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, iPhone Google AI, AI Copyright Issues, Pro-Russia Putin, American Birth Crisis, Elon Musk, Entrepreneur Testosterone, Wives Primary Purpose, Biden 1st Amendment Censorship, Bloodbath Hoax, Rupar Hoaxes, Jen Psaki Propaganda, George Conway Propaganda, Biden Propaganda, AI Robot Biden, Woke Mental Health, Mike Goodwin, Voting Philosophy, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Just die in a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
Delightful.
All right, let's make sure that the locals people Comments are up and good.
They're good.
All right.
Hey, whoop, that's me.
I don't like to hear me.
I don't know why you do.
All right, you might not be surprised that the news is funny and ridiculous today.
Funny and ridiculous news?
That's our specialty.
Here's a opening thought for you before we get into the fun stuff.
Do things seem a lot different than, say, four or five years ago, in terms of how we frame the news?
Now we understand the news to be completely fake, and we understand all the ops, and we see the gears of the machine.
And have you noticed that when The, the bad guys were running their hoaxes in the last cycle that we were treating it more like, Oh, it's a serious thing.
And I think you got some of those facts wrong.
And now we treat it like entertainment.
Have you noticed that it's completely different because once you can see the entire mechanism of how they run the hoaxes and then, you know, which entities support it, like it's real, it's actually just kind of funny.
And we, meaning the people who oppose the regime's brainwashing, we're having fun with it this time.
It's actually hilarious.
And it's driving them crazy, because we're mocking them and calling them out in their exact technique.
And you're watching the people on the left get angry that we noticed they're all lying.
Have you seen that yet?
Look at their faces.
They're really mad that everybody knows they're lying and they don't know what to do about it.
So they're getting angrier and angrier.
Oh, sure.
Well, we'll talk about that more.
But that's the big theme for today.
I'd like to start with a Babylon Bee joke.
They showed a little image there, but the caption was, man thoughtfully responds to wife's nine paragraph text about her day with a thumbs up emoji.
Now, that was the whole joke, but here's the better part of the joke.
So the editor-in-chief of the Babylon Bee, Kyle Mann, he puts in the first comment under it.
He says, the joke is women text a lot.
Now, I like the joke, but I laughed for 10 minutes when I saw his explanation of the joke, and I'm not exactly sure why.
I don't know why the explanation of the joke was funnier than the joke, because the joke itself is great.
It's actually a great joke.
But why is the explanation of it funnier?
And as a person who writes jokes for a living, I feel like I'm seeing one I haven't seen before, which is really weird.
Because there are only 100 jokes in the world, and we just reuse them with different characters, basically.
I don't know if I've seen this one.
Or maybe it's a rare one or something.
But what exactly is, what is it that makes that funny?
That he's explaining it to us without being asked.
The joke is women text a lot.
Why is that funny?
Does anybody know?
I actually have no idea.
Like I've laughed at it over and over again and I don't know what makes that funny.
That is a damn interesting thing if you do this for a living.
Anyway, the Apple is announcing, or at least Bloomberg has a little scoop here it looks like, that Apple's in talks with Google's Gemini AI to bring Google's AI onto the iPhone.
Now, I want you to hold in your head for a moment.
Do you think that Steve Jobs Would have given up on making AI within Apple and would have just meekly used Google's AI, which no doubt will be in Google's own phones.
It feels like the biggest losing play of all time.
That they just sort of, it's like they surrendered on the key technology of the future.
Now, I'm sure it's a practical decision because they decided they couldn't compete or it wasn't cost effective or something, but it's kind of shocking.
I mean, to me it looks like a complete surrender.
It just doesn't seem like an apple of old.
It just feels like they're a cash cow, and they're just going to milk their cash as long as they can until they go out of business.
That's what it looks like when they're using their competitor's AI to me.
Now, this is not a done deal, so it could change.
And then I saw somebody speculating that Siri would still be the main thing you're talking to, because it's already integrated with everything, but that when Siri can't handle the question, it'll pass it off to somebody else.
I would have no interest in that product.
Do you know why?
Because the first part of it, the S-I-R-I, that I won't say out loud again, because it's triggering all your machines, it doesn't understand anything I say.
Unlike AI, which usually does.
You can have a conversation with AI and, you know, let's say open AI chat GPT, it'll understand everything you say.
You, you talk to S-I-R-I on your phone and it'll be like a completely different conversation.
You think it's talking to somebody else.
If there's any noise in the room, you're dead.
So that doesn't even seem like a good idea if it worked, which is weird.
Well, here's an interesting thing.
Maybe it's more interesting to me.
But Bry AI, who you might know as the Prince of Fakes, used the Claude III Opus AI to read my book, Reframe Your Brain, the user interface for happiness and success, which you should all buy.
By the way, reframe your brain is just killing it in terms of the difference it's making for the readers.
Every day I'm hearing from people that reframe changed my life.
Like every day.
Somebody actually tells me their life was changed by one sentence in the book.
It's a different sentence for each person.
But they've all found a reframe that changed their lives.
Anyway, so bry.ai I asked it to give it three reframes to help him with his imposter syndrome he was having, because he applied to a gazillion jobs.
He did get one, but only one out of 1,500 he applied to or something.
So he was feeling that he had imposter syndrome for the one job he did get, and wondered if he could get some reframes.
And sure enough, I won't go through the reframes, but the AI did accurately read my book, And pull out three reframes that are effectively in my voice, but reworded, that are actually useful.
And so the question I ask myself is, as the creator of that material, do I get to license it?
Or can anybody just do what Bri did and say, hey, you're an app now.
Give me advice from that book.
Why can this AI use my material and then present it, like, as an app, and I wouldn't get paid for that?
I think that's the current situation.
But on the other hand, if everybody that AI cribbed from got paid, it would be an unmanageable situation.
So, I'm not sure how to solve this.
We're right on the brink of writing a book that doesn't make any sense.
Because buying a book won't make any sense.
Why would anybody buy my book if they could just have it summarized by AI?
Right?
For non-fiction books, it's a real problem.
For a fiction book, you're reading it for the pleasure of each sentence, so the summary doesn't make a difference.
But why would you write a non-fiction book If the market value will plunge to zero worldwide upon production.
I mean, it's not there yet, because people still have the habit of reading books, but we're probably five years away from buying a book doesn't make sense, because you can just ask your phone and it'll tell you everything that matters in the book.
So, what's that do to authors?
I really don't know.
What should happen is that any AI that's using it in a vertical way, as opposed to just looking at it as part of the context for a larger question, which I think is fair.
To me, fair use would be, it's aware of what's in my book, and it incorporates it and answers.
That's fair.
That's the way a human brain works.
But if you're actually taking from my book specifically, and that's the source of your advice, and it's like an app, I feel like they need to pay me for that.
Do you agree?
I mean, yeah, there's no should in this world.
It's just what you can get away with.
But it feels like that would be a stable system, that the author gets some kind of taste if they're using the work like a little silo.
Anyway.
Well, here's a shocker.
Putin won his election.
I'll be damned.
Did anybody see that coming?
I don't know if the polling was suggesting he would win.
But Putin wins again in this election.
Well, thank goodness we don't live in a country like that where your elections are predetermined and fake.
Am I right?
Yeah.
Thank God we don't live in a place where you can't trust your elections and maybe it's all predetermined and fake.
I'd hate to live in one of those countries.
Are you with me?
Yeah.
Here's one of the reasons that I think Putin is popular in this country.
And if it had been a free and fair election, I think you probably would have won.
He's pro-Russian.
Isn't that weird?
He's popular because he's pro-Russia.
Now, you might not like a lot of things he does, because he's sort of doing pro-Russia stuff.
But isn't it weird that America is not pro-America?
Isn't that kind of striking?
We're literally not pro-America.
I mean, we're pro-Ukraine, we're pro-Israel, we're pro-migrants from every part of the world.
But we're not exactly pro-America.
Because if we were, we'd have a big old wall around us and we'd keep our money and we wouldn't give it away.
So, maybe this is a lesson to our politicians.
If the elections are rigged anyway, Wouldn't it be nice if you were pro-American at the same time?
Now, we do have a candidate this time who's pro-American.
In all likelihood, our intelligence people will have him killed.
Or something.
Or rigged the election or something.
Anyway, I have no proof that any of that's going to happen.
It's just pattern recognition.
All right, did you know that the number of young people who plan to have kids ever is at a new low?
Were you aware of that?
The number of young people who say, yeah, I'm never going to have kids is at an all-time high.
Now, a lot of that is financial, obviously, but since when is it ever a good financial idea to have children?
Has that ever been a good idea?
I mean, it was easier than before, but here's what I would suggest.
I believe that TikTok is primarily, or maybe half of that, cause.
I think if you go to TikTok, you will see endless videos of dinks, dual income, no kids people, saying how awesome it is to have no children because they can go anywhere they want, they can spend the money any way they want, and it's great, and they're really happy.
Now, do you think that that's influential?
Do you think that TikTok Is literally training Americans not to reproduce.
It is.
It's probably measurable.
I'll bet you can measure this, because all you'd have to do is say, all right, people who watch TikTok versus people who don't, what do you feel about having children?
That's it.
Real easy to study.
Do you wonder if TikTok can turn off human reproduction in America?
Because I've been saying this for some time.
I've been saying publicly, I don't think you understand.
China now has the power, literally, there's no hyperbole here, to turn off human reproduction in America.
And apparently they're doing it.
Now, are they doing it intentionally?
Well, there's no way to know, is there?
How would you know?
It just happens to be very compatible with their overall Chinese goal of being the dominant country.
Because their biggest problem, too, is also demographic, and I'm sure they'd like to share that problem with their biggest rival.
So, yes, China is literally turning off the mating instinct in America.
Anybody worried about that?
Is that a problem?
Yeah, it's probably just about the biggest problem.
I doubt we have a bigger problem than that.
Yeah, debt looks pretty bad.
I don't know how to solve that.
But the end of reproduction, or insufficient reproduction, is definitely the end of your country.
Yeah.
So, it's the most critical thing we have to get right, and it's under direct attack by a rival.
And there are some people who say, hey, free speech.
Free speech.
Let him go.
Elon Musk had a conversation on Spaces about the size of his testicles.
Um, I think he was talking to Gadsad.
And, uh, Gad was talking about how, uh, entrepreneurs who have more testosterone are more successful.
Have you ever heard of that?
That the more testosterone you have, the more risk taking, um, you have, and the people who take risks, um, are going to fail the most, but also succeed the most.
They'll have the most wildly different outcomes.
So, Elon was asked about this and he was joking that it's not just metaphorical that you need huge balls to be an entrepreneur, you must actually have huge balls.
Now, I don't think the size of the balls necessarily correlate to how much testosterone you have.
Is that even a thing?
I don't know that that's a thing, but it's pretty funny.
So apparently, Testosterone gives you better outcomes for entrepreneurial stuff.
Now, are you worried about the falling testosterone?
You should be.
The less testosterone there is, the less entrepreneurship there will be.
So yeah, that's a pretty big problem, like an existential problem.
Yep.
Now, what does this suggest about the differences between male and female entrepreneurial success?
Well, as I've said before, everything is a reflection or a ripple from our mating instinct, and the people with the most testosterone probably have the strongest mating instinct, and you'd expect that they would become entrepreneurs, the men anyway.
So, I would expect that we would never see a situation In which women are as successful as entrepreneurs unless the level of testosterone becomes even among the two groups.
Because it's just cause and effect.
Testosterone causes risky behavior.
Risky behavior causes the most death and destruction, but also Every now and then you get a home run.
So those are the big wins.
Testosterone is more than a health thing.
It is an economic force.
Have you ever thought of it that way?
Have you ever thought of testosterone as a key to your economy?
It is.
It definitely is.
All right, if you're not following the ongoing forever stories of people who claim that they have found evidence of rigging in the 2020 election, here's the update.
The people who are closest to it believe they have the goods now.
Now, I'm not going to tell you they have the goods because My general warning to you is that 95% of all claims, at minimum, it could be 100%, but at least 95% of all claims about election rigging will be BS.
Which doesn't mean the election was clean.
It just means that most of the theories, overwhelmingly, most of them will turn out not to be true.
Even if it's true, most of the theories about it will be untrue.
But there are people, I'll just tell you from sort of Behind the curtain, there are now people that I consider well-informed and serious and show their work, who believe they have proof that the 2020 election was rigged.
Now you haven't heard it, because it's not in the mainstream, and maybe never will be.
It may never cross the barrier.
But there are serious people who think they have the goods.
I can't tell you that, because I can't verify what they're saying.
I have no way to verify it.
But I will tell you that serious people, Are saying they have the goods.
We'll see.
We'll see.
That would be the Trump Third Act if it happens.
Well, the Associated Press is worried that the Germans are showing nationalism.
So, yeah, they're worried that Germans like their country.
Okay.
I don't even know if I want to say anything about that.
Now, obviously they're tying it back to their quote, Nazi past, but I don't think that nationalism was the problem with Hitler.
Am I wrong?
Does nationalism lead you naturally to Hitler?
I don't think they're necessarily connected, but it's funny that in today's day and age that playing for your team, your nation, Is automatically considered killerish.
How'd that happen?
Probably TikTok.
Anyway, uh, the Biden administration is, uh, looking to, uh, finalize their plan to get rid of gas engines in the United States over time.
At the same time, they're doing everything they can to destroy Elon Musk and Tesla.
The same time.
The same time they're trying to destroy the gas car industry, they're trying to destroy the biggest dominant electric car company.
Now you might say, that's not true, they're only going after Elon Musk.
Okay.
I'm not going to argue that difference.
Yeah, they're targeting the biggest electric car company and all the gas car manufacturers do.
I tell you people, when it comes to the car industry, which is the only thing I'm talking right now, the car industry, when it comes to only the car industry and no other topic, it's going to be a bloodbath.
But only the blood, only, only, regarding the economy of cars.
No, no, no, I'm not talking about anything else.
Bloodbath of just automobile related topics and nothing else.
Alright, there's a new study that says alcohol deaths in the U.S.
are up 29%.
They're calling it excessive alcohol use.
And, of course, that would affect all age groups.
Is that enough to explain all excess mortality?
It feels like it.
Because if drinking, if excess, they're talking about excess, right?
People are drinking way too much.
It's up 29% in five years.
And then what they did was they studied deaths that are not obviously directly related to alcohol.
So a drunk driving death would be directly related.
But now they look at diseases which they know are exacerbated by alcohol.
If you look at the diseases that would be exacerbated by alcohol, apparently they're up.
So is this the entire explanation for mortality, excess mortality?
Because it is one thing that would affect all age groups.
The thing that was mysterious is the excess mortality was in all age groups.
So if you had 29% more drinking, excessive drinking, Not just 29% more people having a sip with dinner, but 29% more excessive alcohol in five years?
Are you telling me that wouldn't completely explain the excess deaths?
Now remember, the fentanyl deaths don't have the same quality, where if you're taking fentanyl and you haven't died yet, it doesn't have the quality that I know of, of weakening your other organs, you know, the way that being a long-term drinker would be.
It might, but I haven't seen that signal.
So the fentanyl deaths, we can kind of count.
So if it was just that, it wouldn't be affecting older people so much, right?
If fentanyl were the cause, it would be a little bit concentrated in the younger people.
But if alcohol is the cause, because the excess mortality is across all age groups, that makes sense.
It might actually just be alcohol.
Now, I know you want me to say, but it could be the vaccinations and it could be, but this one is just right in front of you.
You don't have to do a whole bunch of extra, you know, research if this is true.
Now, of course, any study is questionable these days.
So I'd like to see a confirmation that drinking really went up that much.
Uh, there's a new statistic says 90% of OnlyFans users are married.
The average age is 29.
90% of OnlyFans users are married.
So what's that tell you?
Remember I told you that marriage, by its design, makes the wife the sort of the jailer for the husband's sexuality.
Right.
So your wife is a person who prevents you from having sex.
That's the primary purpose of a wife, to prevent you from having sex.
Now, not just with other people, but necessarily because schedules are busy and people are not always feeling good and healthy.
Also with one person.
So if you have a situation where the system is to deny men the one thing they want the most, biologically, a sexual outlet.
It's the one thing we want the most, biologically.
Not intellectually, but biologically, it's the one thing we want the most.
And if you deny it to them with a system which guarantees they'll have less than they want, apparently you get OnlyFans that's worth $18 billion, they're making over a billion dollars a year, and 90% of them are married.
Exactly like you'd expect it to be.
If I told you, if I described the system of marriage as a thing that prevents men from having sex, and then I said, but there is this tool that a man could use somewhat secretly to fill in some of the gap.
How would that tool do?
You would probably predict it would do well.
Yeah.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, and it's a real head shaker for me too, that did you know that the most underreported story of 2023 is that the courts have proven that, or the courts have decided, that it's a true thing that the Biden White House and the FBI were going after the First Amendment by coercing big tech to censor dissent online?
Literally, the First Amendment was violated by our government in the most egregious, grossest, biggest possible way.
Not a trivial thing.
No, no, not a trivial thing.
A direct stake in the heart to free speech.
And we just kind of let that go.
You know, the Twitter files and all the reporting.
We, you know, we all saw it.
It's a fact.
The courts have confirmed it.
And, uh, yeah, we just moved on.
How do we move on from that?
Well, the answer is that the media is controlled by the bad guys, and they just decided not to make a story about the fact that they're the bad guys.
Apparently, if you are the bad guys, you don't have to report on it, and then nobody will act on it like it doesn't matter.
Mike Benz was the subject of a big New York Times hit piece, I think it was a big Sunday feature piece, like right on the front of one of the sections, and he reported today on Axe, it was so uninteresting that he forgot to read it.
It was a New York Times hit piece about himself, and he knew it was there, but he was like, eh, got busy, didn't look at it, went to bed.
That's how important they seem to many of us.
All right, the funniest part of the day is the bloodbath hoax.
So let's take a victory lap, shall we?
Do you remember what things were like five, seven years ago?
When the fake news would do one of their plays that was just fake news, and people weren't really up to speed on the fact that this was even a thing.
So even the people on the right treated it like it was real news, but just it was wrong.
Right?
We treated the fine people hoax like, no, the news has a fact wrong.
And that didn't really work at all, did it?
Because then the news would say, no, we got all the facts right.
And then we'd say, no, but the fact is wrong.
Here's why.
And then they say, no, we got all the facts right.
And it made no dent.
You couldn't make a dent by telling them the news that they got facts wrong or left something out.
They just said they didn't.
And that would be the end of it.
Because their people looked at their truth as the truth.
But much has changed since then, would you agree?
One of the biggest things that's changed is that... How do I say this?
With the most humble... How do I say this with the most fake humility so it doesn't sound obnoxious?
In around 2016, I came on the scene and told you that you were ignoring persuasion as the dominant force in politics.
It wasn't just a thing to talk about now and then.
It's the main thing.
And that everything you saw should be seen in the persuasion filter.
Where are we now?
And now we're there.
Today, Every one of you, every person watching, and most of the people who are on X, we now see everything as a persuasion play.
And we also see all the gears of the machine.
We know that one of the plays, for example, is the wrap-up smear.
Nancy Pelosi actually explained it, and then we got to watch it in the wild.
So we all learned what it was.
The wrap-up smear is when you leak something to a reporter that's not true, The reporter reports it, and then you refer to the news as your validation that it's true.
So first you give them the fake news, and then you use their reporting as your independent check that it's real.
But it was just your fake news that you gave to them.
Now, Nancy Pelosi explained that as a, like, common political play.
But you can generalize from that, and you can see all the other ways they use a similar thing.
For example, how many of you noticed on your own that when the bloodbath thing came out, that number one, everybody understood it's a form.
It's a rootbar.
It's where they take something out of context, and then they pretend they didn't take it out of context to create a whole story.
But as soon as they did it this time, everybody yelled, it's a rootbar, it's a fake edit, and they were mocked They were mocked just viciously.
You know what's different?
We didn't mock them for the fine people hoax.
We just tried to correct it.
That didn't work.
But mockery, oh that's working.
Have you noticed how well it's working?
Have you seen how many people have backed off the hoax already?
Let's see, I saw Stephen Smith say, yeah, this is a hoax.
I saw Ian Bremmer, who's no fan of President Trump, but tries to call balls and strikes.
He said, yeah, yeah, it's a hoax.
I don't think Bill Maher's gonna believe it.
And even, there's a report that even Morning Joe backed off it when Elon called it down as a hoax.
But morning Joe's back at it because he's you know, not a legitimate news guy So I would say that what's different is we've learned to mock The the machinery of the hoaxes because we can see all the moving parts So first they take it in a context then they put it all over social media once it's all over social media that makes it a story and
So now the story is about how all these right-wing people are trying to say it didn't happen, take it down to context and stuff.
So now you've got a story for the mainstream, and then the mainstream can continue lying.
Now the way the mainstream media lies is they have hosts, they have guests who lie for them.
Do you think that the regular news people want to say out loud, I believe that the bloodbath thing is not taken out of context.
No, they don't want to do that because we all know that's what they're doing.
So instead, they'll have some crazy batshit person come on to say that, oh, it's real.
He really meant it.
Now, um, here's the best part.
This is the most mockable part.
And I would like to invite you to join me in mocking this.
This actually happened in the real world.
I swear to God, I'm not making it up.
Jen Psaki.
And a number of other people, including George Conway, when caught turning the bloodbath thing into fake news, did they say, okay, you're right.
You caught us.
It's fake news.
It's just out of context.
Ah, you got us.
Did they say that?
No, they didn't.
They got caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar up to their fucking shoulders and they doubled down.
But here's the funny part.
Do you know how they double down to say they were right when they're obviously wrong?
It goes roughly like this, and it's going to sound like I'm just making this up.
This is real, people.
This is real.
They said, and I'm sort of summarizing several of them.
They said, well, Maybe the bloodbath was only talking about the automobile industry.
But what you don't understand is the larger pattern.
And it must be seen in the larger pattern.
Now, it gets better.
But just take a moment to delight in the fact that they're saying, we know it's a lie, but it's still true because...
Whatever happens after the word because is going to be so fucking funny that you're going to be laughing about it for a day.
So we know it's not true, but it is true because it matches the pattern of our other hoaxes.
Now they don't say it that way.
They say it matches the pattern of January 6th, which was There are other hoaxes.
It also matches the pattern of the fine people hoax of him saying things that you shouldn't say, you know, that are divisive.
Let's see.
So this is how Jen Saki says it.
Quote, we did not miss the full context.
This was not an off-message comment.
This is his message.
Jen Psaki explained about the blowback thing.
And it's the exact same message you want MAGA Cult to hear.
So they're literally saying, yes, it's not true, but it is true.
Now, that's funny.
They're actually using their other hoaxes to create what is what I'm going to name the Wrap-Up Hoax.
See, the wrap-up news reporting is when you put a fake story and pretend it's true.
But in this case, they actually know that their hoax is a hoax, and they're still selling it as a little bit true because it fits the pattern of their other hoaxes.
And that's happening right in front of us.
Here's George Conway.
So they knew they were in trouble, which you can tell in their faces.
I'd like to give you the face of somebody who's telling you the truth.
Alright, now my impression of a face of somebody telling you the truth.
Well, it turns out that that bloodbath thing was out of context, and we put it in context.
It was probably more about the automobiles and the economy.
See that face?
That's what truth looks like.
Now I'd like to show you the face of somebody who's lying, But they don't know that you know they're lying yet.
So this is different, right?
I'm getting to Jen Psaki and Conway.
But it's lying, but they still think they can get away with it.
That's when the eyes go up.
Oh yes, it might have been a little bit about the car industry, but it's really eyes open.
It's really about a larger pattern.
Now that's if they think they can get away with the lie.
You're seeing a whole different thing.
Watch Morning Joe and Jen Psaki videos and stuff.
They know they got caught lying.
So they're like children who are angry they got caught lying, or a spouse who is angry they got caught lying.
So look at their faces.
They're tortured faces.
It's like, But they don't understand that it's really, it's not about the fact that we made up a total lie.
No, no, they're on the wrong point.
Why are you on the point about my total lie?
Why can't you see it in the context of all of my lies?
So their faces are like, they become like a, you know, a tortured golem face.
So look for the tortured golem faces.
It's hilarious.
So what would a lawyer say?
Here's George Conway.
What matters?
Now, the what matters is after the point he's sort of acknowledging without acknowledging that the bloodbath thing is a hoax.
So when he uses the language what matters, he's allowing us to, okay, well, that was hoax-y.
Maybe it was hoax-y, but what really matters, says the lawyer.
What really matters is that Trump consistently uses apocalyptic and violent language in an indiscriminate fashion as a result of his psychopathy and correlative authoritarian tendencies, and because he's just plain evil.
So it's part of this big pattern of apocalyptic and violent language.
So George Conway, being a lawyer, Tries to find some lawyerly argument that being completely wrong and lying about what bloodbath meant is, if really, in a technical way, if you were to look at the full context of the Constitution... I'm in a pretzel!
I'm in a pretzel!
I can't get out!
So, it's pretty funny.
Do you know what's funnier?
Oh, I guess funnier.
So not long after George Conway talked about Trump using this consistently apocalyptic and violent language, and my God, he's a psychopath and plain evil, Biden posts on Axe that Trump must be planning another January 6th, the way he's talking.
You know, what they call a violent insurrection?
Some would call that consistent use of apocalyptic and violent language.
Because in the last election, Biden accused him of siding with the racists at Charlottesville.
Now that's funny.
Watching them twist when their entire game has been exposed is just entertaining.
Am I wrong?
Let me just back up and see if my main theme is coming through.
Do you understand that this is completely different than 2016?
In 2016, we were also having fun, but it really seemed like there was just some problem with the news coverage.
It was a little bit biased, or maybe they missed something.
Maybe there was just some herd instinct.
We couldn't figure out what was going on.
But now we see the whole thing is an op.
It's very organized.
It repeats.
It's the same players using the same techniques.
It even has a name.
It's called a Rupar because it's done so often that it needed a name so we could refer to it.
Now that's funny.
Every time there's a Rupar, it's funny.
All right.
So I would like to also add to this that there is a new force that grew since 2016.
I'm going to call them again the Internet Dads.
But it's the independent people who have credibility on the Internet.
And the Internet Dads, and that includes the men and women, so it's not to keep this less sexist than it sounds, it's just the credible people Who called out the hoax and mocked it.
And we didn't have that before.
There was not before a large group of credible people who all at once would say, nope, that's not true.
But that happened.
There was a large group of men, mostly, who said at the first moment, that's not true.
And that really made it difficult.
Yeah.
That is true.
All right.
So lots of examples of that.
And it's a very positive force.
And the other thing that Jen Psaki wanted to bring in, besides saying it's the bloodbathing correlated with the January 6th insurrection hoax that they created, it also created, it also matches his other hoax, according to them, of, I don't know if you call them people.
So, guess what they did?
They took another statement out of context, where he was talking about the criminals.
He was specifically talking about the criminals.
I don't know if you'd call them people.
Perfectly acceptable.
Everybody talks like that.
Oh, this criminal was so bad, they're like a monster.
Normal language.
They take it out of context so you think it means all migrants, and then she used that as evidence of the pattern.
So let me show you this again.
The pattern is, That the rupar they did about bloodbath matches the rupar they did about, I don't know if you call them people, which is also consistent with their long-term hoax about January 6th.
So, sure, it's not true that any one of them really happened.
But you have to look at the fact that there are three things that didn't happen, and then you can see the pattern.
That's actually what they're selling to us.
And if you don't think that's funny, well, you're dead on the inside.
All right, let me see if I can reboot my comments here on Locals.
Gonna refresh those bad boys here.
One moment. There we go. All good.
All right, so mockery is the best weapon of this election, and you should use it more.
That's why I'm so happy that That Biden is staying in the race?
If you put somebody good in the race against Trump, it would be a whole different situation.
But could you imagine the next few months with Biden walking around like a robot and falling apart in front of us?
So did anybody see my clever post?
I will paraphrase.
I've been seeing online a lot of conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theorists, who are saying that Biden died a while ago and has been replaced with a body double, some say, or others say an actual robot, because he walks like a robot and he is no smarter than Chad GPT.
And he hallucinates a lot of things.
A lot of things he says are not true, just like AI.
So a lot of people are saying, oh, he's AI.
He's already dead.
People.
People.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but the technology to make a person from a robot with AI, you think that's here?
You think that technologists could actually make a real looking and talking and walking robot that you wouldn't know was a robot and that they could pass it off as the President of the United States in front of everybody?
My God, people!
That kind of technology isn't going to be available for weeks.
Literally.
Bye.
What I really mean is we could do it today.
Now, I don't think Biden is a robot, but he could be.
If you think you could tell by looking at him or by the way he acts, I say you're wrong.
I say you're wrong.
There is nothing he does or says that could not be reproduced basically today.
Basically.
You could make AI sound like him.
You could make AI talk like him.
Now, let me be a little bit careful here.
I'm not saying that you could make AI reproduce a regular person.
Biden's not regular.
He's so degraded at this point that he could mumble anything and it would just sound like Biden.
All right.
Here's my robot impression that's doing a bad impression of Biden that would be perfectly good.
Well, uh, if, uh, well, Ukraine, uh, uh, uh, I love ice cream!
Now, if he said that, the news would report he really loves ice cream, and he's passionate about Ukraine.
And we're so, we're so trained that nothing he says necessarily makes any sense that we'd be fine with it.
Now, do you think you could make a robot That could pretend to be Trump?
Not with current technology.
No.
No, because it could never be funny.
The robot could never, you know, be as funny as this.
Never be as provocative.
It could never be as unexpected.
But could you make an AI version of Biden right now?
Yes.
All you'd need... Remember, also, Biden's face doesn't move, right?
Biden's face is frozen.
He's got a frozen face.
How hard is it to put Hollywood makeup on a robot body if the only thing that moves is the mouth and only one side of it?
He doesn't even have a full mouth.
Trump.
All that.
He's got like half a mouth, and his eyes have all the expression of open or closed.
You know how eyes are the, you know, the window to the soul?
Normally your eyes are saying a lot.
You can see, you know, passion.
You can see love.
Not Biden.
Two modes.
Open, open like he's got dementia.
Where am I?
Oh, what do I do now?
Or clothes like he's evil.
Trump January 16th, I reckon it's going to be a bloodbath.
Right?
How hard is it to make that robot?
The entire face is half a mouth and two modes of eyes.
And then obviously sometimes they change out the ears.
You've all noticed the photos.
Some photos of Biden have the earlobe distinct and some of them are, it's connected to his head.
So there are at least two robots with little ear difference, or perhaps they put different ears on the robots.
Okay, I'm just joking about the robot part.
But I'm not joking about the fact that you could recreate Biden with a robot, with AI, today.
He's just the only person you could do it with.
Am I right?
Does anybody disagree?
He's just the only person you could do it with.
AI is nowhere near enough to do, you know, Trump or RFK Jr.
or, you know, Larry Elder, or just pick anybody who was running for president.
AI couldn't do anybody else.
Right?
They're all complicated people.
Not Biden.
I could tell you what Biden will do next month.
Nothing about it.
Can your eyes change color?
Did Biden's eyes change color?
I'm seeing a comment about eye color changing.
Huh.
All right.
So, that's happening.
There's a study that says 75% of women prefer a dad bod on their guy.
So women don't like their guy to be too muscular.
75% of them said they prefer sort of a little bit of meat, a little bit of a dad bod.
So we're all believing that, right?
We all believe that?
that? No. Don't believe that.
I I've even experimented with that.
I've experimented, you know, letting myself gain some weight, but also seeing what it looks like when it's off.
I can tell you that people respond to me completely differently.
If my fitness is high, you get a completely different reaction from people.
If you didn't know that, it's because you've never tried it.
You should try getting in really good shape, enough so that other people notice it when they meet you, alright?
Now, at different times in my life, when people would meet me, it would be one of the first things they noticed, that I was in good shape.
There was an author who came to my house one day to write a piece about me, back when I was dumb enough to let an author spend the day with me to write a book.
So the author was going to write a book, and I was going to be part of it.
So he spends the day with me.
And when he writes about me, his first part of his description is, cartoonists must work out a lot.
Because that was his first impression.
That was unusually fit for a cartoonist, I guess.
So, no, everybody will respond to you in a better way if you're in better shape.
That's male or female.
And I don't believe there are any exceptions.
But here's what there are.
There are definitely liars.
They're definitely liars.
And why would a woman say that she likes a dad bod if maybe she doesn't?
Well, there are a few reasons.
Number one, they might be with a person who has a dad bod.
At which point you say, oh yeah, that's the kind I like.
Because you don't want to say you don't like it.
It's your partner.
The other thing is you might have gotten together when you didn't have both dad bods.
Maybe both of you have a dad bod eventually.
But maybe you got together when you didn't and maybe that was your initial attraction and you don't want your guy to get too good looking because he'll leave you.
How much of it is that?
How much of it is the women don't want their guy to be better looking because they are the jailers of their sexuality and they can't be good wardens of the jail and keep you non-sexual if you're looking so good that other women are throwing themselves at you.
No!
It's probably just to keep the guy from Being mateable.
I'm definitely sure that's a thing.
Um, but on top of that, I have met women who legitimately did like guys with a dad bod.
So I've, uh, I had a friend, I'm not going to name names, but you know, long ago, female friend who, if you were to rate her on a scale of one to 10, would probably be a 10.
And she would tell me that she liked guys with dad bods.
And I would say, well, that's funny because the guy you're with is like super, super ripped, but you like the dad bods, even though the guy you're with is super ripped.
And you know, so I'm not believing it.
Right.
But then I watched her dating history going forward and she did literally select men for dad bods.
She actually did.
So it was real.
When she was still a 10, she selected dad bod guys.
It was the damnedest thing.
And I think she ended up marrying one.
She ended up marrying a dad bod.
And happily.
Totally happily.
Now I think in that case, that might be somebody who doesn't want to lose power.
I think that she wanted to have the most power in the relationship.
And if she was the beautiful one and he wasn't, she'd have more power.
You know, he could never do better, basically.
So I always suspected that that's part of the psychology.
All right, let's get some really provocative stuff here.
There's another study out of Finland that the more woke you are, the less happy you are.
Is anybody surprised that the more woke you are, the less happy you are and the more mental illness you have?
No, we're not surprised.
But, do you think that the wokeness causes your unhappiness, because it takes away maybe your sense of agency?
In the sense that, if you think that your problems are caused by the environment, there's nothing I can do about it.
It's probably not good for your health.
Mental.
If you think that you do have complete control over your situation, sure there might be some systemic racism, but I'll slice through that.
It's just one more little problem I've overcome.
Then you're probably going to be happier because you feel like it's up to you.
You know, you're taking charge of your life and you're not letting the little things bug you.
So definitely there's a causation in that direction.
Being woke makes you less happy, but I would suggest that mental illness is the beginning point more often.
In other words, that mentally ill people are woke and people who are not mentally ill are not.
What would be a good definition of mental illness?
Well, I'll give you one.
Well, let me give you an example first.
Let me give you two situations.
Um, I wake up every day and I think that things are going to go better for me than observation would suggest.
In other words, I'm unusually optimistic about my own future and always have been.
Is that a mental illness?
Go!
It's an unrealistic view of the world.
Is it a mental illness?
It's not based on science.
It's just how I feel.
Is it a mental illness?
The answer is no, because it has a positive effect on my life.
Right?
So the definition is, does it hurt you?
So you could be weird in any one of a billion ways, because everybody is.
If I haven't mentioned this, everybody's weird.
Did you know that?
I hope you're not one of these people who still think they're normal people, and then you're not one of them, you're weird.
No, you're just young.
That's the problem.
As soon as you're older, you realize everybody's fucked up.
Some people hide it better.
Some people's weirdness is more socially acceptable.
But no, we are all weirdos.
I mean, we're all weird as fuck.
Right?
So once you get that, nobody's weird.
So the reason I don't judge people for their idiosyncrasies, yeah, the reason I don't judge people for being weird is that I'm weird, you're weird, we're all weird, and the fact that we're weird in different ways, I don't know how to judge that.
I don't know how to judge you as the bad one, if we're all just weird.
Like, how do you even rank it?
So I have a natural resistance to bigotry.
I know, coming from me, that sounds weird, right?
Because if you believe the news, I'm the biggest bigot in the country.
But internally, I don't have it.
And the reason I don't have it is that I don't see anybody's difference as rankable.
Does that make sense?
I see the differences, but I don't know how you'd rank them.
Now, the exceptions would be if somebody's doing something illegal or doing something bad to me, right?
Then I can rank that.
I just don't like it.
But I don't rank you for being weird.
We're all weird.
All right, so here's my point.
In my opinion, wokeness is a form of self-harm.
Wokeness is a form of self-harm.
Let me give you an example.
I would like to protect the borders and not let too many people in.
But, you know, I like immigration and I like immigrants and I like high-quality immigrants with skills who can add to the country and all that.
So, I consider that good mental health Because I'm in favor of something that's good for me and good for people I love.
That's good mental health.
But if you want 10 million people to come through, because it's good for the 10 million people, even though you can be pretty sure it's bad for you, or statistically it could be bad for you, that's self-harm.
Isn't it?
That's self-harm.
That's somebody choosing the benefit of strangers over their own well-being.
I don't know how that's not self-harm.
Suppose you wanted to have DEI in your business, and you're white.
That is something that is designed to be good for people who are not you.
And it's designed, and you know it, we all know it, that you will be worse off in the short run.
At least in the short run.
Probably in the long run, but at least in the short run.
It's self-harm.
When people say, yeah, white people are the oppressors and everybody else is a victim, that's self-harm.
I'm the bad person.
Harm me.
It's okay.
You know, I deserve it.
It's all self-harm.
So here's our big mistake.
We treated wokeness like it's a philosophical opinion, when it's definitely not.
It is just mental illness, and we've decided that, hey, free speech, and then the next thing you know, women were embracing it, all the self-harm.
To me, it's like cutting.
Wokeness and cutting are basically the same thing.
It's, you think there's something wrong with you, and you've got to hurt yourself to feel better.
So, we need to stop treating wokeness like it's a political opinion.
It is primarily a mental health problem.
Now, what about men?
Well, it turns out that there's a 7 to 1 difference in wokeness.
So, women primarily are the woke ones, and men are, especially young men, are far more likely to not be woke.
Far more likely.
Do you know why?
Because those men don't want to hurt themselves.
That's why.
They have good mental health.
You show me a teenage boy with good mental health, and I'll show you somebody who's not woke.
You show me a teenage boy in bad mental health, and low testosterone, and can't get laid, and he might be simping with the mentally unhealthy people just because he thinks it's a good mating strategy.
But it's all mental health.
This is not like liberal versus conservative.
It's just mental health.
And the longer we treat it like it's something other than cutting, the worse we'll be.
Now the reason we can't talk honestly and plainly about it is, or at least you can't, because you haven't been cancelled like I have.
Once you get as cancelled as I am, free speech, baby!
How do you like me now?
So, I get to do the things you can't do, and test the room to see if it's safe.
That's what I'm doing.
You can tell that, right?
You can tell that what I'm doing is not just content for the show.
What I'm doing is a bigger play.
It's a reframe that's pretty sticky, and it could grow.
And I'm gonna go into this room that nobody's allowed in, and I'm gonna say, no, the problem is, it's mostly women who are bat-shit crazy.
I always like to add, I'm not saying all women are batshit crazy, that would be batshit crazy.
Can we agree?
I'm not saying all women are batshit crazy, because if I did, well, that would mean I'm batshit crazy.
Because obviously that's not true.
I'm just saying that the wokeness is coming almost entirely from mentally ill women and the men who can't say no.
So you need more men who are willing to say, you know what?
I will not get laid, so that I can tell you the truth.
Now, I don't know if it'll make any difference in my sex life, but I don't care.
I don't care.
If it does, it does.
I have no fucks left to give.
I'm just trying to be useful.
By the way, can you tell?
I don't know if you can tell.
I am actually just trying to help.
I think the country has a serious problem, and it's all because we framed mental health problems, who want self-harm, as some kind of positive, noble thing.
It's the opposite of noble, it's just a medical problem.
And again, if you're going to say, am I judging them?
Not really.
Not really.
Let me be as clear as possible.
A mental health problem is a health problem.
I wouldn't judge you if you had a sprained ankle.
I wouldn't judge you if you had cancer.
Right?
And I'm not going to judge you if you have a mental health problem that causes you to cut, or to commit suicide, or to take drugs because you're trying to kill yourself, or you're looking for a reframe because you've got imposter syndrome.
Am I judging Brian because he has imposter syndrome?
Nope.
I don't do that.
How in the world can you rank People's different oddities.
I got plenty of them.
I don't want to rank yours, because then I'd end up ranking mine.
You know what I mean?
Or I'd give weight to your ranking of mine.
As long as I live in a world in which I can't rank you, then when I hear you rank me and say, oh, that's a bad thing you did there, it just goes... I just don't have a model to hold that.
Nope.
They're just differences.
Just differences.
Nobody's better, nobody's worse.
But we do need to treat mental illness like mental illness or we can't be a civilization.
All right.
What about Ukraine funding?
Is Ukraine funding because it's good for America or is it a form of self-harm?
Well, that's more of a gray area.
But Senator Michael Bennett is threatening that there'll be a government shutdown unless there's more aid approved to Ukraine.
So, in other words, the American government will stop functioning if we don't give our money to another country that would stop functioning if we don't give them money.
Now, some people said, well, this is a mistake.
You know, you should take care of the American government and not fund Ukraine, some say.
I say it's a win-win.
If we can find a way to not fund our government and not fund Ukraine, I'm only being a little bit unserious.
Because I do think our government needs to shut completely, because it just doesn't function.
It's not helping us.
If the government were doing things that made me better off, I'd be like, yeah, keep that government open.
But if you keep them open, they're going to give my money to Ukraine.
They're going to run up my debt.
Why do I want that?
They're going to start a war?
If they had more money?
No.
All right, I'd like to give you the wisdom of Mike Goodwin.
He passed away, but he was my old boss at Pacific Bell.
And he was one of the most interesting characters, because he had a way of summarizing things better than I've ever heard anybody summarize.
And he had a voting philosophy that went like this.
If it's going to cost me extra money, I vote no.
And I heard that I was like, come on, that is so that's like abdicating thought.
Clearly, there are things that are worth a little extra money, right?
If you got an emergency, you know, there's a war.
I mean, obviously, obviously, I'd say to him, you know, sometimes you just need more money.
And he would say, they already have enough.
And I would say, well, would they ask for more if they had enough?
Can you tell how young I was?
Guess from the story how young I was.
Why would they ask for more if they have enough?
I would say, with my idiot brain.
And then he would say, they have enough.
If they have different priorities, they can just change their budget around.
But they could make it work if they had to.
Do you know what it took for me to completely embrace his philosophy?
That they already have enough?
Age.
That's it.
Experience.
Because my job at the time was to make budgets for my own group within the phone company.
So I was the budget guy for the larger entity that I was in.
And I would come up with a budget and all the individual managers would say, we can't live unless we get 20% more.
And I'd take him to my boss and everybody said they wanted 20% more.
So the overall budget was 20% more and they all had good reasons.
So I took him to my boss and said, yeah, it looks like it's going to be 20% more.
That's what you're going to have to ask for when you ask your boss.
And the boss would say, nah, I'll never get that.
Tell them to cut it 10%.
And I'd be like, wait, what?
No, that's not even close.
They need 20% more to do the basic things you've asked them to do.
They can't do the project.
They can't hire the people.
They can't do anything.
They'll basically be dead in the water unless you give them 20% more.
Cause that was their arguments.
I was just taking forth the arguments from the people I talked to.
And then the executive looked at me and he goes, tell everybody to cut 10%.
And then I said, Okay, that's just crazy.
I didn't say it that way, of course, but in my mind I was thinking that.
I go, clearly, you should be able to pick and choose, like maybe this one should be cut 20%, maybe this one should be getting a little extra.
You really should be making decisions based on the individual need.
And then the executive said to me, tell them to cut 10%.
It'll be fine.
So I had to go back and tell all these people the completely illogical Orders that they were all going to cut 10% no matter what their business was or what their needs were.
How do you think that went over?
Well, it was hard.
They didn't like it at all, but it wasn't, you know, for me, it was from the boss.
So they had to deal with it.
And then I tracked the budget for the year.
How do you think we did?
Under budget.
That's right.
After all of that, we came in under budget.
Do you know what projects failed because we didn't have enough money?
None.
They pretty much all failed for other reasons.
Most of them failed.
Most things fail.
So, yes, I have learned that you don't need to give your government more money.
You can just insist that they use what they have, and they'll figure it out.
Could they have done that with Ukraine?
Probably.
Because what would be different?
If you hadn't given your government more money for Ukraine, what would have happened?
They would have negotiated a peace a long time ago.
See how this works?
All we had to do was not give them money, and we would have gotten a better result.
Not giving people money is a really, really smart thing to do in some situations.
This is one of them.
Now, do I have, you know, empathy for Ukraine?
Do I want Putin to kill them all?
No.
But I don't think that's ever the choice.
I think we're still at a point where they can just make a deal if they wanted to.
And it'd be better than waiting.
Alright, Israel's Netanyahu said, here's three things he wants.
He said there won't be snap elections, so despite what Biden might want, he's not going to call elections.
He said that their military will enter and control Rafa, which is what a lot of people around the world don't want to happen, because it would be, they say, too much of a civilian death toll.
And he says that Israel will fight until, quote, total victory.
Total victory means they're not going to Just let Hamas go back in and do what they want.
So all of Hamas will be dismantled, and dead, and jailed, and whatever they do.
And they're currently, there might be an update on this, but they were doing some kind of operation at the Shifa Hospital, because they believe they're a bunch of Hamas leadership at the hospital.
Probably true.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen, Um, the reason I don't give you much opinion about Israel is that Israel just told you what it's going to do.
And then that's what they're going to do.
And it doesn't matter what you think.
Now, suppose we say, let's, what if we don't give them weapons or don't sell them weapons?
Do you think it will stop them?
No.
Uh, what if they didn't have the right weapons for the job?
Do you think that would stop them?
No, no.
So if we don't give them any funding for weapons, will it make any difference to the outcome?
I don't know.
It might make a difference on the number of military people that get killed and injured versus maybe the number of civilians, but I don't know what the net would be in terms of human life.
So I don't even have a reason to believe the extra funding would give you a better outcome.
So my impulse is to not do it.
Now, to be clear, I am completely supportive of Israel doing what it needs to do to defend itself, and I don't take my analysis before October 7th.
So everything you say before October 7th, I'll just nod, say, yep, yep, that's true.
I just don't care.
Because if your country got attacked like that, you would not be looking at the historical precedents that led up to it.
And whether or not it was a good idea, whether or not they were justified, you would do what you had to do, and that's what they're doing.
And there's no situation in which they're going to put up with reconstructing Gaza with their own money, so it becomes their biggest problem again.
And anybody who imagines that they would even consider that, I don't know what planet you're on, because that's not going to happen.
That's all I got for today's show.
I'm going to say goodbye to all the platforms, and then I'm going to separately close the locals' feed, but then I'm going to open another one for the post-show that only the subscribers get to see.
