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, Coca-Cola Funding Health Research, Hiring Gen Z, Tim Pool, President Trump, Anthony Fauci, Presidential Debates, Anti-Trump Lawfare Trial, Todd Blanche, Judge Merchan, Michael Cohen The GLOAT, David Boxenhorn, Hamas Political Influence, Non-Sequestered Trump Jury, RFK Jr., Reparations, Alejandro Mayorkas, Climate Change Migration, Glenn Beck EU ESG, DEI Good Intentions, KJP, Mark Cuban DEI, AI Educators, Anti-School-Choice Republicans, Pamela Price Chinese Name, Jeffrey Sachs, Hydrogen Energy, Australian Secretary For Men's Behavior Change, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Do we have any trouble with our video on here?
Hmm, waiting to see if we have video confirmation.
Everybody, video working for you?
Because it's not working on my end.
Present.
All right.
Nobody's complaining about the video, so maybe it's okay.
You got video?
Good.
All right.
Well, let's do the simultaneous sip.
If you'd like to take this experience up to a winning level, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tangerine gel, a canteen jug or glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, everything makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, that's good.
That's some really good stuff.
The Keurig came through.
Well, if you're not subscribing to the special Dilbert comics that you can only see if you subscribe to them on X, Or if you're a member of the scottadams.locals platform, you would see that Dilbert's company has hired someone who had been a Boeing whistleblower.
That's right.
Dilbert's company has hired a Boeing whistleblower.
Spoiler, it doesn't go well.
So you might like that.
All right.
The news and the science.
There's a study that says young children are going to trust robots more than humans.
They actually did a study.
And the younger the child, the more likely they'd believe the robot over a human.
From age three to six, they're like, you know, uh, I like parents, but I'm going to go with the robot because the robot looks like it knows what it's doing.
So what I've learned from this is that, uh, humans are born smart and get dumber every day of their life.
Because at some point you stop trusting the robots and start thinking that adults are telling you the truth.
And that's where all of your troubles start.
It never gets better after that.
Well, there's a trial in Kyoto University Hospital in which they've already succeeded in growing teeth in humans who I think they're trying it in humans, but it's worked in animals.
They got a ferret to grow new teeth with just some kind of intravenous drug chemical.
So there's something they put in your body that triggers you to grow teeth.
Now it worked on the ferret, Um, I do have a concern that I might grow a ferret tooth.
I don't know how specifically they've tuned this for each species, but I'd hate to have a whole bunch of regular teeth and then like one, one ferret tooth.
People would look at you and say, you have a nice smile.
Well, except for the ferret tooth, what's up with that?
So that would be awkward, but I think they mean human tooth.
And, uh, I do wonder how the drug knows where to put the tooth.
I don't know.
I'm no scientific healthcare researcher, but what if the tooth grows in the wrong place?
Because it's just a drug you put in your body.
You don't say, here's the drug for the second incisor.
No.
What if you get like a tooth coming out of your forehead?
Is that a possibility?
No, it's not a probability.
I mean, I think probably not, but yes, You can get the tooth and nothing but the tooth.
Well, I've got a theme today, which is everything is broken and terrible and corrupt.
Jesse Waters had a Coca-Cola insider talk, speaking, so I guess he worked for Coca-Cola.
So he saw all their big decisions behind the curtain.
And he mentions that 8 of 10 leading causes of Leading causes of Americans today?
I think leading causes of food problems.
Okay, this sentence doesn't make any sense that I copied off the internet, so I'm just... When I do my notes, I copy things verbatim from, you know, posts and articles and stuff, and then I talk about them.
But apparently there's a sentence here that didn't make any sense at all that I copied.
I don't even know what it means.
Anyway, but the point is that Allegedly, Coke has funneled millions of dollars to the American Academy of Diabetes and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
So the people who are trying to protect you from things like soda are receiving millions of dollars in funding.
How do you think that works out?
Probably exactly the way you think.
So yes, our food supply is poison in this country, but at least everything else is working.
Am I right?
Yes, our food supply appears to be intentionally poisoned by the corrupting influences of big money and big food.
And they have, in order to make money, Destroyed the health and well-being of the entire country.
But like I say, everything else is going well.
So that's fine.
For example, there's a workforce.
Workforce is doing great.
Except that it turns out that nobody wants to hire Gen Z workers because they don't show up.
They don't show up for work.
And when they get there, they say it's too hard.
That's your Gen Z workers.
Those show up for work and don't want to work because it's too hard.
Now this seems to be the stereotype that has come up and there's an article that people are preferring to hire older people because the young generation is terrible at working.
So like I say, I mean, it might be true that our, you know, our food sources are largely poisoned and the entire food industry is massively corrupt.
Okay.
Well, our workforce is also completely broken, but that's just two things.
I mean, just the food and employment.
I mean, it's a big civilization.
We have a lot of factors going on.
If only two things are going wrong.
Everything we eat and all of our work.
There's still plenty of things that could go right.
So let's look on the bright side, shall we?
Looks like President Trump told Tim Pool.
Tim Pool got a great interview, one-on-one with the president, President Trump, ex-president, future president.
And Trump said that he'd be looking to maybe prosecute Anthony Fauci and others who committed crimes against humanity.
So I started out the entire pandemic saying, ooh, all this criticism against Fauci.
It seems a little harsh.
Maybe he's just trying to do the right thing.
Well, I didn't want to leap to the conclusion that he was corrupt and dirty and all the worst assumptions were true.
But in the fullness of time, the way I read the news is that everything people thought about him was true.
Is that wrong?
It seems to me that the current best reporting on the situation is that every worst assumption you ever had about Fauci were 100% true.
Everything you suspected right down the line.
It looks like it.
You know, I don't know for sure, but it looks like there's a real strong case that he's more rotten than rotten could be.
Um, so like I say, I mean, it's bad that, um, our food system is corrupt and poison and our workforce is being filled with people who don't want to work and can't show up and think it's too hard.
And our health care system is completely corrupt to the point where you wouldn't want to put any of that shit in your body ever again.
But that's just three things.
It's just three things.
Your entire food supply, your health care, and your workforce.
So those three things are broken.
But there's a lot going right, people.
Let's not dwell on the negative, shall we?
There's a lot going right, and I'll get to it.
Vivek Ramaswamy is saying that the reason the debates are set for June 27th, which is the earliest there ever would have been a presidential debate in history, is it's a final trial balloon before they get rid of Biden.
Well, OK, the fact that one of the major parties is running a dementia patient and trying to jail the other one, that does suggest That politics is completely corrupt and broken.
But like I say, people, that's just one variable.
It's a big world and there's a lot going right.
Just because our food supply is completely poisoned, the workforce is garbage, our healthcare system is corrupt and politics are broken, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty that's going right as well.
So again, cheer up, will you?
We'll get to the good news.
Let's talk about the Trump Lawfare Trial.
So we've developed two movies on one screen, as we often do.
And I don't know, have any of you experimented with looking at MSDEI and see what their coverage is compared to Fox News and the others?
It's a whole different world, people!
So much so that you'll actually feel disoriented if you switch between the channels.
If I watch Fox News, here's what I will learn.
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever has been presented for any crimes, and indeed, they can't even name the crime.
So that's the Fox News movie.
No crime has been named, much less proven, and there's no evidence of anything that would put Trump in any jeopardy.
And Cohen is the main witness, and we know that he lied about everything, and he was destroyed by Trump's lawyers in the closing summaries.
So that's what we know on one side of the world in that movie.
Do you know what the movie is on MSDEI?
They say that it doesn't matter that Cohen is the most famous liar in the world.
What matters is that it's all documented on documents.
And that it's well proven, totally demonstrated, and it's on the documents.
And you don't need anybody's testimony because it's right there on paper.
Now, how can it be true that it's all there documented and right on paper?
At the same time, it's true that no evidence has been suggested or even proffered that Trump was guilty of anything.
How can both of those things be true?
Well, as I said, CNN lands right in the middle.
So on Fox, there's basically one movie.
Nothing's been proven.
On MSDEI, It's the other movie.
It's totally proven.
It's all on paper.
It's documented.
You couldn't be more proven than being on documents.
And then CNN, as I've been tracking their, you know, how they're staging themselves, they're right in the middle.
So if you watch CNN, you'll see one expert on CNN say, well, no, there's, you know, there's nothing here.
Nothing's been proven.
And then the very next expert will say, Yeah, but you know, the documents and they'll probably find him guilty of something because they can.
So we're getting three completely different movies.
If you count with CNN being the one that's most balanced in this case.
Oh, I hate to say it.
I just realized that CNN is doing the best coverage.
Oh my God.
That's actually happening.
The CNN's coverage is the best of the three at the moment because they're showing both movies.
Unabashedly.
They're very clearly having people on saying there's no evidence here whatsoever, and they're giving them their time to say it.
I gotta give them credit for that.
You know, they still have their partisans on the panels and stuff, but they are showing both sides.
That's actually happening on that network.
I've not seen anybody yet on Fox News say, well, you know, but the documents tell a different story.
If they do, I don't even know if they do.
So anyway, so there was one instance people are saying that Trump's lawyer, Blanche, overreached and he went too far and he got overruled by the judge.
So I guess the attorney for Trump was saying that the jurors should take seriously that Trump could go to prison based on Cohen's words.
You know, you don't want to put somebody in prison Based on the words of the biggest liar.
Now he got the judge said no strike that objection or whatever they say.
Do you think that was a mistake?
Do you think Trump's lawyer made a mistake?
Because apparently the law and the preferred way to go here is that it's the judge who decides on the sentencing.
Because it takes that decision away from the jury so that the jury doesn't have to worry Are we sending somebody to jail?
The jury only has to worry that they have interpreted what is true and what is not true.
The facts.
And then the judge says, all right, you found him guilty, but I'm the one who decides if he goes to jail.
So that's like a better system.
So the judge correctly, correctly admonished the lawyer and said, Whoa, Nope, take that back.
The jury does not decide who goes to jail.
That's my job.
However, Isn't this exactly like every lawyer movie you've ever seen, where the real play is to taint the jury by putting the thought in their head, and then you get cancelled by the objection, but it's already there.
You can't take it back, right?
They heard it.
They heard the words.
So I would say that was probably intentional, probably knew that he would get You know, the objection from the judge would be fast and hard.
It was.
And he still got it in.
I would say that's a complete win and good lawyering.
You know, working the system, basically.
The other thing he did, which I thought was awesome, some of you have already heard it, but he referred to Cohen as the greatest liar of all time, or the gloat.
G-L-O-A-T.
The gloat?
That could not be more perfect.
Because first of all, as soon as you hear it, you want to repeat it.
That's perfect.
Secondly, it does feel like Cohen is gloating.
So it's a twofer.
It feels like Cohen is, like, just gloating about the fact that he will get to be the one, he hopes, to take Trump down, and that that would make him feel real good and important.
He's, like, gloating.
It's the best.
Calling him the gloat.
And I heard a lot of news coverage repeating it today.
It is so repeatable.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm going to give the gloat an A+.
Good work.
And also the mentioning the prison thing, slipping it in there.
Good work.
So some people said he took too long and it was long and rambling.
I have a question that I don't know how to answer.
Maybe somebody who's a trial lawyer could answer.
Is there any rule that says if the jury is super tired, they'll more likely rule for the defense versus the prosecution?
Has anybody looked into that?
If you just mentally exhaust people in a topic which is a little complicated, they're going to default to heuristics.
I think that's what happens.
I think you can collapse their critical thought, if that's what you want.
You can collapse their critical thought by exhaustion.
And then I think what they'll do is they'll stop seeing the complexity of it, and they'll retreat to some basic rules of thumb.
It's like, well, I heard a Democrat actually say the other day that maybe the case won't be proven.
But Trump has definitely broken other crimes, so... Somebody actually said that in public.
On camera, a citizen, when asked, you know, do you think he's guilty, literally said, well, it doesn't matter so much if he's guilty of these specific crimes, there's so much he's done that was illegal that he didn't get caught doing, that therefore it's not that bad if he gets, you know, law-affaired on a fake trial.
Because what about those other things he did that he didn't get caught for?
Somebody said that in public and felt okay about it.
Like that's something you could say out loud in front of other people.
It's just like shocking that somebody would have that sensibility.
Anyway, so it is true that this trial is quite obviously a big sign of corruption.
And we also have Elise Stefanik in Congress, who's, she's filed an official misconduct complaint with the New York State Unified Court system because she says it's, I'm paraphrasing, she doesn't say exactly this, but it's kind of a coincidence that this Judge Marchand gets picked for every one of the Trump-related or Trump-friends trials.
And the odds of it randomly being given to the same person three times in a row are probably like one in a gazillion and did not happen accidentally.
Therefore, we have really, really strong evidence that this case, and in fact the justice system in general, is thoroughly corrupt.
And it's corrupt right in front of us, in very obvious ways, and unapologetically.
It's unapologetically and obviously corrupt right in front of us.
But I don't want you to feel bad about that.
Because, you know, it's a big civilization.
It's a big country.
There are a lot of variables in play.
And yes, you know, maybe the justice system is totally corrupt.
The foundation for everything we do in this country.
And sure, I'll give you that the food supply is poisoned because of the corruption of money, and our political system is completely fixed, and the workforce is garbage, and our healthcare system is corrupt, too.
But there's plenty of other things happening, people.
So, let's get your optimism up here, will you?
I liked some comments by David Boxenhorn on X today.
Is it possible that Hamas is going to make Trump president?
Because it's starting to look that way.
If you took the effect of the Hamas attack and then the following, the protests, The protests were so wildly unpopular with people who were not of that point of view, that it's one of the biggest factors that's going to turn people against Biden's administration.
So could it be, ironically, that Hamas could be the reason that Trump gets elected?
You know, indirectly.
But also, interestingly, could Hamas be the reason that Trump gets acquitted?
Because if you're on the jury, and you're saying to yourself, okay, if I put this guy in jail, Hamas is going to go wild, and the protests are going to get worse here, and Israel's going to get crushed.
If I don't put Trump in jail, he becomes president, and he gets tough on the terrorists, and I kind of want that to happen.
So we have this weird situation where Hamas could be totally determining not only the outcome of the trial, because people might want to say, you know, there's at least one person on the jury who says, you know what?
I can't go another four years without Trump putting a little control on the bad stuff that's happening.
I just can't do it.
Even if he's guilty.
You know, if you put me on that trial, I would vote my best interest.
Unabashedly.
Even if I thought he was guilty of a technical violation, which technically could be a felony if he had tortured enough to become so, I could still imagine saying, you know what?
Yeah, you did prove the case.
You did prove he's guilty.
I'm still going to say he's innocent.
Because I'd rather have him as president.
I don't want to stop it.
I would totally do that.
Yeah.
I wouldn't even, it wouldn't make me feel guilty, nor would it make me feel that I had hurt the system.
Because my vote would be based on what's best for the system.
I'd be trying to help the system, not hurt it.
So, yeah, maybe.
Then I also wonder about the sequestering and non-sequestering.
So the jury had a week to be out in the general public.
What do you suppose is the effect of being in the general public for a week?
And hearing, presumably, other people's opinions, and your friends weighing in, and your family weighing in, everybody, like, whispering in your ear because they have a preference.
How do you think that goes?
Do you think it makes them more likely to convict, or less likely?
Now, you might say, well, it depends on their relatives, etc.
But I wonder if there's anything we could say generally about them having more information than they had before.
Do you think it's possible that they would find out?
Let me give you one example.
Do you think the sequestered, not sequestered, do you think the jury, when they were just sort of keeping to themselves, do you think they were aware that Judge Mershawn was somehow miraculously chosen three times in a row for three Trump things, and it obviously shows there's corruption involved?
Do you think they knew that?
Probably not.
But what if one of them learned it?
Just one.
What if one person learned that there's no way that this judge was picked randomly and therefore the fix is in?
It would only take one.
Now here's what I'll call the social media Instagram effect, the TikTok effect.
Is it possible to find 12 jurors in the United States, any 12 people, in which you can't find one person who wants to be famous?
And would do almost anything to make it happen.
Do you really think that you could pick 12 people, even if you vetted them, and you wouldn't find one person who wants to save the country and be the hero of the country for saving it?
I feel like that is really attractive to a lot of people.
And I know if I were in that situation, I would be totally influenced by that possibility.
Because some of us like attention.
I don't mind saying I'm one of them.
So, I think we may have created sort of an Instagram civilization in which, in a case like this, somebody can get famous just by being the one who says no.
You just have to say no, and you will be the most famous person in the country for a few weeks.
If that appeals to you.
Now you might also be in danger.
So that's a big factor as well.
I heard somebody speculate that the two lawyers on the case are going to be pressured to convict because they couldn't go back to their law firms if they didn't.
I disagree with that.
I think that the lawyers are going to have more, more pressure to follow the law than they will pressure to convict.
And I'm actually going to have enough faith in my fellow citizens to bank on that.
I'm going to bank on the lawyers being sticklers for the law.
I think it's really hard to commit your life to being a lawyer, in other words, valuing the process so much that you'd become a lawyer, and then throw away your most cherished beliefs about the system.
I don't know.
I just have a feeling that lawyers are going to follow the law.
Now, I don't know what that means.
It could be that they look at the documents and they say, yeah, you made the case.
It's right there in the documents.
Maybe.
So I don't know which way that goes, but I suspect that they're pretty wed to the law.
It'd be, let's put it this way.
It would be easier to explain to your bosses and your partners that you followed the law, even though you didn't like it.
You can explain that and you can, you can still get away with it.
You can say, I hated it.
I really hated being in that situation.
But I also had to follow the law because I'm representing this law firm.
I mean, you could very easily argue your way that you had to do what you had to do.
And I think people would buy that.
All right.
There's some fake news about RFK Jr.
and reparations.
I believe I've said this fake news too.
So, I apologize.
It looks like I got this wrong.
I saw some reports that RFK Jr.
was in favor of reparations.
Now, here's what that really meant.
Apparently there was something he was in favor of, and is, that is not exactly reparations, but it's in the same domain, so people conflated it.
What he's in favor of is that years ago there was this program where the government would do things for farmers, and black farmers were Very pointedly left out of the process.
So the black farmers sued to make good on the fact that they were directly discriminated by the government in this farming benefit program, and they won.
So they won the lawsuit, and then the government never paid them.
So RFK Jr.
is saying, I'm just asking you to pay them what they won in the lawsuit.
To which I say, oh, Well, okay.
I mean, if the court already ruled on it, yeah.
I mean, why would you not pay them?
I don't really even understand.
So, I don't know if he has any larger views about reparations beyond that one thing that was clearly taken out of context, but I apologize to RFK Jr.
for being one of the people who promoted that fake news.
And so there's a lesson for you.
So, well, you know, our news is full of fake news, you've noticed, but at least it's only the news that's fake and corrupt.
It's not like our food supply, health care, workforce.
Well, you get the idea.
Kyle Becker is reporting on what he calls disgraced Department of Homeland Security, Mayorkas, He denies that he encouraged illegal immigration and he blames climate change.
He says the reason that people are leaving their countries is not because it's such an attractive situation and Biden made it that way.
It's because they have extraordinary poverty, violence, extreme weather events, corruption, suppression by authoritarian regimes.
Suppression by authoritarian regimes.
Would an example of that be changes to the election process that changed the election result?
Would it be putting your opponents in jail with lawfare?
I don't know.
I can see why those people would want to get away from a country like that.
Sounds like a terrible place to be.
I'd want to get away from a place like that, that's for sure.
But also the extreme weather events, you know, the climate change.
I do not get Mayorkas.
Well, maybe I do.
Give me a minute and I'll give you a hypothesis that explains Mayorkas completely.
All right, Glenn Beck is warning us that Europe has decided on some kind of, the EU, has decided on some kind of ESG standard That American companies would have to comply with if they wanted to do any business in Europe.
So in other words, Europe is being used as the whipping boy.
No, as the whipper.
Europe is being used as the executioner of American companies.
Okay, that's too hyperbolic.
So Europe is going to have rules that American companies will have to abide by in order to do business over there, and ESG is going to be forced down our throats.
Well, this brings me to my provocative thought about DEI system collapse.
Now, I posted this, but I'm going to read it to you because I took some time to, you know, get it right.
So here's what I think is happening.
In all my other examples of the things that are falling apart, Some of it is just money corrupts, but there's also, I think you've all noticed, a national incompetence problem.
Would you agree that you've all noticed a national incompetence problem?
That normal things that always work, just stop working.
Like your airplane maintenance and your, all that stuff.
Try to get customer support anywhere.
So here's my theory.
It has to do with the design of DEI.
In other words, if it worked just the way it's supposed to, it would lead to collapse of civilization.
It's built into the design.
Let me explain.
All right.
I said the Biden administration and his campaign are good examples of DEI system collapse.
So the DEI system collapse is happening all through the country.
But you can see it really, really starkly in the campaign.
All right, here's my post.
I said, all of us, including James Carville, observed that Biden's entire operation is riddled with incompetence.
And their spokesperson is the most obvious example.
Now, this was because I was reposting Corinne Jean-Pierre.
I don't think there's anybody who thinks she's qualified for the job.
And I think everybody understands it's a DEI situation.
Um, the DEI system collapse will happen to the rest of the country as well.
You already see it everywhere.
So in this way, the Biden administration is like the canary in the coal mine.
You can just watch DEI destroy it right in front of you in kind of fast forward motion because it's happening quickly.
And then you can generalize and say, um, is this going to happen everywhere?
And the answer is yes, it's guaranteed.
I continue.
Design is destiny.
DEI is built on good intentions.
Stop.
Stop.
I'm going to say it again.
DEI is built on good intentions.
Stop.
You're all yelling.
No, it's not.
It's Marxist.
It's bad intentions.
Stop.
I'm only saying it because it's pacing and leaning.
I don't know what anybody's... I have no idea what anybody's intentions are.
But if you start with you have bad intentions, you're already lost.
You lost.
Hi, you have bad intentions.
Let's talk about you.
Fuck you.
Go away.
It's the end of the conversation.
So if you want to lose, if you want to lose the debate and lose the whole fucking country, just keep yelling.
They don't have good intentions, Scott.
They don't have good intentions.
They mean they're evil and they've been to destroy the world.
I know, I know, but still, If you're trying to convince anybody who's not already convinced, you need to start where they are.
Starting where they are, DEI is built on good intentions.
That's persuasion.
It's not a fact.
Are you okay with that?
Are you okay if I just pace and lead a little bit?
Don't fact check the pacing and leading.
That's a waste of time.
It's persuasion.
It's not facts.
Right?
So DEI is built on good intentions, but now that I've said it's on good intentions, maybe people will listen to the part after that.
But when the pipeline and current supply of qualified candidates from all backgrounds is below the demand, like now, the system design guarantees massive hiring of low capability candidates to meet diversity goals.
Now, why does it guarantee it?
Here's why.
Because humans manage to the most measurable and short-term goals in their situation.
That, by the way, is an observation that all managers would agree with.
Like, nobody would argue with that.
If you have any real-world experience, people manage to the most measurable goals, because those are the ones you can't argue with if you miss them.
If you miss a vague goal, like Improved morale, but we're not really measuring it.
You know, you could always argue that you did it.
But if it's measurable, you better actually do it.
Because you're going to lose your bonus if you don't.
So the most measurable things and also the most short-term things tend to get more attention than you wish they did.
Because short-term things, you do that before your next performance review.
You want to get in some good data To back your claim that you should get promoted or get a raise.
So humans manage the most measurable and short-term goals in their situation.
That'll never change.
Diversity can be measured.
That's the good news and the bad news.
You can tell if you're diverse or not.
It's very objective.
Are you a woman?
Well, okay, maybe there's some debate there.
But the point is you can measure it to people's satisfaction.
And here's the other killer.
You can achieve it faster than your long-term goals.
If your long-term goal is to like, you know, change the nature of your offerings of your products or, you know, re-engineer your supply chain or something like that, that can take a while.
And you might not know if it's working for quite a while.
But if you hire and improve your diversity, you could do that next week.
You could say, I hired three people and they're all diverse.
Boom, a hundred percent success.
And your boss will say, yep, you hired three people.
You got them all right.
Right meaning diverse.
Bonus.
Yeah.
So you care about the short term and you care about what's measurable and the diversity hiring hits both of those key variables.
So by design, people are going to over-focus on it because that's where their money comes from.
Follow the money.
All right.
So, diversity can be measured and it can be achieved faster than long-term goals.
So, all hiring managers, by necessity, manage to it.
Manage to diversity goals, meaning at the expense of competence goals.
And they know they're doing it.
Managers act as if they... Managers act as they do to protect their own careers.
You would all agree that managers are always looking to protect their own career first, because that's how the capitalist system is designed.
And that's okay.
It's okay.
The system is built so if everybody acts selfishly, as long as it's transparent, everything works.
So a little bit of selfishness in the system is fine.
And if managers are managing for their own career benefit, that usually is a good thing.
Because they can't get there without doing good things in the outside world.
So managers act the way they do because it's good for their careers.
If you don't meet your diversity targets, the CEO won't wait to see if your division success is terrific.
The CEO is going to say, I told you to do this, you didn't do it, you're fired.
He's not going to wait for the two years you told him to wait until your grand plans of re-engineering the whole department bears fruit.
No, you're just going to be fired because you missed the short-term goals.
And then I said, because I know people ask, the Mark Cuban view that you can solve a diversity supply problem by trying harder is magical thinking.
In the real world, every organization lowers standards to satisfy diversity goals.
Now, a few can succeed, and maybe Mark Cuban has.
So there are some companies that can succeed.
It's not that there are no diverse hires that are high quality.
I'm just saying that the pipeline doesn't have enough.
So somebody can succeed, but the odds are way against it for the system in general.
Just some individuals can succeed.
So the system failure, the one that is guaranteed by the system design, has nothing to do with anybody's genes, has nothing to do with anybody's culture, has nothing to do with, you know, if somebody wore a belt and lifted up their pants.
It has nothing to do with that.
It's just math.
It's the pipeline of qualified people to satisfy diversity goals.
As robust as the supply should be to get everything you want.
And the answer is no.
Not even close.
What's the solution?
The solution is to fix schools at the lower level so that you have enough qualified candidates.
And then back off of the diversity goals because it will take care of itself.
If you have qualified candidates, the whole thing solves itself.
You don't need to force anything.
So the reason that there's a bad supply has a lot to do with the fact that Our teachers' unions are basically crippling the school system with their own demands.
And I think AI might solve that.
So, there are two things that can save us.
Well, maybe a few.
One is a President Trump.
That would save us.
The other is AI.
And maybe people of lower quality.
We'll be able to quickly perform as though they're highly qualified people if they have AI as an assistant.
Imagine, if you will, that you're a doctor who squeaked through because you were a diversity, you know, a diversity hire and went to a college that lowered their standards for you.
So let's say you come out and you're just a mediocre doctor.
If you were a mediocre doctor, But AI was sitting there next to you and looking at all the symptoms and telling you which questions you should have asked next.
Could you perform like a high?
Probably better.
I would think that an average doctor with a well-trained AI that we don't yet have, but we'll have soon, would do a great job.
In fact, you could probably use the AI without the doctor.
So a mediocre doctor plus AI sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
The other thing is that AI might be your teacher.
And there's a non-zero chance we can engineer, or re-engineer, lower education so that everybody gets some kind of a teacher that's like the deep fake of the best teacher ever.
So you don't have the luck of the draw, which is bad luck if you're in a poor neighborhood.
Oh, bad luck, all our teachers are bad.
Well, of course they are.
Because all the best teachers want to work where the pay is high and the danger is low.
So, but if you could bring in an AI deepfake, best teacher of all time, and make it available to everybody who's got at least a screen of some kind, you could imagine how things would change quickly.
Maybe we're one generation away from having qualified people, plus AI, and maybe the incompetence problem is solvable.
I do tend to think it's solvable, because of the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters.
But you can't solve it until you can talk about it.
And the thing that was the best thing that happened to me is being cancelled.
Try to imagine how many people you know in the public world who could just describe to you what I just did.
In just clinical terms.
I mean, I'm just describing the system like it's a machine.
You know, if you think of it like a machine that's designed to do a function, the DEI machine is designed to destroy the country.
Not by intention.
But that's the design.
And if you keep going with that same design and you don't fix it while you notice what it's doing, then you have to change your mind and it's not an accident anymore.
Right?
It's an accident in the beginning, if you don't correct it.
But if you can see what it's doing and you don't like it and you just keep doing it, that's a design.
And that's where we're at.
So would you agree with me that being cancelled allowed me to say this In a way that I think is completely productive to everybody, right?
This is not trying to leave anybody behind.
This is trying to be productive to everybody.
And I can do that now.
Free speech.
And also I can do it because X gives me a free speech sanctuary city.
If I got kicked off of all other social media, I still have a million followers on X. So that gives me some freedom to say some things that maybe some other platform would say, I don't know, I like what you said there, I'll suppress you.
By the way, my YouTube monetization is no different now in the election season.
Can you even imagine?
I mean, all my other numbers are up, of course.
It's just so obvious what's happening on YouTube.
Anyway, Cory DeAngelis is doing lots of victory laps lately.
Man, has he made a big difference.
Are you following Cory DeAngelis?
So he's the school choice evangelist, but he has done some tremendous work.
So here he is talking about, I guess there was an election in Texas for the house, the Texas House.
And they targeted 13 Texas, they meaning Corey DeAngelis and his supporters.
They targeted 13 Texas House Republicans who voted against school choice.
Now, I kind of love that.
If the story had been, they had targeted a bunch of Democrats who were against school choice, that would have been good too.
If, you know, given that the story is that they did well.
Um, they took out nine of 13 Republicans who are against school choice.
I love watching people on the right police their own party.
I love that.
Because that's a sign of health.
That the fact that there could be three Republicans taken out by Republicans on principle, on principle.
You know, the principle being that the schools are not where they need to be and they're the problem.
That's good stuff.
So I think you have to see this as more hopeful than just, it might be good for school choice in Texas and then Texas might lead the way, which is all good too.
But there's something bigger here that you can't hide if you're a Republican.
I guess that's the way to put it.
If you're a Republican, you can't hide behind bad policies.
They're going to get you.
They're coming for you.
You can't hide behind stupid, bad, unproductive, destructive policies.
Republicans are going to come for you.
I love it.
All right.
My prosecutor, the DA in my area is Pamela Price.
She is one of the DEI hires.
By the way, have you noticed that the Soros-funded prosecutors often are black and usually women?
It's a good thing.
Is that a coincidence?
I don't think that's a coincidence.
Here's what I think.
I think that Soros knew that he could get people elected if you had three things going for you.
Female, black, and a ton of money.
So I think Soros was just saying, well, it's basically free money.
You're leaving it on the table for me.
All I have to do is back a black woman with a bunch of money, and then I can own the prosecutor in these key places.
It looks like that's what he did.
And I don't think it's a coincidence that there are so many who are both black and female and recently in the job.
I think that they recruited based on demographics of what would get you most likely to be elected in certain urban environments.
So it's not a coincidence.
And like the rest of the DEI system collapse, what it should create Predictably, it would be a massive incompetence in the justice system.
And I think we're seeing that.
But here's the funny story about Pamela Price, the DA for my area.
She's planning to announce that she's adopting a Chinese name.
So she'll keep her regular name, but she's also announcing that she's adopting a Chinese name for herself.
Do you know why?
Well, she was getting a lot of pushback from the Asian American community where she lives.
So, to make things better, rather than fixing crime, which one has to think might have been the complaint of the Asian American community in her area, she has decided that she will try to make them like her better by adopting a Chinese name.
So, now there's a second punchline here.
The first punchline is just that that's a real thing that's happening.
Here's the second punchline.
It's a common practice in California.
The first person to do it was Kamala Harris.
Kamala Harris once got a Chinese name, so the Asian Americans would like her better.
I'm sure that worked out great.
Anyway.
Uh, I saw one of the, the, the, the comms director for the Biden campaign, who, uh, looks like another DEI hire, Michael Tyler.
And he was saying, uh, um, he was saying that they're not talking about the Stormy trial.
They're talking about the important things.
So here's how he said it.
So Michael Tyler said, Quote, this campaign is not speaking about the substance of the trial in any way, shape or form.
What we're talking about is the unique threat that Donald Trump poses to our democracy.
Right.
The threat to the democracy.
So let me get back to the DEI higher comment about Michael Tyler.
He might be really qualified.
But given the larger context of the Biden campaign, sadly, your first assumption is not.
So while I accept that there's a non-zero chance he's the best comms director of all time, I haven't seen much of his work, what he's saying right now is stupid.
The one thing I see from him is clearly stupid.
And it's in the context of DEI hiring.
So it looks like a DEI hired to me.
Is that fair?
No.
It's not fair at all.
It's just how it makes everybody feel.
And that's a variable as well.
So DEI creates a situation where it's the snap to opinion.
It's the first one you're going to have when you see somebody who is a diversity population person in an important job doing something stupid.
You're not going to say, oh, this is a smart person who made one mistake or one thing I disagree with.
You're automatically going to assume that they're incompetent and they were hired because of their race.
Will you be right every time you assume that?
No!
Very unfair.
Super racist.
But that's what the system guarantees.
So the DEI system collapse guarantees that people will see the diverse hires as less qualified.
It guarantees it.
It's in the design of the system.
All right.
So here's what I think.
If the diversity hires for the Biden campaign have come up with the idea that their best attack is to say that Trump is going to be a threat to democracy and he's going to be like a punchy De Niro says, he's going to steal your democracy.
There'll never be another vote in the United States.
He'll be a dictator for life.
Here's how I characterize that.
Suppose Trump finds a magic lamp, he rubs it, and then becomes ruler for life.
Won't you feel dumb for voting for him then?
So I'm going to call this the magic lamp approach.
Well, yes.
We cannot describe any scenario in which our system would allow one person To simply want to be king, and then let it happen, even if they were president, when they said it.
So, since we can't describe any mechanism by which that could happen, because it didn't happen last time, and it wasn't close, there was no point at which the military was saying to itself, you know what?
You know, just this once, maybe we should subvert the process and take over.
No!
Not a single person, and it was never close, Even the insurrectionists weren't asking for it.
Do you know what the insurrectionists were not asking for?
Keep Trump in power no matter what.
They weren't asking for that.
They were asking to make sure the election was fair, because they didn't believe it was.
So I'm going to call it the genie magic lamp theory.
What if Trump is president, And then he gets that magic lamp and he rubs it and then the genie grants him a wish to be the president for life.
Won't you feel dumb then that you voted for him?
That's the best they have.
It's like they're writing fan fiction about Trump.
The entire Democrat Party is involved in fan fiction.
All right.
Imagine there's this orange menace and then, and then he finds a lamp on the beach and he rubs it and then He uses his magic powers to become the king for life!
And that's my fan fiction.
So, there's that.
I recommend to you, Tucker Carlson has a video up, a new one, with Jeffrey Sachs, spelled S-A-C-H-S.
And you have to hear his take on American geopolitical stuff, and his take on Ukraine.
I don't know if it's exactly the right take.
I don't know if anything's left out.
But it will blow your mind.
And the basic idea is that when the Soviet Union fell, the Soviet Union was legitimately trying to be a normalized country.
I mean, Russia was trying to become a normalized country and wanted good relations with Europe and the U.S.
But the US said, wait a minute, we're the only superpower.
We don't have to do anything nice.
We can just take over your country.
We can surround you so you don't have good ports and guarantee that you can never make a lot of money.
But then you got Ukraine with all these pipelines and stuff.
And they're like, well, maybe if we could turn off the pipelines, you won't make money.
And so So by that view, the neocons have had a 25-year plan in which they actually had timelines Well, it's been executed the whole time, but you're seeing this phase of it.
Now, that would be the Jeffrey Sachs version.
and choking it off. And apparently that's in writing, surrounding Russia and choking off its economy. It's explicitly a plan that's been around for decades, and now you're just seeing it executed. Well, it's been executed the whole time, but you're seeing this phase of it.
Now, that would be the Jeffrey Sachs version. I don't know if that catches all the nuance, But man, it's interesting.
So I recommend it.
Watch that.
Here's an idea that I had a long time ago that I never did anything with.
I always thought an app could be the solution, but apparently it's been tested and it works.
And it's called something called moving navigators.
Meaning if you want to relocate where you live, To someplace better, because you get more jobs and it's safer and your children will be raised better in better schools, that sort of thing.
It turns out most people don't know how to do it.
It's a hard thing to do, especially if you're in a low income.
You don't really know how to move somewhere else.
You don't have the money, you don't have the resources, you don't know where or what, how to connect with a new place.
So you just sort of stay where you are, no matter how bad things are and no matter how How unlikely you will thrive.
So, some tests have been run, and they took some low-income families, and they simply helped them navigate the process of moving to a better neighborhood, and it worked.
So they could actually, with a little bit of help, and a little bit of advice, and I think some financial advice, a very inexpensive way, To take a low-income family that has potential and the desire to get ahead and make it happen for them.
You just change the location.
You help them move.
Now, this is what I had imagined years ago as an app, but the way I imagined it was the following.
Their model might be bigger, but I'll just mention the other model, or better.
The other model would be that individuals like me could use an app and help other individuals move.
And get a job.
Getting the job is the important part.
So for example, somebody could say, uh, I don't like where I am.
I can't get a job.
It's dangerous.
I want to move to someplace I can get a better job.
I don't know how to do that.
So people like me would say, Hey, I know somebody who has a job, but I'm not going to pay for you to come.
And then somebody else on the app would say, you know what?
There's some information about you and your family.
I kind of like your odds.
I'm going to chip in 10 bucks.
And other people will chip in 10 bucks.
Next thing you know, the poor family has, I don't know, $2,000.
Maybe you need more.
I don't know.
And so you can get, at least you can move there.
And then, then how do you, how do you get the first and last rent, you know, to rent a place?
Maybe you don't have the right credit and stuff.
Maybe there's somebody else who says, you know what?
I read your specific story on the app.
I'll let you rent my room until you get settled.
So it would be a bunch of good Samaritans who are looking at specific families and individuals, not just generally helping anybody who asks, but really looking into their situation.
Let's say you've got one super parent.
It's a poor, we'll just say a poor black family somewhere in a bad place.
But a mother, let's say, who's a bit of a superstar, and she's saying, I'm getting out of here one way or another.
I'm going to educate my kid one way or another.
Kid's going to go to college one way or another.
I just don't know how.
Wouldn't you love to help her?
Like, you get the right attitude, the right energy, just don't have the wherewithal.
And you could be a little part of that.
All right, here's a little wherewithal.
We'll see if you can operationalize that attitude into success.
I think it would be fun.
It would be almost like a game to see if you can do a good job helping people's lives and stuff.
And it would get people directly involved in the success of other people.
And it could also be sort of a mentoring app.
But any way we get there is good.
I've often said that the secret to my success started One week after graduating from college, I traded my car for a one-way ticket to California, traded it to my sister, and never came back.
And the reason was there were not many economic opportunities where I grew up, so I moved to where there were the greatest economic opportunities maybe in the world, which is the Bay Area of California.
Probably the best high-end opportunity place of all time.
Did it work?
Yes.
Yes.
I could immediately get jobs.
I could get all kinds of training, access to people, exposure to successful people, mentoring, advice.
It was all here.
And I did that consciously and knowing that it would be, you know, improve my odds.
Well, a couple other stories.
There's a new hydrogen combustion engine that is getting some attention.
So there are three automakers, I guess, looking really hard at hydrogen.
Because it's a clean fuel that could be even a little cleaner, they say.
So I guess Kia and Hyundai in Korea, and also Volvo now, they're planning on developing a hydrogen.
I don't know exactly where you get the fuel for that.
Can somebody tell me, if hydrogen is clean energy, but don't you use dirty energy to create it?
What am I missing?
I suppose if you had a nuclear power plant, you could use that energy to make some hydrogen.
I don't know.
I know it's just water electrified, but you need the electric, right?
So it takes power to create it.
So I guess I'm not totally sold on the idea that it's as green as they say, but I'm open to the possibility.
All right, over in Australia, they've created a new department, and it's called the Men's Behavior Change Group.
So now there's a Secretary for Men's Behavior Change.
It's a national first.
So, a federal level bureaucracy designed to change men's behavior.
You're probably waiting for the part where I tell you, and also, and also, they've created a Women's Behavior Change Department, because it's not just the men who need to change, am I right?
It's not just, obviously, it's not just men who need to change.
Sometimes women need to change too.
So, obviously, they created two departments.
One to change women and one to change... Wait, they didn't?
Are you telling me that Australia created only a department for changing men's behavior?
Um...
Don't ever go to Australia.
I don't know what's happening down there, but I don't like it.
I don't like it at all.
And the funniest part is that the title is Secretary of Men's Behavior Change.
They couldn't even call this poor bastard a minister.
They have to call him a secretary and then put him in charge of changing men's behavior.
And there's this photograph of the most beta-looking male you've ever seen with this big ol' smile.
That the beta male is going to teach the alpha man how to behave.
That's a real thing happening in the real world, ladies and gentlemen.
And this brings us to the conclusion of my awesome presentation.
Trying to change the world a little bit at a time.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
But for the rest of you on YouTube and Rumble and X, great to see you.
