Episode 2404 CWSA 03/04/24

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. Better than usual, even today. Fun stories. Oh, I like my fun news stories. You can like it, too. If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that only people who have done illegal drugs could even understand. All you need is a cup of mug or a glass. A tank of Chelsea and a canteen jargon flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now go. Delightful. All right, well, we'll start with. Apparently 60 Minutes did a piece on Elon Musk's SpaceX. I didn't see the piece, but apparently Elon Musk wasn't delighted with the way they. They framed him. Here's what Elon Musk said on x about the 60 Minutes piece. He said, but being attacked by 60 Minutes is like being gummed by a very old man who forgot to put in his dentures. Gross but ineffective. I don't know if that's the funniest thing he's ever said, but it might be in the top 10. That's so good, it makes me wonder if he's hired writers. If you had his money, as much money as he did, wouldn't you hire a comedy writer? Just to give you some suggestions for your posts. That looks like a professional, doesn't look like he wrote it himself, which is a compliment if he did write it himself. All right, so apparently the people who made Doritos, at least in Spain, they've decided that they'll have a. The new face of the brand in Spain will be a trans person. So a woman who is trans. She's a woman now. So now a lot of people say, ah, why are you. Why are you being so controversial? I just want to eat my Dorito chips and all the controversy and. But I don't know, is that. Is there really a problem with this? Because usually you're trying to match your. Your product, you know, with a sponsor who sort of makes sense for the product. Right. It's not anybody can advertise any product but Doritos. When I think of Doritos, I think of things I wouldn't want to put in my mouth. You can finish the jokes from there. That's all I need. I'm just doing the setups. I'm just doing the setups. If you're coming up with a terrible joke on your own, that's on you. And I'm disgusted by all of you. Oh, I'm very disappointed in you. Oh, look where your minds are going. You're horrible people. Horrible people. Cut it out. Well, here's some good news. MIT developed a super magnet. Now, you might say to yourself, scott, I am nowhere near sufficiently nerdy enough to get excited about a magnet. Oh, but this is no common magnet. This is an MIT special magnet. A magnet like no other magnet. And it's a necessary component of limitless fusion energy. So apparently, this is one of the big, big things they needed to solve, and MIT solved it. Do you ever worry that America is getting dumber? Anybody ever worry about that? Oh, no, we're getting dumber because it seems like it. Well, let me give you some positivity. Do you have any friends who could have created a, oh, let's say limitless energy fusion battery or not battery magnet? I don't know many people who could have done this. I might know a few, actually, but I don't know too many. And I submit to you that the only people have mattered in terms of propelling society forward have been people like this. There are probably six people at MIT who will be responsible for, I don't know, fusion energy forever. You know, there's lots of people working on it, so it's really a team effort. But these are not normal people. The people solving fusion, they're not like us. Right? They're not like us. And the fact that nobody coming across the border illegally, you maybe, you know, can't say for sure, but maybe they won't be at mit. At least this generation, next generation might be at mit, but are you worried about that? I'm not worried about the IQ because we live in a world where just the top 1% of 1% are inventing things that change the world. It's always been like that. The most of the rest of us are just cleaning the streets and, you know, trying to do something that contributes to society that a lot of other people could have done, too. So I'm not worried about our average IQ because we got AI to fill in the blanks. And we. We still have more geniuses than probably anywhere else on Earth. At least. At least geniuses that can do the creative stuff, and they have an environment where they can do it. So we still got that going for us. All right, here's. Here's a story that couldn't make me happier. How many of you heard me say that someday you'll think it was silly that you ever believed the scientists could measure the temperature of the Earth and then tell, tell when it's moving a little bit. Now, without even getting into any details like, I'm no expert in the field. I'm simply a person who has lived in the real world. I've lived in the actual real world. I've worked for big companies. I've been very involved in politics. From the observer commentator viewpoint, I've seen a lot of stuff. I've just lived in a lot of different environments and business models and situations and organizations. And one thing I can tell you with complete confidence, we can't measure the temperature of the Earth. Why? Did you ever think that was possible? Come on. Do I need, like, a real scientific explanation of why you can't do that? If you've lived in this civilization, you should know that automatically that that can't be done. It's so far beyond what ordinary people can do, even collectively and organize and, and even if a genius is in charge. Let's take my earlier conversation, say, but Scott, you talk about ordinary, average people. Maybe they can't do it, but Certainly the top 1% of the top 1% could figure out how to do it. Do you think they're the ones who placed the thermometers? Do you think they invented the thermometers? Do you think they do the maintenance on them? Do you think they check to make sure nobody built a big concrete parking lot next to it to heat it up? No. If there were any geniuses at all involved with measuring the temperature of the Earth, it might have been. Maybe somebody invented something that is involved with the thermometers. But mostly it's average people doing average stuff. And you think that the collection of average people can measure the temperature of the Earth in thousands of locations with different equipment that's put in at different times in different situations. Some near heat islands, some not. The complete changing environment. It's the temperature. The sensors are not in every place on Earth, So it doesn't measure if there's like a warming thing that moved by. They also, they also measure only the top heat period of the day. Did you know that the main thing they're doing is looking for the high. So if you're, if you're, let's say, a few blocks away from an airport, too far for the heat from the airport to be bothering your thermometer. All it takes is for the wind to change directions for one minute and the warmth from the airport concrete just wafts over your thermometer. Doesn't last for more than 15 seconds. And that's your high for the day. It's a new high. All right, so I'm just giving you some examples. I'm just saying that this is so beyond anything that regular humans can do. Measure the temperature of the earth. But here's the update, apparently, and thank you, Owen, for this. There are scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields that are pushing back on peer reviewed science about temperatures. And they noted a number of problems measuring the temperature. So there's, you know, things that aren't represented in places they don't measure. There's all kinds of ways the record can get contaminated from heat from urban areas, which is what I was just mentioning. There's corruption of the data. There's a homogenization thing. I don't even know what that is. But some problem with the data. And they said the flaws are so significant that when you remove the flaws, it also removes the climate crisis. Oh, my God. Is Trump going to have the best third act of all time? Yeah. So there's actually a major move to look at the science for thermometers. Now, I don't know that this has ever happened before. There have been people like, you know, Tony and other people who have said there's problems with them, but I don't think there's ever been an organized move by experts in a variety of related and important fields that are kind of saying the same thing. Now. I think my version covers it completely. You can look at all the homogenization in the heat islands and everything, but let me just explain that human beings, we're not able to measure the temperature of the Earth. You just don't even need to get into the details. If you've lived in the real world, you know, it's not a thing. By the way, how many of you agree with just the. Without getting into the details, you would agree we can't measure the temperature of the Earth. For how many of you, is that just really obvious? It's really obvious, yeah. By the way, I don't know if, I don't know if climate change is happening. I don't even have an opinion on that. How would I know? I'd have to, I'd have to believe sources that I find not credible, like temperatures. But it doesn't mean it's not happening. So I want to make sure. I'm not denying it. I just have no, no reason to believe it. That's different. Well, here's some more good news. Apparently the US is really getting serious now about Nuclear energy, you know, the regular kind. So apparently there's some big. The House put through bipartisan legislation, bipartisan being the important part, to bolster nuclear energy. It was overwhelmingly approved. Just think about that. Just hold this in your mind that a pro nuclear energy bill was passed by our government 365 to 36, just in the House. The Senate would still need to deal with it. I think they have their own bill that might overlap, so they have to work that out. So. 365 to 36. 10 to 1. 10 to 1. Michael Shellenberger for the win. Absolutely. Yeah. You know, certainly not the only one, but he certainly made a dent. All right, so that's good. Now, apparently what it aims to do is make it easier to build nuclear power plants by speeding up the environmental reviews, reducing the license fees, basically getting the government out of the way. Is that a good idea? Yeah, yeah, it's a good idea, and it's one that's been a good idea for a very long time. But it took a lot of persuading to get to this point, didn't it? Just think about where we were. When I entered the field in 2015. Nuclear energy was controversial. The left didn't like it, the right was more pro, and now it's ten to one. Bipartisan. Ten to one. My God, that. I would. I would say that the. Well, you know what I mean. I almost wonder if there's a Nobel Prize involved here, because I don't know what Nobel prize it would be, but it's almost peace or technology or economics. The economics one is a weird Nobel, but what Shellenberger did touched all three. I feel like he should be nominated, like, actually literally. But I don't know which one. Because nuclear power would go a long way toward creating peace. Because we fight over energy, right? We fight over energy. So going strong on nuclear power should be one of the most anti war, pro peace things you could ever do. How about economics? The. The e. Basically, Shellenberger was arguing not just the risk, but the economics were an advantage. And now that's common knowledge. Right? So economics, peace. What about technology? The problem was we had all these scientists and they couldn't figure out how to communicate the risks and the rewards in a way that the politicians could act. And then Shellenberger fixed it. He fixed it. He gave them a language to talk about risk and reward in a way that made sense in a business context and therefore proved the economics. Shellenberger should get three Nobel Prizes. Peace, economics, the weird one, and technology. Because, you know, you granted that what he didn't do, he didn't do it as a scientist. But he fixed the science. He fixed the science. The science was useless because they couldn't communicate it. And if you tell me that communicating the science is not the important part of science, I say, sir and ma', am, you are mistaken. Communicating it is what makes it real. If you can't communicate it, it just stays in your lab, has no value at all. Michael Shellenberger, three Nobel Prizes for this. Yes. Do you agree? Yeah, I think that's absolutely within the realm. Now, the odds of getting it are low. That's interesting. Well, you might know the Prince of Fakes on X, Bri AI. You'll see a lot of good AI content there. And Bri AI asked one of the AIs to look at my book, God's Debris. And this was a prompt. Can you identify the hypnotic storytelling techniques used in this book, God's Debris. And I guess it's got a 200,000 token context window. Now, if you'd like to be up to date on cool things about AI, one of the things you should learn to say is how many tokens? Because I guess that's essentially a measure of how much content you can put into it that it can process. Am I right about that? I need a better definition of what that actually is. I'm seeing some yeses. So the size of the tokens that it can take tells you how much it can handle in terms of putting a whole book in there or something larger. Okay, so 200,000 tokens, I believe, is pretty darn big compared to what we've seen. So how did it do? Now, this is the Claude 3 opus version of AI, the newest one. And Bri AI says that some say it puts GPT4 to shame. Now, I guarantee you that G GPT4 could not have done what this did. And I'll tell you what it did. It actually accurately found the hypnotic techniques that I buried in the book. Just think about that. I'm sure Chat GPT could not have done that. All right, so let me give you. So it's a long page of output, but I'll just give you the. It sort of summarizes it before it gives the detail. So it found the pacing and leading, and it called it out by that name. It found the nested loops, open loops, reframing symbolism and metaphor, shifting frames and viewpoints and artfully vague language. And also my use of curiosity. Now, probably if I sat down, I'm sure I would think, oh, you missed a few things. This is really impressive. This is really impressive. You know, for years I've been saying that I wrote that book using hypnosis techniques, but nobody knew what that meant. And I didn't really. I didn't describe the techniques, but AI just dug them out for you. That is really impressive. I gotta say, I did not see this coming. I didn't think anything would be able to do it. And then here's the summary. This is from the AI. It says the combined effect of these techniques is to induce a mild hypnotic state where the reader's mind becomes more open to considering radically new ideas about themselves and reality. The book aims to guide readers into higher states of awareness through an engaging storytelling experience. Oh, my God. That's exactly right. That is exactly right. My God. Yes. I've told now only the people who have read the book and maybe had the experience understand. I think I didn't write it as a reading experience. I wrote it as a. Almost a psychedelic experience. And not everybody will have it, of course, because we're all different, but some number of people who have an experience like they had gone to a different level of awareness and it was written for that purpose, and the AI actually sees it. That's amazing. All right. I'm just blown away by that. Have you seen the compilation video of all of a number of Trump's critics mistakenly using the word erection instead of insurrection? Somebody put together a compilation clip and it doesn't yet include Jake Tapper, who did it the other day. But as some female Democrats, I think, Jaya Paul and some others who say erection. But. But the compilation mean, oh, it's Talib. It's not Jayapal, it's Talib. Sorry. And so the funny video cuts between somebody saying something about Trump's erection and it goes to a close up of Trump looking at the camera and winking. You know, sort of like Joey on Friends. How you doing? It is so funny. It is so funny. Well, here's another. Another of my amazing predictions. The New York Times is reporting that people are remembering Trump more positively than when he was in office. That's right. The New York Times just confirmed one of my oddest predictions. I said Trump would grow in. In likability and let's say, respect. And generally people would think more of him the more. The longer he was out of office. And the New York Times just confirmed it. Boom. I don't want to say everything I've ever predicted has happened, but starting to look that way. Well, there is a hobby I have because I like words. I'm sort of a word guy and persuasion guy. I'm fascinated by the topic of things which can't be communicated. And there are a variety of reasons for it, but often it has to do with people's biases. Can't be, you know, hacked or somebody isn't credible. So the little boy who cried wolf could say the words but could not communicate that there was a danger because the little boy was no longer credible because he always said there was a wolf when there wasn't one. So there's all these weird little pockets where somebody knows something that would be really, really useful for you to know, but there's no way to communicate it. It's just impossible. I'll give you another example. I'm having a back and forth with a person on X who has an anonymous profile but seems to be a very serious person who's done their own research using some kind of records from the election and claims to have found irregularities that can be shown on a spreadsheet that very clearly look bothersome. But when I say I'm not sure I quite understand what you found, he says words. I think it's E. He says words that sound all electiony, but I don't understand any of them. You know, I'll just make this up. This isn't real, Bill. Things like, well, but you can see from my numbers that you can see that the ballot machine counter was duplicated, not copied. And I'll be like, I don't know what any of that means. And then it'll try again. Okay, but you see, instead of the duplication of the copy machines, of the machines that were run through the machine, that was the copying. Then there were the duplicates, which shows that there were any way he's done it. I'd say, again, no idea what you just said. I don't know what any of those words mean, but it looks like he has something. So, you know, if you didn't try to dig into would look like he's. He, he's got the goods to show the election was rigged. Now, how many people have said they had the goods to prove the election was rigged only to find out they did not have any goods whatsoever. A lot. So here's the situation. Anonymous account, can't trust that sources that he says he could find but would be hard to give me a link to. And then a narrative of how this could have happened that I don't know how to check against. Let's say somebody who might say it could have happened accidentally. So I wouldn't have any competing story. What do I do with that? Can I boost it? I can't boost it, right? Because if it were, if we were truish or even I thought it was worth, know, seeing if it's true, I would. I would, you know, post it and I'd say, hey, what do people think about this? But it's uncommunicatable. I don't know if it's somebody who found, like, the smoking gun. Probably not. You know, if you looked at the history of smoking guns in the election, usually they're just steam. Yeah, I'm seeing the comments Merrick Garland came out against voter id. There's only one reason for that, is to allow cheating. Have you ever seen a situation where your government is fighting as hard as possible to make the election less credible? It's exactly what it looks like. It couldn't be anything else. There's no other explanation. There's just no other explanation. All right, So I don't know what's happening in the election situation. Did anybody see the weird situation where I interacted with an Arizona official, I interacted with an Arizona official on the question of whether, you know, we could know if the election is auditable. And a weird thing happened that is so common to 2024. So the official said, you know, here's why it's all auditable. And I looked at it and said, huh, that's the most ridiculously terrible, terrible explanation I've ever seen. It was so bad that I actually put Checkmate in my comment. Like, that'd be rare for me to do because I just. I just destroyed him. You want to hear how well, he was saying that you shouldn't worry about electronic voting machines because 93% of the precincts in his area, 93% of the precincts use paper. So therefore, you shouldn't worry about, you know, any tampering because, you know, 93% of them were using paper anyway. And I thought to myself, why are the people reading this, the Democrats saying that he just totally slapped me down and embarrassed me in public? Because here's what I commented back. Because he said that 93% being paper is basically proof that we didn't have any rigging from electronic voting machines. To which I said, that's not what I see proved. What I see proved is that if 93 don't use them, didn't you just prove that there's no reason to have them if 93% don't need them? And you're saying that those are Secure. What would be the point of having them? Now? You might say, but Scott, 93% don't need them because they're small precincts. Probably, you know, maybe you need them if there's a higher volume. So that would be just the high volume places. But isn't it the high volume places that determine the whole election? It's the cities, isn't it? So if the 7% happen to be 90% of the population, then it's not an argument that 93% of the precincts. Have I ever told you that if you give the number and not the percentage or vice versa, that you're lying? That's how you know somebody's lying. They, they give you a number or a percentage, but not both. Now, had he said 93% of the precincts don't use them. Oh, and also that's 90, 98 of the public. Now if he said that, I'd say that's actually not a bad argument. But he didn't say that. He didn't. And his idiot supporters decided to gang up on me and say that I'd been slapped down. Here's my point. If 93% of them don't need them, either you're lying to me about the volume of people who use the electronic parts, maybe the cities, or you've proved they don't, that they don't have a purpose. Except what? Let me ask that again. See if you can connect the dots. If 93% of the precincts use paper, what's the purpose of the machines other than cheating? To me it looks like they're designed for cheating. Because he just said you don't need them in 93% of the precincts. That's proof that they only have one purpose. Do you think he's going to say, oh, they're much easier to maintain than paper? No, paper is pretty easy to maintain. Will you say you can count them faster? Well, I don't see any evidence that anything's getting counted fast. If it's a state we care about, and apparently the paper works in other countries, how come other countries that also have cities can count them the same day? No, that's bs. So it's not about the maintenance being cheaper. It's not about timing. Is it about cost? Well, it's hard for me to imagine that the digital ones are less expensive. Don't they actually create paper anyway? So if it's not easier, it's not faster, and it's not cheaper, why do they have machines? Is it because they're more Credible. And we're more likely to believe the machine. No, that's the opposite. I'm more likely to believe a piece of paper. If two people are looking at it and you're holding it in your hand. So it doesn't give us a cost advantage, a speed advantage or a credibility advantage. What could be the reason for them? What, what reason? Now does that mean there's no reason for them? I don't know. I just know that the person who should know the answer to that didn't offer any. Right. The person who should know, the very person who was arguing with me online should know the purpose and the point of having electronic machines. Might have mentioned it if that was the entire argument. Might have mentioned why. No, he actually proved with his bad argument that there's something very sketchy going on. We don't understand. Now, the rest of his argument was just as bad. It looked like a child trying to argue with an adult. It didn't look like a fair fight. And yet, because it was a little bit complicated, he was able, his, his critics were able to describe it as slapping me down and completely humiliating me. Literally the opposite of that happened. And then a publication called Raw something, they like to hit pieces on me. Every now and then they do a hit piece about how much I got slapped down. Do you see how the left leaning media is so gaslighty right now that they can talk about the thing you're looking at with your own eyes as if it's the opposite of what you're looking at and it works. They could literally murder me, show a video of me being murdered and say, look at how that guy murdered the person with a gun. And half of the people looking at it would say, that's what I see. Damn those people. Well, Trump got a big win in the Supreme Court 9 to nothing in the case of Colorado and other states wanted to knock him off the ballot for his alleged insurrectiony stuff, you know, his raging insurrection. So Colorado was the case, but then the Supreme Court seemed to have generalized it enough that other states would back down as well. And Trump will be on the ballots. Now, if you didn't watch the meltdowns on MSNBC and cnn, you really missed a good show because this is not politics. Mostly on msnbc, maybe on cnn, to a lesser extent, msnbc. Their problem appears to be that they have a lot of batshit crazy women and men who don't want to call them out for it. I mean, it's just a total mental health meltdown. Now. I think I'm Somewhat. Well, I don't know if I'm unbiased. When I look at somebody like, let's say, Sean Hannity, I often disagree with him. Sometimes I think he, you know, exaggerates or says things that don't pass the fact check. Like everybody, you know, I'm the same. But I never think he looks crazy. Do you know what I mean? I would just maybe disagree. Or it looks like he's spinning something harder than I think he should be spun. Something like that. But he never looks crazy. But when I watch the, a lot of the hosts on msnbc, they look a little crazy. Yeah. Elon Musk said TDS is a very real mental condition and we really hurt ourselves by not treating it like a mental health problem. I don't think you're helping your cause to treat all of your critics like they have a different opinion. It's very literally mental illness. And until we can say that out loud, we're not having a sensible conversation at all. So let's see, what do you think happens to the viewers of MSNBC and CNN who were listening to the legal experts tell them that they would win this case and that Trump would be kept off the ballot, only to find that not even, not even the liberal judges agreed with that. Yeah. By the way, if you haven't seen the face of the, the Colorado woman, let's see if I can find that, because she has what I would call an obvious. She just looks crazy. And I think you could tell from the eyes. All right, hold on. Where's my stuff? If you haven't seen it, it is a thing to behold. Oh, but here's, here's, here's not the one from Colorado. This is the person from Maine who also wanted to keep Trump off the ballot. So I want you to show you the picture of the person in charge in Maine. Right. Let's see. We'll show it to you one at a time. I'll go over to locals next. Now, look at the face. Now, does that look like it looks crazy? Right. Isn't that a red flag? Now, there are photos of me that are not flattering, but I'll bet you there's not a single photo of me that looks crazy. And you're going to say to me, but, Scott, I think you're being a little sexist. No, I, I say the thing, the same thing about Adam Schiff and, you know, Swalwell and all those guys. But here's the Colorado, the woman from Colorado who is in charge. I'm not imagining this. That Those are crazy eyes. Look at those eyes. That's. It just looks like insanity. Now. Am I going too far? Does it sound like this is hyperbole? Am I exaggerating for political. No, I don't think this is politics. I'm not in the realm of politics right now. This is actually somewhat obviously, really, really obviously a mental health problem. Super. Super. Obviously. Anyway, I think that it may be possible that a lot of Democrats just learned that they were the baddies, but they didn't know it. Not everybody, but I think it carved off another 1% because how could you listen to the news for weeks and weeks and weeks and they're legal experts. Legal experts. We're telling you that Trump would be maybe kept off the ballot for all the insurrection and then 9, 0, slap down. How do the viewers process that? Do they understand that they have been intentionally lied to? What do you think? You know, when, when Fox News gets something wrong and, you know, everybody gets stuff wrong, but when FOX News gets something wrong, it just looks like a mistake because everybody makes mistakes. But do you think that this was a mistake by all those legal experts? Do you think their best legal experts didn't know how this was going to go? Because I knew. I knew. Now, there's an interesting sub story to this, that even though it was nine to zero, the four women resisted extending. I think I have this right. The four women, which would include the one conservative woman on the court, wanted to maybe limit the ruling. So it's just about Colorado and maybe, you know, didn't extend to future situations. That was too much. And the men, presumably, were all in favor of making it a larger ruling to make sure there wasn't trouble later. Here's how I see this. This is a good argument for not letting women on the Supreme Court because here's what the women missed. But I think all the men understood. Are you ready for this, by the way? This won't be nearly as sexist as you think. This won't be nearly as sexist. I believe that men understand. They're always at war. I say this a lot, but it's really important. Men are always at war. Even when nobody's doing anything violent or talking violent. We're always at war because the reason that there isn't a fist fight everywhere all the time is because we do the war in our heads. You meet it, you meet a larger man and you say, okay, you won. The war is over. Now what do we do now that you won? Likewise, you know, a smaller man. You know, if you're the bigger one, you know, you won. So here's what I think happened, and I don't think a single commentator got this right. The men on the Supreme Court knew it wasn't their decision, and so they ruled the only way they could. Do you know why? Because the men understood that there are too many guns in the country to keep Trump off the ballot. The men all understood at a deep biological level that there was no decision to be made. There were too many guns in the country to keep Trump off the ballot. So they needed to come up with a legal reason, which was easy, but it wasn't really their decision. I think the men knew that they were keeping the country from bloodshed, and the women didn't understand that. So when the men said, let's make this a sort of a larger ruling that would affect the future, it was a protective measure that maybe the women were right. It was a little bit of an overreach, because from their perspective, presumably. And again, I can't read any minds. I'm just looking from the outside, so I could be wrong. But what it looks like is that the women didn't understand that it wasn't their decision. Not just it wasn't the women's decision, but it wasn't the men's decision on the court either. The public had already decided there were just too many guns in the country. You weren't going to keep him off the ballot. Do you know why? I never once worried about this court case. And you would think it would be one of the big ones you'd worry about if you wanted Trump to succeed. I didn't worry about it once. Do you know why there are too many guns in the country? It wasn't up to the court, and I trusted that at least the men would know that, and apparently they did. Now, if you ask them, they'd say, scott, we didn't even consider that. We just looked at the law. But that's not how brains work. That's not how brains work. First you decide and then you rationalize. Even if you're on the court, first you decide and then you rationalize. That's why we can usually guess what the votes will be, because we know the conservatives will want something and then they'll rationalize it. The liberals either want it or not want it, and then they'll rationalize it. But those things you see as the legal opinions are not, not why they did it. Those are the rationalizations that they try to make fit the law. So I believe that at a biological level, the Men knew that they were protecting the country. They knew it wasn't their decision. It was the decision of the men with guns. And the men with guns had already decided it wasn't going to go the other way. It just wasn't. And by the way, if you put Trump in jail for one day, do you know who would understand the risk of that? The four men on the Supreme Court or the five men, whatever it is, do you know who wouldn't understand the risk of that? The women. The women wouldn't understand it. Now, this is not a bio. I'm not going to say there's some biological problem. What I think it is is a lifetime of the women not having to think in that frame and the men having to think in that frame every minute of their life. We're always at war so that you don't have to think about it. Right? If you women are not seeing the war that's going on all the time, that we did our job, that's like some good man stuff there. If you didn't know there was a war, we did a really good job. And this is a good example of that. But when you see Keith Olberman going bad, you know that I don't think that this is a female only problem. And nothing I say about men and women means all the men or all the women. It never means that. So when you attack me later, you'll be dumb. But I do think we have a huge problem in the world that there are batshit crazy women making decisions and men who are afraid to tell them that they're batshit crazy because if they can make any argument that they're still in the political frame, it's hard to call them crazy, even when it's obviously a mental illness. CNN was hilarious. I was watching a show with Laura Coates. Do I have her name right? One of the hosts she had two guests on. And the three of them seemed to be in agreement that insurrection had been proven by everybody who ever looked at it. I mean, you know, any official look at it all proven. What were they talking about? Where was Insurrection proven? Was it where he wasn't charged and wasn't convicted? Where's all the insurrection? The. The viewers of CNN believe the insurrection is a fact. And the only thing being decided is whether he should be allowed to run as an insurrectionist. That's what the reviewers actually think happened. They're completely unaware that not only did no insurrection happen, but he hasn't been charged with it because it didn't happen. And they have no Idea. They're living in a completely artificial world. That's just remarkable to see. And there. There are no Democrats who ever see my content anymore, so I can talk about them with impunity. Nobody will attack me. Yeah. So whoever's in charge of everything, clearly it's not Elon Musk we can see, but whoever's in charge of everything has somehow cut me off from the rest of the world, so that I only talk to people largely are going to agree with me. All right. CBS is being sued by a white male writer for the SEAL team. I guess that's a TV show on cbs. And he's suing for discrimination against white men. Is there anybody who's funding those lawsuits? Doesn't it seem like there should be some fund that, you know, pays for the legal fees and stuff? That would be a real useful thing. So I know that Elon Musk will fund people who get kicked off or lose their jobs and stuff because of what they posted on X. And I know that there's that American first thing where they're fighting various conservative battles, but I don't think anybody's protecting the average white man who got discriminated against in employment because it would be like 80 million cases. I think Elon just tweeted about voting for a new DA in Austin. That would be problem if he has the wrong DA in Austin. All right. The DHS watch. There's a DHS watchdog. Department of Homeland Security has a watchdog. Didn't even know that. But the watchdog is launching a criminal probe into why the Secret Service deleted January 6th text messages after there was a subpoena to protect them. There are so many outrages that this one, you know, I knew, I guess, but I forgot. Just hold this in your mind that probably the group that would know the most about what the real danger was and what the situation was, the Secret Service, that their messages were deleted after a subpoena was issued. And we don't know who ordered that, do we? Wouldn't you like to know who ordered the deletion of those messages? And by the way, if they're gone, I think all the January 6th people should be released now. I think they should be released anyway. But if anything that could have been heading toward their. Let's say anything that could have helped them in their case, if it was intentionally deleted by the government or a government entity. Exculpatory. Thank you. That's the word I was searching for. If there's any exculpatory evidence and the government deleted it that should be the end of the story, because we don't know what was in the text and we don't know if it was exculpatory. But they deleted it. Remember, the government is guilty until proven innocence. You don't have to prove that there was something in those messages that mattered. You only have to know that they deleted them after being asked not to by the subpoena. That's all you need. You don't need to know anything else. You just have to open the jail door and let those people out. Because the, the, the, the abortion of justice of this whole January6 thing is so outrageous that I can't really even see other items in front of me. Like, honestly, I only care that they get freed, and the rest I figure will work out. But give me a president who lets them out of jail, and I don't care what other crimes you do. All right, next up is the immunity question. Was Trump. You know, the Supreme Court will decide, was Trump under presidential immunity when he did things that other people say are crimes? Now, here's the thing. Whoopi Goldberg made a good point that the conservatives took out of context. So it turned it into a bad point. But the good point was, and she, the way she said it, it made it easy to take it out of context. But she made a good point that if you said that presidents have, you know, blanket immunity for everything, then Joe Biden could just arrest all Republicans and put them in jail. Now, it was taken by some people to mean that she wanted to do that. Of course, she doesn't want to lock up all Republicans. That, to me, she was getting the Trump treatment where she says something this obvious, hyperbole. And then people act like, oh, you said the thing. You really think, no, Trump doesn't want to be a dictator for a day, and Whoopi doesn't want to lock up all the Republicans. And I shouldn't have to tell you either of those things. That's called hyperbole. So I defend Whoopi on her hyperbole. Perfectly acceptable. And her point was accurate, in my opinion. It was a good point, which is, if you allowed blanket immunity, could a president do things you didn't want and you wish you hadn't given him blanket immunity? Now, that's a good point. But there are other good points. For example, could Biden be arrested immediately if he doesn't have immunity? Well, I would like to suggest something that Joe Biden has done, which seems to be an obvious crime, that we should know if he has immunity. And by the way, if it's found that Trump doesn't have immunity of any kind, then I think this should be pursued. So when Biden often says that there's a white supremacy problem and a MAGA problem, and then he conflates them that the MAGA are white supremacists and that Trump is Hitler and that his supporters are all Nazis, I don't think it's a stretch to say that's a call for violence against a ethnic group. That's called a hate crime. There are laws on the books against that. So if Biden said, for example, I think all Elbonians should be rounded up and shot, that would be a hate crime, would you agree? Everybody agrees, right? If he said all Ebonians should be punished just because they're Elbonians. Yeah. Now, he doesn't have to say just because they're Elbonians. He could just say, I think we should round up the Elbonians totally hate crime. But he can say that the white nationalists and white supremacists, which he likes to conflate with ordinary MAGA people, and then say their leader is Hitler, you're telling me that isn't really, really directly telling you to do violence against those people. Do you think that if this became a case, do you think that anybody could come up with, oh, let's say, a bunch of videos that show Republicans being beaten in public for wearing, let's say, a mega hat? Oh, yes, you could. Oh, yes, you could. You could find a lot of video of MAGA people being beaten up by the general public. At the same time, you would intersperse the Biden saying that the Fine People hoax, which he knows is a hoax. Right. Now, you'd also have to show that he knows the Fine People hoax is a hoax because. Because that's. Which would be easy to do because that's what's kind of central to his branding of one. One side worthy of violence. Now, am I. How far off am I? I'm no lawyer, but is there a case, could a case be made that he's using hay speech against white Americans who are Republicans? Yes or no? Too far? I feel like it's. I feel like it's right in the middle of the target. I don't think it's a stretch. I think it's very obvious that he is setting up one group, one ethnic group that happened to be political as well. He's setting up one group very clearly for punishment and retribution and even violence. So if, if Trump is found not to have any kind of protection, then I would say we shouldn't. We. Somebody should immediately institute charges against Biden. And it should be the good stuff, right? Not. Not just the. The Farah stuff. Well, how about the Faro stuff? How about a Farah? Well, that happened when he was not in office, so that doesn't work. But there must be something he's doing that's illegal. Just charging with all of it. Now, what I don't quite understand is if the court can rule that there is a situation where the President has immunity, but he has to clearly be doing his job, and maybe he has to think it's legal or something like that. So maybe there's something a little carve out. I don't know how that works. All right. I guess we learned that the Biden administration flew in 320,000 migrants because if you fly them in, they don't count as border crossings. Wait, what? This is this. This is a report. I don't know if it's true, but Musk commented on it and said it is obvious to anyone who is not a fool that this administration is deliberately importing vast numbers of illegals in. In other places. He says it's for voting reasons. All right, somebody needs to teach them what a Democrat is. They'll all become Republicans. It's not a hard sale. It would be the easiest sale ever. Hey, migrant, let me tell you what Republicans believe in. Now let me tell you what Democrats believe in. Which one are you? Easiest sale ever among all these many people coming in? Apparently the FBI is searching for an Iranian spy who is plotting to assassinate Mike Pompeo, which would be related to the Solomon A killing where Trump was in office. Which means that they're looking for Trump, which means. Oh, God, are they going to kill Trump and make it look like an Iranian hit? Oh, I. I feel like we're getting primed that if something that we couldn't figure out, how it happened, happened, they'd say, well, we told you there was this Iranian spy. And if he was looking to kill more Mike Pompeo, who was certainly looking to kill Trump because they worked together to kill Solomon A. So that's suboptimal, according to Axios, which is no longer a real publication, but rather just a Democrat. Weird piece. They say that Biden privately thinks they should push harder in the election and that Trump is wobbly both intellectually and emotionally, and he'll explode if Biden mercilessly gigs and goads him and calls him a loser. So Biden thinks if he just keeps calling him A loser. Trump will flip out on him. Maybe. Maybe it's not his worst idea. We'll see. I think the entire race comes down to Ken Trump. Keep cool, because it looks like he's on a glide path and he could only take himself off by getting derailed. So we'll see. They're definitely going to try to derail him. Biden wants to take away your, what he calls your assault weapons and other people just call weapons. And he's doing, at the same time, he wants to basically take all your freedom and put you in jail for your free speech. Worst idea I've ever heard in my life. But I had a realization today. The Second Amendment is probably the only reason I'm not in jail. Just think about that. That's probably true. The Second Amendment is probably the only reason I'm not in jail. Because I would be considered, you know, one of many, let's say, enemies of the current administration in their mind. In their mind. I feel like I'm just pro America. But why wouldn't they put their enemies away if they could? What would stop them? The law won't stop them. Do you think, do you think the legal system would prevent me from going to jail for Nothing? Ask the January 6th people. Ask Trump. No, we live in a system where putting somebody in jail for whatever you want is now the law, as long as they can do it in a, in an area that has, you know, their prosecutors. So if I say something online, you know, it's available to every state. So every single prosecutor in every state could put me in jail for my free speech, then the only thing that's protecting me is that so many of you have guns. That's it. You are literally keeping me out of jail. I believe that in a literal way. I'm not exaggerating. I believe I would literally be in jail if there were now so many guns in the country who wouldn't put up with it. And unfortunately, they probably would put up with it. Yeah. Thank you. So the Second Amendment is super important. And if he tries to take the assault rifles away, might be some surprises. All right, there's a British man who's being sentenced to two years in jail because he put some anti immigration stickers up. What would you call an anti immigration sticker? Well, the one shown in the story had the message, quote, we will be a minority in our homeland by 2066. He's going to jail for two years. Now, remember when I said I thought I would already be in jail if not for the Second Amendment? How Is that second Amendment in Great Britain don't have one. So you go to jail for talking. If you give up your guns, you go to jail for talking. Let me say it again. If you give up your guns, they can put you in jail for talking. That's real. That is not an exaggeration. And by the way, if they get your long, you know, your rifles, they're in a lot better situation to do whatever they want to you. So I've never been more pro second amendment. I think we should add bazookas to that. All right, so in Great Britain, it's illegal to tell the truth if somebody doesn't like it because we will be a minority in our homeland by 2066. I understand how somebody sees that as hate speech because it's anti immigrant, but it might also be technically true. 2066, it's a ways away. And if the natural birth rate is lower than the immigration rate and then the birth rate of the immigrants, then 2066 sounds like a reasonable time to assume that there would be a switch over in the majority. Now, the fact that he doesn't like that, you know, sounds distasteful. Doesn't like to live in a diverse place. So we don't love that. Maybe. But he is welcome to his opinion, or should be. Apparently he's not welcome to his opinion. Constantine kissing. You know him from his excellent podcasts. He was. I saw him on another podcast saying, do you know how many people Russia has arrested in the past year for their social media posts? And the answer is 400. Wow. Wow. Well, you don't want to live in Russia, do you? You try to use your free speech in Russia, 400 people got arrested for just talking on social media and saying things Gremlin didn't like. 400. Wow. So it's not like, you know, some place like the Great Britain. Do you know how many people in Great Britain were arrested for their social media posts in the same period? 3,300. Yeah. What's that, nine times? About nine times more. So if you want free speech, Russia is a better bet than Great Britain at the moment. Now, I would caution you not to take those numbers too literally, because I think if you live in Russia, you're smart enough not to say things on social media because you know you'll get arrested. Whereas in Great Britain, people haven't figured it out. They're still. They're still under the impression that they have free speech. So I think once the Brits understand that they're in as bad a situation as The Russians, they will stop talking on social media, which is, of course, what the government wants them to do. Stop talking, and maybe there'll only be 400 arrests, because there'd be only 400 who are crazy enough to violate that. All right, Elon Musk says that GROK will be maybe different from some of the other AIs, and that it will learn to reason from first principles, Whereas the current AI's language models are just looking for patterns. So if you're just looking for patterns based on what humans have done before, you're going to pick up all their stupidity, all their biases, and you'll just build an artificial intelligence that isn't intelligent. That's what we have now. So Elon believes that he can create one that can reason. Now, I don't know if that makes it a generalized intelligence that we're talking about or not, or maybe it's a hybrid. But so he's trying to do that, and he gives the example of Galileo. If AI had existed in Galileo's time, it was said Galileo was wrong and the consensus is right that the sun travels around the Earth, not vice versa. Now. And so he says, you know, we got the same problem now. So you have to reason from first principles so that you're not confused by all the stuff that's wrong that humans have said before. Now, on the surface, that makes sense, right? Makes perfect sense. Under the surface doesn't work. Here's why we have to come to terms with the fact that our civilization is built on lies. Primarily, Not a little bit primarily. The entire civilization is held together by a web of lies that we've decided give us some stability, and so we act like they're true. If you had something that started telling you the truth, we would have to either kill it or kill the people who made it. There's no way civilization could survive anything that we thought was right. And reason from first principles, we would make it illegal immediately because it wouldn't agree with us. It would take power from people, and that's never allowed. The people who have the power will fight to kill it in the courts. So my take is that if you built Grok to be able to reason from first principles, and then it started saying a bunch of things that were just clearly and obviously true but didn't agree with the narratives that keep society together, we would see that Grok like a Frankenstein monster, and we would attack would just be too dangerous. Now, I love to be wrong about that, but I'm not. We are not ready for the Truth. We can't handle the truth, so to speak. And no, we would kill this thing as soon as we could. This might surprise you quite a bit, but the talk of a Gaza ceasefire seems to be running into a snag. Huh, didn't see that coming. Well, here's my take on Gaza. In order to have a ceasefire now, I think they were just talking about a ceasefire to exchange some prisoners. And I want to give you a little terrible truth. Presumably Hamas has released the prisoners who are the least poorly treated. Am I right? The ones who hadn't been tortured. Those are the ones you release first as you get toward the end. I don't know how many they're left, 50 or some. It's possible that of the 50 we think are left, 40 are dead. You know what I mean? We think there are 50 or whatever the number is. Might not be. It could. Those could be all the ones that are dead. They might have nothing to trade, or the ones they have left are in such bad shape from torture that giving them back would be worse than not giving them back because of how it would make people feel. So that's the first problem, that exchanging prisoners is only good until you get to those last 50, and then you've got a whole new problem, which is you don't really have some healthy prisoners to exchange. So that's one thing. But the bigger thing is that in order to have a ceasefire that's longer than just for a prisoner swap, you would need both sides to want that. If one side wants to fight and the other one doesn't, there's no ceasefire. If both of them want to fight, then there's no ceasefire. But we have this weird situation where one side is fighting to win and the other is trying to lose. And they're both getting what they want at the moment, because every time that Hamas can print a new, higher alleged death count, they win. I mean, it looks like they're planning for the future where. Where Israel's reputation is destroyed by this. And then Israel won't have as much support from the international community. So as long as both sides are getting what they want, why would there be a ceasefire? Now you can say, but. But all the people. No, the people don't have any power. The. The people, the poor citizens were being starved to death. They don't have any power. They can't make a ceasefire. If it were up to them, then yes, of course they would, but it's up to Hamas. Hamas wants the maximum amount of bad reputational outcome for Israel, and they're getting it and Israel wants to win, and they are. So somebody's got to want to stop for it to stop. And it's not going to be the poor victims who just want to eat. They don't have any power. Well, the Houthis are cutting undersea telecommunications cables. I don't. It's hard to imagine it hasn't affected us yet because I thought the whole world was so connected that if you cut an undersea cable, you know, somehow there'd be too much traffic somewhere else. Because I think it can all be rerouted. It would just be a problem. I don't know that maybe some of it can be. But how are they cutting these underseat cables? Is that easy to do? Like, what kind of technology do you use? Oh, it's easy. Just an anchor drag. Somebody says, scissors. The ship dragged anchors and cut the cables. Or you attack the on land building. Well, yep, they're not doing that. They have a submarine. Somebody says, maybe, I don't know. But how powerful are the hooties that we can't stop them? Like, is there nothing in Yemen that we can blow up to make this stop? There's not a single thing in Yemen that they really, really want to keep anything. There's probably nothing there that we could blow up that they care about anyway. So I guess that'll just keep going the way it's going. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best live stream you've ever seen. By tonight, it will be taken out of context to cancel me. I'm sure that's coming, but they can try. Let them try. Why is Yemen bad? Oh, because the Houthis in Yemen are attacking the ships and closing off the main shipping artery and also dragging, breaking some of the cables. So they seem to be working with Iran. Seem to be? They are working with Iran. All right, that's all we got for today. And thanks for joining on the XPL forum and Unrumble and on the racist product called YouTube. We'll see you tomorrow. Same time, same.