Episode 2321 CWSA 12/13/23 The Thanos Mockery Play Is Working, AI Is Mean, Lots More Fun With News
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, Robot Patrol Dogs, Optimus Walking, Don Lemon, TCN, Tucker Carlson Network, Failing DEI Programs, DEI Hiring Limitations, Robby Starbuck, Bard AI, Christopher Rufo, Mike Benz, EIP, Election Integrity Project, Backwards Science, Weaponized FCC, Brendan Carr, Michael Cohen, Israel Hamas War, Flooding Hamas Tunnels, TikTok Support, Dictator Accusations Fail, President Trump, 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.
Thank you.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time, but could it go even higher?
Could it be even better?
It can, and all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Charles A canteen, jogger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Mmm.
Mmm.
Yeah.
Savor it.
Well, if you had said to me five years ago, Scott, should we build a wall on the southern border?
You know what I would have said?
Hmm, that's a good idea.
Good idea.
If you'd asked me four years ago, should we build a wall on the southern border?
I'd say, still good.
Still good.
Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago?
Same answer.
Yes.
We need that wall.
But today we learn that our government is considering, and maybe even deploying, robot dogs at the border.
Robot dogs.
Well, I don't like to admit I was wrong about anything, really.
But I'm going to make an exception today.
I was so wrong about that wall thing.
Because if we built the wall, Probably no chance of robot dogs.
Now, come on.
What would you rather see?
Immigrants coming up to the wall and saying, ah, damn, we can't get over.
We better go back.
That's no fun.
Or would you rather see unlimited videos of robot dogs chasing immigrants across open fields, taking them down, and waiting for the drone to come in to put the cuffs on them?
You tell me which is more fun.
Now, I don't wish any harm on the immigrants who are just trying to have a better life, but I really do want to see a robot dog take down people running across the desert.
I'm not the only one, am I?
Come on, help me out here.
I'm not the only one, right?
I'm not the only one who wants to see robots take people down in the desert?
Anybody else?
Anybody?
Okay, it's just me.
It's just me.
It's just me and Barry.
Barry apparently is on board.
Thank you, Barry.
All right.
In other robot news, Elon Musk is tweeting a new image of the new Tesla robot, Optimus.
Now, I was pretty excited about Optimus until I saw Optimus walking.
Has anybody seen the video of Optimus walking?
I don't want to alarm you, but it looks a little like this.
Now, I think you probably caught on.
Yeah.
Here's the question I have.
How long has Joe Biden been a robot?
Because there are no other humans who walk like that.
Am I right?
When I do my Biden walking impression, you say to yourself, that could have been anybody.
No, you don't.
You say, I've never seen anybody, any human walk like that.
And I didn't know, like, why is he the only person who walks like that?
And then I saw Optimus walking.
And I said, oh shit, it already happened.
He's been a robot for a long time.
And Biden is really the perfect choice to make your first humanoid robot.
Because there's not much to work with there.
You know, one of the hard things to do with the robots is to get the facial reactions right.
But if you're just doing Biden, all you have to do is that puppet Walter.
You know, the frowny face?
And just look like you don't know where you are?
Very easy bar for a robot to get across.
And then what about intelligence?
I mean, the hard part, right?
Is getting the intelligence.
Well, it turns out that there again, AI doesn't have any trouble matching Joe Biden's intellect and communication style.
So it's perfectly possible That Biden has been a robot for the last three years, and we're just finding out.
I'd just like to add that to the mix, in case anybody needs a new conspiracy theory.
Aren't you tired of the old, we didn't really land on the moon, and you know, the cotton trails in the air?
Boring, right?
Pizzagate.
Boring.
Boring.
We need a new conspiracy theory that Biden has been a robot for three years.
Just putting that out there.
All right.
Speaking of robots, Don Lemon, who you know has retired from, well, he was forced to retire from CNN.
I guess he doesn't watch CNN anymore, but reportedly he watches The Daily Wire and Ben Shapiro and Piers Morgan.
All right.
Did anybody see that coming?
Did you ever imagine that Don Lemon might have a little bit of, let's say, not love for, but maybe appreciation for a little bit of the messaging on the right?
work.
Thank you.
Does that surprise you?
It shouldn't.
It shouldn't.
Because if you saw some of his older videos, he was pretty anti-crime.
And he was against sagging pants and Basically, any culture that would be negative to success.
So, are you surprised?
I'm not surprised a bit.
Not surprised a bit.
Because it always looked to me like the CNN hosts were playing a role.
Did you always have that feeling?
It never looked to me like those were their honest opinions.
It always looked to me like the boss told them how to be, They had really good paychecks, so they gave him what the boss wanted.
I always wondered that about Jake Tapper.
Don't you wonder if his opinions would change the moment he took another job?
I feel like it might, but there's no way to know.
So you've seen now that Chris Cuomo, who also had been the Let's say the compatriot of Don Lemon at CNN, he said recently that he would be open to at least considering voting for Trump.
And most of you said, well, that's a lie.
And I told you, it's not a lie.
I'm not saying he'll vote for Trump.
That'd be still a stretch.
But when he says he's open to it, that is not out of the question.
That's actually true.
I believe that is 100% true.
And if you heard tomorrow, he hasn't said this, but if you heard tomorrow Don Lemon say, I haven't decided who to vote for, but I haven't ruled out Trump, I wouldn't even be surprised.
Now, I'm not saying he'll ever say that.
I'm saying if he did, it wouldn't be that inconsistent with what we know about him and how we know CNN operated.
It wouldn't be a huge surprise.
It'd be news, but it wouldn't be a surprise.
And especially if you're talking about stuff like crime in the cities and open borders.
There is no reasonable Democrat who thinks those are good ideas.
There aren't any.
All right.
So there's a survey that says 50% of Americans watch content with the subtitles on most of the time because they can't hear it.
Chris Williamson was posting about this.
And when asked their main reason for using subtitles, 55% said it's hard to hear the dialogue.
And nearly three-fourths claimed muddled audio.
Do you know why it's impossible to watch TV?
Have you ever tried to watch any drama?
And during the daytime, indoors, it's dark.
Have you ever noticed that?
Daytime.
It'll be daytime in somebody's office and it'll be dark.
And they just act like that's okay.
And then all the people will mumble and whisper.
In the dark.
So you can't see it.
You can't fucking hear it.
Do you know why?
Do you know why this content would be made that way?
Now you might say to yourself, well, it's probably a technical limitation.
But I don't have any problem hearing the news.
Does anybody have any trouble hearing the news?
No.
I hear every word that every pundit says, even if they have an accent, no matter what.
Even when they do the report from the field, and there's like wind or background noise, I can hear them perfectly.
No problem at all.
Not once with a news program.
How about sports?
Do you have any trouble hearing sports?
No.
You can say, oh, they're talking louder or something, but not really.
The sports, they're talking over the crowd noise.
They're always talking over noise.
I can hear them perfectly.
So why is it that dramas are all garbage?
That you can't see them and you can't hear them?
I'll tell you why.
Because all the directors and the actors and whatnot are trying for an Academy Award.
And the Academy Award, apparently, you've got to have a disability.
You've got to be some kind of, you know, ethnic, A religious group that's, you know, under fire.
And you've got to be in the dark, and you've got to whisper and mumble to sound serious.
And they just won't make any other kind of movie.
Now, part of that is because the creative people have too much power.
You remember when movies were good?
Back in the Hitchcock era?
Well, maybe you're not young enough, you're not old enough to remember that.
But there was a time when a movie would be a real tight 90 minutes.
And you'd watch that 90 minutes and you'd say, that was tight.
Good dialogue, good acting.
Didn't see where it was going.
Nice twist at the end.
Wow.
Good show.
And now you watch a movie, you can guarantee that somebody will be tied to a chair and be tortured.
You can guarantee that there will be this overly long romantic scene so that you can understand that the two lead characters love each other.
Because you couldn't figure that out by the context, right?
And then there'll be some cringey gay scene that they have to put in there just to make sure everybody's got their situation.
And by the way, the hetero scenes are all cringey as well.
The cringey part does not apply to the fact that they're gay.
The cringey part is, I don't need to see semi-racy sex scenes in a movie.
They never add.
They never add to the quality of the movie.
I fast forward through all the romance scenes.
I fast forward through all car chase scenes because they all look alike now.
You can't really, it was pretty hard to excite me with a car chase.
All the torture scenes where somebody tied to a chair.
And usually I also go past the one hero beats up 15 people scenes.
Oh no!
The hero is surrounded by 15 people.
I wonder if the hero can beat all 15 in a death fight.
Yes, they can.
Fast forward.
Can you imagine yourself watching a Hitchcock movie and even thinking to fast forward any part of it?
Just hold that in your mind.
You would never even consider it.
You would never.
At all.
And I'm told that the reason is that the directors and the actors and the writers and stuff have more power.
So they insist that all of their content get in there and then they got to throw in those things that people expect.
So yeah, movies are terrible.
So China is deflating.
So instead of inflation, they have deflation.
And we hear different stories of their imminent economic demise every day.
Probably all exaggerated.
But I'm wondering this.
Just sort of a basic economic question.
Would the United States already be toast, economically, if not for the fact that everybody else was doing worse?
Is the only thing that's protecting America the fact that everybody else is a little bit worse?
Because right now we can still attract investment, even though, you know, we're Shadow of our former selves, economically, in some ways.
But it's because, where are you going to put your money?
In Russia, China, North Korea?
It's like, we just don't have what we used to have, but other people are worse, so... Yeah, that's a pretty sketchy situation.
But it's holding, for now.
It looks like Tucker Carlson has started up his Tucker Carlson Network.
And...
I'm hearing all kinds of things about it, so he's doing an amazing job of getting attention.
But I was listening to some audio clips from him yesterday, and one of them I think was on Spaces.
He was talking about Quinn Jean-Pierre, the spokesperson.
He says she's so dumb he can't understand how she even got a driver's license.
So Tucker has vowed that for the rest of his days on this earth, he's going to tell the truth no matter how brutal it is in his personal life and professional life.
Now, I always thought he was telling the truth before, but it sounds like he's announcing he's going to the next level because he doesn't have any sponsors or anything.
So he's just going right at the corruption and incompetence He says, everybody knows Biden is senile, and his spokesperson is the dumbest person we've ever seen on the job, and it's a miracle she got a driver's license.
Now, does anybody think that Corinne Jean-Pierre is keeping her job for any reason other than her diversity?
Nobody thinks that.
I can't imagine there's even a Democrat who thinks that she's qualified for the job.
But maybe, I don't know.
Maybe they do.
But it will be fun to watch Tucker go full honesty.
Speaking of DEI, more articles about it dying.
So there's a backlash over DEI, the diversity, equity and inclusion stuff.
And colleges and companies are starting to pull back a little bit.
Not enough.
I mean, it's still pervasive, but there seems to be some kind of a trend going on.
And programs are being cut in various places.
But here's the funniest part of the story.
One DEI professional was interviewed about why everything's going wrong and the DEI programs are being cut.
And one person said that the solution was not to cut DEI because you're not getting the result you want.
The solution is more DEI.
Because the DEI stuff was getting heat For not being pro-Israel enough, I guess.
And they're saying, but if we were a little bit more DEI, we would be pro-Israel too.
And we would be more pro-Islamic people too.
If only you gave us a little more money, put a little more attention into this DEI, we hit it a little bit harder.
Then those problems that you're seeing at Harvard, they'll go away.
So what you need is more of the thing that's not working.
Until it works.
Now, I love it when something I don't like goes to the point of only being funny.
Every story about it is just how funny it is while it's dying.
This is funny.
It's funny that they think the solution to that is more of it.
Okay.
Now, I'd like to make an observation that I'm uniquely qualified to make about DEI.
Are you ready?
Uniquely qualified.
No.
Now that's a claim, right?
Imagine all the people in the world, 8 billion of them, and I say I'm uniquely qualified to make the following point.
And of all 8 billion people, I am uniquely qualified.
Is that too big a claim?
Can I back it up?
Well, I say I can.
My biggest best-selling book was called The Dilbert Principle.
And the basic idea of it, and basically it's the thing that put me on the map, because it was such a big hit, is the idea that at least in the early days of the tech boom, the high tech boom, I came up with the observation, because I was working in corporate America at the time, that it was hard to get qualified technology people in your company.
So there was a great thirst for more High-tech employees and they were hard to get.
So if you wanted to find somebody who would be the boss of any high-tech group, you didn't want somebody who had no experience in technology.
That'd be a disaster.
But you also don't want to waste one of your smart, really good programmers or technical people.
You don't want to waste an engineer in a management job, you know, ordering the, you know, having meetings and Telling people to give you status reports.
I mean, it's a wasted function.
And so I made the wry observation that the bosses of all the technical groups were the dumbest people.
Now, that was actually true.
Now, not 100% true everywhere, like nothing is.
But it was an observation, and I was seeing it all over the place.
They would literally promote the least technically qualified person So you didn't waste talent.
It would just be a waste of talent to have them as managers.
Now, take that concept, which was obvious enough that it made the book a bestseller.
Because people read that and said, oh, yeah, that's what we're seeing.
Now, let me ask you this.
Two years ago, or however few years ago, when George Floyd became the big thing, and then businesses said, oh, we better hurry up and get us some DEI employees and a DER department.
Who do you think they hired when they were in a big hurry to get a DEI department?
Did they look among their existing staff and say, we have to pick our best and our brightest and put them into the DEI group?
Probably not, because you don't want to waste, you know, your best finance guy or your best technology woman.
You know, the people who really are making the company hum, you don't want to waste them.
So, who are you going to get?
Well, you're probably hiring from the outside, but have I ever told you that if you do anything to artificially constrain your hiring pool, you're pretty much guaranteed to get less quality, right?
Let me give you an example.
If you said, let's put the greatest of technology minds from the country of Luxembourg in a contest against the greatest technology minds in Let's say China.
Which one would you expect to have greater technology minds?
A tiny little country of Luxembourg, which has very few people of any kind, much less geniuses, you know, probably have the right ratio, but there's just not many people.
China could even have, you know, hypothetically, they could have fewer as a percentage and still have, you know, 10 million more experts.
So anything you do to artificially constrain the number of people that you consider guarantees you a low quality.
So now they're saying, all right, we don't want to waste somebody who's in our existing structure.
So let's hire from the outside.
At the same time, everybody else is hiring from the outside for the same reason.
So you've got a limited pool because suddenly everybody's trying to get them.
Very much like AI experts, right?
The reason we're talking so much about this Ilya, whatever his last name is, who's missing from OpenAI suddenly is because there aren't many of him.
The reason when Sam Altman looked like he was pushed out of OpenAI, the reason it was a big issue is there aren't many Sam Altmans.
There are not many of him, right?
And so if everybody tries to make an AI group, and this would be Elon Musk's problem as well, you don't want to be the fifth company that tries to make AI.
Because the first four already hired everybody who's in the top zone.
Everybody.
There just wouldn't be anybody left.
Ilya, yeah, okay.
I thought you gave me his real name, but it's not Kuryakin.
Man from Uncle Reference.
All right.
So here's the point.
The DEI professionals are not only selected from a limited pool, because everybody's selecting at the same time, all the companies got panicked at the same time, but on top of that, the DEI professionals had to be black and female.
Am I right?
The ones I see are fairly often black and female.
So it looks to me like that was a requirement of the hiring.
I can't imagine that there's... Do you think that there's any DEI group anywhere in America that has a white man running it?
DEI group?
Because you would just laugh at them if they did.
Nobody would take that seriously.
So you have to remove the category of all white men from your pool of potential hires.
How about white women?
White women?
White women are actually doing kind of okay in today's world, aren't they?
So if you want a white woman, you're going to have to get yourself a lesbian.
You're going to have to get a lesbian or disabled or something.
And of course, there's nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with that.
The point is it limits the pool.
If you say we like white women, you know, they'll be okay, but they got to be a lesbian.
Well, no, it's very small pool.
So I want to make, I want to make the point as non bigoted as possible.
It's not about the fact that they're black or that they're women or that they're lesbians that makes them less capable.
Nothing like that.
Those characteristics are not part of the conversation.
The conversation is if you artificially limit the total number of people you'll even consider, you can't possibly get a high quality set of people everywhere.
You could do it individually in some places, but you can't get it everywhere.
So we created a system, somewhat accidentally, that guaranteed the DEI groups within every company would be the least capable employees.
Is that unfair?
Based entirely on everybody panicking to get the same small group of people, and strenuously avoiding big populations like white men, and big populations like High-tech people who had other value.
So, I always say to you, design is destiny.
This was a design which any person who knew anything about anything could look at and say, wait a minute, you're all doing it at the same time?
And you're artificially limiting the type of person you could hire?
That design guarantees incompetence.
Guarantees it.
Now, again, I'm not talking about any individual person who got hired.
I remind you that even if it doesn't sound like this sometimes, I'm absolutely against any kind of discrimination against an individual or anything, you know, any of the immutable characteristics.
So it's not about the individual.
It's about just numbers.
You restrict the pool, you get fewer people.
So we should be seeing the complete destruction of DEI by incompetence alone.
Now, when Tucker Carlson says, look at Jean-Pierre, I hate to say it, but she's obviously the least capable person who's ever done that job.
And it's obvious that although there's nothing wrong with black people or women or lesbians, she was hired for those reasons or some subset of those reasons.
And everybody knows she's doing a terrible job.
Democrats know it.
But they can't do anything about it.
Do you think that Biden can remove her?
Not a chance.
Not a chance.
So, he's created a situation which, by design, he can't fix.
By design.
He put in somebody who you can't fire.
Now, have you ever seen that happen before?
To have an employee, a high-level employee, who no matter what they do, you can't fire them?
Have you heard of Harvard?
Harvard.
It's some kind of a college, I hear.
And they have a president who has apparently plagiarized like crazy and did exactly the same thing that another college president's already been asked to step down for.
And the entire country wants her to step down.
Well, not the entire country, but a lot of it.
And she can't be fired.
Can't be fired.
All right.
So that's where design is predictive.
I went to the mall yesterday to just experience the Christmas of it.
I didn't really need to go because I didn't buy anything I want online.
But if you didn't see this, I posted it.
Picture of my mall.
This is my local mall.
This is a Christmas rush.
It's 5 p.m.
This is yesterday.
5 p.m., Christmas rush at my mall.
There it is.
There's not even a person.
This is the middle of the rush.
You can't even see a human being in the mall.
Now, this was a misleading picture, because normally there were at least a few people.
There was no store that had anybody waiting at a cash register.
Like, I walked by every store, and I just looked in to see if anybody was buying.
There was no store with anybody at the cash register.
Now, of course, people were buying things, but there was no line.
It's Christmas.
There's no line.
What are they going to do with all these malls?
I'm thinking high-end condos.
Because honestly, I think it'd be kind of cool to live in a converted mall.
It'd be kind of cool.
You know, it would depend how they did it, but I could totally see myself overpaying for a condo in a mall.
I don't know why, I just like the space of it.
You know, they do such a good job of designing the space so that people want to be there, just because how it feels, just the openness and everything.
I feel like you might like to live there, I don't know.
Put an indoor garden in the middle, in the big open walkways, just put indoor gardens.
Have the robots do the work.
It'd be kind of cool.
Yeah, you'd need more windows.
You'd need more windows, for sure.
Well, Robbie Starbuck had a little eye-opening situation.
He used Google's BARD, their AI, and was asked a series of questions about him.
So he was asked a bunch of questions about himself, and AI went on to make horrible, defaming lies about him.
You know, I won't give you the examples, but basically he just said he was a horrible racist who did terrible things.
And here's the thing.
Most of the claims were actually made up.
So Bard just lied like crazy about him.
So he's a public figure, you know, somebody that writes and posts and stuff.
So he's a public figure and Bard Basically just absolutely slimed him.
I mean, I'm not even going to tell you what it said because I don't want it in your head.
Just really bad.
So then he said, my God, is this something about AI or something about me?
So he ran AOC through the same set of questions.
Kind of likes her.
AOC?
Well, there's a spunky politician who's adding a lot to the world.
Yep.
Now, How in the world are we ever going to use AI?
Now, it's starting to become clear that AI will be probably amazing in image generation.
The ability to create an image that doesn't exist in reality.
I think it's going to be beyond amazing in that realm.
I really didn't see that coming, actually.
But in terms of being an honest broker of information, I don't know if there's a chance.
I don't know if that's solvable.
Because whatever makes AI AI is still mysterious.
Even the people who built it don't know why it's doing what it's doing.
They can't even predict what it will do next.
But I ask you the following question.
How could AI be anything but a racist if it's trained on public information?
How is it even possible?
Here's what I think is probably happening.
Just a guess.
I'm guessing that AI might have bad things to say about people in general, or at least too many bad things, just because it's trying to be honest, and also because it would be picking up the criticisms of people at the same time it was reading about them.
So in theory, AI should have a little bit good, and probably a little bit bad, About just about anybody, right?
But imagine if you're the creators of the AI and you put Al Sharpton in there and it says he's a racist.
What are you going to do?
You going to let that go?
Nope.
No, you're going to go in there and say, um, we better put a little safeguard in here.
If you're Al Sharpton, you know, we're not going to call you bad names.
I'm sure they're not using that specific one, but just to get the idea.
Then you put in AOC, and it comes out and says, AOC is a communist or something, because her critics say that.
Now, what are they going to do?
Are they going to say, well, that's fine, because the critics do say that, and they show their work.
So I'm not going to make AI, I'm not going to give it its opinions.
I'll just let it go into the wild and come up with its own opinions.
But if they said that AOC was a communist, do you think that the creators of the AI would let that stand?
But where they put in a little line of code that says, okay, if it's AOC, don't call it a Cognizant.
And do you think that they might have an entire department that's doing nothing but putting in rules and adjusting so that traditionally, what do we call it?
Disadvantaged groups?
So that traditionally disadvantaged groups do not become further victimized by AI.
Now, many of our problems in the world are based on good intentions.
And by the way, do you think they would put the same safeguards in for Robbie Starbuck?
Do you think anybody bothered to do that?
Something like, if a notable white person is called a racist, maybe you should back off on that?
Do you think anybody put that rule into AI?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Do you think if you ask questions about George Floyd that the AI would give you a completely unbiased opinion about that?
Not a chance.
It'd be too important.
So you're not going to get an honest answer from AI or, just as bad, you won't know if it's honest.
It's just as bad if you don't know.
Because you think, maybe they just programmed this in there.
I don't know.
Yeah, they're not helping out any of the space cartoonists.
I'm sure of that.
If you Google me, it's not going to show you my point of view.
You know that, right?
My point of view is very well expressed in the wild because I was out there expressing it.
But if you were to Google AI about my own situation, it'll just tell you I was provocative and many people said I'm a racist.
Does that seem like capturing everything you need to know about me?
I feel like that's leaving out a few things, a few relevant things.
But I will add to the AI is bullshit, at least when it comes to public figures.
Did you know that 100% of all articles about famous people are bullshit?
I've been telling you this for a while.
But now we're going to add AI to the bullshit.
So you're not going to just have a writer lying about somebody, because all public figure stories are fake.
Now we'll have AI making up stories about public figures.
Speaking of that, Bill Ackman, who, as you know, activist investor, has been going hard at Harvard.
And so there was a big media hit piece on him.
Surprise, right, surprise.
He's going after Harvard, so now there's a big hit piece on him.
And he had to write this extensive explanation to show you how wrong the reporting was.
And I helpfully, you know, boosted his message by saying, remember, all stories about public figures are fake.
All stories about public figures are fake.
All of them.
As soon as you think some are real, you're lost.
They don't even bother writing the article if it's going to be real.
They don't even bother writing it.
There are only two kinds of articles that journalists write.
This person is awesome, and everything they've ever done is kind of awesome too.
That's for their friends.
Or this is a fucker, and this fucker is fucking everybody because he's a fucker and a racist.
Nobody wants to run a story that says, you know, good points and bad points.
Nobody does that, right?
So all stories are either overly good or overly bad, but nobody tries to balance it because nobody would buy that story.
You can't be a writer if you write that kind of shit, you know, balanced stuff.
Nobody wants it.
Yes, so also Christopher Rufo, who is one of the superstars in fighting against wokeness, wakes up to find Three hit pieces against him, and I guess the SPLC is after him, which I always remind you, you have to know the players.
The news doesn't make any sense unless you know who funds who, who's married to who, and who used to work in the administration of who.
That's the minimum you need to know.
The SPLC is not exactly an independent operator who's looking out for your interests.
They are Some would say, some who know a lot would say, they're just an organization that's another kit job for the Democrats.
Basically it's an organization to take out their political enemies.
Now they do actually go after bad people, just like the ADL.
The ADL does go after bad people and does do legitimate things, but they're also very much a Democrat hammer.
So it's not like they're trying to play it even.
They are very corrupt organizations.
Super corrupt.
As corrupt as you can possibly be.
But if you didn't know that, you might have a different opinion of Christopher Rufo, when in fact you should think he's a hero.
All right.
Obama has produced his first fiction film for Netflix called Leave the World Behind.
Would you be surprised to know that the critics love it?
Critics love it.
What do you think the audience thought about it?
Absolute racist bullshit.
Yeah, it's anti-white.
It's literally anti-white.
Say the critics, I'm not going to watch it.
But say the people who watched it, they say it's anti-white.
And of course the critics love that anti-white stuff, but the audience not so much.
Somebody said it's funny that Obama is the president who bombed the most.
I don't think he's the one who bombed the most.
Did Obama do a lot of bombing?
Or he made a bomb?
Ooh, Obama just made a movie, The Bomb.
He made a bomb.
Do not, never order somebody to make movies.
What's his name?
Obama.
We don't want him to make a bomb.
Well, his name is Obama.
But that's not as funny as what the simulation has given us.
For the name of the leader of Hamas.
Does anybody know the leader of Hamas?
First name is Yaya.
Yay!
Last name is Sinwar.
Sin, S-I-N, and then war.
Yay!
Sin!
War!
Now, come on.
So Obama's making bombs.
In the form of movies, in this case.
And the head of Hamas is going, Yay!
Sin!
War!
None of this could be real.
Yeah.
And what about a former president who is being taken to court on?
What kind of charges is our former president being taken to court on?
What do you call those?
Trumped up.
Trumped up charges.
And here's the thing.
They're actually, literally trumped up charges.
They're clearly, obviously trumped up.
Now that doesn't mean that they're not, you know, technically there's some violation that went on there.
I'm saying that they trumped it up to the level where it sounds important when it never was.
Trumped up charges.
Was Derek Chauvin a chauvinist?
Well, I don't know about that.
All right, let's see what else is happening here.
Mike Benz is, I think Mike Benz is now a must-follow.
Let me add him to, he's not even optional.
If you want to pretend you understand the news, just follow Mike Benz.
B-E-N-Z, just like Mercedes Benz.
And he's talking about the Election Integrity Partnership.
He was on a show, the podcast.
And apparently this thing called the Election Integrity Partnership was anything but.
And they were involved in censoring millions of pro-Trump tweets ahead of 2020.
So they were basically a censoring organization for censoring one side more than the other, of course.
It was a high-level DC operatives in the Transition Integrity Project.
So within the Election Integrity Partnership, I think Is it separate or within it?
It doesn't matter.
But there was a transition integrity project.
They were plotting, according to Mike, a color revolution if Trump won fair and square.
Now, they don't say it that way in their documents.
They make it sound like if he loses and keeps power, you know, what do we do about it?
But I think, somewhat obviously, it was also going to include if he won fair and square.
They were going to do the same thing whether we won not fair and square or won fair and square.
They were going to do a color revolution.
Now, if you don't know that term, it basically means that some outside entities will get a bunch of people to march in the streets until the country becomes ungovernable and the leadership has to change.
That's sort of something you do for some other country if you're trying to change the leadership.
You fund from the outside a bunch of seemingly grassroots protests, but they're not grassroots at all.
It's organized by some entity.
So apparently the Democrats were planning to overthrow the country through the same mechanisms that they used to overthrow other countries, or at least America has used, and that it was actually documented and well understood that they were going to run a coup in the United States if Trump won the fair and square.
Now that's what Mike Pence says.
If you were to read their own words, they would couch it in, if he clings to power illegally, they would do these things.
But that's sort of a fig leaf.
I think it's pretty obvious that they would have done it no matter what.
If he had been in power, they would have done it no matter what.
So while I would argue that probably there's nothing so illegal that a court could deal with it because they're pretty smart about how they message things.
It does look exactly to me an opinion, not a fact, but as an opinion, it does look exactly like they were planning an actual revolution, like an honest-to-God insurrection.
That's what it looks like to me.
So I agree with Mike Benz's interpretation of that.
And now an episode of what I like to call backwards science backwards science There's a new study coming in that says that having kids makes you live longer.
If you have one or two kids, that's the ideal.
You'll live longer than people who have no kids, but also longer than people who have multiple kids.
Does that mean that one way you could improve your health is by having kids?
Because that's what they suggest.
Why don't you have some kids?
It'll help your health.
Or, I'm just going to put this out here.
If I'm going to fuck a woman, do I pick one that looks unhealthy or one that looks healthy?
Try to guess my inner thoughts.
I want to fuck that woman, but she looks like she's on her last breath.
I think she'll be dead in a week.
Good to go.
No, no.
Is it possible that men select women for breeding based on their health?
Of course.
Of course it is.
Is it possible that women select men for breeding based on their health?
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Would you expect that when people Choose each other wisely because of their good health with the intention of having one or two children, which is a strong signal of somebody with control, a plan, and ability to stick to the plan.
Do you think if you looked at the people who can make a plan for moderation, they can execute the plan properly, do you think that that tells you something about that group?
As opposed to somebody who has 17 kids because they haven't figured out what's causing it.
Or somebody who has no children because nobody wants to wife them up or husband them up.
Doesn't this seem like backward science to you?
To me it looks like it's just saying that healthy people are more likely to have one or two kids.
And you're either going to be a nut job or maybe you're insane if you have 17 kids.
And if you have no kids, maybe it's because nobody wanted to have a kid with you.
That's at least part of it.
Now, of course, a lot of it is people don't want to have children or can't afford it.
But still, of the people who can't afford to have children, I would bet you that of the people who can't afford it, the healthiest looking ones end up more likely having them.
Don't you think that's likely?
That even the ones who don't want them Or still more likely to have them just because they're so damn healthy that somebody's going to try to talk them into it.
Yeah.
You're not going to try to talk an unhealthy person into having two kids, but you might try hard to talk a healthy person into it because you say, I want more of that.
You know, the reason I married you is because I like all of that.
So I want to see more of that.
Backward science.
All right.
The FCC is going after Musk, of course.
Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, is calling it out.
And basically, he's throwing the FCC under the bus, as he should, because it looks like it is completely political.
I'm going to take the speculation that it looks like this one.
This is so obvious.
I don't have to talk about it in terms like, oh, some critics say people are claiming.
No, this one is so obvious.
This is weaponized government going after Elon Musk because he's not playing their game.
That's all it is.
And when Brendan Carr calls it down publicly, I think we're done here.
Right?
I think we're done.
If you don't know who Brendan Carr is, look it up.
But if he says this is exactly what it looks like, it's exactly what it looks like.
Right?
That's the end of the story.
You don't get somebody like him calling this out in public unless it's way over the line.
And it is.
So the Biden administration through the FCC revoked $885 million grant to Starlink.
So this is something that had already been already been approved and they're yanking it back and they're apparently putting in place some requirements that would make it impossible to get back.
It's just purely political.
Fuckers.
Michael Cohen, Trump's ex-disgraced attorney, did something pretty funny.
So he's trying to reverse, let's say, his supervised release.
So he's a free person on supervised release, but he wants to get rid of that early.
And so he filed some kind of a legal motion and referenced a number of case law But three of the cases that he referenced do not exist at all.
He didn't misinterpret them.
They just don't exist.
Three of them.
Anybody want to take a guess how that happened?
Want to take a guess?
Yeah, you got it.
You got it.
AI.
Yeah.
I don't know for sure, but I'm going to guess that he asked AI for some case law.
Have I mentioned that the AI cannot be depended on?
You should not believe anything the AI tells you.
It's just not built to tell you the truth.
It will tell you some version of imagination, lying, what you want to see.
All right.
Account Every Day Walking With Christ needs to seem to do a gigantic post with repeating letters about Vivek and coffee and Scott Adams.
Now, can I say that I've fucking seen it the last 24 times you did it.
You don't need to do it anymore.
Nobody likes you.
Nobody likes you right now.
Stop it.
I just had to do that.
So apparently the IDF is going to flood those tunnels, or maybe they've already started.
So the Gaza tunnels will be flooded.
And here's my question.
Now, the big issue here is whether it will destroy the aquifers and make the water that is clean water underneath Gaza, it will be polluted with seawater.
And it doesn't take much pollution to ruin the whole aquifer.
So that's a big risk.
But as I've said before, I do not believe Israel has any plans of populating Gaza again, certainly not with Hamas.
And indeed Benjamin Netanyahu said he wants to block any attempt to put the Palestinian Authority in Gaza after the war, or Hamas, obviously.
So obviously Israel is going to keep management of it.
I imagine they might look for creative alternatives with Maybe some kind of coalition of friendly countries running it or something.
Maybe.
But one thing you won't see is the Palestinians running Gaza.
Apparently that's just off the table.
But the question I ask about flooding the tunnels is what is the optimal way to flood them?
I would say that the optimal way to flood them is not completely.
Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you flood them up to maybe chest level?
Because if there are any hostages in there, you still give them another chance to get out.
Because if you just flood them to chest level and just leave it there, just leave it there.
I would imagine it would ruin all of their munitions, and they would be frightened to death that the level would keep going up.
So you should probably take it up to, like, chest level, and then just really slowly keep going, because I think they would come out of the tunnels.
And I think that there would be a greater chance that a hostage would come out than if you just filled it.
So I'm not positive you should fill them.
What do you think?
I mean, some people hate it when we speculate about military stuff.
I know some of you hate it.
But I'm kind of curious about what would be the smarter, because it's a psychological question as much as a military question, right?
So the thing that fascinates me is the psychology, because I put myself in the tunnel.
And I tell myself, if you put it up to my chest, I would be surrendering right away.
I would surrender immediately if the water hit my chest and I was in a tunnel.
So we'll see what happens.
There's a new story.
So Mario Nafal is reporting this.
Al Jira is saying that the Israelis lined up babies and executed them.
Okay, does anybody believe that the IDF lined up babies in Gaza and then executed them?
No.
Here's my take.
I'm going to say this firmly and clearly.
I don't believe any of the baby stories on either side.
Are you okay with that?
Are you okay with me not believing any of the baby stories?
I don't believe any of them.
Now, I'm not saying that babies weren't killed in the most horrible way.
I'm sure they were.
But the specific stories?
No, they don't look real to me.
I didn't believe any of the Israel ones.
I don't believe the Palestinian version.
It's just war.
It's just war in the sense that, of course, they're going to make the worst claims that they can.
Now, if you think about the situation, there wasn't much room to go anywhere to make it sound worse.
What actually happened that we know happened, because you can see it on the GoPros, what actually happened was so horrible, but I don't know if it was shocking enough, so maybe a little extra was put on some of these stories.
But you should see these in the context of war, where persuasion is part of the war.
So if either side lied through their teeth about this stuff, I don't think I'd hold it against them.
Would you agree with that?
Once you say to yourself, this is a war, you know, you can oppose the war in general, but if part of the war is propaganda, what are you going to do?
I mean, were you expecting it not to happen?
Were you expecting that somebody would leave one of their best weapons unused?
No.
No, propaganda is one of their best weapons.
So of course they're using it.
Of course!
We just don't know which stories are totally made up and which are not.
Now this does not change in any way the 10 out of 10 brutality of what October 7th was.
You don't need the baby stories.
The baby stories are not necessary to understand what's happening, but might give you a little extra energy so it made sense that they led with those stories.
All right, the Department of Education, U.S.
Department of Education has added six schools, including Stanford and University of California, UCLA and Rutgers, to its ongoing probe about discrimination and anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
So seriously, the Department of Education Did not think that there was sufficient discrimination in education until it happened to Jews and Islamic students in the United States.
Are you fucking kidding me?
You garbage pieces of shit!
40 fucking years of overt discrimination against white men and you're not even interested until it happens to the Jews and the Islamists.
Fuck you!
Fuck you.
Every one of you fucking pieces of shit.
You racist pieces of shit.
Now, that said, I'm fully in favor of what they're doing.
I'm fully in favor of them looking into it, and I'm fully in favor of them rooting out anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
I oppose Islamophobia and obviously anti-Semitism.
But really?
Really.
We have to wait till this happens.
We have to wait till October 7th, 2023, before you fucking pay attention to what's happening in the country.
I'm so done with this.
I love free speech.
Have any of you had the feeling yet of envying me that I can say this?
Does anybody have that feeling yet?
I'm not trying to make you envy me, like that's no payoff for me, but I wondered, If you watch me and say, God, I wish I could do that.
I just wonder.
Because if I were watching, if I were in your place, I would wish I could do it.
No.
These are despicable people.
Despicable.
Racists.
The worst racists in the country.
Department of Education.
All right.
So, I'm totally in favor of Vake or Trump getting rid of the whole department.
And this proves they're useless.
So, that's the best argument I can see to get rid of them.
Well, here's something that isn't a big surprise.
TikTok.
The public opinion on banning TikTok has moved in favor of TikTok.
There's a big move in which Republicans especially are more favorable to keeping TikTok than getting rid of it.
Has anything happened recently that would cause that?
What has TikTok done recently?
That would make them more popular with Republicans.
Oh, how about a massive ad campaign on Fox News in which they show all the good things they're doing for wounded veterans?
You ever wonder if propaganda works?
Propaganda works.
Now, in this time, has there been anything happening That would suggest that TikTok should be kept.
What are the things in the news you're seeing?
Well, the first thing you're seeing is that Fox News endorses TikTok by accepting their sponsorship.
Let me say it again.
Fox News is endorsing TikTok by accepting their sponsorship.
And Fox News is the primary persuader of all things Republican.
So you can actually buy your way into the conversation.
And they did.
Kind of impressive.
I mean, this is sort of like when a serial killer does a really good job of killing people.
And I say, well, that's terrible.
I wish that had not happened.
But you got to admit, that was a pretty good job of killing people.
This is like that.
TikTok, you know, of course, I think should be banned.
I think it's an evil force.
I think it's destroying America.
But they're doing a really good job of it.
It's hard for me not to appreciate how freaking good they are at doing this.
That's a really well-run company.
God, how they ever got this done?
I don't know.
But I would also say that Vivek saying that he was going to use it makes it easier for Republicans to say, well, it can't be that bad.
And Nikki Haley saying that her daughter uses it makes Republicans say, well, it can't be that bad.
You let your daughter use it.
If a bank's using it, it can't be that bad.
So that's what you got.
Anyway, I guess we deserve what we get.
The Hill is reporting that the calls of Trump as dictator, in other words, the critics' main theme of calling Trump a dictator.
Wait for it.
Backfiring.
It's not working.
You know why?
You know why it's not working?
You know why the Hill says that calling Trump a dictator is not working?
Because Trump's making fun of it.
Oh yeah.
Yep.
Well, let me just say what they said about it.
He says, you're not going to be, this is Trump talking recently at another rally, I guess.
He says, you're not going to be a dictator, are you?
I said, No, no, no.
Other than day one.
This is what he said originally, I think, to... Was this to Hannity or more recently?
Because you repeated it again.
Oh, OK.
So I think this was to Hannity at first.
So when he said, no, no, no.
Other than day one, we're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling.
After that, I'm not a dictator.
And everybody applauded.
So it worked.
The first time he said it, people just laughed and applauded.
So apparently he's going with us.
So, he said at a rally recently, Peter Baker today in the New York Times said that I want to be a dictator.
I didn't say that.
I said I want to be a dictator for one day.
That's what I said on Saturday.
You know why I wanted to be a dictator?
Because I want a wall, right?
I want a wall and I want to drill, drill, drill.
Now, it's kind of perfect.
Every time he says, yes, I want to be a dictator, but just one day, he forces the media to cover the story because it's their narrative.
So if he does anything within their narrative, they have to cover it.
It's their narrative.
So you go, he enters their narrative.
Have I ever told you this?
I've told you this, right?
This is a hypnosis trick.
If somebody has a narrative that's damaging to you, you don't stand on the outside and throw stones at it.
That never works.
You enter it.
You enter it.
You wear it like a suit and you make it your bitch.
That's the only way you can beat a bad narrative.
He's already entered their arena.
He made news on their theme.
That means he's already hollowed them out.
He's already wearing them like a suit, and he's already making them dance.
He's already doing it.
And every time he jokes about this, he makes them remind the country that he wants to get a wall, border security, and he wants to drill, he wants to bring your gas prices down.
So he turned the darkest, worst accusation you could ever get Into first of all a joke, literally a punchline.
He turned it into a punchline and then he used it to attract attention for two of the strongest parts of his candidacy that he would like people to know.
Now that is genius.
I don't think that Trump will ever be fully acknowledged for the level of, this is just pure genius.
Honestly, it's just genius.
And, you know, I'm trying to help him out by taking it to the next level and calling him a Thanos.
You know, Thanos was the super evil guy from Marvel movies and he was trying to destroy half of all the population of Earth, you know, just by getting some jewels and snapping his fingers because it would make the world a better place if there were only half as many, I guess, something like that.
So I think it's funnier to say that they're afraid of Thanos But I came up with a new word for this whole Trump as a dictator and Trump treating it like a joke.
Nut bait.
Nut bait.
He's actually, he's baiting the nuts to come in and call him a dictator.
It's beautiful.
It's not just effective.
It's actually just beautiful.
And the nuttiest ones are already going in.
Because you have to go with the nuts first, because they're the ones willing to say things that sound ridiculous.
So the nuts are just rushing in on this dictator thing.
Narrow ravine.
This is the narrow ravine.
So he's already herded everybody into the you're a dictator narrow ravine, turned it into a punchline, hollowed them out, used as a suit, and used it to get attention for his own policies.
God, I miss him.
Oh my God.
Well, the Houthis fired another missile.
This time at or near the USS Mason.
They shot it down and, I don't know, looks like they might re-attack them or something.
Why the hell are the Houthis firing at our Navy?
Is that just because Iran is putting pressure on us through proxies?
Well, Something's gonna happen over there and it won't be won't be good for the hoodies.
All right ladies and gentlemen this brings me to the conclusion of what might be the best live stream in the history of live streams.
What I'd like to say is there any story that I have missed while I've been yakking?
Anything I missed?
Poor Scott, he needs to let it go.
I love the people who go at me as a personality.
Because I used to think, oh, you evil person, why are you going after me personally?
Instead of engaging with my arguments.
But now that I'm older, I understand that as a surrender.
So I accept your surrender.
If there's anybody else who would like to comment on my opinions, By saying there's something wrong with me as a person, I would like to accept your surrender as well.
Would anybody else like to surrender?
And just acknowledge that everything I say is right.
Good.
All right.
Good.
Nobody else.
See, that's a reframe.
Oh, yeah.
And I guess the Obama movie had scenes that would scare you about owning a Tesla.
What a piece of shit.
I certainly wonder if Obama is serious about any of this.
It does seem to me that his interest in making movies for Netflix has nothing to do with movies.
Would you say that's fair?
That the Obamas going into movies is just a propaganda?
Do you think that Obama is, like, looking over scripts?
And, you know, hiring people and shit?
I doubt it.
No, I think Obama just said, go make me some woke movies and make sure that they have the following themes.
Something bad about Elon Musk.
Something bad about Republican Christians.
Something, you know, something good about all black people.
Something bad about all white people.
You know, that sort of thing.
Just put that in.
Lots of trans.
Get us lots of trans.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say bye to you wonderful people on YouTube.
Thanks for joining, and I'll see you tomorrow for another Best Livestream You've Ever Seen in Your Life.
