Episode 2319 CWSA 12/11/23 The 7 Hoaxes That Changed America. Should Government Apologize For DEI?
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, President Javier Milei, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ilya Sutskever, Elon Musk, Grok, ChatGPT, Hillary Clinton 2024, President Trump, Alex Jones, WaPo Fake News, Hoax Quiz 7, Edelman PR, Anne Applebaum, Mike Benz, Harvard Claudine Gay, DEI Failure, Statistical Mechanics, President Zelensky, Ukraine War, 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 coffee with Scott Adams the highlight of human civilization and And you're lucky to be here, but if you'd like to take this experience to levels that your body can't even understand and your brain could not fathom, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass A tanker, gels, or stein.
A canteen, jug, or flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go!
There we go.
Saver it.
Well, in science news, remember all that worry you had about your cholesterol?
It turns out that's all bullshit.
I don't quite understand the study, but there's some study out that strongly suggests there's no link between cholesterol and heart disease.
Can you believe that?
No, I think I've assumed that for a long time.
I'm not sure the study is accurate.
Maybe some other study will overturn it.
And some people are saying the study is being misread.
It doesn't really say that.
Or maybe it's a short-term versus long-term.
Maybe there weren't enough people in it.
Maybe the design of the test study was wrong.
So we don't know for sure.
But what I do know for sure is it's not for sure that cholesterol is destroying your heart.
It might be just some kind of inflammation.
So, I don't know what's true there and don't get your medical advice from cartoonists.
So, talk to your doctor, don't talk to me.
Well, Argentina got their new president, Javier Ndu, and the first thing he did was cut the government from 21 departments down to nine.
Did he really do that?
How is that even possible?
Did he tell them it's their last day and they just walked away?
Or do they say you've got a year to wind things up?
How exactly did he do it?
You know, when you watched what happened at Twitter, is there anybody who doubts the fact that Twitter had too many employees?
When Musk cut 80% of the staff, how many of you said, oh no, there's no way I can operate if you cut 80% of the staff?
You know who didn't think that would be a bad idea?
There was a class of Americans who knew that would be fine.
What was that class of Americans who knew it would be fine?
We've got 80% of the staff.
Everybody who ever worked in corporate America.
Am I right?
Everybody who had business experience said, you know what?
I think that could work.
And everybody who was a journalist who did not have much business experience said, Well, how could it possibly work?
If you take 80% of the foundation out of the building, how's it going to stay up?
It must be fall over.
And meanwhile, everybody with business experience said, I'll bet that'll work.
And what has happened to the X platform since then?
Probably the fastest pace of Useful development I've ever seen in my life.
Why were they so fast?
Lots of reasons.
You know, good leadership, probably good employees.
But they didn't have the other 80% getting in their way.
And the things that they did could actually make a difference.
And they're probably well paid.
So it's not like magic.
You know, it's not like there's some secret process that only one person knows.
It's kind of basic stuff.
Get the garbage out of the way, get good people, give them a reason to live.
So here's what I wonder about Argentina and Javier Murillo going from 21 departments down to 9.
By the time we have our election, a year from now, we're going to know if that worked.
Just think about that.
Yeah, in 11 months, we'll know if the Argentina thing worked.
What if it does?
What if it works?
I can't think of a better argument for electing a Republican.
I mean, if that works, it's going to be hard to ignore, right?
Because Republicans want to do, they want to do the minor version of that, you know, getting rid of several departments.
But it's going to be hard to argue with getting rid of the Department of Education.
If Argentina goes from 21 departments down to nine and everything's fine.
Yeah.
So Vivek had a plan, which honestly, even to my ears, sounded a little bit too much.
When I would hear Vivek talk about it, I thought, I don't know if he can get all that done.
Maybe when it comes right down to it, you wouldn't really get rid of the departments, maybe trim them a little bit or something.
But now when I see Millieu, Millet?
Is it Millet or Millieu?
I don't know.
Whatever it is.
When I watch him try to do this, we're actually going to have an answer of whether it works, sort of in the general sense.
But also, it completely changes my view of Vivek's take on this.
Vivek went from outside the normal and be thinking, well, I don't know if he could get all that done, to right in the middle.
Like, he went from outside the zone of, oh, that's not practical, to right in the middle of it.
As long as it works in Argentina, it's definitely gonna happen here.
There's no way you can ignore it if it works there.
Well, speaking of Vivek, he was on a Spaces event last night.
Maybe some of you heard.
So, it's the most classic thing that you talk about in public speaking.
The single most classic joke that people make is somebody forgetting they have a microphone on and then using the restroom in the middle of an event.
Well, that happened.
So, Vivek was joining Elon Musk and Alex Jones was there.
And Vivek, I guess he took a little bathroom break and his mic was on.
And all I've got to say about it is that man knows how to make a live stream.
That's all I have to say about that.
There's nothing else to say.
And we're done.
Next topic.
Over at OpenAI, which has turned into a soap opera as well as a technology company, one of the co-founders, Ilya Sutskever, has not been seen.
He's not visible to company for quite a time now.
What do you think is happening with one of the co-founders of OpenAI?
During the most exciting time of their history, why would he be missing in action?
What could possibly be going on?
Well, let me ask you this.
He just created a company that's worth $90 billion.
And he's the bad expert.
He's not just the CEO.
He's like the technology guy.
How much do you think he could ask for in salary if he jumped ship?
Try to imagine what Elon Musk would pay him.
Just put that number in your head.
What's his actual market value?
Don't you wonder about that?
Like if you and I went to get a job in corporate America, you know, if I went back to work in corporate America, like what could I command at my salary?
I'd like to think I could get a six-digit salary if I went back to corporate America.
He might be worth a billion dollars.
Like, actually, a billion dollars.
He might be the first employee in the history of civilization who, if you heard that his annual salary was a billion dollars, you'd say to yourself, that sounds about right.
And I apologize to Elon Musk if he's negotiating with him now, because that's not going to help Elon at all.
Not at all.
Sorry.
No, he's not going to get a billion dollars, but I wouldn't be surprised if he got stock options that were worth a billion dollars, in a hypothetical, if things go well sense.
Wouldn't be surprised.
I think he could actually command a billion dollars in compensation.
We'll see.
What I don't know is how many people have gotten up to speed to where he is now, so I don't know how special he is.
Obviously, he was quite singular up until now, but I wonder if that's still the case.
All right.
I keep saying that somebody needs to compile a master list of all the lost government documents.
How many stories have you heard where, oh, those emails were destroyed.
Yeah, it was a mistake.
Oh, you want those videos from January 6th?
Oh, lost those, yeah.
And now we hear that the Secret Service has lost all of their messages around January 6.
And it was a big accident.
It was just a big mistake.
Because there was a technology migration.
And you know the first thing you do when there's a technology migration, I think you all know this, right?
Well, if you haven't been involved in a technology migration, the first thing you do is delete important files from the old system.
No, you don't do that.
The most important thing you do is preserve the old system.
Rule number one, don't lose anything from the old system.
Don't lose anything from the old system until you're really sure you don't need it.
But they lost it.
Huh.
Well, the head of the Secret Service is a known Democrat-loved operative.
I was tight with Dick Cheney and Biden, and now she's head of the Secret Service, and says, it's a damn shame, all those very, very necessary documents.
They just got lost.
Data migration, things happen.
Things happen in migrations.
What are you going to do?
So I said to myself, Scott, this will be the day that AI becomes useful.
I said, whoa, I don't want to go and do Google searches and try to find all the recent stories about lost documents and deleted documents and can't find the documents or won't give you the documents or it's redacted.
I thought, must be a lot of those stories, but guess what?
So I go over to Grok and I say, Grok, find me all the stories in the last seven years.
Where the documents have been lost or unavailable.
And I gave a bunch of words for unavailable.
I said, look for text messages and emails and legal documents and anything that the government said is unavailable.
And it came back and it said, well, there was a President Trump who wouldn't give back his documents at Mar-a-Lago.
It gave me three examples.
I think two of them were about Trump not giving documents back.
So let me just say Grok is not where we want it to be.
But to be fair, it's, you know, first release.
So I'm not going to judge, I'm not going to judge Grok until at least gets parity with the other services.
So I do appreciate I very much appreciate that Musk puts it out before it's completely diamond hard, because I like that as a process.
I like that he puts it out there, it gets responses, they can fix it based on responses and stuff.
So I'm not going to judge it yet, but it wasn't useful for that.
So I said to myself, well, I don't have to sell it for GROK, which is, some people say it's like GPT 3.5 only.
I'll go to 4.0.
I'll go to ChatGPT.
So I went to ChatGPT and said, find me all the instances of the government, specifically the government, saying that those documents are gone.
I gave it a long super prompt.
You know what it told me?
That's too hard.
It's too hard to get that.
It's a search.
It's basically a Google search.
I just wanted it to do it for me instead of me having to Google every single search term.
So it was too hard.
Yeah, much too hard.
So there's your update on the usefulness of AI.
Not much.
Here's another one.
Ask it to list the major political hoaxes of the last seven years.
Do you think it will do it?
Oh, no.
Not even close.
Why is that?
I don't know exactly why that is.
It seems like exactly the sort of thing it could do, but not even close.
So certainly AI is not going to be revealing the truth to us, if you thought that was going to happen.
Well, today we hear that Hillary Clinton is going to get more involved in the Biden campaign.
And by getting more involved in the Biden campaign, if you read between the words here, Let's try to read between the lines.
Okay, okay, it's coming into view now.
All right, the top level is Hillary plans to get more involved in the Biden campaign, but if you squint just right, if you hold it at an angle, you can read between the lines, it says, probably will smother him with a pillow.
Smother him with a pillow.
Just reading between the lines.
Yeah, you gotta go beyond the surface.
You gotta do your own research and dig down, yeah.
Smothered with a pillow.
There's evidence that she's already purchased it from, oh, Mike Lindell.
This is just messed up.
Yeah, she's gonna buy her pillow from Mike Lindell and frame him for smothering Biden with the pillow.
There's also evidence that she's gonna remove Biden's shoes and put, oh, this is messed up.
She's gonna put Mike Lindell's slippers on, smother him with my pillow, and then frame him for the whole thing.
I know it's true.
I asked AI.
AI says this is true.
No, I'm making all that up, except it'll probably happen.
Well, Trump says he will not testify at his civil fraud trial, because there's nothing to say.
Is that the right choice?
Yes!
There's some things you can't say yes hard enough to.
Right?
It's not just yes, and it's not just hell yes.
It's like, let me demonstrate the proper way to say yes to this.
Scott, you think Trump should decline the offer to testify at his own civil fraud trial?
Yes!
Yeah, that's the proper yes.
So, yeah, that's good.
Because I think what's happened since the banker said it's no big deal and the real estate evaluation guy said it's undervalued, there's nothing for Trump to add.
Nothing to add.
Just get him off, get him off of that risk.
And so he's smart.
So he's not doing that.
All right.
So as you know, Alex Jones was reinstated on the X platform and, uh, One entity that's not too happy about it is the Washington Post.
They say it's likely, in an opinion piece, it's likely to hasten the flight of advertisers from the site over anti-Semitism and hateful content.
Huh.
Alex Jones, anti-Semitism, and hateful content.
Can somebody give me a fact check?
I don't believe Alex Jones has ever even been accused of anti-Semitism.
Am I wrong?
I don't think that's even been in the conversation.
I don't remember anything like that.
Right?
How about hateful content?
Has Alex Jones ever been accused of hateful content?
Certainly, you know, with the, whatever it is, the school shooting case, certainly he was wrong.
And there's an argument that people were damaged by being wrong.
But do you think he did that out of hate?
Was there some hate for children or family?
No, there was no hate.
There was simply something he may have thought was true that turned out not to be true.
And he doesn't say it was true now.
He just says something got into him, basically.
So, the Washington Post is selling fake news about Alex Jones Well, complaining that he's a source of fake news and the Washington Post is the most disgraced known purveyor of fake news in the American history.
At least of ones that pretended to be legitimate.
Yeah, there were other, you know, I'm not talking about tabloids in the past.
In the past, tabloids just made stuff up.
But of the entities that pretend to be legitimate, The Washington Toast is Washington Toast.
Oh, the Washington Toast.
That just came out.
From now on, I'm going to call them the Washington Toast.
Because they're totally burnt.
So the Washington Toast.
Anyway, it's ironic that the Washington Toast would be making fun of Alex Jones.
As you know, I created the hoax quiz That I bring out every now and then, especially when there's a new one.
But I realized it was getting too large.
I wanted it to look impressive to show how many hoaxes there are, but it worked against me.
Because when it gets too big, people just sort of ignore the whole thing.
It's like, yeah, yeah, that's a lot of stuff.
I don't want to look into it.
So I tightened it up to seven.
The top seven hoaxes that shaped modern America.
You like that title?
The top seven hoaxes that shaped modern America.
I would invite any journalists who would like to follow up on this.
You're welcome to use my framing and to use me as one reference in your story if you'd like to follow up on this.
So I'm not going to write the story.
I thought about it.
I'm writing an article around it, but I thought the tweet did it.
So here are the top seven.
And I say they shaped modern America And what I mean is, they mattered.
There were lots of hoaxes, but in the end they didn't matter.
Like Trump overfed the koi fish.
That was a hoax.
It didn't matter.
Covington kids?
Covington kids, it was a hoax.
It didn't make much difference.
I mean, not really.
Here are the ones that did.
Number one, the fine people hoax.
Number two, because the fine people hoax literally got... I mean, the fine people hoax gave us everything.
Everything bad came from that hoax, including Biden.
The drinking bleach hoax.
The Russia collusion hoax.
The January 6th was an insurrection hoax.
The Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd hoax.
The shadow banning isn't real hoax.
Remember when they told us shadow banning isn't real?
And then I'm going to add the climate models predict the future.
Which is different from saying climate change is or is not a risk.
I'm just saying that it's a hoax that models can predict that.
Now, I left out, think about the ones I left out.
I left out the laptop hoax.
I personally don't think it would have changed the election.
That's just my feeling.
So, yes, I mean, it's often talked about as being a big deal, but I don't know if it's in the top seven.
It's in the top ten, but ten is too much.
I'm trying to keep it tight.
So you could argue about what should be on this list, but I thought it would help to try to get the conversation concentrated on the ones that might have made a difference, you know, give or take one or two.
All right, here's some new news that you should have seen, but I did not.
Did you know that in big political events, it's not uncommon to hire a big international PR firm?
And the big international PR firm already has connections with big publications?
Because big publications rely on PR firms.
Because PR firms know stuff and have connections to their clients.
That the news would like that.
It's a friendly situation with PR people at the highest level.
The smaller PR people are just bugging the publications, but at the highest level, they're buddies.
So Mike Benz is talking about the situation.
There's a big PR firm called Edelman.
And there's somebody named Ed Applebaum, who's a It was on the board of directors for the most notorious CIA cutout in all of U.S.
history, and that's somehow connected to this big PR firm and ways that are hard for me to understand.
Anyway, Applebaum wrote an Atlantic hit piece, and according to Mike Benton, she got caught red-handed Serving as a secret, quote, inner cluster cell member of a busted British intelligence op set up for covert censorship and political warfare operations known as the Integrity Initiative.
Boy, whenever the government has an entity with a big name, it's just the CIA.
It's like the Integrity Initiative, the Misinformation Global Initiative.
It's just basically always the CIA or British intelligence or some intelligence group.
All right, so apparently what these so-called clusters were, they were journalists, politicians, military, academic, and business leaders that basically were networked in kind of a RICO way, so that a PR firm or the intelligence industries can activate them, and suddenly the journalists and the pundits and everybody starts talking about the same thing.
So while you thought, hey, it almost seems as if the fake news is coordinated, it was coordinated.
It was coordinated.
It was exactly coordinated, and they had the whole structure to do it.
So you always wonder, hey, how is it that they're all like instantly on the same side in these situations?
It's coordinated.
Yeah, that's exactly what you thought it was.
All right.
That's an organized online influence campaign.
Now this is talking about the UK, but presumably this entity or this situation or this setup exists for American issues as well.
I did a really bad job of explaining it because it was complicated and I just had time to skim it before I came on.
I very much recommend that you follow Mike Benz on X.
Benz as in Mercedes-Benz, same spelling.
He'll pop right up if you look for him.
But his understanding of who the players are is the most important thing to understand about the news.
Let me say it again.
If all you know is what the news is, you don't know anything.
You're literally blind, even if it's accurate.
Because if you don't know who's pushing that narrative of the news, and what they're leaving out, and what they're up to, You don't understand why you're seeing what you're seeing.
But now that you know that there's an entire layer of organized misinformation people who work for intel groups, you know that what you're seeing is an intel fabrication for anything important.
So the news pretty much is fabricated anytime it matters, when it doesn't matter if it's just a celebrity thing.
If it's just a story about a celebrity, it's not fabricated by the government.
It's just wrong because the news gets everything wrong.
There's no news about public figures that's correct.
But not for the same reason.
The reason the news about public figures is always incorrect is that the news doesn't know the real news.
Usually the only person who knows is the public figure.
Maybe a spouse or something.
Nobody else knows what the whole story is.
So the news is completely artificial but for different reasons.
All right, so I'm feeling sorry a little bit for the president of Harvard, who not only is getting hammered for what some say, many say, is the inadequate answer to the bullying of the Jewish students on Harvard's campus.
And so there are calls for her to be removed.
Bill Ackman is sort of leading that charge, famous investor Bill Ackman.
And let me say this about Bill Ackman.
Don't let me ever make him angry at me.
If it looks like I'm heading in that direction, could you just grab me and pull me back?
Because damn, I do not want him spending his entire day trying to take me out.
He works all day long.
I don't know how much he's working on investing lately, but he's working all day long and setting things right.
Now, I'm completely on his side in terms of he's got a point to be made.
But man, it's an interesting dynamic to watch an investor take down three college heads.
Because they should be.
I think their answers were firing offenses, in my opinion.
Although I agree with Glenn Greenwald, who says that we're definitely treading on the free speech rights of a lot of these people.
That's really happening.
But that doesn't mean that the presidents of these colleges gave good answers.
They're definitely protecting a bad influence.
So here's what's happening.
So the attacks against Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, are intensifying, and is now extended to claims that she got tenured based on plagiarized articles and debunked studies.
I think what happened, if I saw it correctly, was she referred to somebody else's studies, and the other person, their studies were faked or wrong.
So...
So I don't have an opinion yet on how valid the claims are, but they're out there.
So the important thing to know is it's out there.
And that people are saying out loud and in public that she's a diversity hire.
That's the sort of thing people didn't say so loud a little while ago.
But now you can just say it out loud, basically.
I don't know if that's the case in her case, that she's just a diversity hire.
I would say, how would I know?
How do I know what her real qualifications are?
I don't.
So I'm not going to say that.
I would say that it looks exactly like it.
And in our world, if it looks like it, that ends up being the reality.
But I don't know if it's real reality.
So she might be really smart.
I don't know.
Well, I assume she's really smart.
Anyway.
Well, here's the most predictable outcome.
I love this series of two tweets.
The first one was that this one came from Colin Wright.
So he's a gentleman on the X platform.
And when this plagiarism thing came up, he tweeted this, I'm sure any moment now someone from the, and he makes this up, the critical plagiarism studies department will explain to us how plagiarism is an oppressive social construct imposed by white western settler colonists, colonists really you should say, and that we all need to acknowledge and embrace other ways of citing things.
That's pretty funny, isn't it?
That if a prominent black woman, the president of Harvard, gets accused of plagiarism, you know, sort of a joke, ha ha ha, you know, pretty soon somebody's going to say plagiarism is okay if you're black.
Well, there's an assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati Who writes in an article that anti-plagiarism policies harm black and Latinx students.
It actually happened.
It's a real thing.
Somebody actually said that it's unfair to accuse black people and Hispanic people of plagiarism.
And that maybe it'd be okay to blame white people, but not black and Latina, Latinx people.
Now, I'm not going to read you the article or tell you where it appeared because I don't want to even give it that much credit, but it's kind of funny that it exists.
Does this look a little like jumping the shark?
Shark?
Here's Fonzie.
Yeah, that's kind of taking it to the full joke level.
Now, remember I told you that we reach a point Where the real news sounds like a joke, you just can't tell the difference.
This is real news, and it matched exactly the joke.
And the joke came even before the real news.
Well, I don't know about the timing, but he didn't know about this when he did the joke version.
The actual article says Latinx.
So apparently the assistant professor at the University of Cincinnati used that term in the headline.
All right.
There's a meme going around that I reposted that I believe one year ago I would not have reposted.
And one year ago, maybe you wouldn't even see it because it would get, you know, shadow banned.
Here's what the meme says.
It's a meme about DEI.
And it's defining it.
It says diversity means fewer white people.
Inclusion means exclusion of white people.
And equity means stealing from white people.
Is that unfair?
Is that inaccurate?
It's a reframe, but it's 100% accurate.
Yeah.
It's simply a different way of describing the exact same stuff.
But a year ago, a year ago, I couldn't have said that out loud.
Would you agree?
I don't think I would have.
But at the moment, it's now obvious to everybody.
You know how obvious it is that DEI is all bad?
CNN's Fareed Zakaria just went all in against DEI at colleges specifically.
The same thing applies to everything else.
And he basically said that DEI has destroyed the colleges.
Just flat out.
He didn't hold back a bit.
There was not one part of him that gave it a little bit of credibility.
He basically said, in a major piece on the middle of a good time zone on CNN, he just said, DEI is dangerous bullshit.
And that just stood there as an opinion that CNN... I'll bet you won't see the other people debate it.
Do you think on another show on CNN, someone's going to say he went too far?
Bet not.
It looks to me like CNN's on board with this as a company.
So now you have the entire right-leaning world saying DEI has to die.
It has to go.
And then CNN just is on the same page, at least with Fareed, which I would assume is a more widespread opinion.
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it is.
I'll bet you.
And here's what I have to say.
About that.
I've told you before that design is destiny, right?
If you design something that guarantees a certain output, why would you be surprised if you got that output?
But here's what's wrong with the design of DEI.
So let's say that the ideas of DEI, if not taken to the ridiculous, are solid.
I agree with it.
I think that all things being equal, as long as you're serving your shareholders and serving the larger community, it would be nice, all things being equal, if you could get more diversity, more equity, and more inclusion.
That would be a good sort of goal for the world.
But, as you know, lots of goals conflict with other goals, and you can't have everything without giving up something somewhere else.
Now suppose you take those competing objectives and you put them in the brain of one hiring manager, right?
So you're a hiring manager, and now it's your job to take care of the stockholders, you're trying to take care of your own career, you're trying to take care of the employees you already have, you're trying to take care of your customers, and you also care about the world, because you're a good person.
And you say to yourself, you know what?
All things being equal, I would like to have more diversity.
That'd be good.
But I don't want to trade off too much.
I don't want to screw the stockholders.
I don't want to screw my employees.
I don't want to screw me.
But balancing all these objectives, I'll see what I can do.
Now that's what I call a good system.
Because within that one brain are all the competing impulses.
And then the one person can weigh them and evaluate them as one individual.
Now, is that a perfect system?
No.
No.
Because that individual could be a racist.
Or that individual could be the opposite, you know, a reverse racist.
So that's not ideal.
You could see easily why people would look for an alternative to that because it wasn't maybe doing enough, people would say.
But, I'm only going to propose That putting all of it into one decision maker's head is your best situation, even with all the obvious flaws.
So here's what they did instead.
They created a DEI department, or maybe just one DEI director.
Once you've created that system, that's a different system than all the competing things happening within one person's brain.
Now you've got a separate entity.
But here's the flaw.
The CEO can't ignore that entity.
The CEO cannot say, oh, the DEI say we've got to do X. But the CEO does not have the freedom to say, you know what?
I'm going to weigh that against my profitability, the well-being of the customers and everybody else.
The CEO has to say, oh, shit.
If I ignore the DEI and somebody finds out, the board is going to remove me.
Right?
So you end up with this power imbalance where the CEO is the one who should be balancing all the competing interests but can't.
You take from the CEO the ability to balance interests and you sort of blackmail them because they've got a reputation to protect.
You sort of blackmail them into doing what the DEI group wants.
That's a design problem.
The design of making the DEI group sort of a sacred protected class gives them too much power over the decision maker because they can take the decision maker down reputationally.
That is a poorly designed system.
What you should predict in a poorly designed system of that nature is that the entire enterprise would be destroyed.
Because the impulse of the DEI people are to bring in people primarily Who will achieve the objective of the Director of DEI, which is to have more equity and diversity.
But do you think that person is going to weigh that against profitability?
No, because their own profitability is going to be based on how much more diversity you have next year.
That's all they care about.
The DEI person is not going to be directly or immediately blamed.
If some employee makes a mistake five years down the road, that is because they weren't qualified.
That's not going to come back to that DEI person.
I mean, not directly, and not in time.
But they definitely are going to have to answer for why there's not more diversity next year.
So you have this incentive system that's completely out of whack with what it is you're trying to accomplish.
Because what you're trying to accomplish is a strong company that's doing the best they can on these other Social issues which do have weight and importance.
So, all I'm introducing to the argument is that you have two systems that we know of.
One is where one person has to balance all the things and then you don't really get the level of equity, diversity that some people think is essential.
But you also preserve the entities.
It's an imperfect system, but at least the government still works.
At least the company still makes money.
At least Disney still makes good movies.
Am I right?
But as soon as the DEI people get involved, Disney can't even make a good movie.
Do you think that the head of CEO of Disney, do you think that he can make decisions completely independent of the objections of his own DEI department?
Kind of not.
Kind of not.
Yeah, Bob Iger.
Yeah, so it's a design problem, and if you don't see it as that, you're going to see it as racism or something.
Right?
If you're going down the, is it racism?
Or, you know, who's discriminated against who?
It's the wrong conversation.
It's not even a good conversation.
The real conversation is, it's an engineering problem.
Did you design an organization to fail?
As soon as you put in the DEI group as a separate group that are evaluated separately and they have control over the top, that's a guaranteed failure.
It guarantees you'll take energy away from profitability and move it toward something that's not profitability, so that's the end of you.
Or credibility.
All right.
So just know that.
So I saw a weird post from Elon Musk on evolution and entropy.
Did anybody see that?
It took me a while to figure out what that was all about.
Still don't know exactly.
But here's what he said.
So he says, evolution and entropy, and then space, next line.
There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistical mechanics.
Now you know this is a play on statistics, you know, being worse than lies.
But statistical mechanics seems to be a sort of a third branch of physics In which they're trying to predict the action of the smallest entities and how that sums up, I guess.
And I don't know exactly what context he's making this comment.
But do you believe that any part of science is going to be using their statistical mechanics to predict the future?
Basically, I don't know anything about this topic.
But I'm willing to say that Musk is right because what he's referring to is something that is sufficiently complicated that whoever is getting paid to work on it is probably hiding in the complexity and getting a paycheck of doing some papers and stuff.
Well, maybe not even believing that if it's real or useful in the real world because it's complicated and nobody can predict the future with math.
Unless it's something simple like gravity.
All right.
It looks like Hamas has solved the Ukraine war problem.
Or maybe Trump has.
But it turns out there's a report that Zelensky has already announced it.
He's going to have peace talks in Switzerland on the sidelines at the World Economic Forum.
See, you thought that the World Economic Forum was useless.
But it's a way to get Zelensky to talk to the Swiss, I guess.
It's just going to be there.
So here's how I interpret that.
Number one, if Hamas had not attacked Israel, it's far more likely that the U.S.
would be all in on funding and maybe not looking for peace.
Is that too strong?
Do you think those two things are connected in that way?
Because it's really a stretch to get Americans To fund a war that they don't quite see exactly how it's helping us.
But then when we sail our fleet, you know, next to a second war, and you know we're involved on some level, but not boots on the ground, but you're still uncomfortable about the funding and the involvement.
I feel as if Hamas made it far more likely that Zelensky would have to, you know, look for a peace solution because he can't afford war.
Is that, would you agree that those are connected?
Or is that too much for a stretch?
I feel they're psychologically connected in American minds.
All right, but here's the other factor.
You've heard me predict this before.
The Democrats, and Biden in particular, cannot allow this war, the Ukraine war, to still be raging on election day.
Do you agree?
That they're at a level of complete desperation.
Because if Trump takes over when the, let's say the lines, the front lines haven't changed much in over a year, how easy would it be for Trump to end a war Where there's no more funding, neither side wants to fight.
The way it will be settled will be obvious.
And Trump's not the one responsible for starting it in the first place.
He would just be the one responsible for ending it.
It would be the easiest war anybody ever ended.
I could do it.
I'm not even exaggerating.
I'd be a terrible president.
Don't vote for me for president.
But give me one day on the job and I can end the fucking Ukraine war.
You know who else could end the Ukraine war in one day?
Besides Trump?
You could.
Every one of you.
Every one of you.
You just have to say, this is what's going to happen.
I'm the President of the United States.
This is over.
You guys, come here.
This is over.
This is basically what it's going to look like.
You guys work out the details, but it's over.
We're done.
Trump could do that tomorrow.
There will be a desperation from Democrats to get this solved, which guarantees it gets solved.
So in a way, Trump has already ended the war in Ukraine.
I don't think that's too far.
I believe that the existence of Trump as a guaranteed war ender, like there's no question about it really, he would end it really quickly.
You know, before when he said that, I think it was reasonable to say he's exaggerating.
Because you still thought, well, maybe there could be some change in the front lines.
And maybe something would change.
It's too soon to say that.
But today, no doubt about it.
It wouldn't even take any Trump superpower deal-making.
It would just take somebody to try, basically.
So, yeah, that's a big problem for the Dems.
What else is going on here?
Well, that's about it.
That's about it.
Did I miss anything?
Any news that I forgot to mention?
Yeah, Ukraine's running out of ammo.
Everybody's.
Tucker for press secretary would be awesome.
Just let the Russians win.
Yes, that is Scott's response.
Did that sound like just let the Russians win?
Or you mean in terms of the current boundaries?
Oh, yes.
Yes, I would let the Russians win their current boundaries.
Yeah, yeah, I'm saying that unambiguously.
I'm definitely letting them win their current boundaries.
You know why?
Because Ukraine and NATO and the United States fucked up.
We fucked up.
Yeah, we basically gave it to them.
Created a situation by design.
We designed the situation that guaranteed that Russia would own those properties because it would become important to them.
More important.
Now, I also don't care.
Does anybody care if Russian-speaking, pro-Russian territories are controlled by Russia?
Ukraine is the most corrupt country on Earth.
Is Russia worse than Ukraine?
No.
Would Russia use that extra power they have in those extra areas to conquer the world?
No, probably just be a pain in the ass for Russia.
So no, I don't care.
I have no interest in who owns those pieces of land.
There's no American strategic interest.
All right, time for Putin to go.
That's the opposite of what's going to happen.
Putin won.
He's as solid as you can get.
all right um death to mass death terrorism Thank you.
Yeah, I imagine Putin's popularity will be through the roof.
Yep.
Is Vivek staying in the race?
Well, As far as we know, I mean, apparently he did not qualify for the next debate, but I wouldn't be surprised if he counter-programs that successfully.
So don't be surprised if Vivek is doing something to make some news, sort of like Trump does, at the same time that there's a debate.
You know, I would even watch a program where Vivek watches the debate with us, And then does, you know, mystery science theater kind of comments about how it's going.
Wouldn't you watch that?
I would watch him commenting in real time on the debate.
That'd be fun.
All right.
Not according to Peter Zaehn, I'm being told.
I don't know what that means.
I guess the Russian situation.
All right, did you see the video which is a Jordanian wedding in which the groom was shot?
There was a Jordanian wedding in which the groom was shot?
Good lord.
Why did Trump say he was joking about the disinfectant?
Well, think it through.
Think it through.
Answer your own question.
Why did Trump say he was joking about the disinfectant?
What was the alternative?
Tell me the alternative.
The alternative was for him to double down as light as a disinfectant inside the body.
Do you think he was prepared to do that?
Do you think he felt confident enough that he remembered a tweet he saw three months ago about light being a disinfectant?
I think he just wanted it to go away, so he said, ah, it's just joking.
What would you do?
What would you do in that situation?
I think you'd just try to make it go away.
And so I think he was just trying to make it go.
All right.
Predictions, Vivek will go on Timcast during the debate.
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
Yeah, we talked about Argentina and their departments eliminated.
I think we got it all.
I think we did it all.
All right, for your pleasure, I did clip the part of my live stream where I talked about organizing your brain into the executive and the other functions below it.
When I did that, it's a reframe, when I did that live, I didn't know How much impact it would have on other people, but I immediately got incredible feedback that it changed people's entire outlook on reality, basically.
So I put a clip on the Locals platform and also shared that.
I hope I made that.
Oh, you know, I might have shared it.
I think I shared it and made it locked at the same time.
First thing I'll do when I'm done here is I'll make sure it's unlocked.
So that you can view it.
Because it does seem to be life-changing for some people.
And seven minutes will change your life.
All right.
And that is all we have, YouTube.
Thanks for joining.
Make sure that you buy my book, Reframe Your Brain.
The best, well actually both of these books, the best two gifts you can get if you don't have $20 gifts for somebody in your life.
