Episode 2124 Scott Adams: Debt Ceiling Scam, AI Will Never Take Our weasel Jobs, Pardoning Trump
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The debt ceiling SCAM
Long COVID or not
AI can't take weasel jobs
Twitter vs TikTok
Moscow drone attacks
Pardoning Trump
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, the best thing that's ever happened since possibly the early civilizations before the ice age that were not so sure existed, but I think they did.
If you'd like to take your experience up to post-Ice Age amazingness, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a kenteen 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, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Today with a collared shirt.
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
Join me now for the sip.
Go.
Do I look more cultured with a colored shirt?
Alright.
I only put it on because I was cold this morning.
But we're gonna do a little test to see if it increases the audience.
I have a feeling that people, when they see you with a collared shirt, they're more likely to stay.
What do you think?
Do you think that hypothesis will pan out?
I think when they see you in a t-shirt, they think, well, looks like you're not doing too much work for me.
So why should I stay for you?
I don't know, we'll see.
I would like to give you an investment tip today.
Investment tip.
Never, ever take your investment advice from a cartoonist.
Wait, but how does this work?
Never take advice from me, but I'm telling you never to take advice from me, which you should reverse, to take advice from me, which would be the opposite of what you should do.
I don't know, there's no way to win this.
There's no way to win.
But let me tell you about my dumbest, worst investment that I've done lately.
And by the way, you are authorized to laugh out loud.
At home, I'm going to tell you what I invested in, I'm going to tell you why it went wrong, and then you can laugh.
Because I think I'm really fucking stupid.
No, my tent investment is doing well.
I bought stock in the camping world because I thought people are going to be spending more time outdoors whether they like it or not.
It's like it wins if the economy is good, people want to go camping and they buy some camping equipment.
But if the economy is really bad, they're going to need some camping equipment.
So I was trying to win both ways.
It's up 9% since I bought it just a few weeks ago.
So that was good.
All right.
Here's my worst investment.
There's a company that sells women's makeup, a retail store called Ulta, U-L-T-A.
My thinking was that after the pandemic, they got suppressed by the pandemic.
And I thought to myself, well, this is like a no brainer.
This is like the easiest investment ever.
Because people are going to go wild for their makeup.
They'll be taking the masks off.
They'll be going outside more.
There's no way that makeup can sell less.
Right?
So the demand for makeup, I thought, was going to go through the roof.
This was a company that seemed to be best in breed.
So if you buy the best company at a highly suppressed cost because of the pandemic, And then when the pandemic's over, you end up having cheaply held the best company in an area that's going to grow fast.
Sounded like a pretty good idea, didn't it?
Do you know what was wrong with the idea?
I invested in a retail store.
They just went down by a third today because all their products are being stolen.
Now, can we take a moment Would you just do me a favor and mock me?
You have full authorization.
You won't get blocked.
Could you just call me a fucking idiot?
Because that's the dumbest thing I've ever done.
Honestly, that is the dumbest investment I've ever made.
How in the world did I think Ulta stores were not going to be completely knocked over by mobs of people?
Of course they are.
The theft was legalized.
Why would you invest in any retail store that has any kind of urban presence?
It would be the dumbest thing anybody ever did.
Now, here's my macro advice.
This is the reason that you don't put most of your money in individual stocks.
It's this.
Because you can be blinded to some obvious thing.
The reason that That you should buy an index fund, is it takes from you the ability to make stupid decisions like that.
So the good news is, the good news is, that the amount of money I put into Ulta was, you know, 1% of my portfolio or something.
So, you know, I lost 1 third of 1% of my portfolio.
So I'm not going to feel it, but it was stupid.
I actually bought a company that was Had exposure to street theft and didn't even think about it, honestly.
And here's the reason for my blind spot.
When I think of Ulta, I think about the one in my neighborhood.
Because that's my visual.
Because I've been to that one like a million times, driving people to buy there.
I'm not buying myself.
But I've been there a bunch of times, so I just see that one in my head, and there's no danger there.
You know, there's no crime where I live.
At least that kind.
Not much of it anyway.
So I was completely oblivious to the fact that they have urban locations, and they're all just going to get raped.
Which they are.
So don't follow my advice, is what I'm telling you.
Alright, here's a prediction.
AI will not be able to take most human jobs.
There's some jobs it will take right away.
You know, obviously.
And then there's a lot of stuff that people will do more with the tools that they have.
But here's why.
Most human jobs cannot be replaced by AI.
AI will be built to be ethical.
AI will not be allowed to use hyperbole or lie.
Because it would be built to be honest.
Now you say to yourself, oh that's funny, you're making sort of an exaggerated joke about how humans are big liars, right?
No, no I'm not.
I'm not attempting to use any exaggeration or hyperbole in this point.
If you examined your actual actions during your work day, there's a lot of lying going on.
And you have to do that lying because you're dealing with other people and psychology, etc.
And so you end up being turned into a liar by the nature of the job.
For example, if you're in sales, are you saying everything that the customer needs to hear?
Or are you telling them only the things that are good for you?
And when you talk about the competitor's product, maybe you mention a study that made them look bad, But you don't mention the study that made them look good, compared to your product.
Right.
Now that's all legal.
What I described is terribly unethical, because it's basically a form of lying by omission, but it's widespread to the point of universal.
Everything that salespeople do is some version of lying, but not so much as illegal.
How in the world will AI ever Do that.
It'll be programmed so it can't.
It won't leave out important details, because that would be unethical.
But then you say to yourself, okay, but that's just sales.
You know, everybody knows salesmen.
Well, how about marketing?
How about marketing?
That's not exactly sales.
Well, marketing is the same problem.
Then you say to yourself, but Scott, Scott, Scott, that's really, those are literally the influence jobs.
Yeah.
So the influence jobs may be a little more bullshit, but what about the ordinary jobs?
Okay.
Take a moment to think about your ordinary job.
If you have one, let's say you're an engineer.
Engineers have to skip all the BS, right?
Because you can't build a plane based on a lie, right?
The plane has to fly.
The car has to drive, right?
So engineers are very truth-based by their nature.
Are they?
Have you ever been an engineer?
Or are you one?
No, the engineering job is lying all day long.
Your product has to be built based on real physics, so that part you can't lie about.
But everything about getting funding for your project is all a lie.
How's your project going, Scott?
Oh, I am doing so well.
I am killing it.
My project's coming along great.
In fact, I would recommend you increase the funding, because I'm doing so well.
Now we replace me with the AI.
Hey, AI, how's that project going?
To be honest, it doesn't look like it's going to work out.
No funding for you, AI.
Here's a true story.
I once was asked by my boss to attend a meeting in his, to replace him at a meeting that was a budget meeting.
And my job was to defend the budget that my group had asked for.
And then the big boss at the meeting, who had a bunch of people who had to defend their budgets, said, well, we're going to have to do this or that.
And what about, hey, Scott, what if we cut this from your budget?
And then we'll cut a few things from other people's budget, the lower priority stuff, and then we'll be able to beat our target.
So when they got to me, they said, all right, you got all these projects, but this one looks like a little less valuable than those other ones.
So I think we'll cut this one.
What do you think?
So I'm sitting in a room with people whose job it is to decide what to cut.
Because you can't get to the end point unless somebody cuts.
So I said, all right.
Yeah, that's my lowest, lowest priority thing.
I guess we'll cut that.
And then other people gave up their Gave up their cuts, et cetera, and we got a conclusion.
What do you think happened when I reported back to my boss?
Did you think that went well?
You did what?
Yeah, when it came to the negotiations, I decided that we would give up the lowest priority thing.
And he said, you did what?
You just rolled over?
And I said, well, yeah, because it was logical.
Like it was honest and it was logical.
We honestly didn't need that extra money.
And sure enough, we didn't.
The year went by and we were fine.
We honestly didn't need the money.
So I honestly said you could cut that and we'd be fine.
So we cut that.
Yeah, I almost got fired.
Right.
I almost got fired because my job was to lie better than the other people in the room I found out.
My job was to get their projects cut and not mine.
Because my boss wanted power.
And the bigger his group, the more power he had.
So there is no job where lying isn't central to it.
I hate to tell you, there is no job that doesn't depend on lying.
Even if your job is to be honest all the time.
It's still basically lying.
So when you actually try to put an AI into a position, you would have to change everything in the industry to make that work.
Because you would have the only engineers who are kind of honest, and they would just fail.
Because they wouldn't be able to work in the world the way it's organized.
The world as it's organized, we try lots of things that are bad ideas, and that drives our economy.
We do lots of the wrong stuff.
But during the time that we're doing the wrong stuff, people are getting paid.
Vendors are making sales while you're building this company that's going to fail.
Would an AI do that?
Would an AI look at a situation and say, I have no idea how to make this thing work, so I won't do it because I can't see the end point.
But a human will say, well, frankly, I don't know how this is going to work either, but I think I can get funding.
Maybe I can figure it out.
So you start with one product and you end up, very commonly, you end up switching to another product while you still have some money.
And maybe the second one works.
So would an AI do that?
I mean, there's almost nothing that an AI would do that's the same as what you would do.
And our entire industry, everything about how we invest in startups, everything, How we get loans, everything, is based on understanding that we're all lying.
All the time.
I was a loan officer at a bank, so I was supposed to look at people's submissions to get loans.
We just assumed they were all lying.
That was just the baseline assumption.
You couldn't even do that job if you thought people were telling you the truth.
Because the entire idea was to find their lies.
Like, that was my job, was to detect their lies.
And then take them up to my boss.
So now, AI is either going to have to learn to lie, which I don't think is going to happen, or it can't possibly take our jobs.
But there might be local ones that are trained to lie, so we'll see what happens.
Yet again, there are stories in the news about the devastating effects of long COVID.
Go ahead, say it.
Say it.
Big story about long COVID, it's terrible.
Say it.
Go ahead, say it.
Well, why is it taking so long?
Say it.
Just say it.
Yes, there we go.
Vax injuries.
It takes about two seconds for somebody to say, how do you know that's the long COVID?
Can you show me the study where you studied separately the people who had vaccinations From the people who have long COVID and never got a vaccination?
May I see that data?
Apparently, fuck you, you can't see that data.
Have you ever seen that data?
I'm looking through the news today and there's all these references to studies.
None of the studies break, I don't think.
I don't think they break out people who are vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
Doesn't that seem sort of basic?
Did any of you see that?
Have any of you seen a randomized controlled trial?
Could you do a randomized controlled trial?
No, actually you couldn't.
Because the effects... No, you couldn't do a randomized controlled trial, could you?
Am I wrong about that?
It's too late?
You could have done one in theory before there was any COVID.
But, you know, nobody knew to do it.
But now that the COVID is already here and it's in our bodies, You can't really set up a randomized controlled trial, right?
I'm not sure if I'm right about that.
But my point is, the news is so absurdly inadequate.
Now, I don't know what this, I don't know what is true.
I don't know if there's really long COVID.
I don't know if there's vaccine injury only.
I don't know if either one of them is really zero or a lot.
No idea.
No way to tell.
But I can tell that the news and the science are not helping me.
Don't you think the only study that would be useful is the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, and then separate them by booster shots and stuff?
And then follow them for five years, see what happens.
Anything short of that's probably not going to convince me.
The studies appear either poorly Poorly constructed, or too late, or after the fact, or they don't look at the right stuff, etc.
So I cannot tell how much I should care about this.
I'll tell you my own situation, which is prior to the pandemic, or actually during the pandemic, but prior to getting either the vaccination or the COVID, so this is just my personal anecdote, Prior to getting either one of those, I noticed a huge drop off in my, let's see, my vitality.
Now, at the time, I was dealing with some other surgical thing, minor surgery for my sinuses, and I got on, you know, got on some, some drugs that probably had a difference, you know, that were trying to help me until I got the surgery.
So here's my point.
If my sudden drop-off in, let's say, energy had happened just after the vax or just after I got actual COVID later, a year later, then I would have thought that they were the cause.
But by luck, my drop-off in energy, which appears to be permanent, at least hasn't changed in three years, It's not related to either of those things because it happened before the vaccinations and before the COVID.
But I would be completely certain that they were related if the timing had changed by just a few months.
Now, age is part of it, but you kind of expect your decline in aging to be a little gradual.
Just before the pandemic, actually in the beginning of the pandemic, my fitness level just fell off a shelf and never really got back.
Never got back.
So I didn't expect that to happen.
Anyway, I mean, if you look at me, I'm in great shape physically.
I look better than I've ever looked.
But I can't run as far or, you know, lift as much or stay awake as long.
There's definitely a difference.
All right.
Google has a new technology for making video calls where the person on the screen looks 3D and you don't require any glasses.
So the person watching the video, so I guess both of you could be 3D, so you would look at each other almost like 3D.
Now, of course, I saw the video of it in 2D, so the 2D video of the 3D product isn't really exciting.
But watching the participants interact with it, told you everything you needed to know.
And so I showed a few of them who were asking the person on the screen to give them a fist bump.
And then you watched the person on the other side going, oh my god, oh my god!
And you could see that they thought they were fist bumping a person on the screen.
They could feel the fist bump three feet ahead of the screen.
And they could swear that their fists are touching.
Without the actual touch.
So, if that's true... Now, first of all, I think this is only going to work on a person.
I don't think you can yet create a whole 3D environment.
So it removes their background and just turns them 3D.
But that would be really good for porn.
I'll say it before you do.
And...
Yeah.
Over on the locals, they were all typing P-O-R, and I'm like, I got to say it first.
Porn!
And I beat some of you.
But as soon as I said it, the whole screen went, what about porn?
What about porn?
And we're all on the same page.
Same page.
Yeah, so that would be without using the metaverse.
Do you need the metaverse with the glasses that will give you a headache if you just see a screen that looks 3D?
So maybe that's government.
We'll see.
Congressperson Nancy Mace is going to vote against the debt limit deal.
And I said to myself, huh, that feels a little extreme and dangerous and maybe you shouldn't do that.
And then I read her tweet thread on why.
And I said to myself, yeah, OK.
I will take the credit hit to the United States.
Because the deal is absolute garbage.
It's embarrassing.
It is so below the level that every American would want your Congress to be operating at.
Let me just give you this one factoid.
So this is one fact among many.
So there are many criticisms of the proposed legislation.
But here's just one.
The Republicans and Democrats got together and decided that the baseline budget was what the peak of the pandemic was.
So rather than going back to pre-pandemic spending levels, both sides have agreed to lock in pandemic-level spending as the base forever.
Yeah, I read it like three times because I thought I was reading it wrong.
I thought to myself, are you kidding me?
The Republicans are so weak that they agreed to that?
Now, maybe there's more details that would somehow change my mind, but I mean, it looks like a deal where the default would be better than the deal.
What do you think?
I feel like the credit default would be better than signing the deal at this point.
Because if you do the credit default, you know, that's very disruptive.
Very disruptive.
But maybe it would make Congress act like they're supposed to act for the first time.
Which is to not spend more than we make.
I mean, literally, our biggest problem in the world is, isn't it?
The debt.
Isn't that literally the biggest problem that we have in the world?
And we decided not to deal with it.
We decided that our biggest problem, we would just kick the can down the road.
Now, and I'm just giving you one example.
If you hear her other examples, your head will explode.
That real adults, who you elected, that you think are representing you, came to that deal.
It's not even trying, honestly.
It looks like not even trying.
So I have to admit, I was completely against, you know, not reaching a deal.
Because it seemed like unnecessary.
But I'm now actually persuaded.
I think it's the first time I saw anything that looked like something of a detail about the thing.
But once you see Nancy Mace's argument, it's really hard to support it.
And I have to admit, she was impressive.
In her opposition.
It was well expressed.
I didn't realize she follows me on Twitter.
So the fact that she follows me on Twitter gives me more confidence in her abilities.
All right.
Here's a little observation relevant to not much of anything.
Have you noticed that the thing called white supremacy took a big hit When we realized that Asian Americans and Indian Americans were absolutely killing it in colleges and average income.
It kind of destroys the whole white supremacy argument, right?
But here's the thing.
I don't know any white, anybody who would, well, I don't know anybody who would call themselves a white supremacist, but I don't know anybody Who has a problem with Asian Americans and Indian Americans excelling in America.
Have you ever heard that?
In any form?
Have you ever heard anybody that you think is like a white supremacist?
Like the most, just the whitest, most bigoted person you've ever seen.
Have you ever heard them, even one word negative, about two demographic groups that are succeeding way above the average, And they're doing it by working hard, expressing great character, and patriotism.
I've never heard one person say a negative about those communities.
Not once.
Not ever.
Now, I can't say that about every community.
But it's kind of weird that there is such a thing as white supremacy that it's still a phrase.
Because the people who may have at one point fit that definition, their current opinion of themselves is average.
The white supremacists have merged, not merged, let's say, they've evolved into white averagists.
Yeah, and if you talk to people who have real racial feelings about stuff, they will tell you, yeah, white people, we're in the middle.
It's the damnedest thing.
How do you turn white supremacists into white average?
We're right in the middle there.
Yeah, yes.
But I think what it does is it tells you what's really going on.
You know, white supremacy I would believe is a real thing if I saw people marching, if I saw white people organized against the high success rate of Asian Americans and Indian Americans.
If they were complaining about that, then I would say, oh damn, that's some dangerous stuff there.
Right?
But they seem to be picking and choosing their fights.
It's a weird thing.
Now, of course, they're way too anti-Semitic, that part.
You know, there's no improvement there that I can see.
So, I mean, that's still alarming.
All right, that was funny.
Somebody at Locals just said, how do you say Adobe or Dobby?
The elf?
Is it Dobby?
Somebody said, "Who gave Dobby a shirt?" Oh, that's pretty frickin' funny.
It's called Dobby.
All right, you got me on that.
All right.
Have you noticed that when Democrats voice their concern about Twitter, they'll say stuff such as, it's turning into a white supremacist Platform.
Now, of course, Elon Musk challenged his interviewer to give him any evidence that that's true.
And there was no evidence that that's true, but it's widely believed.
So the Democrats widely believe that Twitter is no longer a free speech place, it's leaning right.
But here's the weird thing.
When Democrats talk about Twitter, what they talk about is that it might be influencing people politically.
Right?
That's the entire criticism, is that it might influence people in this country to vote or act differently.
What do they do when they talk about TikTok, Democrats?
When Democrats talk about TikTok, do they ever talk about its potential to influence things?
Never.
They only talk about data security.
So none of it is real, right?
They would talk about both of them exactly the same, if any of this were real.
Because, you know, Twitter has your data, TikTok has your data.
Yeah, it's worse that China has it, but it's the smaller problem.
The bigger problem, by far, is that either TikTok or Twitter, if they wanted to, could put their finger on a button, literally and or figuratively, and change what you think.
They can change your brain.
With a button.
In the case of TikTok, that's literally true.
There's a button called heat.
It's called the heat button.
And if they say, hmm, I think I'm going to change America's opinion by making them see more of this.
Boop.
One button.
Change your mind.
Now it doesn't change everybody's mind.
It doesn't do it instantly, but we know the influence of social media.
We do know it changes minds over time and on average.
So, I think Democrats need to get a little more consistent.
Either you're worried about influence, or you're not.
But if you're worried, TikTok's your big problem.
Alright.
Do any of you have fatigue from existential threats?
Do you sort of just get used to the fact that the world is going to end any minute and we've got a new reason all the time?
It's like, climate change is going to kill us.
All right, maybe not that fast.
Those aliens are coming.
Maybe not.
And we got the pandemic.
It's going to kill us all or just maybe old people.
And then, oh, but the inflation is going to run.
But it didn't.
And then, you know, we got the Recession is coming, but it didn't.
And then the Ukraine is going to turn into a nuclear, but it didn't.
Yeah, I feel like I'm just exhausted.
So when I see one that might be real, I ask myself, are we going to just ignore that?
So here's one that might be real, and I say that in part because Elon Musk says it's real, and he looked into it.
The commercial real estate collapse.
Apparently there are two cities, I think San Francisco and maybe New York, in which buildings are selling at less than the mortgage on the building.
So the people that own the building are willing to sell it for more than they owe the bank.
In other words, they'll just pay the bank a hundred million dollars or whatever just to get rid of it.
Yeah, so we're already at fire sale prices.
Now, Two things could happen.
One is that maybe the real estate changes hands and the new owners, you know, use it productively in a way that the old owners could not, for whatever reason.
Maybe they turn it into a residential or something.
But there doesn't seem to be anything that will stop the collapse.
And once the commercial real estate collapses, that impacts the banks that have the loans, and then you worry about a cascade effect.
Now here's my problem.
On one hand, that all makes sense.
It all makes sense.
That we're in a lot of problems here.
On the other hand, it's the 25th time this year I've been told that there's nothing that will stop this danger that's going to kill us all.
And 24 out of 24, we're wrong.
So how do I process this?
If I process it logically, I'm scared to death.
Because I agree with Elon Musk, I don't see a way that we avoid a pretty big hit on this.
And then Elon says, Hello YouTube, you're back.
You got a buffering problem over there.
Locals is running like a champ.
Now it's not a battery problem, I'm all good on battery.
It's a YouTube problem.
I think it's not my Wi-Fi because my other platform is working fine.
All right, we'll keep an eye on that.
My take is that economics are too complicated to predict and almost anything could happen.
It could be that this is a big problem.
Maybe not.
We'll see.
Here's my prediction on food.
I believe that the future is underground farms and local to the community.
So they'll be in the same zone as the community.
Now here's what, and the underground farms would be, let's say that the tunnel for the underground farm is built by the boring machine.
So that's Elon Musk.
So he owns that boring thing.
So if he gets the economics of digging a tunnel, you know, nice and low, then you could dig tunnels that become our underground gardens and Did you know that Elon Musk's brother, Kimball Musk, invests in indoor farms?
So his brother is the indoor farm guy.
So I see indoor farms managed by robots.
So this is also in the news.
So the news is talking about robots managing indoor farms.
So that's going to be a thing.
So if all you had was a tunnel with stuff growing on each side, And robots that could go down the middle, and it could tend and pick the stuff and do what it needs to do.
And let's say the sun was piped in by light pipes.
We already have indoor farms, so we know how to get light from where we need it to where it is.
So you could do it with a light pipe, which is basically a series of mirrors that just take the light down.
Or you could do it by creating energy.
And just use the extra energy for the light.
So, one of the ways you can create energy is geothermal.
So you take advantage of the fact that underground is always about 56 degrees.
So if you live in a cold climate, you take the underground heat and you move it up, because you otherwise would be colder than 56, and reverse for air conditioning.
So you could You could totally reduce the energy cost of the town by having it use these underground tunnels to make sure that they don't get too far from 56 degrees, either too cold or too hot.
Now that's the existing technology.
And the reason that you don't do that is because it's expensive to build a tunnel.
So if you had tunnels anyway, or you had a technology to build tunnels, you could put tunnels under your town that would make the energy need for cooling and heating your homes maybe 20% of normal.
So that frees up a whole bunch of electricity that could be used for the underground farms if you need them.
So the other way you can create electricity is a Stirling engine.
Have you ever heard of a Stirling engine?
A Stirling engine, it's current technology, it's been around forever, and it creates electricity based on temperature differences.
That's all you need.
Now, the greater the temperature difference in two places that are near each other, the more electricity you can create.
So, if you simply had tunnels under the ground that were 56 degrees all the time, but above the ground it's 90 degrees sometimes and 20 degrees sometimes, You'd have some kind of a temperature differential.
You might be able to create electricity from it.
So here's my basic idea.
Is that food is going to go local.
And it's going to have no pesticides.
Because it'll be indoors.
So it'll all be organic.
No pesticides.
No soil.
Because you don't really need the soil.
You just put the nutrients in.
And Scott's lobbying for the mole people.
No, under my conception, only the robots would be underground.
So the people would be above ground.
And except for building it and maintaining the robots, the robots would be the underground farmers.
They would do all that work.
Now, here's a question.
All right.
How many of you are going to ask about sunlight?
Can you really solve that on your own without me answering that question?
You can't figure out how to bring light inside a structure?
Let me do a, I'm going to do a little demonstration.
So I wasn't planning on doing it.
This is called, it's called Light.
It's called Light, L-I-G-H-T.
And what you do is you can bring these inside an enclosed structure and then you can turn them on.
I'll give you an example.
Watch this.
I bet you didn't see that coming.
Yeah.
Do you know that you could put this light potentially underground in a tunnel?
And then you can use a different spectrum to make sure that it's the right kind for growing food.
Now, I noticed in the comments that a lot of you were not familiar with this technology called light.
I mean, if you read it, you probably thought it was pronounced light, L-I-G-H-T, light, so you've probably heard of it.
But it's called light, pronounced correctly.
And it can be brought inside of buildings.
Do you have any other questions?
No, no, it's not like Bud Light.
No, Bud Light... No, Bud Light, that's completely different.
That would be a liquid.
Yeah.
No, we're talking about the warm light that passes through the air.
I just want to make that clear, because I couldn't stop getting questions about how you could get light inside a structure.
It was confusing a lot of people.
So, glad we cleared that up for you.
Well, in my opinion, I am... Well, let's talk about something else first.
Texas has got this bill that hasn't been passed yet, but it looks like it might, to require that every school have an armed person at the school.
An armed guard.
What do you think of that?
Do you think that'll work?
There'll be an armed guard at every school.
Well, I have two thoughts about that.
Number one, this really depends on your mass shooters not being good at planning.
Am I right?
You have to assume that your mass shooter isn't just terrible at planning.
Because once you knew that every school had an armed person, you would do that person first.
Right?
Because the armed person doesn't have their gun out.
They just have access to a gun.
And if you were a mass shooter, you would just walk up behind them, take them out first, and then go do your mass shooting.
With an extra gun, I suppose.
But, I'm not so sure that, like, a student would take that approach.
So they might actually say, well, okay, that's one variable I don't want to account for, so I'm not going to take it.
You know, if they were trained killers, one person with a gun would make no difference at all.
But they're not really trained killers.
They're just crazy people who decided to shoot up a school.
So I do have a feeling it might work.
But we don't know for sure.
So here's the part I like.
We can test it in one state, and then maybe two years we'll know.
Maybe we'll have an actual answer.
Maybe we'll do more of it or less of it, depending on whether it worked or not.
Better than a sign that says no guns?
Maybe.
All right.
Here's a weird thing that happened.
Trump was polling behind DeSantis in California until recently, and he was way behind them.
And that's no surprise, right?
Because California, Trump, they don't go together too well.
But apparently that reversed completely.
And now Trump is way up in polling in California compared to DeSantis.
Now, what do you think caused that?
What do you think caused a dramatic change in the polling in California, just California?
I have a hypothesis that's kind of crazy, and the hypothesis goes like this.
Trump has been persuading his base, which are the only ones that mattered for this poll, he's been persuading Republicans That he and other Republicans are the victims of shenanigans.
And that it's just shenanigans top to bottom.
You know, that he questions the vote, he questions everything basically.
Just shenanigans.
And I have a theory that every time Trump is taken into court, Whether it's E. Gene Carroll, or Alvin Bragg, or the documents at Mar-a-Lago, that every one of them now feeds into his narrative.
And, you know, I didn't see it coming.
Honestly, I didn't see it coming.
Because on day one, let's say day one is January 6th, let's call January 6th day one.
On day one, what did Trump look like?
Sore loser, bad loser, possible insurrectionist, losing his mind, not a leader after all, just a complainer, loser, right?
Even if you liked him, even if you were totally on his side, around January 6th, you were saying to yourself, that's a lot of complaining, right?
It felt like a lot of complaining, more than you wanted to hear, even if you supported him.
That was a lot of complaining.
And then things happen.
You get the Durham Report, you know, you get time goes by and January 6th fades in memory, right, a little bit.
The Democrats tried to make sure it didn't, but a little bit it does.
And you see these new legal attacks against Trump, and I don't think citizens feel that these are legitimate.
I think citizens are saying, okay, he does complain too much, but in this case, I see what he's talking about.
Still, he's too much of a complainer.
And then the next thing happens, and it's E. Gene Carroll.
Okay, okay, he's complaining way too much about everybody's out to get him, it's all just attacks, it's nothing I did, they're just after me, they're after you, blah, blah, blah.
But I kind of see his point on this E. Gene Carroll thing.
And then one after another, the events in the real world are starting to fit into his victim framework.
And I believe that this California poll might, I'll just put a might on it because you can't tell, it might be telling us that his persuasion has reached peak effectiveness.
Because, you know, he has this habit of starting out saying stuff that just sounds batshit crazy.
But if he says it long enough, it starts to just permeate your thinking.
And eventually you start taking the facts that are happening in the real world and you attach them to his framework because it's so prominent in your mind.
He just says it all the time.
And now all these things that would have looked a few years ago, these would have looked like all bad news for Trump.
Oh, there's another legal case against Trump.
Well, that's bad news.
Not anymore.
Now it's more confirmation that he was right all along and that everything's rigged and they are out to get him.
Does it feel like that to you?
Just, you know, viscerally, anecdotally.
Do you see this?
That he went from total no credibility whiner to somebody who's made a good point.
It looks like that.
So I wouldn't be surprised if he not only won the primary in a landslide, he might go further.
I mean, not just win the general, but he might win it in a landslide.
Because, now the only thing that would stop him, in my opinion, is himself.
He has created a situation in which he could roll this into a landslide.
I'm not going to predict it, so it's not a prediction.
I'm just saying that the current situation, if he popped into existence with this situation, a skilled person could ride this to a tidal wave victory.
And he might have those skills.
I mean, everybody who underestimates his persuasion has been wrong.
Consistently wrong.
He is really, really persuasive.
And he may have turned the battleship, because he had four years to turn it.
Or he will have had four years to turn the battleship.
Normally, you always bet against turning the battleship, right?
That's why we use it as an example.
You can't turn the battleship.
But if you give the best persuader of all time, maybe, Trump, and you give him four years and continuous media attention, yeah, he can turn the battleship.
And he may have done that.
We may be seeing the beginning of the turned battleship, which would be fascinating to me.
It would be the greatest feat of persuasion that I can think of.
I mean, that would be hard to turn that battleship.
And I think he did it.
I think he kind of did it.
All right.
DeSantis said he would consider pardoning Trump if he were elected president.
I call that the Rama Swamy effect.
I think that Vivek is doing a hell of a job improving politics.
Because he's simply saying the things that other people were afraid to say, and then he can see how it goes.
So, for example, he can say, you know, use the military in Mexico.
Trump said that first.
But, you know, it's been tested.
You don't get killed for saying that in public.
And I think that Ramaswamy, saying that he would pardon Trump in some but not all the January Sixers, it allowed DeSantis to say it.
Actually, it forced DeSantis to say it, wouldn't you say?
I think it forced DeSantis to say it.
So that's the Ramaswamy effect.
I'll tell you, I've never been more optimistic About American politics than right now, which is weird, isn't it?
And I'll tell you why.
Because although it looks like, I hate to say it, but it looks like it's gonna be Trump versus Biden unless something big changes.
At the same time, the people who are behind them are bringing some serious skill, right?
We haven't seen a Vivek, would you agree?
We've never seen one.
Vivek is an original.
He's a complete original.
And he is changing the conversation.
So win or lose, he's already winning.
He's changing the conversation.
I mean, he's saying, I'm going to sign an executive order to end affirmative action.
He says that out loud.
And you know, Trump couldn't do that.
That's not something Trump could do.
Because he's white.
Can't do it.
But Ramaswamy can.
What about RFK Jr.?
I swear to God, I have trouble telling if he's a Democrat or a Republican.
Because he keeps approaching things as if the data matters.
Am I right?
Yeah, he keeps acting like the data matters.
And then I say, okay, I don't know who you are.
Because politicians don't do that.
I also believe he could change his mind based on data.
Based on data.
Yeah, he's not there on nuclear, but I believe that's entirely based on needing to come up to speed.
My expectation is that when he comes up to speed on nuclear, which is really just the last three to five years of understanding what we know and what we don't know, I think he's just three to five years behind, which is what most people are.
That would be the average that people are behind.
And everybody who's current, they all have the same opinion.
The people who are current on their knowledge do not disagree about nuclear.
That conversation is over for everybody who's well informed, in my opinion.
All right.
So I've never seen such a strong group of inspirational candidates, and I would say even DeSantis is a new breed of candidate, which I like a lot, right?
If, well, let me put it this way.
There are now three candidates for president that I think would be transformationally strong.
I think DeSantis, I think Vivek Ramaswamy, and I think RFK Jr.
in different ways, right?
They wouldn't move the world in the same way.
But all of them have one quality in common.
What is it?
What's the quality they have in common?
DeSantis, Ramaswamy, and RFK Jr.
What do they have in common?
Not the CIA.
No, I don't think they're pro-CIA, any of them.
Listen to data, exactly.
They are data-driven people over politics.
They are data-driven over politics.
And they're overtly, aggressively so.
Right?
They're not tiptoeing.
They're overtly and aggressively looking for real answers, and they know that they're getting bullshit for data, so they have to deal with that.
So, technocrats.
Well, technocrats, I feel that's unfair.
I feel that maybe it's more of a talent stack situation.
In other words, that they can deal with the data, but they can also do some leadership stuff.
I wouldn't call them technocrats.
Because DeSantis is not exciting, but he is absolutely a leader.
To call him a technocrat, I feel would be deeply, deeply dismissive.
Dismissive to a tremendous amount of leadership that he's displayed.
So here's my take.
I feel like the country would be refreshed with any three of those people.
Even though they would do different things, and maybe I wouldn't like some of those things.
But I feel like we'd have some refreshment.
Like the country would feel a little bit invigorated by any of those three.
Now Trump, who I think has a good chance of winning, he brings with him all of the Trump baggage.
And that's a lot.
I would rather not deal with that.
Would you agree?
I'd rather not deal with that.
Because that baggage comes back on me.
And you.
If you support him, or people think you voted for him, it comes back to you.
In a way that we have never seen before.
And partly because he does things that make it easy to attack.
But I have to say that I would also be excited about a Trump presidency.
Because I think he would do it differently.
And I think that he would fix the things that are obvious that need to be fixed.
But I think that it's possible that he's learned something from the last time.
And that he would be more effective on the second try.
It's possible.
Yeah.
The thing I don't think he'd be as effective at is gutting the intel agencies to get rid of the bad actors.
I just don't know he could do that.
But RFK Jr.
would have no sympathy whatsoever.
Wouldn't you love to let RFK Jr.
loose as the boss of the CIA?
The entity that Presumably killed both his father and his uncle?
How much do you want that?
Like, I want that a lot.
Now, some people have said, do you think Trump could ever win and then ask RFK Jr.
to be, I don't know what, Attorney General?
To go after the things that need to be going after?
It would be a hell of a show.
It would be a hell of a show.
And I'll go further and say that RFK is the last person you can imagine working for a Republican because he's a Kennedy.
But he's not like other people.
I feel like, who knows?
Who knows?
They're definitely not going to be running mates.
I would say you could rule that out completely.
But Attorney General?
Attorney General, if you knew that... I mean, don't you think that Trump knows that RFK Jr.
would have no mercy?
On the intelligence agencies?
No mercy.
And that's what he needs.
He needs a no mercy guy.
RFK for director of the CIA.
I could live with that.
Could you?
Could you live with RFK Jr.
as Director of the CIA?
I could totally live with that.
How interesting.
You know, you really have to respect the little area that he's carved out, right?
The fact that we would even talk about this with seriousness.
The fact that that's actually a legitimate question, whether he would fit into that role in a Trump administration.
And the answer is yes, I think.
I think he would.
Interesting.
All right, well, Moscow has suffered some drone attacks.
I guess eight drones came in, which they assume are coming from Ukraine.
But Ukraine, of course, denies it.
They seem to have shot all eight down.
Or no, I guess one got through.
And there were some injuries and one dead person.
So it wasn't a massive attack.
But this falls into the category of what took so long.
Why did it take so long for Ukraine to attack Moscow with drones?
And I would think that militarily, that's exactly what they should do more of.
What do you think?
Because I don't think it's going to give any extra incentive to a nuclear attack.
Right?
Because we're already so bad that if it's not happening now, that's not going to be the extra thing that makes it happen.
No more war?
That would be first choice.
But here's my prediction.
And this was in my book, The Religion War, which is now banned everywhere.
One of my several banned books.
Because I got cancelled.
It's not banned, I just got cancelled by my publisher.
So here's what I predicted.
That the cities would someday be vulnerable to drone attacks.
That was easy to predict.
But my prediction is it's not these big, long-range drones.
The problem is these big, long-range, slow-moving drones are just easy targets for the anti-aircraft, so they're not getting it done.
They might be scaring the citizens, but they're not really doing any damage.
The ones you've got to worry about are the handheld ones that you could put in the trunk of a car.
You could drive into Moscow and release it.
And the problem is that the anti-aircraft is never going to be able to shoot down something that's flying below the level of the buildings.
So you're going to see, eventually, drones coming right down the street.
And, as I predicted in the book, in some cases, going through doorways.
The drone could actually hover until the door is open and actually follow somebody through the doorway.
That's real.
That's absolutely going to happen.
Somebody's going to put a drone right through the doorway of a building.
So now, given that it's Russia, it's probably hard to sneak a bunch of anything into Russia.
Wouldn't you agree?
It'd be hard to get even one drone into Russia, I would think.
But that seems like a solvable problem.
It feels solvable.
There's probably some way to get a, you know, tractor trailer full of small drones into Russia.
Some way.
So I think that the first thing I would say about the Ukraine-Russia war is I think we can stop calling it a war.
Because from this point on it's a negotiation.
Because neither side has a reasonable expectation of something like winning.
Winning's kind of off the table.
So we're really just negotiating until the presidency in the United States changes to one that wants to end the war.
And so I think both sides are just getting their situation, you know, the best negotiating position and waiting for Trump or DeSantis to come along.
Guys with shotguns and birdshot will defeat the drones?
Well, you'd have to be pretty fast.
You can get the drone if you know it's coming and it's hovering.
But usually they're up in the air above the level that you can even see them.
They're invisible.
And then they would just sort of drop down and do their business.
All right.
I would say Trump's biggest requirement for a vice president is somebody who would agree to pardon him.
Would you agree?
That when Trump selects a vice president, the main thing for Trump is somebody who says, I will definitely pardon you, if I have to.
Yeah.
Well, that does put Vivek right in the front, doesn't it?
Now, I don't think Tim Scott has weighed in on this.
But I would expect soon to hear Tim Scott say that he would pardon Trump.
What do you think?
Because that's a hard requirement for being a vice president, I think.
All right. - Right.
Yeah, impeachment pardon.
All right, so I made a prediction on Twitter that you didn't understand, which I said that in two months, I'll be the most dangerous person in the world.
Did you know what that was all about?
In two months, I'll be the most dangerous person in the world.
Now, some of you guessed it's because my Twitter numbers will reach one million followers.
And I have said in the past that if I ever reached a million followers, I'd be able to control the world.
Well, I don't need exactly a million to do that.
970,000 is probably good enough.
Yeah, that's pretty close.
Round it up to a million.
So it wasn't that, but that will help.
Here's what's going to happen.
In around two months, the date's a little in flux, my new book will be published, and it's the one that got cancelled.
Now, a couple of things are going to happen.
Number one, in all likelihood, it will be a bestseller.
I say that for two reasons.
One is that, you know, it's a new book and I've had other bestsellers and so I'll probably get a lot of publicity and people will talk about me being cancelled and it'll be a story and probably, probably conservatives will want to, you know, fight against the banning of people and maybe buy it just to support the ban, you know, the cancelled people.
So I suspect it'll get a lot of attention.
But that's not why I'm dangerous.
This book is different because it's full of reframes.
There are, I think, over 160 of them.
160 sentences that reframe your mind from the previous mental state you were in.
Here's what's going to happen.
When you first see it, you're going to say, oh, these are little mental tricks to make me more effective in a variety of ways.
But eventually somebody's going to figure out that I've built super prompts for people.
Do you know what a super prompt is?
A super prompt is usually a long form question for AI that gets you the right answer because you've asked a paragraph long question and you've basically influenced or hypnotized AI.
You're effectively hypnotizing the AI to give you the right answer.
That's what a reframe is.
When people figure out that reframes are like spells, and that they're super sticky and effective, people are going to see for the first time what I'm capable of, because I'll be the author of the book.
There are some people who are already aware, you know, the locals people already know, and some people who've been following me for a while probably noticed, hey, how'd you get that?
How'd you get that?
Trump prediction right in 2016.
You know, how'd you get that other prediction right?
And a lot of people ask me if I have influenced things in the world because they seem to see a connection between me starting to persuade on a topic and suddenly that thing happens in the real world.
And even I don't know if I have any effect because it's hard to it's hard to see a straight line from anything.
But when the book comes out, it's going to reveal me as having a certain set of skills.
And it will reveal it in a way that has never been revealed before.
I've told you that the only reason I'm alive is that people don't know how much I can do.
So my odds of being killed are much higher after the book gets published, because people will see for the first time How powerful this stuff is.
And when I say this stuff, I mean persuasion, reframing, hypnosis.
You're going to see it in a form that you can use it.
In other words, for one sentence, you'll be able to reprogram your brain in an area that you wanted to do it.
Once people understand how easily you can reprogram a brain, because you'll see all the examples and you try it yourself, It will change a lot.
But it will change more what influence I have on the world.
Because once people realize that I can come up with over 160 reframes, and that maybe for you, five of them change your life.
Five out of 160?
Right?
Most of them won't be relevant to you.
But probably everybody will find a different five-ish that will absolutely change your life.
And once people read the book and the reviews start coming in, and people say things like, I lost 40 pounds, or I don't have OCD anymore, then people are really going to notice.
So there's going to be a second wave.
The first wave will be, you know, just book release publicity.
But then there will be people who read the book, they'll implement the reframes, and then they'll start talking about it.
It's when they start talking about it that all hell is going to break loose.
So get ready for that.
So I will very quickly be the most dangerous person in the world.
All right.
So that's coming.
It should be a real force for good.
Because none of the reframes are negative.
I mean, they're all designed to make you personally more effective.
I would even go so far as to say that it's the sort of thing that could, you know, add equity to the world.
Because I've often said that one of the biggest systemic racism advantages that applies to, I'd say, whites and Asian Americans and Indian Americans as well, is that If there's somebody in your environment who knows how success works, you're probably picking up tips from them even without asking, just by observation and osmosis and being in the same space.
So I always thought how incredibly unfair that is if you grow up in some poor area where you've never even met anybody successful.
You don't even know one.
How in the world are you supposed to copy the technique of success if you don't even know one?
Well, that's what this does.
It gives you 160 things to fix various mental issues and effectiveness and success issues.
And it effectively does what a mentor would do.
But really simply.
Now the advantage of putting the reframes in one sentence is that it's hard to tell somebody to read a book.
Right?
Go to a teenager.
Hey, your life will be a lot better if you read this whole book.
And then zero teenagers will read that book.
But if you go to a teenager and you give them a sentence, one sentence, They can absorb the sentence if it's catchy.
Now the nature of reframes is that the ones that matter to you, you'll remember forever the first time you hear them.
And it's simply the remembering it that makes it work.
Because if every time you're in this situation that little thought comes, oh that reframe, yeah.
It's this, it's not that.
Then it's just a little bit of just exposure.
You're simply exposed to it once, changes your life.
So I'll give you an example.
The one I use all the time is alcohol is poison.
For some number of people, and it's way more than your common sense would tell you, a lot of people stopped drinking because they saw they used the reframe alcohol is poison.
Even though it's not technically poison, but maybe it is, it doesn't matter if it's true.
It just matters that you can reprogram your brain with one sentence.
And I know that that one worked because I hear from people all the time who quit drinking.
Now, it doesn't work for addicts or alcoholics, but if you just wanted to cut down, apparently it works.
Now, all of the reframes are of that nature, meaning that one exposure will reprogram your brain if it's one you need.
If it's one you don't need, you won't remember it.
You just, you know, it just won't have any impact on you.
All right.
Oh, Betty.
Betty, you fell for the 4chan hoax about my pandemic opinions.
It's too bad.
Sorry.
Sorry, Betty, that they did that to you.
Maybe I have a reframe that can fix you.
Don't put any words in my mouth.
And right here I'm seeing somebody say, I cut my alcohol intake in half with your reframe.
Oh, let me ask a question here.
If any of you want to see how important that reframe is, I know what the answer will be on Locals.
How many of you heard that reframe, alcohol is poison, and reduced your alcohol consumption?
In the comments.
All right, just a ton of yeses on locals, because they've heard it more.
On YouTube I haven't said it as much, but it's just a complete wall of yes.
30, 40, how many of them have gone by now?
50 people?
Now look over, there's a little delay.
Look at the number of people saying yes on YouTube.
That's one sentence.
Just think about that.
We know for sure that alcohol is not good for you in any amount.
And you're watching maybe hundreds of people.
I'm guessing hundreds between the two platforms.
Maybe hundreds of people who cut down substantially on alcohol.
With one sentence.
One sentence.
Now imagine there are 160 of those.
Now you don't need them all.
But if you could find five that made that much difference to your life.
You're gonna be in good shape.
All right.
That's all for now, YouTube.
I'm gonna go talk to the locals people for a moment, and I will see you tomorrow.
