hs. Something like that.

I saw a photo of all the ships that are docked off of China's coast and it's just like a solid color of dots and it looks like the whole system is falling apart if you look at that picture. But what the picture is lacking is how many days would it take for all of those ships to be served. If it's a four day delay — I just pick a random number — it's not really a problem. You can wait four days for your anything basically. But if it's a year I don't know what happens. That all the stuff goes bad on the ship. I don't know. It seems like pretty bad. And it does seem like we must be working on fixing even the port situation and the supply chain problem. There must be tons of people putting lots of energy into that.

But let me go back to the 3D printing leapfrog technology. Here's a little business tip that everybody experienced in business understands but those of you who are not experienced in business might be hearing this like a novel concept for the first time. If you make a product and it's a big hit, you're a private company and everybody loves your product and they're buying it like crazy — let's say it's a technology product because that's a better example. It's a technology product. Doesn't matter what it is. What's the first thing you should do if you have a really successful product and people love it? The first thing you should do if you are that company is you should try to put yourself out of business as fast as possible. And by that I mean making a new product that's so good nobody would ever buy that old product again. It wouldn't make sense. Because you have to do that or else somebody else is going to build that product, right? You have to cannibalize your own product in order to move ahead. And everybody who is experienced — yeah, Apple is a perfect example — everybody who's experienced in business knows this to be true. You have to cannibalize your own product so somebody else doesn't do it for you. It's the only way you can stay ahead, right?

Yeah, Amazon does that. Basically everybody successful does that. Now look at this situation where we moved our manufacturing to China. That looked exactly like this. I don't know that it was planned in any way but it's going to work out that way. It's going to work out that we cannibalize our own manufacturing in this country and that that was important for us to get to the new kind of manufacturing: 3D printing, robots, AI. And we're going to be experts at those three things and more while other countries are trying to figure out what do you do when all these manufacturing jobs go away, right?

So we did the play of the century with bringing manufacturing to China and then becoming the experts at obsoleting that technology. We won everything. We won everything. We just don't know it yet. We won everything. This is as hard as you could win. We obsoleted our own industry but after we gave it to China and made them dependent on it. You can't win harder than that. Honestly that's as hard as you can win. Now we'll say it depends on us actually being able to do this 3D printing and changing the supply chain but I think that's within our ability.

One of the things I learned yesterday is that our 3D printing capability is way beyond what the public understands. We keep seeing things like, oh there's this 3D printed house. This is just this big machine that puts down concrete on the walls and it's kind of cool the first time you see it. You go, okay, it's an automatic concrete machine but you're calling it a 3D printer. Okay, but I'm not really that impressed by an automatic concrete machine.

Do you know what impresses me? Let me say it again. They 3D printed a helicopter rotor. Are we done here? They 3D printed a helicopter rotor, metal, and slapped it on and it works. Wait, I'm not done. It didn't just work. It was lighter, better and faster and cheaper. Lighter, better, faster, cheaper. That's what kills China because China can make stuff that's maybe just as good as 3D printing? No they can't. They can't make stuff as good as 3D printing. The regular manufacturing process would not be close to being able to get the specific engineering.

And I guess I learned this yesterday. This is what's different about 3D printing is that the software has improved, not just the hardware to print anything you want but the software now knows how to print it. That's the big change. So for example it would know that a component is going to have pressure on one end of it. Let's say there's going to be more physical pressure on one end of it. You can just put that into the machine, say okay this side will have more pressure, and it will just build it to be more solid on one side. That's just one example. Yeah, stronger because you could do a lattice situation with less material.

Now I think that's the correct answer. I'm being told that it would be all these things and I was just sort of filling in from common sense which might be wrong. That let's say if you're doing an ordinary metal anything you would probably — it would just be a solid metal piece, right? Because that's just the easiest thing to do. You put it in a mold, you take it out, it's just solid metal. But if you're 3D printing it at a really fine detail couldn't you do the walls of your device, let's say a metal device, couldn't you do it with a little lattice work, little tiny latticework that would use 10% of the material while being stronger? Are there enough engineers here? I'm saying yes, isn't that true? I think I see people agreeing with me that you can make it lighter, stronger, cheaper, right? That's all you can do. All of it. I believe you can do all of that.

All right. That's why it's a big deal.

What is happening in California? I saw this Michael Shellenberger tweet and boy would I hate to be running for governor against Michael Shellenberger. So he's running as an independent in California. But what, as I've told you many times, what he does differently than anybody else politician is he's written books and done deep research on the exact problems that affect a lot of people but California especially. Everything from the addiction and homelessness to energy to water, like all those things he became an expert on. So who wants to run against that? I mean that's the strongest candidate I've ever seen. Let me say it again. Shellenberger is the strongest political candidate I've ever seen. Now will he get enough attention as an independent in California? That's a tough road. But I'll tell you there's nobody ever did it better so far. It's just ridiculous how good it is.

And one of the things he pointed out is that my state California is being ravaged by drought. And Shellenberger says that California under Governor Newsom has failed to build a single water storage, water recycling or desalinization project. And I thought, what? It's literally the biggest problem in the state that we're going to run out of water. Are you telling me that in his entire term he hasn't done a single thing that would be useful? Now I realize it takes years to build these things but at least we should be looking at something that started. You know, we should be talking about the dam that's almost done or nothing.

And I thought what about the other stuff? Well he at least he's working on like the homeless and the drug problem except he's doing all the wrong things. He's giving them homes and drugs. That's exactly the wrong thing you want to do. You want to take them and unfortunately force them into some kind of treatment because it's a medical problem. It's not a housing problem. That's what Shellenberger teaches us. And it does look to me that on all the big problems Newsom has either done nothing or what he did was literally the opposite of what one should do according to anybody who knows anything about the topics. Yeah they've had plenty of time to do this stuff. That is correct.

Let's talk about the disinformation board that Biden is — especially there was something that was bothering me about the person that they chose for the head of it whose name I can't remember. So there's a woman who's chosen to be the head of the disinformation board and we're seeing a bunch of her videos and stuff. And I was trying to figure out what is the word that is capturing how I'm feeling about it. And it wasn't until I saw a Glenn Greenwald tweet: did they intentionally pick the most ridiculous person for the job? Is it just a troll? And I thought there it is. That was the word. Ridiculous. Ridiculous was the word. And that is so ridiculous it doesn't look serious.

To that point I saw a tweet from Dean Squirrel, I believe he's in Canada, and he says he doesn't really follow American politics. When I first saw this — meaning the video of that head of the disinformation board — when I first saw this I thought it was an online prank, a slash hoax thing. Not kidding. No, I know he's not kidding. It looks like a prank. It isn't as far as I know. But doesn't it look exactly like one? If you do something serious, especially something important like this, and it looks like a prank to somebody who wasn't paying attention, well you did it wrong. I think you did it wrong.

All right. Speaking of disinformation there are two kinds roughly speaking. One is the kind that's just wrong information but the other is diversion. Diversion is what keeps us from seeing the truth sometimes. There are lots of things that keep us from doing that but we often get diverted. Like a magician makes you look over here while the real trick's over here.

So here are some of the diversions that are happening right now. Racism narratives are a diversion from understanding that it's really always about rich versus poor. But if the poor knew that that was what was going on, that it's just rich versus poor, they could easily organize under our system because they have free social media, everybody can vote. They could just vote themselves a bunch of benefits. But they don't because they think the problem is racism. If the poor people said, "Oh the problem is rich versus poor. Let's go vote ourselves some benefits." But it'll never happen because they're diverted by racism.

Now we see the disinformation boards and the fact checkers and the fake news and everything and I feel like what that's diverting us from is understanding that our own team is lying to us also. You know the other team, whoever you think the other team is, it doesn't matter left or right. Whoever you think the other team is you're sure they're lying. You see lots of examples. But you're not so sure about your team, aren't you? But your team's lying too. And I think that when you're talking about fake news and disinformation boards both sides are then encouraged to think that their side is right and the other side is lying. That's a diversion. It's a diversion from the fact that both sides are lying all the time. It doesn't mean they're wrong all the time. I mean somebody's gonna be right if there are two different sides. But the purpose of the teams is to lie and persuade.

That was a weird sound. It was a turn. Their turkeys gobbling right outside my door. We have lots of wild turkeys here. I hope it's a turkey. So then here's another diversion. The abortion narrative is diverting us from the Democrat approval levels on the Democrat record, the Biden administration record. Everything is diversion. I get it. See the turkeys are gobbling at me because I forgot to put Jonathan Turley on my disinformation board. And they're turkeys so they're using the simulation to remind me. Turkey, turkey, Turley. Okay got it. Put him on the disinformation board. Got it.

All right. I don't know how many turkeys there are out there but I think they're massing for an attack. That is a lot of turkey noise. I may take the Locals people over and look at them after we're done here.

All right. Let's talk about some new disinformation. Did you see the news on social media that apparently is fake news that Pfizer documents show that the vaccines were never safe for pregnancy if people were pregnant or breastfeeding? Did any of you see that on social media? Some kind of a document that purported to be a Pfizer document. Now it's fake news but it would act like the drug was not tested or wasn't safe for pregnancy and breastfeeding. How many of you saw that? Did you know that that Pfizer document wasn't from a Pfizer document? So all of you who believed you saw a Pfizer document that says they know that vaccines were not safe during pregnancy or breastfeeding, that was not even a Pfizer document. That was from another entity altogether. It was fake news. And the other entity apparently has updated their opinion on it so there's actually nothing there. There is no information about it being safe or unsafe during pregnancy and breastfeeding. I added the unsafe part just because I'm unaware of anything. So pretty much all of the ivermectin stories, pretty much all of the vaccine — oh did you know about this data story? They're pretty much all fake. You should believe anything about vaccines, any study about vaccines and any study about ivermectin. Just assume it's not real. Just assume it's not true. That should be your starting assumption. If somebody can convince you it is true, well good for them. But you shouldn't start that way. You should start with fake and then if somebody can convince you, well let's see if they can do it.

I saw this is amazing. The head of Media Matters was on C-SPAN and was asked by a caller about the suspicious nature of Hunter Biden getting half a million dollars for his paintings. And the caller asked how can we be sure that Hunter Biden is not selling influence as opposed to selling artwork. And the head of Media Matters, Angelo Carusone I guess, said quote that there's no reasonable suspicion behind it. In other words there's no reasonable suspicion that Hunter Biden is selling paintings for what seems to be outrageously high prices because the people buying the paintings are just in the influence buying game. There is no reasonable suspicion behind it. Really? Really? Because to me this is the definition of reasonable suspicion. Not proof. Nobody's claiming any proof. Has anybody said there's proof? Nobody. Nobody said there's proof. Everybody thinks it's something you ought to look at. A little suspicious.

But here's