Yep 👇
Immigration policy must be driven by the present, not the past, and business leaders are too terrified of the left AND the right to acknowledge this.
Recent H1B discourse revolves around a longstanding immigration sleight-of-hand. H1B proponents point to exceptional people who came here decades ago as if they represent the current state of the program in the same way that advocates for low-skill/illegal immigration point to very favorable immigrant crime/welfare/education/etc statistics that do, in truth, have them beating native-born Americans on many fronts.
It is all a sham. The world that created those statistics, people, and businesses no longer exists. Brilliant but desperate Vietnamese fathers who fled communism have nothing in common with young men from Honduras, and the crime rates/economic acccomplishments/integration of the former should not be used to justify mass migration of the latter.
Nor should the accomplishments of people who managed to get an H1B visa in the 90s (when the program was capped to just 65,000 visas) be used to justify staffing agencies and tech companies using the program to replace American jobs for less money. The obvious abuse going on is politically suicidal and something that even the most ardent supporters of the visa should want to crack down on, no immigration program can possibly survive the obvious and widely known reality of what is going on. I am a longtime outspoken advocate for stealing the best people from other countries to make our own better, runaway abuse of existing programs robs the government of the worker trust required to do so.
Lots of people in the tech space know this. Even the dumb people are smart enough to see it. Nobody actually believes these are all incredible people with unique talents performing jobs no American can. Everyone knows the guy in Cubicle Bay 7 doing mediocre but functional web design for half the salary of his American peers is no savant and doesn't meet the statutory requirements for his H-1B visa.
Unfortunately, most people with power or profile are terrified that any public statement or acknowledgement will get them attacked by the right (You guys have been screwing over American workers for years with visa abuse, you damn hypocrite!) or the left (You are racist, sexist, misogynist, and sucking up to this fascist administration!). Or, more likely, both. I know too many tech execs in particular who feel trapped, like the only winning move is to stay silent.
JD is blowing the whole thing wide open by putting facts and stats front and center that nobody wants to engage with. Critics will talk about anything and everything else but these damning facts and this obvious truth, that H1B visas serve neither their original purpose, legal purpose, invented purpose, or the American people.
I will say what no other politician will say: young men, I will be your champion.
Whether you are a coder, a roughneck, a banker, or a trucker, if you are a young man, I want you to have a fulfilling career that not only provides the necessities, but empowers you to prosper.
Peter Perri III retweeted
In 1957, a Russian immigrant published a novel of more than a thousand pages built around one question: what happens if the people who make the world run simply stop?
Its title is Atlas Shrugged. In France it's called La Grève, The Strike. It wasn't even translated into French until 2011. That tells you something.
This morning, I think Elon Musk wrote the sequel.
A. Where the book comes from.
Ayn Rand was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Saint Petersburg in 1905. As a teenager, she watched Bolshevik soldiers walk into her father's pharmacy and seize it in the name of the people. Her family lost everything. Not to a competitor. To a committee.
She fled to America in 1926 and spent the rest of her life writing about one distinction: those who create, and those who seize.
B. The story.
In Atlas Shrugged, America is sliding into decline. Not because of war. Because of rules. Year after year, a growing class of bureaucrats, regulators and planners decides that production must be controlled, shared "fairly," frozen. They never build anything. They issue directives. The worst one freezes every worker in his job and forces every inventor to hand over his patents for the public good.
And one by one, the people who make the country run start disappearing. The best engineers. The industrialists. The inventors. An oil man sets his own wells on fire before vanishing. The whole country keeps repeating a question it doesn't understand: "Who is John Galt?"
John Galt is the man behind the disappearances. He has convinced the creators to go on strike. They withdraw to a hidden valley in the Colorado mountains, where everyone keeps what they make and trades freely. And they let the world find out what it looks like without them.
The lights go out in New York. The grey men are left alone with their directives, and discover that a directive has never produced a single kilowatt.
C. The core idea.
The strike isn't about money. It's about consent.
Rand's insight is that the system that captures the creators runs on their cooperation. It needs them to keep producing so it has something to redistribute. The bureaucrat is a parasite who needs a host. Remove the host, and he's exposed as what he always was: useless.
D. What Musk just did.
This morning, Musk announced that next year he will give one of his own SpaceX shares to every kid in America. "The first of many."
Here's what's fascinating. It's the strike, run in reverse.
Rand's creators withdrew. Musk stays. He keeps building rockets, satellites, AI. But instead of walking away from the system, he walks around it. The value goes straight from the builder to the citizen. No ministry, no agency, no committee in the middle.
Rand had to make the creators disappear to prove the bureaucrats were useless. Musk doesn't need to disappear. He just needs to stop routing value through them. Same result. The grey men are left standing in the middle of a pipe nobody uses anymore.
E. The difference that changes everything.
Rand's strike has a flaw her critics never stopped pointing out: ordinary people are left behind. The creators retreat to their valley. The rest of the country sits in the dark.
Musk's version fixes that. He isn't taking the creators out of the world. He's bringing the world into the valley. Every kid in America becomes a shareholder in the machine. Not a spectator of the strike. A participant.
That's the alliance being formed right now: builders and citizens, directly, with nothing in between. And the only people who lose that deal are the ones who never built anything.
F. Why now, and not in 1957.
In Rand's time, the strike was a fantasy. You couldn't produce at scale without the state's permission, and you couldn't reach every citizen without its pipes.
In 2026, one founder can build rockets, run a global network from orbit, and pledge equity to 73 million children in a single post. AI will soon do in seconds what a ministry does in years. The tools of the strike finally exist. And they don't require anyone to leave.
G. The ending.
For seventy years, "Who is John Galt?" was a shrug. A way of saying nothing can be done.
In the book, the strike ends when the creators decide the road is clear and walk back into the world to rebuild it.
That's the scene we're watching. Not a man leaving. A man coming back, with a gift for every child.
The grey men are about to discover what Rand promised them seventy years ago: a world that no longer needs them.
I don't know if you realize what just happened.
Elon Musk is completely bypassing the State.
For 100 years, we've been told the problem is capital. That it must be captured, taxed, redistributed. With an army of intermediaries standing between those who create wealth and the people: ministries, agencies, commissions, bureaucrats.
Musk is doing the opposite. He's taking his capital and giving it directly to the people. One SpaceX share to every kid in America. Not a handout. Not a subsidy. A piece of the machine that's taking humanity to Mars.
And he says it himself: this is the first of many.
Mises understood this back in 1944: the bureaucrat creates nothing. He administers what others created, following rules that have no connection to the value produced. The day value flows directly from the one who creates it to the one who receives it, the bureaucrat has no function left.
That's what's being born right now. A new liberal world order, where the very concept of the State will make less and less sense.
The world we're entering is a world of abundance. AI, robots, energy, space. And that abundance won't come through the State, for one simple reason: we have a century of proof that it doesn't work.
Redistribution was version 1.0. Direct distribution of capital is 2.0.
While France is still debating how to tax builders even more, America is handing stock to its kids.
Pick your side.
Peter Perri III retweeted
I don't know if you realize what just happened.
Elon Musk is completely bypassing the State.
For 100 years, we've been told the problem is capital. That it must be captured, taxed, redistributed. With an army of intermediaries standing between those who create wealth and the people: ministries, agencies, commissions, bureaucrats.
Musk is doing the opposite. He's taking his capital and giving it directly to the people. One SpaceX share to every kid in America. Not a handout. Not a subsidy. A piece of the machine that's taking humanity to Mars.
And he says it himself: this is the first of many.
Mises understood this back in 1944: the bureaucrat creates nothing. He administers what others created, following rules that have no connection to the value produced. The day value flows directly from the one who creates it to the one who receives it, the bureaucrat has no function left.
That's what's being born right now. A new liberal world order, where the very concept of the State will make less and less sense.
The world we're entering is a world of abundance. AI, robots, energy, space. And that abundance won't come through the State, for one simple reason: we have a century of proof that it doesn't work.
Redistribution was version 1.0. Direct distribution of capital is 2.0.
While France is still debating how to tax builders even more, America is handing stock to its kids.
Pick your side.
Food for thought 👇
Poland is having ZERO riots like France because they didn’t allow mass migration
A man took a vacation to Poland. He is completely shocked by what he witnesses
“I just arrived in Poland — I lived abroad for last 23 years — there are only Caucasian people here — it's so f*cking clean over here. I didn't even see one time a homeless person”
He says he’s used to countries with a high level of diversity, of different races, is is just shocked to see how clean and peaceful Poland is with only white people
Poland looks like this because Poland rejected mass migration
This is what a country is supposed to be. You’re supposed to go that country and see the people from that country, the native people. Not an invasion of foreigners
True 👇
Palmer Luckey says companies are exaggerating the cost of American manufacturing to justify staying in China: “They don’t want to admit that it is a choice.” 🇺🇸🇨🇳
“I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who pretend that manufacturing in the U.S. is this impossible, order-of-magnitude problem. A lot of it is very self-serving.
They want to justify why they’re in China. They want to justify why it’s OK for them to stay in China. They know that when sanctions hit as a result of a potential Taiwan conflict, they want to say, ‘Nobody could’ve predicted this, and I had no choice anyway.’
They don’t want to admit that it is a choice.
If Chinese subsidized steel is a third of the price of American unsubsidized steel, a tariff isn’t going to work. But if the price difference really is 30%, then a tariff could bring the American steel industry back.
It’s critically important to get this question right, and there aren’t enough people talking about it.”
People are saying...
Je ne veux plus fréquenter les gens qui disent « À quoi ça sert ? ».
J’ai 50 piges sur mon passeport, 12 ans dans ma tête (et 18 ans dans mon slip, dirait ma femme).
Et je compte bien que ça dure.
Je ne supporte plus les pisse-vinaigre professionnels du scepticisme.
À quoi ça servait de vouloir voler ? De traverser les océans ? De marcher sur la Lune ?
À rien. Jusqu’au jour où quelqu’un l’a fait.
J’ai toujours eu une tendresse infinie pour les originaux. Les inadaptés. Les rebelles. Les emmerdeurs. Ceux qui ne rentrent pas dans les cases.
Ceux qui ont des idées absurdes, des ambitions démesurées, des projets improbables.
Parce que ce sont eux qui font avancer le monde.
Pas les gestionnaires du déclin.
Les gens suffisamment fous pour croire qu’ils peuvent changer le monde sont précisément ceux qui finissent par le changer.
Et ce qui me terrifie aujourd’hui c’est l’état d’esprit que nous transmettons à nos enfants.
On les élève dans une atmosphère de fin du monde permanente. Entre malthusianisme, injonctions à la décroissance, culpabilité écologique et anxiété organisée.
Quelle terrible inversion des valeurs !
L’écologie devrait être un formidable défi lancé à l’intelligence humaine, pas une pédagogie de la résignation.
Je ne veux pas d’une génération qui s’excuse d’exister au point de ne plus faire d’enfants
Je veux une génération qui brûle d’envie de découvrir, de créer, de baiser, de comprendre !
l’optimisme n’est pas de la naïveté mais le courage de croire en notre capacité à tout affronter.
Le progrès n’est pas une fatalité mais une conquête.
C’est mon ode aux rêveurs, aux inventeurs, aux enthousiastes, aux insoumis, aux doux dingues et aux emmerdeurs magnifiques.
À tous ceux qui disent « t’es cap ? » plutôt que « À quoi ça sert ? ».
J’ai 50 ans, et je refuse de devenir vieux dans ma tête.
Aux fous qui veulent changer le monde !
1000%
Backhanded criticism like this is not only useless, it’s setting the advancement of our species back. Elon cares about flying cars, next gen power sources, mars, space, AI, future medical tech and robots. He puts his entire being into those endeavors. If you care that much about something else: Go make it happen like he did instead of insinuating that he should care more about your priorities. God put us all here for a purpose.
We need EVERYTHING to be better if we want to advance our species. That means that we need everyone to have skin in the game not only taking action but celebrating those who do act in other arenas. And by the way, it’s tech advancement that will likely create cleaner air, water and food at the scale we need it to serve all of humanity.
I’m not meaning to pick on Paul here either, I’m just tired of people reducing our agency as humans to a mindset of "some other powerful person should care about what I want them to care about and do something to fix it."
If we all worked within the world like no help was coming, the entire world would be better off.
Peter Perri III retweeted
Bill Gates being the undisputed richest guy in the world and spending all his money on mosquito nets, versus Musk building starships and doing stuff like this pretty well sums up where we were in the first part of the century v. now.
Whitepill.
Peter Perri III retweeted
Have you noticed the insane pressure to put your kids through college – almost like a blackmail?
It is as if it was recruitment into a sect…
Because it is.
The sect of leftism.
Look at how it works. Every sect uses the same toolkit.
First, the threat. Without us, you are nothing. Your child will flip burgers, marry badly, disappoint the family. Parents hear it from teachers, from neighbours, from other parents at dinner. Nobody says it outright. Everybody feels it.
Second, the price of entry. Years of the child’s life, and often a debt that follows him for decades. A sect that costs nothing is easy to leave. A sect that cost you everything you defend to the end, because the alternative is admitting you were fooled.
Third, separation from the family. The child leaves home at eighteen, the age when the mind is most open and the family most absent. He arrives where nobody knows his parents, and everybody knows what to think.
Fourth, a new language. He comes home at Christmas with words his parents don’t understand, and a moral vocabulary in which they are the problem. The father who paid for it all is now part of what must be overcome.
Fifth, the reward for loyalty. The diploma is not proof of knowledge. It is proof of membership. It opens the doors – jobs, marriages, social standing – that members keep for each other.
And the cleverest part: the parents pay for it. Conservative families raise the child, feed him, form him for eighteen years. Then they pay to have him converted. No sect in history has managed that.
Now the honest part, which makes the blackmail worse, not better: the threat is partly real. In many professions the diploma is still the gate. That is exactly why it works. Blackmail only works when the hostage is real.
The diploma was meant to certify that a young person can think. It now certifies that he thinks correctly.
A society that only hires on the second has already stopped needing the first.
So what do we do? Not refuse education. Refuse the monopoly. Learning is not the same as college. A young person can master mathematics, physics, history, a trade and three languages without four years of moral re-education. If he must go, prepare him before he goes. Build alternatives that don’t ask for his soul as tuition. Hire people for what they can do, not for which sect stamped their papers.
We can make flying cars without them!
Conservatism reproduces by birth. Leftism reproduces by conversion.
Look at almost any country. Conservatives have more children. Liberals have fewer. And yet the left does not die out. It grows. How?
It takes ours.
The left does not need children of its own. It needs schools, universities, big cities and screens. We raise our children for eighteen years. The university converts them in four. We do the work. They collect the harvest.
So conservatism has the children and keeps losing them. This has to stop, and ideally reverse.
First: stop giving them our children.
This doesn’t mean hiding them from the world. It means refusing to hand them over by default. The school is not neutral. The university is not neutral. The big city is not neutral. A family that sends a child into all three unprepared is not being open-minded. It is making a donation to its opponents.
Second: give the young something worth staying for.
A young person doesn’t leave because the left has better arguments. He leaves because the left offers belonging and a cause, and we offer him rules. The young are critical. Good. They will not swallow dogma. The Church asks them to believe first and understand later, and most of them walk away before later arrives.
We need an attractive ideological offering – ideally a religion, but one that doesn’t reject the critical minds of today’s young – not the Church with its dogma.
They need a faith that survives questioning. I suggest a Religion of Life (and Fertility).
The objection comes at once: invented religions fail. Comte tried a Religion of Humanity. Robespierre tried the Cult of the Supreme Being. The Soviets tried to worship the State. All dead.
But look at what they worshipped: abstractions. Nobody can love Humanity. Nobody can love Reason. You can love a child. Life is not an idea you must believe in. It is something you hold in your arms at three in the morning.
Fertility may or may not be in the name. Nobody has a child to improve a statistic. Fertility is the fruit, not the root… The root is a simple conviction: life is good, the future is worth inheriting, and what you received you owe forward. Believe that, and the children follow. Chase the birth rate without it, and you get Hungary: a bump, then a fall.
Such a religion asks for no miracles and fears no questions. It offers the one thing the left cannot: a reason to want tomorrow.
The left converts. We must convince. Better still, we must become something worth being born into. If we can’t, the children will keep leaving. And they will be right to.
When calling @VirginAtlantic you get a delightful native British English speaker right away. Bravo! Only company in the world I know of who practices the golden rule with its customers like this. AI will commoditize tech and humanity will become a big competitive advantage.
Good tip 👇
We'll be spending a lot more time trying to understand the outputs of language models. A few thoughts, tips & tricks:
Writing. Something I've had success with: Ask your LLM to explain something in ASD-STE100, it's a controlled language specification originally developed for aerospace maintenance documentation. LLMs well-versed in this language and it comes with heavy constraints on clean writing style that I often find a lot more readable. Sometimes I've tried to soften it a bit e.g. ask for "80% of the way to ASD-STE100" because the spec is quite stringent. But even better:
Diagrams / images. Instead of writing, ask your LLM to create a diagram. These can be a lot easier to process, parse, and understand. But even better:
Web pages. Ask for output "in HTML" to get a beautiful, interactive webpage. LLMs are getting really good at frontend and can create beautiful experiences, animations, etc. But even better:
Explainer videos. The output format I am most bullish on is fully custom / bespoke explainer videos generated on any arbitrary topic. Experiment with things like "Create a 3b1b style video explainer on X. Use my ElevenLabs API key for audio narration". (you'd need an API key for the latter or you can ask your LLM to find you decent free alternatives that use your local compute). This is actually starting to work!
In summary:
- As LLMs get better, they will do more and more of the legwork autonomously, and a lot more of our work will rise up the abstractions into oversight and understanding.
- Luckily, LLMs can help here too because as intelligence and code are increasingly abundant, you can ask for large, custom, discardable software artifacts (e.g. web apps, video explainers) that would have never made sense to create before. Push the boundaries here and you'll be surprised.
Many are saying...
Unlike Sarah Huckabee Sanders, I actually have a son in this demographic. From the time this generation of young men were little boys they have been told to sit still for hours on end at school and, when they couldn't because they are LITTLE BOYS, they were diagnosed en masse with ADHD and put on medication for life.
They sat in classroom after classroom taught by women with posters on the walls that said, "The Future is Female". Their Boy Scout Troops were invaded by girls and they had it repeatedly drilled into them that by virtue of their skin color and gender they were the cause of all evils throughout history.
Their churches and youth groups sang "Jesus is my boyfriend" type of worship songs and they were made to feel like holding their hands in the air and swaying around was the measurement of their faith. Instead of strong Christian leadership they saw the men in those positions take a "we don't want to get our hands dirty" approach to the cultural rot encroaching on every aspect of society.
They were given access to every vice and sin without ever having to leave their rooms. And they were robbed of vital life experiences when tyrannical and weak leaders got their opportunity to run this nation into the ground in 2020 and beyond. Some are trying to get into trades while others, like my son, went to college and now they get to compete with legal and illegal immigrants for jobs, not to mention all of the women who get preferential treatment in every industry. Their living costs are insane for all of the same reasons.
They watched as the ONE younger man who really seemed to get them and speak up for them was assassinated and then witnessed the demonic cheers from those who would cheer on their deaths too.
Are some of them lazy and playing video games too much? Absolutely. Can you find lazy degenerates in every.single.generation? Of course! Are they the ones using the most welfare? No. Most of them are continuing to try to carve out some semblance of a life in this insanity. Now they have yet another woman lecturing them about how terrible they are? It's no wonder they vacillate between being apathetic and radical. Which means the politicians who understand this and are willing to be their voice will have their loyalty and will win.
Must watch. Elon is correct: Truth seeking AI is the most important "AI safety." But we live in an age of moral relativeism. Our elites have been infused in it via a corrupt education system. But we can no longer afford the luxury of lying to ourselves. Time to rediscover truth.

























