Episode 2121 Scott Adams: I Can't Describe Today's Show. That Means It Will Be A Good One. Wink
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
I can't describe today's show without getting banned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 your entire life and civilization itself.
And believe me, if I could tell you what this show is about in advance without getting banned, I probably would have.
You see, I'm just getting your interest up here.
Oh, wow.
I was laughing about something before I came on and maybe I'll tell you, maybe I won't.
But if you'd like this experience to be optimal, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of 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 hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better, unless you wore a metal butt plug into the MRI, and then this won't help at all.
Happens now.
Go.
Alright, well I was just laughing uncontrollably a minute ago, because I saw one of the memes on the Locals platform.
Now, I don't know if the meme is based on a real story, but I'm going to choose to believe it's real, because it's funny.
And the story was that some researchers were studying what the brain skin of women looked like while they were having orgasms.
So they invited five women in to masturbate while they were in the MRI.
Now that's not really the story, because they got a nice picture of the brain lighting up.
The funny part of the story is how they sold this project.
How'd they get a grant for that?
Hey Bob, I've got a wild idea.
What?
I think we can get money for bringing women in to masturbate in front of us, and we'll just put their heads in an MRI and call it science.
And the other guy says, you're never going to get away with that.
No, watch this.
And then they put it together and they get away with it.
And then they have to play it off like it's serious the whole time.
And they go home to their wives and, well, here I'm being sexist.
It could be that it's women who are the scientists, of course.
So we can't rule out that possibility.
But it's funnier to imagine it's guys.
And they go home at night.
Honey, what are you working on?
Oh, we're doing some brain scanning stuff.
Really?
Brain scanning for what?
Well, you know, we'd like to see what parts of the brain light up under certain circumstances.
Really?
What specific circumstances are you studying?
Well, here's where it gets a little complicated.
I don't know.
It was funny to me.
But that's not why you're here.
You're here for the news.
Here's the news.
Unfortunately, AI has now succeeded in writing parody.
The Twitter account called the Prince of Deep Fakes.
I won't tell you who is the Prince of Deep Fakes.
Perhaps it's somebody you know.
But the Prince of Deep Fakes, not me, it's not me by the way, but the Prince of Deep Fakes actually wrote a super prompt to create parody news articles.
And I'm not going to say they're just as good as the Onion or the Babylon Bee, but they're in the neighborhood.
And I did not think this could be done.
I didn't think you could get this close.
But it could be that parody of news reports is something that's a little more rules-based.
If you've noticed an article in the Bee or the Onion, they're a little formulaic, but it works anyway.
You know, a lot of humor is very formulaic.
So maybe AI can do better for humor than I thought.
But I wouldn't say it's up to the level of the best human humor.
But it surprised me how close it got.
All right, I have a hypothesis.
This is not a prediction.
It's not a prediction, it's a hypothesis.
Meaning we'll test it without trying, and we'll know whether it's true or not.
It goes like this.
The AI music will not replace human-made music for at least hit records.
It will definitely replace human musicians for advertising and maybe the background music of a video game, maybe some music in your elevator, stuff like that.
So AI will definitely replace the low end of music business.
But for the high end, where you're listening to it for pure enjoyment, here's my hypothesis.
You ready?
Now first of all, I do agree that AI could match or surpass the skill level of the best human musicians.
So this will be the part that doesn't make sense for a second.
So I do accept The AI will be better at knowing what people want to hear and then producing it.
Better than the best human, eventually.
However, here's what my hypothesis speculates.
You won't want to listen to it.
So here's the weird part.
The AI music will absolutely be better on every level that you can determine that things are good.
You'll be better than the human music and you won't want to listen to it.
Here's why.
If you know it's made by AI, it won't trigger your reproductive instincts.
Because my hypothesis is that music is showing off.
That's what it is.
And the best music, a hit song, is showing off the most.
In other words, it's showing a genetic talent That you would want to mate with.
It's not an accident that people want to mate with Mick Jagger.
Right?
Because when you watch Mick Jagger, even at his current age, you watch him do his thing on stage, and you are completely certain that you couldn't do that.
And you're pretty certain that nobody you've ever met could do that.
What Mick Jagger does on stage.
And so you say to yourself, he's got an extra gear.
There's something genetically blessed about this person.
And so you automatically want to mate with them.
Guys want to compete with them, want to be them.
And that music is really about activating your reproductive system.
But you never are conscious of it.
So here's the part you would have to accept to think that the hypothesis has any value.
That you are never conscious of the fact that music is all about your reproductive instinct.
That's it.
Same with art.
Here's a mental experiment.
Imagine if The works of Rembrandt had never been created.
So let's say there had never been an actual Rembrandt human being.
Nobody ever made Rembrandt's paintings.
But then AI comes along, and you say, hey AI, make me some great paintings.
And somehow the AI produces the exact work of Rembrandt, but in this mind experiment, the real Rembrandt never existed.
Just his work is reproduced by AI.
Would it be valuable?
The real Rembrandt's work is worth many millions of dollars.
If the exact thing had been produced by AI, but had never been produced by any human before, would it be worth millions?
No, its exact value would be zero.
It would actually be zero.
How's my hypothesis sound now?
About when I started, you were completely rejecting it, weren't you?
Like the first few sentences, you're like, no, no.
Nope, nope, nope.
AI music is going to be better than humans.
It will be technically better.
Technically it will be.
But if you know that it's made by a computer, you will get bored with it quickly.
Because its qualities are not anything that will stimulate you.
Because you can't reproduce with a computer.
What do you think?
Your comments changed as I went.
Because I feel like some of you got a little bit persuaded.
But like I said, it's not a prediction.
Don't confuse this with a prediction.
It's a hypothesis.
In other words, we'll be able to test it pretty quickly.
I would argue that I already tested it.
When I asked you about the Rembrandt, that was the test.
If you had said, my God, yes, those Rembrandts are so amazing.
If an AI produced them, I would like them just as much and pay just as much for them.
No, you wouldn't.
Your value you put on the art is entirely tied up with the fact that a human made it.
Take that away and it doesn't have any value at all.
So I think I've proven it just by that example, because you would all come to the same conclusion, I think.
You wouldn't pay for an AI Rembrandt.
I know that.
Now I'm going to take it a little bit further into the real world.
When I became a cartoonist, There was an insight that I had that I executed during my career.
And the insight was that the audience can't separate the cartoonist from the cartoon.
That was my insight.
And that they needed to know who I was in order to fully enjoy the cartoon.
So when Dilbert was about the workplace, the reason it became famous is not because the jokes were good and the people liked the workplace.
Do you know why Dilbert became famous?
Because I was in the workplace.
So the story wasn't, oh my god, this is a good comic.
I like to think sometimes people laughed at it.
But the story was that I was doing something dangerous by working for a big company while mocking a big company.
And wasn't I going to get fired at any minute?
And do you know what that did?
It triggered people's reproductive instincts.
Because I was doing something you couldn't or wouldn't do.
You couldn't or wouldn't Make a comic that would get you in trouble.
You'd be afraid.
So I was taking a risk, but I wasn't afraid.
Indeed, I ended up being nearly fired and eventually fired.
So it wasn't an imaginary risk.
And people could sense it was a real risk.
And people could sense that I was taking on the biggest powers in the world.
Because if I got banned from one company, I probably would have trouble getting a job at another one.
It looked like a really dangerous thing to be doing.
And I think that triggers people's reproductive instincts.
Male and female.
Not that the men wanted to mate with me, but they were identifying with it.
Like, oh shit, that's brave.
When I got cancelled, why did I get cancelled?
It's because the audience does not separate the artist from the art.
That's a real clear example of that.
So as soon as the artist says something they didn't like, they didn't like the art anymore.
In fact, I heard this exact opinion.
I heard somebody talk about somebody they knew, who said they used to like my comic, but when they found out about my political opinions, they couldn't read my comic anymore.
See?
That same phenomenon is going to come to art of all types.
If you know who the artist is, or at least that it's a human, it makes you see the art different.
As soon as you take the human out of it, the art has no real value except for pretty picture.
Its economic value will be near zero.
All right.
Didn't see that coming, did you?
All right, here's another one maybe you didn't see coming.
I told you that in Finland, briefly, the price of electricity dropped below zero.
Theoretically, not actually below zero, but in theory, it was free for a while.
And that's because there was more supply than demand.
And that was largely because they'd opened up a nuclear site recently, and they had a lot of electricity.
But apparently that effect is all of Europe right now.
So, at the moment, the price of electricity in much of Europe, or most of it actually, is zero.
And it's because of nuclear energy.
Primarily.
Primarily nuclear energy.
So, there you go.
If you wondered, is there any way to, you know, get to this future where we got all electric cars and no climate change?
Yes.
Yes, there is.
It's a very clear path now.
All right.
As you know, I have not been Reporting on or talking about too much this debt ceiling issue where the Congress has to decide on a budget or else the country defaults on its debts and we all die.
Now the reason is because I always thought it was fake.
The dynamic of these negotiations are both sides are looking at the polls and if the polls say you would benefit by holding up the process, then you do.
But I heard that the polls are reversed and now the Republicans look like they would come out ahead if the government closes and we default on debt.
So the Republicans don't have a reason to compromise because the poll is currently showing that they would gain.
The Democrats, if they're looking at the same poll information, are knowing that they would lose and they would be blamed for whatever happens if we don't reach a deal.
So that pretty much guarantees it will be a deal.
Because we're all operating in self-interest.
But the reason I don't report on it is that it's all fake news until the last minute.
The only thing that counted at all was the last minute.
So if it's a month before the deadline and the news is telling you, oh, here's a big story, it's not.
That's not a story.
There isn't any possibility they would have agreed a month in advance.
Because a month in advance, the polls are not reliable.
They have to make sure that just before they execute, at least one side, or actually both sides, know which way things are going to go if they don't make a deal.
That's how you get a deal.
So it was never a real story until the last 60 seconds.
And maybe that's not even real.
Because I got a feeling if you miss it by two days, the stock market takes a dump for two days and then comes right back.
That's what I think.
So I believe that this is an example of the news making something out of nothing.
Not that there's no risk.
There is.
But if you were to rank that risk with all the other risks in the world, it wouldn't be a top 50, in my opinion.
So that's sort of a semi-fake news to keep an eye on.
All right.
If stops, what would you do if let's say we miss the deadline and stocks go down 19%?
I'm just picking a number.
Stocks go down 19% because we missed the deadline by a day.
What do you do?
Do you sell all your stocks?
Or do you buy like a motherfucker?
All right, I'm not going to give you any financial advice.
This is not financial advice.
But historically, historically, the very best time to buy stock is when all the stocks went down for a bullshit reason.
Now, I consider the pandemic a bullshit reason, meaning that it was a near certainty that we would get through it and that stocks would go up.
You know, we'd recover.
Because even if it was bad and a lot of people died, the people dying were not the people producing economic activity.
The people dying were the exact people who were expensive.
I hate to say that because they're human beings.
But in terms of just the cold hard cash of economics, it was obvious to me that if we didn't die from a supply chain problem, which I thought we could handle and we did, that things would go back.
And sure enough, they did.
So there aren't that many situations where you have a really obvious reason for the stocks being temporarily lower.
But this would be one.
This would be one.
In my opinion, since we wouldn't be unable to pay, we would simply be disorganized and miss a deadline.
I'd be a buyer.
But I don't recommend that you follow my advice on stocks.
Because I do not have a Warren Buffett track record.
If I had a Warren Buffett track record, you should definitely listen to me.
I do not.
So don't.
All right.
Let's talk about Target.
So there was some murkiness on the question of whether Target had intentionally targeted youth with their Tuck-friendly LGBTQ trans clothing line.
And one report was, well, it's not what you think.
And I said this on the livestream.
I said, it's not what you think because they simply don't have children's sizes anymore.
They just have small sizes and there are small adults.
So they're not directly targeting children, but it is true that these are sizes children would wear.
So then I saw a video of a woman go into Target to actually point to the stuff.
Oh boy, was I wrong!
Oh man!
Now, I like to take the position first.
Of assuming innocence.
So I was giving Target the benefit of the doubt.
I assumed innocence.
I assumed that maybe they just got caught in a situation where it looked exactly like they were targeting young people, but maybe it was just a misimpression.
And then I saw the display of an actual Target store.
Nope.
Nope, those are targeted at children.
Yep.
Absolutely targeted at children, no doubt about it.
And if you want a little background on it, Twitter user Jewel Adora confirms that he has a lot of experience in the stores and that they have a, what's it called, a planogram or something?
So corporate offices tell you where all your displays are supposed to be relative to the other displays.
So there's like a map of where you put everything.
That doesn't come from the local store manager.
That comes from headquarters.
So the way these things were displayed were adjacent to the children's sections, and they had children's sizes.
And the clothing looked like it was aimed at children.
And there were some gingerbread things and some other kids' things that are very much LGBTQ-oriented.
Now, in case there are any people who are not regulars to my livestream, I'm very much pro-LGBTQ.
So my ongoing belief of how things should be is that all adults should be able to do whatever they want as long as they're not bothering me, and LGBTQ is just more of that.
I have no special feeling, except that there are individuals doing what individuals can do, so good for them.
But when we're talking about minors, all those rules are gone.
Do we agree?
No disagreement, right?
If you're talking about minors, all of the adult rules don't apply.
So as long as we agree with that, we're in good shape on agreement, right?
Why don't they apply?
I'm not even going to explain that.
They have incomplete brains.
I mean, there's nothing else to explain.
So if you're raising kids for the benefit of the children, you make the decisions for them.
Until their brains are ready to do it on their own.
That's the whole process.
So I think it's so simulation-like that the story that's being targeted is literally called Target.
They're actually a target.
I mean, it's a little too on the nose, isn't it?
It's like the simulation is just screaming at you.
I swear, it's really a simulation.
None of this is real.
I feel like it's just screaming my... I get it.
I get it.
The Target is the Target store.
I get it.
All right.
Too on the nose.
All right.
So, it looks like Target's in trouble.
I did notice that some of the Southern stores Decided to respond by moving the LGBTQ display to the back of the store so they could kind of hide it during Pride Month.
I'll just say that again so I don't have to explain the joke.
They're actually going to hide the LGBTQ display during Pride Month.
Do I have to complete it?
That's actually what's happening.
Now, I oppose that.
I oppose that.
Because that's just fucked up.
Because that's fucked up to the adults.
Because I think Target has every right, and I would say even responsibility, to satisfy adults of all types.
I feel like that's part of their mission.
And there are certainly enough LGBTQ customers to merit their own section of clothes for adults.
But if you take the adult stuff and put it in the back of the shop during Pride Month, you got some explaining to do.
You got a little explaining to do.
This is the most hilarious corporate fuck-up I've seen since Bud Light.
You know, I've noticed that there's an overall competence problem happening everywhere.
Maybe it's confirmation bias, but it feels like something fundamental is happening.
Everywhere, from government to business.
Have you tried to get tech support from any company lately?
It's almost not a thing.
It's almost non-existent.
It's just like they put idiots in all those jobs.
And that didn't used to be the case.
I used to be able to get, you know, with a little work, you could get help from anybody.
Now it's just feels like it's totally broken.
So the bigger story here is the massive incompetence of Anheuser-Busch and Target, almost independent of the fact that it's about LGBTQ.
It was horribly managed.
It just feels like none of this was hard to do, and they still got it wrong.
And now the LA Dodgers, they've got a problem too.
So there's definitely a new force in the world, which is the... I think conservatives have figured out how much power they have.
Or they've decided to use it.
Maybe that's the better way.
I guess they always knew.
But Republicans have decided to actively use their power.
And I don't think they have before.
I think it was mostly just complaining.
But now if you do something that is deeply offensive to that part of the country, they're going to make you pay.
And probably that's the only thing that can get things back to some kind of balance.
Because we're way out of balance at the moment.
All right.
You had North Face.
North Face has some issues.
All right.
Jordan Peterson was tweeting that their research is adding up that the people who are left-wing authoritarians, so authoritarians is important to the left-wing part, so we're not talking about just Democrats, right?
So this is not about ordinary Democrats.
It's about the left-wing authoritarian types of which we know exist.
But apparently the research is showing that these are not political people.
It's not about politics.
They actually just want to break shit because they're narcissists.
They're just narcissists.
They're actually just, it's a mental illness.
So, although narcissism, I think they call it personality something, it's not a mental illness, but it really is.
Yeah.
So they're narcissists.
So I've been saying this for a while.
There's some brand of politics on the far left as well as the far right that should not be treated as politics.
It's clearly mental illness in both directions.
But it's just, you know, the little stripe at the end.
The people in the middle are largely almost normal, no matter what their opinion is.
All right.
All right.
Let's see.
Oh, and apparently there's another issue with Target that Elon Musk has weighed in on.
And Target is being accused of funding a group called GLSEN, which calls for gender ideology to be integrated into all classes, even math, and...
Now, this is a Fox News report.
Now, do you believe that Target is funding a group Who is promoting gender ideology in all classes, including math.
Well, Community Notes seems to think it's true.
Apparently it's true.
And Elon Musk tweeted this and said, is this true?
Because it's almost too hard to believe, isn't it?
It's almost too hard to believe.
And so far it looks true.
So Target's got some work to do.
All right, here's the scariest thing you're gonna hear today, and the reason I couldn't describe the content of my show today.
We're gonna go out on a limb a little bit here, as you know I like to do.
How would you know if your country had already been taken over and you were no longer a democratic republic?
How would you know?
Because it's the same question with AI, right?
What if AI has already taken over?
Would you know?
So, I would propose, let's forget about AI for a moment.
How would you know if our country was no longer a democratic republic and really there was just a cabal of important people who were deciding everything?
How would you know?
Well, I would suggest the following test.
The test that people are in power and we're no longer, you know, run by the people, so to speak, is that the people in power could commit a crime in public and get away with it.
In public.
You could all see it.
Just everybody can see it.
And there would be no consequences.
The second way, the second way is related.
The second way is if the people they don't like, the people on the other side, can be observed not committing a crime and then be successfully convicted for it.
They can be proven to not be doing a crime, right in front of you, you can see it with your own eyes and your common sense, and yet they would be prosecuted.
We have both of those situations.
So here's an example of Obvious real crimes that somebody should go to jail for, that we all know are crimes, it's been confirmed, and nothing's going to happen.
So there's a hunter's laptop, the Russia collusion, now we know from the whistleblower the slow walking of the hunter investigation, which clearly that's a crime to just ignore it.
The entire Biden family crime enterprise of money from other countries, that's all confirmed stuff.
You don't have to wonder.
We know it now.
Black Lives Matter, of course, turned out to be a fake organization.
Good point they were making, but a fake organization.
Antifa seems to be completely fake.
You know, because they disappeared as soon as the politics no longer needed them.
So these things are obvious to the public.
It's obvious that these are, you know, manipulated by the people in charge.
And they can primarily do it because they control the legacy media.
And as I've described, the legacy media's purpose is to prevent you from knowing what your government is doing.
It's not the news.
I don't know if they ever were.
I really don't know if they ever were.
But it's very clear at the moment, and we've seen example after example after example, where the legacy news is in the business, primarily in the business, of preventing you from knowing what the government is doing.
Now, I see exactly zero pushback on that reframing.
That's exactly what you see, isn't it?
There's nobody who disagrees.
Their entire job is to prevent you from knowing the news.
And they do a good job.
The Rasmussen Poll showed that very clearly.
The Democrats are actually unaware of the biggest stories in politics.
They're actually unaware.
So they do a good job.
But what about, so those are crimes that one side is doing that are completely unpunished, but then you have the other side, where people who clearly did not commit a crime are being punished, or over-punished for small things.
Yes, January 6th.
Now, not to dismiss the fact that there were some real bad people who actually did have bad intentions.
I don't care if they get, you know, prosecuted.
But I think every reasonable person can see That most of the protesters were just exercising free speech.
And they're in jail.
Would that have happened if the parties had been reversed?
No.
No.
That would not have happened if the parties had been reversed.
How about Tucker Carlson being kicked off of Fox News?
Doesn't it look like he'd get punished for nothing?
Am I wrong?
Tucker Carlson got punished for exactly nothing.
Exactly nothing.
I don't even think there was anything really even alleged.
At least nothing new.
I mean everybody alleges that everybody's telling fake news.
How about Daniel Penny?
Is it Penny?
The guy who did the Who accidentally, it looks like, killed the Michael Jackson impersonator.
Doesn't that look to you like it's obvious he's not guilty of anything?
It's just obvious.
But he will be punished.
In all likelihood.
I mean, I hope he's not.
How about Republicans being hunted?
Just in general, do you think Republicans are being hunted right in front of you?
And it's just obvious?
Yes.
Looks pretty obvious to me.
All right.
But here's the one that I feel like was the canary in the coal mine.
And I had to wait a while and get cancelled before I could say this full-throatedly and out loud.
And I'm going to come at it indirectly.
You know that there are a lot of people who are in the business of killing people.
Like bad people.
Murderers.
A lot of people want to kill people.
And also, spies like to kill people without leaving a trace.
You know, I was talking about that alleged CIA heart attack gun.
You know, a gun that would give somebody a heart attack, and then the poison would dissolve, and then the dart would dissolve.
Basically, we know there's a market for killing people without leaving a trace.
Would you agree that there's a market for that?
If it's only the CIA.
It's a market.
If it's only Putin, it's a market.
Somebody wants that service.
Have you ever heard of anybody killing somebody without leaving a trace by holding them on their stomach and then having a five foot eight man who weighs 140 pounds use one knee on his back until he's dead?
Because you, apparently, we're told by the legacy media, the legacy media has told us that you can kill, that a 5'8 man who weighs, I don't know, 150 pounds, whatever he was, can kill a, how big was Floyd?
6'4?
He was a big guy, right?
Do you know his actual height?
I believe he was like 6'2 or 4?
Not 8.
But he was a big guy.
No, he wasn't 6'8.
He couldn't have been 6'8".
He was over six, right?
So he was a big guy.
Now, we're told from the coroner that there was no evidence on his neck of, you know, damage.
I don't believe there was any evidence of like a bruise on his back where the knee was.
I don't believe his lungs showed any sign of compression.
So am I wrong that it's the perfect murder?
Is it the perfect murder?
Because there would be no drugs in his body.
There would be no external trauma.
And even if you were to, like, I don't know, put a pillow over somebody's head, I think it would leave some kind of trace.
But you could just hold somebody on the ground.
It might take, you know, three people to hold their arms.
And just lightly put your knee on them.
You don't even need to use both knees.
Apparently you can have one knee on the ground and one knee sort of slightly pushing down and he'll die in five minutes.
According to the legacy media.
How many of you believe that?
I'll tell you what I saw.
What my eyes told me I was seeing was no murder at all and obviously an overdose death.
To me it was obvious.
And so the legacy of media managed to tell me that what I saw didn't happen.
That what I actually watched, with my own eyes, never really happened.
Now, if the coroner report had come up with some physical damage, such as, you know, the muscles of the neck were damaged, etc., then I would say, oh, okay, well, maybe the video is not as clear as it could be.
Video can lie.
We know that.
So, therefore, you know, maybe I'm wrong.
But if the coroner comes up with no physical damage whatsoever, and then you see something that looks like nobody killing anybody, And just casually talking to the witnesses who were filming it?
Do you think a cop killed somebody while people were filming it?
Casually?
Just casually killed them?
While people were filming?
No.
That was never even slightly, slightly possible.
And we've been asked to believe this complete ridiculousness.
At the very least, it should have been a benefit of a doubt.
Am I right?
How they got 12 people to say, oh, he definitely killed that guy.
I don't know.
I don't know how they got 12 people.
It had to be peer pressure.
It had to be people thinking they would be killed if they voted any other way.
So, to me, that was the signal that whoever's in charge can literally tell us anything.
Because we won't believe our eyes, and we won't even believe our common sense.
So then we get this election that everybody questions.
We get an election that everybody questions.
Not everybody, but a lot of people question.
And it was exactly like when Hillary won in 2016, and all the Democrats said, hey, that election was rigged.
And everybody said, yeah, complain, complain, and life went on.
But when the reverse happened, It became an insurrection and a revolution.
Now, of course, the Capitol was protested and there were some dangerous people there.
So there was something they could work with.
There was a factual basis that they could do some hyperbole on and extend it to the rest of the people.
But we're in such a dark situation here.
All the evidence suggests we're no longer governed by anything.
Like we think.
It just appears that the people who have some kind of power over the media are just making us believe anything they want.
All right.
According to Rasmussen Poll, 59% of people they polled say the media is truly the enemy of the people.
44% of Democrats agree.
That the media is the enemy of the people.
However, if you're saying to yourself, wow, they're agreeing with you, because you think it, right?
So now you're thinking, oh, wow, they agree with me.
No, they don't.
No, they don't.
They think Fox News and Breitbart are the problem.
They don't think their media is the problem.
Do you think there's 44% of Democrats think that MSNBC is lying to them?
No, they don't.
No, they don't.
They think the media is the enemy of the people, but they're talking about Fox News.
Exclusively.
Now, I would imagine that when Republicans say it, they're mostly talking about legacy media, and they have their complaints with Fox News, but they're not really thinking Fox News is the problem.
Right?
They're not thinking Breitbart is the problem.
They're thinking it's the legacy media.
So-called legacy media.
All right.
And as others have pointed out, and I saw a tweet from somebody who calls himself Exit the Matrix.
And this tweet said, haven't seen anyone discussing this fact, but just imagine how emboldened they, they being the people we assume are in charge of things, just imagine how emboldened they are now to cheat in the 2024 election after what they've done to the January 6th people, which was a warning.
Do not complain when they win again.
Do you buy that?
Do you buy that January 6th was a warning to tell Republicans, you better not complain the next time we rig the election?
Well, I cannot confirm or deny, because that would be sort of mind-reading.
I don't know what other people are thinking.
But I do know that the effect of it is a chilling effect on the next potential protest.
It does, in fact, create a situation where the Democrats could cheat right in front of you, get caught, and there would be no consequences.
The election would not be reversed, and even if the Supreme Court ruled, I think they'd just ignore it.
I think we've gotten to the point where they have so much control over the narrative and the levers of power that they can do anything they want right in front of you.
Consider Russia.
Putin is allegedly killing his enemies in plain sight.
Do you think the Russians are aware of that?
Do you think they know he's killing people, his critics?
Probably.
But he can do it anyway.
Do you know why he can do it anyway?
Because he doesn't exist in a democratic republic.
He can do any crime right in front of you, and his public will say, I don't know, they told us it wasn't a crime, and I still have a job, so I'm happy.
Yeah.
So there's something going on in the United States that's very Putin-like and very CCP-like, you know, Chinese government.
For some reason we've got to the point where the Democrats can do massive crime right in front of the public and there's no repercussions.
Only Putin and Xi can do that.
I don't think even America you could do that before.
This feels new.
So it does feel like there's something going on here that's pretty important.
All right.
Vivek Ramaswamy is updating us on his situation where he got banned on LinkedIn for allegedly some fake information.
But he asked them, can you give me an example of what I said that would be wrong or non-factual?
And they backed up to, oh, it was a mistake.
Oh, just a human error.
No, no, we never meant to ban you for that material that we first told you was fake.
Just an error.
Yeah, you're welcome to come right back on.
Microsoft owns LinkedIn, in case you wondered.
So how much do you trust about that story?
Nothing.
All right.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
So this is more to my theme that the Democrats can commit massive crimes right in front of you.
I need a fact check on this.
Has any high-ranking Republican with security clearance, because there are people with top security clearance in Congress, have any of them seen the documents that are allegedly these sensitive documents that came in at Mar-a-Lago?
And if not, why not?
Wouldn't it be a simple matter to put them in the Schiff?
Skiff, not Schiff.
Put them in a Skiff?
Can't you put them someplace and have the Republicans come in and look at them?
And then characterize them.
Because we don't, you know, the public doesn't want to know the details, but I'd like them characterized.
I would like somebody to say, okay, we looked at them and to be honest, some of these are troubling.
Wouldn't you like to know that?
Wouldn't you like to know if Trump took something, kept it in a cardboard box at Mar-a-Lago, and it was actually a problem?
I would definitely like to know that.
And I believe.
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb.
There does seem to be a difference between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Republicans seem to be, you know, they'll exaggerate a little bit and maybe sometimes they'll believe a conspiracy theory that they shouldn't.
You know, there's a certain quality to how Republicans are wrong that's different than when Democrats are wrong.
It appears that they're lying intentionally.
It seems very different.
Republicans can be wrong, or can be weasels sometimes, I feel like the Democrats would be like Schiff.
They would walk in and look at something that was innocent, and then walk out and tell you he saw something that was terrible.
I don't think Republicans do that.
I believe if Republicans went in there, let's just pick any Republican.
Somebody with lots of security.
Let's say Rubio.
Does he still have top clearance?
Does Rubio have top clearance?
So imagine Rubio goes in there.
He sees the actual documents.
Do you think that if some of them were actually really sensitive, top secret, do you think he'd lie to you?
Because he wants a Republican to win the presidency?
I actually don't think he would.
I actually don't think he would.
I think he would say, you know, honestly, this is something the courts are going to have to handle because I was hoping they would all look innocent, but I'm not so sure they are innocent.
You know, based on what I looked at, I've got a problem with him.
And, you know, I'm not the one to solve it.
That might be the courts or whatever.
But there is something here.
I think Rubio would say that.
And I'm not, you know, pro or anti Marco Rubio.
I'm just saying that, yeah, Rand Paul.
Rand Paul.
Does Rand Paul have top clearance?
Top security clearance?
Actually, what I'd love, I'd love to pick our champion.
That's what I'd like to do.
I'd like to pick the champion, so to speak, the Republican that you would believe no matter what they say.
If you were gonna pick somebody that you knew would tell you the truth, Rand Paul would be a good choice.
I would believe him.
Yeah, Thomas Massey.
Do you believe there's any chance that Thomas Massey would lie to you?
After he went in the skiff, I don't know if he has the clearance.
But do you think there's any chance he would lie to you about what he felt?
I think zero.
Absolutely zero.
He absolutely would not lie on that or anything else as far as I know.
I mean, yes, he's got a really clean record of telling the truth.
Ted Cruz, same thing.
We assume that Ted Cruz wants Trump or at least a Republican to win.
Yeah, he would tell the truth.
Jim Jordan is a little bit more political.
He wouldn't be my favorite.
Mitt Romney.
There you go.
Mitt Romney.
That's a very good choice.
Because you know Mitt Romney is not going to be in the pocket for Trump.
But he's also not going to lie about this.
He would not lie to her Trump about this.
Because this would be a lie that everybody would someday find out is true or not, right?
You probably get caught for lying in it.
I think that the Republicans are in an interesting situation.
That you could pick several Republicans that no matter what they said, you would actually believe them.
And I don't know if there are any.
Can you name a Democrat that would fit that bill?
That if they saw something and said so, you would believe them?
There probably are.
I'll bet there are.
Yeah.
Tom Cotton.
Oh, Tulsi, yeah.
Robert Kennedy, yes.
R.F.K.
Jr.
Yeah, R.F.K.
Jr., for sure, but he's not in the government.
Manchin.
You know, Manchin's a tough one.
Because I do feel like he's influenced by the coal business.
So you can feel the influence of industry on him.
You know what I mean?
Whereas if you look at someone like Thomas Massey, you don't see any influence of industry.
It looks like his own opinions.
All right.
Moving on.
Turley, Jonathan Turley, has an interesting article, I think it was in The Hill, on reparations.
So California, you know, went first with their reparations committee and came up with some absurd number that will never happen.
And then Governor Newsom said, well, go back to the drawing board, or we'll think about it, or delayed them somehow.
But other states are doing the same thing.
So this whole reparations thing, because it looked like it might actually happen in California, so it's starting to pop up in other states.
And Turley has, I think, exactly the same opinion on this as I do.
They're never going to get reparations.
The Democrats actually got the black American supporters all worked up for something that they can't possibly deliver.
And I think the Republicans could totally take advantage of that.
The fact that the Democrats lied to the black Americans about reparations.
And you know it was a lie.
Of course it was a lie.
They never planned to do that.
All right, well, DeSantis is running to the right of Trump, but here's how you need to understand that.
DeSantis is running for the nomination, and Trump is running to win the presidency.
So that makes sense.
So Trump's acting a little bit more middle-of-the-road, because he feels he's already got the nomination and he's already in the general election.
And that would be the right place to be, because he doesn't want to later have to change his views.
So Trump's finding kind of a reasonable, not too extreme position.
And DeSantis is trying to find a little bit of space to the right of him, which is sort of a hard job.
But one of the things DeSantis wants to do is get rid of that jail reform thing that Jared did.
Where people could get out early if they learned a skill or they, I don't know, do something like that.
And he just wants to get rid of it and keep them in jail.
Now, I think that's too early.
To me it seems you've got to let that experiment run a few years and see if the people who got out of jail, you know, recommitted crimes at a rate that would be alarming.
So, I'm not sure that that's... I don't think he's basing this on data.
This one seems purely political to me, just because it's different from what Trump did, and it's a way to show that he's on the right.
And I would go further and say that if he won the presidency, I don't think he would change it, because it would be too unpopular.
So that looks like a primary kind of thing you say, not a general election kind of thing to say.
Is that conflating the criminal's release?
No, he's not conflating the jail reform thing with the DA's releasing people.
But has anybody heard any updates on whether that early release stuff that Jared and Trump did, is it working?
Has anybody heard whether that's a disaster?
Are people getting out early and then recommitting crimes?
Cernovich says it's not working, but do we have an actual study or just some anecdotes?
Actually, it wouldn't take that many anecdotes to tell you it wasn't working.
I would if I still lived in Danville.
All right.
All right.
I would say that it might be premature.
Sure.
But even if it didn't work, I would call it a success.
So, you know, we know we have a problem with too many people in jail.
So if somebody tried something that sounds good on paper, you know, was hard to execute, to get it done, they tried it, they legitimately tried it, and it didn't work, I would call that smart.
I mean, yeah, I don't live at Danville.
DeSantis voted for the First Step Act?
Well, I think that it would be perfectly consistent for Republicans to vote in the First Step Act, let it run a few years, and then see if it worked.
I mean, you'd have to see that as an experiment, wouldn't you?
Because we've never done it before.
So if the experiment works, you do more of it.
If it doesn't work, you stop doing it or you modify it.
So there's nothing I don't like about that.
Even if it failed, That's what I want to see.
I want to see exactly that.
More of that.
All right.
What program have they ever stopped once it started?
All right, that's a good question.
COVID payments.
Special case.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
YouTube, I'm going to say bye.
I hope this was as provocative as you hoped it would be.
Modern education, predicted.
Okay?
Any other questions from you?
Yeah, Neuralink.
Neuralink.
You know, I've been noodling with the idea that for some types of criminals, the non-violent ones, that maybe instead of going to prison, they should lose their privacy.
What do you think of that?
Imagine if you were a repeat criminal, and instead of putting you in jail forever, they say, look, we're just going to put a monitor on your ankle, and we're going to let everybody know where you are and what crimes you've committed.
Imagine if you would, that your phone gives you an alert, and you find out that somebody who's committed 700 crimes just walked into the store behind you.
Get the fuck out and just get out of that store right away.
So it might be that privacy and freedom are almost the Venn diagrams overlap a lot.
Because imagine having freedom with no privacy.
Would that be freedom?
Freedom with no privacy.
It would be like not freedom, wouldn't it?
And so we take their freedom away if they commit a crime, but maybe you can get to something like it by taking their privacy away.
Right?
Now, only if they've committed a crime or they keep committing crimes, you know, a very specific case.
You wouldn't want that for everybody.
But there just might be some way to alert everybody around them all the time.
Right?
Something like that.
Yeah, it'd be worth trying.
And maybe only for a certain class of crimes.
Take, for example, somebody had been convicted of burglary 50 times.
All right?
They've burglarized a home 50 times.
But you can tell where they are now all the time.
You look at them and beep, beep, beep.
This criminal has just entered your home.
You're not home.
But it just said he's in your home.
So you could basically weaponize the public by making sure we always knew who the criminals were and specifically what crimes they'd committed.
Because people like to do the same crimes over and over.
Isn't it worth trying?
I mean, if you're not going to put them in jail, I suppose jail might be first choice for a lot of stuff.
Yeah.
Now, I would make an exception for, you know, violent crimes.
Violent crimes, maybe jail's the only solution.
But for, let's say, robbery and vandalism and a lot of stuff, I just want to see them coming.
If I see them coming, I can make my own decisions how to stay safe.
Impossible to monitor?
I don't know.
Imagine if you owned a store, And you knew that somebody came in and had been convicted of shoplifting 15 times.
You'd follow them around.
You would just stand right next to them the whole time they're shopping.
And it shouldn't be illegal.
It should definitely not be illegal to stand wherever you want in your own store and watch anybody you want in your own store.
So, you know, you wouldn't watch them on the camera.
You just follow them around the aisle.
Say, hey, I understand you've shoplifted 15 times, so we're going to keep an eye on you, but you're welcome to shop here.
Yeah, I suppose you could get people falsely accused of stuff.
That's always a problem.
All right, well, I'll just throw that idea out there because the other ideas are not working.
