Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Nov. 20, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:21:30

Episode 2298 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/20/23 The Architecture Of Deceit (AOD), Is Both Busy & Crumbling

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, Andrew Tate, Ron DeSantis Boots, President Trump, Rep. Dan Goldman, Argentina President, Libertarian President Javier Milei, Obama's Biden Support, Architecture Of Deceit, Mayor Eric Adams, NYC Budget Plan, DEI College Policies, Disgraced Journalist Ben Collins, Media Matters, Elon Musk, Dom Lucre Swatted, Al-Shifa Hospital Tunnels, Israel Hamas War, Amazon AI Courses, Pragmatist Sam Altman, OpenAI, Microsoft AI, 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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Do do do do do do do do do do do.
	Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
	Coffee with Scott Adams.
	It will be the best thing you've ever had happen to you today, and possibly in your entire life.
	Maybe the history of the universe.
	But if you'd like to take it up to levels even higher than that, yeah, I know, people think it's impossible, but it's not.
	All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill that vessel with your favorite beverage.
	I like coffee.
	I'll even put it on my microphone for you two.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better.
	Simultaneous sip.
	Go.
	Yeah, that was good stuff.
	How's my sound now?
	Amazing, right?
	Your flask gives you jealous today?
	Now that's a good reframe.
	Today, my flask is my chalice.
	As God is my witness, my flask is my chalice.
	I don't know what it means, but it's kind of cool.
	Well, I'm going to start with the important news and then work toward things that don't matter at all.
	Important news.
	An Alabama woman, this is on Fox News, an Alabama woman with two uteruses is pregnant with twins, one in each womb.
	They say there's a 1 in 50 million chance that this could happen.
	And, as usual, the important part of the story is completely left out.
	You know what I'm talking about, right?
	So a woman with two uteruses is pregnant in both uteruses with twins?
	Raises a question, doesn't it?
	Does her husband have two dicks?
	I'm just wondering.
	Like, how does it work, exactly?
	Wrong question?
	Okay, well, maybe I don't know anything about anything and how this works at all.
	But have you ever heard the saying, this is an old country saying, he was hornier than a two-peckered dog?
	Has anybody ever heard that one?
	Hornier than a two-peckered dog?
	No?
	Well, anyway.
	Moving on.
	Anyway, speaking of two dicks, the Tate brothers have weighed in on the ex-platform and Andrew Tate says in a post, yes, yes, if you're just figuring out the entire story about the Alabama woman was nothing but a segue into the Tate brothers.
	Yes, that's what it was.
	There are no accidents.
	Anyway, Andrew Tate says he'll spend a million dollars per month advertising X on X. So just to support... So you know that Tim Pool said he would do a quarter million advertising on X to make up for the Apple and IBM and others pulling out.
	Actually, Seth Dillon started that off, Babylon B. Said they'd put a quarter million into extra advertising.
	And then Andrew Tate.
	You know, no matter what you think of him, and I don't think much of him, I just have personal issues with him, but he is so good at inserting him into any news story.
	And this is the classic.
	He'll spend a million dollars per month advertising the X platform on X, which has no value whatsoever.
	And then he ends by telling Elon Musk, simply let me know where to pay.
	Simply let me know where to pay. - Do you think there's any chance he's going to spend a million dollars per month And the only obstacle is he just doesn't have the URL where to pay.
	I'm sorry, it's kind of brilliant.
	It's just frankly brilliant.
	It's so ridiculous.
	It's ridiculous and exactly the right amount.
	He is very good at this.
	I'm going to give him that.
	He's just very good at this.
	Well, so if you didn't see it, there's a Photoshop picture of Ron DeSantis wearing thigh-high boots.
	Did you all see that?
	And Trump decided to make that part of his...
	He passed it around.
	I've got to show you the picture because the story doesn't sell itself without the picture.
	I was laughing for about 10 minutes.
	So look at the picture first.
	It's Ron DeSantis wearing nothing under his jacket but thigh-high boots.
	It gets better.
	The thing I love about it is that the world has got all these problems and wars and horrors and controversy, but at the same time, as long as Trump doesn't say anything important and he just mocks his enemies, he's just sort of dancing to the presidency.
	Yeah, let me give you two impressions of two candidates running for president.
	All right.
	First, Joe Biden.
	Okay, that's Joe Biden running for president.
	This is Trump with his current polling numbers.
	Do, do, do, do.
	Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
	Ah.
	So, ah.
	In a movie, if this were a movie, and someday it will be, this would be called the second act.
	Now in a movie, the second act is where the hero is just sort of surfing along, like getting stuff done, you know, heading toward a goal.
	It's like, so if we're a movie, The good guy would kill some bad guys and then he'd immediately go kill some more bad guys.
	Then in a funny way, he'd kill some more bad guys.
	That would be like the second act.
	So this is Trump.
	He decides that he's going to talk about Adam Schiff being a pencil neck and they don't know how he can hold up his fat, ugly face.
	His fat, ugly head.
	Alright, but it gets better.
	So this is what Trump says when he passes along this picture of DeSantis.
	He says, whoever photoshopped this image should be ashamed of themselves.
	We do not condone editing a photo of Ron with pleather thigh-high boots.
	Do not send this picture around.
	Oh my God.
	He's winning so hard at the moment that he could just kick back and have fun with it.
	It's just kind of wonderful.
	And by the way, the lesson of this is visual persuasion.
	I tell you all the time that Trump is the king of visual persuasion.
	You will never get that picture out of your head.
	I mean, that picture is in your head to stay.
	Oh, that's funny.
	Well, I've taught you this lesson before, but it's going to be important in this next story.
	So I'm going to remind you.
	When I was in hypnosis class, my hypnosis teacher told us that when people make verbal slips, you know, what you might call a Freudian slip where it lets out their real feelings, that, um, That it really is something.
	That it really is telling you what they're actually thinking, but don't want to say out loud.
	Now the example given was sort of a ridiculous one at the time.
	The example given was that if you were, let's say, on a date with somebody and you didn't know if they were really interested in you physically, One of the things they might say, as a verbal slip, instead of saying that they're hungry, and they might say, I'm famished.
	Be another way to say you're really hungry.
	But they might have a Freudian slip and say, I'm ravished.
	Right?
	If somebody, if a woman says I'm ravished, in the context that you know she meant famished, she's really telling you she wants to get ravished.
	Right?
	It's kind of a, It's kind of a green light.
	Now, when my hypnosis instructor said that, I said to myself, no, no.
	I feel like, I feel like that's too clean of an example.
	There's no way in the actual real world that somebody makes that specific kind of mistake.
	Well, one day I was invited to lunch by a coworker, a young woman who worked with me on a project.
	And I thought to myself, huh, Probably just lunch.
	Or is she interested in me in that other way?
	Or is it just lunch?
	And I sat there at lunch, and then I watched her do something with her hands that I've never seen anybody do in any context before.
	Her one hand, she made like a circle, like the OK sign.
	And with her other hand, instead of having her hands together, you know when you put your elbows on a table?
	And your hands are like in the prayer situation.
	But instead of the prayer situation, she was continually pushing her index finger of the other hand through the hole that she made with her left hand.
	She was literally fucking her hands while talking to me.
	And before the meal came, she said, and I swear to God, she said this, I'm ravaged, I'm ravished.
	And I sat there and I thought, are you kidding?
	Everything I learned in hypnosis class is literally true?
	Like, I didn't think that was literal.
	I thought it was just an easy example to make the point.
	I didn't think anybody would really do that in the real world.
	She and I were together for 15 years.
	And did I know it was on when she took me to lunch?
	I did when she said that.
	And it was, you know, later I found out it was exactly what she was thinking.
	So keep that in mind that it's not just a funny story.
	It's a real thing and you see it all the time.
	And what the hypnotist learns is that it's not just these real obvious examples like that.
	It's all the time.
	People will always choose a word that reveals what they're really thinking if they're talking quickly.
	Now this doesn't apply to a prepared speech.
	A prepared speech, you would make sure you got rid of all the little tells.
	But if you're speaking off the cuff, yeah, it comes out like crazy.
	Now, Simon Atiba, a journalist, was posting about Representative Dan Goldman, who's running for the nomination against Biden, and he was being interviewed by Jen Psaki.
	He was talking about Trump in January 6 and, you know, blah, blah, blah, Trump is bad, Trump is bad.
	And then he summarized the Trump is bad stuff by saying, quote, Trump has to be eliminated.
	He has to be eliminated.
	Have you ever heard that phrase in politics before?
	In American politics, has anybody ever said that my opponent should be eliminated?
	Yeah.
	Let me tell you what that means.
	Exactly what you think it does.
	It means that at all costs, basically, has to be eliminated, suggests it's an emergency.
	And if any of the things that he says about Trump are true, then you would expect that assassination would be on the table.
	If any of the TDS that he believes about Trump were real, You, too, would think, oh, he's Hitler.
	He must be stopped at all expense.
	So we all know what that means.
	And you can completely understand how we got here.
	Now, by the way, if you asked him, does he mean that, he would obviously say no.
	But it's a very clear tell of inner thoughts.
	Now, you're going to say to me, I was waiting for somebody to say it, but you haven't said it yet, Scott, you can't read minds.
	No, you can't read minds when it's in the mind.
	As long as it's still inside the mind, you can't see it at all.
	When you do these verbal slips, that's when what's inside your mind literally becomes a signal outside your mind.
	Now, that doesn't mean it's 100%.
	There's nothing that's 100%.
	But this specific one, just like I'm Ravished, is about As specific as you can get, right?
	I would be amazed if this doesn't mean exactly what he thinks it does.
	Now, I don't think that he thinks it would come to, you know, physical violence.
	Like, I'm sure he assumes that, you know, there's plenty of alternatives, you know, without getting there, you just have to get there.
	So I'm sure that's what he'd say.
	But this choice of words suggests that there might not be a limit to what would be appropriate to keep him out of office.
	And believe me, if I believe the things that Democrats say about Trump, that he's literally a dictator and a Hitler and trying to take over the country and he'll never leave office, if I believe any of that, I'd probably be thinking privately, I wouldn't tell anybody, but privately I'd be thinking, you know, if something happened to him, it wouldn't be so bad.
	So that's what I think is going on.
	Of course, nobody can read minds if you can't be 100% certain.
	But boy does it look exactly like what it looks like.
	All right.
	Argentina's got a new president.
	Javier Millet, I guess.
	And yesterday when I was doing a live stream from my man cave, people were pouring in all excited about him.
	I didn't know who the hell he was.
	So I had to do a quick little look up.
	I guess Tucker interviewed him.
	So that made him known to a lot of people, at least on the right.
	And he's a libertarian, and he hates wokeness, doesn't like wokeness, doesn't like the Iranian influence in his country, is apparently very pro-Israel.
	More anti-Iranian than pro-Israel, I think.
	But pro-Israel.
	He was there waving the flag, and it wasn't entirely popular.
	So he's anti-abortion, anti-woke, but libertarian.
	Not right-leaning, per se.
	I guess he's just an exciting character and he wants to get rid of useless parts of the government.
	So people are saying, hey, is this Argentina sort of leading the way?
	Is there something happening where Trump is doing well in the polls and this guy wins in Argentina?
	Are we seeing some kind of a repeat of 2016 where there's Brexit and then there's Trump?
	And then there were some other leaders in his likeness.
	Maybe.
	I mean, everything's a pendulum, right?
	The pendulum only goes so far before it swings back.
	Well, I believe that's exactly what's happening.
	The pendulum is starting its very clear swing back.
	There's a story in Fox News That Obama, they say, showed little public support for Biden at some recent event.
	So what does that mean for Obama showing little public support?
	That's kind of subjective, isn't it?
	So if you're a consumer of news and you're looking at Fox News and Fox News says that they would frame it this way, Obama showed little public support for Biden, it could be entirely true.
	But I would ask you to remember this is Fox News.
	Giving you a subjective impression of Obama.
	You gotta put that in context.
	But whether or not they accurately saw that situation, I suspect that they did.
	Because if Obama had gone full Biden, that would have been a new story itself, wouldn't it?
	If Obama had given a full-throated Biden endorsement, That would look weird because, you know, Axelrod, who looks like Obama's henchman, you know, they're pretty close.
	Axelrod's sending out the signal, you know, maybe age, maybe a little too old, you know.
	So it would be surprising if Obama gave him full-throated support.
	But at this point, I think my hypothesis is looking very strong, and it looks like this.
	That nobody on the Democrat side, including the Bidens themselves, including Jill, Joe, Hunter, all the Bidens, that all of them are the same opinion that Joe should not run.
	I believe even the Bidens agree.
	But the Bidens specifically have the problem of staying in a jail.
	And I believe that Joe is holding on so he can protect himself and protect Hunter, especially maybe his brother.
	Yeah, full-throated, Flynn.
	And it seems to me that it's obvious now.
	Would you agree?
	Because Biden is not the one who bucks the Democrat majority.
	He's the one who's most identified as being their person.
	Like, he's the most kept animal within the entire kennel.
	So if he's not doing what everybody else wants, including Obama, including David Axelrod, there's something going on that has nothing to do with politics.
	Would you agree?
	That whatever the reason is that there's this disagreement between Biden wanting to run and everybody else wanting him not to on his own team, it has to be something personal.
	And you could imagine it's just old man doesn't want to change his mind, but I don't think so.
	Doesn't have that feel to it, does it?
	Because he's not giving off that vibe of old man can't change his mind.
	He does still look like he's mentally flexible, even within his current state of degradation.
	He does still seem flexible.
	He's not the old man yells at the sky, I won't change my mind no matter what your facts are.
	He's not really that guy.
	So it looks like he just has a real personal problem that's at odds.
	Now, here's the correct comment from Uphill Gardner, in all caps, Scott is mind reading again.
	Now, I'm calling that out myself.
	I'm not saying I can see what he's thinking.
	I'm saying that the external signals are narrowing down the hypotheses, right?
	The hypothesis that Biden thinks that running would be good for the world, I think is eliminated, because his team isn't supporting the idea that him running is good for the world.
	I don't think that's his reason.
	So again, we can't read his mind, and that was exactly the right comment.
	That's the kind of comment I appreciate, because you should definitely call me out if you think I'm reading somebody's mind, because I do that all the time, and it's a very good discipline.
	So I think I supported it by saying there are external signals, and you can't know for sure.
	My theme today continues to be the architecture of deceit is crumbling.
	The architecture of deceit would be all the entities that are funded by Democrats and Soros and the government and the news media that's working with them and the intel agencies that are working with the Democrats and with the news media.
	And that collectively, you know, they build this story or narrative.
	And the narrative built by this complex, or what I call the architecture of deceit, the AOD, is starting to come apart.
	So that a number of stories that I'm going to tell going forward in today are going to have that same character to them, where you can see the narrative start to come apart.
	Number one, Eric Adams, mayor of New York, Who, I gotta say, I'm just starting to love that guy.
	Is anybody else having the same reaction?
	He's a Democrat, but there's something about him that's right.
	I don't know how to, I don't know exactly how to say this, but there's something about him that's right.
	Now, he's a Democrat, I know a lot of you don't like him, you're gonna say he's woke and blah blah, but let me make my case.
	Hold on a second.
	Hold your judgment.
	Just let me make my case.
	So as you know, he's been a proponent of do something about immigration and he seems to be a convert to the idea that you can't just ship them into a city and let them do whatever they want.
	So his reaction to it is he's announced in order to pay for all these people that are in New York City, He will cut funding quite a bit to schools, sanitation, police, and libraries.
	Now, here's what I think.
	I think Eric Adams is aggressively following the Democrat plan.
	I believe he is embracing and amplifying something he knows he has to break.
	And so he's, instead of fighting it, as in, hey, you've got to give us money, or, hey, you have to fix the border, he's embracing it, saying, yeah, well, of course, we're a sanctuary city.
	And of course, we're going to pay for it, because that's what we said we'd do.
	And of course, we'll take sacrifices.
	The people who live here will take sacrifices, because that's what we said we'd do.
	That's the plan.
	I'm agreeing with you Democrats.
	Let's do this.
	Let's get rid of those police.
	Remember, you wanted to do that, right?
	You wanted to get rid of police.
	And what about that education?
	Well, you know, we'd love to have schools and libraries and sanitation.
	We'd love it.
	But, you know, we're not those people.
	We're not the cruel people who would kick immigrants out.
	So we're going to take a little from ourselves, and we're going to do it overtly, and so that we can help this group of people.
	How do you think that's going over?
	Well, Cardi B has a video out today in which she's talking to the public, and she is pissed.
	So Cardi B, who I don't think has been identified with any right-leaning politics before, is just saying, what the hell are you doing letting in all these immigrants and cutting all these valuable services?
	Now, you saw that Michael Rapaport, actor who was super anti-Trump, has come out and said in public, well, maybe I was totally wrong, and he's thinking about voting for Trump.
	Now, Cardi B, coming from a demographic of the public that is most, traditionally, most opposed to Trump, and she's just saying flat out, this Democrat stuff is crazy.
	Basically, it doesn't make sense.
	These are my words, not hers.
	But the current situation doesn't make sense by anybody's political preferences.
	It doesn't make sense.
	It just doesn't add up.
	So, example number one of the architecture of deceit crumbling.
	And it goes like this.
	Eric Adams, I believe cleverly, So I believe this is his actual plan.
	Now I don't know this.
	So if you said your mind reading you'd be right on this one.
	So this is speculative.
	I believe that what he's doing is trying to teach Democrats the following thing.
	Money doesn't appear because you want it.
	The money you have is the money you have most of the time.
	And if you're going to decide to give a lot of it to someone else you're going to have less.
	And I think he's making Democrats understand You get that this isn't free.
	That you specifically are going to have less.
	You're giving your stuff to these people.
	These people being immigrants.
	Who are lovely people, I'm sure.
	But it has to do with the system and integrity of the system, not the people.
	So I think Eric Adams is doing a real solid by making it clear that you have to choose.
	Have you ever heard me say that Democrats have what I call half-pinions?
	It's not a real opinion.
	An opinion would include the good and the bad of any decision.
	Well, I've considered all the downside, but you have to look at the upside.
	I decided the upside is more than enough to compensate for the downside.
	That would be an opinion.
	A half opinion would be sanctuary cities.
	That's a half opinion.
	Because it doesn't consider what happens to the people who are already living there.
	So Eric Adams turned their half opinion Into a full opinion.
	And now they're going to have to deal with it as a full opinion because he made it real.
	He didn't just talk about it.
	He made it real.
	You know that cop in the corner?
	Gone.
	You know those teacher raises?
	Gone.
	You know those books you want to check out of the library?
	Gone.
	See that garbage that's sitting on the sidewalk?
	That's what you wanted.
	I mean, indirectly.
	So that's a little crumbling of the architecture of deceit.
	I saw a post, I think it's real, but maybe not, only because the name of the person posting it was Dr. Charlotte Proudman.
	Now maybe that's just a real name, Proudman, but spelled like a proud man.
	Anyway, Dr. Charlotte says, whenever I lack self-confidence, I just ask myself, what would a white, privileged man do?
	And then I have my answer.
	Let me read it again.
	Whenever I lack self-confidence, I just ask myself, what would a white, privileged man do?
	And then I have my answer.
	Well, as the Prince of Fakes account, who pointed this out, notes, quote, she's one reframe away from success.
	She's one reframe away from success.
	Because you know what would be the best advice I could ever give anybody?
	That you couldn't get better advice than this.
	Look at what a self-confident, white-privileged man does, and then do that.
	Because if you just did what somebody who expected success does, somebody who expects it.
	I expect success, so I'm gonna act that way.
	That would be a really, really good way to act.
	So, I feel like she was so close.
	So close to understanding what's going on.
	That, yeah, if you act like success is owed to you, but you still do all the right things to get success, and you act confident on your pursuit of it, yeah, that's just about the best advice I could ever give anybody.
	So yeah, do that.
	All right, here's some context for you on the architecture of deceit.
	I saw this from a Benjamin Carlson post on X.
	He talks about a 1980s interview, when he shows the video, of journalist Lewis Wolfe and ex-CIA agent John Stockwell.
	And this is a story that the journalist and the ex-CIA guy says.
	It was talked about the media, the CIA manipulating the media in the United States.
	And one of the things that he said in the interview is, he was asked, how far does it go?
	And he talked about the CIA delivering literally packages that the news would just run.
	They would actually give them the video, give them the story, and the news would just run it.
	It was just the CIA.
	And apparently that was widespread, but here's what the ex-CIA agent said back then.
	He says, it goes beyond your wildest imagination the extent to which the CIA has gone to manipulate public opinion.
	It talked about setting up all kinds of fake organizations and funding all kinds of fake things and having all kinds of ties to reporters and the media and all that.
	Anyway, so we have, you know, an eyewitness of somebody who was involved in it.
	But this comes from the 80s.
	In the 80s.
	What was it that stopped the CIA from doing all that stuff?
	Between the 80s and now, nothing.
	Nothing stopped it.
	Why would they?
	Why would they?
	So if you look at your architecture of deceit, how much of that is from the CIA?
	Probably a lot.
	A lot.
	Yeah, the CIA is an expert in setting up a bunch of fake organizations so that one organization can support the other one.
	So in other words, the news, if it wants to run a story, can say, hey, fake organization, say what's true and what's not, and then they report it.
	But really, they were both fakes.
	But one fake uses the other one as their, you know, their source, like it's a real thing.
	Do you think that that stopped?
	Do you think the CIA just stopped doing that?
	No.
	No, of course not.
	Now, once you understand that, the architecture of deceit starts to come into focus.
	And you start seeing organizations that have been, let's say, very anti-Republican in their In their approach, even if that's not the name on the organization, if it's not part of their charter, but they seem just very targeted at Republicans.
	Coincidence?
	Probably not.
	Probably not.
	All right, here's another thing that makes you raise your eyebrows.
	So, also speaking about the Argentina election, I saw a post on the EndWokeness account, which is a real good, fun account to follow, EndWokeness.
	Argentina had, you know, up to 30 million paper ballots and they counted them in one day and gave the result.
	30 million ballots, they just counted them up and gave you the result.
	Now, Maricopa had only 1.9 million ballots, Milwaukee less than half a million, Detroit quarter million, and Fulton about half a million.
	But Argentina had up to 30 million ballots.
	Counted them all up, no problem.
	But we couldn't get that done in the United States.
	But I have a bigger question.
	I believe every expert would agree with the following statement.
	Can you give me a fact check on this?
	Fact check.
	Every expert in elections would say that paper ballots and multiple people watching them being counted and counting them the same day is the best system.
	Am I wrong about that?
	Because you never quite know if the machines will work and everybody would have questions about them anyway.
	Might be a little harder to audit because you can't see the code.
	But you can always see the ballot.
	So here's my question.
	Why do you think the United States has machines when there's probably no expert who thinks it's the best way?
	I can only think of one reason.
	I think you're seeing it with your own eyes.
	On YouTube, you're seeing this yourself, right?
	Now, have you noticed that the other times I've glitched, it was the same topic?
	Has anybody noticed that?
	It's always election integrity and YouTube glitches.
	You just watch this with your own eyes, and how many times have you seen it now?
	You tell me on YouTube, if you watch me regularly, have you seen a glitch on this topic at least three times, three different days?
	I think I've seen it at least three times.
	Yeah, I'm seeing some yeses.
	At least three times on the same topic.
	You think that's a coincidence?
	It'd be a big coincidence, wouldn't it?
	The level of obviousness now?
	So this is another example.
	I don't know that that wasn't a coincidence, but when you look at it in context, it's hard to believe it.
	Now, and you know that my traffic is kind of flatlined for years on YouTube, where everything else I do is going up, YouTube flat.
	Yeah, I'm sure that's organic.
	Anyway, my assumption is, my working assumption, Remember, the working assumption in general is that citizens of the United States, and I would say everywhere else as well, are innocent until proven guilty.
	That has to be your standard.
	A citizen is innocent until proven guilty.
	But you should not use that standard for the government, if you're talking about the entity, not individuals, but the entity.
	The government is absolutely guilty until proven innocent.
	That's the only way the system works.
	In other words, the government has to prove they're not lying to you.
	They have to show their numbers.
	They have to be open to audit.
	They've got to be able to show you the ballots.
	They've got to be able to show you the process.
	If you do a FOIA request, they've got to show you the documents, right?
	So the government is 100% guilty, unless they prove otherwise.
	And what do electronic voting machines do?
	They make it essentially impossible to prove that an election is clean.
	Now you also nobody's proven that there's any evidence that an election was rigged in any major way.
	So I have to throw that in there so I don't get kicked off of social media.
	I'm not aware of any evidence that the 2020 election was rigged in any non-trivial way.
	But I can't think of another reason for having electronic voting machines.
	Can you?
	Because there's no way that they're less expensive.
	They add complexity.
	They make the public doubt the outcome.
	And they add an element that is either hard or impossible to audit.
	In other words, I'm pretty sure we do not have access to the internal code of the companies that make the machines.
	Now, just to be clear, I'm not accusing anybody in the electronic voting machine business of any impropriety.
	I'm not aware of any.
	I'm just saying I can't think of another reason that you would use their product, unless you wanted to make sure that you could cover up a fraud.
	So, does anybody disagree with that?
	Why would you use the expensive, complicated, worst system when you have access to the same system everybody else has?
	And everybody who's an expert would agree it's a better system.
	I only see one reason.
	All right.
	Here's another crack in the system.
	Do you remember?
	It was less than a year ago that I got cancelled.
	And as part of that larger conversation, I've said, many times in public recently, that when I worked for big corporations, that both of my bosses told me directly that they couldn't promote me because I was white and male.
	Still am.
	Still white and male.
	And the reaction to that from black observers, usually editors and writers and, you know, fairly prominent black observers, they said, you're probably lying.
	You know, since they assumed I was racist anyway.
	They said, you're probably lying about that.
	And can you present any evidence?
	Can you give me any evidence that that happened to you?
	Now, my first reaction was, it was 30 years ago.
	Or no, longer than that.
	Yeah, it was like 30 years ago.
	And my bosses would be quite elderly.
	But I could.
	I mean, I know their names.
	I don't know where they live anymore, but I could tell you their names.
	And if you wanted to talk to them, If they're still alive, they would tell you exactly what I told you.
	But when I said that, it still sounded like an excuse.
	And I recognize that now.
	So it sounded like, hey, you've got a gigantic claim.
	That's a really big claim.
	And people said, really?
	Why wouldn't you sue?
	Of course you couldn't sue in those days for that.
	At least it didn't help you if you did.
	So do you know what my new approach is?
	Instead of saying, yes, there might be two elderly people, if you hunted them down, they might support my story.
	Do you know what I say now?
	Do you know any white people?
	Go to any white person you know who's male and ask them their experience.
	I will give you, I actually checked to see how many there are, I will give you 120 million eyewitnesses.
	120 white men in the United States, and 100% of them will tell you the same thing.
	Every one.
	So my claim is not that there are two people in the world who will back up my story.
	No, my claim is that there are 160 million of them.
	And that every one of them, every one of them, 100%, not 99, not 99.9, 100% will back up my story.
	And they will tell you their own experiences.
	100% will back up my story.
	And they will tell you their own experiences.
	Now, here's what's changed.
	Less than a year ago, a lot of well-meaning and I think honest brokers were saying, I'm not sure that's really true.
	Because imagine if you had gone the last 30 or 40 years of your life never hearing that.
	And you'd only heard that there's discrimination against black people, which of course there is.
	And you'd only heard that.
	And then somebody says, everything you knew was wrong for 30 years.
	What would be your reaction?
	No way.
	Yeah, right.
	So the people who doubted my story are completely rational players.
	They were not being, in my opinion, they were not just being team players, although there's a little of that, but they weren't just disagreeing because they were team players.
	They really had never heard of it.
	And And they might ask, how could there be 120 million people who have the same opinion and experience, and I've never heard it?
	Simple.
	Look what you did when I brought it up.
	If I brought it up, you all said I'm a lying piece of shit racist.
	Why would 120 million people want to be a lying piece of shit racist?
	There's a very obvious reason that we didn't bring it up.
	And also, if you looked at the news during that period, a lot of people brought it up.
	There were, in fact, lots of what they called reverse racism suits.
	It was wildly known, but it was always anecdotal.
	There's this one guy who's suing.
	Oh, here's another one guy suing.
	So if you were just watching the news, you'd probably think anecdotal.
	Few examples.
	In no way does that describe the larger situation.
	No, wrong.
	It was exactly the larger situation.
	All 120 million people will tell you.
	So you know what I say now?
	I say, you don't know a single adult white man who knows you well enough to tell you the truth.
	You don't even know one adult white man.
	Because there's no way you would believe that this isn't happening if you knew even one adult white man.
	So that's way better than saying you've got this one example.
	Just say it's everybody.
	Rasmussen had a poll that said that a majority of voters don't believe that Muslims in America are victims of unfair treatment.
	Now they had some detailed results that I'm not going to talk about for the following reason.
	What's the point of asking other people if you think A different group is being discriminated against.
	I just told you that for the last 30 years, if you had asked black Americans, do you think white men are discriminated against in America, they would have said, ha ha ha, you idiot, no.
	And yet it was the major thing happening in America for 30 years.
	So you can't ask the group that's not being discriminated against if they think some other group is being discriminated against.
	So I think you can only ask the group themselves what their experience is, and even that's subjective.
	All right.
	So Jonathan Turley is talking about this story that there's a federal magistrate.
	They issued a major ruling on this Bakersfield College in California saying that they violated the First Amendment rights of a professor, Damon Johnson, with its DEI mandates.
	So basically it's a ruling saying that DEI went too far in one college.
	But it's an important case, Turley says, because it challenges the claim of universities that their DEI policies are suggested practices versus mandatory.
	So I guess the colleges have been getting away with saying, oh, well, we have these suggestions, but it's not mandatory.
	But as soon as somebody doesn't follow the suggestion, they get canned.
	So it's not a suggestion.
	And if it's not a suggestion, well, then there's going to be greater legal challenges, I think.
	So this is one more example where a DEI will be, I think it's on its way out.
	But it'll put up a fight.
	Vivek Ramaswamy did a little video talking about the advertisers who, as he says, sanctimoniously pause their ad spending on X. He says they're cowards and that it is different when individual consumers decide to boycott.
	So if an individual consumer decides not to get Bud Light That's perfectly legitimate.
	But does it make sense for a public company to do what the stockholders did not vote on?
	That's pretty important.
	And it looks like these companies, and this is Vivek's take, he says it's one thing if you want to use your own money to signal your own personal values.
	It's quite another to use corporate money.
	So basically, on behalf of all these stockholders, it may not warrant what you want, to engage in personal virtue signaling, which is what these executives are doing.
	And then he also points out it was based on a false pretense anyway, because it was based on a misinterpretation of what Elon Musk said.
	So it wasn't even accurate, they weren't responding to a real thing, and they were responding with other people's money.
	So thank you for being fucking wrong and spending other people's money to show us you're awesome while being wrong with other people's money.
	They should all be fired.
	That's like a sign of incompetence.
	Here's a way to know when you're looking at the architecture of deceit as opposed to a legitimate entity.
	And Mike Ben's on X platform has been great about this.
	Here's an example of it.
	Ben Collins, disgraced journalist Ben Collins.
	I'm doing what the left likes to do.
	They like to just throw in disgraced, like it's a fact.
	If you don't like somebody or you don't like something they said in the past, you just throw in disgraced.
	Now the funny thing is he is actually kind of disgraced.
	There's a lot of criticism about him.
	He was angry because I guess Musk is going after media matters for allegedly lying about the degree at which the bad advertising or the advertisements were paired with bad content.
	And there's a suggestion that there might be a criminal remedy for that as well as civil.
	So Musk is suing them in a civil way.
	But at least one person thinks it might be criminal, what they did.
	And so Ben Collins says, so, do you know what I said about so, when you start a sentence with so?
	I call it the so tell, it's a signal for cognitive dissonance.
	Whatever follows the word so, on social media, is something which is misstated in a way to be ridiculous, to make your point.
	So disgraced journalist Ben Collins says, so they're going to lock up a bunch of media matters researchers for noticing that racists love this website?
	Sure, go for it.
	Now, okay, what followed so?
	They're going to lock up a bunch of media matters researchers?
	Oh, researchers.
	So as Mike Benz has taught us, and there are lots of examples to back this up, researcher is what you call somebody who's really just on the payroll of somebody trying to push a narrative.
	You call them researchers, but they're really narrative pushers.
	So that's a matter of opinion there.
	And they says that the reason they would be locked up is because they quote, notice that racists love this website?
	No.
	That is not exactly a good summation of what's happening.
	Not at all.
	So yes, every time you see researchers, and Media Matters does say that their people are researchers.
	They actually call them that.
	They're researchers.
	So look for researchers as your signal of fakeness.
	And as Mike Benz points out, the same framing is used to launder DHS censorship, Stanford Internet Observatory, mass flagging and crisis PR ops, and countless other economic coercion jobs.
	Custom-built to kill free speech, says Mike.
	All right, there's an NBC poll that says that Trump is leading Biden by 46% to 44% in a general election poll.
	Now, of course, we don't have general elections.
	We have electoral college situation.
	So the battleground states matter more.
	But it would be insanely revolutionary and unusual if the Republican won the popular vote.
	That would be a big deal, because even Trump didn't win the popular vote when he became president.
	But more importantly, a subset of that poll said that Trump is leading by 46 to 42 among voters in the 18 to 39 years of age, whereas Biden won this group by 26 points in 2020.
	to 39 years of age.
	Whereas Biden won this group by 26 points in 2020.
	Can this poll even be real?
	Do you believe?
	I mean, this sounds crazy, doesn't it?
	Do you believe that the youngest people, 18 to 39, picked Biden by 26 points, higher than the vote for Trump, but that in that time, that's reversed so much that Trump is actually leading that vote?
	Well, first of all, I would doubt the polling.
	But let's take the assumption that there's a big move.
	Maybe not that big.
	Okay, you're second guessing me ahead of time here.
	What is missing in this data?
	Let's say it's true that the 18 to 39 group has moved massively to Trump.
	What did that leave out?
	Is there any data you would like to know about this group, 18 to 39, that moved massively to Trump?
	What's the obvious question?
	Gender.
	They left out gender.
	Do you think that the poll discriminated by gender?
	Of course they did.
	They always do.
	They always ask men, women, Democrat, Republican, right?
	Why don't you think that was worth mentioning?
	I don't know what the breakdown would be, but here's my speculation.
	It's all men.
	It's all men.
	You saw Trump go to the UFC fight, and Joe Rogan was talking about it.
	They didn't just cheer for him, as Joe Rogan was pointing out.
	They almost lifted the roof.
	Like, it was like, apparently the situation was pandemonium when he walked in.
	And, you know, there's nothing more male than UFC.
	Obviously, as female fans do, but there's nothing more male.
	I think, The young men will save us.
	I think young men have figured out they have to take some leadership.
	There's a leadership gap and I think they're taking it.
	Now they're doing it in a small way by moving their votes.
	They're going to do it in a bigger way.
	Yeah, they're going to do it in a bigger way.
	I'm very curious what the breakdown was.
	If anybody sees it, could you tweet it at me?
	Because I'm guessing that the movement was almost all men.
	Do you want to take the other side of that bet?
	Does anybody want to bet that it wasn't?
	Well, I'll say mostly, not all.
	But I'll bet it was a majority men were the ones who moved, if the polling holds up, which is a question.
	All right.
	And to me, that's the bigger story.
	To me, the bigger story is the gender switch.
	I've been saying for five years now that Democrats are the party of women.
	There's nothing wrong with that.
	And the Republicans are the party of men.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	But they're different.
	And if you're a man who's a Democrat, you're in a weird world, right?
	At least the women who are Republicans agree with the men who are Republicans.
	So they're on the same side.
	But if you're a Democrat and you're a man, your group hates you.
	And if you're a Jewish man and you're a Democrat, you've really got some questions.
	You're really asking some questions this month, aren't you?
	Wait a minute.
	I thought Jewish men were welcome as Democrats.
	Well, not as much as you thought.
	But definitely welcome as Republicans.
	All right.
	On the X platform, one of my favorite follows got swatted.
	Do any of you follow Dom Luker?
	L-U-C-R-E?
	Real good follow, lots of good content.
	I recommend him.
	What you need to know, because it's important to the story, is that he's a black man with dreadlocks and someone with a VPN, so they were anonymous, contacted the police and told him he was barricaded in a room trying to kill his girlfriend and he doesn't have a girlfriend.
	He doesn't have one at the moment.
	But here's the good news.
	The good news is that the police force was professional and checked with them and did not do something crazy.
	So they basically checked with them first and then, you know, they still showed up, had to do the report and everything, but it didn't get dangerous.
	Now here's my take on that.
	If you call in a fake SWAT call on anybody, you're putting them in danger.
	Would you agree?
	You're putting him in danger.
	It's basically a murder.
	It's attempted murder.
	In my opinion, it's attempted murder.
	Now let's enhance that.
	Let's say you called in a fake SWAT on a black guy with dreadlocks.
	Now you're a little bit more murdery, aren't you?
	That's a little extra murdery.
	You might expect, well, police might have some kind of biases.
	To me, this looks like attempted murder.
	So, this can't get worse.
	That's really a bottom.
	All right.
	CNN is reporting that the Shifa Hospital and the tunnels that they found are not compelling.
	Meaning that CNN is not yet convinced and they have reporters on site.
	So CNN has people on the compound at the hospital and they've been taken around by the IDF to show them that Hamas was there.
	And they showed them some weapons and CNN's take on the weapons is it doesn't even look like they were in one place.
	They might have been relocated and it wasn't that many.
	For some kind of a big story it wasn't really many weapons.
	And then they were shown a tunnel, which the IDF says is 55 feet long.
	And they're not allowed to go down in it.
	And apparently, there's nothing in the tunnel.
	There's a doorway at the end that they have to break into somehow.
	So that'd be a whole operation.
	But it's just a blank tunnel of 55 feet.
	And CNN, to their credit, to their credit, CNN's not buying it.
	Isn't that interesting?
	CNN's not buying it.
	Now they're not saying it's not there.
	They're saying that the evidence is short of compelling.
	Now what's going on?
	Oh, was it meters?
	55 meters?
	Did I have the measurement wrong?
	I think somebody was correcting me there.
	But here's my take.
	If it's one little piece of tunnel, somebody says 165 feet.
	But if that's all it is, they better come up with more.
	Better come up with more.
	But and then and then I have heard from other sources in Israel that the fog of war is pretty deep and that also it's really slow going looking around the compound because things might be booby trapped.
	So it's super slow.
	But we're still expecting that there'll be a major compound under the hospital.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So keep an eye on that.
	I don't think that the hospital story should have any power over us, no matter what they find there.
	Because no matter what they find in the hospital, you know, Hamas is still Hamas.
	They still have human shields.
	They still have hostages.
	I mean, it doesn't make them any better or worse, no matter what happens at the hospital.
	But of course, the public will try to make a thing out of it, no matter what.
	There is a story that I don't believe for a minute, that there is a possible deal to secure more of the hostages, and that Hamas is asking for a four to five day pause in fighting, and part of the reason is that they need the time to collect the hostages from different places, so they need the pause so they can get them together, and they would give some of them, 50 of them.
	Do you believe any of that?
	I don't believe any of that.
	First of all, there's no way in the world that Israel would agree in good faith to a five-day pause.
	There's not any chance of that.
	Secondly, if the deal is not all of the hostages, I don't think Israel is going to take the deal.
	Because it looks like what Hamas wants to do is Is by time.
	So I think they want to release 50 to establish that they will release hostages.
	Then the pressure on Israel would be tremendous because people would say, hey, they already gave us 50 and it was just a five day pause.
	Imagine if you did a full pause.
	How many you get there?
	Right.
	So it's all about public reaction.
	And you hate to say this about hostages, but they are in the context of war, and Israel's going to have to make the war decision.
	The war decision would suggest that you should not make this deal, even if it's real.
	Would you agree?
	Even if the offer is real, that a five-day pause gets you 50 hostages, I'd say don't take it.
	Now, you can never admit that to the public.
	You can never tell the public, yeah, they offered us 50 hostages and we said no.
	Never, never.
	You can never say that.
	But from a military perspective, what would happen is that after the 50, the public would guarantee maximum pressure on Israel to pause again to get a few more back.
	You see what I'm talking about?
	That the 50 is the beginning of a keep pausing them, keep pausing them so Hamas can recover and get their public relations in order and build a narrative and stuff like that.
	Oh, we're good guys.
	We're just giving you back your people.
	Yeah.
	Israel cannot allow them to do the slow drip that probably most of the public would want them to do.
	If you ask the average person who's not really following it, they're no military expert, they don't even know the history of the region, don't exactly know what Hamas is up to, and if you said, hey, we could give 50 hostages back with just a five-day pause, and then we'd go right back to it, right?
	I mean, it's not like we're stopping.
	It's just a five-day pause.
	Any average person would think that was a reasonable offer.
	But it's a terrible idea.
	Now, I hate to say this in public, because I know there are real families with real hostages, and to them, nothing would be more important than getting them back, and I get that.
	And if it were my family, I would be pushing as hard as possible for the pause.
	Let me say that directly.
	If it were my family, or even somebody I was a little bit closer to, I'd push for the pause.
	I don't think it's the best thing for the Israeli operation, But if it's my family, I'm pushing for the boss.
	I'll take that chance if my loved ones are in the 50.
	I'll take that chance.
	So it's a very good strategy by Hamas because it's a genuine division.
	I mean, it's really going to cause a problem.
	But I think Israel would be ill-advised to accept it.
	And I also think that it's a fake story.
	I think it's a fake story in the sense that if Israel is acting like they're going to take it, What they're probably doing is collecting intel by pretending to negotiate.
	So, for example, if Hamas says we need time because the hostages are in different locations, then Israel just learned that the hostages are in different locations.
	Kind of good to know.
	They might learn some other stuff, like any complications or anything about the hostages or what it would take to gather them up.
	Might be a little more information.
	So I think Israel is pretending to be interested, but there's no way that they're going to make that deal.
	That's what I think.
	Could be wrong.
	Meanwhile, ESG is dying in America.
	The flows into ESG funds are slow to reverse.
	But here's the interesting thing.
	ESG is still big in Europe.
	Why would ESG be dying in America, and fairly quickly, but not in Europe?
	What does America have that Europe doesn't have?
	Yeah, me.
	Just me.
	That's all you needed.
	I'm just kidding.
	As far as you know.
	Well, Amazon is offering free AI courses.
	Proving once again that my predictions are amazing.
	So the courses are free and they're not just for Amazon employees.
	So it'd be courses to teach Americans how to use AI.
	Now remember when you thought AI was going to take your job?
	And I said, well, it's definitely going to take some jobs, no doubt about that.
	But if you work with it for two minutes, the first thing you learn is, oh wow, you're going to need a trained human being using the AI or you're not going to get anything that's useful.
	So of course, for every AI application that gets used, there has to be a trained person.
	I'm not even sure if it will increase employment.
	It might be the kind of job where a lot of people could easily learn to use it.
	You don't have to have a Yale education to use AI.
	Sort of ordinary person, two days of study and you'd be practically an expert.
	So, I think this is more of a hint that AI will increase employment instead of decrease it, and it will just be another tool like computers were.
	You might not be old enough to remember when people thought that computers would put people out of work.
	It's funny when you think about it, isn't it?
	Isn't it funny to look back and we thought that computers would put people out of work?
	Well, they did.
	They did put people out of work.
	But the people who got work was just immensely more than the people who put on work.
	So I think that's going to be the same with AI.
	AI will definitely put people on work, but they might have a better job, which is learning how to use AI to do some new thing.
	All right.
	Let's talk about Sam Altman and Microsoft.
	All right.
	Nothing about the story of Sam Altman being fired by Open AI, none of it quite makes sense.
	So I'll just kind of keep you up to date.
	But keep in mind that even as I'm talking, all of the facts may have been reversed.
	Everything's changing so quickly that you can't even talk about it without it being, you know, obsolete by the time you're done with the sentence.
	Here's what we think we know, according to the news.
	So, you know, Microsoft has a $13 billion investment in open AI.
	So the company that fired Sam Altman, and then Greg Brockman, you know, left too, largely controlled by Microsoft.
	Now Microsoft's stock apparently dropped when Sam Altman left or was fired.
	Then there was talk about the, I think, 500 members of the staff out of 700, 550 out of 700, told the board to resign or they would.
	Can you even imagine that?
	Imagine being the board and 550 of your 700 employees signed a letter saying either all of us are going to leave, that's the whole company basically, either the whole company quits and they would all be easily employed if they had AI experience, or the board has to quit.
	Have you ever seen anything like that?
	I've never seen anything like that.
	And the number one name on the list was Mira Mirati, who was, but is no longer, the acting CEO.
	Or president, the acting president.
	So the acting president was a CEO.
	CEO?
	Acting CEO, I think.
	Signed the letter at the top.
	Now, allegedly, the solution, if you want to call it that, is a new CEO, He's being hired.
	This guy, Emmett Shear.
	And he used to be the founder of Twitch.
	He's one of the Twitch guys.
	So, you know, lots of experience.
	What do we know about him?
	What do we know about this Emmett Shear?
	Well, I saw some research by, research, by Joshua Lysak, super, super ghost writer, and Here's some things we know.
	He's not really big on President Trump, and he's been vocal about it.
	Surprised?
	No.
	When MSU was the Twitch CEO, an anti-white transgender activist who identified as a deer was appointed to the Safety Advisory Council.
	You feel uncomfortable yet?
	Let me just say it again, because the first time I said it, you probably were like, what?
	I feel like I heard you wrong.
	We'll try it again.
	The new CEO of arguably the most important company in the world, OpenAI, in his prior job as Twitch CEO, they employed an anti-white transgender activist who identified as a deer.
	And that was who was out of the Safety Advisory Council.
	So the indications are that he's sort of a super Democrat.
	Now, are you worried if an intelligence is created by somebody who is a super Democrat or even a super Republican?
	Same problem.
	It feels like a problem, doesn't it?
	Feels like a problem.
	Now let me ask you this question, and this will blow your mind.
	You ready?
	What were the political leanings of Sam Altman?
	Go.
	What were Sam Altman's political leanings?
	Go.
	You don't know, do you?
	You don't know.
	Some are saying left, libertarian, center-right.
	How awesome is that?
	I got to give Sam Altman credit.
	He does not easily identify with anything.
	Now I'll give you a little behind the curtain information.
	I don't think he'd mind.
	I did meet with Sam Altman several years ago when he was considering a run for governor.
	And he was just talking to people who kind of were in that space just to see what they thought.
	And I'm a Californian so I'd be an obvious one to talk to.
	So I talked to him for I don't know, an hour or so.
	Strictly on politics.
	And I left not being entirely clear what his politics were.
	And it's not because he's unclear.
	It's because I think he's a pragmatist.
	And pragmatists don't make sense in our world.
	A pragmatist is somebody who wants to do the things that work and not do things that don't work.
	That's how he struck me.
	He struck me as a pure pragmatist.
	Do what works, don't do what doesn't work.
	So those of you who are saying he was left-leaning, did you know he's one of the biggest investors in nuclear power?
	Well, fusion in particular.
	Didn't see that coming, right?
	So he's a pure pragmatist.
	And that was exactly who you want to add a new AI.
	You want somebody who you say, you know, I feel like he leaned this way, but then he was on this side and this, and it's not entirely clear.
	That's exactly who you want in that job.
	You don't want the person whose politics you know for sure, but that's what you got.
	But it gets better.
	Ilya Sutskever, who was on the board and I guess everybody seems to think he's the smartest guy in AI and really the brains of open AI.
	I think Musk said he tried to recruit him and he's like just the best guy.
	And he seemed to be maybe even the one who was behind the firing of Sam.
	But this morning he posts, I deeply regret my participation in the board's actions.
	What?
	It's only been a few days.
	I never intended to harm OpenAI.
	I love everything we built together and I will do everything I can to reunite the company.
	Well, good luck with that.
	So we still don't know exactly what was going on.
	But it looks like it seemed to be a clean, the best thinkers, and I think I agree with them, is that there was a difference about how fast to go.
	And we're told that the new CEO, there's a suggestion he's kind of a slow on AI guy, because I think he posted that that would be his preference to go slower on AI.
	But here's the weird part.
	Remember I told you Microsoft has this giant chunk of open AI, enough to have functional control over a lot of what they do?
	The result is that Microsoft hired Altman, To be the CEO of, quote, a new group that will do AI stuff.
	What's going on?
	So Microsoft has this $13 billion investment in the biggest, most successful AI.
	And they take the deposed CEO and they put him in charge of Microsoft's own AI, presumably He'll recruit from OpenAI?
	Is he allowed to kill Microsoft's other project?
	Because I wonder if the CEO of Microsoft, I wonder if this is his play.
	Do you think the play is to suck the employees out of OpenAI?
	And build within Microsoft a fully-owned AI so they don't have to deal with open AI anymore.
	At the same time, Musk commented on a post in which Microsoft said it was planning a $50 billion build-out of data centers for AI.
	Specifically for AI.
	$50 billion.
	Nothing of that scale has ever been even proposed by anybody ever.
	So it looks to me like Microsoft's play is to own AI, and the $13 billion they put into open AI, I think they're willing to burn.
	That would be the baller move of all baller moves.
	If they burn their own $13 billion just so they can control it better, Because that's what it looks like.
	Now, it's way too early to know what anybody's thinking or what anybody's strategy is.
	But on the surface, it looks like Microsoft is doing an unfriendly takeover of their own investment.
	Now, if they've got a 50 billion data center, and let's say that they have this huge advantage in AI because they have the data center.
	It looks like that's their play.
	They want to make sure they own that business.
	They kind of need to own the AI, too.
	Because you don't want open AI someday saying, you know what?
	We've decided to take our business away from your data center.
	Because I think they could do that, right?
	And with the current ownership, could not the board of OpenAI has to say, you know, you've built these data centers, but we don't have a deal for that.
	So we're going to go to the Amazon because they offered us a better price.
	Could they?
	Or would Microsoft have had the clout to make them use their data centers no matter what?
	Well, I don't know.
	But I do know that if Sam Altman works for Microsoft, he's definitely going to use their data centers.
	So that question is answered, at least for Altman.
	And if it means that Microsoft is going hard on AI, I think I'm in favor of that.
	And here's why.
	I understand the argument of the slow AI people because we don't know what the dangers are.
	Totally understand it.
	But I'll tell you one way to lose for sure.
	is to reach AGI or the strongest version of AI after your adversaries do.
	By far that has to be more dangerous than going fast and getting there first.
	Would you agree?
	These are unknown, so you can't actually know what is the bigger risk.
	But I would be way more afraid of China getting the world-class kind of AI before we do.
	So in my perfect world, Microsoft, which I believe is a responsible, well-managed company, with America's best interests in mind, I believe that about Microsoft, that's kind of a good stewardship for something this important to the You know, the military and our entire existence.
	I don't know where else I would put it.
	You know, Apple, as much as I complain about them being a racist company, etc., they're also very capable.
	So there are some big companies that, you know, nobody's perfect.
	But if AI has to be somewhere, that's a lot of capability to wrap around.
	So it's better than China getting there first, I think.
	So I guess I'm a fast AI guy.
	If there were some way to stop it worldwide, then we could talk about that.
	But you're not going to stop it worldwide.
	As soon as you slow down, China will speed up.
	If they're smart.
	All right.
	Well, that's what we know today.
	Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best presentation you'll ever see.
	And YouTube, thanks for joining, and I will see you tomorrow.
	And remember, the architecture of deceit has become clear, but it's also crumbling.

▲