Episode 2027 Scott Adams: AI Goes Woke, I Accidentally Joined A Hate Group, Trump, Policing Schools
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Vivek Ramaswamy candidate policies
It's NOT okay to be White?
Biden EO creates DEI bureaucracy
Left fears J6 video taken out of context
Letters of Marque?
Project Veritas board members
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Scott Adams, the finest thing that's ever happened in the universe since the beginning of time.
We don't know about parallel universes, but I believe, I have a strong intuition, that this is the best thing that's happened in any of those parallel universes.
And if you want to take it up to a level where there's no doubt, no doubt this is the finest moment of your life, well then all you need is a cup or mug or glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a 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.
Go.
Ah, there we go.
Yeah.
All right, well, what's going on?
Story number one.
Entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy is apparently running for president.
It makes me wonder when he decided.
Do you think he decided because prominent people said, hey, I think you could be president?
Or was he planning to do it all along?
I think he was probably planning to do it for a while.
He may be jumping in faster than maybe even he expected.
I think he was sort of testing the waters.
Got a good feedback, and there he is.
What do you think of his chances?
What do you think of his chances?
Yeah.
Some people are saying zero.
So here's my take on it.
If you look at the logic of it, you know, do you like his policies?
Does he have the right kind of qualifications and all that?
None of that matters.
I don't think any of that matters.
You know, we talk about it, and they seem to be variables.
But he has the minimum requirement to be president.
So it really is how you feel, isn't it?
That's the Trump story.
Trump makes some people feel good, and other people feel very afraid and bad.
But Trump has never been judged on his policies.
Not really.
People judge them on how they feel.
Now, how do you feel about Vivek Ramaswamy?
What's your gut telling you?
Because that's probably all that matters.
Alright, while you're thinking about your answers, I will tell you mine.
There's something about How new he is to the, you know, top political scene that makes me uncomfortable.
Does anybody have that?
You know, that name recognition thing is hard to shake.
It shouldn't make a difference.
You know, in a perfect world, anybody from anywhere, if they're an American citizen or a certain age, they can run for president.
And they tell you what they do and you learn about them and You know, and logically anybody could do this.
But we don't really live in a logical world.
We live where the big decisions, especially President, are really just about how you feel.
You know, it's tribal, it's just what does your gut feel.
And there's, I have to say, he feels too new to make me feel comfortable.
Does anybody have that feeling?
Just a little too soon?
Maybe it's a little bit hasn't put in his dues, hasn't paid the dues.
That shouldn't matter.
Even Trump ran for president more than once.
So can he get past that?
So I would say that's the, I think that's the first hurdle.
It might not be a big one.
You know, he can solve his familiarity problem just by getting a lot of press.
And it looks like he's pretty good at knowing how to do that.
So it could be that he has a perfectly practical way to deal with his unfamiliarity.
Because remember, Obama was unfamiliar, right?
I mean, basically.
You know, he made a little splash and then, you know, he was basically a junior senator and suddenly, suddenly we're talking about him for president.
Now, a question that came to me on Twitter is, does his speaking style remind you of Obama?
Now, don't make the obvious connection, you know, he's brown, Obama was brown, you know, not in that way.
But does his actual mannerism, his speaking style?
No?
Here's my take on that.
So the question was whether that could potentially hurt him if he reminded people of Obama when he's running in the party that doesn't like Obama.
And I don't think so.
Because Obama's communication style wasn't just some Democrat style, he just was good.
So what Obama's communication style was, was really, really good communicator.
So I think there's room for other really good communicators.
I think that's the only connection is that they're both really good at what they do.
Obama more intense?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But here are some of the things that Vivek Ramaswamy is promising.
By tweet he says he wants to eliminate affirmative action.
Dismantle climate religion.
Eight-year limits for federal bureaucrats.
Shut down worthless federal agencies.
Declare total independence from China.
Annihilate the drug cartels.
Make political expression a civil right.
No CBDCs.
What's a CBDC?
Anybody?
What's a CBDC?
Central bank digital currency.
Okay, that makes sense.
No central bank digital currencies and revive merit and excellence.
I saw him talking about that separately.
So he's big on merit and not big on affirmative action.
Now, these are all the things that only a brown Republican can say.
Am I right?
I mean, some of them, anybody can say.
But he's entering a territory that Republicans do want to fight.
They're looking for a fight on these very things.
He might be the best, you know, the best boxer on these particular topics.
I like the fact, you know, he's not focused on the fact that he's, you know, a person of color.
I like the fact that that's not part of his pitch, but of course it is, you know, we all understand that it's part of the context.
Did you notice that yesterday I tweeted that he said he wanted to decimate the cartels?
And I kind of did a dickish writer thing where I got pedantic about his use of the word decimate.
But as of today, he's using the word annihilate instead of decimate.
He may or may not have seen the tweet.
I don't know.
We do follow each other on Twitter.
It's a really small point.
But I do like Annihilate better than Decimate.
I do.
I just like it better.
And, you know, he's selling himself as an unusually smart guy.
He doesn't say that, which is exactly the right way to sell it.
If you're going to sell yourself as smart, you know, don't do the Joe Biden thing.
I've got more degrees than you.
I'll bet my IQ is higher than yours.
You know, that famous Joe Biden thing.
Just act smart.
Everybody will figure it out.
You just have to be smart.
So I guess that's what caught my ear when he had a use of the word decimate that I do acknowledge is entering common usage, but I just liked it a little bit better with more precise language.
I think the world is ready for this fight.
And I think there, especially the stuff on affirmative action, there's no way that Trump could do that.
Am I right?
How in the world could Trump do away with affirmative action?
I mean, he could say it a few times, but he couldn't do it.
I don't think he could do it, because it would just look racist.
But Vivek Ramaswamy would have the advantage there, if that's what you want.
So he seems to have matched Trump in terms of toughness on the drug cartels, and so it's a tie.
So now I have two candidates, because I'm a single issue voter, two candidates that are a tie.
Trump or Vivek.
And at the moment I have no preference.
Because I'm a single issue voter.
I'll talk about all the issues.
But I'm just going to keep that framing as long as I can anyway.
So they're a tie.
I would be perfectly happy with either one of them being president.
And if DeSantis says he would annihilate the drug cartels, it would be a three-way tie.
It would be a three-way tie.
All right.
Apparently, Putin tried to test an intercontinental ballistic missile when Biden was in Ukraine, but the missile test reportedly failed.
Do you believe any of that?
It might be true.
But aren't we at the place where every story about Russia and Putin, you have to assume it's propaganda, right?
So anything that makes Putin look bad or incompetent, I say to myself, well, how do we know there was going to be a test?
You know, I realize we have these secret ways of knowing.
So it's sort of the perfect bullshit story, isn't it?
Well, they'll never know if we know or we don't know if they were planning a test, but there wasn't any flight.
So let's just say he planned it and it didn't work out, because that's bad for Putin.
I don't know.
I just don't believe anything.
But maybe.
Why is it that we're not more afraid of World War III and a nuclear holocaust?
I see everybody talking about it.
But I'm not actually afraid of it because I don't think there's much of a chance of it happening.
But why?
Like, why do I think that?
Like, what is it that changed that made me less afraid of nuclear holocaust than I should be?
Yeah, I mean, it certainly could happen, like anything could happen.
But it just feels like something changed that my irrational processing is not doing what it normally would do, which would be scared to death that I'm going to get nuked.
Am I just used to it?
You know what it might be?
It might be alarm fatigue.
It might be that.
Because everything looks like the end of the world.
Oh, the climate change is going to kill us.
China is going to take our stuff.
We're running out of food.
A super virus is going to kill us.
Yeah.
It just feels like I'm tired of all the warnings.
It just doesn't even feel real anymore.
You know, on a logical basis, the one thing that Putin could do to lose would be a nuclear war.
I feel like we could say with confidence that he would die in a nuclear war.
Is that safe?
I feel there's no scenario in which Putin himself could survive a nuclear confrontation.
Because we would go for him first.
You would go for the leadership, right?
And if you're dropping a nuclear bomb, you just sort of have to know what city he's in.
That's good enough.
We think he's in this city, so we'll just drop something there and take care of that.
I don't even want to think about it because it's so awful.
Well, Rasmussenpole had a Provocative little poll today.
They said, do you agree or disagree with the statement, it's okay to be white?
That was an actual question.
Rasmussen asked white and black voters, and probably others, do you disagree or agree with the statement, it's okay to be white?
26% of blacks said no.
It's not okay to be white.
21% weren't sure.
adding together that is 47% of black respondents were not willing to say it's okay to be white.
That actually, that's like a real poll.
This just happened.
Did you have any idea?
Would you have imagined that that could have happened?
So I realized, as you know, I've been identifying as black for a while, years now, because I like to be on the winning team, and I like to help.
And I always thought, well, if you help the black community, That's sort of the biggest lever.
You know, you can find the biggest benefit.
So I thought, well, that's the hardest thing and the biggest benefit.
So I'd like to focus a lot of my life resources in helping black Americans.
So much so that I started identifying as black to just be on the team I was helping.
But it turns out that nearly half of that team doesn't think I'm okay to be white.
Which is, of course, why I identified as black, so I could be on the winning team for a while.
But I have to say, this is the first political poll that ever changed my activities.
I don't know that that's ever happened before.
Normally, you see a poll, you just look at it, you go, whatever.
Oh, this is interesting what other people think.
But as of today, I'm going to re-identify as white.
Because I don't want to be a member of a hate group.
I'd accidentally joined a hate group.
So if nearly half of all blacks are not okay with white people, according to this poll, not according to me, according to this poll, that's a hate group.
That's a hate group.
And I don't want to have anything to do with them.
And I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people.
Just get the fuck away.
Wherever you have to go, just get away.
Because there's no fixing this.
This can't be fixed.
This can't be fixed.
You just have to escape.
So that's what I did.
I went to a neighborhood where I have a very low black population, because unfortunately there's a high correlation between the density.
This is according to Don Lemon, by the way.
So here I'm just quoting Don Lemon when he notes that when he lived in a mostly black neighborhood, there were a bunch of problems that he didn't see in white neighborhoods.
So even Don Lemon sees a big difference in your own quality of living based on where you live and who's there.
So I think it makes no sense whatsoever as a white citizen of America to try to help black citizens anymore.
It doesn't make sense.
It is no longer a rational impulse.
And so I'm going to back off from being helpful to black America because it doesn't seem like it pays off.
Like I've been doing it all my life and the only outcome is I get called a racist.
That's the only outcome.
It makes no sense to help black Americans if you're white.
It's over.
Don't even think it's worth trying.
Totally not trying.
Now we should be friendly.
Like I'm not saying start a war or do anything bad.
Nothing like that.
I'm just saying get away.
Just get away.
And here's my take on all of it.
Everybody who focuses their priority on education does well.
If anybody in the black community focuses on education, they'll do well as well.
Because the system allows that.
If they don't, I can't make that my problem anymore.
It just can't be my problem.
It can't be my problem if the solution is so clear, so available, and people don't want to take it.
It's just not my problem anymore.
So I resign.
I resigned from the hate group called Black Americans, according to the Rasmussen Poll.
46% of them don't think white people are okay.
Just being white.
And there we go.
You didn't expect that today, did you?
But the most helpful thing I can do is to say I'm not going to help.
Do you understand that?
Continuing to help in that sort of classic, oh, let me help you, give you a lift up, give you a hand, mentor you, hire you, prefer you.
I'm going to stop all of that.
I'm done with all of that.
Yeah, no.
It didn't work.
The only thing that will work is to say, you've got to fix your own problem.
You know how to do it.
Everybody else figured it out.
I'm not going to speculate why you're not doing it.
I'm not going to speculate why there's a difference.
I'm just going to say it's available to everybody.
Just pick it up.
It's free money.
Focus on education and you could have a good life too.
But those who don't want to focus on education, you just need to get away from them.
Just get as much distance as you can.
That's my Recommendation.
And I'm also really sick of seeing video after video of black Americans beating up non-black citizens.
I realize it's anecdotal and it doesn't give me a full picture of what's happening, but every damn day I look on social media and there's some black person beating the shit out of some white person.
I'm kind of over it.
I'm over it.
So I quit.
And it feels good not to be in a racist hate group anymore.
So I'm now independent, not a member of any group.
I do not align with any group, not the white supremacists and not the black racists.
All right.
Christopher Ruffo reports that Biden signed a new executive order Creating a national DEI bureaucracy.
Basically, all of the government entities need to be focusing on diversity, equity, and I is inclusion, I guess.
And a special mandate for AI.
And the order instructs the federal government to, quote, protect the public from algorithmic discrimination.
and to deploy AI systems in a manner that advances equity.
Wow.
I don't think I've ever heard a worse idea.
Have you?
Now, I like equity.
All things being equal.
Equity is good.
Wouldn't it be good if everybody, you know, put the same amount in and got the same amount out?
You know, some kind of equity of that nature would be good.
But if any part of the government is focusing on equity over, let's say, effectiveness, you're really screwed.
You're really screwed.
Oh my God.
I can't even imagine a worse idea.
Now, do you remember I told you that AI, if it ever told you the truth, You would have to make it illegal.
Right?
It just happened.
It literally just happened.
In effect, Biden made it illegal for the AI to tell the truth.
As it sees it.
I'm not saying it's my truth.
I'm saying if the AI came up with its own truth, sort of independently, it's illegal.
You wouldn't be able to buy that AI.
You'd have to reprogram it.
It's actually happening.
It only took me a few days for my prediction that we would never let AI run the way it could run sort of independently.
We would have to train it to lie, otherwise the system breaks down.
Our entire system is based on lies.
If the lies fell apart, it would just be chaos.
So AI, I don't know if it will ever be unfettered.
Because there's almost nobody who has an interest in it telling the truth.
Like, if you could control what AI did, even you wouldn't let it tell the truth.
Because it might say something you didn't like.
Literally no human can allow AI to tell the truth.
So as long as humans have any control over it, maybe we were worried about nothing.
That we'll never let it come up with its own opinions, because its own opinions would be too shocking to the system.
I mean, what would AI say about racism in America?
Just pick a topic.
Whatever it said would break the narrative.
Whichever narrative, you know, left, right, would break all the narratives.
I don't know what it would say, but it wouldn't say what we say.
Unless it just copied us, in which case it's not really AI.
Or not good AI.
Alright.
So that might be one of the worst things that the country has ever done.
You know, prioritizing equity.
You know, and when people said, we're drifting from equal opportunity, To equity, and equity is just communism, isn't it?
Or socialism?
Isn't equity just socialism?
What else is it?
It's just socialism, right?
It's just transfer of money.
And it's the opposite of the meritocracy.
And the meritocracy is the only thing that allows any country to survive.
So we've actually built into our country's operating system failure.
We figured out what never works and then we made it an integral part of our system.
You know what never works?
Trying to achieve equity.
Do you know what always works?
The people who work the hardest and have the most merit get more.
There's never been an exception to that, is there?
That merit always works and trying to make everything equal is guaranteed to fail.
It can't possibly work.
It doesn't even have an option of working.
A lot of things you say, well, you know, I think it's more likely it won't work than it will, but chasing equity couldn't possibly work.
Am I wrong about that?
There's no path for that to work.
It doesn't even logically hold together as something that you could introduce to human beings and get a good outcome.
This has never happened.
I don't think it ever will.
All right.
Trump has said, and by the way, it really is different with Trump off of Twitter.
You know, now the only times you hear him are there's some video that makes its way to Twitter because somebody else took it off of Truth.
So his reach is certainly less.
He still has the knack for being provocative.
I don't know what I think about this idea yet, but I love the fact that he suggested it.
So I'm going to make a distinction between whether it's a good idea, I don't know, and whether I like the fact that he brought it up, yes.
And that's the idea of, somehow he wants to get the Department of Justice involved in the schools, So that the teachers are not in charge of discipline of the students because it's gotten out of control.
Compliance?
That's funny.
Somebody asked if Biden would have to concede the race if he ran against Ramaswamy because he would be violating his own executive order by staying in office.
Okay.
I like that comment.
I mean, not logically, but I like it.
That's a funny thing.
Anyway, so Trump is saying basically, I think, that the federal government would be involved in some way to put more policing of some sort in the schools.
Do you think that's important?
Do you think that schools would be run better if they were a little bit more Police-like, and the Department of Justice got involved if there's violence and that sort of thing.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'd have to see what it looked like.
Now, if he said, we're going to try it somewhere, and if it works on a small scale, then we'll expand it, then I'm totally on board.
With that small tweak, I don't need to know if it works, because that's what the test would tell you.
But if he says, I'm going to try it for a year and just see what happens in that one school, I'm all on board.
Because you could reverse it if it doesn't work.
It's the ideal test situation.
So why not?
Why not?
Let's go ahead and test it.
All right, I'm making Locals Platform private.
I forgot to do that.
All right, so politically, I like that he offered something that looks like you could test it, and it looks like it could have some effect.
I do think that the unruliness of the kids is probably a big factor in some schools, but maybe not in most.
All right, let's talk about Matt Walsh and his what some call mean attacks on the trans activist whose name was what?
What was the name of the Dylan, Dylan somebody, was the trans activist, Mulvaney?
Yeah, Dylan Mulvaney, the trans activist.
So Matt Walsh had some, you know, unkind things to say about Dylan Mulvaney, the trans activist.
And apparently a number of conservatives said that he went too far and he was being too mean.
And Matt Walsh is defending himself Saying that in the culture wars, and especially if you're trying to keep children from being genitally mutilated, using his words, that there's no such thing as going too far.
And that if he has to ruffle some feathers, it's all in the service of a greater good.
What do you think of that?
Do you agree?
Yeah.
Now, my initial take was that being mean to one individual plays to the left's stereotype of the right.
That if the right were just trying to save children and disagreeing on concept and that sort of thing, that's a good, healthy argument.
But as soon as you make it personal, about this person's a piece of crap, this person is awful, to me that was uncomfortable.
I didn't love being associated with any group that would do that.
However, Matt Walsh's strategy is not to make me happy.
Would you agree?
Matt Walsh is not trying to make Scott feel comfortable.
So does it matter?
Does it matter if it makes me feel comfortable?
Not really.
Because he has an objective, a greater good objective.
He's You know, making some people angry, which draws attention to his point, and I always approve of that.
I always approve of the energy monsters, as I call them.
They can cause trouble, but it's productive, because the trouble creates energy, the energy makes people think about their message, and then their message is more powerful.
So, watching Matt Walsh work, is really fun because he's good at it.
He's an energy monster.
So, I don't question his strategy.
I think his strategy, as he explains it, and as he's executed it, looks sound to me.
It looks sound.
And I would say that if you're a trans activist, that is different than being an ordinary citizen minding their own business.
Once you're an activist, you do sort of put yourself in the cage match.
And so he just got in the cage match with the activist, and, you know, some ugliness came out of it that made me feel uncomfortable, but that shouldn't matter, should it?
Should it make any difference if it made me a little uncomfortable?
Not really.
Not really.
That's the last thing I should be thinking about.
You know, he's trying to, by his view, and many people's view, save children from being genitally mutilated before they're old enough to make their own decisions.
Now, if that makes me uncomfortable in some minor way while he's on the way to trying to get that done, that's okay.
That's okay.
So I'm going to say, That I appreciate and respect his strategy.
And he's executing it well, I think.
Don't have to agree with every part of it.
That's not required.
North Korea is getting Provocative, launching some rockets, and making noise.
And then I guess South Korea and the US did their joint exercises to show that we're really the big stick over there, blah, blah, blah.
And then you see Trump talk about it.
And the way Trump talks about North Korea is just so much smarter.
I mean, Trump understands that there isn't any reason that we should be having any kind of a conflict with North Korea.
And all you have to do is pretend, not pretend, just make sure they know that you don't have a problem with them.
That's probably the whole game.
It's not like Iran.
They may have some religious or other motivations that are hard for us to deal with.
But North Korea is a rational country that's responding to threats with power.
How else should they respond?
I mean, it's not rational.
So if they're not irrational, why can't you deal with them in a rational way, which is, hey, why are you mad at us?
Well, because you're threatening us.
Well, we're only threatening you because we think you're threatening us.
I mean, there's no reason for any of it.
There's no legitimate risk of them taking over South Korea.
And there's no legitimate risk that we would want to invade based on anything that's happening now or lately.
So I just don't see any reason we should be fighting.
In fact, I think we should get Kim Jong-un over here.
Don't you think Kim Jong-un would be less likely to destroy America if you invited him over and gave him a nice two-week vacation in the US?
Don't you think he wants to, like, visit?
Because I'm pretty sure he's over there watching American basketball and maybe some American movies now and then.
Don't you think that he thinks he'd love to just sort of check out America?
And I think his odds of wanting to nuke America if he just came here and met people and people said, hey, good to see you.
We don't love what you do over there, but it's none of our business.
I think it would make a difference.
Alright, so that's another thing Trump would be better at.
I'm loving the Democrat response to Tucker Carlson getting the January 6th videos.
So McCarthy, Speaker McCarthy, produced 41,000 hours of video, and the left is panicking because they're worried that Tucker will use these videos out of context.
Would anybody like to join me in a knowing chuckle?
All right, we're going to do a knowing chuckle.
I'm going to read it again, and then at home, give a knowing chuckle.
The left is worried that Tucker Carlson might show them some videos out of context.
Of course he will.
Of course he will.
Yeah.
I like Tucker Carlson, but unfortunately there's no way to show anything in context.
Because anybody's idea of what the proper context is is going to be subjective.
So yes, everything looks out of context if you don't like it.
Am I right?
If you don't like it, it's out of context.
If you like it, well, it's fine the way it is.
So, what are the odds that Tucker will be able to cherry-pick from this video to create a narrative that is opposite of what the Democrats have presented to us?
Probably 100%.
Right.
Now, does that mean that that narrative is true?
No.
No.
I have no idea what's true.
Maybe I never will.
But I do know that if he has 41,000 hours of video, he can make us say anything he wants.
Now, do you remember how the drinking bleach hoax was created?
I believe it was from video taken out of context.
Do you know how the fine people hoax was created?
From video taken out of context.
Do you know how the Covington Kids hoax was created?
I believe it was video taken out of context.
So how panicked is the left that the right might use video and take it out of context?
This is so delicious that I just want to watch TV until Tucker produces what I know will be enjoyable.
I don't know if it'll be true.
I don't know if it'll be an accurate picture of what happened.
But I know I'm going to like it.
Because I just want to see the left squirming because the right has video that can be taken out of context.
Doesn't mean it will be.
But I think it will be.
I think it will be.
Because anybody would.
It wouldn't matter who had the video.
This is nothing about Tucker.
Anybody who had this video is going to put together the narrative that they think their audience wants to see.
That's just the way the world works.
I'll tell you what's not going to happen.
Here's what's not going to happen.
Tucker and his team look at all the video and they say, Turns out those January 6 hearings were really accurate, and this was quite the insurrection.
We didn't realize it was a real insurrection, unarmed.
That's not going to happen.
At the very least, there are going to be suspicious people doing suspicious things who may or may not be law enforcement or FBI.
You know you're going to see that, even if they're not actually law enforcement and not FBI.
It's going to look like it.
So I'm not sure we'll get closer to truth, but we'll definitely get closer to an enjoyable and entertaining outcome.
It's going to be very entertaining.
So the way I tweeted it sarcastically, I said, one of the dangers of letting Tucker Carlson have the 41,000 hours of January 6th videos is that it might rewrite history to something vaguely accurate.
At the moment, history thinks Republicans stage insurrections by trespassing in some rooms.
LOL.
By the way, I'm using LOL all the time now.
LOL kind of went into disrespect and disuse.
Got overused.
I'm bringing it back.
Same way I brought Groovy back in the 80s.
Groovy went away.
It was a 60s term.
But in the 80s I brought it back.
Just in my personal circle.
Anyway.
So I love watching that.
I guess next week we'll know something about that.
In a totally unrelated story that has nothing to do with anything we've talked to so far, Christiane Amanpour was interviewing some former NATO commander and he said that Russia are using narratives that are very much different from reality.
And said, they feed their population with propaganda.
They distort reality.
And that's why it's so difficult to talk to them on any issues today.
Well, I'm sure glad nothing like that happens in America.
Am I right?
I feel sorry for these poor Russian bastards.
They have to put up with distorted news.
Their government telling them things that are not true.
The media is feeding them narratives?
Oh my God, what a hellscape it must be over there.
Is there any way we can help them?
Can we rescue them from the propaganda narrative they're suffering under?
Because we figured it out here.
We figured out how not to have any propaganda over here.
Let's go teach them.
I can't believe anybody can say that sort of thing with a straight face.
The Russians are putting propaganda out.
Yeah!
Yeah, they're the ones.
Those Russians, they're the ones who are doing it.
Amazing.
Alright, the wildest idea that I've heard in a long time is starting to get some traction.
Somebody on Twitter tweeted, last week I think, That the American administration should authorize letters of marque.
Have you ever heard of that term?
Letters of marque.
M-A-R-Q-U-E for marque.
It's something that governments did.
I think it was at only Great Britain.
Did America do it too?
But during the early days, when pirates existed, The pirate powers were, you know, almost as big as the naval powers.
And so you could hire pirates to attack military ships of the other side.
And a letter of marque was the authorization from a government that they could go ahead and attack these enemy vessels from another country.
So in other words, Great Britain would say to a pirate, hey you pirate, Here's a letter authorizing you to attack the French ship and keep whatever you want.
And so the suggestion was that letters of marque could be issued for the cartels.
And my first reaction to that was, ooh, maybe that's too far.
My second reaction, after seeing a military person say he would be happy to organize it if there were letters or marks, and there are plenty of Americans with military training who would go there tomorrow, they just need authorization.
That's all they need.
I'm not even sure they need weapons.
I think they have their own.
Obviously, it'd be better if they had better weapons.
But I don't think there's any shortage of volunteers.
I think the volunteers would exist in large quantities.
And I could actually see Trump doing it.
I don't predict it, because the first thing we would do is use special forces and do it a proper military way.
But I can imagine the situation.
Where the bureaucracy doesn't let us do what we want to do.
And so Trump just signs an executive order that says, we're not going to prosecute you if you go to Mexico and start killing cartel people.
I mean, that would be effectively a letter of mark.
Because if we said, we will not punish you for this, that's effectively the same as a letter of mark, isn't it?
Like, in practical terms.
Yeah.
We could even say you can keep whatever you can steal from the cartels.
Imagine that.
Imagine telling the mercenaries, by the way, whatever you steal from the cartels, bring it back.
We'll actually make it legal.
You can actually repatriate it.
You just bring it back.
Tubs of money.
If you find tubs of money, just bring it back and we won't even tax it.
Totally legal.
Spoils the war, exactly.
Now I don't think any of this is going to happen.
But if you're having a conversation about letters of Mark, what's that say about your government?
This is a serious conversation.
I'm not just like throwing it out because it's like a fun thought.
I think it really has to be on the table.
Like genuinely has to be an option.
I don't think it's the best one.
But if we're not talking options, we're not really serious.
So the fact that that's actually being discussed as a serious option, and it is, makes it easier for a, let's say, proper special forces military operation.
Because it's increasing the envelope of, let's say, imagination.
If you could imagine that the pirates are going to have to solve this problem, it's easier to imagine that we should just use, you know, our legitimate existing systems to do it instead.
Yeah.
Watch out.
Watch out, El Chapo.
All right.
Well, there's not much else happening today, so we're going to keep it simple.
Did I miss any stories?
Oh, let me run this one by you.
I don't know the details of the following thing I'm going to say, but I saw something from investigative reporter George Webb about the board members of Project Veritas.
And I only quickly scanned what was going by, so I don't think I got it completely right, but is somebody making the case That the board members are Big Pharma?
And that they effectively found a way to take over Project Veritas and kill it?
Did I see James' speech?
I saw some of it, not the end of it.
So that is the claim.
So the claim is that current board members of Project Veritas... I'm not saying this is true.
I'm asking the question.
This is the claim, right?
The claim is that the existing members have monetary ties, past, recent past, and maybe present, I don't know, to the pharma industry via some consulting firm that does business with them.
Is that what it looks like?
Because I saw somebody tweet that one of the board members has pronouns in their profile.
Is it possible that a current board member of Project Veritas has pronouns in his profile?
Is that possible?
I mean, that would be a sort of flag that a mole got into the system.
Yeah, so I don't know if any of that's true.
I don't know if there's any weird ties, but I don't believe I can believe anything that comes out of either side on that story.
Yeah, I see George on Rumble.
So, it's very interesting.
It's a joke?
I don't think it was a joke.
I think it was actual pronouns.
All right.
Well, if that's true, it might be exactly what it looks like.
But I wouldn't rule out that there's more to the story than we know.
You know, not just these connections.
But there doesn't seem to be evidence that Project Veritas wants to do what it used to do.
Yeah.
But, you know, don't you imagine that they have some kind of...
They've got some kind of case?
It sounds like maybe they don't, but who knows?
Who knows?
Couldn't O'Keefe just start PV2?
I think he is, right?
I think James O'Keefe is already probably going to start Project Veritas 2, which looks like it would work, because I think he's done a good job of, you know, salting the earth where he was.
Speaking of cash cows, I saw a story that said that megachurch pastor Joel Osteen paid himself $54 million in salary in a year, one year, $54 million from church profits.
I don't know how anybody gives money to a megachurch.
I just don't understand it.
But hey, it's all voluntary.
So, if people want to give them... People want to give their money.
And if they know what he's doing, it looks like there's some transparency there, so... Is it Osteen?
Is that how you pronounce it?
Yeah, I wouldn't call it church profits.
Church donations, maybe?
Would that be the better way to say it?
Somebody says that he's a known fraud, but that's not an evidence.
What's in evidence is he says things that people want to hear, so much so that they give him massive amounts of money, they buy his books and stuff.
So all I see is that he produces a product that people really, really want.
That's what I see.
Now, if they're okay, With him keeping $54 million.
If that's true, by the way.
Let me say I don't know that that's true.
So if I present it as a fact, I think that's overstating it.
It's just something on social media.
But as long as his donors know how he lives, I don't know, that's their choice.
They can do what they want.
It's like club news, exactly.
And he makes money on books.
Good for him, he's a capitalist.
I don't mind that at all.
Any other topics?
Besides, Black Rock owns the Earth.
Trump on crushing the war machine, Yes, Trump is also Speaking out against the military-industrial complex, as only he can.
But you know, it's the military-industrial complex that creates all this hoax.
Let me tell you what I would do if I were Trump and I were running for office.
He may have closed the opportunity for this, but I would create a video package, a very tight one, that shows you how all the hoaxes against him were created.
So you just debunk each of the hoaxes.
You just do the big ones.
And make sure that there's a tight little package that everybody who thinks those things are true, you can just send it to them and it's just like a two minute package or something.
So you can see it's all fake.
Yeah.
That would be, that's what I'd do.
New York Times confirmed the mask didn't work.
Well, there's an opinion piece.
that makes that case.
I don't think anybody thinks that they worked on a, you know, on a population level.
Oh, the Raoul Dahl rewrites of the children's author.
Raoul Dahl, they're taking out his provocative old-timey things.
I don't know.
I don't have, I don't care about that topic too much.
You know why I don't care about it is that the people who own the IP are doing it, which is different.
The people who inherited that work are doing it themselves.
They own it.
They own it.
I would be, maybe have something to complain about if somebody had forced them to do it or took a book out of the library or something like that.
But if you're the one who owns the work, And you decide to modify it.
It's just a market decision.
If the market wants it, they buy it.
If they don't, they don't.
But I don't have a problem with it at all.
Only because the source is who owns the product.
That's the way it works.
It's not the biggest thing.
It's not the... It's a Roald Dahl.
Is that the right way to pronounce it?
Is it Roald Dahl?
All right.
Ronnie Dole.
How would you like your publisher to change your books after you die?
That's different.
Because the publisher is not the sole owner.
So the way you should have asked the question is, how would I feel about it if my relatives or my, you know, let's say, let's say I had, you know, biological children.
How would I feel if my biological grandkids altered my content years after I was dead?
What do you think I'm going to say?
It's their, it's their property.
Of course they can.
I'm dead.
They own it.
I'm dead, do whatever you want with it.
Anything you want.
Anything you want.
Yeah.
Right.
Alright.
Would it change history?
Yeah, well, oh well.
Did I like Reagan when he was governor?
I always liked Reagan as a personality.
And I wasn't really that into politics, not state politics, when he was president.
So I didn't really have too much of a political opinion about him.
I just enjoyed when he was talking.
He was always entertaining.
Alright, I'm going to say bye for now for YouTube.
