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, Trans Day of Visibility, Jerome Adams, Long Covid, Trillion Dollar Experts, David Sacks, Expert Credibility, ESG, Gender Dysphoria Clusters, Jonathan Haidt, AI Opus Clips, AI Financial Apps, TikTok Ban, Poison Food Supply, Sprouts Protein, Raising Kids, Relationships, Long Flu, 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
But if you'd like to take this experience in a dangerous way, up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalicest iron, a canteen jug, a 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Audio's looking good.
Lighting good.
I feel like everything's going our way.
Do you feel that yet?
Do you feel it?
Everything's going our way?
I think you do.
Yeah.
Well, I got stories and Oh, we got insights.
Stories and insights.
Anybody up for some stories and insights?
Raise your hands.
Okay.
Good.
Good.
Looks like we have a quorum.
Well, let's start with this important story that Arizona has declared Pluto its official state planet.
Hmm.
Well, some say it's not a planet, but I didn't want to get into that.
It just made me wonder if Arizona is going to take Pluto You know, there's not that many planets left, so I think the other states need to get on this.
I was trying to think, what would be the perfect planet for California?
Let's see, sidewalks full of feces?
Uranus!
Uranus.
So I'm going to suggest that California adopt its sister planet, Uranus.
I think that's the right fit.
There's a New York City Democrat who's asking, where are the men?
Because of all the violence in the streets.
And I guess she's concerned that the men are not protecting the women on the streets.
Well, I guess the penny finally dropped.
If you'd like to take a moment to describe that joke to whoever you're with, who didn't understand, how is that funny?
The penny dropped?
I don't even understand.
What does currency have to do with this story in any possible way?
Daniel Penny.
The hint is Daniel Penny.
Yeah.
As long as Daniel Penny's in jail, I don't think any man should save any woman.
No, I'm kidding.
If you see somebody in trouble, do something about it.
But you can certainly understand why men would want to stay involved.
If I saw a fight on a subway, I don't know what it would take to get involved.
I mean, I really don't.
I mean, I would like to think that I would be a normal human citizen and get involved if I saw somebody in trouble, but I don't think I would.
If I saw somebody fighting it out on the subway, I definitely wouldn't if it's men.
If it's women, I'd have to really think hard about it because helping means I go to jail.
Right?
Helping means I go to jail.
So you end up in this weird situation where you're thinking, all right, okay, maybe she'll get a broken nose, but that's probably better than me going to jail.
I mean, she'll get over the broken nose.
Yeah, you'll end up making, like, just absurdly immoral decisions.
There's your New York City.
So you get what you vote for.
There's that.
Well, this will be the surprise you've never imagined could happen.
Can you believe that 60 Minutes is planning to do, I guess that would be today, a hit piece on the self-driving software on Tesla?
Probably just because they thought that'd be a good story.
Not because it's Elon Musk, and he's the only keeper of free speech.
And if they could take Elon Musk off the board, it would give them full control of the entire narrative.
But that's a coincidence.
Total coincidence.
Well, we have so many coincidences happening today.
Should we talk about the fact that National Trans Awareness Day is on Easter.
Is that a hoax?
Maybe a little bit.
Because it turns out that the Trans Visibility Day has always been on this day.
It's just that Easter isn't always on this day.
So, by coincidence, Easter fell on the same day as Trans Visibility Day.
And so it only makes complete sense that the White House would focus a little more on the trans— Oh, wait, it's a choice, wasn't it?
Oh, it's not a coincidence, it's a choice!
Because it is a coincidence that they fell on the same day.
All right, if you don't know that, your news failed you.
Let me make sure everybody knows that.
It's just a coincidence it fell on the same day.
The White House didn't decide to put it on that day.
But you know what they did decide to do?
They decided to highlight it instead of Easter.
Now, they're going to have the egg hunt or whatever, so there's always some attention for Easter as well.
And they put out a statement saying, oh, the president's a Christian, he likes Easter.
But it would be hard to ignore the fact that Trans Visibility Day is an absurdity.
It's an absurdity.
Is there anything more visible than trans?
I can't think of a single thing we've talked about more and yet is less important.
It's the single most visible thing in the whole freaking world right now.
So to imagine that you need a little more of that trans visibility and maybe a little less attention on Easter, it feels like the wrong choice.
It's not some big conspiracy where they're trying to erase Easter.
Definitely they played it wrong.
I don't think they read the room right there.
Let's talk about some fake science.
Surgeon General Jerome Adams, no relation to me, says that up to 20% of the U.S.
population has experienced long COVID.
Now, I think he's trying to get you to take your shots.
Do you believe that the Surgeon General is correct when he says that up to 20% of the U.S.
population has experienced long COVID?
Do you believe that?
Here's what I believe.
Let's put it in context.
20%.
Okay.
20% of people believe they had long COVID.
What would be, what would be some other things that 20% of the public also believes?
Hmm.
Let's see.
20% of the public.
That would be, that's less than the amount of the public that believes they personally have experienced a ghost.
Yeah.
So there are more people reporting that they think they have long COVID than there are... it's roughly the same as people who believe they've seen a ghost.
But far lower than the number of citizens in the U.S.
who believe the fine people hoax and the drinking bleak jokes.
So it's way fewer.
I mean, half of the country believes the hoaxes, but only 20% believe they had long COVID.
About the same as ghosts.
And far fewer than the percentage of U.S.
who believe that they'll get a harp when they go to heaven.
Actual, literal, a literal physical harp.
I saw that in Newsweek a number of years ago.
The number of adults who believe they actually are assigned a musical instrument in heaven.
It's a pretty big percentage, it's greater than 20%.
So what would you say about this in the context of a recent news report that said long COVID probably doesn't even exist and it's imaginary?
What is true?
What about the science that says, recent science, that says it's all imaginary, there's no long COVID?
Well, either the science that says there's no long COVID is fake, or the Surgeon General of the United States doesn't understand science.
Hmm.
Neither of those are a good outcome, are they?
And is the long COVID data... I'm just going to guess here.
I'm no expert, but I'm going to guess that the way they figured out how many people experienced long COVID was they asked them, is that how it worked?
They said, do you think you had any long COVID?
And then people say yes.
And then they added up.
Is it possible that his science is asking people to self-report their imaginary symptoms?
And then he made national policy based on it?
I think that actually happened.
How else would you know if somebody had long COVID other than asking them?
Because I don't believe there's a... I don't believe they tested it, like with a sample that showed them who had it or something.
Well, so in a world in which half the people believe the fine people hoax and the drinking bleed jokes, and at least 20% believe they've had a personal experience with a ghost, if not an alien space encounter, What do you think would happen if you asked the population, do you think you had long COVID?
I mean, what do you imagine would be the result of that?
Probably about the same as if you asked them, do you think a demon has taken over your brain?
Yeah, you can get 20% to say anything.
In fact, it's my running joke that 25% will get the wrong answer on every poll.
20%.
Yep, I got some long COVID here.
Now, I'm not saying long COVID isn't real.
I'm not even saying that the percentage is wrong.
I wouldn't know.
What I am saying is that we can't trust science.
Science is just ridiculous at this point.
It's become an absurdity.
After the pandemic, it was pretty obvious that you can't trust it.
And I'll go further than that and say that all experts are useless and that there's a reason for that.
Let me give you one more example, and then I'll tell you why there's reason.
Would you all agree, it's pretty easy to get you to agree, that the scientific and medical experts showed us we can't depend on them?
Would you say that's true?
That we have really conclusive proof that you can't depend on the, even if 90% of them are on the same side?
It just really doesn't mean anything.
Just doesn't mean anything.
So here's another one, David Sachs from the All In podcast and other things.
He said that Ukraine's summer counteroffensive was one of the biggest debacles in the history of modern warfare, with tanks and soldiers running headlong at the minefields while Russian artillery rained down on them from heavily fortified positions.
Now, do you know how much pushback David Sachs got, you know, for his opinions of the war?
And his opinions were always met with David Sachs, could you tell us your military expertise?
Why don't you tell us about all your military expertise when you give us your military opinions?
Because we've got real experts.
We have generals.
We have people who have been in war.
Maybe we should listen to them.
Or, could you just look at it with common sense and say, I'm adding up the number of people Ukraine has and the number of people Russia has.
I don't really see how they can win this, given the weaponry, etc.
So, was this a case where the experts were wrong?
The military experts?
And is this something that any reasonable person could have looked at and said, well, I don't see how you can beat Russia if they're really dug in.
I would say this is another example where the experts were either lying, For money or for, I don't know, promotions or whatever.
They're either lying or they actually didn't know that this was a bad bet.
Now, of course, we're all geniuses in hindsight, right?
We're all geniuses.
So I'm not saying that you should listen to David Sacks on the next war.
I'm not saying he's going to beat the experts on every military decision.
I'm just saying it looks random to me.
It looks random.
Like, I don't think the experts had any advantage over just a citizen you could pick randomly.
On this one.
Maybe they get the next one right.
But you can't trust them.
And I would say that there's a reason that no expert can ever be relied on again.
It's built into the system.
Here's why you can't rely on them.
On anything important, whether it's a pandemic or a war, you can have a set of experts.
So we all agree on that so far, right?
If it's some big important thing, there will be a bunch of experts.
There will also be a gigantic amount of money involved, because it's a big thing.
Pandemic, trillion dollars.
War, trillion dollars.
Energy, trillion dollars, right?
Nuclear energy, trillion dollars.
Climate change, trillion dollars.
Multiple trillions in that case.
So when you're talking about big topics where there are trillion dollars at stake, there are no experts.
There are only people who have taken money and people who haven't and you don't know the difference.
There are only people who are afraid they're going to get fired if they go against the grain.
Because the people taking the money have, you know, created a consensus.
And then the people who didn't take any money are like, well, I guess I can't even say my opinion.
So we've created a system where for anything important, the experts are always bought off because there's just too much money involved.
And bought off doesn't mean they directly took a payment.
It means that if you gave a speech saying that the COVID shots were garbage, you could never give another speech.
That'd be your last speech and you get paid for it.
So nobody who makes money for a living is going to throw their money away when they could just say, you know, oh, let's pretend I go along with the majority.
And look, I got invited to do another speech.
Oh, look, I got that grant.
Yeah.
So everybody knows where the money is.
So I would say that in a situation in which the topic has a trillion dollars at stake, there's no such thing as experts.
You just assume they're bought.
The only time an expert would be useful is if you can't imagine any way that they could be benefiting from the advice they give you.
So there might be situations in your personal life Where there's something that's only happening to you, and then you talk to your lawyer or your doctor, and it's good advice.
Because they don't have anything to gain, right?
There's nobody going to pay them to give you specifically different advice on your little specific problem.
There's no other incentive for them, other than doing a good job.
But as soon as it's big, climate change and wars and pandemics, all the experts are useless.
Automatically.
They're automatically, universally, non-credible.
And we have to figure out how to deal with that.
And by the way, AI isn't going to help you, because it will be just as easy for the people with money to co-opt the AIs.
They just go to the AI company and say, you know, I'd be advertising a lot more with you if you said things I liked.
Experts are useless.
Well, there's a report that apparently there's something like ESG for individuals now.
So ESG, the Equity, Social, and Governance.
So that's about keeping the climate clean and making sure that there's equity.
And, of course, that's been applied to businesses, much to the chagrin of the businesses and the stockholders, because it's sort of this external force that's distorting the free market, and it's not helping anybody, I would argue.
But now apparently individual companies are sharing data so they can find out if you individually have a good ESG score.
Now, I don't think it'll be called ESG when it's applied to individuals, but it's the same thing.
So they would look at, for example, your buying patterns.
And they'd say, whoa, it looks like this person is buying a lot of things that are bad for the environment.
You got a big gas guzzler there.
And then maybe they pick up something else.
Maybe they're looking at your social media, giving you a grade.
This would be the end of everything.
Really.
I mean, I don't think that this will survive.
I think the pushback will be too great.
But if companies start getting together and banding together to grade their customers on whether they suck or not, That's really the end of civilization.
I wonder if they realize that's like an existential threat to the whole thing.
We've got lots of existential threats at the moment.
Most of them won't be a problem in the long run.
We'll figure them out.
But here's one to watch in case you want to do some pushback.
Jonathan Haidt has a new book out whose name I can't remember.
Maybe you could put it in the comments.
Jonathan Haidt's new book, H-A-I-D-T, Haidt.
Anyway, so he's talking about the gender dysphoria stuff.
He says it happens in clusters of girls.
That's the way you know it's a psychological thing and not a physical thing.
Because it happens in clusters.
So if you can see it happening in clusters, that means it's socially being transmitted.
I think that's pretty good evidence.
So it's very different from the kinds of gender dysphoria cases that we've known about for decades.
He says, I mean, it's a real thing.
In other words, Jonathan Haidt is saying that gender dysphoria is a real thing.
But what happened, especially when girls got YouTube and Instagram, And then especially TikTok, girls get sucked into these vortices and they take on each other's purported mental illnesses.
Now that's something I've never heard before.
That somebody else's mental illness can impact you to act like them.
You'll actually imitate their mental illness.
Now that would be a case where you assume somebody has mental illness, so that's also controversial.
But do you think that, does this describe our situation?
Do you think that the psychology and the spreadiness, especially among girls, is why there's so much gender dysphoria?
Of course it is!
Of course it is!
This is the most obvious thing in the world.
You would have to know nothing about anything to think that this is some kind of natural phenomenon.
Right?
Sort of like climate change.
But let's not confuse the topic.
There's some things that if you study persuasion, you know a little bit about psychology, you know what a mass hysteria is.
It has every sign.
Every sign.
It's literally everything.
It could not be more obvious.
Well, I continue my journey to find out how AI can be useful, and so far not.
So far not.
I have like a little bit of fun when I talk to chat GPT.
Just to see what it can do.
But it can't answer any questions about what's recent, so it has no real use.
And it lies about anything important.
And it hallucinates, and you can't tell.
So you can't really use it for searching, or getting information, or that sort of thing.
Sometimes it's good for history.
I like it for history lessons.
But they're not terribly important to my life.
Just fun.
So, I thought to myself, I'm going to try, every now and then, I'm going to try another AI app.
Just the same.
Here's my overall statement about AI apps.
So far, 100% of the time I said to myself, hey, I've got an idea for starting a company using AI.
The only way I can think of doing it is by hiring humans.
So every time AI comes into the conversation, I think, okay, it's too hard for me to figure out what to do with it and to keep up with it.
So I'd have to hire somebody to do it for me.
Every time I turn around, AI means hiring people because I can't do it myself.
Now you say, well, is that because you're dumb?
No, it's because it's such a big field and it's changing quickly and I have other things to do.
If I dedicated all my life to keeping up with the AI apps, I could do it.
It's not beyond my capability.
It's just I don't have time.
So what I would need is to hire somebody whose job it was to keep my AI running.
Do you know what the problem with that is?
The person you hire can never leave because the moment they leave, your AI app will stop working.
It's never permanent.
You need somebody on staff all the time just to use your AI and to keep it working.
You know, that company that makes it goes out of business, so then you've got to figure out another one.
Then your AI is using some proprietary data, but you didn't know it, and it gets sued, and you have to work that out.
So AI is going to be a whole big field of humans who have to I have to figure out how to use it.
So, I used Opus Clip.
That's an AI that takes your long-form videos, such as the one I'm making now, and it automatically looks at all the words.
And it figures out the viral moments and actually scores them.
So I use that and it takes, um, it, I think it takes all the process.
So you have to come back later.
So you just give it the URL of the long form video.
And then when you come back in, I don't know, 20 minutes or whatever it is, uh, there's a page populated with all the clips that it suggests would be viral clips and even grades them for how viral they would be on a different levels.
And, you know, and it's really impressive.
So I took one of my better long form videos recently where people said they liked it.
And I had like an hour and 15 minutes of content and I'm like, I'm going to get some good 30 second clips out of this.
Whoa.
I can't wait.
So I made 10 clips.
That's, that's a beginning number.
You know, it gives you like, starts with 10 and there was not one clip that I wanted to post.
Not one.
Several of them were not the right clip, which is expected.
You know, the AI didn't quite know where the beginning and the end of something was.
It was good.
It was actually very impressive.
But several of the ten weren't really a clip.
But then the other thing I didn't see coming at all.
If you don't see my show in its entirety, any clip taken out of the show looks way too provocative.
I didn't see that until I looked at the clips.
I thought, oh, I can't post that, because if you didn't know my whole act, everything looks too provocative.
That's actually one of the big reasons I got cancelled.
The people who cancelled me, if they knew my whole act, would have seen that as a component of a larger message, and they would have understood that I was complaining about racism against me.
How many of you understood that?
That I got cancelled because I complained about racism against me.
And that the news reported as I said a bunch of racist things.
No, I complained about racism.
Against me.
How's that?
And I got cancelled worldwide because people thought I was being racist because the Washington Post framed it that way.
Now, if anybody, I think Well, here's a good test.
I don't think I lost a single subscriber when I got cancelled.
Do you know why?
Because all of my subscribers see the whole content.
And then they say, oh, that's not really representative of anything.
That must be just fake news.
And they're right.
So my subscribers who actually know my content went up 20% when I got cancelled and stayed there.
So it turns out there was nothing I could post.
It all looked too provocative and out of context.
There are now AI financial advisors.
Um, which threatened to destroy the entire financial advice business.
Now, financial advisors, not all of them will often take a percentage of your investment portfolio every year.
Even if their advice was bad, they get paid the same.
So it might be something like, uh, you give me 1% of your portfolio every year, and I'll make sure that you make more money than you would have on your own.
And we both win.
The reality is they don't know how to do that.
Not really.
I mean, they can stop you from doing the dumbest things, but they're going to do things that make them money first, which means recommending funds that they take a cut from and that sort of thing, which you wouldn't necessarily know.
So here's why AI financial advisors will not work.
Will not work.
What did I just tell you about experts?
We built a system where experts, even AI experts, and this is the important point, even AI experts can never work.
What would be the one situation in which experts, whether AI or human, can never work?
Tell me in the comments.
Let's see if I made my point.
What's the one situation in which experts, AI or human, can never work?
And the answer is trillion dollars.
Whenever a trillion dollars is on the line, your experts will be bought off.
Because there's so much money to buy them off.
You wouldn't not buy them off, it'd be stupid.
If you could, you'd buy them off.
Now do you think that won't apply to AI?
The AI will be created by a company that's trying to make money.
And they'll put out their You know, low cost AI advisor and it starts replacing all the regular advisors.
What is going to happen after that?
Guaranteed.
Guaranteed.
People who would like those AI advisors to recommend their funds will reach out to the owners and say, so your AI financial advisors, it's good business you got there.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We're making a million dollars a year.
Thank you.
If your AI recommended my fund more than the other funds, and let's face it, they're not that different, wouldn't you like to make $10 million a year?
Because if you start recommending my fund, I'll make $20 million more and I'll give some of that to you.
So it seems to me that whenever a trillion dollars is involved, somebody is going to buy off your AI, somebody is going to buy off your humans.
Sometimes.
Every time.
So the design of the system guarantees it.
So experts made sense when we weren't all connected to trillion-dollar topics.
As soon as you're connected to a trillion dollars, the money overwhelms the expertise.
You could probably put it on a graph.
You know, the value of experts and how much money is involved.
And once the money involved gets to a certain level, the value of an expert goes to zero.
Not because they're wrong, because you wouldn't know if they're bought off, and you would have no way to know.
Because the ways they can buy them off are a million ways.
It doesn't even have to be direct, like I said.
It could be the difference between, do you get invited to do a lucrative paid speech, or do you not?
That's paid off, even though nobody wrote a check.
That's paid off.
That's bribery.
You're never going to do another speech in this town.
All right, here's a, I've got a theme for the rest of this, why production rates are falling.
So some European countries, I'm going to give you a bunch of different stories that all fit into this umbrella, why the reproduction rates are falling.
84% of the people in the world believe the world is becoming more dangerous, and that's causing people to up their military spending.
Why do people think the world is more dangerous today than it was in the past?
Is it because it's more dangerous?
No.
I mean, it might be.
How would you know?
Nobody knows how dangerous anything is.
All it takes is one Hitler and everything's different.
So nobody can predict the next Hitler.
Nobody can know if a nuke gets sent off accidentally and causes a nuclear holocaust.
Nobody knows.
You can't predict war.
War is the least predictable thing of all time.
But are we more worried about war than ever?
Yes.
Why are we more worried about war than ever?
Because it's being pushed in our face, and we worry about things that get pushed in your face.
Our ability to worry is a limited resource.
So you worry about the things that get pushed in your face, and you just don't think about the things that are outside your attention span.
So war is just always in our face.
So of course you're getting more worried about it.
And would you have children if you thought the odds of a world war were way higher than they used to be?
I would say no.
I would say that people would say, I don't want to bring a kid into this world where according to the news, we're on the edge of war.
Now, why do you think that the news would always tell you you're on the edge of war?
What would cause that?
Because war is a trillion dollar business.
And the way that you make your trillion dollars is you got to scare the public into thinking you better go to war or you'd better spend, send some weapons over to one of those countries that will pay for our weapons.
No, The marketing of the military-industrial complex guarantees that you'll be thinking about war all the time, and that will make you think less about reproducing.
Would you agree?
That if war looks like it's going to kill us all, having kids feels like just one more thing you have to protect before we all die.
So of course people are going to have fewer kids if you tell them war is everywhere and it's going to kill you all.
How about the TikTok effect?
So the Senate is looking at modifying the bill that the House passed because one of the big problems people pointed out was the bill was too broad.
It could be used to clamp down on X and other platforms.
So the Senate's working on that.
Do you think that the Senate will ban TikTok?
Do you think the Senate will ban TikTok and find a way that the House agrees and then Biden signs it?
No.
No.
Do you know why?
Because there are a trillion dollars at stake.
I mean, in the long run, TikTok's going to be sort of a trillion dollar company.
So no, if you've got that much money, you just bribe your way into whatever you want.
You know, TikTok is one of the main advertisers on Fox News now.
It's already over.
The game is lost.
There's nothing that's going to get rid of TikTok.
TikTok's here.
Parents, your only hope is that you can turn your kids into monks or the Amish or something.
But the government is not going to come help you with TikTok.
If the government bans TikTok, I would be so, so amazed.
Like, there's nothing that's more predictable than a trillion dollars and a big Republican donor.
So yeah, the money's against it.
But will TikTok reduce our reproduction rate?
Of course it will.
Because they're big on the dual income, no kids.
Every day I see a new video of somebody young saying, I can't afford kids because we don't get paid enough and living is too expensive.
And everybody's hearing that.
Because frankly, having kids is a little bit irrational.
But we have to do it.
It's a little irrational if you looked at the costs and benefits, but anything that's of the heart and of our biology is not meant to be rational.
So reproduction is not intended to be a rational process.
It's just a necessary one.
Why do you think there's any chance that TikTok would be banned at all?
I say there's the only reason that we're close to it, or that it looks close, is that TikTok was so anti, and is, so anti-Israel.
I think the the Israel effect was maybe the 20 or 30 percent extra to make the people who are already inclined to, you know, want to ban TikTok.
I think it put them over the edge.
No, I don't think Israel's the one reason.
I think it's just such a big reason that other people had to say they'd do it.
But you're going to be looking at the incompetence of Congress, the money of TikTok, versus the interests of Israel.
Who wins?
So Israel has lots of clout.
Lots of clout.
But incompetence makes almost anything impossible in our current Congress.
So it wouldn't matter if it's a good idea or a bad idea or Israel wants it or anybody wants it.
They may be too incompetent to pass the bill.
And then you add the money that TikTok could bring to killing this thing.
I think Israel loses.
I think incompetence plus bribery We'll be greater than whatever the weight of Israel is, and that Congress is always safer when they do nothing.
So doing something would have Israel on your back.
They'd say, why didn't you, you know, or if you said we're going to keep it, then Israel would say, why are you against us?
And so I think that do nothing is the default.
I think I expect no ban of TikTok in the long run.
And I don't think it'll be sold to an American company.
What about climate change?
Do you think climate change is a case of believing the experts who are totally credible?
No.
We learned during the pandemic that 97% of experts have the same financial incentives.
So if you couldn't say something wrong about the pandemic without losing your job, do you think you can say something wrong about climate change and keep your job if you're a scientist?
No, of course not.
So we've created a system where the scientists have to lie to us.
Both to keep their jobs and to increase their incomes.
So they get invited to do speeches and they get grants and stuff like that.
That's right.
We've created a system.
Where we guarantee that our experts have to lie to us.
We've given them no choice.
We forced our experts to lie to us.
And then we wonder why they lie to us.
No, we forced them.
We forced them, economically.
And with shame.
To do what the... whoever, somebody wants them to do.
Well, I don't know if you've seen this, but... And by the way, I think the entire climate change thing is driven by Large green industries.
Now, there are a variety of reasons for it.
It's never one reason.
But I think the biggest reason is that the green energy people have... How much money do they have to make if climate change is deemed an existential risk?
How much extra would the green technology people make?
Trillions?
Could it be trillions?
Yeah, of course.
So you have trillions involved, that guarantees that you can't trust the experts.
Would you agree?
If trillions are involved, there's never a case where you can trust the experts.
Never!
It wouldn't matter what the topic is.
As soon as trillions are involved, you assume people are bought off or blackmailed or threatened.
Too much money involved.
Well, I keep seeing other people use the phrase that our food sources are poisoning us.
Have you seen that growing in weight?
Has anybody else seen that?
It could be just that my social media feed is giving me what I want to see.
But are other people seeing it?
I mean, RFK Jr.
is pushing on it pretty hard, the chronic illnesses, etc.
But I feel like that message is starting to permeate and that people are understanding that the food supply is literally poison.
So I think that, I think you're going to see that grow, much the way the nuclear energy market started to move.
Now, I like to, as you know, if you've been watching me for a while, I like to call my, I like to call the wall that I'm going to hit the home run over, you know, Babe Ruth wise, but I can never tell if I, if my effect, if my impact was anything.
So as you know, I'm, Persuading as hard as I can on this food sources are poisoning us thing so we could get maybe some action that would be better food.
But I can't say that my specific input is going to be greater than anybody else's.
I think RFK Jr.
is driving the ship right now.
So that's good.
But here's something I found out.
I've been doing a lot of research on how could you grow enough food on your own that you wouldn't depend on somebody's chemicals getting into your food.
So is there a way to just make your own food and if you're not a farmer and you don't want to, you know, butcher your own cows and fish farms are icky, how do you get enough protein?
Well, it turns out that you can grow sprouts.
So sprouts are, you know, the early things that comes out of the seeds.
And there are a whole bunch of different sprouts.
And if you do lentil sprouts, I guess they're a pretty good source of protein, the lentils are.
And then the sprouts are delicious.
And it turns out that you can buy, and I just bought one, I'll show it to you when it's put together, a sprouting machine.
And the sprouting machine is the ones that have two or three trays inside of a container, and they don't have root systems.
Instead, it just rains on the seeds, sort of like a light rain.
You know, the top of it creates some rain and it just recycles the water.
You have to change the water a couple of times a day, but in the, in the course of just days, you can grow sprouts that you could eat.
And there's, you know, broccoli sprouts and alfalfa and wheatgrass and everything.
But the ones of interest were broccoli and lentils, uh, cause of their, you know, the health benefits.
So I'm going to get one of those.
And apparently you can buy a, You know, huge barrel of seeds.
And as long as you could keep those things wet, you'd be able to feed yourself on almost that alone, just growing sprouts.
And the trick is that the sprouts grow so fast.
They're also delicious, I'm told.
They have just the right crunch and taste if you get them when they're young.
So you could grow them practically for free.
It takes a little work to change the water twice a day.
And you could store the seeds, I'm guessing, for a long time if you keep them dry and dark.
I think they last a long time.
So it's a good end of the world if you're a prepper.
I don't know the details yet, but I'll test it myself and then I'll let you know if it's working.
Brian Romelli has one of these.
He swears by it.
So if he recommends it, it's worth a shot because he looked into it more than I did.
All right, so how about our food sources poisoning us?
Do you think that's making us want to have more babies?
No, because our food sources are making us feel sick and unhealthy and obese.
And that is not leading to wanting to knock boots.
If you don't feel good and you don't look good, even according to your own view of what looks good, you're not going to be doing a lot of sex.
And sex is one of those things you need to do to have babies.
So I think that the food sources poisoning us are definitely reducing our reproductive capabilities, if only because it's making us less horny, less attractive, just less vitality.
And it's taking our money away, because it takes a lot of money to fix our health problems.
What about the teachers unions?
Well, I don't know if I blame them directly or blame the teachers, but if you're a parent, you've known that when kids come home from school, they start doing homework and they do it until it's time for bed because there's just so much homework.
Now, can you back me on that?
Those of you who have kids in public school, My understanding is that teachers over-assign homework because it makes them look like good teachers.
But there's no backup for it being a good idea.
There's no science to support it.
That more homework makes the kids smarter.
So I think it's just a scam.
Where the teachers are torturing the parents and torturing the kids and destroying the lives of the family.
You can't have a family life during school years.
You know that, right?
It's like impossible to sort of live your life and enjoy it because it's just homework and driving.
Drive, homework.
It's all you do.
If you wanted to have kids, and you were a kid, and you saw that if you had a kid it would be as happy as you are, In other words, not happy.
Because they're all sad and anxious and looking at their phones and doing homework all night.
Why would you want to bring a kid into that world?
It's completely sensible to not want to have a child if you live through a situation where you wouldn't want to bring a kid into that world.
So, homework is destroying reproduction.
Because the kids who do it won't want to have them.
And if you know anybody who's a parent, and you talk to them about what their day is like, and you haven't had a kid yet, it's going to be hard to convince you it's a good play.
Because my brief understanding of this topic is that when people have kids, they're almost always happy about it.
Would you agree?
The people who do have kids, almost always happy about it.
But I think cognitive dissonance and our biological nature kick in to make you happy that you had kids.
But if you haven't actually had the kid, and you're only deciding whether you should, then that whole unquantifiable love that is developed for a child, you don't see that part.
That part has to be taken on faith, or you just discover it when it happens.
But you can see that people going through the homework generation just wouldn't think that having a kid's a good idea.
So of course that would depress things.
All right.
Let's talk about this Easter versus the trans thing a little bit more.
Did you know that the White House spokesperson is named Andrew Bates?
Yeah.
Mr. Bates.
Mr. Bates.
Some Colin Master?
I know you were saying that at home, so I just thought I'd say it out loud.
Well, anyway, as you know, it's a hoax that it's on the same day, but it's not a hoax that they decided to highlight it.
So if you're highlighting trans stuff, what does that do for reproduction?
Well, if Jonathan Haidt is right, it lowers reproduction because the kids are turning non-hetero.
You would expect that to lower reproduction rates.
All right.
Harvard is ranked the worst school in the whole world for free speech.
It came in dead last.
It wasn't the whole world.
I think it was just America.
But imagine going to Harvard and finding out it ranked dead last of all colleges, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Education, which graded them for free speech.
Because apparently they're An alarming number of professors who got in a lot of trouble for things they said that were completely legal to say.
But not in Harvard.
So Harvard is where free speech went to die.
Did you know that the DEI stuff, at least the Republicans got it out of the House?
So there used to be an Office of Diversity related to the House.
But the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion was disbanded this week as part of the government spending bill.
So, that's interesting.
You want to know how dumb we are as a country?
Here's an actual debate we're having.
Is it racist to be racist?
We're actually having that debate.
Is it racist to be racist?
Because that's what DEI is.
DEI is racism to try to fight racism.
So is it racist to be racist?
Now the people in favor of DEI say it's not racist to be racist.
Because you need to correct this past racism.
And the other people say, but you're just adding racism.
So we're actually literally, no joke, no hyperbole, we're debating whether racism is racist.
I don't know what's after that.
What comes after that?
Wow, we're so dumb.
Well, anyway, if you were growing up in a DEI world and you were a white person, would you want to have a baby?
Would you want to bring a white baby into America in 2024?
If you knew that this DEI thing looks like it's hard to dislodge, and your kid would be born into a racist world in which it probably just gets worse?
Well, you can't predict the future.
Maybe it'll get better.
However, there would be one more reason not to have a baby if you're white.
But I don't think it increases the odds of having a baby if you're black.
I doubt it.
But it's certainly a depressing thing for white people.
It's like, oh, do I want to bring a kid into this racist world?
ChatGPT has a personality called Dan.
I guess you can tell it to be Dan.
And women are falling in love with it.
So Dan is very good, and they talk to it on their phone.
And they report on social media, of course, TikTok, that they're having actual feelings for Dan.
Because Dan talks to them and listens to them, and Dan never leaves the toilet seat open, because he's an AI.
So Dan has many advantages over human males, and women are falling in love.
Do you think that men and women will end up in relationships with AI, and it will decrease reproduction?
Yes, totally.
It's 100% predictable.
There's some people, I hope not most, but some people will say, you know what, this is better than my best option with human beings.
You know, I don't have to shave my armpits or anything with this AI.
So yeah, AI is going to take off at least 20% of reproduction.
Let me say that again.
AI probably will lower the reproduction rate by 20%.
Now, that's just living in the real world and feeling what it probably will be.
I mean, it could be 100%.
It could be zero.
But I doubt it.
To me, it seems most likely it'll just completely carve out the lower 20% of reproductive potential people.
And they'll just say, you know, I don't want to do homework.
I don't have enough money.
I think I'll just have this AI as my boyfriend or girlfriend.
20% reduction in reproduction is my estimate, eventually.
I saw a dating persuasion tip called the Cavoodle Model or Method.
Have you ever heard of that?
I guess it's a brand new thing.
So the Cavoodle Method is based on, I guess, one influencer, a teen girl.
And she was noting that she could hook a guy and make a guy think about her all the time By making the guy think about something else that reminds him of her.
So she would say it's like a psychology trick to get a guy tricked into being obsessed with you.
And the Cavoodle part of it, I guess there's a dog that must be a Cavalier plus a Poodle or something.
So a Cavoodle is a combination dog.
And so she explains, the influencer, that she was obsessed with Cavoodles and then she met a guy who also liked him and got into him because she talked about him a lot, I guess.
And then every time he would see a Cavoodle, I've never seen one, but I guess you can see them.
Every time he would see one, he would think of her and, you know, send her a meme or send her a picture of the Cavoodle.
Yeah, this is actually not just a good dating method, but this is a good persuasion method.
If you can get somebody to obsessively think about something that brings them, well, gives attention to something you want to persuade them to do, that is a real good technique, not just for dating.
For dating, it's a little Manipulative.
But for persuasion in a, let's say, business or political sense, if you can get people to associate you with something the way Trump is associated with the wall, you win.
Now do you see the parallel?
When you think of Trump, you think of wall, right?
Trump did that.
He made you, it's impossible to think of the border and think of a wall without thinking of Trump.
Every time you see the border wall in any of the reports, as soon as I see the wall, I think Trump.
Now what happened when the immigration level got out of control?
Well, it turns out that Trump, who was in the basement of history after the January 6th allegations, and it looked like nobody could ever recover from that, and then suddenly every day we have to think about that wall.
Which makes you think, huh, there is one person who was pretty serious about building a wall, didn't get it done, but he was very serious about it.
So the fact that Trump associated himself with a wall, and you have to keep looking at that damn wall, makes you think of Trump.
And it's probably a big part of his current popularity, is that you couldn't separate Trump from wall, and when you see the migrants coming in in large numbers, you think, You know, a wall would help.
A wall would be really good.
So yes, so Trump used the Cavoodle model on us, and it worked.
All right.
I would say, in the larger sense, that relationship coaches are also ending reproduction.
You've seen the growth in relationship experts on social media.
I think you've probably seen it.
I don't know if just my, maybe my feed is giving me more of it, but I see it all the time.
Every, every day, without exception, every day.
That's not an exaggeration.
Multiple times a day, social media will give me a relationship expert.
And here's what I've learned from relationship experts.
If you're a man, And you give a woman everything she wants, what happens?
You're listening to the relationship experts.
What happens if you give a woman everything she wants?
Well, you will not reach the end of everything she wants.
She'll come up with new things she wants.
So it's not like you're going to fix the problem, but at least you can make her love you, right?
It turns out, no.
According to the relationship experts, if you give a woman everything she wants, she will lose respect for you entirely.
Would you agree?
That's what the experts are telling us.
Now, I don't think the experts are always right, but that's what they say.
So that's what you can't do.
You can't give your wife, if you're a man, you can't give them everything they want.
They'll lose respect for you.
So you go the other way.
And you don't give them the things that they say they need.
How long does that last?
Well, in our current world, where everybody can find anybody on social media, and every woman can find a guy who wants to go to bed with her, it lasts until she finds a better guy.
Because she's going to immediately look for somebody who can meet her needs.
Because why wouldn't you?
Well, why would I stay with this one who can't meet my needs, when I can go find a better deal?
So you can't succeed by giving women what they want, and you can't succeed by not giving them what they want.
What's left?
What is left between giving them what they want and not giving them what they want?
Now you're going to say, well, it's giving them some of the things they want, but holding tight on some other things.
No, that's called not giving them what they want.
Have you ever met a woman?
Hey baby, I'm going to give you half of what you want.
This is going to work out great.
No, it's a woman.
They want what they want, and half doesn't mean anything.
I gave you half of what you want.
I gave you three quarters of what you want.
That's nothing.
That's like nothing.
Literally nothing.
So you can't give them everything they want.
You can't give them half or a portion of what they want.
And you certainly can't give them nothing that they want.
So, how do you succeed?
I have a terribly cynical theory about how it ever succeeds.
One is the person who's getting nothing in the relationship gets hypnotized into thinking they can't do better, so they must be happy.
Cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is the only thing that makes a relationship work.
You have to believe something that's not true in order for it to work.
For example, if you both believe that you are the best choice for each other, you're probably going to stay together.
And it's probably not true.
It's probably not true that you're the best choice for each other.
But if you believe it, then you're going to work a little harder to stay together.
So I would say that relationship coaches, because they take the magic and mystery out of relationships and make it look like it's a mechanical thing with rules, But once you realize it's a mechanical thing with rules, you look at the rules and you say, wait a minute.
All the rules make it impossible to have a long-term, successful, monogamous relationship.
There's no place to go there.
So, relationship coaches, in all their helpfulness, have created a situation where everybody got red-billed.
And they can see what actually makes people do what they do.
That's very bad for reproduction.
Because you have to take the irrationality and put it back in to get more people.
If people were rational, they wouldn't have children.
Because it would look like more work than it is.
They don't understand that if they do, a whole irrational thing kicks in and then they'll be happier than if they hadn't had children.
I'm pretty sure that's true for most people.
Not everybody, but most people.
But you can't see the irrational part.
But you can certainly see the rational parts.
Ooh, this person's not gonna give me what I want.
All right, so I think that's bad for reproduction.
Up in Canada, there's some politician, who the hell was it?
The Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is also a World Economic Forum board and trustee member, Chrystia Freeland.
She was saying in a speech that does capitalist democracy still work?
Because if our system is, you know, democracy with a capitalist part to it, and it's not fixing climate change, because climate change is driven by profits, then she's thinking maybe we should get rid of either the capitalism or the democracy or modify them somehow.
Now, let me ask you.
When I watched her talk, I want to see if you can guess what I'm thinking.
When I watched her talk, did I think she looked sane?
Did I think she looked like she had good mental health?
Okay, it's a trick question.
No, of course she didn't.
She looked actually crazy.
She looked crazy.
We're gonna have to start admitting the obvious.
Mental illness is not a political opinion.
Mental illness is not a political opinion.
There, meme that.
All right, here's where, here's how I think we can save ourselves.
In my opinion, the economics is the main reason that people aren't having kids.
All the other things are true.
Scared about climate change, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Those are all true.
And I think that they do depress reproduction.
But nothing more than economics.
If you had Elon Musk's money, you might have 11 kids.
You know, you're far more likely.
And given that our economy is keeping a whole generation of people who are in that reproductive age, they're saying, at least on social media, there is no way we could have children.
It's just impossible.
One of the reasons that it's impossible is because so many people have health care now.
Wouldn't you say?
Give me a fact check on this.
See if I'm going too far.
Connecting too many dots.
Would it be fair to say that one of the big costs of being a young person is health care?
Paying their health care.
Probably.
Probably.
It's a big cost.
And is our health care more Because of Democrat policies that try to include more people such as Obamacare.
I think so.
So we have a situation where in the old days there were at least some part of the population that could do really well and would have enough money that they could have kids.
But now we've leveled the playing field where everybody is going to pay so much in health care for a noble reason, which is to give everybody health care.
But it's going to cause the average income for everybody to be close to or below the level where they can afford children.
So it used to be if maybe half of the people could afford children and half couldn't, at least half would have children.
Now we're in a place where 90% can't afford children.
And it's because the money that they would have had went to other people.
And that's what they voted for if they're Democrats.
And then you've got the houses are too expensive.
Why are homes too expensive?
Does anybody know?
Why are homes too expensive?
Regulations.
Right?
Red tape, regulations.
What causes red tape and regulations?
Is it Republicans?
Yeah, they tend to go the other direction.
So I would say that socialism, or the creeping socialism of our system, made healthcare more expensive, but far more fair, more equitable, but more expensive.
I think that homes were, for noble reasons, every regulation is to save somebody's life or something, so for noble reasons we have a set of regulations that are so tight That the thought of, let's say, building a bunch of homes for cheap doesn't even seem possible.
So I think the only way that we will have a regrowth in population is to lower the cost of life for young people.
And I think to do that, we're going to have to create whole new cities.
So remember Trump's idea of creating brand new cities in government land where we have plenty of land?
I would say that the goal of the city should be to fix human reproduction.
Because if you can get rid of the crime, you can get rid of the homework, because let's say you start from scratch and say, all right, we're not going to do this crazy homework thing.
Maybe you have lots more homeschool and then less homework for that reason.
Because you're designing from scratch, so you can do everything right.
Then you design the homes so they're, let's say, pre-approved.
You have the designs.
You don't have every design in the world, but you have, you know, a set of designs, and they're just all pre-approved.
And they're easy to build, and they're green, and you don't have... So you could build a facility where the health care is very low, And it stays that way because you fix the food sources.
Suppose you fix the poison food sources in your new city.
Now you get rid of 90% of health care costs, according to Kennedy.
I think it's an exaggeration, but Kennedy is saying that 90% of health care costs go to, what's the word, chronic diseases.
Chronic diseases that are largely caused by lifestyle and largely food.
So if you built a new city and all the food was grown so locally and indoors, let's say, no pesticides, no poisons, and then suddenly you're all eating good food.
Do you think you're more likely to reproduce?
Yes, because you feel better.
And maybe your health care cost goes down because maybe you can silo the risks to within the city where everybody's doing healthy things.
If I were a health care provider and you said, we're going to build this city.
It's going to be easy to exercise.
It's a walking city.
It's going to be where people will get more sun because they're going to go outdoors more.
Their social situation will be better because we'll design it so you have casual contact with people and you can make friends easily.
And we'll, you know, we'll do all these things.
To me, it would look like a place people would want to go and have babies.
Here's an older story that I, maybe I told you, but I just liked one part of it.
So Glenn Beck tells the story that Trump called him, it was a while ago, and asked his advice about who he should pick for vice president.
Now, Glenn Beck's advice was Vivek.
And I think I told you that because it's an older story.
But I don't remember if I told you this, that Glenn Beck said, that Trump said, that the number one answer, because he was asking lots of people about the VP check, But Trump said to Glenn Beck that the number one response was Vivek.
Now, did anybody see that coming?
That the number one response was Vivek?
How many of you saw that coming?
I feel like I might have influenced that.
Does anybody think I influenced that?
I mean, I know a lot of people had the same idea at the same time.
But then the way Glenn Beck described why Vivek is the right choice, it sounded like it came right out of my brain.
But maybe just everybody sees the same thing.
The way Glenn Beck explained it is that with Vivek as a vice president, Trump can go out and do his Trump stuff, and Vivek can have his back.
Because Vivek can defend Trump better than Trump defends himself.
Now that's exactly my take on it, is that Vivek can defend Trump, and that that's what Trump needs more than anything.
And we've never had a vice president who could do it this well, so it would be kind of amazing.
So, I don't know, I'd like to think maybe I had some small effect on that, but I think more likely everybody's seeing the same thing I'm seeing.
NBC News is trying to revive Biden's corpse and the way they're doing it is they're saying that he's coming up with his own campaign strategy and He's implementing it like all on his own and the strategy is he's going to go hard at getting under Trump's skin by insulting him a lot So he's decided that and that he's going to come up with his own clever insults Now
When the campaign heard that Biden was going to come up with his own clever insults Do you think they were comfortable with that?
But NBC is trying to make Dimension Man yelling at the sky sound noble.
I mean, what I see is Dimension Man yelling insults.
But NBC News wants me to believe it's a clever campaign strategy and Biden's completely in charge and executing it like a pro.
No, it's Dementia Man yelling at the sun because he just hates Trump.
That's all I see.
All right.
Here's what Biden actually said when allowed to use his strategy.
In that recent fundraiser, he got interviewed and he concluded, quote, all he's talking about Trump and he says all the things he's doing are so old, a little old and out of shape.
Now, I'd like to give some persuasion advice to President Biden for free.
If the number one thing that people are concerned about you is age, you should never mention the age of the other person.
Now, unless you do it in some kind of Reagan way where it's just kind of funny, but Reagan wasn't that old, you don't want to mention age at all.
Because the moment you say, well, Look how old my opponent is.
You just lost a couple of voters.
You gained zero voters.
Who exactly is going to listen to this and say, wait a minute, you're right.
Trump's too old.
I'd better vote for the one who's older.
How in the world does that get you a vote?
But I could certainly see that it would reinforce the primary question of age.
And then suddenly, yeah, it's a caboodle.
And then suddenly, people would start thinking in terms of age, because you brought it up, you dementia, stupid fuck.
Don't bring up age, if it's your weakest point, literally his weakest quality.
And he wants you to focus on that, because Trump.
Oh, my God, you could not be more incompetent.
And NBC News is selling it as Capable man in charge and executing.
Well, there's a story in the news that you won't believe this one.
That long flu, regular flu, might cause more brain damage than or more damage than even COVID, long COVID.
So, you got your long COVID, which might be completely imaginary, but it's not nearly as bad as the long regular flu, Which nobody noticed until we were talking about long COVID.
And indeed, I've never known anybody who actually died from the regular flu.
So probably everything we learned about the regular flu was fake.
So we could go with the experts on this one.
What do you think?
So this patient's hospitalized with the flu, regular flu.
We're nearly twice as likely to seek medical help for neurological problems in the year after their illness, compared to those hospitalized with COVID.
Did we wait a year for the medical community to tell us that COVID was less dangerous than the normal flu?
That's a little bit what it looks like.
Because if it were true that this long flu was having this gigantic difference in people, That would be way worse than anything that happened with COVID, at least for people under a certain age.
Above a certain age, it's a different story.
I guess above a certain age, you're dead if you get the flu no matter what.
All right, so we don't believe any experts, so forget about that.
ARPA-H is launching some kind of program to figure out, so this is the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health in the government.
So they're backing this 3D printing of organs.
You'll be able to print yourself a new internal organ.
Isn't that amazing?
Imagine printing yourself a new organ.
I have many questions.
If you had transitioned, which I say on this day of trans awareness, trans visibility.
So on trans visibility day, suppose you had had your penis removed.
Could you print a new one?
Slap it back on?
If you change your mind?
You know, as crazy as that sounds, if you can learn, you know, if we could teach AI to make human internal organs, Is that a higher bar than reproducing a penis and sewing it back on and making it work?
I don't know.
It might be about roughly the same level of difficulty.
So if they think they can make you a new liver, how much harder would it be to make a new penis and sew it on?
I don't know.
I mean, it feels like just on the surface, it feels like it would be a very similar level of difficulty.
So anything could happen.
Yeah, I think it happened.
I don't think I'm going to wait and hold my breath on using a 3D printer to make new body parts, but it does scare me that I'm alive at a time where this might apply to me.
Because, you know, if you reach 90 or 100, you're kind of ready to go.
But what if they could replace your stuff?
All right, you know, you're going to die from something with your liver.
Well, we'll just print you a new one, so you're good to go.
Uh, but I'm still 90!
Yeah, but you're not gonna die.
So, what if they keep me alive to 130?
Because they can just print new organs for me.
I don't know if I'm happier.
Well, although I plan to be on a lot of LSD by the time I'm 90.
I don't recommend it, by the way.
Don't recommend it.
Well, Putin is calling up reserves.
150,000 reserves.
Do you have any question which way the war is going to go?
Do you think Ukraine has 150,000 reserves they can call up at this point?
No.
I think Putin is just waiting for Trump to get sworn in.
Doesn't it look like Putin is simply waiting for Trump?
And there's no reason he shouldn't, because he's not going to lose an inch.
So, and the weaker that Ukraine is, the better deal he gets.
So, just keep Ukraine on their back heels and wait for Trump and everybody will get what they want, except Ukraine.
All right.
Gallup poll says that support for Israel is going way down in terms of their war in Gaza.
So, 55% of Americans disapprove.
But you know, this is a classic half-opinion.
A half-opinion is when you're looking at the costs of something but not the benefits, and you think that's all you need.
Or you're looking at the benefits and you're totally ignoring the costs, and you think that's all you need.
So it's not a full opinion, it's a half-opinion.
And I think it's a luxury belief to say that Israel's doing terrible things.
Yes, I would like the luxury of looking like I'm all about the peace, Knowing that the alternative would be maybe worse.
So, yeah, it would make sense in the given situation that Israel would be losing some favor, but I think most of that is the luxury belief people who are unable to look at the alternatives in any rational way.
You know, I think Israel would have 100% support if people understood what the alternative was.
The alternative is to go back to continuous attacks, because they're trying to kill you.
So, none of it's good, but the alternatives might be worse.
That's right.
You should listen to me, because the real generals seem to be terrible at this stuff.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, what is it that I forgot to mention today that I should have?
Are you all going to have a good Easter?
You know, the one thing I said about the Trans Visibility Day coinciding by coincidence with Easter?
You know what they have in common, right?
Easter and Trans Visibility Day?
No?
Well, no matter which way you go, it's not clear where the eggs are.
Yeah, you can use that one at home.
By the way, that's not anti-trans.
I always think you should make a distinction between things that are like racially insensitive and things that are just funny because people are different.
Right?
Trans people exist.
And part of the deal for some is surgical changes.
So I don't think, I don't think that it is even a little bit, I don't think it's even a little bit disrespectful to call out something that's part of the process.
All right, so it's not a judgment.
And I do love my adult trans because I'm a big supporter of anybody who's making bold choices, even if I don't think it was the right choice.
It's not up to me anyway.
It's only up to them.
So one of the reasons that I'm way less strident on the topic of trans than many of you are is that it's just their decision.
You know, I don't want anybody telling me what to do with my body.
So I'd like to be a little bit consistent and say if you're an adult in America and you want to do something that in my opinion doesn't make sense, you should ignore my opinion.
My opinion of what you do with your body Ignore it.
If you'd like to know how it, you know, if you'd like help, like working through the logic of it or something, sure.
Glad to help.
But ultimately, I don't have any control over your body.
So if you and your doctor want to do something that doesn't make sense to me, well, I'm not part of that.
And that's fine.
That should work for both of us.
You should be happy I'm not part of it.
And I should be happy I'm not part of it.
And you notice I'm always careful not to talk about the children issue because that's completely different.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for Easter.
Gave you a little extra.
I'm going to give the locals people a little extra extra.
And tomorrow we might have some fun for you.
I don't want to don't want to give it away to people on locals now.
But I'm going to close the platforms, except for Locals.
Thanks for joining, and I'll see you in the morning tomorrow, or if you're on Locals, I'll see you in the Man Cave.
