AMA & Hangout with Contributors (Feb 2026) | Yaron Brook Show

Well, what's up, foos?

Men of the J. O's all here from the WWE.

When it's just me between matches, it's day one itch.

And that means it's Chumba time.

With hundreds of Casino style games and new titles arriving

weekly, there's always something fresh to try at Chumba

Casino.

The daily booze make it even more fun.

And have me about to get them all during my downtime.

Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes

for yourself?

Let's Chumba.

No purchase necessary.

VGW Group Void were prohibited by law, CTs and Cs.

21 Plus, sponsored by Chumba Casino.

Oh right, everybody.

Welcome to your own book show on this Saturday February 21st.

Today is our AMA show.

Ask me anything.

And we have a panel on live.

And then of course, the Super Chat is open.

You can use that to ask questions.

It's a small panel.

So we'll see how we do.

Maybe people will join us.

Sometimes they join us a little late.

But we will see how that goes.

So you guys on the Super Chat, you've

got opportunities to ask, ask anything.

Use the Super Chat to do it.

All right, let's start with Jennifer.

You know how in the United States, we have a,

I guess it's called a double jeopardy rule, where

if you are acquitted of a crime, then you can't be tried

again, even if new evidence comes up.

You know that rule?

Yep, yep.

And do you think that's a good thing?

Or like some people would say, well, if you get really

overwhelming evidence later, then you get away with it.

But then other people would say, well, they had their chance

and they didn't have enough evidence.

So you can't keep bunging the person over and over, right?

Yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense.

I think most countries have double jeopardy type rules.

Oops, what's that?

But Evan really thought about it.

So it would be a good question to ask somebody who's

one of our legal guys who have maybe thought about it.

I can imagine that if a major piece of evidence came about,

it was really a big deal that you'd still

want to prosecute somebody.

But I think the risk of prosecuting somebody over and over

again with minimal new stuff is probably too large for that.

So yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense.

But I haven't really thought about it much.

So I'm open to arguments to the country.

Yeah, maybe there'd have to be.

There's some kind of standard, like you said,

of a certain type of evidence came up later

that you can use it, but it would have to be very strict rules

about it.

So you don't keep chasing the same person over and over.

Yeah, maybe there'd be something like some grand jury

that had to come together to determine whether you could prosecute

again or it would have to be the ball would have to be pretty high

for a continued prosecution.

OK, thank you.

Sure, thanks Jennifer.

Adam.

Yes, I recently saw on a Polish channel,

a discussion of the differences between the different tanks

that Poland has been buying in the last few years.

And one of the things mentioned is that the Korean K2

is hermetically sealed against chemical, biological, radioactive,

warfare, and also against water.

And it has a snorkel like a submarine, a five-meter snorkel

so that it can actually travel on the bottom of a lake of a river

and only emerge when it's tactically indicated.

Somehow, the US Abrams cannot be sealed in this way.

And one commenter said that this is because it uses a turn

by engine and the turn by engine is necessary

in order to power some electrical weapons

that are still secret.

But with turbine power, they could have adequate power

to deploy without those extra weapons.

The Abrams is just not as good a tank as a K2.

What's your take on that?

I mean, I don't know that being sealed is that important.

When was the last time anybody used chemical weapons

or biological weapons?

And I mean, it sounds nice to be able to hide in a lake

in the water, but I don't know of any example in history

where that ever was used.

So I mean, maybe Poland has some plans for something.

So I'd have to know more about firepower, speed, ability

to navigate on terrain, the accuracy of the main gun

that is they all use, I think, laser systems now.

And maybe they use AI, how accurate that is.

So I think there are lots of other considerations

when evaluating which tanks are better.

I mean, all of them are better than any of the Russian tanks.

So in that sense, whatever Poland gets, as long

as a new modern tank, they are going

to have dramatically superior capabilities

to anything Russia has.

I mean, most of Russia has more advanced tanks

that weren't very advanced to begin with,

were destroyed by the Ukrainians.

So the T-72s, the garbage, the T-82s,

we haven't seen anything dramatic.

So yeah, I don't know enough of the details

about the qualities of the different tanks,

but I think the being sealed is probably not as important

as relative to other features that they might have.

I mean, right now, I think the most important feature

for a tank to have, probably, is some kind of capabilities

to detect and shield the tank from drones.

Drones are right now the number one enemy of a tank,

and I don't know that anybody has that.

They've created these cages that work,

but maybe the US has some electronic warfare against drones

that they could use.

I doubt you could put a laser on a tank.

I don't know if there's enough power, but maybe.

So, I mean, to me, those are the bigger issues

rather than the ability to seal them completely off.

I think the Mokava seals off because Mokava has AC,

it has air conditioning.

So if you have AC, you probably be pretty sealed,

but I'm not even sure.

The extended question is whether the US,

since the US pioneered drones,

you may remember that after 9-11,

we were operating drones against the potential basis

of Al-Qaeda.

We have a lot of experience with drones,

and perhaps the extra power that the Abrams' turbine

can generate can be used to just

spread the electronics of all the drones coming in

so that they become inoperable.

It might.

I mean, I think they're using microwave technology to do that,

but I don't know how effective it is being in Ukraine.

I mean, all of these technologies are being tested right now

in Ukraine, and I don't know.

I haven't seen anything that is dominant,

that they're just overwhelms all the drones.

So it's possible that they have something like that

or some other electronic warfare that we're not familiar with,

but all of that would have been updated more recently

out of lessons learned from Ukraine.

I mean, the reality is drones have been used

way before 9-11.

I mean, Israel was using drones in 1982.

Now, they were used for intelligence gathering

more than anything else.

They were being flown with cameras

to take aerial photographs of enemy territory.

They weren't missiles launched.

But yes, the US has been using drones for a long time

but it looks like the technology's leapfog

the United States, to some extent.

I don't think the US invested much in the small drones

that are dominating the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield.

Those are drones that the Chinese dominate

and then the Iranians were very good at producing

and the Russians basically took their technology.

And today, arguably the best manufacturers

are drone in the world, battle ready

for the kind of Ukrainian and Russian front

are the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians are building, have drone factories in Ukraine.

They've just built one in Germany.

They're planning to build 12, 20 different factories

all over Europe to produce drones in collaboration

with Europeans.

And they are using drone technology that they can fly,

learn from, immediately make changes

so very, very adaptable to the battlefield.

US is catching up and might be ahead

but it definitely got caught off guard

in terms of the way drones were used

and kind of the size of the drones.

The US most of the US drones were larger scale.

Thank you, Adam.

It's C Jacob.

Hey, you're on, you always have the show right

once I'm at the gym or head to the gym.

So, quick question and another follow up.

So I have registered for Ocon, 2026.

But I have most likely a vendor visit

for the Europeans ferry, the dish soap

that may be during the same week.

I don't think I can push it.

Is there a way to like,

transfer to donation or to have someone else go

or refund what do you, or?

I think the refunds until a particular date.

I mean, I don't know the details.

So it's beyond my pay grades.

It has been for a long time.

So check on the website or call somebody

at the Iron Man Institute and ask them.

But I think they have different refund things

and maybe you can donate the part

that you can't refund.

You don't get a refund or something like that.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Jamba.

Jump in at chambacasino.com.

Let's jump up.

No purchase necessary, BTW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino.

Okay.

And the other question.

So I sent an email to you on value creation

and mapping or in getting that.

So I had a thought of like software engineers

or people at tech are usually,

the profit margins are 40% to 50%

and their salaries are mostly higher.

And when I think of, okay,

that may be a good capture of what those people are creating.

But when I transfer it to my experience in manufacturing,

it's like I could be part of a project

or lead a efficiency gain that results in $1 million

or $1.5 million.

I've seen people do a cost savings initiative

where they save on average $2 million a year.

And their salary is 100,000 or like 125,000.

I feel like in certain industries, it's not the case

where you do a cost savings and your salary is like 300,

400, 500,000.

So it was how do you think that's determined?

Do you think there's some weird government effects

where since the government's not involved in tech

or it wasn't as involved,

you could extract that what each individual employee

contributes or is it the overhead

of manufacturing versus of a tech world

where I'm able to give that $2 million value creation

back to the company because they have $100 million

invested in a plant or a software manufacturer.

They don't have all that capital or overhead.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's all of the above,

but I'm not sure the comparison is right.

That is, I don't know that in software,

if you save a million dollars, you get 30, 40% of that.

I don't think it's, I don't know that it's based

on stuff like that.

I think the real question is,

how easy is it to replace you?

What is the versus how easy is to replace?

I mean, let's say you're working

and you're saving the company a million dollars

and there's somebody else in video who,

to do what is does is like one in a billion.

They're like eight people on the planet earth

who could do what he does and he also saves them a million dollars,

but only he can save that million dollars.

That is, you're not, you couldn't replace him

even though you can save your company a million dollars.

He's gonna capture more of that million dollars

than you can because he is, he is irreplaceable,

whereas you might be, right?

So the supply and demand for labor,

the supply and demand for the particular job

is partially going to determine how much,

that kind of the share of the productivity gain

that you achieve, but you're in the employer.

The more you are unique,

the more you will capture of it,

the more you are relatively easy to replace

and somebody else could also do the job

of saving a million dollars,

the more the company will capture the benefit.

Does that make sense?

Often, they often noodle on it and think about,

but yeah, I mean, it initially makes sense,

but there's something there because they would be,

if you're easily replaceable,

why don't they hire someone else

at the same lower wage and accelerate that value creation?

Well, I mean, because there's 500,000

rather than a million.

Yeah, there's a cost to hiring somebody new,

there's a cost of replacing and you're not saying,

if you don't give me 200,000,

instead of 100,000, I'm leaving.

And if you did, they'd probably say, okay, leave

and we'll get somebody to replace you.

Whereas the guy in Nvidia, if he said,

give me half the profit or I'm leaving

and they go, well, we can't afford to have you leave

because there's nobody who can replace you.

So we'll give it to you.

All right, thanks.

Think of it in terms of negotiation that happens.

And what happens if you tell your employer,

yeah, I want more and if I'm not getting it, I'm leaving.

How easy is it to replace you or not?

Okay.

All right, Edward.

Hey, you're on.

Okay.

You can correct me if I'm wrong,

but I think Rand thought that the left,

a person on the left might be easier to convince,

to objectivism than a person on the right

because they take ideas more seriously.

Telloretic here from 2311 Racing,

game night's fun until someone spends five minutes

lining up one shot.

Chalk, breathe, re-chalk, still aiming.

While they figure it out, I fire up Chamba Casino.

I can spin anywhere, anytime,

and there's always a new social casino game every week.

Spins happen way faster than that shot.

Play now at chambacasino.com.

Let's chamba, sponsored by Chamba Casino.

No purchase necessary, VGW Group Board

where prohibited by law, 21 plus terms and conditions apply.

And I wonder if that's the case if you still think

that that's true in modern times.

And like, how do you evaluate or judge leftists

who are maybe political, politically ignorant

but they take morality seriously?

Yeah, so I don't remember whoever's saying something like that.

So I don't remember whoever's saying,

yeah, people in the left are more likely

to brace objectivism or to be open to my ideas.

I don't think she thought that way.

I don't think she thought in terms of left and right

in that sense.

She thought that people who have a mind

and willing to use it, people who are conceptual

will respond to ideas and people who are not and not

and those kind of people's on the left

and those kind of people on the right.

And I don't think she targeted a message to either side

or did particular events and not others for those reasons.

I mean, I might be wrong, but I can't remember who's saying

people in the left are more likely.

I just don't remember that.

In terms of today, I don't know, if you're in the fall left,

you're probably hopeless and you're from the fall right,

you're probably hopeless.

And I don't think it's about taking morality seriously

because the people who take morality the most seriously today

are the religious right, but the epistemology is such

that I don't think they would ever be attracted

to objectivism.

So I think again, the question is, who is thinking?

And I don't think it's good to think in terms of left right

in that context, it's who's thinking.

You know, it might be atheists left or right,

it might be center left, center right,

mildly religious people, it might be a whole bunch.

It's probably not people in the fall left or the fall right.

Although we have to remember, Nicos was on the fall left

and he found objectivism and converted, if you will.

So it happens, but it's unusual.

It's usually people kind of struggling to figure out

where they belong and are neither here nor there.

But I don't think there's any rule here,

in this is the sense of which you have to put your message

out there and see who responds to it.

I, you know, there's no one group we should focus on

because that's the group.

I don't know who those would be.

Yeah, but when you hear like AOC or Bernie Sanders

or Elizabeth Warren,

they seem more principled than people on the right.

Really?

I don't know why we're more principled than JD Vance

or Patrick D'Nine or Vimule.

I mean, they all seem principled to me.

No, all statists, they're all principled.

And the fact that you're principled doesn't mean

you're better and Hitler is principled.

So Stalin.

So yeah, but I don't think that's even true.

I think the fall left and the fall

or the people on the left and people on the right

are both principled and both bad.

You know, Trump's not an example

because he's the negation of principle.

But that is not true of people on the right.

Okay.

It's just we don't like the principles

but we don't like Elizabeth Warren either.

All right, let's see, got some super chats here.

JJ Jigbies, you mentioned that you watched

a Spike Lee film recently.

Was it highest aloas?

Yes.

His remake of the car saw a film by chance.

You left the original curious what your thoughts

on Lee's remake was.

I haven't seen it.

Yeah, I didn't like it.

It completely, I don't know.

It

completely changed the decision

that the entrepreneur makes.

It basically, it basically sells out the whole plot.

So from, in terms of the plot, I didn't like it.

In terms of the actual movie making was just,

it was just weird and it was not good.

It was not, I didn't think it was well made.

I mean, Dan's a Washington's great.

I could watch him do pretty much anything.

But other than that, it was just, it was unconvincing

and it was, it had a very different theme.

Now I can't think right now of what the theme was

but it had a, what I remember is it was very,

very different than it comes out.

I wanted, right when it ended,

I wanted to watch a console movie

to kind of feel like I cleaned myself.

I needed a shower to brush the stupidity off of me.

The Spike Lee stuff, because he, you know,

he, I think, denigrated the, the, the original.

Thank you, Jay, Jay, Jay Geekbees.

Yeah, I really regret watching that.

It was not good.

CPQ, happy to answer all your questions.

It's called Super Chat.

$2, $5, $10, $100, whatever you want.

I'll answer every single one of your questions

if you use the Super Chat.

Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

Robert, here in Motown,

getting ready for great lake subjectivist monthly dinner.

All right, anticipating O'Conn, your leans.

It's, ooh, I can't pronounce that word.

And doah, doah, doah, doah.

And doah, cation soup.

And do we?

What's that?

And do we sausage?

And do we, and do we cajan soup pieces?

And do we cajan soup?

Mufaletta sandwiched tonight.

Oh, wow, that sounds actually good.

Can I fly up and enjoy you guys?

Actually, I'm going to a really good dinner tonight.

So don't have any questions, but always appropriate.

Appreciate the Emmy.

Thank you.

I'm going to this restaurant where it's 12 seats around.

The chef is there, and his wife kind of serves the wine

and clears the meat for these the whole thing.

It's just the two of them.

And the chef basically cooks the meal right in front of you.

I mean, he's done a lot of the prep,

but he's cooking the meal right in front of you.

Five courses.

And what he does is every month he changes kind of the theme

of the dinner, the main ingredient of the dinner,

and tonight, because it's February, February, it

was Valentine's Day, this is, I think,

the third year in the row, he's doing the ingredient

that he uses in all the dishes is chocolate.

And the last two dinners with chocolate

was the main ingredient was spectacular.

So tonight, I'm going to the chocolate dinner at Epicurro.

So he has a picture of Epicurus, the Greek philosopher

in the wall, and it's a really nice place.

So, all right, let's see.

Shahzabat says, this is from the turn of the archons,

some Star Trek thingy.

Quote, peace and contentment be with you.

We are all one under the will of Landrue.

We're all one under the will of Landrue.

That sounds very, very, very depressing.

I don't want to be under the will of Landrue.

Landrue sounds bad.

That's very bulgish, very non-individualistic and mindless.

Not sure what the context for that is, Shahzabat,

other than pure entertainment.

All right, let's see.

We've got some stickers, music of four channel.

Thank you, John.

Thank you.

And I think I saw Jonathan.

Thank you.

All right, let's go back to Jennifer.

Do you like any Waltz's?

Like what Waltz music do you like?

Yeah, I like Strauss' waters, Johann Strauss,

not Richard Strauss.

Johann Strauss' waters.

Leihau, if I remember right, has some really nice Waltz's.

What are the Waltz's do I like?

I mean Strauss, I think, dominates when it comes to Waltz's.

No?

What do you think he's Jennifer?

I would say so, yeah.

I don't know, everybody loves to be Blue Danube, which I do.

But I like the tales from Vienna Woods.

Yeah.

Well, that was really good.

Yeah, I mean, yeah, his Waltz's is just

just fantastic.

So, yeah.

CPQ says, I have no money.

Well, neither do I.

It turns out, because you haven't given me any.

So why should I answer your questions?

Get somebody to ask your questions for you.

Ask some of our people in the chat if they will ask your

questions for you.

Maybe somebody who has money would be willing to do that.

All right, Adam.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing,

another checkered flag for the books.

Time to celebrate with Chamba.

Jump in at chambacasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary, BGW Group.

Boy, we're prohibited by law.

CCNC, 21 plus sponsored by Chamba Casino.

I can't dance the watch by the way,

but I do like listening to them.

We watched consecutively Trump getting rid of all the generals

who were not personally loyal to him.

And then he, in China, doing more or less the same thing,

getting rid of all the generals who he didn't consider

more personally loyal to him than to the ideology of the party.

Do you think it just imitation or do they had the same thing?

Just imitation or do they had a real problem

because China doesn't have a constitution?

So what are the military going to be loyal to

other than their commander in chief?

I mean, I think, I mean, look, basically,

authoritarianists want to make sure

that the military is loyal to them as people,

and Trump doesn't know what the constitution is.

He's never read it.

He's never really heard of it, I don't think.

So even though everybody swears to the constitution,

what he really wants, the generals that he thinks

will do what he says when he says it.

And hexeth is like the guy who's supposed to implement

all this.

Now, I don't think he can really be successful

because, and this is the difference,

is that it's not clear.

They got rid of generals that they thought were woke,

whatever the hell that means,

ones that played into the hands of the left,

maybe introduced certain woke programs into the military.

So you got rid of those people,

but I don't think there's literally being,

you have to swear out of allegiance to Donald Trump,

otherwise you'll fire it kind of program.

And I don't know that you could see that.

I don't know that the generals are really willing

to do whatever Trump says.

I mean, you can see that in that big meeting

where hexeth and Trump spoke to the generals,

and they were like, I don't know,

a couple of hundred people in the room,

all the generals, they all flew in from all over the world.

And they were not happy.

They weren't like, they didn't clap, they didn't cheer,

they didn't, everything that Trump expected,

he expected, claps, he expected, smiles,

he expected, nods, and he got none of it, right?

And so I think our generals,

even the ones that haven't been kicked out

are pretty independent-minded,

and they know there's a constitution.

And generally, I don't have a high opinion

of people who stay in the military very much,

but I think they're reasonably good

and they're properly motivated,

and I don't think they're just Trumpists, no matter what.

They might be a few, but I don't think generally they are.

In China, they did get rid of the commander

for Southcom before Southern spirit,

because he wouldn't authorize as many strikes.

Yeah, they got rid of him,

and then they just got rid of another guy,

the chief PR guy,

they just fired a colonel, a colonel or a major.

Yeah, I mean, they'll keep doing that,

they'll keep purging people that they think are questionable

or that won't follow orders, not follow all orders,

but I think there's a limit to that.

I mean, we'll see.

I think there's a limit.

I think ultimately, the military's not just Donald Trump's

plaything, but although he's not asking Congress

for permission to attack Iran,

so if he attacks Iran, he's going beyond the Constitution,

he's going beyond his authority.

Of course, he knows nobody will stop him.

China's a little different in a sense that

all the generals in China have sworn allegiance

through the Communist Party, that's their allegiance.

It's through the Communist Party, and it's Chairman, so she.

And then the question is how loyal are they really?

And how corrupt are they?

And while when he says we're purging them

because they're corrupt, it could be that they're purging them

because we don't like them.

Or it could be that they're really corrupt.

I mean, the likelihood is that they're really corrupt.

But think about just Chinese general

and China's throwing billions of dollars

into new weapons systems, and you can pocket some of that

in a culture that is much more favorably

inclined towards corruption than America.

And I think a lot of America's generals

pockets on the money too.

So I think there's a lot of corruption at the Pentagon.

But in China, it's magnitudes more than it is in the United States

because it's the whole culture's corrupt in China.

So some of its corruption, but look, the guy he just kicked out

was really the number two in the Chinese Communist Party

after Xi.

So he was a real threat to Xi's authority.

They were friends for decades.

But she was worried, it seems like who knows exactly

what happened, but it seems like she was worried

that this guy would try to replace him,

particularly given the economy in China's not doing well.

So he did a preemptive move and got rid of him.

In China, it's much more about a real power play

for complete control of the country

because it's an authoritarian state

who is ever the top controls everything.

The United States was still not there yet.

So the stakes are less.

And the generals generally have not

sworn allegiance to a political party or to the leader.

In China, that's what they're expected.

The generals are supposed to do exactly what Xi tells them.

In America, that's not the expectation.

So while it's true, everybody within authoritarian tendencies

going to want to control the military,

Trump is going to have a much harder time doing it

than Xi is because in Xi, the military

is already on the premise of whatever the Supreme Leader wants.

We will do.

Whereas in America, the premise is different

and he's going to have to overcome that.

Thanks, Adam.

Jacob.

Related, just sparked a thought.

So for Taiwan, I was talking to my wife

about the graph you showed of GDP

and how Taiwan is low on a GDP spend for defense.

When I told her that, she was like,

oh, no, we spend a lot.

And then it was like, no, you don't.

OK.

OK.

Oh, you're breaking up.

You're breaking up there.

The last I heard was, no, you don't.

Yeah.

And then she was like, oh, that's odd.

So I think from what I understand, the KMT

was basically, hey, we're not going to build up too aggressively.

And that kind of seeped into the culture for decades.

Where now it's just, we are going to build our artillery

or we're going to do only actions that create

enough pain for an eventual evasion,

not any for deployment capability of inflicting action

or inflicting pain on the mainland.

Because they think, hey, that's going

to be too provocative to, it's going

to influence the conflict to start.

Curious what do you think it would take for that thought

to change?

Because I would think after Israel, Iran,

they would say, hey, air power is so important.

It is important to inflict damage.

We need to invest in aircraft and forward deployment.

I think there is still, I think it's the porcupine model,

where we're just going to arm up the island

where it's so painful for you to invade

and we'll have alliances with Japan, South Korea,

and the Philippines, where they connect

as our forward deployment, rather than ourselves

be self-sufficient.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think anybody

is going to really forward deploy in the sense that nobody's

going to land ground troops in China.

I mean, it's just, I can't imagine that being

a strategy in a war, I mean.

More forward deploy in terms of aircraft and missiles

to so inflict pain on factories on soil refineries

or their major hubs.

Yeah, I suddenly think Japan and Korea

have the missiles to take out assets in mainland China.

So there's the United States.

I don't think the, I don't know about the Philippines.

The, you know, I don't know what it's going to take for Taiwan

to buy those kind of missiles, at least to be able to,

I mean, you would think that at a very basic,

you would want to take out the ports

from which the ships trying to invade you are coming from.

You would want to take out the infrastructure

that makes deploying those ships possible along the coast.

Of China, so you want to have some capacity to reach China.

And then in terms of aircraft, it's tricky

because China has such a huge Air Force.

Their airplanes might be inferior to like the F-35,

but they have so many of them that it's not clear

you would win that without U.S. support.

So I think Taiwan, I don't think Taiwan can do what Israel did.

That is, Taiwan cannot dominate Chinese airspace.

I think you're looking much more at a Russia-Ukraine situation

where neither party will dominate the airspace

because neither party has enough resources

to actually dominate it and the air defense systems

are too thick to be able to deal with.

So much more, much more likely that they invest in drones,

in drone technology, that can be deployed across the straits

to the mainland, but a lot of the investment

needs to be into protecting the straits.

And that means into the shipping lane.

And that probably means submarine and boat drones

that can take out the ships that China,

so the porcupine strategy kind of on steroids

where you inflict so much pain

that they would never consider doing it.

But part of that pain needs to be to be able to hit the mainland.

But I don't think you could do it from the air.

I just don't think you have to have too many planes

and the Chinese would dominate the air.

So I don't think that's the solution.

I think it has to be drones.

It has to be missiles.

So it'd be basically porcupine plus a little bit

of Iran's strategy of overwhelm with ballistic missiles?

Yeah, although hopefully they have smart ballistic missiles

than the Iranians do so that they can evade,

evade being shut down.

If you countries have as good of an air defense system

as Israel does, not clear if China has it

in China so big that I'm sure you could find holes

in China's air defense system and penetrate

and find ways to hit their targets.

All right, thank you, Jacob, Andrew.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Jamba by my side.

Race to chumpacaceno.com, let's Jamba.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group.

Voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored

by chumpacaceno.

Yeah, I think one of the most morally inverted things

that the Trump administration is doing is what it's attitude

towards Ukraine versus its attitude towards Russia.

And I mean, he made some kind of like vague remarks

like Zelensky's got to get moving.

What do you think he expects Zelensky to do?

Surrender.

I mean, he basically expects him to surrender.

Look, I mean, the only worse,

the only thing worse than Donald Trump's attitude

towards Ukraine and Russia is his attitude towards Americans.

But yeah, I mean, his attitude in the Ukraine and Russia

is just a completely morally offensive,

a offensive, horrible.

He is absolutely corrupt, he's absolutely pro-Russia.

He wants Ukraine just to surrender.

He has no respect for the truth.

We know that.

He doesn't respect for the truth in anything.

And he loves Putin.

You know, I've talked about this.

Since they met during his first term, he loves Putin.

You know, he's just enamored with him.

Now, maybe Putin has something over him.

I doubt it, but maybe does.

But in any case, he loves Putin.

And he's not willing to upset Putin.

And he's willing to take Putin's side on any issue,

no matter what.

Now, why exactly?

I think he loves authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism and Putin is particularly good at being

kind of a masculine, masculine quotation marks authoritarian,

which Trump, that's Trump's word, word dream.

So I think that's what it boils down to.

He's willing to take Putin's side

because he loves strong men.

And in particular, he loves Putin.

Poland's key is in an impossible situation.

Yeah, I mean, Zalinsky in Europe needs to tell Donald Trump

to go to hell.

And they're starting to do that.

Like Europeans are starting to do that, right?

They're starting to say, yeah, we're not

going to agree to any piece deal.

We're not going to let you agree to any piece deal.

It doesn't include Russia leaving Georgia

and Russia leaving Crimea and Russia leaving all these places.

Moldova.

And so there's setting terms that they know are going to fend Trump

and that Putin is no wagon accept.

And they maybe are finding the spine

to say, you know, we can take on Russia.

We can support Ukraine to take on Russia.

We don't need the Americans.

We'll see.

But yeah, if Zalinsky is relying on Trump,

you might as well surrender,

because Trump will give him nothing.

So he's on his own.

The Europeans may be a finding balls,

you know, a spine, whatever you want to call it.

Let's hope that's the case.

Yeah.

Let's hope that the case.

There's only rich enough to take on Russia,

the rich of Russia.

So Russia shouldn't be a big issue for them,

but we'll see.

All right, let's see.

Not your average algorithm.

Man's nature is good and benevolent,

or we would not be here, true or false.

I mean, false.

Man's nature is neither good or bad, benevolent or malevolent.

I mean, man's nature is that he has to choose.

That's his nature.

His nature is that he has to choose to be good or not,

to be benevolent or not.

And, you know, there are periods

in which he chooses not to be good.

And those are pretty nasty, horrible periods.

We'll do it too, you know, in Germany,

in Russia right now, all over the world.

You've seen that.

Look at the Palestinians.

They've chosen to be evil.

Chosen to be malevolent.

And there appears in which people make a choice to be good

and then appears in which they make a choice to be blah.

You know, neither here nor there

and or fluctuate between good and evil daily,

depending on the circumstances.

So, no, we're not programmed to be good.

We're not programmed to be benevolent.

We have to make choices.

And, you know, you could argue that

given that the human race has survived,

we've made more good choices than bad choices, maybe.

But remember, we've lived under barbaric animal level

conditions for most of the history of the human race.

So, it's only in the last 250 years

out of a history of, I don't know, 100,000 years

that human beings have been living up

to our potential.

And even then, we get these bouts of evil,

like World War II, World War I, you know, pop pot

and whatever.

So, yeah, there's no guarantee and there's no tendency.

It has to be a real choice.

Levin, I recently watched confessions

of a former climate activist from their free press.

She sounds a lot like Alex Epstein.

Yeah, I mean, there's a reason why she sounds

like Alex Epstein.

And that's because she's a big admirer of Alex's

and she uses his material.

She's read his book.

She's probably a subscriber to his sub-stack.

You should be too.

So, she's getting a talking points from Alex.

That's why she sounds like Alex.

So, yeah, I mean, Alex has had a big influence

and one of the people he's influenced

is the girl, woman, I guess, who does confessions

of a former climate activist on the free press.

She's talked about the fact that Alex is influenced her.

Right, Michael, was the courts ruling nowhere near strong enough

since they didn't throw all tariffs out,

Trump can still wreck havoc?

No, I mean, look, the court can only rule

what is in front of the court.

It tariffs broadly were not in front of the court.

That wasn't the question before it.

And, of course, tariffs are allowed according

to constitution, the constitution explicitly

allows Congress to impose tariffs.

And the court has ruled that Congress can delegate

certain of its authorities to the president

so that some laws have indeed delegated

a tariff power to the president.

And so a lot of the tariffs that Trump has imposed

and is imposing now in a fit of anger and revenge.

A lot of these tariffs are within the scope of the laws

that allow him to impose tariffs.

The court can't say we don't like tariffs,

therefore we're ruling tariffs unconstitutional.

It asks the ground whatever it does in the constitution

and the constitution, like it or not,

allows Congress to impose tariffs

and allows Congress to delegate the power

to the president to impose tariffs.

So no, I thought the decision was right on

in a sense that it was limited to the question at hand.

Did the law, the IEPA, the international emergency,

something, something, something,

did that law allow Trump to impose tariffs

and the answer is no.

And that's what they ruled.

Do other laws allow Trump to impose tariffs?

Yes.

And past courts have recognized that.

If you wanna stop Trump from doing tariffs,

the court cannot stop him.

Congress can.

Congress can repeal those laws.

Or he can do a new law that says,

we are now asserting that all tariff powers

return to Congress.

But that's never gonna happen.

It's never gonna happen.

Because you don't need the Democrats

that will probably just want it,

because they want whoever it is president

to be able to have that power to do it.

Somebody says, this is the best court ever.

I doubt that.

I doubt it's better than the early courts

in the early 19th century

in terms of understanding of individual rights

and understanding of the constitution.

I doubt that very much.

But it is maybe the best court in modern times.

Maybe since the Great Depression,

it's the best court.

And look, by far the best on that court is Gorsuch.

But even Gorsuch screws up royally.

I mean, it's the best court ever,

but this best court ever basically repealed

repealed Rose versus Wade,

which is a massive tragedy, a massive tragedy.

So in the sense of that, this is an awful court.

And think about the fact that this particular ruling,

like yesterday, had to rely on three leftist judges

that don't really believe

in the constitutional basis for repealing this law.

They just hate Trump.

So they vote against Trump.

So no, I don't think this is the best court ever.

And it's not a great court by a long measure

that is still a court that has no understanding

of individual rights.

It has no, it's a court that has to rely

for a case like this on the leftist judges.

I mean, the three conservatives

who voted against this are pathetic, worse than pathetic.

They should be, you know, Thomas should be impeached

at this point.

He's used to be a good judge 10 years ago,

but since Trump has come to power,

he has, he's suffering from the Trump zombie syndrome

and is no longer qualified to be on the court.

So no, this is not a court that understands

the constitution or understands individual rights.

And by the way, I said yesterday,

they don't mention individual rights,

but they don't mention the Declaration of Independence

or something like that.

And it turns out that in Robert's decision,

he does mention the declaration,

I need to go read it and see exactly what he says about it.

I don't think it's the best.

Do you want to be the next Supreme Justice?

What's that?

Who would you want to be the next Supreme Justice

after Robert's corset?

Well, no, you don't, you usually don't elevate somebody

from within the court.

You usually appoint somebody from the outside

for the specific role of Chief Justice.

So Robert's came in as Chief Justice from day one.

So I don't know who I would want.

I don't know who would be a good Chief Justice.

On Carl Gatti, I think I'd nominate him

for the Supreme Court.

If that happens at the top of a few bottles of champagne,

a few, a few,

and not for a hundred people.

Yeah, and maybe the expensive stuff from real champagne.

Yeah, or I don't know, add a masa for Larry Solzman

or any of our legal minds would be great,

but that ain't happening.

All right.

Michael says TDS means Trump denial syndrome.

Two week, two week, denial is two week.

It's Trump's zombie syndrome.

That's what we need to find out.

We need to make that a common thing.

Neo.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah, it's even better with Jamba by my side.

Race to Trumpacacino.com.

Let's jump up.

No purchase necessary, VTW Group.

Voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by Trumpacacino.

Was Mao considered better than Hitler

or Stalin for trying to decentralize power

and fix the system is his intent

considered a redeeming factor?

No, I don't think so.

And I don't know who considers him better

than Stalin and Hitler.

I think the main reason is that he's not European.

So people are not focused as much on what he did

and don't know as much of his history.

But no, Mao has no redeeming features.

He probably killed more people than Hitler or Stalin.

But it's hard to tell, once you get into the tens of millions,

it's hard to keep track of who killed more people.

But absolutely, Mao is one of the...

Mao is one of the...

Belongs up there was Stalin and Hitler.

All right, Nacho, I was y'all going to say,

by 2050, will all cars be electric and self-driving?

Will this eliminate pollution and cities

and increase life expectancy by decades?

God, I mean, there's so much there.

So by 2050, yeah, most cars, if not all cars,

will be self-driving and will be electric,

self-driving is much easier with electric than gasoline.

And as battery technology gets better,

you can imagine the range would increase significantly, I think.

But increase life expectancy,

you think life expectancy is short

because it's shorter because of pollution?

You've got to be kidding me.

The people in Montana live longer than people in LA.

I mean, if they do than by a few months, maybe,

but by years, by significant amounts,

no, I don't think so.

Or in the middle of Kansas, they live longer

than they live in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles being my standard for air pollution,

for like car pollution, right?

Millions and millions and millions of cars all the time.

So if there is air pollution, they have the most, right?

I doubt very much that air pollution from cars

is a driving force behind shortened life expectancy.

I don't see it.

Don't see it.

And it's self-driving cars,

those people will die in car crashes, that might affect.

Oh, in that sense life expectancy will go up, yes,

but not pollution.

Yeah.

No, I was thinking about making that,

I mean, I don't know, but maybe with crashes.

Yeah, I can't sure if it's 17,000,

I can't sure if the number,

it's a big number, die every year in car crashes.

That will go away.

So that would be pretty cool,

that the number of car accidents

will decline dramatically.

Number of young people who die in car accidents

will go down significantly.

And, and yes, I don't think,

I don't think equality is going to make that big of a change.

I mean, if you think about today,

even gas guzzling on our wheels,

are not that polluting.

The technologies come a long way

of the internal combustion engine

and the filtration systems and everything else

to make them a lot less polluting.

I just don't think pollution,

particularly from cars these days,

has a big impact on life expectancy.

Again, look at places in the country

that have low pollution and places who have high pollution

and is there big difference in, I don't think so.

But mortality in car accidents,

absolutely I think Jennifer's right.

All right, thank you, Natia, I'll go with them.

All right, the slate is clear on the superchats.

So, for a few to jump in

and we should be trying,

ooh, we're already at the first hour

and we need quite a bit to get to that first hour's target.

So, $20 questions would be great.

All right, Jennifer.

Have you seen all the original Star Trek's or novel?

Have I seen them all?

Yeah.

Yes, but it's been a long time.

So, you don't remember them real well?

No, I don't remember what I saw yesterday.

Oh, there's this one where they actually show

that these people have a plan that needs some help

and they want to do it by force or they're going to die.

I won't go into the details, but

and Kirk says it will help you, but you can't force us.

Anyway, in the end, he ends up having to fight them off

and leaves them to die because they won't.

Yeah.

And it actually shows him refusing to sacrifice himself

and his crew for these people and he leaves

and that they use so many death.

Yeah.

And it's like, that was amazing,

because I mean, outside of my grand,

Art doesn't usually show them saying,

you should not sacrifice yourself for someone you don't even know

even if they're going to die.

You know, it was pretty great.

That's pretty good.

I mean, Shazba wants me to review an episode

of the original Star Trek of my choice.

Maybe I'll look for that one.

Oh, yeah.

It's called the Blink of an Eye.

What's it called?

Blink of an Eye?

Yeah.

And the Blink of an Eye.

Yeah, it's really, it's unusual.

Cool.

Yeah, I mean, the thing about Star Trek

is how philosophical they all were.

Yeah.

You know, relative to what you see on TV today,

it's pretty amazing.

Because usually, you know,

Kirk in 50 minutes solves the problem

and everything's great, right?

And in this case, they couldn't solve it.

They couldn't figure out how to help themselves.

Oh, well, you know, we're not going to let you use us.

Yep.

So good.

Too bad.

Okay, I'll check it out.

Cool.

Do you have a question?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Adam.

Yes.

Have you seen the Korean TV series,

the deep-rooted tree?

No.

Is it good?

I think it's excellent.

And there is a lot of character development

taking on during the show,

which I think, at least I find,

you know, very uplifting.

Good.

Yeah, no, I haven't seen it.

I'll check it out.

Thank you.

Deep-rooted.

It's not treewood.

Treewood deep roots.

There could be mistranslations.

Okay.

Um, my translation would be the deep-rooted tree,

but you never know.

I see it here.

Actually an Apple TV.

15th, 17th century.

Like a star, it's historical.

Yes, it takes place.

Okay.

Cool.

During the next king after my country.

Okay.

Cool.

I'll definitely try it.

Thank you.

All right, Andrew.

So do we know why Tucker was in Israel?

To, uh, to interview Huckabee.

Uh-oh, okay.

And he claims that he got, he got detained.

Yeah, he got detained in the VIP lounge.

Um, I mean, he's not, he's a complete nut.

And, and he just lies straight out, just lies.

God, he hates Israel.

Yeah, you can tell by the, I haven't, I've just watched bits of the interview with Huckabee.

I mean, he, he asks, he keeps asking Huckabee.

Uh, how, how, you know, why he beats his wife?

You're right.

I mean, those kind of questions, right?

And, and he comes out in the, in the thing he comes out saying every Jew in Israel should

have a DNA test to prove that they have DNA roots in, in ancient Israel, right?

Because he knows that the Jews in Israel today are just a bunch of Europeans who are colonizing

the place and don't have any historical roots in Israel as if, I mean, this is the problem.

That Israelis too often use the historical thing as a excuse, as a justification for why the state of Israel

exists, even the Danielle uses that.

And, um, it's a bogus reason.

So, you know, the, the, but he's, he's, he's okay.

If you're going to use that excuse, let's test you off with DNA and let's see.

Um, the reality is that it, the DNA test, as far as I understand, do suggest that all

us can, as he Jews go back to four women who lived in the Levant, I don't know, X thousands

of years ago, um, and who somehow survived the Christians repeatedly trying to kill every

single Jew in Europe.

Like, during the Crusades, the Jewish population in Europe came very close to zero.

They killed so many Jews.

But, uh, yeah, Takasana Crusade of his own to, to, to delegitimize Israel and, uh, you know,

the, the, uh, conspiracy theories and the nonsense he spouts are just unbelievable.

All right.

Thank you.

But he might be present one day.

Who knows?

Oh, God.

Oh, God is right.

All right.

Jacob.

I think I haven't been able to watch all the shows lately, but I have a $150 question from

New Year's Eve that I emailed you.

I didn't know if you were able to answer reply back.

I think I answered all of the questions you emailed me.

Do you want to know what it was?

Ask it now.

Uh, it was about family.

And I know it was like, I said, it may be personal.

It may not be answered.

Okay.

I'll follow up on that.

Okay.

The other question.

So I'm on a low dose because I wanted to try it.

G L P's and notice like the food noise and everything else, which you would probably hate,

has gone down a lot.

Whereas I'm very comfortable eating rice, chicken, ground beef and all that because I'm

just not thinking about food that much.

Do you foresee in the next five, ten years a change in the free will discussion?

Once you have drugs that can eliminate certain noises and allow people to focus on their

goals and aspirations.

And so like, for example, when we, we have a trip planned for Italy and my wife and I were

both thinking, okay, two weeks out, we're going to stop.

That way we can really enjoy the food.

And then when we come back, then we'll get back on it that way we can focus on work

in our personal lives.

So the conscious choice of isolating noise and.

Making that choice there.

So I know people who took G L P ones, Michael, those G L P ones.

It didn't affect their ability to enjoy food.

It just produced their appetite.

That is they, they, they want hungry.

So, but when they ate, they still wanted to eat delicious food.

So it didn't affect their appreciation for good food.

So I'm not, I'm not sure why you're experiencing.

I think it's a little bit of both where it's.

The good food is high caloric and then.

Because you want to change your body type or get healthier.

It's okay.

I can only eat 1500 calories before he started 2000 2500 before he started

beyond sick.

So it's let's just get eat clean.

And I'm focused extremely on the goal of.

The physique or the weight or the health benefit.

Whereas before it would be, hey, I'd want to meal with a good amount

of butter, lots of spices and then the chicken thigh

rather than chicken brass and so on and so forth.

Yeah, I mean.

Are you doing the injections of the pills?

Injections.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

The rush of racing?

Nothing beats it.

But Jumbo Casino comes close.

Jumbo's got fast spins, fun games, daily bonuses,

and all the action you can handle.

Now that's a ride.

Ready to hit the throttle?

Get in the driver's seat and head to www.jumbocasino.com.

Let's Jumbo.

Sponsored by Jumbo Casino.

No purchase necessary.

VGW Group Vortware prohibited by law.

21 plus terms and conditions apply.

I'm waiting for the ability to do microdose the pills

and then I'm going to try it.

And when I try it, I'll let you know.

Because, you know, I'm hoping that it just takes away

the hunger which causes me to snack during the day

or eat during the day more than I should.

Because I, you know, if I get tired, I eat.

If I, you know, it's just a fill in.

But that it doesn't change my...

Because during the day, I don't desire necessarily tasty food.

But I'd like to have a good tasty meal, even if it's slow-callowing.

So I'm curious how that all affected.

But generally, I don't know that it's going to change the free world debate.

Because I don't know why it would have an impact on the free world debate.

There's clearly a body, you know, has its...

Is sending you signals to the brain and sending...

You know, sending signals to the brain

that you don't have control over.

And that doesn't reject free will.

It just says there's an element of brain signaling.

You call it noise that is not...

That is not under our control.

And if I can mitigate some of that,

maybe that puts more under my control

and allows me more to focus.

I think it increases the quality...

You know, just the quality of life, the quality of thinking.

Less destruction.

I mean, for me too, it's not just food as alcohol.

So it was used to be where I'd go out

and you'd have four or five drinks over the course of three hours.

Yeah.

Now, it's just, all right, that's gone.

Or maybe a smoker would intentionally take it

to maybe in the future there's drugs

that counter the nicotine a lot better.

So then they can get rid of that noise.

So then would there be a lot more people

that don't have the background and have to confront their ability

to think or choose not to think.

When the past, it was just automatic in the background.

They chose not to think because they went along with the noise.

But then once you get rid of all those unconscious signals of,

you need to smoke, you need to drink,

or you can toggle on and off the switch

for gambling or any other addiction.

Yeah.

I mean, it's very possible.

That is that it increases the quality of life.

It increases your focus.

It increases your ability to ignore the noise.

And yeah, so people have to confront that more.

I'm not sure that'll lead to them thinking more.

That would be, that would be amazing.

But that would be, that would be interesting.

But clearly the GP one drugs,

unless some new side effect comes about

that turns people away from them,

really are in many respects kind of a miracle drug

in terms of eating, in terms of addiction,

in terms of a lot of different things.

So they do take away a lot of these kind of desires

that we have that are not always helpful.

Yeah, I got mine from a compound pharmacy from Kremu,

or that blogger,

and I saw, I think in the last week or two weeks,

they're trying to push for end of those compound pharmacies.

Yeah, they're trying to get rid of the compound pharmacies, unfortunately.

It saved at least $2,000 a year for me.

Yep, for me.

Not surprised.

Not surprised.

Yeah, we'll see how that all develops.

But I don't want to take the injections.

I'm waiting for the pill.

But I am going to try it.

Thank you.

Thanks, Jacob.

Lincoln.

Lincoln just joined us.

Hey, Aaron.

So my question is,

I, you probably saw a couple days ago,

which is a treat that went viral that showed the distribution of art

from the Louvre,

and how you have generally increasing

until you get to Roman Empire,

and then obviously at Roman Paul's crashes,

no one for a thousand years,

saying it's another proof of the dark ages caused by Christian ethics

until it starts to decline.

Yep.

So it's with technology declining every less,

less currency being circulated.

Do you think that if America falls into authoritarianism

and it's a fault off as a country

is a similar dark age possible,

or is globalism too powerful now that it's not going to stop

technology to the progress in the way that Rome falling did?

You know, it's hard to predict these things,

it'd be very difficult to stop technological progress or the progress of knowledge,

given that the tools are everywhere.

They're not just in the US, they're not just in Europe, they're all of Asia,

South America and Nepal, I'm sure they're engineers.

So you know, just everywhere.

And to imagine a global, a complete global collapse,

I just don't see how that happens.

You can see major stagnation, a drop-off,

but yeah, I don't think, I don't think you can see.

And I haven't seen that tweet, so if you find it,

reach, you know, what do you call it, send me the link.

But I think it's very unlikely to happen that way.

It'll happen in a different way.

And I don't know exactly how that'll be.

You know, the alternative is some kind of nucleic catastrophe

where a lot of people die and then the world shrinks significantly.

But the knowledge is not just going to disappear.

So we'll see.

So I don't think it's going to happen.

All right, thank you Lincoln, let's see, Linda,

I'd like to give copies of the romantic manifesto

Quincodefine art.

I like to gift copies of the romantic manifesto at, not to, at.

Quincodefine art.

Do you ever gift random books?

If so, which ones beside out the shog found head,

which ones are your favorites?

I don't, I don't gift in random books.

I don't have a circle of people that would be natural for me

to gift them to the people, most of the people I know have already read the books.

That's how I know them.

So no.

I mean, what are my other favorites?

Virtue of selfishness?

Minding manifesto, capitalism.

I mean, philosophy who needs it is one of my favorites.

But really, it's the novels, right?

At least you're going to found headers where if I was going to gift something,

that's what I would be gifting.

The romantic manifesto is very hard.

It's a difficult book philosophically.

It's, it's hard.

And you need some background to understand it.

And that background, I think, could be found in, in Atlas Shogt and the fountain head.

Thanks, Linda.

All right.

We'll do one more round.

Jennifer.

I'm down for today.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thanks, Jennifer.

Adam.

You're muted.

Yes.

Okay.

What is the influence of philosophy of education and economic development?

Because if you look at East Asia, for example,

the former Japanese Empire,

and where they adopted the Okashivich curriculum,

is doing very well with one big exception, which is the Philippines,

where they have the American philosophy of education.

Yeah.

I mean, how, yeah.

Yeah.

How general is this around the world where some countries have better philosophy of education than others?

I mean, I think there's the most places around the world have just a mediocre view of education,

a mediocre system of education.

And, and that is good enough for the kind of level of growth that we have today in the world.

The United States has bad education.

And somehow, because of other institutional benefits,

we somehow do as well if not better than other countries in spite of that.

So it holds us.

We have immigrants and private months of schools.

Sure.

You know, three quarters of the private months of schools are not very good at Montessori.

You know, because anybody can label their school months of school as I think you know.

So you really have to check out the schools to make sure they're good.

But we do have immigrants, at least we used to have.

I'm not sure if we still, we're still going to have in the future.

But look, half of all startups in the US are founded by Americans.

We could flip this, we could flip it.

So they still have that, that, that, that are a decent.

So anyway, the United States is hampered by it, but still survives.

Europe has a better educational system than the US, but not great.

It's still mediocre.

And it, it does okay.

The Islamic world has an awful educational system worse than America's.

And that's part of why it struggles.

It, it, it, it doesn't go anyway.

So educational philosophy is crucial because it, it's, it's basically shaping the knowledge

and the ability to think of future generations.

So if a culture has an awful educational system,

and it really dominates, like let's say in the Muslim world and, and in parts of the United States,

then it's crippling those societies.

And, and certainly for some communities in the US, they're completely crippled.

So one of the reasons you don't see a lot of mobility, let's say in the black community,

from poverty to middle classhood anymore, as much as you did, let's say in the 40s and 50s,

is, is because so many of these schools are rotten.

And they're rotten because of progressive education.

They're rotten because of, they were all run by the government and they were run by unions.

And therefore,

Looking for excitement?

Jamba Casino is here.

Play any time, play anywhere.

Play on the train, play at the store, play at home, play when you're bored.

Play today for your chance to win and get daily bonuses when you log in.

So what are you waiting for, don't delay?

Jamba Casino is free to play.

Experience social gameplay like never before.

Go to Jamba Casino right now to play hundreds of games, including online slots,

bingo, slingo, and more.

Live the Jamba Life at JambaCasino.com.

No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law, 21-plus terms and conditions apply.

They don't gain the tools to break out a poverty and break an, and, and, and, and advance in life.

Whereas it is middle class, the consent they get someone to sue,

you know, it's the middle class, it's more likely to find alternative schools.

So, yeah, I mean, it's, it's hugely important.

It's, and it's, it's, in a sense, sets the destiny of a country over the long run.

Because if, if you have a rotten educational system, the long run is going to be rotten.

Because you can't think.

You can see that in American politics today.

Americans can't think.

Thanks, Adam, on that depressing thought.

Andrew.

Yeah, do you view the whole argument against the social media companies that, like,

they're addicting people to their product as just absurd.

Like, they are claiming that, like, they use tactics just like slot machines.

You know, like, casinos use slot machines, you know, and psychological, you know,

but like, aren't they just providing a product that they are trying to get people to use?

And of course, they're going to try to make it as appealing as possible.

Yeah, but that's, that's the same with slot machines.

What's the difference?

It's exactly like slot machines.

They're doing it to get you addicted.

But, of course, whether you get addicted or not is up to you.

But they are setting their algorithms to, you know, stimulate as much, what is it?

Serotonin or whatever it is in the brain that gives you pleasure so that you keep staying on their website and keep using it.

Yeah, no question they're doing that.

But so what?

It's, it's your responsibility as a user to moderate and to know when to stop.

I mean, I can even see myself sometimes, sometimes I'll click on some of those YouTube shorts and you stop flipping.

And you know, you have to make a conscious choice.

No, stop.

What am I doing?

This is a waste of time.

Don't put me, not, don't put me, not Serotonin.

Yeah, it's a dopamine hit.

It's, it's short little bits of candy.

Like, it's, like, chocolate, right?

Like, they put in front of you 20 pieces, really beautifully looking pieces of, of chocolate, right?

And you take one and it's super tasty.

And that next one looks really appealing.

You take another one.

And, you know, it's up to you to say, you know, it's not off of them.

I'm not going to take it anymore.

If the restaurant is definitely, you know, and they're not even charging for chocolate.

It's just, they want it, they want you to feel like they're generous.

And they, you know, I don't know, you go to some of these fancy meals and they do these.

After that does five desserts and 20 courses and everything.

Then they bring out all the chocolates.

It's like, God, there's no end to this food.

And at some point you have to be able to say, no.

Does it at all impact your thinking that for miners?

No, because that's of all the parents.

The job of parents is to teach the kids to learn how to say no.

And if they're not able to do it themselves and to do it for them.

So the apps, the things that you can do to limit their number of hours,

the child can be on social media or on the web more generally or what kind of websites they can go to.

That's what parents are for.

Parents don't want their kids to be on social media.

They can ban them from social media.

It's fairly easy to do.

It's not the job of government.

Thanks Andrew Lincoln.

So one of the things that has been, I think the real trend of the 2020s has been the alongside AI.

It's been the advancement with a lot of stuff in the biotechnology sphere.

And in regards to ICG Open once, but also there's technology with extending human life with extending lifespan through either pharmaceutical drugs or do stuff like what Brian Johnson is doing.

However, one area that's also making progress that I think is promising.

But the improvement quality of life is maybe less obvious.

It has been this de-extinction goal led by this company, colossal biosensors out in Dallas where their goal is to essentially bring back extinct animals with the ultimate goal being providing the bullying and method.

A bunch of venture capital funding.

So what do you think would be the improvement to human quality of life to bring back extinct animals beyond just pleasure?

I think that's it. I think it's pleasure.

Unless we can bring them back and eat them, maybe dinosaurs taste really good.

I don't know. I doubt it. They're probably pretty tough.

So I don't know what the point of being back extinct animals other than wouldn't it be cool to walk around a Jurassic Park?

What else is there?

We're going to have artificial meat anyway. So we don't need them for meat.

I think it's a vanity project.

I think it's a vanity project. I think it's a proof of concept.

Basically, the next thing is we can now, in a sense, create people.

You can take DNA and artificially outside of the womb, create artificial worms and create human beings.

So a lot of technology will need to be developed that is useful for human beings in creating these, recreating these animals.

So there's a transferable technology.

I think that's the benefit.

Jacob, thank you for the sticker and Dave.

$50. Really appreciate the sticker. Thank you.

All right, guys. Thank you, everybody.

I will see you all, what day is it today?

Oh, tomorrow. I still don't know what I'm doing tomorrow.

There will be a member's only show tomorrow.

That is for sure. I just don't know what it's going to be.

What the topic is going to be, but I will advertise it hopefully later today with the topic so you'll be able to see.

All right, guys. Thank you. Thank you, Jennifer, Adam Andrew Lincoln and Jacob who left us.

I'll see you guys on the next AMA.

Bye, everybody.

Bye, you're on.

Bye.