The Supreme Court Just Opened a Backdoor for China
A two hour live episode of The Tom Bilyeu Show recorded the morning after the Supreme Court closed its term with three rulings: it let states bar transgender athletes under Title IX, struck limits on party coordinated political spending, and preserved birthright citizenship against Trump's executive order. Bilyeu argues that last ruling leaves a backdoor for China through organized birth tourism, which is why Trump sarcastically congratulated Xi Jinping, and he floats worldwide income taxation as a fix. The wide ranging conversation runs through court reform, JD Vance on refilling the oil economy, a DSA primary win in Colorado, Mamdani's New York budget versus Florida abolishing property taxes, and the Charlie Kirk forensic questions. The deepest segment argues the real story is an AI arms race in which China uses model distillation and open source to erode the American industry propping up the economy, and closes on whether AI destroys more jobs than it creates.
Published Jul 1, 20262:03:12 video42 min readAdded Jul 4, 2026Open on YouTube →
At a glance
This is a two hour live episode of The Tom Bilyeu Show, recorded the morning after the Supreme Court closed its June 30 term with two 6 to 3 rulings on opposite ends of the culture war and one loss for the Trump administration. Bilyeu walks through all three decisions with his cohosts Drew, Ryan, and a new COO named Andrew Press, and lands on the one the title flags: by preserving birthright citizenship, the Court, in his reading, left open a loophole that China can exploit through birth tourism, which is why Trump sarcastically congratulated Xi Jinping on the win. From there the conversation opens into his one organizing idea, that every grievance has a mechanism and that anger aimed at the wrong mechanism makes the problem worse, applied to court packing, JD Vance on refilling the oil economy, a Democratic Socialists of America primary win in Colorado, Zohran Mamdani's New York budget, and Florida moving to abolish property taxes on working homes. The back half turns to the Charlie Kirk forensic questions, the return of Anthropic's Claude model, and a detailed argument that the real geopolitical story is an AI arms race in which China uses model distillation and open source to erode the American industry propping up the economy. It ends on whether AI destroys more jobs than it creates, and Bilyeu's answer that it has always, so far, created more.
The docket: two wins, one massive loss
Bilyeu opens by laying out everything on the table. The Trump administration caught two wins and took a massive loss from the Supreme Court. Trump congratulated Xi Jinping, and Bilyeu promises the reason is both hilarious and deeply traumatizing. New data, he says, shows China may be stacking AI wins that should make Americans uneasy. JD Vance said something about the oil economy that is shocking and almost certainly true. The Democratic Socialists of America picked up another primary win, this time in Colorado. Mamdani claims socialists understand the economy so well they are fixing capitalist problems. Sergey Brin made an investing move Bilyeu reads as a vote of no confidence in New York City. And Claude, the model the crew calls Fable, is back after an export hold. He thanks the sponsor, the Plaud AI recorder, and gets to work.
Ruling one: transgender athletes and Title IX
On June 30 the Court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia requiring students to compete on teams matching their biological sex, ruling 6 to 3 that the bans violate neither Title IX nor the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Bilyeu notes the decision validates similar laws across 27 states, and that the majority leaned on competitive fairness and safety, which he thinks is wise. The three liberal justices dissented, arguing the bans swept too broadly by covering trans girls who never went through male puberty, an attempt to get specific about the physiological difference puberty blockers make. Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, put it bluntly that men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls even if they believe they are, which Bilyeu says is the first time the Court has stated the message that plainly.
Bilyeu's own move is to reframe the question. Before the country can debate whether a biological male who blocked puberty is athletically comparable to a trans girl who never did, he argues, it has to settle a prior question: whether children should be allowed to make an irreversible medical decision on the basis of self identification, given data he cites that gender dysphoria in the young often resolves over time if left untreated, with many such kids growing up to be homosexual rather than transgender. He compares it to underage drinking and to protecting children from predatory adults, cases where society is clear eyed about how kids get manipulated, whether by social contagion, by unintentional grooming from well meaning parents, or by parents using it as a status symbol. He grants the dissent may have a real biological point, since testosterone's effect on muscle mass and strength is large and well documented, but says that is a question of ought, not is, and it comes after the consent question. He stresses the ruling was kept narrow, applies only to school sports at the state level, and settles nothing about bathrooms, identity documents, or grade school teams. The Court, he underscores, did not say it must be this way, only that states may choose for themselves.
Ruling two: money flows back into politics
The second decision held it a violation of the First Amendment to stop political parties from raising money from wealthy donors and then coordinating that spending on a specific candidate. Bilyeu explains the setup: there are limits on how much one person can donate directly to a candidate, Citizens United opened a way around those limits, and this case was an attempt to tighten things back up by blocking a party from raising donor money and then applying it, with a wink and a nudge, to the exact candidate the donor wanted backed. That restriction has now been struck down. This is the ruling Bilyeu likes least. He says he understands money in politics as a genuine problem and would welcome anything that peels money out, because otherwise there is always outsized influence from people who can splash cash around. On this one, he concedes, he does not love the outcome.
Ruling three: birthright citizenship survives, and the backdoor opens
The third ruling, the massive loss, went against the administration. The Court, 5 to 4, struck down Trump's day one executive order denying citizenship to babies born in the United States to undocumented parents or parents on temporary visas. Bilyeu calls this a strong rebuttal to the claim that the Court merely rubber stamps Trump, since this was one of his signature issues from the first day of the presidency. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, grounding it in the Fourteenth Amendment and the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark precedent. Bilyeu flags what he finds interesting: he says the actual author of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically wrote that it did not apply to foreigners, and he reads the amendment as meant to address freed slaves born in the country who had not previously been recognized as citizens, not immigrants. He hedges that he does not remember the exact wording well enough, but finds it striking the Court set that history aside.
He plays a clip of Clarence Thomas from the dissent, arguing that progressivism seeks to replace the premises of the Declaration of Independence, holding that rights come not from God but from government, which demands of the people a subservience incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of rights. Bilyeu, an atheist, says he treats the divine origin of rights as potent mythology rather than literal fact, but mythology that works at the civilizational level, because a citizen who believes they are divinely created holds something that supersedes the state, and a government bent on confiscating the means of production cannot allow anything above itself. That, he says, is why socialists and communists are structurally godless, and why the culture war of the era comes down to one question: do we appeal to the state for everything, or keep the state as small as we can and turn to the individual.
The June 30 ruling
Vote
What it did
Bilyeu's read
Transgender athletes and Title IX
6 to 3
States may require students to compete on teams matching biological sex
A win he calls wise, though narrow and state level only
Party coordinated spending
6 to 3
Struck limits on parties raising donor money and coordinating it on a candidate
The one he dislikes, more money into politics
Birthright citizenship
5 to 4
Preserved birthright citizenship, struck Trump's executive order
The backdoor he says China can exploit
Figure 1. The three decisions that open the show. Bilyeu treats the first as a narrow win, the second as a loss for anyone who wants money out of politics, and the third as the one with a geopolitical tail, which is where the episode's title and its longest arguments come from.
Figure 2. The mechanism the title points at. Bilyeu argues that birthright citizenship, combined with organized birth tourism, lets an adversary manufacture citizens who spend almost none of their lives in the country yet return with full rights. He explicitly flags the one million estimate as unverified, but says the loophole existing at all is what needs to be addressed.
Trump congratulates Xi, and the mental map of malevolence
The dark comedy is Trump's own post: "I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win." Bilyeu reads it as gallows humor pointing at a real hole. Americans have been prosperous so long, he argues, that a large contingent never developed a mental map of malevolence, assuming no one will exploit an open system. He calls weakness a provocation, and cites Putin saying he probably would not have moved on Ukraine had Trump been in office, because he read the prior administration as weak. Nations, in his framing, expand as far as their internal moral compass and the violent resistance they meet will allow. Applied here, he says China runs organized birth tourism, setting up hotels in the US and its territories, flying people in to give birth, sending them back to China to be raised loyal, then, if useful, sending them back into the US as full citizens who spent effectively none of their lives there. He repeats the roughly one million estimate and repeats that he has not verified it.
The good news, he says, is that the 5 to 4 split means the ruling was far more divided than the 7 to 2 or 8 to 1 some expected, leaving room to bring people around on how such things get weaponized. His larger plea is honesty about intent: if the country wants an immigration policy, it should state plainly whom it wants to admit, rather than leaving a backdoor open through birthright citizenship. He and Drew work through whether an anchor baby pipeline is even the right's chief fear, and Bilyeu says the right may fear the simpler thing, a legal channel to flood the country with people whose values and upbringing are not American, plugged into a redistributive system. He is more paranoid, he admits, about governments using it, because he is keyed into the Cold War dynamic with China, a country strict on its own borders that would happily help a rival commit what he calls suicide. He drives the logic home with a rhetorical chain: the US sends spies abroad, adversaries send spies here, so of course adversaries scan American laws and regulations for what can be turned against the country, the way Kobe Bryant studied exactly where referees had to stand so he could exploit their movement.
The worldwide income tax fix
Bilyeu floats a remedy already on the books. As a US citizen living abroad, which he did in the United Kingdom before marrying, he had to pay tax on worldwide income no matter where he earned it, the American practice of citizenship based taxation, and the only escape is to renounce citizenship. Extend that to birthright citizens abroad, he argues, and each faces a real choice: pay US tax on worldwide income or renounce. Drew pushes back that the tax only bites on actual income, so an 11 year old raised in China would owe nothing and be exempt until adulthood, and that anyone rich enough to fly to the US to give birth is rich enough not to need a job. Bilyeu concedes the fix would not curb the whole problem but says it would still force harder decisions on a substantive number of people, since the alternative is the government endlessly supporting them. He grants he does not know that any of the million are working for the Chinese government, only that the loophole exists.
Does the Supreme Court need reform?
Ryan raises the calls to expand or pack the Court. Bilyeu finds it hilarious that people love the Court when it rules their way and want it dismantled when it does not. His test is structural: if you think the Court's design is genuinely flawed and you would want the change even with a bench full of justices you love, make the change and he will respect it. If you only dislike what these particular people said, you are building a weapon to use against your opponents, which is the wrong idea. The country's founding insight, he says, is that men clamor for power and will abuse it, so the experiment is freedom, letting states run different experiments, keeping three branches in constant tension, being terrified of a king. The right question is how to make that tension more effective so the system survives one branch getting ill, not how to turn a branch into a sharper weapon. He laments a presidency reduced to a never ending string of executive orders, a Congress that will not legislate common sense, and a Court that breaks predictably along party lines, and says Drew's point about the birthright ruling being unpredictable is actually healthy.
He would want checks even on himself. He invokes the anime Death Note, where the power to kill anyone never stops with the bad people, because people become bad simply for opposing you, and says the greatest danger of the human psyche is convincing yourself you are right. He does not trust himself with unchecked power, let alone humans at large.
Ryan then pushes the sharpest challenge of the hour: the show has spent days on immigration hypotheticals that take years to play out while ignoring inflation running at double the Federal Reserve's target, the housing problem, affordability, and the lack of a balanced budget anywhere in government. Is the show, Ryan asks, moving its own Overton window onto the wrong subject? Bilyeu partly agrees the economics matter more, but argues immigration will be the most important debate of the next decade precisely because it drives the economics, changing the values of a culture in ways that show up in the budget. He points to a wave of long term establishment Democrats being replaced by DSA members, names Mamdani the de facto face of the party, and says the incentive structure is unavoidable: immigrants come from struggling countries to a prosperous one and, he argues, vote for more free things, which mechanistically breaks what he calls the engine of prosperity. He allows only two economies have become behemoths through innovation, the US and China, and says immigration and assimilation, especially the integration of Muslim immigration into a formerly Christian society, are the two beats that make the topic the debate of the decade.
Along the way he defends admitting when you are wrong. Drew confesses he predicted birthright citizenship would be upheld for the administration and was surprised it went the other way, with two Republican appointees, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, breaking toward the liberal side. Bilyeu praises updating your model over performing apology tours, and says the only thing he wants to hear is what piece of information changed someone's map of cause and effect. He would rather be accurate than popular, even at real cost to his own business, and returns to his north star: a thriving middle class, because when the middle class gets wealthier in real terms, the country is at its best.
JD Vance and refilling the world's oil economy
The show plays a JD Vance clip in which Vance says the president told the administration to use the current window to refill the world's oil economy, refill some stocks, and then see where the hand is. Bilyeu is delighted that the administration "just says the thing." He recalls Marco Rubio once justifying a strike on Iran as beating Israel to it, then reads Vance as admitting the honest play: say vague things in the negotiating window and sign nothing that is not favorable. He thinks Trump is acting more desperate than the Iranians, and is careful not to let anyone remember the Strait of Hormuz was open before the attacks, but concedes that given the situation, the vague strategy is smart. He ties it to Trump's tweet demanding oil companies stop gouging and get prices under 70 dollars, and calls it the same top down economic control the right mocks when the left proposes it, invoking Kamala Harris's grocery price idea as the mirror image. Either you trust that a system with boundaries governs companies, he says, or you believe one president can outsmart global markets, and no one, not Trump and not Xi Jinping, who is meanwhile facing a housing crisis of his own making, is that smart. If you think a setup should be illegal, change the system and say plainly what you want banned, rather than publicly accusing companies of gouging, a move that will be leveraged against you the second you lose power.
Super chats: Roman parallels and what to do with 700,000 dollars
A donor asks for a deep dive on the Gracchi and on Gaius Marius and Sulla who followed, citing eerie parallels to Trump: a populist civil war against elites marking the death of the Roman Republic. Bilyeu says he worries anything touching the Roman Empire is so memed he would not be heard, but agrees to look. Another chat suggests a 10 to 50 year moratorium on migration from non allies to prevent anchor babies and a future Manchurian candidate; Bilyeu says the administration will certainly look for ways to stop people from reaching US soil, since the ruling only bites on those who make it here.
A 32 year old asks what to do with 700,000 dollars he inherited while spending 15 hours a day building AI apps he has not yet shipped. Bilyeu prefaces it heavily as not investment advice and says no one should take investing advice from him, then lays out the principles he uses: you cannot time the market, and getting the timing wrong is the same as being wrong, so he never uses leverage and fears debt. He keeps roughly three years of cash so any disruption can settle, but knows inflation is eating idle money, citing that 30 percent of purchasing power has been stolen by the government in six years, which forces him to invest even though he would rather save. He spreads across economic forces rather than concentrating, noting that AI accounts for something like 42 percent of all US stock market returns lately, which is exactly why he will not bet the timing of getting out, holding gold, Bitcoin, and commodities alongside tech to cap his downside over a 20 year horizon. Risk dollars, he says, he bets on himself, which is why he declines nearly every request to invest in others' companies and instead pours millions into his own studio Kaizen. His closing advice to the founder is blunt: ship, ship, ship, because he shipped two games before Kaizen, and the deadliest trap is the ever developing, never shipping loop where you never learn whether you have a product problem or a positioning problem.
Colorado: a DSA win and abolishing ICE
In Colorado, a Democratic Socialists of America challenger, whom the hosts call Curos and who was backed by Hasan Piker, defeated 15 term incumbent Diana DeGette in the Democratic primary. The show plays a clip in which the challenger calls abolishing ICE just one step and demands an immediate pathway to citizenship for every undocumented immigrant already in the country, without fees or decades of process. Bilyeu calls the leftward energy demoralizing, especially because the causes seem obvious, and says he only stays sane because he has a rule never to stand still. Drew reframes it as less a DSA wave than exhaustion with stale politics, the mirror of the earlier MAGA wave that replaced traditional Republicans, and argues for term limits, since a member who serves 15 terms while their state does not prosper will eventually be thrown out.
Bilyeu answers with his leaking boat metaphor. Imagine everyone bailing water with different buckets while someone insists the fix is to seize the big buckets from the wealthy to bail faster. He wants to know who is down in the hull drilling the holes, and says the people you are bringing aboard are increasingly the ones drilling more of them. He names the drillers concretely: the politicians of both parties who vote for deficit spending, and the central banking system that lets government deficit spend and tax citizens invisibly through inflation. To know how much you are taxed, he says, look at how much the government spends, because that is the tax. DSA policy, in his reading, drills more holes: rent freezes turn buildings, which are businesses, unprofitable, and Mamdani has said unprofitable buildings could be handed to tenants outright. He cites Sergey Brin, the world's third wealthiest person, selling his stake in a New York City housing development for six cents on the dollar just to get out, and argues the only real fix for housing is supply and demand: raise demand by importing people while holding or cutting supply and prices cannot fall. He points to the Bronx of the 1970s, where owners burned their own buildings for the insurance because rent control made upkeep impossible, until the city escaped only by deregulating and spurring construction. Sugar in the engine, he says, never makes it run better even once.
Mamdani's budget: transparency, then a house of cards
Ryan notes Bilyeu is researching Mamdani's New York budget, and Bilyeu insists on being even handed because Mamdani provokes his strongest emotions. He grants several points in Mamdani's favor. New York is legally required to balance its budget, so balancing it is nothing unique, as Eric Adams and Bill de Blasio did before him. Mamdani brought real transparency, where Adams had hidden budget shortfalls through technically legal means, and Bilyeu applauds that without reservation. The spending increase so far is a few billion against a roughly 125 billion dollar budget, not crazy, and the original 12 billion shortfall was flagged under Adams and flows from decades of one party rule, not from Mamdani. His signature policies, free buses and city grocery stores, are not yet in the budget, though a modest daycare item is.
Then the warning. When Mamdani presented a preliminary budget in February, the city took a credit rating hit because his proposals ate into cushions and touched pension funds that rating agencies treat as no go zones. He backed off after Moody's and others objected, which Bilyeu reads charitably as a politician putting his hand on the stove, getting burned, and pulling it back. The deeper concern is method: Mamdani is using one time payments, deferrals, and non recurring windfalls to close the gap while making the budget bigger and not yet funding his signature policies, so this year's results will not be visible until this time next year. Because balancing is legally mandatory, it will happen, but the question is whether he is building a widening structural gap that eventually forces austerity. He is also counting on extracting more tax from the wealthy even as Ken Griffin talks about leaving and Apollo Global Management builds a second flagship headquarters, not a satellite, in another state, all of which weakens the tax base. Bilyeu calls it a house of cards because it counts on the good times continuing, and contrasts it with a more robust process he sees in Florida.
Lever
New York under Mamdani and the DSA
Florida
Budget direction
Grows the budget, closes gaps with one time payments and deferrals
Reduces the budget and limits the scope of government
Tax burden
Counts on extracting more from the wealthy who are already leaving
Lightens the tax burden to attract business and growth
Housing approach
Rent freezes, threat to hand unprofitable buildings to tenants
Move to abolish property tax on homes valued 250,000 dollars and under
Investor signal
Sergey Brin sells at six cents on the dollar; others eye the exit
Apollo builds a second flagship headquarters, capital pours in
Bilyeu's projected outcome
A widening structural gap that eventually forces austerity
The growth flywheel he says a thriving middle class needs
Figure 3. Bilyeu's side by side. He credits Mamdani for transparency and says the current increase is modest, but argues the method, one time fixes plus a growing budget while the tax base thins, is structurally fragile next to Florida cutting spending and lightening taxes to pull in the investment that funds real growth.
He promises to revisit Mamdani in six to twelve months, and frames the stakes plainly: Mamdani is fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party and will terraform people intellectually, which Bilyeu says he will combat with everything he has unless Mamdani starts championing what actually helps a thriving middle class, in which case Bilyeu will embrace him, because he only cares about the ideas.
Florida abolishes property tax on working homes
Ryan reports the Florida legislature has put on the November 2026 ballot a measure exempting the first 250,000 dollars of a home's value from property tax, which, if it clears a 60 percent vote, would abolish property taxes on homes valued at 250,000 dollars and below. Bilyeu loves it precisely because it targets the working class rather than mansions, the average person trying to get into a first home. But he pairs the praise with a caution he says he has banged the drum on harder than anyone: houses became an inflation asset people chase at all costs, and a home price that doubles and triples in a decade is actually bad for the middle class. He wants home prices to merely track inflation, so a house is a place to raise a family and park money into upkeep, worth improving, rather than a speculative asset. Build, build, build, he says, and break the belief that the number just needs to go up forever.
Tinfoil hats: the Charlie Kirk forensic questions
Bilyeu turns to what he calls his favorite segment and revisits the Charlie Kirk assassination, stressing every claim is alleged. A text thread involving the father of the accused, Tyler Robinson, purportedly says Robinson told his father he did not kill Kirk, that his parents did not believe he did, and that when they called their bishop and a retired sheriff drove them on the afternoon of September 11, it was out of fear for his safety rather than a confession, contradicting the earlier narrative that the parents recognized him and turned him in. Bilyeu says the text reads like a diary written to be read, the same feeling he had about Robinson's supposed messages to a partner, which struck him as contextual clues only a bad screenwriter would insert. He is wary of being pulled into a narrative battle rather than the truth, but says he has no trouble believing things are not as presented, and wants it settled in court.
The forensic handling bothers him more. He says the location where Kirk bled was, within roughly 36 hours, cemented over, when it should have been tented off, guarded around the clock, and preserved so independent analysts could review bloodstain pattern trajectory, the sort of thing Dexter and every season of CSI taught the public to expect. The black SUV that transported Kirk was sold about a month later with the carpet and seats stripped. An autopsy was done, but he doubts it was filmed for others to review, and he says the vehicle sits in impound less carefully handled than a parking ticket case. He wants chain of custody mapped to the ends of the earth and multiple observers at the autopsy, and argues that cementing over the scene guarantees people will read it as a cover up, the way the JFK assassination became a permanent conspiracy magnet.
The most speculative thread is that new forensic reports allegedly say Kirk's microphone exploded, evoking the 2024 Lebanon device attacks that put explosives in pagers. Bilyeu urges putting the idea forward openly rather than sheepishly: the pager attacks proved small electronics can be weaponized, there was talk of Kirk pulling away from Israel, and the footage shows what he first read as a necklace, then the microphone, jumping off Kirk's chest in a way he found weird. He allows it may simply be the bullet moving air, and Press, the new COO whose first on air answer is whether the Jews killed Charlie, declines the conspiracy but says the whole thing strikes him as abnormal and handled with less care than a traffic infraction. A crew member who has used squibs in production says his first thought, before any conspiracy, was that it looked like a squib. Bilyeu's own posture is that he does not normally go in for conspiracy but the mishandling itself manufactures suspicion, and at least cameras will be allowed in the courtroom, with jury selection and preliminary hearings set for July 6 to 10, so the public can watch it unfold.
Fable is back: the AI arms race, distillation, and regulatory capture
The crew celebrates that Anthropic's Claude, which they call Fable, is back after being held under export restrictions while the government wanted first crack over security and bad actor concerns. Bilyeu calls it a net win for AI, well timed given a shaky stock price and reports of OpenAI backing off an IPO. He praises David Sacks as a good proponent of innovation over regulating AI into oblivion, in contrast with what Bernie Sanders says, and criticizes the administration for coming in with a hammer on Claude, telling the company it would have to run things by the government. That, he says, feeds regulatory capture, the mechanism people should aim specific anger at rather than diffuse resentment of the billionaire class. Companies must be allowed to fail if they make bad decisions, full stop. He grants the lightest possible touch for genuine security cases, such as a model that can crack known databases, but rejects Dario Amodei's framing that the technology is so dangerous it needs heavy regulation and that open source should be blocked, which is both impossible and self defeating, since open source is the one thing regulation cannot stop while it strangles the domestic startups that would create competition. He argues both OpenAI and Anthropic want regulatory capture, and cites an OpenAI CFO signaling that taxpayers should be ready to backstop the company's loans, a remark she later walked back but which Bilyeu believes she meant.
Then the core geopolitical argument, delivered as a new chapter. Xi Jinping understands the US economy is on fragile ground because the AI infrastructure buildout may be the most expensive infrastructure humanity has ever taken on in inflation adjusted terms, financed with enormous debt, while a large share of the stock market hinges on AI growth. Denied advanced chips, China cannot compete head to head on frontier models, so it looks for a kill shot, and finds it in open source powered by distillation. Bilyeu says it has been documented to the White House and Congress that China created tens of thousands of fake accounts running tens of millions of queries against Claude and ChatGPT, then used those millions of responses to cheaply train models that approximate the originals. Every company distills its own models, he notes, but doing it against a competitor should, in his view, be illegal. The result is cheap, capable open source models like DeepSeek and Moonshot released into the US market, and companies like Airbnb and Coinbase already switching because US AI is so expensive, with Uber said to have burned its entire annual AI allocation by April. When an open source model within a few points on the benchmarks turns a 100 million dollar expense into a 5 million dollar one, of course firms switch. That, he says, puts the government in the awkward position of having to defend a systemically important industry, tied to debt distribution and echoes of the 2008 playbook, without creating the very regulatory capture that history shows leads to calcified, worse products. AI, he warns, could be winner take all, so the country cannot afford to get this wrong.
Figure 4. The distillation loop as Bilyeu describes it, which he says has been presented to the White House and Congress. China queries US frontier models at massive scale, distills cheap near clones, and floods them into the US as open source, undercutting the revenue that, in his telling, holds up an AI heavy stock market and, with it, the broader economy.
BYD as the template
Drew offers BYD as the closest comparison. The car industry, he argues, is already regulatory capture: four big manufacturers, hard to start a new company, and BYD barred from operating in the US. Is AI heading for the same, four firms, no new open source large language model allowed, foreign models forced through loopholes and higher tariffs so a DeepSeek subscription costs 30 dollars against OpenAI's 20. Bilyeu says such requests will certainly be put forward, and draws a careful distinction. Keeping BYD out was smart, bad for the consumer's wallet but good for the middle class, because a country must remain a manufacturing hub, if only so that in a kinetic conflict it could convert, on a dime, everyone making Teslas into makers of drones, exactly as America converted industry to win World War II. He cites Elon Musk hitting absurd regulatory walls entering car manufacturing and Palantir being iced out of early government contracts by how bids were structured, arguing it takes rare, wealthy, indomitable entrepreneurs to break through capture. The rule he draws is to distinguish barriers that stop internal competition, which are bad, from barriers that stop external competition, which can protect a strategic manufacturing base. He mocks the belief that the 1950s boom came from a 91 percent top tax bracket, and says AI is best understood, on top of all this, as an arms race the country must win, because no one wants a world where a rival AI power dictates terms, and every nation will have to align with a major AI maker or defend itself alone against cyber warfare.
Ford rehires human engineers
Ryan brings up Ford rehiring human engineers after its AI failed quality checks. Ford had deployed AI and cameras to run safety checks on the production line, then had to bring back some hundreds of engineers, estimates ranging from about 300 upward, to do manual checks because the AI was missing defects and quality standards were not being met. Bilyeu calls this a smart way to run a company, the Elon Musk approach of cutting hard and rehiring whoever turns out to be needed, because organizations bloat unintentionally. He warns people are getting out over their skis on AI, a lesson he had to internalize at his own studio: use AI for what it is currently good at, do not force it onto what it is currently bad at, and do not, as he says Amazon did, rank employees by how much AI they use, a metric that only invites gaming. Cutting people who turn out to be necessary is not a moral failure but an experiment, he argues, as long as you rehire when the return does not materialize, accepting that some talent will walk and have to be replaced from elsewhere.
Does AI create more jobs than it destroys?
The closing question, teed up from a David Sacks post, is whether AI will destroy more jobs than it creates. Every truly transformative technology, Bilyeu says, has ended up creating more jobs than it destroyed, which is cold comfort to the individual who spent a life mastering a craft only to be made irrelevant, the way the power loom erased the hand weaver, and no promise of passive income replaces the meaning and purpose that vanish with the work. The speed of this change will be scary and he sees no way to ease that burden. But the other side is that it creates jobs no one could have imagined: he gestures at the six people in the room making a living off YouTube, work that simply did not exist 20 years ago.
He cites Sacks's data that the companies deploying the most AI end up hiring the most new people, slowly at first, then faster as they discover where the real efficiencies are and lean into them. The lesson he draws from his own companies, Quest and Impact Theory, is an obsession with being lean: throwing people at an inefficient system solves the short term problem but moves you backward long term. His current model is to hire only when he can point to a specific cell in a spreadsheet showing pent up revenue that a new person will unlock at three times their salary, whether they generate it directly or free someone else to. Doing that shrank his team and his expenses while raising top line revenue and profit, which he calls mechanistically wild. He contrasts it with the Japanese model of lifetime employment, which he says produced catastrophic stagnation and zombie companies kept alive by cheap loans, and calls that path the death of the American experiment. The American trade off, everyone singing for their supper daily including the CEO who alone has no guarantee of being paid in ten years, is harsh but far better, because a dynamic economy lets anyone leave for a better offer. He notes Amazon's AI usage leaderboard backfired almost immediately as employees gamed it with a practice he calls token maxing, then turns the same logic on immigration: you cannot bring in unlimited migrants because a system of benefits will be maxed by some share of them, and it does not take many to start draining it.
Closing super chats: rights, empires, and a solid state battery
An atheist donor argues rights come not from God or government but are a prior human construct, citing libertarianism and natural law. Bilyeu agrees rights only ever come from narrative, and says when he speaks of rights coming from God he is signaling the founding narrative that has served America well, not a literal bearded man in the sky, which leads to a tangent on whether Christians, judging by their art, actually picture God that way, and on why Jordan Peterson refuses to be pinned down on God's existence, saying instead that he acts as if God exists. Another donor notes the fatalists who cite the end of the Roman Republic forget the Roman Empire followed it, and wonders whether an American empire may follow too. Bilyeu ties every empire's fall to a single misunderstanding of the nature of prosperity: societies start hard and Spartan, balancing budgets and defending themselves, then grow so prosperous that people forget it was ever hard, detach from the discipline that built it, and start voting as if the wealth simply appeared and only needs redistributing. He riffs that life is an open world survival crafting game where everything tries to take your resources, that the beautiful luxuries of a prosperous society, like teaching children music, which he once did, are only possible because of the hardcore work beneath them, and that people must be taught to vote for the discipline that sustains them.
The final chats: a fan asks what it takes to get Bilyeu on their show, and he answers with brutal honesty that he averages 93 hours of work a week over the past decade and can only say yes to shows around his size or bigger, the same game he had to play interviewing obscure guests in his early days. And a returning viewer asks whether the show covered Toyota's new solid state battery offering an 1,100 mile range and a five minute recharge with no fire risk; Bilyeu did not know it existed and thanks the viewer for the education. He signs off to go watch a World Cup match, promises a new intro Friday about why he thinks America is dope and a shout out to foreign born Americans who share his value system, plugs the Plaud recorder and a free AI company building masterclass, and the stream cuts out as Congo scores.
Key takeaways
The Court closed its June 30 term with three decisions: it let states bar trans athletes from girls' sports under Title IX (6 to 3), struck limits on party coordinated spending as a First Amendment violation (6 to 3), and preserved birthright citizenship against Trump's executive order (5 to 4).
Bilyeu's headline worry is that preserving birthright citizenship leaves a backdoor for China through organized birth tourism, which is why Trump sarcastically congratulated Xi Jinping. He repeatedly flags the one million estimate as unverified.
His proposed fix reuses existing law: apply citizenship based taxation on worldwide income to birthright citizens abroad, forcing a choice between paying or renouncing, though he concedes it would not catch those without income.
On court reform he separates fixing a genuine structural flaw, which he respects, from packing the Court as a weapon because you dislike a ruling, which he rejects, and defends tension between the three branches over turning any one into a sharper weapon.
His running economic frame is mechanistic: rent freezes create shortages, deficit spending plus central banking taxes citizens invisibly through inflation, and the fix for housing is supply and demand, illustrated by the 1970s Bronx and by Sergey Brin exiting a New York project at six cents on the dollar.
He gives Mamdani real credit for budget transparency but argues the method, one time fixes and a growing budget against a thinning tax base, is a house of cards next to Florida cutting spending and moving to abolish property tax on homes 250,000 dollars and under.
The deepest segment argues the true story is an AI arms race in which China uses model distillation and open source to erode the US industry propping up the economy, and that defending it without creating regulatory capture is the hard problem.
On jobs, he holds that transformative technology has always created more jobs than it destroyed, cold comfort to the displaced, and preaches lean hiring tied to unlockable revenue over the stagnation of Japan's lifetime employment.
Chapters
0:00:00 Intro and the day's docket
0:01:50 The Supreme Court rulings
0:02:01 Ruling one: transgender athletes and Title IX
0:07:00 Ruling two: money back in politics
0:09:07 Ruling three: birthright citizenship preserved
0:17:52 Why Trump congratulated Xi, and the worldwide income fix
0:36:00 Does the Supreme Court need reform, and the Overton window exchange
0:46:56 JD Vance on refilling the world's oil economy
1:00:37 The DSA wins Colorado, and abolishing ICE
1:09:12 Mamdani's New York budget
1:19:33 Florida moves to abolish property taxes
1:21:38 Tinfoil hats: the Charlie Kirk forensic questions
1:33:51 Fable is back: AI, distillation, and regulatory capture
1:46:24 Ford rehires human engineers
1:48:01 Does AI create more jobs than it destroys
Notable quotes
"I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win." Donald Trump, read on air at 0:17:52
"Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls even if they believe that they are." Clarence Thomas, quoted at 0:04:00
"There's a real reason why socialists and communists are always going to be literally godless, in that when you have that sense that the individual is divinely created, you run into something that supersedes the government." Tom Bilyeu, 0:11:00
"Weakness is a provocation. There is a type of person out there that if they see that you are weak, they're going to make a move." Tom Bilyeu, 0:18:30
"The greatest danger of the human psyche is you convince yourself that you're right." Tom Bilyeu, 0:44:30
"Have you gone down to the hole and seen who's drilling the holes that's allowing the water to come in?" Tom Bilyeu, 1:04:00
"To know how much you're being taxed, just look at how much the government is spending. That's how much you're being taxed." Tom Bilyeu, 1:07:30
"Xi Jinping is hyper aware that our ability to charge for AI right now is holding up the economy, and so he'll flood the market." Tom Bilyeu, 1:37:00
"You can turn a hundred million dollar expense into a five million dollar expense. You'd be insane not to." Tom Bilyeu, 1:42:00
"Every empire ever fails because of a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of prosperity." Tom Bilyeu, 1:52:00
It is worth separating what is established from what is Bilyeu's projection and opinion, because the show mixes them freely and by design.
The settled parts: the Supreme Court really did decide these three questions at the end of its term, and birthright citizenship really is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark precedent. Birth tourism is a real and documented phenomenon. The United States really does tax worldwide income of its citizens abroad, one of the few countries that does. Rent control and the 1970s Bronx fires are a real case study economists cite. Knowledge distillation is a genuine technique, and cheaper open source models such as DeepSeek have measurably pressured the pricing of US frontier labs.
The contested parts are where most of the runtime lives, and they are Bilyeu's analysis rather than reported fact. The one million figure for future China loyal citizens is one he explicitly says he has not verified. His claim that the Fourteenth Amendment's author wrote it plainly excludes foreigners is a reading he hedges on remembering correctly, and the legal history is more disputed than he presents. The account of China running tens of thousands of fake accounts and tens of millions of queries to distill US models, and that this was documented to the White House and Congress, is presented on air without a citation; distillation and competitive pressure from Chinese open models are real, but the specific espionage narrative is his framing. His numbers, that AI is 42 percent of US stock market returns, that 30 percent of purchasing power was lost in six years, that 70 percent of the wealthy are self made, are figures he cites from memory and each depends on how the terms are defined. His reading of Mamdani's budget as a house of cards is a projection about a fiscal year whose results, he himself notes, will not be visible until a year out. And the Charlie Kirk forensic thread is a mix of alleged text messages and speculation that he repeatedly labels as such, floated because he finds the handling abnormal rather than because he has evidence of a specific crime.
The through line worth keeping is the idea he states most often: grievances are real, anger about the economy is justified, and the useful move is to find the actual mechanism rather than the emotionally satisfying villain. Whether or not you share his politics, that is the frame he is inviting you to argue with, and the honest way to engage the episode is to test each mechanism he names against the evidence rather than against the vibe.
Full transcript
======================================== Good morning everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Tom Billy Show live. Oh boy, we're live today boys and girls. There is plenty going on. The Trump administration catches a couple wins and a massive loss from the Supreme Court. Trump congratulates Xiinping, but wait until you hear what for. It is both hilarious and deeply traumatizing. New data shows Xi and China may also be stacking AI winds that should make Americans deeply uneasy. That one. It really is a problem. It's Gallow's humor, boys and girls. JD Vance said something about theou that is both shocking and almost certainly true. We're going to be diving into that. The Democratic Socialist of America picked up another primary win in Colorado. And wait until you hear her thoughts on 9/11 and immigration. Mom Donnie claims that socialists understand the economy so well, they're fixing capitalist problems. That'll be fun to debate with Drew. Sergey Brin just made an investing move that serves as a vote of no confidence in New York City. Obviously tied to mom Donnie. We're going to get into that. And Claude Fable is back. We're back. And we've got more proof that AI is creating more jobs than it's destroying. That'll be fascinating. All right. Shout out to Plow. Plow is incredible AI technology that you can slap on the back of your phone. It records what's going on in your life. lets you know exactly what you said you were going to do. Uh, it's really incredible technology. It's one of the best ways you guys could be using AI in your life. And you can get 10% off with code impact at ploud.ai/impact. And that's plug.ai. All right, Drew. It's been some type of day, guys, because on June 30th, the Supreme Court closed out its term with two six-3 rulings on opposite ends of the culture war. As I choked to death, uh, apparently over transgender athletes, here we go. The court upheld laws in Idaho and West Virginia requiring students to compete on teams matching their biological sex. The justices ruled that those bans do not violate either Title 9 or the Constitution's equal protection clause. The decision validates similar laws across 27 states. The majority leaned in on competitive fairness and safety, which I think is very wise. The three liberal justices, as you would imagine, they dissented, and I really do despise how often things break along party lines, but hey, we are where we are. Uh the argument of the dissenting liberal justices was that the ban swept too broadly by covering trans girls who never went through male puberty. So trying to get very specific about the different um physiological impacts of whether you've had puberty blockers or not, which by the way, puberty blockers, holy Jesus. Uh that one is bad news bears, but we can debate that later. Clarence Thomas uh put it pretty bluntly in the majority opinion when he said men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls even if they believe that they are. Uh and so this is the first time that we're really hearing that message be put out um by the court. So I think it's pretty interesting and certainly brings the debate that's going around culture to a head and I think that's where a lot of this debate is going to live. To me, the thing that is um a big part of what's going to need to be debated is where that collision between the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion lie, where you've got one side that's saying, "Listen, biological reality has to be addressed." and you've got the other side trying to um have the debate at a similar biological level, but they're saying the very things that you're worried about protecting against um are you're not being um realistic about the difference in biology of somebody that went through puberty and only then transitions later versus somebody that has not gone through puberty yet. Uh full stop. Now, that I think needs to be circled for a totally different reason, which is should we be allowing people to use puberty blockers um based on self-identification as being transgender, which is something that the data indicates will change over time if left quote unquote untreated. So, I don't think that we're going to be able to get to the point where we have a debate about, okay, what does it really mean? If you've taken puberty blockers, you've never gone through puberty in terms of the biological differences uh until we first have the debate of whether or not we should even be allowing children to make that decision for themselves. Because remember, even a parent who's going to bat for their kid is going to bat for their kid on the back of that child, being able to accurately uh identify that they really do have um a what has historically been a hyper rare condition. Um, and that the more likely just numerically uh is that they're getting caught up in a psychological contagion that will pass over time. Uh, so often I forget what the exact stats are, but so often what ends up happening to kids that are claiming gender dysphoria when they're young, uh, if they don't end up encountering puberty blockers, they go on to be oftentimes homosexual. And so, um, whether we want kids to be able to make that determination for themselves before they go through puberty, I think is the real question. Uh, and for me, the answer there is obviously not. For the same reason that we wouldn't let a kid drink when they're underage because we don't think that they'll make the right decisions. The same reason that we protect kids from um being sexually prayed upon by older people because there's an intellectual uh power dynamic at play. somebody that's older is just more able to manipulate kids. And so in all these other areas, we're very cleareyed about how kids end up getting manipulated, but somehow on this one, we are not. And whether that's manipulated by their friends and the social contagion is something that's very well doumented or they're being groomed unintentionally even by well-meaning parents or um they're being um manipulated by parents that aren't well-intentioned that are using it as a status symbol. So there's all kinds of things there that I think are going to have to be adjudicated uh before we get to what the dissenting opinion is trying to cover. Uh because there may really be something there. there there almost certainly is a profound biological difference in terms of muscle mass and things like that between somebody that took puberty blockers and somebody that didn't. Um testosterone as a hormone in terms of its uh impacts on strength are are pretty well documented. They are very [clears throat] large. So yeah, I would not expect that to come up with oh well there's really no difference and it's the same. a biological male that blocks puberty is going to be very different than a biological male that actually goes through puberty normally. Um so that one becomes a question of ought I think more than I'm spending our time right now getting into the debate of is on the biology there. All right. Uh ultimately the court kept it narrow. The ruling applies to school sports. Also this is at a state level. Let's keep that in mind. That's something that often gets missed in these rulings um by the Supreme Court is um they're not saying it must be this way. They are saying that the states have the ability to choose for themselves. Um so it does not settle bathrooms, ID documents or grade uh school teams. So keep that in mind. All right. The second issue that the Supreme Court has ruled on is money in politics. And the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the first amendment to stop political parties from raising money from wealthy donors and then coordinating that spend on a specific candidate. So we know that there are limits on the amount that one person can donate directly to a candidate. uh Citizens United gave people a way around that and then they were trying to tighten this even further by limiting the party's ability to go and raise money from donors and then apply it with like sort of the wink wink nudge nudge of like I'm giving you this money not generally for you to dedicate this to whoever you want but I want you to be applying this to the very specific candidate that I want to see get backed. Uh and so that has ended up passing. And this one gets big lamentations for me as uh when people are lamenting um the billionaire class as they will call it. I certainly understand money and politics being a wild problem. And so anything that we can do to begin to uh peel money out of politics, I think is going to be a very good thing. Otherwise, there's always going to be outsiz influence from people uh that can um splash money around. So, yeah, this one I don't love, but it is what it is. Uh and then third, this one has the right just an absolute apoplelectic fit is birthright citizenship. Here, the court went against the Trump administration. And so I think is a pretty big um knock against people who say that the Supreme Court is just rubber stamping everything that Trump is doing. This is one of Trump's signature issues. This is something that he was on from day one of his presidency with an executive order that this essentially strikes that down. Um and that his order was trying to deny citizenship to babies that are born in the US to undocumented parents or on temporary visas. and Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He grounded it in the 14th amendment and the 1898 Wong Kim Arc president uh and the three conservative justices dissented. Now, this one is um this one gets interesting at the level of the dissenting opinion. But one thing that uh we're going to play a clip from Clarence Thomas in a second, but one thing that I thought was pretty interesting is people that are talking about the 14th Amendment, the actual author of the 14th Amendment specifically wrote um that this did not apply to foreigners, which is pretty wild that that's being ignored as people then um talk about this applying to the 14th Amendment. So um that was pretty interesting. I think it's pretty clear that the 14th amendment was meant to address slaves that were born here but had previously not been recognized as citizens. Uh and so now when the author of that is telling you, hey, this is not meant to apply to foreigners. I think he even says something like obviously this isn't meant to apply to foreigners, though that could be commentary on my part. I don't remember it clearly enough. Um so that's pretty interesting that the court is ignoring that. All right. I think Clarence Thomas summed it up pretty well. Uh so let's play his uh clip here from the dissenting voice.
>> Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God but from government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights. [snorts]
>> Okay. What I found interesting here, and I don't think this is going to be an immediate leap that a lot of people are going to make, but what I like about what he's bringing up is this idea. We've talked a lot about it on the show here. So I am not Christian but I am grateful to live in a nation that has been shaped by the idea that every human being is holds a spark of divinity within themselves that they are created in the image of God. Now I don't believe any of that. I think it's mythology but I think it's incredibly potent mythology that plays out very well at the civilizational level. And along with that there there's a real dividing line. There's a real reason why socialists and communists are always going to be literally godless. in that when you have that that sense that the individual is divinely created, you run into something that supersedes the government. And when you're going to be in the game of confiscating the means of production, confiscating people's wealth, you can't have anything above the state. And what we're watching play out right now, and it's going to be one of the most like important. You want to talk about culture wars. This one is the culture war to end all culture wars, which is should we be appealing to the state for everything, or should we be turning to the individual and then keeping the state as small as we can? So, are we playing a game of freedom and liberty, the very things that the country was founded on, the very things that our forefathers fought and died for? Is this a game of freedom anymore? or are we saying no no no no we need the state to step in and take care of everything. And so for him to really point at um we need to be very very careful because the thing that is driving people to vote for birthright citizenship is this idea that anybody anywhere has a right to come to the richest nation in the world with this total blind uh complete lack of awareness of how we became the wealthiest country on earth. because we certainly did not become the wealthiest country on earth by um socialist means of trying to spread the wealth to everybody to make sure that the outcomes are all identical. It doesn't work. I get the deep sense of compassion. I get why people want that. The problem is that as you begin to scale that up, it doesn't scale. It becomes the most murderous um ideology the world has ever seen because of the way that you have to force people to give things up. Because of the way that you have to go forcibly take things away from people and that the vast majority of people even in America even right now remember 70% of wealthy people including billionaires are self-made. So, I know that we have some delusional view that the way that people get wealthy is just it's just been passed on forever from time in memorial and that is somehow just a big echo of slavery. And all of that is just at odds with the facts of how people are actually getting wealthy right now today. And so understanding how wealth is created becomes this incredibly important thing where people have to be able to track that through line of cause and effect to understand what's going on to understand how you break that mechanism. the actual engine of prosperity, how it is broken by saying things like any immigrant anywhere should be able to come here, that borders don't make any sense. And I know people are going to say that nobody's saying that, but check out your DSA candidates that uh are in fact saying these things out loud. The one that just won in Colorado, the primary there, um she has said there needs to be a fast track for every immigrant in this country, whether or not they are undocumented to become citizens. Fasttrack. So, um, yeah, these definitely that ideology is about you have this country, it's so wealthy, the government should be collecting all of that in taxes and then spreading it to people um whether or not they were born here and that we should be making this as easy as possible for people to come here and become citizens. It is so blind to how wealth is actually created. It is completely wild. And I know that this has been repeated so often that it becomes a cliche, but Margaret Thatcher was right when she said that the problem with socialism is that you run out of other people's money. Take the tongue-in-cheek comment out of it. And just think about the reality of that. The reason that this will so often get voted into power in a country is that as you become prosperous, you start thinking, yeah, why do some people struggle when we have so much? And so you start redistributing the wealth, which then disincentivizes people from taking the risk, working hard, trying to get ahead. And so then ultimately you actually do run out of that money. And then you have to rely on whether it's handouts from other countries, whether it is money printing and devaluing your own currency, you end up having to desperately grasp at straws just to keep things going. And so you look at Cuba. Cuba becomes just a basically protectorate of Russia. Russia is leveraging their assistance with them to basically have a stalwart here right off the coast of America. And now Cuba is trapped in this never- ending cycle of never being able to get out of grinding poverty. And people act like, "Oh, this is just because the US is meddling in their affairs." So this is where not being able to map exactly how we end up with prosperity becomes a problem. There's the famous Thomas Soul quote. I'm going to paraphrase it here, which is socialists are extremely interested in how to redistribute wealth, but they never seem to show any curiosity for how wealth is created in the first place. And so that's why I love what Thomas um Clarence Thomas is saying in this by making sure that people as they think through the issue of birthright citizenship that they're not only thinking about the other side of this which we'll get to in a second about um the way that this ultimately is going to be abused by your adversaries, China being chief among them. But um getting people to understand that the engine of prosperity requires you to put up borders, keep government small, as small as humanly possible, and not to have this desire to just grow and grow and grow and confiscate and disincentivize uh and ensure that you have the equal outcomes, which is precisely how you break the engine of prosperity. So I thought that was fascinating. I was very surprised to hear him say that. Okay. Now, the other side of this is what I was just talking about, that this will be weaponized against you by your enemies. And this is where Trump uh in very Trumpian style sent out a congratulations to Xi. I don't know if we can pull that uh tweet up here quickly, but it is funny and horrendous all at the same time. So, here it is. All right. I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win, President Donald J. Trump. So, uh, yeah, listen, it is utterly fascinating to me that Americans, we have been prosperous for so long that there is a large contingent of people that no longer a large contingent of people who have never developed a mental map of malevolence. And they seem to think that nobody will ever take advantage of this system, that uh it's perfectly fine to get rid of borders, immigration, prisons. It's absolutely wild as if there aren't people who in full understanding of what they're doing are simply going to take advantage of that weakness. This is why people will say that weakness is a provocation. What they mean by that is there is a type of person out there that if they see that you are weak, they're going to make a move. This is exactly why Putin said, "If Trump had been in office, I probably wouldn't have moved on um Ukraine." He saw the weakness of the Biden administration, was like, "All right, cool. I can get away with this here." Um, I really do believe that nations will be as um expansionary as their own internal moral compass will allow them and the level of violent resistance that they meet as they try to expand. And so if you take that as being just a human propensity, then you'll understand like the extensive fraud that we're beginning to see in America because people see things like COVID as a moment to go, "Oh, the government is lowering their defenses. Awesome. I'm going to go take advantage of that." And so you're going to see more and more and more of this from people like Xi where you've got some ungodly number of companies companies in China that actually do this birth um birth tourism where they're setting up hotels in the US and US territories, getting people to come here, have the baby, then they send them back to China where they're going to be raised uh to be loyal to China. and then should they so decide, send them back into the US where they will have um spent effectively none of their life in the US but roll up with all of the rights of a citizen. People are estimating the numbers at about a million uh people that will grow up as Chinese citizens but be able to come back here to the US. I haven't verified that number, so uh take that for what it's worth. We'll see um over time what that number actually ends up being able to be verified at. But just that that loophole has been created, I would say is something that we're going to want to address. Now, the good news about the ruling is it was a 54 decision, which means that um the people who thought it was going to be 72 or even 81, uh that that didn't end up being the case, that the um court is far more divided on this. Uh and so hopefully over time we can bring people's eye back around to um how these kinds of things will be weaponized against the US. If we want to have a um immigration policy, let's just state what we want the immigration policy to be. These are the people that we want to see come into the country. And if what people want to see is just anybody and everybody, make them state that out loud so people at least know what they're voting for. But having this backdoor via birthright citizenship is pretty crazy. Now, there's one way that I think that we could deal with this that would be very [snorts] in keeping with laws that are actually already on the books. Uh you guys may or may not know this, but as a US citizen, I know firsthand because I live through this. If as a US citizen you are living in another country, as I was living in the UK when I was um on the way to getting married to Lisa, you have to pay tax on worldwide income. Whether or not you're working for a US company doesn't matter. No matter where you're at in the world, you're going to pay tax presumably in that country and you're going to pay tax back in the US as a citizen of the US. And so the only way to stop that is to reject your citizenship. Now, if we're going to offer birthright citizenship to people, then we should be going to them, no matter where they're at in the world, and saying, "Hey, you've got a choice. You can either start paying tax on your worldwide income, or you can renounce your citizenship." But just like people that grew up in the US that have to do exactly that, we expect the same from you. And I think that will cause a lot of people to [snorts] have to just actually make that choice. Am I really going to continue to pay for my citizenship or am I going to renounce it? So, that would help. I don't think that that goes all the way to solving the problem in the way that we should want to see the problem solved, but at least that would do something to make this a decision that people really had to make, that they really had to put their money where their mouth is in terms of whether they're going to contribute to the American system in order to retain their citizenship. All right, man. I think this one is going to be hotly hotly debated.
>> Uh going back to your last point when you said you have to pay on income, it was like income tax. You'll file a form and then it will pay back. So if you had no income, you wouldn't have to pay. Like if you didn't have
>> Yeah. If you're not making money, so you're not going to be able to do this on an 11year-old.
>> I'm going to the million Chinese babies that are infiltrating the US. That's why I asked to see if they would if that would be a way to get them. But they would be exempt because they would not have any income.
>> They would be exempt until presumably they turn 18. I very much doubt that they're just going to sit around in China. Now it's possible.
>> Yeah. If you're rich enough to come to the US just to have a baby and then fly immediately back, I feel like you're rich enough not to have a job.
>> Possible. And so you may not be able to curb the problem uh as much as I would like through that, but I think that you will catch a substantive number of people because now you're asking um the government basically to just sort of endlessly support these people and maybe they'd be willing to. Maybe it's advantageous enough for them to do that. I certainly won't rule it out. China's got a lot of money. Um but yeah, I think it would make people make harder decisions. Also, I don't think all one million of those are people working for the Chinese government. I don't even know that any of them are. I'm just saying that that is certainly a loophole. Like, if I can get everybody to follow the chain of logic, do we think the US sends people to be spies in other countries? If you answer anything but yes to that, you're out of your [ __ ] mind.
>> Do we think other countries send spies to the US to be a part of the US? If you say anything other than yes or that, you're out of your [ __ ] mind. So now it's like, okay, well, if we know that we and our adversaries are constantly doing this at all times, do we not think that they're going to scan the voter roles or not voter roles, but the uh regulations and the laws of our country and go, "Which of these can be used against them?" Uh, you're crazy. Of course, they're going to do that. So Kobe Bryant used to research where the refs were required to stand on the court at a given time so he could know their movements. Uh if you've got a basketball player that understands ah you just need to understand the regulations better than anybody else and you can do things other people will think border on magic. Governments are doing the same thing. They're looking at where are the things that I can exploit in this setup. And so this is just an angle that we're giving to our adversaries as a way to exploit us. And so the interesting part for me is when you do think of this as a culture war and a culture war is a collision of values. When you start asking, okay, what are the values that people believe? What is the worldview that's driving those? Meaning, what base assumptions are they making that make them think this makes sense that you would want anybody to be able to get here, uh, have a baby, whether you're, um, here illegally or not. That's somebody who says there is no such thing as illegal. There's I'm going to guess if you push them, they would effectively say that there's no such thing as borders, which is exactly how I read somebody um like Curos, who's the DSA candidate from Colorado, saying that there should be fasttrack for um anybody who's here, even if they're here illegally, there should be a fast track to citizenship. It's like that's somebody who the the idea of borders just doesn't make sense to them. Now, if I try to map what base assumptions they have that would lead them to believe that it's going to be something along the lines of either in a more benevolent view, hey, we've been so prosperous, we've been so wealthy, we need to spread that wealth around uh to anybody that can make it here, and we should want and encourage people to come here just as the early people that came to America came. We are the place, as the Statue of Liberty says, for the people that long to breathe free. That would be the most benevolent read of that. A more probably accurate, but certainly more cynical read would be that these are the people that are likely to um view the world the way that I view the world and therefore vote the way that I vote. And the way that I view the world is this. Um this country is marked by exploitation, colonization, uh empire, meddling in foreign affairs, destabilizing different regions. And so uh [ __ ] this country. And by the way, 36% of Democrats, I've got to imagine the number is substantively higher for Democratic Socialists of America, but 36% of Democrats are not proud to be Americans at all compared to 1% of Republicans. So when you assume, okay, there's a very substantive percentage of that party that is not proud of America at all, I don't think it's a big stretch to think that that's roughly how people see it. And so they're trying to bring people in to basically uh take back the resources that they view that America has taken from the world, plug in their beliefs on billionaires. Same idea. AOC said flatly, there's no way to earn a billion dollars without doing something illegal. And so you're taking from somebody wage theft, etc., etc. So with that as a base assumption, it is not hard to believe that the operating system that they're running is one of America has done very bad things. We need to get as many people here, redistribute, take the wealth from the wealthy here in the country and then redistribute it to uh migrants from foreign countries as a way of reparations. I don't think that's a stretch in the slightest based on what would just need to be true for them to have the mental model that they have and then based on things that they're actually saying out loud.
>> Um let's start at the beginning. So if hypothetically, right, if illegal, non-citizens couldn't get resources, is this still
>> couldn't get resources in their country or here in America?
>> Couldn't get resources when they come here in America. So there no strain to the budget, no strain to the system.
>> They're here, they're living on Skidro with the rest of them.
>> Y
>> would that impact your feeling on immigration flow of country? Because it seems like your primary beef is the
>> the strain on the system. That's the easiest thing to point to how rapidly you will degrade your um economy. It is not my only problem. Got it.
>> So the US is a system where political power power is determined by the number of bodies in your state, district, whatever.
>> So the census doesn't care if you're legal or illegal. Uh so you have that problem already. So you're going to get a disproportionate number of seats in the house. Uh, so you're incentivized to bring as many bodies as you can into the state. That's already stupid. Um, so yeah, it there would there's certainly more, but that alone would stop me from going, "Oh, no, it's as long as they're not drawing anything off the economy, uh, we're going to be fine."
>> Copy. Um, second order of business, um, specifically to this ruling, birthright citizenship. A lot of the talking points that you used said that it was anchor babies is kind of the biggest fear that people are going to use this to manipulate spies, sell networks. I'm assuming they'll come here, have a baby, go to different countries, get indoctrinated, then come back to America.
>> That is a big fear. I'm not sure if um that's the big fear on the right because I think on the right it's possible that a competing level of fear would be hey we just already have an immigrant invasion and now you're just making it possible for that baby comes over they bring their family and so now all of a sudden you have a legal means where you're going to flood the country with just more people that are coming from elsewhere in the world that are not um American by value system are not American by certainly by um you know how they were raised and how they think. Uh and if you're plugging them into a system that is redistributive now it also ties back to the economic problem. But I think and look I can't speak for the right um but I think that that it's really that sort of one two whammy. I'm probably more paranoid about the governments using this against us because I'm so keyed into China and the Cold War that we're existing in right now. And they're so like they're so strict on their borders. And so they're like, "Oh, you guys want to commit suicide? Cool. Yep. I'm going to help you do that." Uh but I think that the right probably would heir more in the other side that this is just about you're letting too many non-Americans into your country.
>> Um I will say I was wrong. I like to acknowledge when I make mistakes. I thought this was gonna get passed. I was very surprised when I heard the Supreme Court decision. Um Clarence Thomas was picking up his jet ski and his fishing trip vouchers and then went to Speaker Johnson and had a speech. And I just think that it's interesting that the people who did descent were Republican like uh um people that were appointed. Justin uh Brett Kavanagh um
>> the woman uh Amy uh Comey Barrett, thank you. um those are typically they typically go into the conservative direction for this specific reason. They went into the liberal direction. So that was interesting and I did not see that coming. So when we talked about the um save act a couple weeks ago, we were saying that this was something that was going to be another win for Trump. This was not going to be issue. It got overturned. I was wrong. But I was right. The house is now on vacation and the housing bill is now vetoed as it stands. But that's uh done my disclaimer cuz I like to own up to when I say things that aren't um true or accurate.
>> Well, so I one I think that's dope. Admitting that you're wrong is good. I think it is far more interesting that you're somebody that will update your mental model. I know people like to see apology tours. I think that's dumb. Uh the important thing is that every word out of somebody's mouth should be this is what I believe ought to be or this is what I believe is. And in either case, if you encounter information that makes you update that, that's dope. I love that people are willing to update the way that they think about the world. The only thing I ever want to see is walk me through what piece of information did you encounter that changed your map of cause and effect such that you now see something differently. That's interesting because I think it it eliminates people that are being very disingenuous in that what they're really trying to do is fit in with their party or they're trying to say something that's politically expedient. Uh and so they tuck it in like um uh somebody I think it was a tweet. I can't remember if it was a tweet or in YouTube, but somebody said, "Hey Tom, when you say this, this is tonedeaf." And my response was, "I don't give a [ __ ] about being tonedeaf." Now, I care about being accurate. And so if I'm inaccurate, if I'm sloppy in my speech or whatever, then I will certainly correct that. But if people speak based on what they think is going to be [ __ ] popular, that's so wild. May you have no self-respect because that is so grotesque. So listen, at that point, you're just a [ __ ] marketer. Uh what I want to hear is what do people think? Like where are you trying to get to? Right? So you guys know mytick. I want a I want Americans to be thriving. I want as many people globally to be thriving as possible. But if we just keep it local, want Americans to thrive, I can round that to a thriving middle class. Because when you look at history, when the middle class is doing well, when they're getting wealthier in real terms, like yo, it's just party time in the country. It's party time because everybody's feeling good. There's plenty to go around. It's [ __ ] awesome. So, trying to get us back to that. Now, if ever, I'm like, "Hey, I really like this thing." And somebody goes, "Oo, how does that help with the thriving middle class?" And if they can break my um cause and effect and I still go for it because it's what my my supposed team is saying, then [ __ ] me. That that's just full [ __ ] So that I want to see people do. I want to see people own this is what I think because this is what's going to take me to where I'm trying to get us to. And where I'm trying to get us to is honorable. I love that. Uh but I don't think people interface with the world that way. I think people interface with the world. What do people want me to say? Uh, and so they say what people want them to say. And by the way, it's great for business. Um, I understand. I am actively damaging uh my ability to just be a neutral um party in terms of like the video game stuff. Oh Jesus. I'm I I won't even be able to be the front of my own game because I don't want people to need to care about what my politics are. Uh so yeah, that's a a real thing. But I'm not going to say what I think people want me to say. I'm going to say what I think actually takes us to um a thriving middle class.
>> Yeah. Um there's been a lot of talk about we need to expand Scotas. We need to pack the courts. Um there was one person on the right who was talking about we need to block pregnant women from entering the country. Is there a response that you think is appropriate um in order to mitigate the Supreme Court decision or are you the Supreme Court said it we need to move on and address it in other ways? So, I do find it hilarious that people will be like, "Uh, I love the court because they said a thing I like. I hate the court. Dismantle it, pack it, whatever, because they said a thing that I don't like." Um, look at the system as a policy. And so if you if you look at it and you say, "Okay, listen. We have this flaw in the setup of the way that the Supreme Court operates and I'm going to imagine the court is just chalk full of people that I love. So they're giving me all the answers that I want, but I think that there's a flaw in the way that it's set up." Cool. Then make that change and I'll respect it. If you're just saying, "I don't like what these people have said." Uh now you're getting into the part where you're trying to build a weapon that you can use against your opponent and that's the wrong idea. The very foundation of our country was that men clamor for power and they will use it and they will abuse it. And so the very experiment that we're running is freedom. Is there a way to allow people to be free to do the things that they think are right? To let states run different different experiments, to not try to dictatorally run everything from the top down, to be very terrified of a dictator, to be very terrified of a king, to understand that people will act like a dictator or a king within their own little thief. And so, we've got to put these different branches in this constant tension with each other. And so what we should be asking is how do we make that tension more effective? How do we make sure that the three branches of government are actually in a balance so that if one of them is um getting ill that the system is going to be able to survive that. What I see culturally right now on the right and the left is a desire to make a different branch of government a more effective weapon against my opponents that I [ __ ] hate. And so watching the um presidency just turn into a never-ending string of executive orders is grotesque. I certainly hate to see it. Watching Congress um not like do their job and just legislate common sense things um that's horrible. And then it makes me sad that you're getting a Supreme Court that just breaks largely predictably along party lines. That's always sad. To Drew's point, seeing them be a little bit unpredictable is actually great. Even if it goes against the thing that I want, I'm perfectly willing to argue for the ideas and say, "Here's why I hope that this gets reversed over time." Um, but I am still a big believer in that system creating this balance of tension between the three different branches so that nobody can just run forward unchecked. I don't want even if it were me, even if I were the one given all the power in the world, I wouldn't want to be unchecked. I think it is good and right that you have a system that can styy one person's agenda from just running from end to end. I think that's very wise because the problem is like let let me just assume for a second that it is me that I am Xi Jinping and I can do whatever I want including killing my uh opponents. If you guys have never seen the anime Death Note, [ __ ] watch it. It is so good. You've got the power. You can kill anybody you want. There's some real bad people in the world. Kill, kill, kill. And would you, would you? And the problem is, just like we learn in Death Note, it never stops with the bad people. It suddenly becomes the people. People become bad simply because they oppose me. And man, uh, I think that's just what people do. And so I would want to have checks on me because the greatest danger of the human psyche is you convince yourself that you're right. Uh we all do it. We all do it. And so I don't want to be in that position. Now admittedly I do somehow in my life and I kind of am as a CEO. I want to be tempted by the ring of power. I want to put it on and see if I can take it back off. It's pretty interesting. Um yeah. I don't I I I don't even necessarily trust myself enough, let alone I certainly don't trust humans at large.
>> I think it's very interesting that we have spent a lot of time both on this show and on Twitter and the last two or three days talking about a lot of immigration policies, talking about a lot of hypothetical situations that can happen because of these rulings, talking about how there's so many incentives and how people can perverse these incentives and take advantage of us. But what we're not talking about is economic policies that can help balance the budget. We're not talking about that inflation is double what the Fed talked about. We're not talking about the actual tangible things that are economically hurting people today that are increasing the populism.
>> Is that a criticism of this show?
>> I'm saying
>> so I would say we talk about the economics a lot.
>> I feel like the the was it the Overton window. I think like we we keep moving over what we should be talking about to
>> Overton window is acceptable speech.
>> Okay. So you think we are focused on the wrong thing?
>> I think I think we're distracted right now. I think we have
>> sh immigration.
>> I think immigration right now is a detraction. Like the birthright citizenship, the the fact that we went to this is going to start the rise of a manurion candidate when we are a two-party populist that needs party money, all these other things. Like there's so many other steps that they have to do before they can just walk up and become like run for president
>> that the time that it will take to execute all that plan
>> is years. Whereas we're now talking about a hypothetical that takes years to happen where right now our inflation target is high. Right now we have a housing problem that I keep banging the drum on cuz I want people to not like forget about that. Right now we keep having affordability issues. Right now we don't have a balance budget in any set of in any part of the government. Um right now we're about to merge our military with Israel and nobody's saying anything about that.
>> It's interesting. You're going to have to um give me the details on that one. I I have not looked at it deeply. Maybe if I look at it I'll be super traumatized. Uh but that one doesn't trigger my alarm bells. Uh however, I think that the economic thing is far more important to talk about. Um but I'm happy to start going down the road of Israel US military coordinating, which is how I read it. But anyway, people really think there's a smoking gun there. I will happily start diving into that. Um so let's talking about the economics of it all. I think you're right. To me, that's like the whole game. I think I've made that very clear. But immigration is going to be the most important debate over the next 10 years precisely because it's going to impact the economics of things so profoundly. And I will be very surprised if people right now can't feel that there is a um on in the Democratic party there the energy is far left. Now, if people want to debate that, I'm happy to debate it. But when you look at the um primaries, we're seeing a spate. I think we've had four now. We're seeing four um incumbent like long-term incumbent uh what do they call them? Establishment Democrats being replaced by specifically DSA members. So, um you look at mom Donnie. Mom Donnie is I think the deacto face of the Democrat party. He's not eligible for president, but nonetheless, he is the deacto face of the Democrat party. And so he's a DSA member. So that I think people would be hardressed to say there's not an argument to say that that's swinging farther left. Now they are largely one of their big tentpole things is immigration. And so when you start asking why is immigration such a problem? One, it changes the values of your culture. And what is one of the ways that the values of your culture end up creating problems? It is in economics. It's not the only way, but it's a big way. And so I think this is what I was saying at the top of the show. I think the cultural debate of our era is going to be whether we should be looking for the smallest government that we can get away with or whether we're trying to get the biggest government that we can humanly possible through redistributive means. That's the debate. And so when I look at the immigration debate, I see that going in one direction. Show me the incentives and I will show you the outcome. The incentives for an immigrant is to come here and get free [ __ ] And so if you're in a country where things are not going well and you can go to America where things are while getting stressed and moving in the wrong direction according to Tom Billu, they are certainly way better than they are anywhere else. The only place it even comes close is China. And so if we want to have a debate about the Nordic countries, we certainly can. For I hope I can sum up in one word why I say China and not the Nordic countries, innovation. So you've got these two behemoths that have become behemoths through innovation, the US and China. So the two economies that I expect to do the best in the world while being able to protect themselves, yada yada. So, you've got these two behemoths that represent what it looks like when you can really get your economy humming. Now, we both have problems with our economy. Nobody is going to deny that. Certainly not me. Okay. Immigration is going to play such a gigantic role in our ability to continue to thrive because the incentive is to leave a country that is not doing well, to come to this country that is doing well, to vote for more free [ __ ] as if that won't break the engine of prosperity. And so immigration becomes the bullseye for the conversation about breaking the engine of prosperity. That's reason number one why we have to talk about it. But then there's also going to be the values debate especially because uh of Muslim specific immigration tied to uh Islam and whether that is going to integrate well with whether we are all Christian or not a Christian society. Drew and I have already had this debate so hopefully my thinking on it is clear. Um happy to explain it again if people are confused but like those two things are going to collide. And so we have to look at what are we going to do about assimilation. So in a quick nutshell, that's still oversimplifying it, but those two big beats are why I think immigration is going to be the debate um of the next decade.
>> We shall see. Um let's jump over to JD Vance who said that the Trumpou was to get some money uh or to refill the world's oil economy. So I think what the president has told us to do is use thisou to sort of refill the world's oil economy.
>> Yeah.
>> To refill some stocks and then to see where the hand is. And
>> so there it is. You got to say that the Trump administration just says the [ __ ] You had uh Rubio, he's walked it back, but you had Rubio back in the day being like Israel was about to strike Iran, so we had to get in there and strike them first. Uh, so I was like, okay, well, that's at least real. Uh, you've got Trump literally is a running monologue of an id that doesn't understand how to interrupt his own mouth. So that's utterly fascinating. Uh, and then you've got JD here just saying the thing. And so, yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me because if I'm the Trump administration and people are coming after me, I'm going to be like, what do you mean? What what's the problem? We haven't come to any finalized deal and the oil is flowing and I'm just going to point people back to that, back to that, back to that.
>> Uh, and I'm gonna try to make sure that nobody reminds me that the uh straight of horm was open before the attacks. So, um, yeah, that like if Trump is I think both sides are running a very similar game right now, which is I'm going to say really vague [ __ ] in theou and then I'm just never going to sign anything that's not good for me and we'll see. Now, I think that Trump is acting far more desperate than the Iranians. So, do keep that in mind. Um, but yeah, that's I think JD Vance is admitting the absolute truth given the dumb [ __ ] situation that we're in. It's a smart play. Uh, but let's just remind ourselves we shouldn't have been in said dumb [ __ ] position to begin with. So, without losing sight of that reality, uh, doing what they're doing makes sense.
>> Yeah. And this is on the heels of Trump's tweet a couple days ago about getting oil prices to come down, gas companies to stop gouging. So
>> stop ging
>> oil prices. Uh Jesus Christ stopped under 70.
>> Like if Trump has so little credibility when it comes to criticizing uh socialism, he's so wild. I can't believe it. I don't remember him specifically saying anything about uh Kamla's grocery stores, but if you can play back him saying like this is ridiculous, but it's suddenly not ridiculous with the oil companies, it's so wild. M.
>> So anyway, that it it was as dumb when she said it as it is now that he's saying it. So yeah. Yeah. We either trust companies, we either trust that we have put a system in place in which companies have to stay within certain boundaries or we haven't. If we're trying to top down control the economy, if we think we have a president who's smart enough that he can outsmart global markets and all that, uh, then we're really in a bad place because, spoiler alert, no one person, not Xihinping, who's dealing with a catastrophic housing crisis brought on by guess who, Xihinping. If Trump thinks that he's somehow the like as smart as AI, super intelligent AI that doesn't even exist yet. If he thinks that he's like that level of smart, holy Jesus, which he may, by the way, may think that, but bad news, he's not. And so he's never going to be able to actually figure out what's going on in the economy. So the more he meddles, the more dangerous it gets. Now, that is not me saying that countries can't or shouldn't try to influence uh things in their economy when it comes down to like national interests. So, for instance, you're from a what does something cost at the store perspective, you're better off letting China manufacture everything. From a I still want to be a country in 20 years, you can't do it. So, the stuff gets inevitably complicated for sure. Uh but Trump saying that the oil companies are gouging means I've had private meetings with them. I've told them to do things. They're not doing it. And so now I'm going to go public and say that they're gouging. Uh it's dumb. If you think that there is a setup that is allowing for something that we don't think should be legal, then change the system. But you need to come out and say the thing that you want to be illegal. And I think what you're going to find yourself saying is, "I just want to be able to call the shots." Uh and know that that will be leveraged against you the second you lose power. So, don't be that [ __ ] stupid.
>> We have some stupid chats.
>> Yes, we do.
>> That's
>> First up comes from Marushia Dark. Please do a deep dive on the life and policies of Graas Gratch as well as Marius Ensola who succeeded him. Many eerie parallels to Trump.
>> Who are they?
>> Uh, I only looked up the pronunciation. Let me go pull up the names real quick, but I'll finish the the the rest of it. As well as Marius and Sola who succeeded him. many eerie parallels to Trump, including populist civil war against elites, marking the death of the Roman Republic.
>> Oh. Oh. Oh, okay. So, this is like old school [ __ ]
>> Specifically, he's a reformist Roman politician. Um, that's gas.
>> All right.
>> And a soldier.
>> I'll check him out. I do worry that anything touching on the Roman Empire is so memed that you won't even be able to be heard uh if you talk about it, but I'll certainly look at it. Whether or not I'll do a deep dive, that's a different question. Next up, Marushia Dark again says, "After Scotas ruling, Trump should put a 10 to 50year moratorium on all migration, at least among non-allies, to ensure anchor babies and birth tourism can never happen in the first place, let alone produce a Manurion candidate."
>> Yeah, it it is certainly an option, and I think you're certainly going to see the Trump administration try to find ways to stop people from getting on the soil. Uh because that's exactly the if you're looking at this decision, you're like, I don't agree with that. So, what are things that I can do to um mitigate that problem? Because this is about people that actually make it onto our soil. So, um nobody's saying that we can't limit the number of people that come onto our soil. So, what are we going to start doing? Um you can certainly expect that.
>> And thank you for the 40 total. Marushia question.
>> Oh [ __ ] Marushia, I was just thinking of this as well. And I think by the way, we keep mispronouncing. It's Marushia if I remember correctly. So, uh, hold us accountable to that as you are a long-standing and b extraordinarily generous. Uh, so we appreciate you
>> question things says in the comment section, "It's clear many don't understand some basics of what you're talking about in regard to inflation, but it would be beneath you to make a video about it. So, I made one for you in the Discord."
>> We made a video on inflation. That was one of Tom's first deep dives. [laughter]
>> Why do I feel like I'm being gamed uh with that comment? Uh, so it's certainly not beneath me. We've talked a lot about this. We've made videos, but if you've also made a dope video, that's rad. Uh, and if it is a um big winner in Discord, let's make sure that we surface it. But yeah, I love it, man. The more people that make um videos about the cause and effect of inflation, exactly what causes it, what the effects are of it as well. Um, that'd be amazing. Love to see it.
>> Uh, and also shameless plug, go to the Discord if you want to debate us. Brutus Lugio Lugo says,
>> "What's that?
>> Brutus, you said Bruce, I think."
>> Oh, Brutus, my bad. How many seats has California even gained from illegal immigrants? Can you chat GBT or Google it? How many seats would they have if any uh if all illegal immigrants were deported overnight? Can you look that up, too?
>> If we were to include If we were to exclude illegal citizens, how many seats in Congress would California lose? Google Gemini said California will lose between one to three congressional seats if undocumented immigrants were excluded from the census abortion appropriate counts. The caveat here is because the house seats are fixed at 435 those one to three seats will be shifted to other states
>> meaning they'll be taken away from other states.
>> No shift so if California loses those three seats they don't leave the house they will Ohio will get additional
>> Right. Right. Right. Because it's all it's a percentage. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, Zaros, uh, Shyosin. It's Arabic. Apologies if I mispronounced. Hi, Tom. I'm 13.
>> That was actually exactly how they say it.
>> Oh, is it really?
>> And that's a $100 super chat. We got to put some respect on that.
>> We apologize.
>> We got to put some respect on that. Thank you for the super chat.
>> Super chat.
>> Thank you for 100. Hi, Tom. I'm 32, in a serious relationship. Marriage likely in a year. Working solo. [laughter]
>> Sorry.
>> That's an accomplishment in 2026.
>> Hey, I'm here for it. I'm clapping, my man. 15 hours a day with AI to build useful apps. Have not shipped yet, but close. Inherited 700K. Were you in my shoes between stocks, gold, silver, businesses, etc. What would you do with that money?
>> Okay, so my
>> not investment advice, not investment advice. Our CFOs here can't say, which by the way, we do need to introduce him at some point. Uh my I I really don't like that you can't give people investment advice. That's nanny state [ __ ] But anyway, first of all, and I really do mean this, nobody should take investment advice from me. I'm not confident in my own like I live in a perpetual state of paranoia that I'm doing something wrong. So, uh please take that with a grain of salt. The investing especially is so complicated. But the way that I approach it is what I'll call the like um best practices from the greatest investors over extraordinarily long periods of time. So, it goes something like this. You're never going to be able to figure out what the future is. So, don't try to time the market. So, I talk a lot about certainly in my deep dives, I talk a lot about like the one that I just wrote, AI, the bubble is almost certainly um bursting and I'll walk you through reasons. We might have time to talk about it today. It's tied into China. Um so, there's a lot of risk there. There's historical reasons to believe that. So, it's like, okay, but I'm not going to get the timing right. And getting the timing wrong is the same as being wrong. And so, that's one of the things that makes this so difficult. So, I never do anything on leverage. Like, I could I could leverage my life to high heaven because I have so many uh assets that have value, but I don't leverage against them. And the reason I don't leverage against them is because I fear debt. Debt is so dangerous. So, I don't do things on debt. Number one, I don't trust myself to get the timing right. So, I'm planning on 20-year time horizons. So, I keep enough cash for three years of not needing to change my lifestyle. Um, so that whatever crazy disruption happens in the market, it has time to settle out or for at least for me to find my own personal way around it. Um, that's very important. And I understand that inflation is trying to eat my money. So, um, keeping things just sitting in cash is is just you can't do it. Uh, that's the only guaranteed way to lose. Remember, in the last 6 years alone, 30% of people's purchasing power has been stolen by the government. So, um I sit with that one a lot. So, that forces me to invest, which is not what I want to do. I would much rather be a saver, but that forces me and everybody else to invest, but again, knowing I'm not going to get the timing right, then I try to spread myself across um economic forces. So, I'm certainly not going to just be in tech, even though right now AI is 42% or something. 42% of all the returns of the US stock market come from AI. That's so [ __ ] crazy. So even though I could in the last couple of years been way up more on that, see the previous rule that I'm never going to get the timing right. So I don't trust myself to get out of tech and AI before something bad happens. So, I put some in Tekken AI because it's going so well. And who knows, maybe it stays irrational for another year, two years, three years, and I want to make all that money because I have to to protect myself from um what's going on with inflation, but I'm also in things like gold and Bitcoin and commodities and just making sure that I'm like, [ __ ] I don't know where this is going to go. I do not trust myself to see the future. I know I'm going to be wrong about something. So, let me just spread across as many different economic forces as I can and know that that's going to wildly cap my upside, but over a 20-year time horizon, it's going to make me a ton of money. So, that's the way I would think about it with the 700K. And then risk dollars, I always bet on myself. So, as you can imagine, I get hit up constantly for me to invest in people's companies. And with almost 100% uh consistency, I say no. And the reason I say no is I'm perfectly willing to put a substantive amount of money at risk, but I'm going to bet on myself. So building Kaizen is millions of dollars, but that's me betting on myself. I trust myself to see it through. I trust myself not to give up. I trust myself to have good taste. On and on and on. U so that's why and most entrepreneurs break emotionally anyway. And I know that that's not going to happen to me. So that's how I'd think about it. Now the last thing I will say to you because you confessed something very early in your post which is that you're trying to build useful apps but you haven't shipped yet. Ship ship ship. So um even I in the video game space ship two things uh before Kaizen. I think that's a must. You've got to put something in front of people and find out where and why it falls down. Um so yeah, don't be afraid to ship those apps even if you think they're ass. Find out what people say. Do they ignore them completely and they never even tried it? So you don't have an app problem. You have a positioning problem. Uh what solution you're promising that you're solving for people problem. So no product market fit, etc., etc. All right. I could do a whole diet tribe on that. Uh but beware of the everdeveloping, never shipping death loop.
>> And that's it for super chats for now.
>> All right. Um in Colorado, Mil Curos defeats the 15term rep. Diane Deette in the Democratic primary in Colorado. She's backed by Hassan [ __ ] and this is a video of her on Hassan show talking about her um want to abolish ICE.
>> Abolishing ICE is just one step, right? Democrats have been in power multiple times over the last few decades and did nothing to address the immigration reform that we actually
>> expenditures increased spending.
>> Exactly. Yeah. And so if we're I think there has to be an immediate pathway for every single undocumented immigrant that's here in this country today that does not require them to shell out thousands of dollars to go through their process for it to take decades at a time to be able to get to citizenship, an immediate pathway to citizenship and then just re abolishing.
>> This is really crazy, man. Uh yeah, this this if I didn't have um a rule in my life that I don't stand still, this seeing how much energy is going far left is demoralizing. It's demoralizing, especially when the causes of this are so obvious. I just don't know that you can back out of it. I I think it may just be that history builds on a loop and maximum pain is the only thing that causes people to bounce back and that's just that. I think uh a lot of these incumbents like Nancy Pelosi just left um this lady that's been a 15-term uh uh member in Congress in Colorado. I think this is a larger issue of why we need term limits because I think right now it's easy for it to look like a DSA wave when I think really people are tired of stale politics. There was a quote unquote MAGA wave where a lot of the traditional Republicans got voted out and more mega republics came in. That's how Marjorie Taylor Green and Dan Krenshaw and all these other guys got their seats and now we're seeing the other side on the left. And I think if you do something for 15 terms and your c and your state is not prospering, it's not increasing, people don't feel like they're getting a bigger slice of the pie, they are going to shift to the other side. So
>> I I agree and this is part of the trauma that I feel. So imagine everybody that we're on a boat and the boat is leaking like crazy and you've got people trying to bail out the boat with all kinds of different buckets and you have somebody that's like, you know what we need to do? We need to get um these [ __ ] with their um big buckets. we need to get their buckets from them so that we can do a better job of bailing out this water. And I'm like, have you gone down to the hole and see who's drilling the [ __ ] holes in the hole that's allowing the water to come in? Uh, and if more of the people that you're bringing onto the boat are actually going down to drill the holes so that you can better justify getting the bucket, that seems like a pretty big problem to me. And that's exactly what we have. So, I agree with Drew that we have stale politics that you can make a very easy case for the uni party because they're both going to deficit spend. And given that deficit spending is the drilling of the holes in the hole and is the reason that your boat is leaking, um, I only want to hear people talk about how we get people to stop drilling holes in the [ __ ] boat. And no one's talking about that. And that's what means this isn't going to work. And not only that, the we're going to bring people in that are going to drill more holes in the boat. And their incentive structure is to drill holes in the boat. And there in lies the problem. So when you bring people on that are DSA members, their job is to redistribute wealth. And one of the ways they'll do it is by freezing rents, which is another hole in the ship. It will make those properties um impossible to upkeep because they will become unprofitable businesses. Remember that a building is a business. It will become an unprofitable business, which Mom Donnie has already said, well, if these guys don't upkeep their buildings, then we're going to give it in certain circumstances. We're going to give that building to the tenants. uh not make the tenants purchase it or anything like that. We're just going to give it to them. Now, what ends up happening, and hey, I don't have to speculate. I know Sergey Brin, the third wealthiest person on planet Earth, was putting money into housing development in New York City. He has now sold his ownership in that project for six cents on the dollar to just get out. So now you have somebody who's like, "Yeah, I'm just going to take a total bath on this. I'm leaving. I can see where this is going from an economic engine perspective. This isn't going to work. Cool. Now we're piecing out." So now the only thing that can solve the housing crisis in New York, literally the only thing is supply and demand. That's it. There's nothing else. And so if you increase the demand by bringing more people into New York City and you hold steady or decrease the supply as they are talking about doing, prices can't come down. So you can rent freeze and you can stop prices from going up. But what that ends up doing, remember this was confessed by the current leader of Cuba who said trying to control prices from the top down doesn't work. We now know. He said it leads to shortages. So guess what trying to control prices on housing is going to do? It's going to lead to shortages. Now it leads to shortages for a very mappable reason because people like Sergey Brin leave and now there's no investment dollars with which to actually build new housing. So what ends up happening is people can't afford to run those businesses. Therefore, people don't start those businesses, meaning build new buildings or buy buildings. Um and so you have less of them. And then as it all like turns into dilapidated [ __ ] remember this experiment's already been run in New York. Literally already been run in New York City, the very place trying to run it again. What was the outcome? You had building owners burning their own buildings because they couldn't afford the upkeep. So it was just better to collect the insurance money. So the Bronx ends up looking like, I'm not kidding, a war zone. It looked totally third world, looked bombed out, absolute insanity. And guess how they got out of that? They deregulated. They spurred building. They They did all the things that we ought to be doing but aren't doing. We're doing the exact opposite. So, we have this tremendous problem. We've got people just down there drilling holes in the boat. Those people can be named. They are the politicians who vote for deficit spending on both sides. and the investment bankers who created the central banking system which allows the government to deficit spend and just tax you invisibly with inflation. And so if you want to know how much you're being taxed, just look at how much the government is spending. That's how much you're being taxed. No if ends or buts. There's no like real deficit. It's just that is the tax and they do it via inflation. So we have a system that has let people down, is rigged against them, is creating an emotional response of anxiety that's being transmuted into anger. So yeah, of course you're going to vote out people that are um not doing a good job of solving the problem. But now the energy is in voting the people that will hollow it out even faster, create more holes, and sink the boat. It is [ __ ] crazy. And if you spend the amount of time that I've spent researching the economy, you're going to come to the same conclusion. And so you're going to look at it and be like, uhoh, this this mechanistically, remember, mechanistically, it won't work. It's not like um you can take an internal combustion engine and pour sugar into it and one time that makes things better. It's never going to make things better. So, it is always mechanistically going to make it worse. And if you want to fix it, you've either got to build a new engine that runs on sugar and then okay. Uh but so far that that defies the laws of physics. Um so what we are doing is economic suicide. So I get why people feel that way. I get why they want to do it. But it doesn't change the cause and effect reality that it's economic suicide. And this is also on the back of the contested balance budget that Mandi proposed. Um, you said you have a deep dive brewing or you're doing a deep dive into the budget.
>> Yeah, I'm doing a personal bit of research. So, um, I never want to interface with the world emotionally. I know that I'm at my most high risk when it comes to mom Donnie because he does elicit extreme frustration in me. Uh, and so to avoid being blinded because I map you as an intelligent, sincere person when you're you're feeling good so far about him balancing the budget. I don't think you're getting out over your skis, but you have repeated many times, hey, he has balanced the budget. So, I'm like, all right, let me look at what's really going on. Now, as I explore what mom Donnie is doing, um, the balancing of the budget is um, not unique to him in any way. So the budget has is legally it must be balanced. So uh Adams has done it, Delasio has done it. Everybody before him has done it. Everybody's gotten to the same place, whatever. June 30th, they have a budget that gets signed off on. Literally everybody with no exceptions. So okay, that that's not a for or against. Now Manny did something that's really great and I um very much applaud him. So, Adams was actually hiding budget shortfalls and um he was using apparently legitimate means to do it, but it's one of those like just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it. And so, Mom Donnie really is bringing a level of transparency that I think is awesome. And so, kudos to him on that. I don't think there's any reason for anybody, no matter whether you like him or hate him, to take anyway anything away from that. And so, I want to see more people doing that. Like, let's keep that train rolling. So I was very impressed to discover that um when you look at uh the amount that he has increased the spending in New York at least at this stage in my looking into it it's not by much few billion dollars but against a $125 billion budget it's not crazy. The um I mean listen you can make an argument that New York's budget is already so overblown but that's not just a mom Donnie thing. I don't want to put on M Donnie anything that doesn't actually belong on M Donnie. So much of what Mom Donnie is dealing with is just decades of one party rule. They've been doing bigger and bigger budgets with no end in sight. Like each person just keeps making the budget bigger. So has Mom Donnie contributed to making the budget bigger? Yes. But has he like thrown it into the trees? He is not the one responsible for uh the original 12 billion shortfall. That was something that Adams had flagged. It comes from Democratic policies, but nonetheless, don't don't put that on mom Donnie. Now, it is very telling that he has not yet included his signature um policies in that budget. So, he's done a little bit for like um daycare for kids, but I think it rings in at like 1.2 billion or something like that. Again, just as a percentage of the budget, it just isn't that big. But some of his big signature policies like free buses and grocery stores and all that, it's just not in the budget. So, um, he's not doing that yet. Now, presumably, if he adds that, you're just going to see he's going to keep growing the budget over and over. Now, the real thing that I'm going to be spending more time on, which I don't want to call a smoking gun because it right now I don't have reason to believe that it is a smoking gun, but it is um a thing that people need to pay attention to and it will become the thing that if mom Donnie keeps going down that path, and he may not, he may have learned his lesson over something I'm going to explain in a second, but if he keeps going down the following path, this will be where uh problems end up getting created by DSA policies. and that is that when he presented his early preliminary budget back in February, he immediately took a credit rating hit based on his proposals because what he did was he was eating into things that the credit rated a credit rating agencies consider like no-go zones. So, he's talking about shrinking the um amount of cushion that they have, which by the way, Democrats have been doing uh increasingly, but he was pushing it even farther. So, they didn't like that. Uh and then he was also, I forget the exact places that he was dipping like pension funds and some other things. People were like, "Whoa, those are normally considered things that we don't touch. Those are signs of danger, so we don't like that." Now, he ended up backing off of those things. So, he pulled them out. Now, if that's a shrewd politician realizing, okay, listen, I understand where we interface with the economy and I just can't go that far, right? So, he may end up being a politician that champions where he wants things to go, which I'll continue to rail against. But to Drew's point in terms of what he's deploying into the budget right now, he put his hand on the stove, he got burned, and he pulled his hand back. That's a very reasonable way to react to that. So when Moody's and the other agencies said don't [ __ ] do that, uh he stopped doing that. Now another thing, but again this is not unique to Mam Donnie. You got a lot of people doing this that have been doing it. So, this is more an indictment of Democratic rule uh without a real challenger from Republicans that they have been using basically like budget tricks and a growing economy to hide the fact that they're just spending more and more and more money, which I would say is entirely reckless, completely insane. And when you look at something like Florida, uh they're doing the exact opposite. So, they're reducing the tax burden. They're trying to limit the scope of government. All things I consider very wise if you're trying to get to a thriving middle class. Okay. So, Mom Dani is doing the exact opposite in the way that he's going after this. So, he's using a lot of one-time things, deferring certain payments, um using windfalls that aren't going to be repeated next year. So, you've got him coming in already, making the budget bigger, only closing closing the gap on one-time payments and push offs and things like that and not having yet put in his signature policies. So, we won't be able to see the results of this year's budget until this time next year. So, keep that in mind. Uh, so that's when and it will be balanced, by the way, because Cal U New York it it's illegal to not. So they'll end up having to rob Peter to pay Paul and all that stuff. Uh but it will be balanced. It's not like I don't think he's going to balance the budget. It becomes a question of what method is he using to balance the budget and are we just creating this bigger and bigger gap such that we start moving towards that moment where it's like okay we can't do these things anymore. We've got to start cutting now we're into austerity and what ends up happening that's a bigger question. So that's I think a pretty evenhanded lay of the land in terms of what Mani is doing. Uh he's increasing the budget gap, he does not have um the depth of recurring cuts that he will need to not every year come into the same kind of crisis. So if this year he came in with 12 billion, next year of a gap, next year he's actually going to come in with a larger budget gap. And so he's also, by the way, counting on the ability to get more tax out of the wealthy is what he's always saying, but we don't know that that's actually going to pan out. So you've got people like Sergey Brin leaving. You've got people like Ken Griffin um talking about leaving. We'll see if he actually does. There was another gigantic company, Apollo, I think. And Apollo has said, "We're now building our second flagship headquarters." and I can't remember if it's Texas or uh Florida, but we're building a second flagship, not a satellite office, a flagship. So, you can imagine that over the next however many years, they're going to migrate a certain number of their employees or or at least the growth into another region. And so, as you do that, you now have a weakening tax base. So, everything that Mom Donnie is doing is expecting the good times to keep rolling. And they may or may not do that. So the reason that the credit rated agencies are more skeptical of Mombi is because of things that he's future signaling. So, if those things come to pass and he keeps making the budget bigger and we find ourselves with a shrinking tax base in New York, now the Mam Donnie House of Cards falls. And I call it a House of Cards because of all the one-time things that it's counting on, all the growth that it's counting on uh when we're in a very fragile economic position compared to a more robust process that we're seeing in Florida play out where they're trying to reduce budgets. They're trying to lighten the tax burden which is going to incentivize the kinds of business uh pouring into the region that you would need to get the economic growth. So I think and by the way if people think I'm being unreasonable now would be the time to tell me. I think that that's a very reasonable breakdown of what's going on with New York's budget. Chili Will said, "Okay, let's put a pin in mom Donnie. Six months, we'll come back and see where he is and how well
>> 12 months." But we're the odds that we don't talk about mom Donnie are effectively zero because keep in mind Dani is fighting for the soul of the Democrat party. So keep that in mind. So he is going to be terraforming people intellectually and I will combat that with everything that I have unless he's saying things that are actually going to be good for a thriving middle class at which point I will immediately embrace him because I only care about those ideas going forward. So um yeah, my my thing is judge me by whether or not I will be evenhanded about the truth of what's happening.
>> Jordan Sheffield said, "Okay, you should do Trump next." Like breakdown of Trump's budget.
>> We've talked about Trump a gazillion times. Trump is a reckless fool economically. Uh you must get him out of office if you want to have a balanced budget. There's no if ands or buts about that. Now, in terms of which ideology do I think is more damaging, obviously I beat that drum a million times. Uh nobody hears me saying, "Hey, Trump's economic policies are sound." The second he passed the big beautiful bill, I was like, "Oh, okay. Well, he's [ __ ] Like, this is terrible. uh get bent like I don't know how much clearer people need me to make that.
>> Um and then you brought it up in the regions now that Florida legislature has okay they didn't improve the ab the abolition of state property taxes. What they have done is put it on the ballot that November 2026 if you um it's exempting up to 250,000. So of the 250,000 zero property taxes. If it gets a 60% vote in the state, it will officially abolish property taxes for those houses 250k and below.
>> Damn, that's dope, man. That is dope. Like, that's first of all, that's straight like working class. That's not the, "Hey, hey, if your house is over, you know, $5 million, then you get this break." This is like, yo, the average person trying to get into that house, that is [ __ ] awesome.
>> Uh, long may this continue. That [ __ ] is rad. I'll be so curious to see what people say in opposition to this. That is dope. That is dope. We want more of that, man. We want more of that. Now, just build build. Stop. Unfortunately, I get it. Nobody has banged the drum harder than me that houses are an asset that people understand in an inflationary environment, like you got to get people into houses. But the reality is we've got to break people's belief that like I'm just going to buy a house, get in at all costs, and I just need this number to go up up up up. Uh when the numbers going up up up up, ironically, it's actually bad for the middle class because it's like, well, you got on the ladder, now you're good. That we've already played that game. We see how that works out. So housing prices, yeah, maybe they go up in like sort of mirroring inflation. So if inflation is 2% then the housing price goes up to match it. Cool. Love that. Should be a great place to park money and to you pour your money into the home. Forget the investment. You pour your money into the home to have your family, raise your kids, do all of that. Uh and so it's worth putting money into upkeeping it. And by the way, whatever money you put into building this beautiful home is going to just track with inflation. Cool. Love that. Uh, but in terms of it becoming like this insane asset that's like doubling and tripling in price in 10 years, [ __ ] that.
>> All right, it's my favorite time of the show. Let's put on our silver our tinfoil hats. Let's revisit a very popular story that we talked about a lot last year. There's a new update. So, the family of Tyler Robinson confirms allegedly allegedly that Tyler did not confess to his parents killing Charlie Kirk. He told them that he did not kill Charlie. Tyler's parents do not believe Tyler killed.
>> Who's saying this?
>> This is a the the text thread itself. I don't know who's responding to the text thread, but somebody's texting to I think his dad and going through it. And then this is the playbyplay of the the text thread.
>> So this is his dad's phone.
>> This is the person texting their his like his family.
>> Tyler's dad.
>> Yeah. But I don't know who the person is. That's
>> Right. Right. Right. But we know one of the people in this conversation is Tyler's father. family member.
>> Okay.
>> Official narrative keeps slipping.
>> Got it.
>> So, reading the text, just to be clear, Tyler told his dad, Matt, that he did not kill Charlie Kirk. That is correct. Did Tyler's parents think he killed Charlie? No. Did the parents call the bishop because they thought Tyler was guilty or out of fear for his safety? Fear for his safety. When they called the bishop, did they tell him that Tyler killed Charlie Kirk? No. They were concerned for his safety. So the time the retired sheriff came and picked up Tyler and his parents was on September 11th in the afternoon. Yes. So Tyler never told his parents, the bishop or the sheriff who gave them a ride that he killed Charlie Kirk. That is correct. And the narrative that everybody's been saying is he confessed to his parents. His parents knew about it. His parents called it in. That was my last update on the nerve. His parents tipped him off like ratted him out and that's how they did it. They recognized him on the news. yada yada yada.
>> If that doesn't get you if that doesn't grind your gears, I got something to back it up. On top of that, the vehicle that they transported Charlie from after the assassination, if people remember the Candace Owens uh account of it, he got shot. They transported him into a black SUV. They drove to the hospital. That SUV was sold a month after they stripped the carpet down and they stripped the seats.
>> The the way that So, we've got two things at play here. the forensic way that people have responded to the crime scene. And then we've got yet another text read that feels like a diary that was meant to be read. Like it is written like people want this to be read to put a different narrative out there. It's exactly how I felt about Tyler's uh supposed text to his boyfriend where it was like giving contextual clues that you only give if you're a terrible screenwriter. Like it was so wild. Okay, so there's that. I I uh feel like I'm being sucked into a narrative battle, not necessarily somebody just trying to really get to the truth, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that things are not the way that they have been presented to me. I don't have a hard time buying that at all. So, we'll let things play out in court. It is my understanding that cameras are going to be allowed in the court, right?
>> Apparently, yes.
>> So, [ __ ] we all got to watch.
>> They already started it though, so I don't know if it's just for sentencing or if they just aren't
>> Oh, we need an answer to that. Ryan as the resident researcher. We looked that up. By the way, can we
>> cameras in the courtroom specifically?
>> Yes, please. Can we get a camera on one Andrew Press? So, everybody, this is our COO. We are uh we're teching him out. He's going to be running uh Point with me when Drew and Ryan uh may be gone for whatever reason. Uh so, we want another uh person that can come and just make sure that the show can continue going on. Uh so uh welcome him in the way that I would expect you guys to welcome anybody and uh we'll see if we can get a couple words out of him before we go. Okay. Now
>> allowed by the way
>> cameras are low.
>> Yes. Says cameras allowed. Fourth District Court Judge Tony Graph ruled that cameras will continue to be allowed in the high-profile trial of Tyler Robinson.
>> Okay. And but the trial has according to Drew already started.
>> Oh started.
>> So are cameras already recording?
>> Uh it says continue. So I'm assuming this is from a prior part of the trial but let me see if there are.
>> Okay. So we'll find that out. Okay. So you've got those two elements going on. So element number one, there's a information battle being played out and so we'll see what ends up being true. This is all going to come out in court.
>> That was jury selection preliminary hearings July 6th to the 10th. Yeah.
>> There we go. Perfect. So starting July 6th, which is Monday, right? Monday, Tuesday.
>> Monday.
>> Perfect. So we'll have all kind of camera. We'll be covering the beat. It'll be awesome. All right. The second side of this is the forensic way that people have been engaging with the crime scene. And this [ __ ] is so wild. It is like you're trying to take somebody like me who doesn't normally go in on conspiracy theory and you're like, we're going to be so ridiculous that we're going to make people like Tom just completely unhinged. There's something going on. Why am I being lied to? Why is this being covered up? So, I'm almost certain that within like 36 hours of Charlie Kirk being assassinated, bleeding all over the place that they cemented over the location. Now, listen, I get the trauma to people at the school and I get that they're not going to want to walk by and see a bunch of blood in the courtyard. Got it. Put a [ __ ] tent over it. If you can if you can build those big like fumigation tents that cover entire [ __ ] buildings, you can cover that little space where he might have bled because there are plenty of questions about what direction the blood splatters went. Do you [ __ ] not watch Dexter? Like godamn over my wife's shoulder. I've seen enough Dexter to know that you can tell the trajectory of the bullet and all that [ __ ] based on which way the blood goes. And if you strip everything down, [ __ ] cement over it, and run off, like, god damn, what is happening? That is the craziest [ __ ] I've ever heard in my life. You post up, if you just have one of the most visible uh political figures on earth, assassinated in front of cameras, and you just like [ __ ] Mary Poppins, that [ __ ] into cement. That is the craziest thing I've ever heard in my life. Should have been covered up. Guards around the clock. We're gonna make sure that this gets investigated properly. If this causes some trauma to some students, I don't [ __ ] care. Like, get tougher. Walk around. Go somewhere else. But like, this is going to be blocked off and we are going to figure out what actually happened. This is crazy to me. I do not understand, man. You want people to have time to put their preliminary reports in. You want people to be able to come and say, "I think that preliminary report is [ __ ] I'm going to take my own look at this." Like, this is [ __ ] crazy. And if did they uh did they they did an autopsy? They did. I remember that. Uh so at least we have an autopsy. Boy, do I hope it was filmed so other people could look at it. I doubt it was. Uh should have been. Oh my god. You've got to preserve evidence. I just don't understand how people are thinking about this [ __ ] Did we watched JFK be a conspiracy theory for I mean it's still a conspiracy theory. So, it's like you're just adding fuel to the fire of like demented unhinged takes. We need to understand what happened and we're not going to understand what happened by putting cement over it. That is crazy. Last last conspiracy partake. According to new forensic reports, allegedly allegedly, Charlie Kirk's mic did explode. Feels like the pager attack,
>> bro. That's one where I'm like, "Okay, put it forward as he shrinks back into the bushes." Uh, I think you put that forward with your chest out and you go, "All right, listen. [laughter] We just had uh the pager attacks, so we know that you can put explosives in small electronic devices. We know that people do that. Um, we know there's all this hubbaloo about whether Charlie was pulling away from Israel." And listen, Israel got to know like if you take out enough people with [ __ ] the craziest [ __ ] ever that people are going to be like, you know who's really good at assassinations? Uh, Israel. So, he's pulling away from Israel, killed in proximity to technology. Let's like slow this down and let's make sure that we know where the blood actually splattered, what direction, all that. Plus, if you saw the footage, if you're like me, you're like, "What made his microphone jump off of his chest?" Like, it's so weird. There's just something weird. I'm not saying that it's it couldn't be like the way that the bullet moves the air. Maybe that's exactly it. Cool. No problem. But it's weird. And so when you watch the footage, you're like, the first thing that happens is the what I thought was a necklace. His necklace jumps. Then it's like, no, no, no, it's not his necklace. It's actually the microphone. So it's like all this stuff starts coming out. You got to put it together. So either CSI is full of [ __ ] and there's nothing
>> all 30 seasons of [ __ ]
>> in every region ever or there are things that we can learn from this [ __ ] where it's like that microphone should have been put into evidence. Custody chain [ __ ] mapped to the ends of the earth. The uh truck is stuck in the impound yard. Like dude, there are people with parking tickets. their [ __ ] is stuck in an impound yard for longer than a man who was assassinated. Like, you hold that [ __ ] You obviously tent up the area. You figure out what's going on. You document the life out of the autopsy. You have multiple people present during the autopsy. It's like, godamn. Like, in fact, as a PSA to my wife, god forbid I ever find myself a political figure, but if I'm assassinated and you only put your grief first, [ __ ] that. I want every inch documented, a team of rivals. I want people arguing about it. I want it
>> fireworks at my funeral. I need you innocent.
>> That's a whole [laughter] entrance cuz they got that
>> the fake cry as I drive by. The fake crying maybe less. But like they got the fireworks. God damn it. Now I want the forensic evidence. I want that [ __ ] mapped. Like that's crazy. This is crazy. This is crazy. Why put ourselves in this position? When the video first came out, cuz I saw it within the hour, the first thought I had before any conspiracies was that looks like a squib. As someone who's used squibs in production, that 100% looked like something under his shirt that popped it out because a bullet
>> also find yourself going it was the Jews
>> because if [laughter] you did, then it's like, I'm going to discount that a little.
>> Okay, maybe we step back. But also,
>> when the German accent comes out when you say it, then I know uhoh, [laughter] uhoh, we got a problem here. But also like that kind of caliber round as as a Texan that shoots guns, uh that kind of caliber round would have done more damage than it really did and it wouldn't
>> people have said that
>> it's like come on.
>> But he had adamantium bones so there is
>> Or what's the the Captain America shield?
>> I think it's also it's either vibranium. It was vibr he has the Wakanda hookup.
>> There it is.
>> I don't know that Charlie Kirk had the
>> Charlie Kirk definitely been to Wakanda. Like come on. That's what really happened. That's why Ken S was mad. She didn't get an invite.
>> Fair. Um, press first time on the your first answer on Tom Bill you show.
>> Weigh in.
>> Did Did the Jews kill Charlie?
>> Yeah. Way to way to start me off.
>> Hey, before you jump to the deep end, hold this weight. [laughter]
>> Uh, I'm not going to get into the conspiracy of it, but it strikes me as weird. And even weirder is how it's been handled. Like, I've I've seen parking uh or traffic infractions handled with more care than this has. So the whole thing just strikes me as very very out of place and abnormal.
>> Agreed. This one's wild, man. I Yeah, it it it just makes people immediately go, "Oh, this is being covered up." And when you have a history of covering things up and then you literally covered up with cement, the takeaway is going to be immediately, "Ah, yes, this is a cover up." So, yeah, it was stupid. Even if it is pure optics, it's terrible optics. Terrible. So, we'll see. At least we get to have the cameras in the courtroom. I think that's necessary. Otherwise, you could have had a real problem. If this breaks some type of way and people weren't allowed to see, at least this way, people be able to see it all unfolding right before their eyes.
>> Uh just in Fable's back. Everybody get their claws updates going. It was embargoed, held on export restrictions. The government wanted first crack at it. There were security concerns. there were bad actors in other country concerns, but it seems like Anthropic has flipped the switch back on Claude. Um, which I think is a net win for AI, especially right now with this stock price and who knows OpenAI backing off of their IPO. I feel like they needed this positive uh momentum going right now.
>> Agreed. And I think that even just let go of the economic side of this for a second. This was very contradictory messaging coming out of the Trump administration. So, you've got David Saxs, I think, being a very good uh proponent of AI technology, what we need to do to make it work. A big part of it is innovation. A big part of it is not trying to regulate AI into oblivion. He's been very opposed to that. He's been very um against the things that Bernie's saying. And I think that all of that's right. And then they came in with a hammer on Claude and were like, we're going to um you're going to have to run this by us. And models like everybody chill the [ __ ] out. And that plays into the whole regulatory capture angle, which man, you want to talk about ways that people are just not angry enough. Uh people have very diffuse anger towards the billionaire class and corporations, but that's not helpful. Getting very specific anger about the actual mechanisms that they use against people. The most obvious being monopolies and regulatory capture and just stopping innovation from happening, stopping competition from happening. We've got to let these companies be at risk of going out of business if they're making bad decisions. Just full stop. Period. End of story. Now, that doesn't mean that the government doesn't say, "Hey, AI is either um an elevated risk for security concerns and so we're going to have the lightest touch regulation humanly possible." And so, we just want to understand like, hey everybody, if you've got something that can crack known databases, whatever, uh you need to submit that uh first so that we can work together to come up with something sensible, great, no problem. But if you're just going into Dario Amade's own thing of like, hey, this stuff is so dangerous, you've got to come in, you've got to regulate the life out of it. Um, and oh, by the way, open source is extraordinarily dangerous, and so you shouldn't even allow open source at all, which is impossible. You're never going to be able to stop open source. So now, just understand how that plays out. you're basically the thing that you're saying we need protection against open source is the one thing that won't um be stopped by the regulation because they're not going to comply. You'll just get some hacker somewhere Xinping placing this out into the world whatever way so that he can erode the ability of the US AI industry which is propping up our entire economy. Not enough people understand that. Uh so our ability to charge for AI right now is holding up the economy. Xiinping is hyper aware of that and so he'll flood the market. He'll incentivize his companies inside of China to do this in an open source fashion so that he can erode the revenue potential of the US industry. And he does it's very
>> the BYD the BYD playbook.
>> Let let me finish one thought first on this and then we'll circle back to that. So uh you've got open source models are not going to conform but the people in the US that would create competition for open AI for anthropic those people would comply with light touch regulation that isn't overburdensome from a I need the ability to start up my company perspective and so those people now just won't exist because you end up being so draconian in your regulations it's too expensive to start a company and that is exactly what the big AI companies want right now. Open AAI wants regulatory capture. Anthropic wants regulatory capture. Uh Open AI has flirted with things that I'll consider just complete nationalization of OpenAI. They the CFO ended up backing off of it, but she signaled that, hey, we basically want taxpayers to be prepared to pick up the tab should these big loans that we're taking out go bad. That's [ __ ] crazy. Now, she ended up saying, listen, I muddied the issues. Not quite what I meant. Uh, I think it's [ __ ] I think she said exactly what she meant. And I think that they really do want that. And I think that they want that because they're incentivized to want that. We, as the buying public, however, are incentivized to want open source. We're incentivized to want the price to be low. We're incentivized to want competition. And so all of this now gets very complicated. So that's end of that chapter in the book. New chapter. Xihinping understands that the US economy is on very fragile ground because the cost of the infrastructure buildout of AI is extraordinary. It it's I don't know that it's truly unprecedented in um real terms meaning inflation adjusted but it might be. So it's very possible that this is the most expensive infrastructure we've ever taken on as a human civilization. Okay. So it it's certainly in competition for that. So as you let that sit out there, it's like, okay, you've had to bring on all this debt. Now, that puts you in a weakened position given how much of your total uh stock market hinges on growth in AI. So that's in Xinping's mind. Then he goes, well, you guys have been denying us chips. So you've stopped us from just competing head-to-head on frontier models. So how are we going to [ __ ] you up? You're our biggest geopolitical rival. What are we going to do to weaken you? Because if we see a kill shot with your economy, we're going to take it. Okay. Well, the way that we can do that is open source. Yeah, but how do we make the open source models good enough to compete? And the strategy that they're using is something called distillation. And that's where they create and they this has all been documented presented to the white house and congress uh that they have been doing exactly this creating tens of thousands of fake accounts running tens of millions of queries against open AI and anthropics so cloud and chat GPT and based on those millions of responses that they get from those models they're able to take a really cheaply built model and then just get all the weights based on the answers that they get. It's totally brilliant. Every company does it against their own models so that they can distill their own models down, but this obviously should be illegal to do against another company. And so China doing this. I don't know that it's actually legal at this po illegal at this point, but it should be in my opinion and we'll find out whether it already is. But they're doing that which allows them to build these incredibly cheap models like DeepSeek and Moonshot and then put them back as opensource models in the US. And we're already seeing companies like Airbnb and Coinbase making the switch because right now AI is so expensive, especially compared to what you get for it, that it's like companies are, bro, we can't do this. I think it was Uber that spent their entire year's allocation, AI allocation by April. So way off the mark. And now you get these open source ones coming along saying, "Hey, you can turn a hundred million dollar expense into a $5 million expense." Obviously, given that these open AI models or sorry, these opensource models are coming within a couple points on the standardized AI benchmarks, of course, people are going to make the switch, dude. You'd be insane not to. So now the US government is in this very weird position of oh [ __ ] we're going to have to defend this industry because it is truly systemically important for there are more reasons having to do with debt distribution, running the 2008 playbook, all of this. I've done a deep dive on this. It's coming out on Tuesday. Watch it. This [ __ ] should give you pause. It should definitely inform your investing strategy, but we're going to have to defend this market. AI is potentially winner take all. So now, how does the Trump administration and Congress, how do they come in and defend this industry without creating regulatory capture? And that is going to be the question that we have to answer. And the bad news is we have a really terrible history of overp protection, creating regulatory capture, the industry calcifying, and becoming worse for the end consumer. So this one is going to get weird. This is not going to be easy, but it is insanely important because AI could be win or take all. So, yeah, we can't [ __ ] around with this one. It So, I brought up that BYD example because I think that's the closest comparison where I would call the car industry regulatory capture. There's only four big manufacturers. It's hard to start a new car company. BYD is not allowed to operate in the US. Do you think we're gonna have that same? It seems at least on paper that that is the playbook that AI is trying to capture. There's only four companies. You can't start a new um open source L AI LLM. International corporations have to go through a bunch of loopholes, higher tariffs. So, if you wanted the Deep Seek, you'll have to pay $30 a month instead of the Open AI20 or whatever like that. Do you think that would probably be something that they're trying to get implemented or
>> That will be one of the requests put forward for sure. Something like that. um it was smart to keep BYD out of America. It's bad for the consumer. It's great for the middle class. So, this is one of those where um you when you look at when Elon tried to come in to the car manufacturing space, he ran up against some of the regulatory capture and it was just patently absurd and it took somebody like an Elon to break through all of that [ __ ] You saw, people are going to hate this one, but you saw something very similar with Palunteer when they first came into um their space. They just could not get any government contracts because they were being iced out by um very stupid uh ways that the bids were put in place and all this stuff and who was allowed to bid and all that. So, um you it takes these just ridiculously um well-connected, wealthy, and very indomitable entrepreneurs to be able to come in and push through all of that.
>> We do not want to put ourselves in that position. So, we have to look at what are the things that stop internal competition versus what are things that stop external competition. So, stopping BYD is good. Why? because we need to be a manufacturing hub. Even if for the sole reason of imagine we end up in a kinetic conflict with Russia and we need to on a dime say okay everybody making Teslas you now make drones. Great. This is exactly what we did during World War II. This is exactly why we come out as the un that and geography obviously why we come out the unscathed um heroes of World War II have because we have manufacturing that was used to build all the weaponry that we and the allies needed to win World War II.
>> So we're this absolute manufacturing powerhouse. And so we're able to grow our way out of the crushing debt, which is something that people just don't map to. And they are [ __ ] stupid. and they think that the reason that we did well in the 50s and 60s is because we had a 91% top t tax uh bracket. [ __ ] [ __ ] Anyway, um so we've got to be thinking about that kind of thing now. We've got to understand that you need manufacturing. You need manufacturing, dude. The the world's manufacturing hub is now your biggest geopolitical rival. You can't let that stand. That is a very bad position to be in. So, um there are going to be things that we need to do to protect our middle class and things that we need to do to protect our um actual just ability to produce things that will be militarily important.
>> And then with AI, you have the third thing of it is best understood as an arms race. Once you understand AI as an arms race, now it's like, yeah, we have to protect that. Like, we must win the AI arms race. I I hate to say it. And hey, look, if I'm China, I'm thinking I have to win the AI arms choice. I don't want America to be able to tell me what to do. I get it. That's the world we live in, unfortunately, until everybody globally is able to make sensible decisions as one big unit, which we will never be able to do. Uh then each country has to be like, "All right, I've got to be aligned with one of the big AI makers to be protected from cyber warfare, or I need to do it myself." But there is no well let's just wait and see what happens.
>> And I can't bring up AI after the Ford news came out and not talk about that. Ford rehires human engineers after their AI fails to match quality checks. So they implemented AI and a bunch of cameras to do safety checks on their production line. And then they had to bring back hundreds, some estimates were 300. I've seen some reports as high as five. They had to rehire all those engineers back to do the manual checks because AI was missing defects and they weren't hitting their quality standards. I think this is a very smart way to run your company. This is the Elon Musk come in, fire everybody, figure out who you need to hire back strategy. Um, the reason this is good is a company will unintentionally get unnecessarily bloated. Now, I do think that people are getting out over their skis on AI. This was something that um I really had to ground myself on here with Kaizen. It's like there's just certain things that it can't do yet. And if you're like, "No, no, no. It's got to be AI." Then it's like, you end up spinning your wheels. And it's like, there are things that AI is good at. Use it for those things. There are things that AI is currently bad at. Don't use it for those things. Don't have, and this is what I think it was Amazon. They put up a leaderboard and they're just like, you rank on the leaderboard based on how much you use AI. It's like, that is [ __ ] stupid. I want there's no way to check this, but what you really want to incentivize is the person uses AI the exact amount that AI increases their efficiency and doesn't ever use AI for anything where you're just being [ __ ] lazy. So that's important. Now pull up also the um the uh thing from David Saxs. This is so the big question and it's right to be debated. People should have all eyes on this. Will AI destroy more jobs than it creates or create more jobs than it destroys? Now, every technology that's been truly transformative has ended up creating more jobs than is destroyed. So, it that's cold comfort to the person who knows how to um sew and when the loom comes along and they become completely irrelevant, obviously that's bad for them. That is nothing you say is going to make them feel better. Not even if you're like, "But it kicks off so much money, you don't need to work anymore." They don't give a [ __ ] The everything they built their lives towards in terms of meaning and purpose and being able to contribute, it just goes away. That's going to happen to people here. And so, the speed of the change is going to be scary. Totally get it. I don't think there's any way to ease that burden. Uh the other side of this though is that it really does create a new kind of job that nobody could have ever imagined. Think about this for a second. Everybody in this room, right, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven of us. Everyone in this room right now is living off of Did I miscount? [laughter] Is it six or seven? I can't see everybody behind the TV.
>> Six.
>> Six. Okay, there's six of us. Uh, so you've got six people that now make a living off of [ __ ] YouTube. That didn't exist. That just didn't exist 20 years ago. So there will be things like that where we can't uh predict how many new things will be created. So David Saxs posted this thing and he's showing listen the people that deploy the most AI end up hiring the most new people. He said it starts off slow and then over time people realize where the real efficiencies are. They start leaning into that and then that allows them to bring more people on. So companies need to have an obsession with being lean. Impact Theory went through the same thing. So at Quest, I caught my first taste of this, but unfortunately it did not yet completely convince me. And what we saw at Quest was we if we solved an inefficient system by throwing more people at it, it ended up in the long run moving us backwards. But it does solve a short-term problem, which is why people keep doing it. So then at impact theory, I was like, wait, okay, so I know this lesson. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to build a really efficient system. However, it's going to be a system that allows me to scale. So I'm going to build the infrastructure first. but efficiently and then scale into it. Even that doesn't work. And so now I have a totally different model which is until I can point to a direct cell in a spreadsheet that says there's pentup revenue here and by hiring this new person I will be able to unlock at least three times their salary in additional revenue. It's not always that person generates the revenue, but they're unlocking somebody else. That has become way better and we're now far more capital efficient, more profitable, etc., etc., than we were before. and ironically also just making more topline revenue which is [ __ ] wild. So we shrink the team, right? Focus just here's a lesson in New York. We shrink our expenses and made more topline revenue and obviously more profit that the profit just becomes me mechanistic of shrinking your expenses which then for us was smart shrinking and so it actually increased our revenue mechanistically that means you're more profitable. So it's like man if I could just get people on that hype train. So, I look at the Ford thing and I get it. You can point and make fun and be like, "You cut too many people. You got too excited about where AI is currently and you fired the wrong people." Or you could say, "Listen, they could have been being dumb asses. I don't know. I'm not inside of Ford." But it's not a problem to say, "Okay, listen. This is what we think right now. We don't think we need these people. We think we're going to be able to get the return from AI. We're going to cut them out. If it doesn't work, then we will go back and rehire the people that we need." Some, by the way, are not going to be willing to work with you. They're going to be like, "Fuck you." and they're going to go somewhere else and you took that risk on that talent and you may have to go find somebody else from somewhere else. Fair enough. Th those are all very real things. But in America, we are really in danger of I mean we have several paths before us, most of which are terrible. One of those paths is this sense of Japan where it's like, hey, if we hire you here, you've got a job forever. And that led to catastrophic stagnation in Japan. Now, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem because they were stalling out for economic reasons, which is what made them make the promise, blah blah blah. But anyway, you end up calcifying where people aren't moving from company to company. It becomes very unnamic. You end up giving birth to what are known as zombie companies who are not creating anything new in the space, but they're able to live because they can just get cheap loans. It's a whole side thing that we could go down. That that is the death of the American experiment. We should absolutely not go down that path. So, I certainly understand that that means yes, every day people have to sing for their supper, which by the way, as a CEO, I have to sing for my supper every day because people can leave whenever the [ __ ] they want. And at the end of the day, I'm the only one who has no guarantee that I'm going to get paid in 10 years. I have never missed a single payroll. Even in the early days when I had to pay it out of my own [ __ ] pocket to make sure that everybody got paid. So, uh, keep that in mind, the whole idea of risk and reward. So, anybody can leave me whenever the [ __ ] they want. And thankfully, we live in America. Dynamic. You can go work for somebody else. So, uh it's a trade-off. I get it. But it is the far better trade-off. All right. We got some super chats.
>> Yes. Also, I was going to do the It was Amazon for the board. Uh they called it the Kuro rank and then they discontinued it quickly after. Uh, and the reason why, and this is the funny part, is it backfired almost immediately because employees started gaming it because they used AI tools like Kira and Meshclaw, an in-house agent tool to generate additional AI AI activity, which is a practice they called token maxing.
>> So now, welcome to um benefits maxing. If you want to answer your own question about why you can't bring infinity migrants into your country because they will benefits Max for sure. Not all of them, but you don't need a lot to begin draining the system. Look at all the fraud. Look at all of the fraud. It's wild.
>> Uh, but super chats. Patrick Writson with $50 says,
>> "Patrick, man,
>> can we put them up on the screen so I can see it as well, please?"
>> Sorry, my bad. My rights don't come from God or government. I'm an atheist. But they are inherent uh inherently a priority prior uh inherently a prior anyhum construct. Hence the crucial insights of libertarianism. Again, Kurt Dittle and his work regarding natural law.
>> So rights only ever come from narrative. And so the reason that I will very comfortably say things like my rights come from God is what I'm signaling to is not actually a bearded man in the sky. It is me signaling to that is the narrative that undergurs America. And so um heard I totally get what you mean and I'm very interested to look up our mans here. Um but yeah, I wouldn't let yourself get in a twist over that because it is a narrative that has served America very very very well.
>> Yes or no question. Do you think God actually is a bearded man in this guy?
>> No.
>> Obviously not. There is no I mean the God that you think that everybody's talking about.
>> Oh, do I think other people think that God is a bearded man in the same
>> like the God that you think like Jordan Peterson and I follow are is a beard
>> you can't you can't you and Jordan I don't think are in the same bucket.
>> Really?
>> This is why Jordan won't let himself be pinned down on whether God actually exists or not.
>> Okay. Um Okay.
>> He says I act as if God exists.
>> The God of Christianity in general. Yeah.
>> Do you think the Christians believe he's a old like a beard?
>> You need only look at the art that they generate of God. And yes, he is a bearded man in the sky.
>> Wow, that's interesting.
>> Do you think that they're misrepresenting themselves in art?
>> Yes.
>> Interesting. We if if it wasn't 9:00 a.m. I would take that fractal. I would bite, but alas.
>> Sequoia Hall says, "Let's go US. Hope we all the world are coming together with the awesome World Cup. Going to my second US game today and going to sing the national anthem with my son as loud as I can. It was amazing in Seattle. Peace all,
>> dude. Love that. So, first of all, part of the reason I won't take the bite is because I'm about to run off to watch a World Cup game uh here at the house. Not uh unfortunately not going to the game live, but the World Cup is so dope. I love to see it, man. It's so cool. Shout out to anybody getting hyped on it. Whatever country you're supporting, I love it the most. It was so cool to see. Even though this is America, I Mexico got a big win last night and the fireworks here were crazy. It's so cool. I love the vibe. It's just, yeah, it's really, really fun. Uh, so I hope you guys are enjoying it. It's a very um enjoyable thing to give yourself over to once every four years.
>> Also, World Cup might have the hottest fans of all sports.
>> Let's go. Really?
>> Hottest fans.
>> I had not noticed that.
>> Cheers.
>> Fan favorite name, Big Diglers, says Tom. A nugget. The American fatalists are quick to cite the end of the Roman Republic as a parallel to our time. They failed to recall the Roman Empire followed the Republic. One wonders if the American Empire may follow too.
>> That's interesting. I would love for him to drop a longer breakdown and what he means about that in uh Discord and then you can send it over to me in Slack would be wonderful. Um I have a feeling it's tied to a uh psychological propensity to get confused about the nature of prosperity. And I really think if you were just going to sum up why does every empire ever fail, it is a misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of prosperity. You start hard. You start Spartan and you just get it. I got to balance a budget. I got to be a hardcore [ __ ] because that is how you uh win life because life is an open world survival crafting game where everything is trying to take your resources from you. And you've got to find a way to grow your resources with the the same population through efficiency. and only then can you grow. Once you understand that, then it's like, "Oh [ __ ] we got to be hardcore. We got to make sure that these mines are yielding the coal and the iron and all that [ __ ] and we've got to be prepared to protect ourselves, and we got to grow these crops, motherfucker." And then all of a sudden, it starts happening so automatically that people can legitimately be like, "Well, I don't want to go do that. I want to teach kids art or whatever." Which, by the way, I used to teach kids music, so I am not [ __ ] throwing shade. I'm like, that is a beautiful thing that happens when you reach a degree of prosperity. The problem is if you do not teach people, hey, that job you have teaching kids music, that's only possible because we have done hardcore [ __ ] So, you better vote for the discipline, being tight with the money, not getting [ __ ] crazy that if people want to teach music, they got to earn that path. Somebody other than the government has to be paying you to do that thing. So, yay. But you have to understand how we got prosperous in the first place. And so when it starts detaching and nobody has to actually fight off the horde of invaders, all of a sudden it's like men and women are the same. No, they're [ __ ] not. When you have to chuck a spear, I assure you they are different as [ __ ] And yeah, anyway, I'm going to [ __ ] derail on that. I love talking about that [ __ ] But the reality is women bred men to be a certain type of way. Uh upper body strength is one of the certain types of ways. So all of that [ __ ] is real because of how hard it is from starting flat as a [ __ ] mammal that survived the meteorite strike to then become who we are now. That [ __ ] is hard to do and we just get confused and we forget that it's hard and so we start voting for things as if the prosperity just happened and we just need to redistribute it better. It's [ __ ] crazy. Radical Metal with $50 super chat says, "Tom, huge fan of the fan of the value you and the team are providing the public. What will it take to have you a guest on my show, Radical Metal?"
>> Uh, you've got to be big. Just being honest. Every [clears throat] second of my time is accounted for. I work 18 hours a day, five days a week, and then I work about 10 hours a day, two days a week. Uh I average when you take it out over a year I average 93 hours of work uh every week 365 for the last decade. So um man I am I get so resentful of things that need my time because I have such a clear agenda. And so if you align with my agenda I'll do it in a [ __ ] heartbeat. If you don't align with my agenda then I'm just like man I got to be really hardcore about it. So I love you and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that you want me on your show. that is like I I'm not joking. I'm humbled by that. Uh the vast majority of the world doesn't give a [ __ ] about me. They don't want me on their show. So, anytime anybody wants it, but it's just got to slot into like, okay, what is the size to be able to get me on? So, if you're around my size or bigger, easy yes. If you're not, then it's an unfortunately easy no. With love, I love you. I had to fight that same game in the early days when nobody knew who I was and I had no presence on YouTube. I was interviewing obscure people no one knew and I was just like I got to make this the best [ __ ] interview humanly possible to get that next person who's a little bit bigger. Uh and on and on you go and now I've been at it for 10 years and and that's it. It's still [ __ ] hard to get people on the show. So uh I both feel your pain and that's the answer. In the last super chat of the day, R.J. Johnson says, "I've been away for a while. Did you cover Toyota's new solid state battery offering 1100 mile range recharge in 5 minutes and way cooler so no fire risk? I'm buying one as soon as they're for sale.
>> I didn't even know about them. So, this is what happens, R.J. when you're not around. We're blind to stuff. So, first of all, thank you for paying to educate me. I am always obscenely grateful uh for people that do that. Um, and we'll have to look into it, but no, we have not covered it because I didn't know it existed. And welcome back.
>> And that's it for the super chats.
>> All right, boys and girls, it's the World Cup. Whoever you're cheering for, I love it the most. I'm super excited for you. As long as you're not going up against England or the US, I'll cheer for your squad. I love it. Uh but right now, we've got an England game. I'll have to watch that. I hope you guys are having a ball and we will see you on Friday. And on Friday, it is our last show before the 4th of July. So, uh get ready. I think we've got a new intro for you guys. I'm going to try to like really say my thing about why I think America is dope. Uh show some love to foreignb born Americans. Anybody that shares my value system, I'm here for you. All right, guys. Love you bunches. Have a great day. Okay, we'll see you on Friday. Oh, and wait, don't forget Ploud. Plowed. This AI technology is awesome. The QR code is on the screen. You can get 10% off with code impact at ploud.ai/impact. Records everything that's going on, gives you notes, tells you what you need to follow up on, all that stuff. It's fantastic. And then on July 9th at 1 p.m., I'm going to be doing a free master class. Free, free, free. Teach you how to launch a company using AI. Don't miss it. All right.
>> Oh, shoot. Congo just scored. All right, we got to go frozen.
>> How dare you? What the
