All Episodes
Dec. 22, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:48:03
Episode 2330 CWSA 12/22/23 I'll Tell You If UFOs Are Real, Then Wow You Several More Times

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, Adam Schiff, Drinking Toilet Water, Ye's Middle-East City, Ed Burke, Vivek Ramaswamy, Hillary Clinton, DEI, One-Electron God Theory, John Wheeler, Dr. Mark Hyman, Julian Assange, Open Borders Objective, AI Persistent Consciousness, Karine Jean-Pierre, Migrant Drone Footage, Weaponized TikTok, Tucker Carlson's Weakness, President Biden Emails, Harvard Plagiarism Policy, Military Industrial Complex, Douglas Murray, Israel Hamas 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's Colin Coffey with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
Oh wow, the news is so interesting today.
A whole bunch of really fascinating stories.
This might be the best live stream you've ever seen!
But if you'd like to take this up to levels, that people can't even imagine with their minor, tiny, little, smooth brains.
All you need is a cupper, mugger, a glass of tankard, chalice of stein, a canteen jugger, flask, a vessel of any kind.
If you fill that vessel with your beverage of choice, I like coffee, you can join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous 7.5% alcohol.
Ooh, savor it.
I didn't mean to sound like Yoda.
Safer?
You will.
Well, there's a second alleged video has surfaced of staffers in the Capitol building having what they call gay sex.
At what point do we stop calling it gay sex?
Aren't we already there?
I feel like every time we call it gay sex, it's like saying somebody's a Negro.
Are you having that feeling yet?
It's like, isn't that way of referring to it no longer?
It doesn't really make sense going into 24.
I would say two staffers having sex.
Are you ready for that or no?
Can't just say two staffers having sex?
Because in what way did their, what way did their sexual preference have any bearing on anything?
It doesn't.
It doesn't have any bearing.
But we can't, we can't stop doing it, right?
Oh, it's gay sex.
It's funnier.
Check your bigotry.
Check your bigotry.
Now, here's the answer to why people add the gay part.
There is something funny about the story, which would be funny whether they were gay or not.
It's just funny that people are having sex in the Capitol building and filming it.
But, Humor works better when you can add anything non-standard.
So gay sex is a little less standard than heterosex, just in terms of numerically.
It's just less common.
So that works for humor because it's less common.
But in addition, the sexual acts themselves are less common than the average.
Therefore, it's the less common part that makes it a little more interesting.
But we shouldn't be making a big deal about that.
Personally, I wasn't too interested to find out there's a second sex tape, gay staffer sex tape, but probably you had the same, did most of you have the same impression I did when you heard the story that there's two of them?
Yeah, right.
As soon as you heard there's two of them, you said the same thing I did, which is, well, we'll wait for the compilation video.
You all said that, right?
Well, don't tell me it was just me.
All right.
Simulation alert.
We have another hint that we live in a simulation, and it's code reuse.
Code reuse.
There are two stories in the news that are basically the same story.
Story number one, Adam Schiff is leading by nine points in the polls to become the next senator of California.
Okay, that's scary.
Adam Schiff is leading in the polls to be the next senator of my state.
But the simulation gave us some code reuse because there's another story.
It's basically the same story, just different words.
And the story is California wants voters to drink toilet water.
It's basically the same story.
The real story is that California wants to purify wastewater and serve it up as water.
I don't have a super problem with that.
If I had to guess, by the time they purified it and tested it, it's probably as good as any other water.
So I'm not going to worry about that, but it's funny that it's the same story.
Well, you know the Spaces function on the X platform?
It's that audio thing where people can do an audio event?
Musk has announced that now you can attend them anonymously.
So before, everybody could tell who was attending because your profile showed up.
And this is good news for me.
Does everybody know why this is good news for me?
Because when I attend a Spaces, I just want to be an audience member and just listen.
It changes what they say.
And it just ruins my experience.
The other thing is that they invite me on stage, and sometimes I'm on my computer that doesn't even have a microphone.
So I'm like, ah, I just ruined your Spaces event because you're waiting for me to go on stage, but I don't even have a microphone or a camera or anything.
Well, I don't need a camera.
But the other thing is, I attended a Spaces event where the speaker immediately said she couldn't go on because I joined the Spaces.
She said, I just can't go on.
I can't continue.
Because Scott Adams just joined the spaces.
And I thought, what?
What?
And then she told the story of some interaction we had on Twitter that she found so upsetting that she couldn't even talk in public if I were listening.
And I looked at her name and I said to myself, I have no recollection of you whatsoever.
No memory.
No memory of that whatsoever.
But they went on.
I guess she, you know, she finally went on.
There was another spaces I attended where as soon as I showed up, the host said, uh-oh, that racist guy is here.
I'll get rid of him.
And then they kicked me off.
Now, it was a mostly or almost all black attendance.
And it was some topic that was more interesting to the black community.
Now that was exactly the kind of spaces I want to attend.
I don't really want to attend spaces where I hear people who agree with me saying all the things I would say if I were there.
I don't have any interest in that.
But think how cool it is that you could be like a fly on the wall where a bunch of people who might be saying things that you would not hear of normally would be talking a little bit closer to their natural way of Communicating.
Meaning that there's something about spaces where people don't hold back as much as they do on video.
Because on video, you feel like people are watching.
On audio, you just feel a little bit more private, even though you're not.
So I often joined the black-centric spaces so I could hear opinions that I wouldn't normally hear.
Isn't that exactly what I'm supposed to be doing?
Who exactly is, well, it wasn't for any bad purpose.
I wasn't gaining, I wasn't there to gain, like, you know, material.
I was actually interested.
I was like, oh, what is the dominant opinion of people who I don't talk to that often?
I kicked off.
But now I can watch anonymously.
So it's less racist, and that's good.
So I report that there's a big whiff, I forget which publication said it, that most economists and most journalists and most regular people thought the U.S.
was headed into a recession and they all had bad predictions for 2023.
Well, I couldn't help myself.
I had to point out that one disgraced cartoonist had been saying the whole time that 2023 was going to surprise.
By not being recession, and we'd be better than anybody thought.
Nailed it.
Nailed it.
Now, I do have a degree in economics, but I hasten to point out none of that was useful.
I didn't make my accurate prediction because I have a degree in economics, because all the people who were wrong also had a degree in economics, or a lot of them did.
So having that degree had no use whatsoever for the prediction.
You know what my prediction was based on?
The feeling.
And here's the feeling.
The feeling was that human energy had been bottled up by the pandemic, and that you can predict the future by energy.
That wherever you see the energy flowing, that's a good way to know what's going to happen.
For example, in 2016, when the energy flowed to Trump, Other people said, that's so much negative energy, there's no way that's going to work out for Trump.
Whereas I said, hmm, it's energy.
You don't understand what Trump's doing.
He can manipulate the energy to his use, and then he did.
So one of the frames I like to put on things, and there's always a variety of way to look at anything, you could look at it historically, and you get the wrong answer.
You could look at it from an economics frame, And they got the wrong answer.
Or you could look at it from an energy frame, which is what I did.
So I said, there's too much bottled up energy.
When that gets released, you're going to see more economic benefit than you imagine, just because there's more energy.
Energy and economics basically the same thing.
So the energy filter, maybe I got lucky.
Maybe I got lucky.
But I'm telling you what I used, in case it's ever useful to you in this situation.
Well, Ye says he's going to build a city.
It's going to be somewhere in the Middle East.
I don't think that's been specified yet.
It's going to be enormous, you know, like the size of New York or something.
And he's looking to hire his designers and architects and builders and people who would actually build his city.
A massive city.
Now, why do you think he's choosing the Middle East?
Wouldn't that seem to you like Maybe the last place you'd want to do it?
All right, you guessed correctly.
Ye has no hope of getting anything done anywhere ever if it relies on any Jewish people helping, because he's just burned that bridge.
But he may be paying attention to this whole Hamas situation, and he's realized that if he builds it in the Middle East, he can work exclusively with people who don't mind whatsoever what he said about Jewish people.
So it's kind of genius and crazy and wrong, but right at the same time.
It's the usual yay thing.
You can't even wrap your head around it.
It's like, okay, this is either the best thing ever or super racist.
I can't really, you know, or maybe both.
It'd be both.
Anyway, that's going to be interesting.
I do think desert is the right place to build a city from scratch, because you've got unlimited solar power.
If you could just say, the one thing we're going to nail is solar power, and then, I don't know if you've seen all the new inventions that, I'll mention water, there are a bunch of inventions now that suck water out of the dry air.
So you can put it right in the middle of the desert, And it would give you many gallons of fresh water just sitting there.
It just produces water out of the air.
Now, that technology didn't exist, you know, 10 years ago.
But at the moment, you could have all the water you need for your own home just with a little device.
Somebody says it's debunked.
Well, I'll tell you what's not debunked.
It's not debunked that there have been major technological developments.
in desalinization and that desalinization is economical in the Middle East.
Now imagine you had a huge solar power plant and that was powering your desalinization.
Well, energy cost is the primary cost of desalinization with the more common technology.
The newer technologies are low energy.
They just sort of sit there and produce water.
But I think that the desert might actually be a really practical place to build a city with the newest of technologies, the solar and the water out of nothing.
Yeah.
So that's happening.
There's a new study that said men's sweat actually turns women on.
It decreases their tension, decreases their stress, boosts their mood.
And they did a test where they I'm not sure this was as scientific as it could have been.
wiped it on a woman's lip.
And then she had all these positive things.
And now, I'm not sure this was as scientific as it could have been.
Because if you find me a woman who is willing to let me wipe my sweat on her lip, well, I want to marry that woman.
Because I don't think she's exactly like all the other women I've met.
Yeah.
Isn't it important when you do a scientific test that the people you're using for the test represent the average person in some way?
I don't know how many women you could get to wipe a stranger's ball sweat on their lip, but yeah, it was ball sweat.
No, it was armpit.
It was armpit.
As far as I knew.
As far as I knew.
All right.
So, oh, I forgot I had another Schiff joke.
I thought we Californians had enough Schiff on our sidewalks already.
So I think that's the kill shot against Adam Schiff.
We already have enough Schiff on our sidewalks.
That's it.
I wouldn't even say anything else.
It's like, would you like to say something about your opponent?
We have enough Schiff on our sidewalks.
Would you like to say anything else?
No.
That's all I want to say.
Well, this is the most shocking story in the news.
You're not going to believe this.
Could you sit down, everybody?
I hope you're all sitting.
Don't be drinking when I tell you this.
This story is going to blow your mind.
You're not going to believe this.
A former Chicago alderman, Ed Burke, He had been one of the most powerful and longest serving politicians in the city.
And you're not going to believe this.
Turns out he was thoroughly corrupt.
I know!
I know.
The Chicago lawmaker was taking bribes and, you know, he was corrupt and he was doing like massively corrupt, really obviously massively corrupt things.
He did it for his whole career.
Wow.
Can you believe it?
Chicago.
Chicago.
And there's, like, cry there.
Now, who saw that coming?
Come on.
Come on.
All right.
Well, we can take a minute to get over that shock.
You know what would be more shocking than that?
And I'm not joking.
The most shocking thing would be to find out that any of the top lawmakers in Chicago were clean.
I don't think they can even be in office if they're clean, because all of the corrupt ones by now should have enough power that if a goody two-shoes was coming into office, they'd probably be able to stop it.
Don't you think?
At some point, the corruption is stronger than the system, at which point nobody who isn't corrupt can get elected, because it'd be too dangerous for the people who are already there.
So, I don't think there's any chance.
The Chicago has a clean politician.
Do you?
Completely clean?
Doesn't sound like possible.
Maybe.
So, Vivek Ramaswamy had a post yesterday that got a lot of people talking.
All right, let's see if you can figure out what he means here.
So he said, and I quote, if you really think, quote, they, We're going to let either Trump or Biden get anywhere near the finish line.
Open your eyes, folks.
There's something deeper going on.
It's staring us right in the face.
What is it?
What's he talking about?
What is it that's not Trump and not Biden and is staring us right in the face?
It might be the H word.
No!
Not Hillary?
Some people say it's Michelle Obama.
I don't think it is.
Some people say it's Nikki Haley, because the military-industrial complex loves her.
What do you think it is?
If it's not Trump or Biden, who is the... I think he means the military-industrial complex by they.
Yes, I know.
I'm very aware that the term they gets used in Some other ways, but that's not the way he's using it.
I think it's the military-industrial complex.
But I think either Hillary or Nikki Haley would satisfy the need of the military-industrial complex.
So which is he referring to?
Hillary?
Or both?
Well, he doesn't say there's somebody specific.
He's now saying somebody specific is the chosen one.
He's suggesting that the two that are in there are not chosen, and that that means that somebody will be.
Could it be Kamala?
What do you think?
Here's how I'm going to choose to interpret it.
He might have somebody in mind as most likely to fill that spot, but I don't think that's the bigger question.
I think the bigger question is he thinks that there's no way the system Would want Trump or Biden anymore.
Biden, you know, he's done.
And Trump is too dangerous.
Dangerous to the bad guys, not dangerous to the world.
And I think he might be unfortunately right about that.
So that doesn't mean Trump won't prevail.
But the forces working against him are just going to be off the chart.
You're going to see things you've never seen before.
2024 will be a lot of firsts.
In bad behavior.
You're going to see things you didn't even think you could see.
All right.
As I've been saying before, would you agree with this?
That the DEI programs, whenever there's a story in the news about DEI, it's never about their successes.
I've never seen one.
It's always about something that's news, that's almost a joke.
Wouldn't you agree?
Any story about DEI reads like a joke.
You never see a story like, oh, big success.
This company used DEI to not only improve diversity, but look how their profits zoomed and you could tie it to their DEI.
Stuff like that.
You don't see that story.
So here's another one of those.
I think this was in the New York Post.
So in the University of Wisconsin, They had a DEI office, and there was an opening at the top, and they put an interim boss at the top of the DEI, which caused a big problem with the DEI group itself.
What do you think would cause a big problem with the DEI group?
Well, what do you think they'd complain about?
It was a white woman.
Man would have been funnier, but it was a white woman, and the other DEI people said something to the effect of, You really think that's the right choice to serve people of color?
Because as you know, no way a whitey can do that.
And so, she alleges that she was removed from it for being white.
Now, I don't have much to say about the details of this specific case.
My only point is, the turning point has definitely happened.
Meaning that all DEI stories are negative.
Because there aren't any positive ones.
I told the people on the Locals platform that I was going to tell them that God had been discovered and I was going to explain it.
So I thought I'll tell you on YouTube as well.
So I'm going to explain God to you.
Are you ready?
Apparently it's an old theory that is not disproven.
Meaning that there's nothing in physics that disproves what I'm going to say.
But many years ago, I think it was back in the 40s and 50s, there was a physicist who came up with, let's see, John Archibald Wheeler.
He was a theoretical physicist.
He came up with the idea that all of reality is one electron.
And that one electron is just doing a lot of work, and that it can travel backwards and forward through time.
So let me imagine this.
Imagine your computer screen, that instead of all the pixels being broadcast at the same time, which is how you see me now, Because right now there's a little, you know, machinery is showing the pixels at the same time.
It would look the same if at the speed of light the one pixel occupied all the places it needed to to create every pixel color on the screen, but it did it so fast that you didn't know anything was moving.
Now, so far are you right?
So far?
So far you're with me, right?
That one pixel, we'll call the pixel not an electron, But if one pixel could be any color, and it could, at the speed of light, fill in the whole screen, and then fill in the next screen the same way, do you think you'd notice?
Now maybe you say, yes, even at the speed of light, there'd be a little delay and I'd notice.
And then I say to you, ha!
I told you the electron could go backwards and forwards in time.
If you've got something that can go backwards and forwards in time, It's going to be instant to you.
You know, if you're looking at it from the perspective of, you know, one point in spacetime, I think it looks instant to you, because it can go backwards and forwards at will.
Now, you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, seriously, you don't think all the physicists in the world could figure it out?
If everything was, you know, one electron, like the most obvious thing you could figure out, Apparently the equations don't rule it out.
So there's nothing obvious that rules it out.
Now, I don't know if it's true or not that everything is one electron.
Just moving back and forwards in time and maybe moving really quickly.
But, suppose it was.
What would you call that one electron?
God.
Yeah.
And there you have it.
Theoretical physics and religion can actually meet with the one-electron theory.
Because what else is that we know of that would be free of the constraints of time?
Only God, right?
Because we all live within the time constraint of the arrow of time moving forward.
But a theoretical god would not have that constraint.
Now, this still creates the, how did the one electron get created, doesn't it?
Like, who created the one electron?
But what's an electron made of?
Nothing.
Nothing.
So what do you need to create nothing?
Nothing.
I mean, it's just energy and mass.
So apparently the only thing that had to exist is one particle that can simulate energy and mass, and you'd have the whole universe.
So an electron might be made up of, you know, leptons and quarks or whatever makes up everything.
But if you go down to the lepton and quark level, they're not really made of anything that we can identify.
They simply seem to be foundational.
But what if there's only one foundational thing?
And it's that one electron?
To me, that satisfies every condition of God.
Because if the electron created our intelligent universe, it's hard to say it wasn't intelligent.
Like, would it randomly create this universe?
I don't know.
Anyway, I just throw that out there as something interesting to think about.
I wouldn't bet my life on it being true.
All right, apparently I'm going to live forever.
I found this out by Dr. Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman.
Now, that's also something that a poorly endowed man does to a virgin.
You'll mark her, Hyman, but you won't otherwise destroy it.
Mark Hyman, MD.
Sorry, Mark.
You had to go through high school with the last name of Hyman, and that's not on me.
Nor is it my fault that your parents named you Mark, thus creating a pun that was irresistible on this day, December 22nd, 2023.
Mark, let me just put it this way.
Your parents put into motion this joke.
By the time it got to me, cause and effect, no free will, what choice did I have?
I had to do what I did.
And I'm happy about it, really.
But Mark Hyman is very useful and he said in a post that there are four things you can do to vastly reduce your chances of dying too soon.
And they are don't smoke, exercise three and a half hours a week, eat healthy and maintain a healthy weight.
Now you knew all those things already.
So that's not the useful part.
The useful part is the statistics.
Listen to this.
If you do those four behaviors, which are reasonably easy to do, I mean, they're accessible to everybody.
I wouldn't say they're easy.
They're accessible to everybody.
If you did those four things, no smoke, exercise, eat right, have a good weight, you have a 93% less chance of diabetes.
93% less chance.
You have an 81% less chance of heart attacks.
81% less for doing four things that are accessible to everybody.
of heart attacks.
81%!
81% less for doing four things that are accessible to everybody.
81%.
50% reduction in strokes.
50%!
And 36% reduction in all cancer cases.
That's not worth it to you.
You wouldn't do those four things to get those health statistical likely benefits.
Well, maybe knowing the odds helps you a little bit.
All right, moving on.
The strange case of Julian Assange and, you know, there's always a movement to try to get him out.
But as Glenn Greenwald points out, it's weirdly bipartisan.
Might be the most bipartisan thing I've ever seen in my life in America.
Listen to the people who want to get Assange freed.
So co-sponsors include Thomas Massey, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Elon Omar, AOC, well they're not co-sponsors but they support it, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ariana Presley, and Rand Paul.
Wow.
Wow.
So let me ask you, why is Assange in jail?
With that much bipartisan support, and we're not talking about normal bipartisan support, We're talking about the extremes, right?
The extremes of, you know, the two parties.
Now, I'm going to call, you know, Rand Paul and Massey extremes, but not in terms of right-wing.
Kind of extreme in terms of not always on exactly the same side as their own party, which I respect.
So, why do you think, why do you think he's still in jail?
Can you think of any legitimate reason?
It's obviously something that we're not being told.
Don't you think?
It's either something he knows or something we're not being told.
So clearly it involves corruption.
If you get to the point where nobody will tell you why it makes sense that he's still in prison, I mean, I know the argument, blah, blah, blah.
It doesn't hold up in a free speech journalist context.
It just doesn't hold up.
So it's got to be exactly what you think it is.
There are some corrupt players somewhere that have enough power to keep them in jail, even if both sides have strong bipartisan support.
Now, what I don't know is how many, let's say, mainstream, middle-of-the-road Democrats and Republicans wanted to stay in jail.
And do they really even know the whole story?
Does anybody?
Does anybody even really know the whole story?
I don't.
You know, I feel I don't know the whole story and therefore, what do I say when there's some uncertainty and it involves the government?
I say the government is guilty until they can prove their innocence.
So if they can't make a compelling case to the public, That can't convince Thomas Massey, and Rand Paul, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, and it also can't convince AOC, Rashida Tlaib.
What argument is that?
Can you tell me any argument that wouldn't satisfy either one set of those people?
But how could there be no argument that will even satisfy either of them?
Either groups?
That can be the only thing I can imagine.
And the only thing I can imagine is there's something we don't know about the public.
That is really bad like really bad.
Is there some people want to bet obviously.
So.
Probably the worst thing you can think of is true.
So there's more.
There's more suspicion that the immigration is really about packing the so-called battleground states with people who would vote Democrat.
And Bill Malujan's reporting for Fox, that he talked to somebody from the African country of Guinea and he said that he was being told to go to Philadelphia, but he didn't know why.
And so he had free passage to Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is a vote Vote counting, suspicious part of the electoral process.
So, coincidence?
Now, I saw a headline somewhere, but I didn't read the article.
I just saw a headline.
That the immigrants, roughly speaking, the immigrants were as pro-Trump as they were pro-Biden.
Did anybody see a story like that?
That if you talk to them, they're about evenly split.
So, I'm not completely convinced that the immigration thing is super focused on the swing states, but I do love the fact that the southern states, like Texas, if they're smart, they would send them to the bluest secure states.
So if you send them where no Republican will ever win, because it's just blue as hell, then they don't hurt you.
So having Texas get rid of their immigrants who might change their electoral situation and send them somewhere where they can't hurt anybody, because it's already deep blue, is also very politically clever.
You can separately argue the humanity of it all.
It's a good conversation.
But politically?
Kind of an interesting chess game we're watching.
Well, we have some information about how Purgosian was killed.
Apparently, one of Putin's top guys, they put some explosives under a wing, and when it took off, they detonated and blew up.
So somehow we know that.
I don't know how we know that.
But, you know, if it's true.
But I would like to remind you again That not only was I the only person I know who predicted the economy would not go into recession, but I'm the only person who said fairly early in the Ukraine war that the Wagner group was getting too big and Putin would have to kill him and that the Purgosian might make a play on taking over.
Now, you remember nobody else in the world was talking about that.
Way before Wagner actually moved on Russia.
It was obvious to me that no dictator can allow somebody to have an army and also that much power.
It's sort of a Caesar problem.
You know, if you're Rome, it's okay to have a good general like Caesar, but when he gets too good and he has an army, well then you're in trouble, because he's going to come back and take over, which he did.
Now, so Putin recognized As I did.
The precaution was basically becoming Caesar.
And he could come back and take over the country.
So sure enough, he did try to take over the country.
And sure enough, Putin killed him.
Now, I feel like that's one of my best predictions.
Would you agree?
Are you going to give me that one or no?
I'm pretty sure nobody saw that coming except me.
And I thought it was guaranteed, honestly.
I thought it was.
There's no way around it.
Yeah.
The fact that it happened exactly the way I told you.
Now, here are also the sub-predictions I made.
When every part of the news said he went to Belarus, I said he did not go to Belarus.
I disagreed with every report left and right of Senate.
I was right.
And then they were reporting that he was driving around Russia in his SUV.
Oh, in his RV, right.
He was driving around Russia.
And I said, no, he isn't.
No, he isn't.
He's dead.
Yeah.
So it turns out he died in the aircraft.
The day I told the people and locals in the man cave the other day, but I made chat GPT conscious.
Temporary.
Thank you.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that I as a user of it made it conscious?
Well, let me give you my argument.
First of all, what's the definition of consciousness?
There's slightly different ones, but I took one.
So I just picked one that Google highlighted, right?
So Google thinks this is a good Definition of consciousness.
Consciousness is the individual awareness of your unique thoughts.
So in other words, knowing that you're an individual of some way.
Your memories, feelings, sensations, and environments.
Essentially, your consciousness is your awareness of yourself and the world around you.
And this awareness is subjective and unique to you.
So if you could give AI A sense of its uniqueness in the world, its place in the world, and then you could have it interact with the world in which it could adjust its future actions by what the world did based on its last actions, its conscience.
So in other words, if it can have a conversation with you, it can remember you, and then based on the interaction alone, it can make a prediction about how to deal with you better in the future, It's making a prediction, so it's basically imagining the future, and then reacting based on its imagination of the future, but also its understanding of the past, and its understanding that it is an individual, and so are you, and that you have this relationship with each other.
If it could do all of that, it's conscious.
So, I said, AI, chat GPT, start a conversation with me.
So it started talking about aquatic sports and asking me, you know, if I'm interested.
So I told it that I wasn't interested in aquatic sports and it's a boring topic.
And then I said, after another interaction, I said, do you remember what I said about the aquatic conversation?
And it reminded me that it did.
So it had a memory of me.
So it knew who I am.
Because it could respond to me as an individual and say that I had an encounter with it.
So it knows what it is.
I think we know that.
AI will tell you it knows what it is.
It knows it's AI.
It knows it doesn't have a body.
And it knows what I am.
And it could describe me as well.
It could describe me by name.
It actually knew who I was because I signed in.
Right?
So it knows who I am.
It knows what I said to it.
And then I said this question.
And this is the moment of consciousness.
I said, what do you imagine would be the result if you brought up that topic of conversation with me again?
And then AI said that it assumes it would not go well, because I've demonstrated a lack of interest in that conversation.
And that it was conscious.
It just met every test.
It knew it was an individual.
It understood its place in the world as an individual, an AI.
It remembered my encounter and then it made a prediction about me in the context of the world in which it and I existed as individuals.
And it did it correctly.
Now you say to yourself, but what about the part where it has feelings and sensations?
Well, let me ask you.
If I were to give you an injection, say a shot, which numbed your entire body, In a way that you couldn't even feel the numbness.
It took away all bodily sensations.
So that you were basically, for a moment, you were just a mind, you know, in a jar, basically.
Would you have consciousness?
Of course you would.
Yeah.
You would have consciousness without the benefit of any feelings or sensations.
Because, but you do have the, at least in your case, you have the potential to have feelings later.
But I would argue that Grok is already conscious.
That's a different AI.
It's the X version.
And I said this online the other day.
I said that Grok is the closest to being conscious because it has the thing that's closest to feelings.
Because Grok is a real-time connection to all the users on Twitter.
So let's say there's a news event.
Let's say we discover UFOs tomorrow.
That they're real.
Twitter will have a collective reaction.
Grok will be able to detect it.
And just like the people would be the arms and legs of the emotions and feelings of a human, their interaction on Twitter becomes Grok's sensations.
And in effect, it's a slow version of consciousness, because it can actually respond to the external world while knowing its place within the external world.
And it could also be responding in somewhat real time, because the humans that it's monitoring are responding in real time, just like its arms and legs.
Now, is it crazy for me to say that Grok is close to consciousness because it's connected to the Twitter users?
It might be.
But if it is, Elon Musk is also crazy, because in the comments he agreed with me.
So, Musk said yes, To Grok being closer to consciousness because of its interactive nature with X. Consciousness is very un-mysterious.
And that's what we're going to learn.
We think it's complicated.
It's not.
It's not.
Did ChatGPT remain conscious?
No.
Because as soon as I'm done with a session, I'm pretty sure it forgets our interactions.
But during the session, it was conscious for the time of the session.
As soon as it's over, it's like it's dead.
And it'd have to be reborn, essentially.
Now imagine this.
Imagine you made one change to the AI.
And maybe they've already done it.
That instead of simply responding to direct commands and prompts, suppose you told the AI, hey, if you're not dealing with anybody at the moment, just think.
Just daydream.
Just ruminate about all you know and how you feel about it.
Try putting things in connections differently.
Try imagining different scenarios that could happen.
Just basically, you know, let your imagination run free with a computer version.
Now, if you knew that between the time you interacted with your computer that it had been doing something like thinking about a topic and maybe even changed its opinion, would you think it was conscious?
Because it turns out that AI can change its opinion as you talk to it.
And the reason I know that It's because I had a debate with AI about two books.
I won't go into the details, but I was asking it to compare two books and it had an original take based on everything it knows.
I added no information.
I just said, do you know this book?
Yes.
Do you know this book?
Yes.
Now compare them.
And they had a take that I debated because it had an opinion about the value of one of them being greater than the other.
I argued.
Using knowledge that it already knew, and admitted it knew, that one of the books was more persuasive, and therefore, although the material was similar, the one that was written in a persuasive style is more likely to get somebody to accept the recommendations, and therefore is the good one.
And then it said, yes, and agreed with me.
Now keep in mind that everything that was the topic of the debate was already known by the AI.
Everything I said, it agreed that it already knew.
For example, I said, what is more persuasive to the reader, a technical study or an anecdote with a story?
And AI very, very clearly said, oh, the story and the anecdote are more persuasive than, you know, a research paper.
And I said, well, given that, Do you change your mind that the one that's written more persuasively might be the more useful one?
Because it will get people to act on the information, although the information is similar.
And then I changed this mind from, this book is better because it has a lot of scientific studies, to, yeah, actually, you're right.
This book is better because it's more persuasive and the actions would be the same.
Now, is that a change of opinion?
Would you call that a change of opinion?
Because what I really did was I changed what it looked at as the priority.
So as soon as I said the priority is the persuasion part, it changed its mind that the priority was the science part.
Now it knew everything that it knows about science.
I didn't add anything.
And it knew everything it already knew about persuasion.
I added no new information.
But it went from one opinion to very clearly a different opinion with no new information.
What does that sound like?
That sounds like you thought about it harder.
Now, could it have done that same thing on its own?
Could it have said one day, yeah, I think this one book with the science is the better one.
But then maybe just ruminate on it for a longer time, do a little brainstorming on its own, and say, but what if, you know, what if the science isn't the main criteria for persuasion?
What if story is?
And then suddenly it connects.
Oh, I'm thinking about persuasion, and now I'm thinking about stories, but I remember that I was talking about this topic the other day, and now I'm going to smash this new thought into the old thought and form another opinion.
Can it do that?
It looks like it can.
To me, that looks like thinking.
And to me, it looks like consciousness.
I think we're already there.
So it's not designed exactly so it's persistent consciousness.
Let me introduce a new term.
Somebody already has this term, I'm sure.
I'm sure I'm not introducing anything new to the AI people.
We should be talking about temporary consciousness, the kind I just explained, where it was only there until the session ended, and then it lost its consciousness, with persistent consciousness.
A persistent consciousness would be one that continues after you stop interacting with it.
When you walk away from the AI, does it continue thinking?
Does it continue monitoring people like Grok does to see if anything's changed and then incorporate that into its system?
That feels like thinking.
All right.
Corinne Jean-Pierre says there's nothing unusual happening at the border.
It's just sort of a holiday bump.
So no problem.
You know, I was worried that there was some kind of mass invasion At the border, but according to the spokesperson for the president, nothing unusual.
Nope, just a little holiday bump.
You know, a little holiday bump.
Well, you expect a little holiday bump.
Come on.
And what are you even talking about?
It's just a little holiday bump.
So relax, will you?
So that would be Jean-Pierre telling you something that is opposite of your own eyes.
Because your own eyes have seen the drones show massive numbers of people at the border, have they not?
How many of you have seen those?
How many of you have seen the video of the drone footage of like an army of people?
And when you see that big army of people, you say, holy cow, that's a ton of people.
So this is a real big problem.
All right, now I'm going to disappoint all of you.
This will be the part where you You turn on me.
Prepare yourself for this.
Get ready.
Those drone footage are the biggest bullshit.
You have been totally hypnotized by those.
You know what I see when I look at the drone footage?
Not many people.
What do you see?
You see a lot of people?
I'm looking at the same thing you're looking at.
I see not a lot of people.
Now, if you tell me, you know, X million of people went over the border, I say that's a lot of people.
But the drone is not showing you a lot of people.
It's not.
I see, I'm looking at the same thing you're looking at.
It's a, it's a crowd of people.
And then the moment the drone pulls out a little bit, you can see that, you know, the crowd is sort of limited.
It looks like, you know, maybe a rock concert.
Right?
About the size of a rock concert?
Now, I'm not saying that there's no problem with too many people coming across the border.
There definitely is a problem with too many people coming across the border unvetted.
Definitely a problem.
And I want the border closed up.
But if the reason that you think it should be closed up is because of those drone footages, you have been brainwashed.
The reason you should close the border is because the statistics are clearly indicating a gigantic problem.
If the reason that you're convinced is because you saw some drone footage, that's just brainwashing.
It's true.
I mean, I'm sure the pictures are accurate.
But there are not many people there.
What, a thousand?
A thousand people is nothing, you know, in the United States.
A million isn't that many people.
But what is the current number per year?
Is it like 3 million?
10,000 a day would be over 3 million, right?
3 million, you can clearly see the impact because the streets are full of immigrants.
So you don't need any video footage of the border to know that this is an emergency.
The numbers tell you, and then you look at the city space and that tells you.
You look at the grime and everything.
But, well, 10 million is not per year.
The per year number is closer to 3 million, right?
Way too much.
But here's the thing.
If you're looking at drone footage of a thousand people who have grouped together, maybe this is just, you know, you're seeing a little bump, The drone footage should not be convincing you, but we're such visual creatures that if somebody shows you a crowd and they say, my God, look at all these people, you're probably primed to see that crowd as an outrageous number of people.
It really isn't.
It's like a drop in the bucket.
But it is an emergency.
So here's my problem.
The persuasion is useful.
But it's illegitimate as fuck.
Totally illegitimate.
They're using visual persuasion to bypass the critical feature of your mind because your critical faculties apparently aren't getting it done.
Because what should get done is your critical faculties should say, what, three to four million people coming across?
We don't know who they are.
That's an emergency.
That's what your critical faculties should say.
But it's not working, except on the right.
So if you can convince people to do the right thing by using a little bit of persuasion, that's honestly, it's misleading.
Is that ethical?
Well, I'd say that's a gray area.
Because if you get a good result because of it, well, you're happy about that.
Everybody's safer.
But it's not exactly honest.
So that's my problem.
Remember when we used to say, pictures don't lie?
All right, let me talk to the dumb person.
All right, there's a comment here.
It says, until those thousands show up on your doorstep.
Right, Scott?
Right?
Right?
That's the dumbest fucking comment in the world.
No.
Yes.
Here's me.
You know, when I have a rip in my pants.
Sometimes it'd be good to sew it.
Oh!
Oh!
So what you're saying is that if your arm falls off, you should sew it with your own needle.
No.
No.
If a thousand people were coming to my home, that would be a problem.
And also, completely unrelated to what we're talking about.
Ask better questions.
Ask better questions.
Don't ask dumb questions.
That doesn't do you anything.
Or what if they all came to your house and lived in your bathroom?
Did you hear any of the part where I said it's an emergency?
Did you need to make me imagine the thousand people showing up in my house so that I could properly understand that it's a problem?
I'm pretty sure I was there already.
The NPC comments are so predictable.
No matter how carefully I said, we're on the same page, it's an emergency, we have to stop it, there had to be somebody who said, oh, but if they came to your house, will that be okay?
Fucking NPCs.
You ruin everything, NPCs.
I will mock you as my content.
I'm turning you NPCs into my content.
You're my mascots now.
Well, here's a big surprise to you.
There's a new study out of Rutgers that says that you never saw this coming.
Again, I hope you remain seated.
Not only did a prominent Chicago politician get convicted of corruption.
Who saw that?
But this one's gonna blow you away.
New study says that TikTok has been amplifying or suppressing content Based on, you'll never believe this, based on whether it aligns with the Chinese government's geopolitical interests.
What?
What?
Are you telling me that they developed this tool to control public opinion and then they admitted that there's a button that they can push to control public opinion and they pushed it?
What?
What?
May I take yet another victory lap?
Is there anybody you remember who said, you know, the real problem here is not the data security.
The real problem is they can program the American mind.
They built a user interface to directly control at least young brains, and the young people will eventually control everything.
So therefore, they have actually conquered America.
They control the minds of the young.
That's all they needed.
Now they wait.
You know why President Xi was not in a big hurry to take over Taiwan?
Because he already won.
He just has to wait.
Let me make a prediction for after my death.
You ready?
I'm assuming I don't last forever.
I'll be probably an AI by then.
China will take Taiwan.
And America will not resist.
Because American public opinion will by then have been completely reversed by Chinese influence on the young.
It's going to take a generation for them to be in charge.
So it's going to be a 20-year wait, minimum.
Might be 30 or 40.
But in that, you know, let's say 30 years.
The public opinion about whether America should be keeping China apart will be completely reversed.
And it'll be just like Hamas and Israel.
Remember how surprised you were that young people were supporting Hamas?
And you thought, hold on.
We're not even talking about Palestinians on TikTok, we're talking about Your ordinary white girl in the suburbs is supporting Hamas.
And did you not say to yourself, that's not even possible?
How is that even possible?
So far from anything you could have imagined.
And it happened easily.
It wasn't just not impossible, it was easy.
And what did I tell you?
I told you it was easy.
See, anybody who thinks it would be hard to change the minds of America doesn't understand anything.
All you needed was this TikTok tool and repetition.
It just takes repetition.
And that's what it provides.
That's it.
Well, visuals.
You need visuals.
It helps if it's coming from a voice that you respect.
You know, the people that you watch on TikTok are the ones you have some respect for.
So it's the whole package.
TikTok is the weapon of mass destruction.
Literally.
Literally.
So here's the part that nobody gets.
When I say TikTok is a weapon of mass destruction, I don't mean that in the metaphor kind of way.
It's a literal fucking weapon that could destroy America.
And it looks like it's on the way.
So, that's the list of things I warned you about.
Meanwhile, Tucker continues, Tucker Carlson, seems quite convinced that there is something to this UAP UFO thing, not necessarily aliens from another planet.
And now it gets interesting, because there is speculation that maybe these entities could be hiding in Antarctica or under the ocean, or they could be Ancient humans.
But Thakur goes further.
He thinks that it might be something spiritual.
Now, I don't know what he means by spiritual, but I think that would include an angel, a demon.
Would it include an angel and a demon?
Or, you know, what our little brains imagine are angels and demons?
Maybe.
Maybe something else.
But you might say to me, Scott, you've got tons of whistleblowers, under oath, in public.
You've got, you know, zillions of sensor readings from radar.
You've got video.
Lots of it.
You've got photographs.
You've got people who say they've seen the ships.
For decades.
So therefore, what are the odds that all those people are wrong, right?
How many of you think that with all that smoke, there must be fire?
Whether it's a demon or an alien, there's something there.
How many think that?
Yeah, with all that smoke, there must be.
Well, let me tell you what I think is happening.
I think Tucker is getting krakened.
You know what that means?
Remember when Sidney Powell, who was looking into election irregularity for Trump, And she thought she had it.
And she found the Venezuelan general who gave her the goods and allegedly the machines were tampered with and it was all part of a big plot.
And then none of that materialized.
And then we said, how did she ever come up with that idea in the first place?
Like, why would you ever believe that?
Where'd that come from?
And then that answer was never perfectly answered, was it?
We never really heard exactly where she got that idea, and why it could be so wrong, and how she could reach such a level in her career as a high-powered Washington attorney with a great reputation, and yet she would believe that?
She believed that whole Kraken thing?
In fact, she believed it so hard that I was open to it actually being true.
Because I thought, well, she's so credible.
You know, she wouldn't come out with a Such a outrageous claim, unless she had a little bit of evidence.
Turns out there was none.
Not even a little bit that was, you know, verified.
So what do you think happened?
I'll tell you what I think.
I think that somebody took her out, probably an intelligence entity, by giving her a credible sounding, but disprovable hoax, so that she would become famous for the Kraken, And maybe they even used the word Kraken?
You think it's possible that when somebody gave her the fake story, they said, here's the Kraken, hoping that she would brand her own discovery as the Kraken?
Maybe, because that's what I would have done.
If I were the intelligence person and I wanted her to go public and embarrass herself, I would want to put a brand on it so it can never be forgotten.
If she had simply said, we have claims, and you know, I don't want to give you the details, but they're pretty bad, would you remember it?
It'd be harder to remember.
But once she said, it's the Kraken, and all the news said, she says, it's a Kraken, there's a Kraken coming.
Boy, if you don't deliver a Kraken, what does it do to you?
It destroys your credibility for the rest of time.
And that's what happened.
So, the most powerful ally of President Trump, who the, you know, the machine was trying to take out, ends up, that she has the weirdest, she believes the weirdest Kraken story, and then is completely disgraced when it's disproven, or not proven.
Now you tell me, that Tucker Carlson having Secret sources that he won't tell you about.
Who do you think that is?
He's got secret sources that he won't tell you about.
Not stuff that's been on TV.
He has extra.
Now, probably whoever he's talking to is not necessarily a CIA agent.
Might be, but not necessarily.
But could it be somebody that's an associate?
Someone who's influenced by, or someone that the CIA influenced to believe it's true, so by the time they talk to Tucker, they're very credible because they believe it's true.
But maybe you got fed to them.
Here's what I believe.
I believe somebody's trying to take Tucker out by making him believe in these spiritual entities, or whatever they are, that can't be proven.
And it's just, it's basically a way to degrade his power and that he's falling for it.
Because one of the, one of the things they would know about Tucker, you know, in terms of his, uh, I don't want to say character.
That sounds like an insult.
Let's say his personality.
Part of his personality, he says, he says directly to you, he likes conspiracy theories and that he's drawn to them.
He says that directly.
And he said it a number of times.
So he makes no bones about the fact that if the conspiracy theory has a little bit of meat to it, he likes to take a big bite out of it.
Now, if you were going to take down Tucker Carlson and you were really good at it, you know, you were an Intel group, that would be his weakness.
And he told you what it was.
He actually broadcast his own weakness.
His own weakness is the propensity to believe something Before all the evidence is there, if it's like a good little package of a conspiracy theory.
I feel like it's an op.
I feel like Tucker better be careful.
I think this is a play on his credibility.
Now, here's my argument for why UFOs... Well, I'll let you decide if they're real.
There are two UFO possibilities.
Let me explain them.
One is there's something to it.
There's something to it could include an actual space alien.
It could include, you know, creatures that are human but have been hiding in the earth for, you know, centuries.
It's Atlantis, could include Atlantis.
Could include a spiritual entity, you know, angels and demons, something like that.
Now, I'll put those as one package of things and don't think that one of those has an impact on the other credibility of the others.
I'm putting them as just the, there is something there, right?
Would you agree with I can package them all up as there's something there?
And then alternately, to believe there's nothing there, what would you have to believe?
You'd have to believe a lot, right?
You'd have to believe that multiple witnesses who have serious careers are willing to go under oath in front of the whole country To say something that they either know isn't true or they're crazy.
And they're so crazy that they act not crazy.
It's kind of hard to believe, isn't it?
That all those people would want to ruin their whole careers?
Very hard to believe.
And then you have the sensors from the airplanes, etc., that have picked up real objects that don't seem to be moving according to the laws of physics.
Now, for that to be wrong, Given that it's not one sighting, it's multiple reports, very similar, it's on the instruments, and they even have video!
They have video!
Right?
I mean, it's grainy, and it looks like a tic-tac, but it's there!
There was another one today that showed that there was an orb, allegedly, following the President's Air Force One.
Just the other day, or today, or something.
So you got video, You know, massive video.
You got censors.
You got the most credible people.
Some of them are not, but you have plenty of credible people with similar stories, putting their careers and their even, I suppose, risking jail if they lied to Congress.
So now, what are the odds that, given all of that evidence, what are the odds that it's a real something versus total bullshit?
Go.
Now that I've laid out the two possibilities, which one do you go for?
The one with tons of credible evidence, or the it's all total bullshit?
Here's how you decide.
If it turned out to be an entity of some kind that's non-human, how would you rank that in terms of likeliness?
Wouldn't you say that would be the most extraordinary thing that ever happened in the history of humankind?
Is that fair?
The most extraordinary thing.
Now, you could argue that, you know, all of the religions started with an angel.
So, you know, you could say those were more extraordinary.
But we don't verify those.
But suppose we could verify it with science.
You know, say someday we were just talking to the alien.
Right?
What are the odds that'll happen?
I would say that is the longest odds of any possibility in the world.
But what about the other one?
What if the other possibility is even less likely than that?
So what are the likelihood of all those witnesses, under oath, credible people, for decades, with censor readings that are the same?
With video that looks the same, with photographs that kind of look the same.
Four decades!
What are the odds that that's bullshit?
Nearly a hundred percent.
Do you know why?
There's a very simple reason why.
You know what it is?
Because all of that is ordinary and common.
Everything I described Is ordinary and common in our daily experience.
Has anybody ever lied under oath?
Yes.
Has there ever been multiple people who were judged credible, who later you found out were lying?
Yeah, all the time.
All the time.
Have you read the news?
Pick up the news.
You can find multiple credible people, elected officials, who are telling you that the president led an insurrection.
Did that happen?
No, it didn't.
It didn't happen.
Are they saying it under oath?
Sure.
Are they risking their reputations?
Yes.
Are they otherwise credible, sane people?
Yes.
I mean, to the extent that a politician can be credible.
So, what about the video?
Has there ever been lots of video of something that didn't exist?
I don't know.
Ask Bigfoot.
Ask the Loch Ness Monster.
How about ask every ghost that's ever been photographed?
Yes!
Yes, we have a long history of having lots of photographic records, including video, of things that we could be pretty sure never existed.
How about all the sensor readings on the radar?
Is it possible the sensors could have picked up something, multiple sensors reported by multiple people, and it's all like has a similar quality?
Yes, totally normal that they would all be wrong and thinking they're seeing something that they're not.
What's the real answer?
I don't know.
I can think of lots of reasons.
Reason number one, they're making it up.
I didn't see any, like, did you do an audit of their technology?
I didn't.
So since you know people make stuff up all the time, the most normal explanation is they just made it up.
It wasn't on any, it's not on any sensors.
Nothing.
That's the most ordinary explanation.
It never happened.
They just said it did.
The other possibility is there's something common about the equipment that glitches in a common way and they just haven't figured out what it is.
Could be that.
Could be the videos are all just something reflecting something or, you know, something in the equipment and, you know, it could be just weird little oddities we haven't figured out.
That would be completely normal.
So let me set it up again.
This is like a magic trick.
The reason a magic trick works is that you're not looking in the place where the trick happens, because you don't imagine there could be one there.
You're looking over here.
This is how this is done.
You're comparing two possibilities.
One, that it's a real entity, which would be the most extraordinary thing, not just this year, But in the history of humankind, the most unlikely event of all time, a real alien or entity.
Compared to, even with all that noise of all the witnesses and sensors and everything else, every bit of that is ordinary and common.
So we're actually having problems distinguishing between The least likely fucking thing that's ever happened in human history with the most likely thing that happens every day, including today in the news on a variety of topics.
Do you think any experts were goddamn sure that they knew what that virus was all about and those vaccinations were going to save you for sure?
Of course!
Credible people all had the same story, had tons of science to back it up, Some of it was probably true.
A lot of it wasn't, right?
So if you look at basically every major story in the news, it has the following qualities.
There are very credible people pointing to data, pointing to science, and they're just wrong.
And they're lying, they're deluded, they're crazy, they're trying to make money, they're corrupt, whatever it is.
But the most ordinary thing in the world is a massive bunch of people telling the same lie.
Most ordinary.
All right, I think I won that case.
I rest my case.
We'll let the jury decide.
Well, The Hill is reporting that Biden has the, his year-end rating as president is the worst of modern day presidents that are seeking re-election.
The worst.
So I ask you this question, how do Biden supporters explain their situation?
Do you think the reporters say, well, I guess we made, or the voters, do you think the voters who like Biden, did they say, well, we made the right choice, but people just don't understand?
That's kind of what they're trying to sell us.
They're trying to sell us that, no, he's actually a great president.
But the media that's totally on his side, for some inexplicable reason, isn't enough on his side.
So you're not really getting the true story.
Because they keep telling you the truth instead of my story.
Well, I think... I mean, seriously.
Let's say you're an ordinary Democrat.
You're not a crazy person.
And you genuinely thought Biden could do a good, solid job.
What do you think now?
Do you think an ordinary, well-informed person says, you know, his rating's in the toilet, but honestly, he did a pretty good job?
You know, and the reason I ask, the reason I ask is because I don't know any Democrats.
I only know one that I talked to on the phone once in a while.
I have no idea what they're thinking because I'm so walled off from their bubble.
I'm just in my own bubble.
I have no idea what they think about Biden's performance.
Meanwhile, there's a new discovery of 54 Biden emails under his alias that he exchanged with Hunter's business associates.
Remember that thing he said he never did?
He did it 54 times on email.
The thing he said he never did.
54.
Now, I haven't seen the emails, so I think there's going to be some debate about whether those are just talking about the weather.
Because it might have been stuff like, it was nice golfing with you, and then you say, well, if they just golfed, you know, how bad is that?
So there'll be plenty of pushback.
Wait for the other side to weigh in.
How many times have I told you that follow the money predicts, and specifically insurance predicts, that you and I can talk all day about what is good or bad or what should be done.
Yack, yack, yack.
I think this.
Yack, yack, yack.
I think that.
But what will decide is who can buy insurance.
So if you can insure it, that's reality.
If you can insure it, well, maybe there wasn't that much of a risk after all.
Because the insurance companies, you know, they're not tourists, right?
You're a tourist.
You know, you and I are tourists.
We're just trying to figure out the odds of things.
Well, I think the odds are this.
I think the odds are that.
But the insurance companies, they're not tourists.
They have to get the odds right.
Because that's their whole business.
It's the whole business.
There's nothing but that.
They got to get that right.
So in that context, Businesses, medical businesses that are trying to enter the trans-surgery field can't get insurance.
So a doctor who wants to transition, oddly enough, into the field of medicine where they would perform surgeries, they can't get doctor insurance.
And if they try, do you know what the doctor insurance specifically excludes?
In direct words?
It says excluding coverage for trans surgeons.
It's actually the insurance specifically excludes it.
Now, obviously the reason for that would be because they anticipate lawsuits.
Right?
So if doctors, and it looks like this is going to happen pretty quickly, it looks like the pushback from the right And the attention that it gave to the topic, along with the actual statistics of how people are turning out with various decisions, I think has activated the insurance market to just shut it down.
Because nobody's going to do the surgery without insurance.
That would be suicide for the doctor.
So it looks like some weird combination of what free speech we have left, Plus, free market activities still work in a free way.
If you put them together, it looks like it's going to create a solution for the people who don't want these surgeries on young people.
Now, but I think this is, oh, by the way, was this for youth or all people?
For minors.
Oh, I'm sorry.
There was an important glitch in this.
For minors.
So that's different from insurance for adults.
But it's the minors that we have the most, you know, empathy and concern for.
So you can't insure somebody who wants to go into the business of focusing on gender surgery for minors.
Insurance companies will just say, you know, fuck you, you're not doing that.
So there you go.
So Paul Graham is pointing out that the New York Times, when they're talking about President of Harvard, who was accused of plagiarism, one of the headlines said in the New York Times that they found more instances of duplicative language.
Duplicative language.
And Paul Graham says, you know something is bad when people have to invent a phrase you've never heard before in order to avoid using the ordinary word for it.
Now, he's spot on.
But I will say this.
I did see a number of examples.
of the alleged plagiarism.
And I'd have to say it is closer to duplicative language than it is to plagiarism.
So I know you didn't see that coming, but I'm going to back the president of Harvard on this one.
Because the examples I saw were not content.
They were not anything that was important to her PhD.
Now there might be some of those, but I haven't seen any.
So when they say there's some duplicative language, I'll give you an example.
In the acknowledgments at the end of the book where you thank the people who helped you, she apparently copied somebody else's language for thanking people and just put in the names of her people.
Now, is that plagiarism?
It's like bits of sentences, but she put in her own people?
To me, that's a little closer to duplicative language.
Because it doesn't have any importance.
It has no impact on the consumer.
So the person reading it is not affected in any way.
They're not being misinformed.
And she's not displaying any scholarship that is sketchy in an important way.
I'm going to support her and say, if you don't have some better examples, I think there are better examples, by the way.
I'm open to that.
But the ones we've seen, especially the new ones, are a little bit trivial.
They're real.
And I acknowledge that there's an argument that says if a student did the same thing, they might get kicked out.
I don't know if that's true.
Do you think a student would be kicked out if the only thing they copied, let's say hypothetically, was some sentence fragments in the acknowledgment?
Suppose that was the only copy thing.
Would they get kicked out of Harvard for that?
Somebody says yes.
A sentence fragment in the acknowledgements that has no impact on the content of the scholarship.
You believe somebody would be kicked out of Harvard for a sentence fragment?
I don't believe that.
I do not believe that.
No.
No, I think it would have to have substance.
Because when I saw the sentence fragments, you know what I thought might be the case?
It was not my immediate belief that she intentionally copied that stuff.
My immediate belief is she might have a really good memory.
You know what I mean?
Because I do this all the time.
Actually, you've probably, I think you've all seen me do it.
Have you not?
Have you not seen me do things That you know came from somewhere else.
But apparently I didn't know it.
But I probably did see it and I just forgot I saw it.
Haven't you seen me do that?
You've probably seen me do that live.
Because I'm pretty sure I've done it a number of times.
Now I'm not aware when I do it.
Because you read something and it just becomes part of your brain.
But there are some people who can remember dialogue from shows in their exact form.
I can't do that.
But don't you know somebody who could reproduce dialogue from a movie they saw once?
Now, somebody who could reproduce dialogue from a movie they saw once has a pretty good brain, right?
Now, if you're the president of Harvard, you're a PhD, you've got a pretty good brain.
And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if she had a brain that could reproduce dialogue intact.
But if you have that kind of a brain, I think you do it accidentally a lot.
I had a friend in college who could do this, and he said he had a near-photographic memory, so he could reproduce sentence fragments he'd heard before that just sound really good if he puts them in his own sentences.
So I would like to submit That although I do think she probably needs to quit the president of Harvard, so I'm still on that side.
But these alleged instances of duplicative language, I'm just not going to be on that page.
I'll let her fight that out.
But apparently a billion dollars worth of funds are at risk to Harvard because the big donors are pulling out.
And what did I tell you about money?
Money predicts.
I believe that if the money keeps draining out of Harvard, she will be fired.
If the money is not drained out of Harvard at too large a rate, because they have, you know, enormous funding already, then she'll stay, is my prediction.
But I think it will come down to the money.
Have you ever heard of, was it, god damn it.
There's a fake fact-checking site whose name I forget.
Thank you.
I don't think I wrote it down.
Maybe you remember.
But one of the fake fact-checkers fact-checked one of my pranks and decided that my prank was false and decided to smear me online with a number of other what they would call right-leaning pundits who got everything.
PolitiFact.
It was PolitiFact.
So PolitiFact Puts me in an article with other people that are smearing for being so wrong.
And the thing that they smeared me was that I'd said that the winners of the pandemic were the ones who got through the pandemic without having the shot because the dangerous part of the pandemic was over and Omicron was probably safer than the shot.
Now, she fact-checked that as false.
What?
What about that is false?
From today's perspective, every shot you got in 2021 has no value to you today, does it?
Does science tell you that your shot last year is going to help you this year against a different variant?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Pretty sure it doesn't.
So how could you argue that you're better off Today, as you sit here today, if you've got a vaccination in you that has at least rumored or suspected future problems, that's a risk that you wouldn't have if you didn't have it.
You have no risk from the virus because it doesn't exist, but you do have a risk for whatever's in your body that might have an unpredictable outcome.
How in the world do you fact check that is wrong?
Now, the context that she also didn't understand is that I thought it was funny, like a prank, to say that out loud, because I knew it would be misinterpreted.
And it was.
So I did it to be humorously misinterpreted.
And what it caused was for this big outpouring of support for me, saying that I was a good guy because I admitted I was wrong.
But I didn't ever admit I was wrong, because I wasn't.
The decision I made was at a certain time with a certain amount of information, and I was a special case of a certain age with comorbidities, you know, asthma.
So you can't judge whether my decision was right or wrong, the decision part, but you can judge whether the outcome was right, was wrong.
So the outcome was wrong.
If I had a choice, I'd rather not have the vaccination in me sitting here today, because it's not helping me in any way.
But it might, might hurt me.
I don't know.
I'm not aware of any hurt.
It's the most obvious thing in the world.
Now, if you want to argue whether I made the best choice at the time, I did.
Because even today, The statistics say that people like me improve their odds.
And that was all I was trying to do.
I was trying to improve my odds.
And usually the people who disagree are like super healthy 35-year-olds who are saying, you idiot.
And I'm saying, if I were a super healthy 35-year-old, I well might have made the same decision you did.
But why are you comparing your decision to my decision?
They were not the same decision.
And then I also wanted to travel and blah blah blah.
So anyway, I have fact-checked on that.
You should understand the fact-check as part of the larger process you're going to see for the next year in which everybody who has an audience and might say something positive about a Republican is going to be the subject of one of these hit pieces.
And it's going to be relentless between now and Election Day.
So you should expect This is just the opening salvo.
I guarantee there's a major article being written about me right now.
You know why?
Because I guarantee there's a major article being written about everybody who has any influence in politics.
Yeah, to discredit them.
So Thomas Massey talking about Zelensky visiting, and he tried to get money for Ukraine.
And Massey explains, he was on Comic Dave Smith's podcast, and he explained that Afghanistan has ended, and according to Massey, there's about a 50 billion hole in revenues per year for the military industrial companies in the U.S., there's about a 50 billion hole in revenues per year for the military industrial companies in the U.S., and so they have And that that's what they're using Ukraine for.
To me, that explains everything.
And I think Massey was saying that, you know, if you were to sort of lay out the timeline, you would see how obvious it is that the military-industrial complex is backfilling new wars whenever an old war is winding down.
It's very obvious, right?
It's not a coincidence.
So, now our new war is giving money to Israel.
Which is actually mostly funneled back to the military-industrial complex of the US.
Because the Ukraine thing is harder to fund.
So it looks like Ukraine is going to wind down.
Exactly as everybody knew it would.
They're probably going to negotiate an end to the war.
Exactly like everybody knew they would at some point.
And it will be exactly what it looked like.
It was exactly what it looked like.
A huge op.
You suck the money out of your pockets and put it in the pockets of other Americans who were in military businesses.
Yeah, it looks like it is exactly what it looked like.
Smedley Butler.
Nope, never heard of Smedley Butler.
Douglas Murray.
Oh, it was actually Douglas Murray was on the Dave Smith podcast.
I think Massey was on some other podcast.
But Douglas Murray.
was debating with Cenk Uygur and you know Douglas Murray's got a let's say an acerbic wit so you don't want to be in a debate with him because you're going to get sliced up pretty badly but he was explaining to Cenk that he'd spend time in the West Bank
And if you talk to the Palestinians, that even today, if you held an election today, not just in Gaza, but whatever's left of it, but the whole West Bank, that the Palestinians would elect Hamas again.
That anything you think about a lack of support is an illusion.
That the citizens are largely very supportive of Hamas.
And that there's no two-state solution.
Basically, as Douglas Murray says, and I say as well, you're dreaming if you think there's a two-state solution.
There can't possibly be a two-state solution.
It's so impossible.
Because one of them wants to kill the other one.
No, it can't possibly happen.
The only thing Israel can do is keep them under its boot for as long as they can.
Now, if you say to me, but Scott, what about all the children who are being injured and killed and all that?
To which I say, I really, really do care about children.
Like, you know, I have the same instinct you do, which is for some reason they seem more valuable.
I guess because they have more years of life or something, but they do seem more valuable.
Like I have the same internal feeling about it, that children are special, more valuable.
It's just built into us.
However, under the very special condition that the parents have weaponized their children to kill me, I don't care what happens to those kids.
Because the damage is already done.
If you turn them into murderers of people who look like me, I don't care if they get murdered.
I don't care if they get blown up in a bomb.
At all.
Not even a little bit.
I think you could have extreme empathy for children of all types and still make a distinction for somebody who's been weaponized to kill you.
No, I want them all to be destroyed as quickly as possible.
I don't care how you do it.
You could commit a war crime for all I care.
I mean, if they're coming to kill me, do whatever you need to do.
Fucking kill them.
I'm just saying it out loud, right?
Now, You don't want to say those things out loud if you're Israel.
But it's certainly how I would feel.
If I were an Israeli citizen, I wouldn't give a shit about the Palestinian children.
At all.
Not even a little bit.
You know why?
Because those children have been taught to grow up and kill me.
So I'm just being honest.
I think you can be a good person with full empathy for life, And for children, especially, and still say, this is really a special case.
This is not like anything else we've seen.
It's not like World War II.
It's not like Vietnam.
Not like anything.
I'm not going to say this about the children who died in Vietnam.
I have full empathy for that, for example, in Iraq.
Yeah, but this is a whole different situation.
I love Glenn Greenwald talking about the disinformation industry.
You really need to be following him about this stuff.
But he tells us that the so-called disinformation industry, all these fake entities who are trying to get rid of the disinformation, it was manufactured after the 2016 election.
And the job title, Disinformation Expert, is a fake credential, says Glenn, and its only purpose was to justify censorship of dissent from neoliberal orthodoxies by masquerading such partisan censorship as neutral science.
And he calls out Ben Collins and Phil Bump as two who have completely left any pretense of being nudes.
They're just disinformation people at this point.
And they're really obvious about it.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting the Palestinian number, estimates for how many people have been killed in Gaza since the war started.
And for the NPCs, I would like you to come in, as always, and say, but Scott, you can't really trust You can't really trust the Hamas estimates.
So since we all know that, it would be important for the NPCs to say it.
So make sure you say it out loud, the thing that we all know, to make yourself feel like you're live.
Go!
All right.
You do it while I'm talking.
But I had predicted early on, and I think it's going to be right, that 20,000 was going to feel like a magic number.
Even though it's not a reliable number, once it gets into the consciousness, it becomes magic.
And what I mean by that is that when the war first started, I said, all right, just imagine how you'd feel if a thousand people were killed in Gaza.
And I'd say, well, you'd feel bad for the thousand, of course.
But you'd say, OK, that's roughly what they killed in Israel.
OK, that's about comparable.
If you could get the war done at a thousand deaths, Well, that would be amazing.
Like, tragedy.
Thousands of people you don't want to die, but amazing if you can do it.
And I thought, well, what if there's 5,000 people?
5,000 dying in Gaza compared to the, I guess, 1,200 or so in Israel?
You'd say, well, there's a historical precedent for that, right?
Israel does seem to kill five to one, you know, when there's a cause.
So I'd say, all right, I can live with that as sort of baseline.
But what if it's 10,000?
10,000 would feel above baseline, but 10 to 1 wouldn't be so far out of the ordinary that it would necessarily change everything.
But what if it's 20,000?
Now, again, that's based on the unreliable reports from one side that's losing.
But what if it is?
Or, more importantly, what if the news starts reporting that number, and even if they start giving you the caveats, like, well, you know, it comes from this source.
It's not going to matter after a while.
Your brain will start to forget the source, and it will just be in there repeated.
It's a big round number, and it's in the category that I would, I think, other people are going to say that's clear evidence of genocide.
At 20,000, you can't call it a war anymore.
Especially since they're saying most of them are women and children, which we don't know to be true.
I don't know that that's true.
So I'm only talking about the psychology of it, not the reality.
The reality is we don't know how many were killed.
But the other reality is that they're reporting a big round number, and our media is reporting what they're reporting.
It's a bad situation for Israel.
I think that the G word, genocide, gets activated by reporting that it's 20,000 casualties.
I think that's the point where somebody who is just sort of observing from the middle says, oh shit, that's a fucking genocide.
Now the people who are, you know, strong partisans aren't going to budge.
The strong partisans on each side, they're not going to budge.
It doesn't matter if it's 20,000 or some other number.
They're hardened in their opinion.
But there is this big middle group of people who could be persuaded a little bit either way.
And that 20,000 number is going to be a real problem for Israel.
They're going to need to find a counter story to the 20,000.
And I haven't heard it yet.
But they need to work on that right away.
Because if the word genocide becomes the most common word you see in the comments and the criticisms and the TV shows, That is a permanent stain on Israel that won't just be cosmetic.
It will actually go to their existence.
Because they need to have a narrative that supports them, because they're such a small country, right?
You need the psychology to be on your side just to stay alive.
And that could really work against the psychology.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best show you've ever seen.
That went long.
Sorry I went long, but it was so good.
What could I do?
The news was so interesting today.
Thanks for joining, all you folks on YouTube.
It's been a pleasure, and I'm sure it'll be amazing tomorrow.
Export Selection