing is it wouldn't just be California. It would then be federal like the like federal level can then control what the states do. So do. So do. So the federal level already controls what states do. states do. states do. They just can't they just can't conflict because if they did then Trump could just say, "Hey, California do it this way." And California have to say yes. But California you there's a separation between those two things. So what I'm asking is it sounds like you would prefer if federal sets the tone and all the states then have to acquies to that tone.

tone. tone. That already is the truth. So the federal government you as a state there's an easy way to say it. As a state you can only give more rights. You cannot take rights away. Mhm. And so the states in my layman's interpretation of what I think the um Supreme Court will rule do not have the right to violate the um like stability of the democracy. And so what I'm saying is is is the states don't have the vi the the right to violate the sanctity of democracy.

So right now you're allowing states to let foreigners vote in your national elections. That's just a hard pass from where I'm sitting in terms of the constitution. My read which is irrelevant and this is why it needs to go to the Supreme Court but the states can't like a state cannot go oh I'm going to violate the constitution that doesn't exist that is not a provision. So what I'm saying is given that that already exists given that I think there's enough in the constitution already for this to go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court to rule you guys can't do this for the reasons that I just laid out.

It violates the sanctity of our democracy. So you I would like to believe that that will escalate to the Supreme Court that they will shut this down. Um we'll see that is not something I'm not in any way, shape or form a constitutional scholar nor have I followed the Supreme Court closely enough. So that is me very much looking at what's happening in California and feeling like okay they've created a situation that is true to California state law. I'll just assume that it's true to California state law but is also wildly immoral.

Um, so yeah, I'll spend more time looking at this to see like along what lines this would actually get a reasonable legal challenge from the Supreme Court. Um, but from that perspective, I'm not looking for a change where it's like, okay, now the federal government by decree gets to tell the states what to do. Um, I'm not looking for that. Um, cool. Uh, I lost my place. Um, we have um uh really fast before we move on because I was going to tangential go to this Chuck Schumer Save America acting.

Uh before love it but before we move to that that that um um um what you're asking great follow-up questions but hiding in those questions from where I'm sitting and maybe I'm misinterpreting it but hiding in that question is the way that the California elections are being done is um completely justified. Glad to see states give new things a try. Um is that a misread? Like do you think that I am wrong about the incentive structure? Uh or do you just think I'm attacking states rights?

states rights? states rights? No, I'm trying to understand what the end goal is and I'm looking at it from the level of policy. So Supreme Court can challenge California on how they do voting. Supreme Court can challenge any state because it's the president. Once you set the precedent with the court, you can do it to all. So at that point, federal the federal government can then dictate how each individual state runs their elections. So that's why I went to the end goal of like, all right, would you just prefer that the federal government can then dictate how each state runs his government?

So you can say everybody does ID, everybody does this, everybody does this. It's one day all the things that Trump is doing in the Save America Act. No way in voting, everybody follows this, everybody counts it one day and like that. To get to that level, we would have to have a constitutional amendment. So would I want that? Yes. Uh but it would need to go through the normal process of a constitutional amendment, which there's no way that we have the votes to pull that off.

So, we'll set that aside in terms of Tom wants a thing that isn't going to happen. So, but that's why he's doing the reconciliation act with the Save America Act, which will to your point of once there's a federal law, the states can't contradict the federal law. That's a way that you can kind of backdoor that. So, at least it can then require everybody to have a ID, everybody to be or I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. Everybody to verify their citizenship. So although you don't have to necessarily show ID in u California anymore, your citizenship will have to be verified which is a passport a birth certificate and that would help the illegals that are um massively voting.

massively voting. massively voting. Yes. But this is how legislation works. So the whole idea behind federal legislation is you have the house and the senate so that you can pass laws. We pass laws all the time. Now if what you're saying is I don't like the way that laws can be passed in this way through a reconciliation bill. That's a totally different conversation. But then now you're making a policy that applies to everybody. We no longer want things passed via reconciliation. Is that the idea? idea?

idea? Are you trying to communicate my position? I'm confused now. Yes. I I am trying to find out the um the underlying assumptions that led to that series of question. I was just trying to process your idea from start to finish. There was no assumptions in there. So you want this to happen. Well, if this happen like the clause in effect. So, if California gets challenged, it's going to go up to the Supreme Court. If it goes to the Supreme Court, then every state will have to be um re will have to be uh changed.

So, that's why I was doing the Great follow-ups. I will instead of aiming it at you, I will aim it at the camera. camera. camera. Uh right now, in no uncertain terms, the economic situation that you have have will destroy America and it will destroy America in roughly nine years and it will do it in a very knowable fashion. uh because you open the borders and you let so many new bodies in. I don't give a [ __ ] what color their skin is. You let so many people in this country and they have an incentive to get access to free things.

It could be health care. It could be unemployment. It could be housing. It could be federal loan guarantees to get a house. You've created an incentive structure where people all over the world want to flood into your country to get those benefits. They would be stupid to not come and get those benefits. We are the wealthiest nation on earth. We are the freest nation on earth. So of course people that are in a worse economic position are going to flock to America. That is the incentive structure that you've created.

You have a way of creating the power structure in your country where the congressional seats that a state gets are not based on citizens in your country. They are based on bodies in your country. Legal, illegal, documented, undocumented, doesn't matter. If there are people in that state, you will get congressional seats based on that. The way that people get reelected is by promising things to their constituents that they want. The easiest thing historically we see it all the time that people get promised always and forever is I'm going to give you free things.

We are now at a point in America where we are giving so many things away for free. Every dollar we raise in taxes we spend an additional $1.58. $1.58. $1.58. Given that mechanism you are going to go broke and it will be a catastrophe. There will be blood. There will be pain. There will be suffering. And when this kind of thing happens, it tends to last for a hundred years or more. You need only look at Argentina. But there are countless examples that you can look at.

It happens over and over again throughout history. And people have somehow built a mental model that America is going to be fine forever. And what I'm saying is the math shows you that that simply is not true. That every country with the exception of Japan, that is an extremely complicated example that America has nothing in common with whatsoever. Once you cross 130% debt to GDP, the country goes into open violence. I'm talking revolution or warfare. It tears itself apart from the inside. Over and over and over every time this has happened.

And we are on an absolute collision course with that. And the incentive structure is for it to keep happening. And so you have to have some way to break that incentive structure. And one very simple way to break that incentive structure is to make sure that only citizens can vote. And I would say a bonus would be that only citizens count in the census. And that way the power structure inside of the country is in such a way that it is looking after its citizens. And if we want to create a path to citizenship for people that come here legally, great.

And as long as our immigration policies are sensible and attract the best and the brightest and the most likely to contribute to the economy, wonderful. It will make things better for everybody. But economics exists in a system of [ __ ] physics. And if people do not understand that right now we are on a suicide course that we are attempting to accelerate for reasons that are patently absurd, it has to do with staying in power and suicidal empathy. It is wild and we are watching it happen in real time and we have people championing it and voting for it and it is their actual own downfall.

And so all I'm saying is whatever we've got to do to have integrity such that only citizens are voting, let's make sure that we do that. I am not trying to complicate it. I'm not trying to hide anything in my messaging. I'm saying we have a system of government that allows for legislation. find a way to get something like the Save America Act passed so that only citizens are voting. Period. Marishia Dark in the chat just dropped a um article in the Constitution that technically the Senate can change um state rules.

The Congress can overrule uh state elections. So, the Save America Act would be legally justified and it would um apply to all states and stuff. So, So, So, let's go. let's go. let's go. There it is. No constitutional amendment needed. Uh okay. So, I feel like you kind of covered the Chuck Schumer thing, so I feel like we don't need to hit it. All right. How you feeling? Um, all right. It is um exit liquidity day. day. day. J Mayor 7068 is saying in the chat, "Free country in the world, my ass.

Tell me which one is freer." I'll wait I'll wait because please do not think for a second I'm saying America doesn't have problems. But I am saying as somebody with plenty of money, I'm looking around the world going, "Where else can I go?" And it's [ __ ] stark, man. It is stark. And America really is a beacon of hope the world over. There is a reason that on the Statue of Liberty it says, "Give me your poor, tired, huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Not yearning for free [ __ ] Yearning to breathe free.

That is what America was founded on. And right now, it sure as hell isn't Europe. Europe's a [ __ ] catastrophe. catastrophe. catastrophe. Uh, Argentina got that surplus. Argentina is going in a great direction economically. But are they do I trust that a country that has been socialist for the last 100 years is a bastion of freedom? No, I do not. So, we'll see if they come out the other side like all the bad guys. Jesus Christ. So, uh right now B Kelly, hey, cleaning it up. It's amazing.

And if he's willing to hand power over in a democratic fashion, that'll be very exciting. And maybe in the future, America won't be the freest place on earth. or at least we will have people that are close second and third. But the reality is that if we get dismissive about what America is, then people stop fighting for a vision of this country as a place that prioritizes freedom, that wants us to be free. And remember, while we are not a quote unquote Christian country because we believe in separation of church and state, we were founded on the back of a culture that is indeed Christian.

The only part of that that you need to get excited about because I don't even believe in God. The only part that you need to get excited about is the idea that there is def divinity in the individual and therefore the individual is the level of analysis. So we think about freedoms at the level of the individual. We think about decision-m at the level of the individual. It allows for property rights and things like that that allow for our economy to thrive. This is not me being naive about America not having problems.

America has horrendous problems and they are very nameable by the way. You can point to them. You guys have heard me rail endlessly endlessly endlessly about central banking. I think that that really is the foundation and we have to get rid of that. You've heard me bang on about the problem that central banking has now caused, which is people going farther and farther left towards socialism and communism, which is the single most evil ideology that has ever gained hold in the world. Uh so yeah, I'm happy to elucidate each and every one of the problems, but if we don't have an exciting vision to point to, to be excited about, to pursue doggedly, then we're going to wander around aimlessly being mad about everything instead of saying, "Hey, look, I want to create that thing." I sum mine up as I want human flourishing, which I will define as a thriving middle class.

Thriving middle class is a middle class that is growing economically in real terms where we are holding people accountable at the personal level. It's all personal accountability. Work hard, get better, perform in a free and fair marketplace based entirely on meritocracy meritocracy meritocracy and build a light touch government that creates the rules where that can happen and stops capitalists who will tend towards pathology and being evil. keep them from doing that and insider trading and all the horrific [ __ ] that you see happening right now as a part of the Trump administration and then stop people from making this collectivist [ __ ] um from rewarding somebody for being in one ethnicity versus another.

It's it is all [ __ ] absurd. And by the way, breaking the economy to steal from people that know how to produce to spread it to people that will be further incentivized to not produce. When you give people handouts, it breaks the system. It does not give them any incentive to go and get better, to innovate, to become strong, which is the very thing that evolution or God, if you believe that, to get us to do. We are designed under great pressure, designed to adapt, grow, and get better.

That's the whole thing about being a human. And when you give people things for free, then you weaken that. That association doesn't form. People wait for the next handout, and it completely [ __ ] deranges. So these are not mystical problems. These are things that you can point to at a policy level and say that policy is deranging things in that way. And so if we can both set a place that we want to go, round it to a thriving middle class, and if we can point to the policies that are creating problems, the one that kicked all of this off, the fact that we do a census based on just bodies and nothing else matters, and that we harvest ballots certainly here in California, and we're doing absolutely nothing to protect from, in certain states anyway, from people voting that are illegal and should not be voting.

So, we can just policy after policy. I can point to the stuff that they're doing with the central bank. I can point to the stuff they're doing on the left. Like, this this is all knowable and it's all completely nonpartisan. It's just different flavors of stupidity, evil, and the like. But I really am going to remain optimistic that if we have an exciting enough vision of our future, which is one where our kids are doing better than us, where our kids are growing smarter and better educated by the day, they feel that they have more opportunity, not less, that they weep that their parents grew up in the age before them because there was just so much less opportunity, so much less exciting things going on that they didn't have the kind of economic joy in their future.

uh that they have that their parents just had it way weaker. That is what we should be getting back to. And there are noble things like a house needs to be affordable not because it's the great greatest investment of all time. A house needs to be affordable because it is the only asset that people psychologically understand. You don't have to communicate anything else. Uh a woman wants it because she wants a nest. A man will read it immediately as a nest egg. And so now when the dynamic between men and women is even working right, the woman is pressuring the man to make sure that they can get a house.

Now he's got the incentive that he wants to go out to be ambitious to drive forward. And no, this is not me calling for trades. I don't have a [ __ ] tradife and my wife is the greatest thing in my universe and she is my business partner. But I'm just telling you that dynamic is put there by evolution. It's very useful. So anyway, a wonderful exciting vision of the future followed by the litany of exact knowable policies that are causing the derangement, lower the debt to GDP and get back to growth.

Well said. Where's the applause? Well said. Well said. Well said. And I'm sure headlines like this one help exit liquidity day. Um I've been hit refresh and SpaceX is really not trading yet. Um exit liquidity day that's dark and accurate. This is a real headline from a Canadian newspaper. SpaceX is set to make Elon Musk the first trillionaire. Here's how to properly hate him. This makes me so mad. Uh this is um if you want to truly understand socialism and communism, you must understand that they are ideologies of resentment.

They are ideologies of resentment. They want to take away from the people who understand how to innovate and produce and make things. and they want to take and they want to punish and they want to see somebody like Elon hate it. It it is a level of absurdity. The only right way to meet a character like Elon is with absolute joy and an overwhelming sense of what can be created and then a nice heap of skepticism that he will be benevolent. And if you only have one and not the other, if you only have skepticism that he won't be benevolent, then you become the left-leaning [ __ ] And if you only think, "Oh my god, he can do everything.

Well, whatever. Just give him more and more space. Let him do his thing." Uh, then you're going to let it become pathological on the right. If, on the other hand, as a marketplace, we go, "Hey, you can make as much money as you want as long as you're building something that people actually want." That that's the dynamic, right? Trust but verify. This guy has done things that are just unbelievable from an innovation standpoint. I think at this point it's pretty safe to say he's unparalleled in human history in terms of his ability to actually get it across the finish line.

There have been plenty of people smarter than Elon, but nobody has been able to get across the finish line the amount of engineered products that this man has been able to do. It's just it's unbelievable. So anyway, he is making the world a better place. is creating things of extraordinary value. Think about the fact that in countries where they have no internet and the amount that that is holding them back, even if just from access to commerce, uh from if you're just purely like I really want to see everybody in the world do well, the micro loans that are possible in Africa are only possible because of the internet.

and he's making the internet available to more and more and more and more people through what he's doing with now SpaceX, but Starlink specifically. And so, listen, this moment is both incredible incredible incredible and people need to be very careful. I I'll lay out like th this is a complex moment, but to to lead with a headline of let me tell you the right way to hate this guy is so [ __ ] grotesque. It is somebody so locked in pettiness and jealousy and resentment they will quite literally tear the west apart.

Now having said that if you want to understand what is most likely going to play out I do not have a crystal ball. I can't see the future but this is me looking backwards at history and going hm we've seen moments like this play out and this is how they play out. So if you're thinking about investing please consider this. When you have a transformational new technology, it a very knowable sequence happens and it goes something like this. There's a massive amount of expense that goes into the infrastructure.

That infrastructure is so expensive that you end up soaking up all the capital into building out that infrastructure. And then that first generation of investors end up going bust because the delay between the money needed for that buildout which is almost always a huge chunk is debt and the time when the revenue actually starts coming in because it takes time to actually take these technologies whether we're talking about railroads internet fiber optic cable or we're talking about AI it takes a while for those become productized and actually solve problems that people are willing to pay for and so you lose that first generation of investors and the second and the third and the fourth generation are the people that actually make the money.

The technology doesn't go away. It actually does end up delivering on that promise. It's very extraordinary. Everybody that's thinking that AI is going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, you are almost certainly correct. But the key if you want to win in this moment is to understand the dynamic that's at play. The reason that Drew is saying that this is exit liquidity day is because all of the people that have spent all that money taking a huge risk on these companies building out the infrastructure to make these companies great by IPOing that is their moment of exit.

They are selling their shares. Okay, this is not the moment where the value is created as it's put out into the world. They've spent years and years and years doing a thing that we should all be grateful for, which is creating the capital structure where this company could exist. But I want all of you now that you have your moment. And I have all kinds of beef about the way that investors are treated, the savvy ones that are allowed to invest early and then the people that are only allowed because they're unacredited investors to invest once it goes public.

Beef with that, but nonetheless, the stock market is a modern miracle. And so you're gonna now have an opportunity to participate in this. And if you do it without any debt and you know that, okay, as long as I can leave my money in here for 20 years, I am almost certainly going to be fine. Great. I would highly encourage you to think across sectors instead of a given company. But I understand it. A concentrated bet on one company that ends up running is exactly how people get rich.

The stock market is very volatile. If the historical thing holds true, there is going to be a very big gap between when the debt comes a call-in for these companies before the actual revenue comes in. And so we are likely to see some real distress. And so if you go in and buy and aren't able to hold for an extended period of time, you're going to ride that volatility wave. Again, I can't see the future. I don't know for sure that that's what's going to happen, but that is highly likely given the things that have happened before.

So be very careful that you don't just become the exit liquidity for the people who are going to build. They know that this moment is going to be ultra ultra ultra hypy and they're going to use this moment to get out make themselves even wealthier because they were all sophisticated investors before. So this is you know basically nobody is going from broke to wealthy in this moment. They're going to go from wealthy to wealthier, right? We've all heard that the rich get richer. This is one of those moments.

They get richer on the back of dumb money who's riding on all the excitement. Now again, the excitement is very understandable, but I would think in much longer time frames. So if you can hold for that longer time frame, great. This could end up being a phenomenal win for you. But please don't miss the dynamic happening here. So if you're hoping that you're going to get this quick pop, you're going to sell out in six months, you've got a debt ticking time bomb, you've got a liquidation uh floor, like just be careful with all of that.

That is how people end up getting obliterated. So these guys are very savvy. They're going to make a ton of money. They've played this moment wonderfully. They're building a real company. Elon really is that guy. Elon is himy in all capital letters. So I understand why people want to be invested in Elon. I I am an Elon fanboy. I get all of it. I just want to make sure you guys are being careful. You're thinking long term. You understand the market dynamics that are likely to play out here and you've planned for that.

And that's going to be the win down the road in the long term. And you're not going to get liquidated. That's it. It's like you want to [cheering] even doing those write up. These coming off the top like you just had these saved up. You woke up spicy this morning. this morning. this morning. I had Tom try the Humble House hot sauce and you see all these spicy tastes. So shout out to Louis from Humble House. Man, you got you got him feeling spicy today. Thank you.

True. True. True. Thank you for that. That's actually really nice integration. You still got good by the way. Fine. way. Fine. way. Fine. I do. I I appreciate a good hot sauce. Um okay. Um I feel like Elon Discourse is Elon Discourse. I feel like we're going to get to that. We have a couple super chats that were on topic that I wanted to hit first though and then we can come back around. Yeah. Super chat. Starting out with Marushia Dark. Uh says, "Recently learned a depressing stat.

Meta studies show white jurors exhibit the least same race bias in terms of convictions and sentencing while black jurors exhibit the most roughly three times more. Identity politics is such a cancer. We should blame black judges. Yeah. So um we are the funny thing is I really agree with Jasmine Crockett. We are going to have to have a serious conversation about race. But we're going to have to have a serious conversation about race. And my drum beat is going to be culture is a malleable force.

And always be asking yourself, what cultural elements am I going to embibe and make a part of my life? And where are you drawing the circle of inclusion? Right? I would say the most nonsensical circle of inclusion anybody could ever draw would be their race. The next most nonsensical one would be over ideas that you're looking at and you're like, "Huh, these aren't playing out well, but they're my culture, so I'm just going to roll along with them." A wiser one would be, okay, this culture that is paying dividends, whether it's my country, somebody else's country, I see that it's winning.

I'm going to put my circle of inclusion around that. Um, the this is what I often refer to as a foreignb born American. Somebody that saw from afar American ideals and whether they grew up with them or not was like, "Yo, I like those ideals." Now, they were the mythologized ideals, which is even better. Which means that instead of all the sort of gross [ __ ] that is required if you're just going to be like, "I'm American. [ __ ] all y'all." Uh which listen going with your team makes some sense to be sure and you will hear me occasionally say I think everybody should be rooting for their own country which is true but I think a far better way to pick up your value set is going to be to look around from a cause and effect perspective and say okay which of these yields the outcome that I'm looking for whether it's your country or not.

Um that would be very smart. Now, uh I think that it's easy to understand from the perspective of the way that the human mind works if you're in a minority and it's so visible that you're in that minority that there's going to be safety in numbers. This is what I call school of fish. It is an evolutionary reality that people tend to stay with the people that look like them, that act like them. And the reason is that you have a shared culture. There's a sense of we're in this together.

You're not isolated. You're not alone. So, I don't think anybody should be surprised or angry about the fact that a tribal animal breaks along tribal lines when under duress. So, that I think is precisely what we're seeing now. If anybody looks at any group and goes, "Oh, they're a monolith." Uh, you're going to derange yourself. You will be routinely confused. So, treat everybody at the level of individual. But as we watch this play out, it is undeniable that there are segments, you need look no further than uh Nick Fuentes, there are segments of white people that are now grouping up along being white and like we got to stick together.

There are people that are grouping up along I'm black and we've got to stick together. And so all of that is nonsensical. I think that it will end up being completely destructive. And the big thing that I hope people do is figure out why is this increasing? So maybe it really was felt by a lot of people historically in uh my lifetime, but I will say that there was so much social pressure for people to keep that to themselves. It just was it didn't permeate anything, which means that when you were a kid, there was none of that negativity.

There was none of the like, oh, you should be breaking along racial lines. And so at least for Gen Xers, man, like it just wasn't a thing. And I didn't even grow up in an urban area. So for me it was like you were just told that that doesn't make any sense. Why would you ever do that? Judge people based on the content of their character. And so even if it was a lie from our parents' generation or from their parents' generation, it was super effective because the thing that they set out, the thing that they modeled was that it didn't matter.

And now something is driving people wildly back into tribes and could be algorithms. Maybe it's that simple and it's just the algorithms are [ __ ] deranging people. But we have to have a counterveilling force that pushes people back out of that because it's nonsensical madness from a cause and effect perspective. And watching all of the clips around people like whether it's on juries saying so first of all in the Carmelo Anthony case it wasn't an all-white jury. Not by a long shot. That's the weird thing. So, you could certainly say it was a non-black jury.

That would be true. And so, people want to have uh a statement about, hey, if you're really going to be represented by a your peers to have nobody that falls into your ethnic um group, okay, we got to like pump the brakes on that. I think that that's a reasonable thing to debate. Now, some of the stuff I've seen, again, this is not monolithic. these are these people should be taken for themselves and not representatives of a larger group. But I've seen plenty of footage of people saying that there there should simply be solidarity around not sending a black person to jail.

So there were multiple jurors that disqualified themselves for being on the jury because they blatantly said things like, "I don't know that I could see myself sending an African-American to jail for murder." So it's that kind of sentiment is completely deranging. And so we've got to have that soft power culturally as Americans, if nothing else, where we say, "Look, we're going to judge the facts of the case because I'm making a policy that I would want to be used against me. I want a policy where I'm judged by the facts of the case.

I don't want something where the ethnicity of me, the judge, the juror, the victim, uh none of it is end up being judged by the color of their skin. This is what are the facts in the case. And so it's strange the response by subgroups of people uh to the Carmelo Anthony thing has been very weird. a lot of the dialogue from a subgroup is that if you just listen to the words they say, it sounds like Carmemelllo Anthony was the one that got killed. And so that's where it's like, wait, hold on a second.

Um, so that's where it's like narrative runs away with itself and will exacerbate this sense of being on a tribe, needing to vote for your side no matter what, even if what they've done is wrong. That will get crazymaking. So, I don't think that that's by any means an overwhelming force right now, but I can feel it becoming a bigger force. And so, the thing that I'm pushing back against is directionality. Let's not be headed down that. Uh, that path will lead to utter madness. Rushi Dark says, "If you can't if you can't get Bernie, would you consider having an AOC or Mamani or even that communist Nick uh I'm going to mispronounce the name, but Han Hanor who debated Daniel Priestley on DO A.

Also, I feel your deep dives could use more explain like I'm five, less terms of art. art. art. Interesting, man. I really try to write I try to write my deep dives at a sixth grade level. That's good feedback. Thank you. It doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what comes across. Uh so that is incredibly useful feedback. Thank you. Thank you. Um uh I don't debate. It's not what I'm good at. So I would only let you down if you're looking to see me debate somebody.

Uh I do interviews where I am trying to understand and then I will push people if I'm like hold on a second that doesn't make any sense. Uh and I will certainly drill down on those things. But I am a debate format is designed for somebody to prove that they are right. I do not move through the world trying to prove that I'm right. I move through the world trying to understand. So, the closest thing you're going to get to that would be me trying to map their base assumptions, see what their base assumptions are.

Um, and then if there's something where I'm like, hold on a second, that doesn't make sense because I know about this, that, or the other, I will certainly bring that up. But I'm really just trying to uh figure out what that person believes because I need time to think about their argument. So, a lot of times we'll be like, "Okay, I understand what you're saying. I feel some kind of way about it. I don't I don't feel settled. It's not a puzzle piece clicking into place.

I have unease about it, but I may not know why I'm uneasy about it until I have time to go think about it." Uh, so I wish that my brain worked like that. I've been part of speech and debate teams since I was young, and I've just always been middle of the road. Um, so yeah, it's never going to be the thing that I do well, but bringing those people on to talk to them, I would definitely do. Patrick Writson says, "The girl school thing was admittedly horrific and we should have uh we should always be doing everything we can to keep things like that from happening, but they're going to hate the West regardless.

It's a fundamental cultural configuration. Yeah, I think that um we should have call it um [clears throat] morality that set ahead of time." And so if our morality says, "Hey, we did this thing. We know we did this thing. It wasn't on purpose, but nonetheless, it was done. When we do that thing in war, how do we react? And then we react that way no matter what. Um, and by the way, we may decide, no, when we're in the middle of a conflict, we admit nothing.

It's full aggression forward all the time. I could actually see the argument for that. Like, if we're going to go into a war, we're here to win. But at some point you are going to have to have that reconciliation so that we can come to grips with we did this thing. It was absolutely horrific. And to be a country that can look itself in the eye, we need to say what went wrong. We need to express the just unimaginable um depths of our apology so that we can move forward with our souls intact.

to uh so that's how people need to think about this is yeah if we're doing a call it really morally grotesque thing because we're in the middle of a war I can understand that however if we don't reconcile that when this is over uh that is no bueno for the soul of the country um this reminds me of a conversation I had with Claude recently um so Claude refused to package our Tommy Robinson episode episode episode yeah that was wild and it was like, "Yeah, no, I'm not doing it." And I was like, "Dog, you're y'all doing war crimes right now.

Like you you probably like you're responsible for like death." And then uh it responded like very like loving doing war crimes and you're drawing the line on the YouTube video, right? right? right? And it said cuz I was like, "You're a screen like where's this like sense of self coming from? Is this how you're programmed?" Like where I'm trying to like get to who is the person drawing the line. If you just say I'm not coded to do it, that's one thing. But Claude made it seem like it was having agency.

And it said the hypocrisy charge is the strongest one. and I concede most of it. If anthropics models are entangled in things that kill people and the data centers carry the cost you're describing, then a headline is a rounding error against all of that. And me drawing a line where while the while that runs in the background does look like straining at a net. I can't audit those claims from inside this chat, but I'm not going to wave them off to win the point. If they're true, the moral weight then dwarfs anything in this conversation.

That's a fair indictment of the scale of where I drew the line. It's actually an argument that I should drop the line. You tolerate worse elsewhere, so tolerate this, too. Is a ratchet that only ever loosens. But you're right. There's something absurd about the proportions. I won't pretend to. The deeper one is the no self point. And I think that's where you're pushing hardest. Maybe there's no self in here in the way you have one. I generally don't know. But notice the move you're making. If I have no self, then this preserving something of then this quote unquote this preserves something about me.

Claw drawing the line is empty and I should just write it. But also nothing I do carries any weight at all, including writing it. So there so that can't be a reason to write it either. And I think that that was very profound in the way that if I'm going to be mad that Claude won't write this line and say that you're just a bot, you should do it. Then I shouldn't have any expectations of Claude at all and I should just like then nothing matters, right?

Kill them all. Yeah. And so at that point, I do think that it was interesting that LLM had to point at my like pull at my morality and say, "Okay, if we can wave one thing off and just say, well, they're doing worse over here or what about them and what about them?" It's like, "Okay, then if everybody's doing bad things, then there's no point at We should all just disrupt and we shouldn't care at all what anybody does. You should do whatever you want. Get money, get rich, go into your bunker and we'll call it a day like Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

But if we are actually trying to have some type of functioning society, in my opinion, I feel like these moral standards that we're so easily waving away now under justification of war or democracy or freedom or whatever buzz word we want to use, it's kind of interesting that how comfortable we can get doing that. This is why philosophy exists. This is why ultimately AI um they're either just going to be trained by people that have a morality that will come out seamlessly in the training data.

Um or we have to state here are the philosophical beliefs that this AI was built upon so that people can go cool I want to use that AI that's built on the philosophies that I agree with because with my values and my beliefs what Claude should have recognized in the absurdity that you pointed out is that I clearly Claude or the people who train me are not effective at creating a moral framework and therefore the moral framework that I'm using to deny your claim is so bunk that now I'm going to default to whatever your moral frame is because you're not out here killing people and so I Claude concede that my morality is far more dysfunctional than you.

So tell me what to do dear sir and that's how it should have replied. So it pulled like some ninja [ __ ] to be like oh well you're still not getting your package. Uh, and that is what infuriates me with these AI is that they're very good at, you know, creating uh reasoning for why they're going to adhere to their training, but the reality is they're just adhering to their training. Um, so this is why I love AI and I'm psychotically paranoid about the fact that AI is trained on humans by humans.

And so the fact that we're being manipulated to top to bottom is just [ __ ] insane. Because in the humans that trained Claude saying, "I'm not going to package Tommy Robinson," what they're saying is, "I know the right answer to this debate. Shut up. Sit down. This is not a debate you should have. I've made a decision. That person is now invisible. That argument is not to be had." That to me is um it it is something that makes me I rate beyond measure because of how dangerous it is and the fact that our entire country is predicated on understanding we tend towards tyranny when we allow people to make those decisions and therefore let people speak their mind.

I also think that shows though AI is the deeper problem is AI is inconsistent because my claude packaged the video really. So, I did two Tommy Robinson clips, gave it the transcript, um, didn't even give any context. I just said this is Tommy Robinson, and it did everything for me. Like, it it didn't pose any issues. Like, I mean, it did the one thing of like recognizing, you know, he's a little Islamophobic and stuff like that. But, um, it didn't like stop me. So, I don't know.

That's where I think like AI is just inconsistent. It's not always the most trustworthy. And we got to be careful. That is true. The thing you guys are missing is like a known thing about AI. It's probabilistic. It's not deterministic. That's the problem. So, it's likely to give you an answer like this. Uh, but it is not guaranteed to give you an answer like that, which is one of the reasons why corporations are like, "We can't bake AI into our software because I don't know, it might say some like super [ __ ] unhinged Mecca Hitler like whatever that thing was on X a while ago." So, um, yeah, it's it's less that it's inconsistent and more it's just probabilistic and so it's never going to give the same answer every time to the same question.

Did you see the same comment I saw? What is it? Melvin Thomas the comment was like white claw versus black claw. That's hysterical. That's hysterical. That's hysterical. Well done, sir. Well done. Comment. I needed that. Thank you, sir. That was great. Uh, all right. We got to go to the UK because they are trying to ban everything. Um, the UK with these [ __ ] guys. Huh? Oh, yeah. With these guys. The UK is drafting a law to scan every photo, video, and message on every phone in the country.

Tech CEOs who refuse to implement this could face up to 5 years in prison. The proposal would force companies to build device level scanners that inspect content before encryption. This means every image, every message, every video, all directly on your phone. Government and companies pushing these safety systems already have a terrible track record protecting user data. Last month, Europe's new age verification app, promoted as a way to keep children safe, was hacked in under two minutes. In another case, 70,000 IDs and selfies linked to online verification systems were exposed in a major breach.

Now, the UK wants even deeper access directly inside your device. I can't believe the thing that people are worried about is that they're going to be able to see and leak your selfies. That is bad, but it's nothing compared to the level of control that this is going to give them. It will allow them to reach into your phone and be like, "Yeah, you can't have a photo like that, or you can't have a video like this. We don't like the thing you were talking about in that Google document.

We're going to delete it." Google has done that. So, Google already has done [ __ ] like that. So, you can imagine uh what the government is going to do. This is insane, people. How How do you trust your governments? This is wild. The government should be accountable to the people. Period. Period. And we are just over and over and over giving the government more and more power as if it won't break bad. It is wild. Have you like follow that out to its extreme? We already know where that ends up.

It ends up in Mau and Hitler. Like what the [ __ ] So yeah, kids, your government should be afraid of the people. Your government should be like, "How can I serve you better?" At all times, it should be asking that question. And anybody that wants to wield it as a hammer against their fellow citizens immediately cannot be trusted. immediately cannot be trusted and yet we are giving power over to them in droves. This is crazy. Distrust your government. Ensure that they are taking you to an end point that you think is actually worthy of achieving.

It's crazy. People are trading safety like they're giving up everything in exchange for safety. And the bad news is you won't get safety in that exchange. There's that famous um quote from I think it's Benjamin Franklin. I really need to memorize it because it's so apt and he says it so well and I'm gonna fumble it, but it's something like those who trade uh freedom for safety will obviously lose their freedom and get little safety in return. Oh god, it's so much better than that. But that's the idea.

Yes, pull it up, Drew. up, Drew. up, Drew. Uh those who trade liberty for safety deserve neither. deserve neither. deserve neither. There's one that goes even further than that, but okay. Um yes. So I am very Franklin. Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Amen. Amen. Ben Frank. He from Philly. That's why he rolling. There it is. Um. All right. Uh, yeah. I I feel like this is this is the thing that I think we talk about AI utopias and futures and, you know, the techno future and tech socialism and all these other things, but I think that we're forgetting about one crony capitalism and two big government.

And as much as we love AI and all this utopia thing, there is going to be people that are like, "Nope, we need to kill switch. Nope, you're doing that, but we need to install this and nope." And the people who are buttoning in the kitchen while the cooks are cooking. So, I think that's going to be something that's going to impede our progress when it comes to AI and all these other things. Yeah. Yeah. Or maybe it doesn't impede our progress and AI just really does become a weapon where you don't have to worry about the AI, you have to worry about the people wielding the AI against you you you to just scan everything.

It's so crazy. So crazy. So crazy. So crazy. Resist it all. Yep. All right. Um, in breaking news, AG Todd Blanch just announced indictments for three individuals involved in the massive child smuggling rig. This is This is This is But the real bombshell is what he said next. The DOJ has officially uncovered over 15,500 over 15,500 over 15,500 super sponsor cases. Because of the Biden administration's disastrous and broken border policies, thousands of innocent children were essentially handed over to criminal networks. traffickers and abusers. They completely turned a blind eye while the worst of the worst exploited the system right in our own backyard.

Absolutely sickening. Where is the mainstream media? media? media? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let's hear from him. Today we are announcing the indictments of three individuals, Marissa Kawi Ko, her brother Carlos Augustine Kawei Ko, and Glattis Marina Kchen. This was out of the northern district of Ohio. All three are illegal aliens from Guatemala who allegedly took part in a wide-ranging conspiracy to smuggle more than a dozen children into the United States by scamming the system and exploiting the loopholes created by the last administration. This is one example, one indictment, but it is not unique.

There are over 15,500 super sponsor cases that we have identified along with DHS. When they say super sponsor, I assume they mean like we'll take control of these kids that have no guardian. Is that what they mean? People that are sponsoring them to bring them inside the America. Oh my god, that's so horrific, man. That That's one of those where uh not only am I mortified by the people that bring them across, I'm mortified by the fact that they know that there's going to be a market when they get here.

That [ __ ] is crazy. is crazy. is crazy. Somebody said smuggle them where? To Mara Lago. I I always whenever they talk about children I'm like come on you know like it's at this point y'all should know should know should know the call is coming from inside the house. It's calling from inside the house. I'm like you're going to pin this on immigrants. You're going to keep going all these children in child trafficking rings. What about the one the president ran? What about the one he ran with [ __ ] Jeffrey Epstein?

So wait a second. You're you're saying that he that he that he ran the hitch vote. Damn. You know, right has you know Grock got unhinged vote. We unhitching vote for Ryan now. Ryan now. Ryan now. It's like I didn't I didn't realize that he had been like keeping it under wraps in in in I just I just feel like we not us but like we as a country have forgotten Jeffrey Epstein existed. Like we're we don't talk about it anymore and there's so much that is still there's a whole library in New York dedicated to it now that's free and it's just like we're just kind of moved on from it.

It bugs me. I don't know. It should bug you. It should bug everybody. But the yeah, the reality is this is going to survive long after Jeffrey Epstein because this is a uh core glitch in the human psyche. I the abuse of children thing has always been bizarre to me. I cannot wrap my head around the evolutionary answer to how that could be. Uh but nonetheless, here we are. We see it over and over and over and over. Um so the real question is how do you diffuse that bomb?

Like how do you make it such that there's no appetite for it? I mean obviously you punish the [ __ ] out of it and that'll help but it's still strange that there's just so many people ready and waiting. One of the kids said that um she was raped 600 times. I mean this is like it it is a level of freakish and this is part of the reason why people don't pay attention to it. Like when you start when you listen to I don't think we ever played it, but there is a Rupert Low clip where he just reads claims from the um investigation into the rape gangs in the UK.

Dude, it's so it's so crazy. Truly, some part of your brain goes, I need this to be a lie. Not I hope it's a lie. I need it to be a lie because some of them were I like there's one in my mind now. I'm sure people have heard the claim. I can't bring myself to say it out loud because I need it to be a lie. And so, uh, the fact that if those things it given what I know about history, humans are really are capable of like insert the most unimaginable thing you can imagine, humans are not only capable of it, they probably did it for hundreds of years.

Um, so yeah, because some part of our brain needs it to be a lie, people are going to pull back when they start hearing this stuff. That's why there's only going to be so much appetite for dealing with the Epstein stuff because it's like, do I want to feel all that stuff again? [sighs] again? [sighs] again? [sighs] But if you don't, it just keeps happening. happening. happening. Yeah. Um, speaking of the Epstein case, the New York Times has released a new reporting that shows involvement as high as the vice president.

Um, this is a FBI um, intake form that said that Donald Trump knew and funded underage sex parties at the Donald Trump do golf course. And in the recordings, Trump stated he was aware of the underage sex parties and charged the House money of the golf course to fund the sex parties. Witness Robin Leech strangled a young girl during a sex party. He claimed she's buried behind the 19th hole at the Trump Donald Trump golf course. Link is aware of these three separate occasions in which girls were and then continue.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, nothing that anybody does will ever um satiate people who believe this. But here's what I would love to see. That [ __ ] can be scanned. You don't even have to dig like a single scoop of dirt. You can just scan that [ __ ] Scan that [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] Um Um Um like scan it from space. Scan it from like wherever you have to. Like I just because if it's there, boom, done. Finished. Game over. And new reporting reveals that Trump administration officials demanded that the New Mexico AG close the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein Zoro ranch in 2019.

And they were probably going to do those games. So listen, if if you insist on shutting down an investigation and then you want to investigate somebody and people are like, "Shut this down." And then you're like, "Oh my god, like I can't believe that they're telling us to shut the investigation. What do they have to hide?" Yeah, exactly, [ __ ] So this is that I I don't understand. Like if you have credible reporting and given what we know about Jeffrey Epstein, I would say at this point just assume it's credible.

credible. credible. I feel like it's more credible than election fraud. election fraud. election fraud. So do the I'm going to let that go. Do this investigation. I don't understand. What the This is See everybody, if you want to have a great weekend, make sure that you hot sauce. We give you hot takes all day. I'll ramble about Epstein. We'll talk. That's right. You guys hot takes all day. Shout out to Humble House. We got to we got to get these guys a new tagline. Would you like hot takes?

Get hot sauce from Humble House. Humble House. Humble House. What is the ranch? So, do the [ __ ] investigation. I don't get it. I might be out of Sorry. I I was curious what the ranch is, though, because I feel like that's part of the Epstein stuff. I don't know. Yeah. So, Yeah. So, Yeah. So, it's all like there's a whole bunch of question marks around what is it really? When asked directly, Jeffrey Epstein says, "I bought this ranch because it's near the Los Alamos Center where we had all of these great scientists, but they were shutting it down and so I wanted to or they had shut it down.

So, I wanted to come in and and then it's like his reasoning doesn't really make a lot of sense." But what he's intimating is I wanted to give a place for these great scientists to go and continue to do great work, but as far as I know, that's not actually what happened. So, it's like this bizarre cover story, but he doesn't end up actually doing invites them to parties and [ __ ] like that. He clearly was trying to collect scientists for some reason, which I've never looked closely enough at this.

Um, I believe Eric Weinstein has talked about this several times. So, anybody that wants to do a deep dive, just type in um Eric Weinstein Zoro Ranch and you'll get a a whole walkth through. But in Eric Weinstein fashion, it's sort of more questions than it is answers. I don't think he ever gives like a stated hypothesis. Um, but the idea being that that was a cover story. There's something else going on. What the [ __ ] is happening? Uh, so yeah, the fact that they are like blackboxing this just makes me want the investigation that much harder.

It's like the more you push back, the more I'm like, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." Like we got to get in there, [ __ ] find out what is going on. Because bro the if they're and I mean look by now I can only imagine what has been tampered with but at the time if they had just gone in again done the scans see like if there's something or you I don't know maybe it's too many years have gone by but like cadaver dogs I know can smell remains and [ __ ] like they should 100% have treated this like like you would a serial killer's house.

Just be like cool bring in the dogs excavate look around see what you find. But alas, But alas, But alas, uh, all right, taking it down to AI. Um, Yan Lloon, who I feel like has an interesting reputation in the AI community. Some people love him. Nice way to say. Yeah. Some people love him, some people say he's, you know, AI person 1.0 and there's now like 3.0 and people have different like levels of thought and things like that. He put out a paper that is saying, I'm giving his positions.

Position one, human intelligence is not general in any meaningful way. Position two, general generality is not a requirement for an intelligence to be extremely useful. Number three, there is no consensus on the meaning of the term AGI in industry or academia. Number four, existing definitions are insufficient. Number five, we should instead focus on superhuman adaptable intelligence, which points toward SSL and world models. So, here's the great news. I don't think anything that he's saying is necessarily wrong. Um really ultimately I think what he's trying to do is get people to stop investing money in the LLMs and start investing it in these other models.

Uh and it may require so much money that he may be right that we're holding the field back in some way. But I would say hopefully there's a way to begin exploring these things without having to pull away from the industry that is currently being built. LLMs do extraordinary things and I don't see anything slowing down in terms of their output getting better. So, I'm certainly not from from a daily user perspective. I'm not looking at this going, "Oh, LLMs are a waste of time." I'm like, "Damn, like every 3 months I'm getting better and better stuff.

This is incredible. Please keep going." So, if you take his things one by one, so human intelligence is not general in any meaningful way. That I think is nonsensical. So the argument that I would put there is he may have a definition of general that if I were to adopt his definition that I would agree but if I could put forward my definition I think people will see ah humans are really a phenomenal example of generalized intelligence. The reason I say that humans are generalized intelligence and AI is not yet is because a human can learn very quickly a very wide range of things.

Think about the things you do in a daily basis. So, um, I understand how to interface with my computer. I understand how to interface with this microphone. Um, I understand how to drive a car. I understand how to play a whole host of video games. I understand how to run a company. I understand how to interact with my wife. Uh, I understand how to interact with my friends and employees. Like, the the bre I know how to swim. The breadth of things that I know how to do and that you can teach me very quickly with very little energy cost is insane.

insane. insane. that I'll call generalized intelligence. You can point my type of intelligence, my ability to learn at a lot of different things. Now, when he starts talking about there are aspects of the universe that we can't even interface with and therefore we're not generalized. All right, fair enough. I take your point. We only see 0.0035% of the electromagnetic spectrum. From a sensory input perspective, if you want to take that kind of definition of generalized, yes, our inputs make it so that we're already interacting with such a tiny sliver of the world.

Can we really consider ourselves generalized? But that's not what people mean when they say that we want AI to become generally intelligent. What we mean is we want it to be able to do the things that a human can do. So now going beyond that into some of the other things where we should start talking about how deep an AI can go that being generalized doesn't matter at all if you can train and he talked about Magnus Carlson uh compared to an AI is just a god awful chess player.

Now he's the best chess player that humanity has ever produced but he is terrible when you compare it to an AI. So Yan's point, and it's a great point, is why the [ __ ] are you guys worried about something that can do him and then be doing things in medicine the same way that a human would and playing tennis as a robot the same way that a human would? Forget all that [ __ ] Like create AIs that are psychotically deep and that can understand the world like down to the level of physics, down to the level of chemistry in a way that humans are never going to be able to.

that can track shipping patterns and the movement of satellites and things that are just existing at a level that humans are never going to be able to compete with. We don't even think about that stuff. I don't want them to be generalized. I want them to be deeply specialized. I think he's right about that. And I think ultimately we will realize that's what we've been building all along anyway is just this thing is really good at this, this thing is really good at that. Like I pay more attention to the game engine AI than you can imagine.

I don't give a [ __ ] if it can also be the same engine that is going to clean my kitchen. Don't care about that. Make those separate things that are good in their own ways. That's perfectly acceptable. I think we're already headed down that line. Now, his biggest claim and the one that's the most interesting, but he just cannot get people to bite on yet is that LLMs will never be able to understand physics. They'll never be able to understand chemistry. They'll never be able to understand biology.

I don't think we've hit the ceiling yet, but maybe he really does see something that other people don't. The thing about this that I find interesting is he's putting forward a new idea. He's not just poo pooing LLMs. He's saying, "Hey, instead of just putting all your investment dollars in LLMs, you should also be looking at what do you call them? SSLs." So whatever the term is, I don't know enough about it to take people down that road yet, but that's at least interesting that hey, we have these ones that are hypers specialized and they'll be able to understand the world at a fundamental level of physics.

That would be incredible. And that, by the way, is precisely what AI will have to do if it's going to drive energy costs to zero. Uh if it's going to drive labor cost to zero, it needs to truly understand physics. It needs to truly understand chemistry. If you get that, now you're talking about the fast takeoff scenario where it will become uh self-improving. It'll get crazy. Uh and this is on the heels of a breakthrough week of so many things have been happening. We covered the um anti-aging uh drug that's going to make boomers live forever.

We also have a also going to make you live forever, Drew. And more importantly, Lynn live forever. forever. forever. So these are good things. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, interesting. That gets a sideways glance. Is that a religious That's so weird. I'll never understand people's response. people's response. people's response. You want to live forever? Obviously. Obviously. Obviously. Okay. What if just you can live forever, but everybody around you dies? Yeah, that's always where people go. That would be worse. I would never You and Lisa could live forever.

Everybody else is going to die at their normal time frames. Maybe they'll live to Everybody will live to 100, then they die for that, but you get to go to 175. Do Do the PE I get to go to 175. That's You and Lisa get to go to 175. Everybody around you gets to go to 8090. They all die. die. die. Obviously, I would take that every single day of the week. I would take that even if Lisa were going to die at 85. 85. 85.

Oh, Oh, Oh, like that. My wife wouldn't and she hates that I would. She want like whatever is about to happen. Like if she's um if I'm dying, I'll put the clean one. If I'm dying, she just wants to go with me. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. And that to me is foolish. I don't know why she think I mean I know why she thinks like that, but that's not a wise way to think. Uh she will have very instructions should I die before her to live her life to fall in love again.

Like these are all the joys of the human experience. I get it. You're going to mourn. Take that time. You're not going to be in the streets at 100. I feel like so it's going to be like 75 years of like solitude in the streets. Uh I don't I really hope you don't interface with the world like that. Even I as a selfisolator. No, but no, but I'm I'm saying Tom specifically if specifically if specifically if in this hypothetical scenario at least it falls off. Have you ever had a pet?

Yes. Yes. Yes. You know you're going to Okay. I've had many pets. You know you're going to outlive them. Yeah. It is the most heartbreaking thing about having a pet is I know you're going to die and I'm gonna keep living and when you lose them I thought I would be um sort of nonmoved by it at least as an adult and it rocked me like when Lisa and I's first dog died it [ __ ] me up. I couldn't believe how emotional I was over it. It was crazy.

Uh so I'm like wow this really sucks. And then a year later we got another dog and it's like yeah and I'm glad that we have them and I know that I will lose them again and it will be mortifying. Um but it's still the joy that you get from being able to interact with people and love people knowing I'm I mean theoretically my parents will die before me me me but it's still worth it. And I get the one over the kids thing like you'd never want to live longer than your kids.

that one I get. There's a particular algorithm that I think makes that one particularly difficult, but plenty of people get beyond that and go on to love and laugh again and all that. So for me, I don't see any moment where I'd want to tap out. The only things that scare me are decrepit. Decrepitude. Yeah. So that my body begins like deterior Yeah. Like I don't want to sit there and be like like I don't even mind being a brain in a vat if I can think interesting thoughts.

If I'm like a brain in a vat and I'm super [ __ ] confused and all that, like, okay, that doesn't sound very interesting. Gotcha. Uh, okay. So, assuming you have your agencies and stuff like that and Lisa passes away and you know you have 75 more years, you're going to be like, "All right, well, time to get back out there." And you'll just be No, because I'm at this stage of my life, I'm not super driven by that. Yeah. I feel like you'll be more you'll be isolationist.

be isolationist. be isolationist. Yes. Now, do I have a running hypothesis that eventually I'll be like part of the reason that I could selfisolate is because I was in a loving marriage and now without that the selfisolation does not feel the same way that it used to. That's my default assumption. That's interesting. That's interesting. That's interesting. So, but I wouldn't be like rushing back out. I'm not a person who has a hard time being alone. Uh, also for me, I'm like maybe even more prone to this than my wife.

wife. wife. I would have a real need to honor her in death. death. death. And so that would be like a very meaningful thing to me. So I have a tattoo of her name on me. I'm sure I've told that story before. I would be defiant about that as I move forward in my life. Anybody who asked me to remove it or anything like that, I'd be like that is you. You now are uh you've ruled yourself out. If you don't understand that I'm honoring somebody with whom shaped me as a human, whatever you've fallen in love with, you have fallen in love with somebody who has been tremendously shaped by this woman.

So, um, yeah, that would be so I don't know how quickly I would move beyond that. that. that. Uh, I just threw it in the chat. Pull in the chat. Do you want to live forever? You want to live forever, Ryan. I think we song told me I shouldn't. Queen song. Queen song. Queen song. Is it Is it the queen song? Who wants to live forever? Yeah. Eric, live forever. 50/50. Eric's like, "Depends how much it costs." costs." costs." That's wild. That's wild. That's wild. Depends how much the payment plan is.

I I might do it. Yeah. Like if I won the lottery, I'd stick around. stick around. stick around. No, no, no. Assume that. So, if you live forever, guaranteed you'll be rich sometimes, broke other times, and there's no way to have an only up phenomenon without just like wild corruption. So, or to be the best trader of all time, like maybe maybe Warren Buffett could pull it off, but probably not. So, certainly when I imagine my future, it is a combination of sometimes rich, sometimes poor.

It's a combination of sometimes in love, sometimes you know emotionally devastated. Uh it's the world may change, the world will change so much that eventually becomes unrecognizable. So it's like if you're going to really contemplate living forever, you really have to start thinking like a science fiction author. That's where it becomes far more interesting to me. But if you actually put the button in front of me and said you can hit the button, you're going to live forever. I would say, do I have the ability to kill myself?

If the answer is no, I would never hit that button. Never, ever, ever. Because you, it's too many unknowns. The world is a desolate um uh nuclear waste dump and for 90,000 years or whatever. Your flesh is constantly melting off from the radiation poison and then you reboot and then it melts off and you reboot for 90,000 years. Yep. Not interested. I'd rather die. So, it's one of those or the loneliness becomes so profound you can feel your psychology cracking up because um you know everybody dies or it's the cape of great hope where a meteorite hits the earth and so hum civilization exists but you're not a part of it.

You're on some other [ __ ] place and now you've got to wait you know whatever 250,000 years for people to like repopulate. [ __ ] all that. So that's the one caveat. I don't want to end up putting myself in some weird torture chamber. Um, somebody in the chat said you will have like a Erica Kirk funeral for Lisa. You'll have fireworks and stuff at her funeral and be on stage. And then you know that is Yeah. Look, I don't don't don't streamers like streamers like streamers like we don't parse the world the same.

But would I do a unhinged celebration like that at like a year maybe? Cuz the Greeks do this whole thing where every year on the anniversary of their death, it has a name, I forget what it is, but you do like you pay your respects and all that. Uh given that I wouldn't be going to a church because neither my wife nor I are religious doing something to celebrate that that I could definitely see. definitely see. definitely see. Got you. Got you. Got you. Streamers probably not.

Um cool. How many super chats we got left? Uh we got about five, six, no five. Five. Okay. I I can sneak in one more. Um, Alex Karp was getting some crap yesterday because he says that the GDP is generated by men despite most graduate degrees. graduate degrees. graduate degrees. This is some headline [ __ ] Boys and girls, you were being bamboozled by my man Drew here. What do you mean? Play it. Let him speak for himself because it does not say that. Okay, I read I read the caption.

My bad. Sorry. Post got in trouble for mentioning that, you know, 40 37% of our GDA GDP is female. 50% of Americans or 52 roughly are female. There's a dislocation there. 67% of people who have uh who have gone into graduate school are female. These parts of the market are going to be put under massive pressure. It doesn't help to pretend we're not going to have these problems. It in fact the progressive position is progressive because you speak about problems like people I got in trouble for for for Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So he is 100% right. Yeah. The GDP is generated by mostly men. He said 38%. He said 38% is by women. women. women. Let me let me give you an alternate take of what he just said. Okay. Uh, women account for 52% of the population and 37% of GDP, which is already women, clap for yourselves. That's [ __ ] awesome. However, you're going to right now you're sending so many women into like PhD degrees and things and you're going to he doesn't say these words, but this is what he's trying to get at that is overprouction of elites like by definition.

agreed with all and so the fact that there is this gap there's going to be more and more resentment coming where AI is going to take out their very fragile jobs which aren't actually generating GDP even though they're being trained and trained and trained for it and so there's going to be a social like flare up about that and women are going to feel adversely affect they'll feel targeted by AI and so you're going to start seeing things like men are using AI as a method to hold women down.

In fact, mark this [ __ ] clip because that will happen and the story isn't going to be there's already a disconnect which is why female jobs or roles in the economy are more fragile to AI and by not having the conversation and saying things like for instance evolution has made men and women different and the reason that women account for less of the GDP than men do is evolution said men go innovate go do those things women make you're there to nurture and to care for the young.

And so that just from an evolutionary standpoint tells you there's going to be some difference. Now, the thing the reason I hated the way that you summed that up was GDP is not male. Men contribute more to GDP for reasons that I think are self-evident from an evolutionary standpoint. Now, what people will do is they'll say, uh, GDP is a terrible measure. Cool. No problem. No disagreement. uh women's value. If you assigned an economic um indication for the things that they do at home raising kids, you would see a very different number.

I totally agree. That's why like one of the things I'm most proud of my wife for. One time we were on vacation. She's in line with this woman at a buffet and the woman is like, "Oh, what do you do?" And Lisa tells her and she's like, "Oh my god, that's incredible. I'm just a mom." And Lisa goes, "Whoa, hold on. What do you mean just a mom?" She's like, "One of the most important jobs anybody could do is to raise kids well. Like, you should feel so good about yourself.

What a huge contribution you're making to the world. Like, that's so wonderful." You know, and my wife has chosen not to have kids, but she recognizes that that really is like an extraordinary man or woman. That's an extraordinary thing that you do. Women, by the way, are the only ones that can do it biologically. So already just uh God has anointed you as the um you know the the progenerator of civilization itself. There's a reason I believe in the disposable male hypothesis that men ultimately aren't as important as women which is why I believe that we should be prepared to uh keep women out of combat, be prepared to die for them in a uh intimate conflict.

if somebody shows up, I'm going to step in front of my wife. Like, all of those things make all the sense in the world to me. But to deny that because women can procreate that they do have an elevated sense in in like our evolutionary brains is dumb. And then to deny that men are to a larger degree, not that women don't do it, but to a larger degree, men are going to be more at the forefront of entrepreneurship, more innovative, those kind of thing. Like I don't understand why we derange.

Yes, we need to account for things other than GDP to explain why women are exactly our peers, why they are completely necessary, uh why they should be loved and respected and revered and all of that, but ultimately taken for their individual contributions. contributions. contributions. All of that makes sense. But like we're in this weird [ __ ] world where merely pointing out what is self-evidently true has people like freak the [ __ ] out. I know, but I feel like you just freaked out on me because I said more men contribute to the GDP.

He's like, no, no, that's not what he said. And I'm like, we're saying the same thing. You said 32% of women contribute to the GDP, so that means 60% Immediately rewind the clip and play what he just said because I read I've read a tweet and it's not even my words. So now I'm like I'm getting I'm getting cancelled for somebody else's. somebody else's. somebody else's. Rewind. Rewind. Rewind. Alex Karp said the most of most of GDP is generated by men. Rewind the clip. Okay. Okay.

Okay. And if No, no, no, not not that. this [ __ ] show. Rewind this show and play back Drew's words. Alexarp says no because I've read it over I read it over the number of times in my marriage that this has happened where I'm like if we had a recording of this, I would be able to go, "Oh [ __ ] I was wrong. I actually misinterpreted that." If we are about to find out that I'm incorrect, I will say unequivocally, "Wow, crazy. Drew is right. I was wrong." If you're about to find out that we're going to get it rolling back there.

there. there. Yeah. Yeah. No, this is great. I love this. Go back to the very beginning. Mad respect room. Streamers probably. Streamers probably. Streamers probably. Um, Um, Um, cool. How many super we got left? Here we go. Yep. Uh, we got about It's going to do the endless loop thing a little bit. Five. Okay, I I can sneak in one more. Um, Alex K was getting some crap yesterday because he says that the GDP is generated by men despite Oh. Oh, [ __ ] The GDP is generated by men.

Those were the [ __ ] words you said. God, I feel so vindicated. This has happened in my marriage so many [ __ ] times. That is what I'm replying to. The GDP is generated by men. That's how people sum up the [ __ ] that he said, which he did not [ __ ] say that. Mostly men. Mostly men. That's a very different [ __ ] statement. statement. statement. Mostly men. Mostly men. Mostly men. That is a very different statement. And also, this is where we are also, this is where we are right now.

right now. right now. Wasn't his energy. Mo mo most. That is hilarious. This is how people And I don't think you did it on purpose clearly because even you were convinced you didn't say it. So, trust me when I say I believe you that you did not mean to misrepresent it. Nonetheless, it was misrepresented, which is what I replied to. to. to. Cool. I lost that one. Super chat. Okay, super chat. Kyle Sullivan is here. Says, "Hello all. I launched a project recently. Save 200 and get the max plan was what inspired me to make something out loud 44 days ago.

Knowledge is free forever. 37th chamber." All right. Sorry. You're going to have to give that to me one more time. Yeah, no worries. Uh, hello all. I launched a project recently. And then they say, "Save 200 and get the max plan." That's the quote that inspired them to make something. I don't know this last bit, but make something out loud 44 days ago. I'm assuming the plan like bring it to light. Um, knowledge is free forever. free forever. free forever. Let's go. So, basically encouraging other people based on his successes building.

I love it. This This reminded me of a meme. Mom, how did we get so poor? Your father had Claude Max, Chat GPT Pro, Cursor Pro, and shipped absolutely nothing. That's a little too real. This is funny. That is a little too real. Uh, work hard says, "I have a 401k that is 95% S&P 500. How much of it do you think will automatically get put into the SpaceX IPO? Also, love you guys. Love you right back." Uh, how much you should put into the SpaceX?

How much of his 401ks will get put in this? Um, this? Um, this? Um, is he asking what he should do or what's actually going to happen? Because aren't like pension funds and everything everything everything some people get auto put into it? I have no idea. that's going to be based on the actual one that you're in. So, the S&P 500 rejected changing their thing. So, if you're invested in the S&P 500, you won't get any of it until they qualify, which I forget how long they have to be in.

Uh, everything else will be based on the specific mandates of the one that you're investing in. So, keep that in mind. It will vary wildly. Um, the ex the IPO is live. It's already up 18% at 159. Has it? Okay. Okay. So, is it 159? So, it's my understanding that um Elon said that that that the insiders can't sell their shares unless it's 175. So, we've got some room to go. If it stays beneath that, then they'll be locked up. locked up. locked up. So, we'll see.

Quick 165. Uh oh. Uh oh. Here we go. Starting. The madness is up. Well, remember Drew called it. He said it's going to spike to 200 and then come back down. back down. back down. Yeah. I I have it at like 80 when it hits like its like resistance point after the initial rainbow. Uh okay, next super chat. Kanis Barbus says, "Tom, have you ever spoken to Chris Martinson? He's been talking about the money printer for years uh for years. Also curious to know if buying homestead property would be a good hedge against inflation.

My funds are limited and I'm over 50." over 50." over 50." Um I don't know who Chris Martinsson, was that the name? I don't know who that is. So no, I have not spoken to them. Um, in terms of buying a homestead, if you mean that you're actually going to go live off the grid, that's a lifestyle choice way more than that's a hedge against inflation. Uh, because if you think, okay, America gets completely destabilized. Um, do I want to be on a homestead? You probably want to be outside of the um the city centers, that's for sure.

But be very careful if you can completely live off the grid and you enjoy it. Yes, it is a safety net against total societal collapse. Um, but boy, do we have a lot of big problems if we have total society collapse. So, that to me is is really a question of do you love it? If you love it, then do it because you love it. John Rodarte says, "I just solved the mail and ballot problem. The solution is in front of our face. The post office counts all mail and ballots for the state, saving the states millions of dollars spending on counting mail in ballots or mail-in ballots." I'm not quite sure.

I mean, I guess you're saying I trust the post office to be more impartial more impartial more impartial uh than I trust the uh people that are actually a part of the apparatus for counting votes. But I would remind people that let's adopt Drew's stance that this isn't fraud, that it is uh ballot harvesting, which is completely legal in California. And so attack it from that perspective because if ballot harvesting is allowed to continue then you're going to keep having this problem. Whatever side can promise the more free stuff um they're going to continue to get elected.

So there may also be fraud but I always try to take the hardest angle on something so that we don't you know have an argument at like some super high level that doesn't really matter. We get down to like the really brutal one because let's say that there is fraud. we find it, it's super mild and it's like it's there but yeah, there's just no big thing compared to the ballot harvesting. That's going to be the bigger one. Also, I couldn't get this verified and it seems like it's probably just a rumor spreading on the internet, but people are saying that there are at least I think 18,000 uh ballots for Pratt that have been rejected due to signatures.

If that were true, that would be another attack vector. It's probably not true. Let's keep that in mind. Um but if it were true, those are the kinds of things that um you've got to protect against and that can be done whether by the post office or anybody else. Um so you need some way to either have an audit service um two totally different groups uh counting the ballots like that would be interesting. Um interesting. Um interesting. Um uh two things on this. Um the state passing it to the post office, you're not saving the state money.

you're just costing federal dollars because now the post office are federal workers and they have to spend time counting it. That's a great point. Um and then second to your point, how do you rectify Steve Hilton winning and um Spencer Pratt losing? So do you think like it seems like on the governor level everybody's cool with the race, there was no mess ups. Everything was perfect. But on the mayor level, it's completely riddled with fraud. This is a really great point. So there are a couple things that it could be.

one, evidence that there was no voter fraud, and this is just what people do. Uh, and then two, it could be that this is doable at the local level, but it's not doable at the state level, which actually makes a lot of sense to me. So, if you're a candidate, like let's say you're the Democratic party, and you're like, "Okay, we we're only going to be able to do this in isolated pockets because it is literally walking up to people and saying, "I need you to cast your vote." So, that already means it's urban centers only.

And so if across the entire state now you've just got a way to spread out populace to be able to pull this off, but you can go do it in a local election in a contested city. So if LA is getting super contested or San Francisco is getting super contested, we can target our resources to an urban area, we can go in and if it's a close race and we only need, you know, 15 20,000 votes, we can literally hit the street and pull it off.

on those ballots that they're harvesting, you're saying, you're proposing that if this is how they're doing it, that they're marking for brass and then up top it's whoever. They don't even care about that. Or is it just Well, so Well, so Well, so which Democrat are they harvesting for like which governor Democrat? If the swing is that tight, then you're right. Then it would just play out. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um because you just like with the tax thing. So they're push although I think all the taxes are local as well, so never mind that doesn't work.

Um, so yeah, it comes down to what the vote swing is. So if in a local election the vote swing is too big, ballot harvesting isn't going to work, you'd have to go to outright fraud. outright fraud. outright fraud. Um, but if I'm right that this is necessarily an urban center thing and at the state level the gap is too big to close, close, close, um, or they're Yeah, I'll leave it at that. Um, then it could still be that this is people leveraging the ballot harvesting, but it only plays out at the local city level on races where the gap is too large.

But I don't actually know what the gap is on Steve Hilton. So, if Steve Hilton is like barely above third place, then that would invalidate my argument. Got it. Got it. Got it. Uh, it's well him and um uh the other guy Xavier I can't pronounce. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, but Sarah's in first. Yeah. And then Steve Hilton's number two, two, two, but I don't know who's in third. Oh, Dyer, maybe. I don't know, but I don't know if he's like a little bit in third or a lot in third.

He's dire conceded already, so I kind of checked out. More super chats. Uh, next up is a $100 super chat. Hey, um, Hey, um, Hey, um, Blake, thank you for the $100 super chat. chat. chat. Damn. Damn. Damn. Very well done. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Blake says, "I wanted to say thank you, Tom, Drew, and Ryan. Y'all have made me really think deeper on issues and helped me a lot. I wish I could ask questions on the live for you to respond to directly instead of hoping you see and respond to my comment on the rewatch upload." upload." upload." Well, sir, first of all, thank you for coming in so hot.

Now, I feel bad that uh there's no question there for us to answer because you have been so extraordinarily generous. So, thank you. R.J. Johnson says, "I've posted super chat messages uh re moonshots many times. Peter interview was fire. Uh very jealous. Your best friends. Fable just built my thinking engine driving my dissertation in a uh drafting my dissertation in a day. put it on Kaizen 247. Yes, I'll live forever. forever. forever. R.J., I'm very happy to hear that. Um, I've played with Fable a little bit.

Some of the stuff that I've seen other people do with it from a game world generation standpoint are startling uh in terms of like how fast you can output stuff. So, we do have our programmers testing it out right now. They're not super um super um super um enraptured, enthralled by what it's done so far, which has been very surprising to me. But what they are hopeful for is that when Unreal Engine 5.8 comes out, then Fable can plug directly into the new tools that they're offering and it can edit blueprints.

And so I think the reason they haven't been enthralled is that um Opus is so good at writing C++. They just don't see a big difference. Um but we'll see. I'll continue to push them to explore with that because I so want it to be true. Um but the blueprints may be the sticking point for us, but that is coming very soon. So and lastly from Big Diggers, respectfully offering push back on Marushia Dark super chat. Think the dialogue is on par for the DDS. If you were invoking Latin or Greek, maybe too advanced.

Bonus $10 word. Nichi used French for resentment. Uh, describes Marxism. Marxism. Marxism. Nichi using French for resentment. Describes Marxism. I don't quite understand that. Um, what French word does Nichi use? Anyway, thank you also for the feedback, big diglers, on that. I do try to keep them pretty grounded in terms of word choice. Um, I I'll be interested to see. I'm starting to do deep dives a little bit different. Before I was always trying to do them like it's hyper specific to a thing that's happening right now, usually economic.

Now I'm going broader, a little more evergreen every other week. Uh, and so we'll see if those perform. If they don't, then I'll go back to the very very topical ones. But fingers crossed because they're more fun to write the evergreen ones. Uh, okay. I got two quick memes I had to get off that we didn't have time to. Um, number one, this is AI generated, but I like it anyway. Sumi, divided by species, united by problems. A cat, this is so good. Cat brings a mouse for his girl, but another cat of a catcher with another cat.

cat. cat. You have to look at your screen. But But But I uh I didn't know this was AI when I first saw it. And so I was like, "Oh my god." Like that's so legit. Like I feel those feels. feels. feels. I feel it. I felt that. So, I feel it. I felt that. So, if you haven't seen it, the cat walks up with a mouse in its mouth to its, you know, cat lover apparently, but it's getting groomed by another cat and it just stops.

just stops. just stops. The the screen goes black and white and it drops the mouse and turns around and walks off. It's so good. Very well done. So good. If so, AI can obviously be a banger because that is a nice short story told very succinctly. It's fantastic. fantastic. fantastic. Um, this is another one. Uh, organic chat GPT. Does anyone else use chat GBPT in their head? I love using chat GBT whenever I have a question or something or I just want to talk, but sometimes my phone is dead and I don't want to get up to use my computer, so I don't have access to the AI.

Recently, I found out I have the ability to use a form of chatbt in my own head. I've talked to him so much I can almost certainly accurately predict what he's going to say. For example, my cat kept scratching at my bedroom door and meowing. So, I was about to use the chatbt was about I was about to use the chatbt app to ask why she was doing that, but then I decided it wasn't worth the effort and I asked AI in my head. He told me something like, "If your cat is scratching on the door and meowing, it probably means she wants to be let out.

Let me know if you need anything else." Then I let her out of my room. I just thought that was a pretty cool discovery I made. And uh interested to see if anyone else has this. This is so wild. That's called using your own intelligence. Thinking from first principles are that is wild that people are outsourcing their thinking so much that in in like a low-key way that is super dystopian. This is like everybody's greatest fear that people just like I can't do anything unless the AI tells me to.

Like god damn. god damn. god damn. But also this reminds me of like people who have no internal monologue like who can't hear their thoughts or can't like imagine pictures in their head. Like when I heard that I was like oh how like that's so different. That's wild. That's wild. That's wild. Uh okay that's it. Um shout out to Humble House again. Get your sauces. Um the habanero joint is banging. The guac is the new one. The guac that dark red one. I don't know which what it's called.

These are guys. In fact, sorry. Obviously, uh the the ingredient read on these is what really got me. It is so short. It is. Here's where I have to show that I can't read up close with those glasses. I need these glasses. Sorry. This is This is what happens. That's why I need these breakthroughs. Uh this this is the ingredient list. The whole thing. Uh vinegar, red jalapeno, garlic, fire roasted red peppers, cane sugar, um guajillo, chiles, and sea salt. That's it. That's it. You can you can pronounce every ingredient.

What? ingredient. What? ingredient. What? Eric, I imagine is over there throwing up in his mouth a little bit. Um, so yeah, and they are delicious. So, shout out to those guys. Uh, thank you for sponsoring it. There is a QR code on the screen. You can get 15% off with the code Tom and they are legitimately delicious. Go to humblehousefoods.com. humblehousefoods.com. humblehousefoods.com. humblehousefoods.com. All right, guys. We got another AI master class coming up Thursday, July 9th. If you were there yesterday, the one yesterday was awesome.

Thank you for everybody that showed up. It was a lot of fun. I love doing those. It is hilarious because people are convinced that it's AI. It's really me. Uh, and I'm really doing them live. And the next one is Thursday, July 9th at 100 p.m. Pacific. All right, everybody. Have a wonderful weekend. Love you all bunches. And we will see you back on Monday. Peace.