All Episodes
Aug. 31, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:05:49
Episode 2583 CWSA 08/31/24

God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Slider Phenomenon, Neo Beta Robot, Beta Male Societal Value, Repetition Persuasion, Economic Consumer Polling, Nicole Shanahan, DNC Power Move, Defective Kamala Harris, Defective Joe Biden, President Trump Labeling Genius, Kamala Body Language Analysis, Susan Constantine, Bill Maher, Reid Hoffman, Mike Benz, Brazilian X Ban, Elon Musk, US Censorship Push, Laura Loomer, Jeff Walz, Tim Walz, Censorship Brainwashing, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
do do do do rum pum pum pum pum pum pum pum good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Would you like to take this up to a level that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brain?
Well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or a stein, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Mmm.
Extra good.
Well, today's a little bit special.
Because I'm going to completely change the lives of some of you.
That's a promise.
Now, it's sort of a statistical promise, because I can't get you all.
And you don't all need any kind of an improvement.
Some of you are just right the way you are.
But for some percentage of you, I'm going to give you a reframe in a few minutes.
It's not right away.
That will completely change your life.
And some of you will say, damn, was it always that obvious?
And then you'll say, all right, I'm going to go change my life.
And then you will.
This is actually real, by the way, you legitimately, if we get a hundred thousand people to watch this, which would be typical and a hundred thousand, I'll bet you, I will change the lives of five to 10,000 people completely.
So that's my promise to you.
But first let's talk about this overdue book from a Virginia library.
Huh.
Why would that be an interesting story?
Well, you be the judge.
But there was a book returned to the library that had been missing for 50 years, and that was the new record for a book returned to a library.
50 years.
Do you know what the record was before that, for the same library?
I know, that's what you're wondering.
You're like, what was the record before that?
Well, the record before that was nine years, but I'm proud to say it was my book.
So before that, the longest a book had been out from the library was my book, The Dilbert of Future, from the mid-90s.
And it was described as a cartoon self-help and joke book.
Oh, it's so much more than that.
But yes, my book is so good that people will steal it from libraries.
Yeah.
That's better than a five-star review.
How good is it?
It's so good, I'm not even taking it back to the library.
So, I felt pretty good about that.
As you know, I'm what's called a slider.
I'm one of those people who makes lights blink when I go by them.
Street lights and other things.
I now have three separate lights in my house that blink continuously.
One in the kitchen, One on the far end of the house, by the dog door, and one in my master bedroom.
Different lights, different situations, all three of them blink, blink, blink.
True story.
Can I explain it?
No.
Now, here's a question for you.
How often in your life has it been true that your car is working fine, there's nothing wrong with it, no lights are on, don't need any service, at the same time that all your major appliances in your kitchen are also working?
Now, for most of you, that's fairly common, isn't it?
For me, it's never.
Any time in my life has it been true that my car doesn't have a light on and that all my appliances work.
So my car has been to major service twice this month.
I've had a dishwasher repaired, a coffee maker, a refrigerator.
I'll have the third repair on it.
I woke up to another kitchen full of water.
That's my normal life.
There's nothing unusual about that.
So electronics just go around me.
I don't know why.
So here's a small sounding story that's big to me.
So the Amazon Digital Assistant, whose name I shall not say, because it will activate all of your Amazon Digital Assistants who start with the letter A, L-E-X-I-S.
But they're going to be upgraded with AI.
So they had not had real AI until now, but sometime this year they'll have it.
Now, most of you are saying that's the smallest little unimportant story.
Not for me.
I have those devices around my house and all the major rooms, and I talk to them all day.
The trouble is that talking to them goes like this.
Hey, name of device, what's the weather today?
I do not have control over the kitchen.
No, I said, what's the weather today?
It's two o'clock.
No, what's the, what's the weather, the weather today?
The top news story is, no, shut up.
What's the weather?
So if you could actually make those devices understand what I say on the first try, like AI does, AI understands you really, really well.
And then maybe just have a conversation with it.
It would be completely life-changing.
This would be the Star Trek moment for me.
Do you remember in Star Trek when the crew would just talk to the ship and there would be some AI thing running the ship and they would just sort of hit their little communicator and talk to it?
That will be me in just a few months.
I'll be just in my spaceship here talking to my computer.
Can't wait.
I really can't.
By the way, that's not a joke.
I'm actually very excited about it.
It's transformative.
There's a story coming up which would explain this better, which is that in Japan, I think there were over 30,000 people who died alone at home in the past year.
I saw that number somewhere.
Imagine that.
In Japan, over 30,000 people died alone in their homes in one year because they had a massive loneliness problem.
Imagine what will happen to your loneliness problem if you can just talk out loud in any room of your house and there's some intelligent entity talking back to you.
It's completely transformative.
Trust me, it's a big, big deal.
It just doesn't seem like it yet.
Well, speaking of AI and robots, there's this new robot getting a lot of attention today.
It must be close to release.
It's called the Neo, N-E-O, and I guess it's a beta version.
So all of the video calls it the Neo Beta.
And here's the funny part.
The robot is actually designed to act like a beta male that does whatever you want.
Oh, may I grab your purse for you, miss?
And it shows what looks to be a single woman with her beta male robot that just does whatever she wants.
And it even calls her over for a hug.
And I'm thinking, did they really have to put the beta part on there?
I mean, it's a little bit too on the nose.
So if you're wondering which humans would be replaced first, it's beta males.
Beta males will be replaced first.
And is that a surprise?
No, no.
Because if you were to rank the importance of human beings, that would be a horrible thing to do, wouldn't it?
But we could all do it.
Meaning that if you were in the lifeboat and somebody had to be thrown overboard, we could all make the same decision about who goes first, if you know what I mean.
So, you know, your rank is usually children are first.
Although if you're a Democrat, it might be women are first and children are second.
But, you know, men are going to be lower on the list.
And then the beta men, the beta males, literally have the lowest value in society.
So the beta males got replaced first.
Surprise!
Who needs a simp when you've got a robot?
So I'm sure they could have made them so they didn't act exactly like beta males.
But if you're going to make them look like that, don't call it the Neo Beta.
That's all I'm saying.
I know they're using beta in a different way.
It's just funny.
Well, two more stories about major breakthroughs in battery development every single day.
These are different stories.
I'm not telling you the same battery breakthrough story every day, but there are two more.
This is a big, big deal because you need your batteries for your robots.
You're not going to have a world of robots unless the battery technology gets a lot better, and it's all happening.
Now, do you ever ask yourself, why is it all happening at exactly the right time?
Isn't that weird?
That exactly the time we need really, really big advancements in batteries, it's happening.
When do we need it for the robots?
Isn't that weird?
Anyway, that feels like a simulation situation.
There's a company, Etio Systems.
They've got a new thing that will get rid of all your forever chemicals in your battery.
That's a big deal.
You know, the ones that you can't get rid of otherwise.
And 20% reduction in cost and 50% increase in energy density, 82% decrease in energy consumption to make the batteries themselves.
There's another Tech Explorer has another story about Researchers, they figured out if you have a lithium battery, that how you charge it the first time can make a gigantic difference in how long it lasts.
So just knowing that little bit of information could double the length of time your battery lasts.
These changes in the battery technology are all gigantic.
This is one little tweak on existing technology, simply knowing that your first charge is the important one.
Presumably, they could do it at the factory, so it gets done right.
And it doubles.
It doubles the life of it.
Doubles its value.
These are gigantic changes.
Civilization-changing technology.
All right, University of Surrey had a research, and they found out that humans are most Well, they're very influenced by the repetition of messages.
And you can make something that's untrue seem true to people simply by repeating it over and over again.
Now, what do you think I'm going to say about that?
Huh.
They did research to find out that the more somebody repeats a message, the more likely you'll act like it's true.
Well, they could have just saved a little bit of money and asked me, because it's the most basic knowledge that every hypnotist knows.
Every advertiser knows it.
Everybody in marketing knows it.
Everyone in politics knows it.
You didn't even have to ask me.
Tell me, could they have asked you?
Could they have skipped all this science and just said, oh, I'll just use the phone book if that existed, and I'll randomly call somebody.
Hello.
Hi.
Oh, you don't know me.
It's a random phone call.
I'm trying to save some money on some research.
Do you think you could help me out?
Sure.
Well, we were going to research whether showing somebody the same piece of information over and over again would have any influence on what they believe to be true.
Yeah, that's obviously, obviously the case.
So you feel confident about that?
Yeah, totally.
You can skip all the research, save that money.
Thank you very much, stranger.
See, that's how they should have handled it.
Just randomly call a stranger.
Now, remember I told you I was going to change your lives?
Not all of you, but a solid 5 to 10% of you who watch this, either now or later, your lives will be completely changed by the reframe I'm about to give you.
You ready for it?
A lot of priming.
And it has to do with this obvious science that the more you see something, the more it changes what you think is true.
Here's the reframe.
Each of us spends a certain percentage of our day thinking about sometimes the past and thinking about sometimes the future.
Would you agree that so far you all agree?
Now, I'm not saying what's right or wrong.
I'm just saying that we all spend some amount of time thinking past, about the past, some amount thinking about what we'd like the future.
Here's the reframe that will change your life forever.
If you think about the past too much, it'll make you depressed and maybe fill you with a regret.
And you're also going to be thinking about somebody that you no longer are.
You're not the past.
So the more time you spend thinking about the past and the problems and the things you should have done and the things that didn't work out, the more you're guaranteed to be depressed.
Because what is true is what you think about the most.
So if you think about the past the most, even though the past doesn't even exist, it's gone.
You can't grab a piece of the past.
It's gone.
But if you think about it the most, it becomes your reality.
Now take it the other way.
If you think about the future and what it could be, if you make the right moves, you become like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He's someone who talks about visualizing the future.
You've probably heard other people, like probably Tony Robbins, maybe you've listened to me, and Jim Carrey says the same thing.
So you'll find tons and tons of super successful people who will consistently tell you the same thing, that they think mostly about the future and then they imagine the future they want.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's got a great documentary on Netflix right now, the story of his life.
I recommend it.
I haven't finished it, but I totally recommend it for the mental part.
So just as it is true that if a message is given to you over and over, you'll think it's true whether it is or not.
When you think about your past, that becomes your reality, and it's optional.
You can change the percentage of time you think about your ideal future, you know, an ideal future where you have some steps where you could actually get there, and that will completely transform your experience of life as well as your success.
So the simplest way to remember this is that the more time you spend thinking about your preferred realistic path in the future, And the less time you think about where you were, the happier you will be and the more successful you'll be.
Now, half of you just said, I already do that, Scott.
I know.
Remember, I've been going after five to 10% of you.
So some of you are just along for the ride.
And you're part of the productive change for the 5 or 10%.
5 or 10% of you just said, wait a minute, you just pulled together everything I was thinking about, but I didn't quite see it that cleanly.
Because you all knew that affirmations are good.
You all knew that positive thinking is good.
Right?
You all knew that thinking about the future and having a plan is good.
But I just simplified it in a way that will actually activate it for you.
If you're thinking about the past just say get out get out of your head So now I'm combining two techniques they get out if you're locked into your thoughts of something that happened Just say get out get out think of the future Think of what you want to happen tomorrow.
Think of what you want to happen in five years.
You can do it All you have to do is build yourself a little habit completely changes your life All right, well Complaints about air travel are up 12% since last year.
Tons of complaints.
This is more evidence of what I call the incompetence crisis.
We have a general incompetence crisis.
Where we expect that nothing that used to be simple will ever work.
I mean, even the most basic transactions that you used to think would work, I don't really think they'll even work before I try them now.
So, I don't know what's behind it, but we got a lot of incompetence happening.
I think a lot of it has to do with everything's more complicated.
You know, humans didn't get smarter.
But everything that we have to do got more complicated.
So that would get you to an incompetence crisis.
If not for the DEI programs, which has nothing to do with the people, has to do with the program would artificially require more demand than there is supply.
Short term.
Anyway, seven or some people say six in the news, U.S.
service members were injured in a raid in Iraq.
They went after a bunch of ISIS militants and killed them.
So we're still fighting in Iraq.
We're still fighting ISIS.
I hope that this is just, I think they call it mowing the lawn.
You know, every once in a while you have to go out and mow the lawn and just make sure that you get the new militants that are popping up.
So I hope that's not any kind of a big trend that's coming.
I hope that was just mowing the lawn, as they say, which is a terribly diminishing thing to say about human life, even ISIS.
All right.
According to the Wall Street Journal, American consumers are more optimistic.
So they asked 1500 voters in late August and a pretty big change.
So they asked about their feelings about the economy.
34% said it's improving compared to 26 in early July.
That's a pretty big move.
But 34% is, you know, still only a third of the country thinks things are moving in the right direction.
And then the share thought the economy was worse, fell to 48 from 54.
So, of course, that would be an equivalent change.
Now, so what do you make of the fact That now that you know that the more you hear something, the more true it is.
Even if it's not true.
So we just talked about that.
So then you look to the Wall Street Journal and you try to pull together these concepts.
Huh.
The Wall Street Journal says the economy might be improving according to consumers.
And if consumer opinions go up, then probably the economy will follow the consumer sentiment.
Because the sentiment makes them buy stuff.
Buying stuff is good for the economy, etc.
So, how do you read this story then?
Do you read the story as a true and useful piece of news?
I don't.
I see all the news within the umbrella of brainwashing and propaganda.
Everybody's got an agenda.
And when you get this close to the election and a major publication Tells you that people are thinking better about the economy.
How do you take that?
Well, if you saw enough stories that says, I think this economy is turning around, what would the public think?
They would think the economy is turning around.
And then they would vote for whoever did that.
So I don't really even see stories like this as news.
To me, they're newsy.
I mean, it's probably a true, true survey.
I'm not saying it's false.
I'm saying that what they decide to talk about is a decision about how much you see of every message.
If the news can decide how much you see of each message, then even what is true and what is false stops mattering.
Because remember, what you see the most is your truth.
That's what you'll act on.
So if they keep telling you things are getting better, well, maybe that's An indication that whoever's writing these articles might want a little bit less of Trump and a little bit more of Harris.
Maybe.
You don't know that.
I'm not a mind reader.
I'm just saying that's what you'd expect the more you see it.
All right.
Here's what Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr.' 's running mate, said on Fox News, quote, Democrats spend millions on lawsuits to keep us off the ballots.
Now that we've suspended our campaign, they're scrambling to keep us on the ballot.
You know, so you know the background of that, right?
So the Democrats were trying to make sure RFK Jr.
couldn't run, so they used all their lawfare that they could.
That cost the campaign millions of dollars to defend against all that stuff.
And then as soon as he said, but you know, I'm going to take myself off the ballot in some of these battleground zones so that Trump has a better chance of winning.
Now they're fighting the opposite fight.
Oh, well, you're on the ballot now.
You definitely staying on the ballot now.
Oh, we're not taking you off the ballot.
Nice try.
We're keeping you on the ballot.
So I've never seen a more naked abuse of power.
But here's my question.
How many Democrats are even aware of this?
It's on Fox News.
I'll bet every one of you were aware of it, because if you're watching this, you're probably news junkies like I am.
I'll bet every one of you knew it, that the Democrats went from trying to keep them off the ballots to trying to keep them on the ballots.
And none of this has anything to do with democracy or freedom or Or anything.
It's just a naked power move.
Now, I'm not saying that maybe Republicans would never do any naked power moves.
This isn't something that's limited to one side, of course.
But I guess the thing that shocks me is that it could be so blatant.
And the reason it could be so blatant is that nobody who's voting Democrat will ever even see this more than once.
They might have seen it once.
But if you only see it once, it doesn't become a thing.
Even though you know it's true, if you've only heard it once, it will never activate any action.
So the news could actually report this accurately, and say, well, they were doing this, but now they're doing this.
Or they could have Scott Jennings come on, and every once in a while he'll say, but, you know, remind you they did this, and now they're doing that.
As long as it doesn't come up much, It won't have any effect on Democrats.
It would have to come up over and over again before anything sinks in.
That's what we just learned.
So it's such a naked power play, but they can get away with it.
So this is Trump's new framing of Harris.
He said, quote, Harris didn't do a lot of interviews, but she's not good at it, I guess, which I think is everybody's bottom line.
It looks like she's not good at it.
Yeah, she's not good at it.
We'll talk more about that.
And he says, quote, I think she would have been better off if she just did interviews, even if they weren't great.
It would have been better because now everyone's watching and now we see she's defective.
She's a defective person.
And we don't need another defective person as president of the United States.
We just had that.
He is so good with framing and words.
I never really thought of that word, defective.
Not once have I ever thought that would be the right word to apply to any of the situation.
But as soon as you hear it, you say to yourself, oh wow, he found a way to tie dementia to whatever problems Kamala Harris has talking in public.
We don't know what drives that.
But they're both defective.
So he doesn't have to be any more specific than that, because as soon as you hear that word, you're like, defective.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's not like two regular politicians in a contest.
Kamala Harris does actually look defective.
Now, to be fair, the Democrats would say, but that Trump is defective in so many ways, but they don't use that word.
So it's just funny that he picked that word first.
They probably will.
You know, now that he's used it, if it, if it makes a dent so far, it hasn't, but if it makes a dent, they're going to, they're going to pick it up and say, you're defective.
Oh yeah, you're defective, but not until it works.
So it's not working yet.
But I love that choice of words, just tying defective Biden to defective Harris.
It does feel like, if you were looking at them as a product, well, let's put it this way.
All right, here's the best way to look at it.
If robots were a little bit better, and a robot could run for office, and there was a robot Harris, and there was a robot Biden, and they acted just like the real human beings act, but they're robots.
What would you say about the robots?
You would say they're defective, wouldn't you?
If you built a robot and it couldn't handle an interview, you'd say, ah, what did we do wrong with the robot?
It couldn't handle the interview.
If you made a robot that acted exactly like Joe Biden, You'd say, oh man, back to the drawing board.
This robot couldn't even do a debate without looking like it was glitching out.
So the fact that he uses like a robot name to describe both of them as defective, I don't know, there's just something perfect about it.
The timing of it is right.
Fox News had a body language expert talking about Kamala Harris, and I didn't see on the clip the name of the expert, so I'm not leaving it out.
Uh, by neglect, it just wasn't easily found.
So, uh, apologize to the expert, but, uh, there's a body language expert who said that, uh, Kamala Harris lacked confidence and presidential appearance.
That she was bobbing and waffling, showing that she didn't have confidence or she was unprepared.
And that, uh, it's an indication says the body language expert that her words were not matching her internal feelings.
Her words were not matching her internal feelings.
I felt that.
Now, I'm no body language expert.
Well, a little bit.
I mean, I do spend a lot of time looking into it.
It's within the persuasion domain.
But I wouldn't call myself a body language expert.
I just pay attention to it more than other people do.
But he said she would break her gaze.
If you watched it, did you notice how often she would look down instead of looking at the person she was talking to?
Who looks away from the person they're talking to?
I've done a lot of interviews with a lot of, you know, hundreds and hundreds of interviews.
I don't believe I've ever not looked at them when I was talking to them, if it was just the two of us on camera.
And imagine a person sitting right next to you, you know, like right to your left, instead of looking at them the whole time and talking, You spend a good deal of time like looking down to form your thoughts.
That's a real bad look.
Yeah, that's a bad, bad look.
It was like she couldn't make eye contact and also keep her thoughts straight.
So that's what you want negotiating with Putin.
Someone who can't make eye contact and also think at the same time.
It's a problem.
It's a big problem.
Byron Donalds was making similar comments about the body language on Fox News, and he said that when Kamala was asked about her family, she looks relaxed and she makes eye contact.
And I thought, ooh, Byron Donalds.
Good observation.
That is exactly correct.
When she's not lying, and you know it, because she's just talking about her feelings or her family or something, there's no reason to lie, she looks relaxed and like a normal person.
But as soon as she had to talk about policies, because she's got all that flip-flopping and maybe she's not the best at explaining her point of view, she looked confident and she had to look away and look at her hand and look at the table and look at everything else.
And Byron says, why does she have to do that?
Because she doesn't believe these policies and is trying to remember what staffers coached her to say.
Now, I can't read minds, so I'm not going to agree with Byron that that's what I can see in her mind.
But is it a reasonable Perspective that it certainly looks like that's what's happening.
Yes.
Yes.
From the perspective of that's what it looks like.
Absolutely.
But remember, we can't read minds, so don't go too far with it.
You know, Byron's in a political realm, so going a little extra far is sort of normal politics, but he can't read her mind.
He's just really good at communicating.
All right, Bill Maher's back from his summer break.
And he joked, I don't know, I don't know why we ever thought, talking about Harris, I don't know why we ever thought she was as bad as people thought she was.
She said that Biden had one bad night, but she had a bad three years.
She did, but she's fine.
So even Bill Maher can see that Biden was defective.
You know, there's no question about that anymore.
But more than that, that Harris has been basically defective for the entire time she's been in office.
Now, here's my question.
Nothing fascinates me more than watching Bill Maher navigate the situation in which he is very clearly aware at this point that he's on the bad side.
Now, he didn't start that way.
And indeed, as you know, I've had more Democrat voting and support over my life.
I just don't have it at the moment.
So if I look at the two parties, I say to myself, one of those parties looks like a pure criminal party.
One of them looks like they still like the Constitution.
They don't even look similar like a little bit to me.
There was a time when we used to say the parties are the same.
You know, Al Gore is going to give you the same thing as George Bush.
And that's not true.
But it's way more true that the difference is extreme at this point.
So if you're Bill Maher, and you obviously you're swimming in politics, it's your job.
How do you not notice that your team is the anti-democratic team?
Absolutely.
You know, keeping people off the ballots.
And he mentioned that, by the way, to his credit.
He's saying it directly, that his team is keeping people off the ballots.
He had Nancy Pelosi on.
Went kind of hard at her, but also jokingly, which is a perfectly good approach.
And I think he's very close.
Not to voting for Trump, but just totally treating his team like they failed.
And, you know, he's hinting around the corner, certainly leaning in that direction.
But we can all see that.
It's a separate question whether Trump is your best choice as president.
And I get that reasonable people could have a different opinion on that.
I wouldn't say anybody's crazy if they prefer a different president.
But if you're looking at what the Democratic Party is and how they act, it looks purely criminal to me.
Like, really criminal.
Like, super, super frickin' criminal.
And how do you not notice that?
It feels like, I think Bill Maher does notice it.
Because he's talked around it and about it, you know, about the details of it enough that it's obvious he's immersed and is understanding what's going on.
I think he probably, I can't read minds, probably thinks that it's correctable and maybe it's temporary and, you know, the party will normalize, but I'm not really seeing an indication of that.
So at some point you're going to have to break With your team, because you're just a criminal if you're participating with it.
At some point, you just become a criminal.
Now, I'm not... I don't want to call Democrats deplorables.
That's not where I'm going with this.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the people.
I'm saying that the people are in a situation.
They're in a brainwashing situation.
And the...
Let's say the signals that they've been brainwashed are so clear at this point that people are noticing.
The smart people first, right?
It's the smart people who are noticing first, and they're leaving first.
And I think the rest are going to start noticing that they're in essentially a criminal enterprise.
And you could hate everything that the Republicans do, and they could be political, and they could do naked political things like everybody else.
But it doesn't look like they're trying to be criminals.
It doesn't look it to me.
Anyway, big difference.
Reid Hoffman, as you know, one of the biggest donors to the Democrats, was on the all-in pod.
Now that's extra interesting because they would be people who have lived and dealt in the real world.
I'm sure they all know each other.
Saks and Hoffman have been part of the PayPal group, so they've known each other a long time, I assume.
So here's, I didn't see the entire pod, I just saw clips from it, and I've got a few suggestions.
My first suggestion is for Reid Hoffman, how to do an interview on video.
Now, if you're looking at me on video, The framing that you see in this video is roughly an ideal framing.
So, I'm a certain age and I'm not wearing makeup.
Which is, you know, typical on video stuff.
These days it's typical.
So, you don't want to get too close.
And it's creepy if you get too close.
Now, I would like to give you my impression of Reid Hoffman on the All In Pod.
This is going to be very disturbing to many of you.
You might want to look away.
So, let me tell you about what all the things I'm doing.
This is terrible.
Don't let this be what you look like on video.
Nobody wants to see this.
If you're male and you're a certain age, nobody wants to look at your damn face.
At all.
Certainly not like this.
This is the most disturbing thing that could ever happen.
Don't do this again, Reed.
That's my advice.
But also, you don't want to do a Dershowitz.
Have you seen Dershowitz?
The other big mistake is you put your laptop that has your camera on it too low.
So here's the other way to go.
This is the Dershowitz.
Don't do the Dershowitz where you're looking down at your computer.
Terrible look.
No, terrible look.
So, oh, let me show you what I have here.
I'll turn it around if you can see it.
Can you see this little table?
These little tables are perfect.
It's like six inches tall or something.
And if your chair is right, and you set it down on the little table, you get perfect.
Perfect video just like this.
By the way, this seems obvious.
It took me forever to figure out all these little tips.
So if you don't do it every day, I can understand why it's not as obvious.
So don't do that.
And then Reid was challenged on giving money to groups that are doing some anti-democratic stuff, such as trying to keep RFK Jr.
off the ballot and stuff.
And Reid Hoffman's answer was that Like a startup, he might donate money to a startup, but he doesn't have control of what all the employees do moment to moment or what the CEO does.
And so similarly, he was saying he gives money to these lots of different groups, apparently.
So he doesn't fund one group, he funds apparently numerous groups.
And I think he was acknowledging that some of them might be doing some things he didn't like.
Does that sound like a credible answer to you?
Here's what would be a credible answer to me.
Can you tell me the names of those places that did things wrong?
And so I can never give them money again, because that's terrible.
Now, that would be somebody who really didn't want his money to be going to non-democratic stuff.
That's sort of what you'd expect.
It's like, oh my god, yeah, you're right.
Some of that went to some people who did some bad stuff.
We have the names of those groups.
I'll make sure my money never gets to them.
Now, he did say that he had always been very clear that nobody should be doing any non-democratic stuff with his money.
But, you know, let's not exactly stop at anybody.
So, he also said that he believed what I'd call the fine votes hoax.
So, Reid Hoffman believed that when Trump called Raffsenberger in Georgia after the 2020 election, he said, we only need to find so many votes, that that was a clear indication he was asking him to cheat.
Now, how do you process that?
Because we know Reid Hoffman is unusually smart, but nobody smart believes this.
So how do you reconcile unusually smart with believing something that only a dumb person would believe?
Is that brainwashing?
Or is he lying?
Or is he just didn't know the facts?
Now, hold that thought.
Hold the thought that he thought that with lots of people listening, because Trump knew that there were people on the call, right?
So he believes that Trump, with lots of people listening, would ask somebody to cheat on the election so he could win the election.
That is an absurd belief.
A reasonable belief is that Trump really believed he won, Really believed that it would be obvious the election was stolen, and that it wouldn't be that hard to figure out how stolen it was if you were close to it like Raffensperger is.
So if they just, you know, maybe looked a little harder, they might find that some of the votes are illegally cast.
Something like that.
Now, the way I heard it, because I'm not Well, maybe I am.
I was going to say I'm not brainwashed, but when you're brainwashed, you always think you're not, so maybe I am.
But the way it looks to me is that if you really believe that he was trying to overthrow the country by telling somebody that he just needs to find X number of votes, I don't know how to process that.
But I'm going to give you one more hint That will help you maybe come up with a hypothesis of why somebody this smart and this connected to politics, because he has an interest in politics.
He's not a casual observer.
Why would he think something so absurd?
Well, you might say he's brainwashed because a lot of Democrats think the same absurd thing.
And they also believe a whole bunch of hoaxes.
So here's one way we could tell if he is lying intentionally.
Or he has been hypnotized by his own team.
One way would be if we knew that he believed another hoax, like a real obvious one.
If you knew that he believed some other real obvious hoax, and you were sure that he actually believed it, like not just saying he believed it, wouldn't that suggest that maybe the problem is brainwashing and not an intentionality?
Well, at the same podcast, He said that the protesters on January 6th, quote, killed police officers.
Killed police officers.
Now, you know that didn't happen, right?
And David Sacks said, oh, I can't let that go.
I gotta fact check that.
There were no police officers killed on January 6th.
And then he sort of retreated to, well, you know, the one died of something soon after, but it wasn't connected.
At least nobody's made a connection.
Um, and one of them may have taken his own life, but again, there's no suggestion it's connected.
So that was a case where I think that news has been told a million times.
Like how, how would you not know that the protesters didn't kill any police?
That's really important.
If the protesters had killed police, I mean, even I would feel differently about it.
So what does that tell you about the other thing?
So he believed that the fine votes thing was an attempt to overthrow a proper election, and he believed that police officers were killed on January 6th.
Or did he just say it?
And not think he wouldn't get fact-checked?
Because of course he would be fact-checked.
So I think he wouldn't have said it unless he thought it was true.
So it does suggest that brainwashing might be more active than some other motive.
But we don't know.
Can't read his mind.
So I don't know.
It's confusing.
I'm going to say there's no way that the problem is he's dumb.
Would you agree we can eliminate dumb as one of the explanations?
There's just no way he's dumb.
That's just not a thing.
He's very smart.
So if you eliminate dumb, then there's misinformed.
But it didn't sound like he was exactly misinformed.
It looked like he knew stuff But he was interpreting it through an absurd filter, and that's a tell for brainwashing.
So I'm going to go with he's actually brainwashed.
Now, he may have other things going on as well, but I'll just say that Elon Musk made a public prediction here that I have no evidence whatsoever that this would be an accurate statement, right?
So I'm not backing this.
I'm just telling you what Elon Musk said yesterday, I think, based on the, because of the Alden pod.
Elon Musk posted on X, he said, Reed is terrified of Trump winning and being prosecuted for being one of Epstein's top clients.
Yikes.
Yikes.
Would Elon Musk say that if he didn't have any extra information?
You know, beyond what you and I know?
Would he?
I don't know.
I mean, actually, that's an open question.
Would he do it without any extra information?
Like, what he knows is exactly what you know, that... and Reed has admitted he's used the... he had used the Epstein plane, but...
There's no indication whatsoever in the public domain that he did anything illegal or inappropriate.
I want to say that as clearly as possible.
I'm not aware of anything.
Just being on the plane is not enough for me.
Because the plane was used for a variety of things and obviously Epstein made his plane available as part of his networking and doing favors for people who might do favors for him later and stuff like that.
But none of that's illegal.
And probably not that uncommon for people who have private planes, and more than one of them.
So that's quite the accusation, and it makes me wonder if Elon knows something that we don't know.
But we don't know, so I'm not going to assume he knows more than we know.
It's just an interesting question.
Well, Mike Benz is Trying to wake up the country on the question of what Brazil is doing, and here's what he said today in all caps, and he doesn't post in all caps.
I think he's getting a little frustrated that he's clearly trying to tell us something really important, and we're not hearing it, and the government's acting like it's not happening.
I think he's in some kind of personal hell.
Where he can so clearly see what's happening behind the scenes, but describing it to the rest of us is almost impossible, which I said today.
So let me give you, here's what he said, in all caps.
If the Biden State Department, USAID, NED, whoever that is, and a thousand USG-funded gongos, that must be government organized, non-government, Organizations?
What's a gongo?
In Brazil, if they do not do the below actions on Brazil banning X, the Republican House of Representatives can zero out all of their programs in the budget.
All right.
Does anybody understand what any of that means?
What percentage of the general population of America Could read that statement from Mike Benz, who is a perfect communicator, by the way.
He's one of the best communicators you'll ever see.
It's the topic.
The topic has too many parts.
State Department.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, what's that got to do with USAID?
Who are they?
Wait, what?
Who's NED?
Never heard of them.
Wait, what, there's 1,000 USG-funded gongos?
What's a gongo?
What's it got to do with Brazil?
Wait a minute, is this the Democrats doing something?
Or is Brazil doing something?
Is it Bill Gates?
Is it the WHO?
Like, this story is impossible to tell, because we don't have enough background, and we don't understand what the parts are.
So, here's my thing.
I think 1% of Americans are able to understand what Mike Pence is saying is a huge problem, and I'll describe it better.
So here's my best summary of it.
The State Department of the United States wants to control all information in every country, including the United States, because doing so is critical to its goal of controlling everything.
Controlling other countries so we can use their resources and they don't become enemies and we can control the government.
Controlling citizens in America so that they vote the way the State Department would like them, in their view, what's good for the country, I suppose.
But part of the State Department is massively funding these non-government groups, many of which are active in Brazil.
To collectively support this idea of banning X in Brazil.
There's one judge in particular who seems to be the Hannibal Lecter of judges.
He just seems like this totally evil guy.
So, I think the bottom line is that Mike Benz is Trying to tell the Republicans in the House, because they still have the House, that they can cut the funding of these organizations that are operating against the interests of free speech.
But it's complicated.
So, does that make sense?
So let me just say it one more time.
The US State Department has massive funding for various entities around the world, not just American entities, but since they fund them, they control them, and those entities are collectively putting pressure on various government and private entities to censor.
And so basically the State Department is operating a massive censorship campaign Which has the effect of censoring US platforms like X in other countries.
And of course, those platforms need other countries to survive, right?
They're not just a one country business.
They need Europe, they need South America, etc.
So you can force American companies to censor Or you can make them gas-censored in other countries through all this, you know, various organized entities.
So, and the House would have the ability to cut those budgets if they don't cut it out and start acting like we'd like them to.
So, having explained all that, I believe that I could, if it were really well explained, instead of 1% of Americans understanding the risk involved here, I could get that up to 2%.
I just don't know what you do with this.
I mean, I'm actually, I'm baffled.
Mike Benz understands.
He explains great.
It's just really complicated.
So humans are not able to act on complicated stuff.
We just can't do it.
Cause we say, ah, I don't even know what lever to push.
What are you saying?
I'm going to go.
I'm going to go work on things I understand.
We're always going to be driven to things we understand over things we don't understand.
It's a huge personal impulse.
Meanwhile, Laura Loomer has a scoop.
I guess Tim Walz's brother, Jeff Walz, had not talked to his brother in eight years.
We don't know what that was about.
But Jeff appears to be either a Republican or at least anti his brother.
And he says, I'm 100% opposed to all his ideology.
He said that on a Facebook post recently.
He said, I've thought hard about doing something like that.
He says, the stories I could tell.
So this is Wallace's brother.
The stories I could tell.
Not the type of character you want making decisions about your future.
That's his brother.
If your brother says you're not qualified for your job, I think I would listen to that.
What does the brother know?
My God.
Anyway, the Trump campaign has a video ad mocking Kamala Harris for saying, my values have not changed, something she said in the Dana Bash interview.
And so it starts with, my values have not changed, and then it's a whole bunch of cuts of her saying things that she's in fact changed her mind on.
I saw Rahim Qasim, I hope I said that right, Pointing out the same thing I was going to point out, which is, it'd be better if you put her saying, my values haven't changed, in between each of the stories of the thing that changed.
Because you lose a little bit of the fact that her lie is not a little lie, it's gigantic.
So if you want to tie her to her values have not changed, I would really repeat it.
Remember, repetition is persuasion.
That's the lesson you learned today.
So they need to repeat the My Values Have Not Changed a little bit more in that ad.
I would re-edit it and reissue it.
Till Ball says some kind of political origin story.
Again, it's just one of these complicated stories, so I'll just kind of brush on it.
The Washington Examiner has the details.
So apparently he's long told this story of back in 2004.
He was a folksy high school teacher and he took two of his students to attend a campaign rally for George Bush as an educational experience.
And he says all three of them were denied entry because one of them had a John Kerry sticker On a wallet, blah blah blah.
And then they were interrogated and treated poorly, etc.
Now, the reporting is that none of that happened, that in fact they actually got into it, and that they were not students of his.
So they were not his students.
I think they were associated through some political group.
So they weren't students, but they had some legitimate reason to be there, I guess, with him.
So I'm not sure I care too much about his folksy story of how he got weaponized to become run for office.
But it does seem to be kind of a pattern that he lies about everything.
He seems to lie about everything.
Is he that different than the other candidates?
Well, uh, I haven't seen J.D.
Vance lie about anything.
So, so he must be different than J.D.
Vance.
I haven't seen, uh, when Vivek was running, I don't recall him lying about anything.
When RFK Jr.
was more actively in the race, I don't think I've heard any, anything that sounded like a lie.
You know, maybe he was wrong about some stuff.
That would be normal.
But lie?
I didn't hear any.
Nothing that I would identify as a lie.
So how about Nicole Shanahan?
So running with RFK Jr.
Did she ever tell a lie?
I don't think so.
I don't even think she's been accused of it.
So it turns out that we've, by the way, if you think about it, this is one of the most optimistic things you could ever hear.
I just told you the names of several candidates for president, you know, most of them not running at the moment.
Who, as far as I can tell, weren't lying about anything.
Just think about that.
Now, Trump is Trump, and he's going to use his hyperbole, and the fact-checkers are going to be all over it.
So he's a singular salesman, bullshitter kind of personality.
But the fact is, we had several major, serious, highly qualified candidates for president in the past year who absolutely didn't tell lies.
As far as I can tell.
I mean, maybe somebody else has a different take on that, but I didn't see any.
And, you know, I can identify lies on both sides, most of the time, but I didn't see any.
So, that's amazing.
It's just amazing.
Anyway, here's Michael Schellenberger's take on this Brazil situation.
He says that today's 1984 type totalitarianism is more dangerous than the tanks and torture type of totalitarianism.
There's no need to rig an election or overthrow a government if the ruling party of the media and state-sponsored NGOs, so these are those, you know, NGOs again, control the information environment.
There we go.
Now we're in my domain.
That's true.
You do not need to force people to do things you can brainwash them into wanting to do.
No force needed.
So we now have a situation in which our government Working with the media has enough technique that they can brainwash the public to believe anything.
Now, governments could always brainwash the public to believe anything, but they're better at it now.
They're way better at it now.
So when you look at the brainwashing skills, we're now into really dangerous territory.
So, Michael Schellenberger goes on, Brazil's Supreme Court just banned X and announced an $8,900 a day penalty for those who use a VPN to evade it.
So if you use a VPN and they catch you, they're going to fine you this enormous amount.
It's not an outlier.
This is now the normal way that the world is working.
So.
So Schellenberger's all over it, and the End Walkness account points out that Kamala probably supports what Brazil just did.
And how do we know that?
As there are videos of her talking about how you can't have all that free speech.
She doesn't say it that way, but she says, oh yeah, you gotta have laws, you know, controlling the speech on the platforms.
So she's in favor of that.
So Rasmussen Reports, my favorite source for all allegations of election shenanigans, points out that a cyber expert had recently found that the compilers installed on some of the Maricopa election-related machines could modify and create executable files and drivers, potentially altering election results undetected.
Let me say that again.
So a cyber expert looked at some of the machines.
I don't know if these are tabulators or voting machines.
It might be a... I don't know.
What is an EMS?
But it's something in the process.
It's either the machine or the tabulator, I guess.
But it has some code on it that somebody from the outside could modify to change the election without being detected.
Now, this was found a few years ago.
Here's the update.
Still there.
Now, is this story true?
Could it possibly be true that a cyber expert found some code on, you know, a key piece of machinery in Maricopa that very clearly would allow a bad person to get in and change the results without getting caught, and that it's still there?
That doesn't even sound like it could be true.
So I'm going to say maybe there's more to the story than we know, but the number of, you know, smoking looking guns is just off the chart right now.
But they all just sort of look like you're almost there to prove a kraken, but not quite.
So, I will triple down on my prediction for the election.
I believe that it's going to be a coin flip election, 50-50 by the time we get to the election, and that the coin flip will land on the edge.
We will not have a president after the election.
We'll eventually get something done.
I mean, there'll be some leader eventually, but I don't think we're going to have one within a week of the election.
Probably not two weeks.
I think for at least a month we will be leaderless.
And it's because we'll be fighting about the election.
There will be all kinds of claims.
All kinds of claims.
The most likely outcome, based on everything I know, is if you start with the assumption that much of the country believes that Trump would be an existential threat, and that everything's on the table to stop him.
That guarantees cheating.
Would you agree?
It guarantees it.
You don't have to wonder.
It guarantees it.
Now, the part we don't know is if it would be of any scale that would matter.
That part we don't know.
But you can guarantee that in a big old country with lots of people who think Hitler might come to power, somebody's going to fill out two ballots when they only should have done one.
Right?
It might be trivial, but you can guarantee it's going to happen.
Now if you can guarantee that there'll be irregularities, you know, be they small or be they large, then you can also guarantee that the Republicans will be dead set on not accepting an election when there are so many claims.
So the only thing we'll know for the first month or so is that there'll be all kinds of claims of illegality.
And probably either way it goes, you know, if it goes the other, if it goes for or against Trump, there'll be claims on the other side or, or his side.
And there is no time to adjudicate all those claims.
So what are you going to do?
Are you just going to certify it when there are like hundreds of legitimate sounding claims with actual whistleblowers and witnesses and documents?
Well, maybe, but that's not a stable situation.
So I think the most likely outcome is they're going to find at least small incidents of election irregularities, and it will be enough to put everything off the rails.
Eventually it will be okay.
I'll say again, the only real thing I worry about in this country, besides the growing DEI stuff, is the debt.
The rest of the stuff I'm pretty sure we can work through.
But the debt?
I don't know how that gets worked out.
So anyway, that's all I've got to say for today.
In a few minutes I'm going to create a video of opening up the first look at the Dilbert calendar.
It's not available.
You can't buy it yet.
I'll tell you when you can and where to get it.
It'll only be on one website.
Um, but when it's available, which will be in the next few days, I'll tell you more about it.
And, uh, kind of exciting because the Dilbert calendar had to be, uh, had to take a year off.
You may have heard why, uh, but it's back and this time it's made in America.
That's why it took so long.
It would have been easier if I just sort of did it the old way.
But it took a lot of, uh, let's say it took some somersaults to figure out a way to make it in America and get it within the price that is reasonable.
I think we succeeded.
I'll tell you all about that later.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
Thanks for joining on Action Rumble and YouTube.
I will see you tomorrow.
Same time, same place.
Export Selection