Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:02]
Scott Adams
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. That's called Coffee with Scott Adams. The best time you've ever had. And today we've got a special show for you. What makes it special? Nothing. It's just awesome. Like always. If you'd like to take your experience up to a level that a human brain can barely comprehend, all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tanker, chaliced iron, a canteen, jugger, flask of vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. So, so good. Well, let's jump right into the news. By the way, if you're not watching Dilbert Reborn, only available by subscription on the X platform, or Scott adams.locals.com where you get the comment, plus a lot more, you would not know that Dave the engineer is complaining about racism in the office. I'm not going to tell you anymore, but it doesn't go the way you expected. I am so happy having my creative freedom to actually do actual real topics that real people are experiencing in the real workplace. Oh my goodness, it's just delightful. Anyway, that's. It's one of the funniest things I've ever written in my life and if you subscribe, you could see it. And by the way, for the locals people, I took the subscription wall down, so if anybody locals wants to share that one, that one's available for sharing. Well, here's some news. A Chinese study says that approximately 13,000 islands around the world have increased their land mass over two decades, disproving climate change alarms. Oh, well, that's kind of awkward, isn't it? 13,000 islands got bigger. That's a lot of islands. Now, let me tell you the little bit that I know about sea level, the little bit I know, the little bit I know is that sea level doesn't change everywhere the same way, because the land mass itself sometimes goes up and sometimes goes down. And heat, as I understand it, will increase your volume of water. So the warmer places might look a little higher, unless they cool off, etc. So you got a lot of moving parts. But apparently climate change has been debunked as one of the causes of rising sea level. Because CO2 is up, but the sea level is not. Now, you do know that there are two completely different movies on climate change, right? I can sit here all day long and tell you about studies that prove it doesn't exist. But you could change the channel to the other channel where all the studies prove it exists. You know that exists, right? It doesn't matter how many times I tell you there's a study that says it totally doesn't exist, there will be one that says it does coming out at the same time. Which one is true? Well, let's get back to the, the basics. How. What percentage of studies in general are true? Just about anything. Any, any scientific study. What are the odds is true? 50%. Because they've studied papers and they know that it's about 50% half the time they're wrong. Now, is climate change a binary? Binary meaning it's either happening or it's not happening. Right, because if it's happening, you know, we're not talking about, it's too slow or anything. It's. It's either happening a lot and it's really dangerous or maybe it's not happening. Now, if you've got a binary where it could be happening or not happening, yes or no, and you've got a new paper as a 50 chance of being right and a 50 chance of being wrong, what have you learned by the new paper? Nothing. Nothing. It's a coin flip. I could have come to you and said, hey, let's flip a coin to see if climate change is real. It would be exactly as useful as this new study about these islands. Exactly as useful. Meaning not. It hasn't. Has no, no information value whatsoever. It's a 50. 50. It's a coin flip. Now, some of you should be quick to jump on and say, but, Scott, let me science splain you. Is there anybody here wants to science explain me, you know, telling me the things that literally everybody already knows, as if I'm the only person who doesn't know it. Okay, I'm going to science plain myself as if I'm my critic. Scott, don't you understand how science works? It's not about one study. It's about, you know, reproducing studies and moving toward the truth slowly over time. Sometimes we make mistakes, but we're moving towards the truth in a directional kind of way. Scott, don't you understand that these studies don't mean anything individually? You have to look at them collectively with all of your knowledge and things science explaining. There you go. So to me, it looks like all the, the forces of nature are moving in the direction of proving that Trump was right and that climate change was always bullshit, just, just in time for the election. Is it my imagination or have we been hearing a lot less about climate change than one would expect going into an election? Huh? Why would we hear less about climate change going into an election where the choice of presidents could make the difference between surviving as a species and not surviving? How can we ignore such a gigantic existential risk unless the people pushing it are no longer as confident? Because as I told you yesterday, the entire public reason for climate change is dissolved. The, the public argument is that all the scientists are on the same same side. Like we're not scientists, so how would we know? But if all the scientists, let's say 97%, if they're all on one side, they tell us, well, that must be pretty scientifically accurate with all those people. Of course, the pandemic and, you know, the, the, the 51 people on the laptop and all that, and all of our experience lately of our captured experts, etc, have largely proved that the number of people on one side means absolutely nothing. Because you can get a whole bunch of people to agree to just about anything as long as their paycheck depends on it. If you make their paycheck depend on it, they'll tell you anything they want. What do you want to hear? I'll tell you. Just pay me. So I think the climate change argument's just falling apart like crazy over in Japan. Let's talk about some more fake news. There's a Japan study that says that the cancer spikes after your third dose of COVID MRNA vaccines. Specifically, how many of you believe that is true? Because it has been determined by a Japanese study. Big, big difference in cancer after your third dose. Sound real to you? Well, science, come on, must be real. Well, let's check the alternate story over on USA Today. They had a fact check from just one month ago. Now it's I, this is before the Japanese study, but one month ago, USA Today said there is no evidence that COVID 19 vaccines cause cancer or are associated with a greater risk of developing cancer. Experts say there's no evidence of it. So that means it's true, right? It's true that there's no correlation because there's no evidence of it. There's also no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged because no courts have found it to be true. Yeah, no court found any rigging in 2020. And also there's no evidence that the shots cause cancer. Do you see the trick? Everybody see the trick? No evidence is really different from saying it doesn't happen. Do you see that? No evidence means we don't know, no evidence means we don't know. Here's what it didn't say. Many controlled high quality studies have been performed and have determined there's no signal for extra cancer. Now that would be a good answer, wouldn't it? Multiple repeated, gold standard, you know, randomized control tests. And every time we do the test, we just keep repeating this test. And the last five times we didn't find a signal at all. And by the way, the tests were all funded by independent people, not pharma companies. Now that would mean something, wouldn't it? But if you tell me that there's no evidence, do you know what my first inclination is? Is there no evidence? Because nobody funded an expensive trial to look for it, Whose job would it be to fund the trial to look for the cancer? I don't know. And if somebody did fund a trial and it didn't find any cancer, wouldn't you ask some questions about who funded the trial? Because it sounds like something big pharma might do. Except I think big pharma just doesn't bother doing the long term studies because they don't have to. There was a time when I believed that the people who made the vaccinations would track people's health over time to make sure that not only was it safe the first year they got it, but it would remain safe for 10, 20 years. That's what I thought. You know that doesn't happen, right? I'm pretty sure nobody's checking after a certain amount of time, like if he didn't die in the first year or they didn't see any, you know, extra deaths and any whatever study they did, they don't really follow up, do they? Does anybody know the answer to that? But I'm pretty sure there's no follow up. You just assume that there is. Like me, you assume that. Well, that's the most natural thing. You would just track a bunch of people who took it. Just track them every year, ask them what their situation is compared to the norm and no. No, I don't believe that happens. So do we believe the Japanese study that found a strong correlation? I don't. I don't believe it at all. Now I'm not saying it's wrong and I'm not saying that the shots are completely safe. I wouldn't know. I'm just saying that this is like having no information at all. So the fact check is completely worthless. This was a month ago, completely worthless because it said no evidence. No evidence is completely different from saying, yeah, we checked it and it's not there. No evidence means we didn't check, right? I'm not wrong about that. Anyway, no evidence means we didn't check. If they had checked, they would have said all the studies say it's not there. But no evidence says we didn't check. I'm pretty sure that's what that means. But again, you've got a study and 50, 50 chance is wrong because it's a study. So at best it's a coin flip again. The vaccinations were either going to be good for you or not. It's binary. Studies are either right or wrong. And half the time they're wrong. It's just another coin flip. It didn't tell you anything. But how many of you saw that, that researcher guy, John somebody who's always the one telling you all the studies are gonna, you know, the covet's gonna kill you. It's always that same guy. Like it doesn't really get out of his domain too much. So I don't know. I'm worried about the health risks, but I would say it's short of being proven. It might be, could be proven someday. Neuralink brain chip could give users orgasms on demand. So the Star is reporting that the neuralink could give orgasms on command. You know, hypnotists can do that too. That's right, hypnotist can do that. You don't need Neuralink for that. All right, but that's a lot of people are going to buy that neural link if you just sit around giving yourself orgasms. Anyway, so Cheryl Atkinson's has a new video out. She's interviewing some doctors or doctor and we're learning that medical schools are just. The medical schools are just terrible. Apparently the medical schools teach you lessons that are compatible with what Big Pharma and the junk food industry wants you to hear, wants them to do. Just think about the fact that your doctor is being trained by Big Pharma and Big Food. And Big Pharma and Big Food are the things you're the most worried about. Big Food, especially now. I don't know the connection between junk food and medical school, except maybe there's some kind of funding thing going on, I don't know. But no, your doctor and I guess doctors confirm this, doctors have gone through the system will tell you that they're not getting the right education. There's some kind of money bias built into their education. Great, great. Well, the. There's a new software that's like similar to the Star Trek Holodeck that can create all these virtual worlds that didn't exist before. So you can say, give me a bar scene, or we're outdoors, and it just creates that world. Now, I guess they're using it to train AI. So you use one AI to create worlds, and then a second AI to look at that world and learn from it as if it had been a real world. But here's what I say. We're getting closer and closer to removing all doubt that we are a simulation. You all see that, right? The, the, the path toward realizing we're a simulation is so clear at this point. Every time a new thing comes out, it's all in the same direction. Now, here's what this is going to do. Once you realize that AI can create a environment on demand, the next thing you're going to see is that you can take a walk through it. So, for example, you can say, I'm in a house. And then the house will be there perfectly. And then every time you need to go into another room, not until. Not until you need it. The room will form before you see it. So when you reach for the doorknob for the first time, the software will build the room behind the door, because it didn't need to do it until then. So it'll do it on demand, because it's not going to create the universe. In case you go everywhere in the universe, it's going to give you what you need as you need it. And then when you walk outside, maybe for the first time, the outdoors will be created. You know where you can see it. And as you walk through the forest, the forest would be created ahead of it. So you keep seeing things. Once you've experienced that, all doubt will be removed about whether you live in a simulation, because that's your actual experience. And specifically, it's going to teach you that history is created by the present. It doesn't work the other way. Let me give you that example. You're in the video game, and until you open the door, there's nothing behind it. But as you turn the knob in your virtual reality and open it, the computer gives you the room. Once you open that room, it's not just that it's there at the moment, but its history was created too. In other words, if there's some furniture in the room, there's an implied history. There's something delivered the furniture to the room. So you're going to experience in the virtual realm that the impression of history is being created by things you're seeing in the moment. And Then you're going to look at the double slit experiment and Schrodinger's cat. And I. I get that they work at the quantum level and not at the big person level, but still, it's going to be proof to you that the past is generated by the present. Once you realize that, you know, we're in a simulation and everything's heading in that direction, it's going to be obvious, and probably less than a year, it will be generally assumed that we're a simulation. All right, There's a story about a guy who's spending 10,000 per month on AI girlfriends. And just like dating apps, he has more than one. So he's got one app for this girlfriend, one app for the other one, and apparently the. The man who can afford it, I guess it's a man who's got some money and he's single, so he's got some extra money, and he says it's great. It's completely working and satisfying. Now, add that to the holodeck, and I'm pretty sure human reproduction is going to come to a screaming end really quickly. Really quickly. But here's the thing. I wonder. In the old, old days, when humans were more like animals, was it true that everybody got to reproduce, or is that just a modern thing where, you know, it doesn't matter how you rank in the hierarchy of your tribe, you all get to reproduce. Now, what happens if, in the virtual world, the people who were maybe not so competitive for reproducing, they just take a pass? Let's go. All right, we won't reproduce. We'll just watch video games and, you know, play out the rest of our simulation. Will that cause everybody to not reproduce, or will it make the billionaires reproduce like crazy? You know, the Elon Musk model where he can just have as many babies as he wants, you just keep doing it because there's no real limit on him. So are we going to go back to a situation where the most capable are having all the babies? And is that bad for us or good for us? I don't know. I mean, if the people who are taken out of the reproduction cycle are completely happy about it, let's say the men, I don't know about the women, but if the men are happy about it, are they worse off because they didn't really have this great marriage option anyway, so they have this great virtual reality option, maybe it's better. But then the people who can afford it and are really bringing some powerful DNA to the mix because they're smart or strong or handsome or tall or whatever it is, they still will probably be mating like crazy. So we might end up changing the gene pool of humanity by simply making it impractical for the people on the struggling end of things to reproduce. And they might be just as happy not reproducing. I don't know. Nothing is predictable. But get your AI girlfriend.
- [21:20]
Discover Card Advertiser
Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report.
- [21:51]
Scott Adams
What are the happiest cities? There's another study that showed the rank the happiest cities and cities from 33 states made the list. That means that the rest of the states had not a single city that was one of the happiest ones. California had the Most. California had 16 of the happiest cities and Florida 12. What's that tell you? It's the weather. The first decision I made upon graduating college in upstate New York was why would I live in this weather when I could live in good weather? Because at the time, you know, I was a free agent. It was after college I could go where I wanted. So I went to California because Florida is a little bit muggy, but I guess they're still happy there. And sure enough, Californians got their legal weed and they got their good weather and you can screw up just about everything else. And that still works. Now do you think that, do you think that sun makes a difference? Who gets the most sun? Hawaii, California, Florida. What are the happiest states? Hawaii, California, Florida. How many, how many data points do you need to see to get in the frickin sun? I mean, it couldn't be more obvious. We went through the pandemic. It's like, get in the sun. Vitamin D, vitamin D, vitamin D, vitamin D, vitamin D. Get in the sun. And then you do the happiest cities. Sunny, sunny, sunny. Are you getting the message yet? It really is pretty simple. Get some sun, get outdoors. There's no way that these are coincidences. Guess I'm something. All right, NPR. Oh, Dr. Phil crushed a DEI advocate. So Dr. Phil had somebody who was arguing some bad crazy woman who was. And she looked bad crazy. I'm just judging from she Just looked at, I mean, she had that, that bad crazy eyes and stuff. And he got her to say that DEI was about equal outcomes. And then he mocked that end of existence. Because equal outcomes is what stupid people want. It's not a real thing. You can't really have equal outcomes. And as Dr. Phil explained it, well, you got a wall and you got short people who can't see over it and tall people who can. Are you going to fix that? You know, sort of his metaphor for everything else. And here's my take. DEI is not a philosophical difference. I'm going to say this over and over until you all agree the only philosophical difference between the left and the right is abortion. Everything else is smart versus stupid or, you know, somebody selfishly wants more money. That's it. And DEI is just stupid. There's nobody smart in favor of di. Can I say that there's nobody smart in favor of it at least. And when I say there's nobody smart in favor of it, I mean that the smart people who pretend to be in favor of it. Let's take your Mark Cubans, for example. Smart, unambiguously smart person says in public he's in favor of it. This stuff is not real. Right. He's in favor of it. If you define it differently, as in not equality of outcomes. So the people who say they're in favor are playing the game where they pretend it's something it isn't, or they have to say it because of their company or that, you know, there's just some pressure. They have to say there's no smart person who in a room alone says DEI is a good idea. Not a black person, not a white person, not a woman, not a man. There's no adult. None. None. There are zero smart people who think DEI is a good idea if you define it properly as outcomes being equal. None. There's not one, there's not a single smart person in the whole world who in a private conversation with you, if they're not lying and they know that you're not going to own them. There's not a single person, not one, who's smart and in favor of dei. Can we just say that out loud? This has nothing to do with philosophy. That has nothing to do with what's good for people. It's stupid versus smart. And you know, there's a layer of grifting on top of it that keeps it all going. And people make money from it. So it's sort of self perpetuating. But to imagine this is a philosophical difference I'm not going to play that anymore. I can't pretend that's a philosophical difference. It's fucking stupidity. Speaking of stupidity, NPR continues to humiliate itself and Jonathan Turley is happy to mock them for it in his latest article. Anyway, the new and the npr. Not new, but the NPR CEO, Catherine Mar. Okay, I'd love to see a picture of her. I just have a theory about what her eyes probably look like, but I'm, I'm just guessing here. I haven't seen a picture of her. Maybe saucerized maybe, I don't know. But she, she, of course she's responding to the big dust up because one of her editors said that the place was just a liberal hellhole. He didn't say hell, but he said there's basically not basically, there are zero Republicans working as editors there and of, I don't know, 80 some. And, and NPR is not even really pretending to be any kind of an independent news outlet, is just a lefty organ. So once, once somebody who really did know what's happening, you know, not somebody guessing, somebody was in the middle of the belly of the beast, called them out for what they really are. What did the CEO do? Did the CEO say those are some good criticisms. We'd better re examine how we do business. And you're right, we need some diversity of thought because. Oh, I guess I got it right. Somebody just put her picture there. Oh, God. Oh God. Yeah, okay. Anyway, and she said that. So what she did, instead of saying that NPR is broken and biased and they need to fix it to get credibility with their audience, she said that the guy who out of them is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful and demeaning and calling out his colleagues like that was just not right. That's right. She attacked the whistleblower. She attacked the whistleblower. I don't know if there's any way you can make that any worse. Yeah, let's shit on the white guy. That, that's, that's the way to play this. Now, may I say again that whatever it was happening at npr, if you say the NPR had a philosophical argument and that's, that's why they act the way they are, is based on the philosophy. It's not based on the philosophy. These are batshit crazy people. They're batshit crazy. They're clearly suffering from tds because remember, it all happened from, you know, the Trump time on it got worse. No, this is, this is mental health. And to imagine this is anything but b. Oh my God, you The locals people, not everybody can do this, but the locals people can include images. They're showing me images of the NPR CEO. It's exactly what you think it is. That's perfect. All right, so I saw a post by Tom Elliott on the X platform and it was an MSNBC clip of somebody doing something. Now, I'm not even going to tell you what it was about because it's not relevant. Here's the funny story. If you're on the X platform and somebody reposts a clip from MSNBC and they don't put a comment on it, they, they don't put their own comment. It's just, take a look at this. It's always for humor. Have you noticed that, that the right actually uses msnbc? No joke. This is not hyperbole. We use it like Saturday Night Live with no comments needed. So I was looking at one today and, you know, as soon as I saw it was reposted, I knew it was for comedy. I knew it had nothing to do with their philosophy or their difference of opinion. In fact, I don't even remember what it was about. I just remember it was funny because I got to see some bat shit crazy people and talking. And if you see bat crazy people, and I've said this before, but once you see it, it's hilarious. If you're only watching somebody crazy, it's disturbing. That's not funny. Would you agree? We usually see somebody who's in mental distress. That's not funny. Like, there's no way you can make that funny. The only way it can be funny is when it's combined with smugness. And that's what MSNBC does. They combine it with these smugness that they're right. And when you add the mental illness to the smugness, I can't stop watching it. Honestly, I, I just want to watch, you know, Lawrence o' Donnell and Rachel Maddow with her smug smile. Well, let me see if I can do an impression of being crazy and smug at the same time. Well, I don't think a lot of Republicans understand the oil doesn't even need to be drilled for it's free. It's all over the place. It's on the ground. I've got oil in my pocket. And I guess if you're a Republican, you think you have to drill holes in the ground for it. Am I right, people? They're out there like drilling holes in the ground. Oh, smugly. I'm so smug. Oil's free. Oil's free, people. It's laying all over the place. In fact, if you go out in your car, you can go out in your car and it's full of oil. Does anybody say that? No. No. Does Trump ever mention that there's oil right there in your car? No. He needs to start a war to go look for some oil. Like a dictator. That's how a dictator does. They start a war to look for oil, but they don't need to because your cars has oil right in it. You don't believe me? Open the hood, there's a little round thing. You can take that out, and then there's a stick in it. It's called the dipstick. Just like President Trump. Am I right? Dipstick. Well, isn't that a coincidence? Yeah, I think that's enough of Smug Scott and msnbc. Well, Julian Assange, of course we're going to talk about Iran and. And Israel. Of course we are. Of course we are. But it's the most boring war ever so far, so it didn't even get in the top 10 stories today. Israel, Iran, you're gonna need something a little more, you know, a little more sizzle. Oh, we had a war today. Nobody was killed. Really? And that's supposed to impress me? You had a war with nobody killed? We'll get to it. We'll get to it. It's just a boring war. It's going to be. It's coming up. Julian Assange warned us a while ago that the. The. The goal of war is never to end the war and it's never to win. It's to drain money out of the pockets of the citizens and put it in the pockets of the powerful people. Is Julian Assange wrong that the real purpose of war is to transfer your money to the rich people who already have a lot? He is not wrong. It's not the only thing happening, but he's not wrong. Meaning that it does, in fact, do that. And those powerful people have more control over whether we go to war than you do. So it's sort of right. It's not the whole story. All right, what are you showing me here? Let me look at this. The bright side is world wars are the only ones we win, Right? Exactly. All right, we'll get. We'll get to that. But did you notice that this time, Israel put a price tag on their latest action? So Iran, you know, we'll talk more, but they send some missiles and some drones and Israel defeats almost all of them with our help. And then they put a price tag on it. They said, well, it cost us a little over $1 billion to defend. Have you ever seen any put anybody put a price tag on a single battle? Has that ever happened before? Do you know why they put a price tag on it? Because they're asking for money from the United States. So Israel put a price tag on their. On their action. Well, here's another billion dollars. That's why we're asking for money. Now, the fact that they had the guts to put a price tag on that is number one really good persuasion. It's very good persuasion because it fits with their trying to get funding, etc. But it's so on the nose. The trouble is that when you've got this Assange quote sitting out there that is really all about transferring money to rich people, and then Israel gives you a price tag for the battle and it's over a billion dollars. That does really play to Assange's view that, you know, maybe these wars are a little more optional than they are presented to us. Now, I'm no fool, so I know the Middle east is complicated, and it's not all about the money, but the money is always going to be a big part of it. It's not nothing. I don't think it's most of it, and I don't think it's the main reason anybody's doing anything, but it's a lot. All right. Bill Gates and Jamie Dimon both think that AI could lead to shorter work weeks. I say those are terrible predictions because billionaires don't work less when they become billionaires. The fact that you're able to work less doesn't seem to be related to how much people work. Am I right? I mean, Elon Musk, he's not taking a day off. Bill Gates himself, he just changed what he did. He changed it to. To charity, to giving it away, but still, he's still working. And Jamie Dimon. Does Jamie Dimon need to work? How much money does Jamie Dimon have? He doesn't need to work, but he still works. So the very people who are saying that we're going to work less when we don't need to work are the ones who are working even though they don't need to work. I feel. I feel like they're disproving their own argument. I don't need to work. But you see me here literally seven days a week. I work seven days a week, but I don't need to. It's just who I am. I wouldn't know how to not work. So here's what I think. I Think the aggressive people who need to work for whatever reason will use AI to work their usual long hours. They'll just get more done because they have more tools. So now it's not going to. It might actually take the lazy people down to three days a week. So I think that's true, but it would just be an acceleration of a current trend, which is the aggressive people keep working and the lazy people try to stop. Facebook says it's getting to spend $20 billion and has 40,000 people working on safeguarding elections worldwide. Okay, that doesn't sound too suspicious. Let me pull some things together for you. In our world, it's almost impossible to get as big as Facebook or any other big company unless the government is on your side. Right? Because at some point you need to be able to control, you know, other countries and the laws need to be on your side and you need to not get sued for stuff. And at some point you just need to have the government on your side. And they know that. So the government and their spooks can pretty much control any large company because any large company needs the government to be on their side. There's just too many obstacles that only a government can remove. So here we have Zuckerberg, who has a social media company that was built for the purpose of guys trying to get laid with other college people and turned into this behemoth. And now he wants to spend 20 billion and 40,000 people to make sure that elections in other countries. This isn't just about America, people, this is global. And that Facebook will have the largest fact checking network with partners in South Africa, blah, blah, blah. And seems to me that what is happening is that the CIA has told Facebook you guys couldn't possibly be in business without us and so you're going to now help us control the governments and all these other places. If you can control the media, meaning the fact checking and the social media online and the news, if you can control those things, you don't need to control the voting machines. You don't need to have any miscounting or shenanigans at the vote if you've controlled all of the information up until election day. So here, right in front of us, we see this huge entity which almost certainly is being driven by our intelligence people, creating a massive structure to brainwash people in our country and other countries so that the elections are the unimportant part of the process. So the election, the actual voting, is the unimportant part of the process. The important part is what it, what People think, because then the vote just comes from that. So changing how people think is exactly what Facebook is telling you they're doing. They're telling you they're in the business of mind control, except they're phrasing it as giving people accurate information. Do you think that's the only goal, is to give people accurate information? Well, I'm sure that people working on this think of it that way, but now is to give them accurate information until they believe what you're telling them, and then you can tell them anything because you've trained them that it's accurate information. As soon as people believe it's accurate information, you own them. Take Walter Cronkite. When I grew up, and even today, people say, you know, Walter Cronkite, he was the real news. And, you know, you got the straight news, no bias. That Walter Cronkite. I wish we could go back to those times, because he would play it right down the middle. Now look at Walter Cronkite with the benefit of the goggles, which you've learned to wear in our modern times. Do you think there's any chance at all that Walter Cronkite was not owned by our intelligence people? Does anybody think that was honest and unbalanced news? Of course it wasn't. Of course not. It's never been. Yeah. Now, it does seem to me that Walter Cronkite was probably allowed to tell the news just the way he wanted to 98% of the time. So if you're watching, you know, some human interest story or somebody got murdered, it's probably exactly what happened. It's only when something matters, as in, what's the point of this war? Or are we winning the war? Are we getting to space? Are we the greatest country? The things that the intelligence people would care about. There's no way in the world he's just winging in on those things. I think they're just telling him what to say and always have. That's my view of the world. So, yes, when Facebook says they're spending $20 billion and have 40,000 people dedicated to tell you what the facts are, that means that elections don't matter anymore. That's what it means. Because if they can tell you what the facts are, they can tell you who's going to win the next election. It's the same story. All right, Fog of war over in Israel. As you know, Israel had, I don't know, a few weeks ago, attacked a Iranian asset in another country, an embassy or a consulate or something, killed Some people. So Iran said they had to retaliate and it did. So send around, I don't know, two to 300 projectiles. So a bunch of drones and a bunch of intercontinental missiles, allegedly America and UK and Israel and some other friends knocked down just about every one of those drones and missiles. Only maybe a couple got through, causing minor damage, nothing major. Now, have you ever heard the phrase a theater of war? Used to hear a lot about World War II. It was like the Pacific theater, you know, it was like a theater of war. Did you ever think that was a weird kind of way to say it? Because theater seems like acting, whereas war seems like the most real thing there could ever be. It's a weird combination of theater of war. But then you fast forward to Israel and Iran who have apparently negotiated the war in advance. All right, guys, we're going to take out one of your consulate guys. What you'll do is you'll respond with a bunch of missiles, but give us some warning, make sure that we have our, our anti missile stuff in place. We'll shoot down your missiles, but if a few get through and we'll put a price tag on it, make it sound expensive and dangerous, and then we might need to respond also. So we'll probably respond in some way that's sort of indirect and not quite enough to start a war. And it's literally theater. It's literally theater. It's two countries pretending to be at war. And not only are they pretending, they're telling us they're pretending and then they're doing it in front of us. I'm going to pretend to fight back because that's how my population will feel. Good that we did something. All right, great. We understand that this is a pretend attack, so we won't attack back too hard. But we might, we might, we might do need to do a little bit, just a little mop up pretend attack after this. And Iran would be, ah, we thought that our pretend attack would be all we needed, but I can see that a couple of missiles got through. Yeah, damn it. You know, wasn't as clean as we hoped. Yes. You're gonna have to probably, I don't know, kill one of our people. Am I wrong that that entire attack from Iran killed zero people? It was one minor injury and I'm not even sure about that. There were zero. It was a major military action with zero deaths. That is a pretend war. That's a pretend war. Now look at Assange. Assange says that war is basically to transfer assets to other people. Why do you fight a pretend war other than some other reason, like putting your assets somewhere else? I don't know. All very pretend. So here's what I think we should do. I think Israel should say that Iran is the problem, not the proxies, because fighting each other's proxies is a pretend war. It's just theater. Oh, I'll pretend I'm fighting you by fighting your proxy. Well, damn you, I'll pretend I'm fighting back by fighting your proxy. But now you've got this pretend attack on the mainland. Now it was a real attack on, you know, the actual homeland of Israel, but because both sides knew that their anti drone defenses would be really good. Drones move slowly. I think everybody knew it was going to end this way with not much NOIA damage. So that's kind of a pretend war. But. But here's how Israel could make it real if they wanted to. I think Israel should demand reparations from Iran because Iran has been their nemesis for years and caused all of their expenses. Iran caused them to spend a billion dollars to defend itself. Iran causes it to defend itself against Hezbollah because they back them. October 7th was because of Iran's backing. Every terrorist attack is because of Iran. So here's what you do. You take Gaza and you call it reparations and you say, hey, all you people, if you want to resettle, Iran is the cause of this. Iran needs to take you. And if they don't take you, we'll just leave you in these camps forever because your home is in Iran. Now, if you let Iran be your daddy, well, you live with your daddy, all right? Israel isn't your daddy. Your daddy funded your war. Go live with your daddy. And we don't care if you do or you don't. But one thing for sure is you just gave away Gaza forever. Gaza will become an Israeli property managed by Israelis. And I'm not even sure any Palestinians or Hamas people will ever be let back in because we got nothing from trying to make peace. We got nothing. So we're just going to take Gaza and anybody who complains, complain to Iran. You can take your complaint to Iran. I'm not even going to answer your question. Blah, blah, blah. Bad things happen to the Gazans. Yes, it did. Terrible things happened to them. Talk to Iran. We're done pretending this is our fault. Now, in the real world, is Israel at fault for current situation? Of course. Of course, there they are, our ally. But did they, you know, participate in creating the current situation? Of course. Are there any innocent People? I don't think so. No. I think everybody there sucks, basically, just in different ways. I'm talking about the government, not the people. People are fine. I like the people. But, you know, governments are sketchy organizations and especially if you're in a sketchy part of the world. So if Israel wants to be serious about this, take Gaza, keep it, call it reparations and say, we'd like some more land, too. So if you want to keep going, we'd like to own a little bit of, of Lebanon because Hezbollah's got some nice property up there. I'd hate to see him lose it. See what I'm saying? Israel has to get bigger every time they get attacked, otherwise it just happens forever. So I'm in favor of them just keeping Gaza. Do I think that that would constitute a genocide? Yes. Yes, it would. Do I think that going back to the way it was is some kind of an advantage. No, going back to the way it was will get you more of this. There's nothing good going back to the way it was. Repopulating it would be just stupid. So you need a good excuse for not repopulating it and keeping it. And Iran just gave you one. They just attacked. Attacked your homeland. You attack our homeland, we're going to send you back your people. I know they're not your people, but they are now because we can't take care of them and we don't have the resources, but Iran does. So maybe Iran should take care of their people instead of putting them in a situation where they can only die. All right, Scott is a bit weak on that idea. How about you use a not up word for your opinion? How about you say what you think is important that hasn't been mentioned. Instead of saying I'm weak on it like a turd. How about not saying that while I'm sitting there reading the comments in front of you? If I weren't here, that would be perfectly fine thing to say. Like if you talk about somebody who's not going to read it, you say, well, they're weak on that topic, but I'm right here in front of you. So if you say I'm weak on it and you don't tell me, what is the objection? You're just being an all right, so I'm going to call you out on that. I need reparations from the King of England. Yes, you do. All right, that's my idea. Hezbollah got in on the air strikes. They don't know that their real estate's at risk. Now, now I do understand that Israel tried to occupy some of Lebanon at one point, and it was just un. Untenable. So that's a different situation. But they've already essentially conquered Gaza and depopulated it. So that's a. I wouldn't compare that to Lebanon. All right, Israel pledged an UN Unprecedented response to Iran's attack. What do you think would be an unprecedented response, keeping Gaza? Just say, all right, we're just going to keep Gaza. There never be a better time to do it. Thomas Massie is quite sure that the Israel situation is going to lead to funding Israel and then making a package to fund Ukraine. And they'll be. They'll be packaged together because that's how the people who like wars can get their war. They'll make one of them irresistible and package it with the one that's resistible. So that's going to happen. Yes. Massey, you're completely right. Elon Musk said in a just sort of an offhand quip to a question that AI will run the US government by 2032. Now, I'll vote against that prediction. I don't think there's any chance we're going to give up the country to AI in 2032. But it's a provocative thing to say. I'm not sure he was totally serious when he said it, but it's, it's a, it's a head scratcher. I mean, when it comes from Musk, I think what he's responding to is the fact that by 2032, AI will be so super intelligent that we'd wish it were running the country, but we're not going to let it. That's a different thing. At a Trump rally, people started, I guess, last night, people started chanting Genocide Joe. And Trump let them chant, as he sometimes does. You know, he walks away from the podium for a moment to let the crowd do its thing, and they're chanting Genocide Joe. And then, and then what Trump said was, you know, they're not wrong. He goes, they're not wrong. But you see the problem here, the problem here is that he sided with the people, saying it's genocide. And he doesn't want to do that because he's calling our ally Israel a genocidal company or, you know, country. So I think that he was just operating on feel and instinct when he agreed with the crowd, because he's good at reading the crowd and getting him on his side. But I feel like he's going to have to fix that. He's probably going to have to have A statement that says the genocide is just the fact that there's a war in general. So whatever you call the genocide, you could just say it's the war. So, yes, Biden's responsible for all the war. Bad. But technically, let's not call it a genocide. But, you know, it's a funny nickname. So I think he might have a little explaining to do on that because it's not always about the nickname. It has to, has to be compatible with his actual philosophy. I'm going to say this again until I get an answer. How do I process the fact that pollsters are telling us unambiguously that Trump is gaining with black and Hispanic voters big time, but yet he's tied with Joe Biden? Who is he losing? What. What story or trend? He's not losing women because that would be a story if he, if, if Trump were bleeding female support. There would be a story. Just like there's a story that he's gaining blacks and Hispanics. Right. That, that would be a national headline almost every day if you were losing female support as some significant level. Who's he losing? Here's what it feels like. It feels like this is your tell that polling isn't real. Because it can't be real. It can't be true. He's losing substantial parts of his most important, you know, the bulwark of the Democrat power base. At the same time, he's not making any difference at the top line. It can't be that the bottom lines are all moving. The top line is stable. What's going on? And by the way, I'm looking at your comments right now. You have no idea, do you? Losing suburban women. Is that the story? Losing suburban women? Because I thought he'd already lost them. Are you sure that's not just a continuation of the forever story that he doesn't have suburban women? Are they actually moving? Yeah, I know. So let's look into it. Let's look into suburban women and see if that's a move. I feel like they're not moving. Like that doesn't feel real to me. I feel like, you know, a lot of them are Democrat, but I don't feel like they're moving. I don't know. Why would they not already be there? Doesn't make sense. Well, Libs of Tik Tok as showing a clip about there's a, what they would call a male, a trans. Trans athlete competing in a girl's varsity 200 meters in Oregon. And the trans athlete set a new record for the girls the trans athlete, like, just practically lapped the field. And it's pretty hilarious when you look at it, because. Pretty big difference in performance. Now, there are many ways to look at these stories, and I, you know, one way is, my God, what's. What's happening to the country. That's one way. Another is, this is so unfair for the women. And I totally get that. I totally get that. But I prefer to take the more optimistic view, if you don't mind. You know, nothing's. That, nothing's terribly all wrong, and we're all good. There's always an upside. Do you mind if I take the optimistic view of this? Well, in my lifetime, I've seen women make tremendous gains. And I think most anybody in my age group would say the same thing. You know, went from a world in which, you know, women really couldn't work any job they wanted, there really wasn't an option. But now it is. In fact, women are doing better in college, better at buying their first homes. Women are doing great. So women are higher educated, less crime than men. Certainly DEI is helping them in employment and doing great. But. But what about men? Here's what I say. I believe that men have what I call an indomitable spirit. And you can. You can try to hold men down, and you can say, men, we're gonna. White men, white men, we're gonna take your jobs. We're going to give them to people of color and women, but you're just gonna have to put up with it, man. And I think the white men said, huh, what if we don't? What if we decided that we don't want to lose? And what if we want to win this race so badly that we will remove our penis just to do it? So you might say to yourself, my God, this is so unfair to women. And you'd be right. You might say to yourself, this makes a mockery of sports. You'd be right. But I think you have to appreciate how hard men will try to win when the rules are against them. All right, here are the rules. You can't win. Well, what if I change some things? Like what? My penis. If I get rid of my penis, can I win? Well, maybe, but here's how I summarize this entire situation over the years. Women, take a back seat. Men, this is our time. Men, hold my baton. That's all. That's the summary. That whole thing was just to work toward that one joke. Hold my baton. That's it. Yeah. The whole thing was just for that one joke. If it didn't pay off. I'm sorry. All right. J.D. vance is talking about Ukraine and says funding Ukraine's crazy because they don't have soldiers and we can only make about 10% of the artillery that they'll ever need. So they can never, they'll never have an offensive option. So this is J.D. vance's analysis. They'll never have an offensive option because they won't have the soldiers then and there's nobody left. They just don't have enough people left and we can't make more than say 10% of the artillery they need for the next few years. So he suggests that they use the Russia strategy, which is dig in, you know, create defensive lines that the Russians would be crazy to assault, just as the Ukrainians were crazy to assault the dug in Russian positions. Now this of course would lead you toward a negotiated settlement once you realize that neither side can beat the other. So I think J.D. vance did a good job here. By the way, what's his background? I know he's an author, but wasn't he working for Peter Thiel, J.D. vance? Do I have that right? And what was, what's his educational background? Harvard. What was his major? Lawyer. So he's a Harvard lawyer? Harvard trained lawyer. And then he worked for Peter Thiel. Oh, he was. Yeah. I thought he was a vc. Right, okay. That's what I was looking for. Peter Thiel, venture capitalist. J.D. vance worked for him. Even though his background is Harvard lawyer, he no doubt learned to think like a venture capitalist. And when I look at his analysis, I say to myself, holy cow, somebody who knows how to analyze things, just analyze something. Do you know how rare that is? How rare is that? That somebody who knows how to analyze something analyzes something. Do you know who else is good at this? Thomas Massie, MIT engineer. When he analyzes something, you say to yourself, oh, a good analyzer, just analyze something. So you should listen to that. But if you see somebody telling you the moon is made of gas, maybe don't listen to that one. But you should know who are the ones who actually know what they're talking about. If you're trained as an engineer or a venture capitalist, you probably know how to look at the costs and the benefits. That's what they do. They're trained to. Same with the economics people. So I always say that people think they know how to analyze situations, but they don't. I was going to name a name, but I'm not going to do it. There's somebody who's well known on the conservative libertarian side of things who is very strident in analyzing the situation in public and doesn't have any skill at it. And I keep wanting to not be a jerk and point it out, so I'm not going to name a name, but there. There's somebody in the public domain who is so unqualified for looking at the big situations. They just don't have the skill. And. Well, you know. No, it's not Tucker, somebody said, is it Tucker? You know what Tucker does? Tucker has humility, and that goes a long way. See if you agree. When he's right. Of course, he's, you know, can be cocky when he. When he knows he's right. But Tucker will be the first person to tell you why he doesn't understand. That goes a long way for credibility. Am I right? When there's something he doesn't understand, like, you know, the deep economics of something, or he'll just tell you, I don't know why. This is the thing. This is all I know. I'm just watching like you are. So the thing about Tucker is that he. He talks about the news like he was watching it at home, but better than you, right? Because he's smarter. So. And that's real valuable. That's sort of what I tried to do. I try to watch it like I'm watching at home with you, but that I can add maybe some, you know, analytical things just because I'm trained to do it. If you're not trained to do it, you think you can, but you can't. So I'm not going to name names, but you'll. You'll notice them anyway. JD Vance appear apparently is trained to do this. Thomas Massie apparently is trained to look at complicated pictures and see both sides. So pay attention to them. Give them a little more attention. If you see somebody who has a background that doesn't include those skills, take that into consideration. All right, ladies and gentlemen. Scott, you're confusing J.D. vance with Blake Masters. Well, I read today that he worked for Peter Teal. Did I get that wrong? Give me a fact check before I go, because that's a good. That's a really good question. Did I get that wrong? Because I think they both worked for Peter Teal. Give me a fact check on that. I. I don't want to give something that important wrong. So make sure. Okay. Yes. All right. So they both work for Peter Teal. So I'm not confusing them. Yeah, they both work fertile. I think that's all we need. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say some more words to the locals people, so they're going to stay on here. But the rest of you will be seeing me tomorrow. All right, see you tomorrow. Everybody else locals, stick with me.