My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Coleman Hughes, 2nd Amendment, American Republic End, Grok 2.0, Russell Brand, Processed Food Influencers, Larry David TDS, President Biden, President Obama, Fine People Hoax, Haiti Gang Violence, NYC Violence, Mayor Tishaura Jones, DEI Hiring Assumptions, Whitely Bulger FOIA, Biden Reparations Study, President Putin, 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
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, you know, the day the thing makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Oh, that's good stuff.
We got good lighting.
We got a sound.
We got stories.
You know what that makes this?
A good Friday.
Yeah.
Happy Good Friday, everybody.
Are you all celebrating by How do you celebrate Good Friday?
I'm not entirely sure how you celebrate something like that.
Do you go out and get nailed?
I don't know, but there must be some way.
Well, if you were subscribing to Dilbert Reborn, yesterday you would have seen squatters take over Ted's cubicle.
And if you subscribe today, you would see Dilbert getting in trouble for sending a spicy meme to Ireland.
Now, question for you.
How many of you know that that's a funny setup?
This is sort of a general news question.
How many of you know that the idea of sending a spicy meme to Ireland could be trouble?
This is probably a five percenter.
Maybe five percent of people would know that that's a problem.
The background, of course, is that Ireland has censorship laws.
And if Dilbert sends a spicy meme to somebody in Ireland, and they make the mistake of opening it, they could go to jail.
Do I have that wrong?
They could go to jail, right?
Because they've got censorship laws.
So I think just opening a meme could put you in great peril.
I'm not sure.
So it's sort of a cartoon exaggeration.
But is it?
But is it an exaggeration?
Actually, I don't know.
But the fact that I don't know if it's an exaggeration is alarming enough.
All right.
Some of you might know that an interview dropped with Zuby and me.
I'm hearing good things about it.
People seem to enjoy it.
So if you want to see me talking to Zuby at my house, we recorded it several weeks ago, but it just dropped.
So look for that.
You can find it in Zuby's feed or my feed, or just search for Zuby and me and you'll find it.
How many of you saw the clips, or maybe you saw the show, of Coleman Hughes appearing on The View?
Did that get around?
Anybody see that?
I highly recommend it.
Just watch the clip, don't watch the whole show.
But just search for Coleman Hughes and The View.
So Coleman Hughes, who for the purpose of this story you need to know is black, appeared on The View and he's got a new book out.
Oh, I'm such an idiot.
I didn't write down the name of his book.
Does everybody remember the name of his book?
Because I shouldn't talk about him when he's on a book tour without mentioning the name of the book.
Name of the book is... Somebody will tell me in the comments.
Well, damn it.
Anyway, the topic is about race and how we treat it, etc.
And Coleman has a view that is different from the view, and I recommend his book.
He's getting a lot of attention for it.
And if you base it on the interview, it looks like it'd be really interesting.
So, look for Coleman Hughes in his new book, whose name is... What's it called?
The End of Race Politics?
It's called The End of Race Politics, Arguments for a Colorblind America.
So, The Argument for a Colorblind America... There it is.
Alright, it's being pasted in the comments, good.
So here's what I want you to look at.
I'm not going to talk so much about his topic, because read his book if you want to know more, but just know that there was a fairly huge disagreement between the View people and Coleman.
But here's what I want you to look at.
If you look at the clip, watch how he controls the table.
You've seen a lot of clips of people appearing on the View, With views that the host did not agree with.
What does it usually turn into?
It just turns into a crap fest, right?
Where everybody's talking over everybody and everybody's like... That didn't happen.
And if you watch, you'll find out why.
Watch Coleman Hughes and how he controls the table with people who disagree with him.
It's masterful.
It's masterful.
If you want to learn how to do it, watch him do it.
And I'll just call out some of the things he does.
The first thing he does, and this is something I try to teach everybody, probably one of the most useful things you'll ever learn in your life, and watch Coltman do it, it's just crazy how good he is, it's you control other people by your own actions.
It's very much like Caesar the Dog Whisperer would teach dog owners that the dog is crazy because they're crazy.
And you can control the dog's energy by controlling your own, but also taking the dog for a vigorous walk because they need it.
So it's all about controlling energy.
So when Coleman comes in and you could tell that the hosts are ready to jump on him and disagree pretty vigorously, his demeanor never changed from calm and professional.
And so they couldn't get out of their mode because it would look crazy.
Because he was so calm and professional and communicated really well.
So it looked like they were just ready for the fight, and he never let them.
So he never did... I always talk about pleading voice.
Never use pleading voice, because that invites a fight.
Pleading voice goes like this.
Well, but everybody, don't you know that the statistics and people, if they don't realize it, they're not looking into it like I am.
That sounds like you're pleading.
That's somebody who's not confident in their own opinion.
But if you watch Coleman, he is so confident in his opinion that he never has to get into pleading voice.
He never leaves matter of fact.
And by never leaving matter of fact, this is what I found, these are the conclusions, this makes sense because this leads to that, you completely shut people down.
And they will let you talk as long as you let them.
Also look for him not over-talking them or interrupting them.
He would let them finish their thought and then they would let him finish his thought because he, you know, set that example.
So if you want to watch one person control four or five others, I think there were four or five at the table, completely own the table.
So take that lesson.
Just watch his mannerisms, his demeanor, and how he doesn't let their attitudes change his game.
His game is so tight that they all have to play his game.
It's really masterful.
You have to watch it.
All right.
You know, I used to argue that the Second Amendment, one of its biggest benefits besides self-protection, is that it could keep the Republic from being taken over by bad people.
And, you know, I never bought the, well, you'd be fighting against nukes with your gun, so you're going to lose.
You know, I never thought the citizens would get nuked and stuff.
I just thought there would be too much, too much guns, too many guns to actually just conquer the country.
Because the real way that people would resist is go after the relatives of the bad people.
Because the relatives wouldn't be protected.
People don't want to lose all their relatives.
So there is a weakness in the system for the bad guys, that they can't protect all of their friends, and it's a world full of guns.
So I'm modifying my opinion of that, because that opinion assumes the Republic still exists, when that was always a fake.
I think the Republican, the Republic, Ended in the 60s and was replaced with some kind of a permanent intelligence officers, ex-intelligence officers, military, Democrat, sometimes Republican kind of thing.
I would go with either maybe a hundred people who run the country.
A hundred important people.
And which ones are making decisions depends on what the topic is.
The ones who are the most important for the Ukraine war is a different set of people who are the most important for whatever the other thing is.
But everybody's got a handful of people who are billionaires, powerful people, and they control that topic.
So we're more like a Hoaxocracy, because the citizens are just laboring under hoaxes.
They have no idea what's going on, ever.
And the news protects that whole situation.
But the chances of losing the Republic are zero, because we lost it decades ago.
I'm not, you know, whatever we are has been somewhat stable.
I'm not even sure it's bad.
I don't know if our current situation is worse than the alternatives or not.
Because you know what would be really dangerous?
What would be really dangerous, really dangerous, is if we were a pure democracy and you let the citizens vote on everything.
Now that would be dangerous too, in a different way.
So maybe we're better off being owned by a hundred smart people who are trying to rob us.
So Elon Musk says that Grok 1.5 upgrade will be available next week, but the real one, the one that's going to be shocking, he warns us, will be the one after that.
So Grok 2, which is just going into training, says, should exceed current AI on all metrics.
All metrics.
That is a hell of a claim.
Now, one of the things that people have been saying for a while is that Tesla has better training material because its cars have been scooping up images and experiences for a long time.
I don't know where else they're training it, but if Musk is willing to say in public this far ahead of time that Grok 2 will beat all the other AIs, well, first of all, how would he know that?
The only way you would know that is to know if his training material was way better than other training material, I think.
Because otherwise you wouldn't know what's happening in the lab somewhere.
But it's a pretty bold claim.
Might be a little bit of hyperbole, but that could change everything.
It might be maybe a month away or something.
Russell Brand had a fascinating video I saw yesterday.
I love this take.
I'm not going to say that I agree with it yet, but he noticed a pattern that I had not noticed.
And when you hear it, just keep an eye on it.
I don't think it explains what we're seeing, but it might.
Here's the idea.
A number of influencers who have been telling you to avoid processed foods and that our food source is poisoned, they've all been targeted for cancellation.
But it's usually for something unrelated to that.
And you wonder, Is that a coincidence?
So, RFK Jr.
says our food is poisoned, and he's been attacked mercilessly.
And the Tate brothers are all big about eating clean food, and they got taken down.
Now remember, all the reasons that people got taken down have an element of truth to them, or at least alleged truth.
So I'm not saying that, you know, everybody's innocent.
I'm just saying that all the charges against all these people, they have the same quality about them, which is the charges are weak.
For example, the Andrew Huberman charges that he had some girlfriends when he was single.
Like they tried really hard to take him down and all he's doing is telling people, you know, what's healthy and what isn't.
Russell Brand himself was big on the food thing.
He got taken down.
I continuously talked about the food supply being poisoned.
I got canceled.
Again, there were external reasons for all the cancellations.
Everyone had a reason, but they all have something common.
All the reasons have something in common.
They're barely true.
Like, you could make an argument for them, but they're all, well, really?
You got canceled for that?
So, um, just look for that pattern.
See if you can see a pattern of people who complain about the food supply suspiciously are all getting canceled.
I don't know if that's a coincidence, so I'm going to be open-minded about it at the moment, but Could be that just a certain kind of person who is outspoken is more likely to get canceled, and maybe they talk about the food supply because the people who have advertisers can't.
So it could be that just independent voices are getting canceled, but the independent voices are the only ones who can say the food supply is dangerous.
Everybody else has to conform to their advertisers, I would think.
All right, Lex Friedman had an interesting point on X. He said, most people who do evil believe they're doing good.
Do you think that's a good generalization?
That most of the people doing evil, and I'm not talking about common criminals, I'm not talking about the face-punching people, they know they're doing evil, but the government type people, don't they usually think they're doing good?
If you talk to Democrats, they say they're the ones protecting the world from you.
Right?
And if I talk to you, you'd say, well, I'm working hard to stop that Democrat evil.
So which one of you is right?
If there are perfectly smart, educated, well-informed Democrats who think you're the one who's evil, but you are also well-informed and educated and you've looked at the news and you've decided they're evil, How do you know you're right?
What is the correct answer to how do you know you're not the bad one?
There's one correct answer.
Do you know what it is?
Do you know how you know you're the good one?
I'm just looking for the right answer in the comments.
Here's the only correct answer.
You don't.
The only correct answer is you don't.
Not only do you not, there's no way to find out.
Isn't that weird?
You do not have any mechanism whatsoever, there's no tool, there's no logic, there's no evidence, there's no research you can do to find out if you're the bad one or the good one.
You could easily tell the story of the United States as the greatest evil that has ever fell on the world.
How hard would that be?
Well, first they destroyed the Native Americans, right?
Then they were a huge racist country.
Uh, they dropped bombs on, you know, Japan.
Nobody would have done that.
It was unnecessary.
Then they overthrew 80 different countries with their CIA.
Apparently that's something we admit to, by the way.
Oh, you know, influencing 80 different countries.
And then there were, you know, capitalist things we did and we took their oil and we started wars that didn't need to be started.
And those wars were profit wars.
You know, Iraq was a profit war and Ukraine is a profit war and we're helping Israel Because you can tell the Israel story as either good or evil easily.
You can tell every story as good or evil, if it's a country and a government involved.
So, just keep that in mind.
But here's why you can't tell.
Here's the main reason you can't tell who's good or bad.
Because you can't predict the future.
If you could predict the future, you might have a chance of knowing who's good or bad.
And let me give you an example.
So the United States does a whole bunch of bad things, you know, kicking out the Native Americans.
Let's put that at the top of the list.
Oh, and then slavery and slavery.
Don't forget slavery.
Right?
So, so the United States and other, you know, other countries have done terrible things too, of course.
But if you just look at the United States, you'd say, wow, that's some bad, bad stuff.
But what about, what about, if in the long run, a powerful America with a constitution and a set of values, what if it ends up keeping the world safer?
Because there's one entity that's just bigger and badder than the others.
And very much like the crime, you know, I don't know if this is true, but I always heard that the street crime was lower in mafia-controlled neighborhoods.
It could be like that.
It could be that the United States is like the mafia, but we do keep the streets a little safer than they would have been ordinarily.
Maybe we do stop a hiller, which presumably is worse than us.
So if you can't predict the future, you don't know if the bad things you're doing, which are definitely bad, let's say the Native American situation, You don't know if in the long run you saved 10 billion lives because you built a structure that could save lives.
Capitalism, good economies save lives.
You don't know.
Do you invent nuclear fusion?
Do you invent all the technologies that make the world good and allow you to survive and take you to another planet?
Yeah, I don't know.
There's no way to net it out, so you actually can't tell if you're the good guys or the bad guys.
Anyway, let me give you a case in point that you can't tell.
Larry David was on CNN, and he seemed to be exhibiting some kind of mental health problem.
Called TDS.
Now, when I say that, I do not mean that in the hyperbole, you know, political, my team's good, your team's bad.
I don't mean that.
I mean, actually, literally, in my best honest opinion, and I love, I love Larry David as a, you know, performer and actor and writer and all that, but he does look like he's just, he's got a mental health problem.
A very common one.
Because TDS is absolutely a mental health problem.
There's no doubt about it.
But he says, talking about Trump, he says, he's such a little baby that he's thrown 250 years of democracy out the window.
In what world did that happen?
Where did the democracy get thrown out the window?
Imagine you live in his bubble, because, you know, a third of the country does.
In that bubble, Trump is the bad guy.
So how do you write history?
Because someday somebody's going to pick up a book and it's either going to be Larry David's history, in which this evil rose in the United States like Hitler.
You know, is he going to tell it like Germany tells the Hitler story?
It's like, well, we were pretty good in general, but we had this one Hitler period that... Is that the way the history books will be?
Who gets to write the history?
Because it used to be that the winners write history, but now the losers write it.
The losers, literally.
Because it's the losers like this who say things like this, and they're going to write your textbooks.
So, first of all, our democracy was a republic.
Second of all, the republic almost certainly ended around the 60s, maybe earlier, but at least by the 60s.
So we haven't been in anything like a democracy.
So the first problem is he thinks we had something and we lost it.
We didn't have that thing.
No, we didn't have something to lose.
Nothing got lost.
Trump tried to Reclaim the thing that had been lost since the 60s.
That's why he's in so much trouble.
All of the lawfare is that he was the one force that could maybe uncover some of this badness.
Now, he certainly uncovered a lot of badness.
And then he thinks that Trump is the insane one.
What exactly would be an insane policy from Trump?
Can you name one?
Certainly you can name ones you disagree with, right?
He's pro-closing the border, other people say no.
But which one is the crazy one?
He's pro-law and order, but other people say let the criminals out.
Wait, which one's the crazy one?
He thought the 2020 election was rigged in the context of every single thing in our world being rigged.
Who's the crazy one?
The person who thinks that this is exactly like everything else in the world?
Or the one who says that this is the one exception to everything else in the world, which is clearly rigged?
I don't know.
I'd say Trump was the only reasonable person in the conversation.
But you don't know, because if it turned out well.
It is insane to say that you know the election was fair.
It is double insane to say that Trump knew it too.
That is actually insanity.
Am I right?
Saying that you could tell whether the election was rigged or not, it's something between stupid and mentally ill.
That's not something anybody could know.
The system is designed so you can't know who won.
It's very clearly designed to limit our visibility.
So to say that you can see the thing that is designed so that you can't see it, Is either stupid, or deeply uninformed, or mental illness.
And by the way, I'm not giving you an opinion of whether the election was fair or rigged.
You don't need it.
To know that if you know it was fair, that is a problem with your brain.
Some kind of problem.
It's just hard to know which the problem is.
All right, so there's this big fundraiser where Biden was joined by Obama and Bill Clinton and Pelosi was there and raised a bunch of money.
And Joe Biden stands between Obama and Pelosi and tells the camera, and they actually allowed this video to be put out, that Trump recommended injecting bleach.
With those words!
Injecting bleach.
Joe Biden stood in front of the world between Nancy Pelosi and Obama, who clearly know that didn't happen.
That's, you know, a hoax.
And Obama's standing there, you gotta look at the picture, he's standing there looking regal, his arms are crossed.
What was he thinking when Biden said that?
Don't you think Obama is not crazy and not demented?
And he knew damn well that that was the most awkward lie.
The second most awkward lie.
I think also the fine people hoax was brought up by Biden.
Does anybody tell Biden that those aren't real?
Because I actually think Biden doesn't know the difference.
But I don't think Pelosi and Obama don't know the difference.
They would just be either quiet on it or lie about it.
Let me ask you this.
Has anybody ever seen Obama spread the drinking bleach hoax?
Because I haven't.
Have you?
Has anybody seen it?
Has anybody seen Obama Spread the Fine People Hoax?
He may have said it in the beginning, but once it was clearly debunked, have you ever seen him say it since then?
Do you know why you don't see Obama saying those things?
I don't think Obama has a track record of saying things that are blatant lies that have been debunked, just like Total Hoax.
Does he?
Can you give me an example of one?
I'm sure you'll have an example one.
But what would be an example of a hoax that Obama knew was a hoax and pushed it anyway?
Lying about the reason for becoming a public defender?
But you talk about small little things that maybe if you heard the explanation it wouldn't be wrong after all.
His memoir.
But are those hoaxes?
Nothing like this.
Trayvon Martin—well, Trayvon Martin is more of a subjective situation.
You could spin the Trayvon Martin a couple ways, but you really can't spin the fine people hoax or the drinking bleach hoax.
Those are just lies that the media made up.
So I think if you don't see—I think Biden should be asked the question.
Somebody should ask Biden, do you believe—not Biden, I'm sorry.
Somebody should ask Obama, because Obama's going to be available, right?
So Obama's going to be available.
If you want to screw Biden, ask Obama if he believes the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax.
And use the word hoax when you ask the question.
President Obama, do you believe that Trump recommended drinking bleach or injecting bleach?
Well, he'd probably say, well, you know, He shouldn't have been talking about these ties.
I'll bet he would just give you a general answer.
I don't think he's going to confirm it.
What if you said, do you think that Trump said that neo-Nazis are fine people, or was he talking about the people who just like keeping the statues?
What would Obama say to that?
Would he debunk Biden's primary campaign platform?
Would he?
Or would he avoid the question?
Because I don't think Obama is genetically capable of telling a lie that embarrassing.
See, Biden can tell that lie because he either doesn't know what he's doing, or he has no sense of embarrassment.
But a normal person with a normal sense of embarrassment, so we're not talking about Swalwell or Schiff or the third caucus, those guys will lie about anything.
Obama, actually, is way more clever than any of them.
Which is why he became president twice, because he's not dumb.
He's not dumb, and I don't think he says something that dumb.
So that would be a good wedge to just ask him if he supports the hoaxes.
And I feel sorry for anybody who believes those idiots.
And if you do, your news sources have diddied you.
That's right.
We're turning that into a verb.
If you believe those hoaxes, it means that your news sources, they diddied you.
You've been diddied.
All right, let's do an update on the shitholes.
We've got to Haiti, New York City, California, Boston, quite a few shitholes to cover.
We'll start with Haiti.
They think they need up to 5,000 police to tackle what they call the catastrophic gang violence, according to a UN.
I'm very interested in what is going to happen in Haiti.
I'll tell you what I think is going to happen.
I think the biggest criminal will eventually gain control of the smaller criminals, and we might actually have somebody to negotiate with.
Because the biggest criminal might be the biggest power in the island, and then you have something good to negotiate.
Maybe there's something there.
So we'll see.
It could be that the criminals will... You know, see, the trouble is...
Then nobody thought that the government wasn't a criminal.
Is that fair?
Then nobody in Haiti thought the government was anything but illegitimate.
So if the biggest criminal ends up running the island, I think we could just go to him and say, look, we have the military muscle to kill you in 10 minutes, but if you work with us to turn it over into a democracy, maybe we'll give you some amnesty or something.
Might be a way to go.
That's something that a Trump could fix that a Biden could not.
There's only one president who could talk to the leader of the biggest criminal underworld in Haiti and work out a deal.
Am I right?
Just imagine, if you will, that the biggest criminal in Haiti is invited to the White House.
Everybody would scream, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And you, you know, you offer them protection.
You know, we won't arrest you while you're here because Haiti is a bigger issue.
Only, only Trump could do that.
And it might be that doing the hard, ugly, dirty thing is the only thing that helps.
Maybe you got to talk to the criminal.
Maybe.
Sometimes you've got to go to North Korea and have a meeting in person with Kim Jong-un.
Maybe.
Only one president could do that if it needs to get done.
Meanwhile, New York City's solution to the crime problem is to punish the innocent.
They're going to punish the innocent by making all this searches, and then there's going to be a gun scanner that everybody has to go through in the New York City subways.
So if your subway becomes, yeah, I don't know, 20% worse, isn't it only the innocent people who got punished?
It feels like it's just the innocent people.
So that's suboptimal.
There's yet another New York City woman who was punched in the face by a street person.
Quite injured.
Broke a jaw, lost some teeth.
My God.
And here's my question.
Is this really a new trend?
And how could it be?
Are the street people who are punching people in the face, are they copycats?
Because I don't think they're watching the news.
How would they even know that anybody else did it?
Or is it one homeless person who's doing all the punching?
Is it just one person?
And it happened three or four times?
Like, what exactly is going on?
Because I don't see any mechanism by which this could be a copycat, you know, kind of a trend.
Remember the knockout game?
I don't even know if the knockout game was real, but the news used to talk about that there would be videotape of Somebody just punching hard a person who was just waiting for a bus and knocking him out.
And it would just be like a viral clip on TikTok or something.
Maybe not TikTok.
But I understand why that spread, the knockout game, because it was a viral video.
But are the homeless people, are they really watching the news?
I don't see it.
So the question I have is, number one, Were people always randomly punched in the face, and we just didn't talk about it before?
Is it a statistical cluster, or is it a complete coincidence?
There's just nothing behind it, it's just a coincidence.
Maybe.
It'd be a weird coincidence.
But, you know, coincidences do happen.
They are weird.
So, I don't quite understand why it would suddenly be happening, and I don't understand why it would be limited to women.
Because crazy street people don't, they'll punch anybody.
I've never heard this crazy street people were specifically targeting women.
You know, more than the sexual harassment stuff.
But, uh, I don't know.
Sucker punching men has always been a thing, as you said, but maybe we're just noticing?
There's something about this that doesn't line up.
Do you agree?
Would you agree this whole face punching thing?
It doesn't line up with what you understand about the world and how it works.
So there's something missing in the story.
Will we ever know?
I don't know.
Well, St.
Louis, Mayor of St.
Louis, Mayor Tashara Jones, I guess she was at a meeting of black mayors.
Why is there a meeting of black mayors?
Why is that okay?
What's that all about?
How can you be comfortable with that?
You certainly couldn't have a meeting of all the white mayors.
I mean, even if it were a meeting of all the female mayors, I'd still say, what?
Like, are you the ones who are supposed to make us not think that way?
Shouldn't the job of a mayor be to make sure everybody thinks they're invited to everything?
Kind of really basic to the whole mayor situation.
Wow.
But it gets worse.
So St.
Louis Mayor Tashara Jones thinks that because there's a lot of crime in, let's say, convenience stores and other retail places, that she has some idea to hold the business owners accountable.
For what, exactly?
So they're actually talking about the business owner has accountability.
For the crime against the business owner.
Does that mean that they should do a better job of protecting themselves because the government won't?
What the hell does that even mean?
Now, you might say, because you're racist, the St.
Louis mayor is a, you know, maybe a DEI hire is what you'd say.
And then Joy Reid and others would say, um, that's pretty racist.
Cause apparently their new thing is if you say DEI, You really mean the N-word, but you found a clever way to say it.
That's what they're saying then.
However, this is what the price of DEI is.
There are people in the world who will start assuming automatically, even though they might not believe it totally, they're going to make a lot of noise over the fact that if anybody black is involved with anything you don't like, they're going to call it a DEI hire.
Am I right?
But here's the thing.
You can't wish that away.
You can't wish it away.
That's just part of the variable that you're going to have to handle because it's a terrible world and we all live in it.
You don't get an option where people don't say that.
So if you want DEI, just know the whole cost.
And it's not even my preference.
I'm not giving you any preference or opinion.
I'm just describing the world you live in.
The world you live in is that if DEI is the operating system of the world, then everyone who is non-black is going to assume that black leaders of all kinds, managers, politicians, got there because of their skin color and not their talent.
Now that won't be true for a great number of people who got there purely on talent.
And those people are really going to be ill-served.
Meaning that DEI is good for a certain number of people.
If it helps them get a job they wouldn't have gotten.
I question whether it does.
But all the people who got it on merit are going to be worse off.
But we can't pretend that doesn't exist.
I mean, the attitude about it doesn't exist.
And there's nothing that's going to change that.
Nothing will change that.
You've created a situation where The division of races has to get worse.
It has to.
Now, how would anybody not know that?
Well, Democrats are people who don't know how entire systems work.
They look at goals.
Hey, wouldn't it be good to have, you know, less racism?
Sure.
That would be good.
But you have to look at the outcome of your plan.
And the outcome of the plan is guaranteed, and it's not going to change.
As long as there's DEI, people are going to assume their working assumption, which won't always be right, their working assumption is that there's something wrong with the quality of leaders who got there under a DEI umbrella.
It's going to be assumed, and it's not going to change.
All right, you could want it to change, but it's not going to.
All right, the FBI has decided to not let anybody look at any of the Whitey Bulger files anymore.
I guess there's a lot more classified stuff.
Normally, you might have access to them after some time, so if you don't know the story, Whitey Bulger is the big underworld criminal guy from Boston for many years who was protected by the FBI because he was an informant.
But he did many, many terrible things.
Yeah, let's not use that word, if you don't mind, in the locals' feed.
Yeah, let's not do that, okay?
Because that's not helping anybody.
Don't do anything that doesn't help anybody.
Like if it helped you somehow, at my expense, at least that would make sense.
But if you're doing shit that can only be bad for you, it can only be bad for me, and it can only be bad for the other people on the feed, just don't say it.
Just do me a favor and just leave it in your head.
All right.
The N-word.
Yeah.
Yeah, we just don't need the N-word here.
It's just a distraction.
You know, I understand that you want to have absolute free speech, and I understand that Locals is the free speech place, but there's also a preference.
We also have a preference not to be exposed to it, because it's not good for the brand.
It's not good for Locals.
It's not good for me.
It's not good for anybody.
So maybe tamp back on that.
So, why would the FBI want to bury this Whitey Bulger stuff when I believe he's dead and seems like the public should have access to that?
Well, Mike Benz suggests that one possibility is that there are news reports, New York Post for example, that said mobster Whitey Bulger's nephew played a role in, here it is, Hunter Biden's Chinese business ventures.
So, there's some kind of connection between Whitey Bulger and Hunter Biden, and now the FBI is closing the Whitey Bulger files from the public.
Now, I don't know if those are connected, but why is it that every time something suspicious happens, It has some kind of, you know, obvious alternative possibility that's just sort of sitting there right in your face.
So I'm not going to say there's anything to that connection, but we got questions!
California, being a democratic state, is trying to find any way it can to destroy life in the state, and the newest thing is California is starting to return land, stolen land, they would say.
So there's been at least one case where some land that was stolen from black citizens, early black citizens of California, in what we do understand to be completely illegal or racist ways in the past, were recently returned.
So there's actually a case where some black family had owned, I think it was beach property somewhere, and it was just stolen.
Like, literally just stolen.
You know, there's a longer story, but stolen.
And the descendants got it back.
Now you could certainly see in a story like that, where there's a specific person, a specific piece of property, and some living relatives, and the story is well known that it was stolen from them.
I can see that one.
You could make a case for that, of course.
But the problem is extending that to the indigenous people.
Now, was the land stolen from the indigenous people in California?
Yeah, probably.
I don't know how else you look at it.
Yeah.
But it's also true that all land is stolen at this point.
Maybe the first settlers of America didn't steal it because the animals were here first or something.
But yeah, pretty much at this point, everybody's on somebody else's land that got stolen.
So if you wanted to destroy California, we would do more of this.
Because at some point it goes from a really clean, easy story where most people would say, you know what?
That does look like you should give that land back to that black family's descendants.
That just fixes it wrong.
But you very easily get into impractical territory where everybody's claiming everything and there's just nothing you can do.
So if you want to destroy the state of California, well, that's a good way to do it.
So of course we're doing it.
Of course.
Were you aware that the stolen land problem was also a big issue with the Japanese internment for World War II?
How many of you knew that?
This is a case of the non-squeaky wheel not getting any oil at all.
Now I only know about it because I know people personally.
So I know, personally I know a family where the family went to the internment camps and they owned land before they went and when they returned, guess what?
Whoever you register land with in the government They had been bribed, and they just changed the ownership on the records, and now the people came back and they own nothing.
Imagine owning five acres in California, and you think you own it.
You get out of your internment camp, and you say, finally, my long nightmare is over.
And you come back, and you've got fucking nothing.
Nothing.
Clothes on your back.
That's what happened to my ex's family.
So I used to have a long relationship with a Japanese-American woman.
So her brother was in the camp, because she had a much older brother.
He was born in the camp.
Her parents owned a good piece of land in California, and when they came back, they owned nothing.
So they started over with, um, they stayed with some people who had, you know, room to stay and they built it back.
So by the time I knew the family, they'd actually built it all back and they had land again, but it wasn't, wasn't the original land.
They had to, they just had to do it all over, start over.
Now, do you think that if somebody is alive and their land was stolen, they should get it back?
Yes, yes.
That was pretty clean.
That's as clean as you can get.
This used to be mine.
They changed the name on it.
I was in an internment camp, you know, the height of evil.
Yes, yes.
But the trouble is when you start extending it beyond the living, the people who have living memory of the event.
That's, I guess that would be my rule.
If there's anybody alive who still has a living memory, I would, you know, even if it's the descendants.
So like if you're the grand kid, but you remember the story, you know, you were around when it happened, that's good enough.
But if nobody's alive and several generations have gone by, I think you have to treat that differently.
All right, Trump is doubling down on bloodbath.
You know, we got all that Push back for saying there's a bloodbath, blah, blah, blah.
But he was using it about the car industry.
But now he's using it about the border and Grand Rapids.
I guess he has an event and the publicity says that he's going to be talking about the, quote, border bloodbath.
So he's just, he basically knows he won that new cycle, so he's just prodding them to see if they'll give him a second new cycle he can win.
Well, I won that first time you brought up that bloodbath thing.
You want to go a second round?
Let me use it in a different context, see if that gets you going.
To me, that's just funny.
It's just funny that he's goading his opponents that way.
He's the best trash talker ever.
Well, the news tried to make a story out of the fact that on the very same day that Trump went to honor the fallen police officer who was killed by an illegal person.
People are not illegal.
Actually, I agree with that.
I don't like calling people illegal.
Better to say that the act was illegal.
Do you think it's a story that Trump was honoring a fallen police officer at the same time that Biden was selfishly raising money?
Why is that a story?
Just the fact they happened the same day?
The fact that both of them are nakedly political acts should tell you that it doesn't make any difference to them.
All right, so I don't think that's a real news story, but we tried to make it into one.
As the ALX account on X reported, that on paper anyway, Donald Trump is now richer than Mark Cuban.
No, but it's not real.
Mark Cuban's wealth, I believe, is solid businesses and assets and stuff like that.
So, Cuban's is probably close to something real, whereas the Trump wealth, at least more than half of it is based on his recent stock windfall, but it's only on paper.
As others have said, the underlying business does not seem to be worth its current evaluation, based on income.
But people are propping up the stock because they want to support Trump, and it worked.
Now, if Trump were to sell his stock after he gets past the lock-up period, would it crash?
Well, I suppose it would depend on how much he sold.
If he sold a portion, maybe not.
If he did something that his supporters didn't like, they might just sell it on their own.
Just like, ah, screw them.
But we have the weirdest situation I've ever seen in finance and politics at the same time.
I've never seen a situation where the public, apparently, and this could change in a minute, right?
By the time I'm done talking, it could have already changed.
But the public seems to have decided they're going to keep that stock propped up.
I believe even people who have made substantial gains are probably just going to keep their money there, because it's not about the gains.
It was always about supporting something like a real democratic process.
So people still have the optimism that Trump can turn things around.
So it's all about trying to save the country.
And what's the stock doing today?
The DJT stock?
Does anybody have a second screen open?
I think it went down a little bit yesterday after having its massive run up, but only down a little bit.
All right, so give me give me an update on that.
All right, so I think I told you yesterday that I plan to buy some shares.
Now, it's not a recommendation, because I can't even think of a stock that would be riskier than that.
I literally can't think of any stock that would be riskier than that stock, but I'm going to buy some.
And I'm going to do it for just political reasons.
I'm doing it simply as a show of support.
And wouldn't that be cool if, you know, it went up in value?
But I wouldn't expect it to.
So I'll probably put in, I don't know, a thousand dollars.
You know, something I can afford easily.
And, um, it'll, it'll just make me, uh, oh, it's closed because of Good Friday.
Okay.
Good Friday.
So did it close earlier?
It wasn't open.
Did they just close early or never opened?
Closed all day?
I was 78, now it's down to 60, somebody said.
All right, we'll keep an eye on that.
Somebody needs to ask Joe Biden this question that would end his campaign.
Are you ready?
A question that would end Joe Biden's campaign if somebody asked it to a minute became, you know, viral.
Why don't you support immediate reparations?
Because you know, do you know what Biden's opinion on reparations is?
Who knows what his opinion is?
How many of you even know his opinion on reparations?
Here's what's funny.
He said that he's in favor of studying it.
So it's sort of the Newsom approach.
So studying it means that you're not committing one way or another.
And that is his soft underbelly.
Imagine how easy it is to spin this.
So Mr. President, why don't you agree with reparations?
Well, you know, I'm totally in favor of studying it.
Follow-up question.
If you're in favor of studying it, do I interpret that correctly as you saying that on the surface it's not obvious that reparations are a good idea?
And then he says, well, we don't know if it's a good idea or not, we should study it.
And then you say, but what I'm hearing is there would be no reason to study it if you knew that it was a good idea.
The only thing you'd be studying is the amount and the mechanism for paying it.
Is that what you're studying?
Well, you know, we should study everything.
Hmm.
But it seems to me that you're saying that you won't commit to reparations being a good idea.
And that's it.
Because it's very easy to paint him as being opposed to reparations because he's opposed to reparations.
Do his supporters know he's opposed to them?
He's done a very weaselly thing that Newsom did by saying, you'll study it.
That's very convenient.
And run out the clock.
If he wins re-election, I'll bet he'll study it for, oh, I don't know, four years?
And then run out the clock.
And if you said to him, Is studying the same as the thing as running at the clock so you'll be out of office and you don't have to deal with it?
See, that's the way you should ask the question, but he doesn't really do press events anymore.
Not really.
But you could ask the spokesperson to answer that.
And you know how she would answer it?
The president said he would study it.
I have no more on that.
Well, but doesn't that mean that he's not in favor of it?
Because you wouldn't need to study it if you were in favor of it.
And it was obvious why you'd be in favor of it.
And then she would say, Peter Doocy, I can't talk to you anymore.
Get out of my world.
All right, Sam Bankman Freed, got 25 years in prison.
Do you know why he was sentenced?
Do you know why he was sentenced?
He ran out of money.
Boom.
That is the reason he ran out of money.
If he could still fund the Democrat Party and be their top donor, he wouldn't be in jail.
It's just they didn't have any money anymore, so no good to anybody, so they threw him under the bus.
That's my take.
My take is that we don't really have a justice system that treats everybody the same, And there's no way they would treat the biggest donor to the Democrats unless he could never again donate to the Democrats because he already got caught.
So, throwing him under the bus.
All right, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott is accusing his critics, so he's the mayor of the place where the cargo ship hit the bridge, and a lot of conservatives were calling him the DEI mayor, which is totally unfair, and I don't endorse that.
There's no indication of any race-related problem with anything that happened with the cargo ship.
You all agree with that, right?
There's no indication that it was any variable whatsoever.
You all agree?
Is there anybody who disagrees with that?
Based on what we know, right?
And just based on what we know, who saw any evidence that there was some kind of DEI problem?
All right, so I'm going to give you opinions that sound like opposite opinions.
Number one, I'm not aware of anything that would suggest that race had anything to do with anything.
However, as a working assumption, perfectly reasonable, because you don't know either way.
You don't know if it was, because there's no evidence it was, but we do live in an environment in which people are massively over-promoted based on race.
That's just a fact.
I saw some pushback on that, and I agree with the pushback, because there's no evidence that race had anything to do with it.
None.
Zero.
So I agree with the pushback.
But here's where the pushback needs to end.
I saw an opinion from a black influencer saying that he was elected.
So it wasn't a DEI situation because he was elected by the people.
To which I asked the following question.
Would a white person have ever been elected in that situation?
I doubt it, because the population, you know, is largely black.
So it seems to me that he got elected in part because race.
In part.
Now, do you think that Obama got elected in part because of race?
Obviously.
He won, like, over 90% of the black vote.
Of course.
Obviously.
Even I supported him because of race.
Directly and publicly.
I actually said in public, you know, he seems qualified enough.
You know, I didn't know how things were going to turn out.
You might say I was wrong about my prediction.
I wouldn't argue with you, but he seemed qualified enough.
He seemed like a standard, you know, sort of middle of the road Democrat, not the worst thing in the world.
And, and he seemed qualified, smart, I thought he ran the presidency in a way that showed he had the capability to be a president for sure, even if you don't like what he did.
But clearly race was part of him getting elected, because even people like me said, well, it'd be nice to get the black president thing over with.
I felt like it would be a healing thing.
It's like, well, let's show that we can get past that.
Let's show that we're above race.
And we can prove it by having a black president.
Didn't help at all.
Probably my worst prediction of all time, that having a black president would have a permanent benefit going forward to reduce the feelings of racism.
It had the exact opposite effect.
So I could not have been more wrong about that.
Could not have.
So, I think that it would be unfair to call the mayor a de-mayor, but it's not unfair to assume that you can't tell.
Is that fair?
If he were white, You might say to yourself, well, that's an amazing feat to get elected in Baltimore, being a white guy.
But otherwise, you can't tell.
Now, that's the crime against black Americans.
To me, it's a terrible crime to put a successful, capable black man in the position of other people wondering if you got there on the merits.
That's disgusting.
Like, you wouldn't want that, you wouldn't want anybody to suffer that.
And by the way, you know, I have some personal experience with that.
Do you know how many times I've been publicly accused, publicly, on social media, etc., of only getting promoted in my corporate job because I was white?
When, of course, it was the opposite.
I lost both my corporate jobs for being white.
Directly, they told me.
They told me directly.
So, can't tell who the good guys are and the bad guys.
Looks like Thomas Massey is reporting that the leadership of Congress is planning to attach the Ukraine aid to an Israel aid bill.
Do you know why they're doing that?
Because people can't say no to Israel.
But they can say no to Ukraine.
So if you attach them together, you trick people into saying yes to something that they want to say no to.
So as Thomas Massey points out, that's a little bit swampy.
How about they should all be fired?
My opinion is anybody who votes for a combined Ukraine-Israel bill, I don't care if they're Republican or Democrat, they need to go.
That if you put those things together and you thwart the will of the people with your little trick, I don't care if you're a Republican or a Democrat, you need to go.
Yeah, you need to go.
Don't care who you are.
Don't care if you were popular 10 minutes ago.
You gotta go.
That's grounds for removal.
It won't happen, but it should.
So, Putin said something interesting.
He said that it would be crazy for him to even consider going to war with NATO.
Now, he of course thinks NATO is basically the United States.
So, he says this in Russian and translated.
He said, the U.S.' 's spending on defense is about 40% of global defense spending.
That's a lot for one country.
40% of the global spending is the United States.
He said Russia accounts for 3.5% of global expense.
Now, I don't know if that's true, but here's the next point he makes.
With that kind of ratio, He said that imagining him going to war with NATO would be just nonsense.
All right, let's read between the lines a little bit.
Did he just say that the only reason to not go to war with NATO is that he would lose?
Is that what he said?
Is that the only reason not to have a war with NATO?
That you might lose?
I wish he had said it a different way, as in, there's no way I'm going to go to war with NATO.
Because it wouldn't be necessary, or I don't want to pick that fight.
There'd be a lot of ways to say it, other than they're bigger than me.
Now, the fact that they're bigger than him does make me think that he's a rational player, and he put it in rational terms.
That is one thing I do appreciate about Putin as a leader.
I do like the fact that when he explains things, he does it in just rational terms with no imaginary stuff connected.
He's got his opinion about the history of Russia and stuff, but that seems reasonable for who he is and what he's doing.
But there's another thing here.
Have I told you that war and economy are the same thing?
Because the country that's going to win the war is almost always the one with the most money, because they usually have the best military.
And if they don't, they can get friends who have a big military to defend them, because they have so much money.
If they have a lot of money, they're probably doing a lot of trade, and they can bribe people who have militaries, and all kinds of stuff.
So, Putin, in his own way, is really pointing out that winning wars is about economics.
Now look at Ukraine versus Russia.
Hmm, now it makes sense.
Ukraine had less economic wherewithal, except for direct aid, and Russia had far more than Ukraine.
So that was a sensible plan, you know, evil of course, but sensible.
In the sense that he thought he could win that, or win enough of it to call it a victory.
I think the massive aid and new weapons surprised him a little bit, but he was right on the fact that he had the bigger military and he's gonna get the... he'll get the better outcome.
You know, it might be short of a total victory.
Well, there are discussions now about how to fund the security of a post-war Gaza.
And the United States apparently is talking about maybe we would put in some money or some people, but better it would be a multinational force looking over Gaza without U.S.
troops on the ground would be the best.
I mean, the last thing we want is to put American soldiers in Gaza.
I can't think of anything I'd want less than that.
Can you?
Would that be about, it would sort of be the The peak of bad ideas.
To put American troops on the ground in Gaza for anything.
It would be the peak of bad ideas.
So we might do it, of course, because we do all the bad ideas.
But a multinational force makes sense, because I don't think Israel dominating Gaza directly makes sense.
Oh my God, I just had the best idea.
Or maybe it's the worst.
I don't know.
Let me try it out.
It's fresh.
No, I can't say that.
Oh God, I don't have enough free speech to say what I want to say.
I just realized if I say it the way I wanted to say it, I get canceled again.
So I'm going to say, um, believe it or not, there's still some, you know, there's some rails you don't want to step on.
Israel's the biggest one.
So let me say this in a way that, uh, doesn't get me assassinated.
The people who live in Gaza, I assume, are two types.
The hardcore supporters of the terrorists, and they're probably unredeemable, unfortunately.
But there must be other people who just sort of want to have a good life, and would like to do a much better job of negotiating with Israel.
You know what would be an interesting situation?
Is if somebody who is famous as being a good negotiator, Agree to work with the Gazan people to be their negotiator.
Because they can't do it.
We know they can't do it.
Because there's something about, I don't know, just the whole difference in the cultures, that they really can't have any kind of a real conversation about what works.
Would you agree with that?
That there's nobody, there's not a single person who lives in Gaza who could negotiate with Israel successfully.
And yeah, if you send Sean Penn over there, that's not going to work out.
Now the thing I was going to say is that Trump should do it.
It's a bad idea?
So I'm going to use the bad idea to suggest the good idea.
If Trump said, look, we want to solve this situation in Israel forever and you Gazans have no leverage and you just want to kill people to negotiate and it's not going to work.
How about I try to negotiate you your best deal and I can push Israel harder than you ever could?
What would happen?
Now the answer is Trump would get assassinated probably in about 10 minutes, so it's a bad idea.
So don't do it, it's a bad idea.
But this is an example of the Hollywood trick of you suggest the bad idea for the express purpose of making people think of better ideas.
Now I'm seeing in the comments somebody said about Jared, that's a better idea.
It's not there yet, but it's a better idea.
That's not a keeper.
But you're working in the right direction.
Somebody said Oprah?
That's a bad idea.
There's no reason to think she's a good negotiator.
But you see where I'm going on this?
I feel that what Gaza needs more than anything is somebody who could be a credible negotiator for the citizens, but not for Hamas, who wants to just kill everybody in Israel.
Vivek.
That would be interesting.
Jordan Peterson.
Well, it would have to be somebody who's not Jewish and doesn't work for a Jewish organization.
So, yeah, I'm not going to say Daily Wire is a Jewish organization, but I don't think anybody who's working in the Ben Shapiro organization would appear credible to other people.
So it's all about having somebody who's so credible Is there such a person?
Is there anybody who's so credible that they could push Israel, and they could push Gaza, and they could push the United States all at the same time?
I'm seeing Vivek's name come up.
He has the skill, but I don't know if he's got the gravitas yet.
Like, I don't know if he has the weight.
He has all the skill, but that's not good enough.
Tucker?
Yeah, you know, it's not going to be some right-wing person, probably.
Or at least conservative person.
I don't know who it would be.
Certainly not Biden.
But it does make you wonder, doesn't it?
Doesn't it make you wonder if a real negotiator could get something done?
Because, you know, Israel is not terribly happy with the situation.
And one of the things that Israel often says, and I agree completely, Who are you going to negotiate with?
Who exactly are you going to negotiate with?
And maybe there's a way to answer that.
Maybe there is a way to negotiate.
Bill Clinton?
I don't know if Bill Clinton would have the weight anymore.
We're going to rule out P. Diddy, but he's available.
Now here's the real question.
It's my personal opinion that there is no way to negotiate peace.
Because what the groups want is mutually exclusive.
In that case, you can never get a deal when people want the same exact thing.
I want this land, and I want you all to be gone.
There's no way to make that deal.
So you'd have to have somebody who had so much persuasive power, That they could change what people wanted before they changed the deal.
Do you see why that's so important?
You have to actually change their minds about what they want even to be able to negotiate a deal, which is very rare.
Usually people know exactly what they want and it makes sense on some level, but you'd have to actually change what they want.
That's a big ask.
RFK Jr.?
Hmm, I don't know.
Don't know if he has the weight that would be needed.
Who would be seen as a fair arbiter by anybody in the Palestinian Gaza areas?
Newt Gingrich?
Newt's got a lot of capability.
I don't know if he's the right one.
It's an interesting one.
Newt is interesting.
Hmm, I'll think about that one.
Obama?
Oh, interesting.
Now, I think Obama would be too smart to go into a no-win situation.
That feels like not his style.
You know, because you'd have to be a little crazy to take on the job, wouldn't you?
You'd have to be a little bit crazy to even take it on, because it could be a death sentence.
P.S.
All right.
Well, anyway, I just thought I'd noodle about that.
That's all I've got for today.
It's Good Friday, and maybe it's a good thing that there's not much going on.
I think you'd all like a simultaneous sip.
Anybody up for a closing sip?
MBS, the Crown Prince.
Oh, yeah.
Well, you know, he's got that bonesaw problem.
Yeah, everybody's got something going on.
All right.
We're going to do the simultaneous closing sip, and it doesn't even have to be simultaneous.
Asynchronous, if you like.
Go.
You know, here's how I think you could negotiate Gaza.
Yeah.
It depends if the leader types are bribeable.
If the leader types are bribable, you've got plenty to work with.
But I don't know that they are.
They might be true believers, you know, and that everybody on their sacred land has to be destroyed.
So if that's the case, there's nothing you can do.
You just have to brainwash their kids and get complete control of the schools and see if you can make that work.
It's the only way.
Well, so I have competing thoughts.
On one hand, I think it's probably impossible to get peace in that part of the Middle East because they fundamentally want the other dead, or at least one side wants the other dead for sure.
Or at least members of one side wants somebody dead, right?
There's nothing that's true of all the people anywhere.
But at the same time, I think it's probably impossible.
I'm a strong proponent of trying anyway.
Because if I ever taught you anything, we're not really good at estimating the odds of things.
We're not good at that.
So simply trying things is what you do.
If you don't know what's going to work or what doesn't, you don't do nothing.
You try some stuff.
So let's try some stuff.
Kim Jong Un.
Yeah, I don't think he'd have the credibility.
I suppose Iran is the wild card there.
If they don't want anybody to have peace, it's not going to happen.
All right, I'm going to say goodbye to the good people on YouTube and RumbleNX, and I'm going to talk privately to the subscribers on Locals.
