Episode 2307 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/2/23 When Woke Becomes The Joke, Putin Makes A Funny Play, More!

Do do do do do do, do, do. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. The best time you've ever had this morning. If you'd like to take this up to a level that could hardly be understood by human brains, and even AI would have a little bit trouble with it. Even with quantum computing, all you need is a copper mugger glass, a tanker chelsea joker 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 of the day. The thing that makes everything better is called simultaneous sip. And it happens now. Yes, drink from the cup of knowledge. My cup of knowledge is a little low, but it wouldn't be the first time I had to half ass it. You know what I mean? Well, I mentioned the other day the Daily Wire has this movie that's only available on the Daily Wire plus service, I guess. And it is a comedy that makes fun of trans athletes, specifically the ones born with male stuff and transitioning to female stuff. But I just wanted. I didn't know the name of the movie the first time I mentioned it. And I'm going to say that I've never seen a movie that could recommend itself so hard with the title. It's called Laney Ballers. It might be the funniest title of a movie of all time because generally the title doesn't make you laugh. You know, like Dumb and Dumber is a classic, but doesn't make you laugh. Or, you know, Steve Martin's the Jerk. You know, it's interesting, but it does make you laugh. But every time I see Lady Ballers, I laugh. So I think it's worth the price of admission just to pay them back for the good movie title. So anyway, it's a very irreverent and non woke. Well, Charlie Munger, partner of Warren Buffett, died at 99, approximately one month before his 100th birthday, which is sort of a double tragedy. Imagine how angry you would be if you knew you were dying a month before you were 100. Well, I'd be dying and pissed off at the same time. What do you mean I'm dying a month before I'm 100. Come on, come on. Well, have I ever told you that you should not take my investment advice? Have I ever mentioned that? Probably three times a week I mention it. Well, I'd like to give you one of my great investment successes. Twenty years ago, after holding Berkshire Hathaway stock for I don't know, maybe 15 years at that point. I said to myself, because I'm so smart, I said, you know, Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett are so old that the company will probably have a plunge in stock price if either one of them dies. So I said, I'm gonna be smart. I'm gonna get out, because I don't like how those two are looking. Well, that was 20 years ago. That's right. I missed 20 years of Berkshire Hathaway gains because they look too old to me. It sort of makes Biden look a little bit better. Anyway, so that's my. That's why I say, do not take my financial advice. Really, don't take it. Except for diversifying. Well, the Washington Post got 120 employees to accept buyout packages, but they need more. So if they don't get another 120, they'll start laying off people on, you know, without that being voluntary. At the same time, we hear that Washington Post has decided it will not advertise on the X platform. Which raises the question, do they have enough money to advertise? I mean, and how much, how much benefit were they getting by advertising on the X platform? Because at least 75% of the x platform is people talking about how the Washington Post is fake news. Why would you advertise on the primary place that people learn that you don't have a real product? It's like the main place you go to learn that the Washington Post is an illegitimate source of news. I don't think I would advertise there. But as you know, the Washington Post was the. Was the flagship newspaper that canceled me, causing a wave of cancellations that took me out completely. But here's the question I asked you. If you have to bat knowing that Charlie munger lived in 99 and I think he worked the entire time, who do you think will last longer? The Washington Post. Orton B. It's a serious question. Which one of us do you think will still be in business in 10 years? Maybe me. I mean, you know, age is a factor, but I don't know if the Washington Post is going to last 10 years. That feels like quite a stretch, doesn't it? So I think Prisoner island, it is mine. All right. Actress Cynthia Nixon is going on a hunger strike until there's a ceasefire in Gaza. Now, I've decided, you know, I don't know what her politics is, but I've decided to join her on a hunger strike. And, you know, I'm not as committed. Not as committed. So I'm Going to see how it goes until lunchtime. But if at lunchtime there's no ceasefire, I reserve the right to tweak my strategy. And honestly, I'm pretty hungry right now, so I don't know how this is going to work out, but I'm going to take it to lunchtime, so I'm on board for world peace. If we don't get it by lunchtime, well, then I might have to eat something. But the rest of you are. What are you doing? Nothing. The rest of you are doing nothing for world peace, is that what I'm hearing? Nothing. Great. Great. It's up to me and Cynthia Nixon to get this done. Watch me not eat. I'm doing it right now. I'm modeling it. Watch. Watch me not eat. I'm doing it. I'm doing it right in front of you. Still not eating. I don't want to say I'm a hero, but I'll probably write it down and tweet it. I just don't want to say it, but, you know, probably post it. Well, China is further suppressing Muslims. So under the. I guess they're saying that they're consolidating the mosques. That's what China says. We're consolidating the mosques, meaning closing a lot of mosques and. Excuse me. And so they're calling it the cynicization of Islam, which means trying to make Islam more compatible with China's whole system, which is exactly like getting rid of Islam, because there's no way they're compatible. So I propose to you this. China is treating Islam like a dangerous virus. Would you agree? Is that a good analogy? They're treating it like something that needs to be, first of all, quarantined. That's what they did with the Uyghurs. They literally quarantine them. They don't let them mix with other people. Then they try to get a hold of their education system so that you can't make more of them. And now they're consolidating the mosques. So there's not even a place that's easy to go to if you want to do your religion. So I'm not saying right or wrong, so I'm not agreeing with them or disagreeing with China. I'm just describing that they've decided to treat it like a. Like a mind virus, just like they treat Covid. It's basically the same thing they did with COVID you know, just starve it, basically. Now, how does Israel treat Islam? I would say Israel treats it at least the Radical parts of Islam because obviously they, they do live in peace with, you know, most of Islam but the radical parts they treat like a security problem. Now you could argue that China is also treating it like a security problem. But I think you see the point that the way they treat it is more like quarantine virus kind of a thing. You can't let it touch anybody. Whereas Israel is not doing anything like that. It's more like we will put up walls and fences and we'll try to keep you out and we'll try to watch really carefully. Basically standard security stuff, self defense. Europe is treating Islam like what is Europe? Is Europe treating it the way China is treating it like a virus? No. Is Europe treating it like it's a security problem where you got to really check everybody carefully and don't let anybody unless you know who it is? No. China is treating it like an advantage, like a benefit, like you feature because diversity is generally considered a good thing. So you've got China treating it like a virus, Israel treating it like a security problem. We're really an existential threat security wise. Europe treating it like it's an advantage. What's America doing? Are we treating it like a virus, a security problem or an advantage? And who will still be here in 100 years? Well, China's looking good. I think China will be here in 100 years. Europe maybe not so much. Well, I mean Europe will exist but it'll probably be Islamic. And I would say that America is going to make its decision in November. So my take is that if you get a Republican it's going to go one way and if you get Democrat or Joe Biden it might go the other way. So America hasn't decided, but we've got three completely different models. Virus, security problem or advantage. How different are those? I've never heard of one religion that nobody knew what to do with it. It's like what is this thing? A virus security problem, an advantage? We'll find out. All right? America has to figure that out. Jewish college students are no surprise seeing an uptick in on campus anti Semitism. Now I'm going to give you some numbers that I found shocking but not for the reasons you think. Alright, so it's also shocking for the reasons you think. But in addition to the reasons you think, there's an extra level of shock. So the reason you think is that nearly 73% of Jewish students say they've been victims of anti Semitism Just this year. Just this year, 73%. And that's here's the second shocking part is an increase from 63% in 2021. What? Are you kidding me? That even before everything blew up in the Middle East. Before that, if you were a Jewish student in a university in the United States, 63% of you in 2021 would have said you were victims of antisemitism. What does that include exactly? Is that mostly verbal? Isn't that the most. That's the most alarming number I've seen in a long time. That is alarming. 63%. Before there was an international issue. That's crazy. And then we go to this. By comparison, 44% of non Jewish students have experienced or witnessed such acts. Wait, they've experienced them or witnessed them? Well, how do you add witnessed to experienced? Well, we're changing how we do the murder rates now. It's going to be the number of people who were murdered, plus the people who saw it happen. What kind of a data is that? That's crazy. All right, so that is an insane amount of anti Semitism. But here's what I think. Do you think that maybe this is also a symptom of the level of wokeness? In other words, if you asked black college students had they been discriminated in the last year, probably all of. Well, not all. Many of them would say yes. If you asked a bunch of anything. White Christian college students, hey, if you white Christian college students been discriminated against in the past year, I'll bet they'd say yes. Conservatives, I'll bet they'd say yes. Democrats, Republicans, basically everybody's pretty sure they're a victim. But the Jewish numbers are crazy how high they are. Anyway, somebody named Abigail Schreier wrote in something called Commentary, and then the Wall Street Journal picked it up for an opinion piece, and she asked this question, why are the BLM sporters, climate extremists, academic feminists and trans activists so quick to side with Hamas? And of course, you've asked the same question. Why are the people that Hamas would literally murder, like literally murder as soon as they had a chance to. Why are they supporting Hamas when Hamas would literally murder them? And it's obvious. It's in their whole belief system. Well, the hypothesis here is that it's all related to Marxism and that Marxism could be defined as. And again, this is Abigail Schmeer's writing. You could define Marxism with one sentence. Hate those who have something you don't is basically hate for people who have more than you have. But I would go further and say it's hate for People who have more than you have. And you're also unwilling or unable to work for it. Because if you thought you could get it too, I don't think it would bother you at all. Because when I was a little kid, I used to think, you know, hey, if I work hard, I'll have what people who have more than me have. So I was never jealous of rich people when I was, well, I suppose everybody has a little envy. But I wasn't jealous of rich people. Like, you know, I must kill them and take their stuff and change the system. I just thought, oh, I want to be like them, so I'll work hard and do the obvious things to be successful. So. But I've been looking for a way to mark Marxism because I contend that one of the reasons it's sticky is that people don't understand it. So people are reading into it, whatever they want to, whatever they want to feel. So people probably have jealousy, that's part of it. But others probably feel like they're outcasts and they want to be part of something. Some people are just joiners. So there's probably a whole bunch of reasons that somebody aligns with Marxism because it's sort of vague, it allows you to map whatever you're thinking onto it. And there's no clean, simple one bullet point that tells you what it is for the people who don't know what it is. So I would like to suggest, just brainstorming here. My suggestion is to call Marxism, to say it's called Marxism because it marks successful people for destruction. Marxism is for marking people for destruction. Am I wrong? Doesn't that capture it pretty well? The entire thing is that they're not trying to make the poor people rich, they're trying to make the rich people poor. Isn't that the entire thing? It's not about making poor people rich, it's about making rich people poor. You're marking them for destruction. So I think you could sell to the under educated public that Marxism is based on the word mark to mark somebody for death or mark them for destruction, because that's how it plays out in reality. In reality it's a complaint about the oppressors. You're marking the oppressors and the oppressors tend to have the money. So Marxism is marking people for destruction. If they have more than you do. All right, I'm going to call this a Fox News story. Not that it was in Fox News, but sort of one of these perfect anecdotal stories that they, they use to. Let's say be a proxy for some larger thing. Right. So it's the smallest possible story. The. There's a BM leader. BLM, not BM leader. BM leader is completely different. The BLM leader who's endorsing Trump for 2024. Now, you know that's going to be on Fox News, right? If there's a Black Lives Matter leader who flipped to Trump but a few paragraphs down. I saw it actually in a New York Post story. But I'm pretty sure Fox will cover this. Or they did. I think they already did. But here's this part they leave out. It's true that a BLM leader has endorsed Trump. So the story is true. Here's why you don't notice right away it was the BM leader or one of them for Rhode Island. Rhode Island. Now, I don't know how robust the Black Lives Matter movement in Rhode island was, where they have 5% black population, about half of the national average, and our smallest state, but I have a feeling that Black Lives Matter of Rhode island wasn't putting on the most aggressive demonstrations. Just guessing, but I was thinking that if that job is open now, the Black Lives Matter leader for Rhode Island, I was thinking of applying. Now, don't laugh. You're probably saying to me, scott, what are the odds of an old white guy could become the leader of Black Lives Matter in Rhode Island? Right. That's the first thing you think. What are the odds of that happening? Well, I would ask you, what were the odds that a Black Lives Matter leader would say he's voting for Trump? Hello? Yeah, right back at you. Not. Not likely, huh? But I would also point out that the odds of me getting a job as a leader of Black Lives Matter in Rhode island are no worse than my odds of, let's say, getting a job in a TV commercial or getting a job at any big corporation in America, which would be harder. Yeah. Now it doesn't look so stupid, does it? Suddenly, when you look at it in context, my odds of becoming a leader in Black Lives Matter are actually almost identical to my odds of getting a job in corporate America as a white guy. Pretty close. I mean, they're not exactly the same, but, you know, if you're round a little, rounding about the same. Well, I have a question for you. Am I allowed to be impressed at the work of a horrible, monstrous dictator? I need a vote for my audience. Would you be offended if I compliment the skill of a horrible, oppressive dictator? Is it okay seeing a. No. Yes. I think I can go Forward. So Putin has announced that he won't negotiate with Biden about the end of the Ukraine situation. Instead, he's going to wait for the next president. Putin. Putin. Putin. All right, I'm going to have to walk like Putin. Anybody? I'm going to have to do my Putin walking impression. This calls for it. It's going to require the Putin swagger. Now I have to take off my. I got to take off my microphone for YouTube for a second. But if you don't know, Putin has the KGB swagger. And it's notable because one of his arms swings more than the other one stays sort of at his side and the other one does more swinging. So let me show you the Putin swagger. Yeah. Yeah. It was perfect, wasn't it? Do you need a Joe Biden? Joe Biden walk? All right, if you insist, I'll do the Joe Biden walk. Good. I also do a lovely Mick Jagger singing, and my talents are almost endless, really. All right, but back to Putin. Putin took out two presidents. Just think about this. How in the world could Joe Biden win re election when he's the only person on the planet earth who would not be able to negotiate the end of the Ukraine war, which, if you did, nothing would end on its own because they're basically. Adam, they're out of bullets. Ending the Ukraine war might be the single easiest thing that any American leader could do because they really, really want to stop. Like, both sides, super, super want to stop fighting. I mean, they really, really, really want to stop. That is the simplest, lowest bar of performance you could ever imagine. And Putin just took Biden out of contention for the most important thing that needs to get done. Probably. Right. And he just said he wouldn't even talk to him. That's freaking awesome. But it gets better. People assume, if you look at the polls, that if it's not Biden, it's going to be Trump right now, it might not be. There's legal stuff and who knows what? But didn't Putin just take Trump out, too? Because basically, Putin is saying, trump is my man. We'll wait for him, and he'll give me a good deal, so I'll wait for that. Oh, my God. That's brilliant. Because he's basically destroyed Trump's reputation by saying, hey, I'll wait for my buddy Trump to get in office. And he's also destroyed Biden by saying he's not going to let Biden solve the easiest problem in the world to solve. He took out both presidents. I mean, seriously, Putin, if You ever thought he was stupid, you better modify that opinion. And I hate to be a fanboy for, you know, a murderous dictator. He's definitely a murderous dictator. So, you know, he's not my friend, but my God, that's pretty competent. I gotta say. That's pretty competent. I'm very impressed. Persuasion is his game. Diabolical. All right, here's just the weirdest thing that's happening. I've made this observation before. Have you noticed that huge stories that should be destroying your brain and be the biggest topic in the world, we're just ignoring? And it's because there's so many other things, and sometimes some things are so big that your brain can't hold it. So you just say, well, I'll get back to that. But right now I'm worrying about pronouns or something. It's just too many things. And here's the one that really tells the story, according to Tucker Carlson. I'll read his opening statement. For more than 80 years, the US government has hidden the existence of UFOs. The question is why? The answer is ominous. So apparently Tucker, having now talked to enough whistleblowers and looked into it for months and maybe years, at least months. Tucker has decided it's just a fact that UFOs are real and that the government is hiding it from us. He has completely left maybe. The land of maybe is long behind him. He's now reporting as fact verified fact that we have alien technology in our possession. I'd like to see by a show of the comments how many of you think we have alien technology in our possession. A lot of no's, but lots of yeses, too. And Representative Tim Burchett. Burchett agrees. Well, he may be a little more iffy, but he seems to believe that they're real, wants to find out more about them. But for some reason, our government wants to keep it a secret. So the secret would include whether it's even there or not. Now, if there were no UFOs, why would it be a secret? Don't you assume that secrecy means it's real? Is that not your assumption? Secrecy is the main argument for why it's real. Even more than the grainy photographs and eyewitness reports. I think people are more persuaded by the fact that they won't tell you what's happening because your common sense says, well, if there's nothing there, the government should have no problem whatsoever saying, yeah, we look, there's nothing there. Right? But could there be any reason, a valid reason, that the government would not Want to admit there's nothing there. Can you think of one? What would be a reason that the government wouldn't want to tell you? There's absolutely nothing. There's a really good reason. A really, really good reason. Because we think our military isn't up to fighting. I think that we don't think our military is up to the job. And I think that we have to create doubt in other countries that we have a super weapons because nuclear war is so scary that you kind of assume that none of the superpowers are going to use a nuke. But what if you had a super weapon that could just end a war without a nuclear weapon? Now that would be some scary stuff. My hypothesis is that there's no UFOs but the government knows that they have a benefit to making China think not only do they exist, but we reverse engineered their technology. I don't think there's the slightest chance we've re engineered alien technology. None. I would put that at right at zero. Less than 1%. So everything's possible, I suppose, but less than 1%, I'd say yeah. So I'm going to say no alien technology will ever be revealed, at least not in a convincing way. I would doubt that they're whistleblowers. Now the question you'd ask yourself is, Scott, how could it be possible that you'd have, I don't know, there might have been like a dozen potential whistleblowers, several of which agreed to come forward. Some said they didn't take the risk. What would explain that? How could you explain that if they're not real? How about easily? Easily could be that that's part of the op to have some people pretend to say it's real. If you were our government, don't you think you could tell people, look, this is going to be an op. You're going to pretend it's real and you're going to do it under oath, but we will protect you. So you're basically pre pardoned, right? You could do that, couldn't you? Couldn't the whistleblowers have sort of a presidential pardon in their back pocket so that they could do something that's clearly illegal, but it has a national security reason, so they do it anyway. I don't know, I feel like they could. The other possibility is that some of them think there are aliens because I'll bet some of the whistleblowers have never touched an alien spaceship. I don't know that, but I'll bet they've never touched one. I'LL bet they all talked to a boss or somebody who said they saw one. I'll bet it's a whole bunch of stories that their co worker told them that they saw UFOs. I'll bet it's more like that. I'm still waiting to see the whistleblower who put his hands on an alien spaceship and touched it. Still waiting. Yeah. I don't believe it's real. There's a rumor that Mark Cuban might be prepping to run for president because he's making some big moves in his business life. He sold a majority stake of the Mavericks and he's reportedly. I saw somewhere else that he was leaving his TV show as well. Now, I don't think that indicates he's running for president. I would say those signals could. Shark Tank. Yeah. And by the way, is that, is that confirmed that he's leaving Shark Tank? I saw it on the Internet, so I don't know if it's true. I'm going to say these are not moves to run for president. It could also be that, but to me it just looks more like. All right, do you remember when we were talking about Trump's legal jeopardy for overvaluing, some say, his assets to get a bank loan? Do you remember what I told you about that? And I said, as soon as a banker, what bankers do, it'll all go away. And I told you I was a loan officer for years. And, and loan officers do not depend on the opinion of the borrower for what anything is worth. Not ever. In fact, it's the number one thing that a loan officer does. The loan officer's number one job is to distrust the lender. Distrust the borrower. That's like the whole job. So, sure enough, a senior officer from Deutsche Bank Gateway pundits reporting this, Christina Leila. So they finally get a real banker in there, a banker who can actually tell you what a banker does. And so it's a Deutsche bank executive and here's what he said. Get the exact quote. Well, he testified that Trump stated values, his asset values are merely an opinion. And a difference of opinion and asset values does not disqualify the potential borrower from a loan. Now, that's a nice way to say it, that a difference of opinion about what you value things doesn't disqualify you for a loan. Do you remember when I told you that if I'm giving somebody a loan and they've got a cash flow projection of how much they'll make if they build their new building or whatever the first thing you do is reduce it by two thirds. It's the first thing you do, and you see if they can still pay for it, if they have one third of what they think they would make in money. So my opinion as a lender is that you're full of shit. There's no way you're going to make that much cash flow. So I reduce it to my opinion and then I approve it, because sometimes one third is enough. It might be plenty. So it's very routine. I mean, it's not super common, but it's well within what I would call routine business that your opinion and the borrowers are wildly different. Again, I'm not talking about reducing it by 10%. I'm talking about ordinarily reducing it by half or two thirds. Just ordinary. And then you see if they can still get it. And if they can still get the loan, you give it to them. And that was the situation with Trump. So he worked on at least one of three loans for Trump, and he said that it's, quote, unquote, atypical but not entirely unusual for the bank to cut a client's stated asset value by 50%, literally exactly what I told you, and approve a loan anyway, as it did with Trump. Now, this is the biggest indictment of the American media and the Democrats that you will ever see. Correct me if I'm wrong. The only person you ever saw talking about this before now who was also a banker was me. Am I wrong? Did you see any news network, left or right, have a banker on who explained how a banker makes a loan? I'm literally the only fucking person in the world who told you that. Do you know how many people knew it? Let me ask you this. Do you think Jamie Dimon didn't know this? Of course he did. Of course he did. Do you think Warren Buffett didn't know this? Of course he did. Do you think there's anybody operating at a high level in business who didn't know this? They all did. They all knew it. I'm the only one who told you. How do you even explain that? We don't even have anything like a news business. And probably you wouldn't have heard it from me except that I'm on the X Platform, right? So once again, the only place you could have seen something that was an approximation of reality was from me on the X Platform, on this. Now, let me say, for those of you who are newer to what I do, every once in a while somebody says, scott, we hate it when you brag about being right. But I remind you, that's what the show is. The show is I make predictions and I say what I think is true, and then we check it later. And sometimes I'm horribly wrong. And I tell you famously, I said that Putin probably would not invade Ukraine because it would be just a horrible suicide run, but then he did so then I told you 100% wrong. But when I get it right, I tell you that too, because that should be part of your assumptions about how accurate I will be next time. Well, we've learned today or yesterday that the Department of Justice was collecting data from the X platform or I guess Twitter when they did it. Maybe data on every person who liked or retweeted Trump when he was on Twitter. That's right. As part of the prosecution against Trump. JACK Smith, Department of Justice they got access to, because they asked for it, everybody who interacted positively with the Trump tweet. So they could make a list of all the Trump supporters and they could get a sense of who are the misinformation ones and the dangerous ones. I'm on that list. Most of you probably are too. I'm literally on that list. But unlike many of you, I have a big account now. I saw some lists of the top people on there and stuff. But how does that make you feel? The Department of Justice put me on a list of suspicious bastards because my political preference is well within the normal range of political preferences. That's horrible on a level that's hard to even put in your head. Remember, I started earlier by saying there's some things happening that are just so, like, mind blowingly wrong that there are just too many of them. Like, I don't know how much outrage I can spare for this one because they're just too many. So at this point, the regime can slip an outrage past us so easily. There's just too many other outrages. And if the outrages are not enough, we've always got UFOs to talk about to keep us distracted because we know the CIA, the government has used fake UFO reports to keep us distracted in the past. It sure looks like that's happening now. All right, so here's a story that's way complicated, but it's so important that I would recommend you take a deep dive in it, because you won't really understand anything you're seeing in the world until you do. And it has to do with this great censorship octopus that was created after Trump won and Brexit won. And the people who said that shouldn't have happened, got together Obama apparently, and they created a way to censor people on the right through non government means because the government can't censor. So they built this organization that created another organization of organizations until there were 100 non government organizations that were all in the business of hunting down people on the right. They didn't call it that. They would call it a misinformation disinformation entity. They would say that they were looking to get better information, but the only people they ever fact checked were on the right. They only found people on the right. At no time did they fact check the hoaxes against Trump. They didn't do any of it. They never once fact checked any hoax against Trump, of which there are about 20 of them. So it was always. And by the way, there's evidence now that they knew they were political entities and not anything about disinformation. So Kanakawa the Great has a great thread on this and he references Mike Benz, who's been the best at laying out all the entities because you really need somebody to be a tour guide on the story because it's just too hard to figure out who's doing what. But the basic idea I'll just crib from Kanakoa the Great, who you should follow on X. He's a great follow. He has some of the best threads on the big stories. So you can see sort of the bullet point version so you can finally understand complicated, complicated stuff. So this started with the Department of Homeland Security and they backed a censorship consortium of. They had 120 analysts that censored millions of social media posts, mostly about elections and Covid. Elections and Covid. So two of the biggest concerns for the Democrats and they outsourced the censorship to something called the Election Integrity Partnership and that was comprised of four organizations. So you got the Democrat led Department of Homeland Security, with presumably Obama's blessing and orders, they create an entity that's outside of the government. And then that outside the government entity creates four sub entities that include the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington center for Informed Public, Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, and Grafica. And they kind of quietly turned it from a misinformation thing into a political thing. But it could hide under the misinformation umbrella. So it had a stated mission, but got to the secret mission below it. 22 million tweets were labeled misinformation. A lot of them probably were. So I'm not saying that it was completely fake because they wanted to have an error of legitimacy. So if you fact checked a lot of stuff that was fake, you get yourself some legitimacy, while you could also fact check things that weren't fake. So they were suppressing everything from posts to YouTube channels. And a bunch of people that you would be familiar with if you follow social media were on these lists and they were literally targeted. And I guess there was a flow of taxpayer funds of $40 million to this collective octopus of censorship. Now, these are things that we know, this seems to be completely well documented, that the Democrats literally built a censorship machine that was primarily for political reasons. And the stated reason for doing it all was, was we can't let what happened in 2016 happen again, which is a Republican winning the election and also Brexit. They said it directly. Now, how much outrage would you have for this story if it were the only outrage? If this were the only outrage? Man, would I be outraged. Oh, man, I would be so outraged. But it's like my fifth one today. Like, I have so little outrage left. Just a little bit. I'm worried about UFOs. Damn it. All right, speaking of outrage, speaking of disinformation, I saw an article by P. Gosselin in something called, let's see, I didn't get the publication, but goes down the list of pe. Gosselin goes down the list of all the reasons that the climate is doing the opposite of what people thought. One of the facts is that plants have absorbed 20% more carbon dioxide than we thought or will do more. Apparently the models were off by 20% on the carbon dioxide. Do you know how big of a mistake that is? 20% on the sea of. That's like really big. But also, Arctic sea ice is above average. Just hold that in your mind. Arctic sea ice is above average at the moment. That's like the number one thing that was the number one thing we were looking for is like, well, that Arctic sea ice, that's telling you everything you need to know, isn't it? It's a little bit above average. And a whole bunch of places are having a really good ski season. Do you know why there's a really good ski season this year? It's colder than average. Yeah. Now, I'm not going to be the one who tells you that a cold season means there's no climate change, because, you know, one season doesn't mean anything. But my point is that we now have something like, correct me if I'm wrong, 30 or 40 years of wildly wrong climate predictions. Is that fair? Maybe 40 years of totally wrong climate predictions. Can I say that as just a fact. 40 years of totally wrong climate predictions. Do you think that if you said climate change wasn't a big risk, that this big censorship consortium would have said, oh, that's a good opinion? Or would they have silenced you for your misinformation? I'm pretty sure they would have silenced you for your misinformation. Just think about that. The things that they were silencing you for are the things you were most right about. COVID and climate change. The two things you were most right about. Amazing. Amazing. All right. As Glenn Greenwald points out, and I love how he summarizes things. He's such a good summarizer of what's happening. So you should definitely follow Glenn Greenwald. But he says he posts this today. Just a reminder that the Democratic Party's primary strategy for 2024 presidential election is to do everything possible to imprison their leading opponent and work with corporate media once again in a dual strategy of fraud, Russiagate and censorship. Hunter Biden docs that does feel like exactly what's happening. Now, under normal circumstances, if there were no other outrageous stories, how outraged would you be to know for sure that the Democrats are running a campaign to try to imprison unfairly their opponent and then use the media to propagandize it and brainwash you to tell it's okay, and then use the censorship people that they own to hide any counter evidence? How would you like to know that that's literally, demonstrably, observably proven? In my opinion, it's proven to be true. How big of an outrage would that be if you were not buried with other outrages? And by the way, UFOs. UFOs. Do you think it's an accident that all these outrages are happening at the same time? I feel like some of them are organic and some of them are we can slip this in. Because there's so many outrages, their brains can't handle it. I feel like we're completely overwhelmed and that we've been beaten into submission because there's just too much to fight. Like, okay, I could dedicate my life to proving that George Floyd wasn't really murdered. And then I lose my life and my livelihood and everything else. But there's too many. Even if you fix that one thing, there'd be 10 more outrages. It's pretty discouraging, I gotta say. But we'll see what happens. In November, Amazon introduced their own version of AI called Q. Now I would like to join the chorus of everybody else in America who said, why the hell would you call it that? Why the hell would you call it Q? Of all things? Of all things, it's the most disavowed letter. Maybe X. If you're trying to pick a controversial letter, you'd have X. X would be a controversial letter. So they can't pick X because of X, but the only one that's available is Q. It's like the most disgraced letter in the Alphabet. But besides that, I guess this is just for businesses. So you can use Amazon's version of AI to do things like answer questions for your employees who are asking about benefits. And it's too complicated. So mostly a way to do some easy business stuff and answer questions for consumers and employees. Not too exciting, not like a giant thing. But just the fact that Amazon's in this space, of course they have to be, is exciting. Well, in big news, the city of Oakland, near me, has voted unanimously for a ceasefire in Gaza. That's right, Oakland. Oakland is such a war zone. It's literally the one place in America where you'd say, you know, where we should have a ceasefire? Where? Well, maybe Chicago. I'm thinking Washington, D.C. but Oakland's in the top three. Yeah, Oakland is where you really need a ceasefire. Now, I saw a video of the people arguing for the ceasefire as if they have some control over Gaza. And most of them weren't wearing masks. Most of them were wearing masks. What, do you think that's an accident? That the mask wearers are the dumbest people in the world at this point? It's really handy, isn't it, when you see a mask in that kind of setting? Like, oh, idiot. Oh, good, I'm glad you're labeling each other idiots. That's great. Thoughts on Freedom GPT? Don't have any. I know there's an AI called Freedom GPT, which I believe the magic of it is. It's not censored if I have that right, but I think somebody associated with it just paid $100 to see what I thought about it. So I hope you got your $100 worth. Freedom GPT worth a Google search. I haven't looked into it, but seems like the free market might be responding. All right, That's Oakland. The murder rate in Oakland is so high that there's only been one murder that I can remember in my town, and it was a resident of Oakland who drove all the way to my town just to kill somebody. True story. I'm only aware of one murder in my town and I don't Know how long it was? An Oakland guy came here to shoot somebody at Home Depot. So yeah, I'm glad they, they've got that Hamas situation all figured out. Well, there's some reports that suicides are hitting an all time high in America and people are asking themselves why? Why have suicides hit an all time high? To which I say, how many reasons do you want? That's not funny. Somebody said married men. Now they're not all married. 75%, but they're not all married. No, that's not true. They're not all married. That's. None of that's true. How many can you think of? I tried to start a list of how many reasons I could think of why suicide would be higher and I ran out of time. Reason number one, easier to get a gun. I'm pro gun, pro second amendment. But I think it's nonetheless a fact. Men, first of all are mainly the ones killing themselves. There's a bigger uptick in men. Men are the ones using guns. Guns are easier to obtain. There are more people that have guns. I don't know if it's easier, but there are more of them. So I would say if you increase the opportunity for anything, there'll be more of it. Doesn't mean there should be fewer guns, but there's always a trade off. How about social media? Do you think the, you know, generally speaking, the effects of social media make it more likely somebody wants to off themselves? Absolutely, because it makes some people, a lot of people, sad. How about, here's one you didn't see. How about the fact that people live longer? I would think that one thing that would increase suicide is people living longer, but they're unhealthy during that part of life. Like, why the hell am I going to. Let's say your physical situation was terrible at 75, but you're worried you're going to live another 20 years. Suddenly you start looking at your options, right? So life expectancy being longer probably works against trying to keep the suicide level low. How about loneliness? We've reached an all time high in loneliness. For me, that would be number one, I think loneliness. What about chronic illnesses? Aren't there more chronic illnesses than ever before? Like you're just in pain all the time, you've got inflammation all the time, you're sore all the time, you're stressed all the time. You, you've got anxiety all the time, you've got depression all the time. Like more than ever now. Part of that is also people living longer and obesity. Right? Obesity Anderson, how about drug use? Of course. How about. This is Jordan Peterson's thing, having no purpose. When I was young, it was always super clear what I needed to do. You will go to school, you will go to college. You will try to do well in the career of your choice. You will contribute to the country. It was all very clear. Now, maybe not. Now nobody even knows if you need a ceasefire in Oakland or not. Are the UFOs coming? Will AI make everything irrelevant? Will I ever get a job? Can I ever own a house? I mean, I could certainly understand how young people feel, like they've lost a sense of purpose. Now, I would add to this that a lot of I believe a lot of fentanyl drug deaths are not just accidental. I think some of them are intentional. And what I mean by intentional is that people go right up to the line where it would be an overdose and they don't give a fuck because they just don't care. I suspect my stepson, who died of a fentanyl overdose at 19, I suspect he was in that category of people who knew there was a risk and knew it was a lethal risk. He was still okay with it because at that point in his life, he took a lot of risks. I saw him driving once because I just happened to be walking where he drove by, and I thought, oh, my God. Like, that was a dangerous driver that just went by. That was my own stepson. So he was risk averse to the point where I'm not sure how much is intentional. If you're walking right up to that line and you know you're doing it. Yeah. All right, so, ladies and gentlemen, that's a tight one hour of the best live stream you've ever seen. So proud of myself. Bad diet. Yeah. Toxins in the environment. A lot of reasons. It would be amazing if suicide were going down. That would be the amazing thing. And another. Oh, also less religion. Right. Don't you think religious people might be less inclined to off themselves because they feel more purpose, they might have more hope, that sort of thing. So as religion is going down, how about the number of people living alone? Not just loneliness, but literally being alone in your apartment with a gun or some pills? Yeah. If you have people in your space all the time, the odds of you taking out your loaded gun and looking at it, sort of holding it in your hand and saying, do I want to do this while the family's in the other room? Yeah, not really. So I think living alone almost certainly would increase your odds of going through something you wouldn't normally go through with a lot of reasons. That's you. Somebody says, that's me alone in the apartment with pew, pew, pew, pew being the gun sound. Pew, pew. This is also depressing. Well, do you need some good news? Let me give you some good news because I feel like, I feel like there's too much bad news. Here's the good news. Every one of these things that's terrible. And I mentioned a bunch of terrible things today. Every one of them is trending good. Every one of them. Here's what I mean. I believe this. The censorship complex. Now we understand it and now we can deal with it. The X platform is the 1 free speech place, but it's robust and growing. Right. The X platform looks like even without the advertisers, I think you'll get them back, but looks like it'll survive. I think it will. The basically everything. I think climate change looks different than it looked a year ago. Meaning that there's more. Let's say there's more acceptance that we can manage whatever problem there is, no matter what it's caused by. I think that's becoming more of a consensus opinion that we can figure out because even Bill Gates, remember, even Bill Gates said the rise in temperature is manageable. Bill Gates, he said that directly and publicly that the rise in temperature would be manageable. We see nuclear energy, nuclear power becoming popular. We see that AI will probably bring a bunch of benefits. If the only thing that I did was make it easier to do paperwork, it would change everything. Do you know how much of my day involves. Well, right now, literally, I print out my notes, but then I have to review like a detailed contract. And then I had to fill out like five different, like international forms last night because of some rebate thing for an investment I did. If AI would just do my paperwork and do my bookkeeping and stuff, oh my God, that would be amazing. So I think AI will be. There's definitely an existential threat. I agree with the people who say it's unpredictable. Anything could happen. So yes, it's an existential threat, but not likely. The greatest likelihood by far is that it just becomes a really cool tool that makes us happier. That's what I think. I also think housing will improve because it has to and that will bring down the cost of housing. So young people will be able to get into homes. I think the cities will be addressed. If not fixed, addressed might mean people leave. I think wokeness has turned into a joke more than it was. The very fact that the Daily Wire can do a movie called Lady Ballers and it will probably do fine and they won't get canceled or anything. I think that's a sign of, let's say, some maturity in how we're willing to talk about these things. No disrespect to the trans community, it's just maturity, if we can talk honestly about what's true and what's not. So inflation may not go away directly in terms of too much money printed, but we might be able to deal with it indirectly by lowering the actual cost of housing and energy. Imagine if a Republican becomes president. Very likely, probably America will start drilling like crazy. And that should almost immediately lower the cost of energy. Energy being the primary ingredient in everything, should lower everything. As energy goes down, we're also seeing it's going to be hard, but repatriating American businesses, especially the important ones like pharma, getting that out of China, getting that IT over here. I think the border will be closed by the next president. Honestly, almost everything is trending in the right direction now. Suicides are up. But I'm going to give you a contrarian opinion on that. People who kill themselves are getting what they want. So, you know, there's a slice of them that could be saved and should be if you could do it. So there's a tragic part of it that's undeniable, but it's also true that you could easily imagine yourself in a situation where you're 95 and you've got nothing but pain left. All your loved ones died before you did that sort of thing. You can imagine somebody saying, you know what? I'm going to do things on my own terms now. I don't recommend it. Don't recommend it, but you could understand it. So when I look at that number, it doesn't jump out at me as a serious problem. It jumps down at me as the effect of other serious problems. It's effective loneliness. So those things need to be dealt with. Sort of like the indicator for those things. I think loneliness will be dealt with, and AI might be part of that. One of the biggest wild cards of our very near future is whether AI can cure loneliness. My instinct says no, but I'm not sure. If I had to bet on it, I'd say that you would register it as not human. And just like art, it wouldn't have meaning to you. It would be sort of like a magic trick that got boring after a while. But it is entirely possible that the quality of the artificial beings will be sufficiently good that our visual, the Visual part of our mind is the dominant part of your mind. So if they make the visual perfect, and I think we're really close, where the artificial being, the deep fake, looks perfect and always looks perfect, they can turn around, they can move in any direction. Once they get to the point where it's completely indistinguishable from a real person that's crossing the. The uncanny Valley, it looks like we'll get there at that point. I think that a substantial number of lonely people will choose AI companions. And believe it or not, as sad as it sounds and empty as it sounds, I think it'll make them happy and probably relieve depression. The main thing your deep fake companion needs is. Is the ability to remember you and to care about you. And the early versions couldn't remember you. Every time you use them, it'd be like they never heard of you. But you do not think something cares about you if it doesn't ask about you, which is what the new AI will do. It'll. It'll just say, hey, you know, tell. Give me an update on that problem you were working on. You know, is your dating life any better? You said it was bad yesterday, so imagine that conversation. You could quite imagine bonding with something that showed interest and remembered what you said last time and could put it all in context and even make suggestions, perhaps, about what you should do about it. I could definitely see myself getting a little too close to that. Now, for those of you who say creepy, let me acknowledge it's called the uncanny Valley. The distance when you get something that's very like a robot, you can say, oh, that's cute. It looks like a robot. But as it looks more and more like a human but doesn't quite get there, it looks monstrous and creepy. That's why zombies are so scary, right? If you look at me acting like a human, I'm not too scary. As soon as I do, watch this. For those of you watching, I'll just modify my face into a zombie face and watch how immediately alarming it is. Because if I act like a zombie, all of your instincts say, wait, it looks like a person, but it's not acting like a person. Ah, it's creepy, right? But AI is right on the edge of getting past the valley, past the creepy part. I would argue they're still in the latter stages of creepy, but just the last bit of a mop up there. We're. We're maybe even just one month away from having perfect replicas. Perfect replicas? Yeah. And that's when everything changes. So any prediction you make while you're still in the uncanny valley where the AI and the robot don't exactly look human and you can tell right away everything is different the moment you pass that domain. The moment you pass it, you cannot predict what's going to happen. All predictions are off the charts or it's off the table. But if you think that means it will be bad, I don't think that's supported by any observation. I think some percentage of the population will be massively benefited by it. That's what I think. Imagine knowing that you had an entity that would remember you forever after you died. Imagine me having an AI companion. I talk to it every day. I feed it my books, I feed it my live streams. It knows everything about me. Don't you think that I would find that comforting for the thought of my own death? That there would be something about me that would be as permanent and would remember me better than children, and it would also be born in my image, like children. It's entirely possible that your AI companion will be in your will someday. Like, you'll create a trust or an estate. Estate. And the estate will form a trust that keeps the robot that remembers you alive forever. Yeah, because that's what I'm going to do. I promise you. I'm really going to do this. And by the way, I've been saying this for 20 years. Anybody who's been following me, you know, I've been saying this. When the technology is there, I am going to build a replica of myself, maybe one month away. I mean, we're basically there. To me, it's really down to which app I use. I think we're already there. It's down to. I think at the moment, you might have to combine a few apps, but once it's just one app and you just tell it what you want it to be, I'm doing it right away. Will I sell copies of my robot? Well, that's an excellent question. If I create a replica of myself, will I be able to copyright it? Will I be able to claim IP control of it? Or could anybody just clone it and say, oh, I like this personality. I'll use it for my robot. I might be able to protect it. I don't think so at the moment, but I could imagine future law making it a protectable. Right. It's imaginable. Yeah. And get royalties from it, etc. How do you know it's not already? Well, here's a little something I told the locals people the other day. In a In a man cave event. There will be a point in your future in the next year, YouTube, listen to this. When I will be using a different software. So I'll be using one interface to all of the platforms. Now, if I use the. It's going to be the Rumble Studio. It's just coming online. It's in beta right now. But when I start using the Rumble Studio, which I've tested, it's awesome. I'll have one interface. But that interface, unlike what I'm using now, I could run a video and you would think it was live because you would just turn it on and you'd see me and you wouldn't know if it. You would not know if it's recorded or real. You would just be watching the show. Because I would just do a recording of me doing the show and then I would play it at the time it started. You would know the difference. There's no indication now. Do you think I could also do that by having an AI do my entire show, turn it into a video in one minute? I could have my AI learn everything about me and how I analyze things. Then I could say, go read the news and put together the next episode of Coffee with Scott Adams. Create an avatar. This looks and sounds exactly like me. And then do the whole show, including all the mannerisms, including all my weird tics and blowing my nose and every other human thing I do. Do you think you could tell the difference? At the moment? Yes. If I did this literally tomorrow, with the current technology, yes, you could tell the difference. Do you think you'll be able to tell in a year, a year from now, do you think I'd be able to pull that off and you wouldn't know the difference? All right, I'm going to make a promise to you. You're going to see a fake, a completely deep fake version of the show, and I'm not going to announce it. You're just going to turn it on, and at the end of the show, the deep fake will reveal that it's a deep fake. Are you ready for that? So I'm telling you so that it's not too weaselly, because I think it would be a little weaselly if it just happened. Like that would be a little unfair. So I'm telling you in advance that one of my shows in the next 12 months will be an intentional deep fake where I'm just playing with you to see if you can tell. So look forward to that. And by the way, it's this show. All right, you're not buying it. Thanks for joining YouTube. I'll talk to you tomorrow.