All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 23, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:12:20
Episode 2637 CWSA 10/23/24
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells, just on a canteen, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine day of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Today might be coming with a commercial message.
Don't look at it.
Mmm.
Delicious.
That's right.
2025 calendar.
Dilber calendar.
It's available only at the link on Dilber.com.
It's not going to be on any other place.
You've got to go to Dilber.com and see the link.
Made in America.
Anyway, other news.
You might know that the Young Turks, Cenk Uygur, I'd asked for somebody to debate, somebody to say that Trump was the right answer for the country.
And I was a little bit slow on responding to some emails because I volunteered.
So I missed my spot.
I overbooked.
So I couldn't do it on Thursday, which is tomorrow.
And I think he has some other people who volunteered to do that.
But I will be a guest on The Young Turks on Monday.
So I'll still get to talk about the same topic, but it will be Monday.
I believe The Young Turks starts at 8 p.m.
Easter time on Monday.
So I'll be a guest.
And again...
I just, I'm a fan without agreeing with his opinions of Cenk because I just like his mental flexibility and I like the fact that he'll talk to anybody and he doesn't seem to be afraid of anything, at least in the conversation realm.
So I just kind of like that.
So it doesn't matter if we agree.
I can still appreciate that.
Anyway, there's a study according to SciPost that excessive news consumption predicts increased political hostility.
Huh.
So the more you look at the news, the more you hate people.
You probably know what I'm going to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
You didn't really need to study that.
You could have just asked me.
Scott, we're going to spend a bunch of money on a study to find out if watching the news makes you hate people.
And I would say, yes.
Have you spent five minutes looking at the news?
Well, no, we haven't.
Well, you should do that.
Why don't you just spend five minutes looking at the news, and you tell me if you don't hate the world more.
Oh, good.
We'll just save some money.
We'll do it your way.
Again, everybody in the scientific community, just ask me first.
I can save you a ton of money.
That whole study, unnecessary.
Meanwhile, according to SciTech, this will sound like the smallest story.
Way bigger than you think it is.
Way bigger.
Apparently, you know, science has been trying to create an artificial nose for a long time.
And they can kind of do it, but it's real complicated and has lots of, you know, lots of components and stuff.
But apparently now there's a way to make a simplified, very effective way to use some kind of an antenna and send out some kind of a signal and see what kind of a signal you get back and that will tell you what smells or gases in the air.
And it does it really well.
So, pretty soon your robot's going to be able to smell things.
This is a bigger deal for me because I don't have a sense of smell.
I lost my sense of smell some time ago.
And if I had a robot in my house, I would want the robot to be able to know if there's a gas leak.
You know, the gas leak smells like rotten eggs, but I can't smell it.
I was once years ago in my first marriage.
I was in a condo and stepkids were doing their thing and I was doing my thing and my ex was out for the day doing whatever.
And she comes home and she walks in the door and she's like, my God, you know, open the windows.
The house is going to blow up.
You know, it's filled with gas.
And I said, really?
Yeah.
Couldn't smell a thing.
But she could.
And so we managed to not blow up the entire block.
But there had been, I think, the pilot or something on the oven was on.
So yes, I need a robot that can smell some stuff.
They might even be able to sniff out disease.
But think of the other things they can do.
Imagine if you had this smelling antenna in your location and then some criminals come in and they do some crimes but there's no video.
Would it be possible to use the electronic nose to then get a sample from the perps should you ever catch them and see if they're guilty based on their smell?
Because you may have recorded their smell at the location, and it's probably like a fingerprint.
So there's a whole bunch.
If you assume the smell is like, for humans, the underappreciated sense.
My dog has super smell.
If we had robots with super smell, I feel like a whole bunch of things would happen that you don't see coming.
So I think it's a big deal.
And you should trust science, and I... I encourage you to always believe science.
Whatever science says, it's all true, if science says it.
Our next story is from Nature, the publication.
Turns out that the journals with the high rates of suspicious papers flagged...
Oh, so there's this startup that has some kind of mechanism for determining...
Which of the scientific papers are bogus?
It's called Argos.
Argos, that's the name of the startup or the system that looks for research papers that look like they're not good.
Let's see, how many did they find?
I mean, there can't be that many, right?
Because we all trust science.
So, I mean, sure, nothing's perfect.
But if it's science, probably...
I'd be worried.
They might find a dozen papers or so that are just made up.
Imagine how shocking that would be if they found maybe 20 science papers that were just made up.
That would really rock your confidence, wouldn't it?
But imagine if it was like 50.
What if they found 50 science papers that had been accepted as peer-reviewed and then turned out to be just totally false?
See, how many was it?
They flagged more than 40,000 high-risk and 180,000 medium-risk papers.
And they've indexed more than 50,000 retracted papers.
Okay, that's a little worse than I thought it was.
Now, these are just flagged, the 40,000 high-risk, but the tool is saying that there are 40,000 papers that you probably shouldn't count on.
Now, let me ask you this.
Suppose I created this system on paper and it never existed before.
It goes like this.
If you want to be a scientist, You got to publish papers.
Well, all right.
So far, so good.
Yeah, that makes sense, because then you can tell if the scientists are, you know, really up on their field and stuff.
Good, yeah.
Scientists should be able to publish things.
Then we're going to have a peer review.
There'll be other scientists who will look at it, not to totally make sure that's fine, but to weed out, you know, obvious quacks and stuff.
And I think to myself, yeah, that makes sense.
That does make sense.
Yeah.
And now we're going to give an incentive structure to the scientists that they will make lots of money if they publish, but they won't make lots of money if they don't.
Oh.
Okay.
Well, yeah, I suppose anything that you want to be done, you want to have a little financial incentive for.
Sure.
So sure.
Sure.
Now, how do you think that's going to turn out?
Well, if you dropped a weasel into that situation, they would say, what if I just make up a bunch of papers, make them look like they're good, send them to my buddy who's the cousin of my brother-in-law to do the peer review.
He probably won't even look at it, or I'll send it to somebody who always says yes, and they'll definitely get peer reviewed, and then I'll get huge bonuses and I'll be paid to speak at events.
What would stop you from doing that?
Well, apparently not much, because you don't hear about people who are shamed forever because their papers were retracted.
So it seems to me that even on paper, what that should have led to, given the financial incentive, eventually all science will be fake.
Because the fake science is so easy and it pays so well that eventually it will just overwhelm anything that's real.
And even if there is some real stuff, you wouldn't be able to find it.
It'd be lost in all the wrong stuff.
So even on paper, this guarantees that science would go off the rails.
Now, I don't have a better idea.
You know, there might be a better idea out there.
Maybe this Argo system is part of it.
But even on paper, that was going to lead to doom.
Pretty much guaranteed.
According to Modernity, which is some kind of publication, I think, witches are complaining on the Reddit platform.
I guess a lot of witches on the Reddit platform.
They're complaining that they can't cast spells on Trump because, quote, he has some kind of protection around him.
So the witches are trying to put spells on them, but they're not getting through.
Got some kind of protection.
So, sounds like they're on to me.
But I'll try to keep protecting Trump from the witches.
It's taking a lot of energy.
But so far, so far my protective spell is holding.
Let's see if that continues.
Don't tell the witches, by the way.
Don't tell them what's going on.
But I've got a little protective bubble.
Around Trump.
It can deflect a bullet.
You know, if a bullet is heading at his head, I can move it just off base, maybe hit his ear a little bit.
But I can't do everything.
I mean, it's not magic.
Oh, it is magic.
Yeah, it's magic.
It'll work fine.
Wall Street Journal is now suing Jeff Bezos back to perplex the app.
I keep talking about this app because this is a rare thing.
Usually when I try an app, I would say one out of 20 of the apps that I try, I end up continuing to use.
They're usually overrated or they're for some specific purpose or they don't work or something.
But I tried this Perplexity app.
It's the one that is sort of AI plus search.
And I can't go back.
If you spend five minutes using Perplexity, and by the way, I was getting so annoyed because whenever I brought up something about Google search, the people in the comments would say, Try perplexity.
If you try it, you'll never go back.
It's so good.
Why haven't you tried perplexity?
And of course, my brain was doing the 1 in 20 thing.
Yeah, there's a 1 in 20 chance I might like that app you're talking about that I've never heard of, and I don't know what it does.
But eventually, I said to myself, there's so much yapping about this app, I've got to try this app.
When you've got a lot of yap, you've got to try the yap.
Yeah, that's what I say.
So I tried it, and it is so sticky.
Wow.
So let me tell you how I get ready in the morning, a common thing I do.
I used to try to talk to AI. Regular AI, like Chad GPT, but there's almost nothing I want to talk to AI about that doesn't require it to have access to the internet, to look something up, tell me what's new, tell me the weather, anything.
I have no interest in its general patterns of words.
Yes, you have general patterns of words.
You're not a person, and you do not have information that is reliable.
So, what are you?
What's even the point of AI? At least for casual use.
I don't even know.
But if you use perplexity, it doesn't have conversation mode, but you can, you know, push a button to talk and you can push another button to listen to what it says.
So I'll do things like I'll have something in my head and I'll be push the button.
I'll say, Is it true that the moon is really made of cheese and that somebody found that out in the 50s?
Whatever it is, I'm just making that up.
And it cogitates for a moment, and then I push the speaking button, and then it gives me a little customized news report.
And it's great.
It's just great.
And everything I ask, it shows me the sources.
It doesn't seem to show me any sponsored stuff, but maybe it does.
It just doesn't have anything labeled.
So I'll be real interested to see if these big media entities can kill it.
And why wouldn't they be going after Google?
Is there something that perplexity is doing that Google doesn't do routinely?
Google shows the big publications, shows a link to it, right?
They both just summarize them and show links.
So, I don't know.
Sounds like there might be something behind these lawsuits that's more than just protecting intellectual property.
Well, Nicole Kidman, who's 57 years old, which is important to this story, she's doing a new movie in which she's an older woman having an intense love affair with a younger man.
And the story is that she had to pause the filming.
It's called Baby Girl.
That's the name of the movie.
She had to pause the filming because she didn't want to orgasm anymore because she was getting so aroused by the sex scenes That she was having so many orgasms that she just had to take a break.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the best marketing campaign for any movie in the history of movies.
Do you believe that she was having continuous orgasms with people in the room not having real sex and moving the camera angles and move your elbow and you're on my hair and can you turn a little bit in this direction?
I do not.
I do not.
No, I do not believe that she had any orgasms while she was filming it.
I do believe that as soon as I read she had so many orgasms filming it, I said to myself, well, make a mental note.
I might want to watch it.
I might want to watch it.
So, oh my God, that's good marketing.
So I'm going to give Nicole Kidman my...
Highest grade for persuasion.
I don't care if it's true.
By the way, it's a movie, right?
She's creating a piece of fiction.
If she used a piece of fiction to market her piece of fiction, I'm okay with that.
I'm totally okay with that.
It's fiction.
It's fun.
It's entertainment.
If part of the entertainment is some BS in the marketing, that's fine.
It's just part of the show.
Go ahead.
Meanwhile, Boeing expects to make a big third quarter loss, and they've also got a big strike coming, and I think they had a satellite blow up, and they don't know why.
So Boeing's have a lot of problems.
I did hear somebody speculate.
That Boeing's problems may not be totally organic, meaning that if you were China and you were trying to compete with the United States, and you were trying to compete especially in the really important areas, such as not just manufacturing,
but manufacturing of high-tech stuff like airlines, and China has some new competitor to the Boeing products, that you would try to get your competitor to embrace DEI. Now, I don't have any evidence that China is behind the DEI practices of Boeing, because if they were, they'd have to be behind the DEI of everything in America.
And then I say, but are they?
The thing about DEI is that it's no more believable as an organic thing than Black Lives Matter or Antifa were.
And those were both fake as far as I know.
I mean, it's no more believable than the Patriot Front.
So, I don't know.
I do suspect that there's at least the possibility, so again, this is recreational speculation, this is not based on any knowledge, that someday we might find out that one of our regional adversaries, and I'll say just economic adversary, may have planted the DEI flag in America to see what damage it could do.
Because they knew they wouldn't have the same problem in their country, so it wouldn't spread to them.
It would be the ideal virus.
Yeah, when I call it a virus, now you get it, don't you?
Because when the actual virus came out of China, it was really, really bad for people.
But DEI is basically a mental virus, you know, mind virus, and it's one that China is immune to.
They're immune to it.
So they could unleash that virus on the rest of the world and they would dominate all manufacturing forever and essentially dominate the world without conquering anybody militarily.
So they could conquer most of the Western world with a DEI virus.
Does that mean that they were behind it?
No, it doesn't.
It does mean that if you came to me and said, Scott, you're the head of China, And I've got this plan to dominate all manufacturing of high tech and everything else so that we'll effectively run the world because nobody can operate without our products.
Here's what we'll do.
We'll fund anything that has to do with DEI. And of course, the people taking the money will be happy to take the money and spread it.
And then we'll make people feel really guilty if they're not accepting this thing that's so obviously good for everybody.
And it'll be like a virus, and it will destroy manufacturing in the United States without benefiting anybody.
So even the DEI people thought, hey, it's going to lift everybody up to equity.
It would, in fact, crash the industry so everybody's poor, but about the same.
We'd all be poor and starving and cannibals.
So I don't have any reason to believe that China was behind DEI, but again, on paper, if somebody had brought that idea to me, And I were in charge of China, I definitely would have implemented that idea and said, you know what?
I think this little idea virus will destroy the United States, at least as a manufacturing superpower.
Well, so you never know.
There's a...
There's a video that's coming out of Seattle.
PJ Media has it.
And it apparently shows the ballot machine not working.
So this is Oregon.
And Here's what I want to say about that.
I wouldn't trust any of the anecdotal election reports.
So there are other stories of machines that are reversing votes.
I don't quite believe those, because they're a little bit on the nose.
They don't seem to ever get any, like, major media backing.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it happened once, and that maybe there's some process where it's immediately corrected or something.
So I can't say there isn't a problem.
I'm just saying that it would be dicey to believe any of the individual reports.
Most of them will be fake, but we don't know which ones.
I did see a report today, and I saw the documents.
I can't be specific about it, but apparently NBC is hopefully sending out guides to people to tell them how to vote in their state.
And reportedly, and I saw the screenshot, so it's not being made up, NBC has wrong instructions for some New York State residents.
It says that to vote by mail you need a witness or a, what do you call it, the person who's an official witness.
Now I think that's not true.
So imagine if you were basing whether or not you voted on whether you had a witness.
That's kind of a big mistake.
So I'm taking a few assumptions.
My first assumption is that the New Yorkers do not need a witness to vote by mail.
And the second assumption is that the screenshot I said that I saw that seemed to come from NBC saying that you do need it, that that would be incorrect.
Notary, sorry.
The word I was trying to think is notary.
So the notice was that you need a notary or a witness, and apparently that's just not true.
Now, that's a pretty big problem, if it caused anybody to not vote because they didn't think they could get a witness.
I don't know who can't get a witness, but there's always somebody.
So I don't know what to believe.
Let's see.
According to Byron York, a little post on X, Gallup has been studying trust in media over the years.
And apparently the Democratic trust in media and their confidence in the media spiked in two years in the recent past.
Do you know what years the Democrats had the big spike in believing that the news is real?
2016 and 2017, in the middle of the Russia collusion hoax, the biggest lies the media's ever told to you, that's when Democrats' trust in the media was sky high compared to historically, and Republican trust went into the toilet.
Now, doesn't that settle who the smart ones are?
That kind of settles it, doesn't it?
Because these two were not close.
The Republicans were completely right and remain completely right about the fake news.
Democrats were completely wrong.
They actually trusted the news more, probably because it was on their side and they wanted to trust it.
But, oh my God!
It's like we found the problem.
And I often say you can't really have a conversation about anything important with anybody who thinks the news is real.
I mean, if you believe the Washington Post is like real news on politics, you would be so lost.
So lost.
Well, here's your propaganda update.
Remember I tell you that if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
But if you know who is involved, you might know everything.
Bob Woodward, who many people who are smarter than me say has always been part of the intelligence apparatus of the United States, including his actions in the Watergate stuff.
But if that's true, does it make sense that he just went on CNN and said that Joe Biden might get the Nobel Peace Prize for his good work in Ukraine for preventing Americans getting into a ground war?
Does that sound like something that somebody just thought was their own opinion and it would be good to say on TV? Or does that sound like Propaganda.
And he would think of himself...
I can't read his mind, so I don't know what he's thinking.
But does it look like that was a real opinion?
Because he's not stupid.
You don't get to be Bob Woodward if you're literally just stupid.
He's not stupid.
So why would you say this?
Which is obviously ridiculous.
The only reason you would do it is propaganda.
I mean, it doesn't have any news value whatsoever.
There's no news.
It's literally just weird propaganda.
Let's see, is there any other propaganda happening?
So there's a publication called The Atlantic, which is owned by Steve Jobs' widow.
And here's the thing.
We need to make a distinction between news which is biased and pure propaganda.
CNN is biased, but they do show quite regularly, and I give them credit, especially recently.
They have Scott Jennings on almost every night.
Giving the Republican view of all the stories.
And they've got two or three other people who look like they're pretty capable.
I forget their names, but they're also Republican voices.
So whenever there's a panel of five people, they throw in the one Republican.
And I don't mind bias when it's transparent.
If you show me five left-leaning people and one right-leaning person at the table, I know what you're doing.
You're not making it even.
I get it.
But it's also completely transparent.
When Fox News does it, if they have the one Democrat on the five and four of them are the opposite opinion, I'm fine with that.
Because nobody's hiding anything.
Hey, we're leaning in this direction, but we'll let you see the other side.
Now, that is completely different than something like The Atlantic.
The Atlantic is just a pure propaganda entity, but because they're both publications in some way, you know, media entities, we act like they're all legitimate.
The Atlantic is not legitimate.
And we keep acting like we should talk about it like it's one of the media sources.
It's not really.
It's not even close to being anything like news.
It's not even biased news.
It's just pure propaganda.
At least on the political stuff.
So Jeffrey Goldberg, who the smart people say, is one of the most famous political liars in America.
Like, he has a history of known gigantic lies where surely he knew he was lying when he did it.
Now, that's the accusation against him.
And there are a number of specific examples that the smart people like Glenn Greenwald who watch this stuff...
We'll give you.
So if you want to know the examples, follow Greenwald.
But his latest hoax is that General John Kelly says that Trump said that Hitler did some good things and he wishes he had some generals like Hitler or something like that.
Now, it doesn't matter because you know it's made up.
How do you know it's made up?
Because it's in the Atlantic.
You don't have to wonder if it's made up.
It's in the Atlantic.
That's all you need to know.
Is John Kelly, General Kelly, is he a reliable and credible source?
No, not even a little bit.
You would be the opposite of that.
Based on past experience.
So, no, there's no evidence that any of that happened.
It's in the least credible outlet.
And the story is by the least credible person and the least credible outlet.
But, of course, it's news because propaganda is news, too.
Anyway, we really should have a list of the things which are not really even trying.
You know, the Washington Post...
Sometimes a little bit will show a little bit of the other side, but I think when it comes to the political stuff, you could call them pure propaganda.
They don't seem like they're trying too hard to show both sides.
Anyway, the latest is that Kamala Harris will not be on Joe Rogan, but Trump will be, I think, on Friday.
And she will not be on the all-in pod, which Trump has already done.
And those are not the wrong decisions.
If I were in charge of the Harris campaign, I would tell her not to do those because she has the option of only doing friendlies.
If you have the option of only doing friendlies and not having anything that's unexpected, well, why would you?
Why would you?
You know, Harris was at this, I guess they called it like a town hall, with Maria Schreiber.
And somebody in the audience asked if they could ask questions.
And Shriver told her, no, the questions are predetermined.
So what's the audience for?
So they've got an audience of question askers, but the questions are already written.
So the audience was there as props to pretend that the questions have some, you know, some organic history to them.
But Maria was at least totally honest in public and said, nope, you do not get to ask questions.
These are predetermined.
So you've got one person running who is, in my opinion, the most capable persuader, maybe one of the most capable presidents we've ever had.
When people complain about Trump, it's weirdly that he'll be too capable.
Now, they add to the too capable that he has bad intentions, which are not evident as far as I can tell.
But if you add together very capable with, in their view, the propaganda view that he has bad intentions, that can be scary.
But it's funny that They've completely stopped with the, you know, he's incapable stuff.
It's just obvious that he has capabilities, and he has strong, strong capabilities.
He was president.
He showed it.
We see what Biden's done.
Doesn't look so good compared to what Trump did.
So it's now really clear that That Trump was a highly capable operative.
Maybe you don't like his policies, like if he didn't like what happened with abortion, for example.
But nobody says he didn't get it done.
Nobody says he didn't put on the court people who would get done things his party wanted.
So if you just look at stuff he did, even if you don't like it, you still have to say he got it done.
Now you could argue, well, he said he'd build the The wall, but he didn't get it done.
Well, that was entirely because Democrats pulled out all stops to stop him from doing the thing that even they want to do now.
So, I mean, is that really?
If they pull out all the stops to prevent you from doing something that everybody wants, it's not exactly his problem.
I mean, that's something else going on.
But Harris, on the other hand, is the least capable candidate for president I think we've ever seen in American history.
I would love to know if historians could even come up with a second one.
Because we've got somebody who can't even go to an interview unless it's so friendly that they know the questions.
That's the lowest level of capability.
That's the level that you could pick anybody at random and they could succeed.
All right.
We're going to pick you a random.
Can you read from this teleprompter?
Yes.
Yes, I can.
Okay, good.
You can do a rally.
Can you memorize an answer to a question if we give you a week to memorize it?
Yeah.
Yeah, I can do that.
I can do that.
Well, now you can be President of the United States.
It's literally all she can do.
She can just take prepared, memorized questions, and she can do reading off a teleprompter, and she can do angry yelling like Hillary Clinton did.
And she can tell a bunch of lies about the other side.
This is the most incapable candidate I've ever seen.
Now, there may have been worse ones for Congress.
I'm sure there have been.
But we've never seen anybody this bad in terms of just minimum capability.
Yeah.
I usually am picking, you know, when I'm looking at president candidates, I usually think I'm picking something like their policy preferences.
Because usually I think, well, you know, Bush versus Gore, very highly qualified, capable people.
It really was about the policies, right?
If you looked at, you know, Clinton versus Dole, very qualified people, highly qualified.
So it's about the policies.
But the Kamala Harris thing is not about the policy at all.
It's about, I don't even know if we can survive having this level of leadership or lack of it.
I mean, that is bad stuff.
All right, let me tell you the most dangerous story of the day.
You ready?
This is under the category of recreational belief.
I'm going to tell you a tale, but I'm not going to tell you I believe it.
I don't disbelieve it.
I don't disbelieve it, but I definitely don't believe it.
And I'd be looking for your help to tell me if there's some reason I shouldn't believe it or some reason I should.
All right.
So this is based on a post by Patrick Byrne.
You know him.
He was the CEO of Overstock.com.
But his resume is very impressive.
I've taken a look at it.
And you can tell that he's a really smart guy.
And he's been really connected in a lot of things, you know, for real.
So his ability to see behind the curtain would be better than most.
But here's what we have to decide.
Is what I'm going to tell you another Kraken?
Or is it the truth?
Because the Kraken is when you think, oh no, now I know everything.
And then you go out and you talk about it, and then you become Sidney Powell.
And then you lose everything and you get sued.
Now in the end, Sidney Powell, I believe, She was shown to be faultless.
Am I correct?
Now, she was going to lose her license or something, but I don't think any of the claims she made about the election ever became a legal problem that was confirmed by a court.
In other words, I don't know that her accusations were debunked.
Maybe you do.
I don't know.
So I just don't know.
But Here's roughly what Patrick Byrne will tell you.
You can look on his account and you'll find it today.
It's brand new.
It just happened hours ago.
And it's a six-part, but small parts, you know, like six-minute things, something like that, in which he describes a little bit of the history of Venezuela and how that affects our elections.
I know.
I know.
I hear your thoughts.
I hear them.
I get it.
It's the Kraken, isn't it?
It's definitely fake, isn't it?
Well, I don't know.
I have no way to know.
So I'll just tell you roughly what he says.
And if this doesn't make you interested enough to listen to the whole thing, Then you're dead inside.
Because the story he tells is so freaking interesting that recreationally, you're going to love it, even if it turned out not to pass the fact check.
And I don't know.
I really don't know.
So, for legal purposes, allow me to say the following.
Every company, person, or country that I mention in this context is just because of something I heard, not because I think it's true.
My opinion on whether it's true is suspended.
I don't know.
I really don't know.
And usually I have a strong inkling, but I don't have an inkling on this one.
It's really weird.
So here's the story.
Venezuela is not a regular government, and that for years it's been a gay cartel, and that the gay cartel is not something that's separate from the government, it is actually the government.
And that the generals in Venezuela are the head of the cartel, and it's the richest, most powerful cartel in the world.
The president would, again, also be head of the cartel.
So, but, here's the fun part.
According to Patrick Byrne, the Venezuelan head of the cartels are basically a P. Diddy model of male rape.
Right.
So the way Venezuela is being held together is that the people in charge, who are generals or, you know, presidents and stuff, are literally just raping the other men to keep them in line.
And it's so common that it's not even like there are a few bad eggs.
It's more like the main operating system of Venezuela is men fucking other men to keep them under control.
Is that true?
Well, I would have said that anything wasn't possible.
You know, prior to the Epstein stuff, I would have said that's not something that happens in the real world.
But I guess it does happen in the real world.
I just don't know if it happens in Venezuela.
Now, the gay part is probably more bisexual than gay, meaning that most of them are married, probably have regular marital relations, but apparently there's a lot of male raping.
That's the claim.
Now, that doesn't have a lot to do with the bigger story.
And again, this is Patrick Burns' claims.
These are not my claims.
I have no idea what is true and what's not.
But the story goes like this.
Sometime in the past, when the Venezuelan cartel wanted to make sure that it had a good control over Venezuela, it sent three engineers to start a company, a software company for election machines.
And although they started it in the United States, so it looked like a U.S. company registered in Delaware, they would actually be sort of under the control of some Venezuelan characters.
And then that software, allegedly, in different forms, ended up in all voting machines, and So even companies that have different names, and I'm not even going to name the names because you know all the names of the companies, that the Venezuelan fake software, meaning software that was designed to rig elections, and that was the only purpose for the company, was to design rigable machines.
And that that rigable software, although it has been rewritten in other languages, is on all the machines.
So that there isn't any voting machine anywhere that doesn't have Venezuelan software.
Now, do I think that's true?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It's a hell of a story.
It gets better.
There's also a claim that the hardware for most or all of these machines, which looks like it's coming from Taiwan, is actually from mainland China, and they just launder it through Taiwan so you think it came from Taiwan.
So, the claim is that our elections are determined by Chinese hardware and Venezuelan cartels.
And that every country that uses any kind of voting machine is controlled by Venezuela.
In other words, Venezuela gets to decide who is the president in every country that uses voting machines.
And that somehow Castro was part of that as well.
Now, that's a pretty big claim, isn't it?
So I can't really wrap my head around that as all being true.
I will say that if you look at the materials, you know, you look at the video that Patrick burned in.
By the way, I think he has a book.
I believe he's got a book out, so maybe this is, you know, some of this is related to that.
But it all hangs together.
So that doesn't make it true.
But it would explain so many things.
And one of the things I always think about is that in my world, you know, I see the world through a Dilbert filter, that whenever I hear something like, oh, our CIA is super competent and, you know, they've got control of everything, I always say to myself, eh, do they?
Do they?
Is the CIA the one highly capable organization in the world and everything that I've ever been involved in was a mess?
But not the CIA. No, everybody's good except, you know, everybody's bad except the CIA. They're just nailing it every year.
Maybe.
But the other possibility is that they're terrible.
What if they're terrible?
They might be.
If they're terrible, Then it would be entirely possible that some criminal entity is running all of our elections and several elections around the world.
But the American version of this is that the CIA is the one overthrowing all the countries and maybe the CIA is behind the voting machines.
Now, one possibility is that that's exactly why this story exists.
So that you don't suspect that the CIA is behind everything.
Ah, maybe.
So, what we can determine, and if any of you have any insight into it, it'd be great, is, is this the great reveal, or is it just another diversion so that you don't expect the real bad guys?
What do you think?
You're going to have to hear the whole video to have an informed opinion because I'm just giving you the highlights.
But I feel like it would be reasonably impossible to confirm the following facts or to debunk them.
Number one, do we know that the hardware is made in China and just labeled as Taiwan?
There's probably some source for that.
I don't know what the source is.
Is it true if you took every voting machine everywhere and looked at the software, even though the language might be different, that it's basically the same line-for-line code and that it came from a Venezuelan source?
Those seem like things that you could possibly find out are true or false.
And I haven't, so I don't know.
But I'll tell you, it's such a mind effort that when the Epstein thing comes out, you have to change everything you think about everything.
And the Russia collusion story comes out.
And you have to change everything about how you see the world.
And the 51 intel people who said the Biden laptop thing was fake.
And you've got to change everything you're thinking about the world.
And then the diddy thing comes out.
And you have to change everything you think about music.
And then this comes out.
Right in the middle of all that.
And now I have to change everything I think about everything, if it's true.
But if it were a diversion or a way to discredit people like me, because if I talk about it, then I get discredited later.
So I've already said enough that the Atlantic could write a hit piece about me, say that I'm pushing a story about Venezuelan cartels running the elections.
Do you see how this works?
Now, this is not something that CNN or Fox News would do, because again, they're biased, but they don't operate as a purely propaganda entities.
You know, they're transparent.
But the Atlantic...
Or the Washington Post, kind of a different animal.
I've already given them enough that they could write a story that would seem like I believe it, and I'm pushing it, and maybe I'm part of a Russian propaganda or a Venezuelan gang.
Right?
Don't you think you could take what I've already said, and then if nobody was going to check what I said originally, because people don't, you could just write an article and people would believe it.
Oh, he's pushing this thing.
So, my interesting situation is this.
I'm drawn to risk.
So, sort of a flaw of mine.
When something's dangerous, I tend to go toward it.
And it was very dangerous for me to even tell you that Patrick Byrne has a story to tell and the basic idea of what it was.
Very dangerous.
It could be the end of...
It could be the last time you see me, basically.
It could be that dangerous.
But I tell you for sure that I genuinely don't know if it's true.
I genuinely, I don't even have a, I don't even, I'm not even leaning in one direction.
And that's rare.
So the fact that I'm not even leaning in one direction is also telling me something.
But I'm not entirely sure what it's telling me.
Now, I haven't seen anybody debunk it.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I do have some feelers out to see if I can get a better handle on it.
If I find out something, I'll let you know.
But I don't suspect that if you look at all the claims about our election systems, you know, these included, it's certainly hard to imagine that we're going to have a good result.
And here's what, let's see...
Speaker Johnson said, he said he doesn't expect that we'll have a result in the election.
So Mike Johnson, the Speaker, said he expects Democrats to refuse to certify election results if Trump wins.
Now, would that be unusual?
Turns out, no.
That would be normally what they do.
So according to Johnson, the post-millennium has this story.
Quote, Democrats have now made it a tradition to object to electors, certain states of electors, and they have done so every single time a Republican president has won in the last quarter century.
Now, I didn't know that, that the Democrats have called foul on every single time a Republican won.
And of course, it would work the other way as well, right?
If the polls say that Trump's going to win, but Harris wins in the last minute, and votes come in at the middle of the night.
So under what scenario would either side certify this election?
So we have an election system that's designed, and everybody knows it, to guarantee that both sides think it was rigged.
How do you do that accidentally?
That can't possibly be an accident given that we know how to avoid it.
Where is this coming from?
It's very confusing.
Well, here's a story that I don't have any insight into, so I was kind of sitting it out, but I'm observing.
MSNBC has been talking to some citizens about the election, and they ran a package in which they were talking to some black voters about how they felt about Obama saying, That black men may be sexist and that's why they're not supporting Kamala Harris.
And I saw one of the black men who was being interviewed saying that he was deeply offended by that.
Deeply offended.
And I wondered how common that is.
It's anecdotal, so I don't want to make too much of it, but I don't have a sense of what would be insulting to other people.
You usually know what would insult you, but not somebody else.
Do you think that was deeply offensive?
I mean, it was clearly a slight, but do you think people will actually vote differently because they were so treated?
I feel like, again, this is totally anecdotal, but it feels like black America is having some kind of awakening.
And you see it in a whole bunch of ways at the same time.
And a lot of it had to do with the migrants coming in and watching the people that they thought were their biggest supporters bringing in somebody, let's say, with even, at least in the short term, bigger problems and diverting resources to them.
And then probably black voters were saying, hmm, this wasn't exactly what I was expecting.
So I think that's going on.
I think people are realizing that the stories about Trump are all lies.
I think black Americans figured that out.
They figured out the hoaxes.
There are a whole bunch of videos where there'll be a black content creator who's doing a video saying, I just found out all this Trump stuff is bullshit and it's all based on hoaxes.
There's a whole bunch of them.
Now, again, Are they organic or is somebody's campaign paying for them?
I don't know.
But there's a lot of them.
So something big is happening with black America.
I think it's probably in a good direction.
I saw that the Amuse account on X had some information that, you know, when Kamala Harris did the Catholic Church event, but she made a video instead of showing up in person, the Al Smith event, whatever it is.
And it was kind of a little bit blasphemous because it showed Molly Shannon acting like a Catholic schoolgirl seemingly mocking the faith a little bit.
And that was generally considered a huge fail.
But I didn't realize that the Harris campaign was blaming Mark Cuban for suggesting it.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think Mark Cuban suggested this exact idea?
I'm going to say no.
Here's what might be true.
It might be true that he said something like, you know, play it for fun, or make sure you have fun with it, but do a video, or maybe something like that.
I don't think that he suggested the specific failed skit.
Do you think that Mark Cuban was writing the jokes for the skit and decided he had to cast it?
I don't think so.
He may have suggested doing a video.
Which might have been the suggestion when he found out that she wasn't going to attend in person, because the video would be better than just skipping it.
So he may have been involved, but I feel like maybe they're looking for, you know, dumping off a little blame on him, that my best guess is that that's overblown.
Did you know that the British government seems to be trying to defeat Trump?
The claim is that members of the British government are coming over to the United States to help campaign for Harris.
Like, really?
You're sending your politicians to campaign for Harris?
I don't know how much of that is true.
And apparently the Labour Party over there in the Great Britain.
Has somebody, according to Paul Thacker, who's worked with Matt Taibbi on this story, there's some documents showing that the Labour Party's political front's objective was to, quote, kill Musk's Twitter through, quote, advertising focus, meaning harassing the advertisers.
Is that true?
Is the government of Great Britain trying to kill Twitter?
Now called X. And are they interfering in our election?
If either of these things are true, then they must be punished.
They must be punished.
Yeah, they're our best ally.
Sure.
But if this is true, there has to be a response.
And it has to be big.
Because this is...
Really, really, really not okay.
Great Britain.
So, here's what I think.
If Great Britain is trying to kill freedom of speech in America, I would pull anti-NATO and I wouldn't defend them.
Period.
There's a bottom line here.
If Great Britain is trying to destroy freedom of speech in America, I don't want to protect your stupid fucking little island.
You can all fuck off.
You can all become Russian.
I don't care.
But don't ask me to spend a fucking penny if you're trying to remove our only last remaining source of free speech.
Fuck every one of you guys.
Every one of you.
And by the way, the citizens of Great Britain, you better do something with your government, right?
It's not my job to change your government, but I can certainly suggest that my government stop protecting you.
If you're going to come after us and destroy our system, I'm out.
So I think we should have an actual conversation, like literally, about whether we're protecting Great Britain anymore, whether we can work with them.
Now, I know how ridiculous that sounds because the connections are so deep and so long, but no, that's a red line.
This is a solid red line that they're crossing.
Now, Musk says he's going to fight back and maybe something can be done in the courts, but I doubt it.
This is the line.
Man, you crossed the line, buddies.
So the next thing that Great Britain asks from the United States, the answer is no.
I don't even care what it is.
Just no.
Fuck off.
Leave us the fuck alone.
We're not going to forget that.
Well, the publication, The Hill Doesn't Know What Racism Is, there's an article by Cheyenne Daniels.
And she's talking about Charlemagne was laughing at Laura Trump when Laura Trump said that President Trump has never said anything racist.
And then the writer, Jayanne Daniels, wants the reader to know several examples which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is racist and he said racist things.
So here are the things that The Hill allowed a writer to We're racist.
Number one.
So she said, despite his comments about the Central Park Five in the 80s, the Central Park Five, no race was ever mentioned, nor did he specifically mention the Central Park Five.
He did a full page ad saying that, you know, they're criminal animals or, you know, are preying on the population and maybe you should have the death penalty.
Race wasn't even part of the conversation.
This is completely made up.
So you'd have to read his mind and imagine that he secretly was thinking race when he never mentioned it.
He talked about behavior.
The behavior in the city is terrible.
Too many criminals.
Maybe we should kill them.
Behavior.
That's the opposite of race.
If you don't say anything about race, and the story didn't have any racial element, except that race was, you know, people were different races, I guess.
But he didn't even mention that.
That was all made up after the fact that there was some racial part of it.
Then there's the birtherism conspiracy theory.
What the hell does that have to do with race?
Birtherism.
He said the same thing about Canadians, right?
The most common criticism in politics is that the politician you're running against is not a legal resident of So you see it a lot in more local politics.
Like this person has a house here, but I don't think they really live here.
This person spent one month a year in the state, but they're running for senator.
It's the most common thing people say is that you were born somewhere else or your background doesn't make you capable to be president based on national origin.
Now, I don't think it's true that Obama is not a citizen.
In my opinion, he's very much a citizen, very much an American.
But it's not racist to question his birth certificate.
Racism is even part of the conversation.
Again, who's bringing in the race?
It wasn't Trump.
It would be the same complaint about anybody.
Then there's what else is in the list?
Then there's Trump's rhetoric regarding migrants.
Is there some quote I should say?
I'm not aware of any racist rhetoric about migrants.
I am aware that Trump says there are too many criminals coming across.
Are we so dumb that we think he meant every one of them, the babies?
Was he blaming the babies coming across as being criminals?
No, obviously he didn't mean all of them.
Obviously he didn't mean that there are more criminals in this racial group, but there might be more criminals who are being released from jails.
I don't know if that's true or not, but that has nothing to do with the race.
It would be whether or not they were in jail.
So there's no evidence of that.
That's just something that happens on the fake news.
And the last one is...
His recent embrace of a conspiracy theory about Haitian migrants eating people's pets.
What is the racial component of that?
If you replace them all with Americans, or not Americans, let's say, you replace them all with Irish people, But if you were under the impression that this specific little island and their specific culture allowed them sometimes to eat pets where other people would say that's terrible, it would still be about the activity.
It wouldn't be about the race.
You can just replace the Haitians with anything.
And if they were Irish, it would be the same complaint.
What is Trump going to be happy if the Irish are eating his pets?
Oh, I didn't realize the Irish were eating the pets.
That's okay.
No, it had nothing to do with the race of the people doing it.
It was the eating the pets part, which, by the way, there's not as strong evidence that there was much of that happening.
So it amazes me that somebody could write an article in a major publication and not even have a passing understanding of what racism is.
That's weird.
You know the story about Trump worked at McDonald's and he won the news cycle, but Kamala Harris said that she had actually worked at McDonald's and that's part of why Trump did his thing.
But the source, according to the Free Bacon, not the Free Bacon, Free Bacon is way better than Free Bacon, but the Free Bacon is a publication.
According to them, the Canadian woman Who told the New York Times that Harris' dead mother mentioned her McDonald's job is a campaign surrogate who has been to the White House and shares a sage at rallies.
And the New York Times never mentioned that the one and only source for Kyle Harris's claim is one of her campaign surrogates, who says she heard it from somebody who's dead now. who says she heard it from somebody who's dead now.
Do you think she worked at McDonald's?
Here's what's possible.
Maybe she worked there for a week and got fired.
Or, you know, being late or something.
If you're just starting at McDonald's, you only have to be late a few times and you get fired.
So it's pretty easy to get fired.
I'm not saying she got fired, but if you believe she worked there based on a campaign surrogate saying she talked to somebody who was dead who once mentioned it, well, I'm not sure I would believe that.
Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson says he's going to join Trump, I think, twice in Georgia for the campaign rallies.
Now, do you think that Tucker Carlson could have joined Trump if he was still working for Fox News?
No.
So it turns out that getting cancelled allows Trump to have the pirate ship that he does.
Because he's got RFK Jr.
that was basically cancelled by the Democrats.
He's got Tulsi Gabbard who just decided that she's going to register as a Republican.
Vivek wasn't cancelled, but he certainly understands that world.
And I was cancelled.
And it certainly makes me more all-in on Trump.
So it seems that if you cancel the wrong people, they become stronger.
So, didn't see that coming.
Anyway, so did you know that there is an effort by something called the 65 Project?
And they're doing ads and stuff telling people that if they're lawyers and they work for Trump, they're going to be in big trouble.
So that Trump can have no good lawyers in the future when they go after him for a lawfare.
Well, The good news is that America First Legal is going to go after the people going after him.
So America First Legal is going to investigate.
This is according to Just the News website.
News site.
Just the News.
So they're going to investigate the group that's threatening lawyers associated with Trump.
I don't know if investigating gets you anything, but we should put a little...
Put a little transparency on this to find out.
You know, as dirty as you think politics is, and it seems plenty dirty, the fact that somebody's trying to make it impossible for somebody to get good legal representation, this affects me at like a deeper level.
Because the Constitution is pretty clear, and the laws are pretty clear, that even if you're guilty, You get to have a good lawyer and you get to have a defense.
I don't think there's anything more basic to what keeps America together than the fact that if you get arrested or I get arrested or somebody we hate or somebody we love gets arrested, they're all going to get a defense.
And here they're trying to take away Trump's defense through clever just warning people away and threatening them.
And it's hard to imagine anything that's more deeply evil and un-American than this.
All the other stuff I talked about, propaganda, lying, maybe the elections have some problems, etc.
Those are all terrible.
And the P. Diddy thing is beyond belief almost.
But I almost feel worse that there would be any American that is being systematically denied...
The best level of lawyer support.
This is so deeply troubling.
I mean, just, I don't know, this one bothered me a lot.
So good for America First legal.
They continue to be superstars, and they are the answer for all the lawfare that's been used against the Republicans.
So we've got some fightback happening.
Meanwhile, Carrie Lake's office was on lockdown because somebody mailed them a suspicious package with a substance in it and a message that suggested it might be anthrax.
Now, I don't have a confirmation that it was anthrax.
Probably not.
Probably not.
But, wow.
I don't think it's ever been more dangerous to be a Republican.
How many Democrats got shot at or poisoned this year?
None.
I mean, I hope none.
But Trump got shot at, Carrie Lake got suspicious package.
It's getting dangerous.
Dangerous to be a Republican, I tell you.
So try to stay out of jail.
All right.
Yes, the little people do have trouble with lawyers.
That's true.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of my prepared remarks.
I'll remind you that I'm going to be on the Young Turks on Monday, 8 p.m.
Eastern Time, 5 p.m.
California Time.
And so I'll have a conversation about what's good or bad about Trump.
And I hope you join that.
And of course, if you don't know that the Dilbert calendar is available, it's available now.
You can buy it only at the link at Dilbert.com.
So go to Dilbert.com and follow that link.
It's the only place you'll ever be able to buy that calendar.
So thanks for joining everybody.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
And I'll see the rest of you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection