Andrew Tate's not the problem because if you take Andrew Tate away, you still have this massive group of young men who are clinging to that message. On shows like the "Whatever Podcast," they're bringing them on for this humiliation porn. I think you're going to be really surprised at the number of people, the number of men who do have options, who are choosing to have AI girlfriends or live in this digital world.

I don't think people realize how historic it is for him not only to spend 44 billion for free speech but to have someone who goes and tells Disney and their mountains of money, "F*** off, I don't need you." I think that's monumental. Illegal immigration, which is something you've been focusing on a lot, is insane. We have almost more people coming here illegally just under the Biden Administration than the entirety of Ellis Island.

Ashley Sinclair, welcome to Trigonometry. Thank you for having me. I'm excited to finally sit down with you guys. I'm a big fan. We're both big fans of all the stuff that you put out. You're very funny. We met a couple of weeks ago, so we thought we'd sit down and have a conversation.

For a woman, right? Funny for a woman. Now, this is actually one of the things that we wanted to talk a little bit about because the online conversation, certainly in our space about women, has kind of gone a little bit crazy. I think you said it really succinctly when you described the sphere. You called it the "retardo sphere," and I think that's exactly what it is right now.

For whatever reason, so much of the right is devolving into this Andrew Taism, which, good or bad, I just think there's a lot more important conversations we could be having than whether or not it's been a good thing that women vote. And that's, yeah, well, that obviously not. But I also think a lot of these people who say, and for those unfamiliar, there's a lot of discourse eating up the right on the 19th Amendment—whether or not the 19th Amendment was a good thing.

If we repealed the 19th, if women didn't vote, we'd always have a Republican president. Well, you could apply that to other groups as well besides women, but it's just acceptable to hate women and say these things about women. Yes, if only white men voted, we would always have a Republican president. But that's not the reality. We're not going backwards. Women vote more than men. That's just the reality of this situation.

So I think it's such a pointless conversation, but it's taking up so much of the dialogue that they want to blame women for all of the ills in society, which I just think is absurd. Why do you think it's happening? Two questions: A, do you think it reflects in any way like the normal person on the street? Because I'd probably argue it doesn't.

In a way, I want to say it doesn't. I don't think most people would say we should repeal the 19th. But I think that's a fair comment. Most especially young men, I think if you ask them, "Who's Andrew Tate?" they would know that answer. I think they've seen his content; they've digested this content.

So often when the topic of Andrew Tate comes up, I always say Andrew Tate's not the problem because if you take Andrew Tate away, you still have this massive group of young men who are clinging to that message. I think for whatever reason, men do not really have role models or anybody to guide them in any way.

So Andrew Tate is the loudest in saying these things. Then I think there are these folks on the right wing, like Charlie Kirk, who are clinging on to it because they see it's popular and they're grifting off of that narrative. All of a sudden, Charlie Kirk, who runs one of the most important organizations on the right, you know, they're bringing in millions and millions of dollars.

All of a sudden, he's repeating these anisms that, you know, women should just not work; they should stay at home, even though his organization was built on women sacrificing their 20s and working at his organization. It's fundamentally absurd, you know, that he's spending his time as someone who's that important on the right to say, "Well, you know what, women, if you don't get married in your 20s, you're less desirable at 30."

This is a man who married his wife at 31. And then the fundamental thing that I think we can all agree with is when people have these conversations, I go, I think to myself, number one, you're a f***. Let's be brutally honest about it. And number two, you're not a serious person because we have got very serious problems within our society that need dealing with.

You've just touched on one of them: the cultural element of young men lacking role models, lacking direction, feeling purposeless. Why are we not talking about that? And why are you talking about the fact that if a woman doesn't get married by the age of 30, she's barren, dry, and all the rest of it, and fundamentally undesirable?

Don't clip that; it's not what I think. Because it's attention porn, right? It's more attractive to watch, and very much society hasn't changed that. It's really fun to watch a witch be burned at the stake, right? It's really fun to watch this humiliation of women on shows like the "Whatever Podcast."

Jesus Christ wants you to do OnlyFans, just so that we're clear. Yes, if God wanted you to do OnlyFans, then what would Satan want you to do? To stop doing OnlyFans? Yeah, why do you think he'd want you to stop? Because I love making sexual content.

Yeah, that makes sense. Do you think that God's preference would be that you continue to make sexual content on your OnlyFans? Yes, he wants me to do it. You have these women who know they're just the OnlyFans models; they're not exactly the brightest bulbs in the bunch.

They're not bringing them on for intellectual conversation; they're bringing them on for this humiliation porn. I think that's become really attractive and rewarded in algorithms. This sort of nastiness, this division of the sexes, is rewarded a lot more than talking about what you or I or so many people might find more important.

You know, for example, what's something you might find more important than the gender divide? You could name a plethora of things. The issue in this country and the world and the West is not the division of the sexes. We're not going to look back and define this era by the division of the sexes or by the female era. We're never going to call it that.

Our times are defined by technology and our innovations, so we should be focusing more on that. What's going on in terms of technology as opposed to whether or not this one or four or whatever it is? I think that's fundamentally absurd.

This is the question I was going to ask you. For me, I've said this for a very long time, and I said this about there was a moment probably five or six years ago when sort of like these dumb feminist narratives were rampaging through the culture. You know, the air conditioning in office buildings is sexist, you all the...

And likewise, now when you see the opposite thing where it's like anyone who wants to put a wedge between men and women is not a healthy influence on our society. So the question for me is, where do you think this male thing is now coming from?

I just, again, I think it's really attractive to a really dumb population. I think men, especially those who are, you know, men are having less sex than ever. It's really easy to blame women for things that are going wrong right now. It's really easy to point to that and say it's women's fault that the country is going, you know, down the toilet.

It's women's fault that I'm not getting laid. It's women's fault that I'm alone. I think it's a lot easier to say that than to, you know, self-analyze what they're not doing right, what society as a whole is not doing right. I think there's a lot. We have a loneliness epidemic; we have, you know, a confidence epidemic.

I think there's more people than not on both sides, whether it's men or women, who are just fundamentally crawling out of their own skin. They have no sense of identity. It's not really, I think especially my generation, Gen Z, and even Millennials, they're defined by narcissism, which I don't think that's accurate at all.

Bo Burnham, if you're familiar with him, he speaks about this, and he puts it really succinctly. He says, you know, it's not narcissism; it's actually this generation is like a hyper-consciousness of self. It's the first generation that has social media and this performative nature where it's like you want to perform.

This is the market's answer now: perform everything all the time for everybody, and they're sitting back and watching their life as a satisfied audience member, which is so dystopian. So it's not like this narcissism; it's hyper-consciousness of self.

I think we're more insecure than we've ever been despite, you know, looking in the mirror more than we ever have. I completely agree with you, but just to touch back on what's going on with the right, part of the problem that I have is the left overuses these terms racism and misogyny to the point where they don't mean anything.

Actually, people who are genuinely racist and misogynistic go, "I'm not a misogynist because you said X was misogynist because he said there's two genders." Right? But what I see on the right is actual genuine misogyny. Yes, it's a hatred of women. Yes, and I don't know that that's organic.

I may be stepping into my own conspiracies here, but I don't think it's coincidental that right before the election, the right becomes the exact caricature of what the left had said the right was for years. It wasn't, you know, many of us on the right knew that the right was not, you know, this anti-Semitic, misogynistic group of folks.

Now, all of a sudden, we're seeing this rise in misogynistic rhetoric and people who fundamentally believe that women shouldn't vote and people who fundamentally are siding with the people taking over our universities right now. I think that's, I don't think that's organic.

I think there's a lot more foreign bot farms and outside influences boosting these people in the retardo sphere than we have any idea about right now. It's also in order to cause that division because if you look at it, whether people agree with it or not, what is the top issue going into this election? Immigration and the economy would be the top two, maybe for a Republican.

But, you know, generally, it's the issue of abortion and women's rights. That's what the left is focusing on. That's what they're running ads on. Yes, the left is running ads on abortion. They're hyper-fixating on this abortion issue, on women's issues. That's what they're hyper-fixating on.

I don't think Republicans have really put enough emphasis on how much the Kens in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania are running the election. Whether they like it or not, women are voting, and they vote more than men. You know, they're doing more activism than men. They do more volunteer hours than men. They are making more of a political difference than men are, whatever men want to say about that on the left or the right.

I think it's fundamentally really damaging to allow this rhetoric to go on, this misogynistic. I'm just trying to delve deeper into the conspiracy. Are you saying this is kind of deliberate to get Republicans to look dumb and offensive so that they lose the election?

I believe so. I really believe that this is boosted by things that are inorganic because when you look at the engagement on some of these accounts, it is bananas. I really, at least I don't want to believe that that many people truly hold those sentiments. Maybe I'm just too optimistic about humanity and people, but I don't think it's organic at all that all of a sudden this is sprouting up and we have this many people who genuinely believe that women shouldn't vote.

I don't believe that's the case. Do you not think that every political side of the political spectrum has a shadow? The left has a shadow, which is the anti-Semitism in particular. They've got their own version of misogyny, which we've seen, and the right do as well. Normally, you see with people who are far to the right, it's hatred of, you know, LGBT people and also misogyny as well.

Do you not think that this is just an unmasking? I think there is some of that, and I think there's some people who really truly believe that. I think there's some people who truly believe women are just objects. They really don't have the same value as men. They don't even have an understanding of women's roles throughout history.

They don't understand how impactful women have been throughout all of history. Even when they were at home, they were running our society. They were running the schools. They were raising the children. They were running all of our philanthropic issues and volunteerism and activism. They were really fundamental throughout society, and those people won't recognize that.

But I think that's a small subsection. I really do think there's something worse going on because why is all of this content allowed on YouTube? YouTube, who has been, you know, at the forefront of we need to protect those who are, you know, a protected class, and women typically fall into that class.

So why all of a sudden is all of this content allowed on YouTube that is terribly misogynistic, that's terribly degrading to women, calling women 304, saying they shouldn't vote? I don't think that would have been allowed, you know, years ago. I just don't. I think that would have been removed from the platform swiftly.

Do you not think, okay, let me, we're just stress testing this idea because it's interesting, right? So one of the obvious challenges that I think some people would put to this is that we've had, and I, this isn't even a devil's advocate thing, it's genuine. I think it's fair to say that over the last 20, 30 years, you, you too young probably to remember the Gillette ads of the 90s, but it was all about men being good.

It was all about men looking after their kids. It was all about men going out to work. It was all about, it was all a celebration of healthy masculinity. And then fast forward a few years, and Gillette ads are about, you know, you're a piece of s***, buy a razor. That's kind of the message, right?

Yes, so, and then men are increasingly struggling in education comparatively to women. We know statistically speaking that women want to be dating men who are on their level or above in all sorts of different ways, including financially. So the opportunity for men to find a mate are reduced.

Being told that they're toxic and this and that and whatever, you put all that together. I'm not condoning it because I don't think it's the right response being resentful and bitter about that for a man. But do you not think that some of it is just an organic reaction to the demonization of men over a decade or two or however long going on?

Yes, I think that's also part of it. I think men have been demonized. I think there's a war on masculinity because it threatens any system of power. But I think when we dive into, okay, well, women are more likely to graduate, women do better in school now, those are all facts.

I also think women are just better at being oppressed and being, you know, turning into these. Because who created the school system, the modern school system, as we know it today? That was the Rockefellers. And why did they do that? That was because they wanted better workers, not better thinkers.

And women are really good at that. They're like, "Oh, okay, I'm going to do this." And boys are not. As soon as they're, you know, 8 years old, 7 years old, they're like, "Oh, well, you have an attention disorder. We're going to put you on Ritalin," or you're going to, you know, you're in trouble in the classroom for not sitting there and being a good little worker bee.

And I think women are just taking better to that. I don't know that that has necessarily, you know, I think women are better at following orders. Yes, they are better at following orders, you know, naturally, I think they are. And so men have, you know, gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to that and when it comes to those systems that we've created and normalized.

I also think there is a fundamental war on masculinity and just gender as a whole. I think what that is is a war on the natural world. I think we're so completely divorced from the natural world now, and gender's kind of like that last stronghold that there's a war not only against masculinity but femininity.

I've been told, and women in my generation have been told that the only way for us to be equal is to become you guys, is to become men. We have to work like you; we have to f*** like you guys; we have to do this. It's everything that makes us equal is destroying things that made us different.

Well, if once you start insisting on this idea that equals means the same, then you're going to erode all the natural differences between men and women, which are the source of the strength of human society, not weakness. Men and women being different and complementary is a source of strength.

Once you start to erode all of that, you get to the position we're now in. So my question to you, coming back to it, is do you not think that rather than this being as much of a conspiracy to undermine the right's electoral chances, it's just a more naturally occurring backlash against that demonization of men and the erosion of femininity and masculinity that's been...

It's probably a combination of both. And I think there's, again, you know, that has us go into algorithms and big tech and what they allow and don't allow, and they're really deliberate with what they allow and don't allow, as we've seen throughout, you know, since really like 2015.

They're really deliberate. So maybe some of that conversation started happening organically because of this tension because, you know, naturally, men and women are both feeling more disconnected than ever from their biology and the world and each other.

And then it's pushed into the algorithm at these insane rates and then pushed by what I've seen is looks to be inorganic. And that's really important to consider: what is the algorithm feeding people and why is it feeding people that? And big tech has been really pivotal in what's pushed in these algorithms, especially before elections.

How much of this as well do you think is pornography? A lot of the time, if a man is not having sex, the only access that he has to sex is pornography. And let's be fair, pornography, I think we can all agree, the image of women in that type of content is less than optimal.

Eventually, you start to see women through that lens. Yes, and I think we're underestimating the number of people and men who would rather that digital world and who would rather watch pornography than have a real connection with people.

I think especially as we have, you know, these AI girlfriends and this and that, I think you're going to be really surprised at the number of people, the number of men who do have options who are choosing to have AI girlfriends or live in this digital world as opposed to this genuine human connection.

I think for whatever reason, it's more of a dopamine rush for them to watch porn as opposed to have a genuine connection and actually have to work on themselves. Because guess what? As you know, you're married, right? It is not an easy thing to be married. You actually have to put in the work.

So often, we're watching people replace what is good and better for our souls with what's comfortable and more of a dopamine hit. I think we're seeing that fundamentally. I don't know that there is this return to tradition, return to traditional marriage and, you know, general monogamy.

I don't know that that's possible in the digital world because, again, we've replaced what's good for our souls with this dopamine rush, with this digital era, with this everything's at our fingertips as opposed to, "I want to be in a marriage. I want to work on myself. I want to understand another human being at the most intimate level possible."

No, it's all very fast and swipe and the dopamine hit. I think we've fundamentally changed the way the sexes interact with the digital age, and I think pornography is a piece of that. But they're also making that choice to do that.

This is just more attractive to them. It's also, as well, if you think about it, what the internet does in many ways is encourage isolation. We've been fed this narrative that, "Oh, social media connects people." It doesn't connect people.

It connects them in certain ways, of course, but actually, the ultimate form of connection is people sitting down and having a conversation, which is not what the internet is actually about. I know from being a man, I'm writing a book at the moment. If I'm isolated writing this book for a certain period of time, I come out of my room really f***ing angry, and that anger has to go somewhere.

If you haven't done... We need to get you an AI girlfriend. Yeah, exactly. But if you're angry and you're young and maybe you don't understand where it comes from, that has to be directed somewhere. What it's going to be doing is funneled wherever you spend most of your time.

If most of your time is spent online, that anger is going to be funneled right back there. Yes, absolutely. I would agree 100%. But that's what we have to understand, especially the older generations have to understand that is the new normal.

We are the older generations, by the way, man, just saying. But especially the generation above you and the Boomers, there's a lot of fish shaking at the cloud, like that Simpsons meme, you know, man yells at cloud. That's very much characterizing a lot of, you know, especially our policies around technology.

There's not really an honest discussion about what the hell is happening in this new world that we're leaving our kids. You know, even 16-year-olds now, they are not getting driver's licenses at an alarming rate. They don't even want to go meet their friends. They don't need to. They're doing it all online.

And we're seeing this for... You know, exactly. That's the eye roll. That's the world that... And so how do we navigate that? You used to be a teacher, correct? That is my... Whenever I... That's the first episode in which someone else has brought exactly.

So whenever I talk to school teachers now, especially ones that may be a bit older, they always say, you know, the kids didn't used to be this way. They didn't used to have so much anxiety and depression. And it's like, of course they do. They're living in a whole new world, and they have not a damn person to help them figure out how to navigate it.

Instead, we're like, "Well, you should get off that phone." What? You didn't have that when you were a kid? You'd probably be on it too if you were their age. It is this infinite awesome world where anything is possible, and you have access to everything all the time. Of course, they're going to be on it.

So how do we navigate that? And I don't think there's enough valuable conversations around that. We're just like, "Well, we shouldn't do this." Probably not, but we are. And it's also, to go back to the porn thing, if you're a kid watching hardcore pornography, you think you don't understand that what you're being presented with is fantasy.

Yes, you don't understand that what this is is entertainment, for want of a better term. So you think that this is how men and women interact. So then when a woman does not present herself or doesn't interact with you in the way that a porn star does, you feel cheated and angry, which is why you then lash out.

Yes, they do. I mean, they want this woman who's like pregnant and barefoot all the time, but also, you know, a porn star. It's this really terribly idealistic version of women. But, you know, men have that too. Men have that; women have that for men.

And I think everyone just needs to lower their standards. Honest. Well, there's the title of the episode: "Lower Your Standards." Ashley Sinclair, lower your standards. That will be your cat. Not that great. Thanks for looking at me while saying that. I appreciate that.

You're not that great. Thanks. I'm happily married, so you're the only one that settled for you. Exactly. Find the one that will lower herself to your level. Yes, lower your standards. You're not that great.

I remember my last bowl of Magic Spoon cereal so clearly. Each spoonful, a symphony of flavor, a dance of delight on my taste buds. Little did I know it would be the last time I got to eat Magic Spoon.

Francis, Francis, snap out of it! We need to do the ad right. Ugh, sorry. Anyway, a couple of weeks back, the good people at Magic Spoon sent us their incredible high-protein, zero-sugar breakfast cereal, and I can tell you that we're already placing a new order because it's all been eaten.

Francis, remember, you can choose from the bestselling cocoa, fruity, frosted, peanut butter, and maple waffle flavors. Magic Spoon is so confident in their product that it's backed with a 100% happiness guarantee. So if you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked.

And for our Canadian and British fans, you'll be delighted to know that Magic Spoon now ships to Canada and the UK. So click the link below or scan the QR code and use the code "TRIGGER" for $5 off.

Or go to unrealistic standards for men and women for that women have for women. What's the inverse? Men have for women. That's the one. I think the inverse is that, especially for women, there's this expectation that men are kind of going to be like your emotional support dog.

And they've kind of, you know, put their girlfriends to the side. What we used to get from community and women just being in the village and talking all the time, we now need that from men. We need you to be our confidant, our gossip, you know, our girlfriend in a way that's that lives with us all the time.

It's like we have this expectation that men are supposed to be like our emotional support teddy bear as opposed to what they are, and that's, you know, our providers, our soulmates, or, you know, whatever it is. And not necessarily on top of each other like we've come to be.

I think this cohabitation and this connection to our partner all the time, that's really perpetuated by women and slightly jealous men. But women really like being connected to their partner all the time, bothering them at work, sending them a million texts.

I think that's probably not healthy, and I think women probably need to examine the behaviors that they have that are maybe a bit clingy or not innate to men's abilities. Men don't want to be on top of you like that unless they're controlling or jealous.

It's so interesting you said that. My wife and I were just having this conversation because we were on holiday together for a week after I've been away for a bunch of time, and we really were reconnecting and talking a lot.

At one point, I was like, "Okay, I'm really enjoying this, but I need to go and sit in the bar for an hour." And when I came back, we talked some more, and she was like, "Yeah, I really need to connect with more of my girlfriends because if I'm trying to get all my this particular need satisfied by just you, it's too much for both of us, and it's not what actually I need."

That's the best way to put it. They try to have all of their needs met by one person, and then they're leaving the person that gives them 80% for someone that gives them the other 20%. You know, it's this con. You're never going to get it from everybody as long as they're not, you know, abusive or controlling.

You know, there's a lot that you can look past and just settle for. But, you know, men used to go out and hunt for weeks at a time, and we'd be by ourselves or in the village or with our girlfriends. And now it's all the time.

We're just around each other all the time, and I think it's really rather toxic. It's funny you say that because whenever I'm going away on a trip or whatever, I say to my wife, "I'm out hunting." I literally say that to make myself feel better.

But I was going to ask you, I mean, one of the things that I think you're very good on is tech, and we've alluded to it earlier. When I was in Australia, I did a few talks, and in the Q&A, someone would always ask me if I see any positive signs.

And I would always mention that Elon Musk taking over Twitter really changed everything. This is an audience of people who I wouldn't necessarily have thought of as like these young, hip, tech-aware people necessarily. He would always get a round of applause from people because it's genuinely something that I just think a lot of people feel was a big step in the right direction.

That the single, this cabal—and I use that term very advisedly. I'm not someone who thinks the world's run by a cabal of pedophiles in the pizza parlor or whatever the story is—but you saw the collision between big government and big tech, particularly during COVID, and it was scary because you go, "Well, they're all sitting down in a room together going, 'What's the right censorship policy on this?'"

All getting together, and no one's thinking independently, and no one's thinking from first principles. So what you've had, I certainly would argue—I don't know if you agree with this—is one guy with just too much money to give a f*** come in and just upend the whole system.

I've been very excited by that. Not to say that Elon's perfect because he's definitely not, because he's human, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. What do you think the impact of that particular thing is?

I don't think people realize how historic it is for not only to spend 44 billion for free speech but to have someone who goes and tells Disney and their mountains of money, "F*** off, I don't need you." I think that's monumental to encourage courage and bravery.

I think we don't have enough people who are brave enough to give a middle finger to the system, especially when starting in like 2015. And Mike Ben, if you're familiar with him, he speaks about this a lot—this essentially internet death star that they built within big tech and all of these companies.

I think everybody gives you the round of applause because everyone's online. We're essentially already cyborgs. We are, you know, like transhumanism is already here. You said the longest you went without your phone was two hours lately. I'm very proud of that.

It's like when I sleep, and even then, it's like by my head in case anyone needs anything. So we're already there. And so what Elon did was historic. I think that's something we're going to look back in the history books. This is historic, but we need more of that.

There is such an empty space, especially with people who are even just right of center or hard Republicans in the AI and tech industry because this is fundamentally going to change our entire world. The value of free speech is not just really important for the constitutional value anymore.

It is arguably more important because of the AI aspect, for the technological aspect. Because if we're feeding the system a dishonest and filtered and biased view of humanity, you know what's going to happen? It's going to spit out recommendations based on a dishonest input.

I've been saying this for... If you think about it, the way that the AI is learning is from online. Yes, and we all know that what happens online is not reflective of like going and talking to people on the street.

Correct. And now this, right? So we're feeding it a false picture of reality, and part of the reason is people can't say what they actually think, and that's very deliberate. And so what was so—and I think this is so illustrative of the right and just how much of a retardo sphere they are—there was a clip of Kamala Harris, and I don't know if you remember this, but months ago or last year, and she's talking about AI.

She was named the AI czar, and again, you know, it's like humiliation porn for them to make fun of people. So this clip of Kamala comes out, and she's like, "AI is a fancy word. It means artificial intelligence." And it gets millions of likes, and millions of Republicans and people on the right are making fun of her for saying this.

She doesn't even know what it means. If you watch the full clip, she says, "Ultimately, what it is, is it's about machine learning." And so the machine is taught, and part of the issue here is what information is going into the machine that will then determine—and we can predict then if we think about what machine, what information is going in, what then will be produced in terms of decisions and opinions that may be made through that process.

What you teach the machine then impacts the decisions and opinions, and that to me is the scariest thing that possibly could have come out of her mouth is that this terribly banned administration is saying we're going to take a focus on this machine that impacts decisions and opinions of and for humanity.

And the fact that Republicans aren't making that their focus, and we know more about Charlie Kirk's opinion on women working in their 20s, is a disaster. We are going to look back, and they're going to shake their fists and say the left just controlled all of this while Sam Altman, who most of them can't name—most of them could show you 47 photos of Hunter Biden's corn dog before they tell you who Sam Altman is.

Sam Altman is the guy asking for 7 trillion and giggling online about asking for 7 trillion for these AI projects for shaping all of humanity and the recommendations for this system. And he's in Congress walking in there every day talking about the regulations for AI and trying to kick the ladder out from under him.

And the fact that we don't understand how much of a focus the left is putting on AI is really terrifying. That's what they're talking about at the World Economic Forum. We can make fun of the World Economic Forum all day. Do they have any idea what they're talking about there?

They're talking about AI. They're talking about AI being a human right. This is verbatim. They're talking about the democratization of the access to AI, and they are talking about UN special envoys for AI. And the right has no discussion about this, no presence in the industry at all.

And that is more dangerous than anything going on, in my opinion. Do you think part of it as well is that people who are older tend to skew Republican and conservative, and people who are older know less about this stuff? They shake their fist, and the old man yells at cloud.

That's exactly right because when you have these old boomers in Congress and Senate that are asking the TikTok CEO if TikTok uses Wi-Fi, I think you should be removed from office. That actually happened, and we can laugh, and we're laughing as it all crumbles.

And they grab these institutions by the balls because this is what happened. These people should be removed from office. I think if you can't name the top five people in the race for AI, you should be removed from office.

Mark Zuckerberg is a supervillain in my eyes, not just because of the censorship but because of the potential for this data and this technology that he has. He has the power to absolutely destroy the world, his AI capabilities.

When you look at the technology he has and when you look at the data he has, and meanwhile, he is in Hawaii raising Wago beef and picking macadamia nuts. If I had that much data and power and the potential to destroy the world, and I'm picking macadamia, that is a supervillain in my eyes.

And they just don't care. They're more concerned that, you know, this thing about the COVID job was censored on Facebook, which is a big deal. But there's a bigger problem, and that this guy and these other people like Bezos and Zuckerberg and Sam Altman, they are building the system that makes recommendations for all of humanity and filters everything, and they know not a damn thing about them.

So what would you like to see happen? I think we need to—so also at the World Economic Forum, one of the people on stage at one of these panels discussing AI was Governor Jay Inslee. Do you know who that is?

No, I don't. He is, I don't know how much you know about the state of Washington here, but you can't really get further left than the state of Washington and Oregon. This is Antifa leftist central, and Jay Inslee, who's the governor of Washington, is on the stage talking about the University of Washington partnering with Microsoft and a Chinese university to go into machine learning and all of this stuff.

He's also talking about the apprenticeships that they're guaranteeing for coders. The left is doing this, and the right should absolutely be doing this. They should be guaranteeing apprenticeships for coders. They should be guaranteeing that we're in these industries, that we're in AI, that we're in gaming, that we're in all of these tech industries that are absent anybody outside of the Bay Area in Silicon Valley.

Why are they not doing that? Well, part of the reason, psychologically speaking, is that people on the right tend to have a different psychological profile. They tend to be pretty good at running an office, not so good at being creative. This is a generalization, obviously, but that's kind of...

So the reason a lot of professions that involve creativity don't attract as many people on the right is that people on the right, generally, generalization, but are not as creative in that way. Well, so the people running the AI industry, they don't necessarily have to be creative. They can be very logical; they can be very math-centric, whatever it is.

It doesn't need creatives at all. You should have some, but I also reject that idea that there's... We also need to encourage people to be more creative on the right. I think one of the worst things we did was mock the liberal arts and say, "Well, it's so stupid to get a liberal arts degree. It's so stupid to care about those things."

Well, guess who runs it now? Not a damn Republican. And the same thing with AI. We mock it and shake the fist and whatever it is. I just guess what I'm saying is people like you and like us who are different and funny and like...

Look at us. None of us is... I don't know about you, but most people who I find who are like you will tend to find a lot of things that they disagree with on their own side. Whereas what the tribe wants is a good little worker bee who's going to hold the right flag and say the right thing and vote the right way and not...

Do you see what I mean? And pop out a few kids. Yes, but fundamentally, it's still, no matter what, I disagree with... Yes, I think it's ridiculous that they're talking about these Andrew Taisms, and that's become like a pillar in our attention economy on the right.

Fundamentally, we all agree on the same things, right? Mass migration is a really big problem. Free speech is a core fundamental value. We haven't really diverted on those core fundamental values. I think all of this is just noise.

Well, if we focused—sorry to interrupt—if we focused on those things, you'd find the overwhelming majority of the country actually agreed on. Yes, if we focused on those, that's a bigger threat. Mass migration is a bigger threat.

I mean, historically, throughout history, again, you want to go back to the Roman Empire and the mass migration of the Huns and the Germanic tribes. I mean, it's going to lead to what I believe is the fall of the American Empire, is this mass migration and the fall of the West.

Yeah, I also see as well that the right—and you've touched on it—but I sometimes see the stuff the right talks about and go, "Why are you banging on about this all the time?" All the time. Look, the transing is important, and of course, protecting kids, yeah, we never have lots of people to talk about it.

But they constantly talk about it like it's the only thing to talk about, and you go, "It is important, but it's not the most important. There are other things that we need to discuss." But they have their very set topics, and they kind of don't deviate away from that.

And you want to say to them, "Do you not think that there are other things here to discuss?" But they can't seem to do that because it's like they've applied these blinkers and like, "No, we are just going to talk about this because it's the attention economy that gets eyeballs, that gets this."

And we need like a Dave Ramsey for the attention economy, you know? Like, stop spending. You need to budget your attention. You need to have it here or there or whatever it is. And when you turn on Fox News, and there was one time I was on Fox, and they had me talking about Dolly Parton.

I'm like, "Why are we talking about Dolly Parton right now? We're talking about Dolly Parton's outfit." Like, this is e... This is ridiculous and absurd. But we keep giving these people our attention. We keep giving these people our money, no matter how many times we see what they're doing is fundamentally horrible and bad.

Because at the end of the day, as much as we want to say we're principled and we believe these things, I think we're actually lazy, and we sacrifice all of our morality and our morals for comfort. Absolutely. It's like when you had all of these Republicans who were cheering on the Bud Light boycott as they're having Amazon packages arrive at their door.

And it's like, okay, so you boycotted Bud Light because of Dylan Mulvaney while you're giving Jeff Bezos money, this guy who fundamentally is ideologically different to everything that you're doing, who has a monopoly on government contracts, who has a monopoly on web services and AI and owns the Washington Post.

You're going to give your money to him day in and day out. All of these people have Amazon packages coming to their door as they're boycotting Bud Light. I think that is a really big ill of capitalism, is the consumerism that follows and the comfort that follows.

We've essentially put a lot of people in like consumerist hospice. They're paying just to be comfortable until they die, and that's kind of what people have chosen willingly, just to be comfortable. And they're sacrificing their life and their morality and the life of our children and the future of humanity for this comfort and consumerism that I think is just going to be our downfall.

I think that craving for comfort is the enemy of growth, yes, personally and spiritually. Yes, and it disappoints me that the right have gone this way because the right traditionally have always been about personal development.

They've always been about taking responsibility for your actions, you know, self-fulfillment, all of these things. And you look at kind of the way they're going now, and you're going, you're just a different form of s*** to the left. Yes, that's all it seems to be. Not all of them, of course.

No, it's a fringe. That's why I call them the woke right. It's a fringe on the left and the right, but what they are is they're becoming disproportionately more powerful, louder online. I think it's actually just becoming really...

It's becoming harder to criticize them because they've conflated criticism with them to criticisms of principles and ideas. So if you criticized, you know, someone on the right in the petite bourgeoisie for the way they spend their money or this or that, well, now you're an enemy of capitalism.

Well, you know what? I get to spend my money however I want, and it's like, no, you're actually like a greedy son of a b**** that we should probably shame into oblivion. But they've conflated criticisms of themselves with criticisms of a movement or principles. That's just not true.

So I think it's just become a lot harder to criticize those who really need to be removed. It's so funny you say that. I've told the story, Francis heard it a few times because it just amused me so much.

So you know how I wrote an article about Tucker? I praised him for some things, but I criticized some of the things that he did in Russia on a factual basis. Like I just said they weren't true. I was uninvited from a party that I'd been invited to for that, and I was just like, you guys don't see?

Like you spent six years talking about the importance of diversity of opinion. How dare you? How dare you? He's our God. He's our, you know, he stuck it to Fox News, right? Like that's... No, you're not allowed to do that.

Let's talk about one issue that I think Tucker would agree with us on, which would be an issue you just talked about, which is illegal immigration. Because mass immigration is a somewhat separate conversation for me.

Like I think Elon is right that having lots of talented and driven people come into a country, particularly like the US where there is space and there is land and there's the ability to build infrastructure quickly if you put your mind to it, etc., etc. Separate conversation.

But illegal immigration, which is something you've been focusing on a lot, is insane. It's out of control, and I don't think most people understand the scale of it. For example, I think it was like 12 million immigrants who came through Ellis Island over the 60 years that Ellis Island was operating.

And just under the Biden Administration, they're estimating between 7 and 10 million illegal immigrants have come in. So we have more people, almost more people coming here illegally just under the Biden Administration than the entirety of Ellis Island.

And, you know, just from an infrastructure standpoint, we can't sustain that. New York City alone, we're going to spend 12 billion, with a B, 12 billion dollars into fiscal year 2025 dealing with this migrant crisis.

And most people, they don't understand just the volume of people in and where they're coming in. There's this misconception that they're all coming from Mexico or wherever, and it's not. Our southern border is an open border to the world.

We've seen a 900% increase in Chinese nationals. We're seeing immigrants from Africa, from the Middle East, from all over. They're flying down to these South American countries and being aided by a lot of American NGOs to come here.

But again, it's not just unique to America. They had this playbook in Europe. It happened in Europe. Every time I go to Europe and I talk to people, like in Italy, it's the same problem. It's these NGOs that are funding this mass immigration of illegals into the countries, and the NGOs are helping them.

And they're all doing it under the claim of asylum. But see, the NGOs are going to... There's a bunch of dumb people who are really motivated by compassion and blah, blah, blah. And by the way, some people are refugees and do need help.

The problem is the government's supposed to be in charge of this. But I think that's dangerous too. I have to stop you on... Well, you know, there are some people who need help. Well, where do you draw that line of what help we should give?

Because what the left will do is they'll say, "Okay, well, that comes from a point of privilege." Basically, the whole world needs help. If you compare it to America, the whole world is hungry. The whole world is...

No, I'm not talking about economic migration. I'm talking about, generally speaking, when people are fleeing persecution, war. What does that mean, persecution? It means when someone is trying to kill them.

Yes, but what does that mean? Because they've blurred that line is why I want to get an exact definition. Fine. Well, what I'm saying is, for example, people fleeing Hong Kong because they're pro-democracy protesters, people fleeing Ukraine because they're fleeing war, right?

I don't have a problem with people who are aligned to our culture, who don't hate our societies, who are going to come and integrate, learn the language in limited numbers that we voted to have, right? There's a democratic mandate for...

There's a lot of history in accepting refugees in those small numbers. A lot of the Jewish community here in New York are a product of that sort of system, right? So I don't... I think a small number of people who are carefully selected because they genuinely are fearful for their lives and be beneficial to the societies that they're going to come to, I don't have a problem with that.

What I have a problem with is you open the border and you don't check who's coming. As you say, most of those people are not fleeing genuine persecution at all, and we don't know who they are. And as you say, in Europe, we have exactly the same problem in the UK, in France, in Italy, and other places.

So, but anyway, we got sidetracked because you were saying what I said is dangerous, which I don't think is true. I think eroding that boundary is dangerous. I think allowing a small number of people in because they're genuinely in fear of their lives...

Well, we have to be really precise and say in fear for their life or, you know, they're fleeing violence or whatever it is. They didn't convert to Christianity two days ago suddenly because when we say they need help, we want to help people.

That is really dangerous and has been weaponized by the left. This help, we need to help people. Yeah, what does that mean? What people do we help, and where do we draw that line?

What I'm saying is I don't think that line is at zero. I think there are some people that we might choose democratically to say, you know, we as a rich country will happily welcome, I don't know, 30,000 Christians fleeing persecution in the Middle East a year.

Well, I would agree, and again, I'm also pro-legal immigration as well. I've always said this for years. But again, the issue is this asylum. We don't actually care if genuine claims for asylum, and because there's international treaties for these refugees and whatever, it's really hard to stop it, right?

So that was my point, right? NGOs are going to... There's a bunch of dumb people who are really motivated by compassion and blah, blah, blah. And by the way, some people are refugees and do need help.

The problem is the government's supposed to be in charge of this. But I think that's dangerous too. I have to stop you on... Well, you know, there are some people who need help.

Well, where do you draw that line of what help we should give? Because what the left will do is they'll say, "Okay, well, that comes from a point of privilege." Basically, the whole world needs help. If you compare it to America, the whole world is hungry.

The whole world is... No, I'm not talking about economic migration. I'm talking about, generally speaking, when people are fleeing persecution, war. What does that mean, persecution? It means when someone is trying to kill them.