Episode 2294 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/16/23, Everything Is Going Right Today
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Laura Aboli, Transhumanism, Janet Yellen, US Debt Crisis, Sweden Nuclear Energy, Improved Climate Change Models, Opinion Laundering, Derek Chauvin, President Trump, Soros Funded Prosecutors, Vermin, Vivek Ramaswamy, CNN Abby Phillip, Alex Soros, Ronna McDaniel, New CEO Move, President Xi, Fentanyl Policy, Elon Musk, White People, Owens Shapiro Feud, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think you've ever had a better day.
And if you'd like your day to go up to levels which you cannot even imagine, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I do like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure It's the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go!
That's good stuff.
Now, I hear on the internet, so it must be true, that there's some kind of planned or anticipated solar event that Might have the effect of cutting off the internet for months.
Could you imagine if there was a solar event and the internet went down for two months and then when it came back all the problems of the world had been fixed?
Just think about it.
How many problems could you fix in the world by having no internet for two months?
Quite a few.
Quite a few.
Yeah.
In fact, most of the things I'm going to talk about today wouldn't even exist, except we have the internet to fight with each other.
Just sort of hold in your mind, what would the world be like if the internet went down for two months?
Now for commerce, it would be a disaster.
Well, we'd probably figure it out, as long as the phone worked.
I don't know if the phone would work, but if the phone worked, we'd probably figure it out.
But I suppose if you lose the internet, you'd probably lose Civilization.
So we'll see.
Did you see the video going around from a woman who is alleged to be Laura Ebole?
And allegedly she was doing a little speech about transhumanism and how everything that we've seen in recent years is really a plot.
It's a plot to increase the trend toward getting rid of human beings and turning us into robots.
Well, I saw Kim.com tweeting that around and I thought, huh, Kim.com, why is he forwarding that around?
Now, if you don't know who he is, the quick version is he would be very tech savvy.
He's a techie guy by background, but he's also very political.
So he would be somebody who understands everything from technology to politics pretty well.
And I looked at this video and I said to myself, This looks like a deepfake.
This doesn't look like a real person.
And when they shift to the audience view, the audience view is, to me, it looked just like AI.
And I thought, is this the first big, the first time there's really like a big fake out using a deepfake?
Because people were buying into this pretty hard.
Now it turns out that the real Laura Abole, who is not the person, Shown on the viral video.
Had to create a Twitter account just to say that she didn't have a Twitter account and that it was fake.
Now, Kim.com did, you know, reposted her thing.
So, I guess he understands now that it wasn't real, but I feel like there's yet another thing to drop because they called it an impersonator.
So that the preliminary, you know, still fog of war story is that it was an impersonator.
Do you think it was likely a human impersonator?
Coincidentally, exactly when deep fakes can do exactly this, that they would use a human impersonator of a real person?
That would be... And by the way, the prank wasn't really politically valuable.
Nor was it really a clever prank because nobody really ever heard of Laura Ebole, at least I never did.
So it doesn't look like something something would do.
Nobody would put in this amount of work to, you know, put on the hair and makeup and video, pretending to be a real person who could just call them out and say, oh, no, that's not a real person.
I'm the real person.
But if you can kind of play around in your basement and make a deep fake, You might do that.
I mean, as much because it would be such an interesting event, like you might be interested just to see if you can do it.
But to get a human being to put on makeup and a disguise, try to be another person, that doesn't feel like what happens in the year 2023.
Whereas a deepfake would be completely expected.
Right now.
This is precisely the time, exactly the time, you'd expect to see the first deepfake that actually fooled people.
So I'm going to guess deepfake.
But I'd like to go on record, I am on record, as saying I spotted it as a fake before others did.
So I'm going to give myself credit.
I'm the first person I saw who knew it was a fake.
If you look in the comments, see if anybody spotted it before I did.
The reason I point that out is not just to brag, because I like bragging.
Bragging is awesome.
I like to do it whenever I can.
But the point of this show is that I'm teaching you how to predict.
So if I can't do it in front of you, then that kind of takes away the whole theme.
So even when I get it wrong, I'll show you why I predicted, then I'll tell you why I got it wrong, and you can find out What are the good prediction methods?
What are the bad ones?
So anyway, it looked fake to me.
Here's a story that's sort of a dog not barking situation.
So Janet Yellen is happy that the stock market seemed to respond positively to the fact that the Treasury is getting flexible with respect to issuance of debt.
In other words, it wasn't all long-term debt.
They might do a little short-term debt, and they got flexible.
And then the whole market went wild, and stocks went up.
Does it feel to you like that was too little to make the stock market go up?
Because the quote, flexibility, was nowhere even in the neighborhood of something like a solution.
It literally was like a last desperate gasp just to go another month without failing.
And that?
A last desperate gasp to go another month without failing to renew our debt situation?
That was considered a positive.
That's it?
That was a positive?
The fact that we didn't go under and we tread water as fast as we could?
And that was our positive?
Hmm.
Now, the Adams law of slow-moving disasters suggests that we'll figure this out, this being the debt problem.
I don't know how.
I mean, I have no idea how we can get past the debt problem.
It's not like something you could easily invent your way out of.
And you can't just manage it better, try harder.
I mean, it's resistant to all the normal solutions that humans use.
But it doesn't mean we won't.
If I had to bet on us, I will bet that like every other time in my life and lifetimes before me, when we had something this big, this large of a problem, but you could see it developing years in advance, we should figure a way out of it.
Honestly, I don't see a way.
But I also didn't see a way out of any of the other problems.
The fact that we can't see a way doesn't seem to be predictive.
You think it would.
So here's one of those prediction rules.
The fact that you can't personally see how this problem will be solved doesn't really have any predictive value.
Because your imagination is not up to the task.
Because you're putting your one person's imagination up against seven billion people trying to solve a problem in some cases, or in our case, several hundred million.
So several hundred million people only need to have one person with the right idea, which could potentially float to the top, and you're good.
You don't need to be the one who had the idea first.
So just keep that in mind.
Here's some good news.
Sweden's decided to go more strongly nuclear.
They just announced a massive expansion of nuclear energy.
And they give out two new reactors and try to double their energy production.
And the previous goal was 100% renewables and now they've changed the language to 100% clean energy.
So the word renewable, just think about this, the word renewable almost destroyed the nation of Sweden.
Because if you think renewable is a must, then nuclear is off the table.
And nuclear was the only solution.
So they almost destroyed a country with what I call word thinking.
Word thinking is when you imagine that words carry your logic and your reasons.
They don't do that.
A word only has what you assign to it.
It doesn't carry its own argument.
But as soon as you say, we must be renewable, and everybody buys into that word, renewable, it makes your thinking distorted.
Because instead of looking for a solution, you're looking for a renewable.
Does that make sense?
You should have always been looking for a solution.
Instead of looking for a renewable.
But as soon as you commit to the word, your brain is just locked into, you know, one way of thinking.
So they managed to get out of that.
Necessity, probably, but good for them.
All right.
Zion Lights is a great account to follow.
Zion Lights.
That's the name of a person.
It's not a comment on Israel.
The name of a human being.
First name Zion, last name Lights.
Great follow on nuclear stuff.
Hey, here's some interesting news.
You know how those climate models, they've got a whole bunch of different models, and they don't all predict the same thing about the climate?
Well, here's a potential solution.
Researchers from the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and some others, they created a new method for statistically analyzing climate models.
And apparently it projects future conditions with more fidelity.
In other words, they've tweaked the models to make them predict the future more accurately.
Do you know how they know that they've predicted the future?
Is that your first tell?
You see a tell?
How do they know the models predict the future?
What are they comparing you to?
Are they comparing it to the other way to predict the future, which they already know is pristine, and so they now have this new way, but thank God they have this other way they can predict the future, so they can say the new way is just like the old way, it matches it, and thank God we know what the future is, because now we know our models of it.
That's crazy!
Now, at best, they fit to the past.
It's called the Hindcasting.
So you tweak the models until you say, if we had these models in the past, they would have predicted correctly the past.
Do you know how irrational it is to say that therefore it predicts the future?
That's not science.
It's not math.
It's not statistics.
It's not logical.
It's not reasonable.
But it's what they did.
Now, these are the experts.
Now, I'm only enough of an expert, because I've done a lot of forecasting, to know what the BS is.
The BS is obvious, but listen to this.
This will make your head shake.
The method provides a way to adjust for models.
Just listen to the jargon in this, and see if you have the same reaction I did.
The method provides a way to adjust for models with high temperature sensitivities, a known problem in the community.
By assigning different weights to models and combining them.
Who was it who assigned the different weights to the models?
Who did they ask to do that?
Hey, Bob?
Bob!
Are you done sweeping?
All right, you got all your janitorial duties done?
Could you just, we just need you to come over here and maybe assign some weights to the various models?
I know that doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense.
But when we tell it to the public, we're just going to say that we assigned weights to the models.
We don't want them to ask how they were assigned, because obviously that would be human opinion.
And if you were to define your models based on some human opinion, people would just laugh at you and say, you're just full of shit.
That's the stupidest dumb fuck thing I ever saw in my life.
But we're going to make it even worse because we're going to have the janitor to assign the weights.
They won't even ask.
I swear to God, they won't even ask how the weights were assigned.
This'll be funny.
Come on over here, Bob.
Bob.
That wasn't exactly what happened, I think.
Have I told you how meta-analysis is like horoscopes, but the scientific community has been selling it to you like science for years?
A meta-analysis is where you look at a bunch of different studies, and none of the studies are good enough.
They're under power.
They're not controlled.
You have various problems.
So then the meta-study says, we'll put them all together, And they'll have different problems and their different problems will cancel out and then we'll get a good result.
That's not science.
It's not statistics.
It's not math.
It's just opinion laundering.
It's opinion laundering.
It's a way to get the outcome you want by looking at all the different studies.
And then here's the magic.
You say, you know what?
We want to put all the bad studies together.
Oh, hold on, hold on.
This one study, that's so bad that in my opinion, my opinion, not my science, not my math, not my statistics, but in my opinion, this one's not good enough, really.
You take that one out.
What if that was the biggest one?
Because the averaging is based on the number of people in each study.
If the one they decide to throw away happened to be the biggest one, That was the entire outcome.
And that's exactly what happened with some of the COVID studies.
Somebody would decide to put in or not put in the biggest study.
And that was the whole outcome.
There was nothing, all the other studies were irrelevant.
If you put in the big one, it washed out the little ones.
If you took it out, whole different outcome.
So is meta-analysis real?
No, no, it's a way to launder an opinion and make you look like, make it sound like it was science.
Do you think that when they found this way to add together all the models and then they weighted some of them?
That is not science.
And, you know, this is why I'm here.
I'm here to explain to you the obvious ways they're just trying to bamboozle you.
This is just bamboozlement.
All right.
In the news that never stops, The George Floyd news.
It's like we don't go in a day without some kind of George Floyd related news.
I might have a segment on that.
George Floyd news.
Things, things determined by George Floyd.
So Derek Chauvin is trying to get his sentence overturned.
He's the one who went to jail for allegedly murdering or accidentally murdering Chauvin.
And The evidence that Chauvin has, he doesn't have a lawyer for this one.
Now this might surprise you that no lawyer would take this case, but his appeal will be based on there's some other doctor who had nothing to do with the autopsy, so he wasn't involved in any way.
But he read the autopsy report and he believes that Floyd died from complications from a rare tumor called paraganglioma that can cause a fatal surge of adrenaline.
And Chauvin believes that if the jury had heard about this possibility that he had a rare tumor, that Chauvin would not have been convicted.
Now, I have a theory about why Chauvin is doing this himself without the benefit of a lawyer.
It could be because no lawyer would pursue this.
The odds that the real problem was coincidentally a rare tumor...
That doesn't get to beyond a reasonable doubt to me.
I don't think that was exactly the path that's going to get him out of jail.
I do think he was wrongly imprisoned on woke, let's say, hysteria.
But, you know, I don't think he did everything right.
But I don't think it was, you know, any kind of murder.
All right, that's my opinion.
So Trump has provocatively claimed that if he gets elected he wants revenge on all those Marxist Soros prosecutors.
He wants them investigated and rooted out and he calls them vermin.
Vermin, I say.
He wants to get rid of every Marxist prosecutor in America.
That's what Trump said.
He wants to get rid of those prosecutors.
So obviously, obviously the issue here is the Soros-funded prosecutors.
Wouldn't you say?
You know, should we keep them?
Should they be rooted out?
So CNN decided to have Vivek Ramaswamy on, and Abby Phillips of CNN was talking, and decided that the important question was to get Vivek to respond to Trump's use of the word vermin, because as everyone knows, vermin is a word used by Nazis, and if you use that word, well then, you're probably Probably some kind of head of the Nazis.
Am I right?
Am I right?
Now, what did I tell you was the best approach when the entire left-leaning media, they're going to go full dictator on Trump.
It's going to be a full press.
He's a Nazi.
He's a dictator.
Everything he does is like Hitler.
Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.
So you know they're going to do that.
What did I suggest is the only legitimate way to approach it?
Mock it.
You have to mock it out of existence.
Who's the smartest communicator, I would say, maybe in the whole wide world at the moment?
Vivek Ramaswamy.
So Vivek Ramaswamy gets this question from Abby Phillips.
About what does he think about this use of the word vermin, this Nazi language?
And you have to see it because it's viral and it's awesome.
The vague goes high ground.
He goes high ground.
Instead of addressing anything about the dumbass question, he goes right at her and makes the real issue about the media not being able to focus on anything important and all they do is play stupid gotcha games.
And he just faced her.
Just absolutely humiliated her on live television.
Now, did she feel humiliated?
I doubt it.
She's a professional.
But from the perspective of the viewers, he took the high ground.
And the high ground is, I'm not even going to address that dumbass question.
That's the high ground.
And he took it immediately.
And he never let go.
He held it all the way.
And then when it became a viral thing, after it became viral and everybody was sort of cheering for Vick's approach, then he tweeted it again just to mock her, basically.
Just to mock her.
He basically made her the joke of the internet.
Finally. - Okay.
Finally, finally, there's a Republican candidate who has the skill level to handle this the only way you should.
First you high ground it, make sure that you've got that high ground, and then you mock it out of existence.
You make them look like the clowns that they are, and you never let go.
Never enter their frame.
Never enter the frame.
That's what he did right.
He had a frame that you're clowns, and he just made them accept his frame.
And he just used up her time.
Yeah, I'll use up all your time telling you your viewers are being not serviced properly because you're wasting time on bullshit.
But if you want to, if you want to disgrace yourself, I'm here for it.
It was wonderful.
Like, just frickin' wonderful.
Now what's important about it is not just that he did it and it worked out so well.
What it did was it showed the template.
That's the template.
So the template is the story.
Once you've seen him do it, you know how to do it.
Until he did it, you know, you're You're just sort of flailing around.
But now you saw a clean, simple solution to the trap, because they're all going to be in the trap, right?
Every Republican is going to get asked these questions.
Just don't.
Just don't.
Don't enter the frame.
So great job there.
So what should Abby Phillips have done?
Oh, by the way, Abby Phillips is a reason that I don't like Jake Tapper.
I'll just give you this sort of background story.
Because I was talking to Dapper.
He did some guest cartoons for the Dilbert before it was disgraced.
And so we talked offline.
And what I'd complained to him that Abby Phillips had done a package in which she'd mentioned the fine people hoax like it was real.
And I was kind of getting on him for CNN coverage about treating the fine people hoax like it was a real story.
He accused me of being a racist, essentially, for saying that Abby Phillips was getting the story wrong.
Now, keep in mind, I'd only heard her voiceover.
I didn't know who it was.
And I had no opinion whatsoever of ethnic background, because I didn't know who she was, didn't know what her face looked like.
I just heard her voice.
And her voice doesn't give away any ethnic background.
She has a very nice voice, TV voice.
And that's where I lost it.
That was the point where I realized I wasn't talking to just a person.
I mean, like, why would you even think that?
Like, how would that even enter your frame that because she was wrong on something that's obviously wrong and you can check the transcript yourself?
And that I objected to that, that that was racist.
That's the point I realized you can't talk to them.
I was like, I can't even have a conversation.
Like, what is wrong?
What happened that you would even be in that frame?
How did you get there?
I don't know.
So anyway, here's where that story should have gone.
When Trump said he was going to get rid of these vermin, Marxist DAs that Soros had funded, CNN should have invited Alex Soros, who is now running the Soros empire, and they should have asked him to defend Why these prosecutors are good ones because he's is back to you Isn't that the story?
Shouldn't it be that Trump says these prosecutors are bad?
And then you take the number one person responsible for getting them in office the funding of it and you say, you know What's the other side of this?
That's not exactly both sides of them that's news that would be there's an argument on one side Let's show you the argument on the other side But did you?
Let me ask you, have any of you ever seen any news in which Alex Soros was challenged to defend the prosecutors or the border situation the way it is, the immigration situation?
Have you ever seen that?
Now ask yourself why?
Now I assume if the right-leading news invites him, he says no.
All right, that would be no big surprise.
And it wouldn't be dumb, because he maybe doesn't want to get set into a trap or something.
So it wouldn't be dumb to say no to the right-leaning news.
But is the left-leaning news so incurious, or is it because he's now the biggest funder of the Democrat Party, that they can't even ask him a question about why he thinks what he's doing is a good idea?
You don't even have to make it hard.
You can just say, hey, some people say your funding of these things is terrible and destroying the entire country, and it's the biggest problem in our country.
Can you give your description of why it's a good idea?
It doesn't even have to be a hard interview.
Just put them on record.
Why is this a good idea?
We've heard why people think it's a bad idea.
Don't you want to balance that out?
The only reason I can think of is that he can't defend it.
Can you think of any other reason That the media, which would be friendly to him because he'd be a Democrat funder, why wouldn't they want to get his good, strong argument for why he's doing what he's doing so that the Democrats would not be wounded by this Soros association?
Wouldn't the smartest thing the Democrats could do, and the Democrat-leading media, be to rehabilitate Alexander, or Alex Soros, so they can say, yes, he's the biggest funder of the Democrats, and look at all the other good things he does.
He's a guy who does good things everywhere, and he also does good things in America by funding Democrats.
Isn't that what you'd expect?
Why is it that the most expected thing in news, based on our biggest problem, you know, crime in the cities and immigration, And the news doesn't even want to put the point of view on record of the most important person in the conversation.
What's up with that?
Isn't exactly what it looks like.
It can't be defended.
What it looks like is it can't be defended.
And I think that's, and if I were the vague or the or Trump, I would be saying, get Alex, put him on camera.
Put him on camera, CNN.
Put him on and ask him why he thinks this is a good idea.
Just challenge them.
Say, why are you asking me about Trump's comment about the prosecutors?
Isn't that a question for Alex Soros?
Why don't you ask him to defend what he's doing and tell us why it's a good idea?
I told you why I think it's a bad idea.
Would you like to see the other side of the story?
Because frankly, I haven't heard it.
And it would be a service to me as well.
If you could put the other side of the story up so America could understand what's happening to America.
If there's one person who's more responsible than any other person, and he's an American citizen, and he's supposedly fighting for America, let's hear his story.
Put him up there.
That's what I'd do.
All right.
Vivek, as you know, is also going after Rana.
McDaniel, head of the GOP.
And I saw Charlie Kirk was saying in a post, he said, the Rona factor is dragging down the entire party, was just texting with a major pollster who asked likely voters if they planned on participating in the election 2024.
They were flooded with voters jaded with the RNC.
And one stated bluntly that you wouldn't get involved unless Rona McDaniel is out of the race.
Now, I don't know.
This is sort of anecdotal, so I don't know how to judge if this is a big thing or not a big thing.
But imagine this.
Imagine if Vivek got the scalp.
Imagine if Vivek was the one that you remembered got Rana out of the job, and then imagine that whoever replaces the new person does a better job on turnout.
Imagine that happening.
Because that could happen.
You know, there could be enough pressure that that Rana could say, doesn't look like it at the moment.
She seems to be hanging tight.
But imagine if it did, you know, because the pressure might be building.
This would be the ultimate, what I call the new CEO move.
The new CEO move is a persuasion technique.
I read about a lot, which is if you get a new CEO, Often they'll fire an entire department.
Well, you saw what Must did.
Must did the ultimate new CEO move with Twitter.
He bought Twitter, but then almost immediately he cut like 80% of the staff.
Are there any questions?
That's the new CEO move done to perfection.
By cutting 80% of the staff and then actually making it work, And then turning it profitable, which is what looks like it's going to happen this coming year.
That is the most baller new CEO move you could ever make.
Everything was in that move.
It's basically packing the entire Elon Musk management concept into one act, which is, I got rid of 80% of you and it didn't make a difference.
Do you have any questions?
Do you think the remaining 20% worked extra hard?
Probably.
Probably.
You think the remaining 20% actually enjoyed their jobs more?
I'll bet they did.
I'd be curious about it.
But I'll bet they did.
Because the 80% were the people slowing them down.
The 20% were just trying to do good work and change the world.
And then when everybody got out of the way, they did good work.
And the X platform has more good features in the past year than its entire history.
So the technical department, the X platform, in my opinion, is just freaking killing it.
I mean, if you look at the degree of difficulty of their task, and then you compare it to the outcome as we see it today, and even where it will be in a year, it's one of the greatest technological achievements of all time.
I mean, it's really seriously impressive from the outside.
It's hard to know what's happening on the inside.
But anyway, that's a new CEO move.
If Vivek gets a change at the head of the RNC, and it makes a difference, before he even gets the job, that is one hell of a good persuasive move.
Because it puts him basically in the boss job without even getting the job yet.
That is strong.
I know what all of you are thinking, so I'll just say it out loud.
I'm endorsing Vivek primarily because age is just too much of an issue.
Yeah, there's no way I could tell you a few years ago Biden is too old and you all know it and you're gonna, you're gonna, you'll really pay if you make the mistake of electing him because age does matter.
It's gonna matter with Trump too.
But if you had a strong VP you would worry less.
Compare Biden's age with Kamala Harris as the backup spare wheel.
Now compare Trump, still operating at, you know, peak Trump-ness, and worst case scenario, let's say his vice president was Vivek.
Which, by the way, Vivek... I just lost the connection on YouTube.
But Vivek is very clearly running for president, and there's plenty that could happen between now and election day.
That could be bad for Trump.
You know, there's a million risks.
Oh God, we're having all kinds of connection troubles.
Sorry, I see the connection troubles here on YouTube.
We're not having those on local, by the way.
That's a site-specific problem.
Yeah, sorry about that.
It'll clear up in a second.
So anyway, People are already fantasizing about Trump doing what nobody's really ever done, which is to have a vice president.
Well, no, I'll take it back.
Bill Clinton did this.
And to me, it was one of the strongest things he ever did.
When Bill Clinton took on Al Gore as not just a partner, but like a serious vice presidential partner, that was a really smart move.
Because Gore did actual real useful things.
You don't like him on climate, I know, but what he did with the government and efficiency and stuff like that was actually pretty radical and important.
So having a great operator as a vice president would be an amazing thing for the country.
I saw there was some hearing on the J6 things and FBI Director Wray was there and some representative Higgins was claiming That there were so-called ghost buses on January 6th.
Have you ever heard this before?
The so-called ghost buses?
And the idea is that there were buses there that were unmarked.
They were just pure white.
And that the unmarked buses were for the purpose of transporting allegedly a bunch of FBI operatives dressed like Trump supporters.
Now, I love me a good conspiracy theory.
I really do.
But there's something wrong with this one.
Do you know what's wrong with this conspiracy theory?
The white buses would be the most obvious fake buses.
What would be the best way to have a bus deliver undercover people?
In a regular bus!
The number one best way to deliver spies would be on a regular bus.
You don't want to pull up with a ghost bus.
Like, hey, what kind of bus is that?
Huh, you got this one unusual bus here.
Now, I'm not buying the ghost bus hypothesis.
I'm not saying it's fake.
I don't know if it's real or not.
But just because there were white buses, Wouldn't a white bus simply be a chartered bus?
Am I wrong?
Do you think the FBI has, like, their own buses?
Just for shipping in large numbers of FBI people?
Oh, somebody says yes, that they have their own white buses.
Is that true?
Do we know that the FBI has white buses?
Oh, it's getting more interesting.
I'm seeing in the comments over on the Locals platform.
That's something we know that the FBI has white buses.
All right, well, if you give me a picture of an FBI white bus, then you can change my mind.
I'm open to be changed.
Like I said, I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm just saying it would be a weird thing to happen.
But maybe.
It's not impossible.
Somebody says there's video.
Well, video of the bus.
There's not video of FBI agents changing clothes and getting on it.
I know.
Prisons use white buses.
Somebody says.
Monica Lewinsky turned 50 in July.
Wow.
Wow.
She's forever young in my mind.
That's weird.
Somebody just said.
All right.
FCC has some new equity rules that for your digital, you can't digitally discriminate on the internet.
So everybody's got to have internet.
Of course, this will be another thing that will get abused, we assume.
But I wonder about this.
If you're too poor to have internet access, do you have a smartphone and a laptop to use it?
Don't we also have to give everybody a laptop for free?
Because what good would Wi-Fi be if you don't have anything to access it?
I don't know.
Keep an eye on this one.
That looks like a... I saw it on a Kyle Becker post.
But keep an eye on that, because that could be misused quite easily.
All right, President Xi was here, and now we know what they talked about.
I may have missed some of this story.
I thought the coverage was terrible.
The news coverage of Biden felt like it was just really kind of sketchy and incomplete.
But here's some stuff that came out of that.
Allegedly, We gave China something, but in return China said they would crack down on fentanyl, which they've said before and never done.
Do I have that story right?
The President Xi said, oh yeah, we'll totally, we'll totally crack down on all that fentanyl.
So basically nothing, right?
Yeah.
So that's the same thing that Trump thought he got and didn't get.
So we got, we got nothing on fentanyl, but apparently we gave away something.
Something they want.
That's almost beyond my ability to understand.
I will tell you this a hundred times.
Fentanyl is not a negotiation.
This has to be understood, because I think the Biden administration is in the wrong frame.
It's not a negotiation.
If it doesn't stop, You tell them what the penalty will be, and then you apply it.
You don't negotiate it.
And then the other thing is, you don't let them in the country when they're doing this.
And you don't allow their diplomats to operate, and you don't allow their students to go to our colleges.
You just shut the whole fucking thing down.
Because Feds and all, Is the opening bid.
It's the ticket to the show.
The show would be all the negotiations that superpowers do with each other that should be ongoing business.
But you don't get a ticket to the show unless you've settled the fentanyl problem.
Absolutely terrible, terrible, terrible negotiating and persuasion technique.
Worst I've ever seen.
I'm going to say for sure, worst I've ever seen.
I've never seen anything worse than that.
Now, did Trump do it right?
No.
Nope.
Trump did not do it right.
Let me say that as clearly as possible.
Nope.
Absolutely wrong.
Is Vivek likely to do it better?
Well, I'd like to see him describe how he'd do it, but I like the odds better, honestly.
Well, she did say that China wants to be friends with the U.S.
and would never fight a hot war with the U.S.
or anybody else.
And you know what?
I actually believe that.
Do you believe that?
I actually believe that China, under no circumstances whatsoever, would get into a hot war with us that they thought could escalate.
You can imagine some ships fired another ship or something someday.
But I actually believe that there is no circumstance in which they would do it.
You know why?
Because there's no circumstance that you can even imagine where it would work out well.
Do you know why?
Because China doesn't believe that life is better after you die.
That's it.
That's all you need to know.
China is run by, you know, engineers and rational people.
Who may do things which by our eyes and even anybody's eyes might look evil or suboptimal.
Right?
Everybody does things differently.
But when does China try to kill itself by entering a war that could only be disaster for the entire world?
If you ever imagined that China wanted to be in a hot war with the United States, you're totally wrong.
They do not want a real war with the United States.
Not even a little bit, not ever, not over anything.
And they even said not over Taiwan.
Said so directly.
Now, is that because they're good, peace-loving people?
Is that why I say that?
No.
Do you know why China doesn't need to get in a war with the United States?
Because they're winning.
Because they're already poisoning us with TikTok.
They're poisoning us with fentanyl.
They're taking over soft control of the entire oceans around them.
They're building their military like crazy to expand their power.
They're doing the Belt and Road Initiative to get all the other countries in the world on their team.
And eventually, they will get Taiwan back.
Which they completely know.
Because geography is just too important.
It might not be, you know, in 10 years.
It might be in 100 years.
It might be in 1,000 years.
But Taiwan is going to go back to China, right?
I mean, it just is.
So, you know, whether that's good or bad, or whether, in fact, maybe China becomes something like a democracy in 300 years.
That could happen.
That's totally, totally doable within 300 years.
So, Does China need to do something different?
No.
What China needs to do more than anything is make sure that there's no hot war.
Because they're already winning.
They're already winning in the destruction of the system of the United States.
We've got a debt that looks like it's going to crush us.
They've got enough other connections with people to buy and sell things if they had to.
No.
There's no way they want a hot war anytime soon.
Or anytime.
Because they don't need one.
They're projecting their power far more effectively without bullets.
So, there seems to be a trend on the internet, which some might say I had something to do with, and some might say I did not.
But I saw Jack Posabeck said, and what the trend is, is not that people are thinking differently, but that what they're willing to say in public.
So the story is that they would say it in public, not that they're thinking it.
The thinking is ordinary.
It's the saying.
So Jack Posobiec on X. White people are the only ones who are supposed to hate their own race in order to be considered good people.
Whiteness is the only culture identified by those outside it and not those who are part of it.
The white culture is the only one where hatred of it is considered a virtue.
Now, if this were just Jack, it's one person's opinion.
Also, Eva of Lardingerbrook.
I believe she's Dutch.
She said on X, everyone is allowed to be proud of the race except for white people, because we've been brainwashed into believing that our history was somehow worse than that of other races.
That false narrative needs to die.
And if we really want to be in the comparing game, White people have also done a lot of good for the world.
Now, you've probably, maybe you've never heard of her, Eva.
She's political in some way.
I don't know exactly.
But here's the interesting part.
Elon Musk responds to that post and says, yeah, this is super messed up.
Time for this nonsense to end and shame anyone who perpetuates these lies.
Elon Musk just said it's time to stop hunting white people.
Thank you, Elon Musk.
Now, did I make it safer?
Did I make it safer for people to say out loud exactly what they're thinking?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Because I think what I signaled was the, you know, I've told you this before.
I don't know if it's just me or if it's white people.
Maybe you could tell me.
I'll ask any colonizers on here.
Is it the nature of white people that we're very flexible until we're not?
That's my take.
I feel like white people are very flexible until we're not.
What I signaled was my point of not.
That was my turning point.
That's where I wasn't going to compromise anymore.
Now it cost me very expensive, but if Jack and Eva and Elon can all survive what they just said, which is, you know, the more polite version of what I said, I was being provocative.
They were being more polite.
Maybe something, maybe there's like a turn and how we think about it and how, How much we're allowed to be pushed.
But look at this specific wording from Elon.
It's time for this nonsense to end and to shame anyone, and he puts anyone in capitals, who perpetuates these lies.
What does shame sound like?
What's the best way to shame somebody?
Mock them.
Are you getting the message yet?
Taking them seriously was always the mistake.
The mistake was allowing that it was an acceptable part of the conversation.
They should be mocked until it's just too hard to be them.
Because mockery is really powerful.
You know, good mockery is really, really powerful.
So, turn up the mocking machines.
It's time to go.
Well, the little battle between, I'll call it a battle just for fun, because we like watching these little battles, between Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens, both of The Daily Wire.
And so this is over, I guess the best way to characterize it would be the Israel-Gaza situation.
Ben is, of course, 100% behind Israel, as am I.
And Candace had maybe a more nuanced approach, which was not taken well by those who are 100% in favor of Israel.
Now, I have a theory that I'm going to test out that is relevant to this little battle.
And it goes like this.
And I'd like to ask you in the comments, true or false?
See if you agree with this.
When the war in Gaza
Happened Well, actually when October 7th happened, which is you know, the whole whole deal The women who are not involved directly in Israel, so the women in America, let's say They watched it like a story about a war There was a news story about a war and you could imagine, you know, it has Effects that could affect the world, but it's a news story about the war When men in America watched this story
They were in the war.
In other words, my personal physical sensation was in the war.
Because when I see the people fighting, not just the citizens, I'm the fighter.
That's the one I put my mind into.
But more to the point, the war is not just the kinetic part, the bullets flying around.
The war is also the persuasion.
The propaganda, if you will.
That's as much of the war as the bullets.
I feel, and I felt from the first moment of October 7th, that I was not a spectator, that I didn't have any choice, that I was in the war as a combatant.
And I was completely aware that if I said the wrong things in public, my life would be destroyed in a way that being cancelled couldn't even compare to.
Completely aware also aware that I could actually be in physical danger If I said something that was you know, too offensive to some party Right, so I want to see if you feel feel the same.
This is a male-female difference.
I Think women were observing the war and having strong opinions about it and the men are in it as in we're still in it And I would go further to say That for the same reason, I'll just say this until people are really mad at me, for the same reason that I don't give my opinions about abortion, neither the law nor any individual decision, because I don't have enough skin in the game.
I'm okay if you do.
If you do, that's fine.
I don't care what anybody else does.
I'm telling you personally, I don't feel that that's my place.
Like I'm not adding to the conversation.
There's plenty of views that carry all points of view.
Mine would just be one person who doesn't have a stake.
But I have a stake in Israel.
I have a stake in that.
Because I believe that they are the first line about something that could spread over here.
And I take sides with Israel for the very simple reason that Israel would take my side.
If this were reversed, Israel would be 100% on my side.
But that's not, you know, that's not true for Hamas, right?
Hamas would kill me.
So for me, I don't care who did what to anybody before October 7th.
One of these is on my side and would protect me if I were in a pinch, and likewise in the reverse.
And one of them would kill me if they had a chance.
This is not, this is not a jump ball, Candace.
Candace, it's not a jump ball.
I'm with Ben 100%.
But getting back to Ben and Candace, It looks to you like people observing a war and having different opinions.
It's not.
It's not two people observing a war and having different opinions.
It's one person who's very much in the front lines of the fucking war, which is Ben Shapiro, and one person who's observing.
So, is that a real conversation?
That's not like a disagreement on some facts.
That's one person whose opinion matters, and Shapiro would be an influential person in both countries.
He probably has some influence in Israel that we don't fully appreciate and He's in the war and I appreciate the fact that he's not He's not a shaving any both sides ism and trying to fool you about his real opinion.
He's just giving it to you straight out This this is right.
This is wrong.
This is what I'm doing.
Boom.
Totally respect it I And Candace is, of course, an American who has a right to an opinion.
But to see them as somehow equals having a conversation about the war is not really what's happening.
One of them's in it.
And the other one became an enemy.
In other words, any suggestion that there's maybe another side to the anything that happened after October 7th is not what you want if you're in the war.
Right?
Ben's in the war.
Just as I am.
You know, I'm a public figure.
I took sides.
I'm in it.
So, I wouldn't look at it so much as a conversation, as somebody in the war is going to act differently than somebody who's observing.
That's all I see.
And I'd love to see them have an event where they talk about it and see what's what.
I guess Ben, they've had a few exchanges and Ben said, Blah blah blah, you know, by all means quit if you don't like it.
You know, I'm just summarizing.
But if she gets forced out, you know, she probably has some legal recourse here, or she has a contract, I'm sure.
All right, Mike Cervic was pointing out that Candace might have some legal, let's say, some legal legs to stand on if things go wrong.
All right, this is a weird and troubling story.
So you know, the IDF, Israel's defense force, was being as careful as possible.
I mean, there's a limit to what you can do.
Trying to capture the hospital in Gaza, because they believe there's a headquarters of underground Hamas tunnels there, and there's always been there.
So apparently they have control of the hospital now, but they can't find the tunnels.
So what's going on here?
Now it's early, so here's what seems likely.
What's likely is that if Hamas had tunnels there ever, that they would have hidden those tunnels as well as you could hide a tunnel.
But let me ask you this.
If you've already rescued the staff of the hospital, You're telling me there's nobody on the staff of the hospital administration who knows where the tunnel opening is?
And you don't think that they've been interrogated sufficiently by now?
How is it possible that they could have functional control of the hospital and that there's nobody there who would tell them where the tunnel opening is in return for, I don't know, You know, maybe money or good treatment or, you know, being airlifted to a better hospital, get out of the war zone.
There's nobody you could convince to tell you where the tunnel opens.
The head of the hospital, the administrators of the hospital, they don't know where the tunnel opens under their hospital.
Or it's possible that there are no openings under the hospital.
There might be under the hospital, but the openings are somewhere else.
Or there's nobody in the hospital that could tell you for sure Whether they're under there?
So it creates two possibilities.
One possibility is that it was never true and Hamas was always trying to bait Israel into destroying a hospital that never had any tunnels.
The other possibility is that they did have some offices in the hospital because they did find some assets like a laptop and stuff.
You know, some minor assets.
So maybe they had some presence there, but it got exaggerated in the telling.
You know, maybe it was one of those telephone things where somebody says, Hamas has an office in the hospital.
And then the next person hears, Hamas has a whole bunch of buildings or a whole bunch of property in the hospital.
And then the next person is, they've got a bunch of property in the hospital and they have their underground tunnels accessed from there.
And then it turns into, they don't just have access to the underground tunnels, but they've got most of their complexes under the hospital.
How impossible would that be?
Kind of totally possible, isn't it?
Now, I'm still going to bet that they do have a facility under there.
But if I have to put my money on it, I'm going to bet on the IDF.
I think the IDF and their sources Probably good enough that they actually know there's something down there.
So I think they'll find it, but it's a real head-scratcher that they haven't found it yet.
So we'll see.
And it appears that I've printed my same notes several times for no particular reason, that that would be exactly 8 o'clock my time.
Exactly one hour of high quality live stream content.
The best thing you've ever seen.
And don't you wish that you didn't saw this without commercials?
Yeah, that's what the people on local see.
They see it with no commercials.
If you're on YouTube, you're like, oh, I have to pass this commercial.
No, you don't have to.
But if you were a subscriber on YouTube to YouTube's whatever tube it is thing, then you could also skip the commercials.
Let me give a commercial for YouTube.
YouTube is, you know, for all we complain about it and the suppressing of traffic, which we believe to be true, it is one of the greatest technological inventions of all time.
It is by far better entertainment than almost all scripted everything.
Like, I can always find something on YouTube to watch.
The odds that I could go to a cable or a regular streaming service to find content?
Very low chance.
Odds of me finding something fascinating and interesting on YouTube within one minute?
Really good!
Really good.
So YouTube is like a wonder of, you know, American brilliance and technological innovation.
And also the interfaces for YouTube are just unusually good.
Just really, really strong technical work going on there.
Given all that, the advertisements are almost impossible to get through.
So the best money you'll ever spend for entertainment is to upgrade your YouTube to get an ad-free version.
An ad-free version of YouTube could replace all your other streaming services, in my opinion.
All right.
But if you want to be on the Locals Network, you can see my other comic.
You can see, you can read for free the PDFs of my books, God's Debris and The Religion War, and you get a lot more political content as well, and all the live streams where they own commercials.
So that's my commercial for my commercial.
Has anybody, have I missed anything today?
Is there any story I missed?
You can also subscribe to the new Dilbert's calendar in digital form on X.
Yeah, they don't like ad blockers.
You don't do subscriptions?
I think the whole world will be subscription.
You know, in my perfect world, everything would be subscription.
But instead of charging X dollars for a subscription, I would charge you 10 cents a month.
And that would be good for me because there'd be so many people who got a subscription because it was cheap.
So if we can get to the place where everything's subscription and you can decide which of your 10 cents goes where, that's a good world.
I'd love to get there.
I think we're heading that way.
Statewide subscription model.
What would that do?
All right.
If you're not following Dilbert Reborn, you would miss the best comic I've ever done today.
It actually might be my favorite comic.
It was suggested by one of the local subscribers.
And the idea is that Dilbert goes to someplace called the Department of Disinflammation.
The Department of Disinflammation.
He goes up to a window, and Dogbert's the clerk on the other side of the window, and Dilber says, I have inflammation in my knee.
And Dogbert says, no you don't.
I've read my own comic like a thousand times, and I laugh every time I read it.
No you don't.
All right, if that doesn't make you laugh, well, you're dead inside.
Dead inside, I say.
Yeah, Stephen Pastis would be proud.
Wasn't that a Ziggy?
All right.
Did you see the images of all Chinese flags in San Francisco?
Did anybody see those pictures?
It was like... But then did you see the other images?
I saw a live video where there were American flags there as well.
Did you see the version where there were also big American flags?
Because I wonder if the version that had all Chinese flags was a fake version.
Did somebody remove them?
Because I definitely saw one with American flags in between Chinese flags.
So maybe they came later?
Maybe it looked like a bad idea and somebody rushed in with some American flags?
I don't know.
That's not a big story.
Anyway, that's all for today.
YouTube, I'm going to say bye.
I'm going to talk to the locals people because they get extra.