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, Authoring The Simulation, Free Will Illusion, 911 Cyberattack, Chief of Staff Jeff Zeist, Trump Poll Gains, Dave Chappelle, Midjourney AI Movies, Bri.AI, Orifice.AI, Stephen A. Smith, Lawfare Election Rigging, Tim Pool Timcast, Dubai Cloud Seeding, US Obesity Rate, Johann Georg Wyss, Google Sit-In, NPR Katherine Maher, Postmodernism Danger, Biden's Cannibal Story, RFK Jr., Iran Vague Sanctions, J6 National Guard Authorization, 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.
I'm pretty sure you've never seen a better thing in your entire life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a can of candy, a jug of flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure The dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sipping.
It's going to happen now.
go. Well everything's perfect now.
Speaking of coffee, there's a new study that says it's good for your liver.
Well, you should have asked me because I could have told you coffee is good for your whole body.
Every single part.
It's good for your teeth, your hair, your bile.
It's good for the things that are just passing through.
Coffee.
Is there anything it can do?
Good for your liver.
Well, there's a study also that says that mentally stimulating work can stave off dementia.
And that's why I'm here.
I'm here for the medical benefits.
Now, it would be financially possible for me to retire.
And sit around doing what?
Putting?
What would I do if I were retired?
This is my favorite thing I do.
I mean, you know, favorite thing intellectually, let's say.
And I definitely feel, so I'll give you this as sort of a beacon for you who are younger.
I actually feel that at my current age, I'm the sharpest I've ever been.
But not entirely, meaning that I know I learned things faster when I was younger and maybe, you know, maybe a little more creative or something.
I'm not sure, but maybe.
Um, but I can tell that if you were to just compare my ability to understand and navigate the world today to any time earlier in my life, it's definitely better.
So, I can tell you at my current age, I don't feel like I'm losing.
I don't think I've lost a step.
The energy is definitely down.
Definitely not as much work all day.
Don't need to sleep energy.
But generally speaking, I'd say my mind is right where I'd want it to be at this age.
And that has everything to do with the fact that I push it.
So every single day, I'm doing something intellectually that's a little bit harder than what I can do easily.
So it probably works.
I recommend it.
Last night in the man cave, I broke some brains.
Um, you may know, I'm not going to talk about free will or argue it here because everybody's bored with that.
But I'm going to tell you just something that happened when the topic came up in the man cave last night.
That's a private live stream for the subscribers of my scottadams.locals group.
And what I told them was they can't learn to author the simulation.
Until they lose their illusion of free will.
People said, how does that even make sense?
What does free will have to do with, you know, managing the simulation?
If we are in a simulation, what's any of that even mean?
How's it connected?
Well, here's how it's connected.
If you believe you have free will, you're living in an illusion.
And if you're living in an illusion, you can't control your reality because you don't know what it is.
You have to understand your reality before you can author it.
And free will is one of our most persistent illusions.
Now you might say to me, but Scott, that's not making sense.
Because if you're authoring your environment, that sounds a lot like having free will.
So you're saying I have to say, I have to understand I don't have free will to actually author the environment Which would be like having free will.
How does that even make sense?
Here's how it makes sense.
When you learn you don't have free will, that becomes a permanent part of the structure of your brain.
I think you all understand that everything you learn becomes a physical structure in your brain, because if it weren't physical, you wouldn't have the memory.
Everything you know, everything you learn, everything you remember is physical.
It's physically in your brain.
If that part of your brain got damaged, that part would be gone.
So if I teach you, hypothetically, that free will is not real, that too becomes a permanent structure in your brain.
And it's that permanent structure, along with some others, that are necessary to author the simulation.
So another way to say it is, you'll understand it once you get there.
If you do.
Once you understand that free will isn't real, then you enter a world in which it seems like you can control your simulation, or your environment, just by what you want, and what you focus on.
Will that be free will?
It will feel like it.
It will feel like it, and you will have a better experience of life.
But it won't be free will, and you'll understand that.
All right, there's allegedly a cyber attack that looks like a pretty big one in the United States.
Chuck Colesto is talking about this.
A number of states have a complete failure of their 9-11 system right now, and there's some indication that it might be an attack, maybe a LimeCod or some other kind of cyber thing.
Does it seem to you that that might be Iran?
Is it possible that's an Iranian reaction and they're just giving us a warning shot?
Maybe.
I don't know.
So we have to suspect the worst because we've let in so many terrorists into the country.
Who knows what they're up to?
But if I were planning some major thing in the United States, cutting all of our 9-11 services would be a really good terrorist way to scare the hell out of us.
Because if you could imagine cutting the 911 service before a terrorist attack, that would be pretty messed up, but would also speak to state actors, because it's sort of too big of a play for an individual terrorist.
So if something happened that looked like an Iranian terrorist attack in the United States, and if it happened after this alleged rumors of 9-11 going down, That would look like a pretty sophisticated attack, which even if we couldn't identify who did it, we would probably suspect a state actor because of the complexity.
Now, this is all speculation.
I'm not even entirely sure there's really a 9-11 problem, so wait for confirmation for any of that.
That's not yet confirmed, I think.
Well, James O'Keefe of O'Keefe Media Group has another scoop.
And by the way, I just want to give you a little warning that in the Dilbert Reborn comic that you can see only if you're a subscriber on Xplatform, see my profile for the link, or on scottadamslocals.com you can see the Dilbert Reborn comic and it will soon feature Wally dating James O'Keefe.
He doesn't know it because James O'Keefe will be undercover.
But Wally's going to give up too much information to James O'Keefe.
That's coming.
I haven't drawn it yet, but it's coming.
Anyway, so O'Keefe has another scoop.
Talked to somebody inside the Biden administration who believes that maybe the real power in the administration is the chief of staff, Jeff Zients.
Accordingly, he's the second most powerful person in Washington.
I guess that would mean that Biden is the most powerful.
But that Biden is Basically a puppet and says whatever Zaynt tells him to say.
And Zaynt used to be a Facebook board member.
So everything's connected.
And you can't get anything done unless you get the chief of staff's sign-off.
Is that really that different than every other presidency?
Isn't it generally true that if you want to get the president To agree with you about anything, first you have to sell the Chief of Staff.
Isn't that business as usual?
I thought that's sort of the job of a Chief of Staff, is to make sure that everything goes through that person and, you know, gets filtered before the President even sees it.
Anyway, so maybe it's much worse under Biden.
It seems like it might be.
But then there's also indication from the same source That Hillary Clinton is still deeply involved advising.
And that, yeah, maybe she and Biden and Obama still have a much bigger influence because they have connections to the people who work in the administration.
I think that's true.
So I would say that this scoop fits almost exactly what I thought was true, which makes me worry about it a little bit because it's a little bit too on the nose.
Yeah.
Didn't you assume that there was probably one person and maybe the chief of staff who is running things.
And then maybe Obama and, uh, and Hillary were, you know, advising from the outside.
So maybe it's exactly what it looks like.
Dr. Carlson had a, uh, ex CIA guy on, uh, Pedro Israel Orta.
He worked for the CIA during the Trump administration.
And they said that the CIA didn't even want to recognize him as president.
They didn't even want to put his picture up in their offices for a long time.
It became controversial to even have his picture in your office.
Now, do you think that the CIA is on the same side as the president?
Not in that case.
Nope.
Nope, it doesn't look like it.
It looks like the CIA has its own agenda.
Alright, here's a story that, I'm going to laugh at this every time I say it, because you're going to see this story in a hundred more forums and a hundred more places, and every time I laugh at what's left out.
Here's a story from Politico, that Trump is gaining with young people, and especially young men.
So Trump has almost closed the gap with young men.
And basically it's a whole story about all the groups like, uh, people of color, et cetera, who are, um, moving toward Trump.
But then it says that Biden still has a strong hold among, you know, other groups such as, uh, white women and, uh, uh, black voters, um, and some other groups.
Now here's what's missing with the story.
The headline is always that they're about dead even in the national polling.
You know, they're within a few points, no matter, depending on the poll.
And yet every sub-story is about a major group that's moving toward Trump.
And there's never a story, I believe not one, in which anybody was moving toward Biden.
So look for this in the stories.
The story will be this group has massively shifted toward Trump.
But they'll never mention anybody who's moved toward Biden.
And yet the total number stays the same.
How is that possible?
You know, at a certain point it's possible, because if Trump is catching up, it makes sense as part of the catching up story.
But they've been dead even for a long time, haven't they?
If they're dead even for a long time, And one of them keeps gaining in subcategories that are really big ones.
How can they stay even at the top line?
There's definitely something wrong here, right?
Am I the only one noticing that the top line doesn't change when all the bottom line changes?
How's that?
It's not possible.
Unless there's something unreported.
So unless there's some group that's moving toward Biden that we're not being told about.
And I don't think that's the case.
Do you?
Have you heard of any story of any demographic moving toward Biden?
I've only heard that he has a commanding lead in some group or another, but I've never heard that they're increasing the lead.
Yeah, there's something very wrong with everything we're being told about these numbers.
Something very wrong, very suspicious.
Well, here's the weirdest story.
I don't even know what to think about this, but Jim Brewer was on Roseanne's podcast and Jim Brewer had worked with Dave Chappelle at one point.
And here's what he says.
This is what Jim Brewer says.
So y'all know the story about Dave Chappelle at his popular TV show.
And then he, instead of taking a big offer to renew it, he just disappeared and went to Africa for a while.
And everybody said, what's wrong with him?
Is he crazy?
What's going on?
And Jim Brewer says that Dave Chappelle told him in private that an elite group of people came to him and sat him down to, quote, correct him.
And that was the phrase used, to correct him.
And then he suddenly went to, he vanished and went to Africa.
And that when he came back, he was different.
Do you think that an elite group of people sat him down to talk to him and correct him?
And that that was such a dangerous situation that he had to leave the country?
How many of you believe that's true?
I don't believe that's true.
I'm going to say no on this one.
I won't say it's impossible.
But until you hear from Chappelle, you should probably treat it like it's not true.
If Chappelle says it, I'm definitely going to pay attention.
Now, obviously, if this is true, he wouldn't say it, right?
Because the whole story is he would never tell you because it's too dangerous, whatever it is, whoever this group is and whatever it is they want.
But does anybody even have a theory for why anybody would have wanted to stop Dave Chappelle?
What the hell was Dave Chappelle saying that was so dangerous?
Or what was he doing that was so dangerous?
Was he outing anybody?
Was he outing a pedo ring?
Was there anything he did that was controversial that I'm not aware of it?
So I'm going to say I don't believe that story.
That would be my take.
That's my current take.
I give it a 75-25.
75% chance.
No.
25% chance.
Maybe there's something there.
But I don't know who that elite group is, for sure.
All right.
On the X-Platform, Christopher Friant tells us that it looks like Mid-Journey, the AI program that does movie-like clips, may have scraped images from major TV film and streaming studios.
And then some examples were shown where it looks like AI is creating images that appear to be clearly cribbed from real movies and TV.
Maybe changed a little bit, but clearly came from that inspiration.
To which I say, what did we think was happening?
How else would it train?
If you're training a thing to know how to make a movie, the way that people would expect a movie to look, what did you think they were training it on?
Do you think they were training it to make movies by showing it real people?
That wouldn't teach you how to make a movie.
You would have to look at movies.
Of course it looked at movies!
How in the world do you think it didn't?
But isn't that exactly how a human director works?
A human writer?
A human movie maker can't do the job without looking at a whole bunch of movies first.
These movies are formulaic.
Even the scenes, even the visuals are formulaic, right?
There are only so many angles that you can shoot a scene.
And once you've seen them, that's all there is.
So there isn't any other way you could have trained AI to make a movie other than making it look at movies.
But the real question is, if it looks at a movie and then tweaks it enough, isn't that new art?
So let's say it looks at a movie scene where it was blocked down a certain way.
It's like, oh, there's a tracking scene and it shows the star walking through a crowd.
And then the, then the tracking shot goes from above.
See, you know, you could imagine that it would use the same, let's say schemes and techniques, but change the characters and change the movie and change the lighting and everything.
It would be, it would be a new scene.
So, um, but this is part of a larger topic, which I like to bring up, which is, If anything can stop AI, it'll be lawyers.
Because lawyers are just going to be all over AI.
In fact, the only way that AI could survive, in my opinion, is that it was created by a company that became so big so quickly, it would have infinite assets to fight the legal battles.
If you were a startup in your garage, let's say Brian Romelli comes up with his own AI model.
It wouldn't be hard to stop Brian.
Yeah.
We're just one person.
Uh, all you need to do too is lawfare amount of business and you know, he would give up, but you can't really lawfare out of business, a multi-billion dollar company.
So if AI had not become somewhat instantly a multi-billion dollar asset, it would have been killed in his crib by lawyers.
But at this point it's bigger than lawyers.
Uh, it's sort of the Uber method, the Uber, Um, shouldn't have been able to work because it couldn't really compete with taxis because it was illegal.
It was just against the law, but they became so big so fast that the lawyers didn't have time to like catch what was going on.
And then they had so much money that they could fight lawyers and beat them because they had more money and more lawyers.
So, look for that situation.
There are some businesses that you just can't do if you start small.
You almost have to start big.
That's what Uber and AI both did.
They started big.
All right, so keep an eye on that.
There's more science that says that hugging can ease your pain, anxiety, and depression.
Let's add this to the science that you could have skipped by asking Scott.
Scott, we were thinking of putting a whole bunch of money into studying hugging.
To see if it makes you feel better.
Well, you don't have to do that, because I can tell you it definitely does.
Oh, thank you.
You just saved us a lot of money, Scott.
So really, if you were to compare the entire field of science to just asking me for my opinion, it'd be about a wash.
I don't get them all right, but neither does science.
Science is about a 50% proposition, at best.
You know, papers that are peer reviewed and accepted are only right about 50% of the time.
How often am I right?
Well, on most of the lifestyle stuff, I'm right almost every time.
Almost every time.
For example, will there be a study coming up that shows our food supply is not healthy for you?
Yes, there will.
Even today, there was another study showing that there's all too many things in your food supply.
Do you think I could have told you that?
Yes, I could have.
100% right.
Do you think to find out that alcohol is bad for you in any amount?
Yes.
And I could have told you that because I did 20 years ago.
So yeah, hugs are good for you.
Surprise!
All right, again, the funniest story, which I'm going to keep telling you about, even if you don't like it.
is Bry.ai and his new Orifice AI device.
Now it's a sex toy, and the funny part is what the public is responding to.
So it's becoming sort of a public, at least on X, a public battle where people are so mad about trying to, you know, living in a world where men would be using these devices.
Now here's what's hilarious.
I forgot that the name of the product is Orifice.
He actually named the product Orifice.
And it's a partial replacement for women, like human women.
It's just called Orifice.
And here's the funny part.
It's so insulting.
It's so amazingly insulting that he's building a company to replace some portion of human women with a hole.
Now I'm not saying that's a fair characterization.
All right, so I'm not giving you my opinion on women here.
That has nothing to do with this conversation.
I'm just saying, what could be funnier than launching a product to replace much of human women with a hole?
And then you name it.
You name the product after the hole.
Orifice.
You know, at least, at least when women make a sex toy.
Yeah, the most popular sex toy for women is called the Womanizer.
The Womanizer.
Hmm.
Sounds like it was created possibly by a woman or at least women were involved in the marketing and naming of it.
Cause there it's like woman.
Yeah.
Womanizer.
Yes.
Go ladies.
You don't need men.
That when they're replacing men, they're like, yeah, go ladies.
Go ladies, you don't need men.
You can do it yourself with a womanizer.
Yeah, you're more woman than you've ever been.
You're womanizing now.
But then when a man creates a sex toy, it's a hole.
I could be laughing all day about this.
Anyway, so if you're wondering, can somebody replace human women, at least in terms of men's sexual appetites, How many human women can be replaced by a hole?
And I'd say about 40% already, and raising.
And here's the funniest one.
Some angry woman, I saw this the other day, there was an angry woman who was attacking bry.ai for his product, the orifice, and just gave him a whole bunch of trouble for it, and saying it was basically going to replace women.
And Bride.ai's response was, and I quote, you should have been nicer to me in high school.
So he invented a replacement for women.
So he invented a replacement for a woman.
It's called the hole or orifice.
All right.
I'm just saying the whole thing is so funny because it's so offensive intentionally that people aren't catching on that it's intentionally offensive.
So they're reacting as though they don't know that they're the marketing.
Anyway, ESPN's Stephen, is it Stephan?
I never know.
Is it Stephan A. Smith?
Is he a Stephan or a Stephen?
That name always confuses me because it can go either way, right?
Stephan?
I don't know.
So Stephan or Stephen A. Smith says that the people going after Trump with lawfare are a bunch of cowards and that all you're doing is showing that you're scared you can't beat him on the issues.
Everything you do shows me you can't beat him.
He says it's giving fodder to the argument that the election is rigged.
I'm being told it's Stephen.
So we'll say Stephen A. Smith.
So, he's completely right.
He's completely right.
If your argument is that the elections were not rigged, then trying to rig it with lawfare right in front of the entire world, while you're arguing that the election wasn't rigged, but you're rigging it right now, I mean legally, Legally, because the lawfare stuff is not itself illegal.
It should be because it's being used illegally, but probably won't be, you know, actually prosecuted in any way.
But, uh, yes, he's completely right.
If you're going to rig the election right in front of the entire public, everybody can see it.
We all know that the lawfare is about the election.
It's not about anybody having broken any laws that anybody cares about.
Nobody cares about Stormy.
Nobody.
Nobody cares about his phone call.
Nobody cares about the loans he made to banks that were very happy to do business with him.
Nobody cares about any of it.
Nobody cares about his documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Not really.
I mean, not real people.
Nobody really cares.
So it's obvious that it's all political.
And yeah, he's right.
Well, here's what I would have to say about Stephen A. Smith, and I apologize to him for getting his name inaccurate at first.
That's what a leader looks like.
I always say that black America doesn't have a leader.
Now, they do have, you know, people who are prominent, but they're really not good at it.
You know, they're not good at it like Obama's good at it.
And Obama's, you know, sort of in the sidelines.
The lover ain't Obama.
He was real good at the leadership stuff, right?
You don't have to like where he led, but leader, definitely a leader.
And I would say that Stephen A. Smith has that leadership thing.
I'm not, and it feels like he is suffering from the Spider-Man curse.
You know, the Spider-Man curse, with great power comes great responsibility.
I can't read minds, but when I see somebody as capable as Stephen A. Smith, And when I hear him talking the way he's talking about the big issues, it feels like he just realized that he's the one who knows how to do it.
He actually knows how to show leadership.
So he's modeling it.
It's actually very impressive.
So if he, if he someday runs for office, um, and don't fool yourself, I don't think he's a Trump Republican, is he?
He's just showing you that he can see the whole court, which is really rare.
And then having seen the whole court, he tells you what to do about it.
That makes sense.
Also very rare.
Very rare.
So yeah, he's got the real deal.
If he ever ran for office, I would definitely like his chances.
I would like his chances if he ran for office.
That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with him on policy, but wow, he's capable.
Anyway, I like to see capable people do well.
Tim Poole tells us that his Timcast IRL show.
Three of his older shows from three years ago just got strikes against them.
They were shows with Michael Malice, Joe Rogan, and real Alex Jones.
Now, do you think that that's about something Tim Kast did?
Or they're just trying to suppress those three other people?
Now, we know that they've, you know, there's been some move to suppress, you know, pro-Trump voices.
But I'm wondering, is this a move mostly against Tim Kast?
Because I'm trying to think.
Is Tim Cass the last serious independent voice that hasn't been taken down by the bad guys?
It seems to me like it would be obvious that Tim would get targeted by the bad guys.
To be taken down for some, you know, lawfare or social media reason or some hoax or get canceled or something.
I would imagine that there's like a whole team of people working on just putting Tim Pool out of business.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think there's an actual team, like professionals, being paid by somebody to look at ways to put him out of business?
I think yes.
Yeah, I think yes.
There are people who were paid.
From somebody.
Could be the CIA, could be just Democrats.
Um, to put them out of business.
That's what it looks like.
So, here's another story.
Uh, there's, I guess Dubai has been doing some cloud seeding and maybe they went overboard and caused a bunch of flooding.
Do you think they can actually, uh, geoengineer the atmosphere and make it rain where they want it to?
I don't know.
I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand, I think it's inevitable.
We'll definitely be managing the atmosphere eventually.
On the other hand, I think maybe we're not ready.
So we might, you know, destroy the world trying to make it better.
So I think it's going to happen.
It has to happen.
It's inevitable.
But it's dangerous.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
Zooby is talking about the obesity rates.
On X and he gives that little chart of what the obesity was let me let me show you the rate so this is from 1975 to Current and then projected so 1975 there was a 12% u.s.
Adult obesity rate 12% you've seen all those old pictures of people in New York City in the 30s or whatever it is and It looks like a hundred percent of them are thin I But 12% by 1975, that sounds about right.
You know, I was there.
That feels about right.
12%.
1985, it was 15.
Not much difference.
So in 10 years, a little bit of creeped up, crept up.
By 1998, it was up to 25.
2020, 2014, it was up to 35.
not much difference. So in 10 years a little bit of creeped up, crept up. By 1998 it was up to 25.
2020, 2014 it was up to 35. And by this year it's up to 42 percent adult obesity. 42 percent.
And it's projected by 2031 it will reach 50 percent.
and I'll see you in the next one. Bye.
Now, I'm here to tell you it's much worse than that, because it's not evenly distributed.
There are states and regions where the obesity rate is really close to 100%.
I remember visiting the facility where my Ailing father was, you know, on his, uh, on his last weeks of life.
And it was a medical facility, you know, and, uh, I remember sitting in his room for hours cause I went to visit.
It wasn't much to do cause he was mostly just, you know, sleeping at that time.
And I would just watch the people walk by in the hallway.
And I started noticing, wow, there's some big people who work here.
And then I said to myself, what was the last time I saw somebody who wasn't gigantic?
And I just sat there and watched people walk by his room in the hallway.
And I just said, obese or not obese?
They were all obese.
All of them.
Upstate New York.
Every one of them was obese.
I think there were a few, you know, maybe 18 year olds who weren't.
You know, some people had, you know, part-time jobs and stuff.
But every adult over 30 was a big old barrel Size person.
So if you go to LA, for example, if you're in the Hollywood area, you'll, you won't see the obesity.
If you go to New York city and walk down the street in Manhattan, not a, not a ton of obesity.
If you fly in an airplane, you know, the, you always hear the complaints about the, the big person in the seat next to you, but it's kind of rare.
Beyond a certain size, people just don't fly.
I mean, they do, so you hear the story, but it's rare.
So, airports are more thin people than large.
There are some cities that are more thin people.
And if you take them out of the mix, out of the average, yeah, your obesity is probably 75% below a certain income level.
Now, it's also related to income.
I would bet that below Below $100,000 a year, I'll bet it's close to 75% obesity.
That's my guess.
Anyway.
So, did you know that one of the most influential people in American politics is an 88-year-old Swiss guy?
That's something I learned today.
You know, we all hear about George Soros putting so much money into things and influencing them.
Well, apparently there's like a George Soros Jr., whose name I never heard, Hans-Jorge Wyss, 88, and he's this billionaire who's been putting in hundreds of millions of dollars into American stuff similar to the Soros kind of activities.
And to the point where he's one of the most important people in the country, he's not even in the country.
He's a Swiss guy.
So the GOP is trying to crack down on this loophole that lets foreign donors put all this, what they call, the dark money into U.S.
elections.
Anybody who thought our elections are determined by the will of the people, do you feel silly that you ever believe that?
This is the stuff.
There are like 15 to 20 effects that determine completely who gets to become president and what the law is.
And none of them are the will of the people.
It's all just different stuff.
It's just money and lawfare and, you know, how they rigged the system.
Rigged meaning the laws about how to vote.
Yeah.
Yeah, we haven't lived in anything like a republic in maybe ever?
I don't know.
Delta Airlines is eliminating college degree requirements for all positions, including pilots.
Well, you know, there's nothing that makes me want to fly an airplane more.
Then knowing that they've lowered the standards for the pilots.
Now, on one hand, I do agree that you should just pick good people, whether they have a college degree or not.
But I do think it's a rather useful to have that standard.
It does.
It does reduce the number of people who are not qualified from slipping through.
So I would say that's not a good sign for America.
Every time we lower a standard, uh, it's always for some good reason, you know, increased diversity or something, but I don't think we get enough benefit for what it costs, generally speaking.
So you heard the story about those 28 Google employees who, who occupied a seat, uh, one of the executive offices and They were mad because Google was still doing business with the Israeli government.
And what did Google do?
It fired all of them.
So it fired all of them.
Now, are you surprised?
Because you think, oh, Google is so liberal and blah, blah, blah.
Well, I wouldn't be surprised.
No.
I think Google just did what every company would do in that situation.
So they violated their internal standards, and that was good enough to fire them.
So, good for Google.
I don't think that it fixed anything, because Google apparently is completely rotted.
Their employees are rotted from the inside.
They're all woke, mentally ill people, for the most part.
Speaking of that, the NPR CEO, Ms.
Marr, We find out more about her.
Apparently, she was a member of the Atlantic Council and the WEF, and she gave a speech at the Carnegie Endowment.
That's a group.
Now, if you've been following Mike Benz, you would know that at least the Atlantic Council and the Carnegie Endowment are just straight-up CIA entities, basically.
They're just intelligence entities.
So, it would seem That Ms.
Marr is very deeply embedded with the intelligence part of the world.
And she was in charge of Wikimedia.
So she was the head of, you know, all knowledge for Wikipedia.
And then the head of NPR.
And so the person who is in charge of telling us what's real is a basically CIA adjacent.
So just like you think.
But she's getting some pushback from, well, what do these three people have in common?
Gadd, Saad, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy.
So all three of them are criticizing NPR's CEO, Marr.
What do those three have in common?
Three of the smartest people in the world, at least in terms of politics and philosophy and stuff, right?
So if all three of them Are, you know, piling on, you know, plus Christopher Rufo, a lot of smart people, right?
So the smart people have taken the following stand because in a speech, I guess it was to the Carnegie Endowment, NPR CEO said that she believes that truth is subjective or a distraction from the pursuit or from getting things done.
That the truth is subjective and a distraction.
And I'm paraphrasing a little bit, but this is pretty close.
And it can get in the way of the pursuit of truth.
I'm sorry, the pursuit of truth can get in the way of getting things done.
So Gad Saad said, quote, truth is subjective, unquote, is precisely the key tenet of postmodernism.
This is why I refer to it as the granddaddy of all parasitic idea pathogens.
Well, that's a lot of smart words in one sentence there, Gad.
I will have to hire somebody to explain to me in my sixth grade world what that means.
I think I understand.
All right.
Elon Musk said, now imagine if this is programmed explicitly or implicitly into super powerful AI, it could end civilization.
And he says, now no need to imagine.
It is already programmed into Google, Gemini, and OpenAI, ChatGPT.
So that would be talking about the idea that truth is subjective, and it can get in the way of getting things done.
Vivek, along the same lines.
He said that, he quoted the CEO of NPR saying, quote, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.
And Vivek says, this gets to the heart of the cultural divide in the modern West, whether you believe truth is a priority or a hindrance.
Do you agree with all three of these people?
Gad Sad?
Elon Musk and Vivek, that this downgrading of truth in favor of getting stuff done is the problem, and that it's basically an existential problem if you throw AI in the mix.
Everybody agree with that?
All right, I disagree with all three of them, vigorously, as hard as I can.
She's completely right.
And you see it every day.
Yeah.
Let me give you an example.
Abortion.
Abortion.
Take the abortion thing.
We have different opinions which cannot be reconciled.
Do you know why they can't be reconciled?
Because we'll never agree on what's true.
Is it true that it's murder?
Or is that not true?
Or killing.
Killing a human, I guess.
Not murder.
And so, the argument is over what's true.
Is it true that you're taking a human life?
Now, that can't be solved.
Would you agree that can't be solved?
Realistically.
Realistically, one of those is right, you think.
And one of them is wrong, you think.
But it can't be solved.
So what do you do when you have a problem that can't be solved?
You make do.
You do what you can do.
So what do we do as a nation when we can't decide what's true?
We compromise.
And we just work it out.
We just find some middle ground where the people who don't get what they want are not willing to stage a revolution.
That's a perfect example of what she's saying.
We're not going to agree what's true But if we stop there, we'd never get anything done.
Because we do have to kind of move past, let's say, abortion.
And I would say that's just an example.
I would say every one of our big issues have the same issue.
What's true, we don't agree on and never will.
So if you allowed yourself to never try to fix anything, until you found out what's true, you would never fix anything.
She's completely right.
It is 100% true that if you think that you know the truth and the other people don't, you're probably part of the problem.
You might be right, but you could also be part of the problem.
If you insist that the other people agree with you before you can move forward.
In the real world, people don't agree what's true, but often we can find a way to work together.
Right?
So, she's 100% right.
Reality is completely subjective.
How many of you believe that free will is real?
And how many of you believe it's not?
How are you ever going to solve that?
One of the most basic questions of your reality is free will real?
We're never going to agree with that.
But can we find a way to move on?
Yes, we can.
But I don't believe in free will, and some of you do.
So, what would we do about the legal system?
If you took my point of view, there's no free will, how would you punish anybody?
How would you have a justice system if nobody's really responsible for anything?
Well, I'll tell you how.
Since I believe there's no free will, but I also need to move forward, somehow, I mean, I need to live in the real world, I say, alright, I agree with you, you can't really build a system unless you punish people.
So I accept a system where people who really couldn't help what they did are punished.
Right?
Because I can't think of a better way.
So there's a perfect example where we'll never agree what's true, free will or no free will, but we can figure out a way to make the world work.
And I think I could come up with a hundred different examples where she's completely right.
We'll never agree what's true, but we can figure out how to take a step forward.
So, here's your real problem.
Your real problem is that you don't agree with her about what's true.
That's the real problem.
The real problem is not that she understands the truth is what we imagine it is.
She's 100% right about that.
The part that you don't like is that her truth is different from yours.
If she said everything you agreed with and then said truth is subjective, we have to figure out a way forward, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
You wouldn't.
Suppose she said, well, you know, we know the truth is that these fetuses are real life humans and that killing them is immoral.
That's our truth.
But we have to move forward somehow.
So we're going to compromise with the people who disagree with what's true.
That framing would make you okay with it.
So what's really the problem is you don't like her opinions.
Not that she thinks opinions are subjective.
So, do I think she's part of the problem?
Yes!
Yeah, she's a big part of the problem.
She is not just specifically part of the problem.
But she represents, as a number of people were saying today on X, she represents a whole infection of people who have a certain point of view, which I find destructive.
But the fact that I find it destructive, and I think that's true, does that matter?
Nope.
What will matter is who wins the election and who has power.
That will matter.
So I'm working on who wins the election and who has power.
Because I can't change what's true to somebody else.
All right.
This is why you watch my show, by the way.
I remind you that these uncomfortable things where I'm completely on the other side from you, that's why you watch.
Because you're not going to see it anywhere else.
I mean, if you get a steady stream of Republicans are awesome, you're not getting smarter.
You need somebody to tell you when Your side is getting off the track a little bit.
Right?
That's the useful thing.
The useful thing is finding out when your own team is wrong.
Because you always think the other team's wrong.
All right.
Here's a story.
I just read that Florida has banned a bunch of books.
It was in the news.
Is it true?
You tell me.
Is it a true story that Florida banned, I don't know, a few thousand books?
True?
No, it's not true.
No, it's not true.
No, it's in the news.
But what is true is that they removed them from where children can see them.
There are no banned books for adults in Florida.
That's not a thing.
There are no banned books in Florida.
But both of these are treated as the truth.
NPR's CEO is completely right.
You can disagree whether there's a book ban in Florida.
I say there's not.
Other people say there is.
But can we, despite having a different understanding of what's real, figure out how to go forward?
Yeah.
Yeah.
DeSantis just has laws that apparently can move those books to the non-children library places, and then everybody's fine.
So yeah, you don't need to know it's true.
You just need to know how to handle it.
Speaking of what's true, Joe Biden has a new story about his uncle being eaten by cannibals, which apparently does not pass the fact-checking according to Jonathan Turley.
But apparently he was in Pittsburgh doing some campaign stuff and he told the story of how his uncle Bozie, In World War II, he was a hell of an athlete.
For some reason, you need to know he was a hell of an athlete.
And then he flew those single engine planes.
It turns out he didn't fly.
He wasn't a flyer.
He wasn't a pilot.
And the plane he was in was not a single engine.
Jonathan Turley looked into that.
And he was over a war zone, and I guess it actually went down for mechanical problems.
It wasn't shot down, as Biden says.
And they never found the body, because there used to be, there were a lot of cannibals, for real, in that part of New Guinea.
So he's saying that they never found the body, so that, you know, maybe the cannibals got him.
But there was a member of the crew who did survive, and the member of the crew who did survive Said he watched the other crew members not being able to get out of the plane as it went into the water.
So no, the cannibals did not eat his uncle.
His uncle was a really good athlete who couldn't get out of an airplane that crashed in the water.
So.
So do we need to know the truth about his uncle who was or was not eaten by cannibals?
No, we don't.
The truth is completely irrelevant because, you know, it's just campaign talk and it doesn't matter anyway.
So, no, the truth doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter a bit from that story.
Well, the Kennedy family, apparently many members will appear in a big group with Biden to endorse him, which basically is a slap in the face to their family member, RFK Jr., who is running against Biden.
You know who wishes their relatives had been eaten by cannibals?
RFK Jr.
But not only that, if cannibals ate his relatives, they would be eating a better diet than the American diet.
Am I right?
Better diet than the American diet.
At least there'd be good protein.
No additives.
So no, I'm not recommending that cannibals eat the Kennedy family, but if they did, they'd be healthier than the normal fast food diet.
Um, I would like to, uh, give a shout out to my family, my remaining family members.
Uh, I won't name them, but I sure appreciate my family.
Do you know what my family would never do?
They would never do this.
If I ran for president, I have a very small family group left, but my family members never would have gathered together to endorse the other guy.
They might have sat it out.
They might have said no comment if they thought the other guy was the good one to be president.
But no, they would not have traveled to Washington to stand with a competitor and endorse him.
I hate to tell you, RFK, but your family sucks.
Your family sucks.
This is the minimum.
The minimum requirement for your family not to suck is to endorse the other guy in an election.
It's not like RFK Jr.
is a criminal.
It's not like he has bad intentions for the country.
It's not like his policies are some crazy bullshit.
He's a genuine, legitimate, serious person with a serious resume.
Running against a brain dead piece of shit to try to save the country and try to save you, all you Kennedy children from eating shit that's killing you and putting stuff in your body that you shouldn't be putting in your body.
And that's why you want the other guy to win?
He's just trying to save children.
I mean, he could be wrong about some stuff.
There would be no, no real shame in that because everybody's wrong about stuff.
But really, your family is going to throw you under the bus in public in this situation.
I'll just say it straight out.
I really like RFK Jr.
I think he's great for the country.
You know, win or lose, I think he's great for the country.
But these family members suck.
I mean, they just suck.
There's just no way around it.
This is just terrible family behavior.
Speaking of RFK Jr., you say again, unambiguously, on another podcast, that the CIA is guilty of murdering his uncle, JFK.
He says the evidence is so abundant and so definitive that if he took the case to a jury, he would win in front of almost any jury.
And he says it's because JFK defied the military-industrial complex.
They wanted to, you know, attack Cuba, and JFK didn't.
And they didn't like him ending the war in Vietnam, which he also tried to do.
So, that all does make sense to me.
You know, the Kennedy assassination, the official story, was always a little sketchy.
Right?
From the beginning, you're like, really?
I don't know.
It seems a little sketchy.
There was some mighty good shooting from that guy, from that upstairs.
I don't know.
Did he really care?
That one guy, he cared so much that he did that?
I don't know.
Never really totally made sense.
But this does.
Every part of the CIA killed him makes sense to me.
Now, I don't know what's true and what isn't, but every part of the story makes sense.
It all fits together perfectly, and it matches everything we know about everything.
All right.
So I don't see how those same people can allow RFK Jr.
to become president.
So he is in mortal danger.
You know, there is a scenario in which RFK Jr.
becomes president.
Let me just say it out loud.
If the CIA takes out Trump, and then Biden collapses just from natural causes, RFK Jr.
could be the next president.
In fact, I'd give him at least a one-third chance.
I think the odds are one-third, one-third, one-third at the moment.
It has nothing to do with polling.
It has everything to do with the outside sources.
I think the odds of Biden simply surviving and the election is rigged and he wins in a rigged election is about one out of three.
I think the odds of Trump Surviving any assassination attempts and also getting a big enough victory that they can't cheat their way through it.
One in three.
No matter what the polling says, one in three at best.
And the odds of RFK Jr.
making it all the way to presidency is about one in three also, because I think the odds of Biden collapsing are pretty good.
And I think the odds of the CIA taking Trump out of it with lawfare or something worse is pretty good.
Good as in bad.
So I, my, my current estimate is, uh, they each have a one in three chance of being president and none of us do with the will of the people.
Let me say it again.
They each have a one in three chance and none of us do with voters because we don't live in that system anymore.
If we ever did, it will be entirely determined.
By the capability of the people in the back rooms and the health of the current president.
And that's probably all that will matter.
If the people in the back rooms do a good job, well, they get everything they want.
It's probably Biden.
All right.
There are a whole bunch of new sanctions being put on Iran because of the attack on Israel.
Let me mention the sanctions because there are a whole bunch of them.
There's the vague one.
There's the one I don't know about.
Well, there's a complicated one.
Well, there's one that seems to not really affect anything, but maybe a couple of guys.
There's one that, I don't know, it looks like it could make some difference, but I don't really understand it.
There's one that, okay, they don't even tell you what they are.
Do you believe that we have an infinite number of sanctions that we can whip out anytime we want?
Is that the way it works?
It's not like there are three sanctions that can make a difference, and then there are a million sanctions that you could do, but they're not really going to make a difference.
I feel like it's more of that, don't you?
Like there's a strong 80-20 situation that might be like a 90-9-1, where there might be a few sanctions that if you could get them to stick, would really move the needle.
And then there's probably a whole bunch of other ones where some rich guy goes, wait, you mean I You can't dock my yacht in Washington DC?
Well, I'll just dock it somewhere else.
Is that okay?
That's perfectly okay.
Okay.
I guess I got sanctioned.
You know, I feel like the sanctions are just bullshit.
Cause if they were, they would tell us what they were and they would tell us whether they could make any difference.
But no, the news just says, Oh, lots of sanctions, more sanctions.
Oh, I'll put some more sanctions on.
How about we put some sanctions on?
You should re-elect me because of all my sanctions.
I put on 50, 53 sanctions.
If 53 sanctions is not enough, I could put on 50 more that will be unspecified and vague, and you couldn't even tell if they make a difference.
But if 100 sanctions isn't enough, I could put 200 sanctions on.
I could put 300 sanctions on.
I'll put more sanctions on.
That's the state of your news.
Biden tells Israel not to attack Israel.
Sounds like I'm making that up.
But he said, quote, I made it clear to Israelis, don't move on Haifa.
Haifa would be a city in Israel.
Yeah, Haifa.
What do you mean, Rafa?
Actually, I don't think the misspeaking is as big a deal as others do.
I don't think that's really the big sign that he's losing it, because I think maybe he always did that, and Trump misspeaks, and I misspeak, and I misspeak twice a day.
I don't think that's the biggest thing.
But they're funny stories.
Babylon Bee reports that the Biden campaign has a new slogan.
You know, they tried a number of things, Build Back Better, No Malarkey.
None of those really, none of them really felt like they captured the spirit of what's going on.
But as the Babylon Bee reports, the new slogan seems to really capture it perfectly.
The new slogan is, Death to America.
If you're not familiar, the Babylon Bee is a satirical News outfit.
And what I mean by satirical and what I mean by parody is it looks exactly like the real news.
No real difference.
All right.
There's a story that the prosecutor in California, the California D.A., dropped this so-called bombshell election data case because it might help Trump.
So there's some whistleblower.
So apparently there was some case about somebody involved with the electronic part of the elections had sent some data over to China, some American election data, sent it to servers in China.
Now, I don't know all the details of that story, but the reporting is that the only reason they didn't prosecute is because it would have made a story for Trump to talk about politically.
Maybe.
I'm willing to believe that.
CBS News is reporting that some members of Congress who led the investigation, the January 6th committee people, that they've already told their family, they've talked to their families about their safety and the risk of their arrest if Trump wins a second term.
Do you think the January 6th committee is at risk of imprisonment if Trump wins a second term?
Do you think there's a risk of imprisonment for investigating him the way they did?
Yes.
Every one of them belongs in prison, and it's really obvious.
Really obvious.
Do you want some evidence?
Well, it turns out it came to the right place.
Here's some evidence that the January 6th people belong in jail.
There's a National Guard captain who's testifying in Congress.
And he says, quote, I can say unequivocally that the Inspector General's review, and that's the review of January 6 and all that stuff, is riddled with inaccuracies, misstatements, and perhaps false flags and narratives regarding how critical Pentagon senior officials responded when our Republic was under great stress.
So his claim is, That the President of the United States had pre-authorized the deployment of 10,000 National Guard troops, just in case things got out of hand.
Now, do you remember any part of the January 6th proceedings in which the public was informed that the person they said was trying to conquer the country had been, and certainly verifiably documented, no question about it, Had tried to get 10,000 National Guard people there to prevent any kind of violence.
Now that's true beyond any doubt, I think.
And that would make the entire January 6th narrative that Trump was trying to conquer the country look ridiculous because he'd authorized 10,000 people to prevent something from happening at the Capitol.
Do you know why those 10,000 were not sent?
In the end.
Well, according to the whistleblower, it's because the Pentagon delayed dispatching them over the concerns for the optics.
The optics.
What do you think would be the concern for the optics?
Now, it doesn't matter what they were thinking.
Does it?
It doesn't matter if they were thinking something that was good for the country or bad for the country.
What matters is the military is the one who left the government unprotected.
Let me say it again.
The US military, intentionally and fully understanding the danger, decided, at the management level, to leave the members of Congress unprotected.
Now, smart people say the only reason you would do that Is to make a case against Trump.
Now, I'm not sure that's the only reason, because, you know, regular incompetence and miscommunication and stupidity and, you know, it's a complicated world.
But it certainly tracks.
Like it fits the facts.
I don't know if it's true, but it fits the facts that the military was part of a larger operation to make sure that Trump was squashed forever and couldn't come back.
But whether or not the military was thinking of a way to protect the Republic or to just get Trump, that is irrelevant to the fact that we have conclusive, multiple witnesses and documentation that President Trump was trying to protect the Capitol and he was prevented from doing that by his own military.
Which is called what?
An insurrection?
What's it called when the military refuses an order from the Commander-in-Chief because doing the order would be good for the country and the Commander-in-Chief?
I don't know.
To me it looks like a coup.
Looks like treason.
So to me it looks like the January 6th Committee was covering up their own coup.
And that they're guilty of insurrection.
And that it would be easy to prove.
Because all you have to do is prove that the people who knew they could be protected chose the other path, and then they sold that other path as Trump's fault when it was 100% their own doing.
If there's no crime in that, then you might as well just open the jails.
It's the most criminal act that I've seen since that video of the dead guy at the bank.
Have you all seen that?
You think it was in Brazil or somewhere?
Somebody wheeled a dead guy into a bank and pretended he was just sleepy to try to get him to sign a loan.
Put the pen in his hand and holding up the hat.
The guy's just dead.
He's literally just dead.
And he's sitting in front of the banker and it makes you wonder what the banker is thinking.
Should I check if he's alive because he looks dead?
And he must have been fresh because he didn't have rigor mortis.
Well, he must have died within like an hour before he got to the bank because he was still, his head still was flopping around.
So that was pretty terrible.
Anyway, not as terrible as the January 6th stuff.
So yes, I believe that if Trump gets in office, there's probably a whole bunch of people who need to go to jail over Ukraine and the pandemic and January 6th.
Not to mention whatever we might find out about elections themselves.
So, and I think it has to happen.
You know, you could imagine a time when I would have said, you know, I don't think that the president should throw in jail the other team because it's bad luck.
Not if they do this.
If the reason you're throwing them in jail is that they tried to throw you in jail on made up charges, then yes, if you win, you can put them all in jail.
I think that has to be the rule.
In fact, we should encourage that, not discourage it.
If the thing you're putting your opponent in jail for is that they tried to put you in jail for nothing and got caught, absolutely.
They all belong in jail.
Every one of them.
So, I'm down for that.
And if that destroys the country and creates massive riots, I'm down for that.
I'm down for that.
Yeah.
If, if, uh, all of like business shut down for months cause it was wild, um, uh, let's say protests in the street and violence.
And let's say even hundreds of people got killed.
I'm down for that.
Yeah.
I don't want anybody to get killed and I'm against violence of all kinds.
But if you asked me, would that be the right play to put them all in jail?
Even at the risk of massive disruption to the economy, massive disruption to life as we know it.
Yes, that's totally worth it.
Because the alternative is much worse.
Much worse.
All right.
Curley accuses senior officers of blatantly lying to Congress.
But, yeah.
Yep, I think Mark Milley.
I think Mark Milley has got a lot of explaining to do.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
I'm going to say bye to the other platforms and then I give some extra time to the local subscribers.
