heir number one priority.

So anyway, you might know somebody who predicted that if DEI became a top priority with nothing to do with anybody's genes or culture or gender or anything like that, it is a system which on paper should destroy the country. In other words if you look at it like a machine you say all right, suppose the country is a machine and it has these various moving parts. What would happen if you threw a bunch of gravel into it? Well if you're not an idiot you'd know that putting gravel into a machine is a really bad idea.

So in this case the gravel they're throwing in their FEMA machine is DEI. I love the idea of having our big organizations represent the actual public. I love that. I do think that our big important industries and governments should, as you know in an ideal world, should represent the people who live here, should look a little bit like the public. But if you force it, it's gravel in the machine and there's just no way around that. So we should predictably see a failure in all of our major institutions and we should see the failure happening first in the government because the government is pushing the hardest and been doing it the longest.

So sure enough FEMA's getting a lot of bad attention. By the way I don't know that FEMA's doing a bad job. I'm just saying that the critics are saying that. I feel like FEMA's one of those agencies that will never seem like it's doing enough because if you're in an emergency, if you're the person who's in the emergency, you never really think they're doing enough. So I'm not entirely sure they're failing but the criticisms are out there.

Well it turns out that there's a proposed lawsuit against the Secret Service because of their DEI goals. Apparently they were trying to reach 30% female workforce. There is allegedly a nonprofit that's defending women's issues. So it's a weird entity to be doing this. But some nonprofit is going to sue the Secret Service for what it alleges is quote "arbitrary diversity, equality and inclusion that harms female employees." Why does that harm female employees? So it sounds like some right-leaning entity is trying to do the best they can but make it look a little confusing for their own influence reasons.

So whether or not this lawsuit is effective we don't know. But we do know that there are criticisms of the Secret Service especially their handling of the Trump situations. And some have said that DEI is directly responsible for that incompetence. We don't know that for sure. But on paper if you took the Secret Service and you thought of it as a machine and then you said to yourself I wonder what would happen if I threw a bunch of gravel into this machine called the Secret Service, what do you think I'm going to say next? It's exactly what it should be. These are the most predictable outcomes in the world.

If the DEI stuff had nothing to do with the failure of the Trump protection, which is possible in the same way that FEMA might be operating really well, you know, and maybe the critics are going overboard. Don't know. But I can tell you that whether or not these are real failures caused by DEI, the system as it's designed is throwing gravel into the machines and there's no way it can't destroy them. Whether it's happened yet, that's still a question.

Meanwhile Kamala Harris says she wants to appoint the first woman to run the Pentagon. What do you think I'm going to say about that? Yes, she wants to bring DEI to the Pentagon. Not only is she the DEI candidate because she is — let's face it, Kamala Harris would not be the candidate if she were not a person of color and a woman. We all know that. And so she's the DEI commander-in-chief who is committed to use DEI to staff the military at the top.

So what do you think I'm going to say about the machine that's the military and throwing some gravel in the machine? It's going to do exactly what you think it's going to do. But on top of that there's something that's very different about the military compared to everything else and I need to say this as often as possible because if you don't understand this we're all dead. Like actually dead. Dead. You know, not hyperbole dead but the dead kind where you're not breathing.

It goes like this. Discrimination is immoral and unethical and unwise and it's not good for you in almost any domain you could think of. So if it's employment discrimination, don't do it. Bad for you, bad for them, bad for society. If it's in your personal relationships, don't be a fool. You should at least be open to any group having the love of your life come out of it. If you're choosing friends, it's hard to have friends at all if you can find any kind of friends. Don't close yourself off because of race and gender and stuff like that.

So for most of the things that are the common things that people do in the world, discrimination should be drummed out of it and we should be trained not to be thinking like that. And it's not good for anybody in most of those domains. There is however one exception: self-defense. Self-defense doesn't have any discrimination variable. If you're trying to protect yourself you can discriminate as much as you want. The only requirement is whatever is in your own head. Nobody can tell you that's immoral. Nobody can tell you it's unethical. Nobody can tell you it's inappropriate. You're just looking for what works because if you don't find what works you're dead. That's what self-defense is.

So if you're going to discriminate in self-defense all that matters is did you do a good job of it? Did you discriminate well? For example, wouldn't it be great if people who have physical disabilities are not completely barred from the workplace? Yeah that's probably good because a lot of people have disabilities, all kinds. So making some accommodations for our citizens in the workplace, it definitely has a cost. I know why people complain about it. When I owned a small business I didn't like building a ramp and having all these wheelchair things that literally nobody ever used. But I also appreciate it. I know where it's coming from. I don't mind that expense. To me that seems like where we want to be as a people. You know, not letting people go because they got a bad leg or something, right?

But when it comes to protecting yourself you can discriminate all you want and I don't think that women should be in charge of defense because I don't think they're good at it. Now there could be exceptions. There could be a specific exception that I'd say okay, all right, Tulsi Gabbard. She's been in the military. I've heard her talk. Okay you can be commander-in-chief. Fine. And you could come up with 10 more names pretty easily where you'd say okay yeah that one individual definitely should be commander-in-chief. But if you're starting with they should be female you're into the DEI sort of situation.

Now I'm no expert on the military but are there any women who have been in serious combat, extended combat, who would also be qualified to be leading military groups? Because I feel like you need to have been really, really in the thick of war to be a good general 'cause you need to know what doesn't work as well as what works from the ground up. So I think men should be in charge of the military because we're biologically suited for it. I think women should take the lead on what the abortion laws are. And while men certainly retain all their rights and certainly have a say about spending money, the laws themselves are better suited for women to figure it out just because it keeps the country together. At least if women are on the same side of abortion. And by the way women and men don't have that much different opinion on the topic. It's more like Republican versus Democrat. So if you let the women work it out and just tell the men what they figured out and then we just go with it, that would be the equivalent sort of the balancing for women. I'm asking can you let the men do the defense? You're really going to be better off.

Now I'm not saying that every man who could be a general would do a better job than every woman who could be a general. That's obviously not true. But don't push it, right? Let it happen naturally. You know if a Tulsi Gabbard gets the nomination for president someday then you'd say would she specifically be a good commander-in-chief? Probably yes. Probably yes. But don't just push it and say we got to get a woman in there heading the military. That's gravel in the machine.

All right. California, according to Politico, passed the law to prevent the local governments from requiring ID for voting. That's because there was one place in California, Huntington Beach, that wanted to require people to show photo ID at the polling places to vote. And Governor Newsom said no. There's one thing we don't want in this state is knowing that people who voted are allowed to vote.

Now can you come up with a second reason why this would be the law in California? What's the second reason? Or a reason. Give me a reason. If you ask them they'll say well we don't want to discourage people from voting and it would be disenfranchising some people. And are those even real reasons? They don't even sound like real reasons. It doesn't even sound like somebody's trying to do a good job of lying to you. To me this is completely transparent. We plan to cheat. Here's how we plan to do it. We plan to have a bunch of people who can't vote, who are not citizens. We plan to have them vote anyway and then we're going to make sure it's too late to reverse it. It's right in front of you. There's not the slightest doubt what the plan is. It's right there right in front of you.

Apparently there are 14 states that do not require voter ID at the polls. Let me guess. Let's see. 14 states. Well we know one is California. Let's see I wonder what kind of states. Florida? No Florida they require ID. See what other states. So Texas? No Texas of course would require ID. Oh it's all the Democrat states. Yeah all the blue states. Except one. Illinois somebody's saying. Now I don't know if it's all the blue states. It's 14 so there might be one that's not blue. But clearly the reason for it is fraud. It's not like there's a second reason for this. There is no second reason. It's just fraud. It's just fraud and it's right in front of you.

Anyway, so Trump said again — Breitbart News is reporting that he vows to prosecute Google at the maximum levels for election interference. Now election interference in this context is that they've allegedly rigged the search results so it says more good things about Harris toward the top and it's harder to find good things about Trump. Now is it true? Of course it is. Yes it's very true. It's 100% true. It is election interference. It is illegal. I think — I'm no lawyer but to me it looks like election interference and it looks intentional and it looks like it's transparent. It looks like management has said it directly. You know if you've seen the videos of the Google leaders all being sad when Trump won the first time and vowing it wouldn't happen again, well what do you think that means? Of course it means that it's rigged. Of course it does.

Now here's what's smart about Trump threatening them. When a Google employee, whoever it is, makes a change to the algorithm and they know it's making a change that's negative for Trump, what do you think they think about that today? Probably not much of anything. It's like oh yeah let's just tweak this. It's bad for that bad Trump guy. It's good for Harris. Little tweak. Go back to work.

Here's what they should be thinking: If I change that am I going to go to jail? That's what they should be thinking. They should be thinking if I change this code just a little bit will I go to jail? They should be thinking that because the things they're doing are just horrifically undemocratic and yeah they should go to jail. They should absolutely be in jail. So if they're not thinking about that when they tweak something they need to start. They need to start thinking what jail is going to be like. You should picture it. I'm sitting there in jail and I'm sitting there in jail and I'm still sitting there in jail because there's not much to do in jail except get abused I guess. So very good messaging.

So the longshoremen are going to strike I think that's tonight or something. And I don't know what they're asking for but they better worry about robots because if I were a shipping company I'd certainly be looking at robots to do my longshoreman work eventually. So they got that to worry about. So I can see why they'd want to organize. They've got a lot of reasons to do that.

I'm going to give you the most contrarian view you've ever heard. You ready? This strike, which allegedly will be a big problem for the supply chain, it will involve some kinds of foods, maybe fruits coming from outside the country. It won't starve us. You know we're not going to run out of food but maybe some specific kinds of foods and then materials that we need for products etc. So it's going to be really really inconvenient and we're not going to like it.

Here's the contrarian take. Our supply routes and supply chains we learned during the pandemic were woefully terrible and we didn't really have backups and secondary ways to do things. But we created a bunch because we had to. When the supply chains got broken people quickly compensated. I think we need to break the supply chains a few more times because if we don't break them in like serious ways they'll never be