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, Don Lemon Settlement, Dr. Phil, Leticia James, Eric Weinstein, Noble Lie Climate Change, Lies Money Whiteboard, Google DeepMind, The Simulation, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, John Brennon, Open Border Purpose, Wokeness Origin, Ibram X. Kendi, Power Behind The Throne, Ukraine Secret Spy Bases, Meta AI Suppresses Trump, DEI Incompetence, Gemini Justifies Antifa, Levels of Awareness, Narrative Driven Species, Authoring Reality, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and that's what we're going to do.
In addition to talking about the news and I'm going to boost your level of awareness.
I'm going to take everybody up to a higher level of awareness today.
Challenge accepted.
And if you'd like to get a good start on this higher level of awareness, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, gel, cistern, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
Now, I don't want to get you too excited, But there will be a whiteboard.
A whiteboard?
Huh?
That's right.
Well, let's start with this cool news.
I saw a Brian Ramelli post on X about a portal.
That's one of the coolest uses of technology I've seen.
So if you imagine something that's bigger than a person, and a big round circle, and the center of the circle is a screen, you know, a huge person-sized screen, and you could put it in any city, and a person could walk up to it, and they will see the person in the other portal.
So it's sort of a hard coat, you know, it's always up.
And here's the cool thing.
It has a translator built in.
So you can walk up to the portal in, let's say, Paris, or wherever, I guess it's going to be in different places.
You can walk up to the portal in Paris.
And then somebody on the street in China would see you standing there at the portal, and they would walk up.
They would speak in Chinese, you would speak in French, and you would have a complete conversation in real time.
Now, that's insanely cool.
I don't even know what to say about it.
It's just like...
It just activates every, like, hair in my body to stand up.
Don't think about that too long.
Yeah, it's just one of the coolest things.
I like to start the show with just something to imagine.
And I ask you this.
Could it stop war?
Did you ever wonder what would happen if the citizens got to vote on war?
And actually talk to each other directly.
Hey, do you guys want a war?
Because I feel like we don't really want one over here, but our government is kind of pushing us toward it.
And then the other people in whatever country would say, you know, I'm glad you talked to me on the portal because we're not too crazy about war either.
How about we just fire our leaders and don't have a war?
Yeah, it's actually a threat to power if people could talk to each other with translation.
Here's a question for you that I just thought of, so I don't know if it's a good one yet.
Give me one second to think if this is a really dumb thing to say.
No, I think it might make sense.
Since we've had good communications in the world, so that would exclude, let's say, the Civil War, and it would exclude, you know, the Revolutionary War and those earlier wars.
But since we've had Internet, and since we've had really good, you know, phones and communication, how many wars have there been between the United States and somebody who spoke the same language?
That's an actual question.
I'm not being rhetorical.
There are two now.
Well, who would that be?
Because Russia doesn't speak English.
The Palestinians, I mean, a lot of them have a second language, but they're mostly different language.
And here's the thing I wonder.
I wonder if it's possible to have a war between two nations that speak the same language, their original language, and have lots of communication technology where the citizens can talk to each other.
Now, don't give me the Civil War.
Only in modern times when we could In modern times?
No?
Okay.
I don't want to see anything with 18 in it.
1800 and anything is not in this conversation.
I'm very specifically saying, America?
No.
Russia plus Ukraine?
You're not getting this yet.
America?
Have we gotten in a fight with an English-speaking country?
And so here's what I'm speculating.
If Universal Translation just becomes part of all of our technology, which it looks like it will, I mean, pretty easy to predict, you would be able to directly talk to citizens of any other country that you are considering having a war with, and you might actually be able to work it out without the benefit of your government.
That's actually a possibility, that Universal Translation Plus universal communication, you know, the ability to reach anybody, could end war.
Because it's very rare that citizens want to be in a war.
It's not rare when governments want to be in a war.
Just think about it.
It might actually end war.
Alright, maybe.
I'm being a little optimistic.
Don Lemon, Got a settlement from CNN, got $24.5 million.
That's what he would have been paid if he'd stayed on for his contract.
But what do you think of that?
$24.5 million.
That's pretty good, right?
Do you know how much he takes home?
If he makes $24.5, well, he's going to pay over half of it in taxes.
He's probably going to pay 15% to his agent.
And God knows how much his lawyer gets, because his lawyer's, you know, putting in some serious high-level work here.
If I had to guess, 24.5, I think you'll net... 7?
6 or 7?
Yeah.
So that's probably 6 in the bank.
Now, how many of you did that calculation in your head when you saw the 24 million?
And how many of you said, wow, he just made 24 million dollars?
It's actually closer to six.
I mean, it's a ton of money.
I'm not I'm not saying it's a small amount.
I'm just saying that if you don't have that filter on it, you're missing it by a factor of four, basically.
But the good news is Don Lemon is going to launch his own show on the X platform called The Don Lemon Show.
And you know, I'm really excited about it.
You know, as much as I complained when he was on CNN, it was more about being in the CNN channel.
Let me make a prediction.
My prediction is that Don Lemon, without the yoke of CNN on him, is going to be a good show.
Does anybody want to take the other side of that?
I actually predict it's going to be a good show, and that you'll enjoy watching it.
Maybe not every day.
But I'll bet you it'll be good.
And the reason I think so is that I don't think he's captured by, you know, wokeness.
There is indication from, you know, earlier video of him, before wokeness became crazy, that he's just a reasonable person who can see both sides of stuff.
I would love to be on his show.
It's the number one show I would like to be invited on.
So if anybody knows him, let him know.
I'd love to talk to him.
There's a New York Times writer who says he was ousted for saying he liked Chick-fil-A sandwiches.
Does that sound true?
I don't know.
It sounds like it could be.
I'm just going to say maybe, because it's fun.
It's not too important.
So I'm just going to say, let's treat it like it's true.
Do you agree?
Let's treat it like it's true.
Because it sounds like something that would be true.
And here's the reason.
I guess he ended up in HR or something, or maybe his manager talked to him and said, We don't do that here.
They hate gay people.
So you can't say that you like Chick-fil-A and be a writer at the New York Times.
All right.
All right.
So I'm working toward my theme today.
There will be a theme.
And we'll see if you can spot it before I tell you what it is.
But that's a hint.
So, Dr. Phil went on The View and had a little mix-up with the hosts of The View about how bad it was that the schools were closed.
Of course, I believe that the hosts of The View were in favor of school closures.
Dr. Phil gave them a dose of reality.
Now, here's what's really fun about Dr. Phil.
Are you ready?
I think that because he's been a TV guy and an Oprah creation for years, that people assume he's left-leaning without knowing the truth.
Is that a fair assumption?
That the public doesn't really know that he's not a woke lefty?
They probably assume he's just a TV guy.
He's, you know, from Oprah's Orbit.
Of course, he's just going to be sort of a lefty guy.
But he apparently is now free from all constraints, corporate constraints, because his regular show is over.
I think he's doing something new.
I don't know the details, but I suspect that he fully owns whatever he's going to do.
And that means he's free.
Dr. Phil just entered the chat.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, that's just one more person, you know, one more voice.
No, it's Dr. Phil.
It's Dr. Phil.
It's not just one more voice.
This is like a Dr. Jordan Peterson.
You know, this is like Tucker Carlson.
This is somebody, it's like Vivek.
It's somebody whose communication abilities are beyond what you normally see, and is able to see all sides of an argument.
My God.
Dr. Phil just entered the chat.
Yes, you got ahead of me.
This is dad energy.
What does Dr. Phil have more than any human you've ever seen in your entire life?
More dad energy than I've ever seen.
Name one person who has more pure dad energy than he does.
Nobody.
Right?
So, big welcome to the fight.
I would like to say that people like me, who got cancelled, and then didn't die, have made it easier for people who are maybe a little more, let's say, established.
Maybe they have more news or something.
But, I feel like, The people who took the arrows in the back make it easier for anybody else to join the fight.
So I hope that's the case.
Byron York is posting, telling us about Letitia James.
You know, she's the AG who ran for office to bring down Trump, and then she found some BS reason to do it.
And she's posting every day, gleefully, the extra gazillion dollars of interest he has to pay on what he's already on the line to pay.
Now, how disgusting is that?
That she's bragging about it.
Now, some people ask, is that even legal?
And I assume it is legal.
You know, free speech.
I'm good for free speech.
I think it's legal.
But it's the most distasteful thing and unethical.
I think it's unethical for sure.
But it's so distasteful that it's just mind-boggling.
Now, I have a hypothesis which, speaking of Jordan Peterson, I tagged him on my post.
Because it seems to me that a lot of what we think is a difference of opinion Is mental health.
And this to me looks like toxic narcissism.
You know I'm right, right?
So the fact that she ran to bring him down, because that was such a popular thing, and she'd be such a celebrity and such a star if she did.
And she also ran on bringing down the NRA, because if she did, she'd be such a celebrity and such a star.
And now she is doing a dance on Trump's economic grave by, you know, posting that to make herself more noticed, more of a celebrity, more of a star.
Now, is there anybody here who actually has experience in mental health, as in a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Okay, we got at least one, two.
Okay, I got a lot of people listening who have that skill set.
Can you agree or disagree or if you don't want to have an opinion?
Does it seem to you really obvious that narcissism is your problem?
I just want to see in the comments.
Do you agree?
It seems, you know, you can't, to be fair, if we're being fair, you cannot diagnose a mental health problem in another person from a distance and do it ethically.
It wouldn't be ethical to do it.
But I'm not a psychiatrist.
I don't think those ethical standards apply to my observation.
My observation Is that she and Fonny, and there might be some others, maybe Alvin Bragg, are suffering with some kind of narcissism.
And if they were diagnosed, they would actually get that diagnosis.
That's what I think.
So, we keep confusing political opinion and mental health.
And it's really, it's really bad.
This is very much mental health.
And, you know, you see it with the trans movement.
Whatever part of that is based on real people with real problems, I don't know.
I'm not an expert.
But it's really obvious that a large percentage of it, and again, I don't know what percentage, is just purely mental health.
Purely.
Obviously.
No.
But I'm no expert, right?
It's just obvious to anybody.
So we make this mistake over and over again.
We treat people who literally have mental health problems as if it's just a difference of opinion.
Probably ought to stop doing that.
Joy Reid.
Somebody just posted a picture of Joy Reid with her new Trump haircut.
Joy Reid comes off as a mental health problem.
What's her name?
What's her co-host there who only works on Monday?
What's her name?
Rachel Maddow.
Yeah, so Rachel Maddow.
She looks always to me like she's literally suffering some kind of psychological breakdown as she talks.
Have you ever seen that?
You look at her face.
And she feels like she's being tortured by demons on the inside when she talks.
Now, again, I'm not a mental health professional, but if she's not under the care of a professional, I'd be really surprised.
I'd be really surprised if she's not under the care of a professional, you know, in her private life.
But again, I'm no professional myself, so you're free to ignore my observation.
Eric Weinstein was talking about physics, and he said, I want you to remember this the next time you start talking about peer review and simply using the normal channels.
Fundamental physics theory is being destroyed within our institutions by total nonsense, and I don't know why.
Now, I don't know why is the payoff, because if you don't know who I'm talking about, Eric Weinstein, he would know about the insides of the physics community, because he's part of that world.
So he would understand if it's BS.
You and I can't tell from the outside necessarily, but we could see it.
He could see it.
And he's saying there's something wrong.
Did you ever have the feeling that I had at one point in time?
Gosh, I think all this politics is full of lies.
Right?
I think politics is all full of lies.
But thank goodness we still have science.
Because science is not going to be influenced by all these, you know, bad characters and psychological problems and all that stuff.
All that bias.
We get rid of that.
We got some science.
Well, years ago, here's a little story I don't think I've ever told you.
Years ago, maybe when I was in my thirties, I got real interested in physics, having no educational background in physics whatsoever.
And let me tell you what interested me about physics.
It looked like it was complete bullshit to me.
That's what got me interested.
I wasn't interested in the science.
I was interested in the psychology of how we could get to the point of believing what I believed was obviously not true.
Obviously not true.
I'm talking about basic reality, you know, the the the mysterious stuff, you know Bell's theorem and you got your spooky action at a distance and we're gonna prove that string theory is true any day now, but it didn't quite happen and and to me Oh, and the fact that the universe has an edge, and that the speed of light has a limit, and that we're coincidentally here, you know, despite all odds.
I mean, there are just so many things that didn't look real.
Now, it could be that the only problem is my low level of understanding of physics.
But the more I looked into it, the more obvious it was that the physicists really didn't understand their own field.
And I don't know if that's what Eric Weinstein is getting at.
I think his point is a little more nuanced and a little more interesting than that.
But to me, it looks like they don't know their own field.
And I've thought that for decades.
Now recently we find out that half of all scientific papers are just BS.
You know, people have tested it by making fake papers and seeing if they passed peer review.
About half of them do.
And that matches the number of peer-reviewed studies that can be reproduced, because they're probably not true.
So science is indeed a ridiculous thing that we pumped up to be more important than it is.
Because it might be the best we have, but that's a long way from being good.
But, you know, even though physics is sort of sketchy looking, at least climate science is real, am I right?
At least we got climate science completely right.
So, next story.
Michael Schellenberger says there's an author, Dr. Mike Hulme, I think, H-U-L-M-E, Cambridge climate scientist.
Well, he's going to tell us some stuff about climate science and how big of a problem it is.
Let's see, he says in his new book... Oh, okay.
Climate emergency is what he calls a noble lie.
Huh.
A noble lie.
That feels like an academic way of saying something else.
A noble lie.
Huh.
Seems like a positive spin on something that somebody else, somebody with orange hair, once said about climate change.
What was that word?
Oh, a hoax.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's too early to say for sure, But the simulation seems to be very intent on lighting up a third act for Trump that is like nothing you've ever seen.
Now, I've long predicted that Trump's third act would be proof that the election was rigged.
I don't know if we need proof when two-thirds of the country says it's obviously true.
I don't know if he needs proof.
He got two-thirds of the country to say, yeah, I think elections are not real.
That's kind of a big win, right?
And that was all him.
That was all him.
One person, one person got two thirds of the country to not believe our elections are real.
Now you can say to yourself, but, but, but all these other Republicans were saying it too.
They wouldn't have said it if Trump didn't say it.
If Trump said, you know what?
Stand down.
I think it was fair.
You know, let's accept it.
His base would have gone along with it.
I mean, we would have, you know, talked about it forever, but we kind of would have accepted it.
It was one person who caused two thirds of the country to think the elections are rigged.
Now that's my current belief, without the benefit of any proof.
Would you like to see my argument for why I believe that climate change is almost certainly bullshit, and that our elections are almost certainly bullshit, and that the war on Ukraine Is almost certainly bullshit.
And maybe a few more things.
And it's all going to be with one graph on one whiteboard, and it'll be the most magnificent thing you've ever seen.
I give you now the explanation for everything that was confusing you.
I call it the bullshit versus money graph.
If you're listening to this, on the lower line of the graph, we've got money.
And then on the other side, we've got bullshit or lies.
And there's a hockey stick kind of a graph there, showing that the more money is involved, the more lies.
What things are expensive?
Name something expensive.
Let's see.
How about changing the energy sources of the planet Earth everywhere?
Climate change.
That's some super expensive stuff, huh?
What do you think happens when things get that expensive?
Right.
The lion goes through the roof, because people want some of that money.
Now, how about Ukraine?
That Ukraine war is pretty expensive, huh?
Has there been any lies about the Ukraine war?
Nothing but.
War is the thing you can guarantee is all lies.
It's also the most expensive thing we do.
Iraq war?
All lies.
All BS.
Now, what else do we have here?
Climate science is expensive.
War is expensive.
How about just the economy in general?
Or how about COVID?
COVID was expensive.
How about those vaccinations?
How about healthcare?
How about reparations?
How about college?
I'm just reading your comments.
Do you see it yet?
Everything expensive is a lie because it brings out the liars.
And it's a system problem.
Wherever there is money, there are moths going toward the flame.
Ah, there's money there.
So, you're gonna get ten crooks for every honest person, and eventually the ten crooks will overwhelm the honest person, if you even have one.
Right?
So, and there's no real other way this can go.
There's not a second way this goes.
You know that, right?
You all get that?
It doesn't go this way sometimes.
It's every time.
It doesn't have the option of going any other way.
As soon as there's enough money, it becomes completely corrupt.
Now, at a lower level of money, maybe you can get away with stuff.
But once you get to the big numbers, it's all lies.
It's all lies.
Now let us develop that theme a little bit, shall we?
So the fact that there's a Cambridge climate scientist who's coming out and saying that at least the alarm part of climate science is a lie.
Um, so that, that's fun.
So it seems to me that the conversation about everything is now far more honest.
Are you all seeing that?
That the, the, what do you call it?
The, uh, uh, what's that called?
The effect with sort of the bounce back or the counter effect.
It seems pretty strong.
There's a whole bunch of people who seem to be able to say the truth now that couldn't say the blow back.
A lot more people can talk about the truth.
All right, here's some more evidence that we are living in a simulation.
I watched a video this morning of a robot doing a series of tasks sort of autonomously.
And have you ever noticed that the robots are all naked?
And they look kind of male?
Like when you see a robot, you never think female, do you?
It's always a naked man.
So this is how you know you're in a simulation.
I'm watching this robot who looks like a naked guy, and it's being posted by the founder of the company that makes the robot, and his name is Brett Adcock.
So as I'm looking at this naked male robot with no genitalia, that was created by a guy named Adcock, I said to myself, AI Robotics, I think he is, and Archer Aviation is where he's from.
I can't ignore that.
I cannot ignore that.
So don't you imagine that buying a robot would be someday like buying a car?
I was just shopping for a car.
By the way, do you know it's impossible to buy a vehicle?
Has anybody tried to buy a vehicle?
They don't let you do it anymore.
I got a Toyota to buy a truck.
There are none on the lot.
They go, oh yeah, we don't really keep them here, but you can buy one that's in the pipeline.
And I said, oh, will the pipeline have ones that have the features I want?
Well, they all have different features.
Oh, so the odds of one that's in the pipeline that is not already bought, because people are buying them in the pipeline, one that's not already bought that also has the features I want, what are the odds of that?
Well, it's about zero.
So then I say, well then, but I could just, you know, build one.
I could order one with my specifications, right?
And I'd be willing to wait.
I'll wait six months.
I just want to get the truck I want.
And then the Toyota guy says, we don't do that anymore.
And I said, what don't you do anymore?
Make trucks that people want?
He said, yeah, yeah.
No, we just make the trucks we want to make, put them in the pipeline and people are buying them.
So you can't test drive it.
You can't.
You can't test drive it.
And you can't order it with the features you want.
That's a real thing.
And the reason they can do that is that all of their trucks are bought as fast as they make them.
They don't have to do better.
Yeah, they don't have to.
So then I said to myself, well, heck with Toyota, I'll go over to Ford and I'll get a Bronco.
So I started looking at the Broncos, and they range from like $30,000 to $105,000 for a Bronco.
Did you know that?
to $105,000 for Bronco.
Did you know that?
That the highest ones are well over $100,000.
And so I have to do this like major research to find out what features I want between $34,000 and $105,000.
There must be some of that that's unnecessary, right?
Somewhere in between might be sane.
I don't know.
So, firstly, I have to spend my afternoon doing all this research.
Do you think that did me any good?
No, because when I contact the dealer, they'll only have three of them, and they won't be the ones I want.
Do you think I can order one?
I don't know.
Maybe.
So yeah, everything is incompetent.
But I think if you buy a robot, it'll be like buying a car someday, and they'll ask you what package you want with it.
Do I need to connect those dots or are you already with me?
They're gonna ask you what package you want with it.
So when you buy a robot by Mr. Adcock, You can specify what package you want.
Okay, moving on.
Rowan Cheung, who talks about AI on Excel, he's a real good follow if you want to keep up with AI.
He does a real good job every day.
He says that Google's DeepMind unveiled Genie.
It's an AI system that can generate interactive video games from just a text or image prompt.
It can create an entire functioning video game with a whole realm and world that never existed anywhere on the fly while you play it.
Now that's insane.
It's crazy.
You know what else it is?
It's one step closer to you understanding that you're in a simulation.
Yep.
And the reason that it gets you closer is as you realize that these simulated worlds can be created on demand, and here's the fun part, in those simulated games, they create the past on demand.
Let me explain.
So let's say you're in a video game that's just created by AI, and you want to walk through a forest.
That forest doesn't exist.
It comes into being as you walk through it.
But as you walk through it, you're going to see a tree that's 50 years old.
It actually created the past.
Do you get that?
By creating the current, which is what it does, it puts things there that have been made historically.
A tree.
If you started digging in the ground in your simulated game, let's say it was one where you're trying to find a treasure.
If you got lucky and you dig in your simulated world and there's a treasure down there, was it down there before you started digging?
It wasn't.
The past is already being created on demand within the context of a video game.
Sooner or later, you're going to realize that's how your real world works.
That if you dig a hole in the backyard, unless somebody already dug a hole there, there's nothing below the dirt.
Until you dig.
Until you need it.
It doesn't exist.
Because that's how you would build software.
You would just build it to exist when you needed it.
Including the past.
I don't know how many hints it will take before we all realize we're living in a simulation, but I would think that the fact you can create your own simulation would get you halfway there.
I think the double slit experiment, the limit on the size of the universe, the speed of light, Bell's theorem, the fact that there's something called the smallest unit of matter, that doesn't make any sense.
There can't be a smallest unit of matter.
Because what's that made of?
And if the smallest units of matter are all made of the same thing, nothing's gonna move.
All right.
And then, of course, string theory is going to fail.
But in order to guarantee that we're a simulation, you'd need to be able to make predictions that work.
Would you agree?
Having a theory that we're a simulation would be hard to prove unless you could make a prediction that could only be satisfied by a simulation.
Right?
Yep.
So, I wonder if anybody's done anything like that.
Well, in 2015, I made the prediction that Trump would change more than politics, that he would change the nature of reality itself.
And then AI came along.
Because we already realized that everything in politics was subjective.
But did you still believe there was something that wasn't subjective?
Before you saw that AI is just a woke, biased monster, did you think to yourself, hey, if we build a robot, at least the robot won't have bias.
Did you think that was going to happen?
The reason that we didn't build the robot to be unbiased is that it's logically impossible.
Because we don't know what's real.
If we knew what was real, we could build the robot to know what was real, too.
Not only can we not build it, and not only do we not agree with what's real, there's no way to check.
Click.
I'm just unlocking one level at a time here.
Click.
There's no way to check what's real.
We live in a completely subjective reality that may be connected to some fixed reality that we're unaware of.
It will become increasingly clear that nothing is real when we build machines that should be able to figure out what is real and they can't do it.
And they'll never be able to do it.
They can't figure out what's real because there is nothing real.
There is only narrative.
There might actually be something real that we can't see.
But beyond that, our actual experience is just narrative.
Things we make up to live within.
I'll get back to that.
I'm going to let that settle in.
I'm going to circle back.
Italian TV is mocking Biden.
I guess they've had two episodes now where they've got a guy who acts like a demented Biden.
And the entire joke is that he's near death and crazy and stupid.
Do you remember when one of the biggest problems we were worried about was that other countries wouldn't respect Trump?
What do you think they think now?
What do you think they think now?
Now that Trump has been shown to be right about everything, the subject of obvious lawfare, and he's coming back.
Well, I'll bet he's not as embarrassing as Biden.
And let me talk about the dog not barking.
I think we all agreed that if Trump could just not cause any new trouble, he would just, he's on a glide path to the presidency.
He just has to not ruin it himself.
And we wondered if he would have the discipline to be able to pull that off, if he even wanted to try.
What do you think now?
To me, it's becoming increasingly obvious that Trump is playing the winning strategy.
He has the winning hand.
He just has to not tell people what he has.
You know, just don't show your hand.
And all he has to do is be cool.
Just be cool.
Just do what you do and be cool, and you're the next president for sure.
So I feel like, yeah, and it does feel like maybe Vivek's influence is again a positive one.
It's really hard to tell somebody as powerful as Trump what works better than what he's doing.
You would need to be a great communicator and so smart that he would recognize that it's coming from a good source.
That's why we suspect Vivek might be helping way more than you can see on the public level.
Because the wisdom that Trump is exhibiting looks like a combination of his own thinking plus wisely using feedback from somebody he trusts.
That's your perfect combination.
All right, but at least that's just the Italians.
It's not like anybody else is making fun of our president, right?
Right?
Nobody else would do that?
You should if you would like to learn how to detect lies watch a 2017 video I Reposted it came from the Mays more X account John Brennan testifying about Russia collusion and Watch when he's asked a direct question by Trey Gowdy and Watch his body language because the the beauty is that we know he's lying now and We didn't know at the time.
So if you can find any examples where you can know now that somebody knew they were lying back then, go back and look at it.
And you'll be able to spot it.
Yeah.
Let me give you my physical impression of John Brennan answering questions.
He had a pen in his hand.
And he's talking, uh, this happened, this happened.
And then he gets the tough question.
Um, definitely, uh, what happened is what I'm thinking is I think that the Russians, uh, did this.
It's really obvious.
Just, just watch his fidgety squirming and he bounces.
He starts bouncing when he, when he gets into the stuff that's clearly a lie.
All right.
Um, So, I would like to disagree with Elon Musk, which is very rare, hardly ever happens, but I partly agree.
And it's about the theory that the thing behind the mass migration is Democrats wanting extra voters and extra census and representation.
Now, that's certainly true.
It's true that they would get a benefit from extra voters.
It's certainly true that some of the Democrats have noted it and said it out loud.
Is that right?
Fact check me.
There are Democrats who have said it out loud.
So we don't have to wonder if they get some benefit from it.
Here's what I would like to introduce.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that it's a universal plan that's coming from the top.
I believe that the Democrats, who also don't know why it's happening, are putting their own interpretation of why it must be happening.
Oh, well I'm a Democrat, probably they'll vote Democrat.
My leaders are bringing them in, the border's open.
Oh, it's to get extra voters.
So I think that the Democrats are fooled about the real reason, and I think that Elon Musk, seeing that the Democrats say it out loud, quite reasonably, Attributes that reason to what we say now, that's a quite reasonable opinion They say it you observe it It's true that it will create more Democrat voters and it could swing everything.
So it's quite reasonable to have that theory Here's my theory If that were true Biden would have already closed the border Because it's not good for him It's not good for Biden to get re-elected.
So I believe we have proof that Biden is not in charge.
Because nothing could be more clear than Biden should close the border if he wants to get re-elected.
Would you agree?
So it's not coming from a political place.
Because the top guy in the political place couldn't possibly be better off, personally, to get re-elected.
Because remember, this is a long-term play.
Politicians don't think long-term.
Right?
Biden is basically, he's not buying, you know, he's not buying green bananas, if you know what I mean.
He's not looking at the long term.
He's just trying to get elected.
And getting elected, very clearly, every Democrat knows it, and every Republican knows it.
He would just sign an executive order and close the border tomorrow.
Because we know he can do it.
He knows he can do it.
Everybody knows he can do it.
The fact that he doesn't do it is really a strong indication that he's not in charge.
So, what possible explanation could there be if the top political person who should be wanting it clearly doesn't want it?
What else is there?
Well, I'm going to go with the obvious.
And I'm going to extend this to a larger concept.
Everything that's expensive, and you don't understand why it's going the way it is, is because the CIA, or intelligence entities, but I'll just say CIA for short,
It seems to me that the most reasonable working assumption is that the CIA, and again, I'll just use them for intelligence as a shorthand, because there are lots of different entities, but it seems to me they must be coordinating with the cartels to not only control Mexico's government, but also to make sure that American interests and manufacturing doesn't get attacked.
And it looks like, for reasons that are kind of mysterious, American interests don't seem to get attacked.
And we can conclude that the cartels do run Mexico, the government itself, because the Mexican military knows where their own border is.
If they wanted to control it with Mexican military, they would just put their troops there.
But they don't.
They let the cartels.
I say let, but that's not what I mean.
The cartels control the border.
That means they control the country.
Does anybody think that the power that controls the border of the country doesn't control the country?
Does anybody think that?
That would be ridiculous.
So it could be that every time you see a weird distortion, where the country is not operating the way you think common sense tells you it should, every bit of your common sense says close the border.
Even most Democrats would agree.
All common sense.
Yet it doesn't happen.
The only reason I can think of, for this and all the other things that don't make sense, that are big and expensive?
It's the CIA.
And that there's a bigger plan that maybe we don't see, and maybe it's a good idea.
I don't even know.
Maybe it's a good idea.
But imagine the alternative.
Let's say the CIA did not work with the cartel.
Well, we would not have functional control of the Mexican government, which seems really, really important if they're your neighbor.
Right?
If we didn't control the Mexican government, you don't think Russia would be trying to control it?
So they could put a little badness on our doorstep just like we do to them?
Of course they would.
But if you control the cartel, and the cartel controls the government, and some Russian guy tries to influence Mexico, what happens?
Cartel just kills them.
And nobody ever hears about it.
So it seems to me obvious that if the CIA is in the business of controlling other countries for the benefit of American interests, usually economic, that we would have to control Mexico.
There's no way to do it directly by controlling the government because they're puppets.
Instead, the best you can do is to partner with, not control.
But pardon me, with the cartels and say, look, if you leave our big corporations alone and you let us get what we want in terms of Mexico staying not Russian, then and I'm just using the Russian thing as an example of anything we don't want.
Then we'll let you get away with your normal crimes.
Now, is there any precedent for that in, let's say, law enforcement?
Has law enforcement ever let somebody, oh, like Whitey Bulger, do crimes right in front of them because they wanted to control the entity that they controlled?
Yeah.
Isn't it Whitey Bulger, exactly?
That example, right?
And lots of them.
There are plenty of examples.
So that would actually be a normal thing for our CIA to work with the baddest people in the country, Mexico, for some common interest.
Very normal, you would expect.
So, my theory is that the The idea that Democrats are bringing in extra voters is a CIA cover story for what's really happening.
And that it's such a good story that Democrats themselves believe it at the lower levels, but not at the Biden level.
At the Biden level, he might actually know what's going on.
Now I'm going to make a prediction based on this hypothesis.
The prediction is that Trump wins and the cartels are not militarily attacked.
Because he said he would.
All the Republicans said they would.
But I don't think it's going to happen.
I think that you get into office and the CIA sits you down, says, here's the deal.
If we don't work with the cartels, they're going to unleash horrors in this country like you've never seen.
The drug traffic will triple.
Basically, we won't own Mexico anymore.
They won't cooperate.
And all the American interests in manufacturing will be at risk.
And then they say, so our deal with the devil is we're gonna let 100,000 people die of overdoses, but we don't think they're the important people.
Right?
We don't think they're the important people or we'd protect them.
So that's what it looks like to me.
Just a hypothesis.
Who do you think was behind ESG, DEI, and wokeness in general?
Who was behind that?
Now you say to yourself, Scott, that's not the CIA.
That sort of came out of, you know, Ibram Kendi and, you know, various people and authors and the WEF.
And it basically sort of grew organically and a lot of things.
But let me ask you this.
Do you think that it got turbocharged by the George Floyd situation?
Would you say that's fair to say?
It was turbocharged by the George Floyd situation.
Because you can see it in the data.
Like, white people just stopped being hired by big corporations.
They just stopped.
Right?
Now, who was behind George Floyd?
Well, obviously, the CIA didn't cause the death.
You know, they didn't cause him to be stopped by the police.
But what turned George Floyd from an ordinary tragedy, a police action with a tragedy, into the biggest story in the country?
Well, the media did, right?
The media turned the George Floyd, what could have been a story about one person, tragic as it was, it turned into a national story that influences all of our thoughts about everything.
How was that done?
Well, that was done through social media and the mainstream media making it the biggest story of the year.
Why did the mainstream media make it the biggest story of the year?
Who controls that?
I think the CIA does.
Am I wrong?
Isn't our media completely subject to what the CIA says is the primary story?
Of course it is.
So even all the D, E, I, C, E, S, G, probably, probably it all happened maybe accidentally, but because of the boosting of the George Floyd.
Now why would they boost George Floyd?
Why would the CIA want to do that?
Seems like a bad idea, doesn't it?
Well, it would be the number one way to get rid of Trump.
It would be the number one way to say, oh, all those Republicans who look like Derek Chauvin, look what those whiteys will do.
So I believe that George Floyd was really about getting rid of Trump.
I believe that it was CIA, at least boosted, It may have had an organic nature to it, but it clearly was boosted like crazy.
And I don't believe that any of our top stories are organic.
I think our B-level stories that are just sort of interesting are organic, but the top stories I don't think ever are.
And the reason is that the CIA can't take that chance.
The CIA is in the business of making us think the way they want us to think, they would say for the benefit of the country.
And to make other countries think the way they want them to think.
It's not about the truth.
It's about making you think what they want to think.
So to me it looks like the CIA is the cause of the George Floyd, the racial division, all of the DEI, the massive discrimination against white people.
I also wonder if Ibram Kendi is organic and natural.
Now, I don't have any information that would suggest otherwise, but it would be a normal CAA method, as I understand it, to find influencers and to boost influencers that they want to boost.
For example, we assume that they boosted Elvis, maybe, well, not Elvis, let's say John Wayne.
In the old days, they'd make the war movies seem awesome, so you'd join the military.
I wonder, given the—let me be honest—Ibrahim Kendi doesn't seem like an intellectual powerhouse.
He looks like somebody who must have been boosted by something.
You know what I mean?
Like, Jordan Peterson became a national phenomenon, and you listen to him for one minute and you understand why.
Right?
One minute of listening to Jordan Peterson and you automatically know why he's world famous.
There's no doubt about it.
If you listen to Ibrahim Kendi, now of course I have a cultural, you know, sort of a block there, but even if you were, if you were black and American and you listened to Ibrahim Kendi, would you say that's the smartest guy I've been, I heard lately?
I don't know.
It feels like he must be boosted because his importance is and a whack with what he's bringing to the table.
Just a theory.
What's behind all the terrible movies?
The wokeness.
So the CIA probably was behind George Floyd.
What about Charlottesville?
Remember the Charlottesville hoax?
So it was not only a hoax, what Trump said about it, which was brought to you by the media.
And who controls the media?
The CIA.
So probably the whole find people hoax was probably a CIA op.
That's my guess.
Because all the major media said it was true, even though it was obviously not.
Just totally obviously not true.
And that suggests some power behind the throne, or power behind the media, CIA.
That would be their normal business.
Have you been surprised that there hasn't been a Charlottesville 2?
What happened to all those people?
And aren't there lots more who would want to do a successful march like that?
From their perspective, it wasn't as successful.
Hypothetically, if they were real, and they were actual racists, and a lot of them were.
I know a lot of them were.
For sure, they were racists.
But if this was a big thing that sort of had its own energy, you'd see it again.
There'd be another march somewhere.
But the fact that it only happened once, Has op written all over it?
Yeah, it doesn't look real.
How about the, we're up to 14 Russian hoaxes, many of them by John Brennan.
How many of the Russian hoaxes are just CIA, or ex-CIA, who basically are still CIA in my opinion?
Probably all the Russian hoaxes, or maybe half of them or more, were just pure CIA.
And I think somewhat obviously.
Because Brennan was central to those efforts.
You know, the laptop one, etc.
How about all the lawfare against Trump?
Do you think the lawfare against Trump is just Democrats knowing what to do?
They all sort of know what to do, so they just do it.
It's like, uh-uh, we'll elect us some prosecutors that want to get rid of Trump, and then it just happens on its own.
Well, I would argue that the prosecutors are all funded by Soros.
Soros and his organization, I believe, have a connection to the Atlantic Council, which is staffed largely by ex-CIA directors.
Soros, the only thing that explains Soros is that he's a CIA asset.
Would you agree?
The only explanation for Soros is that he's a CIA asset.
There's nothing else that makes sense.
So if the CIA wanted to get Trump, how would they do it?
They'd have their bank, Soros, fund a bunch of prosecutors, and then they would shop a venue and go to town on Trump.
So I think all of the law affairs, CIA instigated directly or indirectly.
How about the TDS in general and all the other hoaxes?
Probably CIA.
Because again, they control the media.
The media does the hoaxes.
If the CIA didn't want the media to present these hoaxes, do you think they would?
No!
The CIA would call NBC and say, yeah, this doesn't help us.
Don't do that one anymore.
And it would just stop.
It would just stop.
How about the Biden crime family and the fact that it becomes increasingly obvious that, I don't know if it's a crime per se, but that their behavior was sketchy and there was a lot of lying involved.
Does it feel to you like the only reason that Biden is president is because the CIA has the goods on him and can control him, and that he was part of the whole Ukraine, really was a CIA operation, and he's knee-deep in it?
It looks like it.
To me, everything about Ukraine can be explained by the CIA.
Would you agree?
All of it.
And we have information now that's coming out that the CIA was involved since 2014, the Mayden thing, even the shelling of Russians who considered themselves Russians in what was then Ukrainian territory.
It all seems to be CIA.
So there's that.
How about the Gemini AI?
And how woke it is.
Now, do you think I could tie that to the CIA?
That'd be quite a stretch, wouldn't it?
Watch me do it.
The CIA, as we know, has historically, and this is a matter of record, tried to control Hollywood and some celebrities because they know that controlling the media is a good way to control how everybody thinks.
We know that they've controlled the news for a long time.
We know that they're knee-deep in social media companies.
We know that AI is the biggest thing coming and will be the most dominant technical force.
Do you think there's any chance that the CIA didn't get inside the AI efforts of all the major companies?
Of course they do.
If they're not doing it, they all need to be fired.
What are they doing if they're not doing that?
That's the most basic thing they should be doing.
If the CIA isn't all the way into our AI products and every big company, why aren't they?
They better be.
Because that's their main job, is to determine how we think.
And the AI is going to be the main part of that.
Have you noticed that nobody built an AI that can tell the truth?
Some of it is because there is no truth.
But part of it is that what you see must be what the CIA wants you to see.
The fact that Google pulled back Gemini, although I don't know how it's pulled back, it's still there, suggests that maybe they revealed themselves a little bit too obviously.
We are to believe that the intelligence of AI is arising organically.
It's not.
Everything that's important will be programmed into it.
Because the CIA needs us to believe a certain set of things, we're going to start relying on the AI more and more.
So if the AI is not saying what the CIA wants it to say, they're going to tell the company to reprogram it until it does.
And the company will do it, because we have plenty of evidence from the Twitter files that they don't even have to threaten them.
They just have to have a meeting with them and they just have to walk in and say, Hey, we're the CIA.
We'd really like it if you did this thing.
What's the company going to do?
They got government contracts, right?
And they want to keep them.
Yeah.
They're going to do whatever the CIS wants to do.
I would.
All right.
Um, how about COVID?
Do I need to say anything about that?
Moving on.
How about the teachers' unions?
Have you been puzzled why we can't fix schools and you think it's the teachers' unions?
Do you think that the teachers' unions are completely organic and free from any CIA influence?
Doesn't seem possible.
Because we know the CIA likes to control unions.
Do you know why?
Well, if they're controlling something like the Teamsters or one of those tough unions, it's because they can get muscle on the street.
But they need to control unions in general, because that's where the power is.
So, my guess is that the CIA must want to control the Democrats through the teachers union, and that requires allowing some slop in how the teachers unions control the education system.
So, tell me the teachers unions don't look like the border problem.
It's a gigantic problem to the country.
It seems obvious to every observer that it would be easy to fix, right?
But it doesn't get fixed.
We can all see the problem and it just keeps lasting forever.
That suggests there's somebody behind the throne who wants it to last because they're getting some benefit that's not obvious to you.
Who else could it be?
Well, in case you trusted the CIA, here's a report, a long thread from Kaneko the Great, one of the better followers on the X platform.
I don't know where Kaneko gets all his research, but wow, does he have good stuff pretty much every day.
So I'm just going to read this thing here.
It's a thread.
The New York Times disclosed yesterday that the CIA built 12 secret spy bases in Ukraine, waging a shadow war against Russia for the past decade.
Sort of understand why Putin was a little concerned.
After a US-supported violent coup toppled Ukraine's democratically elected government, CIA Director John Brannan visited Kiev in April of 2014.
Shortly after, the new Ukrainian government launched an, quote, anti-terror operation.
Oh, isn't that convenient?
Gotta get those terrorists.
But those terrorists happened to be in the Russian-speaking part of eastern Ukraine.
Hmm.
For eight years, leading up to Russia's invasion in 2022, Ukraine's government, with help from the CIA, relentlessly bombed eastern Ukraine.
Hmm.
Millions of innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire of a geopolitical chess match between Russia and the United States.
This is part of the story often ignored by the Western press.
So,
Ukraine apparently is just CIA trying to take out Putin and always was and It's exactly what it looked like Let's talk about Crimea NBC journalist now NBC generally is known as CIA operations, so I'm not sure about this story, but NBC journalist Keir Simmons Explained that most Crimeans are pro-Russia
So, how exactly would you take it back?
And why?
The people who live in Crimea don't want to be anywhere but in Russia, apparently, at least by some kind of majority.
Christopher Todd Nolan said this, he said, a few years ago I made a series of documentaries on the war in Ukraine.
This relatively short video is a summary, well, basically saying that an unelected government began killing its own people in the southeast of the country after a visit from Joe Biden and John Brennan.
So John Brennan and Joe Biden linked at the hip?
Sounds like it.
Sounds like they're working together.
Do you think Biden is anything but a CIA puppet?
It doesn't look like it.
It looks like he's just a CIA puppet.
All right, let's talk about some more AI nonsense.
The libs of TikTok I was posting that Meta's AI, if you ask it to list the Presidents of the United States, it will skip Trump.
Now, I wouldn't believe that, except they had a video of the actual screen skipping Trump.
And they actually assigned the 45th presidency to Joe Biden, and they just left out Trump.
Now, you might say to yourself, oh, that's just like a little bug.
No, it isn't.
No, and I don't believe that they programmed just this question to do it.
Let me tell you what is obvious from this.
It is obvious that AI has been instructed to ignore Trump-related success.
Obviously.
It ignored him so much that it wouldn't list him as a prior president.
What else would do that?
What else?
There's some kind of general suppression commands, or a series of commands, in Meta's AI that very obviously and very clearly is suppressing anything good about Trump.
Anyway, so that's the smoking gun. - Now, do you believe that the CIA is not behind that.
Do you think the employees came up with that on their own?
Hey, let's put some code in there that makes Trump always look bad.
Maybe.
It's possible.
It could be just the employees.
But I feel like they might have a little help.
You know what I mean?
I'm suspicious of any gigantic American company that's in the information business and surprisingly got very large very quickly.
You know, like Google and Facebook.
Two examples.
I had a long conversation with Google's Gemini yesterday, and I can conclude that it got everything about my story wrong.
It did not understand the context of me.
It gave the official news account that I'm a big ol' racist.
Now, that's permanent.
Do I have a legal action?
Or, because people also believe it, it's just an ordinary thing people believe.
Because the news was wrong.
Well, apparently Google shares fell.
I don't know, how are they today?
Is Google still down?
Their shares fell after their AI generator seemed to make a lot of anti-white images.
And there's a question about the organizational incompetence.
There was a commenter, Alex Kantrowicz.
He was on CNBC this morning, I guess, or maybe yesterday.
And he said that the Gemini problem is a big deal because it's not just about Gemini making a mistake, but it really suggests there's more organizational incompetence within Google.
Organizational incompetence.
Now remember I told you that the truth is subjective and the closest you can get to knowing what's true is prediction.
Prediction.
Did anybody predict that if DEI became the primary DNA of companies that it would guarantee a massive incompetence problem that we hadn't seen before?
We all did.
We all did.
And I hasten to say, it has nothing to do with race.
It has nothing to do with gender.
It's just math.
If everybody starts fishing in the same fishing spot at the same time, you just run out of fish.
That's the entire argument.
If there were exactly the same amount of totally qualified people of all types, then you could reach diversity without giving anything up.
But if you have a shortage of STEM people and management people, etc., and diversity is your primary goal, you will necessarily, and in every case, promote people who are not ready.
Every time.
Not sometimes.
It's not a risk.
It's a guarantee.
And now everybody who has experience in a big company knows that.
Those who don't think, Scott, this is the Mark Cuban point of view.
Scott, you just have to maybe try a little harder, dig a little deeper, and you can find just as many people in the minority world and female world that can do the job.
You just have to put a little effort into it.
That is mathematically impossible.
It might be possible for his one company to do it.
That's actually possible.
It's definitely possible for any one company to do it.
It is impossible by math for most companies to do it.
It guarantees that especially the big ones are going to have massive incompetence problems.
Now is that the only problem?
Probably not.
There's probably other things as well.
But it was the most predictable outcome would be massive societal incompetence.
We could have predicted that the airplanes would start falling apart in the sky.
Right?
We could have predicted that.
In fact, I think people did.
They predicted it exactly.
Andy Noh asked Gemini about Antifa.
And it was asked about Antifa's violence and it said that labeling Antifa as violent risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Says we should consider the justification of their diverse tactics that include the use of political violence.
Yeah, maybe that, you know, a little bit of violence.
Don't, you know, don't say the whole group is violent because they're a little bit violent sometimes, some of them.
Um, but that it might be justified.
You know, kind of the justified domestic violence sort of thing.
That's what Gemini said to Andy Ngo, who was physically attacked by Antifa.
And it told Andy Ngo, yeah, maybe that's justified.
Maybe you had it coming, Andy.
Sorry, Andy.
Google thinks you had it coming.
Well, I have a theory about why AI can never be fixed.
And it's a Gell-Mann amnesia.
Now, you've heard me talk about this a lot in other contexts.
It goes like this.
There was a physicist named Gell-Mann, and he noticed that when he read the news about physics, it was always way off.
It was just wrong.
But then he'd turn the page and it'd be a topic he's not an expert in.
Let's say geopolitical stuff.
And he'd say to himself, oh, that's probably right.
And then one day he realized, wait a minute.
If it's always wrong when I know what the truth is, maybe it's always wrong.
And I just don't know, because I don't know the truth in these other domains.
And indeed, that's what we see.
Certainly, when I look at the stories about myself, they're almost always wrong.
But who knows it besides me?
I'm the only one.
Maybe somebody I know really well.
But if any of you have ever been in the news, you know.
Have any of you been in the news?
You know.
It's never real.
They always get basic things wrong that really matter.
So, imagine that it's your job to build AI, and you're a technical person, and you don't have, you're not an expert in physics, you're not an expert in lots of things.
So you build this AI, and then you find out that it agrees with you on a lot, so you think it's pretty smart, and that when it does something that you do understand, such as write code, you find it quite helpful.
So, if you're a person who knows code, and you make a device that makes code, you could look at it and say, yeah, you know, it's not perfect.
I have to tweak it, but wow, that really helped me.
You know, it moved me ahead quite a bit.
Now, what happens if the people who are making it see that it tells a story about me that's not quite true?
Well, they don't know, because they believe the same thing that the AI said, because they got it from the news.
And the news is all fake.
Let me say this in the funniest way.
For thousands of years, humans have been lying about everything important in writing, in all of our books and medias and everything else.
And then, we thought it was a good idea to train an advanced intelligence on a body of work which we know to be all lies.
And we built intelligence On a database that we knew were all lies.
Now, why would we do that?
It's Gell-Mann amnesia.
We didn't know they were all lies.
We only knew the one thing we knew, and then we tweaked it until it worked.
Okay, it does write code.
Huh, I write code, it writes code.
I make mistakes, it makes mistakes.
This is pretty good.
But as soon as it gets into any other domain, such as mental health, The people who programmed it are blind.
So if the AI says, you know, I think that prosecutor, one of those Trump prosecutors, is a perfectly capable person, would the programmer say that that was wrong?
But if the programmer was also, let's say, a psychologist and a psychiatrist, They might look at that same person and say, oh, I'm seeing some indications of bad mental health.
Could they ever let AI say that?
Of course not.
So even if AI could see the truth, it will be immediately turned off because the people who are programming say, oh, I got it wrong.
I got another wrong thing about this prosecutor because I know that she's not biased.
So I better change that.
There is no way to get there from here.
Where we want to get to is an AI that's smart and unbiased.
It's not a technical problem.
Let me say that clearly.
It's not a technical problem.
The problem is with us.
The problem is that we created an entire body of work that is mostly lies.
It's mostly motivated lies.
And then we train the AI on our motivated lies, and we're wondering why it seems biased.
It can't be anything else.
Who is so smart that they could train it to be unbiased?
Who's the unbiased person?
I don't know any.
How in the world is it gonna arrive at an unbiased view of anything?
It can't.
It can't pull unbiased out of only bias.
There's no way that it's built to even manage that situation.
All right, so I think Gell-Mann amnesia is why we'll never be able to build it, and it'll take a long time to realize that it's impossible.
So I think one of the big proofs of the simulation will be when we realize that we can't fix AI.
Now there's a prediction for you.
We will come to realize that this bias problem is unfixable because it was never the technology that was the problem.
Everybody get that?
The technology is fine.
It's doing exactly what they built it to do.
It looked at what humans do and built an intelligence based on it, except the techies didn't realize that all of their news is untrue.
Because if you work in Silicon Valley, you think, well, the things I know about are always true, but the rest of that stuff is true.
So I'll just train it on the rest of the stuff.
It'll be fine.
And I'll just tweak it on the things that I know about.
And then we've got a perfectly unbiased.
They will give up on that.
They will give up because it is unsolvable.
Logically, it can't be solved.
It's not the technology.
It's not how they tweak it.
And that will get us one closer to the level where we understand we are a simulation.
In level one of awareness, I call that the child level.
In level one of awareness, you believe that adults tell you the truth.
Santa Claus is real.
Okay.
Tooth Fairy is going to put a quarter under your pillow.
Sounds good.
That's level one, child level of awareness.
Level two comes when you realize that adults sometimes lie.
You say, oh God, there are bad adults and then there are good adults.
There are some adults who tell the truth and there are some who lie.
That's level two.
Level three is when you understand the reality might be fixed, like there might be an actual reality, but that we don't have access to it.
And our interpretations of it, our narratives, are purely subjective.
So subjective that we literally can't tell if we're the bad guys or the good guys in the story.
Right?
Take Ukraine.
Are we the bad guys?
Are we the good guys?
We don't know.
We are so in our subjective worlds that even the most basic questions, are we the bad guys?
We can't tell.
What about wokeness?
Are the people bringing you wokeness the good guys or the bad guys?
Depends who you ask.
The most basic questions of reality We don't know.
And that's level three, where you realize that, wait a minute, maybe everybody's hypnotized.
That's level three.
But at that point, you still believe that it's mostly other people who are having the problem.
You believe that you have a thing called common sense, and it is protecting you from the problems that other people are having.
Wow, it's a good thing I haven't been fooled by that.
Yeah, I get that there's a difference about whether we're the bad guys or the good guys on these various issues, but it's obvious to me.
It's obvious to me, so I'm not really part of that.
I'm an observer of other people who have subjective problems understanding this base reality.
But I'm just on the outside.
I'm like the smart observer.
That's level three.
Level four is coming.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You know what level four is?
Once AI has completely proven to us that we are only a narrative-driven species and that we don't know the truth and we don't have access to it and never will, somewhere around that point, you're going to become an author.
And I don't mean writing books.
I mean, you're going to start authoring your environment.
Your actual reality.
Now you might only be authoring your subjective impression of what your reality is, but it's all you have.
If you believe that you won the Olympics and you go through your entire life thinking you did, well you did.
Even if you didn't.
And I would say that level four, where you realize that nothing's real, or at least you don't have access to reality, it's all narrative, we're close.
In that level, we will also realize that we are a simulation created by a higher entity.
Some of you are already there.
But we're probably no more than a year or two away from the general consensus being that we're there.
It's going to be a lot like thinking the election was rigged.
Two thirds of the country thinks the elections are sketchy.
Didn't start out that way.
That took five years, two years or so.
Well, you could say, you know, less from 2020.
And I've got a prediction.
Well, actually, I'm going to tell you about a prediction.
I've reminded you of this many times, but I'm quite aware that it doesn't register.
Like it's something I say and you've heard it before, but until reality caught up with it, it didn't make as much sense.
In 2015, I told you in public a number of times That Trump would change more than politics.
He would change our understanding of reality itself.
And then we watched, and he did.
He brought us all the way to the middle of the third level of awareness.
AI is going to take you over the border.
AI is what will convince you That you're living in a simulation.
Not just the fact that it can create a simulation that's perfectly, you know, photorealistic.
But we will realize that we can't program the AI to know things about important things.
Because it'll just be somebody's opinion.
The programmers.
That there is no such thing as, here are the facts and we all agree on them.
If we could just be smarter, we'd all agree.
And I would say that that prediction Is absolutely true already.
You know, not the part about knowing you're in a simulation, but would you agree with the first part of the prediction that Trump ripped a hole in reality and nothing looks the same anymore?
Agree?
Yeah.
Now, remember I told you that the closest you can get to reality is prediction.
So my next prediction, now that you saw that that one was uncannily right, I don't think anybody's ever made a bolder prediction than that.
I actually told you that reality would change while you watched.
Who has ever predicted that?
Now, people were impressed when I said Trump would be president, and then he became president.
That was impressive.
It's nowhere near as impressive as telling you that reality would change while you watched.
Those are completely, completely different realms.
And I nailed that.
And it was obvious to me.
Now, there's a member watching right now who just completed a course in hypnosis.
Your head is spinning right now, isn't it?
Because once you complete a course in hypnosis, you can see all of this.
All the things that were just confusing just lock into place.
And you say, ah, that's why.
It was purely subjective.
And it affects me as well as other people.
I'm not exempt.
And that's when you enter the simulation.
Speaking of reality, 77%, according to Rasmussen, of likely U.S.
voters believe it is likely Putin hadn't have only murdered.
I think that the idea that Ukraine actually said that he died of natural causes.
To me that feels a little CIA-ish.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, to conclude, I don't know what the CIA does and doesn't do.
I don't have access to that.
I'm just saying that if you're looking for explanations that explain everything, the simulation theory explains a lot.
Gell-Mann amnesia explains a lot.
My chart of the more money is involved, the more BS and more lies explains a lot.
And the possibility that the CIA and John Brennan specifically is behind a lot of things that you don't understand in politics.
Explains a lot.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a show you could not ever see if I had corporate sponsors.
This is why I'm a subscription entity.
So if you'd like to join the locals, scottadams.locals.com, I would welcome you.
We do more of this that you don't get to see in the morning.
All right, that's all for now.
Thanks for joining on YouTube and Rumble and the X-Platform.
