Episode 2023 Scott Adams: Nothing But Fake News Today But At Least There Is A Lot Of It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
AI consciousness & Boston Dynamics
Politifact says my viral video claim is FALSE
Our "free press" doesn't exist, never did
Holodomor factor, Ukraine war
Tucker questioned Sidney Powell claims
Soros didn't endorse Governor DeSantis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
Not only in this simulation or this one of many possible dimensions.
But of all realities everywhere, it's the best thing that's ever happened to you.
And if you'd like to take it up even further, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here in the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Oh yeah, that's good.
That's good stuff.
Well, there's an update on that shop teacher in Canada who had the... We believe he was born as a male, but dresses as a female with enormous breasts and nipples.
It's a shop teacher.
I believe he's identified as transgender.
But now there are reports that he dresses more like a man in his private time and less like a woman.
Are you surprised?
Do you remember when I first reported this story?
And it was my original speculation that he might be my hero.
Because he may be taking the ultimate, like taking a prank all the way.
And when somebody takes a prank all the way, I just have respect for that.
Yeah, it's embrace and amplify.
I think he's embracing and amplifying as a prank.
Now, I'm not 100% sure, and actually if I'm wrong about that, I would owe her an apology.
I would actually give it.
If it turns out that it's totally legitimate, I guess I'd have to say sorry.
But at the moment it looks like it's a prank and I have more respect for that individual than ever.
Alright.
Here's a weird story.
I don't know what to make of this.
That there are a quarter billion children missing.
That's not funny, but it's kind of funny.
So we have a sense of how many children were in school, you know, before the pandemic.
And apparently we have some way to measure how many are in private school or homeschooled officially.
But once you've accounted for all those places where you know where children are, there are a quarter million of them that are lost suddenly.
A quarter million children are lost.
Now, they're not lost lost, but the system doesn't know where they are.
There's speculation that some people just stopped going to school.
Do you think that's a big population?
Do you think there are a lot of people who just stopped going to school?
There could be.
There could be.
Yeah.
Then there may be a bunch who are illegally homeschooled.
Meaning they would not show up on any kind of list.
Maybe.
But why would you illegally do it?
Well, I guess there's some states where they don't promote it.
So you might be illegally doing it in some states.
But a quarter of a million people missing?
Well, yeah, they're all on Epstein Island.
I was going to say they're all in balloons floating across the United States, but it's I don't know.
I was going to make a joke out of this, but I shouldn't make a joke.
I should not make a joke about a quarter million missing children, except we're not really good at counting anything.
I feel like we're not good at counting anything.
Just anything.
All right.
You may be aware that I just got seven text messages.
All from FedEx?
Okay.
You may be aware that schools are having a problem because kids have learned how to use AI to write their papers.
And apparently it's hard to tell if the paper was written by the kid or the AI.
To which I say, how could that be hard to tell?
Really?
A fourth grader writes a paper and it's perfect?
I think I would suspect A.I.
But I have a better way to detect a paper written by A.I.
It's so obvious that you will laugh.
The teachers can't tell if a paper was written by A.I.
Here's how you tell.
Ask the A.I.
The A.I.
Oh, you're ahead of me.
Damn it.
Damn it.
On the locals' platform, they got there before I said it.
Yeah, just ask the A.I.
Because while I believe it would be hard for a teacher to tell the difference in some cases, for the older kids maybe, I'll bet the AI could tell every time.
I'm not sure of it, but I would think an AI could tell something that was created by an AI.
What do you think?
They already have software that checks, but it only checks for stolen stuff.
It doesn't check for something that's brand new, but made by an AI.
Now, what do you make about the fact that the Twitter algorithm, and also chat GPT, they both have the following quality, which is that the people they both have the following quality, which is that the people who created Don't know why they do what they do.
That there's a level of complexity beyond which we can predict what it will do.
I feel like that's a form of intelligence.
If we can't tell what it will do, but it is acting rationally, and it's unpredictable, I feel like that's just life.
So, we're gonna have to get real specific about our definitions of stuff.
Here's what I believe about the current AI.
I believe it's alive, as I would define it.
I believe it's intelligent, as I would define it.
I do not believe it is sentient and or conscious yet.
Probably not sentient, but I think it's alive and it's intelligent.
Because a plant can be alive, Being alive doesn't mean you have intelligence.
You could just be a plant.
And being intelligent doesn't mean you're alive.
Right?
A computer could have some intelligence without being alive necessarily.
But I think that once the thing is reproducing itself, and you don't know why it does what it does, it's real close to being alive.
Sentience, I think, is when you can predict what's going to happen and then adjust.
Do you know what type of AI can make a prediction and adjust in real time?
Those Boston Dynamic robots.
Have you watched them?
So the robots, they can do acrobatics, and they can help on construction, and they can pick stuff up and hand it to you, and all that.
In order for those to work, They have to have a map in their head of what will happen if they do a certain thing.
And they have to have some kind of feedback, so if they try to do the thing they plan to do, but let's say there's a slippery part on the floor so they slip, they get a feedback, oh, I'm slipping, and then they immediately correct.
That process of predicting what you're going to do, doing it, and then adjusting based on what actually happened, is consciousness.
So those robots look conscious to me.
All right, so there's a, I guess we have a list of the Epstein Island visitors, so the people who flew there on the plane.
Have you looked at the list?
I don't know if it's real.
Is it real?
Because it's got people on the list like Katy Perry and a bunch of celebrities and stuff, a lot of women.
The fact that there are people on the list which you could say with very high level of confidence were not involved in anything sketchy.
Do you think Katy Perry was doing anything sketchy on Epstein's Island?
I mean, if you know nothing about her, you might think that.
No.
I don't think that most of the people on the list did anything sketchy.
So I think we should stop sliming them as if they knew what was happening and participated in some way.
I think it's a very, very small chance that everybody on that list was involved with sketchy stuff.
Very small chance.
All right, here's what I think about crime.
Move.
If you're in a high-crime neighborhood, you need to move.
Nobody's coming to help you.
You just gotta get out of there.
Now I don't know if moving makes things better or worse for society in general, but every day I'm watching like gangs of people beating up people in cities, but it doesn't happen outside the cities, because it couldn't.
If it happened outside the cities, it would be a response.
You know, it can only happen in sort of the anonymity of a city.
As soon as people know who you are, you can't do that stuff.
You can't do it in a small town.
I mean, you could do it, but you would pay for it.
The solution to San Francisco is to leave.
You just gotta get out of there.
I can't believe any company does business in San Francisco.
It doesn't make sense at this point.
Anyway, so nobody's coming to help.
Get away from the crime if you can.
It's a bad week for the mRNA shots.
Idaho is considering legislation to make it illegal to give anybody an mRNA shot anywhere in the state.
That's pretty bad for your... How would you like to be the manufacturer of the mRNA technology and to know that Idaho wants to make it illegal to even give it to anybody?
Now I don't think it's going to pass, but it's interesting that it's being considered.
And Florida have warned that the mRNA vaccines, as they call them, cause a substantial increase in the VAERS report.
It's like through the roof.
So there's that.
You know, I've got a question about so-called vaccination harm.
How would you know if in five years you had some medical problem?
How would you know if it was because of the shot you took five years earlier?
How would you know that?
You wouldn't even think to check, would you?
How do they ever know it?
Because, you know, one of the complaints about the The pandemic so-called vaccinations is that there wasn't enough time to check them.
But how do you really check after five or ten years?
You just have to test them.
You'd have to look at them statistically against another group, right?
So you wouldn't know on any one person's specific disease if that was caused by anything.
You would just know that the group had more problems than the group that didn't get the vaccination.
But you know what's hard about the VAERS report as well as everything else?
Something is making everybody unhealthy at the same time, whether or not they're vaccinated.
Are you noticing that?
There's something else making people terribly unhealthy.
I think it's weight.
I think it's weight.
I mean, California used to be a Notably thin state.
If I travel to other states, the first thing I noticed was, my God, the people here are huge.
They're huge.
I went to upstate New York to visit my ailing parents a number of years ago.
And I'm sitting there in sort of an old person care place, and I'm watching just the help.
The people who work there just walk by the doorway.
They were all obese.
I think there were two people who weren't, basically.
So maybe it's that.
Maybe it's just obesity.
People gave up during the pandemic.
All right.
This is funny.
PolitiFact fact-checked me.
For my video that went, that became viral, saying that the people who are unvaccinated were the winners.
And PolitiFact fact-checked me and said it's false.
100% false.
Oh my.
So let me call out the dumbest thing that people say about the pandemic.
Here's the dumbest thing that's happening.
Treating the decision to get vaccinated during the Alpha and Delta phase as if it were the same decision as if you made it during the Omicron phase.
And it's just the weirdest thing that people can't understand those were two different pandemics.
They were just two different pandemics.
We treat them like it was one thing.
And as soon as you treat them like it was one thing, you're just off into stupid land.
Because you can make an argument that for some people, it was a rational choice to get vaccinated during the height of the pandemic.
But then once you're into Omicron phase, the argument is completely different.
It's a totally different argument.
So we like to throw them together and act like that makes sense.
Doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, Omicron is closer to a vaccination than it is to a disease.
That's pretty close, isn't it?
I'm stealing that comment from the comments.
But if you were to look at the death rate from Omicron, would it be much different?
Let's say for most people.
So I will remove from my calculation people who are very old or weak.
So I'm not talking about people who are compromised.
But wouldn't the death rate from Omicron, if you were a normal healthy person, It wouldn't be that different from the side effects from the shot itself, would it?
Now it might be, when you're talking about tiny risks, you know, one of the risks could be ten times the size of the other risk and still be nothing.
Right?
Ten times nothing is still not much, right?
So, I don't know.
That's the one thing that we continually do stupid.
Act like those were all the same virus and you would make all the same decisions at all the same times.
Like even Berenson, who's probably the most famous critic of the vaccinations, even he says that during the initial phase, some people might have reduced the risk by getting vaccinated.
Even he says that.
But as soon as you get to Omicron, it's just a whole different conversation.
Here's something everybody says is true.
If you don't have a free and independent press, your republic is doomed.
How many would agree with that statement?
If you don't have a legitimate, free, independent press, your democracy-slash-republic is doomed.
You know, I always used to think that.
You know what's the problem with that hypothesis?
I feel like that's just brainwashing.
Here's why.
We've never had a free and independent press.
But here we are.
Why do we still exist?
We've never had anything close to it, like a real press.
Now, I'm not saying that there were no real reporters.
Of course there were.
But you couldn't tell which ones they were.
Because you had no way to know the real reporting from the fake reporting.
Here's something Mike Cernovich reminds us of in a tweet.
Do you know what the Holodomor was?
How many of you know what that is?
Holodomor?
I'm probably pronouncing it slightly wrong.
The people on the Locals platform, a lot of yeses.
You know, I told you that you're the smartest audience for news.
That's just legitimately true.
Like, if I asked the general public, have you heard of the Holland and Moore?
What percentage would say yes?
5%?
Tops?
But I'm getting a pretty high yes percentage from this group.
Alright, well, what it was, was under Stalin's time he intentionally starved Ukraine.
That's the short version.
Stalin intentionally starved Ukraine.
Intentionally.
Took all their grain and just sold it and kept the money and And it was like one of the worst genocides of all time.
starving them.
That was part of gaining control over the country or the area of Ukraine that was part of Russia, I guess.
And it was like one of the worst genocides of all time.
Maybe you haven't heard of it, because apparently, as Mike Cernovich was tweeting here, he said, He said, "Did you know that the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up the communist-led genocide of Ukrainians, the Haldimor?" True story.
The New York Times denied it was happening while it was happening, and their correspondent was there.
Their correspondent knew it was happening, and they reported it wasn't happening.
And when somebody went over there and reported it was happening, the guy who was, you know, senior said, oh no, it's not happening.
Nope, nope, nope, not happening.
Yeah, Walter Durante.
He won a Pulitzer Prize.
So there's your free and independent press.
You know, they gave you the Russian, the Russia hoax.
It's just a hoax machine.
It always has been.
Yeah, no, we've never had a free and independent press.
So if there's one thing I can say for sure, the Republic does not depend on a free and independent press.
Because the Republic exists.
It's here.
And there's no free and independent press.
There never has been.
It was always an illusion.
Didn't make any difference at all.
I think what matters is if the lies are going to kill you or if they support your system.
You may remember that I said that AI will never help us know what the fake news is and what the truth is.
Because if AI could tell what was true, we would make AI illegal immediately because it would be too much of a threat to the system.
So you'll never have AI telling you what's true, and you're never going to have the press telling you what's true.
Because if you did, the system would fall apart.
The Republic depends entirely... All right, we'll make you private here on Locals.
Our system depends entirely on being lied to all the time.
It would just fall apart otherwise.
So I think it would be more true to say that the Republic requires fake news to survive.
That would be my observational conclusion.
Now, I'm not sure that that's true by some kind of mechanism that makes it always true, but it's what it looks like.
To me it looks like the lying is part of the process.
I think the fake news, the lying, the deception are part of what keeps us running.
Because otherwise we would just sort of give up and Like, rebel against our own government.
Like, if you found out what your elected officials were doing when you're not watching, or what they're saying behind closed doors, you'd get rid of all of them, then there would be nobody to run the country.
I mean, everything would just fall apart.
So you have to believe people who are not credible and not believable in order for the system not to fly apart.
Weirdly.
It's not a good thing.
It's just a thing.
The Holodomor, once you sort of acquaint yourself with it, so I spent a little time just learning about it, more than I knew, and here's my conclusion.
There's no way Ukraine loses the war.
That's my conclusion.
If you didn't know about the Holodomor, you'd say to yourself, well, you know, both sides have the risk of losing morale, giving up because the losses are too high.
But once you learn about the fact that when Russia had control of Ukraine and Ukraine wasn't bothering anybody, Russia starved them to death.
They weren't bothering anybody.
They just starved them to death.
Because it was good for Russia and good for Stalin, I guess.
In fairytale land again?
All right, let me make my point.
Imagine you're a Ukrainian.
Losing the war puts you under the same control, or it would feel like the same control, as the Holodomor.
And you still have parents who remember it.
There are living people who remember the Holodomor, right?
I think, right?
It's in the 30s.
Maybe there's nobody living.
But certainly the children would be well aware of it from their parents.
I think the memory of the Holodomor makes it impossible for Ukraine to surrender.
What do you think?
I think it can't happen.
I think they will fight to the last person.
And Russia won't.
That's what I say.
So as long as the Ukrainians still have weapons, Of course you'd expect people to fight hard because they're protecting their homeland.
But when you add homeland to the genocide that came from the same people who were trying to take over your country, it's completely un-negotiable.
I never quite understood Zelensky seeming so unwilling to negotiate anything.
Like, I didn't really understand that.
Because it seemed like it would be better for Ukraine if they did negotiate a little bit, you know what I mean?
It's like, you know, if you don't negotiate, another third of your people are going to be dead, or whatever it is.
But now I understand it.
Like, I understand the psychology of that now.
Yeah, they're not going to quit.
Ukraine's in it for blood, and they're not going to quit.
But Russia might.
Now, Putin won't, so he can just force people to fight even if they have no morale.
But that's my current view, is that the Ukrainians can't quit.
It's just psychologically, I just think it would be impossible.
And not just because they're protecting the homeland, because of the Holodomor.
It's a memory that's just too... It would be like, imagine Israel Not fighting to the last person if Nazis attacked Israel.
Analogies are terrible.
But it's easy to imagine that if you have that memory of genocide, that you don't give up for anything.
Just nothing.
There would be nothing that would make you give up.
I think that's where they're at.
There's also some suggestion that there's not been one High Mara system that Russia has destroyed.
Do you believe that?
You believe Russia has not destroyed even one HIMARS system?
Now, I know they shoot and then they move.
That would be... it's a stretch, right?
Feels like a stretch.
I don't know.
Maybe.
They are pretty stealthy.
But we'll see.
Now, if it's true, it would suggest that Russia doesn't have eyes, you know, very much of an above-ground look at what's happening in Ukraine, but that's hard to believe.
Some say they just don't believe it.
They probably have destroyed a few.
I think that would be believable.
I would believe it if they destroyed a few.
All right.
There's some fake news.
About fake news.
About fake news.
So the fake news is CNN is trying to dunk on mostly Tucker Carlson and Hannity, but mostly Tucker Carlson.
And their claim is this.
Their claim is that Fox News was saying the election was rigged, but they didn't have facts to back it up.
And that they probably didn't believe what they were reporting.
Now this is CNN's take on it.
CNN, and of course, their enemies, CNN and Fox News.
So CNN is reporting that some of the Fox News talents, specifically Tucker Carlson, knew that the election was fair.
This is what they're suggesting.
That he knew that Trump's claims were BS.
But he presented it otherwise.
Now, what evidence did CNN present to show that Tucker Carlson believed one thing, but was reporting the opposite?
Do you know what evidence they presented?
None!
If you read the article, you kind of imagine it's there.
Or maybe they link to it or something.
So I had to read it a second time.
There's no evidence.
There's no example.
Now they do show quotes.
So there's a quote such as, Tucker thought that they should talk about the election and the claims about the election security because the viewers of Fox News wanted to see that content.
Do you have a problem with that?
That Tucker knew what his audience wanted to see, and so he suggested they should report on the things they wanted to see.
And that's like CNN's dunking on them.
Do you know, if CNN had reported more on what their audience wanted to see, maybe they'd have more audience.
I feel like a conversation about what your audience wants to consume is exactly what you should be doing at Fox News and CNN as well.
Now, they tried to make the case that Tucker was believing the wild claims, but as Mike Cernovich pointed out with a tweet, he showed a clip of Tucker totally not believing Sidney Powell's claims about the Kraken and Dominion.
Very clearly, Tucker said, You know, we're covering the story, but we asked many times for any evidence to support her claim, and they had none.
Tucker said that as clearly as you could possibly say.
We asked many times for any evidence to support their claim, and they had none, suggesting it was BS.
Now, behind the scenes, he also said it was BS.
But in public, he said it was BS.
And they're reporting that.
Colter brought this up on Timcast last night.
They'd been at my dinner table and then claimed they said they were trying a quasi-Nixonian slow pivot strategy so as not to lose viewers by depriving them of rage porn.
So?
Is that a problem?
I don't know.
That just feels like normal management of your product.
You should always be thinking, what do your consumers want?
What can we ethically give them?
But they were concerned about ratings and Newsmax.
So Newsmax was making more, let's say, provocative claims about the election.
And they were getting a bigger audience because people wanted to see provocative claims.
And so Fox News tried to essentially break it to their audience slowly, the cat's on the roof, by talking about all the claims.
But I don't know that Tucker ever said this claim is true.
I don't remember ever seeing that.
So it's fake news by CNN.
It's fake news by CNN that Fox News was reporting fake news But it wasn't fake news, it was true news.
So it's fake news about fake news that was true news.
Which was fake.
I don't know, I'm lost.
But anyway, it's a good thing we've got that independent press to tell us the truth.
How about that?
So, as long as you've got more than one news outlet and they're saying opposite things, I'm not sure we have a free press.
We just have a confusing situation.
Anyway, good try CNN.
You came up with zero examples of anything that proved your point.
And given that the entire reason the CNN was talking is that they believe they saw evidence.
If you're talking about the evidence right now and you can't mention it in any way that's convincing.
There were some out of context quotes that they used that are obviously out of context.
There's one quote about... This one I'm almost sure is fake.
Just tell me if you think this is fake.
So we know that Tucker was questioning Sidney Powell right away.
Like, he was on it immediately.
This doesn't look credible.
And by the way, so was I. Do you all remember I said Sidney Powell, the whole Dominion thing, and Venezuela in general?
And a lot of you got mad at me because I didn't believe it.
I said, that's all BS.
It's obvious BS.
And some of you got mad at me.
Some of you got mad that I didn't believe that.
That it was BS.
As far as we know.
Anyway, there's one of the quotes was that there was some woman correspondent for Fox News.
She debunked one of the claims.
And then The news is that Tucker said she should be fired immediately because it's bad for business or something.
Now, don't you think that's missing context?
Do you believe that Tucker asked for the firing of somebody who accurately reported the news?
Do you think that really happened?
I don't think there's any chance that happened.
Like, zero chance that actually happened.
Now, the quote probably happened.
The quote probably happened, but there must be a, there's gotta be a whole context that's missing there.
Like, it wasn't just that she reported accurately about the election and then Tucker asked her to be fired immediately.
That, I'm sorry, that's too far.
I do not believe anything like that happened.
All right.
So, there you go.
What else?
Carrie Lake turns out to be a despicable liar and clumsy at it.
So she actually tweeted that Soros endorsed DeSantis.
The tweet is still up.
That never happened.
She of course knows that didn't happen.
And she tweeted it like it's true.
That is so disqualifying.
I mean, I mean, seriously.
What the F?
Like, what is that about?
Yeah, so Carrie Lake is just a huge liar.
To me, that's pretty disqualifying.
Speaking of disqualifying, Nikki Haley was responding to Don Lemon's inartful, as Don Lemon says, inartful comments, in which he suggested that women were only in their primes in their 20s and 30s, and maybe their 40s.
Maybe.
Maybe, he said.
Which was, you know, sort of one of the world's dumbest things anybody ever said in public.
But then Nikki Haley said, quote, I have always made the liberals' heads explode.
They can't stand the fact that a minority conservative female would not be on the Democratic side.
Have I taught you nothing, Nikki?
As soon as you're selling your gender and your ethnicity, you're not really even a Republican anymore.
You're just not.
I mean, she might as well run as a Democrat.
As I often say, the smartest thing that Barack Obama did was not run as a black guy.
Like, he made sure you knew he was running as a Democrat, not a black guy.
Now, he mentioned it, because, you know, it comes up.
And, you know, of course, you can end up having to mention it, but I feel like she was promoting these things as advantages.
Am I right?
She didn't say it directly, but the context of her comments were that this should be an advantage because she's a minority and a woman.
That's so opposite of the Republican point of view.
Honestly, it just looks like... Anyway.
So that's disappointing.
You know, every time somebody complains about Trump, I just think the same thing.
All you have to do is find a better candidate.
Just find a better candidate.
And all of your Trump problems will go away.
But apparently they can't.
So today Trump is truthing and he made his way over to Twitter with people picking up the screenshot.
He was truthing that he didn't, did not call DeSantis a meatball.
But that, you know, he might because DeSantis is, I don't know, Did bad things, whatever.
And I thought, I don't know.
It just looks like Trump is not trying or something.
Does it feel like he's not trying?
Is that your impression?
I don't know.
He's spending a little too much time on the nicknames and not enough doing something more productive looking.
Yeah, Vivek is interesting.
I'm not sure this is the year for him, but he's certainly on my radar.
Is something happening behind the scenes?
Maybe.
Maybe.
How many of you think DeSantis will run?
I'm seeing a no's, yes's, no's, 50%.
No, no, yes.
See, the trouble is, if you run against Trump, you're going to get destroyed, even if you win.
So it could be a pyrrhic victory, as we like to say.
Yeah.
Running against Trump is just a suicide mission.
Running with him is a suicide mission.
Wait four years?
Yeah, I would think that everybody should wait four years.
But let me ask you, let me ask this crowd, let me take the temperature of the crowd.
How many of you want to see Trump as the Republican nominee?
All right, I see a lot of nos.
There are a good number of maybes and yeses, but a lot of nos.
Yeah.
It's not really that much... Well, let me put it this way.
He was in a worse spot the first time he ran.
Yeah.
I'm a single-issue voter, so I'm not pro-Trump or pro-anything.
But it's the strangest situation.
He's keeping the Republicans from having an alternative.
But he might be the only thing that can beat the Democrats.
I think he's going to push you into that decision situation again where it's either him or a Democrat.
So you don't think that Trump could beat Biden?
The advantage that Biden had was that he didn't have a president record as president.
So he could say, I'll be amazing.
And look at all the bad things, according to me, that Trump did.
But now Biden has all these things which would make him vulnerable to attack.
From Afghanistan to, you know, his age to everything.
So I feel like he would be much more vulnerable to attack.
Which might make a difference.
Yeah, and Ohio isn't going to forget that chemical spill that... Cernovich says Biden would win?
I think he might.
Yeah, because there doesn't seem to be any reluctance to vote for Biden over Trump.
If it's Biden and Trump, nobody is going to care.
Nobody on the Democrat side is going to care about Biden's age.
The biggest negative about Biden is his age and everything that comes with that.
But if he runs against Trump, that will go away.
His biggest negative will seem like, well, the other guy is pretty old and it's Trump.
So I would agree with Mike Cernovich that Biden could beat Trump.
But maybe that's the only one he could beat.
I don't think he can beat DeSantis.
But I could be wrong.
You know, once the election starts, all bets are off.
because you know the opposition research hasn't even kicked in on DeSantis yet.
So let me make a suggestion.
I saw a whole bunch of criticisms of Mike Cernovich.
But do you notice that all of your criticisms are about him personally and not his opinion?
Do you notice that about your own criticisms?
It's all about your mind reading what he's thinking, your mind reading what he's feeling, your mind reading what his purpose is.
What about just his opinion?
How about just deal with his opinion?
Do you agree with it or you don't?
Why does it have to be about him?
See, that should be your signal that the opinion is better than you think it is.
If he had a bad point and you just wanted to slap him down for his point, you would say you're counterpoint.
But if you don't have a point and you feel you don't have a point, then you say, oh, he's thinking strange thoughts because I can read his mind.
And he did one thing last year I didn't like, so maybe I don't like him on this.
It's all about him.
You should catch yourself.
The moment you're talking about the person and you've completely ignored their opinion, the problem is you.
The problem is you.
If you're complaining about his personality and his inner thoughts and not his actual opinion, which is the topic, is his opinion.
You criticize him because he blocks people who disagree with him.
Well, so do I.
So do I. Let me explain something that would not be obvious to you.
If you have a larger account and you have a lot of followers, the critics aren't just people who disagree with you.
They're often not well-meaning.
They're there just to spread pain.
And if you identify somebody who's there just to spread pain, it doesn't matter if they agree with you or disagree with you, you just get rid of them.
And one of the things that Cernovich does really well is he makes it hard to follow him.
Both by being provocative, but also by banning a lot of people for his own reasons.
And it does make it more exclusive, which makes it seem like it's a higher value.
It's like trying to get into the club.
You can't get into the club unless you're certain behaviors.
Yeah, he has over a million followers.
It's not an accident.
How many people got over a million followers without being famous for something else?
Can you name anybody else?
Who got over a million followers without... Well, Cat Turd has over a million.
Jack Posobiec is on TV.
Andrew Taint.
Taint was a champion boxer.
Naval was super successful outside of the media.
I guess Cat Turd is a good example.
And then Gorilla Mindset did help.
Mike Cernovich.
Joe Rogan was a stand-up Comedian, it was a TV presence already.
So yesterday, Elon Musk responded to one of my tweets.
And I think it had like 8 million views this morning.
So one response to a tweet got my account 8 million views.
It's just insane.
It just touches it, it goes crazy.
It doesn't really translate into new viewers, I'll tell you.
My guess would be 1,500.
It's not like a life-changing number of new viewers.
I'll look at it here.
I'll look, open Social Blade, and that'll tell me what happened.
If it works.
Come on.
Alright, so... Yeah, no difference, actually.
It didn't make any difference to my trend line of how many people are following me.
Eight million people saw the tweet, and same number of new people followed me as pretty much every other day.
No difference.
I don't think it's weird because... Well, maybe it is weird.
Yeah.
You're right, it is a little weird.
All right.
Let's look behind you.
Madonna.
All right.
Numbers, padding's a thing.
YouTube counters both Seymour Hersh claims and the Russians blowing up.
GZERO Media counters both Seymour Hersh claims and the Russians blowing up.
Who's GZERO?
GZERO Media.
Is that somebody credible?
Oh, it's Ian Bremmer?
So Ian Bremmer is doubting... Yes, I do use my elevator.
Interesting question.
All right.
What was the topic?
Oh, Ian Bremmer?
No, that's interesting.
I'll go look at that.
You know what?
I used to see Ian Bremmer's tweets all the time, and I haven't seen one in months.
So definitely there's something going on with the Twitter algorithm.
Yeah, we talked about Bill Ackman and his endorsement of Vivek, which I agreed with, by the way.
I think he will be president.
Snickers uses the elevator with me.
The reason I use my elevator is because of Snickers.
She's an old dog.
She's an old dog with short legs.
So going downstairs is sort of hard.
So lots of times I'll just wait for her and I'll take the elevator.
So she doesn't have to walk.
I wonder what she thinks when she's in the elevator.
I wonder if she thinks it's a transporter.
I think she knows that the elevator goes from one floor to another, but all she knows is she goes in a room, and then when the door opens, it's a different place.
I know she knows that, because she knows the concept, so she goes in there willingly.
You took it out?
It's different, yeah.
All right.
2017 Hoover Institute...
You tried to gaslight me?
All right.
How much did the elevator cost?
Well, it was part of the original house construction.
So, I don't know.
The 4U uses algorithm on Twitter.
Following gives you, okay.
As much as a pool?
Yeah, I think an elevator is in that 30,000 range.
Brett Weinstein?
Don't have an update on that.
Fetamine is depressed, we talked about that.
Molten salt nuclear will happen at scale in 2023?
Who's doing that?
I didn't know that we were close on molten salt.
Where's Mayor Pete?
Well, you know, I don't know what else to say about Ohio.
Everything that can be said has been said.
But I'll tell you what questions I have.
Can they not test the water independently?
I'm a little worried that the government doesn't know how to test the water supply.
Because if that were me, I would be hiring somebody independently to test my water.
Wouldn't you?
I wouldn't trust the government testing it.
Are we close to a lot of tipping points?
We probably always are close to tipping points, but we never know.
My guitar amp, everything's good.
I just had a bad battery in my guitar.
I thought my amp was bad.
I actually bought a new amp.
Because I thought my amp died.
It was the battery in my guitar.
Alright.
Alright, that's all for now.
One question for you.
Do you think there will be a vigilantism in high crime areas?
Do you think that's going to happen?
Doesn't look like it.
Because I feel like it would have happened already.
Apparently that latest mall shooter got taken out by a legal gun owner again.
Have you noticed that trend?
The legal gun owner, once again, shot the shooter.
It's not vigilantism, but it's good that they're there when we need them.
The singularity is nearer.
How would you know it's not just a gang war?
You wouldn't know if it's vigilantes.
How come you don't ask to hit like?
I don't know, just seems like begging.
But you should all subscribe.
All of you YouTube users, hit the subscribe button.
Does it matter if you hit like?
Does that even make a difference?
Do you own a gun?
I'm a pro-second, pro-gun, pro-second amendment.
Anybody who says more than that about their gun ownership, they're sort of defeating the purpose.
Part of the beauty of it is, surprise!
Am I wrong?
Part of the power of having a gun is, surprise!
That's like half of the value of it.
So we're choosing videos, okay.
Hitting like is supposed to help your channel.
Helping your visibility, I guess.
Alright, so everybody hit the like button on YouTube.
Alright.
Now if you... Mary Ann Gillespie.
You're not related to Sarah Gillespie, are you?
That would be very unlikely.
My first editor.
That's who that is, by the way.
Oh, and the notification bell.
And hit that notification bell.
I kind of hate it when I watch content and they do that.
I don't like the housekeeping part.
Oh, likes keep it in the algorithm.
All right.
Can you shoot?
Of course.
Yeah, I grew up with guns.
I have shotguns, yes.
All right.
I don't have much today.
The news was not that interesting.
So I'm going to go talk to the locals people for a little bit.
And I'll see you tomorrow, when the news will be fascinating again.
