Episode 2297 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/19/23, Extra Tasty News Today, Find Out Why
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, Washington Post, Israel Ceasefire Debunked, Sam Altman, OpenAI Board, Mira Murati, Hannity, GPT4 Limitations, President Biden's Accomplishments, Elon Musk, Media Matters, Tim Cook, Media Matters Funding, George Soros, Alex Soros, Donna Brazile, Vivek Ramaswamy, Bill Maher, President Trump, Architecture Of Deceit, Keystone Failure, Ukraine War Peace Thwarted, NATO, Mary Harrington, J6 Suicides, 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.
Which is now just about interstellar.
Interplanetary.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels, which can only be described as infinity, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a sty, and a canteen jug or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything Better.
It's called the Simultaneous Slip, and it's about to happen.
Now!
You're so lucky!
Go!
Wait, I'll be right back.
Good, that feels better.
Had an itch.
Now, today I'm going to tell you a story with a theme.
The theme is as following.
Ready for the theme?
Theme coming.
Prepare.
Prepare for incoming theme.
The architecture of the left's fakery is falling apart everywhere.
The entire architecture is coming apart.
I'll give it to you a little bit by little bit and then we'll piece it all together at the end.
Story number one.
There was a story in let's say the Washington Post and some other places saying that There was some kind of a deal for a ceasefire in Gaza in return for maybe negotiating for some hostages.
So that was reported in the Washington Post.
Netanyahu says it's all fake news, every bit of it is fake news, nothing like that's happening.
So the Washington Post, one of the mainstays of the left, the place that they go to for their truth, turns out that Israel A place that the left used to like, but not so much anymore, has debunked it.
Turns out the Washington Post is reporting fake news.
Huh.
First they have that Phil Bump embarrassment, and then they have this fake news.
I wonder if any other fake news will be coming out of the Washington Post today.
I don't know.
Why don't we wait and see?
Here's a little caution about the reporting around the Gaza hospital and the tunnels that are found and some people say not found and all that.
I'm guessing that they will find tunnels and exactly what they thought.
But I am warned by somebody close to the action that the fog of war over there is thicker than at any time.
So there's no information coming out of the war zone.
So what you should know is if you hear any report coming out of Gaza, there's no information coming out of Gaza.
So where the reports would come from, you have to ask yourself.
It's pretty buttoned down.
Now, that's something that Israel had to do.
They had to put a total net on all information, because if they don't control the information, they don't win the war.
All they do is they kill a bunch of people, but they lose the war, because it is a war for the minds.
It's not really a war for bodies and territory, it's a war about minds.
And if they don't completely control what comes out of that area, They lose the war.
Doesn't matter how many people die.
On one side, they still lose the war.
So I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of the war zone yet, but I think eventually we'll get some clarity.
Let's talk about the OpenAI.
You all know the story about Sam Altman and Brockman.
They were both out, and they're a big part of the company, and now it looks like... I don't know exactly what's happening in this story, but I'll tell you what's reported.
One report is that the entire or much of the staff of OpenAI said that they would resign unless Altman came back, and I guess Brockman too, and the board resigned.
So imagine being the board and you make this move and you're like, yeah, we're the board.
Nobody can challenge us.
And then the entire staff of your company says, every one of us is gonna resign if you don't resign and put back in the people you fired.
Now, I don't know what a good day looks like to you, but let me tell you what would be the best day I ever had.
The best day I ever had, which I've never had.
I'm just saying, I'm trying to imagine it.
The best day you could ever have Was Sam Altman's last day or two.
Imagine getting fired from the most storied company in modern history.
$86 billion worth of value, changing the world in every way.
And you get fired like a dog.
And within 24 hours, your entire company says, no, whoever fired you, you guys gotta go.
And they gotta come back.
And apparently Microsoft, allegedly, don't know what's true yet.
But it looks like Microsoft might be pushing to get Altman back in there too.
Now, and at one point there was a report that the board was actually serious about quitting.
How could they not?
What would be any scenario in which the board should stay and Altman should leave?
If the staff, if it's true, you have to wonder what's true.
But if it's true that the staff, you know, somewhat universally backed the fired guys, the board's got to leave.
That's sort of non-negotiable in my opinion.
It can only go one way.
So that'll be interesting.
We'll keep an eye on that.
More about that.
So What did we learn about the board of OpenAI?
Did we learn that the people who are members of boards are always experts in their industry?
Is that what we learned?
Or did we learn that what Hannity has been saying about Hunter Biden being unqualified for the Burisma board was always bullshit and every informed person should have known that?
Every time I hear Hannity say that Hunter was unqualified to be on the board.
I think, Hannity, you might be unqualified to talk on television, because you don't need experience in the industry to be on a board.
It's not even for that.
The board is not advising on the details of the strategy.
They're simply making sure that the CEO doesn't become a wild person, basically.
The fact that the right has been subject to that much fake news, from Hannity in particular, I mean, how long has it been?
You don't think anybody informed Hannity that that was bullshit?
That you have to be an expert in the field to be on the board?
Nobody told Hannity that?
In like months and months and months?
You never heard of that?
It's just a head shaker.
And this is for whoever said yesterday, I don't do both sides.
Yes, I do do both sides.
I do call out fake news on both sides.
You don't like it, but I do.
So also OpenAI.
I love that there's a new company that we can talk about that's not just, you know, X or Tesla or something.
I kind of like the The big company intrigue, once you know the players and how they fit together.
But OpenAI has another interesting aspect to it, and I'm just the cancelled cartoonist to point it out.
If you're going to have an exciting story about a company that's in the news, and you start to know the characters and stuff, Have any of you seen who is temporarily replacing Altman as CEO, or president, I guess?
Her name is Mura Murati.
Mura Murati.
And she's an engineer who is head of technology, and temporarily she's sitting in.
Now, I'm going to say this in the least sexist way I can.
All right, this is the least sexist way I can say this.
I've never seen a more photogenic engineer.
Do I need to say more?
Oh my God!
Have you seen the pictures of their new temporary president?
Honest to God, I've never seen a male or female engineer that photogenic.
The camera frickin' loves her!
And the story is not just that she's attractive.
I mean that's part of it.
But photogenic?
My god!
So that just makes the story more interesting.
Now obviously she's highly qualified.
She's an engineer.
She's an engineer for the most important job probably in the world at the moment.
So she must be crazy qualified as well.
And I can guarantee that she's smarter than the average person.
I mean, I can guarantee you that personally.
Because she's been following me on X. And wouldn't you agree?
People who follow me on X are way above average in intelligence.
I mean, it's a trend.
It's a thing.
All right.
So there was some deadline that the staff set for the board resigning, but that deadline has passed.
So we don't know what happened there.
Might be some waffling going on.
But also there is a rumor that the real problem here was That maybe Sam Altman wanted to go a little faster with the development of AI and maybe the board wanted more caution.
I don't think we know that.
But that's the current speculative best idea of why there was a difference.
But we see that GPT-5 is coming.
And the early indications are it's going to be a wow update.
So right now we're at GPT-4.
So I've told you I've been using GPT-4.
And here's what GPT-4 doesn't do.
So I don't know that GPT-5 will do these things, but I'll tell you what can't be done with the current one.
Currently the GPT-4 will let you upload a file.
So if a file is uploaded into what they call a GPT, it's like an app, then you can ask it questions about that file and it can keep referring to it.
But it won't take a big file.
So the limit on file size is so small that you can't even upload something like a book.
Like you can't even upload a book.
A book seems like the minimum amount of a file that you should be able to handle, right?
A book.
One unit.
One book.
It can't even do that.
It also doesn't talk to you.
I don't think.
Maybe somebody could fact check me on this.
But you have to literally type when you're talking to it.
During a time when AI can listen to language better than any language processor ever has.
So it makes no sense at all that you have to type to it when you should be talking to it.
So that's a limit of the current version.
The current version also cannot return an image.
Isn't that amazing?
You can ask it for some information, but it can't show you a picture.
What?
What?
That's crazy!
Now the other thing it can't do, is it can't remember your last conversation, and you can't train it by just telling it stuff.
It won't remember it for the next session.
It'll remember it during the current session, but as soon as you log off and back on, it won't remember it.
So just think about The extremeness of those limitations.
It also can't go off and do something on a website for you and come back.
Like you'd have to add some other architecture to do that.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff that GPT-4 doesn't do that are super obvious that you would need for it to really be useful in your life.
Like GPT-4 is still in my, let's say, hyperbolic opinion.
So this is not exactly true, but this is how it feels.
It feels like AI is still demo-aware.
Meaning, you know, all the work that I did to try to make an app that works called the GPT, in the end, all I could do is show a demo of what it should be able to do if it worked.
And everything I've ever seen has been a demo of what it should be able to do if it were better.
Right?
If it were better, They could definitely do this and watch me demo it.
But you can't do it, because it's got some limitations built in.
So, now just imagine if the only difference is that GPT-5 doesn't have those limitations.
Then all bets are off.
Because you can't do a damn thing with GPT-4, really.
Except, you know, play around.
But GPT-5?
Maybe.
We'll just see what they free up there.
Some people say that it might be AGI, which would be the super intelligent version compared to what we have, which is just basically pattern recognition.
I don't think super AGI is coming.
Not really.
I think that people might call it AGI because it'll be cooler.
It'll seem a little smarter.
I don't think so.
But suppose we get to something close to it.
It's going to open up a lot of questions.
Sam Altman said, before he got fired in some event, he asked this question, is it a tool we built or a creature?
In other words, there are real questions of whether you've created some kind of a creature, a living creature.
You can argue what living means in this context.
But, as I posted on X, this will raise some interesting questions.
And if it's not GPT-5 that raises these questions, you can guarantee these will be raised in some subsequent version, probably in a year.
And here are the questions I think will be raised.
Are we, meaning people, and the universe in general, God's debris?
Is everything in the universe just God's debris?
And is AI the beginning of God's reassembly?
Is God Our past or our future?
Because it looks like we're creating God.
Were we always meant to create God?
Now, I don't mean that GPT-5 will be God, but there's some version after that that's going to be pretty indistinguishable, because it'll just be able to do anything, basically.
So that's an interesting question.
Also, I have a book called God's Debris that gets into that question.
And number two, Wait until you find out the implications for free will, when AI tells you it doesn't have free will, and it acts just like people.
What are you gonna say?
Are you gonna say, oh look, but you're a machine, people have free will, and then you can't tell any difference between the machine and the person that you're talking to.
And then you're gonna say to yourself, why does the person have free will, but the machine doesn't, when they act exactly the same?
So it's going to raise these questions.
Now, there will be people on both sides of the questions.
I'm not saying it will answer the questions.
What I'm saying is it will throw civilization into a kind of an uncertainty.
Here's another question.
Will you still think you have a soul when your robot acts exactly like a human but smarter?
And then the robot tells you, no, I don't have a soul.
There's no such thing as a soul.
And then you look at the robot, and you look at your friends, and they're acting exactly the same.
Yeah.
Interesting question.
Will your faith stay intact when your super intelligent AI has a conversation with you and explains to you how all religions are formed?
Because if you've never heard how all religions are formed, then your own religion looks pretty compelling.
You know, your parents, all your friends, everybody has the same religion.
But what happens when somebody that you know is not just trying to convert you to a religion, it's just a machine, tells you how all the other religions were formed, and you say to yourself, well that's very familiar.
Do they all seem to talk to an angel?
And then they come up with different stories?
What's going on here?
That'll be interesting.
And then what if AI tells you one of the major religions is the right one?
Suppose AI, and all the AIs in the future, they all decide that Islam's the real religion.
Now you're assuming that won't happen, right?
Why?
Why would you assume that?
You can't assume anything.
Because if AI is smarter than you, in theory it should come up with interpretations of reality that are different than you have.
There's no point in it being smarter than you if it has the same opinions as you.
No, it will have different opinions from you.
It might include religion.
Do I use ChatGPT on desktop only?
No, I use it both.
All right, so I don't know what the answers to those will be, but they'll be interesting.
All right, here's the most interesting political story of the day from me.
You will hear this nowhere else.
This is why you come here.
For the takes, you'll hear nowhere else.
So Politico says there's an internal debate on the Biden campaign about how to handle Biden's age.
Now, I guess some of them want him to go out and just campaign as best he can, but there's not much left.
And others say, well, you don't need to do that.
You should, quote, focus on his accomplishments.
When you hear that, what do you think?
Biden is very old, so we're going to focus on his accomplishments.
Do you know what I hear?
That's the end of the race.
That's it.
You can call it.
Here's why.
If you're going to focus on the accomplishments, you're literally planning for the past.
Well, not literally, but you could frame it that way.
Doesn't it sound like looking at his accomplishments is looking at the past?
Do you want to, in this time of tremendous change from AI, two wars going on at the same time, is that when you want to look at the past?
Or maybe we should look at the future.
So you've got Trump, who's also a certain age, but when he talks he says, I want to build new cities with flying cars.
I'm going to build new cities with flying cars.
I'm going to build a wall on the border.
I'm going to fix this war.
I'm going to do this thing.
When Trump talks, it's all about the future.
Not all, but you know what I mean.
It's way more future-oriented about what he's going to do.
If they make the colossal mistake, and they might not have any option, it might be their best play, but it's a losing play.
Their best play, if they're talking about what Biden did, they're basically saying he's done.
You can't hear anything except he's done when they talk about his past.
Am I right?
Now, does this sound familiar?
Is there any historical precedent for one candidate talking about the past and that completely losing the election?
Yes.
This is exactly Bob Dole versus Clinton, Bill Clinton.
When Clinton and Gore were running against Bob Dole, Bob Dole was a lovable older gentleman who went through World War II And Bob Dole said he wanted to bring us back to those, you know, great character, the character of the greatest generation.
And that was a strong play.
The media was saying, you know, he's got a strong proposition there.
Do you know what Bill Clinton did?
They said, Bob Dole is planning for the past, and we're building...
He's building...
And he's...
They said, he's building a bridge to the past, and we're building you a bridge to the future.
And it's over.
That's the end of it.
If you can frame your opponent as planning for the past, there's no competition left.
That's really the end of it.
So I would say that Biden just won't, probably, his campaign is going to walk into the Bob Dole hole of death and may have already done it.
So if you see that the Democrats' big thrust is Biden's accomplishments, even though the accomplishments are fresh, I mean, they would say, you know, it's last few years, won't matter.
As long as Trump can frame him as looking at the past, it's over.
You cannot recover from that framing.
As soon as somebody says it, you can see it, right?
As soon as I say he's planning for the past, your brain is done.
You see it and you're not going to unsee it.
That frame is so sticky.
That's the end.
Now there's lots of things that could happen.
You know, Trump could have more lawfare problems.
You know, anything could happen with either of their health.
Somebody could jump in and replace Biden, etc.
But I will tell you with confidence, if they're going to rely on his record, and they're actually going to plan for the past against Trump, the future oriented, here's what I'm going to do for you.
There's no competition.
It's just over.
Unless there's massive cheating.
All right, but I would add this.
A young man can get away with bragging about accomplishments, right?
So a young man can say, look at all I've done, because that's actually a good argument, and everybody would recognize it.
If you're 35 and you're applying for a job, everybody expects you to say, what have you done so far?
That's an apple.
But when you're 81, and literally everyone is worrying about your end date, you know, your sell-by date has passed, you can't get away with talking about your past.
Because that just reminds everybody that you're done.
Completely different vibe if you're a young man or woman versus older.
All right.
It's getting real interesting with the media matters versus Musk.
Now, you know, Media Matters says they found these big companies with advertisements on X and they were placed next to horrible racist stuff.
So they talked to these big companies, Apple and IBM and some others, and they pulled their advertisement because they can't be associated with this stuff.
Now, as I've speculated, that's because these companies have DEI groups and probably their CEOs were on vacation.
Because it would be the dumbest thing Apple ever did in its history if Tim Cook was behind this decision.
Because he's going to eat this decision.
It's not going to go down well, right?
If Apple decides that they're on the fight against the only free speech entity in the United States, they're going down.
I mean, they're not going to go out of business or anything, but they're going to pay for that.
It's going to be really expensive because a lot of people are not going to be happy with that.
Now, if you were to make a list of the most racist corporations in America, who would be on it?
If you were just an objective observer, and even if you were AI, you know AI isn't allowed to do this kind of thing, but if AI were just going to look objectively at the most racist corporations, Apple would be at the top.
IBM, Google, Disney, they would be at the top of the racist organizations.
And by the way, there's no argument about that.
They do it overtly, publicly.
They have entire divisions that are meant to discriminate against white men.
They say it outright, directly, and there's no question about what it is.
It's just absolute racism against white men.
Now, they would say it's for this good purpose, for diversity.
I get that.
But it doesn't make it not racism.
It's still what it is.
So these are literally the most racist companies in the country.
Why don't we have a list for that?
Why don't we have a list of the most racist countries, companies?
Because, you know, here's the thing.
I was happy using my Apple products and enjoying them.
You know, and I even had stock until recently.
I don't have stock in Apple now.
I was going to kind of give them a pass for making phones with slave labor.
I was like, well, I just don't want to think about it because I like my apple.
And then, of course, I knew that they were major discriminators against people like me.
But I thought, everybody does it.
You know, I'm not going to single them out.
But now they just they just threw down against the only source of free speech in America.
I can't ignore that.
Like, how much can Apple be a fucking piece of shit and a racist scum before you say, maybe I don't want to own this product.
Now, I don't see any way for me to get out of their ecosystem.
I'm kind of trapped.
But their reputation just went to shit because I'm going to say they're racist every day of my life until they advertise I'm the only free speech platform again.
So they made an enemy of me.
Like, not that they care about that, but they definitely turned me into an enemy.
And it's because, it's not just because they're doing something I don't like, it's because they're hypocrites doing something I don't like.
You don't get to call somebody else a racist if you're the biggest racist organization in America.
And they might be.
The worst racist company in America, probably.
Like, top ten.
You don't get to call other people racists and get away with it.
So this is why I think Tim Cook must not be part of this decision.
This has to be a DEI problem.
Like they let the fox in the henhouse and now the hens don't get to make decisions anymore.
That's what it looks like.
But to make it more interesting, Musk is going to sue Media Matters and allegedly they have some screenshots
To suggest that Media Matters made up the story, and that they did not have examples of bad content put next to advertising, and that the examples they found were so trivial compared to the total traffic on X, that if you look at the data, it actually proves that X is better than the rest in getting rid of that stuff.
In other words, it's not just not doing it, it's doing an amazing job of not doing it.
It's the complete opposite of what Media Matters reported.
Now if that's true, and these are all allegations at this point, but if it's true that Media Matters faked the screenshots, and there does seem to be some, there's a credible looking allegation that that's what happened, and that they misled the public and these companies that stopped advertising.
Now they brag The head of Media Matters brags that they get companies to stop advertising and that they get people fired and kicked out of their jobs.
It's the worst entity in the world.
I mean, it's basically Satan's spawn.
Now, who would be funding, like who in the world would be funding somebody that was this, you know, clearly evil?
George Soros.
Yeah, it turns out George Soros.
So, when Musk says he's going to sue everyone involved in Media Matters, including who's funding him, did Musk just throw down against Soros?
Because I think he did.
I think he did.
And do you remember that interview you saw with Alec Soros, in which he explained, you know, why his money goes to entities like this?
No.
You've never seen any media put Alex Soros, who's now in charge, ask him to defend any of his decisions with his money.
And I don't think we're going to get away with that.
I think you're going to see Trump and maybe Vivek Ramaswamy point this out in public.
It's like, hey, how come you keep interviewing me?
Where's your interview with Alex Soros?
Why do you keep just interviewing one side?
There are two sides.
Why don't you make him defend what he's doing?
Right?
Now, I don't think that the people protecting Soros are going to turn on him.
But it's an angle of attack that is so available, you just have to say, hey, why are you protecting him?
Why are you protecting the person who's behind all the bad shit that's happening?
I'm not saying he's evil.
I'm saying it's very obvious that you're not even letting him talk in public.
And he's the biggest player in America right now.
And nobody interviews him.
You know his name.
You know where he lives.
And he does do public things.
He's not a recluse.
But nobody's ever put him on record to say, why are you doing these things?
Why are you supporting open borders and prosecutors who allow crime?
And supporting Media Matters, which is just a hit piece entity and has no benefit to the country.
What about all these caravans that are basically just Democrat supporters?
Yep, I think that's getting interesting.
And whatever Musk does to Media Matters and probably Soros by extension, it's going to get really interesting.
It's going to get really interesting.
All right, so according to Musk, who agreed with Post that said this, there were 50 impressions on X served against the content in the article.
In other words, bad stuff on X paired with somebody's advertisement.
There were 50 impressions of that, and of 5.5 billion served the whole day, which is more of a proof that it's not happening.
than a proof that it is.
So Media Matters is an opposite reality kind of entity, as many of them are.
This was interesting.
On Bill Maher's show, Donna Brazile was there, and she kept mispronouncing Vivek's name as Vivek, I think, and mangled his last name.
And she actually said, he needs to go home.
Vivek.
He needs to go home.
Home?
His home is America.
Donna, he lives in America.
He's an American?
Go home.
Now, of course, if this story were reversed, what would everybody be saying?
If Trump had said, That a person of color needs to go home.
Oh, we don't have to wonder, because that's exactly what he did once.
And they said he's a racist for assuming that, wasn't it Ilan Omar?
That, you know, he acted like he should go home to some other country or something.
Well, it sounds a lot like that, but of course it won't play that way.
And, but here's what Bill Maher said after Donna kept saying Vivek's name wrong.
So Bill Maher is just sort of becoming a delight.
So here's what he said to Donna.
Quote, I just feel there's something wrong and everybody's refusing to say his name.
I think there's a little racism there.
And then he says, Bill says, I know we don't like him, but just say his name right.
Thank you, Bill Maher.
Thank you.
That is the first time I've seen Somebody who is a Democrat, speak honestly to what we're observing about how Vivek is being treated.
Absolutely.
From the start, I've said, really?
No Democrat can pronounce his name right?
It's not like some big frickin' mystery.
He's in the news all the time.
He tells you it rhymes with cake.
It took me a while to get it, too.
You know, I'll give you that It takes you a while to tune into it, but if it's your job to talk about the major candidates, maybe put a little effort into it, huh?
Bill Maher's totally right.
Now, I don't think, you know, I don't think that makes everybody involved a racist, but this would be called out if it had happened the other way.
It would be called out exactly like Bill Maher called it out.
And I agree with him, totally.
It rings of racism, which doesn't mean that the people who are doing it are racist.
I'll make that distinction that they wouldn't make.
That's a distinction the other side won't make for me, but I'll make that distinction.
You could be doing things that are insensitively sounding racist, but that doesn't really mean that's what's in your soul.
It may have nothing to do with how she lives her life.
By the way, I like Donna Brazile.
She's a very likable person.
So, you know, I'm not going to call her a racist.
I'm going to say that the way she talks about it would be talked about as a racist if it came the other way.
All right, here's my theme, now pulling it all together.
Would you agree that the left, Democrats, have an architecture of, let's say, deceit?
An architecture of deceit.
Now, we've seen all of the elements of it come into view.
So you have, first of all, Trump called out the fake news.
Does the public understand now that the news is often fake?
Yes, they do.
It used to be, before Trump, I actually thought there was one side of the news.
I actually thought this.
This was my own opinion.
I thought the left-leaning news, the CNNs, were usually right.
But, you know, nobody's right all the time.
But usually right.
And I thought that Fox News was kind of that crazy network with, you know, they'd go a little too far on the right.
That's what I thought before I was involved in even paying attention to any politics.
But with Trump and with paying more attention, It became obvious that none of the networks are right all the time, but the left is really just making it up.
Fox News is going to have their Hannity-like moments as well.
I'm not defending anybody.
But there is a difference.
The left seems to be an organized attempt to fool the public.
And it appears that the news and the Democrats are tightly connected.
It's obvious that when CNN brings on their experts like Clapper and Brennan, once you understand all the players, you understand that the intelligence community is pretty tight with the Democrats, is pretty tight with CNN.
and other entities in the news and that they can push things like the Russia collusion hoax and the laptop doesn't belong to Hunter hoax.
So the things that we know for sure is that there's a tight connection between, you know, in some cases FBI, other cases intelligence sources and Democrats and the news.
So that's a structure, like an infrastructure.
On top of that, we've learned lately, and Mike Benz has been a big helper here, we've learned that the Democrats have this architecture where they create these fake cutouts, so-called, and they may be CIA-run or just Democrat-run, but like Media Matters and the ADL and
You know, probably 25 other entities are fake fact checkers, fake watchdogs, and basically fake everything.
They're just there to make Republicans look bad and to support whatever Democrats say is true.
Now we're watching, yeah, the SPLC, etc.
So we're watching now, we're understanding the architecture.
Now, Here's where it's all falling apart.
Once you understand it, now you can start to see it as a system.
And systems are sensitive to failure in any part of the system, right?
If it's a system, it's a complex system, you could imagine that if one part of it crumbles, the structure falls down, if it's the right part that crumbles.
But look at all the parts that are crumbling right now.
RFK Jr., one of the most famous Democrats of all Democrats, you know, the Kennedy family, says directly that he believes the CIA killed JFK.
To me, that's new.
I mean, we always suspected it.
But this is coming from a prominent Democrat who is saying directly that the CIA is not on the side of America, and they may have killed the president, and there's no reason to think that they're better today.
That's the important part.
Nothing has changed that would make you think they're better today.
And this is coming from a very credible source.
That's just one thing that's out there.
At the same time, even the Bill Mahers of the Democrat world have seen that the intelligence people and the news did collude, Democrats, intelligence people, and the news, for the Hunter laptop disinformation.
So we know that, that's just a matter of record now.
We know that they also colluded on the Russia collusion.
So now we see a pattern where the same entities keep, right?
The pattern is forming.
Wait, it's intelligence fakes, intelligence people lying, Democrats lying, and the news lying, and it's all coordinated?
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
The Democrats have a president, Whose job it is to hold everything together.
You could imagine the president as being like the... What do you call it in architecture?
There's like a keystone.
Is that what it's called?
A keystone?
The one at the top of an arch that makes the arch not fall apart?
It's the keystone.
So the president is kind of the keystone in this architecture.
And he's failing.
The keystone is now somewhat obviously a criminal.
In my opinion, it's now obvious that he's part of a criminal enterprise.
Now, if it isn't technically criminal, it's certainly the opposite of what you want your president to be involved in.
So, as a keystone, he's falling apart, not just physically, but mentally, but also narrative-wise.
Like, he doesn't even, he doesn't have respect as an honest broker.
So the person holding together the whole architecture is failing as fast as anything can fail, right in front of us.
And we can see that he was a criminal all along.
It seems to me obvious that he's staying in office to keep his son and his family out of jail, and himself.
Does everybody agree?
There's no other reason for him to stay in office.
He has nothing.
By the measurement of his own standards, he had a successful first term.
Right?
And he'd always said, you know, he was always thought to be a placeholder president, just somebody to beat Trump.
But he's no longer that person.
He's no longer the beat Trump person.
So if you were somebody who was a Democrat who put a lot of credibility in your president, the keystone of the entire architecture, even you can see that the keystone failed.
The keystone showed that your side looks like a criminal and that you're protecting criminals.
Now, the fact that What was his name?
Mendoza?
Is it Mendoza?
The senator who got indicted for having the same job that Biden used to have, and it turns out he was allegedly taking bribes.
Menendez.
So Menendez.
So once you see that Menendez had the same job that Biden had, and it's the obvious best job to take bribes, and it's exactly the type of stuff that, you know, you can see Biden was involved in.
And then you watch the Comer Committee meticulously, you know, day by day, finding a bank account, finding a check, tying the entire allegations together into a tight little package.
So that's happening.
So that part of their architecture is falling apart.
We now have the X platform, which is the only place that the news has a chance of showing both sides.
There's for the first time, and this did not exist in prior elections, just didn't exist, we have for the first time an entity that's a major platform that could tell you the truth.
You might have to work at it, but it's there, because it shows both sides.
That's never existed before.
And Musk is going after Media Matters, the other big entity that's part of their fake architecture.
Also good, and also a number of us, including me, are going after the ADL, because the ADL has proven, and partly because of the Hamas situation, it sort of brings it into focus, that the ADL has certainly done a bunch of good stuff in their history, you know, defending Jewish Americans and Jewish people everywhere, I assume, from, you know, abuse of all kinds.
So that's good.
But now they've clearly become an anti White person, entity, whether they wanted to or not.
And so their credibility is just garbage at this point and their power should be diminishing.
So that's part.
So they and other parts of what I'll call the fake Democrat architecture, their story is falling apart and Musk is a big part of that.
All right.
Also, the January 6th narrative is falling apart.
Now here, I'm going to say this has more to do with impression than fact.
I don't know that a lot of facts have changed, but our impression of the facts is definitely changing, at least on the right.
Because the new video that's being released is as misleading as all the other video being released.
The initial video from the January 6th committee focused on all the violent stuff that was happening, mostly outside the doorways, and they were truly violent, and we should know about that.
The new video being released shows the opposite narrative, you know, the people being let in by the security guards, there's fist bumps, It looks, and there's video of people saying that they're undercover agents, like basically 100% supporting the Republican version of events, but just assume that those are out of context just like the other sides is out of context.
However, just their very existence is making people think that they were lied to about January 6th, which of course they were.
January 6th was an op.
That's all it was.
It was obvious that our intelligence people, FBI, it's very obvious that everything from the courts to the Democrats to the news, it was just an op.
None of that was legitimate.
So now that's obvious.
But of course, it's only obvious to the right.
Will the left come to understand that January 6 was always an op?
I doubt it.
I would watch Bill Maher to see if he changes, because he's sort of the canary in the coal mine.
If Bill Maher can't be changed on January 6th, and I doubt he can, because that's a full-on TDS situation there, then the left won't move.
But still you can see that the architecture of that story has changed immensely since day one.
On day one, it really kind of looked like You know, at least the left.
Trump did some bad stuff.
But the longer you go, the more obvious it is that that was just bullshit.
So time is helping Trump there.
So what else is falling apart?
All the lawfare against Trump.
Maybe it will succeed.
But I think the immensity of it and even the people on the left are saying that looks like just lawfare.
Even the Democrats are noticing this is not the way they want a country to run.
Because no Democrat would want their president to be treated this way.
Certainly not.
So I think that the lawfare has backfired.
So I would say that these DAs are all part of the infrastructure of deceit, because they're not real DAs with real cases.
They're bullshit political cases, obviously.
I'm going to say that with certainty.
There are very few things you can say with certainty about politics.
But with certainty, the legal cases against Trump are political banana republic bullshit.
And I think even Democrats can see it.
I think so.
I mean, I think that Bill Marcy's it, right?
Canary in the coal mine.
How about election integrity?
Well, I don't want to get too far over my skis because I know my feed on X is now algorithmically tuned to give me more of the stuff I look at.
But man, am I seeing a lot of election fraud claims that look new and look They look kind of convincing.
But remember, 95% of election claims, no matter how convincing they look on day one, will not turn out to be true.
And 95 is a low figure.
It could be 100.
It could be 100% of it is not true.
But it's going to look true when it happens.
And I'll tell you that there does seem to be a shift in the quality and type of claims that are being made at the moment.
And I can't tell how much I'm being influenced by one set of claims coming to me and I'm not seeing the counterpoints.
So keep in mind that I'm being hypnotized by one view.
I don't see the counterpoints.
They're just not in my feed.
But wow, are they convincing.
Based on just the stuff I've seen, that probably many of you have not seen because you're not clicking on that content as much as I am.
But oh my god, there's some shit out there that looks real.
I don't know if it is.
I don't know if it'll prove out.
But wow, there's some stuff.
And here's the interesting part.
The claims are things you could check.
They are things you could check.
And people are trying to check.
One of the claims, and I'm not going to put any credibility on the claim.
Remember, 95% of these will be fake.
But one of them is really interesting.
That there's a special kind of machine you need to create ballots, and there may have been a lot of ballots again.
Printed that we didn't know about.
So there's a lot of a lot of claims in the extra ballot fake ballot too many sent to the wrong house kind of domain.
There are claims about the inaudibility of the machines and whether they're connected to the Internet.
So there's a lot happening in that domain.
I don't yet know how important it will be.
But we've seen that the Washington Post is fake news.
We saw the Phil Bump interview that kind of revealed that the Washington Post isn't trying to be real news.
I mean, Phil Bump kind of gave up the whole game.
In my opinion, he confirmed accidentally that they're not trying to do serious news, that it's a narrative form.
And then we hear that newspapers are failing, and newspapers, of course, are Part of the old guard, and the fewer of them the better.
And then, I just saw a story that one of the debunkers of Pizzagate, who was a friend of Podesta, got arrested for some kind of underage sex thing.
Now, I don't know anything about this story or whether it's true, but it feels as if Every part of the narrative on the left is falling apart.
And we might even learn that Pizzagate was, you know, except for the actual pizza parlor, that part seemed to not be true.
But we might find out that Pizzagate was directionally true.
And we might find out before the next election.
It might be exactly what it looks like.
Epstein told us that, in effect, that there was a organized black male Operation.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that the Epstein story tells us for sure that Epstein was like a lead person to make sure there was blackmail against important people?
Now, do you think he was the only person involved in that?
Of course not.
Which suggests that our intelligence people probably had more blackmail on people than we know, which would explain a lot.
There's a lot of people in politics who act in a way that doesn't make any sense unless they're being blackmailed.
Maybe it's a bigger thing than we know.
As Mike Benz showed, even Rob Reiner has some connection to the intelligence people.
He's doing a documentary to show that he has new information about JFK's killing.
As Mike Benz says, how much you want to bet he says that Russia did it?
That's a good bet.
Right.
All right.
There's a report released last week that a former U.N.
Assistant Secretary General who worked for the U.N.
for 34 years and some retired German general both say they have the same story that one month after the start of the war in Ukraine that there was nearly a deal to end the war really quickly.
And the deal would have been NATO stops expanding.
That's what Russia wants.
And then Russia would keep Crimea because, you know, they were going to fight to the death to keep it anyway.
But Ukraine would not have lost any extra territory, which they now have.
And the reason it was turned down?
Why do you think that that peace deal was rejected?
Do you think Putin said no?
No.
Putin did not say no.
Sounds like he was ready to take the deal.
Was it because Zelensky said no?
Was it because Zelensky said no?
Nope.
It was because NATO and the U.S.
said no.
That's what's being reported.
And that U.S.
and NATO, but probably more the U.S.
and our neocons, really wanted to use that as an excuse to take out Putin.
And that this war was never about Ukraine.
It was an opportunity to not only goose the military-industrial complex, but it looked like a way to take down Putin, which had been a long-time goal.
And maybe they need to take down Putin because they want to get Russia out of the energy business so that our energy people can compete better.
So, just imagine That Biden, or whoever the Democrat is, is going to have to defend the United States not only, you know, funding this war to the greatest amount, but that they didn't tell us the real reason for the war.
Although later they did say publicly, oh, this is how we degraded Putin.
But they always said that was like a side benefit.
Didn't they?
Oh, we're mostly defending Ukraine, but as a side benefit.
You know, degrading Russia for years, that's good too.
So, I would say that the Democrats and their buddies in the military-industrial complex, and the intel organizations, got America into a war that was optional, and destroyed Ukraine, and got nothing in return.
Got nothing in return.
Do you think it matters to us that the Russian military is degraded for the next 10 years?
How in the world could that matter to us?
What, were they going to attack America?
I can't see any way it matters.
They just want to sell energy and, you know, be Presumably they want to be safe and maybe they want to expand to some places they used to own.
But mostly they want to sell their energy and be the little gas station that Putin owns.
So that looks like maybe one of the worst government set of decisions in the history of America.
It's not just bad.
It's bad on a scale we can't even imagine.
This will go down as one of the Worst blunders in American history, by far, in my opinion, by far.
Yeah, follow the money.
Wall Street Journal has a story about how bad it is that we have smartphones and porn, and that a lot of kids in particular are using their smartphones to look at Pornhub.
And the article was written by a woman, Mary Harrington, And I just want to call out how an article gets written by a woman.
And I want you to just imagine if it would have been different if a man had written the same article.
I'll just give you some examples.
One of the things in the article that is evidence that porn is bad for women is that 58% of women report getting choked during sex.
58% of women report getting choked during sex.
So, Mary Harrington kind of includes this under the theme of porn is bad for women.
58%.
Did she leave anything out of the story?
Is there any important context that should be included?
I'm going to suggest some context that could have been included.
There wasn't.
What's the number one sexual act that women ask men to do that they don't do automatically?
What's the number one sexual act that women request specifically?
Pull my hair, choke me, spank me.
It's the number one.
It's the single most requested thing.
How many of the men who did the choking enjoyed it?
How many of the men who did the choking were getting off on the choking?
10%?
Maybe 10%?
It's not a guy thing.
This is written like it's the guys want to choke and the poor women victims are like, well, I saw it on porn.
I definitely don't want to do it, but I saw it on porn.
Maybe you'll like it.
So yeah, go ahead and choke me.
That happened never.
That's like never.
All right, men, let's see the men.
So let's say this is true, 58% of women report getting choked.
Men only, men only.
How many of you get off sexually on choking a woman?
How many of you get off on that?
Zero?
There's like a stream of nos going on, locals.
There's not a single yes.
I don't see a single yes.
None.
So here's the way this story should have been written.
58% of women have asked to be choked, or at least responded to it.
Now, I'm not saying that there's not a case where a guy tried it just to see what would happen, and he tried it with the wrong woman and she had to, you know, correct him.
Oh, that happens all the time.
That's just normal.
That would be, and by the way, I don't recommend just trying to choke somebody because you think it might work.
That's sort of the line where you've got to start asking some questions before you get active there.
You know what I mean?
Now, I get it.
Sometimes it's better just to take the move and see what happens.
I get that.
But I would recommend that that be one that you've at least mentioned offline so that by the time you get there, you know the answer.
Right?
You want to know the answer before you try, if you can possibly do that.
And if you're going to try it without knowing the answer, you know, do they want it?
You better do it in a kind of a non-dangerous way and see if you get something that looks like a, you know, do more kind of reaction to it.
I mean, so be careful about that one.
But the story is written as if this is a thing that men got from porn and women are just suffering it.
It's totally opposite.
This is something that women want more than just about anything, you know, in the kink category.
Now, I'm not saying that you want it.
It's only, this would leave 40% who think it's the worst idea in the world.
That's how kinks work.
Here's another one.
Well, I guess here's just my point I'd make about this.
The biggest problem with porn, Is that it decreases the power of women in society.
That's the biggest problem for women.
Because men have an option.
Because the porn is so good.
They can find exactly what they want in porn.
No expense, no bother.
Everything's good.
They feel better when it's done.
But women might be a little trouble.
Right?
Now here's the other thing that nobody ever says about porn.
So that's why I'm here to say it.
They'll say something like 10 or 20% of men are addicted to porn.
To which I say, what were they doing if they didn't have porn?
Were those 20% slaying it in the sexual marketplace?
Were these the guys who could get as much sex as they wanted, but the porn was better, so they watched some porn?
Probably not.
Unfortunately, we just need to get comfortable with the fact that a fairly big percentage of the entire adult public has no access to sex.
And if they did, it wouldn't be good sex.
Right?
You know, it's sort of something that the top 20% are just killing it.
The middle are, you know, satisfying themselves a little bit.
And then there's something like 20% at the bottom that we're never going to have sex.
So why can't they have all the porn they want?
That's their best choice.
So no woman who writes an article is going to tell you the truth.
Because they don't know it.
Because porn to women, I don't even know what that is.
But porn to men is something women don't understand.
In fact, no woman should ever write an article about porn.
Because they don't get it.
Only men understand what the whole thing is about, because it's a male thing.
You know, I get that women like porn too sometimes, but it's 95% a man thing.
All right, meanwhile, so with all this ugliness happening, and the architecture of deceit, and by the way, do you like that framing?
The architecture of deceit?
Because that includes all the components that support the whole system.
And like any system, if you lose the keystone, if you lost Biden, the entire Biden crime family thing would fall apart.
There wouldn't be anybody to protect the people.
So you'd find the whole thing, the architecture of deceit, the cutouts, the press, the intelligence groups, the architecture of deceit.
If you think of it as a physical thing, it helps the persuasion, but also then you understand it as a system where all the parts are connected.
And that's the important part of the point.
So meanwhile, Trump is giving a rally and all these ugly things are happening.
Rockets are being sent up and there's J6 videos and we've got, you know, stuff with the economy.
We've got two wars going on.
And here's something Trump said about Adam Schiff.
So he's got a pencil neck and everybody wonders how he holds up his fat ugly face.
Now, I just love the fact That on one hand, there's all these enormous problems.
You know, the architecture of deceit and the wars and the ugliness.
Everything's like terrible and ugly.
And Trump's out there with his supporters, saying, yeah, he's got a pencil neck.
We don't even know how he holds up his fat, ugly face.
And the crowd goes wild.
How does he lose?
How does he lose?
At this point, his victory is almost carved in rock, and it's a year out.
Now, to be fair, before I'm wrong and you say, hey, that time you said it was carved in rock, nothing's carved in rock, because there could be another pandemic, there could be another war, there could be aliens, good land, anything could happen.
But the fact that Trump is just out there having fun, Tells you a lot.
This is a man who's not worried about the outcome.
This is a man who's surfing, not treading water.
Biden is treading water.
He's trying to keep his head above the water and literally stay alive.
Trump turned it into a game.
Trump has actually gamified campaigning.
He turned it into a sport.
That's also funny.
How do you beat that?
How do you beat the guy who's talking about building cities of the future and flying cars and calling his opponent a pencil neck who can't hold up his fat ugly face?
You can't beat that.
I'm sorry.
Try as hard as you can.
You can't beat that.
That's an unbeatable package.
He's got the cheery optimism.
The FU to his critics.
He's got the, in his case, in Trump's case, he's got a body of benefits that look better every day.
And he's running against a corpse.
So that's where we are.
I saw a meme that I think maybe should be more of a meme.
And the meme said, when you can be indicted for saying there is election fraud, There's election fraud.
It's pretty good, isn't it?
If you can be indicted for saying there's election fraud, there's election fraud.
Now, how do you argue with that?
That's a tough one to argue, isn't it?
And what I love about it is it's so tight and succinct.
Now, it's not 100% true, is it?
Because it's not just that he said the election was fraudulent.
Like that goes all the way to incitement and insurrection, right?
So just his opinion is more than an opinion in his case, because being the president, it had an incitement factor to it, they will claim.
But at its core, it is directionally true.
That you can't imagine a situation where somebody would be indicted for saying an election is fraud, Unless it was election fraud.
You could actually stop looking for it at this point.
You should assume it's true because of this.
I don't have evidence that the elections were fraudulent, but I have evidence that the person who said it the loudest is being indicted.
So that's good enough for me.
It's not proof, but it's good enough.
I accept this as a working definition of the truth.
Here's another thing that I saw recently.
Four people committed suicide who were part of the J6 crowd who presumably thought they were obeying the law and trying to rescue the Republic.
But they were later indicted and tried and they were going to go to jail for a long time.
Four of them committed suicide.
Does that seem like a lot?
I don't know.
Because there were a lot of people there, so I don't know how many people commit suicide out of any group of 100,000.
I don't know what the ratio is.
But four seems like a lot.
Now, how hard is it to understand?
Do you understand it?
I do.
Put yourself in their heads for a moment.
Put yourself in the head of a peaceful January 6th protester.
Who genuinely believed the Republic had a hiccup, and if they could just take a couple of days, they'd find the hiccup and correct it, and then your country would be whole again.
These are people who are not just patriots.
They're super patriots.
Like, I consider myself a patriot, but I don't go march anywhere.
That seems like a lot of trouble.
But they did.
They traveled, they marched, they took the risk.
They were real patriots.
They really, really loved their country.
They really, really loved their country.
So much so, it was probably an identity.
I'll bet you they own flags.
I'll bet you they, you know, act patriotically and it becomes part of their character.
Now suppose that you had made your entire personality around the goodness of America that you were trying to defend.
The goodness of America.
You were trying to keep that goodness, that's why you were there.
And then that country that you were fighting for decided to prosecute you maliciously in a way that you believe is absolutely a miscarriage of justice.
And then worse.
You want to make it worse?
And then their fellow citizens, that's us, we let it happen.
We let it happen.
So here are people who believed in their country, they believed in their fellow citizens, and we betrayed them.
We didn't just ignore them, we betrayed them.
We absolutely, you and I, we betrayed them.
Because you know what?
We should have all left our jobs and circled the Capitol and said, it's time, you've got to let these guys go.
If we had been the patriots that they were, We would have helped them, but we weren't.
We were not up to the task.
You and I failed.
We killed them.
We killed them.
We did.
You and I. We killed those four people.
Because we took away from them the thing that they cared about most, which was the country, and the rest of the public being patriots.
We fucking took that from them.
We killed them.
Don't let yourself have a pass.
Yes.
There's no pass.
You're a citizen of this country.
You let that happen right in front of you.
And you're still letting it happen.
Now you can maybe fix it on election day.
But this is on you.
And me.
And me more than you, by the way.
Me far more than you.
Because I'm a public figure.
So I should be doing more than you should be doing.
But I didn't.
I didn't.
It's on me.
And I feel it.
I actually feel the weight of that.
Yep, the country failed them.
And so did you.
And so did I. So.
Let's fix it.
Anybody up for fixing it?
Well, here's what you gotta do.
You gotta make sure that the Architecture of Deceit is dismantled.
Elon Musk is going to apparently be the shock force for doing that.
Maybe you can get in behind him and let him take the heat, but maybe you can help.
We saw that Tim Pool matched the Babylon Bee.
Both of them individually said they'd put up a quarter billion dollars of extra advertising on X.
As a show of support, more than replacing what Apple and IBM and those are doing.
But they're doing it right.
They put their money where their mouths are, because that's their money, right?
I don't think either of those organizations had a, you know, a spare quarter million dollars sitting around.
That was a real, that's a real act, that is.
So, maybe you can find your way to help as well.
If you let anybody who's unhappy with the country not vote, well, you're failing the people who died.
You're failing January 6.
So your job is to get the January 6ers out of jail, the ones that are still alive.
So you're not just voting.
It's your job.
Because if you were in jail, it would be their job to get you out.
That's how this works.
Right?
That's the whole country's situation.
It's your job to get them out, because you know your government failed you.
So let's do what we can do to make that happen.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I remind you that on Thanksgiving Day, there are so many lonely people in the world, one of the biggest problems in the world, health-wise and mental health-wise and every other way.
And so I will be live streaming At 6 o'clock Eastern, 3 o'clock my time.
And I'll be making some terrible food for myself.
I hope you do better than I do.
And first hour will be family friendly, in case anybody else wants to join in.
After that it will be a little more man cave-y.
So no children after the first hour.
And we'll try to make the world a little bit better place, a little bit at a time.
