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, Miele Coffee Machine, Nikki Haley, Reid Hoffman Funding, Epstein Blackmail Videos, Blackmailocracy, Replacement Theory, Congressional Corruption, Open Border, Tucker Carlson, VP Harris, J6, President Biden, Beau Biden, Hunter Biden, MSNBC Tiffany Cross, Rep. Dan Goldman, Border Patrol Sandwiches, AI Mentor Robots, Brain Hacking, Presidential Immunity, DOJ Weaponization, President Trump, Imagining The Future, Jamie Dimon, Senator Fetterman, WEF Collectivism, Kevin Roberts, Mark Cuban, DEI, Reality Blindness, 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 you're in the place that you want to be.
I mean, honestly, I'm a little jealous of all of you because you get to watch this.
You know, it's fun to do it.
That's why I'm here.
But wow, do I envy you right now.
Today's show is going to be lit.
I've got a theme.
No, it won't be the usual random miscellaneous.
I got a theme.
You're going to love it.
But before we get to that, would you like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny human brains?
If you want to do that, all you need is A cup or a mug or a glass.
A tank or a chalice or a sty and a canteen jug or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Yes!
Alright, well that is just the beginning of your happiness.
I may have mentioned before my new coffeemaker.
Now, it turns out that my coffeemaker is the theme, in a conceptual way, for the rest of the show.
So I've got this high-end Miele coffeemaker, which is quite an amazing machine.
Here's the concept.
The concept is you buy this high-end machine, You have it plumbed into your kitchen so you never have to add water.
It's got these big containers you put your coffee beans in and it grinds it and makes this incredible coffee with a creme on it and you can have, you know, various different kinds of special coffees and it's all with one button.
You just walk in and boom!
Brilliant coffee.
Now is that a good idea?
It is, right?
Can you imagine what a good idea that is?
Now it's especially good for somebody like me, because I'm a creative person.
So exactly the time of day that I'm in my creative mode, You don't want to have to mess with making coffee.
You just want to push a button and then stay in your head.
And then when it's done you pick it up and you stay in your head and you're always in flow.
You've heard that term?
Flow state?
You hear it for programmers.
Computer programmer.
It takes them a long time maybe to get into the right mindset for programming.
But once you're in it, you do not want to get out of it.
Because as soon as you get out, you have that whole wind up again to get back into it, if you even can.
Now that's even twice as important for a person who writes or makes comics.
Because I've got to be in exactly the right frame of mind for hours, like hours every day.
I have to be in a certain mindset or it just doesn't work.
Now, if you all agree that the concept is amazing, you can stay in your flow state, push one button, have not just a good cup of coffee, but an exceptional cup of coffee.
At the concept level, who wouldn't want that?
It's all good, right?
Now let me tell you what actually happens in the real world.
In the real world, it's such a, you know, a marvelous invention.
That it's designed to tell you when there's any kind of flaw.
You know, like a fault or something's not lined up just right.
It also tells you when a part of it needs to be cleaned.
You know, different parts at different times.
It's got some maintenance built in that runs occasionally, etc.
And the net effect of it is that nearly 100% of the time you go to have your coffee, it turns you into a maintenance worker.
Sometimes the beans need to be refilled.
Sometimes the brew unit needs to be washed.
Sometimes something's misaligned, sometimes the head is out of place, sometimes the coffee, the excess coffee grounds is full, and sometimes the water spillover thing is full.
Sometimes it needs to be descaled, sometimes it needs to be cleaned.
And that's just a starter set.
So, what does this sound like to you?
The concept is amazing!
In concept, one button, stay in flow state.
Boom!
Delicious coffee.
Yeah!
Nailed it!
In reality?
I curse at my machine, go completely out of flow state, and I'm changing the beans like this morning.
I think there were two faults this morning.
Two cups of coffee, two maintenance things I had to do.
It's one for one, you know, over time it's one for one.
Every now and then you'll get a coffee cup, a coffee without problems.
Now, could that be fixed?
Probably.
Because the only thing it would take is for it to warn me in advance when my coffee beans were starting to get low, so I could choose to do the maintenance when I'm not in flow state.
So the problem is, if you're ever in flow state, you just can't use this device.
You just can't.
You've got to do something else, because it'll take you right out.
Now, does this sound like a lot of government policy?
That at the concept level, who could argue with that?
Push one button, get a delicious cup of coffee, stay in flow state, everybody should be in favor of that.
But then, in the real world, It doesn't work anything like that.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my theme for today.
Let's start with some backward science.
ABC News, your source for reliable science.
He says that there's a research that shows that, yes, it's true that men do tend to have better navigational skills than women, but the new study revealed the reason for it is not anything genetic, like if you thought there was some, like, natural gender or sex difference.
Well, first of all, you're a pig.
And second of all, ABC News is here to tell you it's not based on any kind of natural difference.
It's based on the fact that boys tend to play outside more often.
They're more encouraged to play outdoors.
So they learn their navigational skills by playing outdoors.
Totally believable, right?
Everybody?
Every bit of that made sense to you?
I mean, commonsensically, that just makes sense, right?
Because, let me tell you where I learned to navigate, because I'm one of those men with navigational skills.
It was in my backyard.
I remember my sister would stay in and, you know, she'd play with dolls.
But I'd go into the yard, still within full view of my house, and I'd play around out there.
Well, I was developing navigational skills because every time I left the house, within visual distance of the house, I could get back to it.
And I'm not bragging.
I mean, the other boys could do it too.
But boy, if you let a girl out in the backyard, And you say, it's time for dinner.
The boys are like, yay!
and they run back in the house because they got... you know, they're not going to be able to do it.
And they're not going to be able to do it.
Hello, locals.
Did you miss me?
We had a little catastrophic failure there.
It made me log out.
Log back in.
But we're all good.
Alright, so here's the part you missed.
ABC News says that boys have better navigational skills, but it's because they play outdoors more.
And it's not even because they want to play outdoors.
It's because people encourage boys to play outdoors.
So, as I was saying, you know, my brother and My sister and I would be playing in the backyard, and mom would say, it's time for dinner.
My brother and I, having these good navigational skills, we'd like, OK, there's the house.
Here's me.
I can solve for this.
And I'd walk toward the house, and I'd go inside.
And that's called good navigational skills.
But my sister, God bless her soul, she'd be out in the house, and she'd be looking at it, and she'd be like, I can see it, but how do I get to it?
And honestly, she's still there.
She died in the yard.
So we'll miss her.
Alright, sorry sis.
She's listening to this right now.
She's laughing.
You're laughing, right?
You're laughing, right?
No, she did not get lost in the yard, because she has excellent navigational skills.
And as a second part of this story, I have terrible navigational skills.
I don't have any navigational skills.
I have none.
I have good spatial skills, but I don't pay attention when I go anywhere, so I can never get back.
Here's what I think is happening.
Here's what I really think the science is, without any benefit of any studies.
I believe that after, let's say, 300,000 years of humanoid evolution, that boys are designed to go hunt and control territory.
That men are designed, by evolution, to hunt And to control territory militarily.
If we don't have a military, we'll do it with football.
If we don't have football, we will literally whip out our penis and spray down your lawn.
So we, you know, dominate it, own it a little bit.
We're basically owned for terror.
We're built for territory.
So when I go into a place, I'm thinking territory.
You know, when I play football, I'm trying to gain a yard, right?
And if I'm playing a game, I'm trying to make my impact be as large as possible.
If I'm a batter in a baseball game, I don't want to bunt.
I mean, sometimes I have to, but I want to get a home run, thus increasing the physical range of my impact.
So boys, I think, evolved to be all about the physical space.
Because if they hunt, they got to know where to go and they got to know how to get back.
Right?
So I would think that nature is selective for people who could get back home after the hunt.
Probably it's just that.
Or it's because boys are encouraged to play more outside.
That's what counts as science.
Well, there's a funny video compilation.
Rand Paul had some fun mocking Nikki Haley, so he was retweeting a compilation of, he says, since Nikki Haley is refusing to debate Ron DeSantis before New Hampshire, I present to you Nikki Haley debating herself.
Now the first thing I thought was, oh, it's going to be one of those AI things, where somebody has an AI Nikki Haley debating herself.
Nope!
It was actually video clips of her saying, I will not do X, and then followed by, we should really do X. But I will not do Y, followed by, You know what would be a really good idea?
A lot of why.
So it's actually hilarious that she doesn't seem to have any standards or philosophical mooring or anything.
She's just sort of going with whatever is going to get her elected.
That's hilarious.
If you want to see that, it's in my ex feed.
I guess the court's judge said that Trump can be on the ballot in the Washington state, which is a big deal, because this, I guess it was the 14th Amendment was trying to be used to say he's a damn insurrectionist.
And so he can't be on the ballot.
But the judge said no.
Now, can somebody give me an update?
So far, he's not been denied The ballot of any state, right?
In a confirmed final way.
There may be some still challenges.
But so far he's on every ballot, right?
Okay.
Yeah, I think he's on every ballot.
I think it's going to stay that way.
Yeah, there may be some temporary hiccups, but I feel like if it came to the Supreme Court, how is that going to go any other way?
Right.
The Supreme Court is not going to keep him off the ballot.
I don't see how it could.
All right.
Well, so we'll see.
So I see you mentioning Maine.
But, you know, until it's Election Day, I think you can assume that that will get corrected.
Maybe not.
All right.
But anyway, that's good news.
So Tucker Carlson had a new video.
He has a theory that basically goes like this, that what the Democrats are up to.
According to Tucker, the evidence would suggest that their strategy looks like this.
They know Biden can't win.
So that's not part of their strategy.
Their strategy would be more along the lines of supporting Nikki Haley, because in some of these primaries, Democrats can just vote for the Republican candidate.
So I guess Reid Hoffman, famous rich Democrat funder and founder of LinkedIn, which got sold to Microsoft, he's one of the main funders of not only Nikki Haley, But the lawsuit against Trump for that E. Gene Carroll thing.
So the same person who's funding Nikki Haley's campaign, a Democrat, is funding a Republican.
That same Democrat is funding the lawsuit against Trump and the E. Gene Carroll.
Now, that's not the only things he's funding, but it gets you a little sense of him.
There are some who claim, and I don't know if this is true, that he visited Epstein Island.
Is that true?
Or is that just another one of those rumors?
Because there are people on that list that really did not go to Epstein Island.
So I'm going to say I don't know that's true.
I'm going to not state that to be true.
I'm going to state that to be something somebody claimed.
Because if I don't have a picture of him on the island, I'm not going to base it on somebody's list on the internet.
So, whether or not that's true, and I'm going to say I'll assume innocence until proven guilty.
Remember, that's always the standard.
That's an accusation.
But he's not the government, right?
Reid Hoffman is a private citizen.
So you should assume that he's innocent of anything illegal unless somebody really proves it in court.
Anything short of that, he's innocent.
So I'm not going to buy that he's on the Epstein list or that he's ever been to the island or anything like that.
However, may I remind you that we don't have the Epstein list or the videos, which means that somebody does.
Whoever has the videos is who's running the country.
You know that, right?
Whoever has the Epstein stuff, it was all designed to blackmail the most important people.
Do you think whoever had that power, like the power of Thanos, you know, at all the rings, do you think they said, you know, this is too dangerous.
We better put this in a drawer somewhere.
No.
No, whoever has his blackmail material still controls whoever Epstein was trying to control.
And the thing is that you just have to hint that you have it and you've got all the control you need.
Hey, you know, I would never, I would never out you as being on Epstein Island and having illegal sex.
I would never do that.
But I do have the videos.
I do have the videos.
They're in my control.
But I would never... I would never show them to anybody.
By the way, you know what would be a great idea?
Is if you were to fund the Democratic Party to the tune of $20 million.
It's a separate conversation.
No, no, I'm not tying it to the Epstein's.
No, no, no.
No, I would never... I would never show that stuff in public.
I have it all.
And it would take a lot for me to want to, like, show it in public or leak it or something.
But, you know, I just want you to know I have it all.
You don't need to directly blackmail anybody if they know you have the goods, or if they suspect it.
So there might be more than one blackmailer.
There might be a blackmailer who has the stuff, and there might be another blackmailer who is even smarter, who is pretending to have it.
You know, who might potentially have actually had it.
So I think we're a blackmailocracy in any sense that we're a democracy.
It's kind of childish at this point.
It feels naive to the point of childish.
We're clearly a black male driven place.
Do you know why the border is not closed?
There's no American reason.
There is no American reason for the border to be the way it is.
There's none.
That's clearly an outcome of corruption.
I don't know the details.
It could be, you know, China trying to destroy the fabric of America.
Could be the cartels make so much money they bribe the Congress to let them keep doing it.
Or some combination.
Some combination.
But I'll tell you what it's not.
It's not a bunch of Americans deciding what's good for America.
And I'm starting to think that the idea that the Democrats have a clever plan of replacing the white Christian voters with brown people from other countries that they can get to vote Democrat.
I have a contrarian theory.
Because the Republican, standard Republican conservative theory is that it's all a plot to increase the number of Democrat voters.
I think they also want to do that, and that's why, which state is it that's going to let them vote, the illegal migrants can vote without ID?
Like that's actually, oh, California.
Arizona.
It was actually Arizona.
You're right.
Arizona recently said that you can vote if you're illegal.
You just vote.
They just decided to ignore the Constitution or something.
So, here's what I think.
I don't think that's the main reason behind the open borders.
There's something else driving that.
And there's something to destroy the country, not to make Democrats stronger.
But while it's happening, Democrats quite wisely, I assume, say, well, if they're going to come here anyway, we might as well take advantage of it and let them vote, because I think they'll vote for us.
So I think that the whole replacement theory is a head fake.
Meaning that, in practice, something like it is really happening.
There will be more voters of a different type than are already here, if things go the way they are.
But I don't think that's what's starting it.
I think that's just people taking advantage of a situation that was going to happen anyway.
So whatever is behind it, we don't exactly know, but you have to assume corruption in Congress.
Because at the very least, if somebody just disagrees politically, they would make an argument for what they're doing.
Nobody on the Democrat side is making an argument for it.
They're literally saying it's not happening.
All right, explain that.
A normal topic would be two people with an argument that they disagree.
This isn't that.
No.
This is not two people with some kind of philosophical disagreement.
This is something that's coming from the outside.
I don't know where.
My guess is the cartels have bought Congress.
But it could be something else.
Right.
Yeah.
So, not replaced, but combined.
Yeah.
So I think the replacement part's the add-on.
I don't think that's the underlying cause.
All right, here's some fake news that you probably believed.
Oh, by the way, the alternative to Tucker's theory, that Nikki Haley is the secret Democrat in Republican clothing, that they're going to try to sneak in there as a hidden Democrat, that's plausible.
Completely buy into that, but it's plausible.
The alternative theory is that the Democrats know Biden is shot, but they also knew that having a president of low capability was working for the deep state or the people who wanted, I don't know, military things to happen, whatever.
So they may say, you know what would be the best thing?
Is another low capability president that we can control So that theory would say let's let's limp Biden over the finish line we'll just get him there one way or the other and then he immediately retires for health reasons and Kamala takes over and She's easy to control Because she is an idiot and
You know, I'm very reluctant to say somebody who's risen to the highest levels of politics has any kind of mental deficiency, because, you know, that seems deeply unlikely.
But the more you listen to her, the more you think, no, the base problem is you're not smart, or even a little bit smart, about, you know, important things.
She might have a good memory, you know, so she can get through law school and stuff like that, but she seems not smart.
That seems to be the basic problem.
All right, imagine that it's today, and you still believe that January 6th was an insurrection.
At what point does that become embarrassing, if ever?
To imagine that trespassing was the way that a bunch of scraggly people who were there for the purpose of protecting the Republic against what they thought was a fraudulent election, that the real plan was to conquer the military of the United States and take power by trespassing or something.
So I would ask you to just ask your Democrat friends who still believe that hoax to connect the dots and simply describe how those protesters were going to get control of the nuclear triad.
Like what were the steps after the trespassing?
Surrender?
Was the military on the verge of surrendering to them?
Just connect the dots.
I'm not asking for, I'm not even disagreeing with you.
You just tell me what you're thinking and then I'll tell you if I agree or not.
But I haven't heard what you're thinking.
Just tell me your actual opinion.
Show me how you believed that trespassing and taking selfies and abusing a lectern were going to lead in a cause and effect, you know, A leads to B way to physical control of the country.
Do you know how you could have defeated that insurrection?
You could put a fence around it and wait for them to starve.
They didn't have weapons.
There's no insurrection that would ever be easier to thwart than the people who didn't have food and they locked themselves in a building.
So to imagine that you still thought there was something like an insurrection is embarrassing at this point.
So I think you should treat it that way when it comes up.
Just mock it as the most ridiculous belief.
Michael Schellenberger has a whole thread and post on this today that people still think it was an insurrection.
It's basically stupid.
All right.
Here's some fake news.
Do you believe that Joe Biden has inaccurately said in public a number of times, including recently, that his oldest son, Beau, Died because of Iraq or in Iraq because of the war.
How many think that Joe Biden is so dumb he thinks that Bo died in the Iraq war when the truth is that he died of a brain tumor well after the war.
Well after he left the war.
So here's the truth of that.
That's fake news.
So Biden said it again but there was a community note.
Apparently what Biden believes, because he's spoken at greater length about it, he doesn't believe his son died in Iraq.
He does not believe that he died of military action, and has never said that.
He says he died because of Iraq.
Specifically, he believes that Bo was too close to, I think, the burn pits or something.
Something that would have poisoned him.
And that the exposure may have been the reason for his brain tumor that killed him well after he was out of the military.
It was some kind of chemical, cobalt, I don't know what the details are.
Do you think Joe Biden knows that's true?
Or is it true?
Have the medical professionals said, yeah, we're pretty sure that's what caused it?
It's hard to prove.
But here's what is true, if that's true.
If it's true, then see if I have this right.
Didn't Joe Biden support the Iraq War?
Didn't he?
And wasn't the Iraq war optional?
So, Joe Biden supported an optional war, which in his own telling, killed his own son.
Is that fair?
That he supported a war that, in his own opinion, killed his son.
Now, what about the Ukraine war?
Do you think that Hunter would be in the trouble that he's in legally If there was not a President Biden forging a war in Ukraine with Russia.
I don't think I don't think Hunter would be in trouble.
So Hunter is likely to end up in jail or dead.
You know if he does something because he doesn't want to go to jail because of his father entering a second optional war.
So you've got a father Who may have, in his own belief, supported a war that killed his son, an optional war.
Not a war of national defense, an optional war.
And is supporting another optional war, in a sense.
You know, optional is, you have to stretch that definition a little bit.
But, did he kill both of his sons?
Is he in the process of killing both of his sons for unnecessary wars?
Now, kill or jail or mentally disable or ruin his life in some way.
Now, I'm not saying that Hunter's innocent and should not have the consequences of justice, but I'm right, right?
Has anybody connected these dots before?
That Joe Biden killed both of his sons with two optional wars?
I haven't seen anybody say it, but to me that's the most mind-blowing part of this whole story.
That he's so lame that his own sons are dying because of his optional ores.
Do you know what Don Jr.
is doing this weekend?
Well, I don't know.
But he's probably not defending himself against money laundering in Ukraine.
I don't know for sure.
Do you know what Barron Trump is doing this weekend?
I don't know.
But he's not dying of a brain tumor because he went to an optional war in Iraq.
That's not happening.
There's a big difference between Trump and Biden.
There's a really big difference.
And it's so big that it's almost, if it weren't full of tragedy, it would be humorously big, the difference between their performances.
One got us into two wars that killed his own family, and that didn't even slow him down.
He's still in favor of it.
And Trump is whatever is the opposite of that.
All right.
MSNBC's Tiffany Cross, who I guess is no longer with MSNBC, one of her biggest complaints was that she got a show on MSNBC, but that her bosses kept telling her she wasn't spending enough time trashing Trump.
And she kept saying versions of, OK, I mean, that's an important story, too.
But what about all these other stories?
And I'm paraphrasing, of course.
But her bosses said, yeah, yeah, yeah, but you really got to bash Trump.
OK, but not all the time.
I mean, I could do other stories, too.
And they were pretty much, no, no, no, there really are no other stories.
We really need you to bash Trump.
So this is another one of those.
It was exactly what it looked like.
Because when you watch them in CBC, you said to yourself, this doesn't look like news.
This looks like a bunch of people bashing Trump.
And that's all it is.
There's like literally nothing else.
And that's exactly what it was.
The executives were trying to make the staff do nothing but.
Remember, I tell you, you have to know the players.
I already talked about that.
Reid Hoffman.
So I don't know what's true with Reid Hoffman, but the concept I should have mentioned before is that if you only hear the news, you don't know anything.
Because the news doesn't tell you how the players are connected with the other players.
For example, if the only thing you knew was that Eugene Carroll was suing Trump, you say, oh, that sounds like a personal thing and maybe there's something to it, etc.
But if you knew that the lawsuit was being funded by a Democrat who wants to get Trump, you say to yourself, oh, That's not necessarily true then, is it?
I mean, I don't know if it's true or not.
I don't want to get sued for libel.
I'm just saying that as soon as you put, you know, ugly money behind it, all the credibility goes away.
So if you don't know there's ugly money behind something, you don't really have the full picture, do you?
So there's that.
All right.
There's a viral video of what's being called a angel mom whose daughter died from a fentanyl overdose.
So I guess that would make me an angel stepdad, because my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose.
But she was in Congress talking to Dan Goldman, who was doing his best to try to get her to support his point of view, which is that the Democrats say they want extra funding for Border Patrol.
And Dan Goldman is trying to get her to say, But so you would agree, yeah I'm paraphrasing, you would agree that if fentanyl coming across the border is a problem, and of course it is, then adding more border patrol would be one step toward decreasing that problem.
And do you know what the angel mom said?
Again, paraphrasing.
Nope.
Because I've been to the border, and you haven't.
If you talk to the Border Patrol, they'll tell you they're making sandwiches for the migrants.
If you add more people, they will make more sandwiches.
If you make more sandwiches, you'll have more people coming.
Because they like sandwiches.
If you add more people, do you know what that's like?
Hey Dan Goldman, I've got a coffee maker for you.
In concept, all you have to do is push the button and you get a delicious cup of coffee.
So everything's good about that, right Dan Goldman?
No.
In the real world, they're fucking making sandwiches.
And this angel mom, she not only destroyed him, but she knelt on his fucking neck.
It was just a joy to watch.
And the joy was not, you know, the subject is so tragic, it's almost unimaginable.
Literally unimaginable.
Watching Dan Goldman not understanding anything about how the real world works, and thinking he can just push the button on that coffee maker and get a delicious cup of coffee, and then having his reality shattered by somebody who said, you've never been there, have you?
You've never been to the border.
Beautiful.
Just beautiful.
All right.
How about Oh, AI education.
I was going to talk about this at first.
So Tyler Cowen writing in Marginal Revolution says there might be two ways that AI will change education.
One is it might make better videos like Khan Academy and come up with tests on its own.
And, you know, maybe it does lesson plans and just does like some kind of video teaching.
Now that would be good.
But as Tyler Cowan points out, on Marginal Revolution, that the other model might be better, which is having an AI or a robot as a companion.
And then you just hang around with your companion, and it kind of teaches you about life as it goes.
Not necessarily, you know, teaching you spelling or something like that, but sort of giving you life advice That would maybe put you in the right mindset to go learn how to spell on your own.
You know, basically setting you up for success by being effectively a smart parent following you around all the time.
But you would think it's just your buddy.
Yeah, mentor.
And I agree with that.
Because specifically what I wanted was a robot And I will have one.
I will have this robot.
Probably the first Tesla that comes out.
And I want it to follow me around and I want to be able to turn to it and say, you know what?
I keep hearing about this Sumerian civilization.
Was that like the first civilization?
And what kind of technology did they have?
And what part of the country or the world were they in?
And it just tells you.
And then you're just walking down the street and suddenly you know about the Sumerian culture.
That literally is something I did with AI the other day.
I always wanted to learn about Sumeria, but I was never interested enough to research it in front of a computer.
But while I was just doing my morning routine, I had my AI out, so I just told it to give me a lesson on Sumeria.
So it did.
Now I know.
So that's the way I like to learn.
Dr. Huberman's talking about a new study that says that love can reduce pain.
Do you believe that?
That if you're in love, the region of the brain that handles that euphoria interferes with the pain part of the... I mean, it feels like it.
Now, what is the thing that causes you the most pain?
Love.
What's the thing that helps reduce your pain?
Love.
So it's not a perfect system, is it?
The only thing that can reduce your pain naturally is the thing that causes most of it when it goes bad.
But my only addition to this is that this is an example of brain hacking.
Now it's not one you can do easily because you can't just say, Oh, I'll fall in love if I want to get rid of my pain.
But as a hypnotist, this is the sort of brain hacking I've been doing all my life.
And let me describe what I mean by that.
Brain hacking is taking advantage.
This is my personal definition, taking advantage of the accidental connections that exist in your brain that are never activated because they're only accidental connections.
It doesn't, it doesn't occur to you.
To even activate them.
They're just an accident of geography.
You know, there's something in your brain that's like physically next to or connected to something else.
And you can do everything from change your preferences to change your mindset if you can find those weird accidental connections like love and pain.
Now, love and pain, like I said, you couldn't work with that because you can't optionally fall in love.
But there's a whole bunch of stuff That you can do that would hack your brain in different ways to make yourself more effective.
It's a larger thing which, once you learn how to do it, it really does change everything.
If you don't realize you can change your own brain, not just by education, but fundamentally reprogramming what connects to what, so it's just a different machine, then you're really losing out.
Because your brain is very, very programmable, not just learning, Not just learning, but to become a different machine.
Like, you can actually change the structure of the machine through your behavior.
Well, Trump is arguing that presidents should have total immunity.
If you haven't heard of this argument, the argument is that no matter what the president did, The other team would say it's illegal and then they would always just be prosecuting the president and there wouldn't be anything else.
Now, let's do the real world versus the concept.
Concept, nobody's above the law.
That even if the president breaks a law, like murdering somebody, right?
I mean, it's more important that the president is held to the standard of law.
Just like, wouldn't it be great to get a cup of coffee just by pushing one button?
Yeah, let's just hold everybody to the standard that nobody's above the law.
Then people will not want to break the law, and we're all better off, right?
Yeah, delicious coffee.
But in the real world, that place where Trump resides, that place that connects Trump to every, you know, working-class person, is that the real world has no fucking connection to your concept.
In the real world, the day somebody took office, they would already be under attack by the other team to try to put them in jail.
It's all they would do.
Now, if you don't think that's all they would do, you haven't been paying attention.
Because they have the power to impeach, so what did the Democrats do all fucking day?
They tried to impeach him.
All fucking day!
And to the point of not even doing the people's work.
They were doing that while the pandemic was unfolding.
And they weren't paying attention.
Right.
So the real world, if you give somebody a hammer, they start hitting shit.
That's it.
You give somebody a hammer, they're gonna hit some shit.
You think it's just gonna be nails, don't you?
Well, maybe, if you're lucky.
No, but if you have a hammer, you could probably hit more than a nail.
All right, so Trump is right about that, and then one of the, I guess some judge asked this dumb question, which is, are you saying that if, on the last day of office, the president ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill his political opponent, That that should be completely okay, right?
So you're saying... Now... I think we need to get better judges.
Can I explain how the real world works?
Let me explain how the real world works.
The president gets SEAL Team 6 together and says, I want you to kill my opponent.
SEAL Team 6 then tells their bosses and that guy goes to jail forever.
That's how the real world works.
SEAL Team 6 isn't gonna go fucking kill your political opponent.
In the real world?
Now suppose they did.
Suppose that actually happened.
And then suppose we knew.
Alright?
If nobody knows, that's a whole different story.
But suppose we knew.
And you say, yeah, I did it.
I got immunity.
Too bad.
Neener neener.
Do you think that that president Could then just go out in the world, having murdered somebody in front of all of us, and just live their life?
No.
Somebody would kill them.
Somebody would try.
And their family could never go out in public again.
Their entire life would be basically never leaving the house.
Yeah.
Now, nobody's going to kill their opponent on the last day of the presidency, because nobody thinks that works.
It's ridiculous, right?
So in the real world, Trump is 100% right.
You can't have presidents being charged with crimes for what they do in office.
You just can't.
He's 100% right, and their counterexamples are just stupid.
Peter Navarro, it looks like he's going to jail.
Or he might.
The Department of Justice is seeking six months in prison because he defied a subpoena over the January 6th thing.
His claim was that he was covered under executive privilege and immunity, but that claim is, you know, sketchy, according to the courts.
But let's add Peter Navarro to the pardon list because we see more and more examples of Republicans being hunted and we don't believe that this would have happened to a Democrat necessarily.
And this is my most motivating topic.
So we got a lot of critical things that have to happen from the border to everything else.
So there's lots and lots of considerations when you're looking for a new president.
But my number one consideration is the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the pardons.
I'll take that over everything.
I'll take that over everything.
Just give me that one thing.
And that's why I could easily support a Vivek or a Trump.
Or a DeSantis, because I think they'll all end up in the same place on the pardons.
I think.
I hope.
But, yeah.
The weaponized justice system against Republicans has to be the first thing we fix.
It has to be.
You gotta fix that, because that's like having something shoved down your throat, and then somebody's inviting you to dinner and asking you why you're not eating.
Well, maybe it's because you shoved a broomstick down my entire throat.
Like, get that out first, and then we can talk about the other stuff.
So, yeah.
You better get those guys out of prison right away.
All right.
And by the way, every second between now and the time a Republican frees those people, which I hope is what's going to happen, is a disgrace.
It's a disgrace to the country.
I was going to say embarrassment, but I don't get embarrassed.
The country should be embarrassed.
I don't think you can show your head in public when you're like this.
I think that we have nothing to say to other countries.
I think we should just shut the fuck up about their abusing civil rights or whatever we think they're doing.
Yeah.
No, if we're putting our own citizens in jail for political reasons, I know, I know, there's crimes involved too, but we all agree, pretty sure, in the real world, these crimes would have been ignored, you know, as just protests.
So let's talk about something else.
So, you know, the Congress was trying to figure out a deal that if if Democrats would agree on something on the border, maybe Republicans would agree on something on the budget.
So trying to reach some kind of deal that was both border security and budget.
Do you know why that can't work?
There's there's a reason it can't work.
By design, it can't work.
Here's what can work.
You can negotiate when the two of you don't want exactly the same things, or things that are, you know, opposite logically.
If I've got a product, and you want it, and I don't need the product, because, you know, I can make all of them I want, but I want your money, then we can make a deal.
Because what you and I want are different things.
You want my product, I want your money.
Boom!
We got a deal.
We just have to figure out the amount.
But if you want the same things, such as, I think I would like the Jewish state to exist.
Well, what do you think?
I think I would like it to completely disappear.
That's not something you can negotiate.
There's no middle ground between existing and not existing.
Not really.
Likewise, there is no logical way you can make a deal on budget and border, because both sides need both things.
Right?
The Republicans need the border to be fixed, but the Democrats need it just as hard for it not to be fixed.
There's no way to make a deal.
They want the same limited resource that can only be one way or the other, and there's nothing in between.
Same with the budget.
The Republicans want what they want on the budget, the Democrats want what they want on the budget, and it's not the same.
So you can't have the budget being what the Democrats want without it being not what the Republicans want.
So you see the point yet?
I hope I'm being clear.
You can't negotiate by saying that these two things are your two negotiating variables because there's nothing to work with.
So the reason it's not solved is that it's unsolvable.
It can't be solved under that setup.
Now, who do you think would know that that can't work?
Trump.
Because Trump knows how to make a deal.
He literally knows what the real world looks like and how to make a real business deal.
And he would know, as 100% of all dealmakers know, you can't make a deal if there's absolutes involved that can't be violated.
And the Democrats are never going to be happy with a closed border.
The Republicans will never be happy with an open one.
It was not really something in between that anybody's even serious about, you know, such as, you know, better vetting or something like that.
There's nothing practical even being talked about.
So, no, not only will Congress fail, they have to.
It's a designed failure.
You're going to have to either add another topic, so there's something to really negotiate on, or get rid of one of the topics, so you're just talking about the budget, and then within just the budget, maybe you could trade this for that.
But if you add the complication of immigration to budget, how in the world are they going to make a deal on that?
Just commonsensically, how do you reach a deal when you have two things that neither can negotiate on?
So to imagine that the public has been so bamboozled to think, oh, we're almost there.
Look at us doing this work.
We've decided that this is our structure of our deal.
Now we just have to work out the details.
That can't happen.
That can't happen.
They've designed a failed system from the start.
There's only one way it goes.
No.
That's it.
So I'm going to predict that eventually the border has to be separated from the budget deal or they're going to have to do something different than whatever this is.
They're not going to make any progress on this.
And Trump has already said, you know, more to my point, that the only deal that the Congress should accept, and of course Congress, the Republicans are already listening to him, because Trump is the presumptive next president, they would think, and he's saying the only deal that they should accept is a perfect border deal on top of a perfect budget deal.
In other words, Trump is saying the same thing I'm doing, different language, but he's saying these are not things that you trade one for the other.
But he just says it in a better way, really.
No, I want both of them perfect, because that's what the country needs.
They need a budget that works.
They need a border that works.
Don't tell me you're going to give me a fucking bad border so I can get a better budget.
That's a sucker play.
You walk away from that deal.
You walk away from the room if that's the only structure they're dealing with.
So Trump is right.
He's saying either we shove this completely down your throat or we need to negotiate with a whole different process.
But no, we're not gonna take half of this to get half of the other thing.
I agree with him.
Which means that they can't get anywhere.
All right, here's a thought experiment for you.
Try this with your Democrat friends.
It goes like this.
I posted this, so if you want to send it to them, in my words, you can.
It's on my ex feed.
So a thought experiment.
Imagine one American state.
that implements nothing but mainstream Republican policies, and they don't even have to argue about it.
Right.
There's nobody on the other side.
They just go full Republican in every way from the school system to taxes, the law enforcement and things.
Then there's another state that goes the other way and it's full Democrat policies, right?
They got everything from reparations to sanctuary city and high taxes for the, you know, the rich people, just the whole boat.
Then you wait 25 years and now ask your Democrat friend to describe both states 25 years from now.
What do you think will happen?
Well, in the real world, I'll tell you what would happen.
Then I'll tell you what happens if you ask somebody about it.
So I've got a hypothesis that Republicans can predict the future with eerie precision on this test.
So if you said, all right, how do those two states work out?
The Republicans say, well, the Republican state has Well-educated people who are doing well and families and, you know, everything looks good.
And then you would say to the Republicans, well, how do you think the Democrat state went?
They say, oh, 25 years of that probably has decayed into something like You know those areas in Seattle that were run by the street people?
What was that called?
Yeah, it's probably a complete failed state.
Chaz.
Yeah, the Chaz District.
Chaz is actually a perfect example of what the entire state would be if they used the same policies as within Chaz, which apparently Democrats were happy enough with.
Chaz and CHOP, yeah.
It's funny, those things that young people will never hear.
They'll never hear about Chaz and CHOP.
All right, so here's what I think.
Under that condition, the migrants would flood only the Democrat state.
So all the migrants that would have ordinarily, hypothetically, gone to both states would go only to the one state, in unlimited numbers.
And all the rich people in the Democrat state would eventually move to the other state for lower taxes.
Because if it's just Democrats, they're going to take like a 90% tax on the richest people.
You know that, right?
So nobody's going to stay there and pay a 90% tax if they're mobile, and all rich people are mobile.
So they would just immediately pull up stakes and move to another state.
So you lose all your rich people, so you lose your tax base.
Then the poor people would move to your state because you got better benefits.
So you'd have poor people moving from the Republican state to the Democrat state to get benefits.
You'd have the rich people moving from the Democrat state to the Republican state.
Now wait 25 years and game that out.
It only goes one way.
There's only one possible outcome to that.
A complete failed state in one case and a marvelous happy state in the other.
Now, you could argue, oh, they're not so happy because abortion is illegal in the Republican state.
And you'd have some, you know, at least that's a debate that I would respect the debate, no matter which way it goes.
But in general, you would have a failed state and you would have one successful one.
So here's what I would like to add.
We're in this weird imaginary world where we imagine that Republicans and Democrats differ on policy preferences.
That's what you think, right?
Because every conversation about politics is, I like this policy, you like that policy.
I don't think anything like that's happening.
My filter says that the people who can do math and can imagine the future, in other words, they can imagine what's happening today and then project it in their mind into the future, that they're all on the same side.
And the people who don't have the ability to imagine how current situations would unfold in the future, either because they're mentally limited in some cases, but more often because they just don't have that training or exposure to that kind of stuff.
Have you noticed that Democrats skew young and Republicans skew old, People under 25 literally don't have developed brains.
And people under 30 literally don't have as much experience as everybody who's 31.
Everybody who's 31 has more experience than everybody who's 30.
And so by the time you reach your 50s and 60s, it really makes a difference.
So this is the difference of the coffee maker, one button, versus the taking you in a flow state.
If you're young, that coffee maker sounds like the best fricking idea.
Seriously, one button?
I love that.
But if you're my age, and as soon as you saw how many features this thing had, you said to yourself, oh shit, I know how this is going to go.
I still like it.
I still recommend it, by the way.
It's a good machine.
Well, the Miele makes way better coffee than a Mr. Coffee.
And Mr. Coffee is a fine device as well.
But there's no comparison of the taste.
Yeah, because the coffee machine adds this crema, like this air-filled thing that's like a replacement for cream and sugar.
It's amazing.
So anyway, so young people, I think, listen to Democrat ideas and they say, I like that idea.
Because I like pushing my coffee maker one button and having everything I want.
Older people say, that coffee maker's got more features than you need.
You're just going to be fixing that shit.
And that's the difference.
So the difference is purely on being able to project what's happening today into the future and being good at math.
That's it.
There's no such thing as Democrat or Republican.
There's just people who are better at math and can imagine the future better.
Science did an experiment once in which they took people who were having trouble saving for the future and they made a, like an AI CGI, it was CGI in those days, an image of the person older.
So you could see yourself looking older and then people would save more because they were saving themselves.
They saw a picture of themselves as an old person.
They wanted to protect that person because it's them.
So they basically helped people who couldn't imagine the future on their own.
Now, my career has had some success, but I also imagined it perfectly from the age of six.
Every Every part of my entire life, I imagined pretty much exactly the way it unfolded, which is not an accident, you know, because I caused it to go in the direction that I wanted it to unfold.
So here's my hypothesis.
If you gave this thought experiment to a Democrat and a Republican, The Republicans would laugh and say, that's an easy one.
The Republican state's doing great.
The Democrat state becomes a socialist hellhole and would be right.
You say this to a Democrat, what do you think they would say?
Would they say, you know, the Democrat one's going to be like a utopia and the Republican one is going to have no abortion, no rights.
Everybody has to, you know, be like, uh, I don't know, some religious fanatic or something.
Would they say that?
I have a hypothesis that they would change the topic.
So it would go like this.
Here's my thought experiment.
You know, one state does this, one state does the other.
What happens in 25 years?
Describe it.
Oh, you're one of those Trump supporters.
Okay, I might be, or I might not be, but that has nothing to do with the topic.
What do you think these two states would do?
Don't try this with me, you Trump supporter.
You know, that's how it would go.
So my hypothesis is that you would soon learn that Democrats can't game forward the current system to know what it turns into.
What do you think?
And that we just imagine it's a philosophical difference, and it's not at all.
It's just math and ability to imagine the future.
Constantine Kissin said this, he said, on X, he said, the people who are the strongest advocates for Western civilization are people like me who have experienced the alternative, which is similar to what I'm saying.
So Constantine says he has this thing called experience, and he knows that this set of activities leads to something he's lived through, and it's hell.
Now, he's a youngish guy.
So, in this case, he had a real-life experience which caught him, you know, put him up to speed pretty quickly.
Yeah, he's 38.
That's a young guy.
I mean, by my standards.
So, yes, the people who understand cause and effect and math and what leads to what are kind of all on the same side.
Speaking of Jamie Dimon, How funny is it that a Democrat, and you could argue that Jamie Dimon, he's the CEO of JP Morgan, you could argue he's the most important finance, banker, money guy in the country.
Is that fair?
I mean, you can say Warren Buffett, but that's more of a portfolio situation.
I think Jamie Dimon would be the number one banker, business guy in the country, by reputation as well as job.
How funny is it that he made national headlines and trended for days simply for saying something that was observable and normal?
It was national news that a prominent Democrat said something normal and observable.
We could all see it.
And what he said was, it's not going to turn out well if you demonize MAGA.
How do you not know that?
Like, why did Jamie Dimon have to say in public that you really need to knock off the demonizing part of your own public?
Why?
Because Jamie Dimon does not have TDS.
And he's a certain age where he knows how things work.
He knows how things work.
So he's trying to educate his younger, dumber Democrats, and he told them directly, look, you gotta cut out this MAGA You're all bad stuff that will only lead to bad, correct?
And he said, you gotta grow up and understand that Trump has a lot of supporters strictly because he got the big stuff right.
Jamie Dimon says he got taxes right, China right, immigration right, something else.
But just hold in your head the amazingness of the fact That it was national news, not that Jamie Dimon said something smart.
Because it's kind of obvious.
I mean, to all of us, it's obvious that Trump did a bunch of things that Biden is not getting right.
Obvious.
And it's obvious that demonizing one part of the public can't possibly lead to anything good.
So when you look at Jamie Dimon, he does not look like he's brainwashed.
You look at his eyes, you look at his face, you listen to the things he says, and he sounds like somebody who is just telling you what's right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
We all see it.
And being a Democrat who can simply describe what we all see was national news.
That's how bad it is.
The TDS is so bad that when somebody can cut through it, as J.B.
Dimon did, It's news!
I guess I'm just blown away by the fact that it's news.
That should have been a nothing.
It should have been a guy was talking.
Right?
Because we should have all been on that page.
It should have been a guy's talking and nobody cared.
Because it would be like what you already thought.
The obvious.
Here's another one.
Fetterman made news.
By saying that he believes China should own zero farmland in the United States.
Again, a prominent Democrat made news by saying something that's obvious and observable, and how could you disagree with it?
And he also said he agrees with DeSantis, which I guess made it a little more of a news thing.
Fetterman makes news not because he's disagreeing with Democrats, but because the thing he's talking about is both obvious and observable.
What possible benefit does the United States get from China owning our farmland?
They could literally turn off our food if they had enough.
Imagine that.
They just tell their farmers to, you know, leave the crops in the field.
If they owned enough farmland, we'd be begging for food.
So, no.
It's a terrible idea.
Federman's right.
Sean Strickland, he's a UFC fighter, and he's making a lot of noise.
And he, you know, I already told you about him doing some anti-woke stuff that made a lot of news, but he did it again.
So he had another event and he just went nuts on the crowd who was just cheering like crazy.
And he doesn't like Nike.
He calls it the Chinese checkmark.
Because of the swoosh.
The Chinese checkmark.
So he sees all of his competitors who are in the Chinese checkmark and he's mocking them for literally being marked by China.
And I think, okay, you know, my first impression of him was not, you know, here's our next leader and the smartest guy in the room.
Honestly, that wasn't my first impression.
And then he keeps talking.
And he wins me over.
Totally won me over.
I'm not going to say I agree with everything he says.
He says some pretty rough stuff.
But he won me over.
He's like a real citizen who wants the citizens of the United States to be respected and do well.
And he doesn't care who he punches to make it happen.
And he, somebody, a fan actually stormed the, he was on a stage at a table with a bunch of other people.
Imagine in today's world somebody from the audience storms the table while he's speaking out in a very provocative way.
The guy ran up there to shake his hand in the middle of his speech.
Have you ever seen that?
And here's the best part.
You've seen an adult man coming at you hard after you've said provocative things.
What do you feel?
Well, you should feel fear.
If I'm giving a speech and I see a man stand up and run toward me and run up on stage and lean across the table, I'm going into full defensive mode, but I'm not a champion UFC fighter.
Do you know what the champion UFC fighter did?
Stood up, kept talking, shook his hand.
It was beautiful.
It was beautiful.
Yeah, you have to see it.
All right.
And then, you all know that President Milley, I never say it right, of Argentina, you know, he went to the WEF in Davos and basically told them their collectivism ideas are going to make everybody poor.
And they're all fucking elite idiots.
I made up that last part, but he implied that.
Now, we, of course, all cheered and said, well, isn't that unique?
That thing that happened one time ever Well, it turns out it wasn't one time ever So the WF got another little wake-up call from a gentleman named Kevin Roberts, who's from some, I think he's some Republican thing, that kind of guy.
But he got the audience.
In other words, he was on stage and he's a Heritage guy, Heritage Foundation guy.
Thank you.
So Heritage Foundation guy, you know, conservative-leaning enterprise.
He's there and here's, I'll give them credit.
So at the WEF, they let him talk, and they did not interrupt him.
And it wasn't because he was giving a speech, he was just in a panel.
And to have a panel discussion, and the things he said, and the fact he wasn't interrupted, was kind of impressive.
So I'm going to give the WEF a tentative pat on the back for letting both Millet speak.
They knew what he was going to say, right?
The WEF wasn't that surprised.
And they may have known what this gentleman was going to say because, you know, the Heritage Foundation.
So I'm going to give the WEF some credit.
They allowed the very competing opinions and they gave it some attention.
Now, that doesn't clear them of every allegation against them or make them the best thing that ever happened, but you can't ignore that, right?
It's so rare that somebody will give a full hearing to the other side that it makes news.
That's why Vivek Ramaswamy was so impressive.
There were a lot of viral videos of him literally doing the same thing.
Here's the microphone.
You've got this much time.
Tell me what you think, and I'll tell you what I think.
So the first of all, compliments to the WF for inviting the alternative opinions, but let me just say what he said, and I'm cribbing this from a post by MJ Truth Ultra.
He paraphrased some of it.
It's longer than this, but he says, among other things, it's laughable that you or anyone would describe Davos as protecting liberal democracy.
It is equally laughable to use the word dictatorship at Davos and aim that at President Trump.
President Trump, if he's the next president, is going to take on the power of the elites.
So his take was that the people in that room were the elites and that they are the problem.
And he goes, I want to drive home, with all due respect, you're part of the problem.
Talking to the people who are in the room with him.
Political elites tell the average person that the reality is X, when in fact, reality is Y. And then he gives examples.
Oh, he was good.
Yeah, I'm paraphrasing, so you're missing the beauty and the power of what he said.
He is really good at talking.
Yeah, he has vivac quality communication skills, and that's my highest compliment.
So do yourself a favor and listen to it in his own words, because I'm not doing it justice.
He gives some examples where they say one thing and it's opposite effects.
He says, open borders.
The elites tell us open borders and illegal immigration are OK.
Americans don't think that's OK.
Now, I love the way he says it.
He could have said it's not okay, but that's just a debatable point.
Instead, he says, the Americans don't think that's okay.
By majority, that's true.
On public safety, he says, the elites tell us public safety isn't a problem in American cities.
Americans say that's not true.
Perfect.
Climate change, elites say we have this existential crisis that's looming.
Americans know those solutions are more harmful than the problem.
China, he says they are our number one adversary in the U.S.
and all free people on Earth.
And all free people on Earth.
Elites don't acknowledge that.
They give them a platform.
The WHO is discussing foisting gender ideology upon the globe and global elites embrace it.
Trump will understand the basic biological reality of manhood and womanhood.
And then he says, Donald Trump will be in power not to guide sheep.
Oh wait, did he say that or did?
No, he didn't say that.
That was a comment on his post.
Somebody said this.
I wish I knew if it was him.
So maybe you can give me a fact check.
Oh, he said it?
I'm getting a confirmation he said it.
So let me read the quote.
Donald Trump will be in power not to guide sheep, but to awaken lions.
That might be the best thing I've ever heard in my life.
Oh, Millet said it?
Did Millet say that?
So we have some question about who's the author of it, but it's very repeatable.
Yeah, more people are saying Millet said it than this gentleman.
But let us summarize.
Jamie Diamond.
Speaking out in favor of reason over TDS.
Two very, very capable people went to the WEF and told them they are the problem.
Never seen that before.
This UFC fighter, Strickland, he's basically just putting it out there.
And of course Elon Musk, who's maybe the champion of free speech, making all of this possible.
So there is a dad energy that is unmistakable.
Do you all see it yet?
Do you see the dad energy?
Now, when I say dad, I don't mean male.
I mean, there's a certain energy to the strong parent.
So I'm going to throw into dad energy the so-called angel mom who just wiped the floor with Dan Goldman.
That angel mom, if you watch that video and you watch her talk, You don't want to fuck with her.
She may be, and she is, an attractive woman.
But boy, does she have dad energy.
That's dad energy.
She didn't come there to take prisoners.
She came there for war.
And let me tell you, her navigational skills are probably good, right?
I'll bet her navigational skills are good.
I don't think she was just playing with dolls indoors when the boys were outside.
So she's got some stuff, right?
She has some real character.
But I think this is now a trend that will be hard to reverse.
And I'm going to give you a little palate cleanser here.
You're probably aware that Mark Cuban is pro-DEI and has been saying some things on the X platform in favor of it.
Not everybody agrees.
But here's why.
And I've been part of that conversation with him.
And so his view, if I can paraphrase it correctly, is that a company will do better by pursuing DEI type of goals because diversity is an advantage and you can get a equally good employee but then you get the double advantage that diversity You know, gives you better, let's say, let's say a better understanding of the market.
Just really in a variety of ways, I would agree that diversity gives you benefits.
Now, the question is not that diversity gives you benefits.
That's never really been the key question.
The question is whether there are other expenses to it.
Now, this is, this is again, the coffee machine problem.
If I said, hey, I got a concept.
We're going to increase diversity.
But we're not going to give up anything in terms of the quality of the employees.
What do you think?
Are you down with that?
Because that's the world that Mark Cuban thinks he lives in.
The world where you can increase diversity, and you're not only not spending anything to do it, you're just gaining.
It's a pure gain.
You get the same quality employee, And you get the diversity too, and that's good on a variety of planes.
Now, do you recognize that yet?
That's the coffee machine with one button.
Do you know what I'd love to do?
I would love to increase diversity without any impact on anything else.
And everybody else does just as well.
But that's not really the real world, is it?
It's not even close.
Do you remember when Bernie Sanders had to be schooled by Bill Maher that why he thought was equity that the Democrats are pushing was nothing like what Bernie Sanders thought it was?
Because in the real world, you don't get to push one button on the coffee machine and it works every time.
In the real world, Equity turns into equity of outcomes, which is first of all impossible, and second of all, destroys every civilization guaranteed.
Bernie Sanders didn't even know that.
That's one of the main platforms of the Democrat Party, of which he is one of the main characters, and didn't know.
Let me tell you why he didn't know.
Bernie Sanders has never been a middle-class white guy applying for a job.
Right?
Bernie Sanders has never been a middle-class white guy applying for a job.
If you've not been one of those, you're blind.
Do you know what Mark Cuban has never been?
A middle-class white guy applying for a job.
Now, is Bernie Sanders an idiot?
I don't think so.
If you measured his IQ, I'm sure it'd be fine.
I'm sure it'd be fine.
He just is blind to a part of reality that other people live every day.
Is Mark Cuban dumb?
Because he disagrees with me.
Nope!
Every indication is he's super smart.
But has Mark Cuban ever been a middle-class white guy?
Trying to get a job at a big company, including his.
Has he ever been a middle-class white guy trying to get a job at Mark Cuban's company?
Now, I will agree with Mark Cuban on the following concept.
There definitely can be companies that increase diversity and get even better people than they might have gotten because they're maybe trying harder to, you know, look for the hidden gems.
And maybe his company is exactly one of those.
That's possible.
So my theory is not that there can't be a company that does better in every way.
Of course they're good, because there's a variety of everything all the time.
And maybe his company is one, and that would be a laudable accomplishment.
I mean, if we talk to his white, middle-class employees at Cuban's companies, which I'd love to do, by the way, I'd love to see if they say the same thing.
You know, I didn't think you could get this diversity.
And also get all the right employees and no racial division or anything, but he did it.
Like he pulled it off in our company, so maybe other companies could try it too.
But here's the problem.
It's a math problem.
And if the school systems are not creating the supply of, let's say, just to use one example, black female STEM majors, then if you're a company who is trying to increase diversity in that area, Once all the good ones are scooped up by the, you know, the Apples and the IBMs, what are you going to do?
Are you going to not do diversity because it's just hard?
Or are you going to do diversity?
Let me tell you a management rule that I know Mark Cuban knows.
So there's something mysterious about his support of this.
All right, well, I just lost my train of thought.
If you're hiring from a limited pool, it's just math.
There's not enough people there.
So even if Mark Cuban made it work, that would suggest that the companies in the physical environment of Mark Cuban's businesses have a smaller pool to pick good employees from.
It has nothing to do with anybody's genes.
It's not a racial discussion at all.
It's purely numbers.
If they're just more of some thing, You know, it's easier to find him, that's it.
So in the real world, you end up with a situation like, I think it was a muse said that he tried to get a job and they told him over the phone, now we're not hiring white people.
We're not hiring straight white people, like directly.
Now, do you think Mark Cuban is aware?
I think I said, I might have said to him that.
But do you think he's aware that that's the normal situation?
Because I think he would think it would be unusual.
Now, he did make one good point.
The one good point is that people don't really know who's the best employee most of the time.
Most of the time, people look kind of similar.
You know, if you pick the top ten applicants, they kind of look about the same.
So you don't really know if the black or the white one's going to do better.
So in that case, you might as well increase your diversity because you don't know that you're getting a better or worse employee.
It's unknowable.
So you might as well get the certain benefit of the diversity.
That's not a terrible argument, but it's only a conceptual one.
In the real world, there just aren't enough people.
You can't get past the math.
They just don't exist in proper numbers.
So the solution, of course, is to put all of your work... Oh my god, not again.
It happened again.
Did I tell all of you that I was having this problem of seeing the word Mayo all the time?
It's a reticular activation thing.
Like I saw three people whose last name were Mayo in the Mayo Clinic, and somebody just sent a comment about Mayorkas.
Mayorkas starts with Mayo, which I never noticed until this very moment.
I got a message from somebody who was watching the show when I mentioned mayo.
And I challenged people that they will see the word mayo.
And I guess she saw it three or four times that day.
It was mayo everywhere.
Did anybody else have that experience?
After I said you're going to see mayo a lot?
Did anybody see it a lot the next day?
No?
Maybe?
Alright.
Some of you did.
Anyway.
Oh, I was going to say, you get what you measure.
So this is the part that I think Mark Cuban is forgetting, because obviously he knows it.
If you're an employee at a big company and they say, there are two things I want you to accomplish.
Number one is improve your diversity and your pay will depend on it.
But number two is you also have to perform well according to all your basic standards of performance.
Which one are you going to do?
Which one are you going to put all of your energy into?
Well, if it's me, I'm going to put all of my energy into diversity.
Do you know why?
Because it's measurable.
At the end of the year, they're going to look at your employees and it's either more diverse or it's not.
And you can know for sure if you succeeded or failed at that.
So people will put all of their energy into what can be measured.
Because the other part, how did you do on your projects?
You know what you can do with that?
Well, okay, my projects didn't work out well.
But it's definitely not because of anybody I hired who wasn't qualified.
It's because you didn't give me enough budget, there was a problem with the supply chain, the vendor lied to me, and there was sort of a macroeconomic problem, and then there was the Red Sea, there was the Hooties blew up the ship that increased our, right?
So if you're a mid-level manager talking to your boss, and the boss says, two things I want to check with, your performance on your projects, And your diversity, you're going to nail the diversity because you can just go down lower and lower in the quality of employees because of the math, not because of genetics, not because of anybody's race, just math and supply.
Uh, you're going to lower the quality of your probable output to get the most measurable goal, which is the diversity.
So in the real world, You don't get what Mark Cuban would like to get, which is people saying, yes, I want diversity, but in no way am I going to pick the lesser employee.
That's a concept.
That's one button on the coffee maker.
In the real world, you'll pick the less qualified employee every time.
Unless you're the lucky company that got to the small supply of qualified people that you're trying to add.
All right.
And Elon Musk summarized the entire conversation with two words.
And the two words are Moron Cuban.
So I guess I could have shortcutted that.
But I don't think the problem is IQ.
Obviously, it's not IQ.
I think whatever Mark Cuban is chasing is some combination of why he would like the public to see of him, which is perfectly reasonable for a public figure, and also probably a blind spot.
But maybe we can help him with that.
All right, Jonathan Turley tells us that, here's another one of those concept versus practice.
So Penn State, there was a professor who was suing because he got put into a DEI program.
He was a white guy.
And here's some of the things that we learned.
This is from Turley's reporting.
So the judge, Judge Battlestone wrote this in the opinion.
Training on concepts such as white privilege, white fragility, implicit bias, or critical race theory can contribute positively to nuanced, important conversations about how to form a healthy and inclusive work environment.
So that's what I said.
Diversity and understanding the whole area can help.
It can have some upside.
But.
Oh, there's a but.
There's a but.
But the way these conversations are carried out in the workplace matters.
Oh, so in reality, the concept doesn't work out so well.
How did it work out in reality?
Let's check reality, according to this case.
But the way these conversations carried out in the workplace matters when employers talk about race, any race, with a constant drumbeat of essentialist, deterministic, and negative language, they risk liability under federal law.
In other words, discriminating against white people, is what she's trying to say.
Or he's trying to say, whoever this is.
I don't know the gender of the judge.
Anyway.
Oh, it's her.
In her denial of the Penn State motion, so they were trying to dismiss the case, I guess, they mentioned how the DEI director emailed all employees, quote, calling on white people to, quote, feel terrible about, quote, their own internalized white supremacy.
And to quote, hold other white people accountable.
She also noted that the assistant vice provost of educational equity led the faculty in an exercise to hold their breath.
And then they told the white people to hold their breath longer so that they could feel the pain.
They were literally torturing white men and humiliating them in front of other people as part of their DEI effort.
They were literally humiliating and making physically uncomfortable the white guy.
So he sued him.
Now what did the judge say?
I'm going to summarize the judge.
Yeah, it would be a great idea to get a coffee maker that you can just push one button and get a great cup of coffee.
But in the real fucking world, let me tell you what's going to happen and what did happen.
In the real world, it just went to shit.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my way too long program of the day.
Way too long.
So I'm going to say goodbye on the Rumble and YouTube and X. Glad you joined.
By the way, my Rumble traffic exceeds my YouTube traffic now.
Just hold that in your head.
I've been doing YouTube every day for, what, seven years or something?
I just started Rumble, and Rumble traffic most days is way bigger than YouTube.
Huh.
I wonder.
I wonder what could be behind that.
Huh.
It's exactly what you think it is.
In summary, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes it's exactly what you think it is.
