, you know what, we love you guys. They just have to say the words because in fact they do. You pick. Show me any Republican in Congress. Pick any Republican and say all right, look at this guy. This guy loves his family. He's working. Hasn't broken any laws. Just wants to be an American. You have a problem with that person? Like really? Like that's your problem? The person who's living the ideal life that you wish everybody would live.

So if you think that they're all going to vote blue when you could be right, just don't give them the vote. By the second generation they're going to be Republicans. The second generation will just be Republicans because by then the Republicans will have figured out how to deal with this community in a more productive way. And the Republicans have a perfect way to do it. How about we just agree with your character and we reach some agreement about the economics and who can vote and who can own a gun and then we're all good. I don't know.

So the only thing I'm going to try to convince you of is that there's a third path on immigration that's neither Democrat nor Republican and it's the right one. It's the one that makes sense.

All right, so let me acknowledge everybody's yelling legal, legal, legal. The people who are saying because they're illegal you should give them nothing. Do you understand that we have a long tradition of making legal people who were illegal? It's an ordinary thing we do all the time. So that's not really an objection that makes sense on any logical or other basis. We do it all the time. And the reason we do it is for our own benefit, right? We wouldn't be doing it for the benefit of the criminal. We'd be doing it for ourselves. I want everybody to be paying taxes, don't you? Why wouldn't you?

So yeah, all right. I'm just going to put it out there as something that could be improved in terms of the messaging. But I do like Trump saying that mandates are going to be, that's what the Nazis do to you. I just gave you options. And then when they say but but but you gave us this risky vaccine, then Trump says who didn't know it was at risk? We could not have been more clear about that. And I would agree. He also says China is buying up all of our assets. There's something to that but I don't know what the extent is.

All right, here's my provocative thought for the day. Wouldn't you agree with the following statement that the social media platforms, if their algorithms are favoring one political side or the other, that effectively they're running the country? Would you agree with that statement that the algorithms could program the country so effectively based on what they see that the algorithm ends up running the country and not Congress and not the vote? Congress ends up just going along with whatever social media forced into the thing.

Well, your provocative thought of the day: the World Economic Forum is just an algorithm. It just happens to be a physical one. Here's why. What an algorithm does is decide what you see and how often, right? That's all it does. An algorithm decides what you see and how often. What does the World Economic Forum do? Let's say you went to the World Economic Forum and said I'd like to have a presentation there and I'd like it to be on the topic of we should use more fossil fuels. Do you think they'd say we like opinions on both sides so yeah, here's a full platform for you to say your thing that's opposite of what we usually say and we'll give you all the attention you want because we like balance? Do you think that's happening? I don't think so.

I think that the World Economic Forum decides what they present and also who attends. They didn't invite me. Did they invite any of you? Right? So if they can decide who's in and who's out, at least they can decide who they invite and they can decide what information from their attendees rises to the point where it gets promoted and what doesn't. They're an algorithm. They are a physical algorithm. And that's how they can run the world. Because all they have to do is control the information that they allow to be promoted through them and then they get everybody on board and they get their people in office. And everybody's like oh I better make these World Economic Forum people happy because they invite me on excellent vacations in Switzerland. I love vacations in Switzerland and I get luxury accommodations and I get to meet all these other people and all I have to do is do what they want and then I get all these benefits.

Yeah, and the beauty of it is that because it's an organization they use the fact that they have members who are the members, the ones who are surfacing all the ideas. So the illusion is that there's some kind of quasi-democracy group decision-making. So it's not Klaus. Oh no no, it's not Klaus. He's just like the organizer guy. It's all these individuals who collectively... nothing like that's happening because somebody decided who's there and of course they know what that group of people is likely to say. That's why they got invited, right? They invited Al Gore. They didn't invite Alex Epstein or Michael Shellenberger. Did you see Michael Shellenberger anywhere at the World Economic Forum? Do you think he was invited? Do you? I don't think so. I don't think so. Nope, that he wasn't.

So the World Economic Forum acts just like an algorithm on a social media platform. But if that's invisible to you, you easily get fooled into thinking it's all the smart people who got together and then came up with smart ideas and then only the good smart ideas filtered up. And so you're seeing the best of the best. It's like the smartest, most connected people and all their best ideas. That's how it's presented, is it? No. It's probably Klaus or maybe a handful of people who decide what's in and who's in and that's it. It's just like an algorithm. So it is an algorithm that can control the world in those areas that they want to, which are primarily financial, which is really everything. If you control the finances of the world, what else do you need? You don't want to control their military, do you? Let's just work. You don't want to control who picks up the garbage, do you? That would just be work. No, you want to control the economy of everything and then you get your cut. You have your power. You have your influence. And basically the economy influences the military and everything else.

Well, apparently Greta has been caught faking a staged arrest. So we've seen the video as they're laughing and joking with the people who are allegedly going to drag her away and they're all putting on a show. I don't really mind that. It doesn't offend me because the whole point of activists getting arrested is for the cameras, right? So the fact that she's such a celebrity that even the people arresting her are just having a laugh with her and they're just preparing the camera angles so that when they drag her away it looks good. I don't have any problem with that. No problem at all. Do you? Because all activists are doing it for the theater. Nobody's pretending they're really going to jail for a long sentence or anything like that. So I don't know. As long as it's all theater, I don't care.

I saw Al Gore getting very worked up at the World Economic Forum and just shouting at the world about how they're not doing enough about climate change. Now whether or not he is right or wrong, a separate conversation and worthy of having. But here's my problem. As many have noted, he doesn't act the way he talks. In other words, he takes private jets and lives a lifestyle that uses a lot of energy. He would argue that he bought carbon offsets, by the way. Do you know that? I think he did. So I think he used some of his vast recent money to buy carbon offsets, which is not a problem. I'm actually going to give him a pass for that. Did you know that, by the way? I could use a fact check on that but I believe he was quite aware that he used more energy than the average person and I think he just went to whatever market there is and he bought.

Now the thinking behind that is that if you create a free market for buying and selling carbon offsets, that eventually that drives everything down to a more efficient, less carbon-producing world. And I think the logic of that makes sense. So in theory he is being consistent by doing what he says some people will have to do, which is buy carbon credits. And maybe that's the best you can do. But here's the problem. If Mahatma Gandhi had been fat, do you think he'd have been just as effective? Hey everybody, I'm really fat and happy but you know we should date the British. No. He had to starve himself literally near death to be credible. His credibility came with his suffering that was equal to or greater than the people who he represented. That's a problem persuasion-wise for Al Gore because he's clearly living a more awesome life than the people he's trying to get to give stuff up, right? If a rich person tells you to give up your stuff, you're not going to take that well. If somebody who's suffering more than you and has less of it, he basically lives in one dirty diaper, you're going to say all right, well if you can do that I can give up a little bit. You know, I can take on some risk to get rid of the British rule or something. So that's definitely working against Gore. Even though I think he's on a logically solid basis, people don't work on logic. It just looks like he's not walking the walk. So that'll be a problem.

Let's see what else. Are you all aware of the Stephen Crowder versus The Daily Wire controversy? I don't know if that's risen to your attention yet. So I'll give you... a lot of you not. So Stephen Crowder recently, I think I have the details right, recently out of his contract with The Blaze. And he always independently produced his show so he can just do his show with or without any other platform. But The Daily Wire, realizing that he was a superstar in their domain, made him an offer. And there was one element of the offer that he objected to and he talked about it on the air. He didn't name the entity that made it but everybody figured it out in about a minute.

So I was asked who was winning the persuasion because on one hand it was a very generous offer, 50 million dollars over four years. But he would have to do his own production so that 50 million would have to pay for his production costs as well. So let's say that takes 10 or 20 percent off of that. It's still a real big number. And then an option for two more years at the same per-year price. Now the part he objected to was there was some language in there that if he gets strikes or bans on other social platforms, let's say Facebook or Twitter or something, that they would pay him less money. So there would be penalties in there for getting banned on platforms. And he always gets banned on platforms. Like he's always getting strikes and stuff. So he thought that that was inappropriate or unfair or too much control. Too much control, right? Probably. But he thought that was sort of icky. And over 10 million per year after expenses probably.

And I'll tell you the most interesting part of the story. Well, so first of all here's my persuasion analysis. I thought they both won. You don't see that often. But I think The Daily Wire and Jeremy Boreing, who did a video about it, I thought he totally came off looking great because in the process of explaining the offer they made he also got to explain how substantial their operation is. And I wasn't fully aware of that. And I thought wow, that looks like a really... The Daily Wire as a business model and as a new business is really something to behold. I think they do everything right. Like just everything. It's one of the few companies you can look at and say all right, it looks like they just keep doing all the right stuff and they're growing and now they're going to make movies. And here's how they explain the movies they're going to make because they want to be a media entity not just a bunch of podcaster types. And the movies they make are movies you want to watch. Isn't it funny that that's like a real thing? That somebody saw an opening for making movies you'd want to watch.

Last night I tried to find a movie I wanted to watch. I ended up with a movie from like the early 90s that I had already seen. That's it. Like there wasn't any movie currently out that wouldn't make me uncomfortable, right? Because if you turn on any basically any movie it's going to be somebody tortured in a chair, somebody lost their money, somebody's loved one died. I don't get any entertainment from that. That's stuff I run from, right? But you don't see sitcoms and funny comedies anymore because that's sort of phased out. So the fact that The Daily Wire has a theory that they want to make movies you might want to watch, it's pretty interesting and it's also right on target. Right on target. And so