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, Civil War 2, MSNBC Mental Illness, President Trump, James O'Keefe, Intel Trump Monitoring, TikTok Tool of Influence, Biden Student Loan Cancellation, Jake Tapper, Fine People Hoax, Jack Dorsey, Female Dominated Protesters, Professional Protest Chant Leaders, Alex Soros Funding, Pro-Hamas College Protests, AI Midjourney Update, ChatGPT Update, Trained Marxist Protesters, RFK Jr. Ukraine War, Criminal Enterprise Government, 2nd Boeing Whistleblower Death, MTG, Speaker Johnson, 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
So 100,000 residents are going to form their own city within the city.
And they get approval to do it.
Now, as I've been predicting, and by the way, the theme of today's show is, am I running everything or am I just predicting well?
Sometimes I predict so well, I can't tell if I'm causing it to happen.
I mean, it looks the same.
And I've been telling you for a while that the future is building new cities from scratch, because there is no way to fix the government.
It can't be done.
It would require voting and transparency.
We don't have any of that.
So the only way you're going to build a good quality of life is to start from scratch and have the government not bother you.
Here's a little wake up I had yesterday.
I was explaining to a young person doing a little mentoring About how you would decide to start a business a generic business and I went through the well You know, you might find some real estate and you'd lease it or buy it and I'm going through sort of the general What you would do to start a business and I got about halfway through and I realized that where I live in, California starting a business that requires you to own real estate and
and have all the legal risks and the HR risks and the lawsuit risks.
And I realized that the main reason not to start your own business is your own government.
Most of the problems of starting a business are your own government and, you know, the risk of being sued by your own Department of Justice, you know, all the regulations, the things that you, you know, got to do, even if you're a small business.
There's nothing we need more than to find zones where the government won't bother you.
We need to find places where the government can't get to you if you're trying to do something useful.
So freedom from your government should be a basic freedom.
Freedom from your own government.
Everything that's bad is the government doing it to you, and we can't change it because it's bigger than us.
So yeah, the future is brand new cities.
We're robots, and very cheap to live.
Rasmussen did a little survey on whether people think there's going to be a civil war in the United States.
41% of likely U.S.
voters believe it is likely that we'll have a second civil war sometime in the next five years.
41% of the public thinks there's going to be an actual violent civil war in the next five years in the United States.
Maybe.
I mean, I suppose anything's possible.
But I don't see it.
Let me give you some old guy perspective, because I think you need it.
Does it seem to you like everything's worse than it's ever been before in the country?
It's not.
It's not even close.
It's not even close to how bad it was in my lifetime and, you know, a lot of different decades.
No, we're not even in bad shape.
It seems like it, because we have this firehose of bad news coming from the media, because the media gets more attention if it's bad news.
So really, all that's going on is what you're exposed to is different.
Your experience of life probably will be kind of similar to how it's always been.
Probably.
I mean, anything can happen.
Things can change in a dime.
But that was always true.
In all likelihood, Things will be better in five years than they are now.
In all likelihood.
It's not guaranteed.
You're gonna have to work at it.
But yeah, we're not in any special dangerous times.
I would say that we're actually in special undangerous times.
You know, even the pandemic, the worst thing that happened.
When it was done, what was the biggest complaint?
The biggest complaint is that we overreacted.
It wasn't the problem itself.
It was our own overreaction to it.
So, we're actually in really good shape.
It just doesn't seem like it.
And you have to step back once in a while and say, OK, I'm getting this continuous diet of bad news, but that doesn't mean it's all bad news.
I'll give you some good news as we go.
But what percentage of people do you think, in the Rasmussen Poll, think another civil war is more likely if Trump is elected?
Who thinks that getting Trump elected increases the chance of a civil war?
What percentage?
You know.
You know the percentage.
I don't have to tell you.
25.
25%.
That is correct.
25% exactly.
Coincidentally, if you're new to the channel, I always make fun of the fact that in every poll, it doesn't matter what the topic is, 25% of the respondents will have the dumbest answer.
You know, the question would be, is it good to breathe oxygen?
75%?
Yes.
Oxygen is vital to survival.
25%?
Yeah, I'm not really totally in favor of oxygen, to be honest.
Very predictable.
Well, meanwhile, over on the serious mental health channel, sometimes called MSNBC.
Now, I'm not joking about this.
This is not hyperbole.
To say that I watch MSNBC for the entertainment, because they're actually crazy.
And I don't mean crazy in a fun way, or crazy as in, you're so different from me.
No.
Actual, literal mental illness.
But what makes it amusing, because if I may, there's nothing funny about mental illness.
Can we all agree on that?
There's nothing funny about mental illness.
Unless you gave it to your fucking self because you lied so long and you were in such a well of depraved idiots that you actually drove yourself crazy by hanging out with people like you.
If the reason you have mental health problems is because you're hanging out with people like you, well, that's kind of funny.
It's a little bit funny.
I don't think I There's no law that says I can't enjoy that while they suffer.
Which makes me a terrible person, but well, there you have it.
So here's the thing to look for with the mental illness group.
Look for them trying to create a something out of words.
Right?
Here's something that you don't need to create out of words.
There's a war in Ukraine.
You don't need to create that in words because there's an actual war.
How about inflation is higher than we want it to be.
I didn't have to create it because the inflation is actually right there.
But now look what the Democrats talk about when they talk about the dangers of Trump.
He's going to subvert your democracy.
So he hasn't done it.
And he didn't do it for four years.
He doesn't say he's going to do anything like it.
And there's no indication of it.
And he sort of acts the opposite of that all the time.
But because words fit into sentences, and I can put subvert before the word democracy, there you have it.
He's going to subvert democracy.
And if you don't like what I built out of those words, out of absolutely nothing, I've got more words.
He wants to be a dictator for a day.
Oh, but I don't believe it.
I think he wants to be a dictator forever.
Now, is that based on his past?
Is it based on his policies?
Is it based on something you can hold in your hand?
Is it based on something you can measure?
No.
It's constructed from words.
They put the word dictator before the word day.
That's right.
They arranged words until they found something to say bad about him.
Could they do it in any other way?
Yes.
He's going to end your free speech.
He's going to end free speech.
Not because he's ever said anything like that.
Not because his party would ever allow it.
Not because any voter would ever be in favor of it.
No.
Nothing based on anything you could hold in your hand.
Nothing you could measure.
No.
It's because you could put the word end before the word free, and then you could follow that with the word speech.
So if you arrange the three words, well, there's a problem.
Look at me arranging those words.
Now, once you see it, you'll never unsee it.
Trump talks about real things you can measure.
Too many people coming across the border.
Too much inflation.
You can measure that shit.
How much can you measure how much he subverted your democracy?
He's going to steal my democracy.
I can't even say it without saying it with an idiot face.
He's going to subvert my democracy.
I think he'll steal my democracy and my free speech.
He's going to take your republic.
He's going to steal your republic right away from you.
He's going to take it right away.
Yeah, the words versus reality, people.
So speaking of that, so Trump's been doing his rallies.
Now, if you've caught any of the clips from his most recent rallies the last few days, correct me if I'm wrong, but he's at his best.
As Biden is literally decomposing right in front of us.
Trump, when he's been caged, you know, he's been caged too long in the courtroom, but when they let him out for a few hours, Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I see.
His energy and his sort of just enjoyment of being with his rally crowd is really better than I've ever seen.
He doesn't even look like he's giving a rally speech.
He looks like he's talking to three people.
Have you noticed how good he is?
When Trump is talking, if you didn't know that he's talking to thousands of people, you would think he's talking to three people standing in front of him.
My God, that's a skill.
Even Trump couldn't do it when he started.
Because even Trump was in presentation mode, as everybody is when they're running for office.
But he's actually transcended presentation mode in public.
Do you know who can do that?
Almost nobody.
That's a level of difficulty in communication.
That almost nobody ever can extend.
Has Ronald Reagan ever done it?
You know, Ronald Reagan was a great communicator, right?
Could he transcend presentation mode?
No, not really.
As great as he was at communicating, you knew he was giving a speech.
When Trump's giving a speech, he'll go into modes where he's just talking to you like you're standing in front of him.
It's just the two of you.
And you can't even teach that.
That's unteachable.
That's a genuine organic skill.
Now, one of the things he came up with yesterday that was just making me laugh was he said he came up with the idea of calling Biden's inflation an inflation tax.
And I always laugh because when he brands something, He likes to use the phrase, it's called.
And it just means that he calls it that.
He goes, it's called the inflation tax.
And then he talks for a few more minutes and says inflation tax over and over again.
So he's really drilling it in.
Yep.
It's called the inflation tax.
And I realized it's like a tax.
Yeah, it's inflation, but really it just decreases your money and gives it to the government.
So it's like a tax, the inflation tax.
It's called the inflation tax.
I was trying to model it, but he just found so many different reasons to say inflation tax within 60 seconds.
Just classic Trump persuasion.
Just turning it into a phrase.
Because nobody likes inflation and nobody likes taxes, and if you put them together and tack it to Joe Biden, it's pretty good persuasion.
Well, as I told you, today's theme is Everything's Going My Way, and I can't tell if I'm causing it, or I'm just lucky, or I'm good at predicting.
I really don't know.
But, you know, I've been telling you our food supply is poison, and now Time Magazine has an article, It's Time to Treat Sugar Like Cigarettes, and it's just a long article basically saying our food supply is poison, and that Our just normal diet is absolutely just killing us.
That's Time Magazine.
Now, you know, Grace Prices has the documentary about sugar being a cancer agent.
You're seeing RFK Jr., you know, featuring the food supply as a problem.
And I don't, you know, obviously, I don't think this is all coming from me.
I think that everybody's just noticing the same thing at the same time.
But, I will note that I seem to be really good at surfing the wave before people see the wave.
So yeah, our food supply is poison, and there are very few things more important than that.
While you're worrying about nuclear war with Russia, not really much of a chance.
But every day you're eating poison.
So, priorities.
Right, if you didn't see Trump mocking Biden for reading the word pause on his teleprompter, you have to see it.
Because first of all, Trump models not using a teleprompter.
So the first thing that's cool, if you like Trump, is that when Trump is mocking Joe Biden for needing a teleprompter, he's not using the teleprompter.
So Trump just goes into a whole comedy act Spontaneous, in which he talks for minutes, makes you laugh the entire time, like it's just fun to listen to, and it's completely unprompted, and he's just mocking him for reading the word pause, and he's doing his impression of it.
Now, if you've seen any stand-up comedy, you know one of the classic things that comedians do is they'll tell a story about somebody else, and they'll say something like, can you imagine me trying that?
And then, you know, it doesn't make sense because it wouldn't work if they tried it.
So Trump does that.
It's like classic stand-up comedy, you know, thing.
He goes, imagine if I read that.
And then he does his impression of him reading, pause.
And every time he says pause, he says it in that mocking way that the audience is just eating it up.
He goes, pause.
And everybody's like, ah, pause.
It was actually a golden moment in presidential politicking.
The one thing you can say for sure is that, you know, love him or hate him, I'm pretty sure history is going to say nobody's ever been better at campaigning.
Would you agree with that?
The history will say he's the best campaigner of all time, no matter what you think of his policies, no matter what you think of his character or anything else.
I think you're going to just have to give him that, that he's the best campaigner of all time.
I think, probably by far, You know, maybe JFK.
Maybe.
But, you know, it's different times, so it's hard to compare.
Well, James O'Keefe and his OMG network says they've got a big scoop on the CIA.
So they went undercover and got the CIA, alleged CIA contractor.
Now, I should tell you that the CIA denies that this guy still is involved with them.
So they say he's not working for him, which might mean they're lying, and it might mean they fired him, and it might mean he's a liar.
Might mean that he never worked for the CIA.
But apparently he had some kind of a, you know, ID card that certainly suggests he's currently working for them.
So what he said was, you know, quote, he said, so the agencies, meaning the intelligence agencies, kind of like all got together and said, we're not going to tell Trump Director of the CIA would keep information from Trump.
So this is Amjad Fazizi.
He's a project manager working in cyber operations for the CIA.
Top secret security.
And he said that Trump is a Russian asset.
Which is interesting.
So this is somebody working for the CIA who actually believes Trump is a Russian asset.
So, and then he said that the intel agencies not only kept intelligence from the sitting president and commander-in-chief, they also used FISA to spy on him and that his team are still monitoring Trump.
In other words, the CIA contractor says that they're still monitoring him.
They're still spying on him.
It gets better.
You ready for this?
He said, we monitor everything.
We also have people that monitor his ex-wife.
Trump's ex-wife.
They monitor his ex-wife.
Do you know why they monitor his ex-wife?
Listen to this next part or watch your head explode.
You ready?
So they monitor Trump's ex-wife.
He likes to use burner phones.
Oh, fuck you.
Fuck you.
He likes to use burner phones that they can't get into, so they get into the destination.
So, they can't listen to his side of the call, because of the burner phone, so they just bug his ex-wife, so they can still get the call, they just get it through her side, not his side.
And he's saying it directly.
And as O'Keefe says, You wouldn't know that Trump uses burner phones unless you're as deep as you could possibly be into the deepness.
Am I right?
That's not the sort of thing anybody would just sort of make up.
I mean, it would be a weird thing to make up.
It's so specific.
It sounds exactly like what it is, probably.
That they're monitoring anybody he might contact.
And that's how they can monitor all of his communications, by making sure that they know everybody he would talk to in a normal course of things.
Now, I've got something that's even more mind-blowing.
Assume the CIA is, you know, sort of after him.
Seems like a fair bet.
They've been monitoring all of his communications for years.
And they have nothing on him.
Just think about that.
They've monitored all of his communications, and presumably every member of his staff, family, and team.
All of it.
All of the communications.
And don't have anything.
They came up with nothing.
Not a single thing.
Now, you can't get more vetted than that.
Can you imagine any politician Where the CIA listened to everything they said and messaged to everybody for years and didn't find anything.
It's pretty remarkable.
Either they have blackmail and they're hiding it, or he really doesn't have anything to hide.
He says, we steal it, information meaning, and this is the CIA contractor, alleged, and we hack other countries just like that.
He says he currently works on CIA's China Mission Center, and he describes a broken intelligence system where we don't share information across agencies because the CIA is very reluctant to share with the careless NSA, so they don't even trust each other.
So the spy agencies that allegedly are after Trump don't trust each other, so they don't even share information with each other.
Well, I'm going to say that that seems like a credible story.
It's hard to trust anything in the news, but that feels credible.
Well, inflation is rising, labor costs are up way more than estimated.
I would like to remind you, my prediction, That money, the only money of the future will be backed by electricity, because there's not enough electricity.
And everything else will come down in price and deflate, because robots will make it.
So if you want to be a person who makes shirts, well, good luck, because robots are going to make shirts cheaper than you can make shirts with your humans.
So the prices on everything should come down.
So while we have the highest unit labor costs for human beings, we're only a year away from robots lowering the cost of employees.
Not everywhere, but some places will take advantage of it quickly.
And I think data is the new apps.
I think I told you this yesterday.
I think in the future, because of AI, you won't have a market for apps.
And the reason you won't have a market for apps is because your AI could act like any app.
You could just say, make some movie reservations or something.
And as long as it has access to other APIs and other websites and stuff, it could go do what you want and be an app.
So the only thing that will have value is not the program, because the AI will become anything you want as you want it.
But rather the data.
So the data that trains it and the data that it needs to find out what movie is playing today.
Those will be the things that are the apps of tomorrow.
So those are the things you could create and own and charge for.
But you won't be able to create and own and charge for an app unless you're one of the few companies that make the big AI apps.
That's what I think.
So data will be the new app and electricity will be the new money, because electricity will be the only thing that is scarce.
Everything else will become unscarce fairly quickly.
That's my prediction.
So I don't know how much to worry about inflation when we know that anti-inflationary things are coming really quickly.
So the anti-inflationary things are the robots.
We should bring them the cost of stuff in the long run.
And then also build those new cities from scratch.
Reuters Ipsos poll says that 58% of respondents say that TikTok is a Chinese influence tool.
58% of the general public thinks that TikTok is not just a tool to get people's private data, which your government has been trying to tell you is the real problem.
But rather, they see it as a tool of influence, which I've been telling you is the real problem.
58%.
Now, when I started my jihad against TikTok, did you believe it would ever be considered for banning?
And did you believe that 58% of the public would come to believe that it was not like other things and that it was uniquely dangerous?
I'll bet you didn't see that coming.
Now, is this a case where I made any difference?
Or did I just predict it?
Or did I get lucky?
Did I just read the zeitgeist and I saw the wave early?
Or did I have something to do with it?
I actually don't know.
I have no idea.
I can't tell myself.
But I'll tell you, here's an example of the pushback.
Somebody named Matt, whose account is market unlimited on the X platform.
He responded to one of my comments, he said, they banned TikTok, which has never done any provable harm, but keep Facebook, which has been shown to have interfered with elections.
Do you think that's a good point?
How many of you would agree with that point?
That they banned TikTok, which has never done any provable harm, but they keep Facebook, which has shown to have provably done harm.
Is that good thinking?
Here's a problem with the thinking.
May I simplify it for you and see if this helps?
You have two problems.
You find that it's possible to solve one of them, but solving the other one may not be possible.
What's your best play?
You've got two problems.
One can be solved, but maybe one can't.
Is your best play to leave both of them unsolved?
Because you can't solve two problems, so you should leave both of them unsolved.
Do you know how many people said in public that they thought that was the better solution?
To not solve one of two problems, because there are two problems.
So why would you solve one when you have two problems?
Well, how about it reduces your problems by 50%?
How in the world do I have to explain to people that if you have two problems and you can only solve one, you should still go ahead and solve it?
I feel like people's brains are just broken.
Do I think that the Facebook issue with interfering with elections is important?
Yes.
Do I think we should try to address it?
Yes.
Do I think that the way you treat an American company should be just the way you treat a company that has some control from China?
No.
No.
Does that mean I like everything Facebook is doing?
No.
These are not hard questions, people.
I know all of you understand, so I'm not talking to you.
But it's just amazing there's any pushback on solving extra problems.
Well, Biden's trying hard to forgive a bunch of student loans.
$1.4 trillion, some say.
And some say he's already relieved $620 billion.
So we're talking about $2 trillion in debt that Biden wants to cancel to make sure that he can get a few votes from the young people.
What would be the cost per vote of $2 trillion?
How many votes do you think he gets?
Probably a lot, because there are tons of people who want their debt forgiven.
But it'd be interesting to know what that costs per vote.
You know, is it, I don't know, 10,000 people, extra votes?
Is it a million?
Does it get a million extra votes?
Maybe, I don't know.
Which would be a pretty good deal, actually.
Well, anyway, I know your opinions on that, so we won't belabor it.
RNC Research, that's the Republicans' account.
They like to post embarrassing things about Democrats.
And they're showing a 2019 clip in which Jake Tapper is debunking the Very Fine People hoax on CNN.
So it's a video, and some of you know this, but where the topic of the fine people came up, And Jake Tapper told the people at the table, on CNN, in primetime, that Trump did not call the neo-Nazis fine people, and that indeed he specified that they were not the fine people.
That was Jake Tapper on CNN.
Now, here's what you don't know about it.
That happened a few days after I talked to Jake Tapper on the phone and said I was very unhappy about the way his network was covering the fine people hoax because surely they know it's a hoax and he did not say that the neo-Nazis were fine people.
To my surprise, Jake Tapper seemed to believe that he did.
I think he actually convinced me that he believed he watched it and saw it and that he did.
And so, you know, I went through the explanation of how, you know, the quote is taken out of context, and I probably went through with the quote so that you could see that it was just a bad edit, etc.
When I was done talking to him, I was pretty sure that he agreed that, seen in context, that the Finding People hoax was a hoax.
But what happens when you debunk a hoax that somebody had been believing for a while?
What happens?
Do they then say, my goodness, I was so wrong.
And from this day on, I will say it the correct way, rather than the wrong way I've been doing it up to now.
Have you ever seen that?
No, people don't do that.
Instead, they go down what I call the hoax funnel.
Going down the hoax funnel means you retreat to a weaker version of the hoax, but it's still just the same thing.
So what Jake did when I was talking to him, Is he retreated exactly like every other person I've debunked a hoax with?
They all do the same thing.
And they say, but, you know, the general... I'm paraphrasing, right?
But the general vibe and the thrust of it was, it seemed like he was going easy on neo-Nazis.
To which I say, he said, I disavow them totally.
In direct language without being asked to say it.
That can't be more obvious and direct, but no, the feel of it, you know, the way he said it, you know, the, it seemed like support for giving cover, you know, the sort of building something out of words that can't be measured.
There's no quote that supports it, but it's just the feeling and you can build something out of words that really, and then I think what the, the ultimate argument was there could be no people there Who were fine people because it was a Nazi march.
So that Trump should have known that you can't say anybody's a fine person at a march of Nazis.
And therefore, it's sort of like supporting them.
Like it's not, but it's sort of in that domain of, you know, not being anti-Nazi.
So, From that day on, after the 2019, I think he probably got so much pushback, I'm just guessing about this, he never said it again.
I don't believe that Jake ever fact-checked anybody again on the Fine People Oaks.
You can fact-check me on that, but I think he backed off it and sort of went with, but... Now, I also explained to him that I personally talked to people who attended, and I personally vetted them, And heard their story, and they disavowed the racists, and they were there because they were low.
In some cases, they were locals, and they just wanted to keep their statues.
And they hated the racists, but they kind of wanted the statues.
You know, maybe put them in context, but they wanted to keep them.
And I would consider them fine people, even though I disagree.
You know, which is another story.
So there's your background on the Find People hoax.
Do the people at CNN know that it's a hoax?
Probably yes.
But some of them probably know.
Because I am convinced that he didn't know until I talked to him personally.
I think he actually didn't know it was a hoax.
Anyway.
So.
And by the way, I was actually telling the CNN host That I did the research that they didn't do.
CNN never did a segment where they talked to the people who attended the Charlottesville to ask them if they were fine people, say, do you support the races or you just hear about the statues?
And they would have found, just as I did, that people, some people were just there for the statues.
All right.
Jack Dorsey's said something that people are criticizing.
It sounded like he was favoring the anti-Israel protestors at Columbia, but I'm not sure that's exactly the right characterization of it.
Somebody said that the—online—somebody said that the Vietnam and Iraq War protestors were thought to be radical at the time, but as time goes by they seem like they were just right.
Would you agree with that statement?
That the Vietnam protestors and the Iraq War protestors They were a bit unpopular at the time, but when you look back you go, you know, you know, maybe you guys were right.
And the thinking is that we would look back and feel the same way about supporting Israel's war in Gaza.
I don't believe in reasoning by analogies, and I don't believe history repeats, because those are nonsense ideas.
So I'm not buying into any comparison of those prior things.
But I would say this.
I would say that Jack is probably—I can't read his mind, but I'll just tell you the impression I got—I think he's anti-war.
Which is not exactly the same as backing the Palestinians.
I mean, he may have some good feelings about them as well as good feelings about other people.
But I don't think he's backing the bad guys.
I think he's more anti-war.
That's just my feel.
But, you know, that's that's for him to explain if he feels like it.
Here's what I think.
Are you wondering who the protesters are?
Here's the weirdest thing about the protests.
We don't really know who they are.
Some of it because of the masks.
Let me give you some hints.
Hint number one.
Last night I watched a live feed from Columbia and the protesters were doing their chants and stuff.
How many of you watched the live feed and saw all the chants?
Did you hear the voices of the people chanting?
Did you notice anything about the voices of the people chanting?
There was a lot of chanting.
Okay, listen to it again.
See if you pick up a pattern.
They're all women.
The chanters are all women.
Now, when I say all women, they're obviously, they're men in the crowd.
But when you listen to the chants, you only hear the female voices.
Because there's so many females compared to men that you can only pick up their voices.
You actually can't detect a male voice in the chanting.
Now, who is leading the chants?
Mostly women.
Mostly women.
Yeah.
There are men who lead the chants as well.
Have you heard the quality of the chant leaders?
Where they do their, where they're saying, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
Have you heard them do it?
Ask yourself this.
I hand you a megaphone and say, hey, you've never done this before, but you really care about this issue.
I want you to go lead a chant.
Now imagine how well you would do it, which is not that well, and then listen to the people leading the chants at the protests.
They're not just good at it.
They are well-trained.
Yeah, they almost do it like it's a musical accompaniment.
In other words, when they lead the chant, it's actually attractive.
In other words, their voice is attractive like a musician.
And because it's so attractive like a musician, the women are singing along like they sing in cars, by the way.
May I just say this?
Can I do a public service announcement?
This is for the women in the United States.
I don't know about other countries.
But ladies, this is a public service announcement.
This is from the men, because the men don't want to tell you this.
When you sing in the car to the radio, we want to kill you.
We want to kill you.
We won't.
I swear we won't.
We don't do that.
We don't kill people for singing in the cars.
But we want to kill you.
Do you know why?
I was married twice and I've never heard a song on the radio that was good.
Do you know why?
If it was a bad song, somebody would reach over and change the station.
If it was a good song, any female in the car would start singing along.
And then I can't hear the song.
I can only hear the person singing next to me.
And the person singing next to me is usually not a professional, but having a good time.
So ladies like to sing along.
Men?
I don't think I've ever seen men in a car spontaneously sing to the song on the radio.
Has anybody ever seen that?
Have you ever seen men sing along spontaneously to the song on the radio?
Never, right?
Yeah, I've never seen it.
So here's hypothesis number one for why there's so much energy for the protests.
Women like to get together and sing.
And they're getting together and singing.
If you listen to the unedited audio of the crowd, You hear female voices laughing like they're at a party while the police are closing in, right?
So first of all, they don't feel they're in any danger, obviously.
They seem to be doing it like an entertainment lifestyle thing.
And so I submit to you that the dominant character of the bulk of the people are women who are under 25, which means their brains are not developed.
Probably don't pay too close attention to politics because nobody does at that age.
Don't really understand the topic.
But they feel like they would be on the right side of something because all their friends are doing it.
So it feels like you'd be a rebel.
You'd be doing something fun.
You'd be on the right side of history, you'd think.
You might be wrong, but you'd think.
And so I think that the women are largely just brainwashed.
And that if you were to interview them, they wouldn't really know too much about the topic, except for the organizers.
Now, that's not the only people there.
And I would submit that if the only people who existed were the, I'm going to say, 60% or more of women, if they were the only ones who cared, there would be no protest.
Because they're not the organizers.
They're clearly the chorus.
Somebody else is the minister.
Who is it?
Now, it's a headline news.
Headline news.
It's all we're watching, right?
It's the biggest thing.
And our government, of course, would want to be watching it.
We know our FBI, for example, is always going to be penetrating these groups and monitoring their finances and monitoring their communication.
Do you think there's any chance, any chance at all, That our own intelligence people and FBI don't know who's in charge?
They don't know who's funding it and organizing it?
Of course they do.
Have they told you?
They haven't told me.
Why not?
Has the FBI been interviewed on TV and said, who's behind this, do you know?
And did they say, I don't know, we're trying to find out, but we can't figure it out.
Have you heard that interview?
No.
Because you don't really have a news industry anymore.
If we had an actual news industry, every network, every hour, would have somebody from our own government on saying, you're in charge of figuring out if this is coming from another country, right?
Yes.
Well, have you done that?
Well, we're not even asking the question.
Now, you want to hear another dog not barking?
This one will make you fall off your chair.
As soon as I say it, you're going to say, holy shit.
You ready?
I like to raise the bar and see if I can cross it.
This will be your holy shit moment.
You've heard a number of people accuse the Soros organization of funding some of the entities that may have members who are protesting.
You've all heard that, right?
That's generally Like a high rumor thing that you're hearing.
Now, have you seen Alex Soros, who should be in charge of now where the money goes, so the son.
Have you heard Alex Soros go on TV on a news channel and say, you know what, I'm going to pull the funding From anybody that I have funded before that is involved with their members with these protests.
Have you seen that?
No.
Have you seen him say, there's nobody that we funded who's having anything to do with this?
No.
Nobody even asked the question.
He hasn't had to deny it because nobody's even asked.
If you think that the funding from the Soros organization is a big driver of the protests, can you explain to me why nobody on the left and nobody on the right in any media has said, Alex Soros, can you give us a comment?
Will you commit to cut the funding or are you supporting it?
Are you on the side of the protesters and are you supporting it with your money?
Or, and this would be a perfectly legitimate answer, are you giving money to organizations but not directing them in the details?
And so maybe you're not delighted by it, but you still think the organization should be funded?
I would just like to know his point of view.
And if his point of view is we're not giving any money to anybody who's behind this, I would really like to know that.
Wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you like to know if they have no connection to it whatsoever?
The Soros funding group?
Of course!
That would be key information for the public.
Nobody's even asking the question.
Why do you think nobody's asking the question?
Well, we don't have real news.
Now, how many of you are having the holy shit moment that I predicted you would have?
How many of you are saying, wait a minute, The most obvious question that should be asked is, Alex Soros, are you still funding this?
And if you're not, why do people think you are?
And can you set that straight?
Because we don't want to be blaming you for something that you have nothing to do with.
I don't want to.
I absolutely do not want to blame Alex Soros for something he's not doing.
And if I don't hear him say, I'm not involved, it's going to get harder and harder not to do it.
I don't want to do it without any evidence, because I don't personally see the connection.
I hear the allegations of the connections.
It's just not something I've researched.
Now, are you having the same reaction I did when I realized that he's silent on this?
I can't tell from the comments.
Anyway, well, think about that.
I think that if I had to guess, I would say the organizers are our own government or somebody that our government allows to operate.
Because I don't believe that these would be ongoing without professional organization.
I don't believe that our government doesn't know who they are.
I don't believe our government couldn't stop it if they wanted to.
So it's either coming from inside the house, which is the most likely.
In other words, there's somebody in our government who has enough control who wants it to happen.
For what reason?
You can only speculate.
Does the military-industrial complex benefit from this?
It's hard to know.
It could go either way.
They benefit from conflict.
But do they benefit from people trying to stop the war?
Or is it obvious that the protesters are not really trying to stop the war?
They're just anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist.
Yeah.
So I think that there are professionals that are probably funded from other countries.
I think our own government is probably complicit in some way that's not obvious.
Otherwise, they'd stop it.
Or otherwise, they'd tell you who it was.
If your own government doesn't tell you who it is, you should just assume it's your own government.
I can't think of another reason.
Can you?
Can you think of any other reason your government wouldn't tell you who's behind it?
There is no other reason.
It's got to be them.
And by the way, it would be easy enough for the government to convince me it's not them.
All it would take is Christopher Wray saying, we're looking really hard to figure out who's behind it.
We can't figure it out.
Which would be embarrassing.
Or we have figured it out and we can't tell you.
Or something like that.
Anything.
Just give me any indication that the government of my own country is not behind the protests.
Just anything.
Because they're the most obvious suspect.
Would you agree they're the most obvious suspect?
Given the lack of telling you it's somebody else.
Maybe I'm going too far.
Or not far enough.
Who knows?
Well, on another topic.
Well, actually, same topic.
I have a theory that the women who are at the protests are partly there for the singing and the partying and the feeling part of something and feeling as if they're making the world a better place.
But I also have another hypothesis that it's because women, and men too, but women are less interested in having babies and families, I believe that they're without purpose.
I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be a human who could make a baby.
If I were born as a human who could make a baby, I feel like I would feel like that's my biological purpose.
Now, I might not want to have one, Could be lots of reasons not to have one, but I would feel like it was my most central biological evolutionary purpose.
You know, not the intellectual purpose, but your biological purpose.
And I think if you satisfy your biological purpose, then your brain will suddenly feel clear.
Meaning, you know, all the other intellectual stuff will work out better if you get your biological stuff handled.
So I think if you take away From young women, the option of reproduction, having a family, what are you going to do?
You have to look for a reason.
You have to look for a purpose.
I would guess that of the young women who have babies, The ones who have babies care a lot less about this issue than the ones who have no babies and plan or don't know if they'll ever have one.
I think you would find a clear difference between the baby priorities and the non-baby priority people.
And then I have to mention what Megyn Kelly said about the protesters.
Why are they all so unattractive?
Now, unfortunately, this is part of the story.
I do believe that unattractive women who do not have the potential to mate, or don't think it's likely, are far more likely to find something that's a reason to live, and they just latched onto this because it gives them some purpose in life, because they don't have the normal biological one of having a baby.
Now what about men?
What about men?
Did you happen to see the, I think it was UNC, there was a fraternity, So a bunch of young men went to protect the flag, the American flag, and they got a lot of attention for protecting it.
Did you see the pictures of the young men?
Half of them look like male models.
They're all fit.
I think every one of them was fit.
They had nice haircuts, nice clothes.
Every one of them looked like the top 10% that everybody's dating on Tinder.
Now, I don't know, maybe that's the sorting, the filtering process of the fraternity or something, but you couldn't miss the fact that the people putting up the American flag looked like they had their shit together, and that the people who were tearing it down looked like they had lost in life and are trying to find some other purpose.
You couldn't miss it.
Now, to imagine that that stuff, you know, your biological, your looks and your biological So, if people had a purpose, they would less likely be involved.
of this is a little bit naive.
It's not the whole story.
You know, the real issues.
But it's really a big, big variable.
And ignoring it, I think, is stupid.
So if people had a purpose, they would less likely be involved.
All right.
Mid-journey, the AI that lets you do all kinds of images is getting an upgrade.
And it no longer uses the user interface that was such a bad user interface that, in my opinion, it wouldn't have mattered if this program could blow me.
There's no way I was going to use it again, because the interface was, you had to go use some other program, and maybe it would hear what you said, and maybe it would tell you later if it worked.
Like, it wasn't even a user interface, really.
But now it's going to have one.
So apparently, Midjourney will be a major, major different product.
Until it had a real user interface, it just didn't have any value at all.
And I didn't see anybody using it for anything useful.
Maybe this makes a difference.
So that's exciting.
At the same time, ChatGPT is getting a memory upgrade.
So I'm sure I've told you, and others have, that ChatGPT doesn't remember you from one use to the next.
And so that really removes any illusion that it's sentient or like a real intelligence.
And it now will have that.
So it will remember things about you in prior conversations.
It will remember things you tell it to remember.
And it will put that context into its answers.
So if, for example, you told it, you know, I don't like your long explanations all the time, it would give you shorter ones.
And that will be completely a new experience.
So I will remind you that what I think you need for something that we will see as sentient or conscious is the following process, which we'll definitely have.
Step number one is memory.
So I said if it doesn't have a memory, you'll never call it conscious.
So now it has a memory.
But here's what it doesn't have.
It still acts as soon as it has something to act on.
So as soon as the pattern says do this, it does it.
What it will do next Is what people do, who are conscious.
It will think of what it's going to do, and then it will run a simulation in its mind of what would happen if it did it.
It doesn't do that now.
Right now it just says, do the thing, do the thing.
It just does the thing.
There's no thought about the thing, it just does the thing.
Like a lawnmower.
You start your lawnmower, and the lawnmower doesn't stop to think about it.
The lawnmower just does the thing, it cuts the grass.
So that's what AI is now.
But there's no reason, there's no technical reason, that you couldn't say to it, because AI already creates imaginary scenarios for training.
So they tell one AI to hallucinate, and then the hallucinations become content, and then they'll take another AI to look at the hallucinations, It'll actually learn from the hallucinations.
Now, I don't know how well that process works, but that's what they're using.
So when you get to the point where the AI can make a decision, and then it can do a simulation in its own mind before you know anything has happened, it imagines the outcome of the action, and then, here's the important part, it adjusts its decision on what to do based on what it imagines might be the outcome.
So its first thought is, I'm going to say X, it imagines how you'll take it, and then it changes, oh, I think I'd better soften this.
That will be consciousness.
That's all we do.
All we do is predict what's going to happen, and then the last part is comparing your predictions to actuality.
So once you decide what to do, you've run the simulations in your head of how it'll turn out, you do an actual thing.
And whatever you do, you compare it to how you thought it would turn out.
And that friction between what you imagine and what actually happened is stress.
That's where you feel the stress.
If everything happened exactly as you imagined it would, you wouldn't have any stress.
You'd just be observing.
But it's because you don't predict it accurately that you have that stress.
Your AI will remember you pretty soon.
It will simulate the outcome of its decisions before doing it.
After it does it, it will compare what it predicted to what actually happened, and it will adjust.
That's consciousness.
That's full sentence.
And we should have that in at least a year.
Now, Sam Altman is saying that ChatGPT4 will be, I think that's the current version, We'll be the worst AI you'll ever experience.
Or another way to say it was everything after that will be so much better that you'll barely recognize it.
He says they're spending $50 billion to get to AGI, which is the real super intelligence.
Right now it's just pattern recognition.
He said it would be completely worth it because you would probably make a lot more than $50 billion if you could pull it off.
And he says nothing's going to stop him basically from getting to that Higher level of intelligence.
And I believe him.
All right.
Trump is saying in all caps, on True Social, this is a radical left revolution taking place in our country.
Where is crooked Joe Biden?
Where is Governor Newscum?
So I guess he's calling Newsom Newscum.
The danger to our country is from the left, not from the right.
And yeah.
So do you think that there's an organic revolution from the left?
It does appear that a lot of the protesters are trained Marxists, meaning they went to school to learn how to protest and be Marxist.
But I don't know how many there are.
More than I thought.
All right.
Here's RFK Jr.' 's Take on Ukraine and sort of the whole Russia situation.
And I just want to see if I can summarize it the way he did, because he summarizes it in something like 60 seconds, and you need to know it.
Like, if you don't know this, then everything else would be a little cloudy and mysterious.
So I don't know that this is the right characterization, but it sure sounds right.
So his characterization would be this, that Putin at one point had agreed with the reunification of Germany, but he had asked that, in return, that Ukraine would never go to NATO.
And his interest was that if Ukraine went to NATO, then there would be American warships that would be pulling into Ukrainian harbors, and we're talking about Crimea.
So the only warm water port that Putin had, this is RFK Jr.' 's take, the only warm water port, if Ukraine went NATO, could end up having a bunch of NATO ships in it, which would be not really comfortable if you're Russia, and it's your only warm water port.
So I guess Putin said that's basically, you know, that's the line, you can't, Ukraine cannot be in NATO, but we went and we added, or actually he said that There couldn't be any more NATO.
I think I had that wrong.
So Putin said, Germany can reunify, but there can't be any more NATO.
So not only were there 15 new countries brought into NATO—we totally lied, according to RFK Jr.—but then Ukraine in particular was the most important one not to go to NATO, and then they started talking about making that NATO.
So that's when Putin sent his 44,000 troops to invade.
And it looked like it was all going to get worked out, because 44,000 troops is not enough to conquer a country.
It's just enough to show you're super, super serious about this.
Negotiations began, and then Boris Johnson was sent to blow up the deal, because apparently some powers or entities in the West wanted the war more than they wanted the peace.
And they wanted the war, allegedly, because they would profit from it.
Or, and, it's an and-or, they could defeat the Soviet Union, even though it's called Russia now, because they're fighting the last war, basically.
So, how many of you think that is an accurate summary of the situation, which would make the United States completely the guilty party, 100% guilty?
I would say that our government is essentially a criminal enterprise.
Not essentially.
Our government is a criminal enterprise.
But I have a further theory that all democracies become criminal enterprises.
And I don't think there's anything you can do about it.
I think that all democracies, eventually, their natural transition is to become a criminal enterprise.
Now, if we were not a criminal enterprise, how would we do against Russia and China?
Which are totally criminal enterprises, meaning that they run for the benefit of the elites.
We wouldn't do so well.
It turns out that being a criminal enterprise is a really strong form of government, in the same way that being a mafia is a really strong form of crime.
Does that make sense?
Nobody likes crime, but you would admit that the mafia is a strong form of it.
Our government seems to be just a strong form of crime, and probably works with the mafia, by the way.
There's new information that the president of Mexico, the current president of Mexico, his son, allegedly, and this is in a book, so I don't know if it's true, but there's a book that's claiming that the son of the Mexican president, after he got elected, the son went to party with El Chapo's son, And partied with him for three days, and it became sort of a little mini scandal and they had to go get him back.
This would strongly suggest that the cartel and the Mexican government are the same thing.
It's just the same thing.
So, should you be should you be concerned that the Mexican government is a criminal enterprise?
There's probably no alternative.
Because if it were a pure democracy, They'd probably get taken over by a criminal enterprise, because it would be too weak to defend itself.
So eventually it would become a criminal enterprise, if it hasn't already.
And I'm sure it has already.
And so the border is open because the United States wants it open for criminal reasons and the Mexican government wants it open for criminal reasons.
So the border is a crime.
It's not a national policy.
Is that fair?
Keeping the border open is because we have a criminal government and we're working with another criminal government in Mexico.
And the two criminal governments have decided that keeping it open is good for crime.
So they just keep it open.
That's exactly what it looks like.
There's no mystery here whatsoever.
As soon as you understand that the governments are literally criminal enterprises, everything makes sense.
Until you realize that, nothing makes sense.
You're like, why aren't you stopping the fentanyl?
Why don't you close the border?
It doesn't make sense, but it all makes sense if they're criminals.
So that's the whole answer.
All right.
There's another whistleblower that died suddenly.
A Boeing whistleblower.
This would be the second Boeing whistleblower who just, he died suddenly.
He got this bacterial infection that just took him out in days.
That's kind of a, Surprising set of coincidences?
Do you think that they were murdered for being whistleblowers?
There was a time in my life I would have said, well, that's not likely.
That's some crazy conspiracy theory stuff.
But now I would say, I don't know that it's That they were murdered.
I would just say it's at least a coin toss.
At the very least, it's a coin toss that it was murder.
At the very least.
Because we live in a country where this sort of thing happens.
It's not unusual.
All right, let's see.
Biden has called the US ally Japan xenophobic.
Also called China and Russia xenophobic because they don't want immigrants.
So they're xenophobic.
Let's see.
Japan, China, and Russia are dealing with real-world things that you can measure.
We've got, you know, this kind of population.
It would cause this kind of problem.
So we do a real-world thing of closing our borders.
Whereas Biden is creating a problem out of words.
Oh, he came up with a word, xenophobic.
So he's constructing something out of a word, and these other leaders are trying to run an actual fucking country.
One of them is running a word, and three of them are running countries.
Do you know what's the difference between Japan, China, and Russia, and the United States?
You know what the biggest difference right now is regarding immigration?
Because Japan, China, and Russia have male leadership.
They have male leadership.
That is exactly the problem.
Or, in their case, it's their advantage.
If you have male leadership, you don't open your border and let other males come in at unlimited numbers.
Because men are designed for security.
We're designed to kill the other men, so they can't get our women, basically.
So, our instinct, as men, is close the fucking border!
Close the fucking border!
How about having a conversation about it?
How about no?
How about close the fucking border?
How about, well, you're xenophobic?
How about fuck you?
Close the fucking border.
How about all the immigrants?
We're an immigrant country.
No, those are words.
You put all those together, immigrant and country.
You put them together, you've got two fucking words.
We're trying to run a country.
We're not running a vocabulary.
Go run your fucking vocabulary.
If you want to protect your country, do what the fucking men do in Japan.
Do what the fucking men do in China.
Do what the fucking man, I guess Putin, does in Russia.
If you want to run the country like a woman, that's what we're doing, because the Democrats are a female-led party and they're in power.
So although Biden is, you know, entitled, he's in power, but it's a female-led organization he runs, so they get their way.
No, no man in his right mind opens the border to unlimited other men.
It's not xenophobic.
It's just smart.
I was just listening to a clip, it was from a while ago, in which Ben Shapiro was referring to my statements as racist, racist statements.
I don't disagree with that, in the same way that I agree that when Japan, China, and Russia are all xenophobic, that a reasonable person could define that as racist.
Would you agree?
These three countries don't let you in from other countries.
I'm pretty sure that has something to do with the cultures of the people coming in.
Of course it does.
So they're just being totally racist.
And does it work?
Yeah, it seems to work pretty well.
Seems to work pretty well.
So when it comes to self-defense, racism is not just allowed.
It's the number one way you can stay safe.
Bigotry in general is the number one way you stay safe.
Do you know why there are not too many handicapped people in the military?
Is it the bigotry?
Yes, of course.
The military is 100% bigoted against handicapped people.
There are no blind people who fly jets in the military, because we're bigoted.
Now, do you think there's no way you could accommodate them?
There probably is.
The jet's a special case.
But there are probably lots of ways you could accommodate People with disabilities in the military.
If you wanted to spend extra, I'm sure you could do it.
A person in a wheelchair could probably fly a jet.
Right?
So, when it comes to the military, we don't worry so much about the bigotry and the racism.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, remember the time when black people couldn't be in the military?
To which I say, that's my point.
No, that's my point.
My point is that the reason that we integrated the military is that we found that it worked.
If it didn't work, we would undo it.
Obviously it worked, or it worked well enough, right?
So it only has to work well enough.
So, yes, it would have been a bad idea to have a non-diversified military.
That would have been bad in the long run.
But in that case, it wasn't a racism question.
It was, what works?
Oh, this works.
We get extra bodies, and they do the work.
They have to qualify like everybody else.
So yeah, fine.
So when I talk about racism and bigotry, I talk about it at a group level, never individually.
And so I will end on a positive note by saying, individually, it makes no sense to discriminate.
Unimmutable characteristics.
Because you're just cutting yourself off from 90% of all the beauty and brilliance of the population.
Like, why would you deny yourself extra options?
So that kind of bigotry on an individual, person-to-person basis, that doesn't make any sense.
How could it be good for you?
It's not good for the other person.
It's not good for you.
So why would you do it?
So, by the way, the other day I was saying that discrimination, well racism and discrimination, they end when you open your mouth.
If you're standing right in front of somebody, as soon as you start talking, whatever they thought before you talked just goes away.
And how you talk and how you treat them becomes the thing just immediately and never changes after that.
So, discriminating in person is odious and immoral and unethical.
Totally against it, 100%.
Discriminating against a class of people because there's something that makes that class dangerous?
Sure.
Yes.
And you need men to do it because women can't do it.
Because women are going to say, well, let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Yeah, you do that.
Well, they rape you and kill you.
But your men will say, no, we're not going to let those people into the country.
And it doesn't matter if it feels bad to you.
We're just going to keep you safe.
Marjorie Taylor Greene's going hard as Speaker Johnson, saying that he's part of the Uniparty.
She gives three examples of what would make him a Uniparty, almost a Democrat.
Number one, he passed that omnibus bill that Does bad things like blah, blah, blah.
Refused to make an amendment.
Blah, blah, blah.
All right.
Reauthorized FISA and gave a bunch of money to foreign wars.
So he didn't close the border, authorized spying on Americans and gave her money away.
That does sound pretty Uniparty-ish.
Now, I'm going to say again, That no matter what you think of Marjorie Taylor Greene's opinions and policies and stuff, I'm really glad she's there.
Because even if you don't think she should get her way in whatever she's promoting, and sometimes I think that, I think I'm sure glad that somebody brought that up.
You know, there's the same thing I think about Thomas Massey, because both Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey are often the, you know, the one rogue person who's saying the thing that needs to be said.
And they don't, they don't often win, uh, cause they tend to be in the minority, but it sure is valuable.
And I like to give them as many shout outs as I can just for being good, uh, patriots and citizens and adding value at great personal risk.
And I appreciate it in both cases, ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
I'm going to talk to the people on locals privately.
