A (11:42)
Well, according to Newsweek, Secretary of Commerce Howard Ludnick is talking about how the US Government, government under Trump administration wants to own some of the patents for inventions that the universities come up with. If those universities were taking government money as grants to do the science that created the patents. To which I say it's another sign of fascism. No, it's not. It would be fascism if perhaps you believe that Trump was going to keep the money for himself. It's not fascism if he's making you money, literally, this would be the taxpayer's money. So if he could get some value out of the patents, and there probably would be over time, that wouldn't go to Trump. He would be long retired. It goes to us. So no, don't worry about it being fascism. They're literally just trying to give you a bonus. That's it. And I'm in favor of. Does make sense that if, if we taxpayers are funding the patents, does it make sense that if Harvard gets one, that Harvard gets to keep it it was our money. Why, why wouldn't we ask for a piece of the action? Totally makes sense to me. Well, you will be very sad to learn the representative, Jerry Nadler is retiring. He wants to says he wants to make room for the younger generation. So here's what I think. You all know that the Democrat Party has collapsed and it's not very popular at the moment. And one of the things that we don't talk about enough, we talk about it in its pieces, but we don't put it all together. So I'm going to put it all together. Here are the pieces. Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff, Swalwell, Jamie Raskin. Now I can add a few people to that list, but what do they all have in common? What's besides being noxious Democrats, what do they have in common? Well, let me tell you, they, they all have a super unpleasant Personas. Now, I'm curious if I'm operating entirely on bias when I say that, am I? Because I know that there are Republicans who, you know, cause a turn off, ick factor. So, you know, maybe it just works both ways. And the only one I can see is, you know, the direction that my bias is already tuned to. Is it my. If you were to turn on CNN or MSNBC and they had on a prominent Democrat leader, what are the odds that that prominent Democrat leader would be really hard to look at on video? Let's say Schumer, Chuck Schumer. When Chuck Schumer is on the screen, I want to turn off the picture and go to audio. And even then I'm a penguin. Even then I don't want to watch him. He just doesn't have any charisma. Now I don't say that about, let's say aoc. I don't say that about Omar. Just pick two people. They have actual charisma. Would you agree? You might not like it. I'm not saying I'm in favor of their policies. Don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that they legitimately have really first rate charisma. Jasmine Crockett, More to my point, it seems to me that the Democrats, for reasons that I cannot understand, have promoted the opposite kind of people that Trump does. You know, people make fun of Trump for saying, oh, that's a good political appointment because this person looks like a movie star. And we all laugh. It's like, oh, he's so shallow. No, he's not. It's called being right. That's not shallow. It's not shallow to understand that people are Totally persuaded, very persuaded by things like personality and looks. So Trump, I don't even have to name names. You can start with the Secretary of Defense and you could go down, right down the line. Trump has some good looking people in office, am I right? Male and female. So he doesn't discriminate by looks, by gender, which is interesting. He likes handsome guys and attractive women. And now compare that to Jerry Nadler, Schiff, Swalwell, Raskin, Schumer. I'm not wrong, right? The Democrats have picked the most unpleasant video Personas. You know, the people just don't come across on video at all. And Trump went the other way. He personally is the most video friendly personality of all time, you know, certainly for his side. And there was the opposite way. So getting rid of Nadler, I wonder if they'll wise up and try to get more pleasant looking people to lead them. Well, here's something I haven't developed a full opinion on. It's the fact that, remember the Maha Commission was going to deliver a report in 100 days and they came in at 98 days. They delivered the report on the root causes which wouldn't be confirmed, but rather, you know, their best take what the root causes for autism would be. And so now they've reported it and there are four bullet points of the things that they've identified the Maha Commission as causes of autism. Are you ready? Do you have your own guesses as to the causes of autism? Now that the experts have weighed in, they are in. The four of them are, number one, ultra processed foods, number two, environmental toxins, number three, chronic stress and inactivity, and number four, over medicalization of children. Now, are you like. I am completely underwhelmed by that conclusion. Here's my problem. So I have questions which you should not, you should not confuse. This is a good time to make sure that people understand the right frame for this. When I do this podcast, I never try to talk as an expert unless it's maybe something about persuasion. If something that's in my line of expertise, which is narrow, I try to present myself as you, which is I read the news and I go, ah, there's something missing here. Wait, what? So I'm basically confirming your suspicions that something's missing and then I take my own guesses and speculations and predictions. But I'm doing it from a consumer of news perspective. If it looks like or it feels like I'm coming from some kind of expert perspective about things like science or health or something, I'm not, I'm Coming at it from the consumer view tried to match you, not the experts. And when I look at these four things, ultra processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity, and over medicalization of children, I say to myself, those are a little too general. And I also say to myself, at what age is autism normally detected? Do you know? So I think the answer is under 2 years old. You can get it from, you know, age 2 to 4 or something. Do you believe that the children who are two years old have been unusually, let's say, unusually exposed to ultra processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity? And over medicalization, I could imagine that over medicalization would apply to somebody under 2 years old. Now you could be diagnosed up into adulthood, right? So that. But the earliest would be like two. So my question is, why would some people be so exposed to ultra processed foods that they would get autism and other people would not? Is it something like 10% of people have some sensitivity that others don't have? So there's something about the timing of this because it feels like if these were the triggers and you could get it, if you were born without any propensity for autism, it feels like there would be a lot more adults getting it right. Or there would be like obvious examples where maybe the, I don't know, the Amish don't get it or something. I just feel like maybe what happened here was they wanted to make sure they came in under 100 days and all they did is put their suspicions into bullet points. I don't feel like we learned anything, do you? But they said nothing about genetics. And certainly there's some people who think genetics is behind it. I don't know exactly how, you know, why would it be suddenly spiking? That doesn't make sense anyway. And then I saw a video. I don't know what, I don't know if it's really recent, but probably not too long ago that RFK Jr. Was talking to Bill Maher and RFK Jr. Said if you look at the studies, he's talking about the, the COVID vaccinations, He said, if you look at the studies that were done of the Pfizer vaccine, the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes. And Bill said, but could that be the disease itself? Then RFK Jr said, well, the vaccine doesn't work, does it? Meaning that people were getting the disease even if they had the vaccination. So there's 23% higher death rate from all causes. And do you think that there's a counter argument to that? If the only thing you knew was only what RFK Jr said in that interview, would you feel that you were confident that you knew what was going on? Is that enough variables for you? That the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes? Now you want to hear the counterargument to that? Here's the counterargument. There's no fucking study like that. That doesn't exist. Just doesn't exist. So Mary from Neurorad Oncology on X did a long explanation about the actual study he was referring to, and apparently there was no statistical difference. So the answer is not, oh, how do we explain the 23% and all that? The answer is that didn't happen. It's not in the study. Now, is Mary right? I don't know. Mary seems very smart. So is RFK Jr right? Did he leave out some variables? How would I know? I mean, I can't really check the work of either Mary or RFK Jr. But let me give you another reframe that will just break your brain. You ready? You've heard me say this before, but now I'm going to apply it to this situation. And now it's going to click for you. Get ready for this. This one's a mind blower. Okay, now I've told you a million times that there's a problem with reproducibility of studies, meaning that over half of them, if you count the intentionally fraudulent ones and intentionally fraudulent publications and all that, probably over half turn out not to be true or not to be reproducible. All right, now take that fact that usually by a slight amount, usually any report about science is going to turn out to be wrong. So then you hear a fact like this from RFK Jr. But that there's a study turns out, you know, maybe that doesn't exist or the study doesn't actually say that, but there's a factoid. It gives you what should be your default. If you haven't done any research, you've done no research, what should be your default opinion about that data? Here would be the wrong way to look at it. Well, that agrees with my preconceived notion. That looks pretty good to me. I think we've got a winner. Yep. Nope. That's just what I thought would happen. That. I mean, I told you I was smart. I had that prediction and yeah, here it is. So that would be the wrong way to do it. Here would be the right way to do it. It's probably not true and it wouldn't matter who said it if they're quoting. So you've got two problems here. One is, was this study even valid? And the answer is probably not. And that's only based on probability. Of all studies, they're usually not true. A little over 50%. But on top of that, Mary explains that he interpreted the study wrong. So you've got the risk that somebody interpreted it wrong or the risk that they left out a key part or a risk that you misunderstood what they said. On top of that is a risk that the science was bullshit to begin with. So that's the world we live in. Your default assumption should be, I have learned nothing. There's no information here. I would like to know. And maybe if there were lots of studies and time went by and, you know, the consensus moved in one direction or not, you might feel more confident. But no, if somebody just throws out some shocking number like that that doesn't agree with other experts, probably not true. Could be, can't rule down, but probably not. Probably not. All right, so thank you, Mary, for that very useful analysis. If you want to see her full analysis, look in my feed on X. President Trump has announced that Rudy Giuliani is going to get the Medal of Freedom. Now, I don't know if that was triggered by the fact that Rudy had that serious accident, vehicle accident that he's recovering from, or it was going to happen anyway and, you know, just they're going to do it now to cheer him up. I don't know how that worked, but he's recovering. And so he was in New Hampshire and pulled over because some woman who had been the victim of domestic abuse flagged him down and he must have parked. This is me speculating based on what little we know of the situation. I think he pulled over to help and then he was going to stay there with her until the police got there because he helped her contact the police. So the police showed up and then he pulled into traffic and just got rammed from behind by a 19 year old woman. And they didn't say that she was on her phone. But when I hear 19 year old woman, you know, hits some other car so hard that it just obliterates it and puts somebody in the hospital, I kind of automatically think might have been on the phone. I mean, I don't want to start any rumors or anything, but it's the first thing I think, right. Isn't that the first thing you think? Because it's sort of hard, you Know, even if you came around a blind turn, sort of hard to hit somebody that hard, if you're even watching the road. So anyway, I don't know if alcohol was involved or anything else. We don't know. So we won't assume. But I will assume that probably the place that he pulled over to help was not the safest place to pull over, Meaning that when he pulled back into traffic, there probably was some lack of visibility from the oncoming traffic. And that's probably what happened. Probably just a lack of visibility, a place you would never have pulled over unless you were helping some woman who was a victim or something. So he did the right thing and took. Probably took a little extra physical risk to get it done. Well, no, definitely, because he got in between an abuser and the abuse. So that's pretty baller, actually. You know, he's 100 years old and he still decided he was going to get involved in that and then he was going to wait with her, which means that there was a risk that the abuser was going to show up any minute. So that's pretty brave. And he took some risks to help a person and sadly, it didn't work out. So. Metal of freedom time. Well, according to the Daily Mail, the Trump administration is thinking of a visa integrity fee. So the people who travel to the US and are required to have a visa would have to pay an extra 250 above what they already pay. So it'd be $442 just to be allowed to come in the United States to visit. To which I say, yeah, it's about time we had a cover fee. And I also would recommend a two drink minimum if you're coming in from a visa country. I want 40, 442 of your dollars and you got to commit to a two drink. Two drink minimum. That's how you become the hottest country. You know, a year ago, the US Was dead. It was a dead country. Dead, I say. But now it's the hottest country. Oh, it's so hot. Yeah, we can charge a cover fee. That's how hot we are. You just listen to Mr. Trump, he'll tell you that. Well, Tom Fenton of Judicial Watch has a success, another success, I guess he sued Oregon to force them to clean up their voter rolls. And Oregon had the worst voter rolls, meaning they had the most people eligible to vote, according to the voter rolls, who were not really eligible to vote, they were dead or they moved away or some other thing. And he won in court. So now Oregon is going to have to fix their voter rolls. He's also sued California and Illinois. Same, same thing. Now do you think that'll make a difference? Do you buy into the fact that, that maybe the worse the voter rolls are, the worse it is for Republican candidates because it's the Democrats who are abusing that system? I don't know. I always say that it's the sort of thing where there's a hundred percent chance that it's abused a little. What I don't know is it abused a lot, you know, enough to change an election that I don't know, but we'll find out. So maybe, you know, maybe it's a movement in the right direction, but we'll find out. And then there was cnn, had a interview with Brad Todd, who's a political commentator, and he, he said that we know the 2020 census, the errors were almost always the detriment of red states. Did you know that? Did you know that the 2020 census was considered flawed in some ways, but that the flaws were overwhelmingly in one direction? Now there were both flaws on blue and red states, but the red states had the majority of the flaws. And CNN hosts said, do we know that? And Todd said, we do know that. The Census Bureau's own audit of its work has proven that. Okay, if it's their own audit, I do believe that one. So if they redo the census, which Trump is asking for, and especially now these deported a number of non citizens, this should be another electoral advantage for Trump. Right? So how many advantages are the Republicans stacking up at this point? Let's say they have completely destroyed the entire architecture of the fake news traditional media. How big a deal is that for their election chances? Really big. And they've dominated the podcasting, you know, space so far. Really good. That's really good. And then Tom Fenton and maybe some others doing some things to clean up the voter rolls, how much difference will that make? Might make a lot, we don't know, might make a little, might make none, don't know yet. But it's all, everything that might be making a difference is all leaning in one direction at this point. What about Trump wanting to get rid of being able to vote without voter id? Well, if he gets away with that and also bans voting by mail, unless except for the special cases, then Those will be two things that @ least Republicans believe would take away some Democratic advantage. Then I saw the comments. Thank you. That the cuts in USAID and the other dismantling of the NGO dark money networks, the pressure that's being put on ActBlue, which is a big funder of Democrat stuff, but they're being accused of having some foreign influence and trying to repackage big money into little money, which would be illegal. So their funding sources are gone. Their fake news protection racket still exists, but is is basically only looked at by people over 70. I think the median age is 70 for traditional news and the median age for podcasting is something in the low 30s, I think. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 100% of everything that's big enough to be in the news all heading in the same direction? Oh, and then I, I forgot to even mention the redistricting. So they got redistricting cleaning up voter rolls. Maybe they'll have movement on the mail in ballots and the, the I.D. they've got the. Maybe the census will be redone. That's a lot, isn't it? And you know, you could argue that the reason Trump won, and I don't have any evidence of this, but it's just one of those things that you can imagine might be true. There was a really big movement to have observers, especially lawyers, at the election for 2024. I think Lara Trump and company were behind that. I wonder if that change made anybody back off from any shenanigans. Now, again, I don't know that they planned any. I don't know that there ever have been any shenanigans. It just looks like it. And then we see that Trump has got the military surrounding Venezuela. Now, I do not believe that I have any confident data that says Venezuela was involved in any kind of, you know, rigging our election. But that's an accusation you hear. I just don't think that that's a. Has evidence. What would happen if the pressure that Trump is putting on militarily on Venezuela produced maybe not a war, because I don't want that, but maybe a negotiation. And maybe Trump would say, I'll make you a deal. I'll go a little bit easy on you if you reveal everything you know about what may or may not have, you know, been interference in our elections, we might find out because of the military pressure, we might find out if Venezuela had anything to do with any of our past elections. Again, I don't want to be sued. So I want to say clearly I'm not aware of any evidence of that. I just know that that's a, a speculation that's floating around. Well, I guess tomorrow Thomas Massey has organized a, an event. Do you call it an event in Congress? Press conference with 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking. So that's tomorrow at 10:30, I assume Eastern time. Now, what would you expect from 10 victims of Epstein sex trafficking? Taking questions? How many of you believe that they're going to name names you have never heard before? I don't expect that it would be. Would be an amazing thing. Good or bad, it'd be amazing if it happened. Here's what I suspect. So, you know, dampening your enthusiasm for this. What I would expect is that they'll all say that Epstein victimized them. They might throw in, you know, Prince Andrew because it feels like he's already sullied. Like it wouldn't be adding anything. They just, oh, yeah, and we'll throw in the name that you've heard before. So I've got a feeling it's not going to make as much news as you thought. And one of the reasons might be that there was a God awful amount of money set aside for settlements. And if you were one of the victims and you could prove it, and it seems like it'd be easy enough to prove or at least easy enough to prove that you might be able to prove it if you went to court, there are probably a whole bunch of victims who got big paychecks to shut up. So they might end up saying, you know, I can't talk about that because I've got some kind of agreement to settle. And I wouldn't blame them for that, by the way. I don't think that each of them individually has some larger responsibility to the public. I don't think so. He's dead. You know, Epstein's out of the picture. I think they should take the money. And if part of that was they had to agree to shut up about it, it's not a perfect solution. But I wouldn't, I wouldn't fault them for taking the deal. I'm pretty sure I would have. So we'll watch that. Gavin Newsom lost in court again. Joel Pollock of Breitbart tells us, I'm always bad on the lawyer and court stories. So let's see if I can get close to this. The question was two bills and one of them required the large online platforms to block the posting of material deceptive content. So in other stuff, basically anything that would matter that was, that was deceptive, related to elections and that did not. That was not affirmed by the court. It also borrows material deceptive content. So that would be deep fakes, I think, and. Well, no, not necessarily defects, but anything that's materially deceptive. And Joel points out that that would have included something like Kamala Harris claiming that Trump once said that Nazis were very fine people. So there's no way you could use that standard because you'd be jailing everybody who opened their mouth in politics, because all the politicians are saying things that are not true and they probably know they're not true on both sides. So you couldn't really, in a practical way, have a law that said you're going to jail if you say something that's not true, at least in this country. I mean, maybe other countries. And then there was one of the. What are they? One of the proposed laws would required the online platforms to regulate deep fakes, but that was rejected as well. So, basically, Newsom wanted California to have some control over the content online. And the court said, get out of here. You're not going to have any more control than you already have, at least in regard to these specific things. I think the judge said something about it would also kill the joke. So that would be an awesome response if you're a judge. Yeah, that wouldn't be funny if you had to admit it's a deep fake before somebody watched the video. So I think the judge said something along those lines, which is awesome. All right. So satire and parody are now still protected. This is one of those times when I'm happy to be an American, because free speech is a mighty, mighty powerful thing in this country. We will fight for it. But in Britain, according to GB News, one of their comedians got arrested at gunpoint when he came into Heathrow. Graham Lineham. So I guess he created something called Father Ted, which they would know in England, but we wouldn't know here. And he did some posts in the past, I don't know how long ago, but this is what they arrested him for. And he called trans women violent. And he mocked a protest photo with trans people in it. And he said, I hate them. And that was enough for him to be arrested at gunpoint entering the country. Now compare California and the United States, where the judge said, get out of here, you'd ruin the joke. Yeah, he's not going to. The trouble is, if you try to ban anything along these lines, you get this. So Great Britain is giving us the clearest lesson on why you shouldn't be that way. I mean, this is the clearest. You know, it removes all doubt about which is the better system. There's no ambiguity about this. What Great Britain. And by the way, let me make this personal. You might know that I've said some things that other people have interpreted as being over the line. Now, I didn't actually ever say anything that was over the line, but I was widely canceled for other people's opinion of what my opinion was. Is that fair? Those of you who'd been following my story, my characterizing that. Well, I didn't get canceled for my opinion. In fact, I've never found anybody who disagreed with me yet. Never. Nobody, not even one person. But I've had lots of people who believe I was saying or thinking something I wasn't saying and thinking. And they were mad about that thing that they imagined I did. And they were so unified in their belief that this thing that didn't happen did happen, that I was canceled worldwide, lost my entire reputation and business. Now, what would happen if I pull into Heathrow and they look at my history and then they believe what other people believed about it? Would they say, aha, this horrible speech monster is coming into our country, we're going to have to arrest them? And would they have grounds? You know, this is not hypothetical. This is like a genuine real world problem. So what would I do? You know, what would be my smartest move if I don't know I would be arrested for someone else's opinion of what my opinion was. That wasn't my opinion. I could go to jail for that, it looks like. Now I would love it if somebody said that's not true because of this reason or that reason. It wouldn't apply to you, but I'll tell you, I would never go there. As long as there's a comedian who got arrested for something he said on social media, I don't care what that was. You know what I mean? It doesn't really matter what that was. That's enough for me to say, I'm never going near that place. There must be something that somebody can misinterpret as being over the line. I would never go into a system that was designed that way. It's just not safe. So that's the end of Great Britain or the UK or whatever they want to call themselves that. The whole England, uk, Great Britain thing, it's like way too complicated. Can you make that easier? Well, meanwhile, in Chicago, or you could call it Chicago, this weekend, 54 people were shot and seven killed. Now, I will grant you it was a three day weekend and I assume they're counting all three days, 54 people. 54 people were shot. How many people were shot in Gaza? How many, I mean, literally are there days when more people get shot in Chicago than in a Hot war. I'll bet there are, you know, individual days. So, oh, my God, Chicago, Stay away from Chicago. Does anybody disagree? No, nobody disagrees with that opinion that you should stay away from Chicago. But I'd probably get arrested and get arrested in the UK for saying stay away from Chicago. Well, Trump has posted on Truth, a complimentary, I guess, monologue on D.C. mayor Bowser. So you might know that D.C. mayor Bowser started out by being positive about Trump helping with crime in her city. And then for a while, she sort of tried to backtrack a little bit and be a little critical, but then in the end, she fully embraced them and said some good words in public and seems to be completely on board. And what that caused was Trump to do a very complimentary piece on it. He called her the very popular D.C. mayor. And so New York Post is writing about this, by the way, and he praised her Mayor Muriel Bowser, for cooperating. And he said, wow, Mayor Muriel Bowser of D.C. has become very popular because she worked with me and my great people and being crammed down to virtually nothing, blah, blah, blah. He said her statements and actions were positive instead of others like mentions Pritzker and Westmore and New Scum, he calls them, etc. Now, here's your persuasion lesson for the day. This is a lesson which I've given you before, but every time you see an example of helps you internalize it. Right? The persuasion lesson is this. You want to create the largest gap between making you happy and making you unhappy. That's what he's doing with the Muriel Browser thing. Trump went immediately from a critic to, my God, the most popular mayor. You're great. And that's what everybody's observing. So the observers are saying to themselves, let me see, if I go against him like Pritzker, he's going to insult me physically. You know, my look, my intelligence, my. My honesty. He might actually just destroy me the way he has so many other people, such as Jeb Bush. So it looks like it's a really, really, really bad idea to go against Trump because he can primary you, he can insult you, and he can give you a nickname that will never go away. He can really hurt you. And that's even before he was president. He just had the persuasive ability. But if you take a chance of working with him to get something useful done, he's going to tell the whole world that you worked with him and you're a genius and you're the best mayor that's ever been there. So that's the largest difference between make you happy and make you unhappy. And he broadcasts it. So by his actions, everybody sees that this is very certainly the case. Right? You can see that he does this intentionally. It's very powerful. Well, according to the Hill, Tara Suter is writing about. Did you know, I'll bet most of you didn't even know this. The thousands of people were protesting on Monday, protesting against President Trump and billionaires. Were you aware of the anti Trump, anti billionaire protests in, according to Mayday Strong, who organized it, that there were a thousand protests around the country in more than 900 cities? I guess some cities had more than one protest. And. And the big push that's backed by the AFL CIO is dubbed Workers over Billionaires. Okay, did any of you even notice that there were a thousand protests on Monday? Anybody? There was a protest in my little East Bay, California town. Apparently there was quite a number of people who were dressed in Palestinian garb marching in even my town, which is surprising, but I didn't see it. So my take on it is that this is the most low energy, generic, artificial protest I've ever seen. May I summarize the total effect of a thousand protests around the country against. Excuse me, gotta yawn. Against Trump and billionaires. Okay, that's just generic, guys. Are you even trying? Is this the best you've got on the anti Trump side? We'll do a thousand protests. Some of them will be five people, low energy. Well, I don't even know if it was in the news. Barely. All right, the Airbnb co founder, Joe Gebbia, who is one of the people who helped on a Doge, by the way. But he tells about his transition from being a lifelong Democrat to a Trump backer. And he talks about how the Trump's approach to the border was the main thing that sold him because he just thought it was insane that you would open the border and imagine being a billionaire, you know, founding Airbnb and knowing that it was just being destroyed by opening the border along with everything else. But yeah, so apparently that got him interested enough to sort of look into the whole Trump phenomenon a little deeper. And he liked that RFK Jr. Was part of the package. He liked that Elon Musk was going to get involved and put it all together and decided to work on Doge, etc. But here's. Here's what I want to add to this story. Do you believe that the Airbnb co founder would have been able to publicly support Trump unless the Fine People hoax had been Debunked. Could a CEO go public as pro Trump while the Fine People hoax was still raging? I don't think so. And I've told you before that the Fine People hoax has been named by both Joe Rogan and Elon Musk as something that kind of turned him. It made it that the, the reason that the Fine People hoax was so important is that respected people could never back Trump as long as that was out there. Everything else they could deal with if they didn't, like a policy or something, you could deal with that, but you couldn't deal with a reputational destruction of saying you were going to back the guy who, according to the hoax, had complimented neo Nazis. So I'll harken back to the time I told you that I would help destroy that hoax with the good work of Steve Cortez and Joel Pollack and Greg Gutfeld and a number of people who we just hammered on that thing until eventually even Snopes said it was a hoax. That's the current situation. But to me, if you look at how RFK Jr. And Musk their, their acceptance of Trump's policies made it easier for the Airbnb founder to move in that direction. So he's confirming that that's the case. So do you. Do you see the dominoes? And I told you that the, the Fine People hoax was the, what I call the tent pole hoax, that if you got rid of that, it would allow respected people to say, all right, let's take the good policies I like. Because the respected people wanted to close the border. They just couldn't say it out loud. It was sound pro Trump. Now they can. So that's kind of cool. Howard Stern has said he's not coming back to his show this Tuesday. It's a little unclear what his future is, because I guess Serious said they wouldn't renew his contract. Was his contract really $100 million a year for five years? I think it was. And over the course of his career, Stern's audience has been as high as 20 million people. And at the moment, it's 125,000 daily listeners. He went from 20 million to 125,000. Now, some large percentage of that is just moving to Sirius FM exclusively. That probably takes away most of it, but, boy, that's a big difference. All right, you want to get scared? Going to scare you. There's something called the Pentagon Pizza Report, which does report on the traffic in the dominoes and the Papa John's that are closest to the Pentagon. Now, why would you report on the volume of pizza being bought next to the Pentagon. Well, I believe the idea is that if they're buying a lot of pizza, it's because they're working through dinner and that if you track the pizza, you can find out when the Pentagon is getting ready for some big action because they would all be, you know, working through the night and stuff. So apparently there's above average traffic at the Dominoes and the Papa John's near the Pentagon, as if something's brewing. On top of that, Trump says he's making an announcement from the Oval office today at 2pm Eastern Time. @ the same time we've got military in Venezuela, we've got the President saying he's going after the cartels and we've got the ever present Ukraine, Russia war. And who knows, I don't think Taiwan's going to be invaded by China, China this week. But there's a lot of war ish stuff that's just sort of in the atmosphere. It's just enough to worry you. But on top of that, France has apparently put out the order domestically for the hospitals to prepare for war. Now the way they're explaining it is that that would be more normal. They should always be having a plan that if there were mass casualties from a war that they would know how to handle it just in case. So it's more of a just in case thing. But still, if France is preparing for a land war in Europe and we've got ships around Venezuela and the cartels are active and Russia and Ukraine are going on and the Pentagon's already more pizza and Trump's got an announcement today, it makes you wonder if there's anything brewing. I'm going to say probably not. Probably not. But it is weird that there, there are a number of signals in that direction. So we'll see. The Trump announcement could be anything really. He's so good at getting attention and, you know, teasing things. That really could be anything. Well, as you know, a number of leaders are in China and cozying up to President Xi, but apparently Putin and India's Modi seem to be a little extra chubby in China if people are wondering about that. I guess India buys their, their military equipment and a lot of the oil from Russia and even their, their weapons industry in India is based on the Russian models. So they need to need the Russian parts and help to even have a weapons industry. So. But it looks like there are a whole bunch of countries that coincidentally are not pro America that are trying to send the message that they're all good buddies. I don't know if a coalition of dictators like that can really hang together because it seems like it'd be hard to trust any of them. But Russia's biggest gas company, Gazprom, is signing a pipeline deal put a pipeline through Siberia to Mongolia. So I would say that the chessboard is moving quite a bit and I'm kind of impressed by the BRICS countries and, and even this meeting here, it does seem like there, there is a hardening of the anti American position and I would not ignore that because it's starting to look serious. I wasn't too worried about BRICS until recently the BRICS organization, but I would be worried if India gets cleaved off and gets into more of Russia and China. China's probably Russia, Russia's orbit. That would worry me. But I am impressed with Modi, India's Modi. He's a, he's a smart player and he knows when not to cause trouble and when to be friends. And I feel like he could pull off, you know, being friends with everybody if he wants to. It looks like he is. In other news, there's a new AI product called Hunwon World Voyager or something and it's an AI in which it creates, I think, infinite worlds. If I understand it correctly, I saw a bunch of examples. That's what it looks like. So in other words, you could tell your AI to create you, I don't know, A, an early, early history, let's say primitive dwellings or something and just like a video game and you could walk through the streets of whatever you told it to create forever and it would just create new streets or remember what the old ones were and you could go back to them. Now if you can create an on demand simulation where no matter where the characters go or wherever you go, it just creates new landscape and it remembers it so you could come back later. What does that tell you is going to happen? Well, let me predict. If it becomes routine to be able to create entire infinite environments of all kinds of different kinds, it's guaranteed that somebody's going to populate them with avatars or characters. You might call them agents, but they be AI run little characters. Now some of them could be NPCs, meaning that they don't have an internal voice. And they, that doesn't mean you're an NPC if you don't have an internal voice. But they, they wouldn't be main characters and there would be some main characters in there, but you could program the main characters to act as though they believe that they are the base reality and that they do not understand that they are a simulation. They think that's the real world and they would live their life, you may be in a sped up time even, but they can live their whole life believing that they have consciousness and free will and that they are the base reality. Now, when that happens, and I guarantee it's going to happen, there's 100% chance that's going to happen. There's somebody who'll make little characters that believe they're real and act like they're real and everything else. What will that tell you about our base reality? It's going to get a little bit dicey believing that you're not a simulation. Because the evidence for us being a simulation is largely going to be based on whether we could make one that we knew was a simulation, but the people in it did not. And that's, there's a, there's now 100% chance we'll be able to do that. Maybe in a year. You know, I wouldn't bet on a year, but three years, five years. You don't think in five years there will be simulated realities that we can use to, I don't know, learn something or explore something? You know, I've told you that I have so many problems with water leaks that if I'm a simulation, I believe I was created by a plumbing company to figure out the best way to approach lots of different leaks. Because they're all unique and they're big ones and bad ones. You know, they're never easy. And all you'd have to do is create the simulation and then introduce a whole bunch of different leak possibilities that match what the real world, their base reality, would have. And then just let me try to solve them in a time period that I thought was years, but the simulation could complete in a second. So they run the simulation, they make me live an entire life fixing problem after problem that's related to leaks, and then they check it later and see if the AI has learned something that it could not have learned from humans because it wasn't the right kind of training data. Yet you had to create a world to create training data. Maybe. So that's my theory. Well, Putin is mocking the people who think that Russia is getting ready for some kind of big land war in Europe. And I like the fact that he's mocking it. You shrugged it off as hysteria. Do you believe there's any chance that Russia would want to move into either Germany or France? They might try to pick off a Baltic company country or something, but so who knows? Anything's possible. Remember I kept telling you that the Ukraine war is going to turn into an all robot war? Well, apparently we're getting really close to that because unbeknownst to me, but now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Ukraine is already using AI driven drone swarms. Now if you can have an AI driven drone swarm, the AI could decide whether to shoot somebody or blow up something or not. It might get it wrong, but so did the people. I don't know if it would get it wrong more than humans, maybe it would be less, but they apparently have. They've been using probably over a hundred drone attacks and they've been doing it for a while. And the new software would allow them to send out, let's say three drones and if one of them got disabled, the other two could pick up its mission and somehow the drones by contacting each other can figure out a lot more of what's going on and adjust. But the software that they're currently using could go up to 25 drones. So in theory we're very close. I don't know if we're there yet, but we're very close to being able to say, all right, this little area that's controlled entirely by a German, I'm sorry, not German, entirely by Russian forces. Go fly over there with your 25 drones, look for high value targets and coordinate an attack and then just let them go and everything will start blowing up. That looks like anything that's, you know, serious military stuff. Would it accidentally kill some civilians? Yes, exactly. Like now. So it wouldn't be worse necessarily. All right, China has developed a 6G chip that's capable of 100 gigabit per second speeds. I saw Rohan Paul writing about that. To which I say I've long suspected that our belief that China won't be able to catch up with us in chip making and technology because of some racist reason. We always have, you notice we always have some racist reason like, oh, the Chinese will never be able to innovate. Well, I've never believed that. I've always believed that China might be more secretive and the entire time we're thinking they'll never catch up with their microchip technology, that they've already caught up and that they're just not revealing it yet. Well, this 100 gigabit per second chip, so that would make your mobile devices way faster, etc. That would suggest that they have very good chip making capabilities and maybe better than we Assume so. Keep an eye on that. And then some publication called the Brussels Signal is reporting that one of China's big economic problems, and I'm not sure how much to believe this, is that the domestic people don't spend a lot of money. So they don't have a domestic market basically big enough to support what they want to do. So the Chinese citizens are very conservative with their money, so they like to pack it away and save it instead of spending it. But the economy requires spending to, you know, keep everybody afloat. So China is trying to manipulate their public to be more spendy. But the public says, I'm not sure I trust this system enough that I want to draw down my savings because it's the only way I'll be able to retire. So I don't know. China is either on the brink of self destruction or it's about to dominate the world. And every day there's evidence of both. According to just the news, Chinese networks are laundering billions of dollars through the US in support of the cartels. But the amount of money is just staggering. So the treasury has this financial crimes enforcement network and they said that banks have flagged 312 billion in transactions from suspected Chinese money laundering networks. Wow. So the good news is that the Trump administration and probably Scott Besant and maybe others are getting real serious about tracing the, the evil money. So that might have more to do with shutting down the cartels and anything else that happens. It might be a money track of the money problem. Well, in Germany, there's a right wing party that's gaining in popularity, the AfD party. And apparently in their biggest. Is it, what do they call it? State or province? I don't know what it's called. But there were four of their candidates that died suddenly and unexpectedly before a major state election. Four members of the same party, and only one of them was even over 70, died unexpectedly and suddenly. Does that feel like a coincidence to you? It might be. We're still waiting for information on that. But that didn't look, it makes me wonder if the story is real. Maybe the story is fake, I don't know. Well, I almost didn't believe this was real because it wasn't much of a big story. That Israel assassinated the prime minister of Yemen. That really happened, right. That they took out the leader of a country. And I feel like I didn't really see much news about it. I think it happened. Right. It's kind of weirdly, you know, black down of the news anyway, so I might be wrong about some detail of that maybe, maybe it was just the hoodie leader and not the Yemen leader or something like that. There's something about that that doesn't make sense. But anyway. And now the most important news of the day. Everything else was sort of a preparation for this. The most important news of the day is that my book, Loser Think the second edition is now available on Amazon. It's only on Amazon and I'm still working on the audiobook, which will be a different audio expert, not me, so it won't be my voice. So if you're waiting for my voice, don't wait. But you can get it in hardcover and soft cover and Kindle and it's the same book as the first edition, but the first edition got canceled when I got canceled, so it's just putting it back in play. And that means that now there's second editions of Win Bigley. This is actually the first edition. I couldn't find my copy of the second edition. The one you want to buy if you're looking for a Win Bigly is the one with the blue cover. So this is the first edition. And then reframe your brain. If you haven't seen the reviews for this, it's unbelievable. I. I did not expect that this would be my best reviewed book of all time, but it is, and better reviewed than almost any book you'll ever see. So this one's changing the world, changing people's lives quite a bit, actually. Then my very influential book, how to Fill Almost Everything still went big. Also second edition, also available. And My God Supri, which I combined three, well, two books plus a short story into one larger book called God to Breathe, the complete works now available at Amazon. So if you like fiction and a little bit of sci fi and philosophy and religion, God's Debris is your book that was just for fun. If you want to change your career or you're stuck in a rut or you want to give advice to somebody who's stuck in a rut, then my book how to Fill and Almost Everything is still one big would be the gift item you're looking for or for yourself. Reframe your brain if you've got. If you just want to tune your brain to be more efficient and happy and that you'll find probably some reframes, which is just a different way of thinking of something that makes it more productive. Win Bigley. If you want to learn about persuasion, learn the tricks that Trump uses as explained by me. But again, not the one with the black cover. You want the one with the blue cover, the second edition. And then Lose or Think is about unproductive ways of thinking, which is what I. I give you on a lot of the podcasts. So when I'm talking about why analogies are not thinking, I know a lot of you disagree, but you want to read my argument about it before you make up your mind and other poor ways of thinking. This book will set you free so that you won't make those problems, but you also be able to identify them in other people. All right, so, ladies and gentlemen. Oh, also, it's not available yet, but the 2026 Dilberg calendar will be available. This time it will be on Amazon. So if you've got prime, you can get your free shipping. That was the one. When we did it without Amazon, people balked at the shipping because you can't match free shipping. But this year is too early. It's not listed yet, but the work is done. So we've designed it. We're getting ready to print it. All right. It's all made in America, too. America made. And that is all I ask of you. Just find one of those things that you think you'll like and then we're both happy. All right, I'm going to talk privately to the fine people in Locals, the beloved members of Locals. The rest of you, thanks for putting up with me for an hour. Thanks for joining and I will see you same time tomorrow, same place. All right?
