Episode 2317 CWSA 12/09/23 Fun Saturday News, Plus I Reframe Your Whole Life

Do you see me on YouTube? All right, I think we're live. So we've had three crashes so far. So I'm not sure if this is personal. No live picture on YouTube. Oh, they can't see me on. They said they can't see me. Okay. So I think the comments are maybe just late or something, but I'm going to go forward as if you're there anyway. So you got all these apps that will undress people. You just give them a photograph and it'll create a nude, apparently. No big surprise. They're really big thing now, but. So we're talking about the new Defy apps. I'm going to say the same thing that I said that crashed it three times so far. You can see if I can crash it saying the same thing for the third time in a row. Make sure you wait until the end of the broadcast for a new reframe you haven't heard before that could change your life. Let's see if it crashes. Okay. Didn't crash that time. Took me three tries just to say that sentence. That's weird. Yes, we did the sip. You missed it. So everybody coming in. Who says I'm late? It's actually just YouTube had a technical problem. I'm just going to skip this fucking first story because I've lost all of my momentum and my. The entire rhythm is gone. If you do this every day, you get kind of addicted to the opening rhythm, meaning I do. And if I get thrown out of the rhythm by a tactical problem, it's hard to get it back, honestly. So you're just like swimming in the ocean saying, wow, what do I do now? So let me go to the news. Next story. You know that story about that Arlington house that exploded and that James you guy was in there and some people like me said, you know what, I think there's going to be a lot more to that story. Well, turns out there's a lot more to that story. Now, I'm not going to get into the details because I don't know how much to believe. I mean, it could be all just garbage, I don't know. But apparently the. The individual, Mr. Yu, who is in. Allegedly in the house and died in the house, had vast CIA connections and he had something to do with underwater fiber optics across the ocean and that maybe he was a CIA operative who was helping the CIA spy on the underwater. On the traffic under the water because his company, something like that. So there's nothing that I believe yet. I'm just telling you that when we said there might be something more. There's just a whole bunch more. It turns out it's the most suspicious looking death you've ever seen in your life. So we haven't heard the end of this. All right. House robberies are going crazy. Apparently there are these organized gangs of South American migrants who are looting homes. And I think it's related, but maybe not. There's now these high tech robberies where they use some electronics to thwart your security. So there's a big boom in home robberies, upscale home robberies. Now I feel like this is partly because there might be fewer stores to rob. Did we get to the point where all the retail stores are already robbed? So they're like, well, somebody got all the good stuff. We better start robbing homes. So I worry that this home robbery thing is not a blip, but rather the beginning of a very long term trend that could be disturbing. I said on X, but people acted like they didn't believe me. I said that this gang hit my neighbor. My next door neighbor had the organized gang of Central or South American robbers. And I know that. I'm not making it up. I mean, we're all on a. My neighborhood's all organized. We're on an app. They had the security cameras. The local police said, oh, yeah, they've been hitting people around here. And it's an organized group. So it's a group of people who will kind of quickly come in, smash a back window usually and just grab what they can and leave. It's usually multiple people from South America. And so they hit right there. I could literally take a baseball and throw it and hit the house that they robbed. That's how close it is. It's literally my next door neighbor now. Somehow they knew that they weren't home. I think they were away. How do they know that? Do you ever wonder about that? I suppose they ring the doorbell or something, right? Probably just ring the doorbell if nobody answers and they hit it anyway. So the de Chinafication continues. Has anybody coined that phrase yet? De Chinafication, I feel like that was. Somebody needed to make that. Once it's a word, it'll happen more quickly. So that's what I call de chinafication is getting our supply chain back from China and being able to make as much as we can without their bottlenecking. And apparently here's one I didn't see coming. There's a New Zealand startup that's turning forestry scraps, in other words wood and scraps, into artificial graphite to make lithium batteries. Because apparently the materials, especially the graphite for making lithium batteries, largely comes from China. So if we can make batteries from wood scraps, imagine that. Of course we'll end up probably cutting down all of our old growth forest to make batteries, but we'll deal with that later. So that's kind of cool. Making batteries out of wood. Didn't see that coming. All right, I shouldn't laugh at this, but I laugh at stupidity. There's nothing funny about this next story, except I can't stop laughing at it. But it's not funny. Just to be clear, this is a very serious topic and not to be laughed at, but what percentage of people between 18 and 29 believe that the Holocaust was exaggerated? What? Well, very good, very good. You didn't even know the answer and you got the right answer. Yeah, 23%. A lot of you guessing 25, but I'm going to call that correct. Round it off. Yeah. About a quarter of the young people think the Holocaust was exaggerated or didn't exist at all. But the an X user called Amuse, just like it sounds on X said. What this chart doesn't reveal is the racial disparity underlying these numbers. Because, you know, there's a racial disparity in absolutely everything. Did you know that? Yeah. When somebody says your, your ideas or your policy ideas are racist, do you know what the right response to that is? Whatever it is, whether it's immigration or school or any other thing, and somebody says, hey, your policy preference is racist, do you know what the correct, the correct answer to that is? They all are. They all are. Every policy. No. No exception. Now, all the important ones, there might be some trivial ones that don't matter, but the important ones are going to affect your money. Right. If you change the tax code in any way, does it have a racial outcome? Yes, 100% of the time. And there's no way to avoid it. Because as long as humans don't have exactly the same financial situation across demographic groups, anything that, let's say, takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor is going to be racist. There's no way around it. So pretty much everything we do, from immigration to everything that involves a budget to health care to war, there's no real exception. They all have a different racial outcome and therefore are racist by definition. So I wouldn't deny it. I'd just say what would be an example of something that didn't have a racial outcome? There's nothing. So anyway, but here's another one of those cases. Apparently among Black survey respondents from between 18 and 29, 80% of them think the Holocaust is a myth. 80% of black Americans between 18 and 29, 80% think the Holocaust is a myth. And as Amuse says, maybe this accounts for BLM support of Hamas. I don't know. I think that might be a stretch, but it's probably not unrelated. I think you would find a perfect correlation between how much you know about the Holocaust and how supportive you are of Israel. I've often said that the Holocaust is Israel's greatest asset, which is sort of counterintuitive when you think about it. But if they did not have the Holocaust as something that's, you know, a real salient piece of history, do you think Israel would exist as a country? I don't think Israel would exist, would it, except for the Holocaust? Would Israel have as much support as it has from America in particular if the Holocaust did not exist? And the answer is, I doubt it. I doubt it. It's pretty underlying concept. So as horrible and tragic as obviously the Holocaust was, the fact that the Israelis turned it into an asset is one of the most impressive pieces of work you'll ever see in your life. Now, I often tell you this, people don't. It's hard to know the difference between good news and bad news. Now, while the Holocaust was happening, of course it's all bad news. But the fact that that could ever be turned into a gigantic national asset is really impressive. However, it should be said that the actions in Gaza are working against that narrative. And this is not my opinion. I'm just saying that the effect it'll have on other people's opinions is that it will weaken the narrative of the Holocaust. Would you agree with that? That what's happening in Gaza will substantially weaken the narrative? Not that the narrative isn't true. The Holocaust is real, but by the way, despite what the ADL tells you, the head of the. I'd just like to remind you this, that the head of the ADL accused me personally, me personally, of being a Holocaust denier on the X platform this year that happened this year that the head of the ADL accused me of being a Holocaust denier. Just hold that in your head. I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain that I'm not one. Right? There's nobody here who's going to argue that, oh yeah, you're a Holocaust in there. Like literally nobody thinks that. And that was said in public. Just think about that. That was said in public. Don't I have a legal Action. Maybe I'm not going to bother, but that's pretty bad anyway. So, yes, as we watch these narratives shrink and grow right in front of us, it's going to change things. All right, here's the best story of the day. This is Trump talking about the debates. All right, so Trump had a very long post on the truth platform, and I'm just going to read the whole thing, and I'm not going to read it because it has political interest whatsoever. This has no political interest. Here's how you should listen to it. He is one of the best writers in American history. I don't know anybody else who says that but me. But you really, really have to appreciate the quality of the writing. Now, I don't mean that he spells every word correctly. I don't mean that every sentence has the right grammar, because remember, it's all unedited. He has no editor. You're seeing it right from his head to you. I'm just going to read it's a long paragraph here about his thoughts on the last GOP debate and just listen to it for the writing quality, the humor, and then listen to it for the visual persuasion. So what you're listening for is how he paints pictures with words and he doesn't use too many words and watch how every word is in the right place. This is really fairly. It's just brilliant. It's just flat out brilliant. All right, so this is Trump on the debates. I thought Ron Desanctimonious was terrible with his bobblehead facial movements. Wow. And his walking on eggs. Wow. So, so visual. But that sloppy Chris Christie. Wow. Sloppy. Wow. Chris Christie was worse. Now, now do you see how much he's set up in this? He's telling you, he's giving you two people telling you they're terrible in the most visual way you could possibly. And then he gives you the hypnosis kicker. The hypnosis kicker is that one of them might be worse. Because if he makes you think which one is worse? He makes you stay there, right? If he just said, this one's a clown, this one's a clown, and moved on, well, your brain would move on, too. And that'd be okay. That'd be okay. Writing. But when he says when he gets to. But Chris Christie was worse, now you have to go back and evaluate. All right, so is being sloppy worse than being a bobblehead walking on eggs, sloppy versus the bobblehead? Well, if it was just sloppy versus bobblehead, that'd be about a tie. But if you add the eggs to the sloppy. But wait a minute. Sloppy could be worse than eggs and bobbles. The fact that he does that to your head in one sentence. That's the first sentence. It's the first sentence. All right. And then you talk about Christie. Still, he says he's not fit mentally or physically to be president. Plus he suffers from TDS or Trump Derangement Syndrome. At levels not seen before. At levels not seen before. That's one of his best persuasion tricks. Again, if he tells you it's levels not seen before, you have to stop and say, well, is it. Or is it sort of similar to 2016? Or is it about where it was in 2018? Is it really levels we've not seen before? I'm telling you, the writing is so good. Levels not seen before. In other words, he puts in quote, a sick puppy, and even the puppy is visual. You can see the puppy on top of it all. On top of it all. Even on top of it is visual. His poll numbers are just 1%. In a class with Ada Hutchinson. He puts ADA in quotes. He puts ADA in quotes because he jokes. He used to joke that Hutchinson was ada, the Americans with Disabilities Act. But you would have to know that. You would have to know that background to know why he put his first name in quotes. Oh, my God. So you can't read past that without stopping. Right? Like, you just have to stop and laugh at the fact he put it in quotes. And then he says to Hutchinson, oh, no, I guess he's still talking about Christie. He goes, he's dead. But so is Ron, whose weird bobbing head and fresh mouth makes his high heels look. His bobbing head and fresh mouth makes his high heels look good. Sorry, wait, there's more. And then he says about Ron again. He goes, he's walking on eggs. Oh, walking out of eggs. It's supposed to be eggshells. But anyway, bird brain. He's talking about Nikki Haley and he's giving her name bird brain, I guess, because bird brain look different. Bird brain looked different. Now, I don't know if you had this take on Nikki Haley, but I thought she looked different. Did you have the same feeling? There's something about her face, right? Did her face look different? I didn't know why, you know, like, I'm not an expert on that stuff, and I don't know, is that like makeup or Botox? So I don't know what it was. Now, I'm not going to say she looked worse. I thought she looked pretty good, but she looked different. Would you agree that she looked different? And he doesn't make any comment except that bird ray looked different. It's so visual. It's visual. But here's another hypnosis trick. If you don't give specific, then people get to see the image the way they want. So if he said bird brain looked younger, then people would say, I don't know, maybe. I'm not sure she looked younger, so that they'd have something to disagree with. If he said she looked like she had Botox, people would say, well, I'm not so sure it was Botox. So that would give them something to disagree with. But if you say she looked different, you hit everybody. Because whether you think she looked better or worse or why she looked different, he opens it to all that. So she just looked different. This, by the way, is right out of hypnosis. This is a specific lesson that you don't get too specific with your suggestions. You let the brain fill in the blanks the way it wants to fill them in. It's just brilliant. All right, so bird brain looked different. And lost. And lost. She did look kind of lost when Vivek was going after her and she had that blank expression. She'd look lost. But I give her second place and they says, vivek wins, all in caps, because he thinks I'm great. There's literally. There's nobody else in the world who would have said that. The thing that makes him an original is that nobody will ever talk like this again and nobody ever has. Vivek wins because he thinks I'm great. Oh, my God. The biggest loser was Megyn Kelly. What the hell happened to her? She has lost whatever she once had. She wasn't very much. Some things never change. Oh, my God. This was all just one post on Social. Oh, God. He had a lot of notes there. That's a lot of notes. 2024 is going to be so much fun. All right, well, Alex Jones has been reinstated to the X platform. Is anybody surprised? Boy, talk about foreshadowing. I think that was by far the most. The most broadcast. You know, Cats on the roof, he's coming back. And sure enough, I don't know when X or maybe Musk himself made the decision, but I feel like maybe the decision was out there and maybe there was a little poking around to see how the public would respond. But I'll remind you of a story. I think it's fair to tell this story because everybody looks good in this story. But you remember that Alex Jones had two Rounds of cancellation. When he first got canceled, there was. Whatever he did the first time, I don't even know what it was. And several of the platforms canceled him, but Twitter at the time did not. Do you remember that? So he was canceled in other places, but not on Twitter at first. And then very soon after that, there was some other blow up. And then he got canceled on Twitter as well. So here's just a little backstory you didn't know about. When he was canceled the first time by the other social media platforms, but not Twitter. I was asked by Jack Dorsey, who was running Twitter at the time, and I think he was just looking for some opinions because he was trying to figure out if Twitter should ban him as well. And I was. I don't know who else he asked, but I'm one of the people he asked and he said, do you think Alice Jones should be banned on Twitter? And I said no. And I don't know if I had any weight in that decision. But he wasn't, at least until something else happened and then he was. So I just want to give, you know, Jack Dorsey some credit for, you know, he. He actually went and got some opinions and he didn't stick with him. You know, one little bubble. He got outside the bubble and checked around and. And I think that while I don't think my specific opinion was the deciding factor, probably because he talked to enough people who said the same thing I did. That's probably why he lasted as long as he did. So I'm going to give Twitter, old Twitter and Jack Dorsey credit for doing the checking, asking the right people. And now he's back. So. So do you know. Do you know the musical DJ musician called Moby? Does everybody know Moby? If you don't know Moby, this might remind you of him. I like to do my impression. I don't do a lot of impressions, but this one's a good one. This would be my impression of Moby. You ready? Hold on. Gotta prep here. Now my impression of Moby. Pretty good, huh? Am I killing it or what? Probably my best impression ever. Okay, if you didn't know or you're listening to this by audio. Moby looks disturbingly just like me. Disturbingly, disturbingly just like me. He's got a few more tattoos. He's younger, but disturbingly like me. Anyway, Moby has never been banned on the X platform. Now you say to yourself, why would he be. Why would Moby get banned? What's he done? I'm pretty sure nobody's even asked for him to be banned. Wouldn't you agree? I've never heard of him getting in trouble for anything he said on social media. Do you think he should have? Has he ever done anything that would maybe get you banned on social media? Well, let me tell you, apparently he's friends with Adam Schiff, and I guess he has a little restaurant that Adam Schiff comes into, and they know each other pretty well, so. No, no, that's not why he should be banned. No, he shouldn't be banned. Okay. I'm being asked to do my Scott Galloway impression. Do you need my Scott Galloway impression? All right, all right. If you're demanding it. Here now, Professor Scott Galloway. Am I nailing it? I think I'm nailing it. How's it look? Is it good? Pretty good? Okay. Yeah, it's very good. Now, hold on, I have one more left. One more impression. Now, my impression of Moby doing an impression of Scott Galloway. What do you think? Pretty good. Yeah, those are my best impressions right there. All right, so here's some things we found out about Moby. Apparently, he was a big pusher of the Steele dossier, but not because he read the news like you and I did, but because CIA people, who are his friends, which he says that he had friends who were CIA people, told him privately that the Steele dossier was 100% Jew. And they asked if he would help spread the word with his large social media platform because they were really sure that Trump was some kind of a Russian asset. And they got Moby to use his big platform to say that Steele dossier is all true and that Trump's a whole asset. Now, let me ask you, do you remember when Moby was kicked off of all the social media platforms for trying to push a hoax which would have changed the nature of the government in the United States? Almost treasonous. Except accidental in this case. No, no. It was never even a conversation. Never even a conversation. So apparently you can say the most outrageously politically wrong things with no risk at all. Now, to his credit, I don't know if this is credit or not, but he seemed to believe it was true. Now, I don't have a huge problem with somebody saying things they think are true, but I would ask Moby the following question. Moby, your friend is Adam Schiff. Are you telling me that at no time did you suspect he wasn't? Huh? This guy is the most massive liar in American history. Never. Never came up. Oh, we're glitching now on locals. All right, I think it's back. Glitching a little bit, but now we're good. We're back. We're back. All right. So do you wonder now if the CIA or intelligence people, do you wonder if they're still acting to use people who have big platforms to spread their messages? Of course they are, but I'm going to add a little wrinkle to it. Here's what I believe to be true, but I don't know for sure. I don't believe that that thing we call our intelligence blob, you know, the CIA and other intelligence people who work for the U.S. i don't believe they're all on the same side with each other, do you? Because what I see is that the CIA trying to get people that agree with them to say. Say things that they want to say, but I also see it seems like they're also getting people to say the opposite things, as if there's some group of operators who have one opinion and they're trying to sell it through the public and another group who have a different opinion that they're trying to sell through the public. And I don't know if any of it is sanctioned. It makes me wonder if the CIA has a central manipulation group that says, all right, here's what you do. You guys go try to manipulate this network. You guys go. You work on NBC. I don't know, it might be that they just. There are a lot of people in those jobs who know that they know how to use the press. So my guess is this, that there are intelligence people who made sure that they know people in the press and important people, and that they have their own contacts. And when they have a personal project, something that they want to push, political or otherwise, they go to their friends and they get them to put it in the news. But I don't think it necessarily is coming from the top. Do you. Do you think it's all centrally coordinated, or is it just that lots of people know how to do it and so they just sort of do it automatically? It's just sort of normal, routine stuff. Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't seem like they're on the same side. That's all I know. All right, the EU is about ready to pass some laws on AI that people are acting like is a good idea. So the things that are topic of discussion are copyrights. So how can copyrights possibly survive AI? I'm not even sure it's possible. Like, just logically, how. How could it work? Yeah, because can't my own AI go out and Find anything I want and show it to me and modify it any way I want. How hard would it be to take somebody's original art and then change it so you can't tell it's the original? But really you're taking whatever's good about it, so you're really borrowing what's best about it as opposed to the full art. But we do that now. I mean, artists already take what they see that's good in somebody else's work and incorporate it into their own. I just don't see how it's possible in the long run to protect copyrights, which is bad for me. Of course, they also say they don't want face scraping, so they don't want your AI to go look for faces all over the Internet so they can do facial recognition. How in the world do you stop it? How do you stop that? Like, does anybody know if something is getting scraped? How do you even know? It seems too late about. And of course you don't want to have anything, you know, obscene or Reggie or anything. Yeah. And there was some transparency about the systems and blah, blah, blah. Here's what I think. At the same time, the EU is trying to figure out how to regulate AI separately. Here's another story. You've heard about this before. Brian Ramelli talks about this. You can have your own AI. So I saw David Hinkle saying he did a fine tune last night of something called Mistral 7B, using 4bit quantization and some other technology. Anyway, so he tested against GPT4, which is the current best GPT version out there, and his own local one. They couldn't tell the difference in the output. So competing against a $96 billion company, he's got some software running on his own computer, just locally, nothing in the cloud, and it competed equally and it's not connected to anything. It's just sitting there on his computer. And it's a full AI, which is amazing. Now, it's not the only one. Like I said, Brian Romelli has a version that he talks about all the time. And how in the world can you regulate something that you can run on your own computer? For example? Isn't the first thing you do if you had your own AI is make it your concierge. And as a concierge, it would strip out all the advertising before it presented something to you? So the advertising model should disappear. Why would I ever listen to an ad again if I can have my AI strip it out, which it would do easily. Even the video would just easily Strip out the ads and give you a new file. Then what about they want it to be illegal to face scrape? Well, if I have my own AI going out and talking to other AIs that maybe did their own face scraping and we're sharing, I feel like the face scraping will just become a distributed system and then nobody can stop it because individuals will want to face scrape as much as the government. People want to protect themselves by knowing exactly who they're dealing with. So you're going to want that face scraping for your own protection. So I think illegally people will have that anyway. What about the naughty stuff? I've got a feeling that the entire pornhub industry is going to go away because today you have this real sophisticated porn industry where you can find redheads doing exactly what you want them to do. You can be really specific, but imagine going to your AI that's just running locally and it can create any image and has full understanding of human sexual stuff. So you just say to your AI, you know, AI, I'd like to show, I'd like you to create a 10 minute video that has the following characteristics. And in the end I want this to happen and I want the woman to be blonde and the guy look Hispanic and muscular and you just tell her what to give you. And in theory you would serve up any celebrity you wanted doing anything with anybody. Why would you ever pay to watch an actual human when you could see somebody who's better than a human but looks human, can't tell the difference and they're doing things that look exactly like real humans? So the entire porn industry should go away, right? Does anybody disagree? I don't see how, I don't see how original content could compete with that. Maybe there's something about knowing they're real, but I don't know. I think we're so visual we won't care. All right, so I think that the efforts to stop AI might succeed at the big company level because if you're GROK or you're chatgpt, you could imagine that the government knows who you are, they're watching you closely and you can't do any of these banned activities, but you're going to do it on your own computer. My own AI is not going to give me dumb ass answers like Grok does. I mean, GROK is not as woke, but it's still very limited in what it's willing to talk to you about, honestly. All right, so that's where AI is going. Have you noticed that every story becomes an Elon Musk story. Every story becomes. It's either. If it's AI, it's Elon Musk. If it's Ukraine, it's Musk. If it's Gaza, it's most. It's like, how can he be in every story? How's that. How could we even. How's that even possible? But he's now he's part of the Hunter Biden story because Hunter Biden called Musk dumb. Hunter Biden, who films his crimes and wonders why he's in trouble, calls Elon Musk dumb. Okay, sure. And Elon Musk is not really interested in the First Amendment. He just spent $44 billion on the First Amendment. I would say $44 billion of belief is pretty high. But okay, Hunter, but here's my favorite quote. This is from the Department of Justice. I saw this on Fox News yesterday. Quote, talk about Hunter. The defendant spent his money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature. In short, everything by his taxes. To which I said, hero, I mean, are you trying to make me love him? Let me describe me leading my perfect life. Are you ready? This is Scott living his perfect life. Scott spent his money on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of personal nature. In short, he spent money on everything but taxes. I call that winning. And if his father had not been the president, he probably wouldn't even be in trouble for it. So I am sympathetic to one point that Hunter makes. I think it would be hypocritical to say that Trump's legal problems are entirely political, which I do say. I say that exactly. Even though there might be some technical violations of some laws and whatnot, I believe that they're so universally common, those specific kinds of technical problems, that it looks political, that any one person is in trouble for it. It does seem like selective prosecution. But my understanding of Hunter's tax situation, correct me if I'm wrong, is that he paid back all his money. Hasn't he already paid all his money back and he doesn't owe anything to the irs. Now, I get that that doesn't make it legal, but in the real world, in the real world, if you'd paid back all of you everything you owed, would you go to jail in the real world? I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect yes. I suspect that if he were not the son of a president, there would be a little bit more working with him. You know what I mean? Because I don't really think. I just don't know that that kind of person goes to jail if you paid back everything. I don't know the answer to that question. I do see one very qualified person saying that you would go to jail even if you paid back your money. IRS is ruthless. Yeah. I don't know. But. So let's make this an open question. So my open question is, can you be as objective when you look at Hunter as you are when you look at Trump and say, how much of this is really political? I think you got to put that standard both ways. All right. Vivek Ramaswamy says the timing of the Hunter Biden tax indictment is one more sign that the deep state is planning to sideline Biden. Do you think so? Do you think the fact that he's indicted at all is an indication that his father's not in control and they're going to sideline him? It's just. They're just chipping away at him. Because it does seem like it would be part of a deal, doesn't it? Like you're going to have to make a deal to pardon Hunter, pardon yourself, but you're going to have to leave, because if you stay, we can't protect both of you. I feel like that's the setup they're giving. All right. And then we're questioning whether or not we'll ever see any charges about the Fara stuff or possible bribery. But I think even Fox News says that that case has not been made as far as we know. So as close as comer is to connecting all the dots, I think it's just short. Just short of connecting the dots. Is that your take, or do you think the dots are all connected? I mean, logically, they're connected. I have no doubt of what was really happening, so there's no question of what was happening. But in terms of a legal standard, do you think that they have a legal case yet? I don't think so. I think it's just short. But it's obviously, you know, smoke all over the place. So maybe they'll find the fire. We'll see. All right. Researchers have figured out how to 3D print things inside a pig's body without opening up the pig. Let me say that again. Researchers can construct a, let's say a new heart valve or a new structure inside a pig without opening the pig. Is that weird? Somehow they get the 3D printer ink into the pig, and then they use ultrasound to harden it in the specific shape that it needs to be. From a distance. So they, they just, you know, they're doing it on a pig to maybe someday do it on people. Of course, now apparently regular, regular 3D printing uses light to harden the substance. But since the, you know, inside a pig, there's no light, Hogwash simply says it's hogwash. But I think, can you think of the great pranks you could pull with that? You know, imagine if you had that technology where you could 3D print something that would appear inside somebody's body. You get one of those machines for home, you just wait till your buddy goes to sleep, like he passes out as too many beers and you say, shh, shh, shh. Because they used to just, you know, get a magic marker and draw on people when they pass down drunk. But with this new 3D printing technology, you could bring it in and you could 3D print a gun in their torso. So the next time they go through the metal detector at the airport, a pistol will show up in their thorax. Well, that's the kind of pranks I like to play with my friends. Yeah, 3D print a gun in their thorax. Anyway, there's a new study that says that the more you use your mobile phone if you're a man, the less semen quality you have. That's right, your, your sperm will be less and lower quality the more you use your phone. Is that surprising to you? Has anybody had the following experience? Have you ever been really in the mood for some adult fun and maybe it's upcoming, like in an hour or so, you think you might be in it, and then you make the mistake of looking at your phone or turning on television, and the television or the phone completely sucks the sexual energy out of your body. Does anybody have that experience? I swear to God, I can feel my libido just being drained out of me when I'm looking at a screen for anything. Really? No. Maybe you're looking at porn on your screen and skipping you the other. Yeah, possibility. Anyway, so. Yes. So the more you use your phone, the less sperm you have. Now, in an unrelated story, scientists have record reported a breakthrough in understanding whale language so we can figure out their whale noises. I don't know if AI is part of this or not, but they've figured out the various whale vocalizations and people pitches and vowel sounds. And they're testing this with sperm whales and they found out that they can understand the sperm whales when they're talking. Now, just as a clarification, they're called sperm whales. I didn't make that Up. That's the actual name of a whale. They're called sperm whales, but those are only the whales who don't use cell phones. The whales who use cell phones are just called whales. I'm just going to let that sit there for a minute. That's right. If they use a cell phone, they're just called whales. Okay. All right. I think that's enough time. I've given you enough time to enjoy that. All right. There's a resurgence of Snoopy. This is sort of in my domain, so the, you know, Snoopy of Peanuts, Snoopy the dog. Apparently it's having some kind of weird social media resurgence where there's a little Snoopy wearing a puffy jacket that everybody has to have. They all got to have it. So how long can Snoopy last? Snoopy was a huge licensing hit in Japan for years after Charles Schultz died. It just keeps on going. It's amazing. I'm very impressed. Well, Biden has reached a new low in the polling, according to the Wall Street Journal in their latest poll. And, you know, people were asked in the poll if Biden's policies have helped them personally. Have helped them personally. What? Take a guess. What percentage of the respondents said that Biden's policies have helped them personally? That's right. You guessed the right. Yeah, 23. But you guessed 25 and that's. Oh, you got 23. Very good. Yeah, 23%, strangely enough. So Biden lags behind Trump, according to this poll, by 4.4basis points, 47 to 43 on a hypothetical ballot with only two candidates. But if there's more than one candidate, his lead increases. So we're starting to get some visibility on if the third party candidates help or hurt him. And it looks like they're going to help him. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't surprise you. And here's why. Trump's support is unmovable. Biden's support is movable. That's it. That's the whole story. Trump's support is just locked in. They're not going anywhere. But Biden's support is definitely fluid. You could see that people would say, well, if you could give me any choice, if I had any option. You know, one of the things that the Republicans are doing that really helps Trump, the fact that the Republicans are still holding this, you know, debate format. The Republicans are doing it right. In my opinion. They're actually showing that if Trump faltered in any way, that they've got several strong candidates who could step right in, which I think really is good for Trump. Weirdly so. The more we take seriously the non Trump Republicans, the more credibility Trump has. Does that make sense? It really helps Trump that we spend a lot of time looking at the alternatives. Because if you spend a lot of time looking at the alternatives and Trump still dominates, well, then you feel like you did your work, right? You feel like, okay, we validated him. If Trump had never been challenged, for some strange reason, let's say the primary got canceled because Republicans said, oh, he's so far ahead, why have a primary? If they had done that, he would never be legitimate. So the Republicans are legitimizing Trump by. By having a real primary. I think that's a much bigger effect than people assume. Imagine you're a Democrat. You don't love Biden. You probably would have voted for him. You don't love him, but then you find out you don't have an option. Imagine Biden being your only option. I would say the same thing if Trump was your only option. Trump is not somebody who should ever be your only option. Because he's so divisive. You never want him to be the only option. But if he still wins, you know, given the existence of other options, well, then you've got something you can get behind. You say, all right, everybody played, everybody competed. He still won. So now you can back him. But can you back Biden if he, if he takes stronger competition, people who are more capable than he is, and they ban them from competing? I don't know. If I. If I were a Democrat, I don't think I'd vote. I don't think that could get me to the polls. If I said, really, you're giving me one choice and you know exactly who you're giving me, right? It's not like a difference of opinion. There's nobody who thinks Biden is complete. Right? There's no supporter of Biden who says, yeah, he's. He's 100%. Nobody says that. So that is just insulting that those are your only choices. Just insulting. All right, so as you know, we're all waiting for the next psyop. That will be the headline between now and the election. That will be a fake news thing. We're all expecting a big fake news event. And sure enough, someone tried to burn down MLK's birth home the other day. The only reason it didn't happen is that some tourists from Utah or something spotted it and, you know, stopped it. Here's. And it was in the daytime. Here's what you need to know about it. The perpetrator was or is a black woman. That's right. A black woman tried to burn down MLK's birth home. Now, I'm not 100% sure that that was a false flag psyop, but I would say more likely mental illness. But the bigger point is that we're all waiting for something. I love the fact that we've smartly, I think projecting into the future that it's coming should give you some protection when it comes, because I do think it's coming now. I suspect it's more likely to be based on some news event that's taken out of context. So I think it's going to be more of a George Floyd thing where there's a real thing that happens, but the effect of it or the details are distorted to make the picture. That's what I think. Less likely than somebody going out and burning something down intentionally. All right, did you see the pictures from Israel of the stripped down Palestinian, presumably Hamas people? So they're all wearing weirdly blue or black underwear. They. Which is kind of weird. And they're all, they're all naked, except they're in little skivvies and they're all together in a big group and there's a picture of them. Now, am I wrong that that is a gigantic mistake for Israel to allow that photo to go anywhere? Now, I don't know who took the photo, but it was probably a mistake to make them naked and sit in one place for long enough for somebody to take a photo. Now, I know what you're saying, so let me say the counterargument, Scott. Don't, you know they have to make them strip because they might have, you know, bombs on their back or something? I know, I know, but how long do you need somebody to sit in a group of other naked men looking completely humiliated after they're. They're naked? I don't know about you, but I can look at a naked man and determine whether a bomb is strapped to his body very quickly. I can do it in. Well, let me do it. No, no, no, no, no bomb there. Took me about a second. So you're telling me that you needed to collect all these people up, put them in one place, you know, shoulder to shoulder, in the most submissive, kneeling, conquered position, and you got to take a freaking photograph of that. I would say this is the first major PR mistake by Israel. This is a huge mistake. And apparently it happened more than once. There's at least two places that they've done this. How do you feel about it? Again, I'm 100% backing Israel's actions. So they got to do what they got to do. But what do you think of this? Which, by the way, I assume is not Israel's policy. I imagine they're very unhappy that these pictures got it. But this is pretty big in my mind. This frames them in not the way they want to get framed because they're trying not to look like bullies. They're trying to portray themselves as the, you know, the victim class, at least in terms of October 7th, and use that as their, you know, their authority to go forward. But that's the kind of picture that can really organize the world against them, because that did not look like a necessity. Yeah, let me say that again. The fact that it didn't look necessary, that that changes how you feel about it, you know, changes how you feel. Anyway, we'll see how they do with that. All right, here's my reframe for you. Today I'm going to change some of your lives. Now, I say that only because there are enough people here at the moment that if only a few of you found this useful, it would be life changing. It goes like this. Are you aware that it feels like sometimes you've got different personalities in your head? Do you have that feeling like there's the, you know, if you're in my case, the creative version of me, the artist in me is a very distinct personality. And when I'm in my artist head, I'm very much in my artist head. It's almost like it's a different person. Likewise, you know, and you might be in your student head, your work head, you know, there's your hangry, you know, you're hungry because you haven't eaten head. So you've got all these personalities in there, right? And it feels like. It feels like you're one person, but you have a bunch of characteristics. Is that the way you think of yourself? Do you all think of yourself as your one person and then you have a bunch of characteristics, some good, some bad, but you're one person, you're one mind. That's the way I normally think. Now, here's what gave me the idea for this reframe. As you know, I mention it too often. I've been learning to play the drums. And the hard part about learning the drums is getting limb independence. You need your arms and your legs to be doing very different things at the same time. One's doing eighth notes, one doing quarter notes, and your foot is doing a tune at the same time. Now, when you first, try to do it. It seems impossible because your limbs won't move together. They don't have a sense that they could be independent. But if you keep doing it, you split your brain into four or maybe five different parts, and you can actually play and move your consciousness to each of those brains. So I could be playing with all my limbs and say to myself, hey, right arm, let's check in on you. I can move my consciousness to my right arm, and my left arm is still keeping time and so are my feet. How the hell, right? So because I have this sense fairly almost every day that I practice, I have the sense of splitting my brain into four or five separate brains. And yesterday I was just going for a walk and had the following thought that just froze me. I. I actually got goosebumps when I thought about it. I realized that there's one personality of mine that runs the others. And until I gave it a name, it didn't have much power to me. It was like, oh, there's a crowd in there, it seems like, but really it's just me. And I gave it a name. It's the Executive. And as soon as I named it, everything felt different. Because now I think of myself as competing minds, right? There's the artist mind who wants to come out sometimes. There's the angry one, the. The smart one, maybe the emotional one, etc. But the one I can count on, there's one I can count on because it's the boss of the other ones. There's only one of my minds that can make the other minds cooperate. It's the Executive. And as soon as I gave it a name, I could feel actually summoned the Executive. So right now I'm in Performer Head. So, you know, you go into a head when you're performing because there's a crowd. Performer Head is not the executive, right? But the Executive is watching, and the Executive takes a lot of time off. The Executive doesn't get involved, right? If you're a little hangry because you haven't eaten, the Executive might get involved, but it doesn't care. Do you know when the Executive needs to get involved? And when it does, here's how it feels like to me, the Executive gets involved when you've decided I've made that distinction between wanting something and deciding the other parts of you want stuff. The artist in me wants something. The emotional part of me wants something. My aggressive part wants something. We're a bunch of at once, but my executive is like Darth fucking Vader. When the Executive gets involved you can feel all of your other brains. Say, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it. I'm sorry. Because the executive doesn't fuck around. The executive just does the business. Let me put it this way. If I had a home invasion, let's say where I got mugged or something, if my emotional brain came out, I'd be dead. Or if my artist came out or something, if the wrong me came out, I'm dead. But if the executive comes out, you're dead. That's how it feels. Now, obviously, that's not literally true, but try this. Reframe. Tell yourself that one of your brains is the executive and it can control the rest, because the rest just want stuff. And wanting is not powerful. Deciding is powerful. So give your executive a name. I call it the Executive. You could call it the Chairman, you could call it the Boss. And then tell yourself, the next time you've got a challenge, let's say the next time you're tempted by something, call the Executive. Just call the Executive. Now, I don't think you can understand the power of this until you feel it in real time. So I'll check back with you. Just give a name to that part of you that's in control and call the executive when you need to. Just take care of business because. And I'll give you the best example. There are sometimes things that you put off because they're unpleasant. The executive doesn't do that. The executive never puts it off because it's unpleasant. The. The executive doesn't. That's what it's for. It doesn't hesitate, doesn't ask questions, just doesn't. So call your executive when you need it. That is your reframe for the day. YouTube, thanks for joining and I'll see you tomorrow. If the technology gods allow.