Episode 2335 CWSA 12/27/23 Themes Today: Gears Of The Machine Becoming Obvious, Dad's Coming Home
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 Biden, Dictator Accusations, Steven Miller, America First Legal, NGO Propaganda, Vitamin D, Ye Apology, Climate Change Models, American Obesity, Compromised Food Supply, Alcohol Consumption Decline, Woke Hollywood, Netflix The Diplomat, DEI Rollback, Air Force Diversity, EU's X Infringement Concerns, Elon Musk, X Free Speech Limits, Medical NIR, Near-Infrared Cancer Treatment, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, Deprogramming Gaza Kids, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time today.
And if you'd like this experience to go up to levels that nobody can even understand, they're so up there in the stratosphere, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous epidermis now.
Go!
Good morning, Brunswick, Georgia.
We've been waiting for you.
Glad you're in the house.
Well, I have two themes for today.
Theme number one, the gears of the machine.
We're all able now to see what's really going on.
In the world.
Way differently than we did last year.
So I've got some stories about that.
And also, Dad's coming home.
Dad.
Not a specific person.
I'm not talking about Trump necessarily.
I'm talking about Dad energy.
And you're going to see that in the stories today as well.
Well, let's begin.
Remember I told you that there would be hit pieces on me in the coming year?
Because the more hit pieces on me, the less credibility I'll have going into the election year.
Well, Forbes is out on the hit piece.
I'm one of three people that they'd like you to know their careers have been destroyed.
In my case, Forbes says it's because of my racist rant, but also Forbes mentions without details, it's not the first time I've been racist.
That's right.
Without offering any Link or detail.
Forbes says it's not the first time I've been racist.
Maybe you could give me an example of that because I don't think I was racist that time either.
Anyway, so it doesn't matter what Forbes says.
Forbes is sort of the poor man's the Atlantic.
That only makes sense if you really follow the media world.
Forbes is the poor man's the Atlantic.
And the Atlantic is the poor man's turd.
So it's like turd, the Atlantic, and Forbes.
Forbes used to be a great publication, but I think it got sold and turned into woke bullshit.
All right, Joe Biden says he wants to issue a pardon to all the current and past marijuana users.
Federal pardon.
There's only a federal pardon.
At last, my long nightmare is over.
You know, I've been a fugitive from the federal police for as lowly as most of my life, but it's good to know I got a pardon from Joe Biden, so I'm definitely going to endorse him and vote for him now because I got this weed pardon.
He's also giving out big raises to federal employees.
I wonder if an election year is coming up.
He's gonna have to bribe so many people to get re-elected.
But anyway, we got a weed pardon.
It's still illegal.
So rather than just making it legal, he does a weed pardon.
All right.
Whatever.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but There was a little, there was a flurry of Trump being called the dictator.
And they said he's Hitler, he's Mussolini, he's Pol Pot, he's Stalin, he's Putin.
And then I started making fun of it by saying it's more cowbell.
Every time they say another name of a new dictator, it's like, more cowbell!
Because it's just stupid, all the dictator stuff.
So, I don't think the more cowbell thing had any effect on it, but did it seem like the dictator thing already ran its course?
Like it wasn't working, so they pulled back?
Does anybody feel that?
Or is it just because it was Christmas, so they said it less?
I felt like we went big through this, like, wave of dictator, dictator, and it made no difference.
And did you see there was a post, it was probably untruth, but it made it over to Axe from Trump, In which he had one of these, you know, these graphics that shows your social media, what words are common to your social media experience.
And the words that he published about himself were, had like dictator as one of the big words.
So even Trump is just treating it like a joke.
And I think, I think that once the other side realized we were going to treat it like a joke.
Yeah, word cloud.
It was a word cloud that dictator... So the fact that Trump would actually post that himself, because it's so stupid, kind of tells you it's not working.
So that would be an example of dad's home, or dad's coming home.
Because it's not so much that it's about Trump.
I'm not necessarily saying he's dad.
It's just the energy.
It's very dad energy to say you're a dictator, And then dad says, yeah, I'm a total dictator.
What's for dinner?
Isn't that dad energy?
His mom doesn't say that.
Right?
It's just such a dad thing to say.
Oh, you're being such an unreasonable dictator.
Well, yeah, I guess I am.
Yeah, embrace and amplify.
Poor cowbell.
Well, IBM is being sued by America First for race discrimination against white people and Asian Americans.
And it's based on James O'Keefe and his OMG business.
He had a undercover video of the CEO of IBM.
Now, if you didn't remember America First is a group that Stephen Miller put together that creates basically lawfare on behalf of Republicans.
As you know, Democrats have done a good job of using lawfare against Trump and various other people on the right.
And so it's sort of a response.
So now there's an entity, Stephen Miller's entity, that will initiate lawsuits wherever it makes sense, I guess.
So do you remember how Mike Benz and others told you that what the Democrats did is they would create all these non-government entities that would coordinate with each other to make it look like a small thing was a big thing or to make it look like somebody had support for their thing.
So in other words, on the Democrat side, they'd have all these fake fact-checkers and fake watchdogs and fake think tanks.
Right, and it's just this whole constellation of NGOs and everything, not part of the government.
But, if you were a journalist, and you wanted some support for your bullshit story, you could say, well, this fact checker says this is not true.
Yeah, but the fact checker is sort of artificial and astroturf.
So, as part of the Democrat strategy, you'd have all these non-government entities That looks semi-reasonable to the people who aren't paying attention, so it looks like there's a big, you know, obvious movement in one direction or another.
Well, apparently the Republicans have caught on, because now you've got this, you know, the OMG group is kind of a watchdog group with their undercover videos, but they wouldn't be nearly as effective if you didn't have separately Stephen Miller's group, Which is going to sue those people.
Not all of them, but, you know, it might sue some of them.
Dad's home.
Right?
So no more are the Republicans going to let the, let's say, the opposing team do whatever they want.
Now there's going to be a, apparently there's a big pocketbook on that side.
I don't know who's funding it, but they've got enough money to sue the people they want to sue.
So there you go.
So, my other theme about the gears of the machine.
Now that you understand the gears of the Democrat machine, you can see that the Republicans are building up something like a response using these non-government entities to add intensity and power to a message.
Well, here's my segment I'm going to call Backward Science.
Backward Science.
Backward Science.
And that's to quote Michael Crichton, when the news says that wet streets cause rain, because they don't know how cause and effect works.
Well, here's a provocative statement.
I don't know that this is true, by the way, so I'll take a fact check on whether this is true.
But John Arnold on X says that vitamin D offers perhaps the most poignant example of the problems of observational studies.
In all fields.
So here's his claim.
So I need a fact check on whether this is true.
The claim is almost every retroactive observational study shows a strong link between vitamin D levels and health outcomes.
Would you agree?
That from whether it's COVID or anything else, whenever you see a bad outcome and you check their vitamin D levels, they're low.
It seems like for all kinds of stuff.
So naturally, Naturally.
What would you do about that?
Well, you would recommend that people supplement their vitamin D so that they can avoid these problems.
How many of you remember that during COVID, I said there's going to be a vitamin D correlation, but it might not be causation.
It might simply be a convenient way to know if you're susceptible.
In other words, low vitamin D might be a good way to know that That anything could get you, but it's not necessarily true that if you raised your vitamin D, it wouldn't get you.
So the statement here is that almost every randomized controlled trial of vitamin D supplementation shows little to no benefits.
So in other words, it is true if your vitamin D is low, you're far more likely to have a bad health outcome, but it is so far not proven That raising your vitamin D makes a difference.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, I did see a dissenter say that in the COVID studies, the randomized controlled trials did show that it made a difference.
So there's some pushback on that.
But it might also be that it worked for COVID, but maybe didn't work as much for other things.
Maybe.
I don't know.
So what we don't know Is whether vitamin D is just telling you that there's a potential health problem or it's the cause of it.
So, backward science.
I'm still, my take is I'm going to still supplement vitamin D because I don't know.
And my doctor told me to do it.
So I don't think it hurts you.
I haven't seen the evidence that it hurts you.
So I supplemented mine.
New York Times is suing Microsoft and OpenAI because it says that the AI trained itself on New York Times material, perhaps even more than other material.
So New York Times thinks that their material maybe was a little bit of an extra focus of the training and that that's unfair and it's a copyright violation, they're trying to say.
I don't think they're going to win.
I could be surprised.
I don't think they're going to win.
But what do you do in a world where you can write a book, as I have, and then you could go to AI and ask AI to summarize it?
And then it will, because it read the whole book.
I did that with somebody else's book.
I'm not going to mention the book.
But there was a book I was interested in but never had the time to read.
So I asked Chad GPT to summarize it for me.
And it wasn't the greatest job, but with some follow-up questions, I definitely got the gist of it.
And so 10 minutes driving my car and just talking to my phone.
I just put the phone on Chad GPT's listening mode where it's just always active.
And I just have a conversation with it about a book that I hadn't read.
Now, did the author get paid for that?
Nope.
Nope.
I managed to absorb the content of somebody's book without them getting a penny.
Is that good?
On one hand, it seems good, because then everybody can have access to information, and isn't that cool?
On the other hand, couldn't I have done the same thing just with the Google search?
It was a best-selling book, right?
So if you do a Google search on a best-selling book, somebody's going to summarize it.
And if you go to Amazon, somebody's already written the Cliff Notes version, you know, the summary.
As soon as I write a book, somebody writes the fake version of the book and it appears almost instantly.
Yeah, my book has all kinds of fakes, fast books as well, all kinds.
The summary version.
Don't buy the summary.
Let me tell you why you shouldn't buy the summary for my books.
More to the point than other people's books.
Because when I create a book, I use persuasion.
And persuasion is a cumulative thing, meaning that repetition matters and how you sort of build the persuasion matters.
So if I write a book that says, here's a bunch of good things you should be doing, it'll make you more successful and more happy.
There's no point in writing that book if you don't do those things.
So I have to make it persuasive.
So the process of reading the book is what makes you more likely to do the things.
If you read the summary of my book, you're going to see a summary of good ideas, and you'll have no inclination to do them, because it will have removed, actually, an equal important part of the book.
Part of it is what you should do, and part of it is getting you inspired to do it.
All summaries of books take out the inspiring part, And leave you with a, oh, there's a study that says this is good.
And that's not going to help you that much.
All right, well, Kanye, who I call yay, has issued an apology to the Jewish community.
He did it in Hebrew.
How many American Jews can speak Hebrew?
Like 10%?
5%?
Most?
10%? 5%?
Most?
You say most?
American born?
25%?
I would think most can do a little bit.
They have to get through that to get... Okay.
Well, I don't know the answer to that question.
So maybe it could be a lot more than I thought it was.
Could be a higher percentage.
I don't know how many are fluent.
I know they have to memorize certain passages and stuff for the Bar Mitzvah and the Bat Mitzvah.
But beyond that, beyond the Bar Mitzvah and the Bat Mitzvah, how many people are fluent who are Jewish and born in America?
I'm seeing very low numbers.
Anyway, whatever that is.
So Ye gave his apology.
I'll give you the English language version.
And let me see.
We're just going to evaluate this.
On the technique of the apology.
So I'm less interested in who likes EA because of it, or whether he's a bad person.
That's separate conversations.
Let's just see if his apology is any good.
So there are two parts of it.
First of all, so the first thing you'd be looking for is how unambiguously you apologize, right?
You don't want an apology that says, I'm sorry people felt bad.
That's a terrible apology.
I'm sorry you felt bad.
It was a fake apology.
Because it says you're not really sorry for the thing you did.
You know, you just feel bad that people feel bad about it.
So here's what Ye says.
Quote, I sincerely apologize to the Jewish community for any unintended outbursts caused by my... for any unintended outbursts.
The sentence doesn't make sense.
I think there's a translation problem.
Caused by my words or actions.
It wasn't my intention to hurt or disrespect, and I deeply regret any pain that I might have caused.
And then he said, I am committed to starting with myself to learn from this experience in order to ensure greater sensitivity and understanding in the future, he added.
All right, let's break this down.
You think the first part of the apology was And by the way, nobody's gonna accept the apology.
I don't think it'll make any difference.
Let's just see how he did.
You think the apology sounded sincere?
Sincere, yes or no?
I'll tell you where he lost it.
It's the last part that takes all the sincerity away.
You tell me, do you think this last sentence was written by Ye?
Or by a PR person who told them to say it.
Here's a sentence.
Who wrote this?
Yay or a PR person?
Quote, I am committed to starting with myself to learn from this experience in order to ensure greater sensitivity and understanding in the future.
Not a fucking chance he wrote that himself.
Not a fucking chance.
That's not his wording.
No.
So as soon as you see this came from a PR person, all the benefits are gone.
At the same time, he's trying to sell an album.
So I'm guessing that selling an album involves working with the marketing department of some album publisher, right?
He's not self-publishing, is he?
He doesn't independently publish his music?
Or does he?
Does he?
Maybe he does.
I'm assuming he has to work with some other PR person who said, we can't work with you unless you do an apology.
And it looks like they wrote it for him.
It looks like they wrote it for him.
So, I mean, the fact that he approved it probably suggests that he does feel that a sincere apology was appropriate.
So, I feel, you know, I feel like his head might be in the right place, that he didn't want to offend people and he feels bad about it and he's sorry about it.
Probably.
But I would say the technique of the apology is so PR professional that I think he lost that X-factor reality credibility part.
We'll see if any more comes to that.
Well, Bjorn Lomborg tells us that the hurricanes have become, at least the ones in the US, have become less frequent in the current years.
That would be the opposite.
of what climate change predicted.
That would be the opposite, right?
Now, ears of the machine, do you now all understand that there's no such thing as a complicated climate model that can predict things such as hurricane rates in the future?
You all get that now, right?
I think before there was a point where you thought, well, maybe, maybe it can predict that.
But no, it can't.
That was never even a possibility.
There is no such thing as a model with lots of variables that can predict the future.
Does not exist.
So I think this is a big change heading into 2024.
I don't know if I'm in a bubble.
Well, I am in a bubble.
But I don't know if it's because I'm in a bubble that I think that the belief in climate model predictability Has now gone to practically nothing.
Does it seem like belief in models has decreased?
Is that my imagination?
Do you feel that the persuasion coming from the climate people is far less, look at my model, and far less, oh it's warm in this place, and now it's
Sort of is pulling back the persuasion a little bit because it's not working like the persuasion is not matching the outcomes And it's just really really obvious now yeah, so I think this is another case where we see the gears of the machine and Dad's coming home I guess rebel news had an article and I saw Ian Miles John Posting it.
So there's a new analysis is predicting that by 2030 49% of adults in the United States will be obese.
And about a quarter of adults will be severely obese.
There is no word if the 24% will be severely obese.
Answer the polls exactly the same way.
I think it's a different 25%.
But you know what my first take on this was?
When I saw that by 2030, 49, well, basically half of all adults will be obese.
I thought we were already there.
If you were to subtract New York City and Los Angeles from the base, I think we'd already be there.
I don't know how much you travel, but if you travel to the Midwest or upstate New York or Texas, it certainly looks like more than half of the people are obese.
If you go to LA and you do a bunch of listening, you say a media tour, you can spend all day in Los Angeles without seeing an overweight person.
It's the damnedest thing.
You know, you'll see people with eating disorders all over the place.
But I remember one day I went to a breakfast meeting with some Hollywood types, producer types.
And I remember what they ordered for breakfast.
It was like, it was just like the size of, you know, two coins on a plate.
I mean, literally the entire mass, if you had like scooped up all the mass of the entire size of the breakfast and just squeezed it a little bit, it would have been the size of an acorn.
That was the entire breakfast.
Basically the mass of an acorn.
And when I looked at the people across the table, no body fat.
Perfect BMI.
How do you get a perfect BMI?
You hardly ever eat, because if you eat American poison food, you're going to get fat.
Now, how do you think the news will frame the fact that Americans are becoming obese?
Well, I think they'll say things like they're getting older.
Age has something to do with it.
They're going to say their smartphones are making them less active.
What is it they're not going to say?
Yeah, they're going to say Ozempic might be the point.
What are they not going to say?
They're not going to say, our food sources are obviously poison.
I like to say compromised.
I like to use poison for alcohol.
I like to say compromised.
They won't say it.
You know why the news won't say it?
Same reason the news doesn't attack Big Pharma.
There's big food.
Pretty big advertising.
Pretty big advertising.
So, can you see the gears of the machine?
Half the people are so gonna basically eat compromised food and have horrible health outcomes.
But our news business, because it depends on the food business for advertising, they'll never tell you that.
You might never see a story That suggests that our food is compromised.
I'll bet you'll never see it.
You're never going to see a story that says, perhaps, and I don't know this to be true, there might be a lot of people who have problems with wheat.
I don't know the degree of it beyond celiac.
Apparently wheat has at least three different kinds of reactions you can have to it that are negative.
And celiac is just one of them.
So wheat could be part of this bigger story as well.
Now, did you see how carefully I had to say that?
I have to say I'm not aware of any science that would say there's anything wrong with wheat.
Because if I don't want to get Oprahed.
Remember when Oprah got sued by the cattle people, something about the hamburgers or something?
Yeah.
So if you make a claim, even if your claim could be backed up, you get law fired out of business.
So I have to make sure that when I talk publicly, I say, I'm not aware of any science that says wheat will be bad for you.
I'm not, actually.
That's true.
I do promote people removing things from their diet at least long enough to test it.
So I suggested, for example, to my audience that they should just try a couple of weeks without wheat.
Now, every time you say gluten, you're saying the wrong thing.
Let me be clear.
If you say, oh, wheat might have a gluten sensitivity, you're on the wrong page.
You're on the wrong page.
It's a thing.
The gluten thing is a thing.
But if you don't understand that gluten is just one of three potential problems a person could have with wheat, it's only one of them.
If you don't understand that there's others, you're missing the bigger story.
Now, again, I'm not aware of any science to suggest that eating wheat is bad for you.
I'm no scientist.
I'm no doctor.
But I do suggest that because there's a lot of, let's say, uncertainty around it, that you can at least see what it does to you.
So when I took wheat out of my diet, which I did recently, all my joint inflammation Back pains and everything just went away.
And this is after years of having major inflammation.
Now, is it because of the wheat?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I know that after years of no progress getting my inflammation to go away, a few days after I stopped eating wheat, it was gone.
It never came back.
So that's all I know.
But that doesn't mean it's science, right?
So I don't want to be sued.
Not talking science, just an anecdotal thing.
So, let me ask you.
I asked a number of you to give it a try, and a number of people did.
In the comments, how many of you quit wheat for a few weeks or a month and got some kind of benefit that's obvious?
I'll just read the comments.
Yes.
Now, a bunch of people say no, but I'll just read the yeses.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
All right, so I'm literally reading the number of yeses that are going by.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Yes, lost 10 pounds, yes.
Less dandruff and allergies.
Six years ago, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Now, is that science?
No.
Could it be a placebo effect?
Yes.
Yes, it could be.
What's the smartest thing to do?
If you don't know.
Should you go research and do your own research and study the science?
I would recommend against it.
Because I wouldn't trust any of the science about food.
Because I think the food industry has a little bit too much control over food science.
The same way pharma has a lot of control over pharma science.
So I would just take it out of your diet and see if you feel different.
Here's my proposal.
If wheat is a problem for you specifically, you will really, really notice it in two weeks.
That's my proposition.
It won't be subtle.
You'll really, really notice it.
Now, you could test it by taking it out for two weeks, put it back for two weeks, see if it's different, and if it really is, then go back to getting rid of it.
So, don't treat it like you know.
Treat it like you don't know, but it's easy to test.
So, in other news related, the news is reporting that alcohol consumption is way down.
So apparently the entire alcohol industry is just getting the shake heck out of it.
Why is that?
Well, part of it is the Gen Z, I think, is drinking far less.
Part of it is people like me, and by far I'm not alone, But I'm one of a whole bunch of public figures who now say publicly and often that they don't drink even one drink.
I've never heard so many people say just casually, in casual conversation, I don't drink, as in I don't drink at all.
I've never heard so many people say it as I have in the past year.
And maybe, oh you know what, maybe Trump is the reason.
Do you remember when Men wore hats in the 60s, and then JFK came along and he didn't wear a hat, and then the whole hat business disappeared.
Could it be a coincidence that in the age of Trump, a very famous non-drinker, that drinking goes down?
Now what I haven't seen is that there's a Republican versus Democrat difference.
If you saw Republicans drinking less, But not Democrats.
Then you might think it's Trump, but that hasn't been tested.
Here's what I think it is.
I think it's a little bit that the science has turned.
The science has turned.
So what they used to say, oh, a couple drinks a day or one drink a day might be even healthy for you.
Now they don't say that because that was never true.
Now we know that, you know, even one or two drinks, probably bad for you.
The other thing is, The other thing is the pandemic may have changed some behaviors.
I don't know.
You'd imagine it made people drink more, but maybe not.
I don't know.
If you stopped socially drinking because you stopped being social, and I think that happened to a lot of people, I think a lot of people drank socially and they just stopped being social.
And the drinking just stopped at the same time.
I think some of it is weed.
We'd be more prevalent being legalized in a lot of places.
I think some number of people replaced alcohol with weed But it's not really quite a replacement you know weed is not not really a Social party drug in my opinion.
You know, I only I only use it medicinally Medicinally and I don't recommend it to anybody who would only use it, you know for fun Don't recommend it for that All right But a lot of people are saying alcohol is poison.
I'm afraid alcohol is poison is becoming quite prevalent.
And if I'm any small part of that, I feel good about it.
Well, I think wokeness is going to look very different in 2024.
Believe it or not, this'll, this'll, are you ready for this?
You won't believe this next story.
I'm not sure I believe it, but I've got to, I got to see it.
So Peter Boghossian is posting, the MGM is releasing a film that suggests Hollywood is distancing itself from wokeness.
Now there's a movie about a black author who writes a book and I guess it didn't do well.
So as a practical joke or just kind of I haven't seen the movie, so I'm just intuiting what it's about from just some hints.
So it looks like the black author decided to use wokeness to get his book published, but he was doing it cynically.
So he cynically wrote the wokest book he could, and then all the white people went crazy for it, and it made him really mad.
This is like, damn it!
Like, I'm actually a good author.
See, I haven't seen the movie, so I think this is the The essence of it.
So it's a black guy who's getting too much credit for being a black guy and not enough credit for just being a good author.
So it's basically, it's a comedy, it looks like.
And it looks like it's a broad attack at wokeness.
And the people shown are white people who are just a little too happy about promoting the black woke book that was actually not even a real book.
So, what's interesting about this is I can't imagine this content ever could have been a movie three years ago.
So it does suggest that there's a shift, because this got greenlit in Hollywood.
Now, it's only a partial win, because it's still a movie that primarily features black people looking good and white people looking like assholes.
So it's only a partial win.
But the partial win is that the black hero of the movie is sort of condemning the wokeness and mocking it himself.
So that's pretty good.
But it is yet another movie in which the white people are idiots and the black people are awesome.
Now I'm going to give you a recommendation for some content.
I think I told you I was watching a Series on Netflix called The Diplomat with Kerry Russell.
Wow is it good!
Oh my god!
It might be one of the best written, casted, directed, best scenery.
It is so good!
So good!
Now if you give it a chance, let me tell you this.
I've only watched the first three episodes If you're tempted to bail out in any of the episodes, you have to see the last minute of every episode.
That's all I'm going to tell you.
If you don't see the last minute of every episode, you won't know what happened.
It's so freaking good.
However, however, it's about a white guy being the evil guy and the strong woman being the hero.
And the white president needing to be managed by his black female chief of staff and the other black guy who's helping the white woman.
So I'm going to say this about it.
The quality of the show is so good that the wokeness won't bother you too much.
And I haven't seen anybody do that before.
Most of the woke movies are just garbage because you can't get past the woke part.
This is actually just so good.
You'll just like it.
Here's what I didn't mind about it.
I hate the action shows that show a 98-pound woman beating up a 250-pound man who's a hardened criminal.
I just go, really?
I get that even if it's a male hero, They're beating up more people than one person could beat up.
Like, I get that everything's exaggerated, but at least if you watch Reacher, you know the show Reacher?
It's also a series on Amazon.
Reacher is this gigantic guy with muscles who looks like he can absolutely beat up a room full of people.
So when he does it, you're like, oh, that looks about right.
But if he were a 98-pound woman, I'd be like, come on.
So, that said, amazing.
And let me tell you, it's about, the ambassador is about the ambassador part and the political part, which is really well written.
But what sold me on it is the marriage relationship between the husband and the wife.
Oh my God, that's so good.
The writing is spectacular.
It's just spectacular.
And the acting.
The acting is just as good as the writing.
It's amazing.
The guy who plays the husband, he does such a good job of acting, better than I've ever seen him.
I've seen him before, I don't know his name, but he's somebody you've seen before.
His acting in that part is so good, you can almost hear him thinking while he's doing it.
Thank you, writers.
Because the writers gave him, like, gold.
They gave him such good lines that it's just crazy.
Anyway, enough about that.
The Wall Street Journal board is saying the DEI is being rolled back.
So the Wall Street Journal doesn't have any problem having their board, which represents sort of their brand in a way, come out and say the DEI is bullshit and it's being rolled back.
It's a pretty big deal.
They don't say it's bullshit, but you read between the lines, it's pretty clear that they're not pro-DEI.
How about anything else?
Oh, Axios!
Same day.
Axios is reporting that the anti-DEI movement is expanding in politics, business, and academics.
So on one day, the Wall Street Journal and Axios both reporting that DEI is being pulled back and it's bullshit, at the same time that Hollywood is doing an anti- Wokeness movie.
How much are you liking 2024 so far?
Like, I know, I know there's going to be some challenges.
There might be some black swans and some things you don't like, but there's a lot that's looking good in terms of trends.
A lot.
Kyle Becker reports that the Air Force Is fighting back against their, I guess the new rules is they can't be racist anymore.
And they want to, they really, really want to be racist, but they're not allowed.
So here's a statement from the Air Force Academy.
It says, if we lose our limited window to reshape the racial diversity of each incoming class, it would affect our ability to meet the war fighting imperative of fielding a diverse, inclusive force.
What?
Wait, what?
What do any of those words mean?
Have I ever explained my phrase, word thinking?
This is the classic word thinking.
Word thinking is where you try to make some kind of point by putting words together where the grammar works and you read the sentence you go, I know what all those words mean, and it looks like your grammar is okay, but I have no idea what you're saying, because there's no logic to it.
But listen, this is a phrase that was the best.
It would affect our ability to meet our war-fighting imperative of fielding a diverse, inclusive force.
There's no such thing as a war-fighting imperative of fielding a diverse, inclusive force.
What does that even mean?
Imperative for what?
Is the imperative to win?
Because it doesn't look like the imperative is to win.
Do you actually have a military academy that doesn't have a... has their main imperative of winning?
I would think winning would be right at the top.
No.
No, it's somewhere down the list after your warfighting imperative of fielding a diverse, inclusive force.
All right.
The fact that The Air Force has to weakly and stupidly and incompetently defend their racism.
There's a real good sign because they couldn't do it.
They didn't have anything.
There was no pushback.
Just words.
Words in a sentence.
Well, I have a good reason why you guys shouldn't be racist.
Oh, yeah?
Oh, yeah?
Well, how about my counter, which is words in a sentence which have grammatical integrity?
How about that?
Where's your reason?
I don't need reasons.
I have words and a sentence.
All right.
How about this news?
I'll put this under the news is fake and no one knows anything about anything.
So John Lefebvre.
Lefebvre?
I don't know how to pronounce this French-looking last name.
Lefebvre.
It might be Lefebvre, but it could also be Lefeuve.
Lefeuve?
It could also be LeFou.
I think I pronounced that correctly.
And he points out in the Post on X that the New York Times had a headline in March 2019.
So during the Trump administration, it said that 76,000 illegals came over in a month and we're reaching the breaking point.
So the crisis was reaching a breaking point under Trump when 76,000 illegals came out in one month.
Wow.
That's a lot.
That's a breaking point.
Let's see how many came over this month.
Well, since October 1st, 730,000.
So, under Trump, one-tenth as many people coming over was reaching the breaking point.
Under Biden, ten times that amount.
It's not a real problem.
Who says it's a problem?
Don't you?
Aren't we an immigrant country?
Come on.
It's seasonal.
It's seasonal, people.
Don't you know it's seasonal?
And by the way, we're handling it fine.
There's no problem here at all.
So that's your New York Times.
Yeah, the New York Times says 76,000 is a crisis.
730,000 is some minor problem we're working out.
I don't see why you'd complain about that, etc.
Now, I remind you of my earlier story about the New York Times suing AI at GPT and Microsoft because they trained it too much on New York Times material.
Well, here's some of the material that AI learned from.
So, did AI learn that 76,000 people coming across under Trump is a crisis?
Did they learn that from the New York Times?
Well, if they read the New York Times, they did, because that's what it says.
But not so much 730.
That's just being kind to people, basically.
I don't see how AI can ever be smart.
I just don't see it.
I get the basic idea that AI is still in its infancy compared to what it will be in mere weeks.
I get that.
I just don't see, it doesn't seem like incremental improvement could get you smarter.
How is it going to be smarter than people if it learns from people?
I feel like the more it learns, the dumber it will get.
Am I wrong?
If you took a human and said, human, I'm going to teach you about the world by sitting you in front of the news.
And you can learn about life from the New York Times and the Atlantic and Forbes.
So here you go.
You got Forbes, the Atlantic, and the New York Times.
Learn about life.
It's all you need to know.
It's all right there.
That would make you stupider.
That wouldn't make you smarter.
So how in the world can we have AI that's smart if it's learning on stupidity?
Well, speaking of stupid things, the EU is Ramped up their attack on Elon Musk, essentially.
They're calling it going after X. And they're launching formal infringement proceedings.
Infringement?
Doesn't even make sense.
Like, why are they even calling it infringement?
When you hear what they're complaining about, there's no infringement even in the story.
It's like, so ridiculously obviously just going after Musk.
And they're blaming him for failing to counter illicit content and disinformation, a lack of transparency about advertising, and quote, deceptive design practices.
And they vowed to permanently shut it down if the platform doesn't immediately ban alternative media.
Alternative media.
Who are they talking about?
Me.
Me.
I am literally alternative meaning.
Now, they're probably thinking Alex Jones and Tucker more than me.
But, Tim Pool?
I guess Tim Pool can't be on X, huh?
Because he's, what, too scary?
Russell Brand?
Yeah.
So, let's get back to my theme, the gears of the machine.
Do you see the gears of the machine?
So American media needs to get Trump out of the picture.
Musk is running a free speech platform, which as a side effect is not going to be suppressing Trump or his followers.
So therefore, Musk must be removed.
How do Democrats do that?
Well, if they don't have a legal means to do it, and they don't, they create outside entities And those outside entities can act in all their lawfare outside entity ways to help them attack.
In this case, they're obviously weaponizing the EU.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think the EU would be making these actions against Musk if the United States government, specifically the Democrats, had not asked them to do it or even threatened them to do it?
No.
I don't think the EU would even care.
Would they?
I doubt it.
No, this is clearly, obviously, the gears of the machine showing that it's an illegitimate attack by the EU, European Union, and it's purely political, and it's anti-free speech, and it's anti-ethical, moral, anti-everything.
That's good.
It's just purely bullshit.
Now, would you have known this five years ago?
Five years ago, if the EU was going after Musk, would you have realized it was all about Trump and America?
Probably not.
But now the gears of the machine are really obvious, aren't they?
You know, Europe might need a hand from the US.
Maybe this is what they're doing in return.
All right.
Uh, here's an interesting thing.
So somebody, I guess some people are getting banned from X for breaking the law, which is supposedly the, I think the only line that Elon Musk says you can't cross.
You can't break the law.
And the law says, I think, I didn't know this was a law, but you can't advocate murdering civilians.
Is that true?
I didn't even know that was a law.
Is there a law against advocating murdering civilians?
Yeah, I'm not aware of it.
I don't know what law that would be.
So I suppose it would be inciting violence, right?
But here's my problem.
So let's try to, let's try to, let's say, move the fog out of this issue.
So let's say somebody says, Suppose somebody said, which people did say, the response to Gaza from the IDF should be total annihilation of Gaza.
Is that a case of asking for civilians to be murdered?
What would you say?
Oh, solicitation to commit a crime of violence.
Well, that's not solicitation.
I wouldn't call it solicitation.
But maybe somebody would.
So what do you think?
Is that calling for the murder of innocent people if you say the response to Gaza should be to turn it into a parking lot?
I would say yes.
To me that seems like calling for war crimes.
But that's only if you interpret it literally.
Suppose you interpret it the way normal people talk in the normal way.
Then it just means go hard at Gaza.
But don't kill any babies you don't need to kill, right?
Yeah.
If you see it as hyperbole, it just means go hard at whatever country you're mad at.
It doesn't mean Bavet, it doesn't mean Nuke, it doesn't mean kill all the people.
But it can certainly be taken that way.
So there's a weird gray area there.
So when Elon says, you know, that you don't want to call for murdering people, I had to ask myself if I had done that.
So let me tell you what I've done, and then you tell me if I've called for murdering of innocent people.
I said that I'm 100% supportive of Israel's reaction to October 7th, even if I might not do every single thing that they do specifically.
I'm very in favor of them doing what they need to do.
Now, How could they possibly reasonably do what they need to do without lots of casualties of non-combatants?
Nobody knows any way to do that.
You could do what you can do, but realistically, it's a war zone.
You know, non-combatants are going to be dying.
So if I say I'm in favor of military actions which guarantee innocent people get killed, Have I not called for the destruction of innocent people?
I would say I have.
Now, that's not the point of it.
I don't want anybody innocent to die, and I wouldn't want anybody to do it intentionally.
But I think we have to be a little bit realistic that if you're calling for, you know, major military action against Gaza, you know what that includes.
I'm not going to say that doesn't include innocent people getting killed.
It does.
It absolutely includes massive hardship, wounding, death.
Absolutely.
But I'm in favor of it.
Because the alternative is worse, in my opinion.
Or at least the alternative for Israel is worse, which is the subject country.
So, I agree with Elon that having a standard of not violating the The law is a pretty good standard and maybe the best you can do.
So I don't know that I have a better way to do this, but it is a little bit dangerous.
I feel that I'm, you know, I'm towing the line, but I'm just only barely on the right side of the line.
I feel like it's just, you know, I can very easily accidentally slide over the line.
Yeah.
And then Musk was sort of challenging and said, which of the accounts on X have called for the murder of civilians?
And he was given many examples.
But the many examples would be in the category of, say, Laura Loomer saying they should, you know, basically pave Gaza.
Now, do you think when she says that she really means kill all the men, women and children who are non-combatants?
I mean, You have to put a little bit of judgment and reading comprehension into it.
I'd say no.
It's just normal hawk talk when there's a military action.
It's sort of the ordinary stuff.
All right, but I agree it's a bad idea to say it.
I just don't think you should be thrown in jail for it.
There's a scientific breakthrough where they, I guess some scientists in Sweden, found a way to add electricity to soil.
Although I think they're talking about hydroponics, so I don't know if they need my soil.
But if they add a little electricity to the growing medium, it boosts the productivity by 50%.
So if you have an indoor farm, they've got a technology that can boost your production 50%.
Now, I feel like 50%, obviously, is not immediately being implemented.
There might be some problems, etc.
Well, I feel like there'll be more of this.
There'll be more of these breakthroughs in getting more food out of an indoor farm.
And I remind you that Elon Musk's brother, Kimball Musk, has a company that makes indoor farming.
He has some layoffs, so they're not doing well.
But in the long run, you're going to need to grow food on Mars.
So whatever Kimball is doing would create probably at least the base for what something like farms on Mars, indoor farms on Mars would look like.
So anyway, I'm just going to point you to the fact that there might be huge improvements in indoor farming.
That would change everything.
Scientists have figured out a way to use a near-infrared light to cause vibrations in cancer cells.
via something they inject into your body that is likely to vibrate because of the light, that destroys 99% of cancer cells in the lab, not in the person.
And so you probably ask yourself, how did they get that infrared light inside the body?
Well, they don't give any details, but I think it's obvious.
They put the infrared light into a liquid Clorox, and then you drink the bleach.
You drink the bleach.
No, don't drink bleach.
That'll kill you.
Don't do that.
No.
No, but apparently you can, I'm told by people in the comments, that this near-infrared light, if you shine it on a human, it has the quality that it can penetrate the surface.
So, it turns out you can inject light Into a body.
Yeah, the drinking bleach hoax was, once again, Trump was right.
Bill Barr says he warns about an abuse of government if Trump gets elected.
Do you think that there will be an abuse of government if Trump gets elected?
I think there will be abuse of government no matter who gets elected.
Because every president tries to abuse the office until they get stopped.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Every president lately tries to do executive orders and tries to start wars that aren't quite Congress approved.
Right?
So, abusing the law is sort of built into being the president these days.
No, it doesn't mean there won't be counter forces.
So the issue is not whether a president would try to abuse government power, because they will definitely try to do that.
The question is whether the checks and balances are good enough.
And the answer is almost.
They didn't quite stop Biden, but I do think they stopped Trump.
I don't know which abuses of power he did in the first four years.
Well, speaking of bad things, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected the attempt to take Trump off their ballot.
So, which state was it?
Was it Wisconsin?
No, Minnesota said he's off the ballot, but Michigan said he's on the ballot.
Colorado, sorry, Colorado.
So Colorado ruled, the lower court did.
Well, one of the courts, not the Supreme Court,
Okay, I have to admit, I get so bored when I talk about all this court stuff that I leave out all the clarifying details, like what's the state, what's federal, which state is involved, which court is involved, but just suffice to say that Colorado is trying to keep Trump off the ballot and Michigan Supreme Court wasn't having any of it, so He'll be on the ballot in Michigan.
Now, I'm going to put this in my gears of the machine case.
Do you think if it were obvious that Trump were a insurrectionist and it's obvious that that's reason to keep him off the ballot, don't you think Michigan would have kept him off too?
I mean, the fact that there's one state who says, Oh no, this is bullshit.
And then there's another state that's trying to keep them off the ballot.
If the only thing you knew is that one state said it was okay and another one said we don't think it's okay, what would you do?
You would try to keep him on the ballot.
If there's even one state who looked at it carefully and said, yeah, I think he needs to be on the ballot, I think that destroys the argument for another state that says the opposite.
Because we always want to err on the side of letting the voters decide.
Right?
So if there's one state that says let the voters decide, and there's another that says we don't want the voters to decide, the Supreme Court, and indeed the citizens themselves, should, as one, say in that situation, where there's that disagreement, you have to let the voters decide.
You just can't let the court decide in that situation.
But I think we're heading in that direction.
Well, Vivek Ramaswamy says he's going to make some news January 15th.
That must be when the Iowa... Is it caucuses?
You call the Iowa's caucuses, right?
Not a primary per se.
Do I have the right words for that?
For a caucus?
So, Vivek is predicting a win.
A win in Iowa.
Is that possible?
Do you think Vivek could pull it out?
It's not impossible.
Yeah.
It's not impossible.
He's talking like he has a better idea of what's going to happen than we do.
It would surprise me if he's telling you this and doesn't think there's at least a chance it'll happen.
I think he thinks there's at least a good chance it'll happen.
We'll see.
The caucuses are funny.
He must be getting a good... He's probably getting a really good reception there, so he's got a feeling in his stomach.
But at the same time, he stopped doing TV ads for his campaign because he thinks they're kind of stupid and unproductive.
But when you stop doing TV ads, even though the reason he's doing it is that they're stupid and unproductive and he could put the money in better places.
What rumors did that spark?
Well, of course, it sparks the rumors that he's winding down his campaign and he's really running for vice president.
Which he says he doesn't run for number two.
I mean, he uses his own words for that.
But he says that he's not running for the second spot.
Now, I think he's telling the truth that he's running for president.
I'm sure he's telling the truth.
He's running for president.
But does he have a plan B?
Well, Vivek says he's not a plan B kind of guy.
He's running for president.
And that's exactly the right answer.
It's the right answer if you are only running for president, and it's the right answer if you're not.
It's the right answer either way.
Because you shouldn't say you're running for vice president, even if you are.
Now, I think he's legitimately trying to win the presidency.
And like the rest of us, he probably thinks that Trump is only inevitable if the other side lets him run.
And there's some question about that.
So, well, there's lots of questions about Trump.
So, you know, positioning himself as the strongest replacement should something happen to Trump is a real good strategy.
Good strategy.
So we'll see what happens.
I would not rule out that he surprises in Iowa.
That could actually happen.
The caucus situation is weird, so it could happen.
The Amuse account on X, one of my favorites, Amuse, talks about the movie Hidden Figures.
Remember the movie Hidden Figures?
It was about some black women who worked for NASA.
We were trying to go to the moon, and they were instrumental In a very important way that history ignored and they didn't get their due.
Well, it turns out a lot of that was just made up.
Made up.
So in the movie, they have to use separate restrooms.
In reality, NASA was never segregated.
Well, during those days it wasn't.
They actually were just full employees who were fully recognized and did a real good job.
So that's the truth.
The truth is that NASA treated them like everybody else, and they did a real good job.
But the sort of DEI version of it, where the ladies are the oppressed heroes that somehow persevere against all this discrimination, sort of a fake version.
But did you know that the Department of Education paid to have it distributed to all the classrooms so they could learn history?
That's right.
It's presented to children as fact.
Well, it was presented to the entire public as fact.
So do you think our children learn real history?
Or is it the history that the people in charge want them to learn?
No, children do not learn real history.
And they probably shouldn't.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, but you don't want to teach children real history.
They can't really handle that.
You need to give them the brainwashed version.
All right.
Speaking of which, so Netanyahu's talking about de-radicalizing Gaza, but he does point out that both Germany and Japan were effectively deprogrammed.
So as long as they had control over the school system, you just wait 20 years and you've reprogrammed the generation.
I will once again back Netanyahu's instinct that you very much can reprogram kids.
And I will once again say, it doesn't work with adults.
Under 25, you just tell them that the older people are screwing them, they're just stealing your money, and they were always lying to you.
And young people are just primed to believe that.
They'll believe the last person they hear saying that the one before was lying to them.
It just doesn't work with adults.
Adults are too locked into their opinion.
Yeah, so Netanyahu is right.
They absolutely could introduce, let's say, moderate Islamic clerics and imams or whatever they are, to actually teach in the schools.
Now, I think they would have to bring in somebody with religious credibility.
So the leaders of Hamas, you know, of course, Make an appeal to religion, but they're not religious people themselves.
Like, they're not professionally religious people.
You would need professional, you know, religious people to deprogram the kids.
Because it needs to come from God.
Right?
Basically, you need to say, look, these Hamas leaders, they misinterpreted God.
You know, they tried, but they misinterpreted it.
So we're the experts.
So we're telling you that they got the God thing wrong and that what you need to be doing is, you know, be nice to your neighbors and that's what God wants.
So you could definitely reprogram youth.
That's a very practical thing.
What you can't do is rebuild Gaza and let it run the way it was.
Can't do that.
So Israel will have to have complete control over the security situation.
In the West Bank in Gaza, that's where they're headed.
And they're going to have to have complete control over the school system.
And without that, they don't have a chance.
But I think that's where it's heading.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best live stream you've ever seen.
And would you agree with my themes that we can see the gears in the machine More clearly than ever before.
For example, we can see that the Biden crime family was doing exactly what we thought it was.
We know that the 50 people who signed the laptop letter were part of an intelligence op on the public.
We certainly can see that clearly now.
We know that all the woke stuff was bullshit from the start and really just a power grab and a grifter kind of a thing.
We know that ESG was how some rich white people tried to make themselves look like heroes, but it was never good for the country, any part of the country.
And we've seen that even the election integrity is coming under some, let's say, pretty rigorous questions at the moment.
Although there is no proof that the election was rigged, here's something that nobody's ever argued with me about.
This is the ultimate kill shot.
When I say, well, we do know that every single institution in America is corrupt, and we've learned that, if you didn't already know it, we learned it recently.
Except for all of those elections.
Huh?
All 50 states all run clean.
Good for us.
Because everything else was corrupt, and we know it.
But not all of those elections.
50 separate, highly political, highly valuable, most important thing we do in this country.
I was so lucky that all of that went perfectly.
And we know it.
And we know it.
See, that's the good part.
Not only did it work perfectly, the elections, but we know it.
We know it.
You know, you might say to yourself, common sense requires That you couldn't possibly know if somebody cheated and got away with it.
All you would know is that you didn't catch it.
So you might say to yourself, no, we only don't know if anybody did it.
But no.
We're being told that we do know that it didn't happen because we didn't look for it and didn't find it.
And for a while people were buying that.
People were buying that it didn't exist because we didn't look for it.
You know, very hard.
So I think that, I think that fairytale is leaving people's minds.
