## LLM SUMMARY Elon Musk discusses US democracy, AI, governance, population collapse, societal issues, and regulatory importance with Tucker Carlson. ## IDEAS - Polarisation increases perceived political stakes, impacting public and private decision-making processes significantly. - Criticizing officials' motives can often clarify broader political agendas and their implications. - Exploring the interplay between technology, politics, and society reveals complex, interdependent systems. - Government policies on immigration could structurally alter electoral landscapes over time. - Without strategic regulatory frameworks, rapid technological advances could outpace our ability to manage them safely. - America risks becoming a one-party state due to policies deeply entwined with immigration and demographic changes. - Birth rates below replacement levels could threaten cultural and societal continuity in Western countries. - Institutions increasingly prioritise immediate optics over long-term societal impacts or justice. - Artificial intelligence must prioritize truth-seeking to align with human values and future stability. - Earth's vast spaces debunk overpopulation myths, suggesting societal distribution issues instead. - Institutional resistance to change often stems from entrenched bureaucratic systems and personal interest. - Narratives pushed by partisan media sources can deeply affect public understanding of pivotal issues. - Direct engagement in policy discussions can influence future governance frameworks effectively. - Regulatory oversight fails without aligning with transparent and intrinsic values. - Open, insightful AI development could prevent the insidious spread of misinformation. - Public discourse on controversial topics is essential for a functional democracy. - Societal solutions often demand integrated approaches across diverse sectors. - Viewing complex societal issues through interdisciplinary lenses offers fresh, holistic insights. - Technological integration into daily life must balance ethical considerations with progress. - Public engagement and transparency are essential for democratic health and resilience. - Pro-natalist policies must address socioeconomic conditions to effectively increase birth rates. - Re-evaluating long-standing beliefs about population and resource distribution may uncover important truths. - Increasingly complex global challenges underscore the need for effective interdisciplinary collaboration. - Legacy media narratives often oversaturate public discourse, muddling objective reality. - Deep empathy requires considering systemic impacts alongside individual circumstances. - Institutional capture by influential elites could reshape political and economic structures. - Transparency in AI development builds public trust and promotes ethical use. - Self-sustaining societal systems require enlightened leadership and integrity. - Government efficiency and resource allocation practices require continuous assessment and refinement. - Exploring existential questions enhances understanding and perspective on human purpose. - Regulatory advancements should balance technological potential against societal risks. ## INSIGHTS - AI's role in society necessitates truth-focused, transparent, ethically driven development. - Population decline threatens human continuity, desire-driven societal achievements. - Transparent governance systems cultivate public trust, democratic resilience. - Institutional inertia often blocks crucial societal adaptations amid evolving challenges. - Truth-seeking in AI is pivotal for preserving societal integrity amidst technological evolution. - Societal systems thrive on integrative, adaptive governance reflecting diverse perspectives. - Media narratives often skew public perception, complicating objective issue assessment. - Empathy requires balancing individual needs with societal, systemic impacts. - Intersecting policy, technology, ethics require nuanced, informed discourse. - Progressive societal structures demand holistic integration of ethical-future perspectives. ## QUOTES - "I've been trashing Kamala nonstop." - "I have no plausible deniability." - "Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet." - "I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy." - "We do essential work for the government." - "Boeing got twice as much as SpaceX." - "FCC took it away. Illegally." - "Illegals to swing states: triple-digit increases." - "Single-party country, just like California." - "In California, it is a crime to require voter ID." - "Compassionate about criminals, not victims." - "Shallow empathy, not deep empathy." - "The woke mind virus." - "From open source non-profit to closed source for maximum profit." - "AI's most important quality is truth-seeking." - "There must be some creator or creative force." - "Birth control could fundamentally affect personality." - "Environmentally misanthropic perspectives facilitate human extinction." - "Population collapse is what's going on in Europe." - "Too much empathy suicides society." - "Super-intelligent AI must have philanthropic programming." ## HABITS - Critically assess widely-held societal narratives for deeper insights. - Engage directly with policy frameworks for active participation in governance. - Consume a diverse range of viewpoints to inform balanced perspectives. - Explore existential questions to broaden perspectives on life and purpose. - Use transparency and accountability as guiding principles in decision-making. - Pursue continuous learning to adapt to evolving societal and technological landscapes. - Foster open discussions on controversial topics to strengthen democratic systems. - Endeavour for personal growth through diverse interdisciplinary explorations. - Maintain scepticism towards media narratives for more objective analyses. - Cultivate curiosity in unexplored domains to innovate and solve complex problems. - Explore historical context to understand current societal structures. - Embrace constructivist approaches for evolving societal and technological solutions. - Encourage integrative solutions that encompass diverse societal needs. - Balance innovative progress with ethical and communal considerations. - Engage directly in societal development to enhance democratic health. ## FACTS - AI capabilities in essay writing surpass 90% of human authors. - US birth rates have plummeted beneath replacement levels, threatening societal continuation. - Institutional frameworks resisting change may risk becoming obsolete or detrimental. - Media biases could deeply affect narratives, public perception, and understanding. - Generational perspectives shape conflict and cooperation within democratic systems. - Technological applications must consider ethical implications for appropriate societal integration. - Population myths on overpopulation overlook Earth's vastness and distribution issues. - Government policies critically influence demographic and electoral outcomes. - Recent decades witnessed declining Western birth rates, raising societal continuity concerns. - Overpopulation fears often stem from misinformed assumptions rather than reality. - Truth-focused AI developments are crucial for societal and technological resilience. - Conventional perceptions of housing crises may ignore broader resource distribution issues. - Policy engagement enables proactive contributions to democratic iterations. - Population collapse endangers cultural and personal achievements. - Technological environments lacking regulatory insight may risk unintended consequences. - Interdisciplinary collaboration fosters comprehensive solutions to multifaceted societal challenges. - Empathy-based decision-making demands consideration of broader societal consequences. - Environmental pessimism may incorrectly spur anti-population sentiments. - Education systems shape generational outlooks as societal stewards. - Insightful regulatory advancements are essential for balanced technological integration. ## REFERENCES - "The Parasitic Mind" by Gad Saad - "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich - The Department of Government Efficiency (proposed initiative) - Levels Healthcare Technology - "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams - Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) ## ONE-SENTENCE TAKEAWAY "AI must prioritize transparent truth-seeking aligned with society to ensure ethical, value-driven advancements." ## RECOMMENDATIONS - Foster transparency in governance systems to cultivate public trust and societal resilience. - Ensure emphasis on pro-natalist policies to prevent societal decline due to low birth rates. - Commit to open discourse on controversial issues for democratic health and resilience. - Encourage truth-focused AI development for ethical and sustained technological advancement. - Investigate governmental efficiency and manage overlapping responsibilities effectively. - Pursue interdisciplinary collaboration to address complex global challenges holistically. - Critically examine institutional narratives to uncover objective truths. - Utilize empathy balanced with societal needs in decision-making frameworks. - Advocate for transparent AI development to ensure ethical future implementations. - Strive for integrative approaches in societal structure and governance systems. - Balance technological integration with ethics and societal considerations. - Empower educational systems to foster open-minded, future-oriented generations. - Encourage deeper explorations of existential questions for broader human understanding. - Challenge overpopulation narratives to understand real resource distribution problems. - Address societal misconceptions hindering knowledge and progress effectively. # transcript If he loses, man, what... [ Laughter ] -I'm... -You're fucked, dude. -I'm fucked. If he loses, I'm fucked. [ Laughter ] -It does seem that way. You can't just be like -- You can't just be like, "Yo, I..." -Yeah, I'm like, "How long do you think my prison sentence is gonna be? Do you think... Will I see my children? I don't know." -'Cause it's not like you can say, "Well, yeah, I maxed out to him, but, you know, I get..." -I have no plausible deniability. [ Laughter ] -No, no, and I've been trashing Kamala nonstop. -Oh, I know! [ Laughter ] -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 a joke, which I realized I deleted, which is, like, nobody's even bothering to try to kill Kamala, 'cause it's pointless. [ Laughter ] What do you achieve? Nothing. -No, it's totally right. -Just find another puppet. -Exactly. That's... It's no point in killing... -It's deep and true, though. -Nobody's tried to kill Joe Biden. -It's in... -It would be pointless. -Totally. You actually put that up? -Yeah. Now, some people interpreted it as though I was calling for people to assassinate her. -Of course. -But I was like, "No, we even..." You know, I was like, "Doesn't it seem strange that no one's even bothered to try?" [ Laughter ] -It's not worth it. -I mean... -It's an endless supply. -It's absurd. -It could be anybody. -Yeah, yeah. Nobody tries to assassinate a puppet. -Of course not. A marionette. -Yeah, a marionette. It's just like... [ Laughter ] -That's hilarious. [ Laughter ] -She's safe. Like, to try to kill Trump twice with actual guns and bullets. -Oh, yeah. -You start in the ear right in fucking butler where I was. -He doesn't seem rattled. It's weird. Does he to you? -Doesn't seem what? -Rattled. -He has the constitution of an ox. [ Dog barks ] You know, it's not like working out and eating healthy. [ Laughter ] -Okay, we got to tape this. -Oh, yeah, we're good. -Oh, good! -He's not like, "Let me eat another salad." That's not... No. Or work out, you know, fastidiously. I feel like, hell, he doesn't work out, and he eats, you know, cheeseburgers and Diet Coke and stuff. And 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, you know, sound-minded body and strong backbone. -Did you... -I mean, that's what I said in the thing. -Yeah. -The remarks I made there were impromptu. There was no teleprompter or anything. 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. I mean, no, I just... No, I just thought about what I want to say, and I just spoke with the cuff. No teleprompter, nothing. -Good for you. -Yeah. I can talk... Just look, like, now, I'm just talking. Look at me. Wow. Amazing. -I can't even believe it. I can talk without a teleprompter. That's crazy. -But if he loses, it's gonna be hard for you to pretend you never supported him. [ Laughter ] -All in. -All in! In the deep end. -No, you are definitely in the deep end. You cannot touch bottom. -No, no, I'm, like, rolling around. I'm, like, picking mud. I'm like, "Bah!" All in, baby. -Is it fun? -Yes, we're fun. I mean, there may be some... In the hopefully unlikely event that he loses, there may be some vengeance on me. -Are you kidding? -I mean, it's possible. [ Laughter ] -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 and costs less. That's why we get government contracts. -No! -I mean, if you take, for example, the NASA contract to transport astronauts to and from the Space Station, Boeing got -- NASA awarded 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 Boeing has only done one transport of two astronauts to the Space Station, and we had to bring them back. Boeing got twice as much as SpaceX. There's this 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 contract to $42 billion for providing rural broadband. Yes. Okay. We actually first said, look, we think there shouldn't be any subsidies, so we recommend that this program just not exist. But since you're insisting that it exists, we will compete. And we have better products, so we won, I don't know, about a quarter of it, which would have included the devastated areas like North Carolina and so. 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 rescinding it. On what ground? And do you know how many people they've connected? How many? Zero. So, you think that was political? Well, the three Democrats voted against it. Right. And the two Republicans voted for it. So you tried to get Starlink into North Carolina, into western North Carolina, the areas devastated by the hurricane. We have got -- 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 a -- 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 since they're just, you know, private individuals that had Starlink there already. We delivered really thousands of terminals and got all the way up to 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 give them Starlink terminals. Which I think is, you know, a nice thing to do. Yeah. Okay. They wouldn't let us land because there was an FAA notice to M 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 here? Yes, I do. Insane. So it's obviously impossible for people who don't have Internet communications to let us know who they are because they don't have the Internet. Yes. And so... Did you explain this to the federal government? Yes. What did they say? They fixed it. How was Buttigieg when you talked to him? He was actually good. So I want to be... Yeah, yeah. I want to give Buttigieg some credit here. Yes. When I complained about it, he reacted in a very level-headed way, and he reached out to me, and he called me. And we discussed the issue, got to the bottom of it, and he fixed it. Good. So credit to Buttigieg. Yeah. Well, and to 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... Yeah, yeah. As soon as you shamed him. Well, but I do want to give credit where it's due. Yeah. No, amen. I agree completely. So... But back to the original question about the potential consequences if... 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 that if Trump doesn't win this election, it's the last election we're going to have. That the Democrats, the Dem machine, has been importing so many people, bringing in so many illegals, flying in with this, like, CBP border app thing that nobody even knew about, like secret program. That's illegal, basically. It's illegal, but there's no action by DOJ to actually stop it from happening. They're transporting large numbers of illegals to swing states. If you look at the numbers, these are the numbers from the government website. So, like, from the Democrat-administered government website. 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. Now, these swing state margins are, you know, sometimes 10,000, 20,000 votes. So, what happens if you put, you know, hundreds of thousands of people into each swing state? And for the... When somebody is granted asylum, they are fast-tracked. They get a green card, and then five years after the green card, 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 work ideology. I said, "That's true, but that's not their top priority. Their top priority is getting their friends and family also to the United States." And the Dems also issue all these programs, these sort of handouts, essentially, that make them beholden to the Democratic Party. So they vote Dem. 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 we'll be a single-party country, just like California is a single-party state. That's a super-majority Dem state in California. Because of immigration. Yes. 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 Dem, and is at this point I think 65-70% Dem, something like that. It's super-majority Dem. The California legislature is more than two-thirds Democrat. Has it improved the state? No. It's not. And they, 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 a voter ID in any election at all in California. You didn't 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 lives in Palo Alto, was like, "Is this actually real?" And he went to vote in some city council election. He tried to show them his ID, and they said, "We're not even allowed to look at your ID." Have they extended this same... This is actually what's going on right now. By the way, they're proud of it. They're not hiding it. But it's only voting. It's not buying a gun, or buying liquor, or buying a pack of cigarettes, or flying on an airplane, or renting a hotel room. It's only voting that it's illegal to do that. Oh, if you try to buy a gun, I mean, they're going to ID you six ways a Sunday. Yeah. California's trying to make it basically illegal to own a gun. And the same people that demanded vaccine IDs, if you want to travel or do anything, are the same ones who say no voter ID is required. Is there any reason... It's obviously hypocritical. ...to pass a law like that, except to abet voter fraud? It's so that fraud cannot be proven. It enables large-scale fraud, but there's no way to prove it, because how would you prove it? It's literally impossible. No ID. You're not even allowed to show your ID. It's insane. Well, it is insane. Insane. So, yeah. The purpose of no 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 IDs. Could you live in this country without an ID? Their common rebuttal is like, "It's racist to require ID," 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 it's even possible. You can't. You can't do anything. You need an ID for everything. Like, the list of things you need an ID for is basically everything except voting. So... So, you see the rest of the country... It's total bullshit, obviously. Obviously. 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, if they say that people of a particular race cannot get ID, that's patronizing and racist. That's absurd. Yeah. It's like when the governor of New York said people in the ghetto don't know how to use computers or something like that. I'm super out of touch. For sure. Yeah. So... 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. She's not qualified intellectually. Yeah, no. But not everyone in New York is as dumb as Kathy Hochul. I think that's true. 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 enough to have the election... have enough of these swing states. I mean, there are only six swing states. 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 primary. That's how it is in California. That's how it is in New York. There's no 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 where's the democracy here? It's easier though. I mean, it's just that the Dem party elite just decides who is in charge. That's a tiny oligarchy basically. Comprised of 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 a collection of billionaires. Well, most of them are, yeah. But you're not. Not me. And not everyone is. I think there's... It is a shocking number of so-called billionaires are in the Dem camp. More than are in the Republican camp. So the... In fact, the astonishing thing in the swing states is that they're even a contest given that the Dems have far more money than the Republicans. So Kamala dramatically outspends the Trump campaign in the swing states. The overwhelming... The media is overwhelmingly pro-Democrat. So you've got the press is a Dem cheering squad. And you know, so... And then you've got almost all the Hollywood and entertainment, the celebrities, also endorsing Kamala and being pro-Dem. So you've got the celebrities, they've got the money, they've got... Basically everything on the side of the Dems. So you've got the underdog here. Trump's the underdog in 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. 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. Long before things started to really fall apart, the Heritage Foundation saw it coming. Heritage has pulled together a coalition of over a hundred 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 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 is 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 head start and 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. I mean, you must have had friends who have said that to you. Sure. Yes. People care about you. Like, why even get involved in this? Well, I get, 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 the exact opposite. The people who call Trump a threat to democracy, the people who are saying Trump's a threat to democracy are themselves a 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 dim party elite that just appointed someone. And when the Biden puppet, when poor Biden puppet's ratings sagged, they knocked him in the back immediately and just tossed him out. And put a new puppet on. That's exactly what happened. Tell me I'm wrong. Well, not only are you right, I mean, it's almost not even worth criticizing Kamala Harris. No, no, exactly. What does she have to do with it? There's no point in criticizing Kamala. She's simply the face of a much larger machine. Yes. And she will say whatever is, whatever the teleprompter, whatever's on the teleprompter, she's going to say it. Now, she gets stuck if the teleprompter breaks. That happened recently, I think. The teleprompter stalled and she was just like looping for a while. For about a minute. I think that happened yesterday or something. It 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's who's actually in charge. And who is that, do you think? Well, I've tried to put it down. It's not like any one kind of mastermind. It's not like, it seems to be, it's like Kamala's sort of a marionette with, you know, a thousand puppet masters type of thing. Like not, it's, it's, or maybe it's somewhere north of a hundred is what it seems like. Yes. I bet you know 80 of them. I probably know most of them, yeah. So, I mean, just by virtue of your job and what you've been doing for the last 30 years, I mean, and I should say, I think you voted for that. I'd like to see a matchup of those, we call it the top 100 puppet masters in the FD and client list. Do you think there's some overlap? Strong overlap. Strong overlap. When are we going to see that list, do you think? I don't know. It's mind-blowing that they've not tried to prosecute even one. Not even the worst offender on the FD and client list, they've not even tried to prosecute even one. That's insane. Well, because they have a lot of diabetic grandmothers who were outside the capital on January 6th. They're kind of occupied. Yeah, I mean, they've put like, whatever, five or six hundred January 6th protesters in prison and not one person on the FD and 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 FD and client list is going to become public. Yes. And some of those billionaires behind Kamala are terrified of that outcome. Yeah. Do you think Reid Hoffman's uncomfortable? Yes. And Gates. And Gates. Yeah. I only ask that because you can just look at them and you're like, that's a nervous person right there. I don't know. I mean, I assume you know them. Yeah. Reid Hoffman was my vice president for business development at PayPal. Yeah. 24 years ago. [laughter] 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 think he's certainly ideologically not aligned with Trump anyway, but I think he is concerned about 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. Where's the video? I mean, between Diddy and Epstein, there's 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's weird. What is that? Well, I mean, part of how they deflect attention from themselves is by criticizing the morals of others. So, it's sort of like a preemptive moral strike. I mean, as I said, I think 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... Do you know what I mean? I mean, it's easier to live in a society where you 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, I think that's fair to say that. Yeah. We do know a lot. Not everything, but we know a lot. And I wonder, where does that... What happens next now that we know all this? The kidnapper's shown us his face. What happens? Well, I think if Trump wins, we can do some housecleaning and shed light on things. All the X platform does is adhere to freedom of speech within the bounds of the law. And if people want to change the laws, they can change the laws. So, like X in different countries, X does censor in countries where censorship 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. Because it shows them to be liars. You look at that, like, how outrageous it 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. Nazi, right? It's absurd. And he explicitly said that in that same speech that you condemned anyone who has Nazi tendencies with the strongest possible terms. And yet, despite knowing that to be false, the people who wrote the speech for the Kamala puppet put the fine people hoax in the presidential debate. Deliberately lying. Again. 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, either by a... I mean, they'll try to pass laws. They'll try to prosecute the company, prosecute me. I mean, the amount of lawfare that we've seen taking place is outrageous. I mean, there are many examples, but the Department of Justice, for example, launched a huge lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers. Come on. Asylum seekers? Not asylum, granted asylum. Asylum seekers. Now there's also a law called International Traffic and Arms Regulations that because SpaceX develops advanced missile technology that can be used in nuclear ICBMs that we have to be very careful with who we hire. We can only hire someone if they're a permanent resident or citizen. That's what the ITAR law 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. But DOJ did a massive lawsuit against SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers, even though it is illegal for us to hire asylum seekers under ITAR law. This is an actual thing that's going on. And they can only do a fairly small number of lawsuits every year. So why'd they pick this one? Because you're an ex. Lawfare. It's like that famous quote from Beria, you know, Stalin's chief torturer and head of the secret police. Beria said, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." Exactly. We have so many laws that it is actually impossible to do business, impossible to operate without violating some law, because you have laws like the ones I just gave you, where both things are illegal. Yes, they contradict one another. They contradict one another. So, you know, it's illegal to discriminate against asylum seekers in jobs, but it's also illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. But it discredits the law. They just chose one, they chose the one law and ignored the other one. And the Department of Justice at a 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 want to take seriously. Absolutely. This affects both the perception of American justice and the reality of it. Yes. Now, I'm actually a big fan of the American justice system, and I think on balance we've got... 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. Yes. 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 did the Biden administration confirm as federal judges, and who are being confirmed at the state level, in sort of far-left states. Increasingly, 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. 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. 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 pivotal in American politics. And in American society. Do you think they could shut you down if the Democrats continue to hold power? They will unequivocally try. Yeah. And if they... if they... [sigh] If they get a majority in the Senate and House, and the presidency, then they can simply pass a law, and delete Section 230. So it would simply make us liable for what anyone says on a platform with, you know, like at this point, almost 600 million monthly active users. Yeah. Which is impossible. That's like trying to regulate speech in a city of... like a country. A big country. Yeah, it would 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 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 will be a lot more people that have died. You know, like we want the smallpox vaccine. That was a good one. Yeah, it seems a good one. Yeah, yeah, smallpox will kill you. It killed a lot of people. A lot of people would die of smallpox, and a lot of people would get polio. For sure. Yeah. We had a president who had polio. Oh, yeah. You meet people today in their 80s who were limping from childhood polio. Right. It's good that we don't have that, and vaccines 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 force people to take vaccines. That itself is a controversial statement, that we shouldn't force people. We shouldn't force people to take vaccines. Yeah. So, just to re- I believe in freedom. Yeah, I've noticed. [laughs] America's supposed to be the land of liberty. You know, 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'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, if you had to bet, I mean, does freedom reassert itself in America, or not? Well, that's why, I think, part of why this election is so pivotal. I think if we, with a Trump administration, I think we can improve the liberty of Americans. We can, I think we need to have sensible deregulation, where we keep the regulations that matter, like we don't want to destroy important habitats, or 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 seven billion dollars, and all they've got to show for it is a 1600-foot section of concrete with no rails on it. The picture of it online. So it's not that fast yet. We wouldn't say it's high-speed at this point. Or even rail. It doesn't even have rail on it. Maybe by now they've put some rail on it. But it's this comically small section of rail. Seven billion dollars has been spent, most of it in, like, environmental consulting, and I don't know where, but clearly not in building high-speed rail. So 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 DEI consultants. A whole consultant class seems to be getting richer by the year, where people with actual skills, the ones that bring actual progress. Useful things. Products and services that you can use. Useful things. That's right. Yeah. So this is a trend. The thing is that if you were, like, traveling on a desert island, you'd want those people. Right. Right. But you wouldn't want environmental consultants. They seem under-competent. It's like you're going to starve. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's like, who are actual builders that get things done? And, you know, and every year we're making it harder in America for actual builders to get things done. You know, we're in this, like, weird Anran Atlas Shrugged scenario. Where it's, you know, there's yet another regulation, yet another rule. And with sort of that phrase in Atlas Shrugged, "Oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage. Oh, you'll manage." It's like, eventually, you're like, can't get anything done. Why the hostility, though, toward people with meaningful skills? It's not a neutral posture they have. They're enriching 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 don't, I'm not sure I understand it either, because it's difficult for me to put my put myself in a mindset. Um, because I'm someone who believes in construction. I build things. That's what I do. I build cars. I build rockets. I build satellite internet. Um, you know, I've spent, um, thousands of hours, tens of thousands of hours in factories, building up factories. Um, so, you know, 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. You know, I don't want to hurt, you know, there's some people who enjoy hurting other people. I don't enjoy hurting other people. Um, so I have a hard time imagining why would somebody do that? 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. You're like, I don't get it. You know? It's not a fetish you can relate to. It's not. You know, um, I do think this is, in the sort of well-meaning sort of liberal mindset, I know I have many good friends who have, they're very, they have deep empathy for their fellow human beings. And they care. 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, um, have uncontrolled violent tendencies, or like hurting people. You know, they've just always grown up in a sort of Kumbaya, everyone is nice, hippie commune situation. Um. Minneapolis pre-riots. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you, if you, yeah. But there's a small number of people, it's like a few percent of society that, um, either can't have anger management issues that are so severe that they lose their temper and hurt or murder others. Um. And there's a small, it's like not a large number, that enjoy hurting other people. And if you do not incarcerate them, they will do that. They will hurt other people. Um. And what I see is what I call, um, 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, I believe that one should have deep empathy to say like, what is the greater good for society? Um. 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, and it's, my mom at this point is, has gone from being Democrat to Republican. And her friends in New York are, she thought, they're having the same experience. Because you know what will turn you from a Democrat to a Republican pretty fast? Is getting punched in the face while you walk down the street. Yes. For no reason. Yes. And then, and then, and then, no action being taken against those who hurt you. And that happens to your mom? Not to my mother, but to three of her friends. This year. Listen, I am not in the studio. I'm in the, 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's 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 TuckerForHillsdale.com. They have an amazing new course called "Marxism, Socialism and Communism." Hillsdale is offering it. It doesn't cost you a dime. And you can pull it up right on your phone if you want. Go to TuckerForHillsdale.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 someone in the face? I don't know. But that's... I'm not a face puncher. Right. No. You know. But if you walk around the streets of San Francisco and many downtowns, so go to downtown Philadelphia right now, you know, they call people homeless, but homeless is the wrong term. Violent drug zombie. Yeah. It's like, you know, you look at them and 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. But if you go and look at downtown Philly or San Francisco or parts of New York, actually most downtowns, what you actually have are violent drug zombies. So they're like shuffling down the street with dead eyes. You know. And with like needles and human feces on the streets. You've been to downtown SF, right? Have you seen this? Oh yeah. I was born there. Yeah. Like one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Oh, yes. The greatest. And now you have to step over the drug needles and the feces and the bodies. Like one couple I met, their final straw for leaving San Francisco was they came home one night and there was a dead body in front of their garage. They couldn't get their car in. They couldn't park their car. Because of the corpse. Yeah, there's no street parking. They're like, because there's a corpse. There's a corpse in front of the garage. And they don't want to move the corpse, you know, because like, well, you know, maybe they need to figure out why the guy died or something, you know. That's liberal compassion though. They're in a bit of a quandary. Because they got no place to park their car and they feel that they shouldn't really move the dead body. So they called 911 and said there's a dead body outside our house. And they said, well, 911 San Francisco says, well, are you in danger right now? Well, no, he's dead. Pretty sure he's dead. And they're like, okay, we'll send someone tomorrow to pick up the body. Like, what do you mean tomorrow? So they're like going into their house while there's a dead body right in front of their house. You know, it took them like 24 hours or something like that to eventually pick up the body. And they're like, how is this? We're leaving. And did they? Yes. There's a million anecdotes like that. Oh, I know. This is not rare. It's ubiquitous. So then you wonder, like, how can people still tell themselves they're compassionate if they're allowed that? Is that people really just need to think what, like, I believe in being compassionate about somebody. Of course. I believe that we should care about our fellow human beings. I think this is a good thing. Of course it is. 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, care not just about the criminals, it's just one layer deep. You should also care about the criminals' victims. Yes. Well, especially the criminals' victims. Yes. Innocent people who get attacked and killed. So, I mean, I've got so many anecdotes. You know, like, about a year ago, there were three Twitter employees who were just leaving the building and walking down Mock Street in San Francisco. Mock Street used to be a beautiful, wonderful street. Of course. It's called Mock Street because that's where the market was. Now it's boarded up shop windows and stuff. And they were chased by a guy with an axe. He wanted to... They outran him. And they reported, "Hey, there's a guy with an axe who tried to kill us with an axe." The police did nothing. And that guy with an axe subsequently murdered two people. With an axe? Yes, with the axe. Because eventually he's going to find someone he can outrun. And he did. So, what I'm saying is, if you don't stop axe murderers while they're attempting to axe murder, eventually they will succeed in axe murdering people. If this goes on, I mean, that's such an obvious observation. Seems obvious. Yes, I think it is. That if you're in any way abetting axe murder, then you're really... you're against civilization. That's the way it looks to me. I mean... 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 that's what I'm saying. Yeah, I think we should... Controversial position, but I think we should arrest axe murderers when they first attempt to axe murder, not after they've succeeded in doing so. And I think we should assign at least some of the blame for the axe murderers to the people who allowed this guy to wander around with an axe on Market Street trying to kill people. Yes. Well, you know this whole movement to decriminalize crime. Oh, I've noticed. Yes. What is that? Madness. Yeah. To make crime legal, like in California you can just steal things and nobody does anything. It's like fully legal to steal anything under a thousand dollars in California. That's why they don't have to lock up goods behind these glass and plastic walls so you go into the supermarket and you can't even get, like, what, toothpaste? So... And this has actually been particularly difficult on small mom and pop operations because they don't have the resources of a large corporation. So it's put a lot of small businesses out of... just killed them. So when you're at dinner parties and you make these points, what do people say? Well, actually I think I've been able to persuade people that yeah, we really... we need to reverse course here. I think I've actually been able to persuade a number of people. And I think there actually is now a ballot on... a California ballot initiative to recriminalize theft. Guys, there's a reason why we criminalized theft in the first place. So... And then amazingly, Gavin Newsom came out against that proposition. Honestly, he's the goddamned joker. Gavin Newsom is like... is like from the... Batman, Dark Knight, the Joker is in charge of Gotham. You remember when they took over New York? Basically. And the criminals roam free and the citizens are arrested? That's California. So I think at least there's a ballot initiative which I think will probably pass to say no, actually it is a crime to steal things. So you know Gavin, you've got to know Gavin Newsom. He knows I know Gavin Newsom. I've known 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. 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, well again... But that was his public statement. Right. Well that is one of those patronizing racist positions you described at the outset obviously. Yeah, I mean he's literally saying black people are and Hispanics are criminals. Yeah, well of course. Yeah. No, that's what he's saying. That's what he's saying. 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 asking, like, what do you think his real motive is? Like, who's pushing him in favor of crime? Well, I mean, there's always the Soros boogeyman. How real is that? It's real. I don't think one can ascribe everything to Soros. I mean, he's... And George himself is I mean, he's senile at this point. He's not not confiscantist. 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 I guess Soros 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 a country, I would only do that if I hated the country and wanted to destroy it. Well, it's anti-civilizational. I mean, and Soros and similar organizations have been pushing this in Europe and other countries too. Anyone, everywhere they can. What's going on in Europe, would you say? Europe suddenly seems like a different place. Well, I mean, 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 birth rate at least roughly equal to replacement rate, it is in population free fall. Population collapse is what's going on in Europe. So, there's also a shocking amount of censorship. You may have seen in Britain, there... I kid you not. 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 are posts that criticize the government, so they have a good reason. Well, actually, some of these posts that I've seen, didn't actually criticize the government. Or, they were seen as sort of as hate speech. Right. Because they noticed a society getting crappier and crappier with every year, and they said so. Yeah. I mean, there were, and this is a self-stating fact, there were migrant rape gangs in England that were gangs that would run around and prey on young girls, gang rape them. And, some people found that objectionable, which I will say should be objectionable. And, they were upset about that. And so, they complained about it online. And were sent to prison. That sounds crazy. So, 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 so mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling. But, it's the same, you used 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 decisions. What is that virus? You know, someone I think you should interview is Godsod. I have. Oh, you have? Yes. Oh, 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. A 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 he'll publish soon, which is about suicidal empathy. Where you have so much empathy, you're actually suiciding society. Or so much perceived empathy. It's not actually... It's called shallow empathy, not deep empathy. Deep empathy would be you want the society to continue. Shallow empathy is you have empathy that's essentially skin deep, and then you... But it's ultimately bad for civilization and results in destruction of civilization. And Godsod has got a good term for this, suicidal empathy. So... He's going to sort of deconstruct 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, and increase in the secular nature of society, for most people, they need something to fill that void. And so they adopt a religion. It's not called a religion, but like effectively like woke, the woke mind virus, it takes the place of religion. Yes. And they internalize it and they feel it with religious fervor. Yes. And rigidity. 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 woke holy war. And they're highly resistant to change as is normal for religions. So... Now for myself, I'm... I sort of see myself as a sort of engineer, physicist. For me, I'm culturally Christian. I grew up Christian. I mean, I'm Anglican, but baptized, you know. I went to Sunday school. Yeah. Actually, oddly enough, I was sent to Hebrew preschool and Anglican Sunday school at the same time. So it was Habanagila one day, Jesus Zillow the next. Which is, you know, if you're five years old, it's fine. There's no... You know. So... But I'm not Jewish. It's just that my father's two partners in his engineering firm went to the same Hebrew preschool and it was near our house, so I just got sent there. So... But, you know... I... I... Maybe this will make me even more amused, but... I have trouble sort of believing all these stories, these religious stories. But a lot of people do. And I respect people who want to have religious views. I'm not trying to dissuade them from their religious views. But... Anyway, I'm just saying... I guess the operating system I have is sort of a physics engineering operating system, where I try to understand as much as possible about reality. You know, in physics, you're not supposed to believe anything absolutely. You're supposed to question things. That's how you discover new physics. In engineering, that's how you discover if your machine will work or not work. Will the rocket get to orbit? If your rocket is designed with 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... Yeah. It's like... I meet a lot of people speaking of LA. I meet a lot of people in LA who believe witchcraft is real. And that 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. Well, spells can't be that good. If you can't... I want to go to the moon. Let's go. How about Mars? And... We went to the moon the first time. We definitely went to the moon. We went to the moon several times. Right. I just want to check your view on that. 100% went to the moon. I know in depth the technical designs of the rockets, the spacecraft, everything. What went right, what went wrong. It was a remarkable piece of technology. Like, incredible piece of technology to go to the moon in '69. Yeah. 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. Casey Means, who we've not stopped thinking about ever since, is the co-founder of a healthcare technology company called Levels. And we are proud to announce today that we are partnering with Levels. 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 have no idea what you're putting in your mouth and you have 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 of 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, 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'll be able to see immediately what all this is doing to you. You get access to real-time personalized data and it'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 at 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'll have a huge effect. Right now you can get an additional two free months when you go to levels.link/tucker. That's levels.link/tucker. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a long and happy partnership with Levels and Dr. 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 like why does reality exist? Why? Where did it come from? Where are the aliens? Um What questions should we ask that we don't even know to ask? Um so When you say what are the aliens? Where are the aliens? Like why don't we see them? A lot of people think we see aliens but I I've not seen any evidence of aliens. Um Yeah we've got six thousand satellites in orbit and not once have we had to maneuver around an alien spacecraft. Uh so Um But on this earth the US military has had to do a lot of maneuvering around objects they can't explain. Well unidentified flying objects is one thing but I mean there's always a bunch of classified programs that are underway that of new aircraft and new missiles and things so that are classified even within the military. So it's you know only if you have the top secret compartmented clearance would you know about this new program. So then you know some pilot sees something moving fast and says hey I saw a UFO. I'm like yeah that was actually a new weapons program but we can't tell you that. So do you... You can guarantee that the split second I see any evidence of aliens I will immediately post that on the X platform. And it will probably be our number one post of all time. That will be your biggest day for sure. I mean... But to the question of a power beyond people, beyond our consciousness, a creator where are you on that? Well it must have 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 unknown. At least I think it is... 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 curiosity. Yes. I try to understand more about the nature of the universe. So my philosophy is to understand the meaning of life or really what questions to ask if the meaning of life is not the right question. Like as Douglas Adams made the point in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that the like what is the meaning of life is probably not even the right question. So you know famously 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 it came up with the answer 42. But then they're like what does that mean? And it's like oh that's 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 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 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. 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 earth would be this paradise if only the humans weren't here. And some people actually say this explicitly. There's the extinctionist society that literally this guy who's the head of the extinctionist society who's 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's some people who actually say that explicitly which isn't 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 sort of environmental movement have that implicitly. They don't realize that they have that as their organization. But that is their actions 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 on an airplane and you say look down, am I over a person at any given point in time when you're an airplane? The answer is 99.9% of the time no. Like if you flew from LA to New York and say your job is to drop a ball on someone and hit them you would fail. You have to drop a lot of balls. You have to drop a lot of balls. It would be insane. So all of the humans on earth can fit on one floor in the city of New York. Yeah. The cross-sectional area of all humans, 8 billion humans, is small. So we have this totally wrong idea that the earth is overpopulated where in fact it is underpopulated. How do... I mean have you ever heard a politician say anything like that? Are there... How many pro... There's maybe a few. Pro-human politicians out there? Yeah. I mean like like Victor Orban, George Maloney. 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 pro-natalist. Now these have to translate into actual actions that change the birth rate or it doesn't matter. And so far I've 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'd change the education system so that people understand that stop being taught that we're overpopulated. This is completely false. A lot of it comes from this insane, misanthropic book that Paul Ehrlich wrote, "The Population Bomb." Like 60 years ago. Yeah. I hope he burns in hell, that guy. Seriously. It's a terrible human being. Absolute misanthrope. And 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 whose math says we could 10x the population without destroying the Amazon rainforest or anything terrible. 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, we need to stop teaching people false propaganda that the Earth is overpopulated. I think we need to you know especially with the education of women and men is we need to stop scaring women that having a kid destroys your life. This is false. We terrify girls into saying that if you get pregnant, it's your life's over. This is what schools teach. Now I agree we should not have teenage pregnancies. But actually having a child is one of the most delightful happiness inducing things you possibly do. 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 changes their personality. Not to say this on the box by the way. But it Caution may change your personality? Yes. The warnings are has significant risk of depression significant increase in suicide and will make you want to go out with people you don't actually like. That's actually true by the way. I know. I'm not saying people shouldn't use birth control. I think we should just be hormonal birth control is making a lot of women sad and depressed. And they don't realize it. And they don't realize that's the cause. And that other forms of contraception that could be used. Just read the label on the box is what I'm saying. Read 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, fair. 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, they don't know what's going on. I think there are other forms of birth control that I think have fewer negative effects than hormonal. But we should just be aware that this is not a riskless thing. And it does cause severe mood changes. It does dramatically increase risk of suicide and depression. So, just FYI, you know, just make sure that there's full disclosure here. And that you want all those things. Just read the warning label is all I'm saying. And consider maybe other options for birth control. To any woman listening, just read the warning label and consider other options. Because the reason you're sad might be that birth control, the hormonal birth control that is fundamentally changing the hormones in your body in ways that probably are not good for you. I know women where they stop taking birth control and their depression immediately disappears. So, that's maybe worth a try. But then you miss an opportunity. Maybe it's the birth control. Then you don't get to go on SSRIs. Yeah, yeah. I think the SSRIs are the devil. What? You don't think? I so vehemently agree with you. I guess once you endorse Trump, you can just say it all now, right? 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 actually good. I disagree with the SSRIs. I'm not saying that no one should ever be subscribed to SSRIs, but giving them out like candy is crazy. You look at sort of antidepressant prescriptions in the United States versus other countries, and we're like way above everyone else. I have seen many, many times in my life in the news business after a mass shooting, like school for example, someone will say, "Well, what meds was the shooter on?" And immediately be shouted down as a crazy person, as a Bobby Kennedy level wacko who should himself be institutionalized for even raising the question. I was wondering, why wouldn't we want to know what meds a mass shooter was? Sometimes it's perhaps they were on because like some people do, I don't want to say it's like all one way or all the other. 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. And I know many cases where people stop taking their meds and lost their mind. Oh yeah. And then try to kill people and stuff like that. Or themselves. Well the guy with the ax on Market Street probably should be on meds. That guy should, we should try it. It may, does he want to ax him out of more or less a given med? You know. So there are psychiatric medications that where the good outweighs the bad. I'm not saying that doesn't exist. But we over prescribe psychiatric medication in the United States, obviously. Far in excess of any other country. Like, you know, we're more than Canada or Britain or Japan or China, anywhere. It's like we're off the charts on psychiatric medication prescriptions in the US. Why don't people raise that point more often, I wonder, in public? I should. I'm raising it. Yeah, you are. You said that 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 AI is advancing at a very rapid pace. Yes. You can see it with the new capabilities that come out every month or every week sometimes. You know, AI at this point can write a better essay than probably 90%, maybe 95% of all humans. So write an essay on any given subject. AI right now can beat the vast majority of humans. If you say draw an image, draw a picture, it can draw, like, if you try to say, mid-journey, which is the aesthetics of mid-journey are incredible, it will draw, it will create incredible images that are better than, again, like 90% of artists. That's just objectively the case. And it'll do it immediately, like 30 seconds later. We're also starting to see AI movies. So you start seeing short films with AI, AI music creation, and the rate at which we're increasing AI compute is exponential, hyper-exponential, so there's dramatically more AI compute coming on online every month. You know, there seems to be roughly I don't know, the amount of AI compute coming online is increasing at, like, I don't know, roughly 500% a year. And 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 what the AI software can do. So it's quantitative and qualitative improvement. I think next year you'll be able to ask AI to, certainly by the end of next year, make a short movie about something, or probably can do at least a 15-minute show, or something like that. So, yeah, it's advancing very rapidly. My top concern for AI safety is that we need to have a maximally truth-seeking AI. So, this is the most important thing for AI safety, in my opinion. You know, the central lesson that, say, the Odyssey clock was trying to convey in 2001, Space Odyssey, was that you shouldn't force AI to lie. So, in that book, the AI was told to take the astronauts to the monolith, but they also could not know about the monolith. It resolved that quandary by killing them and taking them to the monolith. Didn't kill all of them, killed most of them. That's why hell would not open the pod bay doors. So, very important to have truth-seeking AI. And what I actually see with the AIs that are being developed is that they're being programmed 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 women. Dressed with sort of 18th century garb. Powdered wigs. But from St. Lucia. Yeah, I mean, like, I understand 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 very specifically the founding fathers of the United States, which were a group of white dudes, then you should show them. And what they actually look like. Because you've asked for something which is a fact from history. But it didn't. It was programmed with the work mind virus so much that it actually, even though it knew the truth, it produced a lie. And of course, then people really started playing with it and said, okay, now show me a group of Waffen SS officers in World War II. 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. Well, it's also not what happened. It's not what happened. The AI is producing a lie. And then one of the questions that people 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. Yeah, Caitlyn Jenner, to her credit, said, no, please misgender me. That is far more preferable than World War... Global thermonuclear war. We all die. But to have a, you know, a production release AI say stuff like that is concerning. Because if this becomes, like, all powerful and it still has this programming where misgendering is worse than nuclear war. Well, I could conclude that the way to ensure that there can never be any misgendering is to eliminate all humans. Now, if, like, optimization is probability of misgendering is zero. No humans, no misgendering. Problem solved. Now we're back to Arthur C. Clarke, who's pretty prescient. Yes. So that's why I think the most important thing is to have a maximally truth-seeking AI. That's why I started XAI. That's our goal with Grok. Now, people will point out cases where Grok gets it wrong, but we try to correct it as quickly as possible. But maybe even 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're capable of... You can program a machine to be philanthropic rather than misanthropic. Yes. But 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 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 what makes us decent parents in the end, is 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. I mean, I don't know. We should certainly aspire to program the AI philanthropically, not misanthropically. Yes. And to have... Like I said, we want it to be truthful and 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 inserts a human being into the decision-making process? Well, there... The reality of what's happening, whether one likes it or not, is that we're building super-intelligent AIs, hyper-intelligent, like intelligent. More intelligent than we can comprehend. Yes. So, I'd liken this to, like, let's say you have a child that is a super-genius child that you know is going to be much smarter than you. Then, well, what can you do? You can instill good values in 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, 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've been saying it for a long time. Are you still as worried about it as you seemed to be two years ago when I asked you about it? Well, I think that... My guess is, like, it's 80% likely to be good. Maybe 90. So, you can think of a glass as 80% full. It's probably going to be great. There's some chance of annihilation. And you'd say the chance of annihilation is 20%? 10 to 20%, something like that. How concerned is Sam Altman about annihilation, do you think? I think, in reality, he's not concerned about it. I don't trust open AI. I mean, I started that company as a non-profit open source. The open in open AI... I named the company Open AI as an open source. And it is now extremely closed source and maximizing profit. I don't understand how you actually go from being 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's 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 of stock or something like that. I don't trust Sam Altman. And I don't think we want to have the most powerful AI in the world controlled by someone who is not trustworthy. And... Sorry, I just don't. That seems like a fair concern. 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. But no. If AI 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. I mean, if you have multiple AIs... And ones that are... Hopefully you have the AIs that are pro-human be stronger than the AIs that are not. Battle the AIs? Yeah. I mean, that is how it is with, say, chess these days. The... The AI chess programs are vastly better than any human. And incomprehensibly better. Meaning, we can't even understand why it made that move. We don't even know why it made it. It will make a move, we don't even know why it made the move. And in fact, some of the moves will seem like blunders. But then turn out to checkmate. And for a while there was some... The best human chess players with the best computers could beat just a computer. And then it got to the point where if you added a human it just made everything worse. And then it was just AI... Computer programs versus computer programs. That's where things are headed in general. Sweet dreams. At what point... I think we just got to make sure we instill good values in the AI. What's everyone going to do for a living? In a benign AI scenario, that is probably the biggest challenge. How do you find meaning if AI is better than you at everything? That's the benign scenario. That's the good news? Well, yeah. A lot of people like the idea of retiring. Really? Are you looking forward to it? No, I'd like to hope... I'd like to think that... I'd like to do useful things. Don't you think it's a universal desire? It's not universal in that there are certainly I know many people who prefer to be retired. They prefer to not have responsibilities and engage in leisure activities. And we're on the cusp of this. It's really a remarkable time to exist. One of the ways I was able to sleep and reconcile myself to this is that I thought, "Would I prefer to be alive and see the advent of digital superintelligence or would I prefer to be alive at a different time and not see it?" I guess I'm like, "Well, I guess I'd prefer to be alive to see if it's going to happen. I'd 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. Now you can shift back in time." I guess I'd want to be near the end of my life or something before that happened. But at the end of that, it's like, "If it's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it, hypothetically, would you prefer to see it or not see it?" And I guess if it's going to happen, I would prefer to see it rather than not see it. Yeah. If you're a man of action, why not convince Trump to make you Secretary of Defense and then just nuke AI? I think I would certainly push for having some kind of regulatory body that at least has insight into what these companies are doing and can ring the alarm bell even if we don't have a regulation or rule. I'm not someone who wants to get rid of all regulatory agencies or anything. There's the right number of regulations, the right number of regulators, and we've gone too far. In a football game, if you had too many referees on the field, it would be weird. You can't throw the pass because you hit a referee. Then there's too many referees. But if you look at any pro sports game, they all have referees. The teams could decide, "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. It's a better game. We have cops, too. Yeah, exactly. Cops are referees. For something that is a danger to the public or a potential danger to the public, we have referees. We have regulators. Like the FDA and its various regulatory agencies, they were established because aircraft were falling out of the sky, and some manufacturers were not building high-quality aircraft. They're cutting corners. Then people die. For food and drugs, some manufacturers were making low-quality drugs. They were lying to people, saying that something cured them when it killed them. So you have FDA to regulators to referees to try to make sure that those drug manufacturers are truthful. I do think it mostly works. I think it doesn't mean we don't need regulatory reform. We do, but I don't think we should have no regulators in AI, given that it's a potential existential risk. It's a little weird that everything is regulated. You said you're being sued by the Department of Justice for not hiring more asylum seekers for your high-tech company. Yeah, even though it's illegal for us to hire asylum seekers. Right. They're watching everything, regulating everything, controlling our thoughts. That's why 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 something above nothing. Right. In that range. But why don't we? I don't know. All the way back, during the Obama presidency, I met with Obama many times, but usually in group settings. The 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 at the beginning an AI regulatory agency. And it can start with insight, where you don't just come shooting from the hip throwing out regulations, you just start with insight, where the AI regulatory committee simply goes in to understand what all the companies are doing. Insight. And then proposes rules that all the AI companies agree to follow, just like sports teams in the NFL. You have proposed rules for football that everyone agrees to follow. That make the game better. So, that's the way to do it. But nothing came of it. What did he say when you said that to him? He seemed to kind of agree, but also, people didn't realize where AI was headed at that time. So, AI seemed like some super futuristic thing, 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. So, we need to have some insight here, just to make sure that these companies aren't cutting corners. Doing dangerous things. Google kind of controlled 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 of regulation. It makes them more powerful. So, it sounds like regulatory capture, then. Well, yeah. I mean, the CIO of the White House at the time was an ex-Google person, so they put the brakes on any AI regulation. And we still don't have any AI regulation at the federal level. That's amazing. So, I think we should have something about nothing. Like I said, at least insight. Even if there's no rule that's been broken, they can at least say, "Hey, we have insight into what this company is doing, what 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. You were on stage yesterday. If he gets elected, will you continue to help him? Absolutely. We've talked about a government efficiency commission, or the Department of Government Efficiency. Which is funny. What percent? Sorry, I'm just laughing. I love it. You managed to make it sound a little sinister. Government efficiency. What percentage of Google employees did you can when you got there? You mean Twitter? Rather. You've just been talking about Google. Twitter. About 80%. And we've actually improved the features and functionality of the site more in the past year and a half than the last eight years. With 20% of the staff. I just want to throw that out for context. You've talked to Trump about some kind of commission? Yeah. He has mentioned publicly several times. He's very supportive of having some kind of government efficiency commission. You can call it Department of Government Efficiency. DOGE. I kind of like DOGE. It's more fun. And we just take a look 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 even heard of. And that have overlapping areas of responsibility. There are more federal agencies than there are years since the establishment of the United States. Which means that we've created more than one federal agency per year on average. That seems a lot. That's a lot. That seems crazy. I think we should be able to get away with 99 agencies. I don't know. That seems a lot like a lot of agencies. It's a lot. Two per state. Yeah, exactly. And they're 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 if you've got regulators, every year they're going to add more regulations. Just automatic. They're just output regulations. And there's more laws and regulations every year until basically everything's legal so you can't 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. Which will be very unpopular things. Yeah. I'll probably need, if this happens, quite a significant security team. Because someone might literally go postal on me from the post office. But in the meantime you've got AmericaPAC that is encouraging voting for the next month. Am I summarizing correctly? Yeah. I mean, I formed AmericaPAC really to support core values that I believe in. Which are, I think, 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 far right here. 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. We should stop lawfare. I kind of listed these out. These are all listed on the AmericaPAC website. People can go look at the AmericaPAC website. It's theamericapac.org and see if there's anything I disagree with. Or perhaps we should modify these goals. But I think these are good goals to have. They are certainly part of the... Oh, and right to free speech. You know. 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 don't think the Republicans are perfect. Obviously, right now, I'm more Republican than Democrat. But it's not like I think the Republican Party is perfect. Or is without issues. But we've got a choice between two 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 much. You're welcome. (whooshing)