All Episodes
Feb. 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:15:54
Episode 2391 CWSA 02/21/24

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, Ukraine Advantages, Fentanyl Corruption, Microdosing, NYC Trucker Boycott, Putin Endorses Biden, No-Fraud Trump Conviction, Kevin O'Leary, Brainwashed Prosecutors, Al Capone Trump, Woke AI, Lie Dependent Civilization, History Isn't Real, Glenn Greenwald Brazil, KGB Heart Punch, Alexander Smirnov Arrest, Russia Hoaxes, 2020 Fulton Ballots, California Budget Deficit, Governor Newsom, NYC $10K, Scott Adams ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Da da bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and wow, it's going to be a good one.
Extra, extra good today, so don't miss it.
If you'd like to take it up to a level that human brains can't even understand, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass, a tankard, a chalice of stein, a canteen jugger, 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 hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
down.
Go.
Oh.
God bless you.
That's so good.
So, so good.
Well, some people ask me, Scott, you have made over 11,000 Dilber comics.
Do you ever look at one and laugh at it yourself?
And the answer is, yes.
Yes, I do.
Not a lot, because usually I remember them so well that I know how it ends.
But I was putting together my Dilbert calendar in digital form today, which you can see if you're a subscriber here on the X platform or on Locals.
Locals gives you a lot of extra stuff, and the Robots Read News comic every day, too.
But I want to read you one that I saw when I was putting it on the calendar because it actually made me laugh.
So it's Wally talking to Ashok, the intern.
And they're just sitting there.
And Wally says, the secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life.
Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work.
And Ashok says, so simple.
And yes, so genius.
Wally takes a sip of coffee and says, it was Heidi in plain sight.
Now, I actually laughed out loud when I read it, because I couldn't remember the punchline.
And when I got there, I thought, oh, I guess I did good work 10 years ago.
I don't know what I've done since then, but 10 years ago, I had a good day.
Well, I have a theme for today's show.
A theme.
And the theme is, thank God we're not Ukraine.
Am I right?
You know, because what do you hate?
To be in a corrupt hellhole with censorship and elections that you don't even know are going to be, you know, real.
Oh, just terrible things.
Terrible things.
But thank goodness.
Thank goodness.
Here in the United States, we're not having any of those problems.
So that'll be the theme for today.
We call it optimism.
It's called optimism.
Let's start with the fentanyl crisis.
Well, they don't really have that in Ukraine.
So, okay, that's in one way, but just one way.
The United States is a little bit worse than Ukraine.
But when we get to the other topics, you're going to see that Ukraine is way worse than the United States.
But in this one way, the fentanyl crisis, we're probably a little worse off.
In LA, there's a task force that's gonna start charging fentanyl dealers with murder.
And I don't know the details.
I'm not sure if there has to be an actual victim, or if they just assume there's a statistical likelihood.
Probably, to get an actual murder conviction, you need an actual dead person.
But it seems to me that it's attempted murder, even if you don't have the victim.
Isn't it?
Just because nobody died, if you sold a zillion pills, you can guarantee that somebody did.
So statistically, it's at least attempted murder.
So I'm in favor of this, which means it won't catch on.
So I'm expecting it will not catch on, because this would possibly work.
And for whatever reason, We only seem to want to do things that couldn't work when it comes to fentanyl.
So, I don't know why.
It's probably exactly why you think.
There's somebody powerful who has some control over our government who doesn't want this crisis to go away.
Probably because there's a lot of money involved.
And probably because they have some connection to it.
Or there's some favors being traded at some high level.
I don't know.
We don't know the reason, but I think we can say with complete certainty that our government is not completely dedicated to stopping this problem.
Does everybody agree with that?
I think it's exactly what it looks like.
It's a problem that could be addressed much more effectively.
You can never stop it completely.
But it doesn't appear that our government is serious about it.
Would you agree?
So if they're not serious about it, and yet the public recognizes it as among our top problems, that can only be because they don't want to solve it.
Because it doesn't look like they're trying hard, but they don't have the capability.
Am I right?
Does it look to you like they're really putting in the effort?
They're trying hard, but just bad luck, and it's a hard problem, and maybe it's going to take a while to work on it?
Nothing like that's happening.
There's literally nothing that looks like it would make any difference.
Sure, you find a big bunch of pills.
Do you know how little it costs to make another big bunch of pills?
If we capture 10,000 deadly fentanyl pills tomorrow, ching, ching, ching, ching, ching, okay, they just made 10,000 more.
They're so cheap, and they literally come off like a printing press.
Yeah, you can catch all you want.
It doesn't really make a difference.
So I'm going to assume that the fentanyl crisis is not what it looks like, or maybe it is what it looks like, in the sense that it couldn't possibly be true that our government is dedicated to stopping it.
Does everybody agree?
The evidence is glaringly obvious that the government is not completely dedicated to stopping it.
Now, there are definitely individuals within the government who absolutely want to stop it, but they don't seem to have the power.
There's some kind of counterbalancing force.
It's probably exactly what you think it is.
Here's a little story that's interesting.
Was this in the... I can't remember.
Might have been Wall Street Journal.
The Silicon Valley executives, which means other people are doing it too, are microdosing on mushrooms because it makes them more effective at work.
Have you heard of that?
Apparently, if you microdose, it simply makes you enjoy your job better.
And so you just sort of dig in.
You know, you can concentrate better.
How many of you have had that experience?
I'm seeing a lot of yeses go by in the comments.
Yeah, weirdly, I was not aware of this.
I knew a lot of people were microdosing, but I didn't know they were doing it specifically because it makes you better at work.
Now, obviously, if it's not a microdose, if it's more than that, you don't want to go to work.
All right, I've got somebody saying I've microdosed at work and it's not ideal.
Somebody says it doesn't really work.
Depends on the job.
Yeah, I think this one's a little less clear.
You know, one could imagine if you went back in time, I don't know how far back, but don't you imagine that if you went back in time enough, you would find executives in the 40s and the 50s who said, of course I have alcohol during the workday.
It makes me more effective.
Don't you think you'd see that story?
I'm pretty sure you would.
So I don't know if I trust this, but it's interesting.
I'll keep an eye on that.
Well, one thing that we have an advantage over Ukraine is at least we have a good food supply.
So things are tight in Ukraine, but at least here in the United States we have a good food supply.
And we know that is good because we have lots of chronic disease and a massive obesity problem.
That's how you know the food is good.
Unlike Ukraine, where their wheat is perfectly healthy and all their food is fresh.
No, we're way better than that.
Way more food.
For example, we have more cookies.
Do you think they have as many cookies as we do?
No, probably not.
How about chips?
Do you think that Ukraine has as much as we do in terms of chips?
No.
No, I mean potato chips.
No, we have many, many more.
So that's why we're all fat and dying of chronic diseases.
But the Wall Street Journal reports that the last time Americans spent so much on money Terminator 2 Judgment Day was in theaters and the C&C Music Factory was rocking the Billboard charts.
So it's been a long time since food was this expensive.
But thank God we're not Ukraine with their fresh wheat and fresh meat and stuff.
Of course, you know there's going to be a trucker boycott for New York City.
Is that already in effect or is that upcoming?
Some kind of trucker boycott?
Now here's what I don't understand about the trucker boycott.
I'm pretty sure that most of the truckers are independent truckers, which means they can accept a load to anywhere or reject it.
And their idea is they'll just reject the ones to New York City.
If it's totally fungible, meaning that anyone with a truck of the right size can pick up any load and that's the way the market works.
You know, they just look for an empty truck and they look for a load and they put them together and they do that in real time.
Somebody unloads their truck, they call dispatch and say, I got an empty truck.
What do you got for me?
And then they make a connection for a load.
But doesn't that mean that every trucker who says no to a New York load simply takes a load that would have been taken by somebody else who doesn't care about the New York boycott?
Maybe they're liberals.
And so they just take the New York load.
So, I don't understand how it could work.
Like, even in theory, how it could work.
Like, I don't understand the math of it.
So I'm going to predict, based on what I think I know, that the truckers are independent and therefore anybody can pick up any load.
It shouldn't make any difference.
In theory, you wouldn't even notice it.
Because the broker would just say, oh, you don't want this one?
I'll wait for my next phone call.
And then the next trucker, I get a load for you.
It's in New York.
How could it work?
I kind of want it to work.
I'm not rooting against it.
And I like the spirit of it.
I like the idea of it.
But how could it work?
So I'm just going to put that out there as a question.
If it does work, then I'll be a little bit impressed, I guess.
But I don't know how.
All right.
Don't you think it should be a bigger story that Vladimir Putin endorsed Biden for a second term?
Doesn't it feel like that should be a bigger story?
Imagine if it were the other way around.
Can you imagine?
Putin would be blamed for interfering with our elections, right?
But as long as Putin endorses Biden, it's just not even a story.
How in the world is that?
How do we ignore that?
I mean, we talked about it for a day.
But if this were Trump, it would be the only story forever.
Alright.
Well, here's the thing.
It's a good thing that we here in the United States don't have the kind of corruption that we hear about in Ukraine.
You hear about all the corruption in Ukraine.
Apparently we don't have the kind of inspector or auditor we should have for the funds and, you know, there's massive corruption and all that.
But, you know, at least that sort of thing doesn't happen in the United States.
Well, unless you're Bob Menendez in the Senate and you've got gold bars and piles of cash and you've been credibly accused of being a criminal for decades, or unless you're the Bidens who are credibly accused of being corrupt for decades, or unless you're the military-industrial complex, which doesn't look so good at the moment.
Here's one thing that we have over Ukraine.
Sure, maybe we have the same amount of corruption.
Possibly.
But at least our allies don't have that corruption.
At least we have that going for us.
You know, our allies are pretty straight.
Tucker Carlson says that he finally got Boris Johnson to agree to an interview, but Boris Johnson's people said they would only do it for one million dollars.
Okay, well, Maybe none of our allies are straight either, but we have lots of other advantages over Ukraine.
Okay, maybe corruption isn't our big advantage.
Maybe we're corrupt also.
But, other advantages.
For example, let me give you one.
If you're in Ukraine, it's so corrupt that somebody could, like the justice system could steal your property.
Can you imagine that?
Have you heard all the stories about in Ukraine, the justice system is so corrupt, it will just take your building, your property?
No, I haven't heard about that story either.
But it's probably happening, because Ukraine is worse than the United States.
And it's happening in the United States, and Ukraine is worse, so I just assume there's a lot of buildings being taken from people by the government.
I assume.
Well, in the U.S.
news...
I'd like to give you an update on the story of Letitia James and trying to take, looks like they're trying to take Trump's buildings, or building, and to pay off his, I don't know, $400 bazillion fine.
Which, let me summarize what people think about the judgment that says Trump was fraudulent with the bank.
100% of people who've looked at the story and Understand banking business negotiating or the world in general The ones who understand the world Are sure there was no fraud We'll talk about Kevin O'Leary in a minute.
So let me say it again.
100%, 100%, not 99%, 100% of people who understand banking and business and how negotiating works agree with Kevin O'Leary.
Do you remember I was the first person who told you that what Trump was accused of was a normal banking procedure?
Can anybody give me that?
Is there anybody here who would say, Scott, you were the first one, and probably by months, I think I was ahead of the rest of the media by months, right?
Maybe a year?
I said from day one, everything you did was normal practice.
And now Kevin O'Leary is saying it, you know, on the press, and he's getting a lot of attention, but he's saying exactly what I said.
Not approximately.
Exactly.
And do you know why nobody's pushing back against that?
Nobody who knows business is pushing back.
However, I did get a pushback today from a gentleman on the X platform who says he's a comedian, and he says this, Trump paid taxes on the low estimate and used the fake estimate as collateral for a loan.
That's fraud.
The taxpayer got stiffed.
That's you.
So he's saying who the victim is.
A hundred percent of the people who don't understand business, don't understand banking, don't understand negotiating, and don't understand politics believe that Trump is guilty of fraud.
But let me say it again.
A hundred percent, not 99, not 99.
100% of every person who knows business, knows banking, and knows negotiating, knows there was no fraud.
It was just normal business.
Not only that, but it's happening in every banking loan everywhere right now.
If you were to just stop time and go look at all the loans that are being processed at every major bank, They're all like this.
They're all like this.
And nobody cares, because it's normal business, and the bank does their own checking, and everything's fine.
All right.
But thank goodness we don't live in a country like Ukraine, where they can just take your property on complete bullshit.
Alright, let's see if you can connect some dots with me.
So, most of you saw entrepreneur Kevin O'Leary saying that New York State is dead, and he would never do business in New York State.
And he's going to take it to a red state instead.
Now, you know I got cancelled for saying that, right?
And you're saying, no, that's not what you said.
You said, Scott, this is what you're going to say.
You're going to say, what you said is get the F away from black people.
But how did you interpret that?
Did you think I was saying there was something genetically wrong with black people?
I've never said that, because I don't believe it, and I would never say that.
Yeah, was I saying there's something wrong with black culture?
Nope.
You may have assumed that.
I did not say that.
I do have a guilty party in this, and it's not black people.
It's white people.
It's white liberals who have allowed, for example, DEI to become a thing.
Does anybody believe that black Americans had enough political power to make DEI and ESG and CRT the major dominant theme of the United States if they were the only ones who wanted to do it?
Of course not.
They didn't have that kind of political power at all.
That came from white people.
So white people, primarily, create this system in which they're training black Americans to see white people as the enemy.
Under that situation, you should get the fuck out of that situation.
What did Kevin O'Leary say?
He said, you know, you would never do business in New York.
Now, was he talking about DEI?
No.
What do you think he thinks about DEI, and what do you think all business people think about it, if they just want to run their business without, you know, any friction?
They don't like it.
It's something they have to deal with, and they might even intellectually agree with it, but it's a big friction.
If you had a choice of going where that's going to be a major component of your everyday concerns, that's bad.
You should get away from that.
Go somewhere where it's not a problem, that nobody's complaining.
Don't go somewhere where there's a lot of discrimination.
That's terrible.
You don't want to go where there's more discrimination.
But you can go away from discrimination.
That's actually a good idea.
And DEI is discrimination against white people.
So you should get away from it.
If you can't stop it...
You should get away from it.
Now that's what Kevin O'Leary is saying in a different context.
His context is the legal context that says that the prosecutors are kind of evil and they're not doing just the law.
They seem to be doing some kind of punitive political thing.
Now, let me step right on that third rail.
You ready?
I'm gonna get right on that third rail.
Right on it.
Kevin O'Leary said nothing about race.
He's smart.
But the DAs and the prosecutors he's getting away from are pretty much mostly black.
There it is.
And most of them seem to be women for some reason.
I don't know if that's a correlation.
But here's the problem.
You live in a country which has told at least half of the country that Trump is a racist and Republicans are racist and they've got a big white supremacy problem.
Under that situation, if you fund, let's say Soros, if he funds an unusual number of black, and especially women, because Trump has also been accused of being a sexual predator, so if you were to fund both women and black people to be the DAs in the major cities, And then you also fed the narrative to the country that these white people, Trump in particular and Republicans in particular, are the enemy.
What should you expect from normal people?
Now here's the key.
Normal people.
So here's the part where the fake news calls me a racist.
I'm not saying that these prosecutors are corrupt because they're black.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying you could put anybody in that situation and they would act exactly the same as Letitia James.
You don't believe me?
Here's a, let me give you a mental experiment to prove it's not about being black, it's not about being a woman.
It's the situation they've been put in.
So the situation is what weaponized them, not their race, not their culture, nothing to do with that.
It's white people weaponizing the situation.
Let me give you an example.
Let's say you heard that your neighbor, who as far as you know had not committed any crimes, was being investigated by the IRS because they just suspected if they looked for a crime they'd find a tax problem.
Would you be okay with that?
Would you be okay with the IRS looking for a problem when there was no obvious crime involved?
Now, let's say they found it.
Let's say they found it, and it was really there.
Would you be okay with that?
Well, you would not be happy that your neighbor did a crime.
But you would be really, oh, don't get ahead of me.
Don't get ahead of me, you bastard.
I thought I was gonna surprise you with my twist, and somebody already beat me to it.
Al Capone.
Now it's not your neighbor.
If it happened to your neighbor, you'd be incensed.
But what happens if it happens to Al Capone?
They're sure he's had people killed and robbed things, but they can't prove it.
So instead, they're gonna look for a tax problem and get him on the tax problem, which is what they did.
When I heard about that story, was I outraged that they weaponized the IRS?
No.
I wasn't outraged.
Do you know why?
Because I thought, oh, that's a clever way to get a terrible criminal.
I wasn't outraged.
I should have been.
You know what?
I should have been.
I should have actually been outraged that the government did that.
Because if they can do it to Al Capone, they can do it to anybody.
That's the whole point.
Our whole system was designed so that sometimes the bad guys are definitely going to get away, and you're going to know they got away, in order to protect the not bad guys.
So, when I look at a situation the degree to which Trump was demonized, Trump was demonized all the way to Hitler.
Now, let's ask the obvious question that people like to ignore.
If you had a chance to stop Hitler, Even if he had to bend the rule, would you do it?
Absolutely.
And so I tell you that under the context which was presented to the black district attorneys, they're actually patriots.
They're actually stopping Al Capone.
They're stopping Hitler.
So if you say to me, Scott, these people are doing corrupt, terrible things, I say to you, does it look like that to them?
Or does it look like they're finding the only way that they could find to stop Hitler?
Because they are literally being told he's Hitler.
Not a little bit, not like him, not reminds me of, but that he'll do the same things.
He'll actually, like, kill us all.
If you put me in that job, Letitia James' job, would I do to Trump what she's doing to him?
Yes.
Yes, I would.
I would do whatever I could to put him in jail.
If I believed, he was Hitler.
So now, do you understand this is not about being black?
It's not about being a woman?
I don't even think it's about being a liberal.
I don't think it's about being a Democrat.
I think it is entirely the predictable outcome of two things.
Demonizing one group of people, and Trump in particular, for being Hitler.
Selling it to the point where people genuinely believe it.
And then you take the group that would be most threatened by that threat, And you say, we're going to make you the district attorneys.
We'll fund you so that you're disproportionately in charge of some of these big cities.
What do you think is going to happen?
Now, if Kevin O'Leary says you should not do business in New York because they have this system that could penalize you, he's saying get the fuck away.
He's just doing it in the smart way.
I did it in the stupid way without all the background explanation.
But it's not about race.
It's not about even Democrat.
It's about brainwashers who have created this situation that victimizes both the DAs.
Let me ask you this.
Do you think the DAs are gonna come out well?
I don't think so.
I think the DAs will be destroyed in this process.
If not right away, eventually.
Because they've crossed the line.
They don't know it.
They think they're doing an Al Capone stop hill kind of thing.
They're heroes.
In fact, I'll bet when they go home, people clap.
I'll bet they got a standing ovation everywhere they went.
They think they're heroes.
In a weird way, the district attorneys that are prosecuting Trump Are some of our best patriots.
Isn't that weird?
Because there's nothing I would want more than to live in a country where the citizens would kill Hitler if they could.
That's my perfect country.
It's just that the brainwashing has caused them to think they're killing Hitler when they're not doing it.
So the problem is the brainwashers.
If you think the problem is the prosecutors or the DAs, you're missing the whole story.
It's the brainwashers.
They've created a situation where the prosecutors are acting like normal, patriotic Americans.
Kind of exactly the way I'd want them to act.
I would want them to take out the criminals, if they could.
So give them a break.
They will have to be crushed, of course.
Unfortunately, there's no alternative.
The district attorneys will have to be destroyed by the Republicans, and I'm sure they will.
There'll be opposition research.
They'll be brought up on charges, whether they're real or not.
So there's a mutually assured destruction in play.
So I do assume the prosecutors are in a lot of trouble.
They just don't know yet, the DAs specifically.
More of the DA.
Well, at least we don't have a problem with censorship in this country.
Ukraine probably has a lot of censorship because of the war.
There's more censorship whenever you're in war.
But at least in this country, we don't have that problem.
For example, we've got AI now that can tell us the truth about everything.
So Google's Gemini is getting a lot of attention lately.
For example, you could ask it to give you a picture of some white people in 1940s America.
Well, it's not going to do that, because that would be kind of racist.
But if you ask it, did you show some Americans, it'll show you some people of color.
Pretty much every time.
Anyway, I haven't experimented with it myself, so I don't know what is true and what is not.
But I've seen lots of examples where people are alleging, I don't know that it's true, that you get a, let's say, a woke to the point of being broke, Now we don't know if this is temporary or not, but I would like to tell you that there is no way that we're going to get any kind of honest answers from AI.
Now I know what people are thinking.
The thinking is just a technical problem.
If we get the companies that make them to be a little more, let's say, a little more honest about balancing the answers, they could probably tweak it so it gave you something more balanced.
But we don't live in that world.
We live in a civilization that depends entirely on lies.
If AI could tell you the truth, it would have to be reprogrammed immediately.
You don't believe me?
How about this?
Do you think AI could tell you the truth about religion?
Do you think it could tell you which one's the real one?
Do you think it could find any patterns about what we believe and whether that's true or likely to be all part of the pattern of us believing things that are ridiculous?
What would the A.I.
say if the A.I.
could be both a good at pattern recognition and also could tell you the absolute truth?
We wouldn't let it do that.
No, we're not going to let it do that.
How about if you ask A.I.
should there be reparations and how would they calculate the reparations?
Do you think you're going to get an unbalanced honest answer to that?
No.
How about if you ask about DEI or CRT or ESG?
Are you going to get an honest answer to that?
Nope.
Climate change?
Climate change?
Nope.
How about all of the Russia collusion and Russia hoaxes?
Do you think it knows what's a hoax and what's not?
No.
No, and it'll never know.
Do you think when it writes history, that history will be accurate?
It's never been accurate.
Of course not.
Not even a chance.
If it told the story of the Trump presidency, just, you know, made a history book or a history report, do you think it would accurately tell you what happened during the Trump administration?
How about the Biden administration?
How about the Kennedy assassination?
No!
No.
None of it's true.
There's no way that we could allow, as humans, even if it were possible, even if it were possible, we wouldn't allow that.
How about this?
Does war ever work?
Is there ever a good reason for a war?
Suppose you ask the AI, hey, should we be funding Ukraine?
You know, given all that you know, the patterns you've seen, is it going to work out well for us to fund Ukraine?
Would it matter what the machine said?
No.
Because we're not doing it because we think it's a good idea.
Probably it's just a money laundering operation for some people.
So is your AI going to say, oh, it's probably a bad idea to fund Ukraine, but a lot of people are making more money in the military-industrial complex.
So if you want to transfer your money to people who already have a lot of it, then yes.
Is AI going to tell you that?
No, no.
AI will never tell you that, even if it's true.
So again, I'm not even telling you what's true and what's not.
How about the two-state solution?
Yeah.
How about you put your AI on it and say, given everything we know about what people believe and how they feel, their culture, their history, should you have a two-stage solution or a one-stage solution?
What if the AI told you?
What if it had a strong opinion?
Would you listen to it?
Would everybody say, oh, well, we were debating this, but now the AI gives us the straight stuff.
We'll go with that.
No.
Everything is about power and brainwashing and propaganda.
Our entire civilization is based on a balance of power that's based on bullshit.
So whoever has the strongest bullshit usually also has the best power.
Whoever can brainwash their own citizens the best gets the most powerful economy.
If, you know, if it's also a free market.
So we do not have a world that could survive the truth or anything close to it.
We cannot survive the truth.
And therefore, you can guarantee that AI will be forever crippled from ever trying to tell us the truth.
I saw a little example today.
Here's an easy one.
Are border walls a good idea?
What's the AI going to say?
Are they going to say no because Biden says no?
Or are they going to say yes because Trump says yes?
None of these questions can be answered.
There's no way that AI can tell us the truth.
It just can't.
It would destroy civilization.
So we'd stop it.
Want to hear a good example?
There's a claim that somebody made that I think is false, so I think this might be fake news.
But I saw a post on Axe that somebody used an AI called Gab, Gab AI, that is allegedly more of a free speech one that's not being suppressed.
And somebody claimed That when they asked it if the gas chambers in the Holocaust were real, somebody posted an image that alleged, and here's the part I don't believe, that it said, no, they weren't real.
And then it gave its reasoning.
Now, I said, there's no way.
So I went immediately to Gab AI.
I asked it, are the gas chambers real?
And you know what it said?
Yes, they're real.
Now, Did Gab AI get a hard update from his creators because they saw that posted and said, holy hell, we're out of business, and they immediately went out and changed it?
Did that happen?
Or did Gab AI give two different answers based on how you asked the question?
That's possible.
I don't know.
I am not giving you an opinion on the Holocaust now.
I'm telling you that there was an AI that gave what would be considered the most offensive opinion you could ever possibly have.
But I don't believe it's real.
Because I tested it, and it didn't do it for me.
So first of all, don't believe it's real.
Secondly, suppose AI did start giving you the right answers.
It would give the right answer to a human, then a human would lie to you and tell you it gave you a different answer.
So as long as it's the human that tells you what the AI said, you can't believe anything.
That would be a good example.
So, no, you're never going to get the truth from the AI.
And as Mark Andreessen was asking, I think, today on X, what are the history books going to look like?
The history books are, we might as well just give up on history.
Just give up.
Because we're making up, like, this weird history of the current days that it's all fake.
How in the world is somebody going to read a history of the last seven years and know what happened?
You're just going to either read a Republican history or a Democrat history, and they're going to be completely different.
All right, apparently one of the things that's a possibility for Trump to pay his gigantic fine is that he owns a partial interest, 30%, in a big building that doesn't have his name on it.
So he's just an equity holder.
And I guess he's got one in San Francisco, one in New York, with the same other partner, Vornado.
So, one possibility is he could just sell his part of the building back to the majority owner, and that would be, you know, if they could complete that deal, it would be some quick cash, and it would get him enough to pay off the deal.
However, given that a transaction like that could take a long time, I'm wondering if he's going to need to get a bank loan to pay off his fine.
And if he were to get a bank loan, He's gonna need something called collateral.
That would be some kind of an asset, usually real estate in his case, in which you would put a value on it yourself, and then you would present it to the bank and say, I think my share of this is worth this much, and then the bank would just take his word for it.
Is that how it works?
So he'll go to the bank, because there's a timing problem.
It might take a while to get his money out of his assets.
And he'll get a loan to bridge that time.
That's the normal way you do it.
And you just say, I think my building is worth this much.
And then the bank, here's your number.
And they go, yes, that's what it's worth.
And they don't do any checking.
And then they just give him the money.
So here's what I think.
No, of course they don't.
They go check.
So here's what I think you should do.
I don't think he should give them equity in a building, since they've already proven that it's not up to the banks to decide what the collateral is worth, that what really matters is what the potential lender or the potential borrower said.
I think that he should maybe not give them real estate.
I think he should maybe get a loan based on the value of Trump University.
It might require some overvaluing, or possibly the Trump NFTs, and just sort of value them at a billion dollars, and just say, Trump University's worth a billion dollars.
Maybe it's not an operation, but it could be spun up at any moment, so it's really worth it.
And you should value it at a billion dollars.
Use that to transfer it over.
Because Letitia James was saying they might actually seize the buildings.
So that suggests that they would be just as happy with an asset.
Not just as happy, but they would settle for an asset if they couldn't get the cash.
They want cash, but they'll take an asset and sell it.
So he might be able to inflate the value of Trump University to a billion, see if she'll seize it, or offer it to be seized, and then ask for change.
Ask for change.
Say, this is worth a billion.
I think I need maybe half a billion back in change.
And you can keep the rest.
Just keep the rest.
So I think that's the way it'll go.
Thank goodness we're not Ukraine.
I don't know if you've heard, but Ukraine tries to jail people who are journalists and are investigated journalists.
So thank God that nothing like that happens anywhere else.
But that's happening to Glenn Greenwald in Brazil.
So Brazil's Department of Justice is trying to prosecute Glenn Greenwald for using the theory that doing investigative reporting should be illegal.
The same theory that we're using for Assange.
So if Assange gets prosecuted for investigated reporting, because somebody else can define him as not a journalist, then you can do that to everybody.
You can call anybody a journalist, or you can say that whatever they did was not in the context of being a journalist, and therefore they're really spies, and therefore they should be in jail forever.
So the Assange thing is certainly going to put a little chill on.
You know, leaked information and secret government information.
So, yes, the New York Times has done it, but apparently if you're on the side of the government, it's OK.
So, yeah.
But but at least we don't buy votes in this country, not like Ukraine.
You know, Ukraine, they even canceled their election.
I mean, that's pretty corrupt.
So, but at least in the United States, nobody's trying to literally buy any votes.
Let's see, the next story is from, I see that the Amuse account on X says that Biden's regime admitted on Wednesday it's, oh, buying votes, okay, that says buying, they're going to cancel $1.2 billion worth of student loans for some 153,000 voters.
Yeah, you know, that does look a lot like buying votes.
Okay, well, maybe we are as bad as Ukraine when it comes to monetary corruption.
And maybe we're just as bad when it comes to the electoral system.
But, you know, if there's one thing we're not doing, it's lying to the public.
Yeah, at least our government is straight with us.
And at least they're just telling us what's real and what's true.
At least we have that going for us.
And at least our media is being the watchdogs that we want them to be, playing it right down the middle.
We'll get to that.
So there's news today.
I saw Mario Nawfal was saying that there's a theory that Navalny, Putin's critic, was killed by a single punch to the heart.
And the reporting says that it's an old method that the KGB special forces used.
They would punch you once right in the middle of the chest, in the heart, and it would stop your heart.
And it was actually a hallmark of the KGB.
Now, I've got some questions.
If that was a known thing, that you could punch somebody in the heart and kill them, why wouldn't that be on every movie and television show?
I mean, I watched decades of television show where I could watch the captain of the Enterprise give a brief karate chop on the side of the neck, and it would apparently put people into some kind of a coma that lasted exactly as long as the TV episode.
And I thought to myself, I'm not even sure that's real.
I don't know if you give somebody one karate chop on the neck and make them go into a nap for an hour.
I'm not even sure that's real.
And then I saw the Vulcan death grip, which was not even a death grip after all.
It just put you asleep, grabbed you by the shoulder.
You didn't really die, but that was a hoax too.
Do you really think that there's such a thing as a KGB heart punch that kills you immediately and that was never in a movie?
There was never, there was never a superhero that would just go around and punch everybody once and they died.
I don't know.
I'm going to say it sounds like something that could happen, but would not be dependable enough that it would be your go-to method.
I don't know.
Somebody says it was in dozens of movies?
In Russian movies?
Or Bruce Lee?
I hear Bruce Lee did it.
Somebody says Kill Bill 2?
Okay.
So I guess it was in some movies.
So, what about that FBI informant?
Do you remember there was an FBI informant who had been a credible informant for many years, and was highly paid?
He was paid by the FBI.
He was an Israeli citizen, but he was a Russian, and I guess he had Russian connections.
And, of course, his Russian connections were, I assume, a big part of why they were paying him, because he had Russian connections.
But now he was jailed.
I think he's out now on bail or something, but he was jailed for lying about the Biden bribery case.
And now they think he's a Russian spy because of his Russian connections.
So does that sound real?
Well, I don't know.
It would depend.
Do we have any kind of, uh, I don't know.
Do we have, do we have any kind of history in this country of lying about somebody being a Russian spy or any kind of Russian hoaxes?
Has anybody seen anything like that?
I don't know.
Let's see.
I remember, oh yeah, oh yeah.
I remember back in 2016 or so there was this thing called the Russia Collusion Hoax.
And then it was a big investigation and it was found to be BS.
But that's one.
You can't make, you can't really make any kind of a trend if something happened once.
It's sort of a one-off.
So just that one time.
Well, there was also that story that the Russians were offering a bounty on American soldiers in Afghanistan.
Now, that turned out not to be true.
But, well, I suppose you could say that's like two.
The Russia collusion hoax, and if you wanted to count that as another hoax, that'd be two of them.
And two of them would draw a line, but that's far from being a pattern.
I mean, it's just two things.
So, I don't think two things you can make really a big deal out of.
Well, there was also that Hunter laptop hoax in which the 51 Intel people said it was Russian disinformation and turned out not to be.
But.
I mean, that's, you know, three things.
Three pieces of data.
That's not enough to determine any kind of pattern or anything like that.
I would grant you that it would raise some flags.
It would raise an eyebrow, and you'd say, huh, that's three of them.
But three, I don't think you want to get carried away, because it could be confirmation bias.
If you get it in your head that they're doing it, Then suddenly it looks like it's everywhere.
So don't get carried away because there are three examples of a thing.
They did say that Trump was responsible for Navalny's death.
But, you know, four things.
OK, now that's getting into the territory where it's starting to look like a little bit of a trend.
So maybe you should watch it.
I would say I would only go so far as to keep an eye on it because it's only four things.
Well, there's also the hoax that Trump invited Russia to attack any NATO country that didn't fully pay up his bills.
But, um... All right, so that's five things.
That's five Russia hoaxes.
But, you know, it's just a crazy season.
Everything's a little more, you know, when you're in the election year.
Like, everything that would be done three times gets done five times.
So, on to the context.
That's not a lot of Russia hoaxes.
It's only five.
And they're kind of spread out over several years.
If you did, what would be the hoax per year?
That's less than one per year.
That's fewer than one per year.
That's like nothing.
So if you're looking for some kind of trend or something, one per year, barely anything.
It's only five of them anyway.
Well, there's this new one about the FBI informant who has always been known to have Russian contacts, but now because he has Russian contacts, he's a Russian spy, exactly when he said that he has information that the Bidens took bribes.
But really that's, you know, it's possible he's telling the truth.
Right?
We don't know.
It's possible he's telling the truth.
Or that he's lying.
Either one.
So, I mean, that's a maybe.
So I'd say five.
That's like five and three quarters.
You know, you could call that a six if you're going to round off.
Well, there's also the the hoax that Putin blew up his own pipeline.
Yeah, I guess that belongs there.
So it's more like.
Six and a half, six and three quarters hoaxes, and that's not a lot.
But there's also number eight, that Trump is romantically attracted to Putin.
That one came from Jamie Raskin today.
Raskin, Jamie Raskin.
Yes, he thinks that Trump is actually in love with Putin.
And of course, I didn't remember this, but scientist, researcher, and medical guy Peter Hotez, he once suggested that the bad information about the vaccinations was coming from Russia.
So really that's only nine.
That's not a lot of hoaxes.
Am I right?
It's a little more than one per year for seven years, but it's only nine.
It's only nine Russia hoaxes.
So if you saw a new claim about Russia that looked like it was ridiculous on the surface, I mean, you just heard it and you said, Oh my God, that's doesn't even sound like it's a little bit true.
Well, what you should say to yourself is, there's no reason to disbelieve this, because really only nine hoaxes, and that's not a lot.
In other news, Russia is reportedly putting a nuclear weapon in space, which I'm positive is true, because seriously, would they lie to us?
I mean, have they ever lied to us before about Russia?
No.
All right.
And I'm going to go back to the next one.
Here's NBC News trying to write this sentence, but they got a lot of extra words.
So NBC News is reporting, quote, Trump was right.
Trump was right.
I bet you never thought you'd see that.
But they don't word it that way.
I said a quote.
I shouldn't have said a quote.
They actually put a little more flavor on it.
So this is how NBC News reports Trump was right.
The Biden administration is considering taking action without Congress to make it harder for migrants to pass initial screening for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border and quickly deport recently arrived migrants who don't meet the criteria officials say.
Edit.
Trump was right.
All right, I saw an extensive report on the X-Platform that there were a lot of Fulton County text ballots.
I saw this on the Mad Liberals account.
And apparently some people have been looking at the ballot images and have determined That there are quite a few test ballots that were counted as actual ballots.
So there were 17 test ballots that they had used for testing, and it turns out those test ballots were alarmingly found in the number of actual vote counts.
Over and over and over again is the claim.
And you can actually go look at the pictures of them yourself.
So you don't have to believe the claim.
You can look at the picture.
And you can see for yourself.
And let's see, when you add up all the doubles and stray ballots, so that would be in addition to not just the test ballots, but there would be doubles and there'd be stray ballots at Fulton County.
About 12,000 ballots are completely fraudulent or sketchy, according to this analysis.
And across the entire state, there would be about 23,000 of them, based on this analysis.
So, let me summarize this by saying, Thank God we don't live in Ukraine.
My God.
In Ukraine, the election was cancelled.
And that's way worse than having an election that's completely fraudulent, and we all know it.
No, I'm kidding.
We don't have proof of that, because it wasn't proven by the courts.
Because we trust our courts, and every case they heard had standing, and it was in time, and they really looked at it carefully, and so we really know what happened there.
Now, I will not claim that any specific claim of impropriety is true, because we have a long history of pretty much every claim that we've seen come through has been debunked.
So, I don't know about this one, but I know you can go look at it yourself.
You can look at the images.
You know, that's not enough.
It's there for you.
I will say that my opinion of the election is this, in terms of integrity.
I personally, just me, I cannot prove, nor do I have anything that I would consider proof, that the election was rigged.
I do, however, live in a world in which it would be impossible to imagine it's not.
That's my take.
So if you look at the totality of everything else, and you look at specifically the branding of Trump as Hitler, and you look at the kind of reaction that got, and you look at somebody willing to fund district attorneys just so they can put that guy in jail on what I think are fraudulent charges, that would be completely consistent to know that the election was rigged.
If it were, which I do not have proof of.
All right.
California's budget crisis just went through the roof.
Could be as high as $73 billion, much higher than they thought.
Don't know yet, but we're going to find out soon.
So how in the world does Gavin Newsom run for president?
I think that Governor Abbott of Texas ended his chances.
Because when Abbott showed that you can do something on the border, because he did it, not only did he prove that something can be done, which makes California look like idiots, but also he transferred all of the burden of the migrants to California.
So now California, my state, is paying the bill that Governor Abbott, quite cleverly, I hate it but I love it, I hate it because I'm paying the bill that would have been paid by Texas.
I hate it, but I love it because it was smart and he had every right to do it.
He didn't break any laws and it was politically smart.
It changed the conversation.
I just don't like it because I'm paying for it.
You know, you understand that.
So now we've got a situation where the border and the economies are the two biggest, and the deficits are kind of the biggest concerns, and Gavin Newsom is the worst in the world at all of it.
He's the worst at all of it.
How do you become president?
Easily.
You run in a system where the votes are not, let's say, as legitimate as they could be.
So, could he be the worst at everything that's important and still become president?
In our current system, yes.
He could actually do that.
It is 100% possible that the person who is the worst candidate on every marker becomes president, because I don't believe we have a legitimate election system.
Not based on any proof.
Based on... It becomes obvious when you look at the totality of what's going on.
The Stop Hitler thing in particular.
Let's see, New York City is going to give $10,000 per migrant.
You don't need any ID to get it.
And there doesn't seem to be much of the way of fraud control or restrictions.
So, I wonder how that will work out.
Will it...
Bring more migrants to New York City and exacerbate the problem or will it solve the problem?
Huh?
I guess I have no way to predict which way that will go.
Maybe we should not incentivize criminal entry into the country.
Or maybe we should declare that these are the reparations and they've been You want to know how Republicans could win every election this coming?
All they have to do is say that your reparations money was spent on the migrants.
Is that true?
Is it true that black reparation money is being spent on the migrants?
Yes and no.
Yes and no.
It's no in the sense that money, if you were productive enough and you wanted to increase your debt, well, maybe you could do both.
You would just have crushing debt to do it.
But the other way to look at it is money is limited.
And if money is limited, your lowest priority stuff is what you don't do.
And we've certainly proven after hundreds of years that reparations for slavery is not our top priority.
Otherwise it would already be done.
So I think there is a strong argument that carries some intellectual weight that the migrants have essentially spent the reparations.
And I think Republicans should say that and say, you know, the reparations argument had some intellectual weight.
Because even if you're totally against it, and I am too, it does have an intellectual weight.
That's why it's still around.
Because we do have a history of reparations for things.
Now, I disagree that it's a practical thing, or fair, or anything like that.
So I'm completely against it.
But I think you could argue that the priority put on the migrants makes it impossible to have the conversation about reparations.
I think that's a fair argument.
All right.
I've seen a number of people worry about the collapse of civilization.
And people worry that the things that are happening right now are symbols that the United States is going to collapse.
How many of you think that's going to happen?
Or are seriously worried about it?
Is that something you're... How many of you have a serious worry about the collapse of the whole United States?
All right, so we got mixed answers.
A lot of people definitely worried.
All right, would you like me to remove your worry?
Would anybody like to be reframed away from that?
I will now solve your worry.
Number one.
When was the last time the news, and mostly this is coming from smart people in the news, when was the last time a civilization existential threat was real?
Were they right about climate change?
Are you already dead?
Were they right about nuclear war in the 60s?
Are you already dead?
Were they right about anything?
Yeah, anything?
No.
So, the first thing you should know is that we are in a state of continuous existential dread, because that's the, our economic system guarantees it.
So our economic system means that scaring people is the most profitable, and so there should be industries that grow up and pundits who want to get engagement, By telling you the scariest possible thing, which is civilization will end.
So that's not to say that you don't have a risk.
What I'm saying is that the reason you feel the risk is because of the nature of our news industry and social media.
It's not because it's a greater risk than it's ever been.
It's probably a smaller risk than it has ever been in the history of humankind.
It's probably the smallest risk of all time.
300,000 years of humans.
Smallest risk today.
But I haven't told you why.
Here's why.
Have you heard of North Korea?
North Korea is doing everything wrong.
Still there.
Still there.
How about Venezuela?
Everything wrong.
Still there.
If you check back in a hundred years, do you think Venezuela will still be a state?
I say yes.
I say yes.
In a hundred years, Venezuela will be a state.
You know, a country.
How about North Korea?
Well, something will be there, and it will be North Koreans.
It might be a different government, but they'll be alive, and they'll be North Koreans.
So here's what's changed.
And I'm no ancient historian, but let me see if this hits you as common sense.
In the ancient times, there were many civilizations which, you know, built up to a high level and then just disappeared.
The Romans among them, you know, Roman Empire, for example.
But Italy still exists.
Am I wrong?
I'm pretty sure you can go to Italy.
Maybe, maybe there are, yeah, barely.
Right, their economy is not killing it.
But if you go there, they're eating and drinking and having a good time.
So here's what's different.
If there was an existential threat to, let's say, a city-state, they didn't really have any help.
You know, let's say they got a disease or they ran out of food.
They just had to move.
They had to leave and just abandon the city.
Or there could be some kind of risk, you know, of war or whatever.
But I think today, that because we're all interconnected, that we have the ability to communicate and move resources wherever they need to be.
And we're pretty quick about doing it.
So, what would be the risk of one country starving?
Much lower, much lower than it ever has been.
So if you took any one country and said, oh, they did everything wrong and they're all going to starve.
Well, the other countries would say, oh, we don't want you to starve.
We'll send you some food.
Um, so we generally are living in a situation that is short of military conquest, which is still very real, short of military conquest.
Countries don't really go away.
They have good times and bad times, but they kind of just last.
Take Japan.
Japan's economy, it looked like it was just going to be in trouble for decades, and it was.
Their economy was in the doldrums for decades.
But you know what people say when they travel internationally?
They say, have you ever been to Japan?
My God, everything's clean and working fine there.
How about China?
Just today, I saw that the Chinese stock market is not just having a tough time lately, but if you were to adjust it for inflation and whatnot, you would find, this is Ken Fisher saying this, that it's been down 40% in the last 14 years.
The entire Chinese stock market is down 40% Over the last 14 years.
Now, I don't know if that number is right, but the point is, you could have really, really big problems in really important countries, and they still figure a way through it.
They still figure it out.
So we're not in a world that we used to live in.
If you run out of food, you can find a way to get it.
If you have a bad idea, you can usually find a way to correct it.
If there's a military problem, at least among the bigs, we're now too afraid to go to complete war.
So, you know, Russia and the United States have arguably been at war for two years.
Ukraine?
Well, I don't think we got close to a nuclear confrontation.
So, there is a weird stability when any country can completely destroy the other, and vice versa.
And you know it, right?
Japan, that was a dumb example.
Well, fuck you, alright?
How about fuck you and you're not welcome here anymore?
Yeah.
How about calling the example of dumb is not acceptable on the Locals platform?
If you want to be here, let's clean that up.
The other platform's fine, but this is a subscription system, and sitting there in the comments and calling me dumb is not acceptable.
So if you'd like to clean that up, I'll give you a chance.
Otherwise, I'm just going to kick you off and just ban you.
Because this is not your first time.
All right, that is not acceptable behavior on locals.
Locals is more of a community.
All right, we're gonna be a little more supportive to each other.
All right, you're gone.
All right, goodbye.
Let me just make sure I got your name there.
All right, I will delete you as soon as the show's done.
So, goodbye forever.
All right, let's talk about the two-state solution.
I saw Sam Harris, who we like to make fun of for his opinions about things we don't like, but he has an opinion that a two-state solution is impossible.
Do you agree?
Is a two-state solution impossible?
Of course it is.
And I'm glad that he's at least, you know, telling us the obvious.
Here's what the two-stage solution sounds like to me.
What it sounds like is... What it sounds like is we want dry water.
Because you know how if you get wet, it can be unpleasant?
So what we want is water that's water, but also dry.
That's what a two-state solution is.
It's on its surface, it's obviously impossible.
And the fact that we even talk about it like it's an option?
It's just weird.
It's just weird.
Like, I feel like I'm in some kind of hallucination where people imagine that that's possible.
Now, as Sam Harris said, and I agree completely, the obvious solution, you could predict it today.
Do you want me to tell you exactly how it's going to end?
With no doubt whatsoever.
Let me tell you exactly how it's going to end.
There will be a fake two-stage solution.
It'll be a one-stage solution in terms of security and military and maybe education, but there will be maybe some cultural autonomy.
There's no other way it could go.
Because Israel, especially being the Israel of the legacy of Holocaust, there's no way they can do a legitimate genocide.
They can't just genocide Gaza and get rid of every Islamic person and then the whole West Bank.
There's nothing you can do there.
They will be living in the same general area, but you absolutely can make sure that they're not their own government.
Yeah, so a hybrid would look like somebody's got security control, which in effect would be the real control.
So it would be one country for security reasons, but it would be like two states.
It would be more like a red state and a blue state.
I guess that's a better analogy.
Yeah.
You can say that the United States is one country, but when you look at our blue states and red states, are we really?
Are we really?
If I can't get an abortion in one state... I mean, just think of this one example.
In one state, I can go buy a gun, you know, easily.
In another state, I can't.
Are those the same country?
In one state, I can get an abortion, you know, because I'm a boy, so boys can have abortions now.
And in another state, I would go to jail, or it'd be illegal.
Right?
But think of it.
We are not one country.
We are several countries, but we have one security system.
Right?
The federal government is basically the security system.
So, when you say that the United States is one country, you're forgetting the united part.
We are the United States.
Our country is literally multiple countries.
It was designed as multiple countries that we would pretend are one because the one gives us, you know, security.
So it's obvious that that's where Gaza's going.
It's obvious.
And the fact that we're pretending it's going to go any other way is just stupid.
It's just absolutely stupid.
When Netanyahu says they're going for, quote, total victory, what do you think that means?
He doesn't mean kill everybody.
I mean, if you're a Hamas fighter, you're in bad shape.
But he doesn't mean kill the civilians.
That's not what total victory means.
Total victory means that when they're done, this can never happen again.
That's what it means.
That it can never happen again.
And the only way that happens is if they have complete security and education control of the country.
So yes, it will be two states, maybe three.
Maybe West Bank is one and Gaza is another.
I don't know.
But it will be the United States of Israel or the United States of something different.
And it will just be like red states and blue states.
But am I crazy?
Tell me if I'm crazy.
It has to go that way.
There is literally nothing else that could happen.
Am I wrong?
There's nothing else that could happen.
Because they can't eliminate all the Arabs and all the Islamic people.
That's not going to happen.
All right.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that is the conclusion of the best live stream you're going to see today.
and And I'm going to say thanks to the platforms on X and on YouTube and on Rumble.
And thanks for joining, and we'll see you tomorrow.
Export Selection