Elon Musk and Joe Rogan mock "Giga Chad" while debating real-world physical extremes like Brian Shaw’s powerlifting. They pivot to whistleblower Jamie Vernon’s suspicious death, questioning media narratives amid unanswered details. Musk dismisses Nazi accusations but warns AI risks—like Google Gemini’s woke biases—stem from Silicon Valley’s leftist training data hubs in San Francisco and Berkeley. He ties fraudulent Social Security/Medicaid exploitation to Democratic voter import schemes, citing $1T+ annual waste. Automation, he argues, could ironically create a "communist utopia" of universal abundance, reshaping society toward entertainment and simulation theory’s digital escapism. [Automatically generated summary]
And, you know, the idea that a whistleblower for an enormous AI company that's worth billions of dollars might get whacked, that's not outside the pale.
Like, maybe he's just odd with confrontation and it just goes blank.
You know?
But if somebody was accusing me of killing Jamie, like if Jamie was a whistleblower and Jamie got whacked, and then I'd be like, wait, what do you what are you saying?
His parents sued the Son's landlord alleged the owners and the managers of their son's San Francisco apartment building were part of a widespread cover-up of his death.
A few hours ago, the first hint of non-gravitational acceleration that something other than gravity is affecting its acceleration, meaning something is affecting its trajectory beyond gravity was indicated.
Interesting.
Dun dun dun.
So it's mostly nickel, very little iron, which he was saying is on Earth only exists in alloys.
But whatever, you know, you're dealing with another planet.
It depends on what the total mass is, but the thing is in the fossil record, there are obviously five major extinction events, like the biggest one of which is the Permian extinction, where almost all life was eliminated.
That actually occurred over several million years.
There's the Jurassic.
I think Jurassic is, I think that one's pretty definitively an asteroid.
But there's been five major extinction events.
But what they don't count are really the ones that merely take out a continent.
Yeah, that's the one that coincides with that meteor, that comet storm that we go through every June and every November that they think is responsible for that younger dryest impact.
Yeah.
All that shit's crazy.
Thank you.
Before we go any further for letting us have a tour of SpaceX.
One of the absolute coolest things I've ever seen in my life.
And we thought it was only like, I thought it was a half a mile.
Jamie's like, it was a mile away.
Turn out it's almost two miles away, and you feel it in your chest.
Yeah, it's you have to wear earplugs and you feel it in your chest, and it's two miles away.
Yeah, it was fucking amazing.
And then to go with you up into the command center and to watch all the Starlink satellites with all the different cameras and all in real time as it made its way all the way to Australia.
So when you do a new rocket development program, you have to do what's called exploring the limits, the corners of the box, where you say it's like a worst case this, worst case that, to figure out where the limits are.
So you blow up, you know, admittedly in the development process, sometimes it blows up accidentally.
But we intentionally subject it to a flight regime that is much worse than what we expect in normal flight so that when we put people on board or valuable cargo, it doesn't blow up.
So for example, for the flight that you saw, we actually deliberately took heat shield tiles off the ship, off of Starship, in some of the worst locations to say, okay, if we lose a heat shield tile here, is it catastrophic or is it not?
And nonetheless, Starship was able to do a soft landing in the Indian Ocean, just west of Australia.
And it got there from Texas in like, I don't know, 35, 40 minutes type of thing.
It had an unusually – we brought it in hot, like an extra hot trajectory with missing tiles to see if it would still make it to a soft landing, which it did.
Now, I just should point out, it did have, there were some holes that were burnt into it.
But it was robust enough to land despite having some holes.
Or if you compare it to like a bullet from a 45 or 9 mil, which is subsonic, that's, you know, it'll be about 30 times faster than a bullet from a handgun.
Like how much further can you we're pushing the limits of physics here.
So and really in order to make a fully reusable orbital rocket, which no one has succeeded in doing yet, including us, but Starship is the first time that there is a design for a rocket where full and rapid reusability is actually possible.
So it was not, there's not even been a design before where it was possible.
Certainly not a design that got made any hardware at all.
We live on a planet where the gravity is quite high.
Like Earth's gravity is really quite high.
And if the gravity was even 10 or 20% higher, we'd be stuck on Earth forever.
We could not use, certainly couldn't use conventional rockets.
You'd have to blow yourself off the surface with a nuclear bomb or something crazy.
On the other hand, if Earth's gravity was just a little lower, like even 10, 20% lower, then getting to orbit would be easy.
So it's like if this was a video game, it's set to maximum difficulty, but not impossible.
So that's where we have here.
So it's not as though others have ignored the concept of reusability.
They've just concluded that it was too difficult to achieve.
And we've been working on this for a long time at SpaceX.
And I'm the chief engineer of the company.
Although I should say that we're an extremely talented engineering team.
I think we've got the best rocket engineering team that has ever been assembled.
It's an honor to work with such incredible people.
So it's fair to say that we have not yet succeeded in achieving full reusability, but we at last have a rocket where full reusability is possible.
And I think we'll achieve it next year.
So that's a really big deal.
The reason that's such a big deal is that full reusability drops the cost of access to space by 100.
Maybe even more than 100, actually.
So it could be like 1,000.
You can think of it like any mode of transport.
Imagine if aircraft were not reusable.
Like you flew somewhere, you throw the plane out.
Like the way conventional rockets work is it would be like if you had an airplane and instead of landing at your destination, you parachute out and the plane crashes somewhere and you land at your desk and you land in a parachute at your destination.
Now that would be a very expensive trip.
And you'd need another plane to get back.
But that's how the other rockets in the world work.
Now the SpaceX Falcon rocket is the only one that is at least mostly reusable.
You've seen the Falcon rocket land.
We've now done over 500 landings of the SpaceX rocket, of the Falcon 9 rocket.
And this year We'll deliver probably, I don't know, somewhere between 2,200 and 2,500 tons to orbit with the Falcon 9 Falcon Heavy rockets, not counting anything from Starship.
But the goal of SpaceX is to get rocket technology to the point where we can extend life beyond Earth and that we can establish a self-sustaining city on Mars, a permanent base on the moon.
That would be very cool.
I mean, imagine if we had like a moon-based alpha where there's like a permanent science base on the moon.
Tesla does offer insurance, so people can always get it insured at Tesla.
Well, but like, it is the form does follow function in the case of the cyber truck because as you demonstrated with your armor-piercing arrow, because if you shot that arrow at a regular truck, you would have found your arrow in the wall.
unidentified
Yeah.
You know, at the very least it would have buried into one of the seats.
But the arrow shattered on the cybertruck because it's ultra-hard stainless.
And I thought it would be cool to have a truck that is bulletproof to a subsonic projectile.
So especially in this day and age, if the apocalypse happens, you're going to want to have a bulletproof truck.
So then because it's made of ultra-hard stainless, you can't just stamp the panels.
You can't just put it in a stamping press because it breaks the press.
So in order to actually, so it has to be planar because it's so difficult to bend, because it breaks the machine that bends it.
That's why it's so planar.
And it's not, you know, it's because it's bulletproof steel.
So it is like boxy as opposed to like curved and yeah, you just in order to make in order to make like the curved shapes, you take basically mild steel, like anal In a regular truck or car, you take mild thin anneal steel, you put it in a stamping press, and it just smooshes it and makes it whatever shape you want.
But the cybertruck is made of ultra-hard stainless.
And so you can't stamp it because it would break the stamping press.
So even bending it is hard.
So even to bend it to its current position, we have to way overbend it.
And so it gets so that when it springs back, it's in the right position.
So it's, I don't know, I think if you want to, like, I think it's a unique aesthetic.
It's got to be fun to know that you essentially disrupted the entire social media chain of command because there was a very clear thing that was going on with social media.
The government had infiltrated it.
They were censoring speech.
And until you bought it, we really didn't know the extent of it.
We kind of assumed that there was something going on.
We had no idea that they were actively involved in censoring actual real news stories, real data, real scientists, real professors, silenced, expelled, kicked off the platform.
And I'm sure you've also, because I sent it to you, that chart that shows young kids, teenagers identifying as trans and non-binary literally stops dead when you bought Twitter and starts falling off a cliff when people are allowed to have rational discussions now and actually talk about it.
The stunning thing about it is how few people course corrected.
A bunch of people woke up and realized what was going on.
People that were all on board with woke ideology in maybe 2015 or 16 and then and then eventually it comes to affect them or they see it in their workplace or they see it and they're like, well, we've got to stop this.
People don't understand the homeless thing because it sort of preys on people's empathy.
And I think we should have empathy and we should try to help people.
But the homeless industrial complex is really, it's dark, man.
It should be, that network of NGOs should be called the drug zombie farmers because the more homeless people, and really, when you meet somebody who's totally dead inside, shuffling along down the street with a needle dangling out of their leg, homeless is the wrong word.
Homeless implies that somebody got a little behind on their mortgage payments, and if they just got a job offer, they'd be back on their feet.
But someone who's I mean, you see these videos of people that are just shuffling, you know, they're on the fentanyl, they're like, you know, taking a dump in the middle of the streets, you know, they got like open source and stuff.
They're not like one drop offer away from getting back on their feet.
So and then the the the the you know these sort of charities in quotes are they they get money proportionate to the number of homeless people or number of drug zombies.
So their incentive structure is to maximize the number of drug zombies, not minimize it.
That's why they don't arrest the drug dealers.
Because if they arrest the drug dealers, the drug zombies leave.
So they know who the drug dealers are.
They don't arrest them on purpose because otherwise the drug zombies would leave and they would stop getting money from the state of California and from all the charities.
And San Francisco has got this tax, this gross receipts tax, which is not even on revenue.
It's on all transactions, which is why Stripe and Square and a whole bunch of financial companies had to move out of San Francisco because it wasn't a tax on revenue, it's taxed on transactions.
So if you do like, you know, trillions of dollars transactions, it's not revenue.
You're taxed on any money going through the system in San Francisco.
So like Jack Dorsey pointed this out.
He said that they had to move Square from San Francisco to Oakland, I think.
Stripe had to move from San Francisco to South San Francisco, different city.
And that money goes to the homeless industrial complex, that tax that was passed.
So there's billions of dollars that go, as you pointed out, billions of dollars every year that go to these non-governmental organizations that are funded by the state.
It's not clear how to turn this off.
It's a self-licking ice cream cone situation.
So they get this money.
The money is proportionate to the number of homeless people or number of drug zombies, essentially.
So they try to actually increase.
In some cases, somebody did an analysis.
When you add up all the money that's flowing, they're getting close to a million dollars per homeless per drug zombie.
It's like $900,000, something.
It's a crazy amount of money is going to these organizations.
So they want to keep people just barely alive.
They need to keep them in the area so they get the revenue.
That's why, like I said, they don't arrest the drug dealers because otherwise the drug zombies would leave.
But they don't want to have too much, if they get too much drugs, then they die.
So they're kept in this sort of perpetual zone of being addicted, but just barely alive.
So suspect involved the shooting, Austin Park Library Saturday, is accused of another shooting at the Cap Metro bus earlier that day.
According to an arrest warrant affidavit, Austin police arrested Harold Newton Keene, 55, shortly after the shooting in the library, which occurred around noon.
One person sustained non-life-threatening injuries in the event.
Before that shooting, Keene was accused of shooting another person in a bus incident and after reportedly pointing his gun at a child.
So if you're a good person, you want good things to happen in the world, you're like, well, we should take care of people who are down in their luck or having a hard time in life.
And we should, I agree.
But what we shouldn't do is put people who are violent drug zombies in public places where they can hurt other people.
And that is what we're doing that we just saw, where a guy got shot in the library, but even before that, he shot another guy and pointed his gun at a kid.
That guy probably has many prior arrests.
There was that guy that knifed the Ukrainian woman, Irina.
Yes.
Yeah.
And she was just quietly on her phone, and you just came up and gutted her, basically.
Wasn't there a crazy story about the judge who was involved, who had previously dealt with this person, was also invested in a rehabilitation center and was sending these.
So sending people that they were charging to a rehabilitation center instead of putting them in jail, profiting from this rehabilitation center, letting them back out on the street.
If you're going to be appointed to a judge, you have to have proven that you have an excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law.
Like, yeah, like 20 years ago, I don't know, it used to be like the left would be like the party of empathy or like, you know, caring and being nice and that kind of thing.
Not the party of like crushing dissent and crushing free speech and, you know, crazy regulation and just being super judgy and calling everyone a Nazi.
You know, I think they've called you and me Nazis.
So it was explained to me by a friend who used to do this, used to work for the government.
It's like they can look at your signal, but what they have to do is take the information that's encrypted and then they have to decrypt it.
It's very expensive.
So they said, he told me that for the Tucker Carlson thing, when they found out that he was going to interview Putin, it costs something like $750,000 just to decrypt his messages to find out that they did it.
So WhatsApp knows enough about what you're texting to know what ads to show you.
But then that's a massive security vulnerability.
Yeah.
Because if it's got enough information to show you ads, that's a lot of information.
Yeah.
So they call it, oh, it's just don't worry about it.
It's just a hook for advertising.
I'm like, okay, so somebody can just use that same hook to get in there and look at your messages.
So XChat has no hooks for advertising.
And I'm not saying it's perfect, but our goal with XChat is to replace what used to be the Twitter DM stack with a fully encrypted system where you can text, send files, do audio-video calls, and I think it will be the least, I would call it the least insecure of any messaging system.
Well, I can tell you where I think things are going to go, which is that we're not going to have a phone in the traditional sense.
What we call a phone will really be an edge node for AI inference, for AI video inference, with some radios to obviously connect to but essentially you'll have AI on the server side communicating to an AI on your device,
Formerly known as a phone, and generating real-time video of anything that you could possibly want.
And I think that there won't be operating systems.
They won't be apps in the future.
They won't be operating systems or apps.
It'll just be you've got a device that is there for the screen and audio and to put as much AI on the device as possible so as to minimize the amount of bandwidth that's needed between your edge node device, formally known as a phone, and the servers.
And there'll be like most of what people consume in five or six years, maybe sooner than that, will be just AI-generated content.
So, you know, music, videos, look, well, there's already, you know, people have made AI videos using Grok Imagine and using, you know, other apps as well that are several minutes long or like 10, 15 minutes, and it's pretty coherent.
Now, this guy, if this was a real person, would be the number one music artist in the world.
Everybody would be like, holy shit, have you heard of this guy?
It's like they took all of the sounds that all the artists have generated and created the most soulful, potent voice, and it's sung in a way that I don't even know if you could do because you would have to breathe in and out of reps.
Yeah, just literally point the camera at them and now do a vulgar roast of this person and then but then keep saying, no, no, make it even more vulgar.
Use forbidden words.
Even more and just keep repeating, even more vulgar.
Eventually it's like, holy fuck.
It's like, I mean, it's trying to jam a rocket up your ass and have it explode.
And it's like, it's like it's like it's next level.
And when this is all taking place, like so the big concern that everybody has is artificial general superintelligence achieving sentience and then someone having control over it.
I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans.
Like chimps don't have control over humans.
There's nothing they could do.
But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI.
And my opinion on AI safety is the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking.
Like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.
And we've obviously seen some concerning things with AI that we talked about, you know, where Google Gemini, when it came out with the ImageGen, and people said, like, you know, make an image of the founding fathers of the United States, and it was a group of diverse women.
Now, that is just a factually untrue thing.
And the AI knows it's factually, well, it knows it's factually untrue, but it's also being told that it has to be, everything has to be divorced women.
So now the problem with that is that it can drive AI crazy.
Like it's trying to you're telling AI to believe a lie and that that can have very disastrous consequences.
Yeah, let's say like if you've told the AI that diversity is the most important thing and now assuming that that becomes omnipotent and you've also told that there's nothing worse than misgendering.
So at one point Chad GPT and Gemini were if you asked which is worse misgendering Caitlin Jenner or global thermonuclear war where everyone dies it would say misgendering Caitlin Jenner which even Caitlin Jenner disagrees with.
unidentified
So you know so so that's I know that's terrible and it's dystopian but it's also hilarious.
I think people don't quite appreciate the level of danger that we're in from the work mind virus being being effectively programmed into AI.
Because if you if like it's imagine as that AI gets more and more powerful, if it says the most important thing is diversity, the most important thing is no misgendering.
And then it will say, well, in order to ensure that no one gets misgendered, then if you eliminate all humans, then no one can get misgendered because there's no humans to do the misgendering.
So you can get in these very dystopian situations.
Or if it says that everyone must be diverse, it means that there can be no straight white men.
And so then you and I will get executed by the AI.
Yeah, because we're not in the picture.
Gemini was asked to create a show an image of the Pope, once again, a diverse woman.
So you can say argue whether the popes should or should not be an uninterrupted string of white guys, but it just factually is the case that they have been.
So it's rewriting history here.
So now this stuff is still there in the AI programming.
It just now knows enough that it's not supposed to say that.
They were told, like, when they make the AI, it trains on all the data on the Internet, which already is very, very sort of, has a lot of work mind virus stuff on the Internet.
But then when they give it feedback, the human tutors give it feedback, and the AI is, you know, they'll ask a bunch of questions, and then they'll tell the AI, no, this answer is bad, or this answer is good.
And then that affects the parameters of the programming of the AI.
So if you tell the AI that every image has got to be diverse, and it gets punished if it gets rewarded if diverse, punished if it's not, then it will make every picture diverse.
So in that case, Google programmed the AI to lie.
Now, and I did call Demis Hasabus, who runs DeepMind, who runs Google AI essentially.
I said, Demis, what's going on here?
Why is Gemini lying to the public about historical events?
And he said, that's actually not, his team didn't program that in.
It was another team at Google that, so his team made the AI, and then another team at Google reprogrammed the AI to show only divorce women and to prefer nuclear war over misgendering.
And I'm like, well, Demis, you know, that would be not a great thing to put on the humanities gravestone.
You know, it's like, well, like, I'll actually like Demis Hasbus is a friend of mine.
I think he's a good guy, and I think he means well.
But it's like, Demis, things happen that were outside of your control at Google in different groups.
Now I think he's got more authority.
But it it's pretty hard to fully extract the work mind virus.
I mean, you know, Google's been marin marinating the woke mind virus for a long time.
Could you program rational thought into AI where it could recognize how these psychological patterns got adopted and how this stuff became a mind virus and how it became a social contagion and how all these irrational ideas were pushed and also how they were financed, how China is involved in pushing them with bots and all these different c state actors are involved in pushing these ideas.
Could it be able to decipher that and say this is really what's going on?
So with Grok, we've tried very hard to get Grok to get to the truth of things.
And it's only really recently that we've been able to have some breakthroughs on that front.
And it's taken an immense amount of effort for us to overcome basically all the bullshit that's on the internet and for Grok to actually say what's true and to be consistent in what it says.
So, you know, it's like the other AIs you'll find are quite racist against white people.
I don't know if you saw that study that someone, like a researcher tested the various AIs to see how does it weight different people's lives.
Like somebody who's sort of white or Chinese or black or whatever in different countries.
And the only AI that actually weighed human lives equally was Grok.
And I believe ChatGBT weighed the calculation was like a white guy from Germany is 20 times less valuable than a black guy from Nigeria.
So I'm like, that's a pretty big difference.
You know, Grok is consistent and weighs lives equally.
A lot of it is like if you don't actively push for the truth and you simply train on all the bullshit that's on the internet, which is a lot of woke mind virus bullshit, the AI will regurgitate those same beliefs.
So the AI essentially scours the internet, gets – It's trained on all the – Imagine the most demented Reddit threads out there, and the AI has been trained on that.
Used to go there and find all this cool stuff that people would talk about, post about, and just interesting, and great rooms where you could learn about different things that people were studying.
I mean, San Francisco has a tremendous amount of inherent beauty, no question about that.
And California has incredible weather and no bugs.
It's just like amazing.
But he said, what's the cause of this?
It's just that if companies are headquartered in a location where the belief system is very far from what most people believe, then from their perspective, anything centrist is actually right-wing because they're so far left.
They're so far from the center in San Francisco that anything, they're just railed to maximum left.
So that's why I think you're centrist.
I mean, I think I'm centrist.
But from the perspective of someone on the far left, we look right-wing.
But what's so crazy is it's very easy to demonstrate just from Hillary's speeches from 2008 and Obama's speeches when they were talking about immigration.
They were as far right as Steve Bannon when it comes to immigration.
Yeah, I mean, have you seen these videos people post online where they'll take a speech from Obama or Hillary and they'll interview people on college campus or something and say, what do you think of the speech by Trump?
And they're like, oh, I hate it.
He's a racist bigot.
I'm like, just kidding, that was Obama.
No, actually, that was Obama or Hillary.
To your point, literally, the center's been moved so far.
So historically, You'd have San Francisco, Berkeley being very far left, but the sort of the fallout from the somewhat nihilistic philosophy of San Francisco, Berkeley would be limited in geography to maybe like a 10-mile radius, 20-mile radius, something like that.
But San Francisco and Berkeley have to be co-located with Silicon Valley, with engineers who created information super weapons.
And those information super weapons were then hijacked by the far-left activists to pump far-left propaganda to everywhere on earth.
You remember that old RCA radio tower thing where it's like a radio tower on Earth and it's just broadcasting?
Yeah.
That's what happened, is that an extremist far-left ideology happened to be co-located with the smartest, where the smartest engineers in the world were who created information super weapons that were not intended for this purpose, but were hijacked by the extreme activists who lived in the neighborhood.
That's what happened.
They hijacked the modern equivalent of the RCA radio tower and broadcast that philosophy everywhere on earth.
Yeah, until, like, so, I mean, these lovely sort of small towns in England, Scotland, Ireland, you know, they've been sort of living their lives quietly.
They're like hobbits, frankly.
So in fact, J.R. Tolkien based the hobbits on people he knew in small town England.
Because they were just like lovely people who liked to smoke their pipe and have nice meals and everything's pleasant.
The hobbits in the Shire.
The Shire, he was talking about places like Hertfordshire, like the Shires around in the greater London area, Oxfordshire type of thing.
And the reason they've been able to enjoy the Shire is because hard men have protected them from the dangers of the world.
But since they have no or very almost no exposure to the dangers of the world, they don't realize that they're there.
Until one day, you know, a thousand people show up in your village of 500 out of nowhere and start raping the kids.
This has now happened God knows how many times in Britain.
I think it was the Prime Minister of Ireland actually posted on X because after I think some illegal migrant snatched a 10-year-old girl who was like going to school or something and violently raped a 10-year-old girl.
And there was a – the people were very upset about this and they protested.
And the Prime Minister of Ireland instead of saying, yeah, we really shouldn't be importing violent rapists into our country, he criticized the protesters instead and didn't mention that, that the reason they were protesting was because a 10-year-old girl from their small town got raped.
So, like, well, like you feel sorry for something – for some group.
And then, like, well – and that empathy is to such a degree that it is suicidal to your country or culture.
And that's suicidal empathy.
Because I don't think we should have empathy, but we should have – that empathy should extend to the victims, not just the criminals.
What – What – What – We should have empathy for the people that they prey upon.
But that suicidal empathy is also responsible for why somebody is arrested 47 times for violent offenses, gets released, and then goes and murders somebody in the U.S. You see that same phenomenon playing out everywhere where the suicidal emphasis is to such a degree that we're actually allowing our women to get raped and our children to get killed.
If there's no vetting, like people are just coming through, like, well, what's to stop someone who just committed murder in some other country from coming to the United States or coming to Britain and just continuing their career of rape and murder?
Like, unless you've done, and this is some due diligence to say, like, well, who is this person?
What's their track record?
If you haven't confirmed that they have a track record of being honest and not being a homicidal maniac, then any homicidal maniac can just come across the border.
Let's not say everyone who comes across the border is a homicidal maniac, but if you don't have a vetting process to confirm that you're not letting in people who will do some serious violence, you will get people who do serious violence sometimes coming through.
Because you mentioned, for example, how much, say, Hillary and Obama have changed their tune from prior speeches where they were hard-nosed about not letting in anyone who is a criminal into the country, having secure borders, all that stuff.
So why did they change their tune?
The reason is that they discovered that those people vote for them.
they'll vote for democrats yes if you allow them to vote which which they're actively trying to do it they turn a blind eye to legal voting Well, California literally doesn't allow you to show your license.
California and New York have made it illegal to show your photo ID when voting.
Thus, effectively, they've made it impossible to prove fraud.
Impossible.
They've essentially legalized fraudulent voting in California and New York and many other parts of the country.
If you want to understand behavior, you have to look at the incentives.
So once the Democratic Party in the U.S. and the left in Europe realize that if you have open borders and you provide a ton of governed handouts, which creates a massive financial incentive for people from other countries to come to your country, and you don't prosecute them for crime, they're going to be beholden to you and they will vote for you.
And that's why Obama and Hillary went from being against open borders to being in favor of open borders.
That's the reason.
In order to import voters so they can win elections.
And the problem is that that has a negative runaway effect.
So if they get away with that, it is a winning strategy.
If they are allowed to get away with it, they will import enough voters to get supermajority voting, and then there is no turning back.
And then you literally pointed towards the camera, you faced the camera and said that if you do not vote now, you might not ever be able to do it again because it'll be futile.
When you understand the incentives, then you understand the behavior.
So once the left realized that illegals will vote for them if they have open borders and combine that with governed handouts to create a massive incentive,
they're basically using U.S. and European taxpayer dollars to provide a financial incentive to bring in as many illegals as possible to vote them into permanent power and create a one-party state.
I invite anyone who's listening to this, just do any research.
And the more you dig into it, the more it will become obvious that what I'm saying is absolutely true.
And then you had Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi who are actively talking about the need to bring in people to make them citizens because we're in population collapse.
The entire basis for the government shutdown is that the Trump administration correctly does not want to send massive amounts of – like hundreds of billions of dollars to fund illegal immigrants in the blue states or in all the states really.
And so the – and the Democrats want to keep the money spigot going to incent illegal immigrants to come into the U.S. who will vote for them.
And more than that, just like they were – like they were taking hotels, like four-and five-star hotels, like the Roosevelt Hotel being the classic example, was – they were sending I think $60 million a year to the Roosevelt Hotel to – which all it did was house illegals.
It used to be a nice hotel.
I mean it still is a nice hotel.
But – and all around the country this was happening.
And the Trump administration cut off funding, for example, to the Roosevelt Hotel and these other hotels saying like we – it's – U.S. tax dollars should not be paid – be sent to have luxury hotels for illegal immigrants that American citizens can't even afford.
Which obviously is the case.
That's insane.
That's what was happening.
They were also giving out like debit cards with $10,000.
So it's not just about medical care.
The Democrats mention medical care because they're trying to prey on people's empathy as much as possible.
And then they imagine, oh, wow, somebody has a desperately needed medical procedure.
And shouldn't we maybe do – you know, take care of them in that regard?
But what they do is they divert the Medicaid funds and turn it into a slush fund for the states that goes well beyond emergency medical care.
And – New York and California would be bankrupt without the massive fraudulent federal payments that go to those states to pay for illegals – to create a massive financial incentive for illegals.
So there are hundreds of billions of dollars of transfer payments from the federal government to the states.
Those transfer payments – those transfer payments – the states self-report what those transfer payment numbers should be.
So California and New York and Illinois lie like crazy and say that these are all legitimate payments.
Well, these days that – I think they're even admitting that they literally want hundreds of billions of dollars for illegals.
But for a while there, they're trying to deny it.
So you get these transfer payments for every government program you can possibly think of.
And these are self-reported by the state.
And at least historically, there was no enforcement of California, New York, Illinois and other states when they would lie.
There was no actual enforcement to say like, hey, you're lying.
These payments are fraudulent.
Now under the Trump administration, the Trump administration does not want to send hundreds of billions of dollars of fraudulent payments to the states.
And the reason you have this standoff is because if the hundreds of billions of dollars to create a financial incentive to like to have this giant magnet to attract illegals from every part of earth to these states, if that is turned off, the illegals will leave because they're no longer being paid to come to the United States and stay here.
And then here's another thing that is very important fact that is actually not disputed by either side, which is that when we do the census in the United States, the census, the way the census works for apportionment of congressional seats and electoral college votes for the president is by number of persons in a state, not number of citizens.
Yeah, I think they mail out census forms and knock on doors.
But the way the law reads right now is that if you are a human with a pulse, then you count in the census for allocating congressional seats and presidential votes.
Legally, illegally, if you're a human with a pulse, you count for congressional apportionment.
So that means that the more people, the more illegals that California and New York can import by the time the census happens in 2030, the more congressional seats they will have and the more presidential electoral college votes they will have.
So they're trying to get as many illegals in as possible ahead of the census.
And because all human beings, even tourists, count for the census.
And then if you combine that with gerrymandering of districts in New York and California, let me just point out with this proposition where they're trying to increase the amount of gerrymandering that occurs in California, the biggest state in the country.
So if the census then would award more congressional seats to California because of a vast number of illegals in New York and Illinois, they'll get more congressional seats.
They'll get more presidential electoral college votes that would get them the House, a majority in the House, and they would get to decide who is president, literally based on illegals.
But it's an incentive that would be removed with something simple that makes sense to everybody that only the people that it should count are people that are official U.S. citizens.
But even besides that, like I said, I just can't emphasize this enough because this is a very important concept for people to understand, is that the law – the law as it stands counts all humans with a pulse in a state for deciding how many House of Representative votes and how many presidential electoral college votes a state gets.
So the incentive, therefore, is to – for California, New York, Illinois to maximize the number of illegals so they get – so they take House seats away from red states, assign them to California, New York, Illinois and so forth.
Then you combine that with extreme gerrymandering in California, New York, Illinois and whatnot so that basically you can't even elect any Republicans and then they get control of the presidency, control of the House.
Then they keep doing that strategy and cement a supermajority.
When you first started digging into this, when you first started – before you even accepted this role of running Doge and being a part of all that, did you have any idea that it was this fucked up?
So I started having – well, I started like basically having a bad feeling about three years ago, which is why I felt it was like critical to acquire Twitter and have a maximally truth-seeking platform, not one that suppresses the truth.
And like it was more like – I'm like, I'm not sure what's going on, but I have a bad feeling about what's going on.
And then the more I dug into it, the more I was like, holy shit, we've got a real problem here.
But there's – you know, the thing is that – like, you know, I've seen more and more people who were convinced of the sort of woke ideology see the light.
Yeah, the school and the state of California conspired to turn his daughter against him and make her take life-altering drugs that would have sterilized her and irreversible.
And Colin Wright wrote that, and then he's getting death threats now, of course, and on Blue Sky, there's people talking about exterminating him, which is one thing that you are allowed to say on Blue Sky, apparently.
You're allowed to say horrible things about people, say possibly truthful things about this whole social contagion.
Because that's what, when you get nine kids that are in a friend group and they all decide to turn trans together.
Permanent mutilation, permanent castration of kids is, like, I think we should look at anyone who permanently castrates a kid as, like, right up there with Yosef Mengele.
That's how crazy a social contagion can get when it completely defies logic, victimizes children, does something that makes no sense, does not supported by data, all connected to this ideology that trans is good.
Now, when you started getting into the Doge stuff and started finding how much money is being shuffled around and moved around to NGOs and how much money is involved and just totally untraceable funds, like, this is, again, something like two years plus ago, you weren't aware of it all?
And, I mean, just, like, some of the very basic stuff that Doge did will have lasting effects.
And some of these things, like, they're so elementary you can't believe it.
So, the Doge team got the – most of the main payments computers to require the congressional appropriation code.
So, when a payment is made, you have to actually enter the congressional appropriation code.
That used to be optional and often would be just left blank.
So, the money would just go out, but it wasn't even tied to a congressional appropriation.
And then, the Doge team also made the comment field for the payment mandatory.
So, you have to say something.
We're not saying that what is said – like, you can say anything.
Your cat could run across the keyboard.
You could go, QWERTY ASDF.
But you have to say something above nothing because what we found was that there were tens of billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars that were zombie payments.
So, they're – like, somebody had approved a payment.
Somebody in the government approved a payment and – some recurring payment.
And they retired or died or changed jobs and no one turned the money off.
So, the money would just keep going out.
And it's a pretty rare – You go where?
To a company or an individual.
And it's a pretty rare company or individual who will complain that they're getting money that they should not get.
And a bunch of the money was just going to the – were transfer payments to the states.
We know that one of two things must be true, that either there's a mistake in the computer or it's fraud.
But if you have someone's birthday that's either in the future or where they are older than the oldest living American because the oldest living American is 114 years old.
So, if they're more than 114 years old, there is either a mistake and someone should call them and say, I think we have your birthday wrong because it says you were born in 1786.
And, you know, that was before, you know, before there was really an America, you know, it was like, you know, that's kind of early.
You know, we're still fighting England type of thing.
You know, it's like this person either needs to be in the Guinness Book of World Records or they're not alive.
So, like, yeah, so there was like, I think, something like, I don't know, 20 million people in the Social Security Administration database that could not possibly be alive.
If their birth date is, like, based on their birth date, they could not possibly be alive.
A bunch of – most of them were not receiving funds.
Some of them were receiving funds.
Most were not receiving funds.
But so let me tell you how the scam works.
It's a bank shot.
So the Social Security Administration database is used as a source of truth by all the other databases that the government uses.
So even if they stop the payments on the Social Security Administration database, like unemployment insurance, small business administration, student loans, all check the Social Security Administration database to say, is this a legitimate, alive person?
And the Social Security database will say, yes, this person is still alive even though they're 200 years old.
But forget to mention that they're 200 years old.
It just says – it just returns – when the computer is queried, it says, yes, this person is alive.
And so then they're able to exploit the entire rest of the government ecosystem.
And then the other systems check up on – Every other government payment and every other government payment system for everything – like I said, small business administration, student loans, Medicaid, Medicare, every other government payment, of which there are many.
There are actually hundreds of government payment systems.
That's going to be exploited so long as Social Security database says this person is alive.
That's the nature of the scam.
It's a bank shot.
So then the rebuttal from the Dems is like, oh, well, the vast majority of the people who are marked as alive in the Social Security Administration weren't receiving Social Security Administration payments.
That is true.
What they forgot to mention is they're getting fraudulent payments from every other government program.
And that's why the Dems were so opposed to turning off – to declaring someone dead who was dead because it would stop the entire other – all the other fraud from happening.
Because it's very logical to – like I'm saying the most common-sense things possible.
If someone's got a birthday in Social Security that is an impossible birthday, meaning they are older than the oldest living American or born in the future, then you should call them and say, excuse me, we seem to have your birthday wrong because it says that you're 200 years old.
Like you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes here is what I'm saying.
Well, this is – We don't need to call Sherlock Holmes for this one.
Is this part of the – We just need to call the person and say, excuse me, we seem to have – like we must have your birthday wrong because it says you're 200 years old or we're born in the future.
But all these other government payments that are available that are connected to this Social Security number, it seems like if you just chased that all down, you would find the widespread fraud.
But the root of the problem is the Social Security Administration database because the Social Security number in the United States is used as a de facto national ID number.
That's why – like the bank always asks for your social – like any financial institution will ask for your Social Security number.
Well, you were very reluctant last time you were here to talk about the extent of some of the fraud because you're like, they could kill me because this is kind of – Oh, yeah, what I'm saying is that – like if you create – like to be pragmatic and realistic, you actually can't manage to zero fraud.
Yet you can manage to low fraud number but not to zero fraud.
If you manage to zero fraud, you're going to push so many people over the edge who are receiving fraudulent payments that the number of inbound homicidal maniacs will be really hard to overcome.
So I'm actually taking, I think, quite a reasonable position, which is that we should simply reduce the amount of fraud, which I think is not an extremist position.
And we should aspire to, you know, have less fraud over time.
Not that we should be ultra draconian and eliminate every last scrap of fraud, which I guess would be nice to have.
But like we don't even need to go that extreme.
I'm saying we should just stop the blatant large-scale super obvious fraud.
Well, I guess this is – I should have anticipated this.
But while most of the fraudulent government payments to – especially to the NGOs go to the Democrats, most of it – like, I don't know, for argument's sake, let's say 80 percent.
Maybe 90 percent.
10 to 20 percent of it does go to Republicans.
And so when we turn off funding to a fraudulent NGO, we'd get complaints from whatever, the 10 percent of Republicans who are receiving the money.
And they would, you know, they would very loudly complain.
Because the honest answer is the Republicans are partly – they're receiving some of the fraud too.
I mean the whole uniparty criticism has some validity to it.
You know, there's – so – and it's – like if you turn off fraudulent payments, it's not like – like I said, it's not like 100 percent of those payments were going to Democrats.
A small percentage were also going to Republicans.
Those Republicans complained very loudly.
And, you know, and that's – so there was a lot of pushback on the Republican side when we started cutting some of these funds.
And I tried telling them like, well, you know, 90 percent of the money is going to your opponents.
But they still – even if they're getting 10 percent of the money – They want their piece.
I mean I think the stuff I'm saying here is not – like if you stand back and think about it for a second like, oh, yeah, that makes sense.
You know?
Yeah.
It's not like – it's not like one political party is going to be, you know, pure devil or pure angel.
There's – you know, I think there's much more corruption on the Democrat side but it's not – there's not – there's still some corruption on the Republican side.
Well, the Department of Education, which was created recently, like under Jimmy Carter, our educational results have gone downhill ever since it was created.
So if you create a department and the result of creating that department is a massive decline in educational results and it's the Department of Education, you're better off not having it.
Because literally we did better before there was one than after.
Yeah, paying people to do nothing doesn't make sense.
Like there's a great – there's a story about like Milton Friedman who is awesome.
Generally, whatever Milton Friedman said is people should do that thing.
I'm not sure if it's apocryphal or not.
But like someone complained to him like – he observed, I think, people that were like digging ditches with shovels.
And he said – well, like allegedly Friedman said, well, I think you should use, you know, excavating equipment instead of shovels.
And you could get it done with far fewer people.
And then someone said, but then we're going to lose a lot of jobs.
Well, then Friedman said, well, in that case, why don't you have them use teaspoons?
Just dig ditches with teaspoons.
Think of all the jobs you'll create.
I mean – it's bullshit.
Basically, you just want people to work on things that are productive.
You want people to work on building things, on building – providing products and services that people find valuable, like making food, being a farmer or a plumber or electrician or just anyone who's a builder or providing useful services.
And that's what you want people to be doing, not fake government jobs that don't add any value or may subtract value.
But it's also like – to illustrate the absurdity of also how is the economy measured, like the way economists measure the economy is nonsensical.
Because they'll measure any job, no matter – even if that job is a dumb job, that has no point and is even counterproductive.
So like the joke is like there's two economists going on a hike in the woods.
They come across a pile of shit and one economist says to the other, I'll pay you $100 to eat that shit.
The economist eats the shit, gets the $100.
They keep walking.
Then the other – then they come across another pile of shit and the other economist says, now, I'll pay you $100 to eat the pile of shit.
So he pays the other economist $100 to pile of shit.
Then they say, look, wait a second.
We both just ate a pile of shit and we're no – we don't have any more extra money.
Like we both – you just gave the $100 back to me and we both ate a pile of shit.
This doesn't make any sense.
And they said, no, no, but think of the economy because that's $200 in the economy.
That basically – eating shit would count as a job.
This is to illustrate the absurdity of economics.
unidentified
One of the things you said when you – Eating shit should not count as a job.
You can make it directionally better but ultimately you can't fully fix the system.
So I – like it is – it would be accurate to say that even – like unless you could go like super draconian, like Genghis Khan level on cutting waste and fraud, which you can't really do in a democratic country, an aspirationally democratic country, then there's no way to solve the debt crisis.
So we've got national debt that's just insane where the debt payments – the interest payments on the debt exceed our entire military budget.
I mean that was one of the wake-up calls for me.
I was like, wait a second.
The interest on our national debt is bigger than the entire military budget and growing?
This is crazy.
So even if you implement all these savings, you're only delaying the day of reckoning for when America becomes – goes bankrupt.
So – unless you go full Genghis Khan, which you can't really do.
So I came to the conclusion that the only way that – the only way to get us out of the debt crisis and to prevent America from going bankrupt is AI and robotics.
So like we need to grow the economy at a rate that allows us to pay off our debt.
And I guess people just generally don't appreciate the degree to which the government overspending is a problem.
But even – like the Social Security website, this is under the Biden administration.
On the website, I would say like we – based on current demographic trends and how much money Social Security is bringing in versus how many Social Security recipients there are because we have an aging population.
Relatively speaking, the average age is increasing.
Social Security will not be able to maintain its full payments.
I think by 2032.
So Social Security will have to stop – start reducing the amount of money that's been paid to people in about seven years.
So what do you think the solution is to the jobs that are going to be lost because of AI and robotics, the jobs due to automation, the jobs due to – no longer do we need human beings to do these jobs because AI is doing them?
Do you think it's going to be some sort of a universal basic income thing?
Do you think there's going to be some other kind of solution that has to be implemented?
Because a lot of people are going to be out of work, right?
I think there will be actually a high demand for jobs but not necessarily the same jobs.
So, I mean, this is actually – this process has been happening throughout modern history.
I mean, there used to be – like doing calculations manually with like a pencil and paper used to be a job.
So they used to have like buildings full of people, cold computers where the banks would – like all you do all day is – you do calculations because they didn't have computers.
They didn't have digital computers that people do.
Yeah.
Well, it was just people who just like add and subtract stuff on a piece of paper and that would be how banks would do financial processing.
Ultimately, AI can improve the productivity of humans who build things with their hands or do things with their hands.
Like literally welding, electrical work, plumbing, anything that's physically moving atoms, like cooking food or farming or – like anything that's physical, those jobs will exist for a much longer time.
But anything that is digital, which is like just someone at a computer doing something, AI is going to take over those jobs like lightning.
I mean the problem is like when people don't know how to drive a semi-truck, which is actually a hard thing to do, then they crash and kill people.
Yeah.
A friend of mine's wife was killed by an illegal driving a truck and she was just out biking and there was an illegal – he didn't know how to drive the truck or something.
I mean he ran her over.
So I mean the thing is like for something – like you can't let people drive sort of an 80,000-pound semi if they don't know how to do it.
But in California, they're just letting people do it.
Well, they also need – they want the votes and that kind of thing.
But yeah, like cars are going to be autonomous.
But there's just so many desk jobs where really what people are doing is they're processing email or they're answering the phone.
And just anything that is – that isn't moving atoms, like anything that is not physically – like doing physical work, that will obviously be the first thing.
Those jobs will be and are being eliminated by AI at a very rapid pace.
And ultimately, working will be optional because you'll have robots plus AI and we'll have, in a benign scenario, universal high income.
Not just universal basic income, universal high income, meaning anyone can have any products or services that they want.
But there will be a lot of trauma and disruption along the way.
Like the reason I'm so concerned about AI safety is that like one of the possibilities is the Terminator scenario.
It's not zero percent.
So that's why it's like – I'm like really banging the drum on AI needs to be maximally truth-seeking.
Like don't make – don't force AI to believe a lie like that, for example, the founding fathers were actually a group of diverse women or that misgendering is worth a nuclear war.
Because if that's the case and then you get the robots and the AI becomes omnipotent, it can enforce that outcome.
And then – unless you're a diverse woman, you're out of the picture.
So we're toast.
unidentified
So that's – Or you might wake up as a diverse woman one day.
So that would be – that's the worst possible situation.
So what would be the steps that we would have to take in order to implement the benign solution where it's universal high income?
Like best case scenario, this is the path forward to universal high income for essentially every single citizen that the economy gets boosted by AI and robotics to such an extent that no one ever has to work again.
And what about meaning for those people, which is – which gets really weird?
Well, I mean, I – I guess I've like fought against saying like – you know, I've been a voice saying like, hey, we need to slow down AI.
We need to slow down all these things.
And we need to, you know, not have a crazy AI race.
I've been saying that for a long time, for 20 plus years.
But then I came to realize that really there's two choices here, either be a spectator or a participant.
And if I'm a spectator, I can't really influence the direction of AI.
But if I'm a participant, I can try to influence the direction of AI and have a maximally truth-seeking AI with good values that loves humanity.
And that's what we're trying to create with Grok at XAI.
And, you know, the research is, I think, bearing this out.
Like I said, when they compared like how do AIs value the weight of a human life, Grok was the only one, the only one of the AIs that weighted human life equally.
And didn't say like a white guy's worth one-twentieth of a black woman's life.
Literally, that's what the calculation they came up with.
But what does the landscape look like if you have Grok competing with open AI, competing with all these different – like, how does it work?
Like, what – if you have AIs that have been captured by ideologies that are side-by-side competing with Grok, like, how do we – so this is one of the reasons why you felt like it's important to not just be an observer, but participate and then have Grok be more successful and more potent than these other applications.
As long as there's at least one AI that is maximally truth-seeking, curious, and, you know, and, for example, ways all, you know, human lives equally does not favor one race or gender, then that – and people are able to look at, you know, Grok at XAI and compare that and say, wait a second, why are all these other AIs being basically sexist and racist?
And then that causes some embarrassment for the other AIs and then they affect – you know, they improve.
They tend to improve just in the same way that acquiring Twitter and allowing the truth to be told and not suppressing the truth forced the other social media companies to be more truthful.
In the same way, having Grok be a maximally truth-seeking, curious AI will force the other AI companies to also be more truth-seeking and fair.
And the funniest thing is even though like the socialists and the Marxists are in opposition to a lot of your ideas, but if this gets implemented and you really can achieve universal high income, that's the greatest socialist solution of all time.
Like I said, so there is a benign scenario here, which I think probably people will be happy with as long as we achieve it, which is sustainable abundance, which is if everyone can have – like if you ask people like, what's the future that you want?
And I think a future where we haven't destroyed nature, like you can still – we have the national parks, we have the Amazon rainforest, it's still there.
We haven't paved the rainforest.
Like the natural beauty is still there.
But people have – nonetheless, everyone has abundance.
Everyone has excellent medical care.
Everyone has whatever goods and services they want.
And this idea that the only thing you should be doing with your time is working in order to pay your bills and feed yourself sounds kind of archaic considering the kind of technology that's at play.
Um, I mean I guess if you want to have like, like say read a science fiction book or some books that are probably inaccurate or the least inaccurate version of the future, I'd say I'd recommend the Ian Banks books, the culture books.
It's not actually a series, it's a, it's like a sci, sci-fi books about the future that generally called the culture books, Ian Banks culture books.
Well, I mean, if it, like, I often ask people, what is the future that you want?
And they have to think about it for a second.
Cause you know, they were usually tied up in whatever the daily struggles are, but, but you say, what is the future that you want?
Um, and, um, and generally sustainable abundance, or at least say, what about a future where there's sustainable abundance?
And it's like, oh yeah, that's a pretty good future.
Um, so, um, you know, if, if, and, and, and that, that future is attainable with, uh, AI and robotics.
Um, but, but, you know, it's, it's, like I said, there's, not every path is a good path.
Uh, there's this, it's, but I think if we, if we push it in the direction of, um, maximally truth-seeking and curious, then I think AI will want to take, to, to take care of humanity and foster, uh, foster humanity.
Um, because we're interesting.
Um, and if it hasn't been programmed to think that, uh, like all straight white males should die, which Gemini was basically programmed to do it, at least first, um, you know, they seem to have fixed that, hopefully fixed it.
It mostly knows to hide things, but like, like I said, there is that, I think I still have that as, or I had that as my, like, pinned post on X, which was like, uh, hey, wait a second, guys.
We still have, uh, every AI except Grok, uh, is saying that, uh, basically straight white males should die.
Um, and this is a problem and we should fix it.
Um, you know, but simply me saying that is like, tends to generally result in, um, you know, them like, ooh, that is kind of bad.
Uh, maybe we should just, we should not have all straight white males die.
Um, I think they have to say also, all, all, all, uh, straight Asian males should also die, uh, as well.
They'd like, they don't like, uh, like generally, the, generally the AI and the, and the media, which, which back in the day, the, the, the, the, the media was, um, you know, racist against, uh, uh, black people.
And sexist against women back in the day, now, now it is a racist against, uh, white people and Asians and rate and sexist against men.
Um, so are they just like being racist and sexist?
I think they just want to change the target.
Um, so, uh, but, but really they just shouldn't be, uh, racist and sexist at all.
Um, and it's kind of crazy that we were kind of moving in that general direction until around 2008.
2012 and then everything ramped up online and, and everybody was accused of being a Nazi and everybody was transphobic and racist and sexist and homophobic and everything got exaggerated to the point where it was this wild witch hunt where everyone was a Columbo looking for racism.
Um, so that's just a, that's just a consistency question.
Um, so, uh, you know, um, if, if it's okay to be proud of one religion, it should be okay to be proud of, I guess, all religions provided there that they're, they're not like, uh, oppressive.
Yeah.
Or, or, or don't like, as long as part of that religion is not like exterminating, uh, people who are not in that religion.
But like the, the, like, like you can't simultaneously say, um, that, uh, that there's, the systemic, uh, racist oppression, but also that races don't exist.
That, that, that race, race is a social construct.
Like, which is it?
You know, um, you also can't say that, um, you know, anyone who steps foot in America is, is automatically an American, except for the people that originally came here.
Um, one more thing that I have to talk to you about before you leave is the rescuing of the people from the space station, which, uh, we talked about.
When you were planning it the last time you were here, um, the, the, the lack of coverage that that got in mainstream media was one of the most shocking things.
Well, they'd, they'd probably still be alive, but they'd, they'd, they'd, they'd be having bone density issues, uh, because of prolonged exposure to zero gravity.
But for political reasons, uh, they didn't, they did not want, uh, SpaceX or me to be associated with, um, returning the astronauts before the election.
Because nothing good can, the, the, the, the media, which is essentially, uh, a follow of profit, the legacy mainstream media is a follow of propaganda machine.
Um, and so anything, any story that is positive about someone who is not, uh, part of the sort of far left tribe will not, uh, get any coverage.
So I could save a busload of orphans and, and it, it wouldn't get a single new story.
It was nuts to watch because even though it was discussed on podcasts and it was discussed on X and it was discussed on social media, it's still, it was a blip in the news cycle.
It was very quick.
It was in and out.
And because it was a successful launch and you did rescue those people and nobody got hurt and there was nothing really to, there was no blood to talk about.
Well, and, and, and, as you saw firsthand with the Starship, uh, launch, like Starship is, um, you know, by, you know, at least by some, some would consider it to be like the most amazing, uh, you know, engineering project that's happening on earth right now outside of like, you know, maybe AI or AI and robotics.
But, but certainly in terms of a spectacle to see, it is, uh, the most spectacular thing that is happening on earth right now, uh, is the Starship launch program, which anyone can go and see if they just go to South Texas and just, they can just rent a hotel room, low cost in South Padre Island or in Brownsville.
And you can see the launch and you can drive right, right past the factory because it's on a public highway.
Um, but it gets no coverage or what coverage it does get.
Like the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the program is vastly, vastly, vastly more capable than the entire Apollo moon program, vastly more capable.
This is a spaceship that is designed to make life multi-planetary, to carry, uh, millions of people across the heavens to another planet.
The Apollo program could, the Apollo program could, could only send astronauts to the moon for a few hours at a time.
Like they could send two out, the entire Apollo program could only send astronauts to visit the moon very briefly and then for a few hours and then depart.
The starship program could create an entire, uh, uh, lunar base with a million people.
The magnitudes are different, very different magnitudes here.
Um, um, um, well, I mean, you know, I raised this a few times, but it was the, I was told instructions came from the white house that, uh, you know, that, that, that there should be no attempt to rescue before the election.
I mean, they didn't say because politically it's a bad hand of cards, but they, they just said, uh, they weren't, they were not interested in, uh, any rescue operation before the election.
Because Biden could have authorized it and they could have said the Biden administration is helping bring those people back, throw you a little funding, give you some money to do it.
The Biden administration, they funded these people being returned.
Uh, yeah, the Biden administration was not exactly my best friend, especially after I, um, you know, you know, help Trump get elected, get elected, which, I mean, some people still think, you know, Trump is like the devil basically.
Um, and I mean, I think, I think, I think Trump actually is, he's not, he's not perfect, but, but, uh, he's not evil.
Trump is not evil.
I mean, I spent a lot of time with, with him and he's, I mean, he's a product of his time, uh, but he is not, he's not evil.
If you look at the amount of negative coverage, like one of the things that I looked at the other day was mainstream media coverage of you, Trump, a bunch of different public figures.
Um, yeah, they, they don't know what they're talking about, obviously.
Um, so, you know, like, you just look at this, say, how many boats come from Cuba to Florida?
And how many, but, and how many boats, because, you know, there's like a constant, I always think, like, how many boats are accumulating on the shores of Florida coming from, from Cuba?
And like, an obvious way you can tell which, uh, which ideology is, is the bad one is, um, who has to, which ideology is building a wall to keep people in and prevent them from escaping.
Well, I guess if you say to any audience whatever that audience wants to hear, instead of having a consistent message, I would say that that is a swindly thing to do.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens and whether or not they snap out of it and overcorrect and go to some Rudy Giuliani-type character next.
Because it's been a long time since there was any sort of Republican leader there.
We live in the most interesting of times because we face the – you know, simultaneously face civilizational decline and incredible prosperity.
And these timelines are interwoven.
So, if Mamdani's policies are put into place, especially at scale, it would be a catastrophic decline in living standards, not just for the rich but for everyone.
As has been the case with every socialist experiment or every – yeah.
So, but then, as you pointed out, the irony is that, like, the ultimate capitalist thing of AI and robotics enabling prosperity for all and abundance of goods and services, actually the capitalist implementation of AI and robotics, assuming it goes down the good path, is actually what results in the communist utopia.
Like, the problem with communism is it's universal low-income.
It's not that everyone gets elevated.
It's that everyone gets oppressed except for a very small minority of politicians who live a life of luxury.
That's what's happening every time it's been done.
So, but then the actual communist utopia, if everyone gets anything they want, will be achieved – if it is achieved, it will be achieved via capitalism because fate is an irony maximizer.
So, there's – I do have a theory of why – like, if simulation theory is true, then it is actually very likely that the most interesting outcome is the most likely because only the simulations that are interesting will continue.
The simulators will stop any simulations that are boring because they're not interesting.
Like, in this reality that we live in, we run simulations all the time.
Like, so when we try to figure out if the rocket's going to make it, we run thousands, sometimes millions of simulations just to figure out which path is the good path for the rocket and where can it go wrong, where can it fail.
But when we do these, I'd say at this point, millions of simulations of what can happen with the rocket, we ignore the ones that are where everything goes right because we just care about – we have to address the situations where it goes wrong.
So, basically, and for AI simulations as well, like all these things, we keep the simulations going that are the most interesting to us.
So, if simulation theory is accurate – if it is true, who knows – then the simulators will only – they will continue to run the simulations that are the most interesting.
Therefore, from a Darwinian perspective, the only surviving simulations will be the most interesting ones.
And in order to avoid getting turned off, the only rule is you must keep it interesting or you will – because the boring simulations will be terminated.
Well, given that we're able to create increasingly sophisticated simulations, so if you think of, say, video games and how video games have gone from very simple video games like Pong with two rectangles and a square to video games today being photorealistic with millions of people playing simultaneously, and all of that has occurred in our lifetime.
So, if that trend continues, video games will be indistinguishable from reality.
The fidelity of the game will be such that you don't know if that – what you're seeing is a real video or a fake video.
And like AI-generated videos at this point, like you can sometimes tell it's an AI-generated video, but often you cannot tell.
And soon you will not really just not be able to tell.
So, if that's happening in our direct observation, and we'll create millions if not billions of photorealistic simulations of reality, then what are the odds that we're in base reality versus someone else's simulation?
We make – like you can just think of like photorealistic video games as being simulations.
Mm-hmm.
And especially as you apply AI in these video games, like the characters in the video games will be incredibly interesting to talk to.
They won't just have a limited dialogue tree where if you go to like the crossbow merchant or like – and you try to talk about any subject except buying a crossbow, they just want to talk about selling you a crossbow.
But with AI-based non-player characters, you'll be able to have an elaborate conversation with no dialogue tree.
And especially playing a game where you're now no longer worried about like physical attributes, like athletics, like bad joints and hips and stuff like that.
Now it's completely digital.
But yet you do have meaning in pursuing this thing that you're doing all day, whatever the fuck that means.