Episode 2296 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/18/23, Altman Out, Musk Up, Apple Stupid, IBM Worse, Insurrections
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, SpaceX Test Flight, X Ad Placement, Elon Musk, X Suing Media Matters, ADL, California, Brainwashing California Students, President Trump, Colorado Judge Wallace, Judicial Mind Reading, J6 Videos, Cancer Death Rates, Trump Trial Date, McCarthy Burchett Elbow, Climate Change, CO2 Absorption Rate, Steve Milloy, Rob Reiner, JFK Assassination, Mocking Hoaxes, Sam Altman OpenAI, TikTok Osama Bin Laden Manifesto, 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 another highlight of human civilization.
It's Cold Coffee with Scott Adams and today, wow, what a show I have for you.
Possibly the best you've ever seen.
It's got a theme, it's got interesting little stories, it's got mysteries!
Stay with us.
It's going to be good.
And all you need to take this up to a level that nobody can even understand with their human brain is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, gel, or styne, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
So go!
Will this show have a happy ending?
Surprisingly, yes.
You might have to help a little bit at home, but I'll get you there.
Oh yeah, if I don't get you to the edge today, I'm not even trying.
Alright, first story is that Penis, I'm sorry, Las Vegas will be hosting a giant penis.
Now, I didn't have time to look into this story, and my French is a little bit rusty, but there's something called the Grand P-R-I-X, which I assume is Bricks, so some kind of giant penis-related event in Las Vegas.
I didn't have time to look into the details, but we'll get back to that.
Here's a flashback to 1989, one of my first Dilbert comics.
And in 1989, and it's important that you remember the date, because that's the payoff for the story.
In 1989, I wrote a comic in which Dogbert says to Dilbert that Dogbert has invented a generic newspaper.
And Dilbert reads the headlines from the generic newspaper in 1989.
Right?
Again, it's all about the date.
And here were the headlines in the generic newspaper from 1989.
Pope denounces violence.
Home prices rise.
Unrest in the Middle East.
How'd I do?
Does that sound like the headlines today for Dogbert's perpetual generic newspaper?
Pretty close, wasn't it?
Yeah, 33 years ago.
Lucky guess.
All right.
So you'll never need another newspaper because basically newspapers were done in 1989, but nobody's noticed yet.
I didn't mention this story yesterday because I didn't know if it would last an hour, but apparently it still seems to be true.
The Snoop Dogg is giving up weed.
Is that true?
Now, if you're concerned about the GDP of the nation, Because I'm pretty sure Snoop Dogg was in our gross domestic product numbers because he bought a lot of weed, is what I'm saying.
Now, I've agreed to pick up the slack, but we'll see how that goes.
So somebody had to do it.
I was like, hmm, I don't know if I can keep the economy afloat all by myself, but I'm going to try.
I'm going to do what I can do.
Starship launched today, and I guess the real test of this one was because the first one didn't do as well as it could, but they knew that the first few launches would be sketchy.
So this one, it's a two-stage rocket.
And the goal was to get the second stage, the one on top, to release and go on its merry way.
Now ideally, the bottom stage would be reusable and would come back and splash down and they could reuse it.
But they had to blow it up.
So the recovery of the main big stage that gets it in the air, that didn't work.
But boy did it make a nice explosion.
Nice explosion.
But it was actually a really good, successful test because they got the second part of it into orbit.
So that's a really big success.
Could have been better.
Could have been a success of both stages, but getting the engineering right for the second stage to release and work is a big, big deal.
I have to say, I don't know if anybody watched it, but it's really, really inspirational to just watch and see that Americans can still do stuff.
Because you worry that we've lost our ability to do anything big.
Doesn't it feel like everything big happened in the past?
You know, like Hoover Dam.
I don't know, could we even build a Hoover Dam today?
I'm not even sure we could.
You know, it could be like the pyramids.
Like, why can't we build a pyramid today?
I mean, if we were to use their tools of yesterday.
So it is inspirational that there are people doing things good.
So how did the news cover that?
A huge inspirational success to humankind.
How did the Wall Street Journal cover it?
Here's the Wall Street Journal headline.
SpaceX's second Starship test flight ends in another explosion.
Okay, that's probably exactly what I just said, right?
Where it was a great inspirational victory for humankind, one of the greatest technological accomplishments in the history of humanity.
Or, as the Wall Street Journal likes to say, the second Starship flight ends in another explosion.
Yeah, they do say it made it further than previous test flights.
So, you know, it did achieve separation before losing contact with the spaceship, yeah.
So, yeah, that's what they say.
So, in the last 24 hours, the following groups have stopped advertising on the X platform, accusing them of, or accusing Musk specifically, and the platform of pairing their ads with, I guess, Nazi-like content.
Now, I've never seen that.
Have any of you ever seen any of these ads paired with Nazi-like content?
I've never seen it.
To me, there are ads, and then there's good content and horrible content, but I've never really, like I've never even taken note of where anything is placed.
Is that even a real issue?
Are there people in the world today who don't understand that the algorithm is not pairing anything?
It's just sort of blindly saying, oh, this would be a good place for an ad.
It's not like anybody planned it.
And so it shouldn't mean anything to anybody.
It should be just a coincidence of placement.
But, media matters.
I guess they've got some people looking into it.
And they, and they alone, imagine that they see this pattern, and they have pressured companies like Apple, Disney, Paramount, Lionsgate, IBM, Comcast, NBCUniversal, and whoever the European Commission is, to say that they would stop advertising on X. That's right.
Now, what do you think is really going on here?
I have the following hypothesis.
It's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen a bunch of CEOs do.
I'll tell you why.
But I think the CEO is already left for vacation.
What I think is that the DEI groups in each of these companies made noise and whoever was sitting in for the CEO didn't want to overrule the DEI group.
Because the DEI group is the ones looking for equity and inclusion and stuff.
And that they kind of had to bow to them.
Because they didn't want to fight with their own DEI group because then they would be accused of being racist.
So if you're not the CEO, you can't really even have a chance of overruling your own DEI group.
So I have a hypothesis that the CEOs were unavailable.
And that maybe some underlings made the decisions.
I've got a feeling that Apple will reverse their decision.
When Tim Cook gets back from vacation.
If he's on vacation, I'm just speculating here.
And here's why.
How long did it take for somebody to say, so you're still okay with TikTok and Osama bin Laden being promoted on that platform?
Because that's what was happening.
The Osama bin Laden manifesto was wildly being promoted.
And also at the same time the anti-Israel, some would say anti-Semitic phase was going wild on TikTok while not happening on X. Do you think that Apple is fine with promoting Osama Bin Laden and fine with supporting Hamas by advertising on TikTok?
But they had a real problem Because some ads were coincidentally, based on the algorithm and nobody's decision, put some ads next to some bad content, of which everybody understands all social media has good and bad content sprinkled in.
These are not similar problems.
If you're still advertising on China's main vehicle of destroying the United States, you do not have a moral leg to stand on.
On top of that, I'd like to rub it a little bit more.
So first of all, they're huge hypocrites.
They have no moral standing whatsoever, as long as they're also advertising on TikTok.
Everybody agree with that point?
You could not be on TikTok And argue that X is the one that's bad, if you're being a serious person.
There's no serious person who could make that argument.
So, do you think that Tim Cook wants to be embarrassed by the stupidity of this?
Because one thing that Apple is famous for, you know, it's one of the greatest companies of all time, right?
They're famous for not being stupid.
It's probably one of their greatest qualities, is not being stupid.
This was stupid.
It's hypocritical.
And I'm going to pile on a little harder.
The following companies are almost certainly racist to the bone.
I'll tell you why.
Let me name them again.
Apple, Disney, Paramount, Lionsgate, IBM, Comcast, NBC, Universal, and the European Commission.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think that they hire straight white men based on their qualifications?
Or do they discriminate against straight white men because they're all trying really hard to build their diversity?
Of course they're racists.
These are the most racist companies in the United States, and they do it overtly.
They do it right in front of you, and then they brag about it.
They have departments whose job it is to discriminate against people like me.
Fuck these companies.
These companies are trash.
They are morally bankrupt.
They are garbage people.
Well, the leadership is garbage.
Because they're allowing massive, overt, racial, sexual discrimination, and then pretending they're the good guys.
You're not the good guys.
You never were the good guys.
You're the absolute bad guys.
You're using probably slave labor in China.
You're supporting TikTok, the device that'll destroy America and the children are cutting their balls off because of it.
And then you went after X, the last remaining place you can get free speech in America.
This is evil at a level that is almost hard to hold in your head.
Overt racists getting rid of free speech and supporting the platform that will brainwash our citizenry for generations.
The level of evil here is almost incalculable.
And they're doing this right in public, right in front of you.
It's an amazing level of evil.
Now, I should tell you I sold my stock in Apple a few months ago because I thought AI was going to put too much pressure on their business model.
It could be that Apple will be the big star of AI.
They'll do it right.
They'll make sure, you know, the guardrails are there.
So there's more chance.
I think there's a greater chance that Apple will be a big success with AI.
But it took them out of a monopoly mode, which is why I invested.
Because if you have an Apple product, it just makes so much more sense that the next thing you buy is also an Apple product, because they work together.
You know, if you've got a laptop that's Apple, you kind of want a smartphone, right?
Because there are too many ways they integrate.
So once they became less of an obvious monopoly, which is what I liked about them as an investor, and they became more of a free-for-all because of AI, then I said, hmm, that's not the reason I invested.
By the way, that's a Warren Buffett investment rule.
So Warren Buffett would say, don't sell your stock until the reason you bought it in the first place changes.
So don't sell it based on little fluctuations.
If you bought it because they have a good long-term future, Hold on to it until that changes.
And that changed.
So in my case, the reason I bought it changed.
They lost their guaranteed monopoly and now it's a maybe.
We'll see.
Yeah.
Worst groups in the world.
So I think the DEI groups are probably pushing this because the bosses are on vacation.
So we'll see if they reverse it.
Well, Elon Musk has said that He's going to go after, he said, well, he said exactly this.
The split-second court opens on Monday.
X Corp will be filing a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters.
So they're the ones who created all the trouble and got these companies to bend.
And all, he puts all in capitals.
And all those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company.
And then just in case you weren't sure that he really meant thermonuclear, he follows it up with their board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them.
Oh, yes.
Oh, I'm here for this.
Oh, I'm here for this.
Elon Musk literally is the last protection of free speech.
And he's certainly proving it again.
He's putting his money and his freedom, basically.
I mean, he's going against a system that will try to jail him.
You know that, right?
They will try to jail him, if not kill him.
Because he is their biggest risk, because he controls the ability for people to see past the brainwashing.
And there's no way the system with its current bosses can survive that.
They cannot survive anything like free speech and free press.
So he is a risk.
Making things more interesting, it's groups like the ADL that become the Let's say the shock troops for groups like Media Matters to get these organizations fired up so that they can go after Axe.
But Ben Shapiro is defending Elon Musk's criticism of the ADL and the progressive Jewish organizations whose policies have resulted in blah blah blah.
So I think that's important.
So I certainly am on the same side with Ben Shapiro and Elon Musk, that the ADL certainly started with a noble mission, and I believe they had some important accomplishments in their past.
But at the moment, they've just been reborn, I guess.
Maybe they morphed into a Democrat hammer to hammer on Republicans.
I'm sure they also do good things.
But the amount of evil that they're doing in the world I think it outweighs it at the moment.
You know, even if the good things are really good, the amount of evils has surpassed it.
Now they're just an evil organization.
And certainly not credible in any serious way.
All right, well here's the theme I'm going to introduce.
You're already seeing a little bit of it.
But I saw in a tweet by the Daily Loud, I don't know who they are, but They're recognizing fake news is now a required subject in California schools.
So according to this, California schools will be teaching students how to recognize fake news.
Do you see any problem with that?
Does that raise any flags?
Do you think that the California system will teach them that the biggest source of systemic racism is the teachers' union?
Do you want to take a bet?
That's true, right?
The teachers' union is a malign force that's destroying the country.
And some of the news says so, and then some of the news says that they're protecting teachers and they're great.
So which one of these will be taught to the students as the truth?
And which one will be the fake news?
You see the problem?
There isn't the slightest chance.
That they're going to tell students what's real.
They are literally going to teach them to believe bullshit.
Because there's no other way this can go.
There isn't any feasible, imaginary, hypothetical other way it could go.
They're not going to teach them that everything they learn in the news is fake.
And it is.
They're not going to teach them that.
Because the whole system depends on them believing the news, and the news being the brainwashing force that gets the people in charge to get what they want.
So, when I talk about the rest of the stories today, the question you should ask yourself, and I'll remind you, is what version of this story would the students learn is real?
And it's going to be really complicated.
Would they learn that this launch today was a success or a failure?
If you're watching the X platform, it was a big success because the second stage worked.
If you read the headline on the Wall Street Journal, who I'm starting to suspect is doing the bidding of Rupert Murdoch, who might not want to be competing with Elon Musk, if you know what I mean.
Because the X platform is a direct risk to all of Rupert Murdoch's traditional news.
His traditional news is competing with X now.
And then suddenly, Rupert Murdoch's main news organ, I think it's the main one for the United States, the Wall Street Journal, feels like they've got a little attitude about Elon Musk now.
Do you think that's an accident?
Well, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to say that the Murdochs gave any direct orders to the Wall Street Journal.
But it doesn't need to work that way.
Because if you work for a boss, you know what the boss wants.
You know what's good for your company.
You don't have to be told.
So it looks to me that the Wall Street Journal is starting to get a little bit of an anti-Elon edge to them.
We'll see if that plays out.
Did you know that somebody said that the schools watch 10 to 20 minutes of CNN so that the kids can catch up on the news?
Do you think that their course on what is fake news will tell them that they are intentionally fed propaganda 10 to 20 minutes a day and that they shouldn't believe it?
Do you think that's part of the course?
Or do they say, here's the real news, make sure you don't watch that Fox News stuff.
Just take a guess, which do you think is more likely what they're being taught?
You don't even have to wonder.
This is news you don't have to research.
You know exactly what's going on here.
All right, what about those tunnels?
Would the children learn that the tunnels exist under the hospital in Gaza?
Because, you know, the IDF, the Israelis, the Israeli military has surrounded the whole compound.
It's this enormous compound.
It's not just one building.
It's a big compound.
And I saw stories yesterday from doctors who said they have found no tunnels or signs of Hamas.
And that just sort of sat there like it was true.
And then the IDF shows you today video and pictures of the actual tunnels they found, and big weapons caches, you know, big supplies of weapons and stuff.
So which is true?
Is it true that these are actual pictures of the tunnels and that they are at the hospital compound, like the IDF says?
Or is it true that the doctor who works at the hospital says, I'm here, I'm right here, there's no tunnels?
Which one is true?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Now, I'm inclined to think that the tunnels are real.
But if you believe anything in the context of the fog of war, you should not.
That would be a mistake.
It might, you know, one of these versions will be true.
In the end, we'll know for sure.
Well, we hope we'll know.
We think we'll know that they were either there or not there.
I think they'll be there.
But which version, which version of the kids learning?
Are the kids learning that Israel was right and there are tunnels there and so it made sense that there was some risk to the civilian population because you had to get to those tunnels?
Or were they taught that they killed a bunch of people in a hospital and there was no reason for it?
Which version are the California school kids being taught?
Eric yells in all capitals, Eric says, this is in all capitals, Scott must be a big fan of Ben Shapiro!
Now, what's the point of that?
I am literally a big fan of Ben Shapiro.
Like, why did he need to yell that to everybody in all caps?
Is that some anti-Semitic thing?
Like, what would the other point of that be?
Can you give me any other reason you would need to shout that so everybody would hear that I'm a big fan of Ben Shapiro, which is literally true?
Which does mean I agree with him on everything.
I'm just a big fan of his intellect and his approach.
Interesting.
All right.
Well, that certainly raises some questions, doesn't it?
Well, a court ruled that you can read Trump's mind, and that the judge specifically can read his mind, and here's some of the things the judge found in Trump's mind.
The court concluded that he engaged in insurrection, as Judge Wallace said, and she cited his history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence.
So she says he has a history of courting extremists and political violence.
So somehow that would tell you what he was thinking on January 6th.
Because in the past he said things about other things.
That tells you what he was thinking about this completely different thing on that day.
She said that Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression.
Really?
When did he endorse violence as political expression?
Are you talking about the two times he said in his rallies that he liked it when the protesters got roughed up?
Is that it?
Was there more than that?
Was that the entire argument for how he's endorsed political violence?
Did she leave out the part about protests peacefully?
I don't know.
She says, despite these warnings, Trump undertook no effort to prepare law enforcement.
I thought the facts were otherwise.
I thought there were efforts to get more law enforcement and it didn't happen.
Do they have different facts than we have?
You know, maybe my facts are wrong, but I thought that he did in fact try and he was turned down.
Is that not a fact?
I guess I'm questioning whether I know the right fact there.
She said that he intended to direct the crowd to protest and he didn't tell law enforcement.
Is that illegal?
Is it illegal to tell people to protest legally and peacefully?
I'm pretty sure it's completely legal to not tell anybody that you're encouraging people to protest peacefully.
And maybe he didn't even know he was going to do it.
He may have just sort of decided on the spot.
The court concluded that Trump acted with a specific intent to incite political violence for the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification.
Intent.
So what is another word for intent?
Intent is something that's in your mind.
It's a quality of mind, right?
Your intention.
And how do they know his intention?
She could read his mind based on things he did that were sort of off the topic.
So by looking at things on other topics, she determined what he thought on this topic.
That happened in America.
In 2023, a judge in public read his mind.
They read his mind.
Now, apparently she also said that he could still run for office because there's some question about whether a president is under the standard.
So my understanding is that she said yes, He definitely was in his mind, in his mind!
She literally ruled that his mind was saying something different than his words.
So here's somebody whose words says, go peacefully, but in his mind he was thinking differently, so that therefore it was an insurrection.
Now, let me go back to my theme.
So what version of this will be taught to the California schoolchildren?
Will the California children learn that our courts are honest and credible, and they don't have any kind of political balance, you know, bias, and that Trump is an insurrectionist and everybody can tell and it's obvious?
Is that what they'll be told?
Is that history?
No, to me it looks like a lie.
It looks like the courts are completely non-credible.
It looks like corruption at the highest level.
So will the California school children be taught to spot that the trial itself was fake news and that it was a corrupt process and from the beginning it was always obvious it was a corrupt process?
Will they be taught that?
No, they'll be taught that Orange Man bad, I assume.
All right, here's another one we'll ask.
Oh, and then there's also a video.
So the new Speaker of the House has released this video, or all the videos, so you can see all the people sauntering around.
And when you see the videos of the people sauntering and fist bumping with security, literally fist bumping, shaking hands, patting on the back, they were just hanging out.
And you say to yourself, what exactly What kind of instructions did the security have?
Didn't you ever wonder that?
Were they instructed to put down their life to protect the politicians who might have been inside?
Or were they told to stand down?
Or were they not told anything, and so they acted on their own?
Well, I don't know the answer to the question, but there is a new video today in which You can listen to one of the security people as the crowds ran outside and the security could tell that they were totally on undermanned.
They didn't have the resources to protect the building.
One of the people said, the security people, actually Metro Police.
So it was a Metro Police guy on video saying that they had been set up.
And that he believed that they had intentionally been under-resourced.
Set up, meaning that they were set up to fail.
Meaning that somebody above them had done an obvious job of making sure that they didn't have the resources to let people in.
Or to stop people from getting in.
And then you know what he said?
And then he said, I'm paraphrasing, F them.
Let them take over the place.
That's what he said out loud to the other people.
Let the protesters take over the place, because we don't have the resources we've been set up.
Now when you watch the security people on the inside, who could have very easily just stood in front of a hallway, three of them, and said, hey people, because remember the protesters who were inside were literally just sauntering.
They weren't yelling, they weren't brandishing any weapons, they were actually just walking slowly in one direction.
Now, if the security wanted to stop them, three of them could have, there were lots of them, we saw from the video, they could have stood in the hallway, and they could have said, hey guys, this is as far as you go, we can't let you go any further.
If you went any further, we'd have to get violent, we don't want to do that, let's keep it peacefully, so just stay where you are.
But they didn't do that.
They actually stood aside to get out of the way, talked to them, fist-bumped them, a completely casual situation.
To me, that looked like a security force that believed they had been set up and decided to do something about it, which is step aside.
Now, the ones on the outside, of course, were in the middle of the fight, and they were just fighting for their lives.
So there was a whole different thing going on on the outside.
They were really fighting to prevent people to get in.
But the ones who could sort of see the situation from a distance, because they weren't in the middle of an actual fight, said, something's wrong here.
It's obvious we've been set up.
And it seemed to be that at least one person was saying out loud, we should just let them in.
So, I don't know what's true, but now let me ask you this question.
Which version of this will be taught to the California school children, and which will be told is fake news?
Will they be taught that an insurrection happened?
That Republicans tried to take over the country without weapons?
And will they be told that delaying a process just to make sure the process was right is the same as stopping a process?
Will they be taught that the process was stopped, or that they were trying to stop it, so that Trump could take over as a dictator?
Will they tell the children that Don Jr.
was not aware of any plan to be a dictator or take over?
Are they going to tell them that Trump's own son, you know, his closest, presumably, closest political advisor, was completely unaware?
Because we know that from his conversations at the moment.
We saw them in writing.
He wasn't part of it.
So they're actually going to learn that it was an insurrection and his closest advisor didn't know anything about it.
Probably.
They'll probably learn that.
Well, there's another story that's good news, bad news.
Good news is young people are dying from cancer at a much lower rate.
So apparently there's been tremendous progress.
And getting cancer treatments and cures for young people.
It's, you know, it's a continuous downward slope.
Very, very successful.
And what was the takeaway from that?
Well, there was some, you know, the good news, of course, was mentioned.
Now, that doesn't mean that the cancer rates are different.
Just the solutions to them are better.
But here's one of the takeaways.
The difference in cancer death rates among white, black, and Hispanic children was not statistically different.
So there wasn't much difference in the death rate between 2001 and 2011.
But, after 2011, the rates of cancer survival began to stagnate among black and Hispanic children, while they continued to fall 12% among white children.
So white children were getting more of these great cures than black and Hispanic children.
So that will probably be taught to California school children as another example of science and medical science being racist and health care being racist.
Can you think of any other explanation For why the black and Hispanic children would do worse than the white children in cancer treatments?
Can you think of any other reason besides racism?
Could it be income?
Could it be income?
And where's the context about the poor white children?
Were all the poor white children doing great?
But the equally poor black and Hispanic children, they were doing poorly?
Because that would be pretty solid evidence of discrimination, and you would be really concerned about that, or you should be.
But what if the poor white children were also doing poorly, and basically it was just poverty?
Which version is true?
I'm gonna assume it's poverty.
I see somebody saying vitamin D, but no, do the triage here.
I worked in a laboratory.
I'll help you out.
In a laboratory, you have to narrow down what the possible problems are.
Using your logic, you're eliminating things.
When I told you that the rates were the same between 2001 and 2011, so all the races were the same between those years, But then later it changed.
Is that because you think vitamin D went down for just black and Hispanic children and only in the years between 2011 and 2021?
Is that your vitamin D theory?
No, vitamin D is eliminated because the setup is that the only thing that changed was time, as far as we can tell.
So, but I would certainly be concerned that this is racism, but it seems far more likely it's income related.
All right.
So the prosecutors are asking a Fulton County judge to schedule Trump for August 5th, which would be just a few months before the general election.
So Trump will have a major trial.
Beginning three months before election.
Is that exactly what you expected?
Anybody who was paying attention?
Of course!
Because the election is going to have as their main theme that Trump is a dangerous dictator who would not leave office.
And if he's in office again, he'll never leave.
So they're going to make sure that they've got this trial going on That keeps, you know, boosting that narrative.
Now, that's one way it could go.
Do you know what's another way it could go?
Third act, baby.
It's the perfect timing for his third act.
And what I mean by third act is that something coming out about the election integrity in general, it might not even be about Fulton County.
It might be about some other place.
But if election Fraud is proven anywhere in a battleground state during the time he's being charged for claiming there was fraud.
That's your third act.
That is, that's a landslide territory right there.
That would be the greatest comeback in American history.
It would be like nothing we've ever seen.
And if there's anything you know about the Trump story, is that he's clearly an author in this simulation.
He seems to be able to make things happen that just can't happen.
And he does it consistently.
So it feels like he's just willing into existence the third act, where suddenly you realize that he'd been, you know, the victim of all this and not the perpetrator.
So it's looking so much like the simulation is going to serve this up.
Now, just to be specific in my prediction.
Because if it doesn't happen, people are going to say, Scott, you predicted it.
It's more like a warning than a prediction.
It could definitely not happen.
So if you heard me say, it's definitely going to happen, no.
No, it's not definitely going to happen.
I'm just saying that all the signals are starting to form.
And I mention it because it's fun.
Right, not because it's the most likely outcome, but because it's fun to watch if this movie format just keeps happening.
So it's more like testing, here's what it is, it's more like testing the ability to predict than it is like an actual prediction.
Like what I predicted that Trump would win in 2016, that was an actual prediction.
This is more like testing the prediction.
So keep that context.
All right.
So this is the weirdest story.
I remember when, what's his name?
Representative Birchette claimed that ex-Speaker McCarthy had elbowed him hard in the kidneys when he walked by in a crowded hallway.
And that Birchette like chased after him and like it almost got physical.
But then when McCarthy was asked, he's like, what?
That never happened.
That's crazy talk.
So you think to yourself, what really did happen?
Is it actually possible that McCarthy actually gave a hard elbow in the kidney to actually hurt him while he was on camera?
And my first instinct was, I don't know, maybe he didn't try hard enough to not walk into him.
But it seems unlikely that he would just, like, elbow him hard while the guy is on camera.
That seems like the least likely thing that would ever happen.
But then, today, Representative Adam Kinzinger accused Kevin McCarthy of, quote, shoulder-checking him twice in the Capitol.
You have two not-anonymous witnesses To three separate claims.
Three separate claims, with two people who tell you their identity in public.
Now, if they were anonymous claims, you should just ignore it.
If it were a claim from one person, whichever one it was, you should probably say, maybe.
You know, the best I could give that is a maybe.
But now you have claims from people on two different sides, Two different sides, right?
And they both have essentially the same story.
What do you think?
How many of you think McCarthy is actually physically bullying people in the Capitol?
I actually don't know.
I'm going to say this one is so weird, I just don't know.
Maybe.
I'm going to give it a solid maybe.
But I still would lean toward he's simply not trying hard enough to not walk into him.
Which might be, it might look the same.
Right?
I feel like, I feel like he doesn't want to, maybe he doesn't want to look like he moved because they were in the way.
Maybe he wants to make it look like, you know, they're the ones who moved because he's in the way.
I don't know.
It's just impossible to figure this one out.
All right.
Is it my imagination or are the skeptics on climate alarm winning?
Is it just that that's what I'm seeing?
It seems to me that the skeptics have the upper hand now.
And part of it is because we have 40 years of climate history and 40 years of their predictions being wrong.
Am I right about that?
Would you agree that climate predictions have been wrong for 40 years in a row?
Now it depends who you ask.
Some people would say, oh look at my other data and it's totally right.
Now I'm not talking about the temperature part.
Because the climate alarmists would say, look at this temperature, it proves it's going up.
But they also said it would go up and it would melt the Arctic ice gaps.
It would, you know, there'd be less ice.
And I was seeing some claims today, and I don't know what's true, but claims by skeptics saying, here's a picture of the ice, same as always.
Is that true?
I don't know.
I don't know.
And then there are lots of pictures of a shoreline where they can show that, for example, on the Statue of Liberty, the waterline's the same, you know, for like 80 years or whatever.
And then how about hurricanes?
We're expecting the big hurricanes, right?
But not really any change.
So you've got 40 years of calamity predictions that have been wrong.
How many years do you have to go with wrong predictions before people go, okay, well, maybe, maybe not.
Is 40 years enough?
How about 50?
60?
What would you take?
100?
100 years of being wrong?
At what point do you start doubting the scientists?
100 years?
Now, they do say the temperature is going up, but I don't believe anybody can measure the temperature of Earth over time.
I don't think that's a real thing.
Anybody who tells you they can measure the average temperature of the Earth I mean, that's ridiculous on the surface.
If you've lived and worked in the real world, you know they can't do that.
That's way beyond what humans could do.
It's not even close.
Anyway.
So, yes, Steve Malloy, who's always fun.
I don't know when he's right and when he's not right, but he's got lots of skepticism about climate stuff.
And he pointed out that the Telegraph publication has a story that says the climate models might be wrong because it turns out scientists have found out that plants absorb more CO2 than they thought.
Come on!
At some point you just have to admit that this is mostly fraud.
That the whole climate thing is mostly fraud.
Now, it could be that people believe it as well, but the way the information is trickling out to the public, it just has fraud written all over it, which is not to say the Earth isn't getting warmer.
It might be.
But the claims are so absurdly ridiculous that, you know, it's probably exactly what it looks like.
All right, so again, I ask you, are the California students learning that climate change is real and the skeptics are all crazy?
Are they crazy?
Probably.
Probably.
Do you think that they're going to learn that the models had to be adjusted because they got wrong how much plants absorb?
Which you would imagine would be really basic stuff to this whole idea.
Right.
Yeah, so they'll certainly learn the wrong story about the climate.
All right, well, your favorite celebrity, Rob Reiner, is producing a 10-part series on who killed JFK, and has new evidence of who really killed him.
Huh.
Now, this comes out not too long after Oliver Stone updated his documentary on the same topic, and Oliver Stone seemed to conclude that the CIA was behind it.
And RFK Jr.
says he thinks the CIA was behind it.
Now, if you were the CIA, what would you do about that?
Well, if it were me, I would find a producer that I controlled, and I'd have him produce a series that says, no, totally not the CIA.
In fact, I might even have him blame Russia.
Mike Benz said, give me two guesses who he's going to blame.
Now, we haven't seen it yet, but if he blames Russia, that would be hilarious, because it would be such a tell that the whole thing's fake.
Now, here's the thing I keep teaching you we need.
What we need is for every story in the news, that the people who are the subject of that news, you automatically see who they're connected to in the real world.
Who did they used to work for?
Who else in the story that's important were they married to?
Who's their spouse?
What organizations do they belong to?
Because that will tell you what's real.
It's like what their human connections are.
Did you know, for example, that Rob Reiner runs an organization that includes heads of the CIA?
Like some ex-heads of the CIA.
I think Clapper and Brennan are in it or something.
But Rob Reiner is connected to the CIA.
Now, he's probably not on the payroll.
But he's working with them, like in a public way.
You can actually find the documents that he directs a group that includes ex-members of the CIA.
Mike Benz found that, by the way.
So, if you're a California school kid, are you going to learn that Rob Reiner is right and somebody besides the CIA was behind it?
Because, by the way, I'm pretty certain that he's not going to say the CIA did it.
Do you feel that that's a good prediction?
That he's not going to say the CIA did it?
Yeah, I don't think so.
So, what version will California school children learn?
Will they learn that Oliver Stone is a big fake news guy?
And that RFK Jr.
just makes stuff up?
Or are they going to learn that the CIA killed JFK?
What do you think?
Well, good luck figuring out what's real, kids.
Well, The Economist, which is allegedly a publication, they had a big headline in which the title was, Donald Trump poses the biggest danger to the world in 2024.
Do you think that the California schoolchildren Will they learn that it was all a hoax, that Trump was dangerous?
Or will they be taught that he is the biggest danger to the world in 2024?
Because if they write a paper on it and they Google it, that's what they'll find out.
They will be told he's the biggest threat in the world.
Now, I recommend again that here's what you don't want to do.
Let me model the worst things you can do.
Donald Trump, you're dangerous.
No, I'm not.
You're dangerous.
Does that work?
No, I'm not.
You're dangerous.
Other things are dangerous.
No.
How about this one?
Elon Musk, you're anti-Semitic.
No, I'm not.
I don't have an anti-Semitic bone in my body.
Did that work?
It's a straight denial.
It's as clear as you could possibly say it.
Nope.
No, those are two bad ways to handle this situation.
Let me do Musk first.
Elon Musk, you're anti-Semitic.
Correct answer.
I love the Jewish people.
I'm pro-Jewish people.
Absolutely, 100% pro.
But you don't expect me to agree with them every time, do you?
That is the correct answer.
The wrong answer is I'm not anti-Semitic, because it's too weak.
The correct answer is that you love the group you're being told you don't like, if it's true.
You don't say if it's a lie.
If it's a lie, people will sniff it out immediately.
Now, the ADL accused me of being anti-Semitic.
That's a real thing that happened this year.
They accused me of being anti-Semitic.
What's my answer?
I love Israel.
I'm pro-Israel 100%, and I love Jews.
Love them.
A lot of my best friends.
That's the correct answer.
The correct answer is that you love them if you do, which is actually true in my case.
Now, that doesn't mean I don't love people of different religions and anything else.
Nobody asked.
If you ask, I might love them too, depending who you're talking about.
All right, and the right answer for Trump is not, no, I'm not the dangerous one, you're the dangerous one, nobody buys that.
The correct response is to mock it.
Say, well, I know you've been told that people, that Republicans try to take over countries without bringing the guns.
Is that what you think?
Just make the reporter Try to describe their actual belief, and then mock it as it happens.
So that's what you believe.
You believe that the most pro-Second Amendment people in the world would all spontaneously leave their guns home, and then they would say, oh, but we found some guns nearby.
Oh, did you?
Were they all going to share those guns?
Or were that handful of guns that were staged somewhere in cars or buried somewhere, was that going to take over the nuclear power?
Can you explain how that would work?
And then when they say, but you tried to stop this government process, you say, and then what was going to happen?
Can you explain to me what you think was going to happen because a bureaucratic process got delayed for a day?
Is that how you take over the country?
By delaying a bureaucratic process for one day?
Is that what you're telling me?
Ask your question clearly.
I want to understand your question.
Tell me the background of your question.
Do you believe that's possible?
I wouldn't even answer the question.
I would force them to explain why that question makes sense and mock them the entire time.
I would have a smile on my face and say, you realize you sound like a fucking idiot, right?
I might even say the F word because it would be more news that way.
You sound like a fucking idiot.
Like you think the country can be taken over by people sauntering?
Explain yourself.
How the hell does that question even make sense?
And then just laugh in their faces.
Now that is persuasion.
And totally appropriate.
That would not be unethical, weaselly.
That is the correct, straightforward way to handle it.
It's like, you've got to be joking.
This is just ridiculous.
So treat it as the ridiculous joke it is.
I don't like it when Trump mocks the windmills.
Because he does it in a way that makes it too easy for his critics to think he really believes the TV will go off when the windmill stops turning.
I promise you, he understands what batteries are.
I promise you.
He understands your TV doesn't go off.
It's just funny.
But that's not the funny I'm talking about, because that funny sets him up as a guy who doesn't know how anything works.
Because that's what they're primed to believe, he doesn't understand it.
They actually think, well, here's how he should handle the drinking bleach hoax.
Instead of saying, you know, it was whatever he said it was, sarcasm or something, he should say, Let me ask you a question, CNN.
Do you think that the President of the United States, no matter who it was, would recommend drinking disinfectant, even as a speculation?
Do you believe that actually happened?
You know at the time there was an actual technology called light therapy that was being trialed at that time and it was being tweeted around the internet.
And a lot of my followers were aware that inserting light into a trachea, really you could call it injecting but inserting it, and then lighting up the trachea was being tested by a company called HealLight.
If you think I'm making it up, you could check their article in the Wall Street Journal, in which they wrote an article based on the story about what you're reporting.
They said, yes, this is us.
It's in the Wall Street Journal.
You could just check for yourself.
The company I was talking about, but I couldn't think of their name at the time.
So honestly, I did just want to make it go away.
So I said it was sarcasm.
But it was a real thing.
I just didn't want to defend it, because I didn't have enough information at the time.
But I want you to answer my question.
Did you think seriously that the President of the United States was recommending drinking bleach?
Look me in the eye and tell me you thought that was true.
I mean seriously.
Look me in the eye and tell me that you believed the President of the United States recommended drinking bleach.
I just want to see if you can do it with a straight face.
That's what I would do.
I would put them completely on the spot for why they believe such ridiculous bullshit.
How about the fine people hoax?
I would bring that up every time I could.
And I would have the transcript in my pocket.
I would say, you said that I didn't, that I called the neocons or the neo-Nazis fine people.
You actually reported that.
Did you ever correct that?
Well, no, it's true, it's true.
Really?
Because I've got a copy of the transcript.
Here, let me read it to you.
And then he reads the transcript.
That's the way I'd handle it.
And then I would put all the pressure on them to explain why they believed this was ever true.
Why did you ever believe this was true?
Did you spend even a minute looking at the transcript?
It's right here.
And then here's the killer.
Did you ever check to see if there were any members who attended who supported keeping the statues but also disavowed the racists like I did?
Did you check?
Because the answer is no.
The most important fact, were there in fact any quote, fine people, as Trump would define people like himself.
People who don't have a racial intention about the statues, they just think that historically they have their place.
Nobody checked.
Don't you think he should mock them for not checking?
He shouldn't just point it out.
He should rub it in their fucking faces.
Here, here.
Here, did you check?
You're telling me that the most important fact of this story, of whether or not a group of people attended, that I said probably attended, you didn't check that.
The most important fact.
And then they would say, but Mr. President, if they were marching, they're not fine people.
And then Trump said, okay, is your reporting that the only people there were either marching or Antifa?
Was that your reporting?
You didn't even check to see if there was another population of people who were attending, such as, I think there were Catholic priests.
Does your reporting say that Catholic priests were there?
Because they were not marching and they're not Antifa, but they were there, right?
So why don't you report that?
Now, they were against the racists, but they were there.
So where's your reporting on the actual facts of who was there?
Yeah, I would go right after him.
The fact that Trump has given them a pass for getting those two stories wrong and defining his presidency, huge mistake.
I think Trump completely blew his opportunities.
You know who would not make those mistakes?
Vivek Ramaswamy.
Vivek would have chewed that up, spit it down their stupid bird mouths, and then shut their mouths and made them swallow it.
There's no way he would have brushed that off.
He would have used it as the weapon it is.
I mean, they're basically handing you an axe and say, kill me with this axe, will you?
And Trump's like, oh, it's sarcasm.
He throws the axe away.
No, if they hand you an axe to kill them, You know, metaphorically.
Use it!
They handed it right to you.
I'm saying, Scott, Vivek doesn't know, Vivek doesn't know all the hoaxes.
You've seen him fumble them.
Well, maybe he needs some help on that.
But seriously, he would be the one who could turn it into the joke it is.
All right.
Again, I love this story because of the third act potential for Trump and also the conspiracy theory of it.
So the following story I do not assert to be true and meaningful.
I don't know.
It's just really fun to hear it.
And this is again from the Rasmussen account.
They're doing the most aggressive following up of all the voter irregularities stories around the country, of which there are a lot.
You just don't hear about them because the regular news doesn't cover them.
But here's what Rasmussen said.
March 1st, 2020, and the date is important.
Do you know what was happening around March 1st, 2020?
That's when we were first learning about the pandemic.
So we didn't quite know what it was yet, right?
So on March 1st, 2020, a multi-million dollar order is quietly placed for unique machinery designed solely for the mass production of unsolicited mail ballots, an election voting process that is illegal in most states on that day.
So on the day the equipment was ordered, it was illegal to use it.
But it almost immediately became legal At least that year, it became legal because of the pandemic.
So before the pandemic was really even getting going, somebody seemed to know that they would need to print a lot of ballots before even the first shutdown.
Now, yeah, it doesn't say who ordered it.
Is this a state or some kind of federal agency?
So there's no details.
So I would not assume it's true.
Just assume it's part of the story.
Is that fair?
I do not assert this to be true.
Or if it's true, I don't assert that there's no innocent explanation for it.
It's just one of those interesting little conspiracy theory flags that make your eyebrow go up and say, who ordered it?
Who's the company?
Where is it?
Where was it used?
All those questions are the right questions.
I don't know the answers to any of them.
All right.
Surprise pandemic.
All right.
Did I talk about Sam Altman?
Did I get all the way to the end without talking about Sam Altman yet?
Oh, OK.
Biggest story of the day.
So Sam Altman, president of OpenAI, of OpenAI, was fired by the board, and we don't know why.
Well, it also, one board member was asked, or one other executive was asked to step down, I guess the CEO, and rather than step down, he quit.
So two of the most important players quit.
Well, one was fired and one had to step down and quit.
There's much speculation about why.
So the first speculation was, wait, is this some kind of Me Too thing?
I think you could eliminate the Me Too thing, because there are two people involved that are not rumored to be with each other, I think.
So it would be too much of a coincidence if it's a Me Too thing.
So that doesn't fit.
So it's probably not that.
Secondly, neither of the people who left know why.
So Sam Altman says privately he doesn't know why.
Now that's what he says.
That's not necessarily true.
He might have a strong suspicion that he doesn't want to put out there yet.
I would imagine he'd have a suspicion.
So do you think that neither of the two people who had to leave actually know the reason they were asked to leave?
Does that even sound a little bit likely?
Here's what I think.
I saw a theory by, I want to give credit to my theorist.
I wish I had written down who it was.
But somebody had the idea that there was a philosophical difference.
Meaning that the reason that there's not a specific trigger is that there wasn't a specific trigger.
That would make sense.
There was.
There was what?
So there probably wasn't a specific trigger as opposed to a number of smaller triggers related to possibly a philosophical difference.
So one of the beliefs was That the philosophical difference might be, this is just speculation, that internally they've developed a much smarter version of AI, and there was some discussion about going slow, or just putting it out there.
And there might have been, it could be that Sam Altman might have been more about putting it out there, and the remaining board members might be more about, it's too dangerous, better put some guardrails on it first.
That's just speculation.
Does it fit all the facts?
Kara Swish reported.
Can you give me that again?
I'm saying that Kara Swish is reporting, so they might know more about it by now.
I'll just wait for the comment to pull up.
We might actually know by now.
Let's see.
There's a little delay on the comments.
Couldn't be achieved.
See Mike Ben's.
The philosophical Sam wanted faster development and the board did not.
Oh well.
So there is some reporting that my speculation is correct.
That there was a difference about how fast they go.
Now that makes the most sense, doesn't it?
It's the one thing that fits all the facts, but would also leave the two people who were involved not entirely sure what's going on.
So I'm sure that Sam Altman has a suspicion that it's about a philosophical difference.
Probably.
But since they didn't say it directly, it would be inappropriate for him to read their minds and assume that's what they're thinking, because maybe there was something else.
Maybe there was.
Well, Elon Musk already tweeted that he has job openings at X.A.I.
So, what do you think is going to happen now?
Do you think the company will go on to be successful?
Or do you think Elon Musk will hire both of them?
Which would actually be kind of a good play.
Hire both of them and just lap open AI because open AI will go slower.
If the Grok, which is the AI of Musk's, if he decides to go faster, I don't know that he would because he also likes slowing down.
I don't know.
Could be interesting.
We'll see where they end up.
Certainly their value is in the billions at this point, because their specific experience.
All right.
I doubt that they're that close to AGI, you know, the level of intelligence that goes beyond what the large language models can do.
I don't think it's possible, actually.
You know, this is the phase of technology where idiots like me say, I don't think it's possible, and then somebody's already done it.
So I'm completely aware that me thinking it's not possible doesn't mean it's not possible.
I get that my thinking it's impossible could be wrong, easily could be wrong.
But I'm going to stay with my prediction that we can't get an AI that is consistently way smarter than the best human in the same domain.
That it won't be able to go beyond that.
You know, a little bit in a few areas, and it'll make a story, it'll be an exception, but more generally, of all the domain of human experience, it won't go beyond it.
Now part of it is, there's two parts to this.
One is I don't believe it can gather much intelligence on its own.
I just don't think it's going to think its way to be smarter.
But also I think that humans will not believe it if it becomes accurate and we'd have to shut it down.
So imagine an AI that could actually tell you which news was real and what was fake.
Have I made my whole argument?
There's no way the government would allow any kind of a tool that would call out the government's propaganda.
There is no way that cannot exist.
They would shut down that company right away.
And they would say, you can't talk about the news because the news has to stay in our propaganda bubble and you can never break our propaganda bubble because the whole country depends on it.
And they would make a strong argument That you can't have an objective referee to news because the fake news is what keeps the country together.
Because it kind of does.
The fake news is bad, but it also keeps the country together.
because we have a common fake news belief about the amazingness of America.
All right.
I don't know if you saw some of the TikTok people who were listening to the Osama bin... or watching the Osama bin Laden manifesto, and they all seemed to say the same thing.
And it was some version of, wait a minute, I'm starting to think America wasn't the good guys.
Have you seen any of the videos?
They all say the same thing.
It's like, uh, it looks like America actually did some really bad things, which is different than justifying a terrorist attack.
But, so what happened?
What happened when lots of American youth learned on TikTok that maybe America Wasn't as virtuous as they thought.
It got taken off the platform.
Right?
China was blamed, and maybe rightly, but maybe wrongly.
Maybe rightly, don't know.
But I'll tell you what did happen.
As soon as our youth got a sniff of the truth, they closed that shit down right away.
The truth is, history is complicated.
And there are no angels on either side.
There's just your side and the other side.
If you're looking for the angel side, you're not going to find it.
Can you find one side that does things your side would never do?
Yeah.
Your side might not do a Hamas-like terror attack.
Yes, that's true.
There's a difference.
And there's a moral difference.
And it's much worse, the terror attack.
But your side's not all angels.
And watching young people learn that maybe they'd been lied to up to that point, because I don't think they were saying they thought the terror attack on 9-11 was a good idea.
I think they said we'd never seen the context before.
So I think that the Osama Bin Laden situation on TikTok is the clearest example you get of why AGI can never be legal.
Because AGI would have told you that story.
Am I wrong?
If you had a completely objective AI that said, explain this whole 9-11 situation.
It would give you the context if it were not trying to give you propaganda.
It would say, well, there were a series of grievances and they couldn't figure out any other way to handle their grievances.
And so they did the worst possible thing, a terror attack, to make sure you understood their grievances.
Now, again, that wouldn't be saying anybody's good or bad.
It would just be describing it.
Do you think that would be legal?
Not a chance.
That can never be legal in any democracy or anywhere else, because it would ruin the government's narrative.
All right.
Henry Cruz says, "Scott used to be able to take both sides.
"Not so much anymore.
I'm literally, you fucking idiot, showing you both sides of an issue.
Literally fucking doing it right in front of you.
Scott doesn't know how to show both sides of an issue.
Like, I really wonder if you're just fucking drunk.
Henry Cruz, he's one of the regular trolls over here.
It sounds drunk.
It does sound drunk.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you on YouTube.
I remind you that for all the lonely people, I will be having a Thanksgiving Day livestream, which you can watch me cook.
The first hour will be family friendly, in case you got any family around who are watching.
So I'll just be cooking in my kitchen.
After that, I might go, you know, man cave only.
So we'll see how it goes.
But first hour, open to everybody.
Join me for Thanksgiving.
It'll just be me and you, and you will not be so lonely.
