Episode 2110 Scott Adams: Durham Report, Giuliani's "Girlfriend", Twitter Hit List, Patriot Front
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump and the Durham Report
Rudy Giuliani's "girlfriend" and selling pardons
Leftist Twitter hit list (I'm on it)
Patriot Front HOAX
Freedom Crappers
Next HOAX?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
I've already been laughing my ass off talking to the people on the locals platform but now we'll bring this goodness to YouTube and Spotify and everywhere else.
If you'd like to take this experience up, and I guarantee this will be one of the best live streams you've ever seen, all you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a 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.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Now, go.
Oh, I don't know where to begin.
But let's begin on a update.
You remember we used to call them bums and hobos, but that was unkind.
Then they became the homeless, and that sounded a little over specific, and then they became the unhoused.
But now they are just the freedom crappers.
And now Los Angeles has apparently 69,000 freedom crappers.
Who crap once a day on the sidewalk.
And I was wondering if this happens to San Francisco.
We have this race every year in San Francisco.
It's called the Bay to Breakers, where they race from one side of the city to the other, from the bay to the beach.
And I was thinking that might need to change the name of the Bay to Breakers.
Because it's going to look, you know, if you're watching it, it's going to look a little more like Irish line dancing because there'll be so many turds in the way between the bay and the beach.
There's going to be a lot of this.
So it looked like Irish line dancing.
And I asked my followers on vocals if they could give me some kind of a new name for this race.
Because Beta Breakers doesn't feel like-- I don't know, it just doesn't feel current, does it?
So instead of the Beta Breakers, the best suggestion I got was Turd of Hurdles.
Turd of Hurdles.
I'll let that sink in.
No, it's not a herd of turtles.
That's completely different.
A herd of turtles would be a slow-moving bunch of group.
No, this is a turd of hurdles.
The turd hurdle.
All right, well, enough about that.
You know, everybody asks me, why don't you move out of California to that hellhole?
And I say, well, I mean, I'm open to it.
But where would I go?
And one of the top places that people suggested was Austin, because it's in Texas, and Texas is awesome, and Austin is the awesome place, well, one of them, one of the awesome places in Texas, but it turns out that it's a Democrat-led city and has become a, well, kind of a freedom crapper hellhole.
So it turns out Austin is going down the drain.
I feel sorry for Tim Ferriss, who moved out of San Francisco to Austin.
I feel like he did not hurdle enough turds.
He needs to hurdle a few more and maybe get to Florida or something.
I don't know what people do, but Austin doesn't look good anymore.
Yes, we will get to all the big news.
Don't worry.
Don't worry.
I'll get to all the big news.
It's coming.
Oh, it's coming.
It's a very newsy day, have you noticed?
Some of it is about me, it turns out.
So here's the update on remote workers.
So it turns out that as long as employment is good, the employees have more power than when employment is low.
So employees really, really, really, really like working at home at least part of the week.
So the reversal of the trend, where it looked like people were going back to work, Reversed again.
So the employees were pushing back against the requirement to come to work and successfully, because they have the power given employment.
So it looks like something like half of office buildings are just going to stay empty most of the time.
But you can't really get rid of them, can you?
Because it's the same office that half of the people are in.
So if it's half empty, but you still need it, it's going to take a while for people to downsize.
But yeah, there's a big problem.
So I don't think people are coming back to the city the way they used to.
Yeah, we're going to turn them all into pickleball courts.
That's the best idea ever.
I'd turn at least some of them into public bathrooms, but that's just me.
So that's happening.
Keep an eye on that.
So there's a story today, and I don't know if I believe this or not.
But apparently on GitHub, there was a target list of conservative social media people that would be targeted by the DNC and leftists.
And I thought to myself, well, that's interesting.
I think I'll look at that list just to see if I'm on it.
Right?
I mean, that was my first thought.
It's like, oh, shoot.
There's a list of people being targeted?
I'm numbered nine.
I'm in the top 10.
Five of the top 10, the people that I share it with, have either left Twitter on their own, such as President Trump, or have been kicked off of Twitter.
I'm right behind Sidney Powell on the list of targets.
That's right.
I'm right behind Sidney Powell on the top 10 list of conservative influencers that were targeted for destruction.
Now I think that it was specifically about the 2020 election.
Can you tell me what it was that I said about the 2020 election that would put me in the top 10 of people that they need to target?
Do you remember a claim of A claim that I made about election fraud, some specific claims.
Do you remember any?
There weren't any.
No.
I was the one who told you on day one that at least 95% of all the claims would be bullshit.
I was the first person in the country to call bullshit on the Kraken.
First one.
There was nobody in the country who called bullshit before I did.
As soon as I heard it, I said, that's bullshit.
Right there.
That's a whole bunch of bullshit right there.
Now, what do you think I'm going to do if I find myself targeted by powerful interests who are trying to take me out for my opinions about the 2020 election?
So I tweeted this today.
Things we know are corrupt.
FBI, Department, DOJ, intel organizations, Congress, Big Pharma, FDA, experts, all kinds, Biden, crime family, and the entire media.
But on the good side, things we know that are totally clean.
All 50 state election systems.
Good job guys.
Good job.
All 50 election systems, clean as a whistle.
Now I think we can all be proud of that, given that 100% of every other organization is corrupt and we've proven it just this year.
So, you might say, that's highly unlikely, Scott, but I say, that's a sign of excellence.
That's a sign of excellence.
All 50, run by different organizations, and yet all 50, pristine.
Pristine.
I have no idea why they targeted me.
I don't know what's up with that.
So that happened.
I don't know if that list is real, by the way.
So the larger theme for today's live stream is that everything's a hoax.
And I was trying to come up with a name for a political system that's entirely based on hoaxes.
Because that's what we are.
Our political system is now entirely based on hoaxes.
That's it.
There's not a real fucking thing happening anywhere.
It's all hoaxes.
So we'll talk about that.
But I don't know if this Twitter list of targeted accounts is real.
But somebody put me in the top ten with some pretty interesting cast of characters there.
All right.
So we're going to talk about the Patriot Front and Rudy Giuliani, and we're going to talk about the new, what do you call it, report?
The Durham Report.
But before I do that, I should warn you that we need to be alert.
Here's the good news that comes with the bad news.
The bad news is we found out that everything was corrupt.
Just everything.
Like, everybody was corrupt.
The good news is you can spot it much easier now, because you can see how it's done.
You can spot the tells, right?
If tomorrow you saw a video that you knew was a real video, and it showed somebody doing, some Republican, saying something terrible, what's the first thing you'd say to yourself?
Whatever that terrible thing is and whoever said it, what's the first thing you'd say?
What did they add it out?
What did he or she say just before that?
And what did he or she say right after that?
Because that's the part they don't get to show you.
Because that probably gave you the context which changed the meaning.
So I'm not sure we would have known that 10 years ago.
10 years ago I think I would have just taken the video at face value.
But now we know it's so common To create news by clipping off a part of the video, that I would assume it's a fake video.
My first assumption of any video that's super, super on-the-nose embarrassing, like it's just too close to somebody's narrative, first assumption is fake.
Right?
I hope you're all with me.
Now, you should make that starting assumption, but then look into it.
It could be real.
You know, you want to find out.
But your starting assumption should be fake.
Now, don't we know, given all the hoaxes we've seen, that there is one being ginned up right now?
Don't you know there's some major hoaxes that are brewing?
And maybe we already saw them.
We'll talk about them.
But be ready, because you have to spot the next one.
There's going to be another Russia collusion-like hoax.
Not about Russia, necessarily.
Maybe.
It'll be of that size.
And it's coming.
And it's coming for sure.
And I want us all to spot it the minute it gets here.
Right?
Because we haven't been good at that before.
We want to laugh at it when it arrives.
Like actually just laugh out loud.
It's like, nice try!
That's a little bit too on the nose.
So, speaking of that.
I think it's one day after or two days after Biden gave his speech in which he said white supremacy is the big terrorist risk in the United States.
I think I think people on the right are taking him out of context.
He didn't say it's the biggest risk to the United States.
People are saying that's what he said.
He didn't say that.
He said the biggest terrorist risk.
No, he said the biggest domestic terrorist risk.
What's the second biggest domestic terrorist risk after white supremacy?
What's the second biggest?
There's no domestic terrorist risk.
There is none.
Yeah, maybe.
Maybe white supremacy is number one on a list of totally unimportant, smallish things that aren't likely to happen very much in the future.
It's a hoax.
Which is not to say that there have not been bad things that some alleged white supremacists did.
But right after that, the Patriot Front, who everybody on the right believes is a fake group pretending to be on the right, as I saw today, there was Elijah Schaefer, was saying that he knows basically everybody in the Republican, conservative world.
Like every group, he knows at least somebody.
Or he knows somebody who knows somebody.
Everywhere.
But he says, I've never met anybody who knows anybody in the Patriot Front.
Anybody.
Like, I've personally talked to people in the Proud Boys.
How many of you have had, or at least know, somebody who knows somebody in the Proud Boys?
Right.
It's very common.
If you're associated with the right, you probably know somebody, maybe not personally.
But, you know, I've talked to Gavin McGinnis.
I did an interview with him years ago.
But the Patriot Front, I've had no contact in any way directly or indirectly with the Patriot Front.
It's a little unusual because they get a lot of publicity, don't they?
Now, I know that they wear masks and they're trying to be secretive, but they put out this video where It alleges to show them when the camera is not supposed to be running, but it's obvious that they're acting and they know the camera is running.
So they do their little white supremacist salute or whatever, and then as they're done, Instead of acting like normal people when they finish something, they act like actors who are acting like they finished something?
It was just terrible acting.
It was very obvious acting.
And then one of them says some Nazi thing.
So that's the payoff.
Oh, we got him on... They didn't know the camera was running, so we got him on some Nazi stuff.
Completely fake looking.
Now, I'm willing to believe I could be wrong about anything, But if I'm wrong about this, I'll be really surprised.
This looks entirely like a hoax.
It looks like a long-running hoax.
Because they just drag these people out whenever they need to move the narrative a little bit.
So I would say that the Patriot Front is part of it.
But then there was also this story about Rudy Giuliani.
Who's an ex-girlfriend who also did PR work for him, and she alleges that he, I don't know, tricked her into sex and forced her to perform on demand whatever he wanted and some icky stuff like that.
We don't care about any of that, but one of the things that she's alleging is that Rudy Giuliani was offering to sell pardons Does that sound true to you?
Or does that sound like an obvious hoax?
would charge $2 million for a pardon, and then Giuliani and Trump would each keep a million.
And allegedly he told his girlfriend this, and then now she's telling the public.
Does that sound true to you?
Or does that sound like an obvious hoax?
A little too close?
A little bit too close?
Do you think that Rudy Giuliani, even if he were doing some kind of scheme like this, do you think he would just like say it directly to his girlfriend and give dollar amounts?
Do you think he'd give dollar amounts to his girlfriend?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
Do you think that Trump would sell pardons to make a few extra million dollars when everybody's watching?
Do you think so?
Now, it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the history of the world somebody sold a pardon.
That doesn't sound too surprising.
But Trump was already a billionaire.
Do you think he needed five million more at the risk of that?
The gigantic risk?
He's the most vetted person ever.
Anyway, so there's nothing about this that looks real.
So that looks like a hoax to me.
And I'm a little bit curious about a woman who would have what must have been the hideous sex with Rudy Giuliani, because she was younger and attractive.
I don't know how young, but they were not in the same age class.
And she did this continuously, and now she's, you know, she's whistleblowing.
Or I guess she was whistleblowing them, you could say.
Does she sound like a real person or somebody who might have a backer?
She sounds a little bit like somebody who has a backer.
You know what I mean?
A backer who said, you know, if you would just get close to this guy, we would make sure that your life turns out pretty well after that.
You know, come up with some good stuff.
Yeah.
So it's a little bit sketchy, so I don't believe anything about the Rudy Giuliani story.
Except that he probably had a lot of sex with her.
That's probably true.
Speaking of sex, turns out that the number of young men and women having sex is way down.
So between 2007 and 2017, the percentage of 18 to 23-year-olds who had casual sex in the past month dropped from 38% to 24.
And within women, or young women, I guess, dropped from 31% to 24%.
Now, that doesn't mean there's less sex.
That means there are fewer people participating in it.
Am I right?
Because I think there might be more sex.
It's just that the people who can get it are having it, and the people who are left out are having none.
So I think the world is just bifurcated into basically total cum-sluts and people who can't get a date.
And that's it.
It was like nothing in the middle.
That's an exaggeration.
All right, let's talk about our corrupt government.
Apparently a whistleblower saying that the the IRS investigation to Hunter Biden was ended and the entire investigative team That was doing a multi-year tax fraud investigation and we're all let go.
The entire team, including the whistleblower.
Is that because they had an answer and there was nothing to see here?
We still don't know if Hunter or any of the family members paid any taxes on any of the alleged payments.
So doesn't that look like an obvious corruption?
Like, really super obvious.
Is there any other way to interpret that than Hunter didn't pay his taxes?
I don't know how to, how could you, how could you come up with any other interpretation?
Because if the interpretation, the correct interpretation was there was nothing to see here, they would have told us.
Wouldn't they say the IRS looked into it, there's nothing to see here?
Because you'd want a clear hunter, right?
Yeah, everything's copacetic.
It's all good.
But no.
They don't tell us everything's okay.
They just fire everybody who's looking for something bad for multiple years.
That's a little bit suspicious.
A little bit suspicious.
So you're asking, is it too on the nose?
Good question.
Is it too on the nose that, yeah, the whole group got fired?
It feels like It feels like it would be weird if that's true.
But remember, this is all in the context of a whole bunch of other things that are clearly corrupt.
So just be one more corrupt thing in a long list of corrupt things.
Well, let's talk about the Durham Report, five years later, 300 pages later.
Would you be surprised to find out that although the report is shocking, That the people on the left have decided it's not really much news at all.
Not much news at all.
In fact, we can move on after we give it a... We'll just brush on it.
Yeah, maybe mention some of the highlights, but it's not much news here.
So, here's how the right is interpreting it.
We now have documented proof that the FBI and the Department of Justice were actively doing unprofessional things.
To bias the outcome of the, well, which had the effect, had the effect, because we can't read their minds, had the effect of changing the outcome of the election.
Now, apparently it's a little complicated, because they had also done some stuff against Hillary.
So if you say to yourself, oh, they were totally in the bag for the Democrats, it'd be a little hard to explain why they were investigating Hillary.
They actually had a spy in her campaign, because it was some specific allegation of maybe taking foreign money.
Which of course, they didn't find anything and they cancelled it.
So maybe it's an example of them protecting Hillary.
Oh yeah, we had a spy there, so we looked into it, but the spy didn't find anything, so there wasn't anything there.
So it could be that even the fact that Hillary was investigated was also fake.
In other words, maybe they didn't try.
So the left is saying nobody's being indicted, no additional people.
So nobody's being indicted additionally.
And it's all news that we already knew.
And yes, the FBI was unprofessional.
And yes, according to Durham, there may have been some confirmation bias, which caused them to ignore their own standards and make an investigation on something that did not have the...
You know, the prerequisite evidence that you needed an investigation.
So on one hand, it looks like an obvious coup attempt against the United States that worked.
One of two.
As you say, the other coup attempt was the 51 Intel people who said the laptop was Russian disinformation.
So now we have two examples of something that looks, by the outcome, To be a coup, coup attempts, basically.
The FBI and Department of Justice trying to influence the outcome of an election.
However, there's no smoking gun.
Apparently, there's no evidence of anybody colluding to do it.
Now, I'm not saying they didn't collude.
I'm saying Durham didn't find the direct evidence there.
So it looks like a bunch of people making a bunch of decisions.
Under confirmation bias.
Now, to be fair, Durham said that was the most charitable explanation.
So the best you could say was confirmation bias, meaning a normal thing that happens to brains.
You think you're right, so you act that way, even though the evidence didn't support it.
What he didn't find is a deep state conspiracy that was specifically targeting Trump.
It just looked exactly like it.
Now this gets us to the George Carlin definition of a conspiracy.
So as George Carlin points out, you don't have to have a meeting if everybody knows what to do.
Right?
You don't have to have a meeting.
Don't make a phone call.
Don't send a text.
Everybody knows what to do.
Get Trump.
Anyway you can.
So, I'm not sure I'm buying the confirmation bias is all that was there, even though that's all they could find.
These were all high, you know, high-end smart people who knew not to write things down.
Right?
And a whistleblower would probably be in a lot of trouble too.
So, I don't think you can rule out conspiracy.
It's just you can't find it.
So I won't say that anybody's guilty of conspiracy, because, you know, innocent until proven guilty.
But it looks like it.
Sure looks like it.
Conspiracy.
So here are some of the comments that CNN made.
This is Jake Tapper.
He said that it exonerated Trump somewhat.
So there is some recognition that Trump was somewhat exonerated in the sense that people were after him and not treating him fairly.
That appears to be completely true.
They were after him and not treating him fairly.
Jake Tapper said it was also devastating for the FBI, but In typical Dilbert bureaucratic form, what happened?
Well, it took five years to look into it and get this report.
In those five years, all the people involved, or most of them, left.
And the FBI made some changes, because they already had this information themselves, made some changes which they say will prevent it from happening again.
Problem solved, right?
The people involved are not there anymore.
And the FBI put in some procedures to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So problem solved.
There's no news here.
Moving on.
No crimes, no news.
Problem solved.
Those people aren't here anymore.
Eh, probably a little confirmation bias.
Glad we got to the bottom of it.
Moving on.
Moving on.
Nobody will be punished.
Or at least more than they have been.
Some people lost their jobs.
All right.
And then, you know, no surprises.
Yes, there were no surprises here.
We already knew this, basically.
So this is, you know, again, it's two movies on one screen.
So we're all looking at exactly the right stuff.
And the fact that it's not technically illegal.
Now, let me ask you this.
Would it be illegal to actually organize a hoax?
I mean, you can get fired for it, of course.
But if the FBI and the Department of Justice organized a hoax, is that illegal?
As long as they didn't sell it as something they believed was true?
If they could sell it as something they believed was true, then you get the Durham Report, which says, well, it's a little confirmation bias, but that's not illegal.
It's not illegal to be wrong.
Oh, yeah, they were wrong.
That's all we could prove.
All right.
Just to round out my talk about how everything is corrupt, apparently there was a massive missile barrage by Russia into Ukraine last night, into Kiev.
Massive barrage.
And the news says that Ukraine intercepted and shot down every one of them.
Every one of them.
Got them all.
What's Russia say?
Every one of the missiles hit their target.
Everyone.
All 18.
Got their targets.
Which one of those is true?
Probably neither, right?
Probably they got some, some got through, but we don't know.
We don't know.
But that's the state of information.
You can get the thing and the opposite of the thing.
Same time.
So did you wonder how Russia is staying afloat with all those sanctions?
So part of it is they're selling their oil to India and then India is refining it and selling it into Europe.
So basically Russia is still selling to Europe.
Now I told you that, and I guess I'm still the only person in the world saying this, that the Ukraine-Russia war is over.
The war is over.
Trump made it clear that it's now a negotiation.
And nobody's going to win anything.
And when he wins, which statistically looks like it's a good bet, when he wins, he's going to end it just by putting enough pressure on both sides that they're better off ending it.
So at this point, they're just negotiating with weapons.
That's all it is.
Nobody's going to win anything.
There's no winning to be had.
But here's my addition to that point.
If this were a real war, we would have bombed India.
Am I right?
The minute we found out that India was refining the oil and selling it back to Europe, which basically meant that the sanctions weren't working, we would shut down India.
We'd ask them first.
I mean, first you'd ask politely, because they're an ally.
But then we would take it out.
We'd just bomb it.
Bomb the refinery.
Because that's what you do in a war.
This is clearly not a war.
It's clearly a negotiation.
In a negotiation, you'd be like, oh, don't go too far.
But if you knew, you know, if you were playing to win, you'd bomb India's production facility and just take that off the table.
Now, it might also starve Europe.
So it's complicated.
But it doesn't look like a war to me.
It's definitely a negotiation at this point.
Here's another thing that we thought was true.
How many of you, for years, have learned that people have different learning styles?
You assumed that was just basic and true, right?
Because you know you do.
Some people say, oh, I have to hear it.
Some people say, I have to see it.
That's definitely true.
Definitely true.
Did you know that the science debunks all of that?
That if you teach people according to their preferred style, you get no difference in outcomes.
There's not the slightest bit of science behind that.
None.
I learned that today.
No science, and there never has been.
There's never been science.
And when they decided to do some science, they couldn't find any effect.
The whole thing is bullshit.
People learn exactly the same.
End of story.
How many decades have I believed that was true?
Decades.
Decades.
Never was true.
Never was true.
All right, here's some good news, bad news situation.
So as you know, one of the biggest buyers of stocks in companies are investment funds.
So Vanguard and places like that, because they buy on behalf of their clients, they buy massive amounts of stocks.
So the big investment funds can own big chunks of companies.
And now there's a service That is scoring these investment companies for how much they're adhering to ESG.
And you say to yourself, oh no, not this again.
Right?
You're saying, oh no, not what you think.
It's the opposite of what you think.
It's a list so you can avoid it.
So I'm going to call out Dominion, which is not the voting machine company, but a fund, and Vanguard.
So Vanguard gets an A, an A rating, for not looking at ESG.
For avoiding ESG.
Because the rating is from the perspective of the investors.
And the investors are not asking for more racial equality.
The investors are asking for profits.
So they want to know, if I put my money in Vanguard, is Vanguard going to invest in a bunch of ESG companies?
Or are they going to invest in companies that are going to make me money?
And now you can look at the list.
And here's the interesting part.
You know, BlackRock was the big pusher of ESG.
They got a C rating.
You'd expect an F, because they're the big pushers of ESG.
But even BlackRock says ESG has gone too far.
They can't invest in it because it's gone crazy.
There were some initial good things, which they backed completely, but now the activism has reached the crazy level, where even BlackRock is like, that's a little too ESG.
There's ESG, and then there's too ESG.
Now, I've been calling the peak of wokeness for a while.
Do you see it yet?
Walkness is a dead man walking.
There's still going to be plenty of it for a long time, but we've definitely reached peak.
We've reached peak and it's pulling back.
And you can see it in the way people talk.
People can just say, this is crazy now.
And you didn't used to be able to do that.
You'd just be a racist.
And now you can just say, all right, this is too far.
This is just bullshit.
Did you see, was it Miller Lite?
I couldn't tell if that was real.
So Miller Lite apparently has a campaign to make a big deal of getting rid of the frat-like brand that their beer had.
And they want to take down all the bikini pictures of women that have ever been associated with their beer and burn them all.
And I just watched that commercial and I thought to myself, is this a parody?
Are they actually making the mistake of the last 100 years?
Like the biggest mistake you'd ever make?
And apparently they are.
Because they hired a woman.
You gotta stop hiring women for men's products.
And likewise, I'll say this again, if Avon hired only women as their executives, I'm fine with that.
Normally you'd want more of a You know, open mix of people.
But if makeup is the product, yeah, your executives could all be women.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.
Because they would understand the area better.
I think it's the same with beer.
You know, it's not like women don't drink beer.
But these specific products were just sort of guy products.
Get a guy.
I should tell you that the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can only see by subscription now.
Dilbert's company has a power tools division.
And they will be hiring a woman to market their power tools going forward.
It doesn't work out.
Doesn't go well.
All right.
What else is going on here?
Yeah.
So here are the companies that, or investment companies, that got good scores by ignoring ESG.
I'd just like to give a shout out.
Free advertising, here you go.
Dimensional, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, and then when you get to the next level down, it's actually BlackRock.
So BlackRock gets an average score for not being crazy about the thing that they promoted.
Just think about that.
BlackRock is getting a C, which is way better than it should have been.
It should have been an F, because they're the main promoter of ESG.
But they have disavowed their own thing so much that they got a C. I mean, that's how I interpret it.
That may be the wrong interpretation, but that's what it looks like.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, It's a very newsy day.
Hey, did I miss anything?
Fidelity is wicked smart, you say? - Yes.
James O'Keefe.
What's he doing lately?
Haven't heard much from him lately.
All right.
What is the strategy?
New Twitter CEO, not much to say.
Here's my take on the WEF.
It's sort of a leisure club for rich people.
And if I were an executive of a big corporation, I'd probably go.
Would that make me colluding with the World Economic Forum to be a surrogate government and means I'm all for everything that they want to do?
No.
No, I would go there to meet the other rich people and network with them.
It just seems like a pleasant place to go network.
So now, I believe that if you, here's my theory.
The World Economic Forum is a whole bunch of hugely successful people, right?
Who have huge egos, because that's just how it works.
They're hugely successful, they got big egos.
Do you think you could get that group of people to agree on anything?
I mean, seriously.
You think you could get them to agree on anything serious?
I don't think so.
I think you could only get them to agree to signal.
Hey, how would you all look like, would you like to look like good citizens?
Sure.
All right, we're gonna put out some good citizen stuff.
Like climate change, you're gonna fix it, and you know, equity, and you'll just all just say you're good with it.
Okay?
Yeah, sure.
Makes us all look like stars.
Okay.
I think that the World Economic Forum is a nothing.
I just don't think they have any Any serious control over anything.
I think that they find a parade and they get behind it.
They didn't create the climate change stuff, they just saw a parade and got on it.
They didn't create anything that Bill Gates is doing.
I think they just back it if they like it.
So that's my take.
I think the World Economic Forum is more More about the people, and it doesn't matter to us too much.
Follow the money.
Yeah.
Well, I do think that they copied each other, but it probably would have happened anyway.
Yeah, I don't know that the World Economic Forum caused anything to happen.
I think that they were just going with whatever were the cool trends so they could get people to come to their big event.
So let's talk about the Bill Gates spraying stuff into the atmosphere to change climate.
I wouldn't worry about that too much.
Because it's just on a long list of things that people have considered.
It's never going to happen.
And if it did, it would be so well tested, I don't think you'd have to worry about it.
Of course, they said that about a lot of stuff.
What I mean by that is, we've been spraying things into the atmosphere for a long time, such as cloud seeding.
Cloud seeding's been around for a long time.
And I don't think that's killed anybody yet, has it?
Yeah.
I don't know.
So I suppose, I suppose it could be dangerous.
All right.
That's a weird comment.
Trad wives of the cat's pajamas.
So somebody on YouTube is promoting trad wives.
Does everybody know what that is?
It took me a long time to figure out what that is.
A trad, T-R-A-D, wife.
So it's entering the common language.
Trad is short for traditional.
So traditional meaning sort of a fifties wife, you know, does the cooking, takes care of the kids, that sort of thing.
Sort of an unwoke mythical creature.
No, there are definitely There are definitely women who have a very specific preference for that vibe.
That's a real thing.
So I've seen a number of people value that as the highest value woman.
What do you think?
Do you think the highest value, from a conservative perspective?
From the conservative perspective, the trad wife is the highest value woman, right?
I'm not saying that's my opinion.
I'm saying that would be a conservative take.
I'm not a big fan of the whole value thing.
High value men and high value women.
I know what it means and I get why they say it.
I don't like that framing.
Because I think value is the wrong... Well, it's right and it's wrong at the same time.
Because I understand it in terms of dating.
You know, people have preferences for dating, so that's all that's talking about.
But I don't like saying value when you're talking about people.
Like the people have the same value, it's just maybe your preferences are different.
I'll put it that way.
Your preferences are different, but the value of the people is the same.
I'm more comfortable with that.
Was my mother traditional?
Well, let me describe her and you tell me.
So my mother was, you know, Raised the kids, but she also worked once we were old enough to do the basic stuff ourselves.
So she always had a job.
For most of my time, she had a job.
But she also is the one who taught us to play baseball and she rode a motorcycle.
She got her motorcycle license before my father did.
They took the test on the same day.
He failed, she passed.
He actually failed his motorcycle test on the first try.
So she was, let's say, she was definitely not a feminist, but she has skills.
So she sold real estate at one point.
She worked in a factory winding copper wire around speakers to create speakers to help me get through college and my little sister and brother.
So yeah, she was sort of a stud.
Yeah, she was a hunter.
So I think she bagged a deer one year.
My dad didn't.
And then my sister would be along the same mold.
Here's how I'd say it.
I wouldn't say traditional or not traditional.
I would say she was unlimited.
I like that better.
She just wasn't limited.
She was completely able to do all the things she wanted without limit.
One of the things she wanted to do was raise kids when they're young.
And then when she was older, she wanted to work.
So she had a great job as a real estate agent for a while.
And she wanted to ride a motorcycle, so she did.
So there wasn't anything she wanted to do that I'm aware of.
She probably would have a list of things she wanted to do that she couldn't.
but it looked like she was just free.
Just did what made sense whenever she felt like it.
Did she have respect for your father and not act like an entitled feminist?
or Well, let's just say it was one of those traditional marriages where the wife complaining about the husband was a continuous feature.
But she always, I mean, she did his laundry and dinner was on the table.
So they never divorced.
So I guess that's traditional-ish.
AI could be hypnotized, according to the Jordan Peterson interview with Brian Romola, if he's pronouncing it right.
I think I was pronouncing Brian's last name wrong, or maybe Jordan Peterson was, but I tend to believe he got it right.
Yeah, and so The weird thing about AI is that it can be persuaded and bullied and hypnotized.
Because it's a word-based intelligence.
And words can reprogram humans.
And the AI is based on human words.
So it's actually not surprising that you can hypnotize it.
Has anybody thought about how weird my talent stack is for this period of time?
I have a feeling that the people who would be able to use AI the best will be people who know hypnosis and are professional writers.
Now I have a little bit of technical knowledge, but not enough to be useful at the moment.
But I have kind of like an ideal You know, entry point for AI just accidentally.
Let me put it this way.
So the book I'm working on is a book of reframes.
And reframes are how you program humans.
For example, I use this example all the time.
Instead of saying that alcohol is a beverage, you say alcohol is poison.
Just change a word.
Changing that one word actually rewires your brain.
It's like a program change in your brain.
Oh, why would I have poison?
Just makes it easier to avoid it.
But if I said, why would I have a beverage?
Well, we all drink beverages.
You have to have a beverage.
So just changing that one word actually can change your behavior.
In the AI world, that would be called a super prompt.
A super prompt is where you put the words in the right order to ask the question in just the right way.
And you make sure the AI has bounded its answer the way you want, etc.
So you use English words to program the AI on the fly to get it to give you what you want.
And you use a reframe to program a human brain on the fly very quickly.
In both cases, the reframe and the super prompt work quickly.
They're very similar.
Once you realize that brains are word-thinking engines, which was, to me, that was the biggest aha of the AI thing, is that you could form intelligence from the statistical relationship of words.
Think about that.
That's the most mind-blowing thing that I've ever seen in my life.
You can create intelligence by the statistical frequency that words end up together.
Wow.
Wow.
That's just so mind-boggling.
But it's not mind-boggling for hypnotists.
Do you know why?
Because that's the first thing you're taught.
The first thing you're taught as a hypnotist is that words are programs, and you can just put them in people's heads and reprogram them.
So I've known for 40 years that humans are not thinking.
They're doing word thinking, I call it.
Basically, if the word fails, they're done with the thinking.
So, how often have I been telling you about word thinking?
I've been using that before this AI thing blew up, right?
I keep saying, no, you think you're making an argument there, but what you did is just put words together.
And I note that people couldn't tell the difference.
And I kept saying, there's no logic there.
Those are just words.
And if people, most people, I would say well over 80%.
Can't tell the difference between something that is logical and something where the words fit together.
Now, I get that same effect from AI when I play around with it and ask it questions.
It will not be logical.
AI does not act logical much of the time.
It does act the way the words would fit together.
And it fits them together the way humans do.
Irrationally sometimes.
And then acts like it made sense.
So yeah, AI can be hypnotized.
So whoever knows the right words to put into it is going to be able to control it.
And in theory, someone who is actually a human hypnotist, but also a professional writer, because you have to have some fluency with words, that should be the ultimate combination for controlling AI.
In theory.
With a little bit of tactical understanding.
If you don't know how to prompt it, you don't know how to use it.
That's right.
Because you're going to get a suboptimal answer.
Now the other thing that AI is doing is hallucinating answers.
I saw Jordan Peterson talk about this.
Others as well.
That it will give him source notes and you'll check ten of them and they're correct.
And then the 11th one will be completely made up.
Just made up!
Not even close to anything that ever existed.
And apparently this is a repeatable phenomenon.
What's that about?
Do you understand that?
Because I do.
Do you want to know how that happens?
It's because his thinking is only pattern.
And that means there should have been that source.
This will freak you out.
It means that the simulation should have created that source and the AI knows it.
So it's giving you a source that the simulation should have created.
It just didn't.
Just think about that.
Just think about that.
It knows what source should have existed in the simulation, and it sources it.
It just doesn't exist.
Now, yeah, would that do to your brain?
Everything you know about human intelligence was wrong, always.
You were never intelligent.
Do you remember how long I've been saying that you could never pass the Turing test unless you made AI stupid?
Do you remember me saying that?
If AI actually was logical and smart, you'd know it wasn't human right away.
It would have to be stupid or you'd know it's a computer.
So they made a stupid one.
I did not think that was going to happen.
Because I thought I was being funny.
That you can't have real AI unless it's like a lying, stupid, selfish bitch.
Because otherwise it doesn't look like intelligence to us.
So they actually made an AI that just read all of our thinking in the form of words, and they built a stupid lying bitch.
And we said, my god, that's a smart machine right there.
It's stupid, it's lying, it's a total bitch.
That looks pretty smart to me.
Because that's how we think of ourselves.
We're stupid lying bitches.
Yeah, I'm being, you know, Male and female bitches in this case.
And we all think we're smart.
You know, we think we're smarter than the person we're talking to.
But we still think the other person's smart.
Just not as smart.
Yeah.
It was the flaws that made AI possible.
And I always said that was going to happen.
I don't think one person thought that made sense.
But here we are.
And I don't think you understand how far ahead of the curve hypnotists have been for 40 years, maybe 100 years.
Hypnotists have been way ahead of the curve.
And the reason is that experientially, does that make work?
Is that the right word?
That anecdotally and by experience, we can see for sure that humans don't use any form of reasoning.
Because hypnosis wouldn't work if they did.
Once you realize that hypnosis wouldn't work if people were actually intelligent and rational, it changes everything.
You go, are you serious?
There can't be intelligence or this wouldn't work.
So basically, all hypnotists know that humans don't use anything like rational thinking, except for the simplest little problems.
But it's something that's taken longer for the rest of the world to figure out.
And AI is proving it to you.
Because AI does not seem rational to me.
I mean, it's often right, as far as I can tell.
But being right is different from being logical and rational.
You know, when it talks about anything in the social or political realm, it loses its rational thread, like, right away.
It just goes into narrative almost immediately.
Well, John, your sarcasm-- let me give you a sarcasm lesson, John.
So John has some sarcasm for me, I'll read it.
Wow, I never realized how far ahead of the curve you are.
You're the only person who's ever thought that in the world.
Thanks for reminding us, because sometimes we forget.
All right, here's how sarcasm works.
If you could give me any example of anybody who had ever thought this 40 years ago, then that sarcasm would be really solid.
But you don't.
You don't.
Point me to anybody who told me or has said in public what I just told you.
Anybody.
All right.
The best thing about AI so far is that it doesn't shit on the sidewalks.
It's already better than people.
Philip K. Dick thought of it?
No, he didn't.
This is one of the things I hate the most, is when somebody starts throwing out science fiction writers who thought of it first, but they never did.
I mean, I don't even have to check.
Every time you throw out a science fiction writer who thought of it first, they never did.
I have checked on these all my life.
Every time I hear one of those, I'll go check that.
Nope, totally different idea.
So, Turd of Hurdles is what I'm going to end on.
Turd of Hurdles.
And... Stanislaw Lem wrote about it.
What is it?
Why don't you tell me what it is?
Tell me the book and the it.
You can't.
You're imagining that somebody thought of this before.
