good laser beam defense system, it would look like Babylon 5. What were the shadows? Was that the name of the aliens that had these laser beams out of their ships? If you've never seen Babylon 5, you don't know what I'm talking about. But it seems to me that one good laser defense system could take out an awful lot of drones and missiles over time. Maybe version 1.0 is not the be all end all, but assuming some rate of progress of improving the laser beams, maybe the advantage will go back to the ground and maybe the drones won't have as much advantage, but then the drones will get better. So we'll see.

I saw a post by Mike Cernovich today. He said that focusing on Islam hides the real problems. He said, "NGOs who steal our money to bring in low IQ people who can't function in the US." And he says about IQ, that's what you're not supposed to notice, IQ and civilization. I've made a similar point over time, which is if we can't treat IQ like it really matters, how could we really survive? Because IQ is probably among the top variables that you should consider with not just immigration but hiring almost anything. IQ should be like right at the top of things that will predictably make a difference. And it feels to me that even though Trump is provocative when he talks about Tim Walz being, I feel like we may be entering a point where you can talk about IQ without being called a racist because you know that's what's going to happen, right? So we might be on the verge of something good if we just can talk about it. Can you just let us talk about it without getting cancelled? You don't have to agree with us, us being whoever would have the same opinion as me and in this case Mike Cernovich, but you don't have to agree with us, but can we even talk about it because it seems pretty darn important to me that the smarter the people you bring in, the better your country is going to be. So maybe we're seeing a little bit of movement in that direction.

Let me just skip that story.

Oh, also Elon Musk was asked in the podcast I was talking about earlier about simulation theory and he went on and explained his view that statistically speaking we're more likely a simulation than not. And of course a lot of people don't agree with that and you probably know that I believe that we're a simulation and I like being on the same side as Elon Musk because it's sort of a philosophy slash logic slash IQ question.

And here's what I realized. You can't really have a debate about simulation with someone who is religious. Not because they're wrong. And I have to say this really carefully. I'm not religious. So when I look at it, I'm just looking at how do I calculate the odds of this versus the odds of that? But I'm unencumbered by a religious starting place. But and I also remind you that I'm very pro-religion. I just don't happen to be a believer. I think that the people who are believers have a clear advantage in life. It's a lifestyle hack. I think it makes you and your family more successful. So I'm very pro Christianity. Very pro. I just can't get there with my own belief system.

So my take is if you argue the simulation, the idea that we're literally programmed by some other entity, that you can't have that conversation really with a believer because the believer has to start with a conclusion and then reason backwards because nothing's going to talk you out of believing in your God. Like that's not going to happen because somebody said, "Well, what about the simulation?" You're not going to abandon your religion. So if you're already starting with the end point, there is a God. God made us. There's nowhere to go on that. And that'