God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Nuclear Gen 4 Approval, Student Behavior Issues, Save Act, Speaker Johnson, Matriarchy Society, President Trump, Governor Whitmer, Chinese Election Trolls, Peaceful Power Transfer, Government ReEngineered, Elon Musk, Government Downsizing, Sanctuary City Uncharged Crimes, Venezuelan Gangs Aurora CO, Kamala Harris, Government Censorship Free Speech, President Trump, Anti-Constitution Press, Brainwashed Test, J6 Brainwashing Reports, Eric Weinstein, New Style Democracy, Unity Party, AG Keith Ellison, Harris Civilization Ending Policies, Israel Hamas War, 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
But if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny, human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea Stein, a canteen 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Now go.
Oh.
Now if you haven't tried the simultaneous sip, it is a replacement for human touch.
It will get your oxytocin going.
That's part of the magic, because you can feel the connection.
Now it's not as good as hugging somebody cute, but it was better than nothing.
Speaking of better than nothing, wouldn't you like The 2025 Dilbert calendar, which is now available for sale, made 100% in America for the first time.
You might hear this from me a few more times because, you know, it's a long time till Christmas, if you know what I mean.
But if you want the link, the one and only place you can buy it is go to Dilbert.com and you'll find the link to it.
It's right at the top.
It is not available on Amazon because there was no affordable way to do that and also make it in America.
They take a lot of it, it turns out.
So, and this time it's a double calendar.
There's a, there's a comic on the front and the back.
So you can see the, the secretive only available by subscription normally.
Dilbert Reborn comics.
Those are the edgy ones.
All right.
Let's talk about some science.
There's a report that there's a, a gravity defying scientific breakthrough.
There's a plasma physicist, Dr. John Brandenburg, who says they have successfully, in the laboratory, demonstrated gravity modification using electromagnetic fields.
To which I say, nah.
Do you ever read a story about science and you just look at it and go, I don't know what's true, but nah.
No, I don't think that they found a technology that's anti-gravity.
Now what they might have found, is if you use a tremendous amount of electricity you can do something that makes something look like anti-gravity but it has no use whatsoever because it takes a lot of energy.
It's going to be one of those, well did I say anti-gravity?
What I meant was in the in the laboratory You can do a thing that you could never use in the real world.
So I'm not making any claims based on any knowledge whatsoever.
It'd be awesome if they'd actually figured out how to solve gravity.
But I'm going to say that if I were forced to make a bet, somebody put a gun to head and said, you have to bet.
You have to bet whether this is going to be an anti-gravity device that makes everything easier.
Or it's interesting in the lab but can't really be used in the real world in any practical way?
I think I'd bet that it would not be useful in the real world.
Don't get too excited about your anti-gravity device coming.
Did you know, according to SciPost, that spending time in nature could increase how much we see others as fully human?
Well, that's interesting.
Now, we knew that going into nature is good for you in a whole variety of ways for your health and your mental well-being, but apparently it makes you feel like you're connected to other people, which made me instantly wonder if looking at a screen makes you feel like you're God.
Do you ever have that thought?
And so I kind of understand this.
When I'm done with my live stream in the morning and I get ready for my day, usually the first thing I do is take my dog to the park.
And the dog doesn't do much, just sniffs the grass.
And I stand there while she sniffs it.
But I am so addicted to the physical and mental feeling I get For what is really maybe 20 minutes, just standing in a nice place outdoors, you know, with nice trees and grass around.
It is so obviously good for me.
Like, when I miss it for a day, if something comes up, I really feel it.
So, I could not be more enthusiastic about make sure you go out before noon.
This is the Andrew Lieberman thing.
Go out before noon and just stand there for a few minutes in some nice tree-lined, grassy place.
You'll be amazed how different it feels.
But it does make me wonder, if I'm looking at a screen, which I do all day when I'm indoors, does that make me feel like I'm not connected?
That people are little things on screens?
And you start to think that you're not really connected to them, they're just images on the screen.
And then when you walk outside, you realize, oh wait, I'm the image on the screen.
Nature is the screen, and I'm just a thing on it.
And then you feel connected to everything.
So I don't believe that this kind of science is necessarily reproducible or accurate, but it fits observation.
I do feel like I'm more connected to the world after I go into nature.
You might too.
Well, there's yet another study.
This will sound like a story I've told before.
Because they all start like this.
The details are different, but they all start with, there's a new study that says the correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperature is not a real correlation.
Well, it's a correlation, it's just not causation.
So there's another one from Climate Depot, Kenneth Richard.
So they did another study and said that the main factor governing the increase in CO2 is the ocean temperature.
So rather than CO2 causing the temperature to go up, the temperature causes the ocean to release more CO2.
So basically there have been multiple studies recently Showing that the correlation between CO2 and temperature isn't as strong as a bunch of other correlations.
You know, one that was about the sun, and now this one about the temperature of the water.
But I'm going to lump all these together into one larger point.
You ready for it?
One larger point that's sort of above all of these studies that can't find the correlations, and they disagree with what's correlated with what, and well, you know, is CO2 driving something?
Here's the overarching point.
Humans can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
That's never been a thing, and it probably never will be.
It's way too hard.
Have you met humans?
Now again, I'm not questioning the Accuracy of a device.
So if there's a device that's measuring some temperature, it's probably reasonably good.
And we may have lots of those devices in lots of places, but we don't have them in enough places, and we don't have humans who can accurately collect them, and we can't be sure that there isn't a heat island.
We can't be sure that something hasn't changed with the device since we put it in.
We can't really compare it to the devices we used to use and say, well, it's all the same as if they were the same device.
No, humans can't measure the temperature of the world.
There's not the slightest chance.
The humans can measure the temperature of the earth on average and then predict it into the future.
You don't need to know anything about science.
It's not even a science question.
It's really just a complexity thing.
If you put humans into a, Jesus, a complexity situation, Wow.
Okay, I just saw a funny meme.
All right.
So who knows about... I'm not saying you shouldn't believe the new studies that are trying to debunk climate change.
I'm just saying that science is just a pretty sketchy domain in general.
And we were taught to worship it, but that was always brainwashing.
It was never based on what was real.
Well, here's some good news.
The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Agency just approved their first Generation 4 nuclear reactor.
Now, if you've been with me since 2016 or so, how many times have I said, you know, the future is these Generation 4 nuclear reactors.
The current generation is Generation 3, if you were to build one with the standard technology.
Generation 3, Is still capable of melting down.
Now, as Michael Schellenberger will teach you, none of them have.
There's never been a meltdown of a generation three.
Did you know that?
Did you know that the current technology, if you were going to build a power plant with the, let's say the established technology, not one of them has ever melted down.
It's all the prior versions that melted down, you know, the Fukushima and the, you know, basically anything that melted down was a prior generation.
Now that doesn't mean that you could never have a Generation 3 meltdown, but it's never happened.
and there are quite a few of them.
So, Generation 4 takes the risk of meltdown completely out of the equation.
So it's built so that even if everything went wrong, it just turns off.
So, that's not what the current design is.
The current design is if you don't have electricity, you can't run the cooling, the water cooling.
And if you're not running the water cooling, it melts down.
So basically you need an external energy source in case there's a power failure.
That's a big deal.
But the new ones, if the power goes off, it just turns off.
There's like no risk of meltdown at all.
So it's the first one ever approved and they're going to start building this darn thing.
And, uh, let me give the Biden Harris administration credit.
Now, to be fair, this is a continuation from the Trump policies that I also give credit to.
Somebody's going to be the president when you get one of these built, right?
So, I mean, you could also imagine that two presidents from now, this will go online.
You know, it might even be after the next president.
And that president will say, look what I did.
And I will say, yes, you did.
Your policies were compatible with this coming online, but so was the last president, and so was the president before that.
So it turns out that nuclear power is the most unifying thing in the United States.
It is one thing that the smartest Democrats and the smartest Republicans agree on 100%.
There's no disagreement among the smarter people.
Now there's a whole layer of citizens who are not up to date.
They don't know the actual risks.
They don't know that we've solved the nuclear waste problem by just storing it on site.
It's basically solved.
And nobody's really got a problem with it.
It's solved.
So if you're not up to date, you're still with the 1970s scare brainwashing.
Then you think it's a bad idea.
But this is one of the very few things where I will give full credit, full credit, no restrictions, to the Biden-Harris administration, but also equal credit to the Trump administration that got him to that point as well.
It's the one thing that I have no complaints about.
I do think the government is doing all the right stuff.
They're trying to remove the regulations that were too burdensome, building the right kind of models, funding it.
They built a testbed.
It's all good stuff.
All right.
Other good stuff is that the X platform is coming to a TV near you.
I saw just a demo online and I have to admit, it looks like it's going to be a little bit addictive.
So if you haven't done this already on the X platform, if you're looking at one video, you can just scroll from that video to whatever's the next video.
I don't know how it gets served up, but once you get in that loop of just going from a quick video to a quick video, one topic to the other, usually stuff you care about because the algorithm does that.
It is really sticky.
I'm completely addicted to reels and, and, uh, you know, all these little short form So yeah, put that on a TV and I'll be interested.
I don't know the details of which TVs will have them.
Maybe it's just new smart TVs with a built-in feature.
Can I ever get this on Apple TV?
Will it ever be available on anything except a brand new smart TV?
I don't know.
So I don't know the answer to that question.
Wall Street Journal says teachers are burning out on the job.
Their biggest problems are student behavior and their mental health and their kids using cell phones and, you know, the pay isn't high enough and the kids are cheating using AI.
But the biggest one by far is the student behavior problems.
And I said to myself, how could you possibly have a classroom of 20 kids raised by 20 different parents in 2024?
That's really a helpless situation.
Now, I do not approve of violence, so let me say that first.
But let me just describe something.
When I grew up, all the kids were raised the same.
If you got in a line too far, somebody hit you.
They hit you.
You'd get hit.
Like, in one way, you could get punched.
You might get hit with a blunt object.
You might get spanked, depending on what age you are, but you would get physically abused if you got out of line.
Now, I'm not in favor of that.
I'm not in favor of that.
I'm describing it.
I'm simply describing it.
But what it did have is this one feature as a system.
As a system, it created 20 people who would go sit in a room, and when the teacher said, you better do this or you're in trouble, All 20 of us knew that we would get the shit beat out of us if we didn't do this thing.
Like physical danger.
Now, it wouldn't necessarily be the teacher.
It might be your parents when you got home.
Not every parent, of course.
But sometimes it was actually the teacher.
In the school I went to, the teachers would actually beat up the kids or spank them or pull down their pants and paddle them in front of the class.
I mean, just grotesque stuff.
So I'm not in favor of it.
I'm just saying it caused the system to work because the teacher could scare the kids with physical violence without ever saying anything about physical violence.
It was always implied.
But now it's not.
How in the world can you control 20 kids raised in 20 different systems?
It doesn't seem even doable on paper.
If I wrote this down as a system, all right, I got an idea, everybody.
We're going to have all the kids come to one place.
And then we'll have this one poor bastard try to control them.
But they'll all be raised in different systems with different incentives and different risk rewards, so that nothing the teacher says will connect with the kid as something they really need to do.
If you just wrote that system down and said, this is what we're going to do, nobody would say that was a good idea.
But it was when I was a kid.
It was a totally workable system, but it was also based on some violence, so you can't recommend it.
Here's what I think is the likely future.
It's clear that AI will be part of the teaching process.
It won't be all of it, but it'll be part of it.
I think what you're going to have is much smaller classes, like groups of four to six people,
That were raised similarly enough or they're similar enough to each other That you don't have to work too hard to get their obedience to listen to the class So the first thing you do is make the AI part of it so that people are interested that's the first part make them interested and The second part is make sure you don't put all the like a bad person with some people who are willing to listen But then if you have a half a dozen people who never listen to anything
There might be a way to control them differently than you would control the other group.
I don't know what it would be.
Bribery or threats or something.
But I think smaller classes are a necessity of the future because kids are too hard to control in a number.
If you have 20 kids, there's just nothing you can do in the modern world.
Smaller classes.
That's what I say.
Well, there's an indication that Speaker Johnson Might combine the next spending bill, which would be required for running the country, even though it's a short-term one, might combine that with the voter, what do you call it, security, integrity, an election integrity thing, which basically would require the states to make sure that only citizens are voting.
So they would have to make sure only citizens are voting.
Now, who would be against that?
I mean, who in the world would be opposed to making sure that only citizens voted?
Democrats.
Democrats.
Why would they be opposed to that?
For the obvious reason, they think.
There's not really a second reason.
I can't even pretend there are two sides to this.
Lots of, you know, you've watched me, and maybe sometimes, much to your displeasure, I often try to steel man the other side.
And say, look, you need to understand what the other argument is, otherwise you're just being absurd.
I mean, you could still be right, but if you don't even understand what the other argument is, you're just living some absurd existence.
You've got to understand the other side.
So, what's the other side?
There really isn't another side on this one.
This one is one side's trying to get away with something that's cheating, in my opinion.
And the other side is trying to stop it.
I don't see anything else happening here.
There's no second argument to this.
But still, they're trying.
So good job, Speaker Johnson, if you get away with this.
I don't know if this is confirmed.
We don't know if it'll work.
I would expect that the Democrats would prefer not funding the government.
So I believe literally that the Democrats would say, you know what?
It would be better just to not even fund the government, just close the whole thing down because we need the cheat.
We need the illegal votes.
I think they'll choose closing the government.
And then we're going to watch it.
We're going to watch it like we don't understand what's happening.
What?
Why are they closing the government over just making sure the voting is done appropriately?
There's one reason.
And we're probably going to be staring right at it.
All right.
You might remember that back in, it probably was 2016 or so, I started seeing that with the Hillary Clinton campaign, that it was becoming a boys versus a girls politics.
And that the Democrats would increasingly become the party of women, and that the Republicans would increasingly become the party of men.
And now there's an article in Axios that That's exactly what happened, and they actually say it's going to be the boys against the girls.
And Harris has a 13-point lead among women, and Trump has a, what?
Says he only has a 5-point advantage among men.
How's that possible?
That doesn't sound right.
I think the actual fact is that Trump has a bigger advantage with men and Harris has a bigger advantage with women.
But here's my question for you historians.
Has there ever been a successful civilization in the long run that was a matriarchy?
The Iroquois nation was a matriarchy.
There were a lot of male chiefs, but the male chiefs would be subordinate to the females who were running the operation.
But has there ever been a country that was clearly identified as a matriarchy and became a world power?
Because China is not a matriarchy, is it?
Russia is not a matriarchy, is it?
But there are some countries that are leaning in that direction.
Are they not?
And I'm wondering, what is the country that became a matriarchy and then everything went well after that?
Is there one?
Because the US has a decision about whether we should be a matriarchy or a patriarchy.
Now, you could say, but the patriarchy starts wars and does all that.
Yeah, yeah, it does.
I don't like that at all.
So I'm not going to make a claim that everything about the patriarchy is better than everything about the matriarchy.
That would be ridiculous.
But if you could find somebody who would run a patriarchy, who is unambiguously opposed to war, Well, now you're talking.
Now you're talking.
Give me the patriarchy that's unambiguously opposed to war, but is willing to absolutely destroy anybody who wants to fuck with us.
I'll take that.
I'll take that all day long.
And that's Trump.
Trump is unambiguously opposed to war.
There's no doubt about that.
I mean, I don't even, I don't even think, I don't even think his opponents Disagree with that statement.
They're worried that he would end wars They're worried he might end the Ukrainian war, you know in a way they don't like I guess So he's unambiguously anti-war but he's also the scariest most unpredictable one that the The other countries are very clearly worried about Because he will drop a mother of all bomb on you if necessary.
I mean the ultimate Patriarchy is you know, dad's coming home But that doesn't mean he's going to beat you with a belt if he didn't do anything wrong.
It just means if there's a big problem, dad's home.
It doesn't mean he's going to create one.
So, I wonder, you know, it makes me wonder if you had a poll that said, all things being equal, if the United States could become a patriarchy or a matriarchy, which would be better for success in the long run?
What would people say?
I think Democrats would actually go for the matriarchy.
I don't know that, but I think by at least a majority, like over 50% of Democrats would say, you know what?
It's time for a matriarchy.
I think Republicans would be 80-20 or 90-10 against it.
So I would just be so curious.
Yeah, okay.
I'm just looking at a meme, but I'm going to skip that.
All right, so the boys versus girls.
I've told you this before, but the political talk about who flip-flopped, I wonder if anybody's ever changed their vote because they found out a candidate flip-flopped.
That might be the weakest persuasion, the whole hypocrisy thing and the flip-flopping.
I don't think that moves any votes, because it's sort of conceptual, and people care what you think today.
Like, do you care that Trump used to be a Democrat?
Is there even one Republican who's going to vote against him because he used to be a Democrat?
Because that's like a flip-flop.
Right?
No, no.
So, uh, I was listening to, uh, who was it?
Whitmer, Governor Whitmer, talking about Trump.
And listen to this flip-flop accusation.
Quote, he has praised his appointments to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
He was happy when Roe v. Wade fell.
But here's the flip-flop, she says.
Now he's trying to pretend he wants longer than six weeks before an abortion, even though he's flip-flopped even on that.
You cannot trust him when it comes to women's health.
To which I say, okay, the question of which part of the government decides on the laws is not related to his personal opinion that it should be at least six weeks or longer.
Those aren't even the same topic.
You can't flip-flop on topics that aren't the same topic just because it's generally in that same category of abortion.
No.
Who makes the decision is completely different than what the decision is.
And to make everything sound like a flip-flop or an inconsistency, it just has no persuasive power at all.
So it's just something people want to say on TV, basically.
It's TV fodder.
It's not anything beyond that.
Well, according to a report from... I forget who says this.
Might have been the Wall Street Journal or Axios.
I forget.
But it says that there are lots of Chinese trolls getting involved in the election.
But interestingly, The accusation is that the Chinese trolls are not taking sides.
So they're not pro-Trump or anti-Trump or pro-Harris or anti-Harris.
They're just sort of saying whatever gets us fighting.
So they're more about stirring up divisiveness.
Here's my take on this story.
Complete bullshit.
I don't think there are any Chinese trolls of any circumstance.
Remember when the government tried to tell us, and the news tried to tell us, there were Russian trolls in 2016 that affected the election?
And they kept reporting it and reporting it, and I kept saying, well, but can you show me some of those tweets at the time?
I'd like to see those memes that affected the election.
Because if Russia knows how to affect an election with memes and trolling, well, that's something I want to learn.
I want to figure out, how did they figure out how to do that?
And then when we were finally shown what it was that the Russians did with that one little troll farm, there were these memes that looked like a sixth grader made them with no understanding of how anything works.
They couldn't have possibly, in your wildest imagination, they could not have changed anybody's vote.
And they too were sometimes anti-Hillary, sometimes anti-Trump.
I'm going to say that this is the same thing.
I do not believe that China has an effective, effective is the key word here, trolling operation in the United States for the elections.
Do you?
Do you think that you've seen something that looks like Chinese trolling that's changing or anything?
I don't.
Now, it could be that the algorithm on X has improved, so maybe it's a problem on TikTok, and so I don't see it.
But I don't really see anything that looks like that.
And I'm going to go even further.
Remember I complained that I was definitely getting trolled?
Every time I would do a post about politics, the first or maybe sometimes the second comment would always be the paid troll.
Just obviously a professional paid troll.
And I recognize them because in 2016 I was one of the people that they just continuously pestered.
And they were later confirmed to be David Brock paid trolls.
So I wasn't guessing.
It's all been confirmed by the news.
They were paid Democrat trolls.
They were definitely on me all the time.
But that stopped.
And it was just this one troll that would come in every time.
It wasn't the same troll.
It was a different troll.
But they acted the same.
They were all obviously paid.
But here's the thing.
They just went away.
They just stopped.
So whoever was giving the order that I'm on the list of people to troll, either they rescinded the order, or they stopped getting funded, or the X platform got better at weeding them out so I don't see them.
I don't know which happened.
But it's quite obvious that I stopped getting trolled.
There are still people who disagree with me, but you know, often they show their identity and they're obviously not trolls.
So, I've got a little mystery.
What happened to my trolls?
And I don't believe at all that there's an effective Chinese trolling operation.
I do believe there might be some Chinese trolls.
But if you're telling me that, you know, President Xi has ordered an effective trolling campaign in the United States, I don't think so.
It doesn't look like it to me.
I mean, I would have seen one of them.
So maybe somebody else is getting trolled.
So I'm not going to say there's no chance it's true.
I'm just going to say when observation doesn't match reporting, you should put up a big skeptical question mark until you know more.
So that's where I'm at.
Big skeptical question mark.
Maybe.
But it's possible.
All right.
Let's say you wanted a peaceful transfer of power in this next election.
It's the thing the Democrats say they want the most.
Well, I've got an idea for how to improve the odds of a peaceful transfer of power no matter who wins.
No matter who wins.
And at least a million people have agreed with me so far.
Ish.
So I'm going to repeat a suggestion I had from yesterday, because when I posted it on social media, it got a million views, which by the way, is not that common.
A million views.
Now I do have a million subscribers or followers on X, but typically one of my posts would get 25,000 views.
That would be sort of normal.
So to get a million, Means you really hit a nerve, all right?
So this is why you hit a nerve with enough people than a million people viewed it.
So you heard this idea yesterday.
Suppose Trump asks Harris to join him in announcing that no matter who wins the presidency, all claims of election fraud by either party will be vigorously pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Now the idea here is if Harris and the Democrats said, no, we don't want to threaten people with prosecution for rigging an election, well, it would kind of look like they were in favor of rigging an election.
So that's no good, but it will at least clarify things.
And if she accepted, that would be good for everybody because it would put a fear in any potential cheaters.
So you want the cheaters to think that their personal risk of jail is higher than they think it is, you know, hypothetically, should they exist.
You want them to think that their risk is higher than they think it is right now.
And you combine that with large whistleblower awards.
So if you've got lots of threats, the threats are coming from both sides, Democrats and Republicans.
They're just raising the threat level in your mind.
If not, in reality.
And the whistleblowers are there so that, you know, you know your cohort is going to, your co-worker is going to turn you in.
That's a pretty good place to be.
However, I'm going to add a new wrinkle to it.
This is the price for a peaceful transfer of power.
If you give me a President Harris who says, look, here's the deal.
I know there have been accusations of rigging.
We can't have that.
I will join with President Trump and tell you that if anybody rigs this thing, we're going to hunt you down and put you in freaking jail.
I don't care if you're a Democrat.
I don't care if you, I don't care if you rigged it in favor of me.
We're going to hunt you down because that, that can't be the case.
Now you give me that and I can guarantee you a peaceful transfer of power.
Would you agree?
If you tell me that the Democrats really, really are serious about getting rid of election cheating, I will also guarantee that there will be no crowd at the Capitol if Trump loses.
But you've got to sell it.
You've got to make me think you mean it, and you've got to make sure that you're actually looking for those bad guys, if they exist, right?
There are going to be claims of it no matter what.
So you've got to really be serious about it.
Here's what I'd love.
To pick an independent group to investigate election claims, even before the election.
Now, suppose Harris came out and said, look, Donald Trump, you know, we want to make sure that everybody thinks the election was good.
Will you join with me in picking a bipartisan group that will definitely look into every claim and they'll do it right away?
You know, with full authorization.
Maybe I can get Biden to agree with this.
And we're going to make sure that we put maximum legal, legal, legal attention on stopping cheating.
Will that be enough for you, President Trump, to guarantee that there will not be any riot at the Capitol?
Well, Trump would probably not guarantee anything because that's a bad idea.
Just guaranteeing anything is a bad idea.
It's just bad strategy.
So we might not do it.
But I can imagine I would be completely satisfied if they sold to me that they were serious about ending cheating.
I'll take the result as a result.
Short of that, it looks like you're trying to cheat.
So if you're doing everything you can to look like you're trying to cheat, as in resisting asking for ID, and resisting the idea that illegals should not vote, Letting people in the country and giving them ballots and registering them with your NGOs.
If you're doing that stuff, you're really asking for a little bit of trespassing in the Capitol.
If you're going to beg for a revolution, I don't think you should complain about getting one.
And right now they're begging for it.
They're doing everything that would decrease your confidence in the result.
So if you want to go the other way and increase my confidence in the result, I can largely guarantee that Republicans will be swayed by that.
But it's got to be serious.
It's got to be real.
And I don't see any movement in that direction at all.
Anyway, here's an update on the Trump pirate ship, as I call it.
The group of people who you would not expect to be all on the same ship.
And maybe people who don't always conform to the expected norms.
I call them pirates because it's fun, not because they're dangerous.
They're just fun, fun pirates.
And Trump was reported looking at putting Elon Musk in charge of what they're calling auditing federal agencies to look for things to cut.
And Elon Musk said about that report, quote, I can't wait.
There's a lot of waste and needless regulations in government that needs to go.
It looks like this is real.
Apparently, both Trump and Elon Musk are completely on board, if Trump gets elected, that Musk will get to look at where you can just cut stuff.
This is probably the best thing that's happening anywhere about anything.
Because, in my view, Let me tell you something from the business world.
So in the 90s or so, there was this idea that business should be re-engineered, not tweaked.
Now what that meant was, instead of, you know, continuously improving things the way they are, sometimes the world has changed so much, or your company has drifted so much, you know, without your intention, that you really have to almost treat it like you're starting over.
So the idea of re-engineering was not just tweaking what you have, but saying, okay, what if we didn't have anything?
And we had a chance to build the thing.
What would it look like?
So that's re-engineering.
That's rethinking it from the ground up.
If you needed to do that to our government, and I would argue that's exactly what we do need, what skill needs to be brought to it?
Do you need a lawyer?
Nope.
Do you need a historian?
Nope.
Do you need a finance person?
Because it's going to be about money.
Nope!
There is one skill that you need, and it's engineering.
Because it's literally re-engineering.
Because the government can be thought of as a machine.
It's got moving parts.
This part has too many moving parts.
Maybe we could do this with three moving parts instead of a hundred.
This one is an unnecessary feature.
It's causing us trouble.
Why don't we just remove the feature?
It's an engineering task.
Just consider this thought for a moment.
If you're not feeling enough optimism lately, just hold this in your mind.
The biggest risk to America is that we don't re-engineer.
And that we just keep tweaking things and that we become bloated and divided and overspend and just kill ourselves with just drifting in one direction.
It is our biggest risk.
And I could argue it's what destroyed almost every civilization in the past, unless it was a natural disaster.
That they needed to stop doing what they were doing and do a whole new thing or else they were all going to die.
We're in that situation.
We're in the existential risk our current system will kill us all.
Really.
Like, actually, really.
If we just keep doing what we're doing, we will die.
We will all be dead.
And the only way to fix it is to somewhat radically change how we operate as a country.
In other words, replace the machine.
But you need to keep the Constitution.
You just want to keep the machinery, right?
So you want to keep the rules of the road.
So you don't want to change the fact that, you know, vehicles need to go under the speed limit and stay on the road and stuff.
That's like the Constitution.
But the car itself needs to be completely redesigned.
Now, if I said to you, pick the one person on the entire planet that you would want to re-engineer anything, whether it's a government or a car or a spaceship, it's Musk.
It's Musk all day long.
All day long.
Try to give me the second best person for that.
Good luck.
Who's the second best person for that job?
You can't even come up with one.
You can think of lots of smart people, but you can't think of anybody smart enough who would be willing to take the level of pain that would be required to get it done right.
The thing that Elon brings to every situation is, you think that a level of pain will stop me?
Well, watch this.
Pain doesn't stop him.
Threats don't stop him.
He's got the threat of jail right now.
Doesn't stop him.
It's the only person who could do this.
And we're lucky enough that that person not only is willing to do it, but enthusiastic about it.
Do you know how lucky that is?
I mean, just think about how lucky that is.
Yeah.
And he would have a J.D.
Vance and a Vivek.
He would have, you know, brilliant people, you know, on his side to help.
This is really, really, really lucky.
Elon Musk could have easily been Australian, right?
He could have easily been, you know, if we're all reincarnated, Chinese.
But we got him.
The number one person to do the number one most important thing.
I feel pretty good about it.
But only if Trump gets elected.
There's a video that I can't believe is true.
It doesn't say what city it is, but some sanctuary city in the United States showed a conversation of some people in the hallway.
Some citizens were asking the police to arrest somebody in the apartment building who had committed some serious crime.
And they were also undocumented.
And the police said that they couldn't call ICE and have them deported because it's a sanctuary city.
And then the citizen said, okay, well, can't do that, but you can arrest them because they did a terrible crime.
It's, you know, obviously did a terrible crime.
And the police officer said, no, I can't arrest them because it's a sanctuary city.
And then the citizens thinking they weren't quite understanding, or maybe the police officer wasn't as understanding, they clarified, no, we know that you can't call ICE and have them deported.
But we're saying they've committed a massive crime in the United States, so you can arrest them for the crime they did in the United States.
And the police officer said, no, I cannot arrest them for a crime they did in the United States because we're a sanctuary city.
There was somebody who was accused of like a double murder or something, said, I couldn't arrest them because we're a sanctuary city.
And he said it clearly and multiple times.
And I said to myself, is that real?
So I'm coming down on, I don't think it's real.
There's a little too on the nose.
It didn't show the city and it was in shadows.
So you couldn't see the lips moving.
So it might be real.
So I have great curiosity about it, but I'm not going to tell you that's real.
I think, unfortunately, it's 2024 and you see something where you can't see lips moving and you don't know the city and you don't know where the video came from.
Just automatically, you've got to put a pin in that one and say, we're going to wait on this one.
Likewise, this brings me to the story of the Venezuelan gangs who are taking over apartments in Colorado.
I can't tell if that's true.
So apparently there's a discussion where some people are saying it's definitely true, of course it's true, and other people are saying, but the police can't find them, and there's nobody in any apartment who's complaining.
Now that can't both be true.
Either Venezuelan gangs are literally taking over apartment buildings, or they're not.
And as of this morning, I can't tell.
There are competing stories, and I literally can't tell if Venezuelan gangs are taking over apartment buildings in the United States.
Now, you might think you know, but it's because you saw one news story.
If you see the other ones, maybe you change your mind.
I've seen both, and I have no signal that would tell me which one's real, because there's no video of it.
Let's put it this way.
You show me a video of some armed Venezuelans, you know, that was taken recently, and everybody knows where it is, and the person who gives you the video identifies themselves.
Maybe.
Maybe I'll believe that.
And I don't believe it's impossible.
And maybe there's some, you know, some in-between situation that people are exaggerating whichever way they want to.
But, think about the fact, just think about the fact that the news in America is so untrustworthy, I can't tell if Venezuelan gangs are taking over apartment buildings.
I don't have a way to know.
That's pretty bad.
Anyway, Elon Musk continues to be controversial.
He posted, the reason the Democrat Party is so soft on criminals is that criminals overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and they don't want to offend their customers.
And he says the Democrat Party is literally the party of criminals.
Well, I think that's going too far.
Now, I usually support Elon Musk's opinions, because I agree with him, but this is too far.
I don't think you can say that the Democrat Party is literally the party of criminals.
Not literally.
It's not literally the party.
It would be more accurate to say it's the party of criminals plus the mentally ill women who love the criminals.
So if you leave out the mentally ill women who love the criminals, it just doesn't sound honest to me.
So Elon, didn't go far enough.
You got to talk about the women who love those criminals and worship them.
But I saw somebody else saying that Musk was ruining his brand, Tesla.
And I have to admit, I am concerned that Elon Musk's political stuff will sour some number of people from buying Teslas.
I don't know if we've seen it yet.
But I don't know how it doesn't happen, because people are pretty prickly about their politics and their cars.
So I should tell you that I do own stock in Tesla, so I'm not being unbiased.
I'm totally biased in favor of Tesla.
But my investment in Tesla has less to do with cars and more to do with the robots.
One possibility Is that the reason we don't understand why Elon Musk could take such a risk with the stock price of Tesla is that he told us exactly what's going on.
That robots are going to be, you know, maybe 20 times bigger than cars and Tesla is going to be a robot company and they're going to be rolling them out in a year or so.
It might not matter to him what happens with cars.
It might be the smallest part of his business in less than a year.
So maybe he's just ahead of us and he knows he can say what he wants to say and promote free speech.
And if something happens to the car stock, he'll just make it up with robots and people will want robots because it'll be the best robot.
And there you go.
So who knows?
He's taking a risk. So Kamala Harris has come out directly in opposition of freedom of speech, which doesn't sound true, does it?
When I say that, you're going to say, oh, that's a, you know, you're exaggerating what she said.
Right?
But can we agree that the definition of free speech is that you can say things other people don't want you to say?
That's the definition.
The definition is not that you can say things everybody likes to hear.
That has nothing to do with free speech.
Free speech is specifically limited to things that other people really, really don't want you to say, because they think it's dangerous or whatever.
And Harrah says that social media has no oversight or regulation, and talks about Musk, and says there has to be a responsibility to understand their power.
They're directly speaking to millions without oversight or regulation.
And then she said of Musk, quote, he has lost his privilege.
It should be taken down.
What?
She thinks the X platform should be taken... Why should it be taken down?
You mean just taking down a notch or just take it offline?
I mean, either way, it's terrible.
But if you say that somebody's lost their privilege because they don't understand that they should be censoring the way you want them to censor because you don't like the things they're saying, I would say that is directly opposed to free speech.
Directly.
It doesn't feel like an interpretation to me.
To me, it feels like a direct statement.
I do not like freedom of speech.
It's too dangerous when you boost it by social media.
And by the way, it's not a crazy argument.
It's one I disagree with.
Here's why it's not crazy.
When the Constitution was written, social media didn't exist.
So if your crazy neighbor had some crazy ideas, he could talk about it all day long.
It wasn't going anywhere.
So he had real free speech.
He could say whatever he wanted, using the best technology of the day.
He could write a letter.
One letter.
So, free speech was really easy then.
Because it didn't move the needle.
Except in the longest timeline it did.
But at the moment, social media is so powerful, it can change the needle overnight.
It can turn the least popular candidate into the most popular candidate, and we watched it.
You know, if you had the news, the news to social media.
Now, does she say the same thing about the news?
Because whatever you say about social media, it's not regulated, it can say whatever it wants, it's dangerous.
Wouldn't they say the same thing about Fox News and Breitbart and Just the News and Gateway Pundit?
Doesn't it come next?
They have great responsibility.
If they have misinformation, it's dangerous.
You know, none of this existed during the time of the Revolutionary War.
So, this is the most dangerous possible thing you could possibly think.
Michael Schellenberger goes further, and he says in a post today, people think Brazil-style censorship couldn't happen here, but it could.
Indeed, Kamala Harris, Tim Walsh, and Barack Obama have all called for heavy-handed government censorship like that of Brazil and Europe, complete with banning disfavored individuals across platforms.
And he's right.
I mean, he backs it up with examples, etc.
So, we're actually at a point where freedom of speech, in my opinion, could be the only topic of the election.
It seems to me that Trump is in an unlosable situation.
Because if he starts hammering on this freedom of speech stuff, and he does a better job, which he's not done so far, on handling that bodily autonomy thing, he has a stronger argument on bodily autonomy by a mile.
He just has never put it together.
The minute he puts together that bodily autonomy argument, which is, hey, I took abortion away from the federal government and away from me.
I moved it closer to you.
And there are more women in every state.
You women can vote in any bodily autonomy law you want.
I don't oppose that a bit.
And then say, but I don't want criminals to take your bodily autonomy.
I don't want undocumented people to take your jobs.
Everything that happens is your bodily autonomy.
Can you walk outside with safety?
Can your children go to school safely?
It's all bodily autonomy.
Everything the government does, from the legal system, the Department of Justice.
But the Democrats are trying to take Trump's bodily autonomy away and put him in jail.
There is one side that is massively trying to control your bodily autonomy.
They're going to make sure you don't have a gun, etc.
The only argument they have The only argument is on reproductive rights.
And Trump has not done a good job in simply explaining that they do have everything they want and he's not the one opposing any of it.
They have everything they want in terms of they have the political power to vote in any state law that they want if the women are largely on the same team.
They just have to be on the same side.
So convince the women what you want, not Trump.
He's done it again.
And by the way, that sentence is super powerful.
Imagine Trump saying, look, it's Move to the States.
You need to work on getting women to agree with you, because if they do, you can have anything you want.
That's what our system is.
I'm out of the game.
I'm out of the game is a kill shot.
I'm out of that game.
I took myself out.
Anyway, yeah, freedom of speech could be the only topic of the election, and it would be a Trump victory, I think, because he can make the bodily autonomy and freedom of speech argument if he chooses to.
Nate Silver humorously is saying in a post today, the number of high-status posters who think the New York Times is out to get Kamala Harris is a bit disturbing, to be honest.
Can you imagine reading the New York Times, and maybe it has a slightly negative slant on Kamala Harris, and thinking that the New York Times is trying to take her out?
Well, there are quite a few headlines, including the New York Times, in which they've started to question the usefulness of the Constitution of the United States.
I'm wondering if the Constitution isn't a bigger problem than it is a solution.
That's what reporters are actually saying, that the Constitution, stuff like freedom of speech, might be more of a problem these days than it is a benefit.
Yep, that's your press.
All right, I have devised, and I just ran this on X, I don't know what the results are yet, but I devised a foolproof test to see if you're brainwashed.
Would you like to do the foolproof test to see if you're brainwashed?
There's just one question.
I'm going to ask you one question and your answer to the question will tell me if you're brainwashed.
Do you think I can do it?
Just one question.
Here's the question.
Which candidate is the biggest threat to your democracy and your bodily autonomy?
If you think Trump is your biggest risk to your democracy and your bodily autonomy, you're not participating in an argument.
You're not in a debate.
You're not a person with an opinion.
You're a victim.
You're a victim.
You have been brainwashed into a belief that is absurd and is not in your advantage.
No, no non brainwashed person would have this opinion.
You want another example of brainwashing?
I thought of a good one the other day.
So after talking to Jason from the All In Pod, he brought up in our conversation yesterday, That when Trump was giving his speech at the Capitol on January 6th, he used the phrase, we need to fight like hell.
And he asked me, you know, does that not suggest something uncomfortably close to physical violence?
I mean, it's not a call for physical violence, but does that push too close to the line and become reckless and, and therefore something you should answer for?
And I thought to myself, huh, You know, I have to think about that.
It's a good point.
And I think to myself, there are a lot of people who have that interpretation, that that meant maybe, you know, get a little bit forceful, and that would be too far.
And I thought, if so many people have that opinion, hearing those words, he's got a good point.
Would you agree?
If it's true, and I think if you ask people, they'd say it's true.
Democrats, mostly.
If you ask Democrats, Do these words give you the feeling that it's gone too far, it could become physical?
Most would say yes.
Now, let me break your head.
Why did they say yes?
Because they were brainwashed.
I contend that there is not a single person, not a Democrat or anybody else, if they had simply been at the event and they heard him use those words, we got to fight like hell.
I believe that not a single person, not even one, would have interpreted that as anything but ordinary political talk about try very hard.
The only reason that they interpreted it as a call to violence is because the first time they heard it, that's how it was reported.
What they're reacting to is the way it was framed by the press as dangerous speech.
So if somebody says, well, the president said something dangerous that kept people doing dangerous things, and you can see that a dangerous thing happened, here's the dangerous thing he happened right before the dangerous thing happened, you know, the actual protests themselves.
If you tell me the story that way, and I'm a Democrat and I wanna believe my side, et cetera, I would totally think those words meant some kind of potential going too far.
Bye.
But if you'd never been primed by the brainwashers, you would never have that thought.
You would simply see that as ordinary common language that people use in every context that you've ever been in—business context, anything else.
Yeah, to put forth a determined effort is how you would see it.
So, you don't have to wonder if half the country is brainwashed.
That's a pretty clean example right there.
Pretty clean example.
But I would say that which candidate is a threat to your democracy and your bodily autonomy is so obvious, That if you get that wrong, it could only be because of brainwashing.
It's not because you have a different preference.
It's not because I grew up as a Democrat.
It's not that.
You would have to be literally brainwashed to have the opinion that one of them is worse, that Trump is the one who's worse for your freedom.
So, I mean, it's amazing.
Eric Weinstein was on Podcast recently.
I wish I could remember the name of the podcast host, so I apologize for that.
And he's worried that neither Trump nor RFK would be allowed to be president because they don't match the criteria of being harmless to the international systems.
And he had this interesting reframe.
I hope I can do it justice.
I would recommend you see the long form because it's just so well done.
The Weidenstein brothers are really like a treasure.
I know that sounds too far.
But the ability that both of those brothers have, Brett and Eric, to explain complicated things in a way that makes you go, oh, well, thank you.
Now I feel like I can explain it in a simple way, because you did.
They're so good at this.
But listening to Eric describe our illusion of choice, and how the primaries are to create the illusion of choice, but really they're to make sure that both candidates are the acceptable kind for the system.
But his reframe is that we used to think of democracy as being the will of the people.
You know, if the people want something, that's your democracy.
But the current form of democracy, as Eric explains it, is keeping the democratic institutions strong.
And that if Trump challenges the democratic institutions, that that's against democracy.
Even if the individual people in the democracy agree with him by a majority.
That there's a new kind of so-called democracy That's being foisted upon us, which is not about the will of the people, but about the will of the democratic institutions.
Now, I like that reframe.
That gives you a whole other way to look at things.
And I'm not sure that anything about this was 100% new.
I mean, you've heard me say that the difference between Bush and Gore didn't look that big to me, or Dole and Clinton.
It just didn't look that big a difference, because in both cases, in all those cases, they were willing to, you know, allow the main institutions to run as they are.
Now, the main institutions would be everything from You know, the way Congress operates to the military-industrial complex, to the way elections are run, to everything, really.
But it does seem to me that the system and all those institutions are almost alive and trying to protect themselves from Trump.
Meaning that if you take an institution Pick any group that would be attacked by Trump.
The military-industrial complex.
That if you put a bunch of people together with a common interest, profit for example, they will act collectively like a person trying to defend themselves.
And so there are a bunch of institutions that are formed around defending themselves against Trump.
So that's a pretty good model.
Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas He has warned two of his counties in Texas that it's, quote, unlawful and reckless for counties to use taxpayer dollars to indiscriminately send voter registration forms with no consideration to the recipient's eligibility without any statutory authority to do so.
So first of all, they don't have the legal authority to do what they're doing.
And secondly, if they did have the legal authority, It would be the wrong thing to do because they're indiscriminately sending voter registration forms without knowing that they're people who should be able to have voter registration forms.
So it's basically two wrongs that didn't make a right.
They were just two wrongs that made each other worse.
And he threatens, uh, I urge you to abandon this proposal.
Uh, if you do not, I will see you in court.
Well, that's close.
That's close.
In this case, I think see you in court is the right level of threat because it's not like they're not necessarily going to go to jail for anything they're doing, but see you in court might slow them down.
But I think you need to go all the way to showing a picture of a jail cell.
If you up the people who are going to cheat now, and I'm not sure how illegal this is, whether that would be a jail level offense, probably not, but there will be people who would be tempted to do jail level offenses.
They will be tempted to do things with ballots that they know are illegal, but they don't think they're going to get caught.
If you want people to think more about the issue of getting caught, you're going to have to go visual.
You're going to have to show a picture of them in the fucking jail.
Right?
Show them the jail cell, like an actual picture of the jail cell and say, this is where you'll be living if you cheat in this election.
That's it.
Just that meme.
This is where you'll be living.
This is your new home, if you participate in cheating in the election.
Now, I think you've got to get people to the point where they're physically afraid of rigging an election, because they're going to spend the rest of their life in jail, or years in jail.
So, I've got to ramp it up.
Besides, it's real.
It's not lying.
If you catch somebody rigging an election, I assume jail's on the table.
And you could take a picture of a jail cell and it probably looks like a jail cell.
So there's no lying involved.
It's just making sure it's top of mind.
And top of mind is just repetition and ideally visual and fear.
So fear and a visual persuasion with repetition is really, really powerful.
Fear, visual, repetition.
Show me the jail cell, this is your new home if you rig the election, or your new home if you vote illegally.
And if enough people see it, you can have the fear, you can have the visual, and you'll have the repetition.
Well, the Attorney General of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, Who was Tim Walz's attorney general, coincidentally.
He just thanked Brazil for destroying free speech.
At least on the X platform.
So as you know, Brazil has been going after Musk on the X platform, and they're banning X in Brazil.
They were banning people using VPNs to access it, but it looks like they reversed that.
So you can still use a VPN in Brazil.
I think they knew that there was no way they could enforce that without a revolution.
But what do you think about the fact that the Attorney General of Minnesota came out publicly in favor of banning free speech?
Now, they're all using the disinformation thing.
It's like, no, no, we're not banning free speech.
We just don't like all the disinformation and the talk of violence and stuff.
Nobody believes that.
So yeah, they're openly opposed to free speech.
It's incredible.
So, I posted on X that Harris has several policy positions that could end civilization as we know it.
Big claim?
I'm going to give you several policies that Harris is in favor of.
That, in my opinion, could end civilization.
Not just America.
It could take out the whole fuckin' world.
Because if America goes down, you don't know what happens after that.
I'm taking the assumption that if America crashed, there would be a ripple effect that would be just devastating for the rest of the world.
China might be okay for a while.
No, even China wouldn't have anybody to sell to.
Well, they'd have somebody, obviously.
But if America goes down, we're in trouble.
I think you'd all agree with that.
So here's one.
They want a censor-free speech.
Can America survive without free speech?
I don't think so.
How about the open borders that they might call being nice to asylum seekers?
Not really.
We can't really survive that at the current rate indefinitely.
How about spending to oblivion?
Running up the debt?
Yeah, that's an existential risk.
Is Trump going to do the same thing?
Well, I worry about it.
But at least Trump has an Elon Musk to look at government spending.
At least Trump doesn't want to start wars that are expensive for no reason.
At least Trump knows that growth is one of the ways to go.
At least Trump likes crypto.
So I would say that neither of them satisfy me in terms of a plan to get rid of the existential threat of our debt.
But Trump at least has some tools he's showing.
He said, well, I don't have a complete plan, but I have an Elon Musk.
OK, that's a pretty good start.
That's a pretty good start.
I don't have a complete plan, but we know growth has to be bigger.
And one of the ways we can do that and bring down prices at the same time, because if growth is high, you end up getting inflation.
But you can get growth without inflation if you're simultaneously boosting the supply of energy.
Because then the energy costs go down, those costs spread into all products, so you can keep prices down as long as energy keeps going down.
So again, I wouldn't say Trump has a plan, but he shows all of his tools.
And you know, if the handyman shows up at your house, and he hasn't quite looked at the problem, you don't know that he has a plan.
But if you see he brought his tools, you're like, OK, well, that's better than somebody who didn't bring tools.
So at least I'll give him that.
How about restricting gun ownership?
You see where that could go.
How about the tax on unrealized capital gains?
Economists pretty much say that's the destruction of the United States.
And how about the racial discrimination, which is pretty much anti-white all the time?
These are existential threats.
I don't think that Trump is doing anything that you could sort of game out in your mind and say, okay, if this keeps going, it's the end of civilization.
Like, what would be an example?
Now, I get that I'm biased.
So there might be an example.
If somebody has an example of something that Trump is proposing, an actual policy, that looks to me like it, you know, in the worst case scenario, it could end civilization.
What would that be?
Name it.
I'm open to the conversation.
There might be, but I don't know.
I can't think of anything.
But Harris has one, two, three, four, five, six different policy preferences that look like existential threats.
Am I wrong about that?
All right, here's a question.
This is just me being a troublemaker.
Why would a political campaign hire internal pollsters if the free public polls are accurate?
And you have more than one.
You've got dozens of different public polls that will tell you how you're doing in every state, and they'll tell you how you're doing with every demographic group.
And they're updated pretty often.
So why does every campaign at the presidential level Hire their own internal pollsters?
Isn't that a waste of money?
Now, I get that the internal pollsters might ask different questions.
But really?
If you know what demographic group is doing what, and there's also polls on issues, you can tell what demographic group supports what policy issues.
This is all public.
It's public and it's multiple companies.
So, why do they do internal polling?
The only reason I can think of is that they know the external polling is fake.
What's the other reason?
They like spending money that they don't need to spend?
I'm open to the other reason.
Is it because the internal polling only checks things that the public polling doesn't look at?
No, because they also poll about how people are doing in each state by each demographic.
They reproduce the public stuff, except they get different answers.
What's up with that?
Somebody on Rumble is saying, the Weinstein brothers, along with Jordan Peterson, are grifters.
Talk about a word that has lost all meaning.
If somebody is a public personality, and they appear on a podcast, or they have their own podcast, in which they give their opinions, and they get paid for speaking, is that a grift?
Or is that a perfectly transparent addition to the conversation?
How broken do you have to be to call that a grift?
They're the most transparent people in the public view.
They tell you exactly what they think, why they think it, they show their work, and they're using economic models that are completely transparent.
Jordan Peterson charges tickets for his appearances.
Where's the trick?
Did you go to a Jordan Peterson event and then when you showed up they asked for money and you said, what?
What kind of grifting bullshit is this?
You're gonna fly to my town on your own dime and give me this speech, dammit?
I'm not looking to pay for it.
I think the people who call public figures grifters, if they're doing transparently what they're doing in this case, you are so lost.
You're so lost.
There are grifters.
I would say there are some race grifters.
That may not completely believe the things they're saying, but they know they can, you know, sell a book that way.
Now, calling them grifters feels fair.
But if somebody is completely transparent, and it does look like that's their real opinions, in those cases, they all look like real opinions to me, yeah, that grifter thing, you need to retire that.
People call me a grifter too.
Could I be more transparent?
You know exactly how my business model works, and you know my opinions.
What's the grifty part?
Get over it!
All right.
So the Waymo taxis are becoming more of a thing.
So Waymo is that company that's trying to make driverless taxis.
So that's a big deal now.
So you can see more of those.
I've got real questions about whether the driverless vehicles are going to work out.
In theory, they would be way better than people, but I would still be scared to death getting in a driverless car.
I don't know that my brain can adapt to that.
Maybe it's my generation.
Maybe if you're younger, it's easier.
But we'll keep an eye on that.
Anyway, so Netanyahu was asked for the millionth time, you know, why doesn't he end the war and cease fire?
And somebody asked the question, like, what would, what would it take before you would stop, you know, blowing things up in Gaza?
And he had this answer, which I don't know why this made news.
He said, we'll be done when, essentially I'm paraphrasing, we'll be done in Gaza when we get rid of Hamas.
And I thought to myself, well, you mean exactly the thing that you've been saying from the start.
Why are people still asking him that question?
There seems to be some assumption that's so dumb, but we keep treating it like, like it's an opinion.
If somebody says they should stop the fighting in Gazanow and rebuild, they are saying to leave Hamas, this deadly terrorist organization, in place and reconstitute them.
Do they even know they're saying that?
The one and only answer that makes sense is that we'll stop fighting when Hamas is gone, meaning all the leaders and all the military officers, probably.
They're very clear about what they're going to do.
And then he used the analogy, you know, would you leave Hitler in power just because you won the war?
Suppose you won and Hitler just said, all right, all right, you win.
You win.
Quit fighting.
If you quit fighting, I'll quit fighting.
No, no, you had to get Hitler because otherwise Hitler would just reconstitute and become Hitler again.
So, To imagine that Israel has a second path.
These are not opinions.
We're acting like there's a difference of opinion.
There isn't.
There's only one thing that makes sense.
Just one thing.
Hamas cannot be your neighbor.
That's it.
That's it.
Imagine if this were you, and some literal terrorists moved into your next door.
They're literally your neighbors.
And they were literally terrorists and they told you that they were going to kill you as soon as you went to sleep.
So you call the police and the police say, good news.
The terrorists say, uh, that today they won't kill you.
And you say, um, what about tomorrow?
And they say, well, I mean, you can't guarantee anything in the future.
Okay.
But you're letting, you're letting the terrorists who said they want to kill me live next door.
Uh, that doesn't work.
Yeah.
So, there is no other argument.
It is very simply, if you're Israel, and if you were America, you'd do the same thing.
Everybody would do the same thing.
If you were China, Russia, America, Israel, every country would do the same thing exactly.
You have to get rid of every one of them.
And if that requires that there's nothing left in Gaza but dust, then you do the dust.
There's not a second choice.
Not one that makes sense.
And asking them to do something that doesn't make sense doesn't make sense.
There's not enough benefit for the United States that you can ask them to live with this as a permanent situation.
Yeah, it's a little bit of Hamas, you can put up with it.
No, there's no such thing as a little bit of Hamas anymore.
There's none, and then there's the job's not done.
That's it.
Two choices.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my show for today.
