Episode 2302 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/24/23 News That Is Mostly Fake And Dumb But Fun Nonetheless
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, Rainbow Bridge Car Explosion, Ghost Newsrooms, DEI Decentering Whiteness, Janice Gassam Ascre, Grok AI, AI Art, President Trump's Humor, Elon Musk Israel Visit, PM Netanyahu, Gaza's Future, Cartel Tiger Feeder, NYC Mayor Adams, AI Killer Drones, Ireland Kids Stabbed, Conor McGregor, Carnivorous Turkeys, Republican Ballot Stuffer, Diversity Of Thought, Balaji Srinivasan, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization, Coffee with Scott Adams.
If you'd like to take this experience, which might be in a simulation or it might be real, there's no way to know.
You might be a brain in a jar.
But if you'd like to take that experience, whatever it is, up to levels that nobody can even imagine with their little brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your Favorite liquid, I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Septap.
have us now go.
Ah, divine.
Sublime.
Exceptional.
Savor it.
All right.
Let's talk about the stuff.
The theme for today is everything is fake and none of the news is true and the stuff that's true is ridiculous.
So, kind of a perfect day after Thanksgiving.
By the way, if you didn't catch it, I did a live stream of cooking my meal yesterday.
Had about 2,000 people attend.
So, and then I asked people, how many of you are alone today?
A lot.
You know, I think this whole loneliness thing is way bigger than you think.
Because if you're not personally lonely, it's a completely invisible problem.
Because people aren't dying of loneliness exactly.
It just happens to be their biggest problem.
But they suffer silently because that's what loneliness is.
If they had you to complain to, they wouldn't be lonely.
But we'll figure that out.
Maybe AI will solve it.
So anyway, remember that story about what might have been a terrorist bomb on the Rainbow Bridge between the U.S.
and Canada?
And the latest is it was a $300,000 Bentley that exploded in a fireball.
There was no bomb inside and it killed a wealthy New York couple.
They may have suffered mechanical failure.
Now that really That makes mechanical failure do a lot of lifting, doesn't it?
As they like to say.
I'm getting tired of that saying, does a lot of lifting.
But what kind of mechanical failure makes your car drive to Canada and crash into things and turn into a fireball?
So that's not the best advertisement for Bentley.
But do you believe it was a mechanical failure?
I'm going to say no on the mechanical failure.
It just doesn't really track with any real-life experience I've ever heard of or seen or been in.
Autopilot?
But not at high speed.
Yeah.
Nah.
I don't know.
There's something still missing.
Maybe one of them was suicidal.
Maybe there's something we don't know.
I'm going to say that one's a big question mark.
But that's my first example of news you should not believe.
In the first day or two.
And that's a warning to myself, by the way.
Because I fell for the first story, too.
Well, the Wall Street Journal is reporting.
And this should be no surprise.
Do you know why we were all fooled by the Rainbow Bridge story?
Do you remember where the bad reporting came from?
It wasn't a national outlet.
It was the local news.
Am I right?
It was a local news unit.
I think that said it was a terror attack.
Well, what about that local news?
Well, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that a lot of the local newspapers, now the Bridge thing, I think it was a local TV thing, but they have what they call ghost newsrooms.
So there are now a lot of local papers.
They have literally no reporters.
All they do is take content from some central source and if they have a local story they give some what are called stringers.
Somebody that you get just to do a project.
A number of them are owned by the same entities that just feed them stuff.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, why do these newspapers even stay in business?
Who exactly is even buying a local newspaper?
And part of the answer is that they're owned by really, really rich people who don't need to make money.
They're owned by hedge funds and people just want some clout, I guess.
But they're not really for profit so much as they used to be.
It's more like for influence, I guess.
Maybe somebody just likes to own a newspaper.
But just think of that.
So these newspapers have become like these Potemkin Village.
Nah, I just said that so I could sound smart.
How many of you know what a Potemkin Village is?
That's just one of those things that douchebags like me say in public so that three-quarters of the people will say, Potemkin Village?
Huh.
So, do you think we should cross the Rubicon?
Yeah, that's just another one of those douchebag things that people like me like to say.
Shall we read the eponymous book?
Or should we consider the zeitgeist?
Those are all the douchebag things that people like to say.
A Pyrrhic victory, yes.
There was a Pyrrhic victory in the Potemkin village after they crossed the Rubicon.
None of that means anything.
But these ghost newsrooms Now I'm old enough to remember, or any of you old enough to remember, when the local newspapers had reporters and also good comics.
Does anybody remember when the local newspapers, they're like physical things you hold in your hands.
And when I say they're physical things you hold in your hands, I mean they come off on your hands and when you're done you look like you just raped a pile of coal.
And you're like, eh, I can't touch my food or my face until I wash my hands.
So that's called a newspaper, if you're not old enough to remember that.
And they used to have these things called good comics, like Dilbert.
Have you heard of it?
It used to be in local newspapers and also national ones.
And yeah, they got rid of that and all the reporters.
So now those newspapers are just Potemkin Villages, because they crossed Rubicon.
It was kind of in the zeitgeist.
Yeah, that's how smart I am.
I got words.
I know words.
All right.
So the reports from small business users, small business owners, in San Francisco is that now that President Xi has returned back to China, that San Francisco is returning back to Turdsville.
So the Turdsville is back open and if you'd like to visit, bring your big boots.
And when I say your big boots, I mean the boots you're going to throw away after every walk.
They should make disposable boots for San Francisco.
They'd have to be like thigh high, because you know, you want to think ahead.
You don't really at the moment, you only need boots that are like ankle sized, but think ahead.
You're going to need knee-high boots pretty soon.
You might as well go for a thigh-high and get ahead.
Because, you know, they've crossed the Rubicon in their Potemkin village.
That's the zeitgeist.
Here's a horrible story.
Oh, this is terrible.
A New Jersey gym teacher, a 38-year-old woman, Lydia Pinto, she was accused of having years of sex with a teenage boy.
And, wow, she was arrested.
Now, I know what a lot of you are going to say, because I know my audience.
You're going to say, oh, Scott.
Oh, you're saying it already.
All right, you're disgusting.
You're disgusting.
People are saying, the poor boy.
It's all sarcastically.
Oh, the poor teenage boy.
He had sex with an attractive adult woman for years.
No.
I want you to know.
I personally have a friend who was in this situation.
Now, it wasn't a teacher, but I'll just say an authority figure.
An authority figure.
And when he was a teenager, the same age as this young poor victim in this story, he had a similar situation where an older female victimized him.
And if you think he didn't have lasting damage from that, well, you're wrong.
He did.
I knew him later.
And he had nerve damage starting up toward the top of his fingers and extending almost down past the wrist area.
Pretty bad nerve damage from that situation.
Not directly from the situation, but every time he told the story he would get high-fived so hard that over time he just lost all feeling above the elbow.
What you need to know is that these are dangerous situations and not to be made light of because I know somebody who's in that situation and tragic is the only word that can describe it.
Well, there's a DEI, that's a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion consultant in Ohio who wrote a book called De-Centering Whiteness and then wrote about it in Forbes.
And that got Senator J.D.
Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy, candidate for president, both were criticizing it.
But what the consultant said, is that de-centering whiteness, and I'm not even going to say anything about her hairstyle, which maybe acts against the de-centering whiteness concept, because her hairstyle looked like, you know, maybe it didn't come directly from her African roots, but she wants to de-center whiteness in other areas, not related to hairstyle.
And I don't know the details of this, but I do know that if you said de-centering anything else, it would be judged as super racist, but not de-centering whiteness.
However, J.D.
Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy both think this should be worthy of condemnation, and the consultant who wrote this book said in her defense, she said, whoa, whoa, whoa, what you don't understand is, I'm not talking about any individual white person.
She said, I'm talking about a situation, you know, a system.
Do you know anybody who got cancelled for saying the same thing?
Is there anybody who said, I'm not talking about any individuals, it's more like the system.
Have you ever heard of anybody who got cancelled because of that?
I feel like it rings a bell.
Something about, even if you're not talking about individuals, you're talking about a system, not even a group.
You're not even talking about a group of people, you're talking about a system.
So as she explained, she's not talking about white people, but rather there's a system that involves a lot of centering whiteness.
But has anybody ever been cancelled for having that point of view?
I don't know.
I just can't think of anybody.
Can't think of anybody.
Well, here's the next fake story.
Do you remember I explained to you in detail how this new technology for AI called QSTAR might be the secret that created some kind of conscious, you know, AGI super intelligence within ChatGPT that may be the real secret behind the story?
I got pretty excited about that.
All of it was bullshit.
Every bit of it was wrong.
100% of what I told you, not even close.
Right.
So as of today, what I think is true, and I'm reading Brian Ramelli and some other people who know what they're talking about, that whole Q star thing might make AI a little bit better in some specific ways, but no big deal.
So it went from God-like intelligence that will own Earth any day now, it's the most dangerous thing in the world, to, you know, it might help you with math a little bit.
And that's it.
None of it was anything.
And probably, probably there's nothing like AGI, you know, the real super intelligence.
There's probably nothing like that at OpenAI.
Or anywhere else.
Probably doesn't exist anywhere.
I think maybe there's just optimism that somebody will figure it out.
But it looks like, as some smart people are saying, that the real game here with AI is which data they have available to train on.
So if you think about it, these social media networks may soon find that their entire value is that it trains AI in a way that their competitors can't do it.
For example, X will use the traffic on X to train its AI, but that won't be available to other companies.
Facebook will train on their data, Amazon will train on their data, and they'll all have different data.
If there's one thing I want AI to do for my purchases, It's this.
I'm very bad at ordering things online that are the right scale.
Does anybody have that problem?
You'll buy a couch online and it'll come and it's like a toy or something.
I thought I was buying a real couch.
I thought this price was unusually good, but it's actually a Barbie couch.
It's not even a real couch.
And it'll be normal things, like you buy plates.
Oh, I bought a set of plates.
Oh, I should have read that they're only five inches in diameter.
Who even sells a plate that's five inches in diameter?
So there are ordinary things that I don't check the size on.
Like if you buy a chair, doesn't your brain say, well, it's probably like the size of an adult human being, because it's a chair.
And there you get it, it's like a little Potemkin chair.
That's the wrong use of Potemkin, but you didn't know it, did you?
Sort of a zeitgeist Potemkin crossing the Rubicon kind of a chair.
Anyway, so that'll help.
Meanwhile, Grok is coming.
That would be Elon Musk's AI.
So I already signed up for that Premium plus, I don't know, $20 a month, whatever it is, $16 a month?
I can't remember.
But I signed up for it, so when Grok is available, which could happen any time next week, we're gonna have some fun.
I don't know what to expect from that.
So I guess it'll be two versions of Grok, in the sense that you could turn off its personality.
So you know, it has that kind of humorous personality where it jokes with you.
Would you turn it off?
Let me ask you.
Do you think you'd be sick of the little jokes it makes and turn it off?
Or would you be happy that it jokes with you?
I think I would turn it off after a few weeks of just seeing what it does.
Because the jokes it makes are off, they're off task.
Like if it makes you think about the joke when you just wanted an answer and you're You know, it's one of many things you're doing today.
I think I'll turn the jokes off.
But initially, they're good.
Initially, they're good, because it, you know, makes it a little more friendly.
And maybe I'd keep them on.
We'll see how, you know, you don't really know how you use them until you use it.
But I feel like I'd probably turn it off after a while.
Yeah, because one of the things it does is it tries too hard.
Like it tries too hard to be that person?
You know, sometimes just give you the answer.
You know, if you had a friend who had a big personality, they wouldn't put their big personality in every single statement.
It would just sort of be there as a background.
But AI would probably try to throw it in every answer.
It's going to be a little too much, I think.
All right.
Speaking of that, what's going to happen When you can create your own porn just by talking to your computer.
And what happens when you can give a picture of your ex or anybody you work with or anybody in the world and it takes one photograph and it can turn it into their voice.
Well, I guess you need a voice clip.
You need one voice clip and one photograph and then you can talk it into any Pornographic scene you want.
So we're basically right on the edge of doing that and we'll definitely be able to do that within a year.
Imagine the entire porn industry disappearing in a year.
Could that happen?
That could actually happen.
Now the thing I don't know, because I've predicted that we won't like AI art.
This is one of my predictions that I don't think anybody agrees with.
So I'm going to keep saying it so you remember I said it.
If I see a painting, or let's say a musical composition, by a human being, I'm very aware that the thing I'm responding to is that the human made it.
Here's something that I know as an artist that you would never know.
The art is always about the artist.
You didn't know that, did you?
The art is not about the creation.
The art is always about the artist.
If you don't get that, you'll think that AI can do art that people will want to enjoy.
They will not.
Because the artist is a machine.
I'm not going to be oppressed.
And the reason that art is about the artist is that what is being triggered is our evolutionary mating instinct.
Art appeals to us.
This is my hypothesis.
This is not based on any research.
This is based on my lived experience, if you will.
Art is about responding to the amazingness of the artist.
There's a drummer who's all over social media.
I don't know if you've seen him.
I can't remember his name.
A bearded guy who drums so quickly that it's almost like a different instrument.
Like his hands go... And he can do things that you just don't think are possible.
He can smack the stick down on the drum and while he's looking at the camera, he grabs the stick out of the air and then keeps going.
Like crazy stuff.
Now when I listen to him drum, do I say to myself, wow, that is some musically excellent drumming?
Nope.
Nope.
I mean, maybe it is, but it doesn't like do anything to me.
It doesn't move me.
It's just a different way to do drumming.
Not really special in terms of how it sounds, but the fact that he can do something that you don't think a human being could even do, makes it art.
If you said, I have a computer that can make the same sound as this guy, nobody would listen to it.
Oh, but we'll make it visual.
I'll make an AI guy who's drumming exactly like that real guy.
Zero interest.
Because it's not the real guy.
I'm only interested because a guy did it.
When you look at a Van Gogh, do you think you would buy any Van Gogh art If it had only been made by a machine and there had never been a Van Gogh?
No.
Not even close.
You wouldn't have the slightest interest.
All right.
Now, if I haven't sold you yet, if I haven't sold you yet, wait for it.
Here comes the kill shot.
Imagine if AI and only AI had created the Mona Lisa.
Big famous painting?
Put in the Louvre?
Do you think it would be the most famous art in the world?
Nope.
You wouldn't even show it to your best friend.
If you produce that on your own, and like the AI created literally the Mona Lisa, and it had never existed before, who would care?
Zero people.
Zero.
The only thing that makes the Mona Lisa the Mona Lisa is who made it.
And the fact that you're like, wow, like an early human being, you know, without technology made that.
Wow.
Yeah.
So watch for that.
And so the initial conversation was pornography.
While it might be true that you can create exactly the pornography that looks like real humans doing real things in a year, it might never replace Actual porn, because you'll know it's not people.
So there's already anime porn, you know, sort of cartoon versions, and it's actually pretty popular, but it never really, you know, crossed a certain threshold in the general public.
You know, it's popular with, I don't know, 10 or 15% of men or something, but never really, probably won't grow beyond that.
So anyway, keep an eye on that.
But imagine a world in which you can speak into reality any of your co-workers or friends into porn.
Do you think that's going to be much viral?
That is going to be so viral.
So I think that AI porn will mostly be used for humor and even political memes.
Right.
So right now it's really easy to make a photograph, you know, take a photograph and add some words to it.
And how popular are memes?
Like I saw one, a meme today that just made me laugh like crazy.
Memes are really, really powerful.
Now imagine that could be a 10 or 15 second AI reel with video and it's completely pornographic.
And you can put in world leaders, you can throw in Michelle Obama doing who knows what, anything you want.
I don't mean to just pick one person, but anybody.
That's going to be the most popular memes are just going to be pornographic memes with real people.
How do you stop it?
I mean, there's no way around it.
All right.
Trump is doing his good mocking.
Today, speaking of memes, Trump sent around, on Truth, a meme of Joe Biden talking on the phone next to his convertible.
What kind of convertible is it?
Is it a Corvette?
I forget.
It's a Vette?
Yeah.
So anyway, the meme is Biden on the phone next to his convertible, and he's saying on the phone, according to the meme, Hello, Jill.
I locked my keys in the car again.
Now, it's funnier because Trump posted it, right?
It was already funny, but the fact that Trump posted it just takes it to another level, because somebody running for president isn't supposed to be posting memes like that.
So the naughtiness of it, or the inappropriateness of it, is what Trump understands.
Here's a little humor tip.
You do a different type of humor for each kind of distribution.
If I'm writing humor for a comic that will just sit there on a page and people will read it by themselves, you have to write it completely differently than if you're a public speaker or you're saying something on a meme that is broadcast.
You will get a much bigger laugh If you're a public figure, saying something that people know public figures are not supposed to say.
And that's what Trump does over and over again.
It's like... Somebody sent me a pornographic meme over on the locals.
On locals, you can include photos in your comments.
I'm not going to tell you what I'm saying, but it's pretty funny.
All right.
So Trump's doing a good job mocking.
I think mockery is the way.
Mockery is the way.
I'm going to say a lot more about that as we go because we're going to spend, we people who are mostly on this live stream, probably many of you are leaning right and you're going to have to spend another year being accused of being a Nazi because that's all the Democrats have against Trump.
And against whoever, you know, if it's not Trump, if it's somebody else who gets nominated, they're going to do the same thing.
I mean, just think about this.
If Vivek Ramaswamy becomes the nominee, they will accuse him of being Hitler.
Just hold that in your mind for a minute.
Because it's all they have.
They're actually going to accuse the brown guy of being Hitler.
That's really going to happen.
And you know it, right?
Now, if it's not Orange Hitler, it's going to be Brown Hitler, right?
That shows you how bankrupt their approach is.
It's just sort of, if all you have is a hammer, you know, everybody looks like a nail.
But good luck!
Good luck selling that!
So I think we need to mock it out of existence, and we need to meme it out of existence, or even embrace it.
Now, ever since I started calling my audience colonizers, have you noticed how you feel about the word?
Like you're starting to make it into a joke word?
So, maybe more and more you should call yourself a colonizer.
But, importantly, you should not let anybody else use the C word.
Colonizer is what you can call yourself.
Don't let other people call you a colonizer.
That's the C word.
That's reserved.
Sorry, that's reserved.
Elon Musk is going to Israel next week, which raises some questions.
He's going to meet with Netanyahu and two of the kibbutz that was most impacted by the Hamas attack.
And why do you think he's doing that?
What's your best guess?
Do you think it has something to do with needing his support for military reasons?
Could it be about Starlink?
Could it be about rebuilding Gaza?
Could it be about rebuilding?
Let me ask you this.
If you were Israel, and you were trying to figure out what to do with Gaza, and you knew that you couldn't just turn it back into what it used to be, But you can't, you also can't just make it Israel, you know, like just Israel.
That's going to be a problem.
So what do you do?
Let me tell you what I would do.
I would invite Elon Musk and I would say to Elon Musk, what do you think we should do here?
How do you think we should handle this?
And because here's the way, the only way I think you could handle it.
You say, why don't we build it so it's the greenest electric place ever?
Because I'm guessing that solar power works really well in Gaza.
Is that fair to say?
Solar power probably works really, really well in Gaza.
If you were looking to rebuild and you knew that the source of energy was always going to be a problem in Gaza, like where does the energy come from, and you also wanted somebody who knew a lot about desalinization, and somebody who was building self-driving cars, how would you build a city from scratch?
I would ask Elon Musk, Does he want to build a city from scratch?
I'd let him build it.
You know, or at least, you know, maybe be on an advisory committee of people building it or something like that.
Because I honestly can't imagine a better person to ask the question, what do you do with Gaza?
Can you?
I mean, seriously, can you think of one person on the planet you'd rather ask that question?
What do you think we should do with it once we're done?
Well, yeah, actually you're saying Trump.
Trump is actually a good suggestion.
But if you want to do something that's really groundbreaking, if I'm Netanyahu, this is how I'm thinking.
Now remember, Netanyahu is not your normal world leader.
If you don't know this, he's unusually smart.
Do you all know that?
Netanyahu is not like You know, the ordinary leader.
He's like a level above just in raw intelligence.
Do you think that Netanyahu is thinking, let's build Gaza back so it's sort of like it used to be?
I don't think that's even slightly possible.
Do you think that he's saying, let's build it back so it's different, but it's basically just as good?
Do you think he would do that?
I don't think so.
Because the smart play is to build it back so it's like the jewel of the Middle East.
Right?
Build it back so it's the model of people getting along.
It's the very model of Islam and everybody else getting along in the same place.
Now you would have to do serious, serious vetting of who you let in and who you don't so that you can make sure that they can live together.
But, wouldn't you need to replace the schools?
You couldn't have a school system in Hamas where they're teaching them to kill Jews.
So you would need a high-end, AI-based school.
Probably some AI, you know, fundamentally AI-driven school.
And you would need... Here's how I'd do it.
I would have no private cars in Gaza.
I would have all electric.
And I would ask Musk if he wants to be the one who owns basically all the cars in Gaza.
And if they're all electric, and they're all self-driving, self-driving, like taxis, then they would have the best transportation system in the entire world in five years.
They could have actually the best urban transportation.
Imagine just going outside and the only vehicles are self-driving and you just take your app and you walk to the corner and one pulls up.
You never have to do maintenance, you never have to buy gas, you just use it when you need it.
So you wouldn't have much traffic either.
Just think about this, if all the cars were autonomous and they were networked, You wouldn't need stop signs or stop lights.
Think about that.
You wouldn't need stop signs or stop lights.
Because the cars would know where the other ones were and they would just go past each other without touching.
Not close.
I mean, you'd make sure that they slowed down enough so everybody had a nice big hole to go through.
But wouldn't you want to live there?
I mean, except for other problems.
Wouldn't you love to live in a city where you could walk outside, a car drives up, takes you anywhere, and never has to slow down?
That would change everything about your experience.
If you could order food and the car just pulls up and you just take it out of the car.
Here's what I think.
I've told you a billion times that the future is building cities from scratch.
This should be the city from scratch.
It should be the one place where they try to do everything right from the first moment.
Before you even put one brick back, you make sure you've planned how people could live together, how they could be educated, how they can get around, how they could grow food.
Do you know what Elon Musk's brother is into?
I think he's still into it, but Kimball, Kimball Musk, he does indoor gardens and indoor farms.
Now, if you add indoor farm to everything that Elon has in his basket of services, remember, he's got your internet service in the sky, he's got your self-driving cars, He's got your energy, because he could put the Tesla batteries in your homes.
He has the big batteries so that you could do just solar, the whole thing.
Solar rooftops, if you want.
Between the Musk brothers, they could rebuild Gaza.
And he even has the money to do it.
What about the people who want to opt out?
Well, that's the thing, is that Gaza is going to be largely empty.
So it's not people who want to opt out.
It would be you're going to have to opt in.
Right.
So there's no opting out.
Everybody's out.
You're starting out.
Out is the default.
Nobody's in.
So you got it.
You got to get in.
That's that's the only challenge.
So it would be expensive and inefficient.
I doubt it.
I think you could get the cost of rebuilding really low.
If you did it right.
And I think you can make the cost of living there the best cost of living and the highest, I'll bet you can make the highest quality of living in the world in five years.
And this is why I think Israel needs to do this.
If you build it back the way it was, you just recreate the problem.
If you build it back and it's sort of the same quality, but it's just Israelis living there, it's just another settlement, so that's just another problem.
But if you make it better than anything ever was, and also you make sure that you bring back a good percentage of the Palestinians, but you vet the hell out of them, and you educate their children in schools that don't militarize them, I would be impressed at that outcome.
Space Jason says, Scott, you're okay with half the Palestinians being sent to the US?
Ask better questions.
That is a really dumb question.
Do you really think I'm going to say yes?
Of course not.
No, the Palestinians have a problem, but I don't think America should solve it.
If you can't get Egypt to take them, and you can't get Jordan to take them, taking them in North America is the dumbest fucking thing we would ever do.
It would literally be the dumbest thing we ever did.
And do you know why that's not racist?
Well, I know it's not because the de-centering whiteness consultant says that you can say that's more about the system And that's really not about any individual.
Because if it were about any individuals, it'd be racist.
But it's not.
It's about a system.
So if a DEI consultant says it's OK, I'm OK with it, too.
All right.
The other possibility... Well, not possibility.
The other definite fact we can say about Musk going to Israel is that there is one person in the world who can give you a Pope-like Here I'm using an analogy.
A Pope-like, what do you call it, absolvement, is that a word?
From being considered anti-Semitic.
Here's what Musk needs.
He needs Netanyahu to stand next to him and put his arm around him and say, whatever you're saying about this guy, stop it.
This guy loves Israel.
Stop it.
You just need Netanyahu to say it directly to everybody.
Hey everybody, do you know what's good for you?
Imagine Netanyahu saying this.
And he should.
He should.
He should say, look, let's pull together.
Israel doesn't need any enemies.
This is our friend.
He's our friend.
And he can absolutely say what he wants to say about ceasefires.
He's here just to help.
This is the least anti-Semitic guy you'll ever have.
He's doing real things to make things better.
Stop it.
Just stop the division.
He's on our side.
Well, he's not on our side.
That would be the wrong thing to say.
It'd be better to say he's on the side of humanity.
That would be a better way to say it.
I think it would be a mistake to say he's on the side of the Jews.
It would be better to say he's clearly on the side of humanity.
Are we going to agree on everything?
No!
But stop it.
Just stop going after him for being anti-Semitic.
You're not helping Israel.
Because the last thing you want is for Moshe to bow out.
The last thing you want is for Moshe to say, all right, I'm out.
I hear your criticisms.
I'm out.
You don't want that.
You do not want that.
And Netanyahu can fix that.
So we'll see if he does.
I'm going to predict that Netanyahu will fix that.
Or he'll take a big step toward fixing it.
Because it's good for him.
It's good for America.
It's good for Jews in America.
It's good for the Palestinians.
Because Musk is not anti-Palestinian.
That's important.
So, yes.
And Netanyahu is smart, so he'll do that.
I think.
All right, so there's a big arrest in the cartels.
New York Post is reporting that the Mexican president and the Mexican government has apparently picked up this alleged cartel security boss who's accused of feeding his rivals to tigers.
So I guess they have trained tigers that they throw people in the cage and let them eat them.
So he's sort of the enforcer guy and So he got picked up.
Do you believe this story?
Do you believe that on the surface it's exactly what it looks like?
Apparently he's in the cartel that does a lot of fentanyl.
So fentanyl is the underlying big problem here that he's part of the fentanyl production cartel.
So here's what I think.
Because this kind of story is always sort of a one-off, Like you never see, and they took down the whole cartel.
It's always one off.
Do you know what it makes me think?
That this is just how the cartel demotes somebody that they needed to demote.
To me it looks like somebody else just got his job.
And it was like corporate intrigue.
And like, maybe this guy did something to the wrong person.
Maybe he talked to somebody he shouldn't have.
And the cartel decided to knock him out and just hand him over to the government.
So I feel like the cartel itself said, you know what?
We want to get rid of this guy.
So why don't you pretend you're arresting him?
We'll just give him to you.
And then the United States will say, oh, it looks like you're working with Mexico, so we don't need to send the military in.
Because you know what's going to happen if a Republican becomes president?
Yeah.
The president of Mexico isn't going to be handing us over one fucking guy every year.
That's not going to happen.
But it's a good story.
For why you don't need to send your American military down because, you know, look, it's obvious that the Mexican government's making progress.
They picked up this guy.
And then a year ago, they picked up that other guy.
So that's two guys in two years.
So that's pretty good progress.
Right.
Two people in two years.
Right.
Right.
So to me, this looks like a fake story.
Meaning that he probably did get picked up.
He probably did get arrested.
He probably did feed people to tigers.
That part, probably true.
But the part about we're making progress against the cartels because we got this guy?
I'm not buying that.
To me this looks like a human sacrifice and maybe he was expendable.
Because a guy like that, the guy who feeds people to the tigers, he's not exactly careful.
You know what I mean?
Eventually he's going to feed the wrong guy to a tiger.
And somebody's going to say, um, that was, uh, that was actually my cousin you fed to that tiger.
Uh, so, you know, you got to go.
All right.
So keep an eye on that.
But I don't believe anything about the, uh, I don't believe anything our government says about progress against fentanyl.
I don't believe anything that Biden agreed to with Xi will make a difference.
I also wouldn't, wouldn't believe that if Trump had made the same agreement.
Doesn't matter who does it.
I don't believe China's going to change.
I don't believe the cartels are going to change.
I would believe a military strike in the cartels.
Like that would look real.
Short of that, it's all pretend.
Well, Mayor Eric Adams, of course, a prominent in the Democrat Party, Mayor of New York, and he's being accused of some kind of rape from many years ago.
You should listen to his denial.
If you want to hear how an actual honest denial sounds, listen to Eric Adams.
So his denial sounds absolutely legitimate.
Absolutely.
Because here's what you don't say.
Oh, I certainly You know, that didn't happen.
Why do I keep getting accused of things?
You know, sort of weaseling around the question.
He looks at the camera and says, that did not happen.
I've never met her.
I have no memory of her.
None of that happened.
That's a good answer.
Now, keep in mind though, keep in mind, when people are prepared for the question, and they used to be a police officer, so you've seen every kind of lie, They would be good at lying.
He would be good at lying because he's seen it from both sides.
He would know how to do it.
However, I'm going to defend him completely.
I saw the reporter asking this question.
Apparently the accuser is literally famous for being a serial accuser and wrote a book on how to accuse people.
So the accuser is so amazingly sketchy that once you hear even a little bit about the accuser, it's obviously not true.
Let me say it again.
It's obviously not true.
Now here's the detail that I like to tell people who don't know.
Do you know how often public figures get accused, credibly accused, credibly, like an actual person gives details of sexual abuse and rape?
It happens all the time.
Do you know how many times I've been accused by a woman in Canada, who I've never met, she's just been my stalker for years, but she used to call people I did business with in the United States, my publishers, and give them detailed accounts of me raping her.
Never met her.
I can't, I don't even remember her name.
She's up in Canada somewhere.
And she would go off her meds every, you know, every once a year or so.
I think that's what it was, literally, offer meds.
And she would have very detailed accusations about me going to her house in Canada, and rifling through a computer, and while I was there I did something to her children.
Really detailed.
Never met her.
Just crazy person in Canada.
Now, and that's not the only one.
It's like, if you're a public figure, it's just It just is a routine, serial kind of thing that happens all the time.
Now, if you didn't know that, if you didn't know that, that it's routine for public figures to have these crazy accusations, then you would look at Mayor Adams and you'd say to yourself, you know, when people are accused of things like that, they're usually guilty.
Nope.
Reverse it for public figures.
For public figures, they're usually not guilty.
Because there's a far more prevalence of fake accusations.
Probably 5 to 1.
Now that doesn't count for a Harvey Weinstein type.
For them the real ones would be 10 to 1 for any fake one.
But they're unusual.
A real person, like a real ordinary public figure, will have many more fake ones than any real one that might be real.
You have to know that to understand this kind of story.
All right.
Hostage exchange apparently is going forward, and we're getting minute-by-minute changes.
First it was delayed, but now it looks like it's going to happen.
Maybe 13 or so, or 25 have been exchanged already.
Yeah.
So, so I don't know the details, but it looks like something's happening that's productive.
And then we hear that no Americans will be among the initial 13 hostages.
Well, if it's only 13, you know, I wouldn't expect necessarily too many Americans.
I don't know, just 13.
But you wonder if Hamas is intentionally going to hold back the Americans.
Do you think they will?
I feel like they will.
Or you have to ask if there are any Americans still alive.
I think they probably hate the Israelis more than the Americans, but to them they would just all be Jews that they'd captured, probably.
They probably don't even make a difference.
All right.
So I guess there's not much to say about it, except we'll keep an eye on it.
And I'll say again that we don't know the real game here.
We don't know to what extent Israel is going to learn something by watching how the exchange happens or talking to the people that they get back to figure out where other people are, etc.
But I'm strongly on the side of saying that Israel is making the right decision to negotiate for these hostages.
And I like the fact that Israel played bad cop as long as they could.
You know, well, they were a really bad cop, but they resisted the ceasefire for all the right reasons.
So they, you know, grudgingly they're doing it now.
Oh, no.
Andrew Cuomo is being sued now.
Thank you.
Wow.
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye on that.
So the Pentagon apparently wants to keep its option open for making AI able to use, or AI to make killing decisions in war.
So apparently one of our big future offensive capabilities would be drones, and it would be swarms of drones.
And the only way you could control a swarm of drones is with AI.
And it wouldn't make much sense to control it unless it could also make some killing decisions.
So, do you think there was ever any chance that AI wouldn't be making killing decisions?
That was never even possible.
Do you know why?
Because if our drones were not making killing decisions with AI, the enemy would.
Because it'd be faster.
So you can't really have the second fast killing decisions, can you?
There's no point in even building the drones if you have to make, you know, decisions the same as if, you know, you were there in person.
It would be so inefficient.
They only kill bad guys.
Yeah, they're so smart, they only kill bad guys.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that that's risk-free.
And I'm not even saying it's a good idea.
I'm just saying it's inevitable.
Nothing could stop it.
Because if we don't do it, the enemy would do it.
And if the enemy does it, we're going to match it.
It's sort of like nuclear weapons.
There's no second path here.
There is one path.
They will have AI.
They will have a shooting authority under some situations.
Will it go wrong?
Will it create a Skynet?
Almost certainly.
Almost certainly.
In the long run.
So I don't know how long it'll take, but yeah, almost certainly.
I don't know how it could not, honestly.
All right.
Ireland we'll talk about.
So the story in Ireland is that five people got stabbed, including three children, by what they're calling an alleged immigrant.
Outside of a school, the crime happened.
So the big riots and people going crazy there.
The Irish Prime Minister says the government is, quote, very white and that it very much needs to change to be more diverse.
And somebody reported that Ireland is 94% white, but the Prime Minister needs more diversity.
Do they really not even have 5% diversity in their government?
They don't have 5% diversity at all?
How much more do you need?
Well, yeah, Conor McGregor has weighed into this controversy, a famous MMA fighter, and he's pretty darn mad, as are a lot of the locals, about what they think is a dangerous situation from lots of Islamic and other immigrants.
So there you have it.
So there's not much to say, except people are alarmed and the citizens are trying to fight back, but who knows how much that's going to make a difference.
Jack Posobiec was posting, there's a video of people in Galway, some city in Ireland, and a reporter was asking them, or somebody with a microphone was asking, if they knew what the most common baby name was in their town, in Ireland.
And they were all guessing, is it Jack?
Is it Timothy?
And then after they've all guessed, the second phase, they're told the answer, and the answer is Mohammed.
Mohammed is the most popular baby's name in Ireland.
Do you think the Irish are a little worried?
Yeah, they're a little worried.
A little bit worried.
So Elon Musk saw that post by Jack Posobiec and he weighed in he said it's true in most countries in Europe.
So in other words Elon was saying that it's true that most countries in Europe the most popular name is Muhammad but it turns out that's not true as his own his own community notes or context notes corrected him.
How much do you love the fact that the guy who owns the axe has now routinely, is it the second or third time, the community notes has fact-checked the boss?
I can't love that more.
If you want one thing that will give you some credibility in the system, it's this.
And does he tell them they have to take it down, or does he delete his tweet?
No, he lets you see it.
Total transparency.
I like everything about that.
But you should know it's not true.
But it is a trending name in some countries especially.
So it's on the rise.
But it's not the number one baby name.
All right.
PETA did a post.
And it showed a meme where turkeys were around a dinner table and there was like a human being that they were going to eat.
And PETA said We're lucky that turkeys would never do this to us.
You don't have to do it to them either.
And then on X, there was a reader context note.
So that got fact-checked.
So Peter's saying that turkeys would never eat humans, and here's the fact-check.
Turkeys are not vegetarians.
Turkeys eat mice, lizards, frogs, and just about anything they can fit in their mouths.
If turkeys were larger, or had the technological means to farm and eat humans, their current diet reveals that they likely would.
And that's like a fact check on X. I like that.
This community notes, you know, context, fact check thing, whatever they want to call it.
This has been golden.
Right?
It's not perfect.
Not perfect.
But, oh my God, when it operates, it's just golden.
Well, there's more, you know, news that Biden will do poorly in the battleground states, which highly suggests that Trump would get elected if he's ultimately the nominee.
Here's my take on that.
Are we going to find out if our worst assumptions about Democrats are true?
Because the worst assumption is that the entire system is rigged, which I am not aware of any proof of that.
You know, the courts have not seen that.
But the worst assumptions on the Republican side is that there will never be another true election.
That the Democrats have so much control that they'll just make sure no Republican is ever president again.
Now, I'm not going to say I believe that to be true.
I'm not there yet.
But that would represent the worst case scenario, right?
That things are so badly rigged that they'll do it right in front of you.
Now, if the polls hold, And Trump goes into election day with a solid lead in all the major polls for the battleground states.
And then he loses.
And it's because a bunch of ballots came in at night.
It's going to be exactly what you thought it was.
Everybody's going to say, well, that is exactly what we thought it was.
But can the Democrats Even if they wanted to, even if such things happened in our world, and I have no proof that they do, if such things happened in our real world, would they do it so obviously?
And here's the interesting part.
It's the so obviously part.
Not whether they would do it or not do it, because if it's not obvious, well, how would you ever know?
How would you ever know if it's not obvious?
But what if we get to election day And it would be completely obvious to every observer that it was a sketchy election if it didn't go the way the polls said it would go.
What would happen then?
I don't know.
That could be a big problem, couldn't it?
But I have a feeling that the Democrats have painted themselves in a corner, and the corner looks like this.
They're going to say for the next year, as they've been saying for past years, that Trump is a dictator, a hiller.
How many times do you have to tell your own people that he's hiller before everybody thinks it's morally and ethically appropriate to cheat?
I think there's a non-zero chance that they will massively cheat right in front of you because they think they have to, because they don't want hiller to come to power.
But if they're not worried that Hitler will come to power, they're definitely worried that they'll get fired.
They're definitely worried that their own power, their own income and everything will be challenged.
So I think they've painted themselves in a corner.
I don't know that the Democrat leadership anymore has the capability to concede an election in any context.
I think that might be gone.
We might never see anybody concede an election if they have power.
Now that's the thing they accused Trump of, right?
But the funniest thing about the accusation against Trump is somehow they imagine that other people would have gone along with Trump If he'd done something like, you know, amazingly unconstitutional.
It's one thing to try to get your alternate electors in there.
You know, that's sketchy, but it's sort of things that courts unravel if they need to.
So as long as it's something that, you know, the courts can handle in a routine fashion, it's not exactly an insurrection.
But, yeah, what's going to happen if something more radical happens and everybody can see it?
I don't know.
That could be dangerous.
We'll see.
We do have a story.
An Iowa County supervisor's wife just got convicted 52 counts of voter fraud for ballot stuffing.
And her husband won.
So she stuffed ballots and her husband won.
I don't know if it was enough to make him win.
But here's my question.
The fact that we caught somebody ballot stuffing, and by the way, Democrats thought that they had a good zinger.
They said, ah, Republicans.
Republicans.
So your whole argument is crap.
Because the cheaters were Republicans.
No.
No.
That's not a point.
Republicans say that you can cheat.
It doesn't matter that a Republican did.
The point is that it can happen.
The Democrats say it can't happen.
Like it's impossible.
Well, maybe it can happen.
Maybe a Republican did it.
But I have a problem knowing how to decipher this.
Does the fact that she was caught prove that you can't get away with it?
Or does it prove that people are doing it and maybe they are getting away with it?
Because I don't know how she got caught, and I don't know if the system caught her, or there was some specific evidence that you wouldn't normally have, like a witness or a video or something.
How did she get caught?
Here's what I'd like to see.
Oh, well, first of all, Fulton County also, just to add to the story.
There's a story that, and I don't know what's true and what isn't, but the story is that 3,600 duplicated ballots were counted, now, in Fulton County in 2020.
Now that wouldn't be enough to change the result, 3,600, and I don't think anybody is saying it's anything but a mistake, because it looks like a pile of ballots not counted, and it's not like they were all for Biden.
There were more for Biden, but they weren't all for Biden.
So, probably just a mistake, but these two stories make me ask the following question.
Here's another dog that's not barking.
Have any of you ever seen Anybody draw a diagram of our election process, where you've got everything from here's a ballot box, and here's a voting machine, and then the voting machines, you know, sum them up and send them through this device, and then this device sends it to this clearing center, and then, you know, the other things meet.
So have you ever seen anything like that, where an expert who really understands elections tells you where the vulnerabilities are?
Or, alternately, points to every part of it and says, you could not cheat here, we'd catch you.
Here's why.
You could not cheat here, you can't cheat here.
And in fact, the entire thing is secure because it can all be checked.
Has anybody ever done that?
Has anybody ever drawn a picture and put arrows to all the parts and said, can't cheat here, here's why.
Can't cheat here, here's why.
No.
Do you know why you've never seen that?
Wouldn't that be the most obvious thing that you should see in a meme every single day?
That should be a meme every day.
Now, you and I can't make that meme because we don't know the details.
I don't know where they could and could not cheat.
I have no idea.
But if somebody made that... Oh, somebody just... Let me... I'm gonna click on that.
Voting in Davidson.
All right, well, it's a diagram, but it's not a could-you-cheat diagram.
So this is sort of the dog not barking, right?
So one of these cases is a Republican who cheated, and that candidate got elected.
I don't know if the cheating mattered, though.
So here's a question.
Why don't at least Republicans do that?
Don't you think Republicans should say, hey, here are all the places you could cheat, so you better either get rid of voting machines, if it looks like that's a problem.
I don't know if it is, because nobody's ever shown me the chart.
I can only think of one reason that no Republican has created that chart.
Because Republicans must be cheating in the areas that they control.
Because there are places where Republicans manage the elections in states, places where the Democrats do it based on who's in charge of the state.
I have to assume Republicans are cheating wildly.
Is that a fair assumption?
Because you're not seeing the Republicans doing the most obvious thing that you would do in this situation.
If you believe there was only the other side, you would do everything you could to make the public understand, look, There are six parts to an election.
Three of them could be audited, but three of them can't.
There's just no way to check.
Right?
Dan says, dumb ASF logic.
That's the best you could do.
That's the best you could do.
I got the worst trolls.
You have no game at all.
All right.
Republicans cheat against MAGA?
Oh, maybe.
Yeah, maybe even Republicans are cheating against Trump candidates.
You never know.
Anything could happen.
But I don't have any confidence in our election system.
How many of you have confidence that our election systems are clean and will stay that way?
Who's confident?
Confident that they're pretty good and will stay that way?
Nobody.
Yeah.
Now, just, you know, it's just a wall of no.
Now, just imagine this.
This is what ordinary people think of the election.
And I've seen the, is it Rasmussen who has polls that show something like over half of the public thinks the elections might be a little sketchy.
And that's both sides.
There's a serious amount of Democrats who think the elections could be sketchy as well.
And in that context, your government has never shown you a diagram that says, here are all the parts, and here's how we audit it, and here's how we double check, so you can know that there's no problem in the system.
Be the obvious thing, right?
Remember when there were doubters for a pandemic?
What did the government do?
When there were pandemic vaccination doubters, What did the government do?
Massive education campaign to tell, you know, their argument for why the vaccination was safe.
Ultimately, they may not have been correct.
But you can see that when the government says, hey, our public doesn't trust what we're doing, they always, every time, they do a massive information campaign.
But not this time.
No, election integrity is like the single most important thing for this next election, because January 6th and the so-called insurrection will be the biggest topic for why a Trump should or should not be president again.
It's the biggest topic, it's probably the first or second biggest distrust of our government system, and there is no massive education campaign to fix it.
There's only one reason for that.
Because would you agree, dog not barking, would you agree that in every other context where the public doesn't trust their government and the government knows they need to fix that, they do.
Massive campaign to fix it.
Am I right?
Can you think of any other example where the government knew they had to re-educate the public and then just didn't?
Just didn't even try.
Didn't even bother.
Yeah, it's got to be corruption.
The only thing I can think of is that both sides cheat, and one side cheated better last time, and that's the whole story.
That might be the whole story.
You may not be right, but you're correct.
Oh, I like that.
I might not be right, but I am correct.
All right.
Balaji Srinivasan, who's a great follow, one of the smartest people in the world, By the way, seriously, one of the smartest people in the world.
Balaji Sreenivasan.
And what makes him impressive is he's insanely smart in so many different domains that when he gives you an opinion, you're seeing multiple domains come into it.
It's a whole different level than whatever you're doing.
Whatever you're doing is different.
He's operating on another level.
But here's something he said, talking about the drive to get corporate boards up to a level that would represent women as well as men, so that 15% of boards might be female if you had good equity going on.
So Balaji Post this, he says, if the logic is that women must be 50% of boards, why shouldn't Republicans also be 50% of boards?
They sure are underrepresented minority in tech.
And they showed a graph that showed basically there's just no Republicans in management, in tech.
Is that a good point?
Because that's diversity of thought.
It isn't the point of a board.
To get diversity of thought as well as diversity of people.
Isn't the reason that you get diversity of people so that you can end up with diversity of thought?
But if they're all Democrats, are you buying much by having male and female Democrats?
I don't mean to be unkind, but there's not a big difference between a male and a female Democrat.
Right?
Because the Democrats, the women are driving the policies, and the men just agree with them.
It's going to look the same.
A Democrat man and a Democrat woman will have nearly identical opinions.
Do you think the Democrat man is going to say, no, we should have less diversity?
No, because the Democrat woman said they need more diversity, so they're going to say that.
So you get actually no diversity at all.
If you have only Democrats, the men and the women are the same.
Right?
But there's a difference between a Democrat of any gender and a Republican of any gender.
And sexual preference as well.
Big difference.
So shouldn't your real diversity, if what you really want is diversity of thought, shouldn't it be where there is the biggest diversity of thought?
And that's a provocative question.
Spell his name.
I will spell his first name and you'll be able to find him.
It's just easier to spell his first name.
B as in boy.
A-L-A-J-I.
B-A-L-A-J-I-S.
Oh, I'm sorry.
J-I.
A-L-A-J-I-S.
Oh, I'm sorry, J-I.
No S.
He's got an S on his...
Well, actually, if you look for his Twitter name, it's just Bellagio with an S on the end.
So Balaji S. Sreenivasan.
Anyway, there aren't that many Balajis, so you'll find him on the X platform just by searching for his first name.
All right.
I saw a story that I don't believe.
Probably fake news.
Allegedly the source is Rudy Giuliani, but I don't know if I would trust Rudy Giuliani for this, but I also don't trust the source that says Rudy Giuliani.
So this is just a throwaway, but there's some belief that Zelensky has a video of Hunter Biden that's so damning that he's blackmailing Biden.
That sounds a little too on the nose, doesn't it?
I'm not saying it's not true.
I just don't know that any news source would have that story.
So I'm going to say even if it's true, I think the reporting is made up.
That's my guess.
But no way to know.
No way to know.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, today is Black Friday, and if you're looking for gifts for that $20 friend, or that $20 cousin, you know, the one you don't want to spend a lot, but you gotta have something to wrap and put under the tree, well, my new book Reframe your brain.
If you're going to order it, I would do it really soon, because you can get this on Amazon, but it's on their independent publishing program, which means they make them based on the orders.
So they're not going to make a ton of them in advance, right?
So I wouldn't wait until the last minute to do that.
The second edition, the more tightly edited, but otherwise similar, to my big best-selling, most influential book in the entire success domain.
Most influential book for probably 13 years, 15 years.
It's called How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big.
Kind of the story of my life.
Teaches you things like systems are better than goals and How to build a talent stack, and all those things that are now common knowledge that they started with that book.
All right.
They're great stuffing stuffers.
But here's what's extra good about them as a gift.
The Reframe Your Brain book will literally work for everybody.
It works for male, it works for female, it works for senior citizens, it works for an older teenager.
It works if you got a job, it works if you want a job, it works if you're successful, it works if you're happy, it works if you're unhappy.
It just works.
And by the way, you can just read the reviews and it'll tell you everything you need to know.
The reviews will just sell it to you.
If you read the reviews, you're gonna buy it.
Because the reviews are crazy.
You're getting your mother-in-law a chimpanzee?
Okay, well that's a good idea too.
What?
I'm not going to read that comment, but it was funny.
All right.
So ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining.
You need to get back to your shopping.
I need to get back to my working because I never take a day off.
