After 700 days of slowing the spread, the mass has finally come off
exposing the real danger to society.
People seeing the faces of the general public has reminded each and every one of
us, of the real danger of people who don't think like you or don't look like you,
or don't scowl like you, the offensive smiles of strangers passing by ops to
offend you after all, they don't know.
You and they shouldn't assume what mood you are in.
Smiling is a microaggression that must be stopped.
Those masks really helped stop that microaggression.
Imagine you're walking down the street and there someone
you don't know, smiles at you.
I feel triggered just thinking about it.
And after 700 days, Of nature.
Being able to heal from the scorch of humanity, what might happen now to
the environment and mass companies.
Now that the little people aren't being muzzled, we should all be
deeply troubled the mass over people's mouths and big tech, big pharma and
big government censorship effectively reminded people that they shouldn't talk.
And if they did, there would be consequences after all democracy
dies in darkness and democracy.
Well, that is a white supremacist colonialist concept of an individualistic
notion that must be done away with, at all costs as little people like
you and I, we don't know better, and we should be kept safe from thinking.
Thinking is dangerous.
We need to be kept safe from thinking for ourselves.
Elon Musk is threatening to uncover that darkness that is keeping you and I
so safe by buying Twitter and exposing the black box of Twitters algorithms,
shadow bands, de platforming, and really publishing the propaganda and promoting
the propaganda that the powers that be behind it, dark and shadowy curtain of.
Really align and agree with for once, for once.
We all need to lay aside the fear mongering of climate catastrophe and
attack Elon Musk, who is creating a great electric car, which cuts
humanity's carbon footprint because.
He's really only trying to save humanity, not save the environment.
And this goes against everything.
The ruling elite were pulling the strings behind the curtain.
Believe it is not the environment that we are trying to save, but as humanity that
we seek to destroy, Hey, it's Lucas Skrobot.
And you're listening to the Lucas Skrobot bot show where we uncover purpose, pursue
truth and own the future episode 279.
It is April 21st, 2022.
And I'm coming to you from the heart of the middle east.
And man, I am so excited, so excited to see that after only 700 days of
slowing the spread by muzzling men, women, and children on airlines,
which have, you know, EPA air filters, great air circulation, which really
means that an airplane is not a likely place that you're going to catch the.
That's all been done away with it in a moment there's videos,
circling around the social medias of people, celebrating the moment that
the airline pilot announces that.
No longer are the mass mandates in America in place.
And in the rest of the world is already following suit.
It's you mean British airways beforehand, before this happened said we're no
longer mandating mass on our airplane.
The UK had already begun to roll back measures.
Uh, this is a great sign of great day.
Uh, a shame that it took so long, so long for this.
To reach this point, but, uh, finally the masks have come off
and hopefully it is the beginning of the end of this catastrophe of
policy that has wrecked in destroyed economies, livelihoods people's jobs.
People's.
People's mental health, suicide rates.
Hopefully it is the end of these horrible government policies that have
really endangered so many people and harmed so many people through the world
into a tailspin because of policies that were put in place policies that
weren't even able to be questioned.
There wasn't even the ability to have in many countries, the ability
to have an open forum to discuss.
The conflicting data behind what was happening when it came to COVID.
Now this ties into today's episode.
We are talking about Elon Musk.
This is a Musk heavy episode as really one of the it's really amazing
what's happened over the last week of Musk, not only buying a 9.7% of.
But then making an offer to buy the buyout, the entire company at 54.20
cents per share, which is far above what the value of the company is worth
in attempts to take Twitter private.
So he can undo all of these black box policies of hidden algorithms
and not really knowing what's promoted, demoted why that is
what's going on behind the scenes.
We're clear.
There is bias, explicit bias against conservative voices or against voices that
do not align with the progressive liberal movement that big tech has embraced that
big, big tech and big government has embraced instead big tech instead of
being a place where there is, uh, an open.
Uh, broad and decentralized.
It has become a centralized place of gatekeeping and gatekeepers and
algorithms of people who have taken upon themselves to become publishers.
And we've talked about this, I don't know, numerous, numerous times on
the show about article 79, I believe in India in article a section two
30 in America, which states that.
Uh, internet company like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram is operating as a, a
bulletin port as a utility, as a telephone company, they are not held liable
for the information that users post.
They have the ability to take some things down that are threatening to the
community that clearly break laws such as.
In the real inciting of violence, calling for violence against individuals,
doxing people, calling for death threats against people, which sometimes is done
most of the time is not done on these platforms, depending on which side of
the aisle is calling for what that is.
One of those companies operating as a utility as a bulletin
board, they're not a publisher.
Then the ability for users to generate content without Facebook or Instagram
being held liable for that content just as if I pick up my phone and I have a
telephone conversation and we talk about some sort of a conspiracy to overthrow a
government or some other illegal actions.
The telephone company acting as the utility is not held liable.
They are not going to be the ones who are being brought to court.
Say so-and-so had a phone conversation over your phone network and
therefore you were a guilty party.
You're responsible for this crime.
No, there are utility.
They're just providing a service, but I'm held liable for the actions
that I take upon that service.
Well, over the years, internet.
Social media platforms have been able to use this to qualify
themselves as an intermediate.
You're not as a publishing, not as a journalist company, that's held liable,
which gives them the ability for users like you and me to post content, to
places like YouTube, just like this.
This has given us an amazing freedom of open doors, but then slowly,
slowly, slowly, the creep has come in.
Govern where these companies are functioning more like publishers,
where they begin to say, well, we need to curtail speech
to meet there's hate speech.
There's there's bullying.
That's taking place, things that are going against our community guidelines.
For instance, just this just this week, a farmer was kicked off of tick
tock because he was bullying vegans by saying that, Hey, if you eat a.
That turnip actually is only able to grow because of cow maneuver.
And there is a circle of life that is going on where
animals are used to grow crops.
And so when you're eating turnips or spinach or any sort of grain or
wheat, there is an animal by-product that is being used in that.
And therefore it's not really.
Well, I mean, clearly use probably bullying, use making fun of vegans.
And so I can see how that mocking could be considered bullying and
offensive, but now he's been kicked off tick-tock because he's being offensive.
He's offending a certain group of people.
So these big tech companies have, have now been having to deal with
these or choosing to deal with these sort of things by, by proxy.
By the pudding up of fact, checking on the bottom of posts by the, by the, the
organization of an algorithm, especially an algorithm that's not transparent.
We don't know why some things are being shown to us and why other things
aren't, we don't know why some posts are being promoted and pushed to the top of
algorithms and why some things aren't.
What is the secret sauce behind it?
All this creates these big tech companies not.
Unbiased open squares, where people can have freedom of speech, freedom
of freedom to offend people, freedom, to engage in debate with one another,
without having fear of being silenced for saving biological facts, that a
man is a man and cannot become a woman.
Eman cannot give birth to a baby.
And a woman is a woman that cannot become a man stating biological facts is now.
I hate crime is now considered, considered hate speech.
This has moved far beyond the open neutral platform and has moved
into, has moved into publishing.
And this is what Elon Musk, who is turning into the hero, the hero of the world,
not the hero of the world, but a hero in the world really going to bat for.
For the freedom of speech, freedom of dialogue in offering to say,
Hey, I see Twitter being a problem.
I'm going to put my money where my mouth is.
I'm going to offer billions of dollars to buy out Twitter,
still keeping some shareholders.
He he's saying that he wants to keep the minimum amount of, or maximum
amount of shareholders that private company can have, which is about
2000 shareholders in a company while still being a private company.
Doing a way with the secrecy.
Elon Musk was just interviewed by, by Ted and we have a series of clips
they're a little longer eclipse a day.
Each run.
Each one runs about a minute long of Elon Musk in this interview,
really laying out his vision.
For what he wants to do with Twitter and why and the problems that he
sees happening within Twitter and how he thinks he can fix them.
Here is the first of a series of clips with Elon Musk.
Well, I think it's very important for, uh, that'd be an inclusive arena
for free speech, uh, where, so, yeah.
Um, Twitter has become kind of the de facto town square.
So it's just really important that people have the, both the reality and the
perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.
And so one of the things that I believe Twitter should do is open source.
The.
And make any changes to people's tweets or if they're emphasized or deemphasized,
that action should be made apparent.
So anyone can see that action has been taken.
So there's no sort of behind the scenes manipulation, either
algorithmically or manually
there's there's so much talk about democracy dying in darkness.
It's this.
Cliche phrase that people use, which I don't really know what it means as,
uh, what, how do you define darkness?
I guess supposedly it's being used more so in journalistic spheres, if
we have to speak and expose what's happening, otherwise democracy will die.
And yet when it comes to institutions like Twitter, which has a black box
algorithm, which you do not know why something is being promoted, what is being
demoted, what's manually being changed.
We don't know how these decisions are being made.
There's not a clear, uh, uh, a clear vestige.
There's not a clear display of what's happening behind the scenes in a platform
that really is the town square of the globe, where conversations are happening
about policy change, social issues.
More than not one side of the conversation is being silenced is being shut
down is being shadow banned because it goes against the, the ideals of
those who own the private company.
Now.
Yes, if you own a private company, you can, you have the freedom to
say, actually, I don't want this talked about, I don't want this
talk about, I don't like this idea.
I'm going to control.
The culture of my company, for sure you have that freedom, but the moment
that you decide to exercise that freedom, you are, you are operating as a
publisher in this space, in this realm.
And once you're operating as a publisher, the laws change no longer
are you protected by section two 30 in the United States, no longer
are you protected by article 79.
You are now exposed as a publisher and you're held liable for every
single thing that is published on your platform, which is impossible to control.
But as Musk says, there is freedom of speech within the confines of the law.
And there are laws in America and in every other place in the world that
places curtails that places limits.
Certain kinds of speech, for instance, defamation, I can't go out and say
something that is blatantly false about you and smear your name and,
and create a whole bunch of false, complete lies and allegations about you.
If I do that, you can take me to jail.
You can take me to court.
You can Sue me.
I'm held liable for false witness and false testimony.
That's.
And you shouldn't be able to do that.
Likewise, if a person is inciting direct violence against another
person or group that is also criminal, that's a criminal offense in America
and many other parts of the world.
So Musk is not saying that, just take off the limits, just have total
free and anyone can say whatever they want and it's a free for all.
And there's no.
He say, no, we need to respect the laws of the land.
That's reasonable.
I think that's reasonable.
And if anything is being changed, there is a note on every post notating and
dictating what has happened, why it has happened, and you can go and look
at it within the open source of the algorithm that is open to critique.
Here is Musk and.
Might my view, Twitter should match the laws of the, of the country of
Spain and really, you know, there's an obligation to do that by going beyond
going beyond that and having it be unclear, who's making what changes to
who talk to where having tweets sort of mysteriously be promoted and demoted
with no insight into what's going.
Uh, having a black box algorithm promotes some things and other, not other things.
I think this can be quite dangerous.
So, so, so the idea of opening the algorithm is that is a huge deal.
And I think many people would, would welcome that of understanding exactly how.
The decision and critique it and critique like ordering is like,
like, I think like the, the coach should be on GitHub, you know?
So then an app, so people can look through it and say, like, I see a problem here.
I don't, I don't agree with this.
Um, they can highlight issues, suggest changes in the same way that you sort
of update Linux or signal or something.
You would think that many people would be open for it?
You think that everyone would be open for it?
That everyone would say, yeah, let's open this up.
Let's have a fear, fair Plainfield to know the rules that we're playing within.
Instead we have Calvin ball where there's some people, a small group
of select people who are controlling the flow of information, controlling
what people do see or don't see in a non-transparent way for the responses.
The responses to Elon Musk, who is so green energy blowing past boundaries
and borders and creating electric cars, which is it's the way of the future.
It's it's the green new deal.
It is everything about creating a new utopia of being free from
fossil fuels and he's spearheading.
You would think that he would be the hero of that side of the aisle,
of those who, who really believe that climate change and that climate
catastrophe is the biggest issue.
Society, they would, you would think that people would look
at him and say, you know what?
I agree, Musk Musk is onto something he's really fighting for our
values when it comes to making a cleaner and better environment.
And I'm for that, I'm all for that.
I think Tesla's awesome.
Amazing.
But instead, because he doesn't fully align because Musk thinks for
himself and has ideas that contradict.
What the antinatalism what the, the environmental realism movement believes
and says, which is humanity is a scourge.
We are no different than any other animal on this planet.
We should be limited.
We are an invasive species.
We need to limit our population.
There's population collapsed.
Musk actually says the opposite.
There's a publishing collapse coming.
They say that there is this population, boom, coming in.
We're going to have so many people that it's not going to be
sustainable, whereas the numbers and we're going to get into this.
The second part of the show must actually points out that actually we're, we're
going into population collapse on a global scale and it's going to be detrimental,
but because Musk thinks for himself.
Because he doesn't tow the party line.
He is now an enemy of the state quote, unquote state and enemy of
the party of the ideals because he doesn't fit in to the box precisely.
And that is always dangerous.
What does Musk think healthy and free speech looks like and sounds
like, well, I, I, I think we would want to err on the, if, if in doubt,
let, let, let the speech that let it exist, but it would have, if it's
a gray area, I would say, let, let the, let the tweet exist.
Um, but obviously in a case where there's perhaps a lot of
controversy that you'd not want to necessarily promote that to tweet.
If you know, I'm not saying I have all the answers here, but I do think that
we want to be just very reluctant to delete things and have just, just be
very cautious with, with permanent.
Uh, you know, timeouts I think are better or, uh, than, than,
than sort of permanent bands.
And Y you can see here, he's not speaking completely irrationally about this.
He's not going to an extreme, he's measuring his words.
He's saying, yeah, I'm still trying to figure it out.
These are some of the things that I think here's some of the patterns that
I think would make Twitter a healthier.
It sounds very, level-headed not at all controlling, but quite free.
He continues.
Uh, but just, just in general, like I said, won't be perfect, but I think we
wanted to really have like the obsession and reality that speeches as free as
reasonably possible and a good sign as to whether there is free speech is.
Is someone you don't like allowed to say something you don't like.
And if that is the case, then we have free speech and it's, it's damn annoying when
someone you don't like says something you don't like, that is a sign of a healthy
functioning, free speech situation.
When someone you don't like says something you don't like, and that is allowed, that
is a sign of healthy and free speech.
I think it's a great articulation.
It's saying the ability for you to be offended for you to be triggered is a
sign that you are living in a society where there's free speech, where there's
an ability for the government to be offended for a religion, to be offended
for someone's beliefs, to be offended for people's feelings, to be hurt for people
to feel like they're being disagreed with.
By people saying things they don't like that is a sign of freedom of speech.
That should be appalled.
But instead we have moved into this snowflake mentality of absolutism
where if anyone is saying something that you don't like that offense.
It becomes this personal violation at persons should be shut down.
If someone believes something that you don't like, you should
cut them out of your life.
We've all, we've probably all had it happen where someone says something
we don't like offends us per assess.
And so we silence them in our life.
Now, in some ways it's totally called for, if you have a person
who's bullying you, who's harassing.
Yeah, it's okay to set up boundaries around your life.
If someone is constantly parading, you cursing at you, attacking you
Syncrude and obscene things to you.
Yeah.
Put some boundaries around you.
But if you just give someone that disagrees, that sees the world differently
than you might say, some things that kind of offensive and should have that person
in your life should talk to them, should go get coffee for them and you should pay.
Get a meal with them, discuss and, and seek to understand why they see
the world that they see the world through, why they have that lens on
the world that will make you a better person, you a healthier person.
And if your view on the world doesn't change, it will only
make your arguments stronger.
There's what, what's the downside.
If you become too to see the world a little differently, you'll be a more.
Rounded person seeing the blind spots, blind spots better than you did before.
I was in a conversation recently taking my own advice.
I was in a conversation recently with someone who self labels and selves as
a progressive, he said, yeah, I would be what you'd consider a progressive.
And so we were talking.
Policy you were talking.
I was asking him, what does that mean for you?
What does it mean for you to be a progressive in what areas?
What, how does that actually play out in policy, different
areas socially and economically.
And it came up, this Twitter thing came up, it must came
up and I'm going to Paris.
I may not get exactly his quote correctly, but you saying to the fact that he doesn't
think that the richest man in the world controlling a platform like Twitter
should be a good idea or is a good idea.
He thinks it's too much control centralized in one person that he
owns enough and controls enough.
And when you look at what Musk owns and controls, yes, he is worth
hundreds of billions of dollars.
But that hundreds of billions of dollars is that cash for gold bullion.
That's sitting in his bank account.
Those are tied up in shares.
That's unrealized capital gains.
In fact, an article just came out this week, revealing that Musk says in an
interview that he doesn't own a home.
He's staying with friends crashing in people's empty couches.
He doesn't own.
He has one plane company plane so that he can get to places and save time
rather than spending a bunch of time on commercial planes, which at that level
that's minimum expense, but he's not some extra extravagant, uh, oligarch.
Who's spending hundreds of billions of dollars on obscenities.
He's focused on building stuff.
He's focused on a mission he's focused.
His purpose.
Well,
and remember, just because he has $251 billion of net worth, and
people have criticized him for not paying his taxes, that net worth
at $250 billion is unrealized.
If, if you have stock that you bought at $1 and it went to $250
billion, but you didn't sell that stock yet, but it's worth that much.
You have not realized.
That $250 billion game.
There's no taxes that you can pay on it.
I digress.
I digress
in the conversation that it was.
I don't think that one person should have that much control.
And yet there are my opinion, the argument falls apart in both spot
because there's other people.
Do you have a lot of control who are actually using the platform not to create
a space of freedom of speech, but they're creating a space where they're willing to
take a poison pill and kill Twitter, to make sure that Musk isn't able to have a
controlling share or buy out the company.
They're willing to say that board members can't stay on the board.
They're willing to say.
That board members can buy more stock in the company to make
sure that Musk isn't able to
all to stop mosquitoes pretty much just saying, Hey, I think that this
has been poorly run and poorly managed, and because it believe in freedom of
speech and believe in people having the ability to have freedom of speech, I
want to open up the black box of Twitter so we can see what's really happening.
Why, why is that?
So controversial.
Why is that so bad?
His here's what must says about him being the richest man in the world,
owning a platform like Twitter?
Well, like I said, I think it's very important that the algorithm
be open-sourced and that any manual adjustments be identified.
So if this tweet, if somebody did something to a tweet it's
there's information attached to it, that that action was.
And I S I would personally be in there editing tweets, but you'll know
if something was done to promote the mode or otherwise affect a tweet as.
Media sort of ownership.
I mean, you've got, you know, um, mark Zuckerberg, owning Facebook and
Instagram and WhatsApp and with a shared ownership structure that will, uh, have
more exactly work the 14th still, uh, you're controlling those, uh, entities.
Um, so.
Like literally, um, what's that need, do you want to have that at Twitter?
So there's a great example of Zuckerberg.
He owns Facebook, Metta, Instagram, WhatsApp, and he's going to continue
to own it to his 14th generation, apparently according to Musk.
And so if Musk comes in, owns it and decides to deep platform, every other
electric car company, Uh, people would know that people would see that and that's
going to be marked on every single tweet.
So his, his vision of transparency when it comes to how the algorithm works,
seems to be far, far better in this conversation with my progressive friend,
he labeled himself a progressive, not me.
We were talking about Musk's well, and whether he has a right to.
And the argument that was put forward, which I thought was a fairly interesting
argument, was that because of the system, because of the environment
in America, Musk was able to build space S X Musk was able to build
Tesla because of the environment that was in, because there's laws in the
lands that enabled entrepreneurs.
And then the argument followed because he didn't really build it on his own,
but it was a collective thing, not just a collective thing of his investors
or the people who work in the company, but a collective of, uh, of the entire
United States that the United States government should be able to take away
wealth from Musk through taxation, I suppose, and redistribute that into.
And to other people's pockets, people who are less fortunate or how about,
I would say this way, people who have less economic means than Musk, which
on the face of it, I can understand
why people want to have wealth distribution, redistribution of wealth,
the Robin hood syndrome of stealing from the rich and giving to the.
Not on the Rich's own volition, not on the bridges saying this
is something we want to do.
And as we said earlier, Musk's $251 billion is unrealized gain.
Largely most of it is unrealized.
So how do you, how do you tax that?
Can you tax money that you haven't made yet?
Well, that's the argument that's being put forward in many.
But it drew me to two questions.
One was Musk, just lucky.
Was he just lucky?
And just all the cards fell into the right place for him.
And because he got lucky, he doesn't deserve it, earn it.
Or did he work hard for what he earned?
The second question that I had was if.
Either one of those is the case and he was just lucky.
And it was just because of the environment that he happened to be born into,
which Hey, being born as a woman, you are lucky because you have a longer
expected life span, span than men.
If you are born near the water and live near bodies of water or the ocean or
rivers, you have a longer life expectancy than people who live in landlocked areas.
That is not a bias.
That is not privilege.
That is just natural laws.
It is just the laws of nature.
So what would happen if all of a sudden we say, well, because of
the environment that you are in must that enabled you to succeed.
We are going to take away your wealth because you have enough of it.
You don't need $200 billion.
We'll just take away, you know, a hundred.
89 billion.
You can live off a couple of billion.
That's more than enough, and we're going to do with it.
What we see fed, even though we didn't actually create this wealth, but you did,
but w we're seeing it's the environment that we were in to help you create it.
All of a sudden that strips the environment away that gave him the
ability to create that in the first place, which seems a little contradictory,
but Musk has talked quite openly and talked, even in this episode.
About the excruciating pain and suffering that he had went through
to be able to build this company.
He's not sitting back in an ivory tower with all his little
minions, doing the work down there.
He's working.
He's he's the laboring working day and night sleeping on floors to
see this dream become a reality.
Here's.
I slept on the floor so that the team who was going through a hard time could see
me on the floor, that they knew that I was not in some ivory tower when whatever pain
they experienced, I was, I had it more.
He is a leader that is, is giving everything.
It's not just.
It's not just the environment.
Yes.
That plays into it.
Yes.
The laws help, which is why he left California.
And he moved to Texas because the laws here are ridiculous.
They're crazy.
They're killing our company.
So yes, the environment plays into it, but then it makes no sense why you should
create an environment that is inhibits the very thing that he created while
saying that it was the environment that.
Well, there is an, an automation, boom that is coming in.
Whether it's a couple of years, a couple of decades, it is, it
is already been among us, which is the industrial revolution.
We have seen it from factories, uh, replacing workers all across the globe,
but really what it leads to is excess.
It leads to abundance.
It leads to.
People being able to be lifted out of poverty and the fear that it can often
drive us to when we probably talked about it, if you're on the show as well, which
could be a possibility of a lot of people losing their jobs, where automation is
coming in and is replacing the teller.
Automation is coming in is replacing the factory worker.
Automation is coming in and it's replacing the.
And this is a real, a real fear that people have and often use to
make arguments for UBI for universal basic income seem because of all this
automation, we need to begin to give people a basic income to live on because
we're not going to be able to do anything.
We're just, automation will take care of everything and we'll
just be able to sit back, relax.
There's going to be a whole bunch of unskilled labor who can't find it.
But in reality right now in America and all over the world, we are
facing massive labor shortages.
We are facing construction worker shortages, even though we have so much
automation, when it comes to construction already, it's hard to find craftsmen.
It's hard to find people who know how to do things with their hands.
The, the tangible, real world outside of the digital world, because we've been
pushed to, if you want to be someone that's successful, you're going to
work in some sort of digital sphere.
You're going to work with gigabytes and digit bites in ones and zeros,
rather than working with things in your hands, in your real world.
But here's Musk before right before we get to our, uh, yeah, that makes sense.
Segment here's one last clip.
Talking about the automation that is coming, thinking
about the economics of this.
If you can replace a $30,000 $40,000 a year worker, which you have to pay
every year with a one-time payment of $25,000 for a robot that can work
longer hours, doesn't go on vacation.
And that there could, it could be a pretty rapid replacement
of certain types of jobs.
How worried should the world be about that?
I wouldn't worry about the sort of putting people out of a job thing.
Um, I think w w we're actually going to have an already do have
a massive shortage of labor.
So I, I, I th I think we will, we will have, um, uh, not, not people
out of work, but actually still a shortage of labor, even in the future.
Uh, But this really will be a world of abundance.
Any goods and services, uh, will be available to anyone who wants them,
that it will be so cheap to have goods and services will be ridiculous.
We can often on this show, I know myself definitely included and putting myself in
this camp, I can begin to see the world through a negative pessimistic worldview.
I can begin to look at the world and say, things are getting worse.
And in many ways, many places.
There are many things on the rise, especially if you look at America
at what has been happening when it comes to this agenda to undermine, uh,
undermine family rights, to undermine children's identity, making children's
identity, tied to sex, um, people making arguments that well, what is,
what is really the consensual age?
Have sex, we should just have it at any age.
You know, if the child's consenting, um, or laws that have had been passed
in, in Colorado and California, even this week, the bill HR 2, 2, 2, 3.
And we mentioned this a couple of weeks ago here on the show,
which, because the way that the bill reads it gives provision.
A baby to not be cared for or to be even aborted.
Post-birth post birth after birth up to six, 10, some people even say 28 days.
Now the, those on the progressive left say, no, that's just a, uh, an hyperbole.
That's just the progressive right.
Make blowing something out of proportion.
That's not exactly what it says when really you can read the law and you
can say, well, yeah, I can see how.
The law is saying that a mother or a doctor cannot be faulted for
even post natal death of a child.
That's that's postnatal abortion, that's infanticide.
And saying if a, a child is left to cry and not being fed and dies, there's
no, no space for an investigator.
And no space to charge anyone with the murder of a baby, which really
is, I mean, slow clap, congratulation.
That's consistent.
That's consistent with the worldview, which says, well, we
don't really know when life begins.
We, I wonder when does it begin?
I mean, I mean, does it begin now?
Am I a human?
Do I have life?
I have lesser intelligent than Elon Musk.
Am.
Am I valuable enough to sustain?
If someone with down syndrome, is that, is that really a human?
Are they really there?
Should they really, is it, would it be more merciful to kill them?
Someone with Alzheimer's Alzheimer's I don't know.
What about someone's cerebral palsy?
Their body's not really working.
Well, maybe the merciful thing would be just to put them out of their misery.
That infant in the womb.
Is that really a human being?
When does that life really be?
Oh, gosh, surely not conception.
Well, if it doesn't begin at conception, when biologists say that life begins
in every other sense of the word with every other animal, as an egg,
even Eagles, eggs being protected,
uh, turtle, eggs being protected, but a human life not being protected.
Well then when, when does life begin?
If it's not a concern.
It's not at the heartbeat then why what's the say that it's not a birth?
What's the say it's not until they're 18.
What's the say it's not until the government agrees that this individual
has reached full human maturity and allows that individual to live for
a certain amount of time, as long as they're productive and helpful
in society in the party line.
This, this is exactly, this is exactly.
And I hate using the term cause it's so cliche and overused, but
this is the Marxist socialist worldview of determinism, where
there is no such thing as morality.
There is no such thing as good and evil.
There's only power.
And you and I are sacks of chemicals that have been predetermined.
And if we have been determined incorrectly, then it is not
immoral to wipe out anyone.
If it serves.
Agenda and the greater cause.
Cause after all, there is no morality that makes sense in a post-truth society
where we've exchanged truth, relies and reason for postmodern irrationality.
The absurd finally make sense today this week in Canada, a church,
very, when you think of church, you think of religion, you think of, I
mean, I don't know what you think.
Uh, classically you think that a religious body ought ought to care
for the sick and the dying and the poor, the orphan and the widow.
True religion is caring for the orphan and the widow visiting
and caring for the poor, the Jean visiting those who are in prison.
This is true religion.
The definition of what a religious group is ought to do well, this church.
Hosted an assisted suicide ceremony for a member of their church, an
86 old member, Betty was her name and they hosted a assisted suicide
crossing over ceremony where the church leadership had a unanimously
unanimously approved per request for assisted suicide in their sanctuary.
Where, uh, even though in the Christian faith, this Catholic or Orthodox or
Eastern Orthodox Presbyterian Baptist, you name it across the board in the
Christian faith in monotheistic faiths.
We believe that suicide is immoral.
It's a sin it's it should not be done.
It is not the merciful or kind thing to do.
Euthanasia is not the.
Thing to do.
And yet laws are being passed right now in the west that are opening the door
wider and wider to euthanasia, to, uh, assisted suicide, even youth assisted
suicide, even teen assisted suicide.
This is the . This is the worldview of quote-unquote mercy that people are.
But it's anything but mercy, this is the exact worldview that Hitler had
adopted in saying, well, you know, we can cleanse the society of those with
disabilities, with mental disabilities.
And that is, that is merciful.
That is us being merciful because we are superior noble race and
class of people we know what's best.
And we know that helping these people.
Really means putting them out of their misery that expanded to
the Jews they are, are subhuman.
Race is actually merciful to liquidate the Jews.
So liquidate the Polish ghettos to pack people into gas chambers and
liquidate them to end their lives.
Mass genocide.
It's not genocide.
It's mercy it's because.
Those who have been determined to be actually human, because we have
self-determined ourselves to be human.
And then therefore went on to determine who is not human.
If that baby, if that that person with a mental disability or someone
with a sickness is not human.
The merciful thing to do would be to put them out of their misery.
After all what's coming, what's coming is a global climate catastrophe.
Are, we're not going to have enough resources around the world
to support the world, to support those who are truly fully human.
And so we have to make some tough choices, but don't worry us on our
ivory hill black boxes of algorithms.
We can make the choices for you.
Democracy dies in darkness.
And we definitely do not want a democracy.
We do not want to individualism of you thinking for yourself,
let us do the thinking for you.
We are smart.
We are educated.
You are just a lowly worker down there.
We're going to decide who gets to live and who gets to die because
overpopulation is coming in.
It's going to crush the planet with a merciless future.
So this we're actually showing mercy to these.
We're showing mercy by, by forcing, uh, infertility here's Musk.
I told you we have a lot of Musk in this episode.
Here's a, honestly the final clip by mosque, uh, for this, for this episode.
Um, yeah, so most people in the world are operating under the false
impression that, uh, you know, too many.
Um, this is not true.
Both could maintain a population many times.
It's the current level.
Um, uh, and the birth rate has been dropping like crazy.
Um, So unfortunately, like we have these like ridiculous, uh, uh,
population estimates from the UN that need to be updated because
they're just don't make any sense.
Um, really you can just look at say, what was it.
Both rate last year, how many kids were born T multiply that by the,
um, life expectancy and say, okay, that's how many people will be alive.
Uh, you know, um, in the future, uh, and then say is the trend for
growth rate, positive or negative?
It's negative.
So that's the best case, unless somebody changes with the both rate.
Um, I mean, you can look at, take, take Japan, for example.
Uh, I'm just going off memory here, but I think population is roughly 110 million.
Um, but last year, um, if you take the, uh, number of, uh, children born
times, the life expectancy, which is 85 years, it's very impressive life
expectancy, then Japan would, uh, have, I think, around, uh, 68 million people,
roughly half of the current population that does not tell the full story,
because those that you would have.
Demographic permit.
You already have an upside down demographic permit where, you know, a
lot of all people, very few young people.
And, um, um, you know, so how has this upside down
demographic permit is unstable?
That's also here.
Why would to have an upside down demographic period?
Pyramid is unstable.
What we are seeing in Japan with a rapidly aging population.
And with very low birth rates, their population is going to be cut in half.
And we were beginning to see the same trends happen across Europe
has been negative for years now, tapping negative trends in America.
Uh, we have, we, we talked about, and we see negative trends in China.
The one, the one child policy Devis is going to end up being devastating.
For China, they've increased it to two and a three child policy,
but the birth rate has not risen.
They are in population decline.
And the Chinese government even says that the Chinese government is even estimating
that their population is going to fall to less than a billion people by 2100.
And that's what the Chinese government is.
So when we look at the actual problems that we're going to face in the
future, it is not too many people.
It is not, not enough resources.
It is that we won't have enough trained, skilled people to, to keep the environment
that the economy and nations running.
And that's a scary place to be because.
We're running into things like massive inflation.
You end up in places of massive depression, very states where it's
impossible to get your economy and your nations and your societies
back up and running because you're continuing to shrink and die.
Well, this show is brought to you by listeners.
Like you, we don't have ads on this podcast because it
is fueled by the value that.
Get out of it and give back into it.
So if you get value out of the show, we ask that you would give value back to
the show in the value that you received.
You can do that by visiting Lucas, scroll bot.com backslash support, and
you can give your heart cold Fiat there.
Or if you like Bitcoin, you can listen on a podcast, 2.0 certified app, like
pod, friends, Spanx, or breeze, and you can load up your Bitcoin wallet
and you can stream Satoshis to the.
As you listen, don't go away.
We'll be right back with our closing Weaver and Liam segment.
Welcome back to Weaver Luma, part of the show where we take ancient
wisdom and we weave it in with our every day lives that we can own our
future and weave our destiny today's quote again is by someone who.
It's not an ancient quote, but it's someone who's ancient.
Uh, and here it is Warren buffet.
Again, Warren Buffett coming in clutch, he writes, says chains of
habit are too light to be felt until they're too heavy to be broken.
Chains of chains of habits are too light to be felt.
They are too heavy to be broken.
And I I've been thinking about this this week, and this is
both for positive and negative.
When we start negative cycles at first, we don't feel the effects of it.
And so all of a sudden, suddenly we feel the negative impacts of our bad
choices and habits that we've created.
And they're, they're impossible to break.
They feel impossible to get above like the collapsing.
We are going to see a collapsing birthrate.
Japan has seen a collapsing birth rate where their population will be
cut in half in a number of decades.
And all of a sudden it is, it is such a heavy lifestyle and habit
that is impossible to break that, to begin to see growing birth rates.
Again, catastrophic.
Likewise on the reverse, when you begin to build positive cycles in your life.
We see we first, we don't see the improvement.
We don't see the return from our investment that we make with the strength
that we're building as whether it's physically an exercise or whether it's in
our finances based on, on good financial choices or in our children through
good parenting, through pouring in and investing in our kids in our community,
through investing in instruction.
Members in our community.
At first, we don't see the impact of our habits until it
is too strong to be broken.
And so as we look to the future and we say, you know what,
they're, they're really beat.
There really will be quite a positive future of abundance.
There really isn't an abundant future that we can have where
they're the lack that we're going to have is lack of skilled workers.
We can build up those competencies.
Now we might not see the fruit of our expertise and skills and labors,
but through brick, by brick day after day, week after week, decade after
decade, we will build strong, will build strong individuals ourselves
and within our family and thereby we'll build strong families and a
strong community, but it starts to.
It starts with you making choices for you to stand up and to be a leader
for you to stand up into engage with the world around you, believing that
you can make the world a better place.
And that is how you can.
Your future.
So thanks for listening to the show.
If you want to get more value out of today's episode, you do so by
sharing it with a friend, text it to them, WhatsApp to them, say,
Hey, I listened to this episode.
I got a lot of value out of it.
Listen, let me know what you think.
That's how you can help this show and really gives value back to show.
So go out this week, own your future.
Your destiny.