Episode 2429 CWSA 03/30/24

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. I'm pretty sure there's never been a better time in human civilization ever. But if you'd like to take it up to levels that could only be described as Easter Good. All you need is a copper Margaret glass, a tanker Chelsea and a canteen jogger flask. A vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Oh, God, I feel so bad for the people who didn't sit with us, don't you? The camaraderie, the fellowship, which is sort of a racist or not racist sexist term, but wow, was it good. Well, maybe next time you can catch up. If you were subscribing to the Dilbert Reborn comic that exists only to subscribers on X and the locals platform, Scott adams.locals.com you would get to see a comic in which the boss goes blind by looking at the eclipse, but he is quickly repaired by getting a neuralink chip in his head to regain his eyesight. So that's what you're missing in the Dilbert Reborn comic. That'll happen in a few days. I have a question. Can anybody answer this question? I just keep forgetting to ask? My. My experience on the X platform is much diminished because a lot of the really interesting things that people connect to, I'm not allowed to see. Do you know why? Why is it that when I look at stuff, it says, you're unable to view this post because this account owner limits who can view their posts. What does that mean? No, it's not a. Oh, my God. So does that mean that somebody has blocked me or am I in a group block? It means the other person blocked you. I think it must be a. It must be like a big block. It can't be just because it happens so often. I know it's not people who blocked me personally. So it's a block list thing, right? That's what I thought. Yeah. So that's how I get siloed. We'll talk more about that. About people like me getting siloed. Well, there's a. Police are using something they call a GPS tracking darts to tag fleeing vehicles. They don't have to do the pursuit, they can just hit them with a GPS dart. Now, how much. What's a locked account? A private account. What's a private Account on X. I don't even know what that is. Interesting. All right. All I know is I want one. Didn't. Didn't you ever want to hit a car with a GPS dart? You just see a car going by and you're like, I'd like to know where that car is going. And you just track it. Come on. That would be fun. We all want to do that. GPS darts for everybody. Well, MIT chemical engineers figured out a way to More efficiently harvest CO2 and turn it into chemical precursors for useful compounds like ethanol and other fuels. Here's my prediction about CO2. No matter what it's doing to the climate, I believe these technologies will allow people to mine the atmosphere. In other words, people will be sucking CO2 out of the air economically because you can turn it into products. So I'm pretty sure at some point in our history, we're going to run out of CO2, because people will literally turn on a machine, suck it out of the air, turn it into ethanol in the garage and sell it or use it in their car or something. Imagine if you could fuel your car by sucking stuff out of the air economically. That'd be kind of cool. We might be getting there. Did you see the update on that container ship captain who was on the big boat that hit the bridge in Baltimore? Turns out the captain did a great job. Or, like, really good. Like, way above what you'd expect. Apparently the time it took from losing power to closing the bridge was measured in seconds. Was it the pilot or the pilot or the captain? But whoever it was was in charge. So somebody's saying the pilot. So I guess that's a different. Different person. The pilot immediately the. The. So let me see if I get this right. The pilot is who gets on the ship when you're close to port. Right. So the pilot's not the captain. That's somebody who gets on just for the local. The last. The last part of the port trip. Right. Okay. So the local pilot immediately called the police or the harbor or somebody, and the police immediately. This is. This is the impressive part. The police, it looked like they could tell. Maybe they have a map of where all their vehicles are, but they could tell which police officers were closer to each side of the bridge. So they just very quickly got police officers on both sides of the bridge and closed it. So the entire extended time between losing power and effectively closing the bridge from traffic was 153 seconds. That's pretty good. My God, that's like, incredible. I hate to say there's Anything good about a tragedy? Yeah, but it's worth calling out that there were a handful of people who did one hell of a job saving lives. So let's. Let's just put that in the not everything is bad all the time category. All right, I've got a question. I've been fascinated with Mike Cernovich's takes on legalization of weed. He's not so much for the legalization, and one of the things he talks about is the psychotic breaks that people are having. So people are going to emergency rooms with just mental breakdowns from weed. Now, he says that basically all the medical professionals can confirm this is happening, from the EMTs to the emergency rooms. Basically everybody who's in that part of the world, in the medical world, would see it, and there's a lot of it. But here's my question. Why have I never seen it or even heard of it? Does that. Do any of you know anybody who had a psychotic breakdown from weed? And if you do, do you know that's all they had? And do you know they didn't have a problem before they took the weed? Because I've never heard of it. Now, one of the reasons I may have never heard of it is because of, you know, it might be a generational thing. I'm pretty sure there was no such thing when I was a kid or when I was young. I've never heard of it, you know, but nobody I know had that problem. So one of the filters I use on reality is if my observation does not match the claim or the science, I put a pin in it and say, okay, this. I need my observation to match it. Otherwise I'm not convinced. But one of the reasons my observation might not match is that in my day, we were tougher and the weed was weaker. So I think we were mentally tougher in my day. Maybe every generation says that. I don't know. It could be just an old person thing, I'm saying, but I think we could bounce back from basically everything easier. We didn't have our brain just corroded with TikTok all day long. So that one more thing can push you over the edge, right? So maybe that the weed was weaker and the people were stronger and that now this is a new thing because the people are already whacked down on social media and they're on the edge and the weed is stronger and it pushes them over. But I would like to put this hypothesis out there. Do you remember during COVID when there were all these people who they said died of COVID and it turns out that maybe they died with COVID So the correlation could be backwards, which is that people who are having mental struggles are far more likely to look for solutions than people not having any struggle. So you might expect that that group would be the people who are going to have a mental break might be looking for weed because they might be having a mental break. You know, they might know they're fragile and it could be that that's the wrong way to handle it. It could be that they, instead of helping it makes it worse. Now, that would be the difference between Indica and Sativa. So the other thing I say is, if you smoke weed and you don't really know the difference between Indica and Sativa, the two major flavors of, of weed, because they affect you differently, one would definitely give you a mental break. I could see that easily. The other one would make you nap and happy. So the other thing we have to look at is, is everybody who had a mental break, did they do Sativa and did they only do Sativa? Was it, was there nothing else in their system that might have been a contributing factor? Probably not. So I, I suspect that some of it is bad counting, but some of it could be because the weed is stronger and the people are weaker. So it might be true. I've just never seen it. Well, Stephen A. Smith and Mark Cuban are body switching, at least in the stereotypical way. You know, if you were to say, all right, tell me how a stereotypical white person thinks, and then tell me how a stereotypical black person thinks. Well, they just switch bodies because Stephen A. Smith keeps saying things that make perfect sense and are not woke and don't seem to be related to any kind of team play. In other words, Stephen A. Smith, in my view, has escaped the matrix. You know, to use Andrew Tate's terminology. I think he's a free person. He's giving opinions that just sound like a smart person talking. When do you ever see that in today's world? When does talking about things that are political topics, when do you see somebody who's just smart person talking? That's how he comes off to me. And I'm not going to say that. The stupid thing, I don't see color because everybody does. But boy is he. He's making himself look good. So all credit to him for simply speaking out. And it can't be easy because there must be plenty of people are giving him a tough time. So it's not easy. So let's give him a little credit for that. So Stephen A. Smith is saying that equity is basically nonsense and that you need to work for what you get. Mark Cuban, we'll talk about him in a moment. Separately, I was asking on the X platform who has the best list of hoaxes, because I'm getting exhausted explaining all the same debunks to people who haven't heard it. So I thought, wouldn't it be good just have not just a list of hoaxes, but a paragraph or two explaining why they're hoaxes? And I realized there isn't any way to do. Seems like an easy thing, right? Well, somebody just put together a list of the hoaxes and then put a little paragraph explaining what's wrong with them. Here's why it's impossible. We don't agree what the hoaxes are, and you only have to be wrong once for your whole list to be debunked. So if I ask somebody, hey, can you put together a list of hoaxes? There'll be 19 that are definitely hoaxes, in my opinion. Again, the other problem is it's subjective. And then there will be one that just came from QAnon or something. And I'll be like, I can't really use that because you put that one poison pill on your list. And I believe if you looked at anybody's list that you didn't make yourself, there'd be a poison pill subjectively, meaning it's something that you wouldn't want to promote. So I don't think anybody could make me a list of hoaxes that I could promote, because I'm guaranteeing that at least one of the things on the list will be something I look at and go, you think that's a hoax, But I think maybe you're the one who's wrong on this one. So there's actually no way to get there from here, because you couldn't. There's no way you could get any of us to agree on 20 hoaxes. You know, if you look at my hoax list, I would say that almost all of you agree with everything on my list. So why don't we use that one? Here's why. Because the first person who used it would add one. Oh, you missed one. That's what mostly I hear, oh, you missed a few. But no, I didn't miss them. I chose not to put them because they were a week. And maybe they're not hoaxes. Maybe you're the one getting hoaxed. So I'm not saying that I'm right. I'm saying the opposite of that. I'm saying that we can't tell who's right. And so it's impossible for the political right to make a hoax list because you would put hoaxes on it. And that's the opposite of a debunking list. So you actually can't get there from, from here because nobody would agree with the list is. Yeah, no you can't. Top 10 isn't going to work either. So I think it's just naturally unavailable to us, which is weird. Speaking of hoaxes, would you be surprised to hear that smart people think that our jobs data is all made up? No, you wouldn't. No, you wouldn't be surprised at that at all. Because we can all see the gears of the machine. We've got a Democrat government and we've got an election year and the economy is going to be among the top things. So no, there's a guaranteed effect that the Biden administration would exaggerate. So I'm looking at an Adrian Norman post and some of the things he says. He says the new data confirms that Biden Admin has been lying about job growth. So here's some of the claims from Adrian that all new jobs since February 23rd have been part time. Well, I don't know. That's not true. It's not all new jobs. But it might be the difference. You know, the difference might be a lot of part time jobs, but certainly a lot of people got. People who switched jobs certainly got into full time work in many cases. And 5 million unemployed workers simply don't exist. So they just erase unemployed people so they don't have to count them. And the average monthly payroll increase in 23 was just 130,000. So basically the idea is that in a variety of ways, in a variety of ways those numbers are faked. Does anybody doubt that? Now I don't know if these specific examples are giving the full picture, but I believe it. I don't think any major numbers from the government are real. None. Because we really can't measure anything complicated. Did you know that we don't have the ability as human beings to measure anything complicated. We really can't tell if the economy is doing better or worse. You really can't. Now I always look at, remember I told you probably started saying this five years ago that if there's one thing you could look at to know if the economy is doing well. What did I always say? I said, well, there's one gold standard variable you can look at. That's the one that is the one that will tell you where we're going. Employment. So now I feel like a big old dope because the employment months aren't even real. I told you it was the only thing that you could depend on for telling you if the economy is okay. And apparently you can't depend on that either. That's the last thing you could depend on. Just disappeared. Because we know it's a lie. I suppose if you saw a lot of unemployed people who had qualifications for jobs, that would be a problem. Let me ask you, how many of you know a long term unemployed person who has a skill? I don't know any. Do any of you know any long term unemployed with a skill? Do you know any? Because I would think that our current economy would allow zero of them to exist. Oh, somebody was saying, it's yourself. Yeah. Is it? Do you have a skill that doesn't work where you live? Did something change? There's a programmer. There's a long term unemployed programmer. Really? Scott said inflation was going to be fine, but no, I never said that. Most of the things I get criticized for are literally hallucinations. Somebody saying that I said that inflation would be fine because of job numbers. That's the opposite. The, if the, if jobs are good, that's bad for inflation. I never would have said what you, what you hallucinated. I said, how did you hallucinate that? That's the opposite of economics. Literally, anybody knows that. And you think I said the opposite of that? Check yourself. Anyway, so we can't trust that Larry David was on CNN and having a TDS moment. But there's a thing I do that I recommend to you. If you see somebody you know is having a TDS moment or somebody you know is going to lie, watch it first with the sound off and then see if you can find the moment where they're lying. And I'll tell you how. And then play it with the sound on and see if you spotted it. So I did that. I've been doing that lately. So I did that with the Larry David thing. So I turned it off and I watched his eyes. So his eyes were mostly furled down and he would be like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You could tell he was angry, you know, like actually angry, not just talking. And then he suddenly opened his eyes and he goes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So I stop and I go back to hear, what's the difference between the open eyes and the closed eyes? The closed eyes were his opinion on Trump as a person. Is his opinion a lie? No opinions are not lies. Opinions are not lies. So his face was compatible with his opinion. He said, oh, he's a terrible, terrible baby eating cannibal or whatever he said. And his eyes were very compatible with that. And then he said, eyes open because he tried to take over the world and ruined democracy that's been here for 250,000 years or 250 years. And. And as soon as he said the lie, which, by the way, I think he knows is a lie on some level. On some level, I think they all know that's a lie. His eyes open and you can see it more easily here. Like, if you don't notice the eyes opening, look for the wrinkled brows. I saw two of them yesterday. One was some guest on msnbc and you could do the same experiment with both of them as soon as the eyes go up. What are you saying? Oh, an obvious lie. You think he knows? Maybe he knows. Well, LeBron James neighbors got a squatter. So there's a squatter house a couple doors down from LeBron James in the same neighborhood as Seth MacFarlane and some other famously Democrat people. And the shocking thing is not that LeBron's neighbor is a squatter. The shocking thing is that when LeBron went to walk his dog, squatters moved into his house. Yeah, so LeBron got some squatters in his house just because he walked the dog. They just saw him leave, they ran right in and took over. So now they live there. But that's not really the most. That's not the worst part. The worst part is that the Lakers actually gave the squatter 35 minutes a game. So now the squatter is going to be playing for the Lakers and we'll be receiving all of LeBron's pay. No, that didn't happen. That didn't really happen. There's no squatters in LeBron's house. But wouldn't it be funny if there were? I think we could all agree it would be funny if there were. I think I told you, the Washington Post has gone down 43% since they cancelled me. Just a coincidence. Well, it's not the only entity that's going down a lot in the past year. There's also the Daily Beast. That's way off. Oh, they also canceled me, huh? It turns out that everything that canceled me is down by 40% to 80%. Well, I did pretty well while they were doing all being canceled. Things are going great for me, see? Is there anything else that's embarrassing? The Washington Post. Oh, yeah, One of their reporters, Taylor Lorenz. You hear A lot about her. She attended a pornhub award ceremony where she was filmed dancing while wearing her mask. Now, she was dancing like Elaine from Seinfeld. You know Elaine from Seinfeld, the famous dance scene where you can't watch her. The only thing that could make Elaine from Seinfeld a worse dancer is wearing a mask. Now, I don't know if you've ever danced in any kind of a club, but seeing the face of the person you're dancing with is kind of essential to the whole process, right? So here's the difference. If you're not wearing a mask and you're dancing like this, which was sort of how she was dancing, you look like a bad dancer. But if you're wearing a mask and you're doing this, you look a little bit more like a serial killer. Am I right? You put a mask on me, Imagine me doing this. I'd be running in the other direction. Like, I don't know what that's about. So she went to a pornhub award and danced like Elaine from Sanfeld with a mask on that looked like a serial killer. And Washington Post is having a great week is what I'm saying. Well, the payouts on the X platform apparently are way up. So a lot of people are saying they're getting multiples of what they got before. Now, these are the payments for accounts that are big enough to be monetized, and they have lots of comments. So you get paid if there's good advertisements in the comments. And I guess the. The amount went up. So I just checked because I saw the news, people were saying, hey, it went way up. I checked mine and it did go way up. So mine. Mine is maybe three times more than it was prior months with roughly the same traffic, probably, but three times as much payment. That's the good news. Now, I'm not positive about this next fact, but I know that I lost my blue check when I changed my profile picture because it takes several days to make sure you're really the same person and not somebody taking over the account. And I think I was demonetized during the period. It was only maybe a little over a week or something. I think I was demonetized. So at the current rate of monetization, the price for me to change my profile picture would be about 3 to $4,000. Just to change my profile picture would cost me 3 to $4,000 accidentally, which is what I did accidentally. So I accidentally charged myself several thousand dollars just to change the picture. And when I changed it, I Looked at it and go, huh? Yeah, I don't really love that. I think I'll change it back. So if I change it back, it's giving me another, like, $3,000. So. So I might be out like $7,000 just for changing my profile picture. That's suboptimal. I might be wrong about that, but it looks like that's what happened. I think when I changed the profile, I lost the check. And I think losing the check loses temporarily the monetization. Well, Lizzo said she got so much bad feedback from singing at that performance for the Three Presidents for the fundraiser. That what you say? I'm starting to feel like the world doesn't want me in it. I'm constantly up against lies being told about me for clout and views being the butt of the joke every single time because of how I look. My character being picked apart by people who don't know me and disrespecting my name. I didn't sign up for this shit. I quit now. Do you really think that she's quitting entertainment? I don't think so. I. I think she's just making social media. Hey. And acting out. And I'm sure she didn't enjoy it, but no, I don't think she's going to quit. Do you? That doesn't seem like real news to me. I think the I quit is more of an exasperation than an actual career move. Well, Diddy's apparently out of jail. I don't think he was ever in jail, and I don't know how that works, but the claims about him are humorously terrible. I mean, they're so terrible that I don't know what's real and what's not. So I'll just tell you what is being reported in various places, but don't assume any of this is is real. Innocent until proven guilty. But the claim is in 1999 or so, when he was with Jennifer Lopez, JLo. They were dating and they went to a club and they had JLO hold his gun just in case something went down, he needed to kill somebody. Well, it turns out it's a good thing he brought JLO to carry his gun and be his gun mule, as he liked to say, apparently, because some stuff went down. And at least one witness say that Diddy pulled the trigger and shot three people. And then they escaped. And. And then he. He's allegedly bragging that he got away with murder because he bribed witnesses and. And jurors to get his acquittal. Do you Think, Eddie, that's true. Do you think he actually shot three people in front of a room full of witnesses and bribed enough of them that he didn't get convicted? Maybe it's. It's. It's within the realm of things that could have happened. I know it's pretty wild. So people are saying that he. He admits it privately. So I don't know about that. So you can't believe the hearsay stuff, but maybe. All right, there was a. I think I may have mentioned there was a big study in which they asked people, what do you think of this policy? And doesn't matter what the policy is, just some political thing in the news. And then people would look at it and they would judge it. And then they would do a second test with different people in which they would say, all right, here's the Democrat plan and here's the Republican plan. And it turns out that if you tell them their team likes something, they will like it, even if they wouldn't have liked it before they knew whose idea it was. And the effect is gigantic and instant. So you can get 70% of people to change their mind just instantly. If you say, this is what your team thinks. Now, does that. Does that match what you experience and observe in the world? The 70% of observers will immediately just take the side of their team. It does. All right, now I think I'm getting the 70% wrong because it's. There's some other numbers involved, but it's about that big. Like, the effect of it is at least half, and it's instant. And it happens every time. You know, you can reproduce this forever. It just happened. I've seen versions of this study. I think Cialdini did something like this, a version of this, but, yeah, this is consistent. Every time they test it, you get the same thing. So the way I say this is that people don't come up with opinions. Their opinions are assigned to them because they learn of their. Their team's opinion by watching the news. And then the news tells them that their side is always right, and their team all agrees. And then just immediately, they. They take that side. There's some picture going by that looks relevant when we look at that. Okay, I don't know what that's about. A little side conversation there. All right, so keep this in mind when I talk about my next story. So this is my theme for the day, that you think you're dealing with critical thinkers, but you're really not. And this is the first thing you learn when you learn hypnosis first thing you learn is that people make up their minds first and then they come up with tortured explanations of why they did it. But the thinking follows the decision. Most of you were raised to believe that people think about things and then make decisions. Nothing like that's ever been shown to be true. Every study on the topic, everyone 100% show that the thinking happens after the decision. No exceptions. You could ask Sam Harris, you could ask anybody, anybody who studied brains and psychology. Every single thing shows the same thing. We are not thinking creatures, we are rationalizing creatures. That's it. So watching Bill Maher's journey to reality has been fascinating because he, being a normal human being, will be influenced by his team. But uniquely he, he tries to be an independent thinker by his brand. So he's got some protection in that he has a long history of disagreeing with his own team. Not everybody can do that, but he has and for a long time and lots of different topics. So he has a little bit of a psychological protection against team thinking because he has a brand that includes not being a team thinker. So he can make his opinions make sense with who he is. Because who he is is an open minded person and he's got a long history of it. So that does give him a psychological bulwark against being hypnotized. But it's not perfect. It's not perfect because he still believes that it's a fact that we know and everybody knows who's smart, that the election in 2020 was not rigged. Now, if you were thinking of this from, you know, starting from first principles and trying to figure out what's true, do you think you could ever come to that opinion that you know for sure any election is not rigged? And I would suggest that the next time you run into somebody who says they know, they know, they know the 2020 election was fair, they know it. I would like you to say this. How do you know it? Well, you know how the answer will be because the courts looked at lots of claims and not a single one was found to have any impact on the election of scale. Right? Everybody will say that because that's what the news told them to say. Did they come up with that reason on their own? No, they watched the news and people kept saying that no court found it's true, no court found it. So it must be completely true that the election is fair. Now, when somebody tells you that, that because the court said it didn't happen, you can know with certainty it did not happen. Ask them if O.J. is guilty. Yeah, just, just sit on that for a moment. As soon as you hear that no court found him there was anything wrong with the election, therefore definitely was fair. Was OJ Definitely innocent because the court didn't find him guilty? Because that's, that's literally Bill Maher's argument that if the court didn't find you guilty, that's proof that there was no crime. How in the world could you be a modern thinking human in civilization in 2024 and think that you could know one way or another? I guess you could know if it's rigged, if you found the rigging, which hasn't been found in a way that a court has confirmed. But you can't know if you don't find it. If you don't find it, and you also know it's a complicated system, how in the world do you say you know it was true? So this is a case where Bill Maher's journey is impressive because I do think he's genuinely one of the most open minded people in political life. I think that's a fair thing to say. But it's a tough journey because the brainwashing is real. This would be a case of just pure brainwashing. And I've told you before that intelligence doesn't protect you from brainwashing. And the difference between this it was an insurrection and it wasn't an insurrection is brainwashing. Now, when I say brainwashing, I know a lot of people who do not have experience in this realm think I'm using some kind of hyperbole. No, literally brainwashing. Literally people sitting in a room and saying, how will we convince the public to believe something that's obviously not true? Well, let's do this and this and this and get our people to say that. And we will brainwash the public into thinking that the obvious is not true. When you see that somebody believes that they know the election was fair, which is clearly unknowable. And any modern human with a brain should know that and we should all know it's unknowable. And yet they firmly cling to the fact that they can know it. That's brainwashing because it's patently absurd. It's not an opinion. It's not an opinion that you're sure the election was fair. That's not an opinion. That is nonsense. That's an impossibility that you claimed was possible. Well, but Bill Maher is still quite a jewel because what he said in his monologue, he said, this is America In a nutshell, they. The Democrats have this big fundraiser there. They have ex presidents, singers, dancers, Lizzo. They raised $26 million. Trump sold Twitter for idiots. That's what he's calling true social Twitter for idiots on the stock market and made $5 billion sitting at home. Sitting at home. So Bill Maher is quite aware that the lawfare strategy is having the opposite effect as intended, because there's no way in the world that true social IPO would have gone that way without the lawfare. In my opinion, if Trump were just running for President Trump, people would have looked at it as an investment as opposed to what they're looking at it now. I think people look at Truth Social as the way that they, as citizens, can correct an injustice as they see it. So if you put $1,000 into it, maybe a thousand, you could afford to lose, or you. You're hoping you don't lose it, but you could afford it. That's. That's a vote for correcting the system. That's not anything about the investment quality of the property, but I really actually am impressed and I respect the public for propping up that stock in such an artificial way. To make something better is literally to make something better, in their view. Well, I've been telling you the food supply is poisonous. Here's some evidence of that. So there's this group, Moms Across America, and they tested a bunch of cereals, and surprise, surprise, they found it filled with poisons. Literally poison. Remember when I say the food supply is poison, and people say, well, there's some hyperbole. Nope, actual poison. Now, not poison that says poison on the bottle. You know, that you use to kill people. But things that are not good for you, for example. Oh, actually, arsenic is one of them. I'm sorry, take that back. I was about to say that they're not literally poison, they're just pollutants that are bad for you. But one of the things is arsenic, literally poison. And there's also some fertilizers, literally poison for plants and weeds, but it's in you. So let's see. They found in children's cereal, heavy metals, arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, eight different pesticides, including ones that are known to change sex hormones. That was all in one cereal box. And the testing reveals, according to them, that General Mills Trix, that's a cereal, is actually loaded with heavy metals and pesticides, artificial dyes, preservatives, chemicals. We found arsenic and cadmium up to 400% higher than what the EPA allows in drinking water. We found Aluminum levels to be over 1000% higher than what the APA allows in drinking water. And we found glyphosate. Now, glyphosate, I believe, is the weed killer, right? And people are concerned about that making it into the food supply. It says. We found that glyphosate levels 158 to 174 times higher than has been shown in animal studies to cause sex hormones change and organ damage. It's a hundred. And let's say. I'll take a middle. Middle range. It's about 160 times higher than the amount we know will cause sex hormone changes in animals. You worried about that? If they found eight different pesticides and one of them is used in. One of them is used in. In shampoo to kill lice. The other one is a fungicide known to cause endocrine disruption and hormone disruption even at very low levels. Now this is, you know, cereal, of course, is a highly processed food. Do you know what they didn't mention? Sugar. Sugar. They didn't even mention sugar. Not because it's not dangerous, but, you know, the sugar's listed right in the label. You don't have to look for it. So they were looking for the things that are not listed on the label, and they found all this. But this sugar is probably just as dangerous. I mean, it's certainly up there with. Certainly some amount of sugar could disrupt your hormones. Is that a fair statement? There's some amount of sugar that would disrupt your hormones. So you've got a whole bunch of hormone disruptors in various ways just in a box of cereal. That's just one thing. That's just your kid's breakfast. The kid has just started eating. It's just the first thing you put in your mouth. What about the rest of the day? Now, I remind you again, and I'll probably just keep saying this forever, my entire life changed in the past 12 months when I stopped eating processed foods and cut down on sugar. I thought that I was just at an age where everything hurt all the time. Everything hurt all the time. Everything in my body was sore and hurt. All of that went away. All of it. I don't have any inflammation. I drifted down in weight to my ideal weight with no dieting. I drifted with no effort and no willpower. I ate all day long as much as I wanted. I just ate things that were whole foods. That's it. I would have broccoli with nothing. Steamed broccoli. It's delicious when you get used to it, so you should. I would recommend, really recommend, that you do an experiment with your own body. If you're having any kind of issues, take two weeks to a month in which you only eat clean, don't do bread, don't do wheat. And by the way, I don't know if those things are bad for you. I'm just saying reduce it to the smallest number of foods that are just completely whole foods and not from restaurants. Restaurants are full of sauces and whatnot, that you don't know what's in them. But if you. I think, and a number of people did the experiment and felt completely different in two weeks. Completely different. I mean, I'm, I'm a. It took 20 years off my age in terms of how I feel. Not, not how I look, but it probably took 20 years off my age. Think about that. Just food. Just change my diet. Right. Elon Musk is sounding the alarm on Italy's population collapse. So apparently their number of births in 2023 was the lowest since 1861. They had only 379,000 births. They had a lot of immigration, but not a lot of births. What is causing that? Well, there's a viral video where somebody was saying, hey, what's wrong with young men in particular? And the young man went on a screech about the economics of being a young person today. You can't afford a house, can't afford a wife, can't afford a kid. Why are you surprised that reproduction is falling? What would surprise you about that? And then you add our health problems and our food is poison and alcohol is poisoned and all the other things we're doing with social media. And then we look at each other and we've all gotten fatter and less attractive to each other. And we've also become politically polarized so that whatever, whatever your dating possibilities were 20 years ago, they're half now because half of the country won't. Won't date you for sure. Right? So a full 50% of all the people you could have had a baby with are no longer available to you because if you voted for Trump, everybody who doesn't like him is not going to mate with you, that's for sure. And vice versa, Right? So we've actually cut in half in the last seven years the people you could even possibly reproduce with. How is that not going to have an effect? And then you take away the ability to earn enough money to have a good living or, you know, good life. So we have some pretty deep structural problems that guarantee we will go into business as a country. Unless we fix them. But I think we will. So the Adam's law of slow moving disasters suggests that we're seeing this one coming. Plenty of time to fix it. I don't know what the fix will be. That's always a surprise. But yeah, when we have this kind of problem, the world has a, basically a 100% success rate. It's only the stuff that sneaks up on us. We're bad at pandemics, we were very bad at the pandemic. But stuff we see coming for a long time, usually the markets adjust and people adjust. So we'll see religion is shrinking in importance in American life. People are going to church less and believe less. That probably has an effect on reproduction because the religious people tend to like to form families and have kids as soon as possible and that's got to have an effect. So basically 100% of all the trends in America are anti population. So we've got trends toward improving birth control. I'm not saying I'm against that, but it reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies. At least we've got the, you know, the social media turning kids from hetero into something else. And that's got to reduce the number of kids where social media is training them that having a kid is a losing proposition. So that's got to have an effect. So, and then yeah, the food probably makes us less capable of reproducing in every way. Every trend is moving away from human population. But isn't it weird that it's happening the same time that robots are coming online? What are the odds that after 300,000 years of human like evolution that at the same time we forgot how to have babies, Robots are coming online the same time. The odds against that were very low, weren't they? Or are they related somehow? I don't know. Anyway, there's a startup that's making seafood and of not fish, so they make it look and taste and have the texture of seafood, even, even sushi. But it's made out of, you know, various vegetable byproducts or something, something organic that you shove together. And I would say, once again, I make the vegetarian comment. I'm not a vegetarian, I'm a pescatarian. But I have a little insight because I was a vegetarian for a long time. Do not make your vegetables look like dead animals and then ask me to put them in my mouth. No, because the early adopters of a seafood that's not really seafood should be vegetarians. And then you make it the one way A vegetarian doesn't want anything to do with it right Now, I wasn't a regular vegetarian because for me, it was just for selfish reasons, just for my own health. I wasn't trying to save the animals because I thought that was impossible. But if you are a vegetarian who wants to save the animals and the thought, just the mental thought of eating an animal is more than you can handle, why would you make your primary first adopter market that would love to have a protein option that they don't have? Why would you make it exactly the thing they don't want to put in their mouth? This will remind you of eating a dead animal's flesh. I. I don't understand it. Now they think they can sell it to restaurants and I don't know, maybe. But here's what I'd like. I want you to give me a protein source that I can either grow in my own home garden so I can make protein at home, or just say it's a new food and put it in some form that I want to put in my mouth, but doesn't look like a fish. Doesn't have to look like a fish. Could look like broccoli, as long as they add protein. All right, here's something that I know that not everybody knows. It's not possible to get a fair trial for any January six people, because the entire world has been brainwashed. Brainwashed. Not hyperbole. Actual, literal, specific, technical brainwashing. And it's not really possible to get a judge or a jury or even the witnesses to give you a fair trial. And I think this might actually be worth a test somewhere. I don't know how you attest that like a challenge, because I've never seen a situation where it really, literally would be impossible to get a fair trial for any of the defendants, but much less Trump. I mean, Trump doesn't have a chance of a fair trial. And the reason I know that is because I am a hypnotist. So when I watch you get brainwashed, I can tell it's happening, but you can't tell it's happening. Would you agree with that statement? I. I'm. I'm trained, so I can tell when you're being hypnotized, but you can't tell because that's how it works. Brainwashing. You don't know what's happening to you. You just think you made up your own mind. So I observe, and it's very obvious to me and clear that the January 6 thing, like Russia collusion before it and the Fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax and all the rest, that these are brainwashing operations. And when you see the, you know, the Bill Mahers, et cetera, who have really good brains and are very well informed, even they get brainwashed. So when I look at Bill Maher, I look at a brainwashing victim who's incapable in this one topic of being rational, you know, in the OJ Was guilty, too, you think, but court didn't find him guilty. So I see it as clearly as you could see anything. Just because I have that specific talent. Here's. Here's an analogy. I've played tennis all my life. So if I see a movie about a tennis player, it takes me about one second to realize that's not a real tennis player, it's an actor playing tennis. If you had never played tennis, you might think, oh, they found an actor who can hit pretty well, too. Nope. No. If you know tennis, you know that that's just acting. And that ball definitely didn't go over the court. They just showed somebody you're swinging, and then later you see the ball. Yeah, no, you didn't really hit that ball. So the same way that I can tell a tennis player is not a real tennis player, I can tell when your opinion didn't come from your thinking, because I'm trained to do it. I've seen it. I know what the face looks like. I know what words you're going to choose. I know how it was done. I watched every step of the process, and I watched my fellow citizens be brainwashed by evil forces. Now, the rest of you are sort of accepting this, let's say intellectually, you're like, well, you know, I see what you're saying, and, you know, I kind of maybe believe you if. If you think I'm credible. But you didn't see it. I watched it. I watched it like I was watching a car wreck. I watched every part of the process. Hey, that's brainwashing. You're still. You still do it. Hey, it's where. Oh, no, it's working. Yeah. As soon as we were told that protests were riots and they were insurrections, that's all it began. Began with the word definition changes. All right, so why is it that the rest of the country doesn't know they were brainwashed? Because it worked. Yeah. If you talk to somebody who vehemently disagrees that they were brainwashed, it's because it worked. That's why they're vehement about it. They wouldn't be vehement if it were not brainwashing. If they had simply come to their own opinion by thinking it through, they wouldn't get real angry when you said they were brainwashed. For example, let's say that Bill Maher had not been brainwashed. And I'd say, hey, Bill, I see what you're saying about there's no evidence that the. No confirmed evidence by the courts that the election was rigged. And then you say, but you realize, you know, same thing with OJ Right. Like the court didn't find him guilty, but you probably think he's guilty. So why don't you take that thinking and apply it to the election, which is so complicated that nobody even involved ose if it's rigged, they couldn't. Now, if I said that to someone who was not brainwashed, what would happen? They would immediately change their opinion. Immediately. Because the, because the point is so solid, there is no defense against the O.J. argument. Right. Unless you're going to tell me you're positive that he was innocent. And I know that. Let's say Bill Maher. I'm positive he would not say that. So once you're sure that the courts are not your source of what's true, they're simply part of the legal system that does its best. As soon as you know that, you could easily apply it to the election and everything else. You know, certainly Bill Maher's brain works great and he could do that. So that's how you know it's brainwashing. Because it's not brainwashing unless it can get people like Bill Maher, somebody whose brain actually works and has a long track record of being able to see multiple sides of an issue. If it gets him, it's brainwashing. So he's kind of the canary in the coal mine between what is brainwashing and what is just the difference of opinion. Because there's lots of things that Bill Maher would say that would be just a difference of priority, maybe a difference of opinion. And you could still argue with it, but you wouldn't say it's brainwashing. You just say, oh, you have higher priorities. Or maybe you saw something. I didn't see that sort of thing. All right. Four major Canadian school boards are saying that TikTok, Meta and Snapchat have, in their words, rewired students thinking. And so there's a new lawsuit trying to get rid of them in four Canadian places. And so here's what, here's what I think we need. I feel like we need more people Trained in persuasion because people like me are not numerous enough to make any difference. So I can tell you, hey, hey, it's obvious with my training, I can see that you're brainwashed on this insurrection thing, but I'm one person. I've been canceled. You know, I don't really make a dentist. But if you had lots of people trained, they would all say the same thing, by the way. There wouldn't be any difference of opinion. Everybody trained would have the same opinion. Just like every professional tennis player could easily spot somebody who is acting like a tennis player. Everyone, 100%, nobody would be a different opinion. They would just have to be trained in the skill. So maybe that's what we need to do. Suppose we trained a bunch of online influencers so they could tell you what's true and what isn't. They could tell you when you're getting brainwashed and when you're not. That would be useful. We just need more people who have the skill so they can help the others out. All right, here's Fox poll asked citizens to identify Biden's most significant achievement. And 38% of the respondents couldn't think of anything. 38% of people they asked couldn't think of anything Biden did that helped. Now, do you understand my point the other day where the Biden campaign has a formula? First they tell an outrageous lie and then they tell you and they tell you it's a success when it wasn't. And then they tell you that the reason for the success that didn't actually happen was the policies, but they never connect what was it about that policy that could have possibly had any impact? And if you do, they'll say, well, the infrastructure. And then you say, okay, but can you really connect that all the way to the things that are happening in the economy? I mean, can you list the projects and how much money the infrastructure project has brought in and can you track that all the way to things are better? And the answer is no. There's no connection between what. There's literally no connection between what Biden says he did and what's happening in the real world. Well, well, the, the moon. The moon is not moving the tides as much as it used to, thanks to my policies. Well, it looks like climate change is an existential risk, but during my term, the temperatures have not gone up that much, thanks to my policies. He just says thanks to my policies, but never explains how they would have any impact on anything thanks to my policies. And then when you ask people what did he actually do they imagine that they've heard things, but they can't mention one because they didn't hear any things? So he's actually doing the fake. Because where he's saying something that sounds like a reason but isn't. Because my policies is not any kind of a reason for anything. It's just words in the sentence. But because the words in the sentence sound like other things that were reasons for other things, your pattern recognition picks that up as a reason. This is Cialdini. So Cialdini found out that if you just say what I call a fake because you say, why should you do this for me? Well, because if you don't, the Fed will find out. And you'd be like, okay, I don't know what any of that means, but it sounded like a reason. Okay, yeah. If something sounds like the pattern of a reason, people think they heard one. But. And. And Biden is using that. Yeah, the. The employment rate is really good because of my policies. Which ones? Which ones? Is it your policy of letting unlimited competition for jobs into the country? Was that the policy that made employment good? How? That's the opposite. It's the opposite how? Yeah. So that would explain why people think Biden is awesome, even though they can't think of a reason for it. They imagine they heard a reason because of the structure of the sentences, just like an LLM can hallucinate. And then they saw that their team agreed with them, so they thought it must be true. All right, Mike Benz reminds us that Google has always been basically an intelligence asset from the start. Now, I can't confirm any of that myself, but he seems to be right about everything else. Mike Benz says, but the idea is that the government basically worked with them really early to help them succeed. For example, I guess Google Maps comes from a government satellite stuff. So the government was pretty cooperative with the beginnings of Google, and the thinking is that what they wanted was to be able to find the birds of a feather. This is Mike's take. Birds of a feather, meaning if they could find people who had similar activities and interests, it would tell you more about the public and you could find bad guys, I guess. So Google was identified very early by the intelligence people, allegedly as something that if it became a big thing, they better get in on influencing it from the start. So do you think that Google is dangerous? Well, let me give you an example. The reports that Google changed the search results for the word bloodbath because they were trying to do some brainwashing, that Trump was wanting violence, but he'd use bloodbath about the car industry, not about violence. And they changed their search results. So the bloodbath word only means violence. Now, I can't confirm that that happened. I just saw it online. Somebody showed screenshot, but it probably did. I mean, I believe it because it would be in pattern. Now, if you found out that the, that Google is working closely with intelligence people, which means Democrats in this context, and you found out that they changed the name of the definition of a word in their search results to be more compatible with the brainwashing, what does that tell you about Google? Everything you suspected was exactly true. Everything. And you remember that Dr. Epstein, not the, not the Epstein island guy, but a different Epstein, he did research and found out that you could totally change people's votes by what search results they got. And apparently it can be demonstrated in a robust way that Google can just change your vote by. By sending you things that would do that. So if Google can change your vote directly by manipulating searches, if they can change the definition of an actual word to support brainwashing, and if they are in fact actually a creation of the intelligence units, one assumes they would still have a lot of control. Which would also explain something else that I saw. I saw the early, some early video of the founders of Google. And what I was expecting was to see like a, a young Bill Gates or a young Steve Jobs. And by that I mean, oh, wow, you can, you can see how smart they are. You know, you can certainly see that the seeds of their success were already there. I didn't really see that with the Google founders. My first thought was, did they get some help? And the answer is yes, they got some help. I suspect that 100% of every business that matters to the intelligence community is owned by the intelligence community. Everything that doesn't matter is untouched because it's irrelevant. But everything that matters that was going to change how you think about your world, they probably have all of it by now, except for X. And people are saying that X is looking suspicious. Now, I don't know that, but I mean, I do trust that Musk is not working with the intelligence communities, but could they have some other way to get in? I don't know. Edwards noted in his posting that. And I've seen these stories, I didn't know what to believe, so I waited a little bit. But there is evidence that the FBI is sending agents to knock on your door. Just ordinary American citizens, because you criticize the White House's Gaza policy online. And there appear to be videos and strong evidence that, that, that's actually happening. And one of the most quoted, one of the FBI agents was quoted as saying that we do this all day long. That, that there's some group of people whose permanent job is to knock on your door because you posted things that the government doesn't like about Israel and Gaza. Is that true? Like I'm having trouble believing that one because, you know, it's a little too on the nose. Yeah, I mean I've seen the videos, I've seen the videos. It looks true. I'm not going to say it's not true, but wow, it's like my mind can't even hold that. Yeah, that's how far we've, we've gone. Wow. Meanwhile, the three presidents when they got together for the fundraiser, Biden stands there between Obama and Pelosi and says to the camera in this very important event while Obama ex president standing right next to him that Trump said you should drink bleach. Now how could you think you could get away with that? One of the most debunked hoaxes in all of the world. And there is one reason Biden's voters have never seen that debunked. So he can say it like it's a fact. Un believable. Apparently in the same event he said the fine people hoax again. How does his audience not know? I'll say his voters, how do they not know that's the most debunked hoax in all of American politics? And he's so confident that there's no connection between the information and his audience that he can say that without any risk and Obama can stand there and not react to it like yeah, that works, that's fine. Well, have you noticed that the strongest communicators who might be, let's say leaning pro Trump have been completely eliminated from the news. So anybody noticed? When was the last time you saw me on cnn? Because I used to be, I used to be on cnn. I used to be interviewed by everybody, big newspapers. When was last time I was interviewed by anybody except an obvious Republican person? Well, I mean Zubi doesn't count because he's from, he's not from America. But in America the, the left leaning world has completely siloed me. Now I've told you that on the X platform probably because of block lists that the Democrats use, I think not sure. But I don't reach any Democrats anymore. So I'll never be asked to do anything on a Democrat leaning platform. But also the things I do on another platform which should be open to everybody they don't get to see. Now, I didn't know if this was just me, but I saw Joel Pollock say he posted this. You don't see me on the big networks whether to discuss U.S. politics or Israel. I was last on NPR in 2016, CNN in 2017, MSNBC in 2018, and on Fox in 2020 on the Gulfeld Show. NPR and CNN don't want effective conservatives, MSNBC doesn't want Republicans, and Fox doesn't want competition because he works for Breitbart. So who is one of the best communicators in the public sphere on the questions of Gaza and Trump and Israel? Joel, One of the very smartest, clearest communicators. Gone. Erased. Now, I'm going to say this just because, you know, my audience knows me well enough that I can say this. I'm one of the best communicators in the world. I'm just waiting for a reaction. It's true. And it's not because I'm awesome. It's because I compile the right set of skills. Persuasion is important. And on top of that, I practice a lot. And I've reached a certain age where I have a lot of practice. So I am one of the best communicators in the whole world, but I'm completely shut off from communicating. Joel, in my opinion, is one of the best communicators in the world. In the world. Like you won't see somebody explain something better on a topic you didn't know about. How about Steve Cortez, who used to work on CNN until he debunked the Fine People hoax? On the air, Live. Boom. Off the air. How good a communicator is Steve Cortez? Really, really good. In fact, he put together an amazing video about the Fine people hoax. In fact, I think he would be someone that they should consider as a press secretary. He's that good. So look for this pattern. Look for the strongest communicators being completely shut out from the other side. Now, Remember the Ronna McDaniel story? She was cut out not because she disagreed with them. She just would have a story that they didn't want their viewers to hear. And the excuse they used is, well, you can't. You can't treat lying about the insurrection like anything else. I mean, that's different from all the other. And hyperbole and lies. No, that's the one that matters. Just that one thing. And by the way, she changed. I think she changed her mind on it at least once, which is usually A good sign. So, yeah, anybody who's. Who threatens to give them any useful information will be eliminated. Greg Abbott tells people publicly on X that in Texas, anyone squatting in your home is breaking the law and they are criminals violating the the law and blah, blah, blah. And also the Texas Castle doctrine empowers Texans to use force to defend themselves and their property. Do you believe that? Do you believe that if you're in Texas, somebody squats in your house and then you use force to remove them, you think you're fine? I don't. I don't believe that. Not for a second. At the very least, you'd be sued for. In, you know, for a civil lawsuit and lose everything if you hurt them. You know, even if there was no arrest, you still get sued and lose everything. Yeah. So other people were pushing back and saying, not in the real world. In the real world, you can't just take your gun and start blazing away at the squatters. Right. You're going to be in a lot of trouble if you hurt anybody for any reason. Now, I do. I do get the concept. You know, he's not wrong about the concept. And it might be very useful to, you know, scare the squatters into thinking they could be shot. But in the real world, 2024, you can't just pull out your gun and start mowing down squatters. I just don't think that's real. But I like his attitude, but I just think it's maybe not practical. There's also a video that's viral of some people in Mexico. Apparently there was somebody who kidnapped and then killed a little girl. And the authorities were not going to do anything to the guilty couple. A man and a woman who kidnapped a little girl, ended up killing her, and the authorities didn't take care of it. So because the authorities didn't take care of it, even though they knew exactly who the guilty people were, the guilty people walked free and they lived their life in peace. No, because it's Mexico and it's not the United States. Do you know what happened to him, at least? The wife, One of the murderers was beaten to death by a crowd, and nobody tried to stop it. Entire crowd watched a guy beat her to death, and everybody was pretty good with that. Nobody tried to stop it. And they were all there to watch her die. And I hate to say it, but I watched it with some terrible enjoyment. Like, boy, did I hate myself. I watched it from beginning to end. I. I wanted to watch. I'll be honest. I'll be honest. I wanted to watch vigilantes murder somebody slowly. And I enjoyed it, every bit of it. I'm not proud of that. I am not proud of that. But it's true. I watch every bit of it because I wanted that woman to be tortured and killed because she earned it, you know, with her husband. I hope they get him, too. But, oh, I hope I don't get kicked off of social media for saying that. Don't do anything violent. Don't do anything violent. It never pays off. You know, even the person who did it has to live with that. So don't do anything violent. All right, let's talk about Mark Cuban. He was on Lex Friedman, and he was explaining his thoughts about dei, and he thinks that DEI could be bad if you implemented it wrong, but that would be common to any plan. Now, what do you think of that so far? That if DEI is implemented wrong, yes, it could be bad, but if you implement it right and I'll. I'll explain what right looks like in a moment, it'd be fine. Are we good so far? Is that a reasonable statement? So far? Good. I'm with that. Anything that you implement wrong is going to be bad. But let's talk about what happens if you implement it right. Is that all good? Well, Mark said that there are no quotas and that quotas are illegal. Is that your observation of the real world? The hiring quotas are illegal? Not in the real world. In the real world, they're mandatory. Where does he think that they're illegal? They're mandatory. They might be illegal, but they're also mandatory. If you're working for a big company and your boss says you need to improve your diversity, but he doesn't say there's a quota. There's a quota. Everybody gets that, right? Your boss says you need more of it and you're at this level. And our target is we want something that's representative of the public, so everybody knows what the percentage needs to be right. Everybody knows that if they don't get their 13% black employees, that they didn't reach their quota. That doesn't exist now. Do you think that Mark Cuban doesn't know that in the real world people would treat it like a quota, whether it was or not? Because we all have the same quota. The whole point of it is to get the numbers up to a representative public rate. So the quota is built into the system. The boss doesn't need to give you a quota. They just say, make it look like the rest of the world, and that's your quota. No, but seriously, Mark Cuban doesn't know that. He really doesn't know that. That in the real world, of course, it's a quota. And, and if you've ever been around it, people treat it like a quota. They know what they're doing. Everybody knows what the deal is. Nobody's confused and your bonus will depend on it. On reaching that quota. That is unstated, but everybody knows what it is. Then he said, Mark Cuban said, that there's far more discrimination against non white candidates. In what reality? That hasn't been true for 30 years, maybe longer, but for the last 30 years or so, every major corporation has been trying to increase their diversity. So they're going to look for them first. Who thinks, do any of you think that there's, quote, far more discrimination against non white candidates than white candidates? Just white males. Women are a different situation. But white males, how could you not be aware that for over 35 years white males are being told they can't be hired or promoted? In my entire life, I've never heard that about a black person. 16 years in corporate world, in much of it, I was involved with hiring. So often I'd be part of a team of people who talk to people who are potential hires. I've hired lots of people. I've owned businesses in which I've hired or been involved with dozens and dozens of hirings. And I can tell you that I'd never witnessed, even once in all that time, never witnessed active discrimination against a person of color. I've never seen it. Have you? In a big company, I think small companies are probably fully racist, but in a big company, in a big company, have you ever seen anybody actively discriminated against for race? In 35 years, I've never even heard of it. Right. I never heard of it. But I have heard of companies that are, you know, let you jump the line and put you at the front of the line and actively recruit you. And I've heard of plenty of companies, probably 80 million witnesses to this, where the white men were told specifically they can't, they can't succeed in that company because they need to increase their diversity. Now, do you think that Mark Cuban doesn't know that? Do, do you think he's not aware of that? That the discriminate discrimination, discrimination rate, my best guess is five to ten times worse for white men and has been that way for decades. Do you know why? Do you know why people wouldn't know that? Because some people, I think, genuinely don't know it because we weren't allowed to tell you. I, I had to get canceled before I could tell you. Yeah, it's the same reason doctors who may have disagreed with the pandemic didn't talk. It's the same reason that people don't disagree, that people disagree with climate change and happen to be scientists. They're going to shut the up because they know that talking is the end of their career. No, you don't talk about it. That's why you don't know it. But if you want, and I always think this is the funniest when people say, oh yeah, can you give me one example? I'll say, here's how you do this. Walk outside, find an adult white male of age 50 or higher, say, excuse me, sir, have you ever worked in the corporate world? Well, yes, I have. And ask him if he's seen examples of discrimination against white people. He will say, yes, give you lots of stories, and then say, have you ever seen it against a person of color in a corporation? And they will say, no, actually, I've never seen it. I never heard of it. I've never heard of it or seen it. I've never even heard a hint of it. I've never heard somebody else did it. It's so non existent that almost everything is more existent than that. And he thinks it's the driving force in the workplace and it doesn't exist at all. It's completely non non there. So that's amazing to me. All right, so hearing that argument, what do you think is the reason that Mark Cuban seems to be living in a different reality than the rest of us? What do you think is behind it? Now we can't read his mind, so we're only speculating. Is it because he's stupid? Let, let's just go through the is he stupid? Go. Now, the answer is no. He's smart. He's way above average. Way above average and smart. It's not stupid. Is he under informed? Maybe. But you know the first part of the argument where he said no quotas exist? I don't know. Is that not being informed or is that just trying to be a lawyer and argue your point that you know is not real? Does he really think that in the real world? Because he's lived in the real world, he knows that people would treat it as a quota even if they don't use that word. So that part's a little ambiguous. But when he says there's far more discrimination against non white candidates, that is so disconnected from reality, I don't even know what to do about it. I wonder if he has any specific anecdotes of it. Has he ever been in the room when it happened? I'll bet he's never been in the room when it happened. I bet not once. I'll bet he's heard his basketball team talk about white boys, though. I'll bet you. Have you ever heard the Larry Bird stories? Larry Bird, the, you know, one of the best basketball players of all time, but he used to get mocked by the black players for being white, you know, and therefore it couldn't be good. But he was one of the best players of all time and it was normal. And in fact, both the black and the white players tell the same story. They were all there. They all mocked him for being white, he couldn't possibly be that good, etc. So anyway, here's my take. After all those things, I think that Mark Cuban is brainwashed and, or just signaling because it would be good for him and his family and his businesses. It might be just signaling. So he might be just taking a case like a lawyer would take a case and, and just trying to be an advocate for a community which he thinks is underserved. Could be that he might just think the black community and maybe some of the other people of color are underserved and he's just trying to do a good thing. Maybe. But he's. He also feels sort of brainwashed. So I think it might be a combo. I think it's some combination of maybe social impulse, wanting to make a difference and be a certain kind of person in the community, and some of it is just brainwashed. So it's probably, I think it's hard to determine because there's more than one thing going on and he might be a little under. Under informed on some stuff. Gas prices are up since the beginning of the year. 14% probably make a difference in the election. There's an article in the Federalist by Jennifer Gallardi, and it's titled Hell Hath no Fury Like a Single Liberal Woman. And she talks about how last month conservative news host Jesse Kelly was talking to Megyn Kelly. No relation. Just two. Kelly's talking on her podcast. And I guess Jesse said, quote, the mentally ill single woman is the beating heart of the Democrat party. He proclaimed over 70% of single women vote Democrat. Furthermore, he declared that studies show approximately 60% of those women had been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness. And then, then Kelly, Jesse joked that everyone knows a woman with, quote, her eyes half bogged down of her skull her. Her eyes half bugged out of her skull. It's true, right? The, the bug eyes usually is a signal for mental illness, in my opinion. Yeah, in my opinion. So I like the fact that other people are seeing the same thing I am. To, to ignore that it's obvious that it's mental illness is not helping anybody. I don't feel like Democrats are better off being managed by the mentally ill. I don't think so. I think that you could help them by maybe, you know, reframing this into a more honest conversation, that you have brainwashed people and mentally ill people who are the primary voters. Brainwashed and mentally ill. And that's who's running the country. Well, not really. It's people on top or brainwashing or running the country, but they're the, you know, allegedly they're voting and determining things. I'm not sure they are. Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Biden found some secret way to quietly transfer billions of dollars in bombs and jet and fighter jets to Israel. So I guess it doesn't matter what the Congress wants to do or the people want to do. All that really matters is that we're giving our money to Israel. Now, as I've said many times, the question of supporting Israel, you know, with your words and. Or politics, is wholly separate from giving your money. Do we all agree on that? That you don't have to support everything with money if somebody already has them? And now I don't know if they have enough or if they have borrowing capability or whatever. But why is it just automatic we give you money? Why can't it ever be, hey, do the best you can, you know, if you can't do it without us, ask us, maybe we'll kick it in. But I feel like we were just throwing money at them as soon as there was a problem. Like, do they even need to ask for it? Do they need to make a case that they can't stretch their own budget? The Israel can't increase their debt, because I'm pretty sure I had nothing to do with anything that happened in Gaza. So why am I paying for it? Again, even if you're. Even if you're totally in favor of everything Israel's doing, which we'll talk about in a second. Even if you're totally in favor, why are you paying for it? There's lots of things I'm in favor of I'm not paying for. Anyway, so the news is saying that Joe Rogan and they say Alex Jones are using the genocide word about the actions in Gaza. Do you think you'll see more of that now that they broke the seal? Well, I think it depends. If they're still in business in a month, if Joe Rogan and Alex Jones can say out loud that they believe Gaza is a genocide and they're still in business, then other people might start saying it. Now, I'm not going to give you my opinion on it because this is so subjective and brainwashy and all that. I will simply note this observation. Israel is spending their Holocaust chip, and if it doesn't work out, it's going to be the worst thing in the world, right? But if they spend their Holocaust trip. I mean, what I mean by that is, at this point, I think it's already fair to say that if you hear anybody from Israel complaining about the Holocaust, it's going to take two seconds for you to say Gaza. Right? So they're spending it. And I'm not saying they shouldn't. And I'm not saying that it's not a real thing to spend. It's just that it's one hell of a risky investment. So from an Israeli point of view, it feels like an investment. I think this is my interpretation. So my interpretation is they had this asset, which is how people feel about protecting Israel because the Holocaust ever happened. But as soon as they do something that other people think reminds them of the Holocaust, that chip goes away. So if they don't get something out of this, it's going to be the biggest disaster of all time. It's a risky move. If I had to guess whether it works, I'm gonna guess yes, I, I think that the, the hatred of Netanyahu that a lot of people in Israel have right now, because they don't want to, they don't want blood on their hands, I guess, is a luxury belief. You've heard that term, a luxury belief is something you can say in public that makes you sound like a good person, but you can only say it because you don't have any control over it, because if you had control, you wouldn't be saying that shit. So it's a luxury belief. So you can sound like a good person, right? So here's, here's my luxury belief. I think Israel should stop killing innocent people because, oh, I hate any, any violence. You should stop doing it. Israel should be a good person like me, because I say good things in public when, when I don't have any. I have no skin in the game, so. So I say good things. Peace. Peace and love. That's a luxury belief. I suspect there are a lot of anti Netanyahu people who like being anti violence, but they kind of need the violence because, you know, Gaza was an existential threat, still is, to Israel, and if they can find a way to get greater control over the area. And again, I'm not saying it's good or bad. You know, there's no opinion here. I'm just saying that if it turns out the things work out, that they, they managed to create a safer environment that can go forward and maybe a larger environment, you know, maybe the size of Israel gets bigger and that has all kinds of benefits. So it could turn out like the Louisiana Purchase, which, by the way, I'm not a historian. I need a fact check on this. Is it true that Jefferson was criticized for the Louisiana Purchase because it was too expensive? Do I remember that right? It wasn't true that everybody thought it was a good idea, Right? Are there any historians here who can give me a fact check on that? I'm just going from memory, but not a clear memory, it seems. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that he was criticized. People said, ah, we don't need that land. Why are we stealing that land? And who can afford $18 million anyway? But time goes by. But time goes by and then it looks like a brilliant, genius move that made America what it is. I think the same thing could happen with Netanyahu. I think you will be viciously criticized by the luxury belief people, but if it works, a hundred years from now, he's going to be one of the legends of Israel. So it's a big play and I wouldn't bet against him, but there we are. Now, I, I am of the belief that if Israel did not completely destroy Gaza and dominate it forever, they would be in mortal danger forever. So do with that what you want. It doesn't make anybody right or wrong. It just. That's the situation. All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say goodbye to the folks on YouTube and X and on Rumble. Thanks for joining. See you the same place tomorrow. I'm going to keep the folks on locals connected so I could get a little after show with the subscribers. Thanks for joining. All right, local supporters only. Updating stream.