EPISODE 156: Coleman Hughes Takes on America's Most Contentious Debate  @JTLonsdale sits down with @coldxman to discuss his new @uaustinorg course: "The Legacy of Slavery"  (00:00) Episode intro (01:40) Teaching the Legacy of Slavery (06:20) Coleman's journey from Columbia to UATX (08:30) Dr. King vs Derrick Bell (11:20) Racial disparities by IQ and salary (13:00) Thomas Sowell & the Real History of Slavery (19:00) America's Founding Hypocrisy (24:00) Will the Left cancel Dr. King? (26:20) Understanding the 1619 Project (30:25) Breakdown of the black family (37:20) Is America wealthy because of slavery? (43:50) Are you worried about woke AI? (45:40) Three solutions for racial progress

Nick Fuentes warns us: do NOT underestimate the Jews "They WILL outflank us with the next generation if we don't refine our ideas. They will come up with a new conceit. And by the way, they ALREADY HAVE." 👀

NEW: @JTLonsdale shocks CNBC on AI regulation debate: @andrewrsorkin: Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Joe: The FDA has killed millions of people... Andrew: Killed?? Joe: Massive bureaucracy makes it cost 10 or 100X more than it should... there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do... China would love for us to have a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. Andrew Ross Sorkin: We're all trying to figure out what this could look like. Is there ultimately going to be an FDA for AI models? Is that a good thing or a bad thing for somebody who's thinking the way you do? Joe: Listen, the FDA has killed millions of people. Let's be totally clear, right? Andrew: Killed?? Joe: It's literally led to the deaths of millions of people, Andrew... There's all these new therapies, especially now, by the way, with AI that we could be developing... Andrew: It's also hopefully saved some lives... Joe: I mean the trade off is probably 100 to 1. There's a very famous story from 60 years ago where they caught some stuff that was killing people in Europe and saved them here. They've used that as an excuse to make this massive bureaucracy that makes it cost 10 or 100 times more to do drugs than it should, which means there's tons of these new drugs you could be developing to save lives that we're just not able to do. I would be investing billions more to save lives, but I can't. So the equivalent is terrifying to me. The government is bad at these things. The bureaucrats are bad at these things. Now there's a there's another argument here, which is that you have things like Mythos and OpenAI's new technology that's really, really good at hacking into everything. And you probably don't want like, that new technology going to the bad guys right away. So there has to be some sort of trade off, some sort of framework. We have to be really careful not to make the mistakes the FDA has made. Andrew: So what would you do? What do you think that should look like? Joe: There probably should be some national agreement on regulation on new powerful models. It should be as small and as narrow as possible. It should not have the same bureaucracy. You should make sure the government from the start, has metrics on the speed at which it has to go and the transparency, because you're gonna have cronyism, you're gonna have the big guys capture it. You're going to slow it down. Pharma loves the FDA against biotech. It makes it too expensive for us to build our own pharma companies. We have to sell to them. This is what the big guys want. Google and Microsoft and OpenAI and the rest of them, they want to create rules to make it so they can... Andrew: They've all been calling for it. I mean, you remember Sam Altman, Dario, others early on said, "Regulate us; you need to regulate us. Please, regulate us." The question is was that a genuine call for action or do you think that was a "We think Washington's never going to do this. So we'll say it, and get some nice PR points." Joe: If you are the leader in the space and you have tens of billions, hundreds of billions of dollars, you want there to be really complicated regulation with people you can hire who go in and out of your company, who work there because you know you're going to be able to control it and influence it. ...And by the way, China has pre-IND (Investigational New Drug process) and IND of 30 and 60 days about right now. We have 200 and 500 days. And so we've completely delayed anything we do. We've handed more than a third now of our biotech sector to China in the last six years because we're so slow. We definitely don't want to do that on the AI side. That would be a disaster. China would love for us to do a massive regulatory bureaucracy for AI and let them get ahead. We cannot allow that to happen. @SquawkCNBC

🚨 Oil just crashed to $86 Something big is about to happen.

I'm going to make some obvious points. (1) Blowing up all the oil infrastructure in the Middle East is an insane idea, and may well result in a global economic crash and humanitarian crisis unrivaled in the lives of those now living. We're talking about the price of everything everywhere rising, from food to gas, at a moment when inflation was already high. All of that will be laid at the feet of the authors of this war. (2) The antebellum status quo of Feb 27, 2026 was just not that bad, but we're unlikely to return to it. Expect indefinite, long-term, ongoing disruptions to everything out of the Middle East. (3) Also assume tech financing crashes for the indefinite future. The genius plan to get the Gulf states caught in the crossfire has incinerated much of the funding for LPs, for datacenters, and for IPOs. Anyone in tech who supported this war may soon learn the meaning of "force majeure" as funding gets yanked. (4) Many capital allocators will instead be allocating much further down Maslow's hierarchy of needs, towards useful basic things like food and energy. (5) It's fortunate that all those progressives yelled about the "climate crisis." Yes, their reasoning about timelines was wrong, and much of the money was wasted in graft, but the result was right: we all need energy independence from the Middle East, pronto. It's also fortunate that Elon and China autistically took climate seriously. Now they're going to need to ship a billion solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, nuclear power plants, and the like to get everyone off oil, immediately. (6) It's not just an oil and gas problem, of course. It's also a fertilizer problem, and a chemical precursor problem. Maybe some new sources will come online at the new prices, but it takes time to dial stuff up, particularly at this scale, so shortages are almost a certainty. That said, China has actually scaled up coal-to-chemicals[a,c] (C2C), and there's also something more sci-fi called Power-to-X[b] which turns arbitrary power water air into hydrocarbons. But all of that will need to get accelerated. I have a background in chemical engineering so may start funding things in this area. (7) Ultimately, this war is going to result in tremendous blame for anyone associated with it. It's a no-win scenario to blow up this much infrastructure for so many people. Simply not worth it for whatever objective they thought they were going to attain. But unless you're actually in a position to stop the madness, the pragmatic thing to do is: scramble to mitigate the fallout to yourself, your business, and your people. [a]: reuters.com/business/energy/… [b]: alfalaval.com/industries/ene… [c]: reuters.com/sustainability/c…

As a Bishop, I cannot stay silent. I have today drafted and sent an open letter to His Majesty King Charles III, the text of which reads as follows: To: His Majesty, Charles III, King of the United Kingdom and the Realms, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, Bearer of the ancient title Defender of the Faith. Your Majesty, I write to you neither as a politician nor as a commentator, but as one of your loyal subjects who, as a bishop of Christ’s Church, cannot remain silent while the Christian foundations of this kingdom are steadily dismantled. Sir, there are moments in the life of a nation when silence becomes a form of betrayal. If I refused to speak to Your Majesty now, this would be such a moment. For more than a thousand years the Crown of this realm has stood in solemn covenant with the Christian faith. The laws of this land were shaped by it. The liberties of our people were nurtured by it. The conscience of our civilisation was formed by it. From the abbeys of medieval England to the parish churches of our villages, from the preaching of the Reformers to the missionary zeal that carried the Gospel to the ends of the earth, the Christian faith has not merely influenced Britain — it has defined her. Yet today that inheritance is being quietly but deliberately eroded. Across the institutions of this nation there is a growing hostility toward the faith that built them. Christian belief is mocked in the public square. Christian morality is dismissed as intolerance. Christian institutions are pressured to surrender doctrine in order to conform to the ideology of the age. Within the very Church that bears the name of England, voices have arisen that appear more eager to mirror the spirit of the age than to proclaim the eternal truth of the Gospel. Meanwhile, beyond the walls of our churches, powerful political movements openly speak of removing Christianity from its historic place within the life of this nation. What would once have been whispered is now proclaimed openly: that Britain must become a post-Christian state. It is in this context that I write to you, Your Majesty. For the British Crown does not stand apart from this crisis. The Sovereign of this realm bears a title that is not merely historic but sacred in its origin and meaning: Defender of the Faith. Those words are not decorative. They are a charge. They speak of a monarch whose duty is not merely to preside over the ceremonies of the Church, but to stand as a guardian of the Christian inheritance of the nation. Yet many among your subjects now ask, with increasing anxiety: “Who will defend that inheritance today?” They see a nation drifting from its foundations. And they ask whether the Crown will remain silent while that inheritance is dismantled. Your Majesty, may I be so bold as to observe that your coronation oath was not a poetic formality. It was a solemn vow made before Almighty God to maintain and preserve the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law. Those words bind the conscience of the sovereign. They remind the Crown that its authority is not merely constitutional but moral. The monarch is not merely a symbol of national continuity, but a custodian of the spiritual inheritance that shaped this realm. History records moments when kings and emperors were confronted by the Church and reminded that their authority was accountable before God. In the fourth century Ambrose of Milan stood before the Emperor Theodosius I and reminded him that even the ruler of an empire must bow before the moral law of Christ. That tradition of prophetic witness has never disappeared. Nor should it. For when rulers forget the foundations upon which their authority rests, the Church must speak — not with hostility, but with holy clarity. And so, I write to say this, Your Majesty: The Christian character of this nation is under profound and accelerating assault. If the Crown does not stand visibly and courageously in defence of that inheritance, history will record that the guardians of Britain’s institutions watched in silence as the foundations were removed. The issue before us is not nostalgia. It is civilisation. Remove Christianity from the story of Britain and you do not create a neutral society — you create a moral vacuum. And history teaches us that moral vacuums are never left empty for long. Your Majesty now stands at a crossroads that few monarchs in modern history have faced. For the erosion of Britain’s Christian inheritance will not ultimately be judged by speeches made in Parliament or debates in the press. It will be judged by whether those entrusted with the guardianship of our ancient institutions chose to defend them — or merely preside over their quiet surrender. You may preside over the quiet dissolution of Britain’s Christian identity. Or you may rise to the ancient responsibility entrusted to the Crown and speak with clarity about the faith that built this kingdom. The first path requires little courage. The second will require a great deal. But it is the path that history honours. Your Majesty’s subjects are not asking for religious coercion. They are asking for leadership. They are asking that the sovereign who bears the title Defender of the Faith remember what that title means. They are asking that the Crown hear the growing cry of anguish from Christians across this land who feel that the spiritual inheritance of their nation is being surrendered without resistance. And they are asking whether the Crown will stand with them. For the faith that shaped Britain is not merely a cultural ornament. It is the wellspring from which our laws, our liberties, and our moral imagination have flowed. If it is cast aside, the nation will discover — too late — that it has severed itself from the very roots that sustained it. Your Majesty, to many the Crown is a symbol of authority. But before God it is also a symbol of stewardship. And stewardship carries with it the duty to defend what has been entrusted. May Almighty God grant Your Majesty the wisdom to discern this hour, and the courage to fulfil the sacred duty entrusted to the Crown. Yours faithfully, Bishop Ceirion H. Dewar FSHC Missionary Bishop Diocese of Providence Confessing Anglican Church @PhilHs10 @RevBrettMurphy @revwickland @BishopRobert1 @GBNews @TalkTV @danwootton @Jacob_Rees_Mogg @LozzaFox @BackBrexitBen @RupertLowe10 @KemiBadenoch @JohnCleese

The US needs 500,000 new electricians this decade. Apprenticeships take 5 years. Microsoft’s Brad Smith says it’s the #1 thing slowing data center expansion. The AI bottleneck isn’t chips. It’s the trades.

We wrote the first check into Quince and never shared our thesis publicly At the time, D2C was radioactive and 'affordable luxury' sounded like an oxymoron. Today they raised at $10B. We couldn't be more excited. Here's why we believed — and why we think it's still early! 8vc.com/resources/quince-cro…

Did you know 😏 He rubbed lemon juice on his face. Robbed two banks. Smiled at the cameras. Got caught in an hour. And changed psychology forever. In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two banks in Pittsburgh and robbed them with no mask, no disguise, and lemon juice on his face. He believed that because lemon juice works as invisible ink on paper, it would make his face invisible to cameras. He smiled directly into the security cameras. Police aired the footage on the evening news and arrested him within an hour. When shown the tape, Wheeler stared at the screen and said, "But I wore the juice." He had tested the theory with a Polaroid selfie and didn't appear in the photo — because lemon juice got in his eyes and he aimed the camera at the ceiling. His case inspired Cornell psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger to publish their 1999 paper defining the Dunning-Kruger Effect — the cognitive bias where people with low ability drastically overestimate their own competence.