God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Project 25, Venezuela Crime Stats, President Obama, President Biden, Controlling Biden, VP Harris, Senate Intelligence Committee, Jeff Clark, Mar-A-Lago Documents, Joy Reid, Rachael Maddow, MSNBC Hosts Mental Health, Self-Gaslighting Hosts, Branding The Big Lie, Scott Galloway, 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
It will be marvelous, up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, human, smooth brains.
But if you'd like yours to go up to levels that are absolutely July 4th fireworks kind of spectacular, all you need for that is a cup or mug or glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
happens now.
Thank you, Paul.
Always appreciate you, if I don't say it enough.
Well, if you are watching the Dilbert Reborn comic that's only available to subscribers on X, Or people who subscribe to scottadams.locals.com, where they get lots more.
Wally is using artificial intelligence for his only health care.
Doesn't go well.
Doesn't go well.
Anyway, how many of you knew this historical fact?
That John Adams, President John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, they both died on the same day, July 4th, Four hours apart.
How many of you know that history?
You've all been taught that?
That John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died four hours apart?
And there was a little story about, I guess, when the first one died, when Jefferson died, or the other one said, oh, the other one still lives, or something like that.
So does that sound to you like a story that is real?
Do you think they really died in the same day?
You were told that, weren't you?
And history records it.
If you researched it, history would agree.
Do you think it really happened?
It's a little bit on the nose, isn't it?
A little bit too on the nose?
A little bit too perfect?
If you heard a story like this in 2024, would you believe it was real?
Giant coincidence?
Let me, you know, since we're watching the Democrats wake up from their long sleep to find out that the news about Biden had always been fake, and we're like, whoa, are you telling me that all the people we trust could be lying to us?
And it could take years to find out?
Yes, yes, all the people in charge could be lying to you for years.
Now let me ask again.
Do you think that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died on the same day?
Really?
Really?
Here's what I think.
They probably died around the same day.
But don't you think that if it was around the same day, There'd be a big pressure to, you know, make it sort of the same day.
I think being within a few days of the same day would be kind of a coincidence, but not nearly as remarkable.
But I feel like maybe they might have fudged it a little bit to make it sound a little better to the public.
What do you think?
I don't know.
I'm just saying I'd bet against it.
I'd bet against it being real.
Well, let's play Could Have Asked Scott and Saved a Bunch of Money in Science.
Turns out there's a new study.
amazingly, you won't believe this, but less than two minutes of looking at water outdoors, such as a lake or an ocean, is enough to activate your parasympathetic nervous system and lower your blood pressure and heart rate.
Science, let me talk to you for a minute, science.
The rest of you, I'm just going to take a moment, I'm going to talk to science directly.
Science, you know there's a reason that people vacation at the beach, right?
You know that lakes are a recreational destination?
Why do you think that was?
Is it because going to the lake makes you feel bad?
Is it because walking on the beach in the sun?
With the water lapping up against the beach?
Is it because people do that because it makes you feel bad?
No!
No.
You could have saved a little bit of time.
I've been to the beach.
Has anybody ever been on a beach?
And did you instantly feel like, oh, this is relaxing?
But you didn't know if it was relaxing until this study.
Turns out that what you were seeing with your own eyes and Feeling with your own feet and every experience you had is exactly what you thought it was.
I feel like we're in the age of Biden's brain, where science can tell us things that we all knew forever, and then we're supposed to act surprised.
No, we knew Biden was gone.
Okay, we knew going to the beach is relaxing, and we knew that relaxing Is good for all those things like high blood pressure and such.
Yeah, we knew that.
Could have asked me, save a little money.
The University of Cambridge has a hypothesis that has some data behind it that oxytocin could be a possible treatment for obesity and postnatal depression.
So let me see if I understand this right.
So the drug, or let's say the chemical, the chemical that you have in your body that sometimes you don't have enough of is the thing that makes you feel like you've got what you need and you don't need anything else.
Then if you don't have enough of that, you're going to need like something else to make you happy.
Well, okay.
You may have heard me talk about this for the last 20 years.
I call it my pleasure unit hypothesis.
That a human needs a certain minimum amount of pleasure, and if they don't get it, oh, they're going to do something to get it.
They'll break a law, they'll do illegal drugs, they'll do risky behavior, they'll have sex without protection.
Because humans absolutely need some minimum amount of pleasure, or else they'll just end their lives.
It's like, what's the point of being here?
Oxytocin certainly seems like it would be an obvious treatment for obesity and postnatal depression, because depression is because you don't have enough of the right drugs.
So if they give you the right chemicals, it seems like a good guess that that would make you feel better.
And obesity?
If you have the drug that makes you feel like you're connected and good and everything is fine, do you need to eat as much?
Well, you might love to eat, but you're not going to do it for emotional reasons because your emotional reasons will be solved by a chemical.
So I would say that's in the should have asked Scott category.
Yes.
If oxytocin is something you can actually give to somebody and it will act just like you produced it yourself.
Yeah.
I could give you another list of things that would cure.
Would you like the whole list?
It will cure just about everything, because it's literally the only thing we organize our life around is to get more oxytocin.
It's like the thing.
All right.
Bright Bar has a story that says that AI bots and other AI garbage is 42% of overall web traffic.
Wow.
So Akamai Technologies has this stat.
And so apparently the bots are 40% just AI crawling around and grabbing data.
And 65% of those bots are classified as malicious.
What?
65% of the AI is already malicious?
That's a lot.
Have any of you noticed that YouTube has turned into what they call the faceless channels, where somebody just gives an AI prompt and it creates a whole YouTube video?
So apparently now you could just use whichever AIs, I forget, and you could just say, give me a video about the Fall of Rome.
And then he just makes it.
There just won't be any real people in it.
It'll be sort of cartoony.
And so people quickly figured out that they can make these and make a fortune.
But what it did was it sort of ruined YouTube.
Because now YouTube is just all these faceless things that I could just ask ChatGPT.
I don't really need YouTube if it's the same thing that I can just ask ChatGPT and he'll just talk me through it.
Cause once you take out the people, I don't much need to look at the pictures.
It becomes almost an audio product after that.
So in fact, that's what I do.
I use chat GPT app and I just ask it the same things I would have looked for on YouTube.
So instead of looking for, you know, a pre-made YouTube video, I just say, Hey, tell me about this or that.
And it gives me basically a YouTube without the video.
Um, but I think that porn is largely going to be a dead industry on the internet because, um, I think AI will replace all the human women.
The human women will move to, um, you know, only fans, the attractive ones, and that will leave unattractive women in porn plus AI.
I think the future is that porn will just go away.
Because it'll all be just buried with bad AI stuff.
And just looking for it will be a pain.
And then the attractive women have already left the industry, I think.
That's what it looks like.
So I think the porn industry is dead, actually.
There's something you never thought.
Did you ever think the porn industry would just die?
I think it's already dead.
I think that Literally, it's just, it's just overweight ugly people in porn now.
It's, it's dead.
All right, so you've been hearing about this Project 25.
The Heritage Foundation puts out this real big document of things that they wish would happen if a conservative comes to power, or conservatives come to power.
And it involves, you know, every major agency and how they would be eliminated or changed and There's a list of conservatives who are ready to go for different jobs.
However, this is called by the Democrats a blueprint for fascism.
It's a blueprint for fascism.
So I think that's what Jane Fonda says.
And it would do things like get rid of the EPA and the Department of Education, dismantle the government.
Now, here's my question.
I don't know too much about what the word fascism means, but as Trump once famously said, I don't think you know what it means either.
Well, sort of paraphrasing.
But is reducing the size of your own government fascism?
Is that what that's called?
When you reduce regulations, in other words, you have less control as a government over the people.
So you're returning freedom to the people in the sense of getting rid of burdensome regulations, as they would see it, burdensome.
How in the world do you call that fascism?
I was pretty sure that was the opposite.
Now, have you seen any situation in which the news or people in it would tell you something that's clearly the opposite of what it is?
Joe Biden's sharpest attack?
Just to pick one?
President Trump is colluding with Russia?
51 people tell you the laptop is Russia disinformation?
Or has all the earmarks of it?
Yeah, we're pretty used to the news and the famous people in the news telling us the opposite of what is obvious.
And I think that might be new.
Would you agree that It used to be that people would say stuff like, well, I've got a secret source that said something.
And you say to yourself, well, probably not true.
But, you know, I don't see anything that would counter it.
It's just something that's true or not, and you can't tell.
But there's nothing saying it's not true.
It's just an unknown.
We've gone from unknowns to things you know for sure are true, that the people who should be telling you the truth are telling you you're not seeing.
Jake Tapper was apparently saying the same thing, that we're being asked to deny what we see obviously right in front of us.
Now he was talking about denying that Biden has little cognitive difficulties.
We all saw it, and yet part of the government and part of the media is trying to tell us that they couldn't see it.
Really?
Really?
No, you could see it.
Now, according to Red State, the Biden campaign, there's a Biden campaign official who's accusing the media of election interference because of the way they're covering Biden in the debate.
Wow.
So they're worried.
Just hold this in your head.
There's a Biden official, campaign official, who is willing to say publicly That correct news, which is that Biden is infirmed, correct news is election interference.
Accurate news is election interference.
Now, I could see how it would be, but you would have to have been in a coma for a very long time to think this is the point you want to make in public.
So, I guess the fake news isn't working for them the way it used to.
Alright, here's another shocking fact.
Allegedly, according to the Daily Mail, Venezuela had an epic drop in murder.
So the murder rate in Venezuela just went through the floor.
Not really, it's a 22-year low, down 25% or something.
And of course, the suggestion there is that the Venezuelan murderers and the repeat criminals Have been released from jail and sent to America, or if they weren't jailed, they just came to America.
And that the reason that the crime is low in Venezuela, compared to what it was, is because the criminals came to America.
Does that sound true?
Does that sound true?
Or does it sound a little bit too on the nose?
It's kind of clean, isn't it?
It's a very clean story.
Well, we're anti-immigration, and now Venezuela, their crime rate has gone down, so I guess that means all the criminals came to the United States, am I right?
Let me say, let me be as clear as I can.
That might be exactly what's happening.
I cannot disprove that claim.
Nor is it ridiculous on its surface.
Because we know lots of people are coming.
If you're a criminal, maybe it's a pretty good way to get a clean start.
So it's perfectly possible that that's exactly what's happening.
But have you ever seen any government data from the United States, such as California's job reports that we found out today have been completely fake, such as the major revisions of everything, such as the crime statistics that we report in the United States, which are clearly fudged?
Why would you trust Venezuela to have accurate crime data?
Of all the things that Venezuela is likely to do right, you think the crime data is in that list?
You don't think that maybe the government just wants you to think the government of Venezuela?
You don't think that maybe they just want you to think that they did a good job and crime went down?
Do you think that they even have good reporting in Venezuela?
Or do you think it's more likely that somebody stopped reporting?
Remember, it's like a failed state, but you think their data is good?
It's a failed state with accurate data.
Is that what you think?
They get a dictator, but they get accurate data in a failed state?
There isn't really a big chance that their data is correct.
You get that, right?
The odds of Venezuela's data being correct is close to zero.
Now, but I have to be, I have to be specific.
That doesn't mean it's not true.
I mean, it might be true that there's a whole bunch of criminals that used to be there that have moved to America.
I would assume some have.
I mean, you could say with some certainty, some number of criminals from Venezuela have made it to America.
I just don't know if that's behind the drop in the crime statistics.
So, here's a little test for you.
If you're going to mock the idiots, just be careful what you're believing.
Because this was a little bit too on the nose for me.
I'm not going to buy this one.
Could be.
I can't debunk it.
But no.
No.
Far more likely the numbers are wrong.
Or far more likely that it's just there's some kind of natural thing that's happening that just reduced the rate.
Let's see.
Remember the theory that Obama was really the one in control of Biden and that Biden was never independent?
It was always, you know, Obama was behind the scenes.
And I entertained that theory as well.
But it sort of conflicted with other theories.
You know, the other theory that the CIA is in charge, or that the defense industrial, you know, industry is in charge, but really that's also the CIA.
Or, I don't know, there's some secret advisor who's really in charge.
So we had lots of rumors of who's really in charge.
But I think you can rule out Obama was in charge of Biden, because the reporting is that Obama is not too pleased with Biden staying in the race.
And if Obama had all that power, Biden would already be out of the race.
So the evidence suggests that whatever Obama's influence was, it wasn't as much as Obama wanted.
Because I think he's complained about Biden before, as if he doesn't have any control, he complained.
And now it looks like he certainly doesn't have control over whether Biden bows out.
Now, it could also be that there are no real options.
We're just pretending there are options and there aren't.
But I feel like you can rule that out.
Now, I was surprised to see that somebody smart agreed with me.
Or even more rare, I agreed with somebody smart.
Because Mike Benz has pointed out that maybe it was always the Biden family that were the ones that were sort of connected to the, let's say, the intelligence community.
Maybe the fact that the Bidens were all over Ukraine tells you that the Bidens were the ones closest to the real power, and maybe that's why Obama had to pick Biden as his vice president.
It could be that Biden was the The CIA spec to make sure that, you know, Obama didn't get too far off, uh, off of the path.
Maybe, I mean, just speculating here, or it could be that the CIA liked both of them.
Could be that, but, um, so Ben's is, is suggesting that, you know, the Biden family and the CIA might've had a closer connection and they're even Even now, there was a ex-head of the intelligence community who was saying that as long as the head of the CIA is happy with Biden, we're in good shape because, you know, he has good advisors.
So the idea is that the country is not in trouble because there are real adults running the important stuff like the CIA.
And if the CIA, the head, is okay with Biden, well, then there's not really much of a problem.
Except that sort of gives away the game, doesn't it?
Could they be more obvious that the CIA is running Biden?
I mean, how am I supposed to take that?
How in the world would the CIA think that a degraded, you know, mentally degraded president is a good idea?
Under what scenario is that a good idea?
The only scenario I can think of is he didn't matter in the first place.
It seems pretty obvious that the person who would know who matters, the head of the CIA, if they're okay with this, and apparently they are, that really suggests that it's been a while since Biden had much real influence.
He might have just been caretaker for the office, and the office might be just a subsidiary of the CIA.
So, he's just a figurehead.
Could be.
That's one hypothesis that does not seem to be ruled out at this point.
All right.
Did you know, this is another Mike Ben's point out, that Kamala Harris was on the Senate Intelligence Committee?
Do you remember that?
Somehow I didn't remember that.
But she was on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Guess what the Senate Intelligence Committee does?
It oversees the CIA.
So in Congress, there's a group that oversees the CIA.
Sort of like a regulator, you might say.
What would you expect to happen of somebody regulating the CIA?
Well, on day one, maybe a little bit of regulating.
What happens ten years later?
Well, on paper, there's only one way it goes.
On paper, if you said, all right, there's a group of elected officials, and it's their job to monitor And sort of be the boss, in a sense, of the CIA.
Now you go out 10 years, what happened?
You all know what would happen.
The committee that was supposed to be regulating, so to speak, would be captured.
Just like every other regulator.
Because if the regulators have less power or money or they're less scary than what they're regulating, over time, The one getting regulated will be in charge.
It's true with everything we've ever seen.
Our medical situation, it looks like the FDA and the other organizations are just owned by the people with the money.
So, does it seem weird to you that Harris would be on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which one assumes by now should be owned by the CIA, which would make Harris An acceptable CIA candidate, if any of this is true.
By the way, I'm just in speculative territory here.
We have to guess on a lot of stuff because we don't know what the real government, we actually, we literally don't know what our government is.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to say that as of today, if I had to describe who's in charge of the government, I literally couldn't do it.
Not with confidence.
So we're left to speculate who's actually in charge.
And in what situations is who in charge?
So I'm just speculating, because I don't know who's in charge.
But on paper, if there's any kind of chaos, on paper, these spooks should end up in charge.
Because they have the ability, the power, the right skills, they have the right access.
On paper, they should always end up in charge.
There shouldn't be any other possibility.
And by the way, If the CIA was so lame that they couldn't completely control the Senate Intelligence Committee, they couldn't do anything else either.
That would be like the easiest thing they ever did.
You know, they're out there overthrowing countries like crazy.
You don't think they could get a lot of control over who the Senate Intelligence Committee picks to be on the committee?
Of course they can.
Chuck Schumer said so.
If you cross the Intelligence Committee, they have a, what do you say, Thousand ways from Sunday to get back at you?
Even, you know, even the majority, or was he a minority leader then?
Even they say directly, that's a very direct statement that they're in charge.
If the elected officials are literally afraid of them, and that's what Schumer said, he said that Trump should be afraid of them, which suggests that Schumer himself is afraid of them, that's who's in charge.
The person you're afraid of.
I mean, that's a pretty clear signal.
And I think Kamala Harris is becoming a clear signal as well.
All right.
Design is destiny.
So if there's somebody regulating the CIA, the CIA will eventually own them.
That's, that's guaranteed.
Well, now we have 25 members of the House that are Democrats who are preparing to call for Biden to step down.
25 of them.
Well, 25 is not that many.
You know, given the total number in Congress, 25 is not a lot, but it's more than one, one as so far.
But it's only the ones in competitive races.
So the ones who are safe in their re-election, they're just going with the flow because they don't need to do anything.
But the ones who are in trouble, you know, the ones who are actually going to lose their jobs are willing to say Biden is Not the guy.
Now, have I ever mentioned that sometimes you can predict the future by a little trick that I made up all by myself?
You've never heard of it.
It's called follow the money.
Now, of course, it's a famous, famous thing.
And follow the money.
Every time you see it working, you should say to yourself, there it goes again.
Keeps working.
Because if you can't predict the future by following the money, Well, you shouldn't be doing any predicting, because that's the easy one.
The easy one is follow the money.
So you've got a bunch of, you know, maybe 25-ish Democrats who feel like they'll lose their job and their money.
You know, nobody wants to go look for a new job.
So they would be the ones who would turn on Biden, and suddenly they can see all of his infirmities.
But the people who have no money on the line, And have safe jobs, they think he's fine.
So, could there be a clearer example that the Democrats are not even trying to represent the public?
Oh, big fucking surprise.
The ones who are going to lose money if Biden stays in, because he'll ruin the whole down-vote situation, the ones who will lose money are willing to say he'll go.
And the ones who won't lose money, I'm sure it would work the same way with Republicans, by the way.
It wouldn't be any different.
The Republicans would follow the money, because everybody does.
The reason it works is that nobody's exempt.
You know, if some big part of the country didn't follow the money reliably, then it wouldn't be such an easy way to predict what's going to happen.
But they do.
Everybody.
Religious people, non-religious, it doesn't matter.
They all follow the money.
Sometimes they have excuses.
They'll say follow the money.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, I guess coincidentally that those big old noble reasons that I gave you I guess you're right.
I hadn't even noticed, but it is compatible with my own financial benefit.
Huh.
I didn't really even notice it when I was doing my detailed analysis and making my mind up, but you're right.
You know, now that you mentioned it, I would make more money with this opinion.
Huh.
Yeah, it's a big fucking coincidence.
Well, according to Colin Rugg and some other people reporting that in the betting markets, Harris has already overtaken Joe Biden.
So if you were going to place a bet, the odds are that Trump is up close to 60% odds of winning against everybody else.
And Harris is now, you know, somewhere in that 15% range, barely squeaking out Biden.
Some of the betting polls are different.
So it's not, it's not every poll.
But I'm so mad because the easiest money I ever could have made, Would be betting that Kamala Harris would be the, you know, the candidate, but here's why it's a little bit tricky.
They're not really giving us a Biden or Kamala Harris option.
You think they are because your brain is still in the normal world in the normal world.
If you had a, the top of the ticket was clearly mentally incapable and everybody could see it in a normal world.
You would replace that person with somebody who is at least not mentally deranged.
So that would suggest, well, it's definitely, you know, Kamala or somebody, but you know, not going to be Biden.
That's the normal world.
You don't live in that world.
This is not the normal world.
Let me tell you the most likely outcome.
It doesn't mean it'll happen, but here's the most likely outcome.
And Biden's, uh, the rate of his failing health will be the determinant.
Biden's not going to drop out unless he gets a lot worse fast.
And he might be so worse that he can't make the decision to drop out because he's not thinking right.
So we may be past the point where he is coherent enough to even know he should drop out.
So we might be stuck.
But here's the thing.
Was there really some chance that anybody but Kamala Harris was going to be considered?
And the answer is, if you've been alive for the last five years and you weren't in a coma, you know that they could not, could not skip over Kamala Harris because she's black and female.
And by the way, there's a California, uh, California politician who says it directly on video.
There's no way you're going to skip over the black woman.
Because you're going to lose black women voters, and then you're dead.
You can't win.
So, the threat is there, it's direct, and it's public.
You can't do it.
And, of course, they know they can't do it.
They are the DEI party.
They can't ignore DEI just because it got inconvenient.
That would blow the whole game.
So they're stuck with it.
But here's where I think many of you might be wrong, especially the betting markets.
I don't think she's going to be officially at the top of the ticket on election day.
I think they're going to run the Schrodinger's candidate.
Now, you remember Schrodinger's cat?
Famous mental experiment where you put a cat in a sealed box.
There's some radioactive decay and if it goes a certain way the and you can't tell because it'd be a randomized process The cat would be dead because it would release a poison and if it went if the radioactive decay went a different way The poison would not be released and when you open the box the cat would be alive So and then the the weird physics of it, which you could debate is that until you see the cat it is neither alive nor dead is in a superposition or
Or that it's only in a state of potential.
Potentially alive, potentially dead.
And you don't know until you open the box.
Because, according to physics, things don't solidify until they're observed or measured somehow.
So, here's what the Biden-Harris team appears to be doing.
And this is my prediction.
Biden will still be top of the ticket on Election Day.
No matter how degraded he is, so long as he can still talk.
If he's on machines, it might be different.
But I think they're going to say, you know what?
Here's the proposition.
Here's my prediction.
Democrats will eventually settle on the following message.
You're voting for Kamala either way.
That's it.
That's the message.
We're going to run Joe Biden at the top.
But we all agree that he's going to step down as soon as he gets elected.
So whether Kamala goes to the top place and runs, or she stays as vice president and runs, in both cases, you're voting for Kamala.
But here's the beauty of it, the psychological beauty.
And remember, we're in a stupid world.
So what I tell you next, you're going to say, but Scott, that's so illogical.
Right?
Right.
It is.
And it's what they're going to think and do something completely illogical and very predictable.
And it looks like this.
They're going to run the Schrodinger's candidate.
They're going to say, if you like Biden, vote for Biden.
You're going to get Kamala Harris, but if you don't want to vote for Kamala Harris, you don't have to.
Because Biden's right there.
Vote for Biden.
But suppose you want to not vote for Biden, because you can see that would be a disaster.
What do you do then?
You vote for Kamala Harris by voting for Biden.
Because in both cases, you get Kamala Harris.
It's just, well, there's really only one situation.
You're going to get Kamala Harris.
Because there's no way that Joe would get elected and continue serving.
We all know that, right?
So we don't know if it's the day after the election, the day after inauguration, six months in, but nobody, nobody thinks that if Biden got elected, that he's still the president in six months.
Nobody thinks that.
It'd be 25th Amendment for sure.
But, so there's my prediction.
So if I were to go to the betting markets and say Kamala Harris is going to be the candidate, I could be right and lose the bet.
You see the problem?
Because if they simply run as the same package that they said they were, because all the paperwork is done and they're on the ballots, if they simply just do what they say they're going to do, that's really Kamala Harris running.
There's no way around that.
No smart person would disagree with that statement.
That at this point, If it's Biden at the top of the ticket, it's a Kamala Harris race.
So here's the thing that you weekend speculators are missing.
They don't have to do anything.
No change is necessary to get everything they want.
They'll leave Biden in for everybody wants to vote for him, but really it's Kamala.
And everybody who wanted Kamala to be at the top of the ticket would say, you know what, I guess it is a little late for that, but we'll just take it the other way.
You know, we'll just wait six months.
Which would be quite reasonable.
Just wait six months.
So then everybody in the Democratic Party gets everything.
The stupid way.
The stupid way.
By running the guy with no brain, but telling you that you could have it either way.
You could have a Biden or you could have a Kamala, which is really just Kamala.
But if you like Biden, why don't you vote for Biden?
He did a great job.
Why don't you reward him?
Reward him with a vote for Biden.
But don't worry, because it's just Kamala.
It's Schrodinger's candidate.
They're really going to run both of them.
And one is dead and one is alive, just like the cat.
It's kind of fascinating.
But here's the thing.
If you think it's not going to be Kamala, either as the second part of the ticket or the top, every path is Kamala.
It's all Kabbalah all the way.
It never was anything else or any other possibility.
There was never a possibility of Michelle Obama.
Never!
And she just confirmed that it's not in her soul.
And let me tell you how to read an honest versus a dishonest answer.
Here would be a potentially dishonest answer.
If Michelle Obama said, I have to be honest, I haven't even thought about it.
Well, that would leave the door open, wouldn't it?
All you have to do is think about it?
Or how about if she said, Joe Biden is the nominee, that is the end of it.
Well, that would be leaving the door open a little bit, wouldn't it?
It would.
How about, you know, I don't think I could win.
Well, that would be leaving the door open a little bit.
How about, you know, I haven't had an interest in politics.
No, but you could.
You could get interested to save the country.
So there are a thousand ways she could have said that she's not interested, that you would say, hmm, the way you said it, though, the way you said it makes me think you might be.
But she didn't do any of the thousand ways that would leave the door open.
She said, you have to have it in your soul to run for office.
I do not have it in my soul.
It's not going to happen.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is 100% proof she's not going to run.
You do not say, it's not in my soul, unless you're really, really not going to run.
Because you don't want anybody to ask you later, well, what about that whole soul thing?
You're running, but I'm not sure you're into it.
She's basically poisoned her own candidacy.
By saying my soul isn't into it, you can't take that back.
Now, Biden said he wasn't ready, you know, because he had a death in the family or something.
Not ready is saying that you will be ready.
She's not saying later I'll have a soul for it.
She's saying I don't have the soul for it.
And there's no way you get elected once you said you don't have the soul for the job.
That is a poison pill that she gave to herself right in front of you.
Hey, hey, morons.
Do you see this giant poison pill?
It's called It's Not My Soul.
I'm going to take this right in front of you.
Will you please shut up?
Stop saying I might be president.
Shut up.
Watch me eat that.
It's like, what can she do to convince you?
No, there was never any chance she would be president.
Or run for it.
All right.
What about those Mar-a-Lago boxes?
If you're not following lawyer Jeff Clark for all of the lawfare stuff about Trump, you're missing a lot of great takes.
So Jeff Clark, look for him and follow him on X. And he says in a post today, it's now dawning on the left that the argument I've long been making Regarding the Mar-a-Lago documents, the case is correct, that whatever else is true, Trump declassified the documents, and then he puts it in asterisks, by course of conduct.
In other words, the mere act of saying put these in the boxes and send them to Mar-a-Lago, by any reasonable person's judgment, would be a declassification, because there was no formal process that he had to follow.
So the fact that he was sloppy with the sort of informal process, Would be irrelevant, because he's the president.
So if he acts in every way as though documents are being declassified, and certainly packing them up and sending them outside of the White House and outside of a secure environment, would be the clearest possible indication that he doesn't expect them to be classified.
Now, whether he said it or not, I think you have to give him the benefit of a doubt.
And it wouldn't matter what president it was.
I'd say the same thing.
I think on that gray stuff, You gotta give them the benefit of the doubt.
You just can't run the presidency if every little gray area slows them down.
So, Jeff Clark says, turns out that now it's been confirmed that Trump has immunity for official acts, that's the Supreme Court case, that taking the documents with him to Mar-a-Lago means no criminal liability can attach, because it was an official act That by his actions, he declassified the documents.
Seems right to me.
Now this, by the way, was exactly my take from the beginning.
That he didn't have to say the words, because there was no process.
No guaranteed process.
There was, you know, an informal one.
There was a traditional one, but not one that he had to follow.
All right.
CNN is getting heat for what the left-left thinks is CNN trying to take Biden out of the race.
So they think that they biased the debate.
They didn't.
They think that the CNN people are somehow pro-Trump, or at least not anti-Trump enough.
I don't see it.
But I guess if they're not getting what they want, the MSNBC people, They don't like it, so they don't like CNN.
All right, let's see what else.
So there's a video that's viral, just so you can visualize it.
There's a young black man who's on some kind of a Zoom call with a young black woman.
And he's asking her who said the following quotes.
And he gives a bunch of quotes that are all Joe Biden quotes.
Every one of the quotes is Joe Biden.
And the young black woman says, oh, that's Trump.
Oh, that was definitely Trump.
And she says Trump for everyone.
Now, these are the historical comments that Biden has made.
The sound.
Some people say racist.
If the, if the shoe were reversed, I would probably say he wasn't, but that's what they're saying.
So apparently the actual words of Biden, when heard out of context makes a young black woman say, well, that's gotta be Trump.
Cause that's racist as hell.
And when she was told that every one of those comments came from Biden and none of them came from Trump.
She was instantly flipped to, what the hell is going on here?
Now, I don't know if she would, I don't, that doesn't mean she's pro-Trump, but everything she thought about Biden versus Trump, she suddenly realized was wrong.
It was fascinating.
And I would love to see how many times you could reproduce that.
Cause I've seen that same thing on street interviews before, where you just give the quotes of Biden and everybody thinks it's Trump.
And they, the young people, especially, they all think it sounds super racist because we're all woke.
And, uh, it blows their mind when they find out they're wrong.
Blows their mind.
It's fun to watch.
I'd like to see more of it.
All right.
Um, as you know, Biden's new attack on Trump is that Trump is a liar.
Now we've all watched Trump and we know that the fact checkers get exhausted when he gives a rally.
We know that.
It's all baked in.
But most of us have come to the understanding that he lies like a salesperson.
In other words, he's a productive liar.
In other words, he's lying for your benefit.
Because we all want to get a deal.
If he says, my economy was way better last year than you remember, well, you could call it a lie.
Or you could say he's trying to get elected because he would be the best one to help you with the economy.
That would be a productive lie.
You know, bending the truth, hyperbole, a little exaggeration of what he accomplished, maybe even some made-up stuff.
And if he'd get elected, he would be very transparent, because presidents are, and we would see if he's doing things for us, and if it was like the first four years, you'd probably like a lot of the stuff he did.
So, here's my question.
If Biden is saying that Trump is a big old liar, and that's why you should not vote for him, I was trying to think, and this is not a rhetorical question.
It'll sound like I know the answer.
I don't know the answer.
But I was trying to think of anything that Biden has said of substance that's true.
I couldn't think of anything.
Now, that doesn't mean that he hasn't said a true thing of importance.
I just know I couldn't think of one.
I couldn't think of anything.
Nothing.
Every topic I thought of, the way he talks about it is a lie.
So he either has a hoax, or he has wrong facts, or he's leaving something out, or he's just wildly making something up.
I mean, think about the categories.
We know all of his personal stories are complete bullshit.
We know his complaints about Trump are 100% hoaxes.
Every single complaint about Trump is based on a hoax.
No exceptions.
All of his complaints are based on a weird interpretation of reality or a hoax.
And then he, you know, of course he presents his record in a misleading way, which they all do.
They all do.
So he's lying about his personal anecdotes.
He's lying 100% about Trump using hoaxes.
He lies about his record, they all do.
And he lied about his health, his mental health.
What's left?
This is not a rhetorical question.
Because I don't want to be hanging out there if there are examples to disprove me.
So I need you to disprove me before somebody who doesn't like me disproves me.
Please tell me Anything he said of substance, you know, something about the campaign.
What has Biden said of substance that was also true?
I couldn't think of a single thing.
Can you?
What did he say this week?
That he had a cold, and then he said that he was tired from traveling, even though he had like a week to get over it, he was still tired from traveling.
He said that Trump got dictator powers from the Supreme Court.
None of those things are true.
100% of everything he said in the last few days was false.
I think everything he said, probably everything, at the debate was a lie or out of context.
Am I wrong?
Can somebody tell me if there's anything of substance he says at all?
At all.
Anything that isn't misleading, intentionally, out of context, or just a flat-out lie.
I can't think of a thing.
Not a single thing.
So, Joy Reid is hilarious.
I'm going to try something here.
I'm going to see if I can share my screen.
I may disappear.
We'll see what happens.
Let's see.
Start my screen sharing.
This will be interesting to see if I can pull it off.
Hey, look at that technology.
It's working.
Now, that's Joy Reid.
Let me see if I can try to make that bigger.
And tell Joe Biden what to do.
And Dr. Joe Biden and apparently even Hunter telling him what to do.
So let me tell you what this show is going to do.
We're going to pay all of that the same amount of attention.
The same amount of attention will go to that.
All right.
I'm not sure if I disappeared there or not because I was skipping back and forth, but watch Joy read.
And see if you get the same vibe I do, which is a mental health crisis.
Now, I'm not saying that strictly for political reasons or because, you know, I don't like her team.
Honestly, it comes across as severe mental illness.
Even one eye looks like it's not open.
Like one of her eyes is like, You know, going crazy, like her brain is not firing right.
And the things that she says are so wildly ridiculous that it just looks like mental health.
And then, you know, a minute later, Rachel Maddow will come on and she just screams bad mental health, which she's admitted, by the way.
She has a long-term mental health problem, which is all over her face.
And I feel bad for both of them.
So if it sounds like I'm just being mean, that's not my intention.
I actually have empathy for them.
They look like they're having a crisis, and they're acting it out in their jobs.
Unfortunately, it's affecting us.
And then Jane Fonda was in some event in which she was talking about Trump, and she just seemed batshit crazy.
I think we've got to stop ignoring the obvious.
The problem is mental health.
You tell me that all of the hosts of MSNBC are not seeing therapists.
Seriously.
Do you think Joy Reid is not seeing a therapist?
Do you think Rachel Maddow is not seeing a therapist?
Do you think the others are not seeing therapists?
I would guess every one of them is.
I don't know.
I mean, I'm speculating.
But they don't just have A different opinion.
Here's the difference.
I've watched Jake Tapper, you know, forever, and often disagreeing with his takes.
Have I ever thought he had a mental illness?
No, not once.
Not once.
I don't know, you know, exactly what he's thinking.
Nobody knows what anybody's thinking.
But he doesn't look mentally ill.
And if you were to look at, you know, let's say Wolf Blitzer or, you know, any of the CNN gang, None of them look mentally ill, even though I've often, you know, greatly disagreed with their takes.
They look like they believe them, you know, at least in a non-crazy way.
And the bifurcation of the media on the left into CNN, which I would call a normal Dissenting voice meaning that they're not always going to agree with the administration.
Sometimes they might Versus the ones that just are batshit crazy And I think it's still a male-female thing.
I think the women have scared themselves Well, not themselves.
I would say that the Democrats have gaslighted themselves To the point where the people with the weakest minds among the Democrats Believe the gaslighting because they don't get the real news And they're in a panic.
And I think Republicans are safer because they recognize it for what it is, which is some kind of weird brainwashing propaganda thing that seems to affect the people doing it and not the people they're trying to do it to.
Well, I mean, the Democrats are unified, but Republicans don't look at any of this stuff and think it's real.
Literally, I watch MSNBC for entertainment, because I just can't believe it.
It's just weird and wacky.
Now, do you think that they have the same view when they watch Fox News?
I don't think so.
I think they think the Fox News people are lying or evil, but they're not crazy.
I don't think so.
Let's see, Rachel Maddow had Stormy Daniels on Yesterday.
Yesterday.
Do you think Stormy Daniels is a relevant guest to have on in our current situation?
I can't think of anything that would be less useful to the country than to hear a little bit more from Stormy.
Now what's that?
I mean that just, again, that just looks like mental illness instead of even somebody doing their job.
That doesn't even seem like serving the customers at all.
And what is it that?
Oh, well, OK.
This is what Joy Reid said.
We begin tonight with reality, which is sinking in.
I'm not going to gaslight you.
You saw it.
I saw it.
Everyone who frantically texted me saw it.
Now she's talking about Biden's bad performance.
So she says, I'm not going to gaslight you.
Why would she say that?
Why would it seem necessary to say, I'm not going to gaslight you?
I've never said that in my life.
Do you know why?
Because it's not in my mental model that one of the things I might ever do is gaslight you.
Here's another thing I've never had to say.
Hey Bob, don't worry, I'm not going to get a chainsaw and cut you in half.
Do you know why?
Because we would both know that would not be in the set of possible options.
Don't worry, I'm not going to flap my wings and fly away.
Nope.
Not one of the options.
The fact that she said, I'm not going to do it, suggests strongly that she has done it and knew it was an option.
So yeah, this is my hypnotist filter.
The hypnotist filter says there are no accidents in the choice of words.
And indeed, choice of words is what hypnosis is.
It's knowing that some words are more active than others.
That's a simplification, but basically it's that.
And when I see somebody choose those words, which is a very unusual choice of words.
When is the last time somebody said to you, I'm not going to gaslight you, when the topic was something you saw with your own eyes?
Yeah, we all saw with our own eyes.
So I'm not going to tell you, you didn't see it with your own eyes.
Why is that even a topic?
Unless she knows she does it sometimes.
That's my speculation.
And then she says, It is straight up fascism if you're to combine a Trump autocracy, a fully Christian nationalist Republican party in control of both houses in Congress, and the current Supreme Court majority.
Wow.
Katie, bar the door and unleash the devil because we would be finished as a democracy.
I don't even know where to start with that bunch of crazy shit.
Should I start with, we haven't been a democracy ever, we're a republic, that's too obvious.
Should I start with presidential autocracy?
Yeah, the autocrat is who her president wants to put in jail for lawfare.
How do you ignore that?
And the other guy's the autocrat.
So that's the batshit crazy woman update.
I would say that what we're seeing is not politics anymore.
The whole Biden situation, it's very divorced from what I'd call politics.
Now it's about Democrats who have poisoned the minds of other Democrats.
The real issue here is what Democrats did to themselves.
To pretend that this is now about Democrats versus Republicans, that's not exactly the top line.
I mean, that's happening too.
But the top line is there's this massive mental illness that was caused by Democrats poisoning their own minds with non-stop hoaxes.
On paper, you were going to end up here.
Suppose I told you one of the political parties is going to completely forget about even trying to be honest and just do hoaxes all the time.
What would you predict would be the outcome of that?
Well, you would predict that the people who watch hoaxes all day long, and then inevitably they find out that they're in a hoax, hoaxocracy, that they get all kinds of mental disabilities from that.
That's what happens.
But you could have predicted that from the setup.
Here we are.
Here's another prediction.
You know, I always talk about systems being better than goals.
And sometimes I say, Democrats like goals, and Republicans like systems.
And that, more than any other reason, is why I'm a registered Democrat, but I prefer Republicans.
I prefer them.
Because they're systems-based.
Religion is a system.
Christianity is a system.
Working hard and staying in a jail is a system.
Going to jail, learning a skill, getting a family, making sure that you get married young, have some kids.
That's a system.
And they even talk about it that way.
You know, the family unit is a good system.
You know, having a religion, it's a good system.
They don't usually use the word system, but they do talk about institutions and things that have worked before.
Systems.
What did the Democrats say?
Gotta make everything diverse.
Well, how are you going to do it?
Well, we'll just make unqualified people get hired.
That's not really a system.
That's more like you start with the endpoint, and you just hammer it in.
You know, you're missing the whole build-up to it, the useful part.
So, I would say that if you had predicted what would happen if the Democrats go hog-wild with DEI, and then you combine that with a thoroughly fake news industry, where would you end up, if that's all you knew?
All you knew is they were going to go big on DEI, without a system to get there.
And that the media would be lying about everything.
Right here.
You would be right here.
You would be in a place where the country is doubting reality itself.
All right, we'll get rid of full screen joy.
All right, so if you want to break the brains of the Democrats completely, Try telling him that Trump is not a felon, he's not a convicted felon, and it's unlikely he'll ever be one.
Do you think any Democrats know that?
It's true.
He's not a felon, because the judge has not, you know, done whatever's the official thing the judge has to do.
So it's not official until it's entered into the record.
So they've been calling him a convicted felon, and he's not.
Now, to their credit, They were saying it because it was just a matter of, you know, some paperwork.
Not anymore.
It's not a matter of some paperwork now.
Now I'd bet against it.
I'd bet against it because he's got that ruling that, you know, he's got some immunity that may require a redo or a throwing out of the case, but at the very least it would push it till Trump is president and then all bets are off.
So, It's entirely possible, I would say even likely, that Trump will never be a felon.
And that's a reality that the Democrats have been living, and the reality that they successfully law-fared him, they turned him into a felon, and it never happened.
It never happened.
How are they going to handle that?
Imagine being at this point with what they're finding out about their media lying to them.
Imagine finding out for the first time, well you know he's not a felon, technically, and the odds of him becoming one just went really small.
Are you aware of that?
They're not gonna like it.
I saw a funny comment from just a user on X named John Ekdahl.
And he wrote this one sentence that made me laugh.
He goes, man, journalists are going to be so surprised when they hear about all of Joe's shady business dealings.
Do we have another round of this where the Democrats suddenly find out that Joe Biden has some shady connections to money from other countries?
Are they going to say, hey, have we got a scoop for you?
We think.
Some of Hunter's money from China and Ukraine may have ended up in Joe Biden's pockets.
I know, I know.
Hard to believe.
Well, here's the good news.
President Biden says grocery costs are too high for families across the country, and we have a plan to tackle them.
It's good.
He wasn't specific about the plan, but I do have some behind the curtain, um, little special, I guess you could call it breaking news and maybe, uh, an exclusive, really an exclusive.
I do know Joe Biden's plan for making your groceries cost less.
Uh, it's something called Ozempic.
Uh, and you get it in a shot and the shots will be mandatory.
What?
Why are you laughing?
No, that's a good plan.
What, did you miss the whole pandemic?
If there's something that can save your health, and it's happening all over the country, the government can make you get a shot.
Now, what would you call obesity?
What would kill more people, the pandemic or obesity?
Well, you know the answer.
Obesity will be far more deadly Then the pandemic.
Now, if the pandemic caused them to force you to get shots, you know, to go to school and work and travel and stuff.
Why wouldn't they do the same thing for grocery prices?
Right?
You could cut your grocery prices in half by eating less.
So I think he's going to reduce the demand for groceries by giving mandatory ozempic shots.
Because why not?
Let me put it in a different way.
If the president sat down in front of you and said, what was your reasoning for making these, uh, the COVID shots mandatory?
And he would say something like, well, COVID was a deadly thing.
And, uh, we had to make sure I was protecting the country.
And if I hadn't, people would have died.
Now you can, you could argue about the reality of that, but that would be their case.
Their argument for why they made it mandatory for, let's say, flying and stuff like that, was that it was a big health crisis, and there was a treatment, the shot, and so the government thought it should make it somewhat mandatory.
At least they would pressure you to get it.
How is that different from obesity?
Find me any way that that's different.
Obesity is more dangerous, There is a shot you can take that has some side effects.
It's not risk-free, but it's been tested.
Why not make 300 million doses and just start giving that stuff to every overweight person in the country?
Can you imagine how much better our health would be if we had mandatory ozempic shots?
No, I'm not in favor of it, in case it's taken out of context.
This will be taken out of context, of course.
But tell me, what's the difference?
See, that's the interesting thing.
There isn't any.
There isn't.
All right.
So it looks like MSNBC is going to pivot their hoaxes from Biden is sharp to the January 6th zombie hoax.
It's a zombie hoax because As obviously not true as it is.
Can't die.
And they're going to call it the big lie that the election was rigged.
The big lie.
What would be a bigger lie than the president does not have dementia?
That's about pretty big.
I call that pretty big.
Anyway, the fact that they've pivoted to calling the idea that the election was rigged a big lie.
Why would they do that?
Remember, we're gonna do the hypnotist test again, about the choice of words.
If you just wanted to say, the election was not rigged, why do you need to brand it?
Why don't you just say, there's no evidence, it wasn't rigged, it was clean, had a good election.
But no, they call it the big lie, so it sounds Nazi-like, right?
That's what the big lie refers to.
It's a Nazi reference.
So they're acting like Nazis.
Well, you could say it's the opposite.
Let's not argue they're Nazis.
Rather, let's say, why would they say that the election rigging is the big lie?
Why do they have to brand it?
What's the branding telling you?
It's telling me that they know it was rigged.
That's what it tells me.
To me, that's a strong signal that they're completely aware it was fake.
Because if they thought it was real, they'd say, look, you idiots, show us some evidence or just shut up.
Elections are fine.
You wouldn't go so far as to brand it the big lie.
Unless you're using it to cover up the big lie.
You know, remember everything they do is projection.
So if they say it's a big lie that the election was fake, they're basically telling you as clearly as possible the election was rigged.
You can't get more clear than that.
Now again, this is the hypnotist filter, and it's based on the fact that people choose their words not by coincidence.
It's not a coincidence.
They're calling it the big lie because it was true.
That's the only reason they would call it that, honestly.
Well, Scott Galloway is basically saying that Biden is gone and the Democrats are likely to lose.
But Galloway is not in favor of Trump because he thinks he's Basically unstable and dangerous.
So Trump is unstable and dangerous.
Here's a question for Scott Galloway.
Having awakened in a world where you found out that everything about Biden's health was made up and fake, and in a world where the main campaign theme of Biden, the main campaign theme, Was the fine people hoax, which even Snopes has debunked, and he's probably aware of that by now.
So, the two biggest claims of the administration are known to be hoaxes.
There's no question about them.
But yet, he's still believing that Trump is unstable and dangerous.
How do you wake up from two gigantic hoaxes And then think that the same people who told you those two hoaxes are right about this dangerous part.
Or do you think that he came to that conclusion on his own and was not influenced by the news?
That's rhetorical.
We're all influenced by the news.
If the news had not covered it, as Trump was the problem, he wouldn't have that opinion.
Because that's an assigned opinion.
You can tell an assigned opinion from a real one.
The assigned ones just agree with the narrative that you see on the TV.
Those are assigned opinions.
And the way they assign them is they just shade the news and leave out context until you agree with whatever they're selling.
But it's kind of amazing because Galloway would be unusually smart and unusually, shall I say, streetwise.
You know, the common sense kind of good smart stuff.
And having broken free of several major hoaxes from his own team, he's still clinging to the most ridiculous one.
The president that we had for four years and didn't cause any of this.
Didn't cause any of this.
And we're looking at a president who started the Ukraine war, basically.
I mean, to imagine that these are somehow equivalent risks is something you couldn't get on your own.
You couldn't just look at the information and come to that conclusion.
You would have to be a little bit brainwashed.
All right, my favorite story that doesn't really have any importance, but Candace Owens is getting into a little online fight with Constantine Kissidan.
Now, I don't know what Constantine's middle name is, but I hope to God it doesn't start with the letter K. Anyway, so Constantine Kissin was kind of mocking Candace Owens.
Candace Owens did a video in which she's so... I'm going to paraphrase, so don't blame her if I paraphrase it wrong.
She's got a sense That science has been so unreliable lately that even things that you would have accepted without question are now on the table.
For example, the moon landing, which she's increasingly doubtful about, but also she brought up the flat earthers.
And she said something along the lines of, you know, you never know.
Sort of allowing that science is so bad, That maybe even the Earth is flat.
Now, I took that as sort of a playful hyperbole.
Meaning, I don't know if she believes that literally.
She's just sort of putting it out there to make an extreme point that science has not been reliable lately.
But Constantine, who's got some, I think his family's got a science-y background, I think his father was a scientist, etc.
So he's pro-science, as a lot of people are.
And he mocks Candace and he says, it's true, for too long big science has convinced us that the Earth is round, against all the evidence.
What a relief it is to finally see this spurious theory challenged.
Perhaps now our planes, ships, and vehicles We'll at last be able to navigate the planet.
I mean the flanet.
So he was making a joke.
Flat Earth and planet.
The flanet.
So I had to get involved because, well, sometimes I can just be an asshole.
Sometimes there's no reason.
Sometimes it's just for fun.
So I weighed in and I said, I said, the round earthers are a cocky bunch, but not as cocky as we simulation believers, who think that none of it is base reality, including your belief in shapes.
I debunk your belief in shapes.
Now, I'm serious, but I'm not serious.
I'm not serious that I care too much about the debate.
And trying to insert myself into it was really just for fun.
But I think it's kind of cocky to take anything that science says is definitely true and imagine that 200 years from now you'll agree.
Take any point in history, any point, then take a dart and throw it at a list of all the things we thought were true according to science.
Let's see where the dart landed, and then check that thing in 200 years.
Do you think it'll still be true?
Probably not!
We keep revising everything we know, and we think we're done.
Like every 50 years, we're like, finally, we got everything figured out.
We got the molecules, we got the Big Bang, we got it all figured out.
And then 100 years later, we're like, How did we ever think it was all about, you know, particles and, you know, what's a wave and what's a particle?
How did we think that?
Well, I think that we are inevitably, and probably the easiest, I think this is the easiest prediction I'll ever make.
It will become a much bigger thing that we might be a simulation.
And the reason is we're going to build a simulation, and there's no way to stop it.
We have AI.
We know how to build software environments.
I would be surprised if it doesn't already exist.
You don't think that somewhere there's an AI avatar in the game that is already living its life, and is programmed not to know it's an avatar?
Of course!
Somewhere!
Because AI can do that for you.
You just have the AI being the brains of the NPCs in the games, and you tell them you program them.
You believe you're real.
You are base reality.
If anybody questions you, nope.
Make sure you argue you are base reality.
And it would look exactly like us.
We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Now you're going to say, but Scott, um, you know, he could just look around his fake world and he could see the pixels.
Can you see your pixels?
No.
All you have to do is put one line of code in there that says you will see everything clearly even if it's not clear.
Your brain will just interpret everything as a clear picture.
That's all you need.
And it will just tell you what not to think and not to look at so that you don't accidentally discover that you're not real.
Easy peasy.
So once we build our own simulations, and people are convinced, holy hell, I'm watching this little character like I'm God, you know, because he doesn't know he's being watched, but you're watching the 3D version of somebody living their life, and you will observe that they act and talk like regular people in the real world, and if you quiz them, they'd say, no, no, no, I think I was put here by God, or some version of that.
As soon as you see we can do it, and that's less than a year away, if it's not already done.
As soon as you see we can do it, you'll know you're in one.
Other people will be harder to convince, but most people will say, oh god, you got me.
Yeah, we're a simulation.
We have to be.
All right, so we cocky simulation believers say, you just wait.
Your time is coming.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for today.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to talk to the beloved local subscribers privately.