Episode 2301 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/23/23 All The News Ripe For Mocking. Happy Thanksgiving!
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, Elon Musk, NewsGuard, Al-Shifa Hospital Tunnels, OpenAI, Q-Learning AI, God-Like AI, Google Bard AI, Geert Wilders, Self-Defense, Israel Hamas War, Dutch Trump, Argentine Trump, Claire McCaskill, Regional Phrase Vermin, Todd Bensman, Hezbollah Unit 910 Sleeper Cells, 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 happy Thanksgiving, all you colonizers.
And if you'd like to take this Thanksgiving experience up to a level that nobody can even understand with human words, they would need AGI just to even have a chance.
Well, if you'd like to do that, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tank or gel sustain, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure It's the dope meat of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go.
All right, tell me the truth.
There's nothing else on right now, right?
If you got up early and you wanted to watch something live, what are your options, really?
That Crowder?
I bet Stephen Crowder's taking the day off today.
Am I right?
Yeah.
Is Stephen Crowder working today?
I don't think so.
No.
Only the people who really care about you are working.
People like me.
That's right.
Well, let's talk about all the news.
So last night, Elon Musk posted this.
He said, big companies steadily increase their Dilbert score over time like entropy.
Do you know how weird it is?
I guess we found out today that Elon Musk has the most social media followers of anybody in the world.
He's got 164 million people just on X. And here he is tweeting some shit about me.
It's the weirdest experience.
You know, I don't think I can explain to you what it's like that there's this giant world out there, like there's 8 billion people in the world, but there are not that many people in the news.
So when you read the news and it's about you, it's just the weirdest experience.
But we've got lots more Elon Musk news.
It seems like, is it my imagination, or is almost every news story also an Elon Musk story?
I'm not imagining that, right?
Ukraine is also about Elon Musk.
Israel is also about Elon Musk.
AI is also about Elon Musk.
Climate change is also about Elon Musk.
Anything about Trump or free speech is also about Elon Musk.
It's not my imagination, right?
He has literally made himself the most important person in every conversation.
Which is kind of amazing in itself.
All right, in no particular order, these stories.
Thank you for, Owen Gregorian, for all your great content.
Anyway, the UK Museum says, the past Roman Emperor, I guess most of them are past, right?
Was a trans woman.
Yeah, so the Roman Emperor Elagabalus, Elagabalus, would be a transgender woman.
Now, some of you are at home and you're thinking, Can you say that again?
What is the proper pronunciation of that name?
Legolas.
It's like that.
It's best if you say it like you're drunk, because then nobody's going to ask too many questions.
Which Roman Emperor were you talking about?
Were we talking about Emperor Legolas?
Legolas.
Yeah, it sounds better when you do it that way.
Now, I don't know if that's true, because there's also some, there's a counter-theory That it was common for people to insult their emperor by suggesting they were really women, which is sexist.
Am I right?
Sexist.
So it might have been just that, but it might have been back then.
If you were the emperor, you could have anything you wanted so you didn't have to worry about your barriers too much.
I'll have that one, that one, and that one.
Have them scrubbed and brought to my tent immediately.
All right.
Have you all heard of an entity called News Guard?
News Guard is an entity that is the greatest entity of all time.
I respect them more than my own life.
I think they're awesome and probably the most important and credible and moral and ethical entity that has ever existed.
Some people say that crossing them will get you in trouble and they'll come after you.
No, I don't believe that.
No, no, I don't believe it.
I don't believe that they're big scary entities.
And, you know, these big old liars like, you know, Elon Musk.
Again, again, he's in the story.
Elon Musk says NewsGuard is, and he's wrong of course, he says it's a propaganda shop that will produce any lies you want if you pay them enough money.
He posted that.
Other people are saying they're like some kind of disinformation company.
Dave Rubin said that he mentioned them once on his show and they said they were going to investigate him.
So all I know is they're great.
Don't come after me.
Please don't cancel me.
Yeah.
Well, but seriously, seriously, folks, if you don't understand the disinformation architecture, you really need to get up to speed on that.
So there are a number of these, you know, funded entities that are not government entities that purport to hunt down disinformation.
They are themselves disinformation purveyors, but they want to make sure their side's disinformation wins over the other side's information and disinformation.
So they are not credible entities, and I suppose they'll be coming after me tomorrow, but maybe I'm too small.
Henry, I'm great at sarcasm.
All right.
So learn what NewsGuard is, because if you don't, you will be confused about the way the country works.
Well, there was a story last night in which literally all the facts seemed to be wrong.
At first, it sounded like there was a terrorist who blew up a bomb on a bridge, the Rainbow Bridge, between Canada and the United States.
Turned out it was not a terrorist, as far as we know.
There was not a bomb or any kind of explosives, as far as we know, and it may not have been coming from Canada.
It looks like it was just some kind of a high-speed car chase, I think, on the U.S.
side that ended up hitting a toll booth area on the bridge.
But it was before the bridge.
And it had nothing to do with the bridge, it was just that's where the accident was.
And it looks like the explosion might have been just the high-speed explosion and the gas tank blowing up from the car.
Because it didn't seem that big.
Now, I'm going to take criticism as well as credit.
Some of you say, but Scott, why are you always bragging about the things you got right?
You don't talk about the things you got wrong?
Well, I'm gonna do both.
So, I had two reactions yesterday when I first heard the story.
One was stupidity.
That was my first reaction.
My own stupidity.
Do you know what I did?
I did, I believe, the first version of the story.
Could you just take a minute to mock me?
Can you just...
Give me the mocking I deserve.
When I heard that a terrorist had blew up a bomb on the bridge, I actually went with that.
I mean, just consider that.
Consider how many times I've told you.
How many times have I told you, don't believe the first version of a story, when it's a hot story?
Like a thousand times!
Do I take my own advice?
No!
Like a frickin' moron!
I believe the first version of a story in which there was no way we actually knew what was happening at that point.
No way!
And I believed it.
Do you know why?
Do you know why I believed it?
The most classic reason.
Because I wanted to.
That's the biggest trap.
There's, and I think I've told you this before.
I guess this is sort of a, I wish it wasn't so loud outside, but the garbage trucks are really loud.
That's an inside joke that you don't understand, but the people on the locals platform, they know what I'm talking about.
So trust me, just go with it.
Anyway, so I believe that version of the story that it was a terrorist and it wasn't, but to my credit, So I'll take a little bit of credit.
By the time I saw the video of the car explosion from the security cameras, it was pretty obvious it wasn't a terrorist attack.
Because the size of the explosion was way too small.
And it was a weird place for it to happen, unless they'd been challenged by security or something.
But when you saw the video, it didn't kind of make sense with the story.
So I'll give myself a little bit of credit.
As soon as I saw the video, I was like, no, I don't think that's a terrorist attack.
But I actually believed it at first.
So I'm an idiot.
I will own that.
Those Hamas tunnels under the hospital in Gaza City have been found and they are exactly as Israel told us they would be.
So it took them a long time to clear them out because a lot of, I guess, Hamas filled them with sand and tried to block them and hide them and booby trap them and everything.
So it was really, really hard to clean them out enough so that you could take a camera down there and show everybody.
But sure enough, there were like totally plumbed bathrooms down there.
You know, I didn't know what you'd find down there, but it was very sophisticated.
It was an entire headquarters network with sleeping rooms and air conditioning.
Now, one of the things, one of the ways that they found the tunnel is that the exterior air conditioning unit wasn't attached to any buildings.
Apparently they found an external air conditioning unit and they said, I wonder what this is attached to?
And it was the tunnel.
So that might be one of the ways they can find the tunnels, is to look for the external AC connections.
All right, so that was exactly what they said.
I would say that Israel's Israel's situation is looking good, in a bad situation, but looking as good as it can.
So the ceasefire, which of course, hit a snag.
Is anybody surprised?
Is anybody surprised that the ceasefire hostage exchange hit a snag?
Well, maybe that'll get worked out by tomorrow.
They think it might only be a one day snag.
I'm not so sure.
I would say the single most predictable thing about this hostage deal Is that there would be more snags?
You know, having at least one snag is the most predictable thing in the world.
There might be more.
So I'm not entirely sure it's going to happen.
Are you?
If you had to bet on it today, do you think that there will be a clean exchange of the 50 for the 150?
And then they'll wait a few days and go back to war?
Does anybody see it happening like that?
Seems unlikely.
It's going to be messy, if it happens at all.
And it could be a trick.
By one side or the other.
It could be entirely fake.
There could be no... Hamas might have no intention whatsoever.
One of the quote snags I read, I need a fact check on this, but one of the snags was the Red Cross, or maybe it's the Crescent Cross or whatever it is, they wanted permission to see the remaining hostages that are not the subject of the exchange.
Do you imagine there's any chance of that?
In what world is the mosque going to show them the other hostages?
I mean, you'd have to be high to think that's going to happen.
I mean, it's good to ask for it.
I mean, if I were negotiating, I would definitely ask for it.
But really?
Does anybody think that's going to happen?
Gotta ask.
Yeah, you gotta ask.
Because the way they answer might tell you something, right?
The resistance they put up might actually be a clue to them not being in good shape or something else.
No, they're never going to let that happen because that would give access to information about where they're being held, I suppose.
Even if you blindfolded them or whatever, they'd still have some idea where they went.
Well, so we'll see what happens.
All right, the big sort of news, it's either the biggest news in the world or not, is that the current belief about the ChatGPT open AI and Sam Altman saga is that the real issue was that ChatGPT has reached super intelligence in the lab, but not the Production one.
And that some say, and I say this is likely, when Sam Altman said before all this drama started, Sam had said at an event, is this a tool we've built or a creature we've built?
Is it a tool or a creature?
He was saying that a week or so before all this controversy blew up.
And of course, that caught people's attention like, hmm, Is there something you have in the lab that we haven't seen yet?
Because what I've seen doesn't look like a creature.
It looks like a mimic, like a parrot or something like that.
Well, I guess a parrot's a creature.
But it looks mechanical to me.
It doesn't come across as human.
But maybe they had something in the lab that was a whole different level.
And now we're hearing probably.
And there's this technology that I don't quite understand called Q-learning, the letter Q. Can I join with all of you for a moment and say, why did it have to be that letter?
Of all the letters, the only ones that couldn't be were X and Q. All right?
That would still give you a whole bunch of letters that you could have used that would be untainted.
You know, even A is, you know, adultery a little bit, but, you know, I'd use an A. A learning, T learning, Z learning, M learning.
All good.
But Q?
Come on!
Come on!
Why do you have to mix up Q with Q Anon and Q from Star Trek and all this other stuff?
I think that letter is overused.
Here's the first thing I learned.
Apparently this idea, this whole, what it is, it's an AI, apparently well understood process for achieving AI.
So it's different than the large language models where they're just looking for patterns in human words.
This one would have some higher level reasoning skills.
But it's been around since the 80s as a concept.
It must be that there's something happening.
It must be that there's something happening technologically that makes this Q-learning thing practical.
Maybe it's the speed of the processors or the size of the data set or something like that.
So apparently this Q-learning, which was not a big thing in our current models, is going to be the big thing in the future.
Now, I don't quite understand it.
I tried to do a little bit of a deep dive so I could get kind of the general idea.
Here's the here's the closest I can get.
And just keep in mind, I'm not going to do a good job of this, but just sort of to get you in the same zip code for what this is, because it actually matters.
It's sort of sort of not just a big deal, maybe the biggest deal of all human history.
So that's why I'm going into something that might be a little more technical and boring to some of you.
It might be the biggest thing in human history.
Probably not.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against it.
But it's certainly in the domain of it could be the biggest thing that's ever happened by far.
Like by a million times, it could be the biggest thing that's ever happened.
But I guess the idea is instead of just looking for patterns that already existed, the Q-learning can kind of try things and get rewarded if it works.
And not get rewarded if it doesn't work.
And then somehow rapidly iterate.
And I'm going to use this term because I don't think the technical people would use this.
I think it imagines scenarios.
You know how before you decide to do something you imagine how it will turn out.
And what you're doing is you're using your imagined future as the basis for whether to do it.
You imagine it turning out well.
Okay, I'll do it.
Suppose you imagine it turning out well, and then you try something, whatever it is, you try it, and it doesn't work out quite the way you imagined it.
What do you do?
Well, you re-imagine it, you know, the new way, and you try a different thing, and then you try to get your imagination to match your actual.
And you're getting rewarded when it matches, and you're not getting rewarded when it doesn't, so you very rapidly iterate To the right answer, and that looks something like reason, I guess.
And it would look like a whole level.
Now, keeping in mind that I might be doing the worst job ever of explaining this idea, but also the people who understand it, maybe understand it at a level that makes it impossible to explain to normies.
You know what I mean?
Like, if you really understood it, you'd probably say, you know, honestly, I can't explain this to you.
You're not smart enough, and you don't have enough background in the area, and you don't have enough math.
And it would take two days to do it.
I feel like that's the reality, that it just can't be explained to normal people.
But it's something like not looking at patterns.
That's the current way, just patterns.
But it's more like imagining and trying.
Imagining and trying and matching and getting rewarded and imagining and trying.
Now, here's why this is super interesting to me.
Does anybody remember Probably for years now, I've been telling you that we already have the technology to create consciousness in AI.
Does anybody remember me saying that?
I've been saying it for a while.
That we wouldn't need to invent anything new to get consciousness.
You would just have to understand what consciousness is.
So it's really about the definition of what consciousness is.
Because under my definition of consciousness, we've always had the technology, well not always, but we've had the technology for a while.
Maybe five years or so.
And here's what I think it is.
I think consciousness is really not much more than just imagining the future and then comparing the actual to it.
And that's it.
And if you can't imagine the future, and then see how your actual turned out, and then adjust, you wouldn't have this feeling called consciousness.
Because the large language models, the ones we have now, they're just looking at patterns.
You ask it a question, and it gives you a result, and that's it.
It doesn't remember the question, and it doesn't remember the result.
It has no consciousness.
It's simply like a cause and effect.
But the AI, The new versions, maybe, and again, by tomorrow I'll probably, probably, in all likelihood, tomorrow I'm going to say, you know everything they said about AI?
Somebody smart told me I got all that wrong and just ignore all that.
That might happen by tomorrow.
But, at the moment it looks like the new version, the Q stuff, has something like an imagination The way they explain it is that the AI is training itself on AI's own output.
Let me say that in a better way.
The current version of AI takes the things that exist in the world, like real live things, things that people said, stuff on the internet, and it uses those patterns.
AI can use all of that stuff, the real stuff, plus it can kind of imagine new things that had never existed anywhere, and then take the new thing it imagined, and add it to the body of stuff that exists, and use the combined exist plus imagined For its new level of intelligence.
Now, that's sort of the complicated, mixed-it-all-together way of saying it.
If you strip out what's different, what's different is that it imagines things and then sees how close it gets to its imagination.
That's my own version of it.
That's consciousness.
Do you understand why they might have been so crazy on the board?
Imagine you're the board of Chad GPT.
I don't know if this is true, by the way.
It's just sort of fun speculation.
Imagine you're on the board.
You're an ordinary human being.
One of eight billion human beings.
You're just one of the many people who have lived and died in the history of human civilization.
You're not more important.
You're not less important than every other human being.
And suddenly, it comes to your desk.
To decide whether or not to authorize the creation of a conscious super-entity.
How would you like that to be your decision?
Are you good with that?
Everybody comfortable with that?
It's literally the most dangerous thing that human civilization has ever seen.
By far.
Could be like a million times more dangerous Than the most dangerous thing humanity's ever seen.
And I'm talking about meteors and everything.
How would you like to make that decision?
That would be pretty scary.
And one thing it would do is it would make you crazy.
Am I wrong?
Think about the craziness that Donald Trump creates in half of the country.
He makes people actually crazy.
It doesn't take that much To make people just crazy.
So, yeah, it's like Oppenheimer times a million, right?
So, here's what I'd say.
Have some empathy for the fact that your fellow human beings were tasked with taking the responsibility of all of our lives forever.
They actually have the responsibility for safeguarding all of our lives, forever.
The history of humankind.
Have you ever gone to a business meeting where the literal history, the future of humankind, depended on what you did in the meeting?
I mean, just imagine that.
You can't even imagine.
It's actually beyond imagination.
So what would you predict if such a thing came up?
I'll tell you what I'd predict.
Chaos.
I would predict something very much like what we saw.
People would be out of their minds.
They would not be able to process this set of problems in any kind of model that they've ever dealt with before.
It wouldn't be like anything else.
It would be completely new.
And so I have complete empathy for everybody who was trying to figure it out.
And you know what?
I would like to thank them all.
I would like to thank the so-called go-slow people and the so-called go-fast people.
I don't know if that's as clean a distinction as people say, but you know, the idea.
I'd like to thank them.
Because if they made a big fight out of it, and therefore made us think deeper about it, Perhaps Microsoft put some extra controls on there.
Maybe Satya got involved and said, you know, I like what you're doing, but you better disconnect it from the rest of the Internet until we know.
Maybe something like that.
Now, I don't know if we're safe.
I don't know.
But it's really interesting to think about.
And I do think that if it's doing what they say, it probably presents itself like it's conscious.
It probably presents itself like it's conscious.
Because, in a sense, it can dream.
And once this AI is connected to the human beings, the human beings become its central nervous system.
So the only thing that this presumed super intelligence that may or may not exist behind the scenes, the only thing it lacks is a central nervous system.
And that's the rest of humanity.
Because as soon as we're connected to it, then it can test anything it wants to test using us.
So it could say, for example, hey, let's try out this way of thinking.
Let's say a reframe.
And then it sends it out.
And a million people immediately give a reaction.
It goes, oh, that one didn't work.
Let's try this.
Because remember, the Q learning is a reward, try and reward.
So humanity would become this reward mechanism.
So if it tries something and humans act in a way that gets a good result, humans will feedback, oh, positive reinforcement.
So we become the central nervous system of this entity, which is effectively God.
Now here's the interesting part.
You know how some of the ancients believed there were multiple gods?
You know, the God of Thunder, and the God of this or that.
And others said, oh, there's only one God.
In the next phase of human existence, unless the first one destroys everything so there can never be another one, which I don't think will happen, it won't be connected enough, won't we be birthing multiple gods?
Will not each version of this have a god-like ability, and once it's connected to humans, it's magnified?
We're going to have a multiple gods situation.
And if you said to yourself, hey, these these A.I.s might not care about us and they might wipe us out without even caring, I would say far more likely they would fight each other.
Far more likely the A.I.s will be in a battle with each other because they wouldn't see us as a threat.
We might develop some A.I.s that are the police to try to catch the other A.I.s from stealing your money.
So it's going to be a battle of the A.I.
gods.
And I think people are going to be just watching and hoping we win.
Or your side wins before the A.I.
kills you too.
All right.
No, it won't do that.
You'll be fine.
All right.
What else is happening?
Apparently Google's version of AI, and this is still the traditional AI, can now let you talk to your YouTube videos.
Let me say that again.
You can now talk to a video.
And by that I mean, if you wondered what I said in this live stream, You could go to YouTube afterwards, after it's posted in its recorded form, and you could go to Google Bard, and you could say, hey, what'd this guy talk about?
And it'll give you a bullet point summary of what I talked about.
Or you could say, hey, what was the timestamp of when Scott was talking about Q-learning?
Boop.
Is that impressive?
That's crazy.
That is crazy.
It's just, I almost can't hold that in my mind.
That is so cool.
And for me, it would be transformative.
Because there's tons of stuff I want to know that people... How many times does this happen?
Now, because of what I do, people are always sending me videos.
Just all the time.
And there's no way I could watch them all, because there's just more videos that people think I should see than I have time for.
But what if Q could take every video that somebody says I should see and turns it into three bullet points?
So I could just like scream through all of it.
My God, that's just an amazing ability.
Some smart people say that Google will be the winner in AI.
Because it's going to build AI into the tools you already use.
And I think that's already happening right now.
So I believe everything from YouTube to Gmail to your calendar will have an AI augmentation.
So you should be able to talk to your calendar, basically just talk to all of your Google products.
Crazy.
Now, I think that the phase after this is that there are no Google products.
I think email will go away.
Spreadsheets will go away because of AI.
In other words, it won't be a spreadsheet app.
You'll just go to AI and say, hey, I want to figure out my budget.
Could you grab all my banking information and just put it in some kind of a budget form so I could see it?
And that will be your spreadsheet.
And you'll have, you know, you'll never have to know how to do a formula or how to add up a row or anything.
It'll just do it for you because you wanted it to.
Same with email.
Does it make sense to have email?
Not if you have AI.
AI should look at all your incoming messages, no matter what mechanism they come in, and it should propose responses and then just present them to you in summary form.
It's like, hey, somebody asked you this.
I'm going to tell them that.
Okay.
That sort of thing.
Yeah, you're not going to need email or spreadsheets or Like, really, any apps.
If you can talk to AI, you don't need apps.
I haven't heard other people say this yet.
Have you?
Have you heard other people say, apps will go away?
To me, that's really obvious.
And it's the biggest thing that's going to happen in the industry, because we have an app-based everything.
Everything's an app.
So what happens when there's no apps?
We're going to find out really, really quickly.
Maybe a year from now there won't be any apps.
That's possible.
That, by the way, I remind you is why I sold my Apple stock.
Not because Apple won't one day be the best in AI and have even better products than now.
There's a good chance they will.
But it takes it from a monopoly business where you really can't get out of the Apple ecosystem once you get in.
It's just too easy to stay in the ecosystem.
It's like a monopoly.
But it's just going to be an open competition in about a year.
And then they just have to compete with everybody else as if they were startups.
So that wasn't as comfortable to me.
So I got rid of that.
I do not make economic or financial recommendations.
That is not a financial recommendation.
Do not follow my financial advice.
I'm very bad at financial advice.
All right.
Here's a Here's an interesting exchange and Elon Musk is part of this again.
So Emily Chang on the X platform posted this, said one of the biggest tasks ahead for open AI, that's Sam Altman's company that he's back to, one of the biggest tasks ahead is building a new board, one that includes women.
And then she goes on to name several women whose names were floated for the board of OpenAI.
And some were considered and dismissed, et cetera.
So Elon Musk responds to that with a comment.
He says, what matters is having a director who deeply understands AI and will stand up to Sam.
Human civilization is at stake here.
Okay, well those are two points of view.
Kind of two different points of view.
On one hand, it would be a good idea to protect human civilization from its greatest existential threat.
That's a pretty good point.
It'd be a good idea to have just the best people protecting civilization from its existential threat.
Yeah, it's a good point.
But on the other hand, and you have to weigh this equally, on the other hand, having a board With the right acceptable ratio of vaginas to penises, well that's important too.
So if you had to give up a little bit on the protecting the existential risk to human civilization, you might want to give up a little bit on that to get just the right ratio of vaginas to penises.
Have I ever told you that I have this theory that although each individual is very different, people are infinitely different and unique, that there are some generalities that still hold.
You'd have to, you know, not be discrimination, you don't want to discriminate and act like everybody's in these generalities, because individuals are very different, as I say.
But generally speaking, is my theory That biologically and evolutionary wise, women are nurturers, mostly, and men are hunters and protectors.
If you want something killed, call a man.
If you want something shared nicely among people, call a woman.
If you want somebody to kick somebody's ass, call a man.
If you want somebody to make people get along and have a nice meal, and, you know, live in a happy life, call a woman.
Now, of course, tons of exceptions, right?
There are women who can fight better than men, there are men who can, you know, who are more nurturing than women, and there are non-binaries all over the place.
But sort of as a general statement of our biological truth, in general, women are Superior nurturers and men are better at protecting and killing stuff, generally speaking.
Here's a good example.
Here's a woman, Emily Chang, who has a good instinct toward making the world a fairer, you know, more collegial place.
Kind of nurturing.
And so from her point of view, it would be nice to have a board that represented men and women, and might also give you some diverse opinion in that world, and might even be better.
But in Elon Musk, who's a male, he's saying, and I would agree with his take, this is one of those areas where you don't do that.
Because this is defending the entire population of Earth, and No matter how many times I tell you, I'm going to keep telling you, you should never discriminate by sex or race or religion or ability, you know, disability, for a job.
You know, you don't want to do it in your personal life.
You don't want to deny somebody renting your building.
So for commerce and personal life and all of your individual in-person stuff, don't discriminate.
It's immoral, it doesn't help you, it doesn't help the person you discriminate against, it doesn't help society.
Everybody loses.
There's one exception.
Self-defense.
When it comes to self-defense, you can discriminate as much as you want.
There's nothing immoral or even a little bit wrong with that.
For self-defense, the only thing that matters is you live.
Or you protect your family, or you protect your country.
Everything else is secondary.
So you do not count the vaginas to the penises when it's self-defense.
When you say to yourself, you know, should we concentrate our recruitment on men or women for special forces?
Probably concentrate on men because you're going to get a better result on average.
Does that say there isn't a woman somewhere?
Who would be the best special forces person of all time?
No, that could be possible.
Nobody's saying that individuals are the same.
I'm saying that in general, if your biggest mission is protecting the country and staying alive, you don't fuck with this other stuff.
Ever.
There's a reason that our military doesn't take senior citizens.
Because they're not as good.
There's a reason that we do allow people of all races in the military.
Because we've tested it.
And it works out.
If it didn't work, we wouldn't do it.
You know, even though it's racist, we wouldn't do it if it didn't work.
So, I mean, we've tested it.
It works.
I'm sure if we tested senior citizens, we wouldn't get the same result.
And nobody has any problem with that.
There's no senior citizen group.
The AARP is not lobbying to get more senior citizens in the military.
Nobody thinks it's a good idea.
So when Musk says, you know, some version of, let's not make sure that the vagina to penis ratio is the main thing, how about the protecting humanity is it?
And you do that the best you can, and you don't worry about anything else.
Let's see if there's another story in the news today that reminds you of this one.
Turns out that the Dutch over in the Netherlands there have, it looks like they've elected what some call right-wing Geert Wilders.
And he was being asked about his views on mass immigration and multiculturalism, of which he's, let's say, has some provocative thoughts.
And he was asked by a journalist, I was watching this on a video today, and he says, is it wise for a politician to ostracize one group?
Because now the context is that Geert Wilders was saying that groups, some of the immigrant groups from some countries, had a 20 times higher crime rate and that you couldn't ignore that.
So the journalist says, is it wise for a politician to ostracize one group?
And Wilder says, I don't, oh, because, and then the journalist says, but couldn't the real problem be economic?
That if you looked at people who have, you know, low income, there's a higher crime rate.
So is that right to say that the Moroccans, and they use the Moroccans as an example, says, would it be right to say that the Moroccans are a problem?
Or is it really more about economics?
That's a good question, right?
That's exactly the right question.
Now I'm going to tell you exactly the right answer.
Because it is the right question.
Here's the right answer from Geert Wilders.
I don't care why they're overrepresented.
And we're done.
Thank you.
Yeah, because this is national defense for the Dutch.
The Dutch have an existential threat to their country.
And when you tell them, are the Moroccans a problem because of their economic situation?
Or are the Moroccans a problem for some other reason that would sound racist?
And Geert says, I don't care.
That is exactly the right answer.
Geert Wilders is a male.
He's a man.
So when you ask this man, who is presumably one of many men who evolved For knowing how to protect you and killing stuff if he needs to.
When you ask him, how much of the wokeness should we factor into staying alive?
Gere Wilders gives you the only right answer.
I don't care about wokeness.
It's not even in my conversation.
That's something you can talk about.
But we're talking about defending the country.
Sorry, it's not part of the conversation.
I'm going to look at the numbers, and then I'm going to manage to the numbers that we're sure are right, and they're pretty good crime numbers.
He says, it's not my problem.
Don't care.
Not even going to get into the conversation of why.
Thank you.
That is exactly the right answer.
The better answer is that we don't consider those factors when staying alive is the question.
When staying a country and not devolving into chaos is the question, you don't ask those questions.
But in order to sound not like some kind of Hitler, fascist, racist person, you should make sure that you say what I say.
It is immoral and inefficient and bad for everybody if you discriminate on any of those factors for any individual in person.
But if you're doing it on a statistical level, and you're talking about people who are not yet citizens, versus your citizens you're trying to protect, discriminate all you want.
There's no barrier to discrimination for your self-protection.
And more importantly, nobody gets to second-guess you.
Suppose we sat over here and said, you know what?
I think you Dutch are overreacting.
Yeah, maybe there's like a little problem extra of the immigrants, but really, we Americans think you're overreacting and you shouldn't do that.
Do you know what Geert Wilders should say to us?
I don't care.
I don't care what your opinion is.
That's the right opinion.
The right opinion is nobody second guesses self-defense.
Self-defense is only the business of the individual, or in this case, the country.
It is nobody else's business.
Now, this is the same attitude that I take to the Gaza situation.
In Gaza, you could say to yourself, hey, in my opinion, sitting safely over here in America, I think Israel should not go so hard on Gaza.
Do you know what Israel should say to that opinion?
I don't care.
They should have no care what our opinion is of how they protect themselves.
Now they of course have to manage public opinion.
So managing public opinion does matter, right?
That's got a cost and a benefit to it.
So they have to do that.
But they should not, under any condition, do it because we think it's a good idea.
We don't get a vote.
Nobody gets a vote on their self-defense.
And that's why I say, don't ask me if it's right or wrong.
It's going to happen.
That's it.
Yeah.
You can talk about what to do about it after the fact, but Israel is going to do what they're going to do.
And nothing's going to stop it.
All right.
And of course, there's a trend forming now.
Some people are calling this Geert Welders, the Dutch Trump.
Because it largely is immigration, I guess.
And they're also calling Mille, the new head of Argentina, the Argentina's Trump.
So now the American Trump has a dominant position in the polls.
And we have two key countries that just went full Trump.
I don't know.
Does it feel like 2016 all over again?
You remember when Brexit passed and people said, oh, this is telling us Trump's going to get elected?
And then it kind of did.
It feels like that.
It feels like the pendulum has swung back.
All right.
Claire McCaskill.
What was she?
Was she a House representative at one point?
Is she still?
She's not still in office, is she?
Who's Claire McCaskill?
She was on MSNBC, Senator from Missouri.
Still Senator?
Is she still or did she retire?
Ex-Missouri Senator, but now on MSNBC, I guess.
Or at least she was appearing there.
I don't know if she's employed there.
But anyway, she was saying that Trump is more dangerous than Hitler.
All right.
I'm going to suggest a way to handle this.
But first, I'm going to explain exactly what she said.
So you can really feel it.
First of all, you know that Trump referred to... I don't know who he was talking about, but he referred to vermin.
Remind me, who was Trump talking about when he said vermin?
He was referring to... It doesn't matter.
Does it?
He wasn't referring to American citizens, was he?
MS-13?
Oh, he was talking about MS-13 as vermin?
He's probably used that before.
Here, I'd like to test this out.
This didn't work when I tested it on locals before I went live on YouTube.
But let me test it with the YouTube people.
I grew up in upstate New York.
And when I went to college, there were a lot of people from the New Jersey, New York area in college.
So I was friends with a lot of people who were born and raised in that area.
And in those days, the word vermin Was somewhat common from people born in that area.
In other words, it was an ordinary insult they would use to any variety of people.
And it wasn't racist, it was just people you didn't like.
So it had nothing to do with any racial overtones, it was just like a general, you're a rat, kind of an insult.
Now, am I right?
Am I right that it's a regional thing that Trump picked up?
Is it regional to call people a vermin?
New Jersey, New York?
I'm seeing one yes.
I'm seeing some more yeses.
Yes, I'm from upstate New York.
Yes, yes, yes.
Okay.
So I think I've demonstrated that there's more than me that believe it's a regional thing.
Now, let me ask you this.
Has anybody in your news universe told you that it's a regional phrase?
Has anybody mentioned that?
And that Trump routinely uses, you know, phrasings from the region that he's most influenced by, where he grew up.
Colloquialism, yeah.
But if you didn't know that, and I don't think anybody not from that region would even be aware that it's a common word there.
If you didn't know that, it's easy to sell that as Hitler, because that's the only association you have in your mind.
Oh, Hitler called people vermin.
So anyway, here's McCaskill.
I'm going to read exactly what she says so you can see the level of craziness here.
Quote, a lot of people have tried to draw similarities between Mussolini and Hitler and the use of the terminology like vermin and the drive that those men had towards autocracy and dictatorship.
The difference, though, I think, makes Donald Trump even more dangerous than Hitler and Mussolini.
Now she's saying this with a straight face, that he's more dangerous than Hitler, and now she's going to back it up with her argument.
Okay, here's the argument.
And that, that is, alright, he goes, quote, he is not trying to expand the boundaries of the United States of America.
So unlike Hitler and Mussolini, he's not trying to expand our boundaries.
And remember, this is a criticism of him.
So she starts by saying, he's not trying to expand the boundaries.
Then she says, he's not trying to overcome a neighboring country like Putin is in Ukraine.
Wait, are you suggesting that Putin is better than Trump?
Because Putin has an objective of conquering Ukraine, where Trump does not try to conquer any other countries.
So just hold in your head the hot mess that this is.
She goes on.
Talking about Trump.
He is not going to some grandiose scheme of international dominance.
But I feel like that's a good thing.
And then she goes, all he wants is to look in the mirror and see a guy who is president.
Okay.
So this is mind reading, right?
She's gone into complete mind reading.
All he wants to do is see himself as president.
All he cares about is selfish self-promotion.
That's the only philosophy he has, which makes it even more dangerous.
What?
Are you telling me that somebody who likes self-promotion, and that's their biggest flaw, is more dangerous than Hitler?
She's actually saying that.
Directly and clearly.
And then she goes on, well there's a reason.
Because Trump, he has actually said out loud that he would be okay to terminate the Constitution to keep him in power.
Really?
Let's do a fact check on that.
Because I watch the news a lot.
I do not remember the time that Trump said we should terminate the Constitution.
Does anybody remember that?
Is there anybody who saw that in any kind of news?
I'm gonna have to give you the Tapper Tilt to that one.
Are you ready?
The Tapper Head Tilt is when you're listening to somebody that you're trying to discredit without actually saying any words.
So, you're saying that he said out loud he'd like to terminate the Constitution to keep him in power?
There, the Tapper Tilt.
That's all that needs to be said.
Then she goes on.
He said this.
He actually said those words.
No, he didn't.
Pretty sure he didn't.
If he said that, you don't think we would see that clip playing on repeat all day long?
How would anybody have missed that?
The only way you could miss it is if it didn't happen.
There's no other way you could miss it.
All right.
And the irony is all these supposedly conservative folks that have populated the Republican Party all stood around with their thumb in their mouth going, well, yeah, I guess so.
And then she says, it's so bizarre.
All right.
I'm going to add this to my list of why women should not be in charge of national defense.
I believe that she's talking nicely above the country's safety and security.
This is batshit crazy.
Now, how should you respond to this?
Because obviously there's going to be a lot more of it, right?
There'll be a lot more.
The return of fascism.
Because since we know that Joe Biden or whoever runs in his place, they're not going to be able to compete on policy except abortion.
And that's going down to the state level for decisions.
So even that one's a little bit off the table because it's become more of a state thing.
So if you can't compete on policies, you have to go to, you know, insulting your competition, make it look bad.
So they're going to call you a fascist.
They're going to call him Hitler if you support him.
So what do you do about it?
I absolutely think there's one and only way to deal with it successfully.
You have to mock it, and joke with it, and embrace it, and amplify it.
You have to make it sarcastic.
You have to laugh at them every time they do it, and you never, never can take them seriously.
You have to treat them like children who are afraid of the dark.
They're afraid of the fascists under the bed.
So instead of responding, because imagine you're going to be a politician and somebody says, so-and-so McCaskill said Trump is worse than Hitler.
Do you say something like, well, I don't know, you know, Democrat policies are pretty bad too.
Or do you say, no, he's not.
Those don't work.
Because the Hitler thing is a fear of persuasion.
Suppose you had a little kid.
Who is afraid of a monster under the bed?
How do you play it?
I'll give you two different ways.
Your little kid says, there's a monster under the bed.
I can't turn off the lights and go to sleep.
Do you say, there's no monster under the bed.
Don't worry about it.
Go to sleep.
Well, you could.
You could.
Here's a better way.
Now, all kids go through that.
I remember when I thought there was a monster under the bed.
When I was your age, I used to look under the bed every day.
No, there's no monsters.
That's funny, because I remember exactly when I was your age, I had the same conversation with my parents.
We were sure there were monsters, but you know what?
Everybody looks under the bed and nobody ever finds a monster.
Nobody's found one yet.
Maybe you'll find one that likes you.
You just treat it like it's not serious.
So all of this fascism stuff, if somebody accuses you of being a fascist or says that Trump is, you should say, what would be an example of this fascism?
Now, what they'd probably say is that he wants to be a dictator.
And then you say, well, that's not really fascism, is it?
Because I thought fascism was about the government working with the companies.
To basically have control of what the companies do.
You know, sort of like the Democrats want to do with free speech.
So you have actual examples in which the Democrats are acting in a fascist nature, that the other social media companies, except for X, are bowing to the government's will.
That's actually literally fascism.
That fits the definition without any hyperbole at all.
But the part about staying in office, they're going to use the insurrection thing.
You have to mock the insurrection.
The way to deal with it is, I want you to tell me to my face that you believe Republicans try to take over the country without bringing weapons.
Just say that directly.
Well, I'm the one asking the questions here.
I know you are, but I want to understand the context of the question.
Do you believe that in some reasonable world, The Republicans try to take over the country without weapons?
Well, well, no, I'm the one asking the questions.
You see where this would go, right?
You should make them look like fucking idiots for asking that question.
No, I'm sorry.
If Republicans ever decide to take over a country, look for the weapons.
And then there could be, well, but somebody found one gun that was behind the garbage can a block away.
And you say, really?
Is that how Republicans take over the country?
They make sure they got that one gun that's hidden a block away?
Was that their battle plan?
That one gun that was a block away?
Just mock the shit out of it.
Just mock it.
In fact, you should make them talk about it as long as possible.
Because if you mock it right, the longer they talk about it, the worse it is for them.
But if you don't mock it, the longer they talk about it, the worse it is for you.
Does that make sense?
If you mock it, you take the high ground, and the more they see of it, the worse it is for them.
But as long as you just say, no, it's not true, we have good policies, or your side does it too, Then all the people hear is how often you were accused of it.
They don't really hear the defense part.
You have to change the frame.
The frame should not be, this is a good question and I'm answering it.
No!
Don't enter that frame.
Take Vivek's approach.
Vivek actually says, okay, what's happening here is you're being a fucking idiot.
He doesn't say that.
But what's happening here is you're being an illegitimate Member of the press, you're asking me a ridiculous question.
And no, nobody thinks that Republicans take over countries without bringing guns.
Right?
So you're being ridiculous right now.
You realize how silly you are.
You realize you're just being, you're being crazy right on camera.
Will you feel good when this plays back?
Can you defend that question to your friends?
I mean, that's the way I'd go.
I'd go right after the real problem, which is, these are not real questions.
These are not real accusations.
This is just pure bullshit.
And I don't think Trump has been good at that.
I think he's sort of ignored it, or tried to stay tough-talking.
Oh, here's another idea.
This will never happen, but I I suggest it in the, let's say, in the spirit of showing you persuasion.
Imagine if, between now and Election Day, Trump decides to go to lunch once a week with a green-haired Democrat.
Progressive.
You know, a different one.
And like the, you know, the most anti-Trump person you can imagine.
And all they're going to do is go to lunch, and he's just going to listen to them.
And have a conversation.
Nobody's trying to change anybody's minds.
He's just gonna go lunch.
Now here's the thing that I know that not all of you know.
Trump loves a pirate ship.
Trump loves a pirate ship.
If you're smart, he's gonna find a way to get along with you.
And in person, all of his scary demeanor stuff that he puts on when he's talking tough, You won't see any of it.
If you meet him in person, he is the warmest, most sort of generous, accommodating, charismatic character you're ever going to run into, right?
He puts on kind of an act when he's talking, but the real him when he's just relaxed and hanging out, because I had the experience of chatting with him for a while, His actual in-person personality is absolutely... What'd I say?
It's undeniable.
It's so strong that you would have a tough time leaving the lunch hating him.
You would leave thinking, damn it, I wish he agreed with me more.
But you wouldn't hate him when he left.
You would leave thinking, you know, okay, he's got a point of view.
Yeah, disarming.
Disarming.
That's the right word.
Thank you.
Thank you.
He is both generous and disarming in person.
And you do not get any sense of, you know, evil.
Like, you don't get any of that in person.
And he will show interest in you that you didn't think was possible.
Like, he'll ask questions about your situation and actually listen to you.
And you feel that he's actually listening.
That was my experience.
I think it's one of his greatest assets, but he keeps that greatest asset sort of, you know, close.
You know, people who know him know it, but the people who hate him don't know it.
Now, this would probably work with Biden as well, right?
Because people at that level can be pretty charismatic.
So probably if you were a big Biden hater, but you went to lunch with him, you kind of leave going, well, you did have some points.
So, I think we make the mistake of thinking that everybody is a TV person and they're just images on the screen, so you can hate them and call them vermin and do anything you want because they're not real.
But if he just every week went to lunch with a green-haired lesbian and the next time two non-binaries and a member of Antifa, as long as he had good security.
Two members of Black Lives Matter.
Wouldn't you love to see that?
And just do it once a week.
Because, you know, a lot of people just want to be heard.
Would you agree?
I think psychologists would agree with this.
A lot of people want to know that their version actually got into the brain of the person who makes the decision, and they rolled it around, they compared it to what they were doing, and then if they still decide to do what they were already doing, well, at least you did your job.
Like, you got in there, you gave the counter-argument, you would feel completely different, differently, even if the decision goes the other way.
Podcast lunch with Trump.
Yeah, no, I think it should be private, if he had lunch.
So, the other thing I say, if somebody calls you a fascist, I was trying it out on X yesterday, I'd mock them and say, apparently you ran out of words.
If you have to start using words that even you don't know the meaning, it means you ran out of words.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's just it's just a way to dismiss it as silly.
All right.
Adrian Norman had a fascinating podcast that I reposted.
So if you're looking at it, if you're looking for it, look for Adrian Norman DC.
That's what he goes by, by his ex-name.
And he interviewed a guy who seems to know a lot about Hezbollah sleeper groups in the United States.
Something called Unit 910 has infiltrated the United States and other countries.
So apparently Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is far bigger than I think most people realized.
You know, I kind of thought of them as this little group of people in Lebanon that sometimes send rockets at Israel.
I don't really think of them as a global organization, but you should, because they're a global organization.
And apparently these are the ones who figure out how to, among other things, you know, it's basically a spy organization, but among other things, they figure out what to blow up in the United States if they need to blow something up.
So in theory, a country like Iran, and I wrote a book about this very idea, The Religion War, it's a key part of the book, is that if you have a country that can't compete in the traditional nuclear way, the one thing you could do is over time infiltrate a lot of people into the major cities of your enemy and get them set up so they can do some terrorist act that would happen at the same time in multiple places.
So that you could basically cripple the country with, you know, well-chosen, you know, hit a power plant, knock out some bridges, you know, really go for like some key infrastructure.
You just, the whole country would shut down for months.
So I think that it was sort of an obvious strategy, but I think it looks like Hezbollah is doing that.
Now you might ask yourself, why don't they do it yet?
Why have there not been any terrorist things yet?
Because we've been at, you know, Iran's Neck for a long time.
And I would ask you this.
How do you know they weren't?
You know, you keep hearing about energy plants and food processing plants having all these explosions and problems.
And some people said, are these all natural?
Feels like a lot of meat processing plants are having trouble lately.
Now, I don't know.
Maybe that's conspiracy theory stuff.
But it wouldn't be surprising If dirty tricks were already happening and we just don't know it.
Wouldn't be surprising.
All right.
Fox News has a story about young people turning on Joe Biden and some of them are calling him Genocide Joe.
I don't know how many of them.
I got a feeling that was like one person they talked to.
Yeah, we like to call him Genocide Joe.
So that became the headline.
I don't know how many people are calling him that, but they're turning on him over his refusal to back a ceasefire, even though there's sort of one, a temporary one now.
But the experts say this.
Are they really gonna vote for Trump instead?
Yeah.
When it comes right down to a choice, are they going to choose Trump?
So don't get too excited if the polls say that the young people don't like Biden, because they might dislike Trump more, and that's going to be the critical thing.
But it could make a big difference if they stay home, right?
So if they're not excited about either one, that's a good reason not to vote.
So you might see Trump winning just because maybe the ones who did vote were already on his side.
But it's weird to see how dumb young people are, that they somehow don't realize that Trump would have also backed Israel completely.
Well, he does.
So why would you hate the one person when the other person would do exactly the same thing?
In fact, pretty much most of our politicians would do the same thing.
But the young, I don't know, don't have the context, maybe.
Yeah.
Mike Cernovich pointed out today, or yesterday in a post, that the plan to ship Gazans to the West has been endorsed by multiple Knesset members, and that the current Israeli Minister of Intelligence and numerous others have planned it, and Mike Cernovich and his
Classic, inimitable way says, and still low IQ American conservatives will claim this isn't the plan.
And one member, ex-member of the Israel government is saying, each country should take a quota.
We need all two million to leave.
That is the solution for Gaza.
Well, at least they're saying it directly now.
Now, I think I've been telling you since the start, That there's no scenario that makes sense where Israel wreaks havoc in Gaza and then says, all right, rebuild.
That can't happen.
Under no scenario can that happen.
They have to completely own it, depopulate it, turn it into some other thing.
It just can't be where the Hamas and Palestinians ever live again, probably.
Now they might, if they're smart, they're not going to exclude all Palestinians.
But they would vet them so carefully that almost nobody would get through.
But they could still say, well, look, we got Palestinians living here.
We got Jews.
Everybody's living happily.
But it would be because they vetted them so extremely that they knew what they were getting.
All right.
So I do believe this is an existential risk to the United States, that there will be more of this.
And if we open up our borders to people who's too many of them, this is the Moroccan question.
We're not saying all Moroccans are criminals.
Nobody says that.
And we're certainly not saying that all Palestinians are dangerous to America.
Don't believe that.
In fact, I've known personally a number of Palestinian types who are just awesome people.
So it's not about all of them.
It's about managing risk.
So here again, I say that if you were trying to keep America safe, you don't care about anything except can you know for sure that this population of people is going to be safe in the long run?
And if you can't, that's it.
Michael says, Scott, there's more to life than politics.
Christ.
Do you know what this live stream is about?
Sort of a live stream about politics.
Nobody told you that?
Did you think it was all going to be Dilbert Comics?
I'm sorry.
All right.
Well, the most important thing today is that it's Thanksgiving.
And for all of you lonely people, I'll be doing a live stream.
Starting at 6 p.m.
Eastern Time, 3 p.m.
my time.
First hour will be family-friendly and then I might go private if we want to have some adult conversations and whatnot.
But if you're alone on Thanksgiving and you'd like some company, that's what I'll be for.
So I'm not gonna be presenting anything.
I'm just gonna be hanging out with you while I make some food.
So I'm gonna be cooking and prepping.
I'm chatting to you.
I have my official chef's hat and apron.
And you can just put it on and feel like you've got a friend.
I'll be your virtual friend.
As you know, one of the biggest health risks in the world right now is loneliness.
Because our system is driving us to be lonely.
And so I'll try to do what I can to fix that.
This will be a little test.
If it goes well, maybe I'll do more of it.
We'll see if people like it.
But don't miss it.
If you're lonely, let me help.
And I will also like to take this opportunity to show my gratitude to every one of you and anyone who's ever watched this all year.
As you know, I ran into a little bit of trouble earlier this year.
I don't know if anybody heard.
A little thing called cancellation.
And at the moment, I'm doing great.
Happier than ever.
Literally, happier than ever.
And it's because of you.
You're the ones who did not turn your backs on me.
You're the ones who looked at the proper context and said, do we care about that or do we not care about that?
And you're the smartest audience in all of live streaming, which I actually believe.
I believe that literally.
And I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you.
Because words would fail.
My appreciation for you and what you've done for me is extreme.
And I try to repay the favor as often as possible, which can help bond us.
A number of you have been nice enough to say that I've changed your lives.
In a variety of ways.
Some of you have already bought your copy of my new book, Reframe Your Brain, which by the way, this sounds like marketing and it is, but it's also true.
I wouldn't wait too long to order this if you want to get it as a gift.
It's sort of the perfect gift book because it works for everybody.
There's nobody, literally nobody, Who would not find this an interesting book?
Right?
It's not like knowing somebody likes certain kinds of books.
This one's guaranteed.
Because it's just easy little reframes that would work for everybody.
So, because it's independently published, which means that Amazon publishes them based on the orders that come in.
So they don't make them in advance just in case you want them.
So I don't know that if you wait until too close to Christmas you would get it on time.
I'm kind of expecting that they're going to tell me any moment now, oh, there's a two week delay or something.
So if you're smart, the following week, if you want any copies of that, I would get them.
That is marketing, of course.
But I think it's true.
I think there might be some some supply problems in the last two weeks.
All right.
Well, Annie, I'm glad I helped you during the pandemic.
And you certainly returned the favor, all of you did.
So, I'll see you YouTube either tomorrow or tonight.
By the way, usually the stream will not be on YouTube.
I think I didn't mention that.
It'll be on the Locals stream.
Usually it's private, but I'm going to make it public so everybody can watch it.
That would be at scottadams.locals.com.
That's where you'd find me, and it'll go live at 6pm Eastern Time.