News is interesting but complicated today. My favorite kind.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Weaponized DEI, Woke Women, Venezuela Competing Narratives, President Trump, Whitehouse J6 Website, J6 Reversed Reality, Russian Flagged Oil Tanker, Climate Change Tribalism, WaPo Decline Confusion, Media Mistrust, Grok Inaccuracies, CA Fraud Fed Investigation, Utah AI Prescriptions Check, Negative Thoughts Control, Mental Shelf Space Theory, Russia's Population Decline, US Greenland Acquisition, democrat Impeachment Plans, 25% Polling Phenomena, Woke Writing College Courses, democrat Swearing Failures, Jasmine Crockett, Candace Owens Non-Human Hybrids, Venezuela BLM US Funding, 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.
As soon as there are a thousand of you beautiful people, we're going to do this simultaneous sip.
You wouldn't miss it.
All right.
Just about there.
1,000.
All right, let's do this, people.
Kick it off.
I know why you're here.
You're here for the simultaneous sip.
All you need is a copper mugger, glasses, tanker, chalicesign, 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 of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
happens now so good So good.
well i was watching the trigonometry um podcast and they have a guest on called called her name was helen andrews
And Helen Andrews was explaining that she's got a thesis that wokeness is really just a feminine pattern of behavior and that women like consensus relationships making everybody happy.
And that she notices that whenever the number of women gets to a critical point in an organization, it flips to be woke.
She talks about law schools tipping majority female in 2016, the New York Times staff 55% female by 2018.
And now managers are even 46% women.
So the question is, is that a coincidence or a cause?
Well, here's what I think.
I think women make it possible and introduce wokeness.
But I think men also use it as a weapon.
For example, I have often told you my stories of my corporate life where I wasn't allowed to be promoted because I was white and male.
Do you think the women did that to me?
No.
The men weaponized the whole DEI thing and said, oh, I'm working as hard as I can to get more DEI.
So I'm the good guy.
But they weaponized it against people like me.
So if you were a white male and you were at the bottom of the totem pole, it was easy for the senior executives, who were also white male, to say, there's nothing wrong with me.
Look at all these women I'm hiring.
Look at all these LGBTQ I'm hiring.
So women create wokeness and then men weaponize it.
If you look at the Democratic Party, you'll see that it became super woke.
At the same time, it became essentially a woman's party.
And then you notice that the people who weaponized it would be people like Biden and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer and all that.
Just in case you wondered.
Well, the Venezuelan narrative, as I'll call it, seems to be solidifying.
Do you remember the first day or two of the Venezuelan event, I'll call it?
People said, oh, it's about drugs, it's not about drugs, it's about oil, it's not about oil, it's about China, it's not about China, it's about Iran, it's not about Iran.
And there was a lot of disagreement about what was really happening.
But I would say by now, the narrative has solidified.
And there's almost nobody who believes it was only about drugs.
Am I right?
Pretty much nobody says, oh, it was only about the drugs.
How about the people who say it was only about the oil?
Well, nobody says it's only about capturing the oil, but they have a bigger narrative that is about suppressing China.
And the Belt and Road Initiative, which would have been very correctly going through Venezuela.
And it's also about the Monroe Doctrine, which plays into the whole keeping China out of our hemisphere.
It seems to also be the general statement of agreement that if you deny China all of the energy it wants or needs, it's going to slow them down for any kind of bad activity they do to us.
So it would weaken them militarily if they tried to buy more energy from Russia.
Russia would be in the pickle because Russia needs all the energy it can get.
So it might be a way to diminish Russia's intentions, maybe get a deal faster than we could have otherwise.
But at this point, it doesn't seem to you like the narrative has collapsed and all the smart people know exactly what's going on.
Would you say that's true?
Yeah.
And the deeper you dig, the more good it looks for the United States.
Now, I will add this, and I think all the smart people are saying the same.
If Venezuela now falls apart and we can't put the pieces back together, we would not consider that a win, or at least as big a win as it could have been.
But I do believe that Trump has a plan that appears to be working.
So he announced that Venezuela was going to give up to the United States 30 to 50 billion gallons of oil.
And Trump says it will be entirely up to him how that oil is used.
It will be sold on the market, of course.
But what Trump is doing in his Trumpian way is promising that some amount of that will directly benefit the Venezuelan people.
And that's very Trumpian.
He likes to make deals where everybody wins.
And that would be a deal where everybody won, except China.
Right.
Well, here's a little personal update.
I'm still working on what to do with all my intellectual property after I pass.
Obviously, it will be owned by my estate.
But we've been experimenting.
Jay Plemons has been helping me to see if I can turn my regular reframes from my book into a video that looks like me talking about the reframe.
And he did some examples and they look pretty good.
You know, you can tell their AI, but they're so close to the original, which would be me doing it, that I think is completely workable.
So I'm working on that.
We will have more updates as we see what's technically and practically possible.
You know, because a big part of it is how do I protect my IP, intellectual property, at the same time, let people have fun with it and put it in one place so that people know how to find it, et cetera.
So it'll have to be protected, but I want to make it as widely available as possible.
Speaking of me, yesterday, I guess it was Trump put a statement on the White House, I guess it was the website.
It was about the January 6th event.
And some people pointed out that the language that Trump used to describe it seems like it might have come from me.
Now, not directly.
So I'm not consulting for the White House or anything like that.
But there are some things I say a lot.
And let me see if you can identify things that you heard me say.
I talked about the scripted TV spectacle that they used to reverse the reality.
Now, lots of people talked about the scripted TV production of it.
But what I added was, well, let me just read Trump's words.
He said, the Democrats masterfully reversed reality.
Do you remember how I kept saying that they reversed reality?
They masterfully reversed reality after January 6th, branding peaceful patriotic protesters, that's a lot of Ps, peaceful patriotic protesters as insurrectionists and framing the event.
Now, have you noticed that the word framing has become much more popular since I started following politics?
So framing and reframing, you always have to wonder, did that come from him?
So framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump, despite no evidence of armed rebellion or, here's the part that counts, intent to overthrow the government.
Remember, I made a big deal about the fact that the entire January 6th committee and all the hearings, and nobody in the news or in the hearings ever asked them, what was your intention.
But Trump's on it.
He's noting that they never identified any intention.
There's nobody who said they were trying to overthrow the government.
And if you ask them what they were doing, they would have said they were trying to save the government, and they would mean it, because they believed it was an obviously rigged election.
And then Trump says, in truth, it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.
Does that sound like me?
Yeah, I introduced the word hunting about Republicans, and despite no evidence of intention, and that the Democrats essentially reversed reality.
Now, here's where he sums it up.
Trump does on the webpage.
He said, this gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract them from their own role in undermining democracy.
So here are the concepts which I probably introduced to the thought process.
It was a reversed reality that they got away with a scripted TV spectacle.
They reframed or framed the event as a violent coup and no evidence of insurrection intent or planning.
And then that they weaponized federal agencies to hunt down dissenters.
Now, how much of that sounds like it came from me?
You have to tell me if I'm imagining this.
Are these concepts and the way he presents them, are they so obvious that he just sort of ended up in the same place I was because we're just both smart?
I don't know.
I feel like the administration, beginning in the first term of Trump, I believe that a number of the insiders recognized that I was good at framing stuff.
And then I think they started paying attention so that they could look how I framed it and compare how they were going to frame it themselves and see if there's anything they can borrow from my framing.
It looks like they have successfully borrowed from my framing.
Well, apparently Russia sent out a submarine to protect that reflagged empty tanker that was trying to escape the U.S. Navy.
And so they sent out a sub to maybe protect it.
But I believe that as of just a few minutes ago, the U.S. forces actually took it.
So they boarded it and they took it before Russia could get any serious Navy presence there.
But obviously we had to hurry because we didn't want to do it when there was a Russian submarine 10 feet away.
So another success for the U.S. military.
And my question is, what will Russia do now?
Since we already boarded it, are they going to pull up the submarine that they have and say, oh, you better give it back?
Or will they say, oh, don't do that again?
We got here a little late, but next time we might not be late.
We're going to have to watch that one.
I do think that the issue is not nearly big enough for Putin to say, all right, it's war now.
I think the only thing that's going to make sense is for Russia to say some tough words and then back off.
That's what I think.
Well, here's some science.
That if you persuade people, and they did random tests, if you persuade people to be more afraid of climate change, you can actually change their minds.
In other words, if you try to scare them that the climate change is a big risk, you could move the needle.
And people can be persuaded.
But what they did not find is that by moving the needle and making it look extra dangerous that there's a climate crisis, that those same people did not open their wallets and donate more to change it.
Now, how strong is your belief that it's an existential threat if it makes no difference to what you donate money?
Because money kind of tells a story, right?
So here's my take.
I think that people are kind of tribal when it comes to climate change or anything else.
And so if you give them a good argument to be even more tribal than they were, in other words, to be more fearful of it, it makes them more tribal, but it doesn't make them more believing it more.
So I'm not sure that they're really believing it more if they're not paying money for it.
Anyway, according to the Brownstone Institute, Roger Bate is writing about this.
The Washington Post did a story recently showing that childhood vaccination rates in the U.S. are falling sharply, especially for measles and blah, blah, blah.
And what Roger Bate points out is that the Washington Post doesn't do a good job of diagnosing why it's going down, why the vaccination rate is going down.
Now, wouldn't you say that the main reason it's going down is that people stop trusting the fake news and they stop trusting the Washington Post to tell them what's good for their health.
I think that's what's happening.
But the observation by Roger Bate is that the Washington Post doesn't even take a stab at their own credibility as being part of the problem.
And it makes you wonder, do they really not know?
Does the Washington Post literally not know that they're a big part of the problem?
If you think the problem is that there are fewer vaccinations, we could obviously argue that having fewer vaccinations, a lot of people prefer that.
So I wonder if distrust in the media should be a class that they teach at school.
Wouldn't that be useful?
Imagine taking a class that used my materials, for example, to teach all the tricks of finding BS.
That would be so useful.
And I wonder if AI is going to replace the fake news.
For a while there, we thought, ah, as long as we have AI, the AI will be able to pick out the fake news.
But that's not what's happening.
So far, the AI is making the fake news more fake because it hallucinates.
Will we ever get to the point where the AI can fact check the fake news?
Well, it can definitely fact-check the fake news when it's from independent publishers.
I think it was this morning and also yesterday, I saw a story that was being promoted by some random account.
And I read the story and I was like, wow, that's blowing my mind if that's real.
But then I caught myself and I said, how would I know if it's real?
So I went to Grok and said, is this real?
And Grok said, you know, with no uncertain terms, it was not real.
Now, I tend to be influenced by the last thing I hear.
So I immediately ignored that post.
And I've now seen it pop up as being real.
So I think Grok, I think Grock got that one.
But how could I know that Grok will get the next one?
I mean, it hallucinates all kinds of things about me.
How would you know?
If you were trying to check a story about me and you went to AI, what are the odds it would be accurate?
Not really high.
And that's with Grok being the best one in terms of accuracy, I think.
Well, according to the New York Post, federal prosecutors are going to be coming hard for California fraudsters.
Something about the homeless services being fraudulent.
Now, I don't know.
Do you expect to see lots of arrests about California fraud?
I think Elon Musk was saying that the fraud in California would end up being way worse than the frauds in Minnesota.
That doesn't feel good.
But it seems necessary.
So we'd like to see more prosecutors and we'd like to see them act faster.
Because whatever we do, it always seems like, you know, you could have been a lot faster.
All right.
Meanwhile, the Washington Examiner is reporting that Utah will be the first of its kind partnership with, I don't know, the medical community, I guess, that allows patients with long-term conditions to refill prescriptions using AI.
Now, how do you make that work if AI hallucinates?
I'm not saying they won't, because if you narrow the domain, AI can do well.
And this would be a case of narrowing the domain.
And it's only limited to people who have been getting the same prescriptions for a long time.
Sounds like a good idea.
And then AI could quickly check to see what was incompatible with their, if there are other medications that change since they got a prescription.
They'd be able to have the AI tell them if anything is now incompatible.
But I think they have that already, don't they?
Doesn't your health care provider have some kind of a program that they've had for a while that would tell them if they prescribed one thing, it might conflict with the other thing?
Because I mean, I've had them tell me that by looking at a screen, unless it's just that doctors are taught what doesn't go with what, and that's all they need.
I doubt it, though.
Yeah, here we go.
According to Newsmax, one day after Tim Moltz announced he won't be running, Trump set his sights on Governor Newsom.
And in a truth social post, I'm having so much trouble splurting my words because my mouth is so dry.
One second, please.
Downloading better software.
Oh, Pill Finder website already does that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
You wouldn't need that much AI to do it, I guess, or any.
So Trump said in the True Social that California, led by Newsom, is, quote, more corrupt than Minnesota.
And said a fraud investigation has begun.
How in the world would Newsom think he could win a presidential race at the same time the feds are coming down on him for massive fraud, let's say?
They don't know that he did the fraud, but he was in charge of enough things that were fraudulent.
I don't know how you get that stinked off you.
But the other possibility is that Newsom is way better at hiding his crimes.
It could be that Tim Mols is just incompetent at everything and he wasn't good at covering up his crimes.
But if Newsom gets through this without any charges, you'd have to assume he's better at it.
All right.
Times of India is writing about how to get rid of negative thoughts.
And the way that they want to approach it that works is that negative memories may lose their hold when they're gradually pushed out by positive ones, particularly during sleep.
Does that sound like my shelf space theory?
Where I tell you you can't just make yourself think less about bad things.
You have to fill up whatever mental shelf space you have with positive things, and then the negative thoughts will sort of atrophy.
So that is exactly my shelf space theory.
So I got there by knowing hypnosis.
Apparently, there are studies that are getting there using meticulous studies about your thoughts.
But I got there first.
So at the same time, according to Remix News, that the Ukraine peace talks are happening, the Ukrainians are doing massive attacks on various buildings.
Now, I think Russia is doing the same.
So they're going hard at each other at the same time.
Some kind of peace talks are happening.
So that would be Witkoff and Jared Kushner who are leading that.
Who I do think are the best we have.
And they've been reporting that there's serious progress.
We don't know if that serious progress translates into anything that could help us very much.
But here's the chakra of the same story.
According to a report by Ukrainian foreign intelligence, oh, okay.
Well, it's a war and we can't necessarily trust this, but according to a report by Ukrainian foreign intelligence, the rural depopulation has accelerated in Russia.
So allegedly, you have to take this with a grain of salt.
Last year alone, 266 settlements in Russia were officially abolished, and most of them were already completely uninhabited.
So the thinking is that Russia is not only producing a lot of new babies, but because of the number of people who are dying in war, mostly men, that the population is decreasing.
And remember, I tell you, you can sort of predict the future by the fact that something is either growing or shrinking, because things just never stay the same.
So if Russia is shrinking, and it might be, that would be a very strong indicator that things are going wrong.
But at the same time, Ukraine is undoubtedly shrinking.
So you've got two shrinking countries, and maybe the winner will be who shrinks the least.
Well, according to the New York Times, Trump told his aides to give him an updated plan for acquiring Greenland.
But Rubio says the plan is to buy it.
So that seems like the right way to go, doesn't it?
To at first make a legitimate effort to buy it.
But your negotiation for that would be strong under the condition that you're definitely going to take it by force if you have to.
Now that people believe, and I'm sure they do, that Trump would just march the army in and take it if they can't make a deal to sell it.
That puts them in a pretty strong negotiating position.
Now, you have to assume, of course, that Denmark and Greenland would vigorously object to handing over this property.
But I would say the new Monroe doctrine supports Trump doing it, especially since he already said some version of who's going to stop him.
Who's going to stop him?
And as we saw Eric Weinstein say recently that international law probably doesn't even exist.
That what is really happening is whoever has the power exercises the power.
And then, you know, we put some nice layer of narrative on top of it, like, oh, we had an international reason to do it.
Oh, Greenland sold some fentanyl to a dog.
Yeah, we'll make up something.
But I would say this is yet again my example of wanting versus deciding.
Trump has clearly moved out of the wanting phase and he's into the deciding phase and the decision has been made.
The decision is that the United States will buy or just take Greenland and it won't be forever from now.
Almost certainly would happen within the next three years.
And if we move at what I call Trump speed, You know how everything Trump does is faster?
If you put the usual filter on it, you say, well, how many years is it going to take to negotiate it or have a military reaction or something?
And the answer is if this were a normal president, it might take longer than the president is even in office.
But in the world of Trump speed, Trump could get this done in six months.
And I'd say there's a good chance he will.
Not 100% chance.
But he's the only president who could say, starting now, we're going to own Greenland in six months and mean it and actually pull it off.
All right.
So Jonathan Turley, who's a great writer, by the way, I love his writing.
He says, are you not entertained?
Democrats announced new impeachment games to draw midterm voters.
And the funny part is that the thing he would be impeached for if it happened would be using the military without the kind of approval that you would want to have from Congress.
But the awkward thing is that the so-called designated liars on the Democrat side have so recently had the opposite point of view and the one that they want to have.
What I mean by that is that some of the prominent Democrats have said that Maduro has to go.
And then when Maduro goes, they're like, well, you did it wrong.
And they forget that there have been Democrat presidents who have also acted militarily when it made sense to do so without Congress's approval.
So if they were to impeach Trump for doing what they'd been in favor of and had been doing, I don't know how they pull that off.
I mean, they would be using the designated liars, but that only works for TV.
Once you put the designated liars under oath, there would be questions like, has any Democrat president ever used military force without Congress's approval?
And the answer would be, yeah, a bunch of times.
And were they impeached for it?
No, no, never impeached for it.
So it's going to be an awkward and entertaining thing if they do that.
Anyway, so there's a new poll, Daily Mail is reporting, in which they were asking people about their opinion of the Venezuelan kidnapping action.
And what they found was, well, let's see if you could guess.
How many people in the poll said it was an outright failure what Trump did in Venezuela?
Outright failure.
What percent said that?
I'll bet you can get the answer.
Okay, you know the answer.
25. 25.
If you're new to me, I'm always teasing the fact that in any poll on any topic, 25% will have the stupidest answer.
Just bash it crazy.
Now, I could understand if your opinion was, you know, we shouldn't have done it.
You know, you can make an argument for that, because that would be based on history.
and a regime change not working out.
Not crazy to be on the other side of it, right?
But there will always be 25% who just are bash it crazy and can't see the difference between a big win and a big loss.
Here it is again, 25%.
And I always wonder, if you see somebody in that 25%, what else do they get wrong?
Do they get wrong all kinds of stuff all the time that we just don't notice?
Are they wrong about every other topic?
Are they literally the stupid ones?
Oops.
Cat, get away from my food.
I got to protect protect my food.
Thank you.
Fortunately, I have a cat wrangler here.
Multiple cat wranglers.
All right.
There's a Stanford writing program that's been accused of putting ideology over core skills.
The New York Post is reporting on this.
So apparently, if you took a reading course, it would incorporate anti-ICE stuff, racial identity politics, and all-male drag shows, resulting in criticism from a leading education watchdog.
Now, of course, the people behind it are not going to call it that.
They're not going to call it the, we're going to make you more woke class, but it looks like that's what it is.
So they've got courses with names such as Language, Identity, and Power, where students are instructed, according to the website, to explore this intersection across spheres such as politics, education, medicine, and media spaces, intertwined with forces like globalization, immigration, and the rapid development of new technologies.
You know, it's hard for me to believe a human wrote that.
Doesn't that just sound like some bullshit a robot would say?
Anyway, so if you dreamed of DEI and wokeness being destroyed by the Trump administration, that didn't happen.
But the wokeness just burrowed itself deeper into the systems.
However, what is different is that people like me can point it out.
So we have enough free speech that we can say, hey, you know, that set of courses is total bullshit.
That's something.
It's not nothing.
Well, let's see how the leading lights of the Democrat Party are getting along.
Jasmine Kraka says, F you to the Supreme Court over Texas redistricting.
Fox News is reporting that.
Hmm.
F you to the Supreme Court.
That's another example where Democrats followed Trump's pattern of swearing, but they don't know how to do it right.
Once again, she just inserts a swear word where it's not really helping.
And she acts like the dumbest person in the Democrat Party, but I'm sure she's not.
Yeah, I think she's got some advanced degrees and stuff, but she sure acts dumb and can't even swear right.
Well, I got to take a sip before I give you this one.
This is a beauty.
You should take a sip too.
I'm not making this up.
Candace Owens is telling about her long-running conspiracy theory that there are sentinel human hybrids because she watched the X-Men cartoons as a child.
So what she's saying is that there are some people among us who are part human and part machine already.
She goes better.
She also names names.
She claims Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Palmer Luckney, etc., and other Renaissance men are half machine.
She's not sure if they bleed, but she can tell that they don't know how to act like human beings.
Have you heard that before?
Well, here's my take.
Candace Owens is so entertaining.
If you accept her hypotheses as some kind of fact, you know, you're probably not on board at all.
But if you look at her entire package of content and you say, what's the most entertaining thing you could hear?
Well, she's really good at that.
She knows how to make something entertaining.
And sure enough, once again, she did.
I could not look away.
As soon as I saw the title of it, oh, I'm going to click on that.
Now, what you don't know is that I was also influenced by the X-Men.
And you probably noticed that I'm now a duplicate of Professor X. I'm a wheelchair-bound bald guy that people listen to.
So, I might be an X-Men.
How else could you describe my incredible predictions?
All right, here's one that's got too many names in it.
Wall Street Apes is reporting this, that the Heritage Foundation exposed the fact that Hugo Chavez, see too many names already, was working with Nicholas Maduro, three names, to fund political dissent in America and provide the money to start Black Lives Matter, four names.
So the claim is that when Chavez was alive, I gave one of the founders of BLM a million dollars for street protests in America.
And that after receiving the money, just months later, BLM was founded and started creating unrest in America.
And that BLM directly works with Democrats, even using the Act Blue fundraiser thing.
We'll put like five names.
That means that regimes in Cuba and Venezuela worked with Democrat operatives to fund chaos and protests in America, Which suggests that the Democratic Party is literally working to bring down America, not just to win, but to bring down America.
And the Venezuelan cartel that was headed by Maduro before he was arrested was trying to create problems inside the United States.
It was a Cuban plan, okay, there's another name, to flood our streets with narcotics to undermine America from within.
So Hugo Chápez, Black Lives Matter, aided by Act Blue, that might be sketchy.
And then Cuba and Venezuela working with Democrats to take down America.
That's the sort of story that I would not have understood and/or believed a few years ago.
I'm not going to say that I completely believe this, because it's a little bit, you know, a little bit on the nose kind of stuff, but it looks very believable.
In terms of credibility, I would say, well, maybe, because we live in that weird world where anything could have happened.
Anything could have happened.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to have stayed awake until the end of my prepared remarks.
I'm going to shut down a little bit early, only from the only from the main feed, but I'll be talking privately to my beloveds on locals.