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, The Diddler, Nuclear Power Technology, Atlantic Council, AI Copyright Infringement, Elderly Boomers Work Ethic, Kids Mental Health, Scotland Anti-Hate Speech, Humza Yousaf, Ed Krassenstein, Truth Social Stock, Barry Diller, President Trump, President Biden, Election Security Opposition, Postal Union, Ukraine War Deaths, Tony Blinken, NATO Ukraine, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Pretty sure it's the best thing you've ever seen in your whole life.
And today will be maybe the best show you've ever seen, possibly the best experience of your entire life.
But if you'd like to take it up to a level that nobody can even understand with their small, tiny human brain, all you need is a cup or a bunk or a glass, a tank, a chalice of stein, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Oh, it's like Popeye's spinach.
Bye.
I feel my muscles just got bigger.
Probably.
Well, if you were a subscriber to Dilbert Reborn on X or Locals, you would know that the boss went blind from looking at the eclipse, but he got his eyesight back with a Neuralink chip in his brain.
It doesn't go well.
It doesn't go well.
Anyway, so that's for the subscribers.
Would you like me to start with the good news?
Does anybody want the good news?
If you scanned the headlines, you probably saw things like, oh, I don't know, probable nuclear war with Russia.
Maybe another pandemic coming.
Looks kind of bad, doesn't it?
And we're running out of money.
All right, but here's the good news.
So, uh, cancer just got cured.
Did anybody see that headline?
There was a study in which they cured 100% of the cancers they treated.
100%.
Do you know when that's ever been done?
I think never.
I think that's never.
Now, I don't know too much about it, but the Moffitt Cancer Research says they've got a groundbreaking study that achieved 100% cancer remission rate in all patients through a monoclonal antibody trial.
Now, what I didn't see is what kind of cancers, because you know, cancer is not one thing.
It's lots of different things.
So I don't know.
Maybe.
We might be talking at the time that cancer is cured.
Now, I don't want to get ahead of it because how many times have you heard cancer is cured?
A thousand?
Maybe?
I'll bet I've heard a thousand times that cancer has been cured.
But what I've never heard, I've never heard of a study that cured 100% of cancers.
Have you?
Hundreds of types?
I'm hearing it was hundreds of types.
Somebody says it's only good for one specific kind of cancer.
All right, so I'm looking at the updates.
I just saw this headline just before I went live, so I didn't get to look into it too much.
All right, well, it's a specific kind of cancer, but still.
I'll bet you they could tweak this to get other ones.
Did you hear that there's a story of giant bones found in Nevada that suggests that there were real-life giants, 10 feet tall, walking around in the old days, and they even had red hair, and the Native Americans had stories about them, so we know it's true, right?
It's in the news.
Has the news ever lied to you?
Come on, people!
It's in the news, so it must be true that there were giants.
And you know what would really convince you that giants existed?
The skeleton of the giant.
Right?
I mean, they found the skeleton of the giant and they measured it.
So, I mean, they can just show you the skeleton.
Checking notes.
Lost.
Can't find the skeletons.
But there were totally, totally giants.
Just because they didn't keep their giant bones, doesn't mean they're not real people.
And there are stories of giants from all other civilizations.
And, you know, with that many stories of giants, clearly there are giants.
So just because this one place didn't happen to keep the bones, that doesn't mean the other places didn't keep the bones and all the many other places they found giant bones.
Checking notes.
Okay, every single place they found giant bones, the bones went missing.
Or for some reason weren't saved.
But they're totally real.
They're totally real.
I have an exclusive update on the giant bones.
They have been shipped by our government.
Okay, now it makes sense.
They're keeping them with the UFOs.
So all the giant bones have been collected from everywhere in the world, and they're all in Area 54, where the only way you can find out about them is a whistleblower.
A whistleblower who hasn't seen them, but talk to somebody who confirms that they have seen them.
Giant bones and UFOs all over the place.
So many giants, they're just in the way.
Well, speaking of things that are totally real, The job numbers are out?
Yeah, so, I'm just joking with you about giants and UFOs.
They're not real.
They're not real.
Let's talk about something that's totally real.
The jobs numbers.
Huh?
Am I right?
The job numbers are real?
No, they're not.
No.
Giants?
Not real.
UFOs?
Not real.
Job numbers?
Definitely not real.
Definitely not real.
It's an election year, all the job numbers will be fake.
I'm not even going to give you the numbers.
You don't mind, do you?
I'm not even going to tell you what they are.
It's so ridiculous to report job numbers when you know they're all fake.
So I'm not going to do it.
Let's talk about a guy you know as P. Diddy, but I think the news has decided to call him the Diddler.
The Diddler.
It's better than the Riddler.
It's just Batman's enemy, the Diddler.
Well, his former bodyguard, the Diddler's former bodyguard, Gene Deal.
That's kind of a cool last name.
Deal.
D-E-A-L.
He's a good deal.
Yeah.
Some people say he's bad, but no, he's a good deal.
He's got a brother who went to jail.
He's a bad deal.
But this guy, he's a good deal.
And he suggests that The Diddler has videos of politicians and princes and even preachers.
Even preachers?
My God, people, it's even preachers having all kinds of illicit sex and drugs at his place.
Allegedly.
So, yeah.
I know this is going to come as a shock to many of you.
And I hope you're sitting down.
There are preachers who have had sex and have done things that are not entirely legitimate and legal and moral.
Now, I know a lot of you didn't know that, so it's coming as a shock.
Cancer is cured.
No giants.
And preachers sometimes do things.
All right.
Well, we'll keep an eye on that.
Do we think that the diddler was working with any government entities to gather blackmail?
Or do you think the diddler was doing it all on his own, and he just had this idea he was going to be this videotaping blackmailer guy?
Well, I guess it's possible it was just his own thing.
It's possible.
I mean, it's not impossible, but something tells me he might have a little help from somebody.
So we'll see.
I'll tell you the signal that he was working for our intelligence people would be if he is either murdered mysteriously in what looks like a suicide, Or he gets out of jail for free, sort of Epstein style, the first try.
So look for that to tell you whether he's working with anybody important or not.
Well, in other big news, it's not good enough that some forms of cancer may be cured, but there's a new form of nuclear power, new technology, Saudi Arabia might be getting into it, and it has many benefits.
Number one, It does not create materials you could use to make bombs.
That's a big problem with, well, it's one big problem, with big nuclear plants with the traditional technology, is that if you had that, like Iran, they could use that to make some bombs with some material that they would keep refining.
But this new technology doesn't produce that kind of bomb-making material.
It also, uh, let's see, it also greatly reduces the, uh, the waste.
It's a big deal.
And, uh, doesn't, I think it doesn't have a much chance of melting down either.
So there's some new technology that's on the, that's on the table that looks like, uh, could be the biggest thing.
So nuclear power appears to be full steam ahead from everybody.
I think every country wants it, and now Democrats and Republicans want it, and it looks like it's getting the attention and the funding and everything else it needs.
So I think nuclear is going to be one of those things that was slow, slow, slow, and then suddenly really fast.
But we're probably a few years away from that.
Michael Schellenberger's publication Public.
Has learned that NGOs are working as front groups for Western military and intelligence agencies to spread disinformation and interfere illegally in European elections.
Huh.
So it's almost as if the same people who are manipulating the United States are manipulating other countries' allies.
Huh.
And the EU politicians were claiming that Russia bribed politicians.
This is also from Michael Schellenberger.
But they didn't have any proof of that.
And now we have proof that the people who are trying to subvert their democratic processes might be us.
No, the NGOs, you know, I don't know if the NGOs are funded by us, but it's usually some kind of Soros funded thing.
Soros being part of the Atlantic Group, sort of their banker.
So the, by the way, have you sorted out all the people who are running the world?
Some people say it's the World Economic Forum.
They're forming this global government.
They're the ones running the world.
Other people say it's the Atlantic Council, because they've got all those ex-CIA chiefs, and on their board is everything from George Soros to the head of Burisma, and Pfizer.
That's my bet.
My bet is the Atlantic Group is running everything, at least in the United States, and trying to run everything everywhere.
But then other people say, it's a gigantic octopus of Jewish control, and it really goes back to the Rothschilds.
Now, they can't all be true.
If it's the WEF, it's not a Jewish conspiracy.
And if it's the Atlantic Council, it's not the WEF or a Jewish conspiracy.
So people get real mad when I do that because people are pretty sure they know the real story.
I know the real story.
And you're probably saying, but Scott, those groups you mentioned, they're all controlled by the Jewish conspiracy.
No, they're not.
Just look at the membership.
So no, I think the Atlantic Council is certainly is my bet for running everything behind the scenes.
All right, here's an update on AI, which apparently is Completely not real.
So I once again was conned into trying an AI app under the promise it would do something for me useful.
How many of you have spent way too much money trying AI apps that promise to do something useful and then you find out they don't?
This would be my sixth or seventh try?
Yeah.
Everything from the original replica that should have a conversation with you, but it doesn't remember you.
So it's no good.
You always find the thing that makes it no good.
And then I think, Oh, I can use this AI to make my other apps do something, except it doesn't really connect other apps.
Oh, I can make this AI, um, look at some materials and then summarize it.
Except it doesn't handle big documents.
Oh, Well, it does handle one big document, but not enough for them to make a difference.
So every time you want to use AI, so far, you really can't.
It's basically useless for one person who wants to do something.
So my latest failure was an AI app that supposedly takes your long-form video, as I'm making right in front of you now, and turns it into viral app suggestions.
So I've used it three days in a row.
It's given me 30 different suggestions.
Not a single one is even slightly interesting as a viral clip.
And so I'm releasing none of them.
And I don't think I'll probably try it again.
Because three tries convinced me it doesn't know how to find a viral clip.
It just doesn't.
But it does add captions.
But I don't think it does just that.
So I don't think I can use it to add captions to my long form.
It has to turn it into a short form and add captions.
So even the very thing it can do, which is add captions, I can't use it for it because it has to make it a clip first.
I don't want to publish the clip because it's no good.
Now, some of that might be me.
Maybe I just don't do things that work in clips, but I'm zero for seven.
I've tried seven different apps with the promise that they would do a thing for me, and not one of them does.
Now, here's an update.
There's a test in CHAT GPT-4, outperformed internal medicine residents and attending physicians and processing medical data and demonstrating clinical reasoning.
So basically the AI did better than the doctors in the thinking diagnosing category.
Now this is according to the spectator index.
That's where I saw it.
Anyway, do you think this is real?
So this story would indicate that you could use chat GPT-4, which we have access to, to Maybe do some doctoring for you without an actual doctor.
No, it's not going to do that, because AI also lies and hallucinates.
And if you ask the question wrong, and you don't use the right super prompt, you don't know what you're going to get.
How in the world is that going to make you comfortable with AI as your doctor?
It's not even in the neighborhood of useful.
Let me say that again.
The way the story's written up, it almost seems to you you can just download the app and, you know, half of your doctoring would be unnecessary because you just ask it questions and you're done.
But AI doesn't work that way.
Current versions of AI lie, hallucinate, and give you different answers based on how you worded the question.
What good is that?
The only good it would be is if you used it with a doctor.
So basically, it's just a tool the doctor can use.
It's not going to help you replace your doctor.
Or even close.
It just doesn't even have that potential, really.
Now, could it someday replace your doctor?
In theory.
But so far, AI is nothing but demo-ware.
Now, does that mean that AI will never be good?
No.
Let me tell you two stories that are just like it.
I worked in the technical lab of Pacific Bell when the Internet was brand new, meaning that nobody even knew the word Internet, if you could imagine that.
People hadn't heard the word Internet.
So we were working on it in the lab and we'd bring customers in, I've told this story before, and we'd show them that there's this new thing called the Internet and You know, this browser called Mosaic, and you could get to one website in the world.
And it was the Smithsonian gem website where there are photos of some gems.
And that's all, just pictures of gems, nothing else.
And so we demonstrate that and say, look, I can go across the internet and it can bring up a page of these gems.
And they'd say, what else can it do?
Well, There's another website that has dinosaurs, but it's down today.
So there are two sites and sometimes one of them would work.
That was literally the entire internet.
Two sites.
If you're lucky, one of them worked that day.
Yeah.
So, but here's the part that connects to AI.
The customers were so excited about this thing that didn't do anything.
They would stand up.
They would actually get out of their chairs and walk toward it.
And I don't know how many times I saw it, but it was the same thing.
I'll give you my demonstration.
They'd be sitting there, and I'd tell them about all the phone company products, and it'd all be boring.
And then I'd say, but also just wanted to mention this thing is coming.
It's called the World Wide Web, and it can go to this one website.
And you would look at the eyes of the people, and they would just stop and stare.
And they would all do the same thing.
This is where I knew the internet was real, even before it was useful.
They would say, can I do that?
And you say, do what?
What you're doing.
Well, what I'm doing is I'm just clicking this thing and it's just bringing up this webpage, which would take like a minute for the page.
It'd be like a full minute for the page to refresh.
And the customer said, yeah, can I do that?
They would actually ask if they could click the mouse.
Just imagine that.
Who would even ask that question?
Can I click that mouse?
So, they were irrationally connected to this thing called the Internet before it was the Internet.
And I got to watch that over and over and over again with different groups, and none of it ever made any sense.
But that's when I decided, oh my God, this is going to be huge.
There's some irrational connection to this thing.
And sure enough, it was.
Second example, the first smartphone, the Apple iPhone, it wouldn't even make a phone call because I had AT&T service.
And if you picked it up, it just cut out.
You actually couldn't use it to make a phone call.
Now that's not an exaggeration.
For the entire time I owned the phone, I couldn't use it for phone calls.
And was I mad about it?
Yeah!
Did it make me really angry every day?
Yes!
Every single day, I hated this thing!
Couldn't wait to upgrade.
Couldn't get enough of it.
So, like AI, and like the initial internet with one web page you could go to, Completely useless piece of crap technology that excited me beyond any rational explanation.
Just like AI.
AI, in my opinion, is close to completely useless for any individual who's not doing it full-time to make products and stuff.
But it excites me In the same way those other things did?
So I'm pretty sure it's going to be gigantic.
There's, you know, I think that's the safest prediction in the world.
But at the moment it's useless for consumers.
That's my take.
But probably very quickly that will all change.
Well, you know, there's a big controversy about where the data comes from and who owns it.
And is there a copyright violation if AI trains on your data?
Now the AI companies, Axios is reporting this, they like to describe where they get the data as publicly available.
So they say, we use information that's publicly available.
Now that's an interesting choice of words, isn't it?
Does that mean that you add permission to use the material?
They don't say that.
They say it's publicly available.
You know what's publicly available?
My books.
Right.
Now, I would like you to pay for my books, because that's my career.
I make books and then people pay for them.
But what if they can just sort of publicly, availably read them, and then forever can give the same advice in the book?
So you don't need the book.
What do I, as a writer, what do I say about that?
Well, I guarantee you, That the publishers and the authors that have enough power to make a difference are going to start suing the AI companies like crazy.
Like crazy.
So the lawyers are just going to have a field day with this copyright and who trained what stuff.
This will necessarily force the companies to start licensing things.
Probably much the way music is licensed for public events.
So if you have a restaurant and you want to play music over your system, you can get one license that gives you the rights to play any music that's available, basically.
So the bad news is that the people who make that music get pennies.
Just pennies.
But at least there's something legal happening.
You know, at least somebody's paying for something.
So it's a terrible model for creators.
It's so bad that if it were the only model, you wouldn't even do it for a living.
Let me say that again.
If the only way an artist or musician could get paid was being clumped together with all the other artists and then one license that represents all the artists, if that's the only model, and it very well might be, then it doesn't make sense to be an artist.
There's no way you would ever make enough money that way.
Everybody would be starved and only the person who's managing the licensing would make any money at all.
Now, I would like to suggest that the AI companies have used what I call the Uber method of getting past enormous legal hurdles.
Do you know how Uber got past the fact that it's completely illegal to compete with taxis in most places that matter?
It was literally illegal.
You couldn't compete with taxis.
You had to have a taxi medallion or some version of it, depending where you were.
It was illegal.
So the entire Uber company was launched illegally, you know, in a sense.
And do you know how they got past it?
Do you know how they got past something that nobody would be, it's just impossible.
There's no way you could defeat all these jurisdictions and just impossible.
The way Uber did it was, and they used a very clever trick.
It's called not knowing that would be a problem.
Now I heard that personally from the founder.
They actually started the company without knowing this whole taxi medallion thing would be a gigantic problem.
But they became so big so fast and they were so well funded that they became more powerful than all the taxis put together just because they had raised so much money and they got so big so quickly.
So they basically made themselves rich before they had to fight the fight against the people who would have stopped them from getting big.
So this is a clever trick, by the way.
So you use basically bullshit and bluffs to get so rich that the people who would have stopped you when you were small can't stop you anymore.
Because now you can buy politicians, you can bribe people who make the laws, you can promise some things, you can fund some campaigns, right?
So Uber got so big that they could just basically move the law around and get whatever they want.
And so there they are.
And I think the AI companies did the same.
I think that they In my opinion, illegitimately trained on materials that authors and publishers would say, hey, you can't do that.
And if they were a small startup, any publisher could squash them because the publisher would be bigger than the small startup.
But AI got so big so fast and became a hundred billion dollar company overnight that they had to wear with all To basically crush publishers and crush people like me.
So I think the AI companies may have already gone past the point where they can be stopped by publishers and lawyers.
But boy, are the publishers and lawyers going to try.
So there's going to be a lot of legal obstacles that AI has to overcome.
I think it will end up doing some kind of licensing, and I think it will make being an artist completely impractical.
Because the licensing will not be in favor of the artists.
Unless the artists do things in public, I guess.
UK study says that people who work from home are less likely to get pay raises and promotions, especially men.
Does that surprise you?
Is anybody surprised that somebody who wants to work at home doesn't get the same promotion as somebody who comes to the office?
If that surprises you, You're young.
There's nobody my age who would be surprised by that.
Am I right?
Literally no one my age would be surprised that if you don't come to the office, you don't have as good a career opportunities.
Nobody would be surprised.
But if you grew up in a time where people were routinely doing remote work, that might not be obvious to you.
You might think, but I'm doing my work and it's really good.
Why don't I get the promotion?
It's because promotions have almost everything to do with your in-person experience.
Like, you don't know if you can even get along with people.
If somebody's working remotely, I think, well, that tells me something about their priorities and maybe they just don't get along with people.
So no surprise there.
Here's another trend.
Apparently, boomers like me keep working after the age of 65 at higher levels than ever before, and the reason is not just that they might need the money.
So, there's a whole trend of people who don't need the money, and I'm in that category, who work because they like it.
They work because they like it.
And when asked, what is it you like about work, they say the structure.
That they still have plenty of time for their vacations and their, you know, their hobbies, but they like waking up and having something useful to do.
And that's exactly what drives me.
You know, I spend hours, literally hours every morning, you know, preparing and then doing this live stream.
I don't have to do any of this.
I literally do it because I enjoy it.
I mean, it pays.
I monetize it, of course, but it's not the reason I do it.
The reason I do it is because it gives me structure and it makes me feel useful.
If you didn't enjoy it, then money or money without money, I wouldn't do it.
So it's more about the fact that it does something for you guys.
I, in my man cave, uh, uh, live stream last night, just for the subscribers and locals, I asked them how many of them had had some major health benefits.
Specifically because of something I said, and it was just a stream of yeses.
You know, people lost, uh, you know, 50 to 80 pounds.
People got an exercise regime.
They, they quit eating bad foods and they feel better.
Their inflammation went away.
They got a, they got a promotion.
That's the stuff that feeds me because I know for, I know for a fact, cause people tell me directly every day, That there's something I'm doing that's making people's lives better.
They're just, yeah, people quit alcohol because of me, et cetera.
So that's why I do it, and maybe there's a lot of other people in that category.
Well, the bird flu pandemic could be 100 times worse than COVID, scientists warn.
Yep, that next pandemic, 100 times worse.
you We're not falling for that again.
There's a vaccination coming for xylosine overdose.
That's that drug that the street people are taking that turns them into zombies.
You know the ones who are just they can't move and they're just hunched over.
A lot of it is some combination of fentanyl plus this xylosine and now there's a Possibility of a vaccination that will make the xylosine not effective on you.
At the same time, there's new work on a vaccination for fentanyl.
So, what is the worst good news you could ever hear?
Let's see.
The good news is, There might be a way to vastly reduce fentanyl and xylosine overdoses and usage.
Pretty good news, right?
All you need is a poorly tested vaccination.
Anybody?
Who wants to get rid of their drug habit with a poorly researched vaccination?
Well, I wouldn't put too much hope in that, but at least it's out there.
There's a report that teenage girls are taking more antidepressants, but boys are taking fewer.
Can you explain why boys would be taking fewer antidepressants, but girls would be taking more?
Go!
Tell me all the reasons you can think of that girls would be having more mental health problems and boys would have fewer.
Let's start with TikTok, shall we?
Let me tell you what happens locally.
Locally, if you talk to a parent who has a teenage girl, they will say, my daughter and all of her friends are, they're either trans, or they're bi, or they're something that they weren't before.
What's the other non-binary?
And you'll find that somebody's friend's daughter has five close friends and four of them are not heterosexual anymore.
Right?
Now do it with boys.
Talk to a parent who has a boy and say, what do you think of all the wokeness?
And they'll say, complete bullshit.
Right?
What do you think of all the trans non-binary stuff?
Not interested.
Not interested.
Do you know any, you know, boys who are non-binary or gay?
Yes.
So with the boys, what happened?
No way.
New York just had an earthquake?
Did that really happen?
Let me check in.
Um, that's interesting.
All right.
So here's my theory on boys versus girls and mental health.
I think the social media has more effect on women and young people.
And I think that men are just a little bit more hardened against it because we're less emotional creatures.
We're less in touch with our emotions and therefore a little bit harder to manipulate.
That's one theory.
By the way, I can't prove that.
And yes, I know it sounds sexist, but I don't think anybody thinks that men and women process their emotional world the same.
Would you agree?
So that would be certainly a difference you'd look for.
Doesn't mean that that's the whole reason behind it, but it's the first thing you'd look for.
But I've got a more, uh, I've got a more radical suggestion.
Could be the Andrew, uh, it could be the Tate effect.
Men have a whole bunch of male role models who are telling them to get healthy, get outside, work on your fitness, and don't drink.
A lot of people, a lot of men, like everything from Joe Rogan to the Tate brothers.
By the way, the Tates stopped drinking two years ago.
Did you know that?
They used to sort of revel in having their Couple of drinks and feeling good and partying every day.
But they've rejected it.
Now they're just anti-alcohol.
Now, they're just one example.
But let me ask you this.
Who is a famous female role model who is telling women how to be healthier?
I can't think of any.
Can you?
But it might be I'm not exposed to.
Can you think of any female role models who are giving just standard good advice on how to be a healthy female?
I don't know of any.
Rattled the house.
We're getting reports on the earthquake.
4.8 in New York.
Was it New York City or New York State?
So, well, I mean, obviously both.
But is it upstate, or is it located anywhere in particular?
Where's the center of it?
All right, well, I'll probably see that in the comments.
All right, so I'm seeing names of role models that you think are role models.
And some of them, let's say Dana Perino is one of the names I saw go by.
Definitely a good role model, but not exactly her primary job.
Whereas, you know, maybe she's just somebody that you'd like to emulate.
But it's different from a Joe Rogan, or Andrew Tate, or me, or Sertovich, or Jordan Peterson, or 20 other people you can name without thinking too hard, who are all men, telling boys how to be better boys.
I don't see that happening for women.
And I see that the advice that boys are getting seems pretty solid.
You know, just about how to be a proper human boy.
So I think social media is part of it because I think it harms women and children more than men.
And I think that the role model thing is part of it.
And maybe there's, you know, 10 other things that are in there too.
Well, over in Scotland, a country which, as you know, is named after me, Scotland, and they've got this new anti-hate speech crime law where if you say things that somebody decides is hateful, you can go to jail.
So the law just kicked in, and the first minister named Hamza Youssef.
So he's the one who's the main politician behind it.
And first week, not so good for Hamza because most of the complaints were about him and his own hate speech for his anti-white hate speech in which he said there were too many white people in charge in Scotland.
Let me say that again.
There was a complaint that there are too many white people in charge in Scotland.
Scotland.
Too many white people in charge.
Now, I agree that that's a big problem.
Not enough diversity.
But, you know, I've got a few African countries that maybe you want to look at a little harder.
Because Africa's got a lot of black leaders in those completely black countries.
And let's talk to Japan.
Hello, Japan.
I'm seeing a lot of Japanese leaders in Japan.
China, I'm talking to you.
Look at your leadership.
Chinese, Chinese, Chinese.
And can we take a look at maybe some other Asian countries?
Yeah.
It's a big, big problem.
So, I guess... But that speech by Youssef came in 2020, and the law is not retroactive, so he's fine.
So the guy in charge of the hate crime law has received the most hate crime complaints, but it's okay.
On a technicality, he's not guilty.
Because of a technicality.
Because it's not anything in the history, it has to happen in modern.
And I guess this guy turned full anti-white, in my opinion, after the George Floyd situation.
Let's call that a hoax.
Well, here's what I take away from this.
Oh, and he also said quite generously that J.K.
Rowling's speech, while offensive, Did not quite violate the law.
That's very generous of him.
So apparently what qualifies as hate crime is whatever this one guy thinks and a few other people think.
So here's what I say to Hamza Youssef.
If you're looking for hate speech, maybe you should look at yourself.
Maybe you should look at Yusuf instead of looking at us.
Is that as bad as I think it is?
Hey, Hamza, look at Yusuf.
Okay, that was just for me.
Ed Krasenstein, famous Democrat puppet.
He's trying to normalize showering with your young daughter.
This is the best.
This is the best story of the day.
As you know, Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley, had a diary in which she said that she had been showering with her dad, maybe at an inappropriately too old age.
Now, I don't think anybody's complaining about a dad giving a You know, a baby bath.
So we've all got some idea what goes too far.
But, so I don't have, you know, since I don't know what's really true and, you know, it's all hearsay, blah, blah, blah.
I don't know what's true.
So I'm going to stay away from, you know, speculating what really happened.
I'll just tell you the things we know.
The things we know are that since Joe Biden has to deal with his accusation that you took a shower with his daughter who was a little too old for that sort of thing, Ed Krasinstein has to come out in support of showering with your underage daughter, and he did.
He said, oh, all the experts say it's perfectly fine up to a certain age.
Now, he does admit that there's definitely an age beyond which it's no longer appropriate.
But there might be some difference of opinion about where that age is.
And maybe Joe Biden had a more different opinion than other people.
So I don't know what's true and what happened.
And I certainly don't like the fact that Ashley Biden has to deal with this because she didn't do anything to anybody.
Can we agree?
Ashley Biden, as far as we know, didn't do anything bad to anybody.
And then she's being dragged.
So I'm very uncomfortable dragging her.
This is not a story I would have covered, except that, you know, it's already in the headlines.
So it's already out there.
But this would be in the category of, this is none of my business.
Yeah.
So anyway, we don't know what to believe there.
Barry Diller was on CNBC talking about the DJT stock, you know, the true social stock.
And, uh, Barry, who's a big old Democrat, he wants you to know that that is just one, it's a big old scam and it's like GameStop and don't the people buying it know that it's, you know, the revenue does not support that valuation.
Um, Barry, if I might have a minute to explain to you what's going on.
I don't know how many people bought that stock because they thought it was a money-making stock based on lots of income.
I don't know anybody.
I know lots of people who said, you know what?
I don't like lawfare, and I'm going to put $1,000 behind my opinion.
So I'm going to buy some stock that I don't think is necessarily a good investment, but it's going to make Trump rich, and so he can afford to fight the lawfare.
That's how I thought of it.
Now, I would guess anybody who bought it had some thoughts, at least in that direction.
Clearly, since there are a lot of people involved, there's always going to be somebody who thinks it's a good investment, or maybe just some people thought it was a good gamble, as in, well, it might go up, I think I'll take a chance.
But I would say, far and away, this is not a GameStop situation.
GameStop was purely People trying to make some money and, you know, play with the other money making people.
This is all about lawfare.
If Barry Diller doesn't understand that it's all about lawfare, he's missing the whole story.
Do you think he doesn't understand that?
Or do you think he doesn't want to say in public, yeah, they're buying it because it's the only defense that people have against lawfare.
It's our only defense.
Yeah.
Buying that stock is your only defense and your only possibility of maybe taking the Republic back to a Republic, because it's not been a Republic for quite a while.
Anyway, so we don't know what Barry Hitler is thinking, but he's definitely, what he says does not cover the whole story.
All right.
Trump is making some trouble in his usual Trump way.
Suggesting, but without claiming, that maybe that white powder that was found at the White House might belong to Joe Biden.
Because, you know, Joe Biden, when he gave the State of the Union, says Trump was obviously on drugs.
Here's what he said.
Trump said, I think what happened is that the white stuff that they happened to find, which happened to be cocaine in the White House, I don't know, I think something's going on there.
Because I watched the State of the Union, And he was all jacked up at the beginning, Trump said.
By the end, he was fading fast.
There's something going on there.
I want a debate.
And I think debates, with him at least, should be drug tested.
I want a drug test.
Now, do you think that ends the debate about whether Trump himself is on Adderall?
No.
Because, I mean, he's just calling his bluff.
There's not going to be any drug tests before a debate.
So if Trump is also on Adderall, Which people have been saying forever and I don't have any personal information one way or the other, but it's legal.
You know, if either of them are on Adderall and it's helping them completely legal, you know, I don't have an opinion about that, but I, um, it would be fascinating to drug test them.
It just won't happen, but it is a classic Trump crap talking.
Because it makes you think about it?
It's really just about making you think about it.
It has nothing to do with whether it's real or not.
And did he make you think about it?
Yeah, he did.
Another successful persuasion phase.
Another hilarious story.
So the Georgia Assembly, they had just voted that they're gonna increase the election security substantially.
The election security.
They're just voting to substantially improve it.
Huh.
Why would you need to substantially improve your election security when we're 100% sure that 2020 had no rigging?
I mean, if you can be 100% sure with the existing system, what would be the point of increasing security from 100% sure?
Huh.
You know, it's almost as if this is the clearest confirming signal that we've never had an election where we could entirely tell who won.
Because if you could know who won with certainty, you wouldn't need to tighten the election security, would you?
Or is this really a confession that there was no way to know who won the last election?
Let me give you some examples.
You're going to add visible watermark to the ballots.
So if you saw a ballot, you would know for sure if it was an official one or a fake one.
Now, why would that be necessary?
Why would you even need to do that?
Unless it was possible to have fake ballots without being detected.
Because otherwise you wouldn't need it, would you?
Well, what would be the point of a watermark?
If you knew the real ones from the fake ones.
Huh.
It seems like you're fixing something that you swore up and down didn't need to be fixed.
Yes.
All right.
So see what else is to do.
There was a whole bunch of other things.
So that wasn't the only thing, but there were a whole bunch of other changes.
Now here's what I conclude.
Two conclusions.
Number one, you don't beef up an election this aggressively.
You know, if it had been one little tweak, you'd say, oh, that's just normal tweaking.
But this is a pretty aggressive overhaul of their security.
You don't do an aggressive overhaul of your security unless you know there's a problem.
Period.
There's no situation where you do this much work to solve no problem at all.
Of course there's a problem.
And of course we don't know who won in 2020.
Apparently the Democrats in Georgia tried hard to not improve the election security.
So the Democrats were voting against improving security.
What would be the reason for that?
Now they probably say something like, well, it's going to discourage, you know, discourage minorities from voting.
Really?
Do you think adding a watermark to the ballot is going to discourage minorities from voting?
Because if it does, I hope so.
Because it means that they would not be discouraged if it was a fake ballot, but if it's a real ballot, they'd be discouraged?
What kind of message are you sending here?
So there is not proof that the election was rigged.
There's proof that the people in charge believe you can't tell.
They just proved it.
They believe that you can't tell if it was real.
They've also proven that Democrats don't want an election that can be audited.
That's now proven.
Because if the Democrats had said, hey, we're going to call you a bluff, not only have all of our elections been fair, but they'll be fair in the future, and if you Republicans want to waste a little time and money adding watermarks and these little things you're going to do, Then we'll do that just to humor you and to prove that it was always, you know, there were always good elections.
Cause watch, you'll fix all the security and, and once again, you'll get the same results.
So yeah, we'll, we'll vote for this.
But no, the Democrats voted against having better election security.
That's a real thing that happened.
So that concludes that they know that bad election security works in their favor.
There's no other reason you vote against it.
So now we have conclusive proof, not that the election was ever rigged.
We don't have that, at least to my satisfaction.
A lot of people claim they have it, but not to mine.
And, but we do know that the people in charge didn't know if it was real.
And we do know that the Democrats don't want it to be real.
That's everything you need to know.
You don't even need to know if the election was rigged.
This is everything you need to know.
So finally, finally, I know what's going on.
Right?
Now, as I pointed out, who's doing the audit in the post office?
Do you remember the story of the guy who threw away all the mail?
Now, including 99 ballots.
But he wasn't a political operative.
He was just a lazy mailman in New Jersey.
He was just throwing away all the mail.
But they found 99 ballots that never got delivered.
Now, obviously, not enough to change an election.
But here's my question.
Where in the reporting did they tell you how they knew that he threw away 99 ballots?
Do you know how they knew?
They found them.
Do you see the problem?
How did they not know automatically?
How did the process not discover that somebody thought they mailed a ballot but never voted?
Is our process so full of holes that every mailman who knows he's working in that red district can simply throw away the ballots and knowing that they will have rigged the vote in their own little way?
In other words, do you even need to coordinate?
If the people picking up the ballots know exactly that these are almost certainly Republican votes, what would stop them from throwing them away?
Well, one thing that would stop them would be if the male people are objective, just employees, and they're not in the bag for one side or another.
Did you know that the postal union endorsed Biden?
That's right.
The people who are holding your ballot with no security, And can simply throw it away, as far as I can tell, you just throw it away.
They're Biden supporters.
So Biden supporters are the only control on whether the election is fair, like it's in their hands, literally in their hands, actually their hands.
And they can simply do this.
I'd like to give you a demonstration of how terribly, terribly difficult it would be For the male people just acting independently or talking among themselves to throw an election in a certain city.
All right.
I'd like to show you the entire difficulty involved.
We'll say this folded piece of paper is a ballot that they collected from one of the mailboxes.
I want to show you the complexity involved.
Watch carefully.
I don't want to have to do this again.
This is going to be very complicated.
Watch.
Did you get that?
Everybody get the complexity of how hard it is to cheat?
It was pretty hard, wasn't it?
I just held it over a garbage receptacle.
And then, what?
These two fingers?
In case you want to do it at home.
If you want to reproduce it.
I was holding it between these two fingers.
And then I put the hand over a receptacle.
And then I did this.
Watch.
These two figures, they come apart, and that will cause a gravity effect that will take the ballot and it will travel into a garbage receptacle instead of going to its destination.
Now, if that was too difficult, I would recommend that you play this back as many times as you need.
And I could also consult, if you'd like.
I would be an expensive consultant to tell you how difficult it would be to rig an election.
Want to see it again?
Watch.
Watch carefully.
Fingers.
Fingers.
Gravity.
Gravity.
And now?
Yeah.
Best demonstration you'll see today.
Well, Tucker Carlson asked the question, hey, talk to your political representative and ask your representative how many people died in Ukraine Just to give you some context on the question, should we be funding Ukraine?
And do you know what they will say?
I don't know.
And do you know what I would say?
I don't know either.
Why is it I don't know that?
I follow the news every day.
I know how many people Hamas says died.
We don't believe that, but we know the number.
Why don't we know even a number?
Like, I don't even have a range.
Is it more than half a million?
Is it more than a million?
Is it three million?
I have no idea.
I follow the story every single day, seven days a week.
The most important thing you need to know is how many Ukrainians have been killed.
Am I right?
It's the number one thing.
There's nothing more important than that to understand, you know, what's going on.
I mean, you want to know in relationship to how many Russians died.
But you also need to know how many are left.
So Thomas Massey confirmed that.
He says the people voting for these things have no idea even what's happening.
And we're going to give our money to that.
Great.
Terrific.
All right, well, so you saw that Tony Blinken said, I think it was yesterday, that Ukraine will join NATO.
I'm thinking that's fake news.
But there might be an update that you can talk me out of it.
Here's why I think it's fake news.
It's not fake news that he said it.
He very much did say it.
But here's the part that might be fake.
The Senate has to approve it.
Is the Senate going to approve a NATO Joining NATO when that would trigger nuclear war with Russia?
Does anybody believe that our Senate would vote for that?
That's not going to happen, right?
Is there somebody who knows more than I do that can confirm that that it's never going to happen?
Because the Senate will never allow it.
So here's what I think.
There are a few ways to interpret this.
One is it's no change at all.
So one is it's no news at all.
Because they've been talking, the administration and Ukraine have been talking forever about it would be their preference that someday, under the right set of circumstances, Ukraine would join NATO.
But the way Blinken said it, it sounded like it was going to happen this week.
But he didn't say that.
So is it a real story?
I don't think it's a real story.
I think it's simply restating what they've always said, that, you know, in their perfect world that doesn't exist, they would join NATO.
The other thing it could be is a negotiating ploy, because one of the things that Putin would ask for, should he negotiate, and we think he will at some point, would be, all right, I will do this if you do that, and what he would ask for is Ukraine not to join NATO.
So that would be like the main thing you'd ask for.
They can take that off the table by having Ukraine join NATO, because there's no chance that once they join, they're going to unjoin.
So it basically takes it off the table.
So Russia, by not agreeing to go to the negotiating table, is going to watch their biggest chip being taken off the table.
Now, I got to tell you, If I'm being fair, if Trump had done this, I would think it was clever.
So I'm not going to criticize Blinken yet.
It could be it's just some kind of monumental mistake.
But the other possibility is it's just negotiating.
And if it's just negotiating, it's not too bad.
Because it makes it look like Putin better hurry and make a deal, or Ukraine is definitely going to be in NATO.
So if the only thing Blinken was doing was sending a message to Russia that if they keep doing what they're doing, things are going to get worse for them instead of better, that's just negotiating.
And that's actually not that bad.
The other possibility, which is a scary one, is that NATO and Blinken and everybody who matters saw the interview, I think it was with Tucker, in which Putin said he would never get in a war with NATO because NATO is funded at like 10 times or whatever the number is of Russia, and that there's no comparison between the military power of NATO and Russia and it wouldn't be a fair fight and he's never going to get into a fight he can't win.
Paraphrasing, but that's basically what Putin said.
Now Putin said that out loud.
And we know him to be a fairly rational player.
Could it be that the NATO people said, there it is, we can have anything we want.
We just have to tell him we're going to take it and he's not going to want to fight us.
So it could be that NATO just figured they have a 10 to 1 advantage.
It is a risk of nuclear war.
But that Putin is too rational to do something that would definitely destroy Russia as well as everybody else.
So is Putin crazy?
No!
There's no indication he's crazy at all.
Would he launch a nuclear war because Ukraine joined NATO?
Well that's only something a crazy person would do.
So if NATO is making this calculated risk that there's no way he's gonna attack NATO and that Turning Ukraine into a NATO member would allow you to negotiate the best deal you could get for the, you know, occupied part of Ukraine.
So I'm a little bit on defense on this one.
And the test that I used is if I'd heard that Trump did it, how would I interpret it?
Like, would I give Trump the friendly interpretation, but I would give Blinken the, you know, damn it, you made a mistake interpretation?
I'm trying not to do that.
I'm trying to say, all right, if this had been someone else, how would I interpret this?
And I'm going to be a little bit generous here and say this might be just positioning for negotiating.
In which case, it's a strong play.
It's risky.
But here's the thing.
It's only risky if Ukraine actually joins NATO.
If the assumption from Blinken is it's not going to happen anyway, or not going to happen anytime soon, Then he could use it as a bluff as part of the larger funding and negotiating thing.
It might not be the biggest mistake we've ever seen in our lives, but on first impression it certainly looked like it.
Did you have the same impression?
First impression, oh my God, you just created a nuclear war, but then, you know, you relax a little bit, you think about it, you put it in context of all the other things they're saying and what could actually happen in the real world, and suddenly it looks more like a negotiating play.
So that's my current take.
And I could be wrong about that, but that's my current take.
I'm enjoying watching Joel Pollack's take on Israel and Gaza.
It's probably the most balanced take that I've seen, because everybody's just, you know, taken aside.
But I think Joel has the most realistic look at it.
Let me just say what he says.
He says Biden is throwing Israel under the bus and, quote, immediate ceasefire.
That's what Biden wants.
Would allow Hamas to survive, removes leverage for a hostage deal, and guarantees Israel will be unable to defend itself from future attacks.
This is a moment of truth for Netanyahu.
And then Joel says, Israel must defy the U.S.
to survive.
And also Joel said that Israel might have to become an international pariah just to survive its neighbors.
I agree completely with all of that.
That if Israel did what Biden is asking, all they would do is rebuild the threat that they just threw away everything that they've had to defeat.
They've already spent their Holocaust dividend.
They already spent it.
If they stop today, people aren't going to say, well, you didn't genocide Gaza, but it was close.
No, and by the way, I'm not saying it's a genocide or not.
That's other people's argument.
So, they've already spent, they've already invested.
They spent the Holocaust dividend, you know, the greatest psychological protection that Israel had, because none of us want that to happen again.
I mean, it's such a scary thing, and we've all been Schindler enlisted until we can't imagine letting it happen again.
But that's gone.
Because as soon as they bring up the Holocaust, anybody's gonna bring up, well, Gaza.
And I'm not saying they're equal.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying the critics will say it's somewhat of an analogy.
I don't say that.
But yeah, I agree with Joel completely, that an immediate ceasefire would simply just reproduce the problem.
And that Israel's only choice is to defy the U.S., become an international pariah, Solve the problem, and maybe in 25 years, they can build back to something like, well, okay, I guess that worked out, you know, in a terrible way, but things seem peaceful there.
If Israel gets to the point where in 200 years, the whole region is prosperous and nobody's killing each other, it's going to look like a genius but difficult move.
And I think that's Netanyahu's play.
Meanwhile, the Hamas leader is saying, so this is senior official Osama Hamdan, he said publicly, our position is that the aggression must end first.
The IDF must completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip and the displaced people should return to their homes and reconstruction should begin.
And then after that, they do some swap, I guess.
Now, has nobody told Hamas That this is not going to be a negotiated end?
Do they really think that this is going to be negotiated?
I would say the one thing that is the most clear is that this guy will be dead, as will every single other person who's a Moss person or in jail.
And that Israel will not stop until they get every single one of them, and there's not going to be a return and a reconstruction where they all just go live in peace next to each other.
That's not going to happen.
Do Somalis really think that's one of the possibilities?
That's not even one of the options.
You know, so it doesn't matter that Biden wants it.
It's not going to happen.
And then there's some Some concern that Iran is getting ready to attack Israel because Israel took out some of the Iranian generals and whatnot outside of Iran.
I don't know if that's going to happen.
I'm going to bet against it.
I'm going to bet against a major attack on Israel proper, but there might be attacks on proxies.
I can imagine that outside of Israel, outside of Iran.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, That concludes my prepared notes.
Do you have an update on the situation with the earthquake in New York?
4.8 doesn't sound like a lot of damage.
Just a good wake up call.
Is that what happened?
Good, good shake and not too much else.
All right.
You can bet on Iran not doing anything that makes a difference.
Yeah, that's exactly where I'm at.
I don't think they'll do something that makes a difference.
All right, we'll check up on the earthquake.
And ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to turn off the platforms of X and Rumble and YouTube.
I'm going to talk to my subscribers on Locals privately because they get a little extra.
