Episode 2334 CWSA 12/26/23 Lots Of Interesting Stuff In The News, And Not All Bad This Time
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Trump, Nikki Haley, New Hampshire Poll, Fast Cancer Blood Test, Love Language, Excess Deaths, Insurance Rates, Loneliness Death Risk, Israel Hamas War, Glenn Greenwald, Reprogramming Palestinians, Pro-Palestinian Protests, Universal High Income, Elon Musk, Swatting Conservatives, UAW Democrats, NGO Immigrant Organizations, Machine Collapsed Reality, 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 post-Christmas 2023 version.
Everybody survive?
Everybody have a good time?
Good.
Well, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that have never been experienced before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass A tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Savor it.
Go. Mm.
Yeah.
The savoring is good.
Well, I saw another idea that AI is going to change the world from the ex-account of Prince of Fakes for i.ai.
He wants an AI company that will build him a sex toy for men that will talk.
So he wants his sex toy to be able to talk to him like AI talks to you.
And he's hoping that somebody will build one of those in 2024.
But I have some advice for you.
Never buy version 1.0.
So I'm going to wait for the sex toy that's an upgrade to the talking one.
The one that doesn't talk.
So I'm going to wait for version 2 once they get rid of that talking bug.
Because I don't want it talking to me.
So if we can get rid of that, version 2.0, I'm going to wait for that if I'm you.
Well, Trump had a nice, beautiful little Christmas message, which had him railing against all of his enemies and haters.
And he finished up his Christmas message with, in all caps, May they rot in hell.
Again, Merry Christmas.
Okay.
Is it just me or is everything he does funny?
He rails against his enemies for Christmas of all days, and then he ends it with, may they rot in hell.
Again, Merry Christmas.
So this is a pattern he likes to do, where he says bad things and then good things at the same time.
It's very funny, and I like the fact that it makes all of his haters Can't kind of draw attention to it.
Anyway.
Rasmussen reports that the latest polling shows that Trump has a commanding lead in the primaries.
He's got a 51% of likely Republican primary voters compared to number two, I guess, is Nikki Haley now at 13.
So I guess Ron DeSantis is a non-entity these days.
But how do you explain?
In the national poll, Haley is way behind Trump, but allegedly, allegedly in New Hampshire, she's kind of close.
How do you explain that?
Well, I like to use my explaining method called follow the money.
Let me ask you this.
If you could, if you had the ability, To bribe your way into one fake poll.
You know, there are hundreds of polls happening all the time.
But if there were just one poll that you could somehow bribe them or pay for it to be distorted, what would be the very best one to do?
I'm thinking New Hampshire.
Wouldn't that be the number one most valuable thing to corrupt?
Because everybody's always looking for the New Hampshire I would have said Iowa, but I think New Hampshire is smaller.
And it's the smallness which suggests it would be easier to corrupt.
I don't know if that's true, but it suggests it.
So, I wouldn't believe any New Hampshire poll.
It has nothing to do with the specific people who are running it.
It just has to do with the fact that if there were any one poll that you really wanted to be corrupted, That would be the one.
That's the one that, because it's going to get headlines, and the news likes shift and momentum stories.
They don't like, well, he's still a head story so much, but they love, oh, somebody came from behind, the comeback kid.
So New Hampshire is all about creating the artificial come from behind story.
That's all it is.
Because New Hampshire is not a representative of the country.
Am I right?
The country doesn't look like New Hampshire.
So whatever happens in New Hampshire shouldn't tell you anything about anything.
So the only purpose is to get a surprise.
That's it.
You just have to get a surprise.
And it's the cheapest place to buy a surprise.
Again, I'm not saying anybody did that.
I don't have any evidence of that.
I'm just saying your critical news watching, your clinical mind, Should ask the question, what would be the most likely poll to be corrupted?
It's got to be that one.
Of all the polls in the world, it's got to be that one.
But I don't have any evidence that it is.
All right.
Argentina is an interesting situation now with the new president.
And I saw an account, a report that he was kicked off of Instagram.
Is that true?
Did the new president of Argentina get kicked off of Instagram?
Or what?
I don't know.
Is that even true?
I guess I'd need a fact check on that.
But if so, it would once again show the importance of X as the last remaining free speech place.
He's back on Instagram?
Oh, so it probably was a mistake, wasn't it?
Oh yeah, I think I heard somewhere That there was no explanation why he got kicked off, meaning it might not have been political.
Might have been a dirty trick or something that they reversed.
Okay.
All right.
Well, maybe that's already fixed.
There's a brand new blood test that can detect cancer in two hours and it doesn't cost much.
It's like just a few bucks.
Wouldn't that change everything?
A blood test?
They can accurately find cancer in two hours and it doesn't cost much for the test.
Wouldn't you do that test after a certain age?
Wouldn't you do that test every three months?
It's only three bucks.
Yeah.
A few bucks.
Yeah.
I don't think it's, you know, it's not quite ready for the market, but apparently it passed some tests.
So that's pretty awesome.
Could be a big improvement in 2024.
I'd like to give you, once again, my periodic warning.
Don't fall for the love language's con.
You know that idea that people have a different love language?
Some people can only be, they can only feel love if you give them, let's say, quality time.
That's one love language.
Or gifts, or acts of service, or physical touch, words of affirmation.
I think there might be another one I'm missing.
But everybody apparently has their preferred way they want to receive love.
It's a con.
Don't fall for it.
And if anybody ever tells you their love language is acts of service or gifts, they're trying to get a free butler.
Don't go for the free butler.
Oh!
If only I do everything she wants, she'll love me.
If I also buy her stuff.
So if I buy her gifts, And then do everything she wants, she will love me.
No, that's not really love.
That's a trick.
Yeah, run away from that as fast as you can.
Let me tell you, now, to be fair, I got some pushback from an author, Andrew Christian, who said, when I said this on X this morning, he said, you offer much wisdom, Scott, but relationship mastery is not in your skill stack.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to say relationship mastery is not part of my expertise?
I think that's half right.
Here's the half that's right.
I cannot tell you how to make a relationship work.
Nope.
No idea.
The best I have for you is that when two good people meet young and get together when they're young, often it works great.
I hear.
Otherwise, I don't have any advice.
No advice whatsoever.
But I would like to push back on Andrew's comment that I have not mastered relationship skill.
I would say I very much know what doesn't work.
Because relationships are two parts.
What works, and then avoiding what doesn't work.
You don't think I'm an expert on what doesn't work?
Come on, who are you going to ask?
Test me.
You give me a standardized test on what doesn't work?
Well, I'm going to get 100% on that one.
Now, if you give me another test of what does work, I'll be like, hmm, I feel like it just depends on the two people.
If you have two good people, and they have some chemical attraction, probably it works every time, just because they're good people.
You know, people who can consider the other person's feelings, And then adjust on their own without being told to?
You know, like good functioning people?
That probably works every time.
But if you only have one functioning person or no functioning people, I don't think your love language is going to fix that.
Yeah.
Well, you're an abusive alcoholic, but maybe if I gave you gifts, maybe, maybe that would turn things around.
No!
No!
Your abusive alcoholic gifts are not going to turn it around.
All right.
Let's see.
Here's another follow the money for you.
How many of you are alarmed, you should be, that insurance actuarials are saying that there's a lot of excess debt?
How many of you are alarmed by insurance company experts who really are the ones you trust, right?
Because they have to You know, base their entire economics on being right.
So, I believe it's the insurance companies who are telling us there's excess mortality.
Am I right?
Can you give me a fact check?
It's the insurance companies who have the most reliable, credible data that says we have excess mortality that we can't explain, right?
And somebody on X said, well it must be true because you're hearing it from the companies that have to get it right.
Is that fair?
Let me give you a test.
These are companies that have to get it right, so therefore they're the most credible source for whether or not there's excess mortality, right?
Yeah, okay.
Well there might be one problem with that.
Do you know how insurance companies set their rates?
Does anybody know how they set their rates?
It's based on what their risk is.
So they set the rates based on the perceived risk.
If the mortality rate was exactly the same every year, what would their rates be?
Same every year.
Same.
Because the mortality rate would be the same.
Now they'd adjust for maybe inflation or maybe competitive forces.
But basically, if it's based on how many people are dying, flat.
Right?
Now, if you're an insurance company, what would your economic interest suggest?
Would it suggest that if you said, I think in the future, and in the past recently, there's a lot of excess deaths.
Hey, all those excess deaths, what are we going to do with our rates?
I've got an idea.
Why don't we substantially raise our rates because of all the excess deaths?
Because we're going to have to pay Pay these people when they die for their life insurance, right?
So, how many of you fell for believing the people who have the greatest incentive to lie to you, the insurance companies, the greatest economic incentive to lie to you, how many of you said to yourself, well that's a good source?
How many of you fell for that?
Did you fall for that?
That the good source is the one who has the greatest incentive to lie to you, because they have a direct A direct financial benefit to lie to you.
All right.
I would like to raise my hand and acknowledge my fucking stupidity that it took me until today to realize that.
Honestly, fucking idiot.
I could not be more disappointed in myself.
It took me until today.
Literally this morning I said, Oh, wait a minute.
If the insurance companies convince us that there's a lot of excess mortality, I'm gonna have to pay more for my... Wait a minute!
Wait a minute!
Is anybody having the same experience right now?
Where you just assume the actuarials would be the good data?
It couldn't possibly be true.
Because literally everybody is influenced by money.
How would you like to be the actuarial who under...
Who under-projected deaths.
You're fired.
Suppose you over-projected deaths.
Promotion.
Because you set the rates at the highest potential profitability rate and you got away with it.
Promotion.
Bonus.
All right.
I don't know what's true about excess deaths.
So I'm not going to tell you that it's not true.
I'm just going to tell you that if your source Because actuarials, not credible.
Not even a little bit credible.
Follow the money.
It always works.
All right.
Another study shows us what I think we all suspected, that loneliness may increase your risk of death.
So there's a new study about this.
Lindsay Kobayashi, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, something out of the University of Michigan.
And it basically says that loneliness seems strongly implicated in dying.
Now, while there are certainly questions about the safety of the vaccinations, always good to have those questions.
And there are questions about any long COVID.
And we certainly know about obesity and less, maybe we're a little less active.
We know that there are more suicides and there's more fentanyl and all that.
But if I had to pick one variable that's been underappreciated, it's the loneliness thing.
How many of you have experienced bad health that was instantly solved by having somebody just come over and say hi?
I've actually experienced that lately.
I've actually experienced my body like just feeling terrible.
And then you have some social interaction that's positive and your entire physicality changes.
Instantly.
Instantly.
Just your entire physicality changes.
Now, I would be amazed if loneliness doesn't kill people.
Because the way I actually feel when I have that feeling of loneliness is like there's a weight on my chest and every part of my You know, vital systems are starting to shut down.
Because I think when you're lonely, you don't feel any reason to live.
Now, lots of people like being alone, which is different.
I'm not talking about people like being alone.
That could be a plus.
But if you're lonely, and you really need people and you're not getting them, I feel like you just don't have a reason to live.
And I do have a dog.
A dog doesn't help that much.
You know, it's better than nothing, but...
Yeah, dog doesn't help your human loneliness.
Anyway, so I think that's probably one of the big variables.
I think the excess, if there is excess mortality, it's probably several reasons.
Several.
All right, Axios reports there's a home shortage.
So we're short about 3.2 million homes, which is why our prices are staying high.
Now, why in the world In a place like America, would there ever be a shortage of something so basic as a home?
And it's not even that people can't afford them.
Apparently it's just a shortage of them.
No, it's not BlackRock, because BlackRock buys them and then instantly rents them out.
So all the homes that are bought by the big hedge funds, they actually have them rented before they buy them.
Did you know that?
They actually arrange for the renters and then they go buy the homes.
So they're instantly rented.
So they're actually increasing the rate of people in homes.
They're not decreasing it.
It's just that they're putting them in rentals.
Yeah.
So I don't think that they're distinguishing between rentals and owning a home.
They're just saying there are not enough homes.
But this is entirely a government problem, isn't it?
Let me ask you this.
If you were to make a list of problems the government solved, it'd be a pretty serious list.
But if you made a separate list of problems the government created, it'd be a pretty big list too, wouldn't it?
Like every time the government gets in the way of the free market, and that's obviously what's happening here, it's all bad.
So I'm going to say it for the billionth time.
I think robots will be big and AI will be big, of course.
But one of the biggest sources of economic activity is going to be completely rebuilding homes, putting these little pre-made factory ADUs, you know, the little backyard in-law homes.
They're going to be wild.
I mean, they're going to go crazy.
That market's going to be huge.
And I saw yet another They saw yet another Instagram Reel in which there's some, it looks like a Mexican company.
It was in Spanish, so I couldn't tell the details, but they're making bricks.
So they have machines that look like they're manual, where you just put the right amount of dirt and water or whatever you put in there.
And then you press down and you make a brick.
But one of the machines that I saw, it makes a brick that's like a Lego.
So the process of stacking them is as simple as you put it on top and it goes exactly where it's supposed to.
You're kind of done.
I think you pour some concrete over it or something.
So now you can make your own bricks without electricity.
No electricity needed.
And the bricks are, you know, just fit together so anybody can be a bricklayer, basically.
So I think that and about a million other things are going to have us not only So here's the key to my prediction.
It won't be just that we'll build new homes and let's say new cities, but we will have to completely tear down and rebuild existing homes to make them as good as the new ones.
Because the existing ones are going to look like garbage once new ones are doing what they need to do.
They're going to be so much less expensive to maintain and all that.
So I think there's going to be a remodeling surge like you've never seen before.
And it will be good for employment for probably 10 years.
That's what I say.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Koch family, or Koch, how do you say them?
K-O-C-H?
How do you pronounce that?
I always read it, but I never hear it.
All right, it's pronounced like Coke, K-O-C-H.
Anyway, it's the Coke family and its network of donors, say the Wall Street Journal, are starting to back Nikki Haley.
Why is it that everything looks exactly like you think it is?
Why does it look exactly like you suspected, that the big industrialists are going to back Nikki Haley and the military-industrial complex?
It kind of looks exactly like it looks, doesn't it?
So, we'll see how that goes.
All right, let's talk about Israel.
Netanyahu has three conditions for peace.
Number one, destroy Hamas.
Number two, demilitarize Gaza.
And number three, deprogram the Palestinians.
Deprogram them?
Well, I think he used the word deradicalize.
Deradicalize, but that's sort of deprogram.
But de-radicalize sounds less provocative.
Because everybody's in favor of de-radicalizing.
But not everybody would be in favor of brainwashing.
Same thing.
It's going to require brainwashing to de-radicalize.
So, here's what I think about that.
What is missing in the three-point plan is who's going to run Gaza and the West Bank.
Isn't he leaving out who's in charge after Istanbul?
I eat the most important part.
How are you gonna accomplish?
Keeping Hamas destroyed demilitarizing it and keeping it that way and deprogramming Palestinians unless Israel has full control of it It's the only way they're gonna have to full control Anybody who thought the two-stage solution?
Was ever an option It really never was and I'm gonna tell you the reason why Then nobody else is going to tell you.
Here's why the two-state solution was never an option.
Because the parties involved didn't want it.
They both wanted a one-state solution where they won.
Surprise!
And they both prefer the fight to the peace.
Now when I say they, I don't mean every citizen.
The citizens of both Israel and Gaza, probably a lot of the citizens don't want to fight.
Probably a lot.
But the governments are a different situation.
Let me tell you what I would do if I were Israel.
Every time the Palestinians did something horrible, I would take some more of their land.
Because it's like a free punch.
Oh, all right, if you attack us, we'll keep your land.
If you're going to attack us again, I guess we'll keep your land again.
So Israel has this strategy where if they just allow the Palestinians to do what the Palestinians apparently want to do, which is elect militaristic leaders and have them threaten Israel, that Israel will just do the obvious natural thing, which is use those provocations to their advantage.
So I think Israel is growing.
And if you were to fast forward a hundred years into the future, and you were to look back at this period, you would say to yourself, I hate to tell you, that Netanyahu is going to be like Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson doing the Louisiana Purchase, increasing the size of the United States.
Netanyahu is going to look like that in a hundred years.
I mean, there'll always be two stories about him.
There'll be the good one and the bad one.
But if he succeeds in basically completely controlling Gaza and completely filling the West Bank with settlements until it's a de facto, you know, Israeli country, then it's going to look like it was one of the biggest successes of a country in the history of countries in a hundred years.
At the moment, it just looks You know, like, hey, why can't you get along?
We don't understand why you can't get along.
Well, why you can't get along is that Israel benefits from taking advantage of the bad stuff.
Now, Glenn Greenwald tells us provocatively that it's always been the Israelis who turned down the two-state peace deals.
Have you always been told that it was the PLO and the Palestinians We're always turning down the great peace deals?
Is that your understanding of what's happened?
It was always the Palestinians.
They would get these great deals, and then they would turn them down, right?
Well, Glenn Greenwald will tell you it's the opposite.
So which is it?
Does Glenn Greenwald have the accurate story?
That it's always been Israel?
Because Greenwald says that Netanyahu's bragged about killing the two-state solution.
That he's actively bragged about it in public.
Do you believe that?
Here's what I believe.
I believe that it doesn't matter if Netanyahu killed it or not.
Because it wouldn't have worked.
What's the difference?
I'm not sure he's the bad guy.
Because it wouldn't have worked.
It would have just given the other side time to rebuild, build up their military and then they would have attacked.
It just would have turned into this eventually.
You know, the October 7th was going to happen any way you look at it.
So, I don't think a two-stage solution was ever possible.
And I'm going to give you the inarguable answer why.
And I'm going to call this Schrodinger's Jew.
Schrodinger's Jew.
You've heard of Schrodinger's cat, right?
It's a famous experiment in physics.
Where the cat, if the cat's in the sealed box, and there's some poison there that will randomly be either revealed, the poison will either be active or not, that is random.
If you're outside the box, the physicists argue, well, you don't know if the cat is alive or dead, but until it's observed or measured, it's both.
That the cat exists in a transposition of being both alive and dead.
Now as far as I can tell, that's the only way to solve peace in the Middle East.
Because it turns out that too many of the Palestinians, not all of them of course, but too many of them, would only be happy when the Jews are all dead.
Now the Jews, I haven't asked them but I'm almost positive, that they'd be happier if they lived.
So you have two unsolvable things here.
One is you must all be dead, and the other is, well, we prefer to live.
So I think that the only way you can have a peace deal is Schrodinger's Jews, where the Palestinians believe that they've killed all the Jews, and yet the Jews are living happily, completely alive and safe.
So, yeah, in other words, it's impossible.
So every minute you spend wasted talking about a two-state solution is just a waste of time.
There is no two-state solution except for the absurd, you know, that the Jews are both alive and dead so that everybody can get what they want.
It's not possible.
So Schrodinger's Jew.
I'm adding that to the conversation.
So stop talking about a two-state solution.
That's never going to happen.
All right.
But, can Netanyahu do these three things?
Can he destroy Hamas?
Say, mostly yes.
It might be like a 95% thing, not a 100% thing, but mostly yes.
If they put enough, you know, resources at it, they can probably get close to it.
Can they demilitarize?
Yes, as long as Israel maintains full military control of the area.
If they let somebody else do it, Maybe not.
But yes, it's doable.
Very hard, but doable.
But can they deprogram the Palestinians?
Oh.
Here's the question.
Well, this is my domain.
Persuasion.
So let me tell you the definitive answer.
You can't reprogram the older people.
Too late.
Everything you tell them will just turn into cognitive dissonance and a reason why it's not true.
So the older people can't be Can't be fixed.
But let's say people under 25.
Did I say this on the live stream yesterday?
I don't remember.
I might be repeating myself.
But can you reprogram children?
How hard is it to reprogram children?
And the answer is really easy.
Simple.
Children are like a light switch.
You can turn them on.
And you can turn them off just as fast.
So yes, if you put the right kind of effort into it, you can change a kid into any belief you want.
And I'm not talking about six-year-old kids.
I'm talking about 19-year-olds, 20-year-olds, 25.
It starts falling off really quickly after their brains are formed.
You know, up to 25, they're still a little flexible.
After that, the flexibility goes away pretty quickly.
Now, if you can keep weapons away from the older, you know, militants, you know, make them unable to do what they might want to do, and you can retrain the younger people and the teens, there is a way forward.
But can you do those things?
Could you get enough control over the schools to teach them that they've been had?
Now, oh, so David, let me clarify.
David King says this guy is insane.
So if you're doubting my statement that even the Palestinian children can be completely reversed, let me tell you how easy it is.
You'd have to find the right lever.
And the right lever that works with all young people is the old people have been lying to you before.
That'll work every time.
Because young people are already primed To believe that the older generation is lying to them.
We don't need to be convinced.
It's the easiest thing in the world.
I could reprogram every Palestinian kid in like 30 minutes.
If I could cause them to listen to me, I could do it.
Now, I'd probably have to be dressed up like a Muslim cleric or something.
I'd have to be coming from somebody credible.
But all I have to do is say, Here's the bank accounts of the leaders of Hamas.
Here's their bank accounts.
This one's got a billion dollars.
Here's the yacht of this other one.
Now, what if I made it all up?
Would they know?
No, they wouldn't know.
I could literally just make that up.
Here's the actual bank account and it just made it up on my printer.
You just show it to the kids.
Hey kids, this is the actual bank account right here.
They took all your money, you guys are starving, and they started this war, and they did it for nothing, because Israel is your friend and they just want to live in peace.
But they told you that they weren't, and they gave you this whole story where you had to kill them, but it was all kind of a trick, so they could make money, and they're really just broken evil people, and you shouldn't follow them.
How hard is it to get a kid to believe they've been abused by an adult?
It's easy.
You just say it once.
With adults, you have to, like, keep hammering them.
You gotta repeat and repeat and repeat if you want to persuade them.
Not with a kid.
A kid, you can just tell them once.
Done.
You know, here's the proof that they were a con people.
They were just con men the whole time.
They were not really your legitimate leaders, and they took all your money, and they left you in ruin.
Just say it once.
You would reprogram a kid immediately.
You know why?
Here's what kids believe.
You ready for this?
Here's what kids believe.
The last thing they heard.
That's it.
Now you know everything about persuading children.
They believe the last thing they heard, unless there's something sticky about it that's got them stuck to it.
So if they don't have some objective other way to know what's true, and an adult says, your history was wrong, so we're revising the history lesson, now this is the correct lesson, what's a kid going to say?
They're going to believe the new one.
Instantly.
Uncritically.
Because they have not been abused enough that they know that everything is a lie all the time.
Which is what adults know.
By the time you're my age, you know everything is a lie all the time.
Everything is a lie all the time.
Kids don't know that.
They still think there's a true version and a fake version.
So yeah, you could totally deprogram them if you had full control of the schools.
All right.
Apparently, it looks like Israel, I don't know if the U.S.
helped, but they Did a drone attack and they took out a top Iranian general, Brigadier General Razi Mousavi.
And they took him out in Damascus in Syria.
So the Iranians, of course, were not too happy about that.
So there have been some Iranian proxies attacking some American assets over there and some Americans got killed.
And then the US is going to attack back, or already has.
So We're in a proxy war with Iran.
And I guess the question is how big it gets.
So my guess would be it's going to stay small.
Because I think Iran just needs to show that they're pushing back.
The United States needs to show that, you know, they're not going to get away with it.
Israel is going to take his easy shots of the generals who leave Iran because they don't want to kill the generals who are in Iran.
That would be too much of a So I feel like, again, everybody's getting what they want, so it's not going to change.
You know, Iran wants to poke the United States, and that's sort of the whole thing.
They know the United States isn't going to pack up and leave.
They just want to poke them.
And the U.S.
needs to respond, so they're going to respond.
So everybody's getting what they want.
Iran's going to poke.
We're going to respond.
Israel's going to kill any generals that leave Iran.
I don't know that that leads to war.
Because it's sort of like people getting what they wanted in the short run.
It doesn't seem to me that that would escalate.
But I could be very wrong about that, we'll see.
I saw a report from Joel Pollack in Breitbart that Israel has seized 30,000 explosives in Gaza Strip.
That includes rockets, I guess.
We don't know how much of that is rockets, but 30,000 explosives.
That would do some damage.
But the amazing thing to me is that Gaza is still launching rockets.
Yeah.
I'm being asked here if I think Jesus was the greatest human persuader ever born into mankind.
I'd say no, because he didn't write the Bible.
So it was the writing of the Bible that, you know, there's something about the way it's written that seems to be the persuasive part.
So I would say the historical Jesus, if we assume there was a real Jesus, was probably very persuasive.
Very persuasive.
But the real persuasion was the book.
Because most of us never met Jesus.
But we saw the book.
Anyway.
So that's what's happening over there.
A bunch of protests planned.
I guess there's a protest planned for the Holocaust Museum.
So the pro-Palestinians are allegedly going to protest at the Holocaust Museum.
Does that sound true to you?
That doesn't sound true.
You know what it sounds like?
It sounds like an op.
It sounds like maybe somebody who's pro-Israeli, possibly an American, somebody who's pro-Israeli has put together a fake protest marketing saying, hey, everybody meet at the Holocaust Museum to protest it.
Because I can't think of anything that would be more pro-Israel and pro-Jew Can you think of anything that would be more pro-Israel than that?
That would be the single best op I've ever seen.
How hard would it be to put together a fake protest, you know, maybe you bribe one person who's an organizer or something, or maybe you just do it yourself, just put up the signs?
Because if you're just a protester, You don't know who put up the sign, do you?
You don't know who started the viral thing on TikTok to show up at the Holocaust Museum?
I think the whole thing might be a trick.
Because I'm trying to imagine... I'm trying to imagine the organizers who are actually the pro-Palestinian organizers.
I can't imagine them thinking that's a good idea.
Wouldn't it be obvious that's the worst thing to do?
Like really, really obvious?
Yeah.
Like Unite the Right?
Absolutely.
It's exactly like that.
Yep.
Yep.
Somebody said in the comments, is it like Unite the Right?
That was the Charleston, or Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Fine People March.
Yeah, that whole Fine People March has op written all over it.
Definitely they were real racists.
But the organization part, that was a little too on the nose.
A little too on the nose.
I don't believe that was organic.
But that's just me.
All right.
So I guess there were protests planned for New Year's Eve and there were protests on Christmas.
But I saw the protests in New York City described as hundreds.
Hundreds of pro-Palestine protesters.
Are we too worried about hundreds?
Hundreds doesn't sound like a lot.
We're getting a lot of attention, but it's hundreds.
It's a loud hundred.
I just don't know how big of this is.
It might not be that big.
All right.
Elon Musk has weighed in on the UBI question, the Universal Basic income.
And what Musk says, so the idea is that the government at some point in our history might need to just give people money of basic income without working, just so they can buy stuff.
Otherwise they die.
But Musk says there will be universal high income, not basic, in the positive AI future.
So he thinks AI will get us to a point where you would not only have income, but you'd have high income.
Kind of buy whatever you wanted in the ordinary living space anyway.
Couldn't necessarily buy a, you know, luxury car, but you could buy everything you needed in the general quality of life area.
And Musk says there'll be no scarcity except that which we define to be scarce.
In that scenario, everyone can have whatever goods and service they want, But then Musk warns, and this is a good one, it is less clear how we will find meaning in a world where work is optional.
Now, of course Elon Musk would be sensitive to how do you find meaning in work, because his work probably has more meaning than anybody else.
I mean, it's literally that the value of his work could be saving humanity, you know, by interstellar flight.
Saving the climate, if climate's a problem.
So yeah, I mean, Elon's work is about free speech.
I even forgot that one.
I forgot about preserving free speech.
So his work is about the most meaningful work I've ever seen in my life.
Mine is pretty meaningful, at least how I define meaning.
And I got to tell you that Christmas was tough for me.
Because I tried to not work on Christmas, you know, except for the live streams.
Didn't work out for me.
I found myself very unhappy that I wasn't doing something useful.
I don't know how to not be useful.
If I'm not making some kind of improvement in the world, or for somebody I know, or something, even a stranger, like, I don't really feel good.
And I can feel that Like on Christmas really, really acutely.
So I was happy to get back to work today.
What do you think?
Do you think we'll have the point where our biggest problem is everything's free and we don't have any purpose in life?
I feel like we would find a way to make things not free.
Like the government would always get in the way and say, oh no, you can't have all free stuff because it'll make you sad or something.
I don't know.
I feel like you can only get to universal high income in a free market scenario, but that we don't have anything like a free market.
So how do you get there?
We'll see.
Marjorie Taylor Greene got swatted for the eighth time on Christmas Day.
I guess they turned around before they got to her house because they checked first, which seems wise.
I feel like there needs to be some kind of Way that the swatters can tell what's real before they go.
There's gotta be some like code or trick or secret handshake or I don't know what the answer is, but there ought to be something that doesn't exist that could exist.
Yeah, like the secret code word, but then maybe you're under duress or something.
I don't know.
So I don't know.
Defund the police.
Yeah.
But I do think that the people who call in the fake SWATs should be charged with attempted murder.
Do you agree?
That calling in a fake SWAT should be attempted murder.
Because why else are you doing it?
That's the whole point, is to get somebody killed.
So they should be attempted murder.
Yeah.
And how do these SWAT people not know the location of the call?
Can you hide your identity and location When you call the police?
If you call 9-1-1, don't they always know who you are?
I don't know the answer to that.
Oh, if you use a VPN?
Not use a VPN, okay.
But for those of us not using a VPN, I have one, but for those who don't have one, would 9-1-1 always know who you are, even if your phone is unregistered?
Yeah, try calling 9-1-1 and hanging up.
They'll call you back, right?
Well, but they got your number.
I know.
I don't know what they know.
But that situation needs to get fixed.
Also, Elon Musk talking about unions.
He said, most of the Democratic Party is controlled by the unions.
They carry far more weight than the environmentalists.
You think that's true?
You think the unions carry more weight than the environmentalists?
Probably, just because they have more money.
Yeah, probably.
Certainly the teachers' unions do.
And Musk says that Biden gladly admits it.
And he says that, Musk says in Biden's speech, he literally says, the UAW elected me.
The autoworkers.
Now, think about that.
And then Elon says, the White House cold shoulder, meaning Their coldness to Tesla started well before I said controversial things.
In other words, the United Auto Workers who are not in Tesla, so Tesla's non-union, but the unionized companies are competing with Tesla.
So the unionized car companies, the biggest influence on the Democrats, are basically forcing the Democrats to diss The car company that's doing the most to solve climate change.
That's like really happening in the real world.
In the real world, right before our eyes, the Democrats are saying, our biggest thing is climate change.
It's an existential threat.
And then while we watch, we watch the United Auto Workers who are definitely not on that page.
Saying, you know, you're going to have to be bad to Tesla, the only solution to the climate change problem.
So the Democrats have created a system called the Democrats, in which they have their highest priority they can't work on because of their highest influence.
So their greatest influence Prevents their own party from working on their own highest priority.
How messed up is that?
Is that true on the Republicans as well?
Let me think.
Let's see if we can do this on the Republican side.
What's the highest priority on the Republican side?
Abortion?
Seems like it's abortion.
And the border?
Abortion and the border?
Let's say it's immigration and abortion.
Are the Republicans, is there anything about the Republican Party?
Is there any interest group within the Republican Party?
Oh yeah, the Koch brothers.
The Koch brothers are Republicans, right?
And aren't they sort of in favor of kind of easy immigration because their companies might need it?
Or do I have that wrong?
I might have that wrong.
Well, I don't think the Republicans have the same degree of problem.
Where the highest priority is made impossible by the strongest influence in their own party.
I don't think that's the case.
Because the strongest influence on the Republican side still wants tough border immigration.
Or, yeah, border control.
So I think Republicans, at the very least, are Consistent, which is their highest priority, is actually backed by their most influential members.
Is that fair to say?
That on the Republican side, their highest priorities, immigration and abortion, are pretty much backed by their most influential members?
I see a no.
Yeah.
Yeah, the Democrat Party seems absurd.
It's absurd in that it's so poorly organized that it's basically just fighting itself.
It looks like.
You know, the ultra-wokes fighting the regular Democrats.
All right, so I don't see that so much in the Republicans, but a little bit.
Now that we know that the reason there's so much illegal immigration in the United States and other places Is that there are all these NGOs, these non-government organizations, in some cases might be getting funded from governments, but I think they're mostly getting George Soros funding and rich people funding.
But they've created this whole structure to make it really easy to go illegally from Africa, for example, or any other third world country, to America.
So they organize it, they tell you where to go, they tell you how to do it, who to talk to, and without it, I can't imagine an African migrating to America, like a low-income African.
Because how would an African even figure out how to do it?
How would they afford it?
How would they figure out, you know, the mechanisms to get here, etc.?
But the NGOs apparently solve all that.
They make sure they can eat, travel, get taken care of, get to the right place.
Now, isn't that an act of war?
When I look at the border, it looks like an act of war.
So why is it that the United States allows NGOs to wage war on the United States?
Is it because the NGOs don't say it's war?
Is it just they've defined it not as war, so then therefore it's not a war?
But isn't it up to us to decide if it's a war?
Don't we get to decide that?
Yes, this looks like a war.
I would declare war on the NGOs.
And I would declare them terrorist organizations.
And I would give them 30 days to stop doing what they're doing, which is making it easy for immigrants to come here.
And if they didn't do it, I would kill them all.
I would kill them all.
I would absolutely kill them all.
But militarily, with lots of warning, and in the most legal way we can, within the rules of war.
But I think our CIA could kill them in their bed.
Because it has to be stopped.
So I think we need to stop treating the NGOs as charitable organizations.
They're just part of a war machine, and they need to be killed.
After a warning, and only within a legal context, nothing illegal, I'm not suggesting any illegal violence.
I'm suggesting military self-defense, In the context of a direct and existential threat to the United States.
Basic, ordinary stuff.
Nothing unusual about it at all.
So yeah, and I think Soros has to be a target at this point if he's funding it.
I think that George Soros, specifically, if it could be found that he's the primary one funding the NGOs, which are acting essentially like a military invasion of the United States, That would make him a target.
Now again, I'm not saying we should just go kill him in his sleep.
You should get 30 days and say you need to stop funding these following organizations.
If you do, you're part of the military operation against the United States.
And then we'd act accordingly and just take him out.
But I'm kind of done fucking around, are you?
Can we just talk plainly?
Whoever is behind the mass immigration of the United States, they need to be killed.
But legally.
Completely legally.
No illegal acts.
And I think that the legal justification is just so obvious.
You could get the legal cover for it in 24 hours if you wanted it.
So, am I the first person to say this out loud?
I feel like I am, right?
Well, looks like that went over better than I thought, so maybe it'll be a thing.
All right, AI is causing a racism gap, according to Axios, or might make one worse.
So researchers warned that generative AI could add $43 billion to America's already stark racial wealth gap.
Yeah, because the thing I care about in every goddamn fucking topic is how it's going to harm my diversity.
How about I don't give a shit?
I don't care at all.
Do you know what else increases unequal distribution of stuff?
Everything.
Everything.
Literally everything.
Do you know what else AI is going to make unfair?
It's going to suck to be over 50, because the over 50s are not going to adopt it as easily as the young people.
And the young people will probably get all kinds of benefits, because they can figure out how to work in that world.
And the older people will try to take a pass, and they'll suffer for it.
How about gender?
How about gender?
So we watched the internet tech boom, Turned out to be mostly a male phenomenon, meaning that most of the employees at the high-end jobs were male.
So the entire tech revolution has been insanely bad for your gap between gender, right?
Didn't it make men earn more because they were attracted to STEM jobs and women less so, and the STEM jobs were a great pay?
So the AI will just be more of that.
Bad for women, bad for seniors, bad for everybody with low IQ.
At least until there's universal high income, I guess.
It's going to be bad for all kinds of people.
It'll just be good for some small group of Asian Americans who figured out how to capitalize on it.
It's going to be Indian Americans and Asian Americans are going to do great in the world of AI and robots.
Oh, I think white Americans are not going to be at the top of that list.
But yeah, I really don't care if it causes more of a gap, because everything does.
Just literally everything does.
Everything does.
All right.
Now, last night in my Man Cave livestream, I showed a proof that we live in the simulation.
Now I'm going to ask the people on the locals platform who saw the man cave.
After you thought about it for a day, is it good enough for me to do it here in front of the larger audience?
Or would I embarrass myself?
I'm just going to wait to see if they think I'll embarrass myself.
I got a lot of no's.
Not good enough.
Not convinced.
Perfect.
I'm definitely going to do it.
All right.
Here's the proof we live in a simulation.
Now, proof, of course, is hyperbole.
Nothing's ever proved.
But my hypothesis is that if you could prove that history is made on demand, you would have proven that we're a simulation.
All right?
So in other words, if you could prove, somehow, that if you start digging a hole, if you could prove, somehow, there's no way to do it, but if you could, that there's nothing under the ground, until you start digging, and then the reality is filled in while you dig, if you could prove that, would you agree that we're probably a simulation?
Does the first part make sense?
If you could prove that we create the past, Only when we need it.
No?
You think that our reality would be the way it looks if you could create the past on demand?
If you could create the past on demand, definitely our current view of reality is debunked.
Because it would mean that evolution was fake.
I mean, everything, basically.
The Big Bang, everything.
I'm going to take that as my starting point.
If you can prove that history is created on demand, as opposed to as always, it was always there, we're a simulation.
Now, if you've heard of the double-slit experiment, and you've heard that in physics, a particle is sort of only probably someplace until it's observed.
You all know that, right?
It's a weird part of quantum physics.
That a particle doesn't exist until it's either measured by a machine, like an instrument, or some kind of human or conscious entity.
Now, did it ever seem weird to you that a conscious observation can change a particle into a specific thing, as opposed to a probability wave?
But why can a machine do it?
Did you ever think that was weird?
That you could just use an instrument to measure something, and then the instrument can collapse the probability without you even being there?
Well, what that tells you is that reality is not subjective, because a machine could do what a human did, collapsing the reality.
Right?
So that's what that tells you.
But here's what's wrong with that experiment.
If you're familiar with the double slit experiment, If you want to find out more about this, just Google double slit experiment and you'll go down a rabbit hole that make you crazy.
But let's say that there are two ways to collapse probability into a real thing.
One is a human and the other is instruments.
Here's the part that nobody asked you or told you.
How do you know the instrument did it?
How do you know?
If the instrument did what the direct observation did, how would you know the instrument did it?
Well, at some point, the instrument has to tell you, right?
A human has to look at the instrument and say, oh, there it is.
That instrument measured it, and sure enough, it collapsed it.
You see what's wrong with that?
It took me years to figure out what's wrong with that, but I just figured it out this week.
What's wrong with it is, in both cases, it's a human observation.
You're either directly Looking at the thing, and then it collapses into a point.
Or you look at the machine that looked at it, and it's that point that it collapses.
It's only when you look at the machine.
Because the machine is just another way of observing it.
So in other words, the machine never collapsed anything.
What happened was, when you looked at the machine, an entire history that included the machine came into view, and it never existed before.
So until you look at the machine's reading, it didn't read anything.
You actually caused the past of the machine reading where the point was by looking at the machine.
Now, your other possibility is that a machine can collapse reality.
Maybe, but it doesn't make sense in any way that we can understand anything.
But what about if everything is subjective?
If everything is subjective, that would make us probably a simulation.
But it would also explain why the chain of events from the instrument to its reading, a whole chain of actions, could be created on demand in the future, and you can recreate the past.
So, two possibilities.
Either it's all subjective, and always has been, or a machine can collapse reality.
And then they're not going to tell you that, well, it only does that if a human someday looks at the machine.
If you had a machine that destroyed itself after measuring, would it do it?
Would it collapse reality?
If it destroyed itself after measuring and nobody could tell the reading?
Yeah.
Why just human?
Because it's all in our imaginations.
That's why.
I believe a dog could also collapse reality.
If that dog then interacted with the human who realized that the dog had collapsed the reality.
But ultimately you have to get to the human.
So I believe that the double slit experiment has always been misinterpreted because humans have a block.
And the block is that they don't want to believe or scientists don't want to believe that everything is subjective and we're living in a In a simulation.
Since that is too hard to accept, they rather accept through cognitive dissonance that the machine has collapsed reality the same way a person could.
When a better look at it would be, well, not until a human looks at the machine.
So it's all just a human.
So I think the scientists have a block that they can't see the obvious.
That it's just people.
It's never been machines.
Now, is any of that true?
I don't know.
It was fun to think about.
I don't have any particular scientific skill, so me being wrong about science would be the most ordinary thing in the world.
All I'm going to add is, did you really believe that machines could collapse reality?
Just ask yourself, was that ever believable?
It's weird enough that a person can.
But at least you could understand how a person could, because that would support a subjective reality simulation kind of world.
That all makes sense?
How does the machine do it?
It never did.
The most obvious answer is it never did.
It was just the scientists misinterpreting what they were saying.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best live stream of the day.
And I'll certainly be here for the man cave for the subscribers of Locals later tonight.
And I hope you have a great day.
Hope you got all the presents you want.
You're finally away from your family and you're happy again.
