 My high-speed data pass, I spent $50 for 15 gigs of high-speed data for a month expires in two hours. So I wanted to use the final 6.5 gigs of my data pass. So here I go. So my father was like a guru. My father published books on all sorts of topics. He could come up with opinions on all sorts of topics. He had a big following that essentially paid for us, paid for our way of life. Now my father didn't take advantage of people financially or sexually or the way of which I'm aware. And he only paid himself a very modest salary. But he did offer thoughts on a very wide variety of issues. And of course he didn't have any expertise in many of the things that he was talking about. But my father was a terrific synthesizer. My father and I have some similar abilities. We're able to articulate complex matters in an easy to understand way. Now this other leads us to be glib and superficial and to try to come across as knowing far more than we actually do. But my father and I both read an enormous amount. And we have a reasonably good memory for some sharp observations that we read. And then when we offer them up from our reading it can come across as some people as though we know what we're talking about. My father did not do much original scholarship, if any. But he was a popularizer. He was a synthesizer. You could take other people's work and package it up so that you felt like you understand something. And I think some of those same abilities. Anyway, a lot of people who really enjoyed my father's preaching would consume more and more of it and read his books and get to know him. And then realize that, oh yeah, he's wrong about a lot of things. So I don't know about you, but I am particularly prone to idealizing and devaluing. So people come along who I don't know very well and I'll put them on a pedestal. Like Dennis Prager. It's like, oh man, this guy's got so many amazing insights. I want to be his devoted follower. And then as I keep listening and keep studying his work it's like, oh, there are a lot of shortcomings here, this is shallow. So because of my lies I tended to idealize people I don't know very well and devalue people who I do know really well because then I know their flaws. And so when you set yourself up as a guru, when you're essentially retailing your opinions for a living, which is essentially what my father did. My father would share his views, his opinions. Bro, still no sunshine. We've got blue skies out there, right? Let's have a look. Okay, but yeah, a lot of overcast temperatures. But there's some blue skies. It's not even 7am yet. I guess you're in the shade, yeah. So I think it rains more in the winter here than in the summer here than in the winter. And yes, it has been unusual weather for my first month in Sydney. I pretty much it rained every day, overcast every day. So yeah, more sunshine in Brisbane than Sydney, more sunshine in Sydney probably than Sydney. So yeah, a lot of overcast weather but very pleasant. It's about 72 degrees right now. 70 degrees. So when you retail your views for a living, which is what my father did. He set up a nonprofit foundation, Good News Unlimited, after he stopped being some of the Adventist religion professor. Yes, those are eucalyptus trees. This is the dog park and I'm sitting on the bench normally where this drunk guy sits. So there's a drunk guy here who sits and drinks and he has a dog and he acts like a drunk guy. But not threatening to anyone. So he's been going out of here for months and years. When you retail your views for a living, which I've never been able to do, right? The most, I think the highest peak I've reached is about one quarter of my expenses if I met through doing things like, oh, I did blog for a living, but that wasn't primarily opinion oriented, that was primarily news. But it does, to the extent that you can pull off something like that, it does give you an exaggerated sense of your own rectitude, your own value, your own rightness. Because you have to give people something also different than what they can read in the New York Times, right? If all I did was come on here and give you what was in the New York Times, then thanks mate. I've lost about five to eight pounds in Australia. I've been exercising a ton. Yeah, San Francisco has a lot of eucalyptus trees imported from Australia. So does Los Angeles. So does California in general. They're an invasive species. So just like you can import people who then outcompete the natives, so too you can import vegetation that outcompetes the natives. And so eucalyptus tends to outcompete other forms of life. So look underneath these eucalyptus trees. They're big in Israel too. So see, there aren't other forms of vegetation underneath the eucalyptus trees, generally speaking, because they emit some sort of compound that kills other forms of vegetation underneath them. And so they're very effective at outcompeting other types of vegetation and taking over. So you import eucalyptus trees and they will typically outcompete your native vegetation. And so different trees have different gifts, yes. So you can very much look at eucalyptus trees as an invasive species. So I don't like to give negative labels to groups. Let's just say, yes, that eucalyptus trees and say the native vegetation that they outcompete have different gifts. And if you don't interfere, then the eucalyptus trees will typically outcompete the native vegetation and they will suck up a tremendous amount of water. And they're also highly inflammable. They catch fire really easily. And so there can be a tremendous fire hazard. They just burn because they're filled with oil. And I know koala bears eat eucalyptus leaves, but not just any eucalyptus leaves. It has to be a particular type. But I can't imagine eating eucalyptus leaves because I have tried like boiling eucalyptus leaves in water. Yeah, Israel uses them to drain the swamps. So yeah, you've got to recognize that different forms of vegetation are different gifts. And some can be great for draining the swamp. But if you let them run wild, then they're going to outcompete the natives and they're going to create problems of their own. So they'll suck up tremendous amounts of water and they're a great threat if they go on fire. They burn and burn and burn because of all the oil that's in them. So I like the concept of invasive species. Some biologists have, what do you call people who specialize, say, in plants or trees? Some biologists have taken great exception to the term invasive species because they know that it can then be used on immigrants and people. Because you can import immigrants who then outcompete the natives at various things. They may be more effective than the natives at taking computer programming or they may have particularly high verbal IQ. They may take over a country's culture or they may be less scrupulous in getting welfare payments and manipulating the system. They may import immigrants who have a dual morality. Do burning eucalyptus trees smell nice? I'm not sure. Good question. But let's imagine you're a country that's overwhelmingly dominated by a universalist morality outlook meaning that it's not okay to treat outsiders any different than you treat insiders. So I'm not saying that non-European Protestants and the people I grew up with in Australia are saints. I'm just saying there was no notion that it was okay to treat outsiders any different than insiders in my Protestant upbringing. So I think this is an outlook pretty much unique to Northern Europeans whether they're Protestant or not. And so you can have societies that have created, developed, built by Northern Europeans who then import in people with a dual morality. I think it's okay to treat outsiders with much less regard with a much lower standard than you treat your own group. And so then that enables the immigrants to outcompete the native stock. So that's definitely a challenge. On the other hand, what can happen is that you can import immigrants who believe in practice dual morality but their children become assimilated to a universalist morality outlook. So that can happen as well. So as you import immigrants, their children often say Jewish immigrants or Muslim immigrants or East Asian immigrants, they will often assimilate to the universalist outlook. So what happens when you become a guru? So you become a guru by giving people stuff that they can't hear or read elsewhere. But then you have to keep delivering. You have to keep coming up with material that people couldn't get elsewhere. And so this leads almost inevitably to conspiracy thinking. So how do you keep up with the demand for unique views? How do you keep up with the demand? People are subscribing, like newsletters. Remember all those financial newsletters? Friends of mine used to subscribe to financial newsletters. They'd spent $100, $200 a year in the early, he who speaks does not know says earlier, he who knows does not speak. Sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not. So I knew a lot of people in the late 70s, early 80s who were subscribing to financial newsletters and spending hundreds of dollars a year. And they'd get these newsletters and say, oh yeah, this makes sense. And they felt like they were getting special information. They felt like they were getting the magic key for how reality works. And then over time they realized that there wasn't anything special about these newsletters that the newsletters were wrong as often as they were right and they simply weren't worth the hundreds of dollars a year. So yeah, think about people who spend money on investment newsletters and you get the newsletter and you really go, oh yeah, this seems to be how the world works. I get these insights now into inflation and the price of gold and the money supply and what interest rates are going to be doing and whether it's a good time to invest in real estate. But over time you realize that the economic newsletters are as wrong as much as the news that you can get for virtually free in the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times or the Wall Street Journal. So when you become a guru you have to keep providing people with special insights, unique insights. And that's really hard to do, particularly as you usually feel empowered to get outside of your areas of expertise. So think about who's the great linguist who is an icon to lefties. He's Jewish, he's anti-Israeli, not Chomsky. Brilliant linguist, but when he'd get out of his areas of expertise to comment on politics then he looked like a chump. So think about Scott Adams. So I first heard of Scott Adams in 2015 and he was one of the few public intellectuals who said that Donald Trump is a political powerhouse and is very likely to win the Republican nomination and has a good shot to become President of the United States. And here is why he communicates so effectively. The best description of Donald Trump's communication style I've heard is Trump is the parole whisperer. He has an ability to speak to the working class. And so in 2015, 2016, Scott Adams was that rare public intellectual explaining why Trump was so effective at persuading people he was a legitimate candidate. And so Scott Adams does have unique insights into persuasion. Like Scott Adams does have some top 1% gifts with regard to persuasion. And so he was among the first people to make the case for taking Donald Trump seriously and he was right. Now around 2018, I would occasionally listen to Scott Adams. I haven't listened to a lot of Scott Adams, probably less than a dozen hours in my life. But I'd listened to him on Trump's rhetoric, on Trump's communication skills, on Trump's persuasion abilities. And I said, wow, you know, Scott Adams has more insight than anybody who broadcasts on YouTube every day per minute. I would occasionally tune into Scott Adams and like, wow, there are all these perspectives on life that I had never thought of. And it's not often that I encounter someone who's giving me perspectives on politics and media that I had never thought of. Now, come 2020, I think Scott Adams would run out of gas, right? He did have some insights about persuasion. But when he got increasingly outside of his lane and now he's useless from what I've seen over the past 18 months, he's become useless. He's become a clown trying to make the case for voter fraud and for all sorts of dubious perspectives on the coronavirus. And so he got outside of his lane and he became useless. So now it's entirely possible that Scott Adams was not nearly as useful as I thought back in 2015, 2016, maybe even up to 2018. So maybe I've changed, maybe Scott Adams has changed. So I certainly don't hold that today that Scott Adams has more unique insight per minute than anyone else broadcasting on YouTube. But I did specify anyone else broadcasting every day. It's an incredible thing that Scott Adams does. I couldn't do it. He just sits up, talks to the camera and muses for about an hour or so every day. Some days I have a hard time getting five minutes worth. Some days I've got nothing. Often I've got notes that I rely on. Maybe Scott Adams uses notes too. But yeah, what he does is incredible, but there's a problem with what he does that doesn't really hold up. He's become a guru and then got outside of his lane and he's now worse than useless. All right, so I got an email here from a woman who had all sorts of negative things to say about Australia. When I first got here and I was praising how amazing Australia is, now she writes to me, I thank you for your videos that mention the high quality of life in Australia. I've meant trouble figuring out where I should live. I really do. It causes much pain and consternation. Your comments help. I wish I still had the innocence and openness you have in talking to strangers. I tend to be quite misanthropic and I see these strangers across as my mind that 70% of them are pro-abortion or insert other negative thoughts here. No, that's not a good way to be. I will probably be in Australia for the rest of my life and your appreciation of things I ignore about it is helpful. It is a solve to me. So I would much rather hear about the things I get right than things I get wrong. So when I was reminded today in chat about how I'd said that Scott Adams has more unique insights per minute than anyone else broadcasting daily on YouTube, I was like, ah, I did say that and that's not true anymore. So I really like hearing about things I got right. I remember I took three political science classes from Professor Larry White at Sierra Community College in the mid-1980s and I remember one day he said, ah, you were right, Mr. Ford, about Iran-Contra. So when Iran-Contra happened, I said it's going to be enormously, enormously damaging for President Ronald Reagan and Larry White said no, the Teflon president, nothing affects him. And yeah, it turned out that I was right that Iran-Contra was tremendously damaging to Ronald Reagan but this is not because I'm uniquely insightful and prescient and wise about politics. It's like I make a lot of predictions. I make a lot of comments and I tend to remember the ones that I was right. I remember I saw Flash Dance. I think on the first weekend that Flash Dance came out that 1983 movie and I immediately said, this is going to be a huge hit, huge hit because it was just so viscerally compelling and appealing. Not a great movie but a fun movie just viscerally compelling and so I remember that because I was right. But I don't want to remember things where I was wrong. So I'm really impressed by Steve Saylor. He's probably the only guru who consistently delivers of which I'm aware. He has useful things to say pretty much every day and that's an amazing trait and he doesn't get outside his lane and talk about things he doesn't know anything about or if he does he is appropriately humble. But the quality of Steve Saylor's comment section I feel has dropped dramatically. Like I used to think it was the best comment section on the internet. Now I don't know, there's no other comment section that I read on the internet. So I don't know if that's true anymore. But the people in it because they bought into the idea that the elites were wrong on immigration, they were right, that we've had way too much immigration in my opinion in the United States, in Europe, in Australia and New Zealand. So I believe the populace are right on that and the elites are wrong. And I also believe that the populace are right that we need more trade restriction rather than free trade and the elites are wrong in just pushing free trade and putting China as a most favored trading nation status obviously a big mistake. But sometimes the populace are right, sometimes the populace are wrong. The populace aren't always right. Just like I'm not always right. And the elites aren't always right. There's no group that's always right. So because the Steve Saylor comment section has a very negative view of the elites because of multiculturalism, because of political correctness, because of high rates of immigration that have not served us in first world industrialized nations. Much of the elite agenda has not served us. Then it becomes knee-jerk to go, oh, the elites are always wrong. If the elites recommend something, then it's probably wrong. But on coronavirus, I think by and large, by and large, elites have been a little more right than the populace. So it seems like much of Steve Saylor's comment section has brought into the great replacement theory. And whatever the merits of that theory, I don't like it because people are not being replaced. We just simply have high rates of immigration. We're not importing people and then exporting people. We're importing people and that's changing racial, religious demographics in industrialized nations. But it's not a replacement. It's a supplementation and a dilution of the majority of the population. So I don't find the great replacement useful. But for people who do, I notice it then often becomes a magic key. What happened to Native Americans were dispossessed. Native Americans died at a much higher rate than, say, majority Americans. Majority Americans are not dying at high rates due to immigration. They're not being killed at a high rate due to immigration. They're not dying of diseases at a high rate due to immigration. But yeah, Native Americans were dispossessed of their land. Dispossession. What happens when one group takes over from another whatever the cause? Great point. So Native Americans were dispossessed from their land. Now you could argue that majority Americans were being dispossessed from their land. That is much more accurate phrasing than the great replacement. So I like dispossession theory much more than great replacement. What happened to the Palestinians? Yeah, they got dispossessed from their land. Great point. They did get dispossessed. That was their land too. And I think in something like, I didn't realize this, in something like 1870, there were about 10 times as many Arabs on the land that is now Israel than Jews. So after about 1870 Jews poured in and they eventually attained about equal numbers with the Arabs right by the 1930s. That is how the world is. Let's not get hung up with semantics. Yes. Yes. People dispossess other people. That is how the world is. So I like dispossession theory. I like invasive species theory. I don't like the great replacement theory. I don't think the great replacement is useful. Now what I'm noticing though on the Steve Saylor's comment section is that the great replacement becomes the magic key for a lot of people. It's the prism through which they view life. So 98% of the comments, it seems like, on Steve Saylor's blog with regard to COVID, is that it's just another scam perpetrated by our elites and by politicians who want to replace us and want to do harm to us. And I just don't think that's a useful perspective on COVID. Like sometimes politicians have been wrong, sometimes medical and scientific and public health elites have been wrong, but the populace have been wrong too. So overall, our public health professionals, I think have done better than average. COVID is a separate issue. But what happens is people buy into the great replacement or they realize that they may come to the belief that the majority is being dispossessed. And then they apply that thinking to all sorts of issues where it doesn't really apply such as COVID. So I notice people become intoxicated with thinking that elites want to kill us. Elites want to dispossess us. Elites want to destroy our way of life. And while they may be right and the elite's wrong about certain key issues such as immigration, political correctness, affirmative action, et cetera, that analysis isn't always right because elites are right sometimes. And they have, by and large, been more right than wrong with regard to COVID. So elites took precautionary methods early on. What do you call it when one ethnic group replaces another in a particular job construction? Yeah, that's like dispossession. So in America, low-skill work has not effectively seen a wage increase since 1960. While it has seen wage increases in countries where you restrict immigration, such as Australia. So Australia is the best place in the world for an average bloke. But I challenge you, read Steve Saylor's comment section. It's become not helpful, not useful, not a good use of my time because people have so bought into the Great Replacement and so bought into the elites' haters and want us dead that this paranoia and conspiracy theory theorizing has just taken over the Steve Saylor comment section, which, in my mind, back in, say, 2016, 2015, prior to that, it was the best comment section on the web. Why not call it replacement? Black workers used to work construction, especially non-union, have been replaced by Hispanic workers. Yeah, but that's fine with regard to a particular sector. But it's not true, say, with regard to the United States. Now, white people have not been replaced by immigrants. So the white population in California has not really changed over the past 50 years. It's just been supplemented, and you could argue diluted, by increasing numbers of non-whites who've moved to California. So with regard to a particular type of job, you can say a dispossession, but you can't say with regard to the United States that the majority of the population has been replaced. It's been diluted. The white population is older. It's on its way out, make way for the young. Well, the white birth rate in America is about the same as the white birth rate. I think it's even better than the white birth rate in Europe. And I think it's even higher than the white birth rate in Japan and Korea. Ted Cruz grilling the FBI is gold. The FBI is looking very bad. Ted Cruz is a very smart guy. Chuck Schumer is very smart. So I think Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer are probably the two most intelligent senators. So to the extent that there is a magic key, it's domain-specific. There are useful insights such as hiring with regard to IQ or IQ predicts educational attainment for large numbers of people. IQ predicts income, length of life. So I'm not sure that Ted Cruz is so religious. I think he's a very smart politician who knows that that's the approach to take. So to the extent there are magic keys, it's domain-specific. It's not going to work across all domains. So COVID restrictions, not the elites trying to kill us. It's public health officials and politicians trying to do the best they can with a unique challenge. But I noticed that, like Steve Sealer's comment section, much of the alt-right has become anti-vax. Have I had any contact with the Sheelers of Australia? Yes. I went on a lovely walk with this beautiful, beautiful Australian woman who was interested in converting to Judaism. But overall, Australian women are not as assertive as American women. Yes, I'd love to be her guide. In America, I'd notice that women would often make the first move. So in America, men make the first move maybe 75% of the time. But in Australia, men have to make the first move 95% of the time. So I could walk around the beach all day and not one woman would begin a conversation. While in America, if I was walking around, it's much more likely that a woman will open. So women don't wear as much makeup here. Yeah, women really initiate with men, but more often they do in America. So I remember I came to America in 1977, sixth grade, and the most beautiful walk girl in the class, Cindy, she dropped a note on my desk asking, will you go with me? I asked me to be your boyfriend. That doesn't happen so often in Australia. So South Africa, I know, has moved to Sydney. He noticed in his trip to America that the women were much more aggressive, did you resingles event that they'd come to the table and start our conversation? That never happens to the likes of most men that women make the first move. So Americans are more enthusiastic. They're more emotional. They wear their feelings on their sleeve much more than Australians who are comparatively stoical. And Australians are much more laid back and laconic. So Americans talk more, much more louder and more assertive and more aggressive than Australians. I think the singer for Air Supply says, Australian women are as rough as bags. I don't think that's true, but they do wear less makeup than American women. So I've been thinking about what's the underlying tension that drives my addictions? This could be your empire. You could convert the whole continent, says Robert. So think about what's the underlying tension that drives your addictions? Because if you have desperate need for porn or for drugs or for alcohol or for romantic adventures or for using your credit card or for exposing yourself public, what's the underlying tension that drives that addiction? So for many people, I think, look for Grand Rabbi of the Southern Cross. I think for many people, the underlying tension is they don't feel seen. So I think that's for exhibitionists and flashers. They desperately want to feel seen. So a lot of people feel like if you fail there, you could always move to New Zealand. So I think a lot of people just don't feel seen. They don't have enough attention. So that's certainly been something that I've felt throughout my life. Just didn't feel like I had enough attention because somehow I probably didn't get it in those early years and then just developed a thirst for it. Like I got loneliness written into my neural circuits. So loneliness is not a matter of not spending enough time around other people. It's your neural circuits have wired in a way that you're alone, nobody cares about you. And so those neural circuits can be rewired, but it takes a lot of work. I'm just thinking about underlying, you know, our addictions is this tension that I want to live with. And so for many people that's not feeling that they're seen, not getting enough attention. And then I think a major, major, major source of underlying tension for me is I'm not happy with where my life is. Now, I think I've increasingly come to peace with my life over the past five years, but it's still there to some degree. And I think that's been a major driver of my tension wanting to get rid of the tension of, you know, unhappiness with the state of my life. I want to lose myself in the sexual or romantic obsession or attention seeking. You need a nice, age-appropriate woman. Thank you, Robert. So I remember in high school, I never once visited the high school counselor, and so I just tried to navigate classes on my own and I didn't do such a great job. So as a junior, I took freshman composition. Like as a junior, you know, I took some sophomore English literature class. Like I was way behind my peers in some areas, and I never, like it didn't take, select my classes in an intelligent, smart way. I, you know, I lack common sense compared to virtually all my friends. I am less competent at life compared to almost all my friends. I have less common sense. Like compared to almost all my friends, I am less, you know, financially positioned for retirement. I compared to virtually all my friends, you know, I am less ahead in life. So I was just trying to think, like, who among my friends are in a worse financial position than me or, you know, a bachelor's as well or just less competent at life and have a real hard time thinking of many friends who are less competent at life who have less common sense than I do. So I think I've gone through life not being very happy with my station, like feeling that, you know, I should be much farther ahead than where I'm at. I think this is the underlying tension that has driven many of my addictions, like not wanting to sit with that frustration. And so I still feel it today, right? I should, you know, I don't have much money save for retirement. I have about, like, a few thousand dollars save for retirement. Like I feel like I should have, you know, my retirement, I feel like my life's gotten really small in LA, particularly during COVID. I just kind of isolated. I didn't go to synagogue for many months for about a year due to COVID. I haven't been out exploring and taking advantage of all that LA is to offer. So I feel like, you know, my life has gotten smaller. So still some frustrations with the state of my life. People feel the same in New York or the good stuff got shut down. So I need to face clearly the things that I feel frustrated about with the state of my life and not let, you know, not let that drive my addictions. Tratt says, I just started my work 401K. I feel like I'm way behind in saving for retirement. Yeah. So probably most people who tune in, you know, similarly feel, you know, that they are way behind in the game of life. So facing that reality head on, getting clear about where I feel that I'm way behind in life, then making peace, that God can use, you know, where I'm at and can use my journey so that I can be of service to others. Or I can just forget God, just the reality of my journey. I can, you know, I can learn from my journey and I can be useful and helpful to others and therefore I can contribute and therefore I can feel connected to other people. And therefore I can be useful and it's not so awful. But what's your underlying, what's your underlying tension that drives your addictions? You know, I think I've gone through my life feeling behind in social skills. I entered school in second grade. I think my brother didn't enter school till fourth grade. My brother definitely felt way behind in academic and some other skills because he didn't enter school till he was age eight. My father thought, you know, sister Ellen Wyatt was right. You shouldn't send kids to school very early that they should just muck around. So I think studying school in second grade put me a bit behind the ball socially and just general competence. So I think a lot of kids who start school late, you know, kind of experience the same thing. Not all, you know, some kids start school late and catch up on their social skills and academic skills very quickly. So this is something else I've been noticing over the past year or so when I get frustrated, I'm just throwing out the F bomb. So is underlying that my frustration in life? Like, you know, that I'm not where I should be, therefore it's like F this, F that. What the F? These are among the most common things I say. So I did some research on that and I found that there's all sorts of social science guys that using profanity is very helpful. It releases your emotions. So you don't feel stuck. So there's academic research that appropriately dropping F bombs, so you don't want to get fired from it, you don't want to offend people. But when you appropriately drop an F bomb, usually I drop F bombs when I stub my toe, when I'm frustrated, when something doesn't go the way I think it should. Now I was worried that emotions should be bottled up where they can be harnessed for useful work. On the other hand, some emotions are either way at you. So lots of social science saying that, dropping F bombs when you're frustrated, when you have a setback, could be a good thing. If you use that language, it sometimes slips out in wrong places. Yeah, that's true. So I was kind of concerned with all my F bombs that I've gotten in a bad place spiritually. Like I made a mental note to talk to a spiritual advisor of mine about why am I always dropping these F bombs? I'm not dropping them on YouTube, right? I don't swear very much in my public performance and in public life I don't swear very much. But on my own, it's like, when I get frustrated and just dropping a lot of F bombs. So I was concerned maybe something was wrong so yesterday I googled it. Real-hour females swear as they choose. So yesterday I googled it. I tried to figure out, was there something wrong with me? So another thing I'm realizing from my trip to Australia, but I also have plenty of reason to know it in America, is there's no connection between how people sound and how they're doing in life. I got friends who are like, mopey, depressed, unenthused, need to claim your piece of the Aussie pie. And yet they're doing really well in life. They're set up for retirement, they own a home, they're married, they've got kids, they've got stable work. So I'm just thinking about all the people I know who are mopey and thinking that they're doing life wrong and they're really well set up. So also other people can sound like they know what they're talking about. I can sound like I know what I'm talking about, but parts of my life are a train wreck. So absolutely no connection between how people sound. Like I make a great first impression, but I mean I've connected with a lot of women, you know, gone out on a lot of first dates with women who thought I was amazing, then they got to know me. They weren't so impressed. Or moved to LA and live under a freeway. So yeah, no connection between how people sound and their actual competence at life. Alright, interesting story here in the free beacon. I've noticed this quite a bit with regard to the vaccines. Like the CDC put out guidance initially that vaccines should be distributed on a racial basis, that non-whites essentially should get preference over whites. The young should get preference over the old, even though the old are much more vulnerable to COVID. Now free beacon, food and drug administration guidance drives racial rationing of COVID drugs. So in New York, racial minorities are automatically eligible for scarce COVID-19 therapeutics, regardless of age or condition. I have not moved back to Australia for good. I am still thinking about it. So I may move here to Sydney or I may return to LA. So in YouTube, in Utah, Latinx ethnicity counts for more points than congestive heart failure in patients COVID-19 risk score. This is the state's framework for allocating monoclonal antibodies. And in Minnesota, health officials have devised their own ethical framework that prioritizes 18-year-olds, black 18-year-olds over white 64-year-olds, even though they latter at much higher risk of severe disease. Yeah, so we do have a government that is racially discriminating. And I don't know why the majority of the population would be thrilled with this. These schemes have sparked widespread condemnation of the state governments implementing them. But the idea to use race to determine drug eligibility was not hatched in local health departments, came directly from the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Like even under Trump, like under the Trump administration, you had these government agencies that wanted to racially discriminate with regard to health care. When the FDA issued its emergency use authorization for monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals, it authorized them only for high-risk patients, issued guidance on what factors put patients at risk. One of those factors was race. So the FDA fact sheet for one highly effective monoclonal antibody, which is effective against the Omicron variant, states that race and ethnicity can place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID. The fact sheet for Paxlovid, that's Pfizer's new antiviral pill, uses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definition of high risk, which states that systemic health and social inequities have put minorities at increased risk of getting sick and dying. So these guidance sheets are non-biting, do not require clinicians to racially allocate the drugs. States have nonetheless relied on them to justify race-based triage. So this is going to lead to a backlash. The majority is not going to be happy about this. So this is what Minnesota's plan reads. The FDA has acknowledged that in addition to certain underlying health factors, race may place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID. Well, that's true. Not everyone, not every group, takes equal number of precautions. Not every group has equal amounts of health. Not every group lives an equal amount of time. But race-based triage, are people going to be cool with this? FDA's acknowledgment means that race and ethnicity alone, apart from underlying health conditions, may be considered in determining eligibility for monoclonal antibodies. And Utah's plan contains the same language. So these triage plans, they're part of a broader push to rectify racial health disparities through race-conscious means. Well, why would there not be racial health disparities? Obviously some groups are much more cautious than other groups. East Asians have been wearing masks to deal with influencers for years and years and years. I'd walk around LA and I'd see Japanese or Chinese Americans wearing masks if they had the flu. So there's a cliche about Asian drivers that they drive much more carefully. So you would think that a group such as East Asians who drive carefully, much more cautious in all their decision-making, have very low rates of sexually transmitted diseases compared to whites and Latinos and blacks, but you would expect them to live longer. So therefore we're going to change the health system. Health care plays a very small role. Health care probably only accounts for about 1% of our lifespan. Well, if you include vaccines, vaccines definitely help. But going to the doctor to get treated, that doesn't usually make much of a difference to your health care outcomes. It's things that have changed our lifespan in the last 120 years, including vaccines, but it's mainly improved sanitation. So the triage plans are part of a broader push to rectify racial health disparities through race-conscious means, a health care system that creates these racial health disparities. In March of last year, two doctors at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston outlined an anti-racist agenda for medicine and involved offering preferential care based on race. Vermont and New Hampshire last year both gave racial minorities priority access to the COVID-19 vaccine. So former civil rights director of the Department of Health and Human Services, DHS Roger Severino, gave the preferences in medicine a corrosive and grossly unfair practice. So these racial triage plans show how federal guidelines encourage this racial discrimination. So the FDA is making political judgments, not just scientific ones. They're injecting politics into science. And the FDA has got double standards between race and sex. Men in the United States have proven to be about 60% actually than women to die from COVID. And within some age brackets, the mortality gap is even larger. But the FDA does not list sex as a risk factor anywhere in its guidance. The FDA does not give any weight to geography and socioeconomic status, both of which are associated with COVID-19 mortality. So these triage plans give more weight to races than to many co-morbidities. So being a person of color is worth two points, where hypertension in a patient 55 years in order is worth just one point. So in Utah's scoring system, non-white race or Hispanic Latin ethnicity is worth two points, the same amount as diabetes, obesity, and severely immunocompromised, while hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic pulmonary disease, shortness of breath, count for just one point each. How is there not going to be a backlash to this? Now on the other hand, I don't think we should take the conspiracist attitude that the elites want to kill us. This isn't going to have a huge effect on your health outcome. It'll be the rare person who's going to be killed by this policy. So most people are not going to be affected by this in a substantial way. So I don't think people should go for conspiratorial elites want to kill us, see what they're doing. So various lawyers say that these racial prioritization schemes amount to illegal racial discrimination. And there aren't many countries that use race as a medical criterion. This is pretty much new. This is pretty much unique to the United States. They don't use race generally speaking as a medical criterion in Australia, but they have tried to do things to prioritize indigenous Australians in medical care, in jobs. And in Brazil, I noticed that certain jobs, certain pathways to high-paying jobs are open only to black people. I noticed that a billionaire started that scheme in Brazil. But by and large, racial triage largely unique to the United States. Not many other countries operate this way.