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, Persuasion Fear, Brain Rhythm Matching Persuasion, David Roberts, Car Buying Horror, Anti-Dementia Wonder Drug, Ukrainian's Enemy List, NGO Lobbyist Shadow Government, President Biden's Walk, ChatGPT4 Hacking Expertise, Election System Security, President Trump, Principled Republican Losers, Election-Changing Legal Rulings, Losing Elections on Principal, General Milley, J6 Reichstag Fire Fears, Hypnotic Susceptibility, James Clapper, Tucker Carlson, Mark Cuban DEI, 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
Solvable problems on four devices and 15 applications already this morning.
All unsolvable.
And they all end at the same time.
But, despite all that, there's going to be something like a show that happens once I close my blinds and get my lighting right.
Yep, I got a brick for a computer.
Did I get a brick flick at you?
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's not looking so good at the moment, but I think it's going to get better all the time.
And if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny smooth human brains, all you need is a gupper, a micro glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Ah, that's some good stuff.
Good stuff right there.
Well, I've got a theme.
I've got the most annoying technical setup of all time.
I'm looking at myself twice, except they're not running at the same speed.
So I've got me in real time over here, but me delayed over there.
So I'm watching Scott Galloway on one and Scott Adams on the other.
Anyway.
But enough about me.
So here's a story.
The former Israeli defense minister, Lieberman, he says Iran is planning a nuclear holocaust for the Jewish state in the next two years.
It's going to be a war of extermination.
He says we're in the midst of an Iranian extermination program.
Has anybody used that word recently for the situation in Gaza and Israel in general?
Extermination.
Well, that is a key concept in my new book, which is God's Debris plus the Religion War plus a brand new short story.
You're going to be somewhat blown away when you read the middle book that's in the trilogy-ish book, The Religion War, because it's literally built around the plot of an extermination plan.
So I haven't really seen that in the real world, but I predicted it 20 years ago.
And here we are.
We're actually using the words extermination as like a literal thing that people are worried might happen.
All right.
The book is doing great, by the way.
If you haven't, if you haven't ordered your copy, I think there might still be that glitch that says it's not available.
The hardcover is not available to December, but that's not real.
Go ahead and order it.
If you get that message, it's not real.
It will be corrected.
We looked into the source of the problem on Amazon.
Why does it say December when it's available now?
And the answer we got back from the publisher is...
You know, sometimes things happen.
It might take a while.
We're in the midst of the greatest incompetence crisis of all time.
Have you tried to do anything recently?
You can't do anything.
Nothing works.
Well, the Greenland ice sheet is at risk, say the climate scientists.
And, you know, there's a story about the They're measuring it again, and blah, blah, blah, Greenland ice sheet, and if it melts, we're all dead, and blah, blah, blah, blah.
I've come to the decision that if there's one thing I don't trust in the news, it's anything about ice.
That's my new rule.
If my government or my experts try to tell me anything that they know about ice, I'm just going to say, well, I don't think you do know that.
No, I think the world is full of ice and people have different data on whether it's even increasing or decreasing.
We're not even sure if it's going up or down.
And you're going to tell me, oh, I know, uh, I've got some microbes here that might slow down the, you know, that, that's the story.
There's some kind of bacteria or microbes or some damn thing that they think can slow down the melting ice.
And I say, first of all, we have no idea what would really happen if it melted.
We don't know if it is melting.
We don't know if some other place will get more ice to compensate, if that's even a thing.
But, I've just decided I'm not going to worry about ice anymore.
It feels very much like Hole in the Ozone, you know, just made up stuff.
I have so little trust in anything that involves any of our experts.
Let's see if I can close this and reopen it.
I just don't know what to think about ice, but my choice will be to not believe it.
All right, in Atlanta, they've got some new problems with their water mains.
They've got this old system, as many of the cities do, and apparently had several different major water breaks.
And some people are saying that the cities are now so old, a lot of the infrastructure is 50 to 100 years old, and it's going to take, you know, massive fixing.
But I think this is just more evidence of We should build new cities.
Does it really make sense to replace the water infrastructure in an existing city?
Just build a new city.
You know, I realized we're going to have to do it, obviously, but every time I see a story like this, I just say new city.
Just, just start new fixing all this stuff.
That's completely broken.
You know, here's the, here's the situation.
Let's say you did a great job of fixing the water supply in Atlanta.
When you're done, you still have to live in the city.
I mean, if that's your thing, and work there.
How about not living and working in the city?
Let's figure something else out.
I figure they have to fix it too, but run away!
Here's another just amazing piece of science, just to renew your faith in science.
Because a lot of you are like, I'm not sure I trust the experts after the pandemic.
But here, let me Let me tell you the experts are doing some good work too.
So neuroscientists have figured out that if you're trying to convince somebody of something, such as politics, a negative emotion like fear is more persuasive.
Okay.
They did a scientific study to find if people being afraid will change their actions.
Was there even one person on the planet Earth who was not already aware that if you're afraid, you're going to act pretty much immediately?
Did anybody not know that?
Raise your hand if you didn't know that fear is a major motivator in the world.
Didn't know?
And then it gets dumber.
If you can get any dumber than that.
Hey, we discovered that fear matters.
They said that the second biggest mover of people's opinions was the macroeconomic situation.
Yes, that's completely different from fear, isn't it?
Right.
The notion that maybe the economy would plunge you into desperate starvation and cannibalism They're calling that different from worrying about something that scares you.
No!
The economy is only fear.
We're afraid it's going to disappear.
We're afraid of inflation taking all our money.
It's not two topics, it's one topic.
When people are afraid of things, they act, including voting.
So, let's add that to, you could have asked Scott and saved some money, but in this case you could have asked literally any adult.
Do you think this fear thing really makes a difference?
Here's one.
Again, you know, I want you to renew your faith in science.
There's a new study that says that exercise can increase your sex drive.
Well, I didn't see that coming.
It's almost like I'm starting to think that exercise is good for people.
Has anybody picked up on that yet?
It's like science is starting to close in on the idea that Exercise and maybe even eating right?
And I don't know.
I'm just going to guess.
Sleeping.
Getting enough sleep.
Is it possible that those things are good for us?
Well, thank God we've got some experts looking into this.
Yes.
Yes.
It turns out that if you exercise, it can make you horny.
It can also increase your endorphins and your dopamine and your serotonin and your testosterone.
Let me simplify.
Do you know what makes people horny?
Good health.
Did they not know that?
And exercising is good for your health?
So they hadn't quite connected the dots yet.
The scientists.
The experts.
Huh.
We know that good health definitely makes you horny.
And we know that exercise causes good health.
I wonder, I wonder, could we find out a link between exercise and your libido?
Yes, yes.
You could have asked me.
Just ask me next time.
Or ask any adult who apparently is not a fucking idiot who's an expert.
Unnecessary science.
Here's one that's actually interesting.
This one actually might be useful.
Some scientists use what they call pink noise, which is somehow they could monitor the electrical signals in your brain And then they would create some soft hissing noise, like static, or an ocean wave, that would match the rhythms of your own natural brain rhythms.
Redundant sentence.
But you know what I mean.
And why would they do that?
Well, they tested and found out that if you did that, you could double people's memory.
You could double it.
Yeah, in a test of, did you remember this?
Did you remember that?
They doubled.
Now there's also thoughts that might have some other benefits like maybe putting you to sleep and stuff.
But what does this remind you of?
They matched the rhythms in your brain.
Does that sound like anything you've heard of?
They match the natural rhythm of your brain.
It's pacing and leading.
It's basically anytime you match anybody's bodily anything, You become more influential, and you can program their brain.
So the sound might actually be the user interface for your brain.
They might be able to find the rhythm that matches your brain, and it's just going to unlock it.
You're going to be able to program it any way you want.
Now, I don't think they figured that out yet.
They just figured out it's good for your memory.
But oh my God, they might be on the verge of mechanical hypnosis.
Meaning they would just match one bodily thing for you, your brain, that probably is the most influential part of your body that they can match.
And then once they've matched it, they're just going to slip in suggestions.
Do you know why I think people's memory doubled?
Here's a provocative, speculative hypothesis.
Again, redundant.
I'm all about the redundancies today.
I believe That what's happening is that people became more suggestible.
And they knew they were being tested on their memory.
I think you might have been able to suggest them into doubling their memory.
Do you know how I would test that?
I would test that by having people who were easily hypnotizable as a control group.
Because right now they're controlling against, you know, the baseline of not doing it, I guess.
But if you really want to find out what the mechanism is, you want to control against the baseline of suggestion.
Because people who are being tested on their memory clearly know they're being tested on their memory.
I don't know how you could not know it.
So, so it could be that what the machine did was match their, match them and put them in a suggestible mode.
And then they just said, we're going to test your memory.
And they thought, well.
They're not going to test making my memory worse.
So they must be testing to see if it's better.
So maybe it is.
So I do think you could literally suggest people have a better memory.
I think that's the thing.
You need to test it.
I saw a post, a long thread, by David Roberts on X and he went to a car dealership and he says, y'all, I just got back from a car dealership.
Holy shit.
I thought, quote, maybe my stereotypes are outdated.
Maybe it's not so bad anymore.
And then he says, it's dot, dot, dot.
So much worse.
I couldn't believe it.
And then he goes on ranting about, um, he kept asking questions that they couldn't answer.
Here are some questions I couldn't answer.
What options does it have and how much does it cost?
When is it available?
Nothing.
They couldn't answer any question about the vehicle.
And instead of saying, I don't know, they had to leave and go talk to somebody and they would be gone for a long time.
Now, my theory is that the whole dealership process of being gone for a long time, you've all experienced this.
You go in and they say, oh, yeah, I don't know if I can sell it to you for that.
I better talk to my manager.
Now you all know that they're not talking to their manager, right?
They might be in the manager's office, but that's not why they're going there.
They're going there to wear you down.
The goal of the dealer is hypnosis.
They're trying to hypnotize you and the longer they keep you there, the more control they have over you.
Because you're going to get hungry and tired and you're going to want that fucking car.
And finally you're going to say, all right, I just can't, I can't be here another eight hours.
Uh, okay.
Yes.
Yes.
Give me the car.
So every time they do it, you should call them out or do what I do.
I bring a laptop.
And when they say, Oh, I got to go talk to my boss.
I go, great.
I got some work to do anyway.
And even if they indicate they're only going to be gone for a minute, you take out your laptop, you start some real work, and then you do what you were going to do anyway, while they're fucking with you.
And when they come back, they see you're happily working on your laptop.
They'll see their trick didn't work because they're trying to make you really, really unhappy that you're sitting there doing nothing.
So don't do nothing.
Set up a little office for yourself.
Get yourself a nice beverage.
Sit there with your laptop out and just say, yeah, take your time.
I got all day.
Now, what I actually recommend is you don't ever negotiate for a car.
But you know the other scam?
And I hate to tell you so many of you fell for it.
How many of you fell for the fleet pricing scam or alternate Alternately, I bought it online from some kind of entity that gets a good deal, and then you don't negotiate, but you got it online, so they've already negotiated for you.
Let's say Costco, for example, or CarMax, or there are a bunch of them where you can buy online, and no negotiating.
So that's good, right?
Because you don't have to worry about the price, right?
And dealerships have something called a fleet manager.
And I remember one time I was so smart.
Oh, was I smart?
I said, I'm not going to go to the regular manager.
I'm going to go to the fleet manager.
Cause I know he's got goals too.
And I'll say, well, I'm not really a fleet, but if you could just sell me the car at the same price that you sell to the fleet, you know, a big company that's buying lots of cars.
If you can give me that price, no negotiating cash deal done.
It'll be the quickest sale you ever had and it'll be at a price you're happy with because it's your own fleet price.
And then the fleet guy says, you know, I think I can make that work.
And you're like, yes, I am.
I'm like a genius.
Wait till I tell everybody about this.
I get the greatest price.
I get the fleet price.
The people have negotiated it down already.
And it's fast.
And I get rid of all that BS of waiting.
And they give you the price and you drive away.
And you spent way more than you would have if you'd spent eight hours negotiating.
Because the negotiated price, you know, they start with the sticker price that nobody pays, and then if you negotiated, you could get, you know, quite a bit off of that.
If you go in for the fleet price, they're going to give you a price that's between the sticker price that nobody pays, so you shouldn't even be looking at it in the first place, And higher than what you could have certainly negotiated if you'd stuck it out.
So taking the flea price is accepting a screwing that you didn't have to accept, but you go home feeling that you won.
It's the cleverest trick.
So if you buy online somewhere and you were to compare your online price to somebody bought exactly the same car, But they negotiated all day.
Who do you think is going to pay an extra thousand dollars?
It's probably at least a thousand dollars that you just left on the table by avoiding the negotiating.
How many of you didn't know that?
How many of you are saying, oh shoot, that's exactly what I did.
I didn't realize I wasted a thousand dollars.
You didn't waste it.
You spent a thousand dollars not to deal with the terrible, terrible sales.
So I believe that Tesla doesn't do any of that.
I think they just have one price and therefore I'm really leaning toward buying it only for that reason.
To me, that's the tipping point.
If you can't get somebody to sell you something, And by the way, I added my own story that people doubted.
My own story is I went to my local Toyota dealer and said, I'd like to buy a truck.
I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted.
Features and color.
You can't do it.
There's no mechanism for going in and buying the truck you want.
Now, when I say that, you say, come on.
Obviously, that's a little bit of hyperbole, right?
It's a truck selling place.
Obviously, other people have trucks, Scott.
I see them all over the place.
So, obviously, you can go to a dealer and you can buy a truck.
Can you?
Can you?
Have you tried it recently?
Why don't you go to the dealership?
Do you know what's on the lot?
Nothing.
Except a few things that nobody would want.
But then you say, but Scott, you just order the truck.
You just order it.
They don't have that.
There's no ordering process.
I thought there would be.
I thought that's because I've done that with the Ford, for example.
But, but Toyota said, no, there's no way to configure it and order it online.
What?
So how do people get a truck?
Because, well, the dealerships, you know, get an allocation every month.
You know, so depending on how many we've sold before, they'll tell us how many we get.
And I say, great, put me in line for that.
Here's what I want.
They go, Oh, it doesn't work that way.
I go, what, the part where I get what I want?
He goes, yeah, we don't have any process for that.
I go, what the hell is your process?
Well, a process is that they make whatever they want, and they're all different models and different colors, and then they tell you it's going to ship to you.
They go, really?
Okay, well, why don't you just, I'll see what's in the pipeline, and if there's anything that's kind of close to what I wanted, maybe I'll settle.
And then they go, okay, here's the pipeline.
I go, all right, how about this one?
Oh, that one's already taken.
So are the rest of them.
That was the process.
The process was you can't buy it in person because it's not there.
You can't order it online because they don't have that service.
And you can't get one in the pipeline because as soon as they're available, the first person who calls buys it.
Do you know why the first person who calls buys it?
Because there's no other fucking way to buy a truck.
So you tell me that that's a process in which I can buy a truck because I don't have that kind of patience or luck.
Basically, the process is like calling into a radio station and trying to be the 20th caller.
That's the process.
Right.
So yes, you can call into the radio station and be the 20th caller, but really, really can you?
No.
One fucking person can call in and be that 20th caller.
The rest of you, you don't get to be the 20th caller and you don't get to buy the red Tacoma because somebody else fucking ordered that before you even knew it was available.
No, Toyota doesn't sell trucks.
I mean, not in any way that you can specify what you want, except by luck.
All right, here's another science.
Sildenafil, Viagra, if you will, improves brain blood flow and could help to prevent dementia.
So they did this study and they found it gives your brain a boner, basically.
So you get much more blood flow to the brain.
Basically, it gives your brain a boner.
It's the same thing it's doing to your junk.
It lowers your blood pressure.
And could prevent dementia.
Yep.
I'm going to add this to the list of you could have asked Scott.
Do you know why I already knew this?
Because it's well known that it lowers your blood pressure.
Do you know what lowering your blood pressure is good for?
Your brain, your health, everything.
How could it not work?
If it lowers your blood pressure and there are no side effects that anybody's figured out, you just could have asked me, Scott, do you think this would be good for your general health and your brain in the long run?
Well, I know for sure it lowers blood pressure.
So yes, don't do the study.
So what's that?
Three scientific studies you literally could have just asked me.
I would have told you.
All right, how about New York is passing some legislation that would ban what they call addictive social media algorithms for kids.
Addictive social media algorithms.
What would be the definition of addictive?
Well, the definition is something like they show you things that they think you'd want to see.
That's actually what it is.
So the algorithm shows you things that they've decided, based on who you are and your activities, that you would want to see more of something than something else.
So New York wants to make that illegal.
Well, I'm a little confused.
Why would you just make that illegal when there's no way you could possibly enforce it and I'm sure it'll die in court?
Why wouldn't you just, wouldn't it make more sense to just say children can't have social media?
Because the whole point of social media is looking at what you want.
If they change the algorithm so you can't see things you want, why would anybody even use it?
Just say you can't use it.
There's plenty of evidence that kids should not be, let's say under 16 at the least, should not be using smartphones and should not be on social media.
Why would you pick the one thing that can't possibly work, which is coming up with what is an addictive algorithm?
Like there's any chance that's going to stand up in court.
It's an indefinable phrase.
If the algorithm means giving the user something that you think they might like, that would just be every user interface.
Calling it addictive is, there's just no way that standard could possibly hold up.
But you could certainly do a standard of, you're not allowed on social media, or it's illegal for you to have a phone.
And by the way, there is no way for parents to handle this on their own.
And every time I hear some parents like, oh, you must be a bad parent.
Why don't you just deny your 14 year old a smartphone?
Grow the fuck up!
It's 2024.
No parent is going to deny their kid a smartphone unless they want to make them a cripple, a social cripple.
That's the problem.
But if you took away everybody's smartphone and you said you just can't have them under the age of 16, Jonathan Haight, however you pronounce it, suggests that.
And I agree with it.
Definitely.
They even let kids take phones to school.
You're just not allowed to take it out of your pocket.
Which means you just have it behind a book.
It's crazy that that's legal.
Just insane.
Anyway.
So the theme today will be The Dog's Not Barking and Our Hypnotizable Leaders.
There's a story today that I don't know what to make of it quite yet.
There's some NGO, which is a non-government organization funded by somebody.
In this case funded by the United States, at least partially.
Somebody there, who was trained by the United States, allegedly, in how to do stuff, has put together a list of Americans who were against the Ukrainian war, or the funding of it, I suppose would be the way to say it.
And they put together this list that includes Trump, Elon Musk, David Sachs, Vivek Ramaswamy, JD Vance.
I think there's like a few hundred, like a bunch of people.
Now, who is on the list?
Basically, the smartest Americans.
So the fucking Ukrainians decided, let's put together a list of, you know, the problem people.
Now, some people are calling it an enemy's list and thinking that it's gone way too far, that you're going to make a list of enemies.
To which I say, They say it's not an enemies list, it's more like who do you need to influence, or you should be aware of what the others are saying, that sort of thing.
So, I'm not sure it has that much... I don't know that it has that much impact on the real world, because if you had anything to do with the United States, you already knew that these famous characters had these opinions.
You didn't really need somebody to put them on a list.
Now, if it goes deeper, apparently I'm not on the list, but If it goes deeper into just big accounts that complain about Ukraine, well then maybe somebody could learn something.
But what exactly are they going to do?
Troll them harder?
I don't know really how you would operationalize it.
So everything about it is creepy and bad and I don't like it to happen.
But on the other hand, it's hard to game out whether it makes a difference.
Um, but the first thing I saw when I saw who was on the list, I saw, okay, Trump, Elon Musk, David Sachs, Vivek, JD Vance.
I thought to myself, how do I get on that list?
How much have I ever wanted to be on a list more than this?
Seriously?
I have a chance of being on the same list for any reason, for any reason, as Musk, Sachs, Ramaswamy, and Vance?
Yes, thank you.
So I posted, please put me on the list, because I can't think of a better list to be on.
And also, fuck everybody.
I'll have any opinion I want.
So you can put me on that list.
Do you think it's going to make it more dangerous for me?
Probably.
No, put me on the list.
And I think they fucked up because they made a list of the smartest Americans and put them all in one place.
And now people know who they should pay attention to.
I would like a full copy of the list so I know who to follow on social media.
That should be your response.
Your response is give me the list so I can follow them.
So I, I looked around and for some reason, it's just not really obvious where to find the full list, even though I tried.
So if anybody has a full list that includes their, um, their handle for the X platform, please post it in a easy way to cut and paste.
Don't do an image, do it in text if you have that option.
So I could just copy and paste and I'll, I'll follow the top 20.
All right.
So yeah, anybody that the NGOs don't like, I'm going to follow.
So here's the dog not barking about the NGOs.
Is it my imagination or do we have a shadow government?
Somebody's suggesting I'm not on the list because I registered as a Democrat.
That might be true.
Might be.
I doubt it, but it might be.
Anyway, so we have all these NGOs and fake fact-checking organizations and stuff, and also lobbyists.
If you were to combine the effect of NGOs and lobbyists, none of whom are elected, aren't they actually running the country?
I feel like the NGOs are, you know, the tail wagging the dog, so to speak.
And here's what's missing.
I feel like the people who understand what's happening in the world know, you know, the Mike Benz kind of people, they know that these NGOs are effectively causing wars and running the country and running up our debt and causing all the bad things.
And one of the biggest NGO funders is Alexander Soros, and he's still not being interviewed.
And after making all this, you know, I've made quite a bit of noise about why isn't he on the news every day?
If the news is saying he's destroying our country by funding things that are really, really bad for the country, such as open borders and more racism, etc.
If that's happening and that's real, if that's real, he should be on the news every day.
Or at the very least, the news should say we tried again and he wouldn't respond.
It's so missing.
It's just so obviously missing from the conversation That the only reason I can think that he's not on the news every day is that it's what you think.
He's a moron.
I think he actually can't be trusted to talk in public.
Based on a brief clip I saw, he looked like he had sort of a Biden level of ability.
Lower, actually.
So that story just baffles me that that's not a top story every single day.
Now, meanwhile, Joe Biden continues his embarrassment tour.
I believe he's going to try to embarrass America individually, one country at a time.
You know, there was some thought he would try to embarrass us with all the countries simultaneously, but he's picked out some countries and now he's in France.
So he's really working on making America look like we're pathetic.
And I noticed that when he walks, You know, he's doing the confused walk thing again.
And I gave him a name for his walk.
And it's this.
Optimus past his prime.
Because he walks like a robot.
But maybe an early model, you know, one that needs to be replaced.
It's like Optimus past his prime.
Yeah.
Quite proud of that.
Dad joke.
All right, here's a scary thing.
ChatGPT4 apparently hacked 53% of the systems it tried to hack.
And the way it did it was having one agent that controlled a bunch of other agents that were also AI.
And the other AIs worked as like sub-teams.
And then the one agent coordinated the work.
And when they organized it that way, it became sort of a super hacker.
Great.
Great.
So now we have AI that can basically break into, oh, just about any secure system.
But can you join me in a little bit of appreciation for the people who do our election systems?
Because even though AI obviously can just slice through most security protocols, isn't it lucky that of all of our systems getting hacked, I mean, remember when we thought Russia was in all the Ukraine systems?
Recently we heard that probably China is already in all of our infrastructure systems, the most secure places you can imagine, but they're already in.
But thank God nobody's got into our election systems.
Am I right?
Yeah.
Standing ovation for the election system people who you know are the best of the best.
Because when you get your degree in computer engineering and you're thinking, where do I want to work?
Well, suckers want to work at Google and Apple with their big high pay and their benefits and their stock options, all that stuff.
No, if you're the best of the best in technology, you say to yourself, how can I work on the elections?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because the best of the best goes into the election security field.
Wouldn't you?
I mean, just think about it.
Think how sexy that sounds.
You want to get laid?
Don't say you work for Google or Apple.
I mean, they're all right, but it's not going to get you laid.
But if you say, yeah, I work on election security.
Did I say election security?
Yeah.
Basically, panties will be flying off at that point.
You could even avoid sex if you said you're working on security for the elections.
So that's the one thing we can be sure of, is that we're getting the best of the best on the election systems, and that's why we can be 100% sure they've never been hacked, even when all of our other systems seem to be hacked quite easily.
But no, no, the best of the best are protecting us on election security.
All right, now Politico is reporting that Trump is attacking COVID vaccine mandates, and public health experts fear it's just the start.
All right, so we've got Trump on one side, and on the other side would be public health experts.
I remember when that didn't used to be a tie.
Do you remember when you said, well, I'm certainly going to be backing the public health experts.
Like I'm not going to be backing like a politician.
Well, that's dumb.
I mean, maybe I'd back him if it was a political question, but I'm not going to back a politician against the public health experts.
Well, unless you check the track record.
How many of you beat all of the health experts for the last five years?
My track record, beat all of the health experts.
I mean, not everyone probably, but the average.
I don't bet you would say the same thing, right?
There were so many sketchy things during the pandemic that every ordinary person just said, I'm not so sure about that.
Maybe not.
Hmm.
So yes, Politico, this doesn't sound just the way it used to.
It used to be that this would be, wow, Trump is such an idiot for doing something that the public health experts don't think is a good idea.
No.
At this point, if I get a prescription from a doctor or a prescription from Donald Trump, it would be a fucking tie.
I don't like it.
I don't like it.
But look at the track record.
Right?
And I'm not saying you should be your doctor, obviously.
But if you were to actually look at the track record, the non-experts beat the experts.
So what are you going to do next time?
What are you going to do next time?
Literally.
Well, I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to be really careful about trusting the experts.
Remember I told you that all the smart people are on the same side?
Well, Dana White, on politics at the moment, so Dana White was talking about Trump getting the big reception at the UFC fight, and Dana White says, you know, it's not even so much political, it's just common sense.
And that itself is sort of a political statement, because of course it's political.
But the other thing he didn't say, that I think is the bigger story, Trump got a standing ovation at the UFC Not because it's political.
Not because it's common sense.
It's because it was men.
See, that's always the big story, and we try to ignore it because saying it out loud would change everything.
No.
If you take Trump into any large auditorium filled with men, unless the event was the Democratic National Convention, Trump is going to bring down the House.
Because men.
This was a male event.
It wasn't a political event, and it wasn't a common sense event, and it wasn't even a Trump event.
This was men.
That was the story.
If you're talking about it any other way, you're missing the whole story.
It was men.
All right.
And so I'm doubling down and tripling down on my statement that at this point, there literally are no smart people who are also for Biden.
There are smart people with TDS, and there are smart people who are easily hypnotizable, which is a theme that I'm getting to.
All right.
I keep seeing stories of people who used to vote Democrat or Independent, but now say, Things are so bad that I'm going to back Trump.
You've all seen those stories?
Have every one of you seen, let's say more than one, if you're following the news?
Seems like every time there's a focus group.
You get one of those.
Now, the focus groups will often all say that they support Biden.
Of course, because, you know, half the country seems to.
So you see these two things.
You see people who have switched from Democrat to, even if they're still Democrats, they're going to vote for Trump.
And then you see plenty of people who like Biden.
What's missing?
Is there a dog not barking in that information?
Something like really glaringly jumping out obvious that just doesn't get mentioned?
Yes.
There's not a fucking person in the world who recently, recently, changed from Trump to Biden.
If that happened even once, it would be all over TV.
You don't think MSNBC would be running every day?
All right, we found some voters.
They used to like Trump.
They were solid Republicans until, until that felony conviction.
Now, can't vote for somebody with a felony conviction.
Do you know what the weakest part of the Republicans is?
Is that something like a quarter of Republicans will put principle above winning.
That's their weak spot.
So that felony thing amazed me that some significant part of the Republicans would say, you know what?
You know, I'm not going to vote for him on principle.
But then you're going to lose, and you're going to lose the country, and maybe die, and everybody will be basically way worse off, and it's an existential risk to have a guy with no brain as your president.
And we can plainly see it.
And Republicans will say, I raised my kids to believe that character matters.
That's it.
I'm not going to vote for a felon if I'm raising my kids to think that character matters.
To which I say, why did you teach your kids to be losers?
You should give me five minutes with your kids, maybe I can fix that.
Because you just turned your kids into losers.
If you're trying to win on principle, that's called losing.
That's just losing.
Now, win first, and then you've got some freedom to do some things on principle, from a point of power.
But you don't lose first.
Losing first is not a strategy and it's not noble and I don't have any respect for it whatsoever.
I understand that because the people who are drawn to the Republican Party are pretty principle-based.
It's a strong principle-based group.
And by the way, that works most of the time.
It's a real good way to be.
And most of the time it doesn't make any difference.
Like most of the time you're applying it to, I don't know, I'm not gonna let my kid join the Boy Scouts because there's something I didn't like.
Now that's a principle that you're losing in the sense that your kid doesn't get to be in the Boy Scouts, but you're not losing much.
Not losing much.
In that case, yes.
Yeah, let's push the principle.
Because maybe in the long term that can move the problem.
But if you're looking at an existential threat, and you're watching people who look like you and think like you and act like you being put in fucking jail, you're watching your ability to buy groceries drop to zero, No, first you fucking win.
First fucking win.
And then you got some flexibility.
But I don't have any respect for we have to lose on principle.
I have no respect for that.
It's not strategically smart and it doesn't allow you to win on principle in the long run either.
It's just another way to fucking lose.
So the Democrats know that Republicans will reliably be principle based even to their own destruction.
Anyway, Supreme Court has a bunch of interesting cases that could change everything.
So, I feel like almost everything we're saying about everything doesn't matter until we hear the Supreme Court.
Now, I wasn't quite up to date on what things are ready to judge, but Axios did, and I'm going to give Axios some credit here, at what looked like a completely unbiased article about what the Supreme Court is working on.
And I kept looking for the bias, because it's Axios.
I think it was actually a straight article.
And the reason I'm calling it out is, well, didn't expect that.
But here are some of the things.
Presidential immunity.
There are two federal cases they're looking at.
And Trump's handling of the classified documents could turn on that decision.
So what if it makes the whole Mar-a-Lago thing just go away?
That's a pretty big event.
Pretty big event in both ways.
Because people will say, we got to pack that court.
You know, it's even more important that we get rid of Trump because the court keeps agreeing with him.
But that's a big deal.
And it looks like the court might give Trump what they call a partial victory.
So we don't know what that really means.
Then there's the January 6 obstruction case.
So they're looking at the question of whether obstruction, as defined in the law, the law that was used against the January Sixers, apparently the obstruction was drawn up for a more specific situation than that.
In other words, it was for the Enron-Sorbanes-Oxley Act.
The case centered around using the Enron-inspired Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and some people say it wasn't really created for that purpose, so extending that to the January 6th protest is too far.
I think it's too far.
To me, it looks like the Supreme Court's going to rule that, believe it or not, that the January 6ers didn't break any laws.
I think it's going to rule.
That everybody in jail didn't break a law, unless they did some violence or some damage.
But if they were just protesting, the worst law was trespassing.
And that's not a jailable offense, usually.
So that's gigantic!
I'm seeing some agreement from my legal minds.
All right.
Then there's the abortion pill.
Every one of these is just fire.
Like everything, it looks like you could change the election.
So there's an abortion pill, Mifepristone, and the question is whether it can be legal.
Because it gives you, let's see, it will decide whether the FDA has the authority to allow it, I guess.
To get it without a prescription, maybe?
Is that what it is?
Because nearly two-thirds of all abortions are performed just by taking the pill.
That pill.
The abortion pill.
So anyway, no matter which way this goes, it's going to be an issue.
Suppose worst case scenario for the Republicans is that they get their way.
Then they get a second way to lose on principle.
Good job, Republicans!
You found another way to lose an unlosable election.
Great!
Why don't you find a way to make abortion the top topic and make it look like the Republicans are the only thing that prevent you from getting this pill?
Could you be dumber?
Now, obviously, it's not the Republican Party who's pushing these Supreme Court cases, but whoever is pushing them is almost certainly Republican, and unless it's an op, Where somebody's pretending to be a Republican just so they can get this issue there.
This is just the dumbest thing I've ever seen Republicans do.
You couldn't wait a year.
You couldn't wait a year until it doesn't matter so much to the election process.
But if the Republicans lose, and if they lose because this anti-abortion looking thing happens, God, do you deserve it?
You so deserve to lose.
If this is your, gotta have my principles, you just deserve to lose.
I mean, I'd hate to see it, but God, you're just begging to lose.
And then there's another one about emergency abortion care.
Same thing.
Did it have to, did it have to be a month before, you know, a few months before the election?
Really?
Crazy.
All right.
All right, what else we got going on here?
Tons going on.
It's all fun.
Oh, and then one on gun rights.
Whether the bump stock ban was too far.
So, great.
So now the left that is most animated by abortion and guns will have an abortion, maybe two abortion decisions and a gun decision that they're not going to like.
Let's talk about General Milley.
So, as you know, General Milley was the military guy in charge during the January 6th situation.
He was in charge in general, not just over that, but he was ahead of the military.
And Julie Kelly is reporting that during congressional testimonies, the legal counsel for the D.C.
National Guard noted that Milley's alleged fears of a, quote, Reichstag moment after the election So we have direct reporting, and even using a quote, that Milley believes that Trump was going to go full Hitler and burn down the Reichstag.
Maybe that's a symbolic statement, you know, not literally, but that he would try to stay in power by creating some kind of chaos.
In other words, General Milley, the top guy in our military, He's easily hypnotizable, meaning that he's as TDS.
Now I would like to suggest a standard for our leaders that I think we've never tested before, but in the military especially.
You should do a test to see how hypnotizable you are.
That can actually be determined.
And if this guy actually believed that Trump was going to do a Hitler takeover, like a military takeover of the country, become a dictator, there's something wrong with you.
In other words, you've fallen for your own party's propaganda.
So I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi believes the things she's saying, you know, about democracy ending.
I don't think Carville believes what he's saying about, your constitution's gonna be taken away!
We'll never get to vote again!
You do, you'll be taking your democracy away!
I don't think he believes that.
You know why?
Because Nancy Pelosi and Carville look to me like people who know enough about the real world that they're not hypnotizable.
They look like they're just operating in a mechanical world where if you do this it works, if you do this other thing it doesn't work.
That's what it looks like to me.
So it looks like they're both trying to do what works.
And that is not brainwashed.
But Milley was making policy decisions based on a hallucination.
And we know that.
I mean, we know from reporting.
We know that he actually thought he was living in a 1939 moment.
Now that's actually mental illness and or too hypnotizable.
So about 20% of the public can be easily convinced of just anything.
And you can test for that.
Now you'd have to test to figure out the best way to test for it.
But hypnotists do it all the time.
That's what a stage magician does.
Stage hypnotist.
A stage hypnotist looks at the crowd, gives them a suggestion, and then can tell with pretty good accuracy, maybe 80% accuracy, which people are going to be good subjects if they bring them up on stage.
Here's how easy the test is.
This is just one form of it.
The hypnotist on stage says, everybody put your hands together like you're praying.
The audience all does it because they're playing along.
He goes, now your hands are stuck together.
They can't move apart.
They're stuck together like magnets.
Pull them apart.
Then he looks at the audience and everybody in the audience succeeds.
They all pull it apart.
So you say to yourself, well, how do you know who's more hypnotizable?
They all pulled it apart.
You know, there's nobody who couldn't pull their hand apart.
You look for the small hesitation, right?
Now, if you're only listening, you can't see this, but the person who's not hypnotizable just goes like this.
The person who is hypnotizable goes like this.
There's just that little bit of delay and the hypnotist is trained to say, ah, there's one with about 80% accuracy.
And then they bring them up and they give them another little test.
Just something quick.
And if that doesn't work, well then it was a false positive and they send them back to their seat and they keep the ones that are kind of past two tests.
That's how it's done.
Now, if you can do it that easily as a stage hypnotist, there's probably some scientific version of that.
And you might be able to do it with sensors, you know, basically See if you can get somebody to respond to certain images.
There's probably a way to do it.
But I can't think of anything scarier than thinking that the head of our military believed he was in a 1939 fight with Hitler.
Just hold that in your mind.
The head of the military, I'm not making this up, believed he was in a 1939 moment.
1939 moment. Just think about that. And it was because he couldn't see through the bullshit from his own propaganda media on the left.
His own, I'm assuming he's leaning Democrat.
Isn't that dangerous?
I absolutely think you need to check these guys for susceptibility.
Yeah.
You really need to check.
All right.
Um, Stephen McIntyre does the, uh, he's at the app climate audit account.
Usually he's talking about climate, but, um, he has a quite analytical mind.
And so when he wades into politics, it's worth a read.
And he's talking about in 2019 and 2020, there were a lot, the, when we were talking about Strzok and Page and the FBI and all their messages, we saw their messages that seemed to be on point to whatever they were talking about.
But what I didn't realize is there's a whole bunch of redactions, and that what we saw was highly curated.
Now you say to yourself, well, that's okay, because a lot of it was probably just personal stuff and, you know, maybe secrets off point and stuff like that.
But we're not really in that place where we ever trust any kind of a political editing of somebody's words.
You just assume there's something there you wanted to say.
But it gets worse, and this is something that McIntyre noticed, is that the period that seems especially missing is about the time that there was some conversation with the Steele subsource.
So in other words, when the conversation was, was Steele's document good?
Or was the steel document coming from a source that you should have known was a fake source?
So during the time when the fake source should have been discussed by these same cats, those messages, there aren't any.
There's no reference to it.
Now, does that mean there's a smoking gun that they, they knew it was fake and that maybe they mentioned it, but those messages got edited?
Well, I don't know.
We don't know enough to say that.
What we do know is the thing we'd most like to know is not available.
So we're at the place where we don't trust any accidents.
Well, that's a coincidence.
Well, maybe there are no coincidences.
So, meanwhile, James Clapper was asked by some news person, I think it might have been on Fox maybe, but he was asked if he wanted to apologize for saying that laptop from hell, the Hunter Baden laptop, was possibly Russian disinformation.
What do you think Clapper said when asked if he's thinking of apologizing for one of the worst acts we've seen in America?
Do you think you want to apologize?
One word, no.
Why would he apologize for something that he did intentionally and worked exactly the way he wanted it to, and in his view, saved the country?
Why would he apologize?
No, he didn't make a mistake.
He made an op.
It worked.
It was kind of brilliant in the sense that it was pretty convincing.
And it probably moved the election.
It probably did move the election.
So here's somebody who probably overthrew the country and asked us to apologize.
No, because that's what I was trying to do.
I added that last part.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is my prepared comments for today.
And I'm going to double down and quadruple down on the fact that the smartest people you see on the left who are still supporting Biden Are clearly suffering from TDS.
Now, it could be that maybe that's my own bias speaking, but when I look at Bill Maher, just to take an example, he's got all kinds of logical-sounding opinions about everything except Trump.
As soon as he talks about Trump, it's either missing information, like he thought that police were killed on January 6th, For a while, I think he believed the drinking bleach thing.
I think for a while he believed the fine people hoax.
It's just a huge, huge, I wouldn't call it a blind spot.
It's a TDS.
But I also wonder if you could test those same people and find out if they're easily hypnotizable.
Let me give you somebody on the right who I can tell you for sure is easily hypnotizable.
Tucker Carlson.
I guarantee he's in the 20%.
I guarantee it.
And here's how I can tell.
As smart as he is, he's super smart.
As good as his content is, and it's super good.
He's one of the great treasurers of the country at the moment, in my opinion.
He does have a preference for believing in some of the wild stuff—demons and aliens and whatnot.
That is really a strong indication of somebody being in the 20% who are super hypnotizable.
Everybody's hypnotizable, but 20% can actually live in a world that doesn't exist.
You can create a world in their mind that's just not here.
Tucker has told us a number of times, in a number of different ways, that when it comes to sort of this fun conspiracy theory stuff, not the things that necessarily matter, because he says it directly.
You know, that his belief in some of the wilder things don't have a connection to anything you're going to do about it in the real world.
So it's really a luxury belief, or I'll call it an entertainment belief.
There are things that I believe just for entertainment.
For example, if you put a gun to my head and said, did aliens really help build the pyramids?
If you get this wrong, I'm going to blow your brains out.
I would say, no, probably not.
But if you don't have a gun to my head and there's no real world implication, I kind of like believing the aliens helped.
Do you see the point?
There are some things we believe just for fun.
It's just we don't always, you know, tell ourselves that's why we believe it.
But when it comes down to things that are going to kill me, completely different standard.
Yeah, all that imaginary stuff goes right away immediately.
And I go right to what matters.
I would argue that the people operating on Republican principle over winning are operating under hypnosis.
Because it doesn't make sense on a logical basis, and it's sort of obvious to the rest of us.
So I would think that they're essentially brainwashed into their ethical beliefs, which works most of the time.
Most of the time you want to brainwash children, at least, into having a good character, ethical framework.
It's what makes the country work.
So you don't want to get rid of that.
It's just that you have to understand what it is.
I hear that General Mark Milley is a decent family man.
Nobody said he wasn't.
Yeah.
You know, I don't have any trouble giving you that.
That seems like a Milley supporter.
Is Mark Milley a decent family man?
Could be.
Could be.
And if he is, if that's true, I would certainly praise that.
But that doesn't mean he's not susceptible to hypnosis.
He's clearly susceptible.
Let's take another example.
Sam Harris.
I think everybody can see that Sam Harris is logical, except when it comes to Trump.
And then there's just something going on that looks personal.
And then you're going to ask me about Mark Cuban.
Mark Cuban fascinates me.
Because whatever is going on with Mark Cuban doesn't look like Because he has some mental problem.
It doesn't look like he has TDS.
He just doesn't, he doesn't act like it.
Here's my best guess of what he was doing with DEI, and maybe also with Biden, but to a lesser extent.
I think he was steel manning the arguments.
Meaning, trying to give the best version of the arguments that the Democrats should be making.
Argument in favor of DEI, argument in favor of Biden.
And I'm going to give... Really?
The useful comment there was somebody said, he's bar Jewish?
Okay, I don't think that's relevant to anything I'm just saying.
It doesn't involve every single topic.
All right, here's my best guess.
I start with the assumption that there's no way that Mark Cuban is dumb, because he's been operating Way above smart for decades, right in front of us.
So can we eliminate he's not smart?
Can we just drop that?
Because that's such a low IQ take that he's not smart.
He's really smart about a lot of things, right?
You might disagree with him.
But when he does the DEI support and the Biden support, I think he might want that team to win.
But I feel like what he's doing is trying to present the strongest version of their best arguments.
Because he can do it better than they can do it.
And he did, actually.
And here's why.
I think he's testing their own arguments.
But he's doing it in a way that most supports the people that he loves and cares about and hires.
So imagine if you were working for Cuban, and you were one of the people in the categories that benefits from DEI, and you saw your CEO out there fighting for it, and you knew it was good, and you liked it, and you knew it was good for people like you.
Well, you'd be pretty loyal to that person.
Now you might say, but what about the white people who hate it?
Well, you can reliably predict that the white people will just put up with it.
Because they always do.
So what would be the best play for Merrick Cuban if he wanted his employees to be loyal and have a good reputation?
Exactly what he's doing.
Is that crazy?
Nope.
Nope.
I think that steel manning their argument and winning would be a gigantic win.
Meaning that if he gave the better version of the argument and actually made the day, and even people who disagreed up to that point go, Wow, that was a good argument.
I hadn't really thought of it that way.
So that's one possibility.
The other possibility is that he does his Mark Cuban best to say DEI is good, and he fails completely while we watch.
That's also good.
Do you get that?
If he sells his program because it's a good idea, and a good argument sells people, that's good, because he sold a good thing.
If it fails, that's good too.
Because it means the best argument on their side, which he is actually equipped to give the best argument on their side, didn't work.
And that it's not his fault.
He can show the flaws without being on the other side of it.
So, I'll give you two hypotheses and you tell me which one fits the evidence better.
That he's smart in every way except this one way, or that the intelligence you've seen him apply consistently in public for decades is universal, and that it applies to this area too.
And that I can't think of a better public service, if you think about it.
You know, you got your juices running, and you got all mad about him, and you thought, what is he, crazy, and he's a partisan, and he's got TDS, and whatever you thought.
But when he was done, he presented you the best version of their argument.
And also it presented it in a way that you could see a gigantic hole in it.
And the gigantic hole was that if everybody did what Mark Cuban says you could do, which is try harder to get better candidates, and then you've got all your diversity, then it can't be done.
Because there's a limited pool.
Maybe one company can do it.
Maybe Apple can do it.
Because people want to work at Apple so they could suck up all the people who are available and fit the categories.
But don't you think that Mark Cuban knows it's undoable?
Of course he does.
Of course he does.
Undoable unless you lower your standards.
And that has nothing to do with anybody's genes or culture.
It's just numbers.
So, I think that he presented a public service in the way that only somebody like him could do.
And when I say somebody like him, he had to have two qualities, maybe three.
One, super smart, and that's not the important one, because there are other super smart people.
Willingness to embarrass himself in public.
Have you ever noticed he has that?
Have you ever seen him at a basketball game?
Yes.
Mark Cuban has the willingness That if there's something to be gained, or at least nothing to be lost, he will embarrass himself in public.
That could include yelling at the ref until he gets a big fine.
Right?
It could be anything that he needs to do to make it work.
So as much as I disagree on DEI, I think that what he added to the process was really, really good because it was a serious, long running, Conversation with other super smart people, in public, on Axe, where he made his best, strongest argument.
In my opinion, he showed its flaws by showing this is the strongest argument, and it still had this giant hole in it.
That's useful.
That is useful.
So, don't discount him with the other people.
I think he's just playing a different game.
Or, let me generalize this.
If I'm totally wrong, which is certainly possible, whatever is the real answer is going to be something interesting.
It's not going to be that he was dumb or he was crazy.
It's not going to be that.
So I don't know what it is, but it's not going to be that.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say some words to the locals people.
If you haven't bought it yet, make sure you get a copy of my new book.
That's a combination of my two previously published books that are classics already, God's Debris and The Religion War, plus a brand new short story that completes The Ark of the Avatars.
It's number one in all of its categories, and it's the perfect Father's Day gift.
All right.
Bye to everybody on YouTube and RumbleNX.
I'm going to go talk to, privately, the wonderful local supporters.
