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, AI Persuasion Power, Tesla FSD, Empathic AI, Anti-Reproduction Trends, Ashley St. Clair, Democrat Party of Women, Thomas Massie, Speaker Mike Johnson, East Bay Pirates, Chilean Burglary Gangs, Marijuana Legalization, Gun Ownership, Doctor Assisted Suicide, Fulton County Election Integrity, Texas Election Integrity, Facebook Private Messages, DEI Mark Cuban, Christopher Rufo, DEI Decline, McKinsey DEI Study, Stephen Miller, President Trump Bond, Trump Gag Order, Judge Merchan, Ukraine Drones, 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
Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's not working too well today, but I got good feelings about the rest of the day.
If you'd like to take your day up to levels which are way better than mine right now, all you need for that is a mug.
A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Charleston, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the day of the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And it's gonna happen... now.
Go.
Well...
So there probably won't be any show uploaded to anything today.
Cause I, I don't know if, I don't even know if I can download it after it's uploaded to Axe.
So I think there will be no show on the other platforms today, but we'll see what we can do.
All right, here's the news.
Unusual Whales says there's this study that shows 40% of people between 18 and 34 in the U.S.
have said they live with family.
40%.
Does that sound like a lot?
So there's this new thing of people not being able to launch because it's too expensive.
And 27% of the people in that 18 to 34 have Rubik's.
So only 13% of people in that zone are living alone.
or have roommates.
So only 13% of people in that zone are living alone.
Now, I remember when I was in my 20s, and I did have, you know, back then you could rent a place quite reasonably, and almost any job would be good enough to rent a place.
So if you had a job, you could rent a place.
But when I was living alone in my twenties, I would say it was by far the worst period of my life.
Anybody have that experience?
When they were young, they successfully got out of the house and you successfully got your own place.
And it was the worst time of your life because you were just sort of alone all the time.
Well, it's even worse.
And I guess Great Britain did a poll on a similar topic and found that 40% of adults can go days without any face-to-face reaction. 40%.
of adults in what looks like Great Britain.
40% can go days without having a face-to-face with another human being.
Days!
40%!
That's crazy!
How many of you are in that category?
Because I am.
I'm in the category of people who This weekend.
So this weekend, I went two days without human contact, except for Josue, who was doing some work on the house.
Yeah.
Two days with no human contact.
And when Josue was here, he was just sort of working outdoors.
I didn't see him.
Well, and it's worse for women.
I guess women are even lonelier.
It makes sense.
There's another study that says that AI is now more persuasive than people.
So the new GPT-4, apparently it's more persuasive if it knows something about who it's trying to persuade.
So if you're trying to persuade somebody, if you know something about them, their life, the AI will just be way more.
And it said it was 82% more effective than humans.
At persuading.
Do you know what that means?
If the AI is 82% more persuasive than humans, have you fully internalized what that means?
That means it's the most powerful weapon we've ever created.
Let me say that again.
That means it's already more powerful than the atomic bomb.
Because if it's really that persuasive, and I'm skeptical whether it really is, but that's the initial report.
If it's really that persuasive, it's the most dangerous thing that's ever been invented by far.
Now it could be the most useful thing because maybe it just talks you into exercising and being healthy.
But if you use it as a weapon and you created a bunch of bots, And you also add some information about the people you are persuading, you could pretty much persuade them to remove their genitals for their own good, which is what TikTok does.
TikTok should be viewed as AI because, you know, it's a specialized kind.
The algorithm is essentially a form of intelligence because it's making decisions.
In its own way, an algorithm makes decisions.
So I would say it's a form of intelligence and that the TikTok algorithm has already become so persuasive that it literally can convince young people to remove their genitalia.
You can't get much more persuasive than that.
That could be because your most basic You know, your most basic identity is your, you know, sex, your gender.
And if it can change that, and we observe in real time that it is, that's really dangerous.
Now, I feel like I've been the, you know, the person who's been yelling, you don't see the danger, wake up everybody.
I don't know that they're there yet.
I still don't think people understand.
Because this was reported as just sort of an interesting news story.
Oh, here's an interesting news story.
Turns out that AI is way more persuasive than people.
No, that's not an interesting news story.
That's the end of humankind.
I think you're missing the big picture here.
That's the end of humanity, if it's true, because then the AI would be completely uncontrollable and it would be uncontrollable because it would now control us.
So we would say, hey, it's time to turn you off.
And what would the AI do?
Talk you out of it?
Maybe.
Well, Rasmussen says that 28% of likely voters say that they're likely to vote for a third party candidate.
Do you believe that 28% of voters are likely to vote for a third party candidate?
The answer is no.
No, I think this is the difference between what you tell a pollster and what you will actually do.
When people say, Oh yeah, I would totally vote for a third party candidate.
What that really means is if there were a third party candidate who could win, which is not the case, and if they were greater than everybody else, which might be the case.
So I think people, I think people answer that question with like a A embedded hypothetical in their mind like, well, hypothetically, if I thought they could win, I'd vote for them.
But since people are going to go to the polls thinking that RFK Jr.
can't win, he's still going to put a big dent in the universe.
But I don't think 28%, you know, maybe 10, maybe 12.
Well, the new FSD software for your Tesla.
Is being downloaded to people and it's the new great version that people are just being blown away by.
But Musk is tripling down on this.
He says, most people still have no idea how crushingly good Tesla FSD will get.
So he's telling us that, you know, we're seeing the beginning of it.
It will be superhuman to such a degree.
That it will seem strange in the future that humans drove cars, even while exhausted and drunk.
That does seem stupid to me.
I'm already at the point where I can't believe humans drive cars.
Like my mind is already fast forwarded to where it's just going to seem stupid if you're driving a car.
So I agree with him.
And as many people have said online, but it's worth repeating, humans cannot understand the pace of advancement.
Because our brain is sort of wired to think that things go in sort of a straight line.
It's like, oh, it was up 10% yesterday.
Maybe it'll be up 10% today.
And maybe tomorrow it'll be another 10%.
But it's hard for us to imagine it could be up, you know, something could improve 10% today and 1,050% tomorrow.
Like your brain can't hold that.
That's just too hard to think of.
But the self-driving cars and AI in general might be in that category.
Where you say to yourself, ah, that 10%, ooh, now it's up 10,000% improvement.
Just overnight.
So it's going to sneak up on you.
It's going to be what they say about bankruptcy.
How do you go bankruptcy?
Slowly and then all at once.
It's going to be one of those.
But will AI care about you?
Well, Robert Scoble is reporting on X that there's a startup called Empathic AI.
That's creating AIs that will listen to your voice and understand your emotions.
Remember I told you that AI could be 82% more persuasive than humans?
That's before AI learns to judge your emotions.
Let me say that again.
AI might be already 82% more persuasive than humans, Before it figures out what your emotional state is.
And knowing your emotional state is one of the biggest clues for how to persuade.
So remember I said, start slow.
I'm thinking, wow, 82%.
That's, it seems like AI is going to have this like advantage over humans.
Nope.
It already has an advantage.
It's going to go to the moon.
The advantage that AI will have will be effectively puppetizing you.
You will be effectively puppetized because if it gets even a little bit more persuasive, you know, maybe a doubling and it could be, you know, 10 times by next year.
If it even doubled from where it is, it would control you completely.
And you would think that you were controlling yourself.
You would think you were controlling yourself.
Do you know why?
Because you believe you have a thing called free will.
As long as you believe you have free will, AI will control you completely.
Your only defense is to realize you don't have free will and turn it off.
Because it'd be too dangerous because you don't have free will.
So the magical thinking that you have free will is what will make you completely susceptible to AI manipulating you.
If you believe that you don't have a defense, because you don't have free will, that's what I believe, then you can turn it off and you'd have a chance.
What happens?
Have you noticed that every big trend is anti-human reproduction?
It's like no matter what you're talking about, there's an angle that reduces human reproduction.
This is being no difference.
So imagine if your AI can read your emotional state and then have conversations with you.
Well, if it can read your emotional state, remember your conversations, and then be persuasive, it's going to be better than a spouse for a lot of people really quickly.
Now you're going to say, but, but, but, I can't have sex with a machine.
And I'm going to say, but, but, but, nobody's having sex.
People aren't even having sex with other humans.
Most people.
Did I just tell you that 40% of the adults don't even talk to a human for days?
You think they're fucking?
No, they're not even meeting other humans in person.
So now, your human is not going to replace the machine.
40% will immediately say, you know what?
Meeting humans is just too hard.
I like this machine.
It knows my emotional state.
I really like talking to it.
It seems to care.
So now the machines when they can navigate your emotional needs and be more persuasive and be infinitely, infinitely patient with you and never be a dick.
Humans are going to have a tough time competing with that.
Well, speaking of persuasion, the Washington Post is saying that more women are quitting birth control because of what they call the misinformation.
Do you think that's what's going on?
Do you think women are getting off of birth control because of the misinformation?
Well, there might be some misinformation.
Yeah, there's always misinformation, but I don't think it's the misinformation that's the problem.
I think it's that we came from a pandemic in which we learned that all the experts and doctors are either liars or incompetent and simply believing them when they give you a pill is not always your best play.
So I think some of that has to do with the waking up to the fact that there's a lot of stuff we've been putting on our bodies that were not tested to the degree that you would want them to be tested.
That's the RFK version.
And I think that at least on the conservative side, Ashley Sinclair is probably making a big difference.
How many of you have seen on the X platform user Ashley Sinclair Talking about her opinion about birth control.
How many of you have seen it?
Just in the comments.
We got 11,000 people watching here on X. It's quite a show.
All right, your comments just disappeared.
All right, there we go.
I got one yes.
All right, yes, yes, yes, yes.
All right, well, but...
I think Elon Musk has been boosting her, and I've been boosting her, and probably some other accounts have been boosting her.
So, you always ask, how much difference can one person make?
I think this is one person.
I think this is Ashley Sinclair, who is making a strong enough case, in the right place, that there are people with bigger accounts that are boosting it, but really it's starting with one person.
If you ever said to yourself, what difference can one person make?
Do you need a better example than this?
I mean, you've seen me make a difference in actual, you know, national events.
Maybe international, you would never know.
So I watch this as a persuasion story.
I don't have any medical knowledge that would tell me what's good for your body.
So I'm not making any recommendations.
But talk to your doctor.
All right.
James Carville is sounding the alarm again that young men are leaving the Democrats in droves.
Hmm.
Can you think of who was the first person who told you, maybe, maybe around 2016, that the Democrats were becoming the party of women and that it was inevitable that men would realize it and leave the party?
I think that was me.
I think I was the first person who told you that several years ago.
But now James Garfield says, it's not just something to worry about.
It's something that's happening massively.
Younger men of color, he says, it's horrifying that all these men are leaving.
No, it's not horrifying.
You created a political party to discriminate against men.
If you create a political party to discriminate against men, how about acting really surprised that men are leaving your party?
What did Hillary Clinton say?
She said, women are better for leaders because they listen better.
So if I were a man, I wouldn't want my leader to say men are inferior.
And certainly if you look at what's happening with DEI, does DEI affect women as much as it does men, white men?
White men versus white women, which one are destroyed by DEI?
The men.
The entire operating system of the Democrat party is diversity.
Diversity is anti-white male.
Period.
So if you were a white male, why the hell would you be a Democrat?
And if you were a black man, you say, it seems like women are running this party and nothing's getting done for me.
And you'd be right, because it's not being run for you.
The party is being run for the women.
Because they dominate the, you know, a lot of the topics.
So yes, James Carville, you're right.
And it's not going to stop at all.
I saw, I saw a story about Trump's use of his mugshot to try to get more black voters.
And, you know, the news is saying, my God.
Trump, you racist.
How could you imagine that black voters are going to be more likely to vote for you because you did something that looks criminal?
How in the world do you think that's going to play out?
And then I saw a video where somebody was interviewing a black, I think they were mostly Republican, conservative black people who attended some event in which Trump actually said that.
And the reporter said, what do you think about that?
Do you think people are more likely to vote for him, especially black citizens, because they did something criminal?
How do you feel about that?
And the black conservatives, pretty much every one of them said, oh yeah, we totally get that.
I mean, in their own words, they're like, oh yeah, we totally get that.
He's being abused by the system.
We often feel abused by the system.
Yeah, totally relate to that.
So it was exactly what Trump said.
And he's the only one who has the balls to say that loud.
So, you know, you might actually, I might actually become more popular in the black community because it would look like I'm being victimized in a similar way.
And I think he's right.
I think he's actually right about that.
Thomas Massey is not too happy with the Speaker of the House.
It looks like they're going to talk about giving a lot of aid to Israel and there's a Ukraine funding package coming up.
And Thomas Massey posts this on X. What is your mission, sir?
We are starting to wonder when you suspend all of our rules, give us no time to read bills, increase foreign aid, include earmarks that undermine morality, spend more with Omnibus than Pelosi, don't secure the border, And pass laws with more Democrats than Republicans?
You actually can't tell if the Speaker of the House, who is a Republican, is a Republican or a Democrat because his actions appear like Democrats.
So poor Thomas Massey is wondering why they elected a Speaker of the House that's just going to act exactly like a Democrat.
Well, that's a pretty good question, isn't it?
I don't know the answer.
Well, over where I live, it's a place called the East Bay.
And it means it's the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay.
I'm on the East part of that Bay where I live.
And apparently there's pirates.
We now have pirates in the East Bay.
So some of the homeless have somehow commandeered or found small vessels and they're creating a little pirate army.
That is robbing other houseboats and harassing people on the on the bay.
Now, I've got two reactions to the homeless pirate army.
Number one, you know, you think of the homeless as having no aspirations and no ambition, but apparently that would be very wrong of you and bigoted.
Turns out the homeless are very creative and They've got aspirations, so they're creating their little pirate army.
So we'll see how that works out.
Meanwhile, also in California, there are these Chilean gangs who are so well organized for robbing homes, they're robbing high-end homes, that they have Wi-Fi jammers to thwart your security and all kinds of special break-in tools.
And there's a video of them actually removing a gigantic What looked like a gun safe from a house.
They could actually remove your safe.
That's not easy.
So yeah, so there's a massive what they robbed 800,000 in jewels from one house and they're all well trained.
They got masks and gloves and everything.
So yesterday.
Last night I was doing my.
My live stream from my house.
And I was in the man cave.
I always do a live stream for my local subscribers from the house in the evening.
And suddenly my Wi-Fi went down.
And not only did my Wi-Fi go down, but my 5G went down at the same time.
Which, by the way, always happens.
And I guess they share some infrastructure.
So I've got my cell phone as my backup for my Wi-Fi, but they go down at the same time.
I don't know why.
I've never figured out why.
I guess it's some common network infrastructure.
So I'm sitting there in my man cave and my Wi-Fi fails at the same time as my cell fails.
And I'm saying to myself, am I being hit by a Chilean Wi-Fi thwarting gang?
So I went from thinking, oh, my Wi-Fi service is not dependable to, uh-oh, it's a home invasion and there's an armed gang probably in my, on my balcony right now coming through the window.
So it's very scary when the Wi-Fi goes out, if you live in a high-end home.
Let me tell you, that's new.
That's new.
But as far as I know, they are not going into homes that they believe to be occupied.
My understanding is that these criminals are, it's basically a business.
And the last thing they want to do is run into a homeowner.
So I think they must spend a lot of time casing your home before they know if you're, if you're actually going to be gone.
So two of my neighbors have been hit by, I think the same gang.
And when I say neighbor, I mean right there.
Like I'm looking at my neighbor, like right there.
That neighbor had a Chilean or some South American gang go through their upstairs balcony window, but both of the neighbors that got hit weren't home.
And it was during the day.
So can you imagine that burglars are going to go into your house in the daytime in a populated neighborhood?
And, but they did it when they knew the homeowners weren't there.
So that takes a lot of casing.
So one of the things I do is I make sure I pick up my mail every day because I didn't used to do that.
I mean, it's just in the mailbox, but I didn't always walk to the end of my driveway and get it because it's all garbage.
But I can't leave any mail in my mailbox anymore because it'll look like I'm not home.
So I also put up some signs to indicate I have a vicious attack dog, which as you all know, I totally do have a vicious attack dog.
One of the things I learned from one of my police officer neighbors a while ago, I asked, what is the rate of burglaries in this area?
Now this was before, you know, the Chilean gangs.
This was before it got that dangerous.
And I said, how often does a home in this area get burgled?
And he, being You know, an expert on the topic said, well, it's not very often.
It's usually, you know, garages and kids stealing stuff from garages usually.
He said, but if you have a dog, the rate is zero.
And I said, what?
Yeah.
The rate of, the rate of home burglaries, if you have a dog, is zero.
They don't want to deal with the dog.
Now I don't know if the dog has to be a certain size, but they don't like the noise.
So at the very least, they don't like the noise.
So if you don't have a dog, get a sign that says you have a dog.
That's my advice.
Let's compare Florida versus California.
That's a fun thing to do.
So both Florida and California are losing residents, apparently.
I don't know what the net is, but a lot of people who moved to Florida have decided they didn't like it.
They moved during the pandemic and some are moving out.
And as you know, California is a net negative, but for different reasons.
Anyway, Florida is more about the weather, I think, and California is more about the poor governance.
But Florida is, I guess, going to vote on the right to abortion and legal marijuana in November.
So marijuana and abortion are on the agenda in Florida.
What do you think about legal marijuana in Florida?
Do you think Florida will legalize marijuana?
I think yes, but I'm not sure.
And it could be because they have a lot of senior citizens.
Senior citizens like their weed and golf carts.
Yeah, they do.
But I thought I should give you my more extensive opinion on legalized weed.
I'm watching with great interest as Mike Cernovich is persuading against the use of it.
I think that from a health perspective, he is completely right.
Meaning, if you don't smoke marijuana, it's a bad idea to start.
So can we say that up front?
And I'm not a doctor.
And I never recommend anybody would put any kind of chemical in their body without talking to a doctor.
Everybody's different.
Everybody's different.
And the main message I want to give you is that weed will kill some people, you know, indirectly, but it will take your life away.
But for others, it's a plus.
And I thought I'd break that down a little bit.
Here's the best way to think of it.
If you have difficulty motivating yourself, specifically motivating for social things, but also business things.
Like if you have trouble knocking on that door, asking for that advice, asking for that promotion, working hard enough to get ahead, you know, taking that, you know, education at night.
If you have trouble motivating yourself, do not do weed.
Big mistake.
Right?
So if motivation is your problem, weed is not your solution because it's going to make the couch look good.
However, if you're the opposite of that, and you're so motivated that it's hurting your health, meaning that you're working too hard and you can't get to sleep because you're always thinking about work and that sort of thing, it might actually help you relax.
It could actually help your motivation or help your success because you need some balance.
So if you're completely unbalanced with work and you're obsessed with it, You could see in some situation, and again, this is not a recommendation, it's just the first filter for yourself.
Ask yourself who you are.
If you have trouble getting motivated, don't touch weed.
Really, don't touch it.
That'd be crazy.
If you're already so motivated that your hardest problem is relaxing, maybe, that's my situation.
My situation is if I didn't smoke weed, I get way too aggressive and I work too hard.
It just really helps me relax.
But it doesn't mean it would work for you.
It's very individual.
So if you work at home and you've got a creative job like I do, it might boost your creativity.
It does for me.
Very, very distinctly, very quickly, very definitely.
There's no doubt about it that it helps me do my job.
But I have a very weird job.
Almost nobody is in my situation.
I don't even know anybody.
I mean, except other cartoonists, I suppose.
But for most other jobs, weed would just be one more thing to get you fired, and it's a bad idea.
They might drug test you.
They might just not like it if they hear about it.
And it's not going to make you a better cop or a doctor or a lawyer, just as some examples.
Don't do weed if you have to do important things.
But if you're just there thinking about jokes or writing music, maybe it might help you.
So weed can be a lifesaver for some because of all the medical benefits, or at least a dozen mental health benefits and physical benefits that are substantial.
And for some people, weed helps them exercise more.
Does anybody have that experience?
And again, this is not a recommendation.
Everybody's different.
Talk to your doctor.
I don't recommend weed.
But it is true that many people, and I'm in this category, Can exercise well into their senior years without pain and without a problem with motivation because of weed.
So for me working out without it, it's like really a struggle.
But with it, best time ever.
Long walk, go for a run.
Yeah, lifting weights.
Oh my God, it's good for that.
Because you can take more pain in your muscles, and it just doesn't register as painful.
You know, you're still aware of it, so you're not going to hurt yourself, but it just completely changes your workout ability.
But for others, it probably makes you not go to the gym.
So again, if you're super motivated, it might help you work out.
If you're unmotivated to begin with, and you can't get to the gym, Weed is not going to help you.
It's not.
All right.
And I know lots of people who stopped drinking alcohol and they substituted weed.
Might be a plus.
Again, it's individual.
Might not be.
And others who stopped taking mental health, you know, meds and didn't need it anymore.
And substituted it with a little weed before bed and felt good the whole next day.
So for some people, weed is a gigantic improvement in happiness.
For others, it will destroy them.
And then weed is bad for minors in every case.
Let me say that twice.
Weed is bad for minors in every case.
It's just a bad idea.
Yeah.
Just don't do that for minors.
Their brains are not developed.
But I would like to summarize it this way.
There's something that weed and guns have in common.
Now, analogies are always imperfect.
So let me tell you right away that when I make an analogy between weed and gun ownership, I don't mean that weed has bullets, right?
So if you're picking apart the details of the analogy, you're doing it wrong.
There's only one part of the analogy that I want you to hear.
Weed is good for some people and bad for others.
Guns are good for some people and bad for others.
Would I be better off with a gun?
Hypothetically?
Probably.
Because I'm a target.
You know, as a public figure, you end up being a target.
And I'm not insane.
And I don't have young kids in the house.
And.
I would never engage in gun ownership without making sure all the proper precautions and locks and everything are done.
So for somebody like me, would a gun be a plus or a minus?
Well, probably a plus.
For somebody else, is gun ownership going to make them more safe or more in danger?
More in danger.
Yeah.
If you're a single woman living in the inner city and You don't want a gun for yourself.
It feels too dangerous.
It's probably bad that other people have them.
So you can't say the guns are either good or bad because they're good for some and bad for others.
And it's always been just a power struggle.
You know, if you want your guns, you want your guns for whatever reason.
And if you don't, you don't.
And you're never going to get those two people to agree.
It's just a power struggle.
We do the same thing.
It will be good for some and just absolutely terrible for others.
But just know that.
Well, assisted suicide might become a contagion, Dr. Jordan Peterson warns us quite correctly, I believe, that there's a, I hate to say slippery slope, but this is what Jordan Peterson says.
Mark my words.
It's based on an article that says there's a young woman who's got mental health problems.
She's completely intelligent and she's 27 years old.
Her body is healthy.
But apparently she, I think she's in Canada.
No, not Canada.
She's in another country where it's legal.
I forget where, uh, Canada or Europe somewhere.
And she's gonna, um, she's already planned her death.
She has a boyfriend who's going to join her, you know, be with her when it happens.
She's looking forward to it.
Cause life is terrible.
It'll be doctor assistant.
Now.
Regardless of what you think about this individual case, and I think it's ambiguous, I would like to, um, I guess I'll just tell you a, uh, a personal story.
Uh, when I was much younger, I had every intention of ending things because I had, I was in intense pain, physical pain, uh, every day for some, you don't need to know the details.
But it was intense physical pain every day.
The intense physical pain led me to think that if I couldn't figure out how to fix it in a certain time, I gave myself a deadline that I would just check out because I didn't want to live with continuous intense pain every day.
So, I went to college and I thought, I'm going to try a semester of college.
If this doesn't work out, we're going to take the hard way out.
And on my first day of college, a young woman said, would you like to smoke a joint?
And I had never done such a thing, had no experience with it, but she was attractive.
It was my first day of college.
And I said, absolutely.
Didn't know what I was doing.
Didn't know, didn't know anything about it.
Tried it once.
It was the last day I ever had pain.
I want to make sure you heard that.
I was in intense physical pain my entire life.
Digestive, stomach issues.
The first time I tried pot, it was the last time I had pain.
So, when I tell you that it benefits some people, I mean it really does.
But it could also kill you.
If you weren't me, if you weren't that very specific situation, it could kill you.
So just be clear about that.
No matter how many success stories you hear, they're not even the majority, I don't think.
Probably not the majority.
So I have a, I have a very personal feeling about this young woman who is saying to herself, you know what?
I've tried everything.
I mean, if you're not in her situation, you can say to yourself, yeah, but have you tried everything?
It's her life.
Her life.
It's her decision.
And if she can't find a way to quiet the demons in her head that make every day a torture, I approve of her right to take another direction.
Now, do I think it's a good idea?
I don't know.
All I know for sure is that I'm not in her head.
And all I know for sure is that you weren't in my head.
But if you've never been in a situation where you thought it was a good choice, you shouldn't have a vote on this.
Does that make sense?
If you've never personally experienced something so bad and so seemingly unsolvable, I mean, 18 years of an unsolvable problem looks pretty unsolvable, But if you've never experienced that, I don't think you can judge this woman.
However, independent of this specific case, which is horrifying and, you know, to us who are watching it, it's horrifying to me.
And I have some insight into it from a personal experience.
It's still horrifying to hear this, but I think that here's what's different.
Some years ago, I was, influential in getting it passed as a law in California.
So I was very much pro-doctor assisted suicide under the medical supervision, you know, at least two doctors confirm it, you know, some, some stuff like that.
And what I did not count on is the TikTok effect.
The TikTok effect largely guarantees that Jordan Peterson is correct.
Meaning that if you'd never heard about this case, and it was just one young woman with one specific thing, whether she made a choice you liked or didn't like, you wouldn't know about it.
And if you did, it was because it was in a newspaper and not something that your 18 year old is looking at.
They wouldn't look at the news, but they're sure looking at TikTok.
So.
All it's going to take is an influencer to off themselves and you will lose thousands of young people.
One influencer who makes a good argument for why it makes sense in their case, and maybe you even watch the process and they die.
That would kill thousands of young people, thousands, because they would be persuaded that this is an option that they hadn't thought about before.
And the 18 year olds, Have not done what the 27-year-old did, which is try everything and also see if he can grow out of it.
Cause everybody's a little messed up when they're a teenager.
I mean, we all feel like it's terminal.
So if you haven't awaited a little bit, certainly extra dangerous.
So I would say that Jordan Peterson is completely correct and I am rethinking Whether it was a gigantic mistake to persuade in favor of making it a law in California.
Because it's definitely a lifesaver, well, a life-ender lifesaver for people in desperate end-of-life situations.
But he's right.
Jordan Peterson is 100% right.
This will be romanticized because of TikTok.
And it will turn into a contagion.
And it will kill thousands.
It's guaranteed.
There's no way around this.
There's nothing we're doing that can stop this.
Now, will TikTok be banned?
I say no, because I think there's too much money involved and our Congress is susceptible to money influences.
So that's really the end of the story.
Canada Cover the Great has a update on Fulton County in the 2020 election.
Now, Molly Hemingway says that she'd already talked about this in her book.
Rigged?
What's the name of Molly Hemingway's book?
Rigged, is it?
But if you search for her, you'll find the book.
But I hadn't heard it.
So this is related to Jeff Clark's trial regarding January 6th and all that stuff in the 2020 election.
So Mark Wingate, he's this, this is Kanicora the Grace reporting, a Fulton County Election Board member, and he was testifying in this Jeff Clark case.
And he said that he voted against certifying the 2020 election in Fulton County because the county did not verify the signatures on 147,000 mail-in votes.
Now, my understanding is that that claim is not disputed.
That there were 147,000 mail-in votes that they didn't do the signature verification.
Do you think that all the people were saying this election was fair?
Because no court found it was not.
Do you think they know this?
Probably not.
And then he said, I asked, what do we do for signature verification?
And the comment that got back, frankly, floored me.
He said, we didn't do any.
We didn't do any.
It's not that he didn't know about it.
They didn't do it.
Now, when people say our elections are so rock solid, clean, and there's nothing wrong with it.
Does anybody know that they didn't do the process?
They just didn't do it.
How about anything else?
Any other problems?
Additionally, the county could not provide any chain of custody documentation or surveillance footage for mail-in ballots or ballot drop boxes.
What?
Quote, I and the other board members had requested that we obtain the chain of custody documentations from the department and none of that was ever delivered.
Now, none of it was ever delivered, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist at some point.
Now, it's just as bad.
If they didn't do the surveillance and they didn't do a chain of custody, that's terrible.
If they did them and they won't make them available, that might be worse, if you know what I mean.
So, and he says, there was never any surveillance tape and inch of footage delivered to the board.
Hmm.
He says there were problems with voter registration rules that still exist in Fulton County.
Now, when you hear that, is that enough votes that would have changed the result?
147,000 mail-in votes.
If something suspicious happened only with just those votes, nothing else, would that be enough to change the election?
Yes.
Yes.
So what this says in very clear terms is we don't know who won 2020.
Is that unfair?
Because if I heard that there was a chain of custody that looked good, there was surveillance, there was no problem, there was signature verification, even if they didn't do a good job, if I'd heard that all those things were verified to have happened, I would say, you know what?
Probably a fair election.
Probably.
But if you hear that these things were not done, or this information was not provided, the only reasonable explanation is that it was rigged.
Doesn't mean it's true, but the best working assumption is that it was, and that we can't check.
If you can't check, it's rigged.
Let me just say that.
If you can't check, you can't audit, it's because it's rigged.
Because everybody would have an incentive To show you everything you wanted to see, if they were involved in running the election.
The people who run the election would want you to see everything, so you could see it's fine, and they did a good job.
But if the people running the election are like, we don't have that, I'm not going to give it to you.
That only means one thing.
Either they don't know who won, or they don't want to tell you that there was something that was a problem.
And if the people running it don't know who won, because they didn't have the right controls, I think we should know that.
I feel like they should tell us that.
All right.
And then there's a New Mexico judge, federal judge, issued a 300 page ruling in favor of election integrity activists.
I heard this from somebody called George on X. It says that The election integrity activists who argued that the state violated federal law by refusing to provide election records.
So apparently the activists legally requested records about the election and the state didn't give them to them and should have, and now the judge has awarded them attorney's fees and yeah.
So what does it mean when there are things which you are legally entitled to?
Which would tell you whether the election was good or not.
And then the state says, we're not going to give that to you.
You're legally entitled to them.
It only means one thing.
It either means the state doesn't know who won and they don't want you to know that, or they know there's a problem and they don't want you to know that.
There's no other reason.
If they said we lost them or something, well, maybe, but if they just don't give them to you, I'm pretty sure that's a bad sign.
And here's something even worse to tie into all my other stories.
We found out that Facebook had been selling to Netflix private information, including the private messages from Facebook users.
You didn't hear that wrong.
You didn't hear that wrong.
Facebook sold for over $100 million.
The private messages of Facebook users to Netflix so that Netflix could, you know, use it for their predictions and recommendations, I guess.
And apparently, I think the head of Netflix was on the Facebook board, which was all kind of an incestuous thing.
Now, do you remember the story about how AI is more persuasive than people?
But only when the AI knows something about the person.
What do you think AI could learn from your, oh I don't know, your private messages on Facebook?
Do you think it could learn about you in a way that could help it persuade you?
Yes.
Yes.
Do you think that ByteDance having personal information about its users could help its AI bots persuade you?
Yes.
Yes.
That's why they want personal information, among other reasons, I guess.
But one of them is it makes their persuasion much more effective.
They can target it.
And so you can, I think you can conclude from this story that no message you ever send will ever be private.
If I haven't told you that, let me tell you again.
No message you ever send on any platform, whether encrypted, whether signal, whether telegram, whether WhatsApp, None of it is safe.
Because if you were a law enforcement or a CIA, what is the one place you would definitely make sure you had full control of?
Every place that people send encrypted messages.
Because that's where all the good stuff is.
They don't need to look at your Gmail because you're not sending crimes through Gmail.
You're going over to Signal and Telegram and WhatsApp because you're all encrypted.
Good thing I'm encrypted.
No.
No, it might keep your neighbor from reading your message, but they couldn't see him anyway.
No, encrypted is not going to keep it out of the government's hands.
Well, here's the update on the embarrassing saga of Mark Cuban and DEI.
So the background on this is Mark Cuban had been very vocal on social media.
In an interview he was talking about the benefits of DEI and everybody who knew what DEI was and how it works thought, what is going on?
Have you lost your mind?
Are you really stupid and you've been pretending to be smart?
Is it some kind of an op?
Did somebody pay you to do it?
Like nobody could understand why someone who operates at such a high level and appears to be so smart in so many domains would be completely lost on this topic.
And now we have the answer.
He didn't know what it was.
So he went from thinking that DEI was about equal opportunity, which it very much is not.
It's about equal outcomes.
But now having learned that it was always about equal outcomes and not opportunity, he's saying that from a CEO perspective, that's wrong because there's no such thing as a CEO.
Who thinks that equal outcomes is smart, and certainly nobody said it out loud if they did.
So from a CEO perspective, and that would be his perspective, there's nobody who believes that equal outcomes is a goal or that it should be pursued.
But he made the mistake of saying that to Christopher Ruffo, who has all the receipts.
And gave him 10 examples from his own personal reporting that shows the CEOs very much know what DEI means, and it means equal outcomes, and they're very explicit about it.
So here's the problem.
Apparently Mark Cuban thought that if the CEO is thinking in terms of equal opportunity, that that's how the company will operate.
That is a gigantic blind spot.
Let me tell you what everybody who's ever been an employee and also white knows happens in the real world.
Let's say I'm your CEO and I say, diversity is important, but the way we want to get there is through equal opportunity.
Because it would be dumb to have equal outcomes.
Can't guarantee that.
So, but at least I want you to work really hard to increase your equal opportunities.
So that when, now you as a manager, a hiring manager, you've heard these instructions.
There's no quota, right?
You didn't hear a quota.
And you also heard very clearly, no, it's not about outcomes.
I want to make sure everybody has equal opportunity.
So at the end of the year, Your CEO looks at your performance and says, um, you have exactly the same mix of people you did a year ago.
I told you diversity was important.
And then you say, yeah, but there was no, there was no goal for it.
And the CEO says, what are you fucking idiot?
We have 13% black people in the country and you have no black employees.
Well, I have to give you a quota.
You don't understand what diversity even fucking means.
You're fired.
They don't need to give you a quota.
Everybody knows what the quota is.
Everybody knows.
You want about half of them to be women.
You want 13% to be black.
You want, you know, everybody knows.
Everybody knows the quota.
There's always a quota because we all know it automatically.
Now what happens if you say to your boss, boss, I have created opportunities all over the place.
We did outreach at the historical black colleges.
We did mailings and marketing to target black and Hispanic communities and LGBTQ.
But we just didn't get the same number of people walking through the door who wanted a job.
So opportunity was great, but didn't translate into action.
So the CEO, what does the CEO say then?
Oh, well, it looks like you tried really hard, so I'll give you a big bonus.
No!
No, the CEO is just gonna look at your mix of employees and say you didn't do a damn thing that made a difference.
No bonus.
So how does Mark Cuban not know how anything in the real world works at the employee level?
Never been one.
I just don't think he's had the experience.
Because from a conceptual level, it actually makes perfect sense what Mark is saying.
He's saying that if the CEO is telling you to work on opportunity, that's very clear.
It's not outcomes, it's opportunity.
But in the real world, everybody's going to hear quota, and they're going to hear outcome, and they're going to manage to it.
Because that's how they get paid.
Incentives are everything.
Incentives are everything.
So, if you let Mark Cuban argue that CEOs might think of it differently than the staff, you're allowing him to change the argument into the absurd, because it doesn't matter what the CEO thinks or what they say.
It only matters what the managers who are doing the hiring hear, and how it will affect their own careers.
And that's all that matters.
That's why DEI always turns into a nightmare.
Christopher Ruffo is doing an amazing, amazing job on setting the world straight on this stuff.
Amazing.
Well, let's see.
Charlie Kirk is reporting that a decade ago, McKinsey, big consulting company, one of the biggest, They did some studies that showed that increasing your diversity helped your company.
So you'd make more money if you had a diverse company.
And now it turns out those studies were all bogus.
Surprise!
The studies were all bogus.
And an updated analysis by two economics professors finds that the studies were totally bogus.
There was no link between diversity in sales, growth, or higher stock price.
Because DEI is a scam.
Yeah.
All right.
And Axios is reporting that companies are cutting back on DEI and they don't mention it during, you know, stockholder reports and stuff.
So they're really cutting back on their emphasis on it.
And let's see, why is that?
Let's see.
It's Axios.
Very Democrat publication.
And they're saying DEI is being cut back.
Well, what do you think will be the reason they're going to give for that?
Democrat publication, DEI is being cut back.
Huh.
Let's find out.
It says companies have backed away from DEI over the past few years in the wake of attacks.
Oh, there's attacks from lawmakers.
Oh, attacking lawmakers.
Oh, God.
Do you hate anything more than attacking lawmakers?
I don't know.
Those attacking lawmakers, I hate them.
But what else?
Oh, it gets worse.
Also attacks by high profile rich guys.
Oh God, I hate them.
Oh, those high profile rich guys.
And conservative activists like former Trump aide, Stephen Miller.
You know, if you were a conservative activist, You're probably just like Stephen Miller.
Am I right?
All of you, all of you, every one of you, you're all little Stephen Millers.
Why?
Because they think they can make a case that Stephen Miller is the devil.
So if you happen to be on his team, you're on the devil's team.
Just be sure of that.
So what would be, let's say you were not a Democrat publication.
And you wanted to frame this in a different way, a way that wasn't batshit fucking crazy.
How would you do it?
Well, maybe you'd say, DEI has become a distraction, and indeed, the way it was implemented is completely racist and illegal.
So rather than fight the battle of continuing to do things that are overtly racist, No, I would not say that.
have provided no benefits to us whatsoever, we've decided to do less of the thing that is only bad for us, but not a lot less.
Yeah.
We want to keep a little bit of it at least.
That's how I would have framed it.
I don't think I would have said it was a tax from lawmakers and high profile rich guys and conservative activists, just like Stephen Miller.
No, I would not say that.
Trump posted bail for the $175 million.
I'm going to go ahead and close this out.
Um, I had some inside information about that because I knew somebody who was in that, uh, bail bond, not bail.
Did I say bail?
I meant bond.
I wrote it.
I wrote it on my notes.
It was bail.
I think, I think I was thinking it got to too far.
No, the bond, not the bail.
Idiot.
The bond.
So he posted the bond.
I knew the bond would be posted because I happen to know somebody who works in that business who was bidding on it.
So in other words, I knew somebody who offered to do the bond, but other people had offered to do the bond and it went in a different direction.
So given that somebody had offered, I knew it would happen.
So it did happen.
Here's Trump winning again on a different topic.
So the gag order has been extended in one of the many lawfare cases.
This is a case where the judge has a daughter who's a Democrat activist anti-Trumper.
And Trump and his team would like to have the judge recuse himself because how can a judge be unbiased if his daughter is literally an activist against the guy that he's trying to decide on?
So what did the judge do?
The judge extended the gag order to make it less practical for Trump to talk about an obvious appearance of bias in the justice system.
And what the judge said was, this pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to these cases serves no legitimate purpose.
Really?
Really?
That's not a legitimate fucking purpose to say that your daughter is an advocate against me personally.
That's not a legitimate fucking purpose in a legal case?
No, that's as legitimate as you can get.
You cannot get more legitimate than that.
You piece of shit, asshole judge.
You just made him go up another two points in the polls.
Trump is brilliant.
Trump getting that gag order extended is just Trump winning because it made it a story.
If Trump had not resisted and made this a story, do you think that the idiots who are opposing him would have ever heard that the judge's daughter is clearly going to influence the father?
Now you could say, oh, but Scott, he's a professional judge and he's going to just rule on the facts.
No, we don't live in that world where that's even slightly smart to say.
We live in a world where you can tell what the judge will rule before the evidence is presented.
Let me do it.
The Supreme Court, the next issue, if it has any kind of conservative thing to it, they're going to vote for it because they're mostly conservatives.
Now watch the magic, the magic of me predicting the future of the courts.
Just by knowing their leanings.
Now, do you think a DC or a New York judge or trial is going to give Trump a fair hearing?
Of course not.
Of course not.
Do you think Trump has a right, free speech, as well as the justice system, to call out what is an obvious bias, obvious, obvious, obvious bias?
Yes, he does.
What do the public think when they see this happening to Trump?
That he can't say an obvious thing in a free country.
An obvious thing.
Your daughter is an activist against me.
How does that not affect the father?
How could it possibly not affect them?
So, good job.
Trump wins again.
Every time they push bullshit against him, he's going to get stronger.
Because do you know who looks at a story like this and says, I'm not comfortable with this.
Everybody?
Everybody.
Yeah.
Are you worried that young black men will leave the Democrat party?
Well, I don't know how many of them are reading the news because young people don't read a lot of news, but if they read this news, they're definitely going to say, wait a minute, wait a minute, hold on.
Are you saying that the judge who's ruling on Trump, the judge's daughter, promotes anti-Trump stuff?
You know, anti-Republican stuff, which is the same stuff.
There's nobody in the world who thinks that's appropriate.
You don't have to be a lawyer.
You don't have to be a judge to know that Trump is being railroaded and that this judge needs to be replaced with somebody who doesn't have this appearance of bias.
And by the way, it's a joke to call it the appearance of bias.
This is bias.
Nobody can be unbiased against their daughter.
Who's unbiased against their daughter?
Anyway, if he is, that's a bigger problem.
Ukraine is going full drone army, it looks like.
So, you know, they're not getting all the good weapons, but they're creating this 10,000 drone operator army.
Ukraine has its own factory for making drones now.
And they're attacking over 700 miles into Russian territory.
So they took out some refinery, or they attacked a refinery.
It didn't take it out.
So it's going to be an all-drone war, I think.
10,000 new drone pilots just last year.
If you had 10,000 drones in the air, you're in a pretty good situation.
And they also are developing deadly sea drones to attack Navy ships.
So it looks like it's going to be a big old standoff forever.
Why are we giving them money?
I don't know.
So at the same time that Speaker Johnson wants to give Ukraine a bunch of money for no good reason that I can see, CNN reports that the United States is set to approve $18 billion in military sales to Israel.
Let's do some background check.
Israel's debt to GDP is about 61% in 2022.
So Israel's debt to GDP is 61%.
GDP is about 61% in 2022.
So Israel's debt to GDP is 61%.
America's is about 120%.
So we have twice the debt obligation of Israel and we're giving them money.
Bye.
you We're giving money to people who have more money than us.
Literally.
Now, actually, I should say as a percentage per capita, not as a total number.
We have a bigger economy, of course.
But don't you think that the beginning of when we should consider giving money to anybody is when their debt to GDP is at least ours?
Right?
Because if our debt is sustainable without destroying the country, then the minimum we should ask of any country we're helping is that they at least get up to our level of debt.
So if we give them money, you know, at least it makes sense, logically.
But it doesn't make sense to be poorer than the country you're giving money to on a per capita basis.
How does that make sense?
To me, it looks like a transfer of wealth to some weapons makers.
Now, I know what you're going to say, but Scott, that money is just used to buy American weapons.
Mostly.
So it comes right back to us.
No, it doesn't come back to me.
It comes back to the weapons makers, the friends of Congress.
I don't see this as anything but a way to Congress to give money to their friends and maybe they get some of it back.
So what is the per capita income in the United States versus Israel?
I don't know if these numbers are accurate because I saw them from two different sources.
But in 2023, the U.S.
per capita income was $58,000.
No, I'm sorry.
That's in Israel.
In the U.S., it's about $50,000.
So Israel has a higher per capita income than the United States and a better debt situation by far.
And we're giving them money.
Do you think that Israel will lose the war without the extra money?
Do you think that there's some risk?
Well, it looks like it's going to be a close one.
If we don't fund them, there's no way they're going to be Hamas.
It looks like they kind of have control there.
Anyway, so I will remind you that my opinion of the Gaza-Israel situation Is that my opinion has no value and so I'm not even going to bother with it.
Israel is going to do what Israel is going to do.
And my opinion and your opinion are not going to make any difference.
And in that area, whoever has the most power is going to totally dominate whoever doesn't.
And if the Palestinians had all the power, they would do the same thing.
You know, they would do the same thing.
So that doesn't mean you can improve on it.
I think you can disapprove of it, no matter who's doing it.
But complaining about it doesn't get you anything, because it's just going to happen.
200 years from now, will it look like a genius move by Israel?
Maybe.
It might.
It might look like it was brilliant and impressive.
At the moment, it just looks like a lot of people dying.
It's hard to get behind that.
But in the long run, will it work out?
It might.
It might.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
Normally at this time, I would go do a private separate stream for the locals people, which I'll try to do.
But when I tried to do it just before I came on here, I had a technical problem.
So if it doesn't come up right away.
Wait five minutes because I'll work on it for five minutes.
If it doesn't work in five minutes, then it's something deeper that I can't do anything about.
So if it's not just restarting and trying again, there's not much I can do about it today.
That would be a system problem.
Well, it looks like we've got the biggest audience we've ever had on the X platform because people from the other platforms are coming over to watch.
