Episode 2341 CWSA 01/02/24 All That Will Be Revealed In 2024. I Can't Wait
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, George Santos, Swatting, Sam Harris TDS, Green Day, X Financial Payment System, Banking Systems, Confusopoly, Mass Deportations, The Atlantic, Scott Bot, Anti-Trump Military Leadership, Intel Election Influence, President Trump, Dr. John Gentry, DEI, 2024 Potential Reveals, Epstein Reveals, Bill Barr, Trump Trial Injustice, Congressional Corruption, President Biden Freudian Slips, Mike Cernovich, Trump Supporters Targeted, Vivek Ramaswamy, DEI Hiring, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
And I'm talking about After the Ice Age.
Anything before the Ice Age we don't know about, we're just guessing.
But since then, this has been the highlight.
If you'd like to take this up to a level that even Atlantis can't understand, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some style, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous something that happens now, go.
Delightful.
Invigorating.
Refreshing.
Well, let's talk about all the news.
Apparently George Soros, his house in Southampton, got swatted.
So the swat was called a fake 9-1-1 thing.
And I have a few feelings about this.
Number one, I do not like this swatting business whatsoever.
It needs to stop.
My second feeling is, what the hell is wrong with me?
Seriously?
I'm not important enough to get swatted?
Oh, oh, Tim Poole can get swatted.
Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Fine, fine.
But do I get swatted?
No.
I have to sit here like an idiot and just say, other people got swatted.
Other people.
And nothing for me.
Nothing for me.
Do you people not know how much of a whore I am for attention?
People are getting attention all over the place.
I'm getting none.
Can we please turn some of this toward me?
That's what bothers me about this whole swatting stuff.
Well, if you're Sam Harris, you might not enjoy seeing that you're trending on the X platform, which he no longer is a part of.
But why is Sam Harris trending?
Apparently the entire Internet, or at least the X platform, Has decided that he looks like he's mentally insane.
And that that explains his Trump opinions.
I can't tell you how many people have sent me the still photo of Jordan Peterson in a split shot with Sam Harris.
And Sam Harris is, you know, looking deranged.
I'm not saying he is.
I'm just saying that the photograph makes him look deranged.
And Jordan Peterson is sort of sitting back thinking, Well, we don't know what he's thinking, but that's what people ask me.
They said, what do you think Jordan Peterson is thinking?
To which I say, if I were as smart as Jordan Peterson, I might know what he's thinking.
But if there's one thing I can warn you about, don't try to guess what people are thinking if those people are smarter than you.
So I'm not going to try to guess what Einstein is thinking or Jordan Peterson.
Yeah, well, whatever they're thinking is probably better than whatever I'm thinking.
But yes, if you're trending because the Internet thinks you look like you are mentally compromised, that's not a good week for you.
And I would do what he did.
End your subscription to the platform that thinks you're mentally ill.
Now, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with Sam Harris, except that the Trump derangement syndrome does apparently, it looks like it broke him.
Like, joking aside, if I may, joking aside, we're not any experts on mental health, most of us.
Some of you might be.
But, in all honesty, completely legitimately, it looks like there's a problem.
Like, actually, not just funny political thing to say, not just, you know, making some content for the show.
It legitimately looks like He could use a little help.
I mean, it does look like a cry for help.
And I'm actually a little concerned for him.
Literally.
Not a joke.
I'm a little bit concerned.
It kind of is starting to look like a cry for help.
So I hope that goes well.
Anyway, how many of you saw Green Day performing on New Year's Eve?
Did anybody catch Green Day?
I'll tell you what my first impression was when I saw it.
Thank you.
Yeah, I haven't seen them in a while.
I haven't seen them played live in a long time.
But when they came on stage, when I first saw them, it looked like a bunch of middle-aged dads who just left the barbecue.
And I was watching, who's the front person?
Billy Joel?
Billy Joe something?
I was watching him bound onto the stage at the beginning of the show, and his bounding on stage looked sort of like he had arthritis or something.
Billy Joe Armstrong.
It looked like a bunch of dads doing a cover band.
It was pretty embarrassing.
So anyway, it was funny to watch.
Platform will have bank payments.
Well, not bank payments, but financial payments you'll be able to do on X sometime in the middle of 2024, we expect.
Here's what I'm wondering about.
Is Elon Musk simply going to compete against other payment systems like Google Pay and Venmo?
Or is he going to try to recreate a bank?
Which would be really interesting.
In other words, could you do all of your banking on X?
If you were, let's say you didn't have complicated needs, you know, basic banking is all you needed.
I wonder.
Do you think that there's going to be a micro lending platform?
And I wonder why we don't already have one.
Probably because of banks or something.
For example, why can't you and I give a loan to somebody on X?
And I'll say, you know what?
I don't really trust this thing, but I'll give a dollar.
I'll give a micro payment.
And then if somebody gets like, you know, a thousand views and a bunch of payments, they just launched their business.
And I'm at a dollar.
You don't think I would put $1 on somebody who had a pretty good idea, but I don't know if it's going to work.
I mean, I'll put a dollar into it.
You know, if a million people put a dollar into it, a lot of people are going to try some new stuff.
So I don't know what kind of things Elon Musk has in mind, but I'd be a little disappointed if it's only payments.
I feel like there's a whole other level that you could take it to.
We'll see.
You should replace banks.
Banks are ridiculous.
Do you ever think about the fact that banks have a checking account, a savings account, A CD, a credit card, a loan of credit, and a mortgage for your house.
How does that make any sense?
Do you know what it should be?
You put your money in a bank, and if you've given the bank more money, if you've put money in, they pay you interest.
And if you take from the bank more money than you have, then you pay them interest.
Shouldn't it be simple?
Shouldn't it be, if you have my money, you give me interest?
If I have your money, I give you interest?
It shouldn't be that easy.
There should be one account.
Why do you have more than one account?
Why do you have a checking account?
And then some kind of line of credit thing.
Shouldn't your checking account just turn into a line of credit if you spend more than you can?
And shouldn't it warn you, hey, you're spending more than you have now, but that's okay because you have credit.
Okay, you're getting close to your credit limit now, you better slow down.
Do you know the reason that all those different products exist?
Let's just see how much you know about banking.
What is the reason so many different products exist?
Well, you're saying fees, and that's pretty good.
But is that right?
Because couldn't you just adjust, you know, if you had a simpler model, couldn't you just adjust your fees so you make the same amount of money?
And it's a simpler model?
Confusopoly is the correct answer.
It's a confusopoly, right?
So as long as everybody's in the business of confusing their customers, you really don't know where to take your money.
So you end up going whatever's easy or close or what your family uses or what your spouse uses.
Let's bet it.
Yeah.
If you were to invent banking from scratch, how much would it look like current banking?
Nothing.
Nothing.
It would be almost nothing except, you know, verifying your identity, basically.
And, you know, keeping track of your money.
But basically, almost all of banking is unnecessary, unproductive, and stupid.
But, because bankers have good lobbyists, they make the rules such that it's hard to get in the business.
So they don't have to compete with you, as long as they can confuse you.
It's called a confusopoly.
How many of you have heard the term confusopoly?
It's in Wikipedia.
You haven't?
Really?
A lot of you have not heard of the term?
I'm looking at your comments.
A lot of you have not heard the term confused apple.
So that's what a phone company is.
If you want to buy a cell phone service, are you really smart enough to know which service is going to give you a better price for the service?
Not really.
They don't price the same.
One will be minutes with some carryover.
Some will be a family plan.
One will be a year.
One will be two years.
Why do they do that?
They do that so you can't tell which one's the good one.
Now, do they have meetings where they collude and say, okay, let's be confusing?
Probably not.
But they all know that if they stay confusing, you can't compare them to the other people.
The moment you could compare a bank to its competitor, or a phone company to its competitor, or an insurance company to its competitor, they would all go out of business.
Because it would drive the competition to lower their prices to compete, because you could see exactly you had the better price for the service, and the price would just keep going down until everybody goes out of business except one.
And you don't want that either.
So yeah, it's a Confusopoly.
And if you didn't know, that's a term I invented.
It's actually in the economic vocabulary now.
If you search for Confusopoly, you will find it's on Wikipedia, and it's a fairly well understood concept from me.
Did I get my Nobel Prize in Economics for inventing the Confusopoly concept, which explains all modern pricing?
No.
Overlooked again.
Overlooked again!
I'll keep trying.
Well, we have a new study that says exercise makes you smarter.
I think we knew that, but every time there's a new study that proves it, then it makes me feel smarter because I exercise.
Let me ask you this.
Have you noticed that there's a gigantic difference Between people who get to roughly my age, you know, late 60s, and their mental decline.
You notice it, right?
It's not my imagination that you notice it.
You notice it.
Now, there are some people who do much better than others.
Take Alan Dershowitz.
He's in his 80s, and if you heard him talk, let's say, behind a curtain, you would have no idea his age.
There's no tell in the way that man talks.
He's like, how old is he?
He's like 83 or something.
How old is Dershowitz?
80?
81?
Something like that?
Yeah.
But imagine being 81, and if somebody heard you talk behind a curtain, they could not tell your age.
That's really impressive.
Really impressive.
Now, I don't know this, but give me a fact check if anybody knows this.
Is Dershowitz a lifelong exerciser?
Because he doesn't look like he has any body fat on him.
Does anybody know that?
I'll bet you... Let me place a bet.
I'll bet you Dershowitz is a lifelong moderate exerciser.
I want to see if somebody can confirm that.
Because I don't think there's any way Your brain works that well at that age, unless you've been a lifelong exerciser.
So I'm just going to put that out there.
Somebody says he runs, probably not still, but yeah.
So, um, I am a lifelong exerciser and I believe that my brain works relatively well for my age, but that's my self assessment.
I'm going to keep exercising.
All right.
Um, I don't know how many of you know this, but although I've been in favor of building the wall and having tight border security since the beginning, I've always been in favor of having complete control on the border.
But, different from many of you, I had not been in favor of mass deportation.
So during Trump's first run, I said to you, don't worry about mass deportation.
It's not going to happen.
And it didn't happen.
So I didn't really get into the conversation about mass deportation because it seemed like a campaign thing, not really a reality thing.
There were just too many of them.
You know, you're not going to send back 25 million people who've been productive American-like citizens for, you know, dozens of years and stuff.
Didn't seem practical.
Now, I understand the concept.
Break the law, there has to be consequence.
I get it.
I get it.
But if you weigh it against the human part and whether we can survive if they stay, which we can, they add more than they subtract, in my opinion, over time.
Not right away.
But as of today, I'd like to go on record in saying I am in favor of mass deportation.
I want you to hear that as clearly as possible.
So I'm reversing my long-held opinion.
That we don't need to send people back, because we don't have too many.
That's what I used to think.
We don't have too many.
And also, I'm going to remind you again the reasoning for that.
When America takes on people from Mexico and Central America, we are more often than not, you know, there's always going to be a criminal element that's in any population, but more often than not, we're getting people who are more American than Americans.
Yeah, I said it.
I'm going to say it again.
We're getting people who are more American than Americans.
If you look at what makes an American, American.
Right?
You know, if, if you look at the traditional values, right, you know, I'm not saying they're good or bad, but if you look at traditional values, good or bad, they tend to be religious, hardworking, family oriented.
And they tend to be really good citizens pretty quickly.
They tend to integrate.
They learn the language.
Their second generation are awesome.
They're hard workers.
They've taken a risk to get here.
They really wanted to be here.
I mean, they really put in some effort to be here.
Now, like every conversation in the world, am I referring to every single person in the immigrant community?
No.
No.
Do I think that if you could snap your fingers and send people back Would I be in favor of it?
I don't know, maybe.
Maybe that would be a different conversation, if it were practical.
But if it's not practical, and they're good Americans, and they have a good history of assimilation, well, it's not the biggest problem in my list of problems.
However, we now have a completely different situation.
We now have a situation where there's some kind of organized, well-funded, destroy America system in place in which the immigrants are coming from all over the world and they're not coming from Central America and from Mexico primarily.
They're coming from Middle East, China, Africa, everywhere else.
Now that system will destroy America if it's allowed to persist.
Apparently, we don't have any legal recourse for stopping this process because it's all legal.
Nobody's doing anything illegal.
They're just making it real easy for the immigrants to come here.
The only way to break that system, short of assassinating the people involved, which would be illegal, would be to make sure it doesn't pay.
So you'd have to start shipping back Everybody who came from outside the hemisphere.
So when I say I'm in favor of mass deportation, I mean starting with people who didn't walk here.
Right?
If you had to get on a boat or a plane to get into our country, you're fucking going home.
If you walked, and I'll include, you know, the train and Mexico and stuff.
If you walked, maybe you need to go home too.
But last.
Last.
Right?
I would take care of everybody who came over the water or in a plane.
You know, if they came from somewhere outside the Americas, every one of them.
Send back every one of them.
100%.
I don't care what it costs, at any expense, at any inconvenience, at any price.
They all have to go back.
Now, the reason I'm not making such a big deal about Mexican immigration is apparently it's not that high.
It's not that high.
The Mexican immigration is not the biggest problem in the world.
And I don't know if you've paid attention, but there are a whole bunch of things happening in Mexico right now that would suggest their economy is getting ready to surge.
The Mexican economy has a bunch of good stuff happening.
They got this big train thing that's going to be good for everything.
We got stuff moving.
Manufacturing is moving in.
It's kind of a positive economic situation in Mexico, more so than ever before.
Oh, I have confirmation that Dershowitz is a workout guy.
I'll tell you, if you see that people smoke cigarettes all their life and get cancer, lung cancer, it's probably good science.
If you see the science that people who exercise have fitter brains, and then every time you see a Dershowitz, you can predict whether they exercise.
Let me just think about that.
I had no idea if Dershowitz exercises, but just based on his brain, And his age, I presumed he was a regular exerciser.
And sure enough, it's confirmed.
That's not an accident.
All right.
So mass deportation, I'm all for it.
And I think it's funny because the Atlantic is trying to scare the public that Trump is in favor of mass deportation.
In the first election, That was actually a pretty good attack.
Because even, you know, I was pro-Trump in the first, you know, 2016.
I was pro-Trump and I didn't want, I didn't want to see mass deportation.
Seemed too hard.
But now it just makes sense.
Now it makes complete sense.
In fact, it's a no-brainer.
Now, I don't know how many people you could actually mass deport, but you should try really hard.
We should try really hard to deport every single person who flew or took a boat, and we should shut that down right away.
Make it not pay.
All right, so there's a influential American psychologist.
He's called Martin Seligman.
He is in his 80s, and he found out recently that his people who know him and have worked with him had created a bot, an AI entity, based on all of his writings.
So they had apparently recreated, they'd recreated him.
And when he tested it out, he actually thought, you know, actually it gives pretty good advice.
So they've actually created an advice-giving entity that's based on a real person's writing.
And of course, now they can make it photorealistic and they can match the voice.
So I asked the following question.
Can a Scott Bot be far behind?
Now, unlike most of you, I have a huge body of public work.
So if you're an author, or if you're an American psychologist who wrote a lot, it should not be hard for a Scott Bot to completely absorb my personality.
Because if you've got how many hours of Live streaming do I do?
At least two hours a day.
So I'm up to like, you know, 800 hours a year times, what, five years?
And that's just live stream.
Then you add all the interviews that are on the internet.
You add all of my books, all of my cartoons.
The cartoons don't exactly talk to my personality as much as my sense of humor, I guess.
The only thing that the Scott Bach could not do is sense of humor.
So AI seems to be good on look, and sound, and grammar, but it's not good on sense of humor, and it's not good on, you know, not hallucinating, yet.
Now, Brian Romelli promises us that Sometime this year, we'll have access to something he's working on, which would be a personal AI.
So you'd have your own AI agent.
Now, I'll tell you again, here's how the world will go.
Guarantee it.
This is the safest prediction you could ever make.
It seems unlikely to me that each person will have to go find their own AI app every time they want to do something.
We're going to have our own personal AI that nobody can touch, and that's the only thing that should interact with the other AIs.
So you won't interact directly with some other AI app.
You'll talk to your own, and it will figure out which app it needs to deal with to get you what you need, because it's going to be too hard to keep track of all the apps and what they can do and compare them.
It's going to be a confusopoly.
Oh, here we go.
AI is already a confusopoly.
Do you know why somebody would buy ChatGPT subscription instead of, let's say, Bing?
Because they don't know the difference.
You're going to have a million apps that look like they're sort of the same, but they will price things differently, so you don't know which one's the good one.
So you're probably going to need your AI just to sort it through the AI Confuseopoly to figure out which ones to use at the right price.
Some will have term limits.
Right.
Some will have usage limits.
Some will have too much censorship.
So it will be impossible for you to sort out which app to use.
And that will be intentional.
Well, you probably knew this, but the U.S.
military finished their study of all the white supremacists and extremists in the military, and they found... They found extremists in the military, the white supremacists.
They found... They didn't find any.
There weren't any.
No, it wasn't zero, but it was something that looked like the rest of the public.
So there were actually some acts of extremism, but they were somewhat trivial in their numbers.
So, why was the military even looking?
Do you think that the generals believed there was a problem, or do you think it was always an op, so that as long as they were looking for the problem and said there was a problem, it would put a cloud over Trump?
That was all just to put a cloud over Omega and Trump, right?
So that was an op, wouldn't you say?
But was it ever, do you think there was ever any chance that was real?
And that they just really, they were worried, and they really needed to find out?
Probably not.
It was probably exactly what it looked like.
It was a political op, that as long as they were talking about it, it was good for their team.
So, yes, our military is political.
Great.
Great.
Wouldn't it be good if they were just trying to protect us?
But no.
They mostly want to see generals in dresses.
They want to see most of our leadership wearing dresses.
Because, you know, that scares China and Russia.
Look at our generals.
They look so good in dresses.
All right.
And yes, that's a sexist statement.
Let me explain this again in case anybody isn't new to me.
I'm completely opposed to any form of discrimination against individuals in employment, renting, loans, personal life, marriage, anything individual.
Don't do any discriminating.
Don't discriminate on race or gender or sex or anything.
There is an exception where you can discriminate all you want.
Did you know that?
Yeah.
Defense.
Your personal defense, you can discriminate as much as you want.
If somebody says, why did you punch that guy who was wearing a hat?
And you say, the last 10 people who wore a hat mugged me.
Okay.
Now, is it up to me to tell you that you acted incorrectly?
Well, maybe if you violated the law, the law has to get involved.
But do I think that you made a mistake by punching the 11th person who wore a hat, if the first 10 people with hats punched you?
I do not.
To me, that seems like a quite reasonable self-defense stance.
And I would not question it.
It might be illegal, and the law would have to deal with that.
But I'm not going to question it.
Logically, ethically, or morally, because nobody gets to make the decision but you.
I don't get to make your personal defense decisions.
If somebody is an intruder in your house, are you going to call me and say, Scott, there's an intruder in my house.
Should I shoot them?
It's not up to me.
Only you can make that decision.
And you know what?
You can use anything you want.
You can use anything you want.
You could use your biases.
Absolutely.
If there's somebody in your house, a home invader, you can use any bias you want.
Any bias you want.
It's not illegal.
It's not immoral.
It's not an act.
It's just self-defense.
Likewise, national defense discriminates like crazy.
Right?
Does anybody complain that our pilots have to have good eyesight?
Does anybody complain that our soldiers need to have legs that work?
Nobody complains.
Because when it comes to defense, you don't fuck around.
You do what works.
End of story.
End of story.
So yes, you can discriminate all you want in the military.
But maybe they should get back to that instead of looking for bad MAGA people in the ranks.
All right.
So, according to a professor at Georgetown University, who used to be in the CIA, he was a CIA analyst, Dr. John Gentry.
He says he believes that the, you know, the intel agencies are going to try to interfere in the 2024 election.
So he's an actual ex CIA guy.
Who is credible enough to be a Georgetown University professor, and he thinks it's somewhat obvious that they're going to interfere with the election.
Now, of course, he points to the, you know, famous Hunter laptop thing as an example.
And he says that the intel agencies have been compromised by politics.
But here's what he says is the reason.
He said the old standard of not getting involved in politics was largely gone.
And he pointed to two main reasons.
Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
Now is there anybody who watches television or follows the news who doesn't know that those two gentlemen have a lot of questions to answer?
Anybody didn't know that there's something about those two.
There's something about them that you need to know.
I don't know what it is but There's something about them you need to know.
And he blames them for bringing in DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, and policy actions that basically made it political.
So apparently if you hire people for their DEI characteristics, you might get more people who are political.
I don't know if that's directly connected, but that seems to be what he's suggesting.
And he now thinks that political activism is common.
So, we now have a number of people saying that they think our own intelligence agencies will assassinate Trump, or attempt to.
So the people saying that directly Or Vivek Ramaswamy running for president and telling you that one of the candidates is likely to be assassinated.
Not just maybe, but likely.
Before it even happens.
Now we're also seeing Steve Bannon say it.
I think Jack Posobiec said it.
I think Cernovich has hinted at that as well.
I say it directly as well.
How many people?
Tucker Carlson says it directly.
RFK Jr., I think he's saying it directly, is he not?
Have we ever had Don Bongino saying it directly?
Alex Jones is saying it directly.
I'm looking at some names going by as you're suggesting them.
Have you ever seen a situation like this before?
This is pretty unprecedented, isn't it?
Do you know that it's possible that the only thing keeping Trump alive Is us.
Literally us.
And when I say us, I mean the people who are independent enough that they can say out loud in public, in front of all of you, it looks like they're going to try to kill him.
Because they've created a situation where they've talked themselves into him being evil enough that that makes sense.
Yeah.
So, I feel like it's our collective understanding of this risk and our willingness to say it out loud and look crazy.
It's just not easy to say it out loud.
You do look a little, you know, like you're close to the edge there.
But I don't think it looks crazy at all.
I think that it looks obvious.
You know, and Tucker does the best job of explaining it.
You know, once they don't beat you in the vote and they don't beat you in the impeachment and they can't beat you in putting you in jail, They're out of options.
What's left?
And I don't think that we can say it's never happened in American history, because there's a strong suggestion that JFK was not what it looked like.
So, honestly, I think we're keeping Trump alive.
We being people who are willing to say this out loud, because if it happens, God forbid, but if it happens, Then nobody will be surprised at the response.
I don't know what it would be, but whatever it is, it's going to be big.
I'll tell you one thing.
If Trump goes down, you're going to get something just as aggressive.
The one thing that the Republicans are doing well, with the exception of Nikki Haley, is that they're suggesting that there's something behind Trump that could be As interesting as Trump.
You know, certainly Vivek.
All right.
In my opinion, the biggest existential risk to the United States is the DEI.
Now, I'm not saying that with like a clever political hyperbole.
I actually think that's true.
Like literally, scientifically, You know, objectively and somewhat obviously.
Because DEI is the only thing that can break everything.
Everything else that could go wrong, at least we have everything else that's still working to fix it.
You know what I mean?
Like if we had a techno... Let's take the year 2000 bug.
The year 2000 bug was something that was broken.
You know, we thought the computers were gonna...
Stopped working because they couldn't handle the year 2000.
But, because our technology industry was so robust and healthy, it fixed it.
So, there are things that we can do wrong, but because our military is good, we got away with it.
Right?
So there's a whole bunch of situations where you can make, you know, have a big problem in some part of your larger system, but you can fix it because the rest of the stuff is still working.
So the rest of the stuff figures out how to fix the stuff that's broken.
But DEI is different.
DEI, by its nature, Guarantees that you're looking for a small pool of candidates to add to your diversity, and simply because the numbers are small, you're going to end up going further down in the quality list in order to get your number.
So, necessarily, even if you assume that every person was equal quality in the world, every demographic group, if you even start with that assumption, it still destroys the world.
This is an important point.
If you start with the assumption that all the ethnicities and genders are equal capability, equal potential, if you start with that, and you operate on that assumption and try to get equal numbers of them, that will destroy the world.
It's guaranteed.
If you were an engineer and somebody said, I'm going to design a system, and they take all the politics out, and they just described it like a machine, an engineer would say, well, obviously that's not going to work.
It's only because it's political that we even think it makes any sense at all, right?
It doesn't make sense logically, engineering-wise, physics-wise.
It doesn't make sense in terms of math.
There's literally no argument for it, except that it's how people feel and what they want to feel.
So DEI can destroy, and is, Literally every part of the country.
So you can see it's the claim here is that DEI from this professor, Professor Gentry, he would claim that DEI is ruining the intelligence people.
We just talked about the military wasting energy looking for, you know, white supremacists that they couldn't find.
Why does that happen?
DEI.
It's all part of the same philosophy.
Why is it that the system is more divided racially?
DEI.
Why are our corporations no longer as capable?
DEI.
Why is it that every time you go to get any simple thing done, just accomplish any simple thing that involves another person helping you, you can't get it done?
There's like a massive incompetence problem in the country.
Again, not related to race or religion or gender.
If that's what you're hearing, you're missing the whole point.
This would be a problem if everybody had exactly same average capability.
You'd get the same problem.
It's just you're trying too hard to force a square peg into a round hole in a short time frame, and it can only go one way.
So until we can say that out loud, there's no hope of fixing it.
But I do think that 2024 will be the year It will be the year that we can say that out loud, and then there can be some changes.
Certainly Harvard has destroyed its entire reputation with DEI.
So the colleges are worthless, the military is degraded, our intelligence is bad, intelligence departments, and our government, of course, is a basket case, and our corporations are less competitive.
And then throw on top of that climate change, and whatever regulations that causes, Yeah, we're basically doing it to ourselves.
It's self-inflicted.
Here are some fun things we could find out in 2024.
There's some indication there might be some Epstein flight logs released that would be different than the ones you've seen.
There are a bunch of fake ones and old ones going around.
Ignore those.
I don't know what's real yet, but ignore the fake Epstein lists.
Don't believe anything you see about an Epstein list unless you see it on the major news.
If you see only on social media, Umberto Eco and John Cialdini send their love.
Don't know what that means.
Anyway, here's some things we might find out.
We might find out more about Epstein, but I doubt it, because obviously that's been buried pretty hard.
At this point, here are the things we can say about Epstein.
There's no doubt whatsoever he was murdered.
There's no doubt whatsoever our government had some involvement.
Maybe other governments, but certainly ours.
And there's no doubt whatsoever that it was to cover up for the powerful people that were being blackmailed.
There's no doubt at all.
Does anybody have any doubt about what happened with the Epstein situation?
We're way past any questions about that, are we?
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's exactly what it looks like.
And do you think Bill Barr is dirty?
Because Bill Barr was the one who essentially put the stamp of approval on the suicide narrative.
It looks like it.
Yeah.
I mean, it would take some investigation to know.
But on the surface, it looks like he is compromised.
Or that he did it.
Now, let me give you the positive version.
The positive version is that he knew it would destroy the world if we found out.
So there is a possibility that he's saving the world.
You know that, right?
It's not your first choice, because you'd rather know.
And you'd rather let the cards fall where they fall.
But if you're in his position, and you knew that releasing this could actually destroy the world order, which it might.
You know, it could destroy, let's say, alliances.
It could destroy marriages.
It could destroy the effectiveness of leaders.
It could destroy a lot.
Do you think there's any chance that Barr said, you know what?
I hate everything about this Epstein thing.
He's guilty as hell.
There was definitely a lot of blackmail, but I got to cover this shit up because the world isn't ready for this.
What do you think?
So I'm going to say this is my working assumption.
My working assumption is that Barr covered it up, but I'm going to be open-minded as to why.
Your assumption is it's for a bad reason.
It might be.
Certainly, that's the first thing you think.
But put yourself in his position.
Would you necessarily destroy the country to just know the truth?
I don't know.
Don't know.
So I'm going to say that I think Barr is a more interesting character.
Because he's not, he's not immune to patriotism.
He is not immune to patriotism.
I don't know what else he is, but I don't think he's immune to patriotism.
So, I'm going to give him at least that possibility.
Here are some things we might, just think about the things we might find out in 2024.
Now, I'm not going to bet that any of these will be, will happen, but we might.
We might find out some surprises about the 2020 election.
Or at the very least, we'll find out there are no surprises, because there are some specific things that people are tracking down that look kind of interesting.
I don't want to say cracking.
They do look interesting.
I think we'll find out a lot more about the trials against Trump and how fake they are.
We're talking about a month from now, we might get some kind of an answer about whether Trump's businesses will be taken from him for his alleged illegal activities.
But just hold this in mind.
The illegal activity in mind was that he overvalued his properties when he dealt with Deutsche Bank.
The Deutsche Bank Leaders who who testified said that they don't pay attention to the client's Estimates they do their own and That they liked doing business with them and they would do business with them again, and they lost no money Now have you ever seen anybody go to jail when the victim the victim Says under oath there was no crime
They didn't say that they weren't hurt.
They said there was no crime.
And they're the victim.
How in the world does that trial complete when the victim said the crime didn't happen?
The fucking victim.
Under oath.
Under oath said the crime didn't happen.
Not only did they say the crime didn't happen, they explained completely credibly Same thing I told you before they did.
That it is bank procedure to not pay attention to the customer's estimates because they can never be trusted.
So it's not illegal to have a high estimate and give it to a bank because they don't even pay attention to it.
They do their own.
And that's what the bank said.
And I told you the bank would say that months before they did.
Now, what is the country going to do If Trump is found guilty.
Well, actually, I think he's already found guilty, right?
Didn't the judge already rule that he did, in fact, inflate his asset?
Yeah, he's already guilty.
So the only decision is what they're going to do about it.
Right?
What they're going to do about it.
And one of the possibilities is they would take his businesses away from his control.
In America.
In America.
So he runs for public office, and then he would lose his entire empire, or at least the control of it.
He'd still have the financial interest.
But he'd lose control of it for purely politics.
This would be such an injustice.
I mean, I think Jack Smith would have to increase his security quite a bit if this happens.
Yeah.
Because there's nobody who's going to see this as an act of justice if he gets convicted.
And, well, anybody who understands the issue would know it's not justice.
So, powder keg.
We'll see what happens.
How about Ukraine money laundering?
Think we'll find out more about that?
Maybe.
You think we'll find out who is bribing Congress on the asylum question?
Or the TikTok question?
Wouldn't you like to have a list of people who are not in favor of changing the asylum process?
The asylum process is why Majorca and Biden can say they're doing a good job.
Because they're following the law.
As long as the people apply for asylum, we have to process them as if they're legally in the system.
Well, why don't we change the asylum process?
Does anybody know the answer to that?
I don't.
I have no idea.
The only working assumption I have is massive corruption.
The only explanation is that Congress is bought off.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think if you did a poll of the public in any state, in any state, you said asylum is the reason that we have this massive immigration problem?
Do you think we should re-look at the asylum laws?
What do you think an American citizen would say to that question?
Oh yeah, of course.
Obviously.
Yeah, obviously we should re-look at the asylum law.
Because it's causing a problem.
Why is that not happening?
Polls say 40%.
They don't say 40%.
If anybody hears the situation described as the entire source of all the illegal immigration from Africa and the Middle East and China, nobody's going to be in favor of that.
Nobody.
You probably couldn't even get one person.
So if you describe it properly, it would be closer to 100%.
It would be in favor of re-looking at it and changing it.
And it doesn't happen.
What could the possible reason for that be?
Well, corruption.
There's no other reason.
Here's what I think.
I think we should have a percentage that we use as a standard to know when corruption is happening.
For example, let's say 70%.
If there's something that the public understands, they understand the question, it's not complicated, and 70% of the public wants it, and Congress won't do it, I think we just assume it's corruption.
If it's 50-50, you can kind of understand why things don't get done.
Right?
You can understand that.
But if it's 70-30, In the public.
And let's say there's a majority in both parties.
70-30 overall.
But a majority in both parties.
It doesn't get done.
How could that be explained any other way but corruption?
Even incompetence wouldn't get you there.
Because they do get stuff done.
So it's not incompetence.
It's got to be intentional.
Why?
Just corruption.
I can't think of another reason.
We may find out more about the January 6th hoax, especially the fact that they threw away all their records.
Maybe we'll find out if aliens are visiting the Earth or they've always been here.
All right, remember I've told you that when I took hypnosis classes, I learned that when people do these so-called Freudian slips, that they do mean something, especially if there's more than one.
One could be a mistake, just a slip, but if somebody does the same type of slip over and over again, it's really telling you something.
And I saw Kaneko the Great, in one of his posts, he showed a compilation video of Biden saying things that probably meant exactly what they said, or exactly what he said.
Here are some of the things he has said in public.
I don't need you to vote for me.
As if the vote wasn't going to matter, like he was going to win, and then he talked about he needs you to help him after he gets elected.
He actually said, I don't need you to vote for me.
Now, he also said that we have the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in American politics.
We assume what he intended to mean is we have an anti-fraud organization.
But what he said was we have the biggest fraud organization.
Now, if that were the only thing he said, again, I'd say, well, he's old.
It's just a slip.
It's easy to say, you know, to forget the anti.
That'd be an easy mistake.
But he has also said the following thing a number of times.
It only matters who counts the votes.
A number of times in public.
Joe Biden has said it only matters who counts the votes.
Joe Biden said that a number of times in public about the United States, that it only matters who counts the votes.
Out loud, directly, multiple times.
Now, of course, he was doing that when complaining about Republicans, you know, maybe rigging something.
And maybe they do.
I don't know.
But he says it directly.
Now, do you think that one person could say this many things without Being what he's actually thinking.
I don't need you to vote for me.
Most extensive voter fraud organization and it only matters who counts the votes.
That would be a lot of Freudian slips.
Yeah, that would be a lot.
I'm going to say this is exactly what it looks like.
To me this is Joe Biden being completely aware that the election is rigged and that it needs to be rigged in his favor in order for him to win.
That's what it looks like to me.
Can't read his mind, but the signal is unmistakable.
All right.
I remind you that if you see anything about the Epstein client list or the flight list, it'd be because Mike Cernovich retained a lawyer and got that.
Sertovich, who had nothing to do with anything to do with Epstein, he was just a concerned citizen who decided we didn't know enough.
And the only reason we know anything is because somebody not involved in the government spent his own money to make it happen.
It's the only reason we know that.
Because Sertovich did it.
Just hold that in your head for a moment.
That the only reason we know anything is because a citizen did it.
Spent his own money.
Wanted to know the truth.
I mean, just think about that.
It's incredible.
All right.
There's a new poll for Trump that shows he's leading Biden with Hispanics and young voters.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Trump would actually, Straight up election?
Do you think he would actually beat on Hispanics and young voters?
Wouldn't that be the biggest switch around we've ever seen in politics?
I'm not sure I believe it yet.
Here's the problem with it.
I think there's still a lot of undecideds.
And I feel like the undecideds probably would go where they've historically gone.
So, you know, same in 2020?
I don't know.
The polling is having some big problems in modern times.
I don't know if this is, I don't know if I'm going to believe this yet.
But Biden also lost support among black voters.
Way down.
So, What do you make of this?
Mainstream media has been calling Trump a white supremacist and racist for, what, seven years straight?
Just non-stop.
And he's actually gaining in the group that he's supposed to be the white supremacist against?
What's that all about?
It's got to be about capability.
It's got to be that people are looking or seeing through the propaganda at this point.
If you were Hispanic or black, don't you think you would have noticed that every white person in charge is called a white supremacist?
And wouldn't you just start to be blind to it?
Because it's like, it's just what we call everybody.
I feel like being called a racist doesn't mean anything in 2024.
It just doesn't have any It's just, it's empty.
There's nothing to it anymore.
Because it's so ridiculous.
In most cases, it's so ridiculous that you don't even take it seriously.
All right.
Well, we'll see if that poll holds up.
So Bannon also was talking about how...
All the Trump supporters are being taken out one by one.
And you see it, right?
You see anybody who is pro-Trump is being targeted by hit pieces and lawsuits and all kinds of stuff.
Now that you see the larger context, I'm too close to this to be objective.
But do you think that me being cancelled globally Was it political?
Or was it really about what I said?
How many of you think it was political?
You may be influenced by me when you say that.
I think we're all biased on that question.
Here's what I think.
I think that it's never one thing.
Most things are complicated.
So most things have, you know, multiple reasons and multiple variables.
So I don't think it was necessarily completely political.
But I don't think I would have been cancelled worldwide unless I had been speaking politically for a long time.
Do you?
Do you think I would have been cancelled had I not been a political voice?
I don't think so.
Because for one thing, you never even would have known about it.
Right?
If I were not somebody who talked about politics all the time, nobody would have even tweeted around the video.
Nobody would even know about it.
China got me?
Maybe.
But I think the fact that the Washington Post was leading it is not a coincidence.
Now, there's also a business element to it.
Because I've been a critic of the Washington Post long before they cancelled me.
So they were paying me while I was criticizing them.
That wasn't going to last.
Let me tell you that the least surprising thing was the Washington Post cancelling me, because I've been calling them shit for, you know, years.
And they are.
They're just complete garbage, the Washington Post.
So that's not a surprise.
Yeah, so as a political dimension.
And just imagine somebody saying this even a few years ago.
Here's Vivek Ramaswamy.
He's talking about Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard.
And you ask yourself, could any major candidate for office have said this even a few years ago?
You see how things have changed, right?
So this is Vivek Ramaswamy.
Claudine Gay raises a problem for Harvard that Kamala raises for the Democrats.
Uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Are you already a little bit worried for him?
Uh-oh.
Where's he going with this?
Yeah.
So Claudine Gray, gay, raises this problem for Aubrey de Kabla, raises it for the Democrats.
When someone got the job based on race and gender, it becomes impossible to fire them.
The Supreme Court ended affirmative action in college admissions.
Now time to end it in university hiring.
Wow.
Yeah.
He says it directly, that Kamala and Claudine Gay are diversity hires, and if you do diversity hire, you can't fire them.
He says that's what we're seeing.
Oh my god.
Now, am I wrong?
You couldn't really say that.
If you were a major candidate, you couldn't really say that three years ago, could you?
You'd be cancelled.
Will he be cancelled?
No.
So what has changed?
Let me ask you, what has changed?
Why can we say this out loud now?
What changed?
Well, some of it is people like me who are just unwilling to be censored at any cost.
So there's some of that.
So some of it is leadership.
Accidental as well as intentional.
In Vivek's case, it's intentional.
He's showing leadership.
So it makes it safer for you.
In other cases, people showed leadership accidentally.
I guess that would be the case for me.
I wasn't trying to show you any leadership.
It worked out that way.
But I think that people are fed up.
I think that the The immigration feels different when it's no longer our neighbors.
Because the way I feel about my neighbors, Mexico and Central America, is really, really different than I feel about somebody who flew from the other side of the world.
I just have a better feeling about my neighbors.
Period.
So some of it is immigration, some of it is leadership, some of it is Vivek, some of it is people just had it, some of it is just too far.
Yeah, hashtag too far.
I think that's really the thing that explains it most.
Well, Qatar mediators, Qatar if you prefer, they think they have some agreement in principle to have a A one-month ceasefire and get 40 hostages back.
What do you think of that?
Do you think a one-month ceasefire to get 40 hostages back is a good deal?
You know, I would have said no earlier in the war, but at this point Israel has such a control over the area and they've destroyed so much Would a month actually help Hamas, or would they just starve in a month?
Here's the main question.
I believe that in the beginning, time was on the side of Hamas, because if you gave them some extra time, they could prepare extra good.
But once they've been degraded to a certain point, and presumably they'd be running out of, you know, food and water and ammunition and everything.
Once they're running out of stuff, and there's not any easy way to get new stuff in, Because I'm sure it's tight.
Then can you afford to take a month?
Because what is the mosque going to do in a month?
They're not going to get any new supplies.
They're going to be in their tunnel for another month.
I mean, at this point, you could just leave them in the tunnel, couldn't you?
And little by little, you find out where the tunnel entrances are.
Let me propose this.
If you had a ceasefire, does that mean that the IDF, the Israeli forces, would have easier access to look for tunnel openings and search around for their targets?
If nobody's shooting at them as they're walking down the street?
Now, I can't even imagine how you could have a ceasefire.
Does anybody think a ceasefire would hold for a month?
Who thinks the ceasefire would hold for a month?
I don't.
I think it, you know, two hour stops.
But here's the question.
If you're tempted to say that Israel would be giving away a military advantage by pausing, I'm not so sure.
That was definitely true in the beginning.
It would have been a military advantage to give away.
But now?
I don't think that watching from the outside we have enough information.
But I suspect that Israel could maybe wait a month without losing too much.
And if they got some hostages back, it's a win.
So I'm tentatively mildly in favor of this.
But I'm very skeptical that anybody would agree to a one-month ceasefire.
Seems like fake news, doesn't it?
Why do you need a month?
What's a month by you?
Why can't you do it in a week?
I don't know.
Speaking of Netanyahu, his popularity is down to 15%.
1-5 in Israel.
That's how many want him to keep his job after Gaza.
But weirdly, his Gaza policies are popular.
Now, have you ever seen that before?
Have you ever seen a country go to war and their leader became less popular?
So Israel is attacked, and their leader, who they say is doing apparently a good job of the response, and he's less popular?
What is going on here?
How does that make sense?
How do you get less popular by doing a good job in a national emergency?
I feel like maybe the data is wrong.
Like maybe it's the way they ask the question?
Something like that?
I don't know, maybe a TikTok thing?
Speaking of TikTok, so I, as you know, I don't use TikTok for the obvious reasons, because it's a Chinese propaganda machine, but a lot of TikTok videos end up on other sites after the fact.
Have you ever gone down the rabbit hole of the anti-Israel argument?
So I ended up, I guess the algorithm decided to feed me anti-Israel stuff yesterday.
So I saw more anti-Israel stuff yesterday than I've seen since the beginning of the war.
Every bit of it had a TikTok label on it.
Let me say that again.
I've seen more anti-Israel propaganda in the last 48 hours, I guess, than everything put together before that.
All of it had a TikTok label on it.
In other words, it started in TikTok and ended up where I saw it.
Now, there's one thing that both the pro-Israel and the anti-Israel propaganda have in common, and it's maddening.
It's maddening.
They both ignore the other side of the argument when they make their argument.
So I actually listened to somebody talking to a Palestinian citizen who was complaining that her house was bulldozed and that 26 other houses had been bulldozed around the same time.
Isn't there like a follow-up question to that?
It was in a documentary I saw.
Isn't there a follow-up question like, was there any reason for that?
They don't bulldoze houses randomly.
They bulldoze your house because somebody in the house was a terrorist, according to Israel.
Now, that doesn't mean they're gonna be right every time.
It doesn't mean that I necessarily support what they're doing.
I'm just saying that if you're complaining about your house getting bulldozed, and you don't at least say a few words about maybe why they did it, that's not a documentary.
That's bullshit.
That's some bullshit right there.
Likewise, when Israel says, hey, you know, we let the Palestinians, you know, determine their own future and all that, and they leave out what life is like for the average Palestinian, well, that's just bullshit propaganda.
So the argument that I was hearing from the anti-Israel ones is, if you had lived the way the Palestinians live, Could you imagine that you might also become or it's easier to imagine somebody would become a suicide bomber because they have no hope.
Now the anti-Israel propaganda was trying to push the position that if you made the Palestinians prosperous and healthy, They would have no reason to attack Israel, and then your problem would be solved.
And therefore, logically, all of Israel's problems are caused by Israel, say the propagandists, because Israel is doing the thing that makes the Palestinians miserable, and it's the misery that caused them to become terrorists.
Therefore, it's really all Israel's fault.
Is there anything left out of that story?
Yes.
What is left out is if the Palestinians were prosperous and healthy, they would still want to destroy Israel.
It wouldn't be any different.
It is also true that their lives are a struggle in many ways.
But it's not true that if you fixed it, there's any evidence whatsoever, any evidence, there's not even a hint that would make any difference at all.
Because the children are being taught to kill the Jews and the Zionists are all bad.
You know, if they start making more money, they're not going to stop thinking they need to do that stuff.
Now, it might be harder to recruit a suicide bomber.
It might be harder.
But didn't those, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the 9-11 suicide hijackers Weren't they Saudi, some of them, or all of them?
How many of them were Saudi residents?
Yeah.
They didn't even come from a country where everybody's abused, at least in that way.
So, yeah.
So the other thing that is a real tell is that when you hear the complaints of the Palestinians, they actually sound, if you were to take them out of context, And you didn't know why things were the way they were.
It does sound pretty bad.
Like their inability to use roads, their lack of access to as much water.
Those are real things.
But you know what?
You know what is very much like Black Lives Matter?
Some of you remember that in the early Black Lives Matter days, I was hearing complaints that I thought, you know what?
Some of those complaints sound like things everybody would agree with.
Like, let's have less police brutality.
Good.
I like that.
And how about maybe we get everybody, you know, we help fund police cams.
So they have body cams.
That's good for everybody.
Removes any questions about what happened.
So I thought to myself, hey, maybe I could be useful.
I'll help Black Lives Matter get what they're asking for.
Because that sounds reasonable to me.
And then I learned that Black Lives Matter didn't really have any interest in solutions.
Yeah, that's a longer story.
But trust me when I say I'm not guessing that they had no interest in solutions.
I found it out the hard way.
They had no interest in solutions whatsoever.
And I think that the Palestinians have the same problem.
If Black Lives Matter had started with, let's say, a list of three to five reasonable-sounding demands, And said from the beginning, this is the stuff we want.
We want these five things.
I think they would have found a lot of support.
I might have been one of them.
You know, if there were five reasonable things.
But where, have you ever seen the Palestinians put together their, you know, their list of the five reasonable things they want to live good lives?
Of course not.
Because they're not really dealing on the, I want some reasonable, compromised level.
They want to kill all the Jews and take over the land, satisfy their dead ancestors, all that stuff.
So, here's the thing you need to know about all the propaganda from either the pro or anti-Israel side.
It always leaves out the other side's position.
So it's all just useless bullshit.
And that's why I say, You can talk all day about how things should be, and what people should do.
It's useless.
It's pure power.
The Middle East is just power, and nobody does anything because that's the right thing to do.
It's just brainwashing and power, and that's the whole story.
So you don't even need to be in favor of anything or against anything.
It's just power.
So those with power will control the land, If that changes and somebody else has the power, they will take that land.
That's your future.
All right.
People want to disrupt the Western prescribed nuclear family.
Yeah, I've heard that.
They're doing a good job.
But I also think that the nuclear family is a historical relic that will never satisfy 75% of the public.
25% is perfect, but 75% it just won't work.
So we need some kind of a better model for that, but that's another story.
Hey everybody on YouTube, thanks for joining and I'll see you in the morning tomorrow with more fantastic live streaming.
