us in a permanent state of war because it's good for Israel. Sachs also says that the Houthis are no big threat to the United States, and if we just ignore them because there's not much US shipping that goes through there anyway, which surprised me. I think I need a fact check on that. But how many of you agree with him that we're in a permanent war that can never be solved, meaning that you can never solve the Palestinian issue? And if we're being wagged by Israel, then we'll just be in permanent war. I worry that Trump has gotten himself into at least two permanent wars because one of the main things we liked about Trump is that he wouldn't be in war and he would end the ones we have. But I don't see him getting out of the Middle East, and I don't see Ukraine wanting to end the war. I think Ukraine wants to continue. And maybe Russia does a little bit too. So Trump's really got his work cut out for him.

Now my own opinion is—I've told you before—my own opinion is that when countries pursue their own best interest and they have the power to do it, of course they're going to do it. So if the Palestinians had all the power, it would be really, really bad for Israel. Right now Israel has most of the power and the Palestinians don't like it at all. But there's no way that you solve that because they can't both have all the power. It's going to be somebody has the power. So it's pretty much a win-lose situation over there. Unsolvable in my opinion.

So I saw Zion Lights had a post about how France's power grid last year was 95% fossil-free, and most of that was thanks to nuclear power. But they had a big surge in solar as well. And so the context was it was sort of France is sort of the winner. You know, they're the smart ones because they got rid of their fossil fuels and they still powered their nation, and they're great on nuclear. So it looks like they're just the big smart winners and we just look like the dumb ones now, right?

And then I went to Perplexity AI and I said who pays more for electricity, France or the US? Turns out France. So the cost of electricity—if you adjust for different currencies and whatnot—the cost of electricity in France is higher than in the US. So who's the winner? Is France the winner because they got all this nuclear power before we did? Because that's impressive. I do give them a lot of credit for being so successfully nuclear. But if our energy costs less than in France, and most of the CO2—if that's what you're worried about—if most of the CO2 is still coming out in China and India, did it make any difference whatsoever that France had all these green sources of energy? And the answer is I don't know. To me it looks like they didn't win. Winning would be they pay less for electricity and they've done what they can to save the world. But you know, they can't do everything, but at least their own electricity doesn't cost much. Now if they were paying less for electricity than the United States—and by the way I'll take a fact check on this because I got it from Perplexity AI and we shouldn't fully trust the AIs to be accurate yet—I'd say the US is the winner. Right, because the CO2 in the world in general would be the same no matter what either the US or France did. Because again, China and India are the big CO2 producers. All that really matters is what's the cost of power. And if ours is cheaper, we won.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have to say today. Thanks for joining. Went a little bit long today, but that's because it was extra awesome. I'm going to say some words to the Locals people privately. The rest of you, thanks for joining, and I'll see you on Rumble and X and YouTube tomorrow, same time, same place. Locals, I'm coming at you privately in 30 seconds.