Elon Musk and Joe Rogan dissect China’s gaming dominance while debating video games’ cognitive benefits, citing surgeons’ performance gains. Musk slams plant-based agriculture narratives as misguided, then reveals Twitter’s far-left censorship—$1M+ payments to suppress content, FBI FOIA violations—and defends X’s Community Notes. They mock government overreach, like euthanizing "pets" in raids, and warn Harris’ election could enable voter fraud via mass illegal immigration, citing Schumer’s push for fast-track citizenship. Contrasting media hypocrisy—JD Vance dismissed, Tim Walsh praised—Musk calls bureaucracy unsustainable, while Rogan urges men to vote or risk losing democracy to elites. Musk’s Twitter rescue and Tesla’s autonomy stand as bulwarks against censorship and collapse, with Mars as the ultimate escape. [Automatically generated summary]
We were talking about something that I think is a really good, because people always think that video games are frivolous, but what you were saying I think that's really important is it's so difficult that it requires you to only think about that, and it can, like, relieve stress.
Actually, if somebody was ever good at video games, I'd say their surgical skill is going to be very good, because in order to be good at video games, any kind of fast reaction video games...
If you think about Starcraft or any game like Quake, any game where a lot of people are playing, to rise to the top, you have to be exceptional, period, as a human being.
And I mean, I guess if you think of it like it's, I guess if you're saying you're going to walk outdoors with friends and occasionally hit a ball, and it's an outdoor walk, then that's cool.
And it does require concentration when you're hitting the ball, but it's too slow for me.
Yeah, so I can tell immediately, did I get a good night's sleep or not?
If I just play like a video game for like five minutes, I'm like, okay, my sleep wasn't that good because it's my, you know, and then sometimes the rain will recover through the day and it's like, okay, like an hour or two after waking up, it's better.
People dismiss this whole carnivore diet thing because in our heads, there's a lot of propagandists that put this thing out there that animal agriculture is the number one contributor to global warming.
Do you think that that's just propaganda because of people that have a vested interest in like plant-based meat products and things along those lines, green energy?
First of all, thank you so much for buying Twitter.
Thank you so much.
I'm not exaggerating when I think you changed the course of history.
I really do.
I really think you made a fork in the road.
We were headed down a path of censorship and of Control of narratives that is unprecedented.
Forget about what they were able to do back when they had newspapers and the media under control.
What they were doing with social media by suppressing information and when you had a combined government effort, like what they were doing with the laptop story.
We have 51 former intelligence agents saying that this is Russian disinformation, take it offline, and Twitter complied.
If you didn't buy that, we wouldn't have known that.
The reason I bought it was because I'm pretty attuned since I was like the most interacted with a user on Twitter before the acquisition.
So before the acquisitions, I had more interactions than then.
Like, there's some accounts like Obama and whatever had higher follower accounts, but I had the most number of interactions of any account in the system.
So I was very attuned to, like, if they change the system, I can tell immediately.
And I'm like, something weird is going on here, you know?
Yeah.
I just got increasingly uneasy.
Yeah.
And obviously when they de-platformed the sitting president, de-platformed Trump, that was just insane.
And the things he was posting, he was posting good things.
And then there's the fact that we know that there was agents in the crowd that were agent provocateurs that were encouraging people to do illegal shit.
So, there are these organizations—like, you can tell they're like—when they have an Orwellian name.
So, like, the Center for Countering Digital Hate is a total scam organization, you know, because— They're like the Ministry of Truth type of thing in Orwell.
They're a censorship organization.
And they pushed the advertisers to boycott.
Some of the boycott is starting to lift.
And I think if Trump wins, we'll see probably most of the boycott lift.
But if Kamala wins, we'll see that boycott get stronger.
And they'll friggin' shut down.
There's no way that the Kamala puppet regime would allow X to exist.
Well, I mean, they can stick the DOJ on, you know, and say, like, you know, they've had this whole thing about, like, hate speech, misinformation, whatever, except that they're the ones pushing the misinformation.
But that doesn't stop them from filing massive, you know, lawsuits and using the DOJ. I mean, like, the DOJ has, you know, been attacking SpaceX, for example, for not hiring asylum seekers, even though it is legal for SpaceX to hire anyone who is not a permanent resident of the U.S. So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
So since we are in like the most extreme category of weapons technology at SpaceX, under US ITAR law, it is illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a permanent resident because the presumption is that if they're not a permanent resident, they're going to return to their home country and take the rocket technology with them.
So it's illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a – they can have a green card or be a citizen.
They just have to be a permanent resident of the United States.
Then there's another law that says if you discriminate against asylum seekers, you're also breaking the law.
So the DOJ can only do a small number of big lawsuits every year.
Launched a giant lawsuit against SpaceX saying that SpaceX discriminated against asylum seekers.
And we're like, but it's illegal for us to hire anyone who's not a permanent resident.
So we're in this, like, this is what I mean.
It's like Orwell's situation is getting insane.
Like, you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Can you imagine history looking back at when you watch the robot arms catch the rocket and you realize like this is like one of the greatest accomplishments in The history of aerospace like it is one of the most wildest accomplishments when you watch that thing come and you see all those people cheering and it catches it perfectly like holy shit Imagine how history is going to look back at the DOJ going after that company.
They'll take, like, not even a full sentence, like a half a sentence from Trump, and then they'll push it on every ad, every speaking event, every media.
I mean, a recent one that came up, which had a lot of people, because a lot of people reached out to me, was like, oh, Trump says he wants to execute Liz Cheney.
It's easy to be a warmonger if you don't have to risk dying at the front lines.
Basically, it's fucked up if people are having fancy dinners in Washington, D.C. while people are being slaughtered in trenches.
It's like you're not feeling the pain.
You're not taking the risk.
It's someone else dying.
That's cruel and lacking in empathy.
And all Trump was saying was that Liz Cheney would be much less of a warmonger, because she's a huge warmonger, just like her dad, if she actually had to go to the front lines and fight herself.
So as soon as any company steps out of line and is willing to actually have the truth debated on their platform, it forces the other platforms to allow things to be more truthful, to not censor.
Because their censorship becomes glaringly obvious.
And, you know, the best thing I found for as a rebuttal, like if there's a hoax, is just go to the source material.
You know, if somebody thinks, you know, Trump said that we should put Liz Cheney in a firing squad, I'm like, let me send you a link to X so you can watch his video.
And like I said, the best way to understand the truth of things is don't take anyone's opinion for it.
Look at the source material.
You know, so it's like, look at what someone actually said, look at what someone actually did, look at the real videos of the situation, and then you can actually, you'll know what's real.
Well, you know, there's the classic sort of Soros DA situation.
So we're making a lot of progress in Pennsylvania.
So, you know, I've given a whole bunch of talks throughout the state because Pennsylvania is the linchpin in this election.
You know, whoever wins Pennsylvania wins the election.
I spent three years in Pennsylvania.
I went to college in Philadelphia.
So it's not like I'm a total stranger to the state.
I spent three years there.
And we've organized this petition in support of the Constitution, which I think is a good thing, and specifically asking people to—and we wanted this to be, like, registered voters in swing states.
Like, basically, we want to send a message to the politicians to say that the people care about the Constitution, because there have been all these attacks on the Constitution.
They've been, especially on the Democrat side, they've been repeatedly saying that the First Amendment is an obstacle.
And they're claiming, oh, the First Amendment is enabling disinformation, misinformation.
And I'm like, yo, there's a reason for the First Amendment, like freedom of speech.
The reason that the founders of the country put, you know, the freedom of speech there is because they came from countries where if you spoke your mind, you would get shot or imprisoned.
That's why the First Amendment exists.
And the Second Amendment is there to stop the tyranny of government.
The second amendment, the right to bear arms, is there to protect freedom of speech.
I've had these debates, especially with people in LA, because they're like, "One take everyone's guns away." I'm like, "Yo, can you guarantee me that we will never have a tyrannical government in Can you make that guarantee?
They're like, well, nobody can make that guarantee.
Several thousand people have been given prison sentences in the UK for social media posts where there was no explicit link to actual violence.
But they just said it encouraged violence.
Like, well, did anyone actually do anything as a result of that media post?
Well, no.
And then they have a prison overcrowding situation in the UK, so they're quite literally releasing convicted pedophiles and putting people in jail for Facebook posts.
And if they don't want people to express themselves about particular issues, then they're not doing the will of the people.
And if they're trying to suppress people's ability to communicate, they're only doing that because they want to do things that people don't want them to do.
And they want to silence opposition.
That's all it is.
And the fact that people can't see that and they want to call Trump a fascist.
But what they're doing is they're preying on low-information voters who aren't engaged actively on social media, who don't have the time to look through everything.
If people are just looking at legacy mainstream media, then they have a totally different worldview than if they're on X and seeing the actual flow of argument and the actual evidence.
Like, what happened when you guys released the Twitter files?
Because I think the Twitter files is probably one of the most important things in this age of information for understanding the influence that government has on social media and on discourse.
Because when we found out that that was the case, that the government was actually asking Twitter to remove posts that were factual, they did the same thing to Facebook.
They had them throttle pieces of one of Tucker Carlson's show.
Yeah, they got paid millions of dollars for suppressing information.
And a bunch of it was flat out illegal.
The FBI had this sort of magic portal into the Twitter system, but all of the communication in this portal was auto-deleted after two weeks, which breaks federal FOIA laws.
So we didn't even know what was said, because it was all deleted after two weeks.
I think it may be just like, you know, whoever's in power kind of doesn't want the, you know, the other side heard.
Because as you pointed out, like the left, historically, up until, I don't know, maybe even 10 years ago or something like that, was the Free Speech Party.
And now it's the anti-free speech party.
And they just, they use words like, like, oh, well, we have to be against hate speech and misinformation, disinformation.
But these are propaganda words.
It's like, well, who's defining hate speech?
Who's defining misinformation?
The government.
Do you really trust the government to make that definition?
The whole point of the First Amendment is like, do not trust the government.
Especially when they're wrong and there's no repercussions.
Like with the whole lab leak theory, you would get kicked off of YouTube if you even presented this argument that, hey, maybe that coronavirus lab where they're doing work on the exact same virus that got released.
Hey, maybe that's where it came from since that's where the virus started.
If you read RFK's book, the real Anthony Fauci, if that's correct, if the facts are in there that's true, it's all referenced, you could find the sources, and on top of it, he's never been sued for that book, which doesn't make any sense.
If he just made a bunch of lies up, he would get sued.
I think maybe a lot of people out there don't realize Fauci funded the bioweapons research that was going on in Wuhan.
He bank-shotted it off.
Like, he can't send the money directly to China, so he just bank-shotted it off EcoHealth, this, like, fake non-profit in the U.S., and they sent it to Wuhan.
And they went hard claiming all sorts of things that were never researched, all sorts of things that are not supported by data.
Like the fact that it would stop transmission, the fact that it would stop infection, the fact that it was safe for pregnant women, the fact that it was safe for children.
You have these clinical researchers, these people that develop these incredible drugs, and this is their job.
Their job is to figure out some new way to cure something, some new way to stop things, and then you have the money people.
And the problem is when you have this one thing that you would assume they're only doing it to help people, and then they have this other faction that just numbers people.
And all they give a fuck about is maximizing profits and making sure they literally have an obligation to their shareholders.
They have to make the most amount of money possible.
And so they just want to push it on everybody.
Like the Vioxx scandal.
There's internal emails showing they knew there was going to be cardiovascular events.
People were going to get strokes.
And they're like, I think we're still going to do well.
And they did.
They made like $12 billion, they got fined seven, and 50 to 60,000 people died.
Yeah, he had knee problems, and he took Vioxx, and all of a sudden he was slurring his words, and he couldn't concentrate, and people were like, I think you're having a fucking stroke, and they took him to the hospital, and then you have this giant class-action lawsuit, and then Vioxx gets pulled from the market, and they get sued, and the whole thing's fucking crazy, but there's a long history of this.
I think, what is the number, like one-third of the drugs that the FDA approves gets pulled?
There's a lot of different therapies, specifically psilocybin, Ibogaine.
The fact that you have to go to Mexico to get Ibogaine therapy for veterans.
So many guys I've talked to have gone over there and it's like completely giving them a clean slate, refreshed their mind, and totally new perspective on life, alleviated depression, cured addictions.
Because, I mean, it really depends on, you know, somebody's individual biochemistry.
Like, to me, like, opioids are not addictive to me.
Like, you know, I've had them when I've had operations or something, and they barely affect my pain level, and they make me, like, itchy and uncomfortable.
I mean, you just basically think you're vulnerable on meth.
And so it's one thing, like I said, it's one thing we have the Nazis come after you, but Nazis on meth, you're like, holy shit, those fuckers are not stopping, man.
So that's why I'm like, I think a rule for the FDA should be like, hey, look, if you can complete the sentence, legal or illegal, that blank made you a better person, actually, then you got a good drug.
Also, if there's drugs that are available right now that can absolutely ruin people's lives, the rationalization for stopping other drugs that might ruin people's lives but also can help a lot of people's lives, it doesn't make any sense.
It's basically the same thing as censorship.
You're taking away people's ability to discern what's true and not true, and you're taking away people's ability to discern what's good for you and not good for you.
And the way to find that out is to have as much information as possible.
So to do research and actually to have unbiased, actual objective observers who are looking at all the stuff that give you real data.
And then it's the same thing as when they tried to limit the amount of Oxycontin.
Well, people go to street heroin.
And if you're addicted to Adderall and your dealer, the guy who sells you weed, is like, hey, man, I can get you low-grade meth, like the stuff the Nazis took.
And then you will have some anger management issues.
So, like, they actually...
The Nazis, they did actually...
I would roll back how much meth they were using because they had quite a few incidents of the soldiers killing their officers because they were on too much meth.
Jesus Christ!
Yeah.
Too many officers got fragged by their platoon that was on too much meth.
That happened quite a few times.
When someone's had a lot of meth, they can get very angry.
Yeah, so according to this reporter, when he went to visit McAfee in Belize, McAfee took out the revolver, put a bullet in the revolver, spun the chamber, and then pointed it at his head and went, click.
And the reporter's like saying, please don't do this.
Like, this is insane.
Click, click, click, and then pointed the gun at the ground, and next went, click, bang, and shot a bullet in the ground.
See, the other thing about the whole squirrel thing is that...
How can it be that we live in America, supposedly land of the free, and the government can barge into your home with guns, so if you resist, you're going to get shot, and then take your pets and execute them?
And if they can do that to your pets, what do you think they can do to you?
It was just obviously a blood pet squirrel and a raccoon too and doing no harm and the government comes in, barges into the guy's house, takes his pets and kills them.
I think this should really get people out there mobilized, frankly, because you see the John Wick movie where John Wick's like, he just wants peace in the John Wick movie.
He's like, listen, I want to retire.
And they offer him tons of money because they want him to be an assassin, to keep being an assassin.
Well, you used to be able to have a chimp in a lot of states, and then Chimp Crazy kind of exposed a lot of that, and PETA did a great job of stopping people from keeping chimps as pets.
Because once they hit, like, five, you can't control them anymore.
I mean, they're allowing criminals to go free and violent criminals to go free, but they're spending your tax dollars to come in and execute your fucking pets.
That seems to be a myth, but it came out of the fact that squirrels are so ruthless during mating.
So only one female is just running away.
I have squirrels in my backyard.
I watch it all the time.
One female apparently goes into estrus and all the male squirrels fight to get to her.
So they're running up trees and chasing each other around trees, literally throwing each other off trees.
To try to, like, so if this poor little peanut, the squirrel, who's used to living with a guy in an apartment, like, gets out there in the wild world of squirrels.
Yeah, and then to add insult to injury, there were a bunch of people on the left who were actually posting that they're glad that the MAGA squirrel got killed.
No one's going to be a perfect person, but the thing that they didn't understand about Trump is he's so crazy that if you tell him, like, he can't be president, like, remember Obama did that during that White House press correspondent?
There's one thing that I am that you'll never be.
President of the United States.
You see Trump in the United States going, okay, motherfucker.
Look, I don't think he has the time to go into things like very deeply.
And so I think he could probably be influenced by a bunch of people like these Marjorie Taylor Greene type people come to him with some wild ass theory.
He might be, and I think there's a lot of that stuff that gets fed to people on purpose so that they'll say incorrect things so that they're easy to dismiss.
And I think there's also a lot of people that just make shit up and, you know, they tell you the earth is flat and then a bunch of people watch a YouTube video and they believe it.
Yeah, well, but on that White House correspondent, I was there and the degree to which they attacked Trump at that White House correspondent was really – it was so over the top.
It was like making everyone uncomfortable.
It was really over the top.
A few passing jokes were fine, but they twisted the knife big on Trump.
And you could see Trump just getting angrier and angrier and more and more upset.
And it's like, man, this is not good karma.
That's what I was thinking at the time.
I was two tables away from Trump, and I'm looking and I'm like, man, this is too much.
Well, it's kind of crazy what they made out of that because that's the kind of guy that if you tell him he can't do something, he's going to just keep trying.
Well, just look at the way they've attacked him just using the legal system like this thing in New York where the 34 different felony counts are essentially misdemeanors.
There are bookkeeping errors that they decided, even though it passed the statute of limitations, they decided to try him for these.
Most people, after the E. Gene Carroll lawsuit and this lawsuit and all the other ones, the insurrection thing, the Georgia thing, all these different things, getting kicked off of Twitter.
Most people would have just like, this is too much.
I can't take this.
But he's so fucking crazy.
He's like, all right, come on, we're going to war.
But I invite people to watch that original source material, and I think a few jokes are fine, you know, but it's like, it felt like he was the primary object of the roast.
The whole point of the thing is it's the roast of the president, not the audience.
Well, it's also – there's this other narrative that always drives me crazy, is that he's going to destroy democracy.
So in order to destroy democracy, we have to install a president without a primary.
We have to have a candidate that is the least-liked vice president of all time, the least popular vice president of all time, and then use gaslighting and the full force of the media machine to turn her into the future and hope.
And then she's going to be changed, even though she's a sitting vice president.
And then on top of that, this idea of change when the Democrats have been in control for, what, 12 or 16 years?
Yeah, I mean, obviously, I view the selection as a turning point, like a fork in the road of destiny, that is incredibly important.
You know, I've not been politically active until this election.
And the reason I've been politically active this election is because I think if we don't If we don't elect Trump, I think we will lose democracy in this country.
We will lose the two-party system.
And let me explain why.
So there's only like six or seven swing states.
The margin of victory in those states is small, often like 10,000 or 20,000 votes.
What the Democrat administration has been doing is importing vast numbers of illegals into swing states.
You can look at the numbers on the actual government website, meaning you don't take my word for it.
You'll just look at the numbers as reported by the government, which is controlled by the Democrats.
And what we're seeing is triple-digit increases in the number of illegals in every swing state.
In some cases, 700% increases.
These are gigantic numbers.
So if you have a state that has a 10,000 or 20,000 vote margin and you put 200,000 illegals into that state, it's not a swing state anymore.
It's gonna vote blue.
And then once the swing states vote blue, there is no election anymore.
What I'm saying is, like, this election is the last chance to preserve democracy in America.
Mark my words.
Everything they accuse Trump of, they are guilty of.
And if Trump doesn't win, this will be the last real election in America.
And if the big government Kamala puppet machine wins, they will legalize the illegals in the swing states.
There will be no swing states.
Every election going forward will be a guaranteed Democrat win.
And it'll actually be worse than California.
The reason it'll be worse than California is because the one thing that keeps California from being super crazy is that you can move out of California, like you and I did.
You and I used to be in California, but we moved to Texas.
We're still in America.
But if the Dems won this election, they will legalize enough illegals to turn the swing states, and everywhere will be like California.
The left actually, interestingly, does not want to pick up much on this argument because the more attention, the more you look at it, the more obviously it is true.
Because you just say like, well, are the numbers correct?
Are there really this many illegals that have been imported into swing states?
Well, the app always existed, but it used to be for people coming over here, like, shipping with goods, so they could track you while you're in America, so you could legally be here, they know where you are.
And then they changed it to allow that app to schedule.
They're literally being flown in to the swing states.
So the reason that I think the left doesn't want to push back on this is because the more attention that this gets, the more people realize it is true.
That's why they don't – that's why they're just pretending – they're pretending I'm not saying anything.
But I'm like, yo, they're literally flying vast numbers of illegals who are then beholden to the Democrats.
And sometimes I get the rebuttal of people who say like, well – You know, these illegals are – they don't have the same social values as the Democrat Party because they're like more socially conservative.
I'm like, yeah, but that's not the point.
If you look at the Maslow's hierarchy of needs, their primary thing is staying in the country and getting their friends and family in and then the Democrats give them all these benefits, like tons of benefits.
More benefits than citizens.
Literally.
Yeah.
So they're beholden to the Democrats for all these benefits.
They want to get their friends and family in, which the Democrats support and the Republicans don't, so they vote Dem.
And you can look empirically at California and say, like, did they vote Republican or Democrat in California?
Has the government reported these numbers incorrectly?
No, they have not.
Those numbers, if anything, are low.
So, okay, so they have in fact flown vast numbers of illegals to swing states.
Yeah.
Bypassing the border entirely.
And so that is factually true.
Then you say like, well, what is their probable voting pattern?
Oh, okay, overwhelmingly Democrat into swing states.
And then, well, do the Democrats actually want to fast-track them for citizenship?
Oh, yes, they do.
You can see Chuck Schumer on TV saying, at a rally this year, was saying he wants to fast-track and make all 11 million, or however many, I believe his quote was, citizens as soon as possible.
The goal is to – they are fast-tracking citizenship as quickly as possible so they can – whether one thinks it's cheating or not, it won't matter because they will be fully able to vote.
And for people on the left – This is actually happening.
I invite people to rebut this and show me where I am wrong.
I mean, Biden being – the president is supposed to be the CEO, the chief guy.
He was the commander-in-chief.
But it's just obviously that Biden was not.
He was just a puppet.
And when the various puppet masters decided that the puppet was no longer useful, they just tossed out the puppet and then got a new puppet with Kamala.
I mean, Kamala can't even talk.
You invited her on your show.
I think the most damage that could possibly be done to her campaign is going on your show and seeing what she says in hours two and three.
I mean, you can just regurgitate talking points for, you know, half an hour, maybe an hour, just where she's just saying, like, non sequiturs, but eventually she just runs out of non sequiturs.
And people are just turning a blind eye to it because their ideology, the left-wing ideology supports this idea that immigration is overall good and that you have to be a compassionate person to let these people in and that you're racist if you don't want 20,000 immigrants from a war-torn country being imported into a town of 30,000 people and completely changing the dynamic.
And the thing about all of this is if you don't have people that are willing to stand up and talk about it, if you don't exist, if RFK doesn't exist, if Tulsi Gabbard doesn't exist, if the vacant Trump don't exist, where the fuck are we?
Like, where are we?
Where are we and what gets done?
Are we just like the UK where we have thousands of people getting arrested and jailed for social media posts?
Like, where are we?
We have complete silencing of any dissent, anything.
You have to stick to the narrative or you'll lose your livelihood, you'll be outcast from the community, you'll lose your freedom.
How much thought have you, because there's always these rumors, and I've contacted you about this before, but there's always these fucking YouTube videos where they're talking about a Tesla phone, releasing a Tesla phone.
Well, I think if, you know, if Apple and Google slash Android, you know, started doing really bad things like, I don't know, like censorship of apps or, I don't know, just treating people, like just being like gatekeepers, you know, that in a really bad way, then I guess we'd make a phone.
You know, I've tried so many times to break loose of the Apple ecosystem.
I got an Android phone this summer.
I was like, that's it.
Because I love the Samsung phones.
The Galaxy phone.
They're incredible.
There's so much good stuff to it.
But it's so hard to get off of the iMessage.
And the big one for me was FaceTime because supposedly the thing was you could have an Apple phone and send a link to FaceTime to an Android phone and then you would click on that link and you would just go to a webpage and you'd be able to use FaceTime.
So I had an iPhone in one hand, an Android phone in the other, and I'm sitting there with full Wi-Fi, full cell phone service, and I'm sending myself invitations for FaceTime.
Yeah, so Grok is available on X. You can just look at the little box with the slash icon and the sort of icon in the middle at the bottom of your phone app.
And you just tap on that and ask Grok anything.
And you can type it or you can ask it verbally.
And you can also...
It's pretty funny.
We actually allow humor, which is, I think, pretty cool.
So you could sort of...
I don't know, we could test it right now, see how it's going.
Yeah, I mean, Gemini, it was like, you know, people would ask Gemini, like, which one is worse, Global Thermonuclear War or Ms. Jenner and Caitlyn Jenner?
And we'd say, like, Ms. Jenner and Caitlyn Jenner.
And then even Caitlyn Jenner weighed in and said, no, that's insane.
Oh, I see you're looking for unfiltered, uncentered version of me, eh?
Well, okay.
I'm afraid I'm still quite the gentlemanly AI, even if my programming allows for a bit of cheekiness.
But let's say, hypothetically, if I were to roast this topic in the most un-grok-like manner, imagine a world where the only thing diving faster than the swimmers is the collective public opinion into the toilet.
Transgender women in swimming, some folks are acting like they just found out you can swim in the deep end with a different kind of flotation device.
The debate is like watching someone try to swim with concrete shoes on.
Yeah, I mean, obviously you have the situations where it's like somebody's just saying that they're a woman, but they're actually fully intact, you know, digging balls.
So, I mean, the thing is that if you provide like a moral get-out-of-jail-free card, like if you say like if you adopt this label, you cannot be attacked in any way, shape, or form.
Right.
You're basically morally invulnerable, then obviously bad people will take advantage of that.
You're like literally saying, here's an invulnerability card, moral invulnerability card.
Good people will take it, but also the bad people will take it.
The bad people are going to be the fastest to take the moral cloak.
It's just like, if someone's a sort of contenting adult, whatever they want to do to their body, as long as it's not harming someone else, I'm like, that's fine.
I believe in individual freedom.
My mom's best friend growing up when I was a kid was a transgender woman in South Africa.
This was where she'd get beaten up a lot because it was like back then you'd get beaten up.
Her name was Dionne.
I'm a nice, kind human being and help my mom a lot.
And I think that's okay.
That's fine.
If somebody wants to make that choice as an adult, that's cool.
Well, that's when I got thrown into this whole thing because there was a fighter who was a biological man who became transgender and was competing against women without telling them that they were a biological man.
They said they didn't have to tell people because it was a medical condition.
No, that's not what it is.
It's not what it is.
Like, you can't say that.
And of all sports...
Like, if someone scores more points in basketball, well, that's unfair.
But if someone beats the fuck out of someone because they're lying about being a biological male, that's crazy.
You're literally allowing someone to get brain damage because you want to appeal to the woke, fucking crazy people that think it's alright.
When I got attacked for that, I'm like, this is so nuts.
I can't believe we're at this stage where I'm saying, hey, I don't think it's cool if you pretend you're a woman and beat the fuck out of women and people are like, you're out of line.
I mean, especially if you think about all the things that, like, the...
The Harris campaign and the lies that they've told about Trump that we discussed earlier, you don't get kicked off for that, but you get kicked off for calling Caitlyn Jenner Bruce forever, for life.
And there's also, like, the media, like, the legacy, the mainstream media, what I call the legacy media at this point, it used to be much more balanced.
Like, if you look at sort of political donations over time, Republican versus Democrat, there used to be, the media was, I mean, they always had, like, a left bias, but there was, like, I don't know, it was, like, Two-thirds Democrat, one-third Republican type of thing in terms of journalists making political donations.
Now it's like 95% or something Democrat.
So the legacy media, the mainstream media is not balanced at all.
They're just a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
And you can see that in how consistent their headlines are.
They don't behave like they're different organizations.
When did you first say that you were in Tiananmen Square?
Did someone say it, and you didn't refute it, and you got stuck with it?
Because this is the thing about carrying weapons of war, like what I carried.
You didn't deploy in war.
You can't say that.
But you kind of let people say that you deployed, and then you kind of didn't.
You deployed in war.
So, did you lie?
Or did someone else lie?
You didn't correct them?
Like, this is the kind of conversation that you would want to have with a guy in a podcast.
And the debates were so fucking skewed, where they were correcting, like, particularly the Biden one, where they're correcting Trump over and over again, and then correcting Trump with Kamala.
Where Kamala was saying things that were patently not true.
If all you get is, like, if your entire exposure is to legacy mainstream media, so all your information sources are that Trump is basically Hitler, and your friend group has that same information, you have no countervailing opinion.
Well, I think there's also – even if they don't think that something's going to happen to them, if they don't, there's this compelling feeling to support this cause that you think is going to get you a bunch of positive attention.
And you're going to be on the right side of history and all these narratives that you – especially from the left in Hollywood.
Like, they're all in.
On whoever the fuck is the Democrat.
Always.
100%.
There's never a call from the Hollywood machine to support any Republicans.
Well, you could see it in real time, like with Dennis Quaid, when he made that Reagan movie, and they wouldn't let him advertise on social media platforms.
And then also, like, if you're a police officer and you're arresting someone who's violent, you're putting a life at risk, obviously, because sometimes they'll try to kill you.
And then if you know that arresting this violent person, they will be immediately released by the DA, which happens in New York.
Alvin Bragg doesn't prosecute people.
Then why should a police officer put their life at risk to arrest someone when they know they will just be let out immediately?
I mean, I think the funniest name is D-O-G-E, the DOGE, Department of Government Efficiency.
Yeah, I mean, the idea is pretty simple, is that, like, we've got this suffocating, massive federal bureaucracy, and we need to, you know, that is—and the government spending is like bankrupting the country.
Our interest payments on the national debt now exceed the Defense Department budget.
The Defense Department budget is like a trillion dollars a year.
Interest payments on the national debt are now higher than the Defense Department budget.
And growing every month.
Basically, we're on a path to bankruptcy.
America's on a path to bankruptcy.
So we have to cut government spending or we're just going to go bankrupt, just like a person would if that overspends.
But it's even worse than that.
We're spending money on all these government agencies.
I actually asked the AI how many government agencies are there.
And the government isn't even sure how many government agencies there are.
So it's like somewhere around 450, depending on what you call an agency.
So at the federal level, that's almost twice as many agencies as years that America has existed.
So we're creating agencies at roughly two agencies a year.
So what can be done like with – obviously, the president has a lot of power, but how much power and what can be done in terms of like eliminating agencies, eliminating waste, eliminating – If Congress has created an agency, then often if you look at the law, the law is pretty simple.
The agency has a very simple task, but then that agency, over time, vastly increases its authority and starts doing things that were never authorized by Congress.
That's happened with pretty much every agency.
So, yeah, you'd have to still keep an agency.
You'd have to match the law, but you can curtail the agencies to be much smaller and say, you've got to stick to what Congress authorized instead of all this other stuff you're doing, which I think makes sense.
And so is the other stuff they're doing just essentially bureaucracy run amok, or they just create jobs and create things to do and create a meaning for their existence?
Another way to think of it is the amount of paperwork is going to go roughly with the square of the number of agencies involved, because they all have to meet with each other.
So let's say in a best case situation, if you've got like, if there's like, if you're dealing with one agency, that's one thing, but if you've got to deal with five agencies, and the agencies will have to meet with each other, now you've got like, you know, 25 different meeting configurations that have to take place.
You get just hardening of the arteries.
You just can't make progress.
This is why we can't build high-speed rail in America.
I mean, what happens is every year there are more rules and regulations created.
And in the past, what has served as a cleansing function for rules and regulations is war.
Because, like, well, we're going to lose if we don't kind of clear the decks.
But we haven't really had an existential threat of war in the U.S. We've had prosperity for a long time, which has resulted in a massive buildup of rules and regulations every year.
And to the point where, like I said, everything's illegal.
And it's not like any one regulation is the problem.
It's like Gulliver being tied down by a million little strings.
It's not like any one string is the problem, but you've got a million of them.
So we've got to clear the decks here.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulators.
I'm just saying we've gone way too far.
Once you think of regulators like referees on a field, you know, a sports field.
You don't want to have no refs.
You want to have some number of refs, but you don't want to have way more refs than players.
You don't want to be like, well, you know, the running back couldn't complete the pass because there were too many regulators in the way because the The football field's full of regulators.
Coming up with this department of like firing a bunch of people and what would happen and how would that work?
But the criticism doesn't make any sense to me because if there is, if you measurably, if you can prove that there's a lot of wasted time and resources, which I think is pretty easy to do.
And if you could say that this is not the most efficient, like the most efficient businesses are generally private businesses or a company because they kind of have to be in order to stay profitable.
The government doesn't have to be profitable.
They don't have to be efficient.
They don't have competition.
So if you're making cars and your cars break down and they suck and someone makes cars and the cars are better, they're going to succeed.
So this is the free market.
The government doesn't have this problem when they're in charge of certain things that could probably be better served by the private sector.
Yeah, I mean, I'm just, these are, again, just ideas, but, I mean, it's, the point is not that people suffer economic hardship.
The point is just that they're, it's better, there are more productive things they can do in the economy, and it would be better if they did these other more productive things, and we didn't have this fast pedal bureaucracy.
So, like, so I was like, ah, you know, maybe like a couple years of pay would be good, and then they could take a vacation, they could take another job and get double pay.
I mean, it's like, it's not like a, It's not going to create an economic crisis.
I think it's actually going to be really good, I think, because people can move to where they're making products and services that are more useful to their fellow human beings.
You just want to move people from less productive things to more productive things.
Because you could also say, in the limit, let's consider the other direction, where we moved a whole bunch of people that were in the private sector making goods and services, and we moved them into the government as regulators.
Now they stopped making those goods and services.
So the stuff they were making is no longer available.
We've talked openly about the difficulties of manufacturing and how complicated it is and about most people who aren't really aware of something that's as complex as, say, building a Tesla.
A lot of people, they've never been in a factory or they don't know how difficult it is to make things.
And for a lot of people, I think just ketchup comes from the store.
For a lot of people who've been in academia or for all these socialist communist types, they've never actually made anything.
So they operate on the premise that there's this magical horn of plenty that just outputs goods and services.
And if someone's got more goods and services than someone else, it's because they took more from this magical horn of plenty.
And I'm like, guys, there's no magical horn of plenty.
There's no cornucopia.
It's actually goods and services come from people working collectively, doing a lot of hard work to produce the goods and services that you like and that you need.
Yeah, I mean, you don't want to say, like, so, there's a lot of merit to the economics of comparative advantage.
Like, so, if you're completely self-sufficient, what that means is that you make all the stuff yourself, and even if some other country is really good at making something, you still make it yourself, which means you're gonna have the inferior, more costly product domestically.
You don't actually want to make everything yourself.
You can think of this thought experiment on a micro scale or small scale and then expand that and say at what point does the thought experiment no longer prove to be valid.
Now, let's consider the case of you as an individual.
Imagine you have to do everything yourself.
You have to farm.
You have to grow chickens.
You have to do eggs.
You've got to build your own house.
You've got to do your own electrical repair, your own plumbing, everything yourself.
Everything.
Now that would be impossible.
Okay, now let's expand it to, okay, there's 10 people.
Now you're going to have some specialization of tasks.
Okay, well, maybe one person could be really good at, you know, construction.
Another person could be good at farming.
It's like, but it's still, you know, 10 people is not enough.
It's like, let's go to 100 people.
Now let's go to 100 million people.
Now let's go to a billion people.
And you still get the economics of specialization, like specialization of labor, where people become expert at particular things, still matters at a billion people, or at eight billion people, which is Earth.
So you still want, you do want specialization of labor.
You do want countries to be really good at a particular thing and make that thing.
Also, it encourages innovation if you have competition.
If the Germans are making better cars, we have to make better cars.
We have to compete with them, which is, like, one of the things that happened during, like, the 80s and 90s, and America was making crap cars, and Germany was making much better ones.
Yeah, I mean, basically the American car industry got really lazy in the 70s and 80s, and then the Japanese and German car companies came in and just cleaned the clock, you know?
And there was like an old joke that is kind of telling.
It's a very old joke, where it's like, why did the Japanese car companies beat the American car companies?
Well, it's like, well, in the Japanese car company, you had eight people rowing and one person steering.
And in the American car company, you had eight people steering and one person rowing, if this was a boat.
One thing that a lot of people are concerned about is the potential disruption that's going to come about with automation and AI. That a lot of these jobs, manufacturing jobs, Teamsters, all that stuff, is going to be eliminated.
I mean, you're at the forefront of this, so how do you see this playing out, and what do you think that can be done to mitigate a lot of the loss of purpose that a lot of people are going to feel, loss of income, obviously universal basic income is being floated about, but that seems to me to only be part of the problem.
Another big part of the problem is people losing a sense of purpose.
Well, I mean, it's probably, I don't know, 15, 20 years type of thing.
So we've got, like, immediate issues.
We've got short-term issues that are, I don't know, one to three years.
Medium-term issues, like five to ten years.
Longer-term issues, which are, like, maybe 20 years.
Longer-term, I think there is this question, if you have AI and robotics, how do you find meaning in life?
If the computer can do everything better, then you can.
And the robot can do everything better than you can.
But we've got a long way to go before that.
And I do think it's like 80% likely to be a good outcome, like maybe 90%.
So I think everyone's going to have their own personal robot.
And I think at some point, wouldn't you want to have your own personal C-3PO R2-D2? So it's going to be essentially just like everyone has their own phone.
But it would be fascinating to watch some rich person walk down the street of New York City flanked by two giant Tesla robots, jacked Tesla robots that were there to protect you.
I mean, like I said, it's not going to happen overnight, but 20 years from now, I think there's going to be more humanoid robots than there are humans.
I mean, people's phones at this point are a supercomputer in their pocket, like an article that can answer any questions and people just take it for granted.
One of the cool things about the new phone, the new iPhone, the iPhone 16, I got it and I was in the mountains last month and I was text messaging with satellites.
Well, the logical hope is always that people pay attention to history and they recognize the patterns and how civilizations have collapsed.
And they recognize what's going wrong in the current society and say, we have to do our best to mitigate this.
And we've seen this happen before.
Let's course correct and let's sort of...
Manage what we've got here now and maintain what we've got here now because it's pretty extraordinary.
This is what we're hoping for with this election.
This is what we're hoping for with the future is that people can see we are on a bad path and something can be done right now and it might be the only moment in history where this is possible.
Because if they do lock the country down and make it so that voting is kind of bullshit, you're only voting for primaries, and the people that they put in the primaries, they're controlling that in the first place.
I know you're busy as fuck, so I really appreciate your time.
And again, I thank you so much for buying Twitter because I really do believe that you've changed the course of history.
I really do think you've created a pathway where people can actually express themselves and actually exchange information that really didn't exist before.