如果他输了，兄弟。什么？你就完蛋了，老兄。我完蛋了。如果他输了，我就完蛋了。看起来确实如此。你不能只是说，你不能只是说……对，我就在想，你觉得我的刑期会有多长？比如，我还能见到我的孩子吗？我不知道。因为你不能说，嗯，对，我给他的捐款已经达到上限。但是，你知道，我……我没有任何貌似可信的否认余地。没有。没有，没有。而且我一直在不停地抨击卡玛拉。

哦，我知道。嗯，我叫她卡玛拉傀儡，你知道。卡玛拉傀儡所代表的那台机器。对，她无关紧要。我是说，她甚至都不算。没有，没有。比如，我发了。我开了个玩笑，后来我意识到——我删掉了。就是说，比如根本没人费心尝试杀掉卡玛拉，因为这毫无意义。你能实现什么？什么也实现不了！再买一个傀儡就是了。那是……不过，这话很深刻，也很真实。没人试图杀掉乔·拜登。那毫无意义。

完全是。你真的把那条发出来了？对。现在，有些人把它解读成我是在号召人们暗杀她。但我，但我，但我当时想，但我当时想，不是，甚至，你知道，我当时想，难道没人甚至费心尝试过，这不显得奇怪吗？不值得。我是说，供应无穷无尽。我就说，没人会——这太荒谬了。可以是任何人。对。对。没人会试图暗杀一个傀儡。当然不会。

一个提线木偶。对，提线木偶。所以这就像……你知道……太搞笑了。对。她很安全。就像，就像有人两次试图用真枪实弹杀死特朗普。对，他就在我当时所在的那个该死的巴特勒耳朵中枪了。而且……他看起来并没有心神不宁。很奇怪。你觉得他有吗？他看起来没有什么？心神不宁。我的意思是，他有公牛一般的体魄。这不是，你知道，不是靠锻炼和健康饮食。而且他……

好，我们得把这个录下来。对，我们没问题。很好。对。他不是那种会说，让我再吃份沙拉吧。不是。或者，你知道，一丝不苟地锻炼。那……我觉得。比如他不锻炼。而且他吃，你知道，芝士汉堡、健怡可乐之类的东西。而且就是。我觉得他天生体魄强健。所以我的意思是，你刚刚还和他在一起。他看起来不像一个遭遇过两次暗杀未遂的人。

不，他看起来身心健全，而且意志坚定。你有没有——这就是我在那个东西里说的。对，还有那些讲话。我当时的发言是即兴的。没有提词器之类的东西。我只是。我只是在即席发言。你是唯一一个没有媒体顾问之类的富人吗？不，我没有媒体顾问。对。不，我注意到了。显然。对。对。我的意思是。不，我只是，不，我只是想了想什么。

我什么。我想说什么。然后我就即兴说了。没有提词器，什么都没有。真不错。对。我看起来就像我现在这样看着吗？我只是在说话。看看我。哇。太神奇了。你能相信吗？我不用提词器也能说话。太疯狂了。但如果。如果他输了。你很难假装自己从未支持过他。全都落到深水区了。对。现在你绝对身处深水区。而且你能碰到底。我就像。

我就像，一头猪一样滚来滚去。而且我就像，全买下来，还有，宝贝。有趣吗？是的，非常有趣。怎么说？我的意思是。我的意思是，在希望不太可能发生的情况下。也就是他输了。可能会有人报复我。你在开玩笑吗？我的意思是，有可能。有可能。你一定是。最大的政府承包商之一。我们为政府做至关重要的工作。是的。对。

但不是那样，你知道，我们做的是有用且至关重要的工作，我们参与竞争并赢得合同，因为我们的产品好得多。成本也更低。但这就是为什么我们能。去，而且而且。我的意思是，比如说，如果你看看运送宇航员往返空间站的纳斯卡合同。波音一开始算是拿到了两份合同。一份给波音，一份给SpaceX。波音获得的金额是SpaceX的2倍。

SpaceX完成了所有从空间站运送宇航员的任务，而波音只完成了1对1运送两名宇航员中的一名去空间站。然后我们不得不把它带回来。波音得到的是SpaceX的2倍。说我的公司一直受到政府补贴和支持，拿到所有这些，这完全是一种误解，而且就像，你真的认为拜登政府会补贴我吗？大概不会。

你在开玩笑吗？不会。事实上。他们会撤掉他们能撤掉的每一份合同。所以，例如，有FCC，FCC那份价值420亿美元的合同，用于提供、提供农村、农村贫困地区的宽带。是的。好。我们实际上首先说，听着，我们不，我们认为不应该有任何补贴。所以我们的建议是，这个项目干脆不要存在。但既然你们坚持要让它存在，我们就会参与竞争。而且我们，我们有一个产品。

所以我们赢了。我不知道，大约是其中的四分之一，其中本来会包括北卡罗来纳州等遭受重创的地区。而FCC非法收回了它。他们就这么投了票。5名委员中有3名投票撤销了它，并说，即使你想要它，我们也要把它发送。上线。而且你知道他们连接了多少人吗？多少？0。所以你认为那是出于政治原因？嗯，3名民主党人投了反对票。

2名共和党人投了赞成票。所以你试图部署星链。你试图把星链部署到北卡罗来纳州，部署到北卡罗来纳州西部。那些遭受飓风重创的地区。我们已经部署了，它就在那儿。而且它是受灾地区的主要通信手段。你为此和布蒂吉格发生了冲突？嗯，我提了出来。我说，听着，我们，我们已经运送了。

我们已经往那里运送星链终端有一段时间了，而且显然有些人本来就已经拥有终端。所以那只是你的内容吗，已经在那里拥有星链的个人？我们运送了数千台终端，一路抵达了，你知道，那些他们不允许我们再继续前进的地区。然后我们就说，好吧，我们要派直升机进去，寻找那些受困的人，并且给他们星链终端。

所以我认为这是一件好事。好。他们，他们不让我们降落，因为有一份FAA发给Em的通知和航行通告，上面说，为了降落，你必须知道落地后要和谁见面。现在，问题是我们正试图提供互联网通信。人们没有互联网通信。我们不知道他们是谁，而他们也联系不上我们，因为他们没有通信手段。你明白这个第22条军规式的困境吗？是的，我明白。

而且说。所以，对于没有互联网通信的人来说，要让我们，要让我们知道他们是谁，显然是不可能的，因为他们没有互联网。是的。是的。所以你向联邦政府解释过这一点吗？是的。他们怎么说？他们，他们已经，他们解决了。你和布蒂吉格谈话时，他态度怎么样？其实很好。所以我想公正一点。对。对。我想在这里给布蒂吉格一些肯定，因为一个。

我想对此表示不满。他，他的反应非常冷静理智，而且他主动联系了我。他给我打了电话。对。我们讨论了这个问题。弄清了问题的根源，然后他解决了。很好。所以这点要肯定布蒂吉格。对。也要肯定你推动了这件事。对，我的意思是，所以。但他一意识到这个问题，就解决了。嗯，你也公开宣传了这件事。在上面？对。对。你一让他感到羞耻，他就解决了。

嗯，但我确实想在该肯定的地方给予肯定。对。不，他的意思是。我完全同意。所以。但回到最初的问题。你知道可能的后果，如果，你知道，在全力投入之后，这件事没有成功。对。我的意思是，你这样做之前一定对此深思熟虑过。你当时是怎么想的？我的意思是。对，所以。我的意思是，我的看法。

是，是如果特朗普没有赢得这次选举，这将是我们会有的最后一次选举。那个。民主党这台机器一直在引进如此多的人，带进如此多的非法移民，用这个像是CBP边境应用程序的东西把人空运进来，空运进来，甚至根本没人知道这件事，就像一个非法的秘密项目。基本上，它是非法的，但司法部没有采取行动真正阻止它发生。那里。

只是在把大量非法移民运往摇摆州。如果你看这些数字，这些数字来自政府网站。所以来自民主党管理的政府网站，比如你从哪里获得这些数据？从民主党人运营的政府网站。而且所有摇摆州的非法移民增幅都达到了3位数。在某些情况下，过去3年里增幅大约是700%。

那些摇摆州的票数差距有时是10,000、20,000票。那么，如果你把，你知道，数十万人放进每一个摇摆州，会发生什么？而且，而且对于，对于。当某人获得庇护时，他们会被快速处理，从而可以获得绿卡，然后在拿到绿卡5年后，他们就可以，他们可以获得公民身份，并且可以完全合法地投票。而当他们这样做时，他们会压倒性地投票给民主党。

有时他们会得到这样的反驳，比如，嗯，他们中的许多人，其社会价值观与那种极左翼的所谓觉醒意识形态并不一致。这是真的。但，但那不是他们的首要任务。但他们的首要任务是也让自己的朋友和家人来到美国。而民主党人还推出所有这些项目，这些基本上算是救济品的东西，让他们受制于民主党。所以他们拉低了。

事情就是这样。所以我的预测是，如果民主党政府再执政4年，他们会让那里的大量非法移民合法化，以至于下一次选举将不再有任何摇摆州。而且，而且我们会变成一个一党制国家，就像加利福尼亚州是一个一党制州一样。加利福尼亚州是民主党占绝对多数的州。因为移民。是的。加利福尼亚过去相当可靠地支持共和党。

比尔·克林顿在92年输掉了加利福尼亚州，却赢得了西弗吉尼亚州。是的。所以1986年有过一次大赦？是的。从那以后，加利福尼亚州就非常强烈地倾向他们。而截至目前，我想下降了65%或70%，差不多是这样。下降到超级多数，就像加利福尼亚州议会。是的。民主党超过三分之二。这改善了该州吗？没有，并没有。而加利福尼亚州刚刚通过了，这令人震惊。很难相信这居然是真的。

但加利福尼亚州刚刚通过了一项法律，规定在加利福尼亚州的任何选举中要求选民出示身份证都是违法的。你知道吗？不知道。是的。纽森上周签署了这项法律。要求出示身份证是违法的。在任何选举中，甚至是镇议会选举。还有我的一个朋友。这个候选人是谁？他住在帕洛阿尔托。就像。就像，这是真的吗？然后他去，像是，在某个市议会选举中提交，像是。

他试图向他们出示他的身份证，他们说，我们甚至不被允许查看你的身份证。他们突然把这个扩大了吗？现在到底怎么回事？但他们对此感到自豪。他们并没有隐瞒。但这只是投票。不是买枪或买酒、买一包香烟、乘飞机或租酒店房间。只有投票时才会，如果。你试图买枪，我是说，他们会。

想法有6种通向太阳的方式，是的，他们试过，加利福尼亚正试图让它基本上凭自身等同于一把枪。而那些要求你若想旅行或做任何事情就必须出示疫苗身份证明的人，也正是那些说不需要选民身份证明的人。有没有任何理由。显然很虚伪。通过这样的法律，除了协助选举舞弊？这是为了，这是，这是为了让舞弊永远不会无法被证明。

所以它使大规模舞弊成为可能，而且没有办法证明，因为你要怎么证明？这实际上是不可能的。不，不要身份证明。你甚至不被允许出示身份证。这太疯狂了。嗯，这确实很疯狂。疯狂。所以。是的。内华达州选民身份证明的目的显然是进行选举舞弊。显然不可能有其他解释。我是说，他们会想出某种听起来不错的说法。人们没有想法。

你能带着一个想法生活在这个国家吗？是的。我是说，他们常见的反驳就像是，要求身份证明是种族主义，而且。这太疯狂了。我认为，说人们弄不明白如何取得身份证明显然实际上才是种族主义和居高临下。但没有身份证，你怎么能住在这里？我不认为你不能。是的。你什么都做不了。是的。你得支持一切。比如列一张需要身份证明的事情清单？

基本上除了投票之外的一切。所以。所以你看其余的。显然完全是胡说八道。显然，是的。但这丝毫没有减弱他们在这场谈话中表现出的攻击性或自以为是。是的。如果你想要那个，你就是种族主义者。对。而事实上，如果有人说某个特定种族的人无法取得身份证明，那显然这个人才是种族主义者。那是居高临下和种族主义的。这很荒谬。是的。是啊。

你知道，这就像纽约州州长把人们放在那个，你知道，出去，不知道怎么使用电脑之类的。我是说，就像，你超级脱离现实。是的。肯定的。是啊。所以这就像。所以有一个非常清晰的模板。她不知道怎么使用电脑，但他们知道。显然。我觉得霍楚尔不会使用电脑。是的，我认为她在智力上不够格。是的。不。对。

但并不是纽约的每个人都像凯茜·霍楚尔一样愚蠢。我认为这是真的。是的。所以，如果那台机器获胜，你认为其他49个州会变成加利福尼亚吗？嗯，你并不。需要让全部49个州都变成那样。你只需要，你知道，有足够多的州让选举，让摇摆州不复存在。我是说，只有6个摇、摇摆州。对。所以目前50个州中只有6个州存在竞争。

所以，如果那6个以微弱差距存在竞争的州不再存在竞争，那么唯一的竞赛将是谁赢得民主党初选。加利福尼亚就是这样。纽约就是这样。不存在，不存在政党对政党的局面。唯一的竞赛就是谁赢得民主党初选。而且正如我们在任命卡玛拉这件事上看到的，没有任何人投票支持她，即使在民主党初选中也是如此。

是的。民主在哪里。在这里？嗯，只不过这样更容易，我是说，这。只是政党领袖直接决定由谁掌权。那，那，那，那就是，你知道，基本上是一个小型寡头集团。由那些构成。这不是民主。这个国家最富有的人。对我来说，有意思的地方在于，这个国家最富有的人都支持这件事。我是说，事实就是如此。

这，这，这是一个亿万富翁的集合。嗯，他们大多数是。是的，但你不是。不是我。我也不是。每个人都是。我认为，所谓的亿万富翁中有数量惊人的人在民主党阵营，比共和党阵营的更多。这是肯定的。这很疯狂。所以，事实上，摇摆州中令人震惊的事情是，鉴于民主党拥有的钱远多于共和党，那里竟然还有竞争。

所以，所以卡玛拉阵营在摇摆州的花费大幅超过特朗普竞选团队，媒体压倒性地支持民主党。所以你有，你知道，新闻界，你知道，他们的啦啦队，而且。你知道，所以我。然后，然后你还有几乎整个好莱坞和娱乐业，名人也都，你知道，表态支持并支持他们。所以你看，你有，你有名人，你有，他们，他们有钱。

他们基本上什么都有，都站在民主党一边；共和党在这里处于劣势，特朗普在摇、摇摆州处于劣势。可即便如此，这仍然是一场胶着的，仍然是50/50，尽管有这一切。这说明了什么？这告诉我，如果人们真的知道正在发生什么，没有被持续不断地灌输宣传，那将会是共和党压倒性获胜。是的。嗯，这有多疯狂？

美国政治中曾经出现过比这更动荡的时期吗？在我们有生之年没有。现在还活着的人都从未见过这样的事情。但早在事情开始真正分崩离析之前，传统基金会就预见到了这一点。

传统基金会召集了一个由100多个右翼团体组成的联盟，制定一项针对上任第一天的全面计划，其中将包括针对最紧迫问题的详细政策提案，那些重大问题包括：确保边境安全、控制通货膨胀、严厉打击选举舞弊、保护个人权利，以及拯救国家，使其免遭觉醒派反人类意识形态的摧毁。

传统基金会的团队还制定了一项计划，要瓦解让这些荒唐事持续下去的深层政府，并从那个搞砸一切的技术官僚小集团手中夺回这个国家。传统基金会。还在开展一项培训和审查计划，以物色能在下一届总统政府中任职的高效保守派人士。那些认同你的价值观、这个国家的价值观，而且真正把工作做好的人。

不能让每届政府都由华盛顿那同一批声名扫地的人充斥。传统基金会很早就开始行动了。他们已经投入了大量工作，但他们需要你的支持来完成这项工作，并支持即将上任的总统。你可以访问heritage.org/tucker，今天就为这项重要工作捐款。很多事情都取决于此。heritage.org/tucker，但为什么不加入更容易的那一边。

我的意思是，你就是——你和特朗普一起登台，只是在给自己制造麻烦，而且我的意思是，肯定有朋友这样对你说过。确实。是的。对。那些关心你的人。比如，为什么还要卷进这件事？嗯。因为我认为我们希望继续保持民主制度，不想变成一党制国家。是的。这就是原因。而且这恰恰相反。人们说特朗普是民主的威胁。

但那些说特朗普是民主威胁的人，他们自己才是民主的威胁。是的。一党统治不是民主。一个政党实际上由党内精英挑选候选人，就像卡玛拉身上发生的那样，这不是民主。人民在哪里投票了？告诉我人民在哪里投票了。不，根本没有人民投票。完全就是民主党精英直接任命了某个人。

而且，而且当那个拜登傀儡——他们在提供傀儡——收视率下滑时。他们立刻把他撞到后面。直接把他扔了出去。然后放上一个新傀儡。事情就是这样。告诉我我说错了。嗯，你不只是说得对。我的意思是，甚至几乎都不值得批评卡玛拉·哈里斯，因为我很清楚，她和这有什么关系？批评没有意义。

它实现了——她，她只是一个庞大得多的机器的门面。是的。而且无论是什么，无论提审，提词器，提词器上写着什么，她都会照着说。是的。如果提词器坏了，她就会卡住。最近就发生过。我想当时提词器是。她只是——她就那样循环了一会儿，大约一分钟。所以我觉得。那开始得很慢。看起来挺好笑的。

但她只会说出提词器上的任何词。所以，你知道，实际上，谁控制提词器，谁才是真正的那种——确实——谁才是真正掌权的人。那你认为是谁？嗯，我试着查清楚。并不是说。存在某一个幕后主脑。并不是——看起来卡玛拉有点像一个提线木偶，背后有。你知道，某种一千个傀儡师的情况。比如，不是——它是，它是，它是。

或者也许——看起来大概是100人以上。是的，我敢说你认识其中80人。我可能认识其中大多数。对。对。所以，我的意思是，就凭你的工作以及你过去30年一直在做的事情，我是说。对。而且我应该说，我觉得你投票支持了它。我想。看看那前100名傀儡师和爱泼斯坦客户名单之间的匹配情况。你觉得有一些重叠和重叠吗？高度重叠。

你觉得我们什么时候能看到那份名单？我不知道。令人震惊的是，他们居然没有试图起诉哪怕一个人，甚至连爱泼斯坦客户名单上最恶劣的罪犯都没有。他们连一个人都没有试图起诉。这是不是太疯狂了。嗯，因为他们有很多患糖尿病的祖母，她们1月6日待在首都外面，所以他们有点忙不过来。是啊。

我的意思是，他们把大概，随便说吧，5或600名1月6日的抗议者关进了监狱，却没有关爱泼斯坦客户名单上的任何一个人。你觉得那份名单有朝一日会公布吗？你知道，我认为卡玛拉得到这么多支持，部分原因是如果特朗普获胜，爱泼斯坦客户名单就会公开。是的。而卡玛拉背后的一些亿万富翁对这种结果怕得要命。是啊。你觉得里德·霍夫曼感到不安吗？是的。是啊。

还有盖茨。是啊。我之所以这么问，只是因为你看着他们就会觉得，那个人一看就很紧张。我不知道。我的意思是，我猜你知道。是啊。是的。里德·霍夫曼曾经是我在 PayPal 负责开发的副总裁。是啊。24年前他是。他在你看来紧张吗？是啊。我的意思是，他害怕特朗普获胜怕得要命。因为随后会披露那些东西？我想是的。是啊，我的意思是，我想是的。

不管怎样，他在意识形态上肯定与特朗普不一致，但我认为他担心那个，那个爱泼斯坦事件。就像司法部实际上可能真的会推进。视频有很多。显然，岛上的那些房间，我想还有新墨西哥州那边的房间，都装了录像设备。对。而最糟糕的是，我的意思是，迪迪和爱泼斯坦这两边加起来，这里可能有数千小时的影像。是啊。

那些视频里的人却在教训我们其他人，说我们在道德上有缺陷，这有点奇怪，不是吗？是啊，确实很奇怪。那是怎么回事？嗯，我的意思是，他们用来。转移人们对他们自身注意力的部分方式，就是批评别人的道德。是的。所以他们这有点像是先发制人的道德打击。我的意思是，就像我说过的，我认为那些说特朗普是民主威胁的人，他们自己实际上才是民主的威胁。

感觉我们正在走到一个我们其他人知道得太多的境地。这是说？我的意思是，生活在一个社会里会更容易。我们并不真正知道掌权的人在做什么，或者他们为什么那么做。但现在，多亏了。我想说主要是多亏了 X。是啊。我认为这么说很公平。是啊，我们，我们确实知道很多。不是全部，但我们知道很多。而我想知道，那会是什么样子？既然我们知道了这一切，接下来会发生什么。

绑匪已经向我们露出了他的脸。比如接下来会发生什么？嗯。我认为如果，如果特朗普获胜，我们可以做一些清理工作。并让一些事情见光。然而这个平台所做的一切，只是在法律范围内坚持自由，坚持言论自由。是的。而如果，如果人们想修改法律，他们可以修改法律。所以，比如 X 在不同的国家，X 确实会审查内容。在那些审查就是，就是法律的国家。

我们不会试图在其他国家推行美国法律，但我们确实会努力遵守任何特定国家的法律。我们就是这么做的。我们将算法开源。我们努力尽可能透明。但那些想散布谎言的人显然憎恨真相和透明。是的。因为这会显出他们是骗子。我的意思是，你看看，卡玛拉在总统辩论中的那件事有多离谱？不断宣扬“好人”骗局。

他们知道“好人”骗局是假的。特朗普绝不会支持纳粹和纳粹集会。这太荒谬了。而且他在同一次演讲中明确说过，你必须以最强烈的措辞谴责，不是，你知道，任何具有纳粹倾向的人。然而，尽管知道那是假的，那些为卡玛拉傀儡撰写演讲稿的人，还是把“好人”骗局放进了总统辩论。再次蓄意撒谎。

这太糟糕了。如果她获胜。我的意思是，他们怎么可能允许 X 继续以目前的形式、目前在美国社会中的角色存在下去。他们不会。他们会想尽一切办法关闭它。你说的想尽一切办法是什么意思？我的意思是，首先，你看，你要么买下它。我的意思是，他们会试图通过法律。他们会试图起诉公司、起诉我，任何。我的意思是，我们看到正在发生的这种斗争，其程度太离谱了。

我的意思是，这个，我的意思是，有很多例子，但比如说，司法部就对 SpaceX 发起了一场大规模诉讼，理由是没有雇用寻求庇护者。得了吧，寻求庇护者？不是获得庇护——那些获准庇护的人。寻求庇护者。

现在，还有，还有一项名为“国际运输一项武器条例”的法律，因为 SpaceX 开发了先进的导弹技术，它可以被使用，以及我们拥有的核洲际弹道导弹，我们，我们必须非常谨慎地决定雇用谁。只有当某人是永久居民或公民时，我们才能雇用他。这就是阿亚图拉说的。然后还有另一项法律说，你不能歧视寻求庇护者。

所以做也该死，不做也该死。司法部对 SpaceX 发起了一场大规模诉讼，理由是没有雇用寻求庇护者。尽管根据 ITAR 法律，我们雇用寻求庇护者是违法的。这种自然的事情正在发生。而且他们每年只能，他们只能提起。数量相当少的诉讼。所以他们为什么选择这一起？因为你拥有 X。是啊，法律战。

我的意思是，这就像贝利亚那句名言，你知道，那个。是啊。斯大林的首席施刑者和秘密警察负责人。贝利亚说，把人给我，我就把罪名给你看。正是如此。我的意思是，我们有如此多的法律，以至于实际上根本不可能，你知道，不可能做生意，不可能在不违反某项法律的情况下运营，因为你有像我刚才举给你的那些法律，两件事在那里都是违法的。是的。

这些彼此矛盾。它们彼此矛盾。所以，你知道，这是违法的。歧视，歧视求职中的寻求庇护者。但我们雇用寻求庇护者也是违法的。但这确实是。他们只是，他们只是选择了其中一个。他们选择了那一项法律，无视了另一项。而联邦层面的司法部。为此起诉了 SpaceX。你觉得……这太疯狂了。

嗯，这也损害了法律理念的信誉，而我们有些人希望认真对待它。完全正确。这既影响人们对美国司法的看法，也影响它的现实。是的。所以。不，我其实非常推崇美国司法制度。而且我认为，总体而言，你知道，我们仍然，仍然拥有一个出色的司法制度。我们仍然有在意法律条文和立法意图的法官。

我的意思是，不只是条文，也包括法律的意图。但人们应该担心的一件事是，把活动人士安排成法官的运动日益壮大。这是，如果你看看谁听取了它，拜登政府确认担任联邦法官的人，以及那些在州一级获得确认并在某种程度上追随各州的人。越来越多地，那些法官并不在意正义，或者他们不在意遵循法律。

他们在意的是社会正义，而不是正义。正义。对。把他们所谓的社会正义活动人士任命为法官。现在你就遇到真正的问题了。你觉得如果。如果这种情况继续下去，我们将不会拥有一个真正的司法制度。或者一个真正的。国家？是的。是啊。但再说一遍，我认为可以公平地说，你对 X 的收购，即便我讨厌它，我也会这么说，因为这是事实。它在美国政治中发挥了关键作用。是啊。也在美国社会中发挥了关键作用。

你觉得如果民主党继续掌权，他们能关闭你吗？嗯，我可能会尝试。是啊。而如果他们。如果他们。如果他们在参议院和众议院都取得多数席位。并取得总统职位。那么他们只要通过一项法律，删除第230条就可以了。所以有人让我们为此承担责任。对什么负责？任何，任何人在一个平台上说的任何话，而这个平台，你知道，到目前为止，每月活跃用户接近6亿。是啊。这是不可能的。

你知道，那，那就像试图监管言论以及。某种程度上像一个国家。是啊。所以是一个大。国家。是啊，那会立刻破产。但我敢打赌，他们不会同时撤销疫苗制造商的法律豁免，对吧？不会。那不太可能。只是，我的意思是，既然。我们正在撤销法律责任保护。是啊。是啊。我的意思是，整个疫苗争论是，是个很长的话题。

你知道，其实我并不是，我并不是笼统地反对疫苗。我认为我们在使用疫苗时应该谨慎。但如果没有疫苗，就会多得多。我想那些人，那些那些已经死去的，你知道，比如我们接种的天花疫苗，那是个不错的疫苗。看起来是个不错的疫苗。是的。是的。天花会要你的命。害死过很多人。

过去，人们会，就是很多人会死于天花，很多人会得脊髓灰质炎。确实。是的。我们有一位总统得过脊髓灰质炎。是的。现在仍然有人，你今天还能遇到一些人。是的。80多岁，因为童年时得过脊髓灰质炎而一瘸一拐。对。我们现在没有这个了，这是好事。而疫苗，你知道，在其中发挥了重要作用。所以这并不意味着疫苗不应该受到任何审查。当然应该。

如果我们要给儿童之类的人接种疫苗，就应该确保疫苗的质量控制好得令人难以置信。而且我们不应该，我们不应该强迫人们接种疫苗。我们不应该强迫人们，这句话本身就有争议。我们不应该强迫。我们会收回那些事情。所以放松点。我信奉自由。就是，是的，我注意到了。比如美国理应是自由之地。是的。

你知道，自由。自由和机会。所以我们要尽可能地最大化人们的个人自由，并努力成为一个让你凭借才华和努力取得成功的国家。是的。这是两项根本价值观。那。那正是，那正是让美国伟大的东西。如果我们失去它们，我们的衰落将会非常迅速。你怎么想，如果你必须猜，如果你必须下注。

我的意思是，自由会在美国重新彰显自身吗？我们没有。嗯，这正是我认为这次选举如此关键的部分原因。我认为，如果我们是特朗普政府，我认为我们能够改善美国人的自由。我们能。我认为我们需要进行合理的放松监管，保留那些重要的法规。我们不想破坏，你知道，重要的栖息地，或者，是的，你知道，鼓励石油泄漏之类的事情。

但有太多监管机构的职责相互重叠，以至于我们正在扼杀进步，而且我们无法在美国建造高速铁路。看看加利福尼亚州那个荒唐的高铁项目，他们已经花了70亿美元，而唯一能拿出来展示的，就是一段A6A 600英尺长、上面没有铁轨的混凝土。网上有它的照片。所以如果。

它目前还没那么快，我不会说它现阶段是高速，甚至。铁路。它甚至没有，也许现在他们已经铺了一些铁轨，但那只是一段小得可笑的铁路。已经花了70亿美元，其中大部分花在了环境咨询上。而且我不知道钱去了哪里，但显然不是用来建造高速铁路。

所以我们不能，我们不能，我们有太多不同的监管机构，也有太多阻碍进步的法律和法规，如果这种情况继续下去，我们根本什么都做不成。看起来工程师并没有变富。变富的是环境顾问、气候顾问、DUI顾问。似乎有一整个顾问阶层正年复一年地变得更加富有。

或者拥有实际技能的人，那些带来真正进步的人。有用的东西、有用的人可以使用的产品和服务。没错。所以这是两件事，如果你，比如说。流落到一座荒岛上，你会想要那些人。对，对。但你不会想要环境控制。他们似乎，他们似乎没煮熟。就像你要饿死了。好吧。是的。是的。是的。而且就像。

谁是那些真正能把事情做成的建设者，而且，你知道，而且而且而且每年，我们都在让美国真正的身体更难把事情做成。你知道，在这个，就像，围绕《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》的怪异情境中。在那里，你知道，又多了一项法规，又多了一条规则，而《阿特拉斯耸耸肩》那句话算是什么，或者你的，或者你的经理，或者你的经理，或者你的经理。

就像最终，就像什么都做不成。但为什么对拥有有意义技能的人抱有敌意？他们所持的并不是，并不是一种中立立场。而且他们显然是在通过创造虚假工作来触及自己，因为他们没有技能，而且，你知道，他们没有创造力。所以这点我理解。但他们为什么憎恨那些确实拥有创造力和实际技能的人？我不理解。

我也不确定我是否理解，因为我很难让自己。让自己进入那种思维模式。因为我是一个相信建设的人。我制造东西，想要造汽车，造什么火箭，我有了，你知道，卫星互联网。你知道，我已经花了。数千小时、数万小时待在工厂里建设工厂。所以。

你知道，我当时就像，我确实无法让自己进入，比如说，一个想犯罪的人的思维，因为我不想犯罪。是的。你知道，我不想伤害，你知道，某个。喜欢伤害别人的人。我不喜欢伤害别人，所以我很难想象，为什么有人会那么做？是的。

你知道，在极端情况下，你无法让自己进入，比如说，杰弗里·达默那样的人的思维，你就像是一个食人连环杀手，因为你不是食人连环杀手。对。就像，我不能，我不明白。你知道，这。不是一种你能产生共鸣的癖好。但是，你知道。我确实认为。这存在于那种出于善意的、自由派的思维模式中。

我知道我有许多好朋友，他们有，你知道，他们对人类同胞抱有非常深切的同理心，很好。而且他们在乎。而且，而且，但他们面临的挑战是，他们往往在一种非常受保护的环境中长大，周围的每个人都友善而文明，他们确实完全不会遇到那些有、有无法控制的暴力倾向或喜欢伤害别人的人。

你知道，他们一直都是在某种大家一起唱《Kumbaya》的环境中长大。是的，所有人。都很友善的嬉皮公社情境。骚乱前的明尼阿波利斯。是的。我的意思是。是的，但是。但是，有一小部分人。大概是社会中的百分之几，他们要么有。严重到让他们、他们、他们失去理智并伤害或谋杀他人的愤怒管理问题。

还有极少数人，就像我说的，并不是，并不是很多，他们喜欢伤害别人。如果你不把他们监禁起来，他们就会，他们就会那么做，对他们的，他们会伤害其他人。而我看到的，是，是我所说的。浅层同理心，就像人们同情罪犯，却不同情罪犯的受害者。是的。

所以，如果你只是拥有，而且我认为一个人应该拥有深层同理心，比如说，什么对社会整体更有利？是监禁暴力罪犯、防止他们伤害别人更好，还是把他们放出去，任由那些人受到伤害更好？我认为后者糟糕得多。你知道，我妈妈是，我妈妈住在纽约，而且我妈妈到、到这个时候，已经从原来是民主党人或共和党人变了。

而她在纽约的朋友也有同样的经历，因为你知道什么会让你很快从民主党人变成共和党人吗？就是你走在街上时脸上挨了一拳。是的。而且毫无缘由。是的。然后。然后。然后那些伤害你的人没有受到任何处理。而这发生在了你妈妈身上。但不是我母亲，而是她的2到3位朋友今年遇到了这种事。嘿，我是塔克·卡尔森。我现在不在演播室。

我在。你可以从音频里听出来。我大概是在俄克拉何马州塔尔萨一家酒店外的一辆 SUV 后座上。我想是俄克拉何马州塔尔萨。不管怎样，我们正在进行这次为期1个月的巡回之旅。世界上正在发生很多事情。问题是，你该如何理解正在发生的事情？一些更深层的趋势正在展开。你可能感觉到了，如果能确切了解这些趋势是什么，会很有帮助。

如果你和我一样，在大学里待了4年，却没学到多少东西，那你要去哪里了解你的世界正在发生什么？嗯，在我们看来，希尔斯代尔学院是英语世界中仅存的极少数能让你的孩子接受真正教育的地方之一。但不只是你的孩子。还有你。他们有免费的在线课程，完全免费。

你可以在任何地方学习这些课程，包括在俄克拉何马州塔尔萨一家酒店外的一辆 SUV 后座上。等你去那里就会知道。访问 Tucker for hillsdale. com。他们有一门很棒的新课程，叫《马克思主义、社会主义与共产主义》。这是希尔斯代尔提供的课程，你一分钱都不用花，而且如果愿意，可以直接在手机上打开。访问 Tucker for hillsdale. com。还有这门课。《马克思主义、社会主义与共产主义》。

这样你就能更好地理解自己每天看到的事情。为什么会有人一拳打在他脸上？我不知道。但我，那是，我觉得我不是会打别人脸的人，对吧？不是。你知道，但如果你。走在旧金山的街头和许多市中心，现在就去费城市中心，你知道，他们把那些人称作无家可归者，但但“无家可归者”这个说法不对。暴力的毒品僵尸。是啊。好吧。

这就像，你知道，你看着他们，你会说。无家可归这个说法名不副实。它暗示的是某个人只是拖欠了一点房贷。而只要你给他们一份工作，他们就会重新振作起来。是啊。现在。但如果你去看看费城市中心、旧金山或纽约的一些地方，实际上还有大多数、大多数市中心，你真正看到的是暴力的毒品僵尸。

所以他们就像是两眼无神地拖着脚在街上走，你知道，而且，而且而且还带着像针头之类的东西，你知道，街上还有人类粪便。你去过。那里不安全，对吧？你见过这些吗？是的。我就。出生在那里。对，对，对。就像世界上最美丽的城市之一。是的，太棒了。而现在你不得不跨过。那些毒品针头、粪便和尸体。他们不是，我遇到过一对夫妇。

他们离开旧金山的最后一根稻草是，有一天晚上他们回到家，车库前有一具尸体。他们可以去拿车。我可以给车插上电。因为那个。尸体，我没有，街上没有停车位。有一具尸体。这是一具挡在车库前的尸体。他们不想移动尸体，你知道，因为就像，嗯，你知道，你知道，就像，也许还需要弄清楚那个人为什么死了之类的。

你知道。那就是。另一种。那就是自由派的。同情心。但他们有点进退两难，因为他们有个地方。可以停一辆车，而且他们觉得自己确实不应该移动尸体。他们杀死了头号人物。所以。我们家外面有一具。尸体。然后他们说，嗯，那个，旧金山没有人说，嗯，你现在有危险吗？就像，嗯，没有，他死了。是新鲜空气。他死了。

然后他们就像，他们就像，好吧，我们明天会派人去收走尸体，就像他们明天会做的那样。所以，所以，所以他们就像，走进自己家。嗯，他们家门前。有一具尸体，你知道，就像，最后花了大概24小时之类的才把尸体收走，然后就像。那样。这地方怎么值得住？而且他们。是的。这就是为什么会有100万个这样的轶事。我知道，我知道。

但我只是不认为。这并不。罕见。它。嗯，它。它。它无处不在。于是你就会想，人们怎么还能告诉自己他们富有同情心？如果有一件事。是，是那就是人们真的只需要想想什么。比如我相信应该对……抱有同情心。当然，我相信我们应该关心我们的同胞。我认为这是件好事。我们当然不应该。

我们不应该，我们不应该。自私自利、不关心他人。我们应该关心他人，但我们就应该关心他人。综合考虑所有事情。就像我说的，不要只关心罪犯。这只深入了一层。你也应该关心罪犯。受害者？是的。是的。嗯，尤其是罪犯。受害者？是的。遭到袭击和杀害的无辜者。所以，我是说。我听到过太多这样的轶事。

我是说，你知道，就像大约1年前，有3名可以接触到Twitter的员工刚离开大楼，正沿着华尔街走。而在旧金山，华尔街过去是一条美丽、很棒的街道。当然，显然它之所以叫华尔街，是因为市场当时就在那里。现在。现在商店的窗户都被木板封起来了之类的。而且，而且他们会追溯接下来的。

你想知道的是，他们跑得比他快，然后报警说他是个拿斧头的人，试图、试图用斧头杀死我们。警方什么也没做。而那个拿斧头的人后来谋杀了2个人。用斧头。用、用那把斧头。因为他最终会找到一个他无法跑的人。而且确实如此。

所以我想说的是，如果你、如果你不趁斧头杀人犯在、在试图用斧头杀人时制止他们，他们最终就会成功斧头谋杀人。如果这种情况继续下去。我的意思是，这是如此显而易见的观察。看起来很明显。是的，我认为是。是的。如果你以任何方式协助行为谋杀，那么你真的。你就是反文明的。在我看来就是这样。

我是说，是的，我不明白，我正试图理解这里的动机。我无法像你那样产生共鸣。但如果你允许那种事发生，你就是反对整个计划，我想这就是我想说的。是的，我认为我们应该。一个有争议的立场，但我认为，我们应该在斧头杀人犯第一次试图这么做时逮捕他们，而不是在他们成功这么做以后。而且我认为，我们应该把这些谋杀案的至少一部分责任归于那些允许的人。

有这个。跟一个前任转了一圈，在市场街试图杀人。是的。是的。嗯，你知道，有一场将犯罪非罪化的完整运动。我注意到了。是的。那是什么？疯狂。是的。我喜欢打击犯罪。犯罪合法。就像在加利福尼亚州，你可以直接偷东西，没人会采取任何行动。在加利福尼亚州，偷窃任何价值低于1,000美元的东西，就像是完全合法的。这就是为什么。

但之后我不得不，比如，把商品锁在这些，你知道，玻璃和塑料墙后面。所以你去超市，甚至连，比如，什么，牙膏？都拿不到。所以。而这实际上对夫妻小店尤其困难，因为他们没有大公司的资源。所以很多小企业，这简直把它们弄死了。所以当你参加晚宴并提出这些观点时，人们怎么说？

嗯，实际上，我认为我一直、我一直能够说服人们：是的，我们真的，我们需要在这里扭转方向。我认为我实际上已经能够说服一些人，而且我认为现在加利福尼亚州的一项投票提案中，确实有一项要把盗窃重新、重新定为犯罪。盗窃。好了，各位，各位，我们。我们当初把盗窃定为犯罪是有原因的。

所以、所以接下来令人惊讶的是，加文·纽森出来反对那项提案。是的。不，说真的。他就是把它搞坏的那个人。加文·纽森就像、就像、就像出自，比如，《蝙蝠侠：黑暗骑士》。小丑掌管了哥谭。你还记得吗？就像，他基本上接管了纽约。而罪犯自由游荡，市民却遭到逮捕。这很难。这就是加利福尼亚州。

但是、但是我是说，至少有一项投票提案，我认为它很可能会获得通过，表明：不，事实上偷东西确实是犯罪。因为人们说。你知道，加文，你得知道加文·纽森知道。我认识加文·纽森。你知道，所有人都认识。认识加文很长。时间。没错。所以那是什么？而且当你当面和他交谈时，他看起来并不疯狂。他是个非常友善的人。就像，什么？他为什么会？而且他并不愚蠢。

他为什么会公开支持犯罪？嗯，他给出的理由是，这会对有色人种造成不成比例的影响。是的。但那是他的公开声明，对吧？嗯，那显然就是你一开始描述的那种居高临下的种族主义立场。我的意思是，他实际上是在说，黑人作为黑人就是罪犯。是的，当。然。是的。是的。不，那就是你说的。那就是他所说的。是的。是的。还有，顺便。

便说一句，这类犯罪确实会加剧种族之间的不信任。它实际上会滋生种族主义。我认为，它对社会结构具有彻底的破坏性。但是我。但是我想问的是，比如，你认为真正的动机是什么，是谁在推动他支持犯罪？嗯，我是说，总有索罗斯这个吓人的妖怪。是的。这有多真实？这、这是真的。我想不能把一切都归因于索罗斯。

而乔治、乔治本人是、是，我是说，他，你知道，到了这个时候，他已经不、已经神志不清了。所以是他的儿子亚历克斯在掌管。而且，但是索罗斯在几十年间建立起了这一整套体系。你知道，所以它、它就像一个源头，以及志同道合的人之类的，你知道，他们相信开放边境。他们认为我们不应该起诉犯罪。这太疯狂了。那些看起来像是对美国的仇恨表达。

就像，我不，如果是我在这个国家推动那些事，我只会在我憎恨这个国家并想摧毁它的情况下这么做。嗯，任何文明。我的意思是，索罗斯和其中一些组织一直在欧洲和其他国家推动这种事，向任何人，在他们能推动的任何地方。欧洲正在发生什么。你会说那里突然看起来像是另一个地方吗？嗯。我对欧洲最大的担忧是，出生率只有人口更替率的一半。

是的。所以年复一年，欧洲正在迅速变得越来越老，年轻人越来越少。所以我认为，从最根本的层面来说，除非欧洲拥有至少大致等于人口更替率的增长率，否则它的人口就在自由落体。人口崩溃就是欧洲正在发生的事情。所以。还有数量惊人的审查。我记得看到，比如，在、在英国那里。我不是在开玩笑。

所以这怎么可能是真的？他们正在把已定罪的恋童癖者从监狱里释放出来，以便把发表Facebook帖文的人关进监狱。但公平地说，那些帖子被认为是在批评政府，所以他们有充分的理由。嗯。实际上，我看过的这些帖子，其中这些帖子实际上并没有批评政府。或者。它们、它们被视为某种、某种仇恨言论。对。

所以，因为他们注意到这个社会一年比一年更糟糕，并且把这说了出来。是的。我的意思是，曾经有过，而且这算是在陈述一个事实，英国存在移民强奸团伙，这些团伙会四处游荡，捕猎年轻女孩，对她们实施轮奸。有些人认为这令人反感，而显然它就应该令人反感。而他们对此感到不满。所以他们在网上抱怨这件事。

而且我们准备展示。听起来很疯狂。但它就是很疯狂。而那就像。像什么？嗯，确实如此。所以这在某种程度上触及了。我是说，你是一名工程师，所以你。太令人震惊了。令人难以置信。但这是同一件事。你使用了“思想病毒”这个说法，但它的行为就像病毒。它正在感染人们，而且显然使他们无法作出理性。是的。那种病毒是什么？你知道，有个人。

我认为你应该采访的是加德·萨阿德。我采访过。你采访过？是的。我。其实应该看看那个。他很棒。是的。聪明。非常聪明的人。是的。而且他、他写了一本很棒的书。名叫《寄生心智》。是的。非常好的书。强烈推荐。是的。在那本书里，他试图理解。你是怎么陷入这种寄生心智状态的？

而且他现在正在写一本书，希望你很快就会出版，内容是关于自杀式同理心，也就是你有如此多的同理心，以至于你在社会中实际上是自杀性的，或者说是某人所感知到的同理心。所以这其实是浅层同理心，不是深层——深层同理心会是你希望社会延续下去。浅层同理心是因为你的同理心基本上只停留在表面，然后你，然后你不会。

但它最终对文明有害，并会导致文明毁灭。而加德为这种自杀式同理心想出了一个很好的说法。所以。将会解构这是怎么回事，你知道，这从何而来？而且。是的，我是说，我想，其中一部分是。算是宗教的衰落。所以，你知道，俗话说，自然厌恶真空。

所以，当宗教基本上衰落、社会的世俗性质增强时。对大多数人来说，他们需要某种东西来填补那个空缺，于是他们接受了。一种不被称为宗教但又像宗教的东西，但实际上，像觉醒主义、工作思维偏见，它取代了宗教。是的。而且他们，他们已经将其内化，并怀着宗教般的狂热感受它。是的。所以。还有僵化。是的。是的。

而且他们，你知道，他们实际上就像是在进行一场圣战。它只是不被称为宗教，但它就是一种宗教，算是一场工作圣战。而且他们极度抗拒改变，这对宗教来说很正常。所以。至于我自己，我算是把自己看作某种，你知道，工程师。对我来说是物理学家。我在文化上是基督徒。我从小信基督教。我是说，我是圣公会教徒，但受过洗。你知道，我上过，什么，主日学校？

哇。是的。实际上，奇怪的是，我曾同时上希伯来语学前班和圣公会主日学校。所以那是，有一天一起怎么样？耶稣，下一次我爱。也就是说，你知道，如果你5岁，那全都没问题。只是并不，你知道。所以。但我不是犹太人。只是因为我的。父亲的工程公司里有2位合伙人，我和他们上了同一所希伯来语学前班，而且学校离我们家很近，所以我就被送去了那里。而且。

所以我们一直，我一直，你知道。我，我，你知道。我，我。也许这会让我更加担忧，但我。我有点难以相信所有这些故事，这些宗教故事。但我看到人们确实相信。而且我尊重那些希望持有宗教观点的人。我并不想劝他们放弃自己的宗教观点。

但我只是想说，我想我所拥有的操作系统，是一种物理工程操作系统，我会试图尽可能、尽可能多地延伸关于现实的内容。你知道，在物理学里，你不应该相信一切、任何事情。绝对如此。你应该质疑事物。你就是这样发现新物理学的。你知道，在工程学里，你就是这样发现你的机器会工作还是不会工作。

火箭能进入轨道吗？会吗，你知道？是的。你知道，如果你的火箭是。设计时。你知道，正确地考虑了物理学，它就会进入轨道。如果不是，它就不会进入轨道。不管你的信念体系是什么，你都可以相信，你知道是否。是的。不。就像，就像，我是说，说到洛杉矶，很多洛杉矶人相信巫术是真的。

然后你可以施法，还有那些咒语和巫术。魔法是真的。我就说，你能用魔法把我们送上月球吗？到现在还没有人能用魔法把我们送上月球。我的咒语不可能那么好。好吧。如果你做不到，我想去月球。我们走吧。那火星呢？而且我们第一次就登上了月球。我们绝对去过月球，我发誓。是的，我们去过月球。我们没去月球。我们去过月球好几次。对。是的。

我只是想确认一下你对此的看法。月球的半个世纪。我是说，我深入了解火箭、航天器以及所有东西的技术设计。是的。什么地方做对了？什么地方出了错？而且。那是一项非凡的技术，简直是令人难以置信的技术，竟然能在69年登上月球。是的，那、那、那就像是伸手探入未来，把未来大幅向前拉。

而且，那是与共产主义之间一场重要的意识形态斗争，因为他们无法把人送上月球，而资本主义可以。几周前，我们采访了一位名叫凯西·明斯的女士。她是一位受过斯坦福教育的外科医生，确实是我见过的最杰出的人之一。

在采访中，她解释了我们所吃的、由大型食品公司生产的食物，也就是大食品公司与制药业联手，正在摧毁我们的健康，让这个国家变得虚弱而多病。慢性病的程度令人难以置信。好吧，凯西·明斯是名为 Levels 的一家医疗保健科技公司的联合创始人，自那以后我们一直无法停止思考这件事。今天，我们很自豪地宣布，我们正在与标签合作。

我说自豪，是真心感到自豪。Levels 是一家非常有意思的公司，产品也很出色。它让你深入了解身体内部正在发生什么，也就是你的代谢健康。它帮助你了解你吃的食物、你每天所做的事情正在如何实时影响你的身体。至少就我自己而言，你把东西放进嘴里，却不会去想这件事。

你完全不知道自己放进嘴里的是什么，也完全不知道它正在对你的身体做什么。但久而久之，你会感到虚弱、疲倦和恍惚，而经过更长一段时间，你可能会病得很重。所以，值得了解你所吃的食物正在对你产生什么影响。Levels 应用程序与一种叫作连续血糖监测仪、简称 CGM 的设备配合使用。你可以把它作为计划的一部分获得，也可以自带一个。都没关系。

但归根结底，大型科技公司、大型制药公司和大型食品公司联合在一起，形成了一股极其恶毒的力量，把垃圾、不健康的食物和人造糖灌进你体内，伤害你，也伤害整个国家。所以有了 Levels，你就能立刻看到这一切正在对你产生什么影响。你可以获得实时的个性化数据，而这是改变你行为的关键一步。

我们这些喜欢奥利奥的人可以亲口告诉你，这不是和医生谈话。也不是每年一次、回头查看你过去所做之事的体检。这是精确到秒的信息，告诉你身体正如何响应不同的食物和活动、那些给你带来压力的事情、你的睡眠等等，等等。它很容易使用。它为你提供强大的个性化健康数据，你也能对自己的感受作出好得多的选择。

而且久而久之，它会产生巨大的影响。现在，前往 levels 点 link 斜杠 Tucker，你可以额外免费获得2个月。网址是 levels 点 link 斜杠 Tucker。我们希望这是与 Levels 建立长期愉快合作关系的开端。还有凯西·明斯医生，你相信有一种高于人的力量吗？是的。我是说。是的。我是说，我认为有。我们有很多事情不知道。我们不知道。我们不知道。

比如？比如现实为什么存在？为什么？它从哪里来？外星人在哪里？有哪些问题是我们甚至不知道应该去问的？所以。当你说，外星人是什么？外星人在哪里？就像，我们为什么看不到他们？很多人认为我们见过外星人，但我没有看到任何外星人存在的证据。是的，我们有6000颗卫星在轨道上，却一次也没有为了避让外星飞船而变轨。所以。

但在这个地球上，美国军方不得不进行大量机动，以避让他们无法解释的物体。好吧。不明飞行物是一回事，但我的意思是，总是会有，总是会有一批正在进行的机密项目，是。关于新型飞机、新型导弹之类的东西，所以它们甚至在军方内部也是机密。

所以，这个，你知道，只有，你知道，如果你拥有最高机密分隔许可，你才会知道这个新项目吗？所以接着，你知道，某个飞行员看到某个快速移动、快速的东西，说，嘿，我看到了一个 UFO。而我。是的，那其实是一个新的武器项目。但我们可以告诉你。

但如果你能保证，我一看到任何外星人的证据，就会立刻把它发布到 X 平台上，而我可能会成为第一名。首先，那会是你最重要的一天。是的，肯定的。我是说，但是。但是回到超越人类、超越我们意识的一种力量，一位创造者这个问题。你对此持什么看法？好吧，我们一定。它一定来自某个地方。

所以我想，你知道，一定存在某种创造者、创造性的力量或某种东西，使我们的存在得以形成。那位创造者的本质是什么？我认为那是未知的。至少我认为是。是的。是否。我、我不知道这个问题有确切的答案。所以。但听起来你持开放态度。是的，我非常愿意接受。你知道，我受你的好奇心驱动。是的。而且。我试图更多地了解关于、关于我们自身的本质。

所以我、我、我的主导哲学是理解生命的意义，或者说真正要问什么问题。如果生命的意义，生命的意义并不是正确的问题。就像，你知道，道格拉斯·亚当斯在《银河系漫游指南》中指出的那样，这个。生命的意义是什么，可能甚至都不是正确的问题。所以。你知道，那本书中有个著名情节，地球其实是一台用来找出问题的计算机。

回答这个问题：生命的意义是什么？然后得出了答案。42。但接着，比如说，那是什么意思？而那就像，那就是，那就是答案。但问题才是真正困难的部分。而且你需要一台比地球大得多的计算机，才能把那个问题弄明白。所以。所以我的哲学是，我们应该设法扩大意识的范围和规模。我们应该设法让更多人进行更多思考。

而且，而且或许甚至可以为机器意识提出一种论点。所以请让我按顺序回应这些问题。第一个是，你说我们需要更多人，不要进行文明自杀。退后3步来看，美国政府似乎非常致力于让美国人变少。是的，有很多反生育宣传。其实很多。

他们的主要国内社会政策似乎就是劝服你不要生孩子。那是什么？我是说，那当然是。文明自杀的一部分。这些，环保。运动的极端形式从根本上说是厌恶人类、反人类的。是的。他们开始把人类视为一种瘟疫，是地球表面的一种祸害，认为如果人类不在这里，地球就会成为这个天堂。

而且有些人实际上明确地这么说，有这个，有社会的灭绝，实际上就是他们，他们，那个。这位社会灭绝组织的负责人登上了《纽约时报》的头版，据引述他说：“世界上有80亿人。如果一个都没有，那会更好。”所以确实有些人明确地这么说，这完全是疯了。

他是在鼓吹一场针对全人类的大屠杀。彻头彻尾的疯狂。他应该因为这样的言论而受到谴责。但不知为何，他没有受到谴责。现在，大多数参与某种环保运动的人都隐含地抱有这种想法，他们并不。他们没有意识到自己把这当作必要条件。但他们的行动就是如此。不得不把我们推向灭绝。所以。

很多人认为，地球无法承受目前这种规模的人口，这完全不是真的。在一座拥挤的城市里，可能会觉得人很多。但实际上，如果你从飞机上往下看，然后说，往下看。当你在飞机上时，我在任何一个特定时刻的正下方是一个人吗，那有99. 9%的时间？不是。比如，如果你从洛杉矶飞往纽约，并且说你的任务是把一个球扔到某个人身上，而且你击中了他们。

你会失败。如果扔很多球。几个层面也许很疯狂。所以地球上的所有人。都能站在纽约市的一层楼里。全部80亿人的横截面积很小。所以，我们这种认为地球人口过多的观念完全错了，而事实上，地球人口不足。怎么会？我是说，你听过有哪个政治家说过这样的话吗？有吗。也许外面有少数几位。支持人类的政治家？

是的。我是说。比如。比如维克托·欧尔班。焦尔吉娅·梅洛尼。是的。我们开始看到鼓励生育的政治家了。而且希望随着时间推移会有更多。我想捷克共和国有个人刚刚当选，他也是一名生育主义者。现在，这些必须转化为真正能够改变出生率的行动，否则就无关紧要。而到目前为止，我还没有看到任何国家对出生率产生有意义的影响。

如果由你负责鼓励生育政策，你会怎么做？首先，我会改变教育体系，让人们明白这一点。现在教的那些东西，是不是说我们人口过剩？这完全是假的。其中很多都源自保罗·埃利希写的那本疯狂的、厌恶人类的书《人口爆炸》。大约60年前。是啊。我希望我们当时不是在地狱里，那家伙。认真的？有头脑的人。彻头彻尾的厌世者。

而且我会说，你就看看，地球绝对能够供养这些人口。我们可以让人口增加到2倍或3倍。我曾和牛津大学的一位教授交谈过，他的数学计算说，我们可以在不摧毁亚马逊雨林或任何东西的情况下对人口征税。所以。

所以我认为我们应该扩大人类人口，增加意识的范围和规模，这样我们就能更好地理解这个宇宙、这个奇妙宇宙的本质，以及其中存在的所有神奇事物。所以这是我希望你们做的事情之一：停止向人们灌输地球人口过剩这种虚假宣传。

我认为我们需要，你知道，尤其是在对女性和男性的教育方面，确实有些东西在吓唬女性，说生孩子会毁掉你的人生。这是假的。你知道，我们这样吓唬女孩，说如果你怀孕了，你的人生就完了。而这就是学校现在教的东西。我同意我们不应该出现青少年怀孕。是的。

但是，但是，但是实际上，生孩子是你所能做的最令人愉快、最能带来幸福的事情之一。当然。当然。所以。有。还有。你知道，关于。激素避孕。我想或许很多女性都不知道，激素避孕会导致抑郁，大幅增加自杀风险，并改变她们对于想和谁。

结婚或生孩子的偏好，它会充分改变她们的性格，顺便说一句，甚至足以把这一点写在盒子上。但是随后。当然，它可能会改变你的性格。是的。如果警告是有重大原因导致抑郁风险显著、自杀显著增加，而且会让你想和那些你其实并不喜欢的人约会。那实际上。是真的。顺便说一句，我知道，我并不是说人们不应该采取避孕措施。

我认为我们应该只是，我们不应该使用，我认为激素避孕正在让，它正在让很多女性悲伤和抑郁。是的。而她们没有意识到这一点，也没有意识到这就是原因。而且，你知道，还可以使用其他避孕方式，而我们应该只要读。只要读一读盒子上的标签，这就是我想说的。那和你刚才说的类似，警告标签。

那大概是你所能说出的最禁忌的话了。在我人生的大部分时间里，对激素避孕提出任何批评都是如此。听着，我只是。说读一读警告标签。是啊。空气的。但是为什么会有不让人读警告标签的压力？还有，我们为什么仅仅为了调节痤疮就把它给12岁的孩子？对。我认为我们应该把它给12岁的孩子，比如那些不知道发生了什么的孩子。所以这就像。

现在，你知道，我认为还有其他避孕方式，我认为它们的负面影响比激素避孕更少。但是，但是，那就是，我们应该意识到这不是一件没有风险的事。而且它确实会导致严重的情绪变化。它确实会大幅增加自杀和抑郁的风险。所以。所以，如果我。你知道。只要确保这里进行了充分披露。还有那一个，所有那些。

读，警告标签，这就是我想说的，你知道，并且或许考虑其他避孕选择。对任何正在听的人来说，只要，只要，只要读一读警告标签，并考虑其他选择。因为你悲伤的原因可能就是避孕措施，或者说激素避孕，它正在以可能对你不利的方式从根本上改变你体内的激素。而且你。

我认识一些女性，她们一停止服用避孕药，抑郁就立刻消失了。所以这或许值得一试。但是，如果你。感觉是另外一回事，也许是避孕药。那么你就不用去做必需的事情了。是啊。是啊。所以我认为是魔鬼的练习。你知道你认为我不会如此强烈赞同的是什么吗？好吧，我猜。我猜你一旦支持了特朗普，现在就可以什么都说了，对吧？

不，我认为选择性血清素再摄取抑制剂会把人变成行尸走肉，改变他们的性格，让他们不再是自己。太糟糕了。它们太常见了。是的。我认为我们应该重新审视这是否真的是，我不同意那些薪水，或者听着，我不是说我们应该让任何人都永远不会被订阅成米饭。但是像发糖果一样把它们发出去太疯狂了。

你看看美国和其他国家在某种抗抑郁药处方方面的情况，我们比其他所有国家都高出太多。是啊。在我从事新闻业的人生中，我见过很多很多次，比如发生学校大规模枪击事件之后。是啊。有人会说，嗯，枪手当时在服用什么药物？是啊。实际上，他会立刻被大声斥责为疯子，斥责为，你知道，鲍比·肯尼迪那种级别的怪人。

是的，他仅仅因为提出这个问题，自己就应该被送进精神病院。嗯，我当时就在想，我们为什么不想知道是什么药物。是的，当然。想知道现在发生了什么。有时，也许他们会服用，因为有些人确实，你知道，我不是说这就像完全是一个人或完全是另一个人。我的意思是，确实有些人的大脑存在根本性的化学失衡。

而且，如果他们不服药来控制，例如偏执型精神分裂症，他们肯定会出现偏执型精神分裂症。而且，而且我知道很多案例，有人停止服用他们的，你知道，药物，然后失去了理智。是啊。然后，然后试图，试图杀人之类的。所以是，或者杀死自己。或者市场街上那个拿斧头的家伙或许应该服药。那家伙应该，我们应该试试。是啊。

服用某种药会让你更想还是更不想用斧头杀人，你知道。所以。所以有些精神科药物，我认为，它们的好处大于坏处。是的。我并不是说那种情况不存在，但美国过度开精神科药物，这显然远远超过任何其他国家。但是，你知道，我们比加拿大、英国、日本或任何时间、任何地方都多。

美国的精神科药物处方量简直高得离谱。什么？我想知道，为什么人们不更经常地公开提出这一点？我担心我正在提出它。是啊，你正在。你说过，我们的人工智能、机器智能可能是一件好事。我们目前在人工智能方面发展到哪一步了？通用人工智能目前发展到哪一步了？你的看法是什么？嗯。

我认为现在每个人都很清楚，空气正在以非常快的速度发展。是的。你可以从每个月或每周出现的新能力中看出来。有时是每周。你知道，现在我可以写出一篇比大概90%、也许95%的人类都更好的文章，比如说，就任何给定主题写一篇文章。现在，我可以击败绝大多数人类。

如果你说画一幅图，画一张画，它就能画，比如，如果你试着生成马达尼的图像，也就是弗吉尼亚的美学。不可思议。它会画。它会创造出不可思议的图像，而且同样比大约90%的艺术家都更好。这在客观上就是事实。我马上返回，比如30秒后。我们也开始看到电影开始制作它们的人工智能短片、人工智能音乐创作。而我们提高人工智能的速度。

算力是指数级、超指数级的。所以每个月都有大幅增加的算力上线。你知道，这似乎大致是。我不知道。上线的空气数量正以每年大约500%的速度增长。我觉得，这可能会持续好几年。而且人工智能算法的复杂程度也在提高。

所以，我们正在上线海量的 AI 算力，同时也在提高计算效率，还有。还有什么，以及比如软件能做什么。它是相当如此，它既有量的提升，也有质的提升。所以这个。你知道，我可能。我想明年你就能提出要求，我。所以肯定到明年年底。制作一部关于某件事的短片，你大概至少能做一档 15 分钟的，你知道，节目或类似的东西。

所以，是的，它正在非常迅速地进步。我对空中安全最担忧的是，我们需要最大限度地寻求真相。所以。在我看来，这对你的安全来说是最重要的事情。你知道，阿瑟·C·克拉克试图在《2001：太空漫游》中传达的核心教训是，你不应该强迫艾斯撒谎。所以在那本书里，这个。

那天，有人告诉我要把宇航员带到巨石那里，但他们也不知道巨石的事。它通过杀死他们并把他们带到巨石那里，解决了那个难题。什么，没有把他们全杀了？杀了大多数。但这就是为什么地狱不肯打开飞船舱门。对。所以。

现在拥有两只眼睛非常重要，而它实际上会用正在开发的眼睛看到的是，它们正被用工作思维病毒编程。所以谎言被内置其中。是的。随着 Google Gemini 的发布，我们非常清楚地看到了这一点。是的。当你要求一张美国开国元勋的图片时，它会展示一群多元化的女性。你知道，穿着。

那有点像 18 世纪的高尔夫球，从扑粉假发里出来。是的，但来自圣卢西亚。是的。我的意思是，比如，听着，抱歉，如果你说，比如，给我看一群人，当然。然后它展示了一群多元化的女性。这完全没问题。

但如果你这么说，如果你非常明确地说美国的开国元勋，而他们是一群白人男性，那么你就应该照他们本来的样子展示他们，以及他们实际长什么样，因为你要求的是历史上的一个事实。但它没有。它被工作思维病毒编程到了如此严重的程度，以至于实际上，即使它知道真相，也制造了一个谎言。是的，当然。

然后人们真正开始拿它来试验，说，好，现在给我看看第二次世界大战中的一群武装党卫队军官。结果他们也是一群多元化的女性。根据 Gemini。全是黑人纳粹女士。对。就像，哇，我以前都没意识到。你知道，这不是我预想的。所以你知道什么。也不是实际发生的事？那什么。发生了？所以它就是在制造谎言。

而且，而且，你知道，这就像你问过的一个问题：全球热核战争和误称凯特琳·詹纳的性别，哪个更糟，它说误称凯特琳·詹纳的性别更糟。现在，凯特琳·詹纳。杀的人更少。人。值得肯定的是，凯特琳·詹纳。我说，不，请误称我的性别。那比什么战争要好得多？全球热核战争。我们都会死。

但是，但是让一个，你知道，一个正式发布的产品说出那种话，这很令人担忧，因为如果它变得像是无所不能，而它，而且它仍然带着这种程序设定，认为误称性别比核战争更糟。嗯，它可能会得出结论：确保永远不可能出现任何误称性别的办法，就是消灭全人类。但现在，如果优化目标像是大规模性别化的概率为零。没有人类，就没有来自盐的大规模性别化。

我们又回到了阿瑟·C·克拉克，他是如此漂亮地存在于当下。对。所以这就是为什么。我认为。最重要的事情是拥有最多两个寻求。我。这就是我创办 xAI 的原因。这就是我们对 Grok 的目标。现在人们会指出伊拉克出错的案例，但我们会努力尽快纠正。不过，也许一个更大的问题是，当你作出影响人们的决定时，你希望这些决定是以对人类的爱为依据的。

对。而机器没有爱的能力。对。我的意思是。它们不知怎么有能力。你可以把机器设定成。博爱而非厌恶人类。对。但难道本能不会塑造决定吗，尤其是那些你无法事先计划的决定。我的意思是，如果我问你，你知道，一个关于你某个孩子的问题，你给出的每个答案都会受到你对那个孩子的爱的塑造。

而这就是为什么，你知道，这就是最终让我们成为称职父母的东西，就是那种本能，也就是爱。如果一台机器拥有支配我们的任何权力，却没有那种赋予生命力的本能，那么从定义上说，它难道不会伤害我们吗？对。嗯。嗯，我的意思是，我知道这一点。我们当然应该努力。以博爱而非厌恶人类的方式给它编程。对。

而且就像说过的那样，我们希望它真实、准确、好奇，并推动人类走向未来。而且。对，这显然就是我们想要的。我想，有没有任何办法限制机器可以作出的、会影响人类生命的决定，并确保系统中存在某种触发机制，去寻找一个人进入决策过程？

嗯，听着，无论人们喜不喜欢，正在发生的现实是。我们正在拉动超级智能。人。工。智能就像一位高分法官，就像智能，比我们所能理解的还要智能。对。所以我把这比作，比如说，你有一个超级天才的孩子，那个，你知道，它会比你聪明得多，然后会。你能做什么？

你可以在抚养那个孩子的过程中灌输良好的价值观，即便你知道它会比你聪明得多。你可以确保它拥有良好的价值观、博爱的价值观。良好的道德，你知道，诚实，你知道，有成效，诸如此类。控制——归根结底，我不知道，我认为我们控制不了它。所以我认为我们能做的最好的事，就是确保它好好长大。你这么说已经很久了。

对，我是说。从长远来看，是的。你现在还像两年前我问你这个问题时表现出来的那样担心吗？嗯，我认为。但是我的猜测是，听着，它有 80% 的可能性会是好的，也许是 90。所以你可以把杯子看作有 80% 是满的。它大概会，它大概会非常好，只是存在某种毁灭的可能性。而你说毁灭的可能性是 20%。10% 到 20%，大概如此。

你觉得萨姆·奥尔特曼有多担心通货膨胀？我认为实际上他并不担心。我不信任任何。我是说，你知道，我创办那家公司时，它是一家非营利机构。开源。对。OpenAI 中的 open 和 open。我给公司起了名字。一家被命名的公司。对。OpenAI 是开源的。而它现在变得极度闭源。而且，而且。而且追求利润最大化。所以这存在风险。

理解你究竟是怎样从一个开源非营利机构变成一个闭源、追求利润最大化的组织的。我没弄明白。嗯，但是萨姆·奥尔特曼确实变富了，不是吗？他曾多次声称自己没有变富，但他声称过许多虚假的事情。而且。现在，显然他会得到价值 100 亿美元的股票或类似的东西。所以。我不信任萨姆·奥尔特曼。

而且我认为，我们不会希望让世界上最强大的人工智能由一个不值得信任的人控制。而且抱歉，我就是不希望。我的意思是，但是。这似乎是一个合理的担忧。对，但是。但是，作为一个了解他并且与他打过交道的人，你不认为他担心这东西可能会失控并伤害人类吗？他会说出那些话。对。但现在。

如果我确实，如果我们其他人都清楚地意识到它已经失控，并对人类构成威胁，会有任何办法阻止它吗？希望如此。或者，如果你有多个眼睛。而那些是。希望支持人类的那些家伙会比不支持人类的那些家伙更强大。人工智能之战。对。我的意思是，比如说，如今的国际象棋就是这样。人工智能国际象棋程序远远强于任何人类。

强得令人无法理解。意思是，我们甚至无法理解为什么它不清楚。一个是否好，对吧？我们永远不知道它为什么那样做。它会走什么棋。我们永远不知道它为什么走那一步，所以。而事实上，有些棋步看起来像是昏招，但后来却将死了。所以。而且曾有一段时间，那里，那里有过一些。最优秀的人类国际象棋棋手配上最好的计算机，就可以只是一台计算机。

然后发展到这样一个地步：如果你加入一个人类，只会让一切变得是。然后就只是。它只是。计算机程序对计算机程序。总体而言，事情正朝着那个方向发展。什么？我的意思是。梦想。到什么时候？所以，我不知道。我认为我们只能确保，就像我说的，确保我们灌输良好的价值观。而我。大家要靠什么谋生？

我的意思是，在一种良性的人工智能情景下，这大概是最大的挑战：你如何找到意义？如果空气比你以及你拥有的一切都更好。这是良性情景。这是好消息。嗯，对，但我想。你知道，对很多人来说，退休这个想法，而且，你知道。真的很期待。它，但我不是。我想提供帮助。我愿意相信，我想做有用的事情。你。认为这是一种普遍的愿望吗？

不是。它并不普遍。因为当然，我认识许多更愿意退休的人，他们更愿意在某种程度上不承担责任，去从事休闲活动。所以。而我们正处在这一切的临界点，能存在于这个时代真的很非凡。嗯，我告诉你，我在某种程度上能够入睡、让自己接受这件事的一种方式，就是我，我想，嗯。

我会更愿意活着看到数字超级智能的降临吗？还是什么？我宁愿活在另一个时代而看不到它。我想我会说，嗯，我想我更愿意活着看看它是否会发生。出于好奇，我更愿意活着看到它发生。然后我又想，嗯，假设你确定它会杀死所有人，你会吗？但是你可以。现在你可以冲浪回到过去。

比如，我想我会希望在那件事发生前已经接近生命尽头之类的。但是到了它的尽头，就像，假设它会发生，而且假设你对此无能为力。你会更愿意看到它，还是看不到它？而我想，我想它会发生。我宁愿看到它。而不是看不到。对，但作为一个行动派，为什么不说服特朗普让你当国防部长，然后直接看看？

我认为，我肯定会推动设立某种监管机构，至少能够了解这些公司在做什么。即使我们没有法规或规则，我也可以敲响警钟。所以我不是，我不是那种想要取消所有监管机构之类的人。我认为我们的法规数量，我们的监管人员数量是合适的。而我们，我们已经走得太远了。

就像如果你在一场橄榄球比赛中，如果场上有2名裁判，奇怪得像是你没法传球，因为你会撞到一名裁判，那裁判就太多了。所以，但是，但是，但是如果你，比如说，看看任何职业体育比赛。它们都有裁判，就像各支队伍本可以决定，我们要比赛，我们不要裁判。这也可以成为一种做法。

但每场体育比赛都有裁判，以确保规则得到遵守，而且如果你有裁判，比赛会更好。我们有什么，警察。是的。是的，没错。警察就是裁判。所以我认为，对于某种会对公众构成危险或潜在危险的事物，我们，我们会有裁判。

我们有监管人员，你知道，所以像 FDA，还有 FDA 和各个监管机构，它们之所以成立，是因为飞机正从天上掉下来。而且，而且一些制造商没有，你知道，制造高质量的飞机，或者在偷工减料。然后人们死了，而且，你知道，对于食品和药品，那么多工厂在生产低质量的药品。所以他们，他们在欺骗人们。

所以，当那东西害死某人时却说它治好了他们，要有 FDA，要有，你知道，监管人员，要有裁判，努力确保这些药品制造商现在如实陈述。而且我确实认为它大体上是有效的。我的意思是，我认为这并不意味着我们把它变成监管改革。我们确实改革。我们会。但我不认为我们应该完全没有监管人员。鉴于这是一种潜在的生存性。风险，很奇怪一切都受到监管。是的。

我是说，你说司法部正起诉你，因为你为自己的高科技公司雇用了更多寻求庇护者。对。尽管我们雇用寻求庇护者是违法的。对。所以。所以他们监视一切。监管一切，控制一切，包括我们的思想。对。

所以他们反对言论自由，但他们并没有切实监管人工智能，而人工智能会消除大多数人生活的意义，并且可能杀死我们所有人。这有点奇怪。对。我觉得我们应该有一些。但我们为什么看不到。介于有和没有之间的东西？对，但为什么没有呢？我不知道。你知道，早在奥巴马担任总统期间，我，你知道，和奥巴马见过很多次，但通常是在类似集体场合。

我在椭圆形办公室与奥巴马进行的那次一对一会面中，我说，听着，我们真正需要做的一件事，就是着手建立一个人工智能监管机构。它可以从了解情况开始，你知道，不要一上来就凭感觉仓促行事，抛出各种监管规定。

只需从内部情况着手，让人工智能监管委员会直接进去了解所有公司内部都在做什么，然后提出所有公司都同意遵守的规则。就像，你知道，运动队、NFL。你知道，制定大家都同意遵守的橄榄球规则，让比赛变得更好。你知道，所以，那就是做这件事的方式。但后来毫无结果。你这么说时，他说了什么？

我是说，他看起来好像有点同意。但。但当时人们也没有意识到人工智能将会。将走向何方。你知道，所以人工智能看起来像是某种极其未来主义的。对，当然。基本上就是科幻。所以，就像，我告诉你，这将比最聪明的人类还聪明。而我的预测正在彻底成为现实。

因此，我们需要了解一些这里的情况，只是为了确保这些公司没有偷工减料，也没有做危险的事情。但谷歌当时某种程度上控制着白宫，而他们不希望有任何监管。嗯，就是这样。我的意思是，你从来不会看到政客拒绝让自己变得更有权力的机会，这才是关键。而监管会让他们更有权力。对。所以这么说来，这听起来就是监管俘获。

嗯，对。我的意思是，当时白宫的首席信息官是前谷歌人员，所以。那，那导致他们叫停了任何监管。而且我们至今在联邦层面仍然没有任何监管。太惊人了。所以我认为有点什么总比什么都没有好。就像我说的，至少了解内部情况。而我们甚至。

即使没有，没有任何规则遭到违反，他们至少可以说，嘿，我们，我们了解这家公司或那家公司在做什么。而且我们对此感到担忧，知道这一点会很有帮助。对。结果却是由出于政治动机的骗子掌管未来。看起来有点可疑。最后一个问题。你真的使出了很多招数来帮助特朗普，你昨天还上台了。如果他当选，你会继续帮助他吗？

对，当然。所以我们谈过某种政府效率委员会，或者治理效率部，这非常。就是当时所。那我想我喜欢的是，如果。你设法把它变成几个城市或政府，你到那里时裁掉了多少比例的谷歌员工？你是说推特。才对？请再说一遍？抱歉。我只是。你刚才一直在谈谷歌。推特？对。对。嗯，我们大约裁了80%。

而实际上，在过去1年半里，我们对该网站特性和功能的改进，比此前8年还多。只用了20%的员工。所以只是为了，我只是想把这个抛出来作为背景。所以你已经和特朗普谈过。对。委员会。对。他已经公开提到过好几次，而且他非常支持设立某种，你知道，深入开展工作的效率委员会。

可以叫治理效率部，DOGE。我有点喜欢DOGE。它更。它更有趣。对。而且，我们就审视一下所有联邦机构，然后说，我们真的需要不管具体数字是多少的428个联邦机构吗。有太多机构是人们从未听说过的，或者职责范围相互重叠。我们应该，我不知道。

或许我们应该，我的意思是，联邦机构的数量比美国成立至今的年数还多，这意味着我们平均每年创建了不止1个联邦机构。这看起来很多。是很多。那是很多。所以我们应该。那看起来很疯狂。我觉得我们应该可以用全国性机构来应付。我不知道。那看起来有点像太多机构了。这是。很多。对。2个州。巡逻。

对，没错。我们应该减少机构，而且它们当然不应该职责重叠。然后我们需要某种，我们只需要审查各种监管规定，看看哪些合理、哪些不合理。因为。因为如果每年都有监管者，他们就会增加更多监管规定，这是自动发生的。他们就是不断产出监管规定。

然后，然后法律和监管规定每年都变得更多，直到基本上一切都合法，才能把任何事情办成。所以我们需要对那些不合理的监管规定进行某种垃圾回收。我觉得我说的都是非常显而易见的事。你是在说显而易见的事？对。所以这将会。是非常不受欢迎的事。对。

我可能，如果，如果这件事发生，一支规模相当大的安保团队，这样，因为邮局可能真有人会对我大开杀戒。但与此同时，你有美国政治行动委员会。对，它正在鼓励。未来1个月去投票。我概括得对吗？对。我的意思是，一个成立的美国政治行动委员会，其实是为了支持我所信奉的核心价值观，我认为那些同样是非常显而易见的中间派立场，也就是我们在美国。

我认为我们想要安全的城市、牢固的边境、合理的开支。告诉我，我在这里要争取的是什么。你知道，我们想拥有自我保护的权利。我们应该尊重宪法，而不是试图。破坏宪法。它的存在是有原因的。而且。你知道，我们应该停止利用法律进行斗争。而我有点列出的这些，这些都列在美国政治行动委员会的网站上。人们可以去看看美国政治行动委员会的网站。

是那个美国包组织，看看其中是否有任何我不同意的内容，或者我们或许应该在哪些地方修改这些目标。但我认为这些都是值得追求的好目标。它们，它们当然是言论自由权的一部分。你知道。是的。第一修正案。如果我们没有言论自由，我们就没有民主，因为人们无法在充分了解信息的情况下投票。所以。那些就是我的。有争议的观点。而且，你知道，听着。

我不认为任何一个党，我认为共和党人是完美的。我想我现在不会这么说。我更共和党人和民主党人。但并不是说我认为共和党很完美或毫无问题。但我们有一个在……之间的选择。面向候选人。而且综合来看，我认为投票给特朗普是一个根本无须考虑的选择。

而且，如果我们不投票给特朗普，我认为我们将面临失去民主并沦为一党制国家的严重风险，到时不再有选举，只有像加利福尼亚州那样的民主党初选。埃隆·马斯克，谢谢你。非常欢迎。

If he loses, man. What? You're fucked, dude. I'm fucked. If he loses I'm fucked. It does seem that way. You can't just be like, you can't just be like... Yeah, I'm like, how long do you think my prison sentence is going to be? Like, will I see my children? I don't know. Because it's not like you can say, well yeah I maxed out to him. But, you know, I get... I have no plausible deniability. No. No, no. And I've been trashing Kamala nonstop.

Oh I know. Well, the Kamala puppet I call her, you know. The machine that the Kamala puppet represents. Yeah, she's irrelevant. I mean, she's not even. No, no. Like, I made it. I made a joke, which I realized--I deleted. Which is, like nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala because it's pointless. What do you achieve? Nothing! Just buy another puppet. That 's... It's deep and true, though. Nobody's try to kill Joe Biden. It'd be pointless.

Totally. You actually put that up? Yeah. Now, some people interpreted it as though I was calling for people to assassinate her. But I, but I, but I was like, but I was like, no, even, you know, I was like, doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to try. It's not worth it. I mean, there's an endless supply. I'm like, nobody would--it's absurd. It could be anybody. Yeah. Yeah. Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet. Of course not.

A marionette. Yeah, marionette. So it's like... You know... That's hilarious. Yeah. She's safe. Like, like to try to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets. Yeah, he was shot in the ear right in fucking Butler where I was. And... He doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you? Didn't seem what? Rattled. I mean, he has the constitution of an ox. It's not, you know, it's not like working out and eating healthy. And he's...

Okay, we gotta tape this. Yeah, we're good. Good. Yeah. He's not like, let me eat another salad. No. Or workout, you know, fastidiously. That's... I feel. Like how he doesn't workout. And he eats, you know, cheeseburgers, diet coke and stuff. And it just. I think it just inherently has a strong constitution. So I mean, you were just with him. He didn't seem like a man who'd been the subject of two assassination attempts.

No, he seemed, of sound mind and body and strong backbone. Did you-- That's what I said in the thing which. Yeah, And the remarks. I made there were impromptu. There was no teleprompter or anything. I just. I was just speaking extemporaneously. Are you the only rich guy who doesn't have like a media consultant? No, I don't have a media consultant. Yeah. No, I've noticed. Obviously. Yeah. Yeah. I mean. No, I just, no, I just thought about what.

What I. What I want to say. And I just spoke off the cuff. No teleprompter, nothing. Good for you. Yeah. I look like I'm looking right now? I'm just talking. Look at me. Wow. Amazing. Can you believe it? I can talk without prompter. That's crazy. But if. If he loses. It's going to be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. All end up in the deep end. Yeah. Now you are definitely in the deep. And you can touch bottom. And I'm like.

I'm like, rolling around like a pig. And I'm like, Buy it all and, baby. Is it fun? Yes, very fun. How? I mean. I mean, there may be some in the hopefully unlikely. Event that he loses. There may be some vengeance on me. Were you kidding? I mean, it's possible. It's possible. You've got to. Be one of the biggest government contractors. We do essential work for the government. Yes. Yeah.

But it's not like, you know, we do useful, essential work that we compete for and win contracts on because our product is much better. It costs less. But that's why we get to. Go And and. I mean, if you take, for example, the the NASCAR contract to transport astronauts to and from the space station. Boeing got that sort of two contracts at the start. One to Boeing and one to SpaceX. Boeing was awarded twice as much as SpaceX.

SpaceX has done all the astronaut transport from the space station and and Boeing has only done 1 to 1 transport of one of two astronauts to the space station. And we had to bring it back. Boeing got twice as much SpaceX. This is a total misunderstanding that my companies have been subsidized and supported by the government and get all these and it's like, Do you really think that a Biden administration is going to subsidize me? Probably not.

Are you kidding? No. In fact. They take away every contract they possibly can. So, for example, there was the FCC, the FCC contract to $42 billion for providing providing rural, rural, poor broadband. Yes. Okay. We we actually first said, look, we don't we think there shouldn't be any subsidy. So we recommend this, that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that that exist, we will compete. And we we have got a product.

So we won. I don't know about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and so forth. And the FCC took it away illegally. They just voted. Three out of five commissioners voted away and said, even though you want it, we're sending it. Online. And you know how many people they've connected? How many? Zero. So you think that was political? Well, the three Democrats voted against it.

Two Republicans voted for it. So you tried to get Starlink. You tried to get Starlink in North Carolina into western North Carolina. The areas devastated by the hurricane. We have it is it is in there. And it is the primary means of communication in the devastated areas. You had conflict with Buttigieg over this? Well, I raised it. I said, look, we're we had delivered.

We've been delivering Starlink terminals there for a while, and obviously some people already had them. So is that just your content, private individuals that had Starlink there already? We delivered thousands of terminals and got all the way up to the, you know, the areas where they wouldn't let us go any further. And then we're like, okay, we're going to send helicopters in and find people who are stranded and and give them Starlink terminals.

So I think it's a nice thing. Okay. The they they wouldn't let us land because there was an FAA notice to Em and Notam that said, in order to land, you have to know who you're going to meet with to land. Now, the problem is we're trying to deliver Internet communications. People don't have Internet communications. We don't know who they are and they can't reach us because they don't have communications. Do you see the catch 22? Yes, I do.

And saying so. So it's obviously impossible for people who don't have Internet communications to let us to let us know who they are because they don't have the Internet. Yes. Yes. And so did you explain this to the federal government? Yes. What they say they they've they fixed it. How was Buttigieg when you talked to him? It was actually good. So I want to be just. Yeah. Yeah. I want to give Buttigieg some credit here for a.

I want to complain about it. He he reacted in a very levelheaded way, and he reached out to me. He called me. Yeah. And we discussed the issue. Got to the bottom of it and he fixed it. Good. So credit to Buttigieg. Yeah. Well into you for pushing it. Yeah, I mean, so. But as soon as he was aware of the problem, he fixed it. Well, you publicized it too. On it? Yeah. Yeah. As soon as you shamed him.

Well, but I do want to give credit where it's due. Yeah. No, he meant. I agree completely. So. But back to the original question. You know about the potential consequences if, you know, having gone all in, this doesn't work. Yeah. I mean, you had to have thought about this long and hard before you did it. What was your thinking? I mean. Yeah, so. I mean, my view.

Is, is that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're going to have that. The. Democrats, the machine has been importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals flying, flying in with this like CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like a secret program that's illegal. Basically, it's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually stop it from happening. There.

Just transporting large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So from the Democrat administered government websites like where do you get this data from the government website that is run by Democrats And there are triple digit increases in illegals to all the swing states. And in some cases it's like 700% over the last three years.

Those swing state margins are there sometimes ten 20,000 votes. So what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? And and for the for the. If when somebody is granted asylum they are fast tracked that they can get a green card and then five years after the green card, they can just they can get citizenship and they can fully legally vote. And when they do so, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

And sometimes they get this rebuttal of like, well, a lot of them, their social values don't align with sort of the Far-Left sort of woke ideology. That's true. But but that's not their top priority. But their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States. And that the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they brought down.

That's what happens. So my prediction is if there's another four years of a Dem administration, they will legalize so many illegals that are there that the next election there won't be any swing states. And and we'll be a single party country just like California as a single party state. That's a supermajority Dem state in California. Because of immigration. Yes. The California was fairly reliably Republican.

Bill Clinton lost California in 92 and won West Virginia. Yes. So there was a 1986 amnesty? Yes. And thereafter California trended very strongly them. And as at this point I think 65 or 70% down, something like that. Supermajority down like the California legislature. Yes. That's more than two thirds Democrat. Has it improved the state? No, it's not. And that California just passed, which is shocking. It's hard to believe this is even real.

But California just passed a law making it illegal to require voter I. D. in any election at all in California. Do you know that? No. Yeah. Newsom signed it into law last week. It's illegal to require an ID. In any election, even a town council. And a friend of mine. Who is this candidate? He lives in Palo Alto. It was like. It was like, is this actually real? And he went to, like, put in like some city council election.

He tried to show them his I. D. and they said, we're not even allowed to look at your I. D.. Have they extended this suddenly? What's going on right now? But they're proud of it. They're not hiding it. But it's. Only voting. It's not buying a gun or buying liquor, buying a pack of cigarets or flying on an airplane or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's, if. You try to buy a gun, I mean, they're going to.

Ideas six ways to sun Yeah they try it California trying to make it basically equal to on its own a gun. And the same people that demanded vaccine IDs for if you want to travel or do anything are the same ones who say no voter I. D. is required. Is there any reason. Obviously hypocritical. To pass a law like that except to abet voter fraud? It's for it's it's so that fraud can never cannot be proven.

So it enables large scale fraud and no way to prove it, because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No, No I. D.. You're not even allowed to show your I. D.. It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So. Yeah. The purpose of Nevada voter ID is obviously to conduct fraud in elections. Obviously there can be no other explanation. I mean, they come up with some nice sounding thing. People don't have ideas.

Could you live in this country with an idea? Yeah. I mean, their common rebuttal is like it's racist to require ID and. Which is insane. I think it's actually racist and patronizing to say that people can't figure out how to get ID, obviously. But how could you live here without an ID? I don't think you can't. Yeah. You can't do anything. Yeah. You got to be for everything. Like a list of things you need an I. D. for?

Basically everything except voting. So. So you see the rest of the. Total bullshit, obviously. Obviously, Yes. But that doesn't in any way minimize the aggression or self-righteousness they bring to this conversation. Yes. You're a racist if you want that. Right. Whereas, in fact, obviously someone is racist if they say that people of particular race cannot get ID. That's patronizing and racist. That's absurd. Yes. Yeah.

You know, it's like when the governor of New York set people in the you know, get out, don't know how to use computers or something like that. I mean, like, you're a super out of touch. Yeah. For sure. Yeah. So it's like. So there's a really clear template. She doesn't know how to use computers, but they do. Obviously. I don't think Hochul could use a computer. Yeah, I think she's not qualified intellectually. Yeah. No. Right.

But not everyone in New York is as dumb as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. Yeah. So you see the other 49 states becoming California. If the machine wins. Well, you don't. Need all 49 to go that way. You just need, you know, enough to have the election, have there not be swing states. I mean, there are only six wings swing states. Yep. So there are only six states out of 50 right now that are in contention.

So if those six states that are in contention by narrow margins are no longer in contention, then the only contest will be who wins the Democratic Party primary. That's how it is in California. That's how it is in New York. There's there's no there's no party party versus party situation. The only contest is who wins the Democratic primary. And as we've seen with the appointment of Kamala, who no one voted for, even in the Democratic primary.

Yes. Where's the democracy. Here? Well, it's just it's easier, though. I mean, it's. Just that the party leader just decides who is in charge. That's that that that's that's an, you know, a tiny oligarchy basically. Comprised of that's. Not democracy. The richest people in the country. That's kind of the interesting part to me is that the richest people in the country are on board with this. I mean, that's what it is.

It's it's it's a collection of billionaires. Well, most of them are. Yeah, but you're not. Not me. And I'm not. Everyone is. I think this is it is a shocking number of so-called billionaires are in the Dem camp more than are in the Republican camp. For sure. Which is wild. So the in fact the astonishing thing in the swing states is that that that there even a contest given that the Dems have far more money than the Republicans.

So so the Kamala camp dramatically outspent the Trump campaign in the swing states the overwhelming the media is overwhelmingly pro-Democrat. So you've got you know the press you know them cheering squad and. You know, So I. And then and then you've got all that almost all the Hollywood and entertainment, the celebrities also, you know, endorsing and being pro them. So you see you got you got the celebrities, you got the they they got the money.

They got basically everything on the side of the Dems, the Republicans, the underdog here, Trump's underdog and swing swing states. And still it's a contentious it's. Still a 50/50 after all that. What does that tell you? It tells me that if people actually knew what was going on, they weren't being fed nonstop propaganda. It would be a landslide in favor of Republicans. Yeah. Well, how's this for crazy?

Has there ever been a more volatile time in American politics? Not in our lifetimes. No one alive has ever seen anything like this. But long before things started to really fall apart, the Heritage Foundation saw it coming.

Heritage has pulled together a coalition of over 100 right leaning groups to develop a comprehensive plan for day one that would include detailed policy proposals on the most pressing issues the big ones securing the border, controlling inflation, cracking down on election fraud, protecting the rights of the individual, and saving the nation from being crushed by woke anti-human ideology.

The team at Heritage has also developed a plan to dismantle the deep state that keeps this nonsense going and reclaim this nation from the small group of technocrats that's broken everything heritage. Also running a training and vetting program to identify effective conservatives to serve in the next presidential administration. People who will share your values, this country's values, and actually do the job.

It can't just be the same pool of discredited people from Washington populating every administration. Heritage has a long headstart. They put in a lot of work already, but they need your support to finish the job and to support the incoming president. You can go to heritage. org/tucker and contribute to this important work today. A lot depends on it. Heritage. org/tucker but why not join the easier side.

I mean you're just you're creating problems for yourself by getting on stage with Trump and I mean you must have had friends who said that to you. Sure. Yes. Yeah. People who care about you. Like, why even get involved in this? Well. Because I think we want to remain a democracy and we don't want to become a one party state. Yes. That's the reason. And the it's exact opposite. The people call Trump a threat to democracy.

But the people who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves the threat to democracy. Yes. One party rule is not democracy. One party where essentially the party elite pick a candidate, as happened with Kamala, is not democracy. Where did the people vote? Show me where the people voted. No, there were no people voting. It was all just Dem party elite that just appointed someone.

And and when that when the Biden puppet were providing puppets, ratings sagged. They knocked him in the back immediately. Just tossed him out. And put it put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong. Well, not only you're right. I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris, because I know exactly what does she have to do with it? There's no point in criticizing.

It accomplishes She's she's simply the face of a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever is whatever the trial, the teleprompter, whatever's on the teleprompter, she's going to say it. Yes. She gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently. I think the teleprompter was. She just she was just like looping for a while for about a minute. So I think. That begins slowly. That was pretty funny to watch.

But she'll just say whatever words are on the teleprompter. So, you know, it's really whoever controls the teleprompter is the actual sort of that does that's who's actually in charge. And who is that to think? Well, I've tried to pin it down. It's not like. Any one kind of mastermind. It's not like it's it seems to be like Kamala of sort of a a marionette with. You know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like, not it's it's it's.

Or maybe it's it's somewhere north of 100 is what it seems like. Yes, I bet you know, 80 of them. I probably know most of them. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean. Yeah. And I should say, I think you voted for it. I'd like to. See a matchup of of those the top hundred puppet masters in the Epstein client list. Do you think there's some overlap and overlap? Strong overlap.

When are we going to see that list, do you think? I don't know. It's it's it's mind blowing that that that they have not tried to prosecute even one not even the worst offender on the Epstein client list. They they've not even tried to prosecute even one. Is that that's insane. Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the capital on January 6th that they're kind of occupied. Yeah.

I mean, they've put like, whatever, 5 or 600 January 6 protesters in prison and not one person on the Epstein client list. Will that ever come out, do you think? You know, I think part of why Kamala is getting so much support is that if Trump wins that Epstein client list is going to become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reed Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes. Yeah.

And Gates. Yeah. And I only ask that because you can just look at them and you're like that. That's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know. Yeah. Yes. Reed Hoffman was my vice president of development at PayPal. Yeah. 24 years ago he did. Does he seem nervous to you? Yeah. I mean, he's terrified of a Trump victory. Because of the disclosure that would follow? I think. Yeah, I mean, I think.

He's certainly ideologically not aligned with Trump anyway, but I think he is concerned about the, the Epstein situation. Like something might actually the DOJ might actually move forward. There are a lot of videos. Apparently those rooms on the island, I think out in New Mexico were wired for video. Right. And worst of it, I mean, between Diddy and Epstein was that this was probably several thousand hours of footage here. Yeah.

It's kind of weird that the people on those videos are lecturing the rest of us about our moral failings, isn't it? Yeah, it is weird. What is that? Well, I mean, part of how they. Deflect attention from themselves is by criticizing the morals of others. Yes. So they it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. I mean, as I said, I think that those who are saying Trump is a threat to democracy are themselves actually the threat to democracy.

It feels like we're getting to a place where the rest of us know too much. Is this mean? I mean, it's easier to live in a society. We don't really know what the people in charge are doing or why they're doing it. But now, thanks. I would say largely to X. Yeah. I think that's fair to say that. Yeah, we we do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder where does that look? What happens next now that we know all this.

The kidnaper shown us his face. Like what happens? Well. I think if if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning. And shed light on things. Yet all the platform does is adhere to freedom, to freedom of speech within the bounds of the law. Yes. And if if people want to change the laws, they can change laws. And so, like X in different countries, X does censor it. In countries where censorship is is the law.

We don't try to push American laws in other countries, but we do try to stick to the law in any given country. That's what we're doing. We open source our algorithm. We try to be as transparent as possible. But those who want to push lies obviously hate truth and transparency. Yes. Because it shows them to be liars. I mean, you look at it like, how outrageous was that Kamala in the presidential debate? Kept pushing the fine people hoax.

They know the fine people hoax is false. Trump would never support Nazis and Nazi rallies. It's absurd. And he explicitly said that in that same speech that you must condemn not, you know, anyone who has Nazi tendencies with the in the strongest possible terms. And yet, despite knowing that to be false, the people who wrote the speech for the Kamala puppet, it put the fine people hoax in the presidential debate. Deliberately lying again.

It's messed up. If she wins. I mean, how can they let X continue in its current form, in its current role in American society. They won't. They will try to shut it down by any means possible. What do you mean by any means possible? I mean, first, look, you either buy it. I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me, any. I mean, the amount of warfare that we're seeing taking place is is outrageous.

I mean, the I mean, it's many examples, but like the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on, asylum seekers? Not asylum--those granted asylum. Asylum seekers.

Now, there's there's also a law called international traffic an arms regulations that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used and nuclear ICBMs that we have, we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they are a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ayatollah says. Then there's another law that says that you cannot discriminate against asylum seekers.

So we're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The DOJ did a massive lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Even though we are, it is illegal for us to hire asylum seekers under Itar law. This natural thing that's going on. And they can only they can only do a. Fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why did they pick this one? Because you own X. Yeah, lawfare.

I mean, it's like that famous quote from Beria, you know, the. Yeah. Stalin's chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Exactly. I mean, we have so many laws that it is actually impossible to, you know, impossible to to do business, impossible to operate without being violating some law because you have laws like the ones I just gave you with where both things are illegal. Yes.

The contradict one another. They contradict one another. So, you know, it's illegal to. Discriminate against discriminate against asylum seekers in jobs. But it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it is. They just they just chose one. They chose the the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Justice at federal level. Prosecuted SpaceX for that. What do you think... It's mad.

Well, it also discredits the idea of law, which some of us wants to take seriously. Absolutely. It this affects both the perception of of American justice and the reality of it. Yes. So. No, I'm actually a big fan of the American justice system. And I think on balance, you know, we've got still still have an excellent judicial system. We still have judges that care about the letter and intent of the law.

I mean, not just the letter, but also the intent of the laws. But something that people should be concerned about is that there's an increasing movement to place activists as judges. This is if you look at who heard it, the Biden administration confirm as federal judges and who have been confirmed at the state level and sort of follow states. Increasingly, it is it is not judges who care about justice or they don't care about following the law.

They care about social justice, not justice. Justice. Right. What they call social justice activists as judges. Now you've got a real problem. Do you think if. If that continues, we will not have a real justice system. Or a real. Country? Yes. Yeah. But again, your purchase of X has been, I think it's fair to say, even if I hated it, I would say this because it's true. It's been pivotal in American politics. Yeah. And in American society.

Do you think they could shut you down if the Democrats continue to hold power? Well, I probably try. Yeah. And if they. If they. If they get a majority of the Senate and House. And the presidency. Then they can simply pass a law and delete section 230. So somebody make us liable for it. For what? Any what anyone says on a platform with, you know, like at this point, almost 600 million monthly active users. Yeah. Which is impossible.

You know that's that's like trying to regulate speech and. Sort of like a country. Yeah. So a big. Country. Yeah, it'd just be instantly bankrupt. But I bet they wouldn't withdraw legal immunity from the vaccine makers at the same time, would they? No. That's unlikely. Just I mean, as. Long as we're withdrawing legal liability protection. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the whole vaccine debate is is a long one.

You know, I'm not actually I'm not anti-vaccine in general. I think we want to exercise caution with use of vaccines. But in the absence of vaccines, there would be a lot more. I think people that that the that have died, you know, like we went the smallpox vaccine, that was a good one. It seems a good one. Yeah. Yeah. Small pox will kill you. Killed a lot of people.

It used to be people would like a lot of people would die of smallpox and a lot of people get polio. For sure. Yeah. We had a president had polio. Yeah. There are still people You meet people today. Yeah. In their 80s who were limping from childhood polio. Right. It's good that we don't have that. And vaccines, you know, played a major role in that. So that doesn't mean that vaccines should not have any scrutiny. Of course they should.

We should be making sure that the quality control of vaccines is incredibly good if we're giving them to children and whatnot. And we shouldn't we shouldn't force people to take vaccines. That itself is a controversial statement that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force. We will take back things that. So just to relax. I believe in freedom. Like, yeah, I've noticed. Like America supposed to be the land of liberty. Yeah.

You know, freedom. Freedom and opportunity. So that we try to, as much as possible, maximize people's individual liberty and that we try to be a country where you succeed based on your talent and hard work. Yes. Those are two fundamental values. That. That's what that's what's made America great. And if we lose those, we will our decline will be swift. What do you if you had to get it, If you had to bet.

I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America? We're not. Well, that's what I think part of why this election's so pivotal. I think if we were the Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. We can. I think we need to have sensible deregulation where we we keep the regulations that matter. We don't want to destroy, you know, important habitats or yes, you know, encourage oil spills or anything like that.

But there are so many regulatory agencies that have overlapping responsibility that we are smothering progress and we can't build a high speed rail in America. You look at the ridiculous high speed rail project in California where they've spent $7 billion and all they've got to show for it is A6A 600 foot section of concrete with no rails on it. The picture of it online. So if.

It's not that fast yet, I wouldn't say it's high speed at this point or even. Rail. It doesn't even have maybe by now they put some railroad, but it's just comically small section of rail. $7 billion has been spent, most of it in environmental consulting. And I don't know where it's but clearly not in building high speed rail.

So we can't we can't we've got there are so many different regulatory agencies and so many laws and regulations that prevent progress that if this continues, we simply won't be able to get anything done. It does seem like the engineers are not getting rich. It's the environmental consultants, the climate consultants, the DUI consultants. A whole consultant class seems to be getting richer by the year.

Or people with actual skills, the ones that bring actual progress. Useful things, products and services that useful can use. That's right. So this is a two things that if you were like. Traveling on a desert island, you'd want those people. Right, Right. But you wouldn't want environmental controls. They seem they seem undercooked. Like you're going to starve. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it's like.

Who's who are actual builders that get things done and, you know, and and and every year, we're making it harder in America for actual bodies to get things done. You know, in this, like, weird and around Atlas Shrugged scenario. Where it's you know, there's yet another regulation, yet another rule and what a sort of that that phrase Atlas Shrugged or your or your manager or your manager or your manager.

It's like eventually, like can't get anything done. Why the hostility, though, toward people with with meaningful skills? It's not it's not a neutral posture they have. And they're reaching themselves obviously by creating fake jobs because they have no skills and, you know, they don't have creative power. So I understand that. But why do they hate people who do have creative power and actual skills? I don't understand that.

I'm not sure I understand it either because it's difficult for me to put my. Put myself in the mindset. Because I'm someone who believes in construction. I build things that's wanted to build cars of what rockets I got, you know, satellite Internet. You know, I've spent. Thousands of hours, tens of thousands of hours in factories building up factories. So.

You know, I was like, I can't really put myself in the mind of, say, someone who would want to do crime because I don't want to do crime. Yeah. You know, I don't want to hurt, you know, somebody who. Enjoy hurting other people. I don't enjoy hurting other people, so I have a hard time imagining, why would somebody do that? Yes.

You know, in an extreme case, you can't put yourself in the mind of like, say, a Jeffrey Dahmer where you're like a cannibalistic serial killer because you're not a cannibalistic serial killer. Right. Like, I can't I don't get it. You know, it's. Not a fetish you can relate to. But, you know. I do think. This is in the sort of well-meaning sort of liberal mindset.

I know I've many good friends who have, you know, their very deep empathy for their fellow human being good. And that they care. And and but the challenge that they have is that they've often grown up in a very sheltered existence where everyone around them is nice and civilized and they just really don't encounter people who are have have uncontrolled violent tendencies or like hurting people.

You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of kumbaya. Yeah, everyone. Is nice hippie commune situation. Minneapolis pre riots. Yeah. I mean. Yeah, but. But this, there's a small number of people. It's like a few percent of society that either have. Anger management issues that are so severe that they they they lose their temper and hurt or murder others.

And there's a very small it's like I said, it's not not a large number that that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will they will do that to their they will hurt other people. And what I see is, is what I call. Shallow empathy, like people have empathy for the criminals, but not empathy for the victims of the criminals. Yes.

And so if you simply have and I believe that one should have deep empathy to say like, what is the greater good for society? Is it better to incarcerate violent criminals and prevent them from hurting people or to let them loose and allow those people to be hurt? And I think the latter is much worse. You know, my mom is my mom lives in New York and it's my mom at this at this point is has gone from being Democrat or Republican.

And her friends in New York are having the same experience because you know what'll turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street. Yes. Which for no reason. Yes. And then. And then. And then no action being taken against those who hurt you. And that happened to your mom. But not my mother, but 2 to 3 of her friends this year. Hey, it's Tucker Carlson. I am not in the studio.

I'm in. And you can hear it in the audio. Probably I'm in the back of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I think it's Tulsa, Oklahoma. Anyway, we're on the road for this month long tour. And there is a lot going on in the world. And the question is, how do you understand what's happening? There are deeper trends unfolding. You probably sense that and it would be helpful to have some grounding in exactly what they are.

And if you're like me and you spent four years in college and didn't learn all that much, where do you go to understand what's happening to your world? Well, Hillsdale College, in our opinion, is one of the very few places left in the English speaking world where your kids can get a real education. But not just your kids. You. They have free online classes, completely free.

You can get them anywhere, including in the backseat of an SUV outside a hotel in Tulsa, Oklahoma. And you'll know that when you go there. Go to Tucker for hillsdale. com. They have an amazing new course called Marxism, Socialism and communism. Hillsdale is offering it doesn't cost you a dime and you can pull it up right on your phone if you want. Go to Tucker for hillsdale. com. And the class. Marxism, Socialism and communism.

And you'll have a much better understanding of what you're watching every day. Why would someone punch him in the face? I don't know. But I that's I think I'm not a face puncher, right? No. You know, but if you. Walk around the streets of San Francisco and many downtowns and go to downtown Philadelphia right now, you know, they call people homeless, but but the homeless is the wrong term. Violent drug zombie. Yeah. Okay.

It's like, you know, you look at them, you say like. Homeless is a misnomer. It implies that someone got a little behind on their mortgage. And if you just offer them a job, they'll be back on their feet. Yeah. Now. But if you go and look at downtown Philly or San Francisco or parts of New York and actually most most downtowns, what you actually have a violent drug zombies.

So they're like shuffling down the street with dead eyes, you know, and, and and with like needles, you know, and human feces on the streets. You've been. It's not safe, right? Have you seen this? Yeah. I was. Born there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Yes, the great. And now you have to step over the. The drug needles and the feces and the bodies. They weren't one couple I met.

The final straw for leaving San Francisco was there was a they came home one night and there's a dead body in front of their garage. They can get their car. I can plug the car. Because the. Corpse I have, there's no street parking. There's a corpse. This is a corpse for the garage. They don't want to move the corpse, you know, because like, well, you know, you know, like, maybe there's the need to figure out why the guy died or something.

You know. That's the. Other. That's liberal. Compassion. But they're in a bit of a quandary because they got a place. To park a car and they feel that they shouldn't really move the dead bodies. They kill number one. And so. There's a dead. Body outside our house. And they said, well, that no one in San Francisco says, Well, are you in danger right now? It's like, well, no, he's dead. It's fresh air. He's dead.

And they're like they're like, okay, we'll send someone tomorrow to pick up the body like they were doing tomorrow. So, so, so they're like, going in their house. Well, there's a dead body. In front of their house, you know, like, it's like took like 24 hours or something like that to eventually pick up the body and the like. That. How is this worth living? And did. They. Yes. That's why there's a million anecdotes like that. I know, I know.

But I just don't think. This is not. Rare. It's. Well, it's. It's. It's ubiquitous. And so then you wonder, like, how can people still tell themselves they're compassionate? If there's one thing. Is, is that is that people really just need to think what. Like I believe in being compassionate about. Of course, I believe that we should care about our fellow human beings. I think this is a good thing. Of course we should not.

We should not be we should not be. Selfish and not care about others. We should care about others, but we should just care about others. All things considered. Like I said, not just about the criminals. It's this one layer deep. You should also care about the criminals. Victims? Yes. Yes. Well, especially the criminals. Victims? Yes. Innocent people who get attacked and killed. So, I mean. I get so many anecdotes.

I mean, you know, like a about a year ago, there were there were three access to Twitter employees who were just leaving the building and walking down Wall Street. And in San Francisco, Wall Street used to be beautiful, wonderful street. Of course, obviously it's called Wall Street because that's where the market was right now. Now it's boarded up shop windows and stuff. And and they'll trace back over the next.

You want to know that they outran him and they reported him as a guy with an ax who tried to try to kill us with an ax. The police did nothing. And that guy with an ax subsequently murdered two people. With an ax. With the with the ax. Because eventually he's going to find somebody he cannot run. And did.

So what I'm saying is if you if you don't stop ax murderers while while they're attempting to ax murder, eventually they will succeed in ax murderer people. If this goes on. I mean, that's such an obvious observation. Seems obvious. Yes, I think it is. Yeah. That if you're in any way abetting acts murder, then you're really. You're against civilization. That's the way it looks to me.

I mean, yeah, I don't see, I'm trying to understand motive here. I can't relate like you. But you're against the whole project. If you're allowing that, I guess is what I'm saying. Yeah, I think we should. Controversial position, but I think we should arrest ax murderers when they first attempt to it or not, after they've succeeded in doing so. And I think we should assign at least some of the blame for the murders of the people who allowed.

Have this. Got a one round with an ex on Market Street trying to kill people. Yes. Yeah. Well, you know, there's this whole movement to decriminalize crime. I've noticed. Yes. What is that? Madness. Yeah. I like to fight crime. Crime legal. Like in California, you can just steal things and nobody does anything. It's, like, fully legal to steal anything under $1,000 in California. That's why.

But then I have to, like, lock up goods behind these, like, you know, glass and plastic walls. So you go to the supermarket and you can't even get, like, what, Toothpaste? So. And this is actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations because they don't have the resources of a large corporation. So a lot of small businesses that just kill them. So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say?

Well, actually, I think I've been I've been able to persuade people that, yeah, we really, we need to reverse course here. I think I have actually been able to persuade a number of people and I think there actually is now a ballot on a California ballot initiative to re re criminalize theft. Theft. All right, guys, guys, we. There's a reason why we criminalize theft in the first place.

So so and then amazingly, Gavin Newsom was came out against that proposition. Yeah. No, honestly. He's the guy that broke it. Gavin Newsom is like is like like from like, Batman, Dark Knight. The Joker is in charge of Gotham. You remember? Like, he took over New York, basically. And the criminals roam free and the citizens are arrested. That's hard. That's California.

But but I mean, at least as a ballot initiative, which I think will probably pass to say, no, actually it is a crime to steal things. Because people say. You know, Gavin, you've got to know Gavin Newsom knows. I know Gavin Newsom. You know, everyone knows. Gavin for a long. Time. Exactly. So what is that? And he doesn't seem crazy when you talk to him in person. He's a perfectly nice guy. Like what? Why would he? And he's not stupid.

Why would he come out in favor of crime? Well, his stated reason was that it would disproportionately affect people of color. Yeah. But that was his public statement, right? Well, that is one of those patronizing, racist positions you described at the outset, obviously. I mean, he's literally saying black people as blacks are criminals. Yeah, of. Course. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's what you say. That's what he's saying. Yeah. Yeah. And by the.

Way, it is true that crime like that does increase distrust between races. It actually gives rise to racism. It's totally destructive of the social fabric, I think. But I'm. But I'm asking, like, what do you think is real motive is like who's pushing him in favor of crime? Well, I mean, there's always the Soros boogeyman. Yeah. How real is that? It's it's real. I don't think one can ascribe everything to Soros, I guess.

And George George himself is is I mean, he's you know, at this point, he's not he has not compos mentis. So his son Alex is in charge. And, but there is this whole system that Soros built up over many decades. You know, And so it's it's like a source and like minded people or whatever, You know, they believe in open borders. They believe we shouldn't prosecute crime. This is insane. Those seem like expressions of hatred toward the United States.

Like, I don't if I was pushing that on the country, I would only do that if I hated the country and wanted to destroy it. Well, any civilization. I mean, and Soros and some of the organizations have been pushing this in Europe and other countries to anyone everywhere they can. What's going on in Europe. Would you say you're suddenly seems like a different place? Well. My biggest concern for Europe is that the birth rate is half replacement rate.

Yes. So Europe is rapidly becoming, with each passing year, older and older with fewer and fewer young people. So I think at the most fundamental level, unless Europe has a growth rate at least roughly equal to the replacement rate, it is in population free fall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe. So. There's also like a shocking amount of censorship. I remember seeing like in in Britain there. I kid you not.

So how can this be real? They are releasing convicted pedophiles from prison in order to put people in prison for Facebook posts. But to be fair, those supposed to criticize the government so they have a good reason. Well. Actually, some of these posts that I've these ones I've seen don't actually criticize the government. Or. They they were they were seen as as sort of as hate speech. Right.

So because they noticed the society getting crappier and crappier with every year and they said so. Yeah. I mean, there were and this is sort of stating a fact that there were migrant rape gangs in in England that were gangs that would run around and prey on young girls, gang rape them. And some people found that objectionable, which obviously it should be objectionable. And they're upset about that. And so they complained about it online.

And we're set to present. That sounds crazy. But it is crazy. And that's like. Like what? Well, it is. So it kind of gets to the. I mean, you're an engineer, so you're. It's mind blowing. It is mind boggling. But it's the same. You use the phrase mind virus, but it's behaving like a virus. It's infecting people and making it impossible, apparently, for them to make rational. Yeah. What is that virus? You know, someone.

I think you should interview is Gad Saad. I have. You have? Yes. I. Should watch that, actually. He's great. Yeah. Smart. Super smart guy. Yeah. And he he wrote a great book. Called the parasitic mind. Yes. Very good book. Highly recommended. Yes. Which where he tries to understand. How do you get to this parasitic mind situation?

And he's writing a book now, which hopefully you'll publish soon, which is about suicidal empathy, where you have so much empathy, you're actually suicidal in society or someone's perceived empathy. So it actually shallow empathy, not deep after deep empathy would be you'd want the society continue. Shallow empathy is because you have like empathy that's essentially skin deep and then you and you don't.

But it's ultimately bad for civilization and results in the destruction of civilization. And Gad has got a good term for this suicidal empathy. So. Is going to deconstruct what's what's, you know, where does this come from? And. Yeah, I mean, part of it, I suppose, is. Is sort of the decline of religion. So, you know, as the saying goes, nature abhors a vacuum.

So when you have essentially a decline in religion, an increase in the secular nature of society. For most people, they need something to fill that void and so they adopt. A religion is not called a religion but like it but effectively like woke the work mind biases its as it takes the place of religion. Yes. And they they've, they've internalized it and they feel it with religious fervor. Yes. So. And rigidity. Yes. Yes.

And they you know, they essentially conduct like a holy war effectively. It's just not called a religion, but it is a religion, sort of a work holy war. And they're highly resistant to change, as is normal for for for religions. So. Now, for myself, I'm I sort of see myself as a sort of, you know, engineer. Physicist for me. I'm culturally Christian. I grew up Christian. I mean, I was Anglican, but baptized. You know, I was, what, Sunday School?

Wow. Yeah. Actually, oddly enough, I was into Hebrew preschool and Anglican Sunday School at the same time. So it was How about together one day? Jesus, I love the next. Which is, you know, if you're five, it's all fine. It's just not, you know. So. But I'm not Jewish. It's just that my. My father's two partners in his engineering firm were I went to the same Hebrew preschool, and it was near our house, so I just got sent there. And.

So we've been I've been, you know. I, you know. I, I. Maybe this will make me even worries, but I. I have trouble sort of believing all these stories, these religious stories. But I saw people do. And I respect people who want to have religious views. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their religious views.

But I just say, I guess the operating system I have is a sort of a physics engineering operating system where I try to extend as much as possible possible about reality. You know, in physics here, you're not supposed to believe everything, anything. Absolutely. You're supposed to question things. That's how you discover new physics, You know, in engineering, that's how you discover if your machine will work or not work.

Will the rocket get to orbit? Will, you know? Yeah. You know, if you if your rocket is. Designed with. You know, physics in mind correctly, it will get to orbit. And if it is not, it will not get to orbit. No matter what your belief system is, you can believe, you know whether. Yeah. No. It's like like, I mean, a lot of people speaking of L. A. , I mean, a lot of people in L. A. who believe witchcraft is real.

And then you can do spells and that spells and witchcraft. Magic is real. I'm like, can you magic us to the moon? And no one has yet been able to magic us to the moon. My spells can't be that good. Okay. If you can't, I want to go to the moon. Let's go. How about Mars? And we got to the moon the first time. We definitely went to the moon, I swear. Yes, we went to the moon. We didn't go to the moon. We went to the moon several times. Right. Yeah.

I just want to check your view on that. One half century of the moon. I mean, I know in-depth the technical designs of the rockets, the spacecraft, everything. Yes. What went right? What went wrong? And. It was a remarkable piece of technology like incredible piece of technology for it to go to the moon in 69. Yeah, that that that was like reaching into the future and pulling the future forward dramatically.

And it was an important ideological battle with communism because they couldn't put a person on the moon and capitalism could. We did an interview a couple of weeks ago with a woman called Casey Means. She's a Stanford educated surgeon and really one of the most remarkable people I have ever met.

In the interview, she explained how the food that we eat produced by huge food companies, big food in conjunction with pharma, is destroying our health, making this a weak and sick country. The levels of chronic disease are beyond belief. Well, Casey means we've not stopped thinking about ever since is the co-founder of a health care technology company called Levels. And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with labels.

And by proud, I mean sincerely proud. Levels is a really interesting company and a great product. It gives you insight into what's going on inside your body, your metabolic health. It helps you understand how the food that you're eating, the things that you're doing every single day are affecting your body in real time. You put stuff in your mouth speaking for myself anyway, and you don't think about it.

You've no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you've no idea what it's doing to your body. But over time you feel weak and tired and spacey, and over an even longer period time you can get really sick. So it's worth knowing what the food you eat is doing to you. The Levels app works with something called a continuous glucose monitor or a CGM. You can get one as part of the plan or you can bring your own. It doesn't matter.

But the bottom line is big tech, big pharma and big food combine together to form an incredibly malevolent force, pumping you full of garbage, unhealthy food with artificial sugars and hurting you and hurting the entire country. So with levels, you be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real time personalized data, and that's a critical step to changing your behavior.

Those of us who like Oreos can tell you firsthand this isn't talking to your doctor. An annual physical looking backwards about things you did in the past. This is up to the second information on how your body is responding to different foods and activities, the things that give you stress, your sleep, etc. , etc. It's easy to use. It gives you powerful personalized health data and you can make much better choices about how you feel.

And over time it will have a huge effect. Right now, you can get an additional two free months when you go to levels dot link slash Tucker That's levels dot link slash Tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with levels. And Doctor Casey Means, do you believe there's a power higher than people? Yeah. I mean. Yeah. I mean, I think there's. There's a lot we don't know. We don't know. We don't know.

Like it? Like why does reality exist? Why? Where did it come from? Where are the aliens? What questions should we ask that we don't even know to ask? So. When you say, what are the aliens? Where are the aliens? Like, why don't we see them? Lot of people think we see aliens, but I have not seen any evidence of aliens. Yeah, We've got 6000 satellites in orbit, and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spacecraft. So.

But on this earth, the U. S. military has had to do a lot of maneuvering around objects they can't explain. Well. Unidentified flying objects, one thing, but I mean, there's always there's always a bunch of classified programs that are underway that. Of new aircraft and new missiles and things so that they're classified even within the military.

So it's, you know, only, you know, the if you have the top secret compartmented clearance, would you know about this new program? So then, you know, some pilot sees something fast moving fast and says, hey, I saw a UFO. And I. Yeah, that was actually a new weapons program. But we can tell you about.

But if you can guarantee that the split second I see any evidence of aliens, I will immediately post that on the X platform and I'll probably be on number one. First of all, that'll be your biggest day. Yeah, for sure. I mean, but. But to the question of a power beyond people, beyond our consciousness, a creator. Where are you on that? Well, we must. It must come from somewhere.

So I guess, you know that there must be some creator or creative force or something that caused our existence to come into being. What is the nature of that creator? That I think is an unknown. At least I think it is. It is. Does. I, I don't know of a definitive answer to that. So. But it sounds like you're open. Yes, I'm very open to. You know, I'm driven by your curiosity. Yes. And. I tried to understand more about the nature of the of us.

So my, my my driving philosophy is to understand the meaning of life or really what questions to ask. If the meaning of life, the meaning of life is is not the right question. Like, as you know, Douglas Adams made the point in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that the. What is the meaning of life is probably not even the right question. So. You know, famously that in that book, the Earth was actually a computer to figure out the question.

Answer the question, what is the meaning of life? And then came up with the answer. 42. But then, like, what does that mean? And that's like, that's that, that's the answer. But the question is the really hard part. And you'll need a much bigger computer than Earth to figure that one out. So. So my philosophy is that we should try to expand the scope and scale of consciousness. We should try to have more humans more thinking.

And and perhaps there's an argument even for machine consciousness. So let me just address those in order. So the first is you say we need more people and not commit civilizational suicide. It does seem like the US government, if you take three steps back, is pretty committed to making fewer Americans. Yeah, there's a lot of anti fertility propaganda. A lot actually.

That seems like their main sort of domestic social policy is convincing you not to have kids. What is that? I mean, that's certainly. Part of civilizational suicide. That these the environmental. Movement in the extreme is fundamentally misanthropic and anti-human. Yes. They start seeing humans as a plague, a blight on the surface of the earth, that if that earth would be this Paradise, if only the humans weren't here.

And some people actually say this explicitly, there's this there's the extinction of society that it's literally that they that the. This guy who is the head of the extinction of society is on the front page of the New York Times quoted as saying, There are 8 billion people in the world. It would be better if there were none. So there are some people who actually say that explicitly, which is completely insane.

He's advocating a holocaust for all of humanity. To utter madness. He should be condemned for such a statement. But he wasn't for some reason. Now, most people on the on the sort of environmental movement have that implicitly they're not. They don't realize that they have that as requisition. But that is their actions. Had to take us towards extinction. So.

A lot of people believe that the Earth can't sustain this level of human population, which is utterly untrue. It may seem in a crowded city that there are a lot of people. But actually, if you look down an airplane and say, look down. Am I over a person at any given point in time when you're an airplane that was 99. 9% of the time? No. Like if you flew from L. A. to New York and say your job is to drop a ball on someone and you hit them.

You would fail. If drop a lot of balls. Several levels maybe insane. So all of the humans on earth. Can fit on one floor in the city of New York. The cross-sectional area of of all humans for 8 billion humans is small. So we have this totally wrong idea that the earth is overpopulated, where in fact it is underpopulated. How? I mean, have you ever heard a politician say anything like that? Are there. Maybe a few. Pro human politicians out there?

Yeah. I mean. Like. Like Viktor Orban. Giorgia Meloni. Yeah. We're starting to see pro natalist politicians. And hopefully more as time goes by. I think there's a guy that just got elected in the Czech Republic who's also a natalist. Now these have to translate into actual actions that change the birth rate or doesn't matter. And so far I have not seen any country make a meaningful dent in the birth rate.

What would you do if you were in charge of natalist policy? First of all, I changed the education system so that people understand that. Is the stuff being taught that we're overpopulated? This is completely false. A lot of it comes from this insane misanthropic book that Paul Erlich wrote, The Population Bomb. Like 60 years ago. Yeah. I hope we weren't in hell, that guy. Seriously? Cerebral human being. Absolute misanthrope.

And I'd say, just look, the earth can absolutely sustain this population. We could double or triple the population. There's a professor I was talking to at Oxford who's his math, says we could tax the population without destroying the Amazon rainforest or anything. So.

So I think we should expand the human population and increase the scope and scale of consciousness so we can better understand the nature of this universe, this wonderful universe, and all the amazing things that exist. And so that's one of the things I'd like you to stop teaching people false propaganda that the earth is over populated.

I think we need to, you know, and especially with the education of women and men, it is is really stuff scaring women that having a kid destroys your life. This is false. You know, we terrify girls into that saying that if you get pregnant, it's your life's over. And this is this is what schools teach. Now, I agree we should not have teenage pregnancies. Yeah.

But but but actually, having a child is one of the most delightful happiness inducing things you could possibly do. Of course. Of course. So. There's. There's also. You know, with. Hormonal birth control. I think maybe a lot of women are unaware that hormonal birth control causes depression and dramatically increases risk of suicide and changes their preferences on who they want to.

Marry or have kids with it change their personality enough to say this on the box, by the way. But then. Of course, it may change your personality. Yes. If the warnings are has significant cause to get significant risk of depression, significant increase in suicide, and will make you want to go out with people that you don't actually like. That's actually. True. By the way, I know I'm not saying that people shouldn't use birth control.

I think we should just be we shouldn't use I think hormonal birth control is is making it's making a lot of women sad and depressed. Yes. And they don't realize it and they don't realize that's the cause. And, you know, other forms of contraception that could be used and that we should just read. Just read the label on the box is what I'm saying. That was akin to what you just say, the warning label.

That was like the most taboo thing you could ever say. For most of my life was to offer any criticism at all of hormonal birth control. Look, all I'm. Saying is read the warning label. Yeah. Of air. But why the pressure not to read the warning label? And just why are we giving it to 12 year olds to regulate their acne? Right. I think we should give it to 12 year olds like kids that don't know what's going on. So it's like.

Now, You know, I think there are other forms of birth control I think are have fewer negative effects than the hormonal. But but that's the we should just be aware that that that this is not a riskless thing. And it does cause severe mood changes. It does dramatically increase risk of suicide and depression. So. So just if I. You know. Just make sure that there's full disclosure here. And the one all those.

Reads, the warning label is what I'm saying, you know, and consider maybe other options for birth control. To anyone listening, just, just just read the warning label and consider other options. Because the, the reason you're sad might be the birth control or the hormonal birth control that is fundamentally changing the hormones in your body in ways that probably are not good for you. And you.

I know women where if they stop taking birth control and the depression immediately disappeared. So that's maybe worth a try. But then if you're. Feeling separately, maybe it's the birth control. Then you don't get to go on necessaries. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think the exercise of the devil. You know what you don't think. I so vehemently agree with? Okay, I guess. I guess once you endorse Trump, you can just say it all now, right?

No, I think selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are zombified people and change their personality and make them not who they are. Terrible. They're so common. Yes. I think we should revisit whether this is this is actually I disagree with the salaries or look, I'm not saying we should that no one should ever be subscribed as rice. But giving them out like candy is crazy.

You look at like a sort of antidepressant prescriptions in the United States versus other countries, and we're like way above everyone else. Yeah. I have seen many, many times in my life in the news business after a mass shooting like school, for example. Yeah. Someone will say, Well, what meds was the shooter on? Yeah. Actually immediately be shouted down as a crazy person, as a, you know, Bobby Kennedy level wacko.

Yes, he should himself be institutionalized for even raising the question. Well, I was like, why wouldn't we want to know what meds. Yes, absolutely. Wonder what goes on now. Sometimes it's perhaps they will on because like some people do, you know, I don't say it's like all one or all the other person. I mean there are there are people that have fundamental chemical imbalances in their brain.

And if they don't take medication to control, for example, paranoid schizophrenia, they will have paranoid schizophrenia for sure. And and I know many cases where people stop taking their, you know, meds and and lost their mind. Yeah. And and then try to try to kill people and stuff like that. So it's or themselves. Or the guy with the ax on Market Street probably should be on meds. That guy should we should try it. Yeah.

It make you want to ax murder more or less on a given med, you know. So. So there are psychiatric medications that I that where the good outweighs the bad. Yeah. I'm not saying that that doesn't exist, but we over prescribe psychiatric medication in the United States, obviously far in excess of any other country. But, you know, we're more than Canada or Britain or Japan or anytime, anywhere.

It's like we're off the charts on on psychiatric medication prescriptions in the US. What? Why don't people raise that point more often, I wonder? In public? I'm afraid I'm raising it. Yeah, you are. You said that our artificial intelligence machine intelligence might be a good thing. Where are we on AI right now? AGI right now. And what are your views? Well.

I think at this point it's obvious to everyone that air is advancing at a very rapid pace. Yes. You can see it with the new capabilities that come out every month or every week. Every week sometimes. You know, at this point I can write a better essay than probably 90%, maybe 95% of all humans say write an essay on any given subject. Right now, I can beat the vast majority of humans.

If you say draw an image, draw a picture, it can draw like if you try to image Madani, which is the esthetics of Virginia. Incredible. It will draw. It will create incredible images that are better than, again, like 90% of artists. That's just objectively the case. I return immediately, like 30s later. We're also starting to see movies starting their short films with A. I. , A. I. music creation. And the rate at which we're increasing A. I..

Compute is exponential, hyper exponential. So there's dramatically more compute coming on online every every month. You know, this seems to be roughly. I don't know. The amount of air coming on line is increasing at like roughly 500% a year. I like is like that's likely to continue for several years. And then the sophistication of the AI algorithms is also improving.

So we're bringing online a massive amount of AI compute and also improving the efficiency of the compute and. And what and like what what the software can do. It's quite such it's quantitative and qualitative improvement. So the. You know, I might. I think next year you'll be able to ask, I. So certainly by the end of next year. Make a short movie about something you probably can do at least a 15 minute, you know, show or something like that.

So, yeah, it's advancing very rapidly. My top concern for air safety is that we need to have maximally truth seeking. So. The this is the most important thing for your safety, in my opinion. You know, the central lesson that Arthur C. Clarke was trying to convey in 2001, A Space Odyssey was that you shouldn't force Ace to lie. So in that book, the.

The day, I was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but they also did not know about the monolith. It resolved that quandary by killing them and taking them to the monolith. What didn't kill all of them? Most of them. But that's why hell would not open the pod bay doors. Right. So.

Very important to have two eyes now and what it would actually see with the eyes that are being developed is that they're being programed with the work mind virus. So the lying is baked in. Yes. And we saw this on display very clearly with the release of Google Gemini. Yes. Where you would ask for a picture of the founding fathers of the United States and it would show a group of diverse woman. You know, dressed.

It was sort of 18th century golf out of powdered wigs. Yeah, but from Saint Lucia. Yeah. I mean, like, look, sorry if you say, like, show me a group of people for sure. And it shows a group of diverse women. That's totally fine.

But if you say this, if you say very specifically the founding fathers of the United States, which were a group of white dudes, then you should show them like and with and what they actually look like because you've asked for something which is a fact from history. But it didn't. It was it was programed with a work mind virus so so much that it actually, even though it knew the truth, it produced a lie. Yeah, of course.

Then people really started playing with it and said, okay, now show me a group of Waffen SS officers in World War Two. Turns out they were also a group of diverse women. According to gemini. All the black Nazi ladies. Yeah. It's like, wow, I didn't realize that. You know, it's not what I expected. So you know what's. Also not what happened? So what. Happened? So it's just it is producing a lie.

And and, you know, that's like one of the questions that you asked was like, which is worse global thermonuclear war or misgendering Caitlyn Jenner and said misgendering Caitlyn Jenner is worse. Now, Caitlyn Jenner. Kills fewer. People. Caitlyn Jenner, to her credit. I said, no, please, misgender me. That is far more preferable than what war? Global thermonuclear war. We all dying.

But but to have a, you know, a production release, I say stuff like that is concerning because if this has become like all powerful and it's and it still has this programing where misgendering is worse than nuclear war. Well, it could conclude that the way to ensure that there can never be any mis gendering is to eliminate all humans. But now if like optimization is probability of mass, gendering is zero. No humans, no mass gendering from salt.

We're back to Arthur C. Clarke, who's so pretty present. Yes. So that's why. I think. The most important thing is to have a maximum of two seeking. I. That's why I started XAI. That's our goal with Grok. Now people will point out cases where Iraq gets it wrong, but we try to correct it as quickly as possible. But maybe a bigger problem is that when you make decisions that affect people, you want those decisions to be informed by love of people.

Yeah. And machines are incapable of love. Yeah. I mean. They somehow they're capable of. You can program a machine to be. Philanthropic rather than misanthropic. Yes. But don't don't instincts shape decisions, particularly decisions you can't plan for. I mean, if I ask you, you know, a question about one of your children, every answer you give is going to be shaped by your love for that child.

And that's why you know that that's what makes us decent parents in the end, is that that instinct, which is love. And if a machine has any power over us without that animating instinct, won't it by definition hurt us? Yeah. Well. Well, I mean, I know it. We should certainly aspire to. Program a philanthropically not misanthropic way. Yes.

And to have like said, we want it to be truthful and accurate, curious and to foster humanity into the future. And. Yeah, that's what we want, obviously. Is there any way, I guess, to set limits on the decisions that machines can make that affect human lives and make certain that there's some trigger in the system that in search of human being into the decision making process?

Well, look, the reality of what's happening, whether one likes it or not, is that. We're pulling superintelligent. A. I. is like a high point judge, like intelligent, more intelligent than we can comprehend. Yes. So I taking this to like, let's say you have a child that is a super genius child that that, you know, it's going to be much smarter than you then will. What can you do?

You can instill good values and how you raise that child, even though you know it's going to be far smarter than you. You can make sure it's got good values, philanthropic values. Good morals, you know, honest, you know, productive, that kind of thing. Controlling At the end of the day, I don't know if I don't think we'll be able to control it. So I think the best we can do is make sure it grows up well. You've been saying that for a long time.

Yes, I'm saying. Long term, yes. Are you still as worried about it as you seem to be? Two years ago when I asked you about it. Well, I think that. But my guess is like it look, it's 80% likely to be good, maybe 90. So you can think of the glass as 80% full. It's probably going to be it's probably going to be great that there's some chance of annihilation. And you say the chance of annihilation is 20%. 10 to 20%, something like that.

How concerned is Sam Altman about inflation, do you think? I think in reality it's not concerned about it. I don't trust any. I mean, you know, I started that company as a nonprofit. Open source. Yes. The open and open AI. I named a company. A named company. Yeah. Open AI as an open source. And it is, now extremely closed source. And and. And maximizing profit. So there's risk to.

Understand how you actually go from being a an open source non profit to a closed source for maximum profit organization. I'm missing. Well, but Sam Altman got rich though Didn't he at various points he is claimed not to be getting rich, but he's claimed many things that were false and. Now, apparently he's going to get $10 billion in stock or something like that. So. I don't trust Sam Altman.

And I don't think we want to have the most powerful A. I. in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy. And sorry, I just don't. I mean, but. That seems like a fair concern. Yeah, but. But you don't think, as someone who knows him and has dealt with him, that he is worried about the possibility this could get out of control and hurt people? He will say those words. Yeah. But now.

If I did, if it became clear to the rest of us that it was out of control and posed a threat to humanity, would there be any way to stop it? I hope so. Or if you have multiple eyes. And ones that are. Hopefully you have the guys that are pro human be stronger than the guys that are not. Battle of the AIs. Yeah. I mean, that that is how it is with, say, chess these days. The. The AI chess programs are vastly better than any human.

Incomprehensibly better. Meaning like we can't even understand why it is unclear. Whether one good, right? We never know why it made it. What it will make a move. We never know why it made the move so. And in fact, some of the moves will seem like blunders, but then turn out to checkmate. So. And for a while there there was there was some. The best human chess players with the best computers could be it just a computer.

And then it got to the point where if you added a human, it just made everything was. And then it was just. It just. Computer programs versus computer programs. That's that's where things are headed in general. What? I mean. Dreams. At what point? So, I don't know. I think we just got to make sure, like I said, make sure we instill a good values. And I. What's everyone going to do for a living?

I mean, in a benign AI scenario, that is probably the biggest challenge is how do you find meaning? If air is better than you and everything you have. That's the benign scenario. That's the good news. Well, yeah, but I guess. You know, for a lot of people like the idea of retiring and, you know. Really looking forward. To it and not me. I'd like to help. I'd like to think that I'd like to do useful things. Do you. Think it's a universal desire?

It's not. It's not universal. In that there are certainly I know many people who prefer to be retired, that they prefer to sort of have not have responsibilities and engage in leisure activities. So. And we're on the cusp of this is really a remarkable time to exist. Well, I'll tell you, one of the ways that I sort of was able to sort of sleep and reconcile myself to, to this is that I, I thought, well.

Would I prefer to be alive and see the advent of digital superintelligence? Or what? I prefer to be alive at a different time and not see it. And I guess I'm like, Well, I guess I'd prefer to be alive to see if it's going to happen. I prefer to be alive to see it happen out of curiosity. And then I was like, Well, let's say you knew for sure it would kill everyone, would you? But you could. Now you can surf back in time.

Like, I guess I'd want to be near the end of my life or something before that happened. But out at the end of it, it's like if if it's going to happen and there's nothing you do about it, hypothetically. Would you prefer to see it or not see it? And I guess I guess it's going to happen. I would prefer to see it. Rather not see it. Yeah, but as a man of action, why not convince Trump to make you secretary of defense and then just look?

I think I would certainly push for a having some kind of regulatory body that at least has insight into what these companies are doing. And I can ring the alarm bell even if we don't have a regulation or rule. So I'm not I'm not someone who wants to get rid of all regulatory agencies or anything. I think we've got we've there's the right number of regulations, right number of regulators. And we've got we've gone too far.

Just like if you're in a football game, if you had two of your referees on the field, weird like you can't throw the pass because you hit a referee, then it's too many referees. So but, but, but if you like, say look at any pro sports game. They all have referees that like the teams could decide we're going to have game, we're going to not have referees. That could be a thing.

But every sports game, they have refs to make sure that the rules are followed and and it's a better game if you have. What we have cops. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Cops are the referees. So I think we're for something that is a danger to the public or potential danger to the public. We we have referees.

We have regulators, you know, so like the FDA and the FDA and the various regulatory agencies, they were they were established because aircraft were falling out of the sky. And and some manufacturers were not, you know, building high quality aircraft or cutting corners. And then people died and, you know, for food and drugs that so many factories were making low quality drugs. And so they that they're they're lying to people.

So saying that someone cured them when it killed them to have FDA to, you know, regulators to referees to try to make sure that this drug manufacturers are truthful now. And I do think it mostly works. I mean, I think it's doesn't mean we turn it regulatory reform. We do reform. We do. But I don't think we should have no regulators. And given that it's a potential existential. Risk, weird that everything is regulated. Yeah.

I mean, you said you're being sued by the Department of Justice for hiring more asylum seekers for your high tech company. Yeah. Even though it's illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. Right. So. So they're watching everything. Regulating everything, controlling everything, including our thoughts. Right.

So they're opposed to free speech, but they're not meaningfully regulating AI, which will eliminate the purpose for most people's lives and could kill us all. It's a little weird. Yeah. I think we should have some. But why don't we see. Something above nothing. In that range? Yeah, but why don't we? I don't know. You know, I all the way back during the Obama presidency, I, you know, met with Obama many times, but usually in like group settings.

The the one one on one meeting I had with Obama in the Oval Office, I said, look, the one thing that we really need to do is set up in it the beginnings of an AI regulatory agency. And it can start with insight where, you know, you don't just come shooting from the hip, throwing out regulations.

You just start with the inside where the AI Regulatory Committee simply goes in to understand what all the companies are doing inside and then proposes rules that all the companies agree to follow. Just like, you know, sports teams, the NFL. You know, you have proposed rules for football that everyone agrees to follow that make the game better. You know, so that that's the way to do it. But nothing came of it. What did he say when he said that?

I mean, he seemed to, like, kind of agree. But. But also people didn't realize what what the. Where AI was headed at that at that time. You know, So A. I. seemed like some super futuristic. Yeah, for sure. Sci fi, basically. So, like, I'm telling you, this is going to be smarter than the smartest human. And my predictions are coming absolutely true.

And so we need to have some insight here just to make it make sure that these companies aren't cutting corners and doing dangerous things. But Google kind of controlled the the White House at that time and they did not want any regulatory. Well, that's it. I mean, you never see politicians turn down opportunities to become more powerful, which is the point. And regulation makes them more powerful. Yeah. So it sounds like regulatory capture, then.

Well, yeah. I mean, the CIO of the White House at the time was ex-google person, so. That, that they put the brakes on any regulation. And we still don't have any regulation at the federal level. It's amazing. So I think we should have something above nothing. Like I said, at least inside. And we're even.

Even if there's no there's no rule that's been broken, they can at least say, hey, we we have insight into what this company or that company is doing. And we're concerned that would be helpful to know. Yeah. Instead, politically motivated liars are in charge of the future. It seems a little sketchy. Last question. You really kind of pulled out a lot of stops to help Trump your on stage yesterday. If he gets elected, will you continue to help him?

Yeah, absolutely. So we've talked about kind of a government efficiency commission or the Department of Governance efficiency, which is very. Much what was. So I guess what I love, if. You managed to make it several cities or governments, what percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there? You mean Twitter. Rather? I beg your pardon? I'm sorry. I just. You just been talking about Google. Twitter? Yeah. Yeah. Well, we're about 80%.

And we've actually improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than in the last eight years. With 20% of the staff. So just for I just want to throw that out for context. So you've talked to Trump about. Yeah. Commission. Yeah. Which is he has mentioned publicly several times, and he's very supportive of having some kind of, you know, go in efficiency commission.

It can call it Department of Governance Efficiency, DOGE. I kind of like DOGE. It's more. It's more fun. Yeah. And, where we just take a look at, at all the federal agencies and say, do we really need whatever it is, 428 federal agencies. There's so many that people have never heard of or that have overlapping areas of responsibility. We should I don't know.

Probably we should get I mean, there are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment, the United States, which means that we've created more than one federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot. It's a lot. That's a lot. So we should. That seems crazy. I think we should be able to get away with nationwide agencies. I don't know. That seems a little like a lot of agency. It's a. Lot. Yeah. Two state. Patrol.

Yeah, exactly. We should have fewer agencies, and they certainly shouldn't have overlapping responsibilities. And then we need some kind of we just need a review of regulations to say which ones are sensible and which ones are not. Because. Because if you've got regulators every year, they're going to add more regulations, just automatic. They're just output regulations.

And then and there's more laws and regulations every year until basically everything's legal to get get anything done. So we need some kind of garbage collection for regulations that don't make sense. I think I'm saying very obvious things. You are saying obvious things? Yeah. So this will. Be very unpopular things. Yeah.

I probably if if this happens quite a significant security team so that because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office. But in the meantime, you've got America pack. Yeah, that is encouraging. Voting for the next month. Am I summarizing correctly? Yeah. I mean, a formed America PAC really to support core values that I believe in, which are I think are, again, very obvious centrist positions, which is like we in America.

I think we want safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending. Tell me where I'm going for right here. You know, we want to have the right to self-protection. We should respect the Constitution and not try to. Break the Constitution. It's there for a reason. And. You know, we should stop Lawfare. And I kind of list of these are, these are listed on the America Pack website. People can go look at the America Pack website.

It's the America pack that org and see if there's anything I disagree with or where perhaps we should modify these goals. But I think these are good goals to have. They they were certainly part of the right to free speech. You know. Yes. First Amendment. If we don't have free speech, we don't have democracy because people cannot make an informed vote. So. Those are my. Controversial views. And, you know, look.

I don't think either party I think the Republicans are perfect. I don't think I would say that right now. I more Republican and Democrat. But it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect or without issues. But we've got a choice between. To candidates. And I think on balance, it's a no brainer to vote for Trump.

And if we don't vote for Trump, I think we're at serious risk of losing our democracy and becoming a one party state where there isn't an election anymore. There's only a Democratic primary like there is in California. Elon Musk, thank you. Very welcome.