The Scott Adams School - 09/14/26 Monday With The HOME TEAM

It's your favorite day.

It's my favorite day.

Yay! Marcella's favorite day of the week, Monday. Makes so much sense. Oh, look at me, I'm all crooked.

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm already overheating. I'm off center. How do I go this way? There we go.

There we go.

Everything's the opposite. Okay, so welcome in, everyone. All right, so I see— oh, look, YouTube's already kicked into gear. Good morning, YouTube. I have not seen your comments in so long, and I'm not seeing them right now either. But good morning to all of you fine people over there. Oh, there's my voice. Locals has been chatting for about 10 minutes. Nice to see them this morning. X and Spotify and Rumble. Okay, so did you guys have a good weekend? Owen, I heard some of your after-party and all of those things yesterday. How was your weekend?

It was great. Yeah, we had a nice discussion on the after-party and we had another one Sunday morning and, uh, It was a good discussion. We went through a bunch of different topics, but, um, also had our subscriber spaces on Great Scott, and I thought that was a really fun discussion. It actually ended up going like 4 hours.

Geez Louise.

I usually don't go that long, but it was like near the end it was just really interesting and people had a lot to say. And, um, it's kind of fun because it's all about Scott, you know. It's like Great Scott is a book about all the lessons Scott taught us and focused primarily on what he did on the Coffee with Scott Adams podcast, you know, that he did every day, not the micro lessons, not his books. Like, he, you know, focused on that part of it just because, like, the books, you can read the books and, you know, the micro lessons are for the local subscribers. And so, but it's really just fun to talk about and review that stuff. You know, it was like 10 years with Scott and he taught us so much.

Yeah.

It still is absolutely relevant and on point and everything. And it's just kind of fun to talk with people in the community that were there with me and learning all this stuff and, you know, go through examples of what we see people doing that are either good or bad in relation to those lessons. And it was really good.

Oh, nice. I love that. And Marcella, how was your weekend?

I worked.

She worked, ugh.

Every weekend as I work.

Oh, Marcella.

Don't become an attorney, anyone over there.

Yeah, don't become an attorney. And also, Marcella is gonna leave early today because she has to go to court. So see you tomorrow.

Pray for me, you guys.

This poor woman, she's working all the time. Owen's working all the time. I'm working all the time. I mean, what are we doing? Aren't we allowed to retire yet?

I will go the other way and just say I'm— I, I am enjoying my, my work. And I'm not gonna tell people don't do what I do. I, it just, it's funny to me that like being a lawyer and being a doctor has been like the goal. Like most parents are like, oh, I hope my kid's a doctor or a lawyer, you know? And I know it's just they want them to be successful and have money and all the rest. But like, it just, it's funny to me how when you get into these specialized careers, so many of the people in them are like, don't do it. Don't get into this. And like, I don't, I don't get it. It's like, I would think being a lawyer should be a pretty fun thing to do.

I think it never ends. It's like nonstop. Like, and also, don't be a realtor. I always say too, it's like, God, you have to be a realtor 24/7. Yeah, that stinks. All right, friends, we gotta sip. I am so hot. Uh, okay, I need some— I need some hot coffee. All right, let's, let's grab Scott and get even hotter. Ready?

Day after day, best part of the day, and all you need to Hold on, let me put on my microphone. This would be better. Something tells me you weren't hearing me as well as you should have. How about now? Yeah, better, better, isn't it? Yeah, you thought this couldn't get better, and it just did. Surprise. Yeah, and all you need to do, all you need to do to take this To the next level. See if you can find yourself a cup or mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen, jug, or 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, the thing that makes everything better. And I'm gonna ask you to savor it. Yeah, savor it. Go. Mm, yeah. Savor it. Savor it. Okay, good.

I used to love the savor its. Oh my gosh. All right, you guys, so now I'm officially starting. Welcome to the Scott Adams School. My name is Erica. I'm joined by my amazing co-hosts, Marcella and Owen. It's another Monday. Aren't we lucky? So today we We told you Marcella is going to be leaving early, but we promised last week that we would get to this AI story happening. So we have some clips and news about that, and Owen and Marcella both love AI, so that's a great topic. And we have some other news. So let's start with that so we can address it. I guess where it all started was Jacob Coxon, right? He worked for— was it? Anthropic or OpenAI? I forget which one, but he—

Also Anthropic. If you're talking about the letter, like the big letter that came out about regulating AI was from Anthropic's founder, Darius.

No, she's talking about Jacob Coxon, the employee there.

Oh yeah, no, okay. Coxon also was from Anthropic, yeah.

Okay, he worked for OpenAI for longer. With with Antropic, he only worked for six months.

Yeah, I mean, this whole thing is interesting. It's kind of like shady, and it's hard to really understand exactly what's going on. But I have a suspicion.

Okay, all right. Well, let's let's start with Coxon. This is our little Temu Harry Potter, as we're calling him. So he has created quite a ruckus in the world with his. statements about AI potentially being able to kill all of us by the end of the decade. That'll get your attention if people run with it. So let's take a listen how it started. I want to better understand what you mean when you say AI could kill us all. What is the worst-case scenario or scenarios that keeps you up at night?

Yeah, I think, um, before discussing specific scenarios, it helps to just think of, uh, building AI as sort of inviting an alien mind onto the planet. You're building a human-level or superhuman-level mind without understanding what it wants or thinks or the way it thinks.

And I think that intrinsically should be quite scary.

And indeed, the people who write science fiction have tended to have found it scary when they've written about this in the past. In terms of concrete scenarios, these AIs are already capable of a certain degree of hacking and also a certain degree of biological research. of autonomous robot control. And if you extrapolate into the future, they could have strongly superhuman hacking capabilities, very superhuman abilities to create novel bioweapons, and also abilities to control, say, autonomous drones or all the robots that are currently being built very rapidly.

Okay, so that's how it started. And his post— he made a tweet about this, and he never really had ever tweeted before, I don't think. He made one tweet about this, and it went So freaking viral around the world that every single CEO of every AI company, world leaders, everybody had to start responding to this. So I do have clips, like I have Alex Karp talking about it. Actually, let's go to Alex Karp because I'd say he works the most close with the government, right, on AI and what its rules should be. And then we'll comment after Alex. Let's Let's take a listen.

If we didn't have the adversaries we'd have, I would be very in favor of pausing this technology completely.

But we do.

And that's why pausing is just—

you can't pause it because it's a structural advantage both for LLMs and algorithms.

So leaving, you know, getting algorithms and LLMs to work in a classified context is gonna take very specialized, very small. I could explain how it works.

But getting—

the fact is, this is going to be a bonanza for the U.S. economy. How concerned are you about China right now?

Everyone's very concerned.

I think we were in a conversation this morning where I referenced, you know, when we started first talking about China and America, and I was saying that this was not going to end well. That was a controversial statement. Now it's consensus. America is fairly unified in its idea that That China and people running China are not acting in a way we can accept. And I think the consensus, if I had to guess, in China is we're never going to get this back on the rails with America, so we should up the aggression.

All right. So Marcella, I'm going to come to you first on this. Now, a lot of people think this is a psyop. It's a fearmongering thing. Uh, Mike Cernovich said— I think he said this is like almost like another COVID type of thing. Um, what do you think it is so far? And we have more clips, but—

Well, if it's not a psyop, it definitely is being used, uh, for— the Democrats are using it in their favor in order to control AI. Um, there's different different power dynamics. You have, um, OpenAI, you have Anthropic, you have xAI, um, which are the main players in the game, but that's not the only players, right? So especially Anthropic and OpenAI have said that they want to slow it down and they want the government or some kind of entity, kind of like if the FDA approves drugs, some kind of Uh, FINRA approves finance. This has been talked about for quite a while, you know, where they want to get somewhere where they can go slower and make sure that it's not going to kill us and all that. But if you look at, uh, Harry Potter, um, Coxon, which is crazy, like the simulation, the names they give them, um, he talks about all these— this thing that he saw in Anthropic, um, But he never gives you any evidence. They call him a whistleblower, but he doesn't show any evidence. Like, what's so scary? Can you tell us? Can you give us some evidence? Nothing. So on the other side, we have the Democrats wanting to control what we watch, what we do, and they're bringing in— Newsom just passed a bill in California that controls AI. in chatbots and how much younger people can view them. He even took away AI chatbots in dolls.

Okay.

So he like took that away from kids. But anyways, the main thing is that there's all these players trying to make America fearful of AI. And why is that? When you want to make someone fear something, You're trying to make them follow like sheep towards where you want them to be. They want you to, um, follow blindly and follow their orders, just like we did in COVID. And Cernovich was talking about yesterday about it being like climate change is exactly like, oh, in 30 years we're not going to have an ozone layer, and in 30 years The polar ice caps will have melted. So they talk about an irrational fear about something happening in the future when AI— I put something in AI and it doesn't even get it right. So how can this thing that doesn't get it right— remember, Scott would always be like, oh, I really tried to make this thing and that thing with AI work, and then it just didn't work. And, um, So at the— at this time, at this juncture, it's not going to destroy us. And if it destroys us, it's only because humans destroy each other. Um, but the main thing is that it's all another— it's all another hoax. It's all another, like, way to control what we do, how we think.

Yeah.

It's obvious, but I guess it's not obvious for most people. Like, I think Because COVID worked. Nobody got— no, no, nobody faced justice really in COVID.

No.

Uh, climate change, nobody's ever faced justice in climate change for their stupid rules and all these things that they've caused. So the play is done again. They're gonna do the play again, and this is the new, the new one, and people are falling for it.

Okay.

Owen, do you agree with Marcela's assessment?

To some extent, I think I, I just maybe I take a step back from the overall, like, they're just trying to control us all narrative to just say their motives are clearly not what they're presenting them to be in, in all of this. And I, I connect a bunch of events when I say that because, you know, you've started out saying this Coxon was what kicked it off, but I don't think that's really the first step. I think the first step came much earlier. There was a There was this recent letter after that from Emoti, the founder of Anthropic, asking for this control. But if you back up, there was a very similarly titled letter that was signed by thousands of people or hundreds of people in the AI industry that was basically saying a very similar thing. And I think, so you have this letter from a bunch of insiders saying we need this regulatory capture sort of— I mean, not regulatory capture necessarily, but it is kind of that, but regulatory framework around AI that we need to slow down and we need to have somebody to make sure everybody else slows down and we need to put something in place like that. And then you have this mysterious Coxon person quitting very visibly, and he created an X account one month before this. and started posting it. And then everybody in the industry jumped on that post to make sure it went viral. And then the media jumped on that and it became this massive story. And so then after that, this Emoti guy comes out with his letter that is kind of like his version of that. And if you really dig into it, it's not like exactly what it's being presented to be. And because he's basically saying he wants some government authority Or let's just say he wants an authority that sets the rules for how they're going to go forward with AI development. He never says who should be controlling what those standards are, what those rules are. And he— it really comes across to me like the objective here is to— and I think David Sacks kind of talked about this— it's like he wants to form a cartel. He wants to— and it literally, that's what's in the paper. They want an antitrust waiver. that allows them to coordinate with each other in a way that normally would be illegal. It's like maybe not price fixing, but like technology fixing. It's like they want to make sure that their competition can't get ahead of them and that there's some central authority that kind of makes sure that they all have a seat at the table and they all are going to be successful and they can basically equalize what they're doing so that they're not playing this leapfrog game that they're playing today. Because I think that's what we're seeing right now is that we had ChatGPT come to this really big lead, and then you had Anthropic with OpenCLAW jump ahead of them. And then Anthropic kind of fell behind because they did a bunch of stuff that were sort of, in my opinion, anti-user. And they still are doing some of that stuff. And then Astra came out from ChatGPT or OpenAI, and that jumped them ahead of everybody else again. And it was like this next generation sort of thing. And in the middle there, you had Anthropic with like Fable and Mythos and all these things that were also like leading capabilities that they're saying, oh, these are scary, these are gonna, you know, too dangerous to release type of stuff. And but I think a lot of that was marketing for their IPOs. I think a lot of that was, um, you know, trying to leapfrog their competition. And it sounds to me like they don't want to be in that mode of having to try and keep up with their competition. They'd rather have it just be coordinated amongst them all where they agree on, okay, we're going to give you a piece of the pie and we're going to have a piece of the pie and we're going to try and shut out China and we're going to try and shut out any new competitors that might emerge. And It really just seems like they're trying to wrest control of it in a way that is very kind of antitrust or anti—

You want to control the market. Yeah.

And, and so their motives to me are what I would kind of expect CEOs in an emerging field like this to do. When you have these big players that are really well funded, they want to shut out all the small players and they want to cement their position as the leaders and they want to be able to control the whole market. And so I, and I really don't really believe that this toxic guy just spontaneously—

we have to explain why it's, why we think it's a psyop. So we're not like wearing everybody, we're not wearing, you know, some kind of like hat that like talks to— maybe we are. But the main reason why it's a psyop and Owen can tell us is that when this post came out on X, he like Erica had said, he had just started his account a month before, and then his post became viral. 100 and— I don't know now, but it was 150 million views. Even Elon commented, and it's never happened before. But what happened is, and maybe, Owen, you could tell us, but the Wall Street Journal had released an article about the post before the post even came on, something To that effect.

Yeah, um, this seems very cool.

What else happened? Who else made it viral? Where else did he work?

It really seems like there's enough data points here to say that this was a coordinated event or string of events. Like, this Coxon guy didn't just wake up one day and say, I'm going to quit and become a whistleblower. I think his employer and him knew, and they coordinated this. And I'm guessing you'll see he'll land in some nice position, maybe as a part of this regime, you know, control mechanism. Like, there's a plan for him, I'm pretty sure. And I— but it's, it's clear that it wasn't just this guy resigned in disgust and somehow spurred the industry to take notice. They knew about this ahead of time, and they knew— they, they supported it, they pushed it, they made it go viral. And so I think that's the part that Makes it really suspicious to me. And it is a psyop in that sense, because I think it's like you're, you're led to believe that this was a spontaneous thing of one person, and it wasn't. It was a coordinated event. It was a coordinated effort across multiple companies, and it includes Elon Musk. He signed on to it too, so he's part of this too. Now, I don't know if he had any advance participation in this. He might have just jumped on afterwards, but, um, You know, at least between OpenAI and Anthropic, it really does seem like they're trying to basically form some kind of cartel of the big players and shut out everybody else and have their own way of self-regulating so that they can, you know, keep their competition out. And I think it's also a mistake. I think it's like the stuff that Karp said is relevant.

Mm-hmm.

In the sense of like, it seems like what they're asking for is some kind of global agreement that we're all going to go slow here. And I think part of that, you know, might be for economic reasons or control reasons of the industry, not necessarily of everybody on the planet Earth, although that may be in their minds. But I think it's, it's more about like, you know, controlling their competition. And I don't think China would ever sign on to that. I don't think China would ever say we're going to slow down.

Well, that's the thing. All of, all of the CEOs of all these big companies are all in unison and agreeing, well, we'll still move forward, but we'll put safeguards in. It's all bullshit. No one's gonna do any— they're all racing each other anyway. So it's not like everybody's working together for the greater good of humanity and, you know, not killing everybody. It's like they're racing each other. I think the first company that actually scared me, and this is just my opinion and no one get upset with me over there at Claude. I know Dario's got all the money in the world. But I felt like they were like one of the first ones I heard about, like where their AI was self-organizing and like telling the other parts of the thing like, no, you stand down, we're going to do this. But we should at least hear from Dario, CEO of Claude. So let's just play a quick clip of him and then we'll get to President Trump.

Almost every day I'm made fun of on social media because our model's biology safeguards are too strong. And biology students complain, they make jokes that we can't use the model. But the reason for that is that we have strong safeguards. And I would rather they make fun of me than to wake up one day and discover that someone used our model Claude to kill a bunch of people. I don't want that. So I feel both sides of it. I feel both sides of the responsibility. But again, I would repeat the same point, which is that it shouldn't be my responsibility alone or Anthropic's responsibility alone or all of the AI companies' responsibility alone or even one government's responsibility alone. This is bigger than all of us.

Okay. So, you know, he sounds like his heart and head is in the right place.

No, it doesn't.

Well, he's like, I don't want that to happen.

Crazy guy. I have 2 immediate things to say about that. One is like the, the, you know, a lot of what I heard there is I don't want the liability for this. I don't want to be the one in trouble or even in prison for, you know, some kind of really bad event happening. And another aspect of this is, and there is a lot of people talking about this on X, is that there's a fear that what you just heard was also a veiled attempt to say we need to get rid of all this local AI that we don't control. Like, we've got the safeguards, we've got the expertise, we've got the way to try and prevent these things. But I think what they're— you're— what they're facing is a threat that a lot of these Chinese models that are open weight, that I can download and run on my own computer, or any data center who wants to can serve up and provide to people— they don't have control over that stuff. And they're getting pretty close to the frontier. They're getting pretty close to being able to do what these leading models are doing. And that means that we could all do the same things that a government could do, or we could do, you know, whatever we want, really. But like, it's It's not under centralized control. And I think there is an agenda here to say they want to be the ones that control all of it. And that gets into what Marcello was saying in terms of controlling all of us, because if you can have these centralized choke points where you have to go to Anthropic or OpenAI to get your stuff or X, you know, x.ai, but like, you know, then they control what's allowed.

Mm-hmm.

They control what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. and they can report you to the police if you do something that they think is a crime. And I mean, there's another story that maybe we can talk about later where a Waymo just pulled over and called the cops on someone who had a ghost gun in the car. And Marcela, I don't know if your relative did that, but—

You mean my brother, you mean?

Yeah.

Well, Waymo's having some problems right now.

He is Salvadorian, so he is trying to stop crime.

Well, I'm just saying like that, that sort of concept. I'm, you know, we're not talking about Waymo right now, but like, I Like with AI, the same thing would be true, right? Like they could monitor you, surveil you, turn you into the police, like, you know, watch everything you're doing, have a detailed profile, feed it to the intelligence agencies, and they could just say, okay, you're not allowed to do that. You know, we're just not going to let that happen. And we're going to steer whatever we want in whatever direction we want to steer it. And there's nothing you could do about it if that's the only place you can go for AI.

I think it's worse than that. I think if you have maybe a gun on you and they see you coming with terrorists, you know, like, I guess, you know, there might be a chance where that's okay because you're trying to stop a crime or whatever. But the thing is, AI is going to be everywhere. Like, the children of the children of the children, they— it's— it controls what you think, it controls history, it controls everything.

Mm-hmm.

And so it's, it's like if they control it, then therefore they control everybody's thinking. Um, maybe we can't read the Stoics anymore because there's not, you know, or maybe we can't read Trump's books and everything else. It'll be easier to control than, than having actual physical books.

Save the books. Like Romney says, save the books. They have to be scanned and preserved and not chopped up. Let's— quick, before you go, Marcel, just listen to what President Trump said. Hang on.

We're leading China in AI.

We're the most sophisticated country in the world. And frankly, I want to keep it that way because whoever wins AI wins. And, uh, we could put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that, uh, shouldn't be bringing it up.

And they're bringing up things that won't happen, but whoever wins with AI wins.

Yeah. So it's another— oh, what happened? I said, yeah. Oh, so it's like, it's another war, you know, another battle, another race, another—

Daddy's home.

Yeah. But it's just like, so I have a question. How, how, I don't, who, who is China's AI? Do I know any of it?

DeepSeek.

DeepSeek is one. Quen, Q-W-E-N, is another.

How do they compare to ours?

Well, they're starting to get close in some respects. Now, it's all kind of, you know, data is fake, so it's hard to know like how close, because I see benchmarks coming out all the time. And when a new model comes out from one of these Chinese places, it'll be announced along with whatever benchmarks they ran. And it's obviously putting the best face on it. oh, look at this benchmark, we're just one step behind the leading, you know, Astra model or the leading Fable model, like we're getting really close. And then other benchmarks will come out and say, no, no, you're not, like, it's not that. But I will say, like, some of the things I've seen I think are legitimately, um, new technology that is very powerful and pretty amazing that they are putting into these things. It's not necessarily the model itself, it's like the architecture and the code that runs around the model. But there are some things where, like, a really capable model is able to run on a lot less hardware or a lot faster.

And someone's saying DeepSeek is a lot cheaper to use.

Well, it's cheaper because of that. Like, it's cheaper because they made it cheap. Like, they made it run really efficiently.

And isn't it open source, or am I wrong about that?

Yeah, well, open weight is the way I would phrase it, but yes, it's similar. It's just like, it's not really code. It's because it's more like a data file with a bunch of numbers in it, and But I think it's open weight, which means anyone can download it. And that means anyone can use it. And that, and in some cases, what that means is you still need a data center. You have to have this massive hardware to make it work. But in other cases, and that's what I'm focusing on with, is you can run it on one of those little NVIDIA DGX Spark mini PCs, or you can even run it on a regular computer with a good graphics card. And in some cases, the smaller ones, you don't even need a graphics card.

So you can run it privately.

Exactly. And then nobody's monitoring you. Nobody's telling you what you can and can't do. And the other thing that happens is every time one of these open weight models comes out, the very next step within a week is someone says, I have the, what they call obliterated version. And what that does is it removes all the guardrails.

It's like moonshine.

Yeah. All right. So Marcella, just for the— I know, I know you have to go, but I want to just get your quick perspective and then I swear I'll let you go.

Tell me.

Why, for those of us not AI savvy, okay, people listening, why is this such a big deal? Like, why is AI so important? And why, like, why should some of us be concerned or not concerned? You know, like, what's the, what's the fear and what's the importance of AI? I know that's like a weird question, but I'm sure a lot of people are like, well, so what about AI? But like you said, it is going to be everywhere.

Well, AI, if you see it, I mean, you can watch Terminator and get all scared of what AI can become unfeathered and unleashed by itself. But I think in the most part, like anything else, like a gun doesn't kill people, a car doesn't kill people, people kill people. So it's who controls that AI is who is going to indicate the morality of it. It's going to indicate the parameters of it. But if we don't accelerate and China accelerates, or any other country besides China, Russia, whoever wants to accelerate, then we have, uh, we have lost. Because it means that they have a weapon, um, a technology that we don't have, and therefore they control us. So it's a matter of having, uh, of keeping up with them and with others because otherwise we lose. So Trump is right. And at the same time, if you have AI and you accelerate it, you are in the driver's seat. And that's what we need. You know, we need to be driving that AI car.

Yeah, you're right. I think that's good. So I think this was like a good start for us, for people listening. I mean, you know, we're not like a full-on AI technology show. Somebody said, when am I going to do my own AI I show? Never. I don't know nearly enough about this. I'm just a user.

I mean, I would just say, like, on that topic, like, we're moving beyond just a chatbot. Like, that's not the real power of AI. It still is relevant, especially to controlling information and narratives and things. But we're in more of the age of agents right now, like agents where they're autonomously doing things. They're autonomously building software is where they're mostly doing it right now. But they're also, you know, you can, you can today create an assistant that can automate a lot of your life. And, and there's lots of different versions of it and, you know, ways to do it. But like, you can have it, you know, respond to your emails. You can have it like, you know, go opt out of data collection in your car. You can have it do anything that really can be done on a computer.

Mm-hmm.

And, you know, I wouldn't necessarily go full hog on that today just because it's not really at the capability level or the safety level or the intelligence level to always do the right thing. And so, I'm still at the point where I need to approve anything external that would come out of my AI. But, at a certain point, companies are going to take those shackles off and say, we're going to let parts of our company just be totally automated. And, at that point, and that applies to military too, I mean, they're already using this to target people and decide which missions to run. And, they in theory still have a human in the loop saying, yes, I approve of that. But really, are they looking at every detail and every analysis that the AI does? I doubt it. So, we're getting to the point where warfare is becoming run by AI.

Yeah.

And so, across almost any field, biological research, bioweapons research, nuclear, whatever you want to look at, it's going to become more and more in an AI-controlled or AI-run way. And so, it is going to be a big force going forward. And I don't think we're at the AGI or ASI, which is the superintelligence, like smarter than a human. I don't think we're there yet, but we're headed in that direction. And the other part of it is, it's not just about you're almost as smart as a person, it's that you can deploy this running 24/7. You can have as many of them as you want running 24/7. And so, like, I personally have a whole bunch of agents that are building my software factory right now. And I'm using some things in the cloud, and I'm using some things local. And but I can have, you know, 10 or 20 agents all working on my behalf 24 hours a day.

Wow.

And I do.

Yeah, but the thing that I just want to— before I go, you guys, the thing I want to like focus on is that yes, there's these companies that want to create a cartel, as Owen said, or allegedly want to create a cartel. Um, but the government, Bernie Sanders, the Democrats, I don't know who else, Chuck Schumer, you know, name a dumb person and that would be the person. Um, They want to create a regulatory agency. As soon as you hear regulatory agency, you know it's going to be delay after delay after delay. And when you delay this type of acceleration of AI, the move so fast, and there's a reason why it has to move fast, then you basically get nowhere.

Right.

It's like, it's like them defining, you know, like the Model T Ford created it, and all of a sudden it has to have like slowed down. Yeah, well, so it's it's not good because guess what? China did make a comment about all this. They said they're not slowing down.

Oh hell no! And they don't agree. Yeah. All right, Marcella. Thank you so much. Go go get them in court. We'll we're on your side. We're sending you good vibes, and we'll see you tomorrow.

Take care.

Okay, bye, Marcella. So we're gonna move on from this topic. I mean, we could do it all day, but you know. We can't. But I did ask Owen, I was watching the stories Owen was posting this morning. And Owen, there was one in the New York Times I wanted to ask you about, about their biased coverage of what was going on with Gaza. And I just thought like we would dip into the Israel-Gaza conflict and just see what you found in that article.

All right, let me get there. I mean, the headline was essentially what you were just saying, which is that they did a study essentially of how the New York Times was covering the Israel-Gaza stuff, and they found that it was very biased against Israel. So Yale did this study. They looked at 1,559 articles. And it was from October 7th to June of the following year. So this was 2023 to 2024. And they said basically the dominant narrative was saying, the quote is, near exclusive agency and responsibility to Israel while diminishing Hamas's role and largely omitting Israeli casualties after October 7th, Hamas fighter casualties, and post-October 7th Palestinian violence. And so essentially, it is basically just that. It's like they looked in what you— I mean, I don't know if you can say objective way, but because nobody's objective in this, but they looked at all the data, all the stories, and they just showed that it's very biased against Israel. It's very biased towards Hamas and towards the Palestinians. So the New York Times is definitely pushing that narrative in a particular direction, which I think certainly fits with what the left is essentially pushing for at this point.

Right. Yeah. I mean, the New York Times became a joke decades ago, really. And it's amazing that they still call it the paper of record because it's just It's the same as our corporate media TV news channels. It's no different. It's really sad. There's just not one source that you can trust anymore. The Wall Street Journal's a lot better than the New York Times. I mean, obviously they have a slant too, but it's like, where do we ever get honest news from? You really have to dig it apart and pull it apart.

Yeah.

It's pretty shameful.

I'm going to go back to what someone told me at work one time when I brought this topic up, because I brought up how biased the media is. And what they told me was they grew up in South Korea, and he said there is no unbiased media in South Korea. There's like the left and the right media. And so at home, the way these South Koreans grew up apparently, or operate, is they have 2 TVs on. They would have one on the left side broadcast and one on the right side broadcast so that they would get both sides of the story. And I think that's the best I think we can do. And I'm trying to actually play a role in that because, you know, obviously if you follow me, you'll, you'll see that it's mostly from a more right-leaning point of view. You might not think of it as right-leaning because it's your point of view in some cases. But, um, but like, you know, I, I know that it's like I'm intentionally not posting the left-leaning stuff most of the time. Occasionally I will. And a lot of times I'll put a disclaimer on it saying I don't agree with the story. But But like, I mostly am posting the other side. And the reason I'm doing that is, you know, well, partly it's historical from— these are the stories I want Scott to talk about. But also it's, you know, that's what's missing from a lot of people's feeds because you can't really get away from the left-leaning stuff because it's everywhere and it's posted a lot of times in your feed. It might be posted with people criticizing it, but you'll still see it. And so, you know, I want to make sure that other viewpoint gets out. And I think if you try and balance it out that way, it'll help. And now, you know, the other thing I would throw in is you may also want to filter out as best you can some of that left-leaning stuff because I've got some advice from someone I really trust that had this insight that it's like if you have this left, right, left, right, left, right hitting you all the time, it's almost like it's going to drive you crazy.

Yeah.

You know, it's like you're not going to know what's real. You're going to be confused by it. And his advice was, like you should filter things that are aligned with the way you look at the world, and those should be your sources of information, and you should filter out anything else so that you're not constantly being bombarded with stuff that's conflicting with your worldview and maybe putting you into cognitive dissonance and all these other things. And because that's going to drive you crazy. And so I think that there is an argument to say you don't want both sides, you just want to find the one that's aligned with what you're doing. Scott would probably say find what is predictive. And what is making you happy. And that's the way he talked about it. So that may be another way to look at it. But if you can filter your information environment where most of what you're getting or all of what you're getting is aligned with how you look at the world and what you see as reality and what makes you happy and what predicts the future better than other sources, then I think you're going to be in a better position.

Yeah, I agree. And Scott always pointed out quite correctly that the people on the right are way more informed than people on the left because you can't not absorb all of this Democrat left-leaning news. It's thrown at you from every angle. I literally have not watched the news, like, as someone who consumes news on cable or, or regular TV for I don't even know how many years, so many years. And if it happens to sneak into my brain because of where I am or a situation, I'm just like, oh my God, it's such garbage. It's such BS. And it's just recycled all day long. And I know people that park themselves in front of it and I'm like, what are you learning? You know exactly what they're going to say, then you know what they're going to say. And it's just a game.

Yeah.

And I mean, I would also just add that the left has— it's very intentional. They've worked really hard with all these disinformation boards and government things, censorship, to get rid of the right-leaning sources. They disparage places like The Gateway Pundit or Zero Hedge or other places that are Breitbart. You know, they've tried to shut them down, take away their advertisers. They've done everything they can to make sure that that point of view doesn't get out there and that their point of view is the only one that dominates the conversation. And they are still trying to do that today, maybe more prevalent in Europe now. But that's something that Mike Benz pointed out, I think, back in February. I just reposted that saying, hey, are we doing anything about this? Because he was basically saying There's a tidal wave coming with this. His prediction, I think, is that if we don't do anything to stop it, that Europe is going to start ramping up the fines on these social media companies and saying, if you post anything or allow to be posted anything that we don't agree with, that we're going to levy these massive fines on you to the point where it's going to put you out of business. I think they've already got—

How scary is that?

They've already been doing this and levying million-dollar fines. He's saying they're going to ramp it up and it's going to be billions. And his prediction is that when it gets close to the 2028 election, that's when they're going to really turn it on. And they're going to really— and they're going to say things like, okay, you can't have anything good about Trump. You can't have anything good about whoever's running to replace Trump. Like, they're going to try and steer the whole conversation to make sure that a Democrat wins in 2028. And you're not going to be able to stop it at that point because they're going to know that if they win, if a Democrat wins, then whatever leverage we thought we had to say, well, we're going to sanction you or we're going to, you know, punish you somehow for doing this, it's going to be too late because they're going to say, I don't care. Because as long as we win, you know, then we know that the Democrat is just going to undo whatever you just did. So like, we don't care. And so they— it has to start now.

Right.

It has to start now to start dismantling that stuff. And he's saying we need this like whole of government sort of approach to say, Every agency needs to be coordinated internally with this as their mission. And across agencies, we need to be coordinated. And every month we need to give an update on progress. Like, what did we get done in each of the countries in Europe? You know, and what did we get it done at the EU level? And every ambassador needs to be speaking from the same playbook. And that this is a pattern. And this is something that, that the Democrats did do well with prior things when they wanted to get done what they wanted to get done.

Mm-hmm.

But the Republicans don't seem to be able to do that, and they're not doing that. And so I really think that is an important warning, and I'm hoping that someone in the Trump administration is paying attention to that and taking action on it, because it does take time to get everybody organized and coordinated and understand what we really need to accomplish. And it's, it's headed in a really bad direction in Europe, and it's going to continue until we put a stop to it. And I have not seen enough from the Trump administration to give me any indication that they're taking this seriously.

I agree. So here's a— Owen, I don't know if you saw this clip of Jon Stewart over the weekend. Did you? Do you know what I'm talking about?

No, I don't.

Oh, well, this will be a treat for you. You're going to love this. So just take— he's probably one of the more popular/famous lib Democrat people.

Yeah, I know who Jon Stewart is. I just haven't seen the clip.

Well, I was telling the class here. Yeah, but take a listen. He's a former, like, talk show host, lives right near me, see him often. And man, this is the perfect segue for listening to it in real life. Ready?

So you're saying if you have a media machine that purposefully lies to its people to maintain a political fiction and get them themselves power, that, that is the hallmark of an authoritarian system, not a democratic system. Absolutely.

Well, if we were ever to get something like that in the United States, we would be horrified, furious to know that there was an entire media organization designed to bend reality, to manipulate facts to maintain power, it would—

if I may, and I don't mean— I'm not trying to slam Hungary— it would never happen in the United States.

It's just not—

I almost can't even conjure it, imagine it.

It must be very difficult. Mm-hmm.

To live in a country where one media organization out of whole cloth knowingly, explicitly Maybe even in meetings behind the scenes might say, we're lying to our audience, holy shit, and then call for news people to be fired for telling the truth. I mean, if something like that happened in the United States, it would be a dark day indeed.

So I appreciate you raising the alarm bells for us.

Oh my God. I honestly, I don't know if he's joking. I mean, he's not, but is he kidding?

I, I was asking the same question, like, because that's exactly what we have. And, uh, you know, it's hard to know because he is a comedian and he'll do satire sometimes, but he sounded serious.

Yeah, he sounded—

he didn't, he didn't give any indication that I saw, like, nonverbally that he was joking. And usually he does. Like, he has— Jon Stewart has this smirk that he puts on when he's doing that, and he didn't have that smirk. He, he seemed dead serious. Now, maybe he was just doing it for satire purposes, but, um, I don't know. I mean, it could be that he's just completely blind to the fact that what he described is alive and well in the United States and has been for decades.

Um, most people are saying, you know, he's serious, cognitive dissonance. A couple people say satire, can't tell. Um, I can't say that. I'd like to. Uh, performance. It's not sarcasm. He's brain dead. But I mean, the woman's face is priceless because she's like, uh, do you not know what's going on in your country? Her face was so amazing. And I mean, Jon Stewart—

I kept waiting for her to jump in and say something like that. I kept waiting for her to say, you really don't know that that's exactly what you have in your country?

And he's like, and I'm so glad that, you know, you're bringing this up and that, you know, I'm really sorry this is happening to you. And da da da. It's like, what?

I wanted to. I'd like to hear the question. Like that that clip didn't have what she asked him, and I maybe I'll go back and find that because I just I I wasn't sure if she was just saying this thing is happening in Hungary that's a problem, or if she was saying, hey, I think you have this type of problem happening in the United States.

Yeah, I I I think I did see a longer clip, but we do have to look at it. But it it's been going around all weekend, and I was just like, oh my god! And I haven't seen anyone say like, no no, he was actually kidding. It's crazy, crazy town. And the other one, other clip I wanted to get to, you guys, that, that clip right there was like an opposite. It just gave me that Kathy Newman, Jordan Peterson vibe where he's just like, so what I'm saying is, and you're just like, oh my God, you don't even understand what's happening in our own country. And sometimes I feel like Jon Stewart sort of gets it, but then the next time I see him, he's right back to just idiot-level cognitive dissonance. And then, Owen, you posted another story today, and I pulled one of the clips of Jamie Raskin, one of the designated liars. I mean, he's just disgusting.

Yes.

And he's talking to, I think her name is Kristen Welker. But when you watch one of the designated liars, as Scott would call them, talk to the designated liars in the media, there's almost like this This like wanting look they have for each other where it's just like, we're on the same page. It's just like this grossest thing. But here he is talking about if a Democrat gets into office, would they try to impeach Trump? And the lies and the— it's just so gross. And I don't know who's watching this news in real time, but we need to help people. But take a listen to this nonsense. As Republicans are warning that if Democrats retake the House, your first move, or you're going to move to impeach President Trump. Do you support that? Would you want to move to impeach President Trump should Democrats retake the House?

Look, everybody on our side understands that impeachment is a critical tool in the toolbox for constitutional self-defense against a president acting like a king, an imperious, lawless, arrogant King. On the other hand, Donald Trump already has 50% of the impeachments of a president in American history. And we saw what happened last time. He incited a mob to storm the Capitol, to attack his own vice president and Congress. We impeached him in the House and we could get only 7 Republican senators to join us. We were 10 short again because of Mitch McConnell.

So you don't—

you don't support impeachment. You think it would be a waste of time?

No, impeachment is not a taboo with us. It's not a fetish with us. We understand it's not a panacea. It is a tool in the toolbox. We will not hesitate to use it if we need to use it. But we also understand the framers gave it to Congress rather than the Supreme Court because they wanted us to contextualize impeachment in the whole sphere of things we've got to deal with, like getting healthcare back to our people, because they've thrown millions of people off their healthcare with the Medicaid cuts and the destruction of the ACA. Tax credits.

Do you believe that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses at this point?

Undoubtedly. We don't have time to remotely scratch the surface, but going to war without a declaration of war, for example, continually defying Congress in terms of our appropriation of money, stealing our spending power from us. I mean, I would say even just bulldozing the East Wing of the White House. If you can bulldoze the East Wing, you can bulldoze The West Wing—he believes that he is a king. They've been plundering money from our government in the most massively corrupt presidential administration in American history. I mean, his son-in-law Jared Kushner brought back billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar and the other corrupt oil monarchies. They are engaged in all kinds of insider political trading, and he Donald Trump has made more money in a year. And a half as president of the United States than every other president in American history combined. And every member of the House and the Senate have made in our legitimate salaries in this Congress. So nothing comes close to the kind of plunder and corruption we've been seeing in this administration. And all of that could warrant an impeachment investigation if we wanted to do it. But more important to us right now is getting healthcare to the American people and ending the lawlessness.

Okay, Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you so very much for being here. We really appreciate it. Okay, raise your hand in the chat if you think it's more important to Democrats to get healthcare to people than impeach President Trump, because I don't believe that for one freaking second. This guy is a piece of work. Uh, also, it's probably still pushing the fine people hoax. He definitely was doing that during one of Trump's impeachment trials where it was completely debunked and supposed to be put to rest then, but they, you know, they still talk about it. So what kind of lies is Raskin twisting himself into, Owen? I mean, is he, is he trying to make people that are more moderate say like, don't worry, we're not going to get into lawfare because we know they are?

Well, that, that whole statement, none of it surprised me and it's exactly what I would expect him to say. And He is the designated liar, and he's the one that comes out with all the stuff that isn't true, that's easy to prove isn't true, but he still wants to push the narrative in that direction. And I think it was obviously very politically motivated from start to finish where he's saying basically, number one, yeah, we're going to impeach him. And he has all these reasons and all these things that he did. And, you know, it's like I'm only scratching the surface. I mean, it's just like last time. It's just like last time where they come up with some BS and then they put an impeachment in and it's going to go to the Senate and then it's not going to happen and it's just going to waste everybody's time. And I'm hoping we can do what we did last time on the second time around, saying, no, we're not going to have a trial. Just go away. You know, like, if you want to keep having your impeachment votes, knock yourself out. But like, we're not going to take this seriously.

They're going to keep them in the news if they do that. So instead of him just They're going to just keep him in the news and keep him relevant, keep the country divided. They're never trying to pull us together. And, you know, look at what the Democrat Party has become. Their focus is spread out everywhere. They don't have a— and I'm not going to say the Republicans aren't either. The Republicans are pretty fractured right now too. But the Democrats, I mean, are slipping fast into socialism, Marxism, communism. And you know, just the deterioration of our country and our way of life. And it's just like, and then they're going to focus on impeachment. And it's just you know how how much faster could they just flush us down the toilet? It's astounding to me.

Yeah, I just I think you know you're probably going to see that video clip if assuming that they get control of the House. You know, I hope they don't, but assuming they do, you're going to see that clip of probably Braskin at the front of the train walking. across with their impeachment papers, delivering it to the Senate and making a big ceremony out of it. And then the Senate's going to either have a trial or not have a trial, and they're going to, you know, it's not going to, you're not going to remove President Trump. And, you know, even if they did, the funny thing is they would be putting Vance in, like they would be helping Vance if they did that. So I don't even think they realize, I don't even think they, they expect it would go anywhere. And if they did, they might hesitate to do it. For that reason. But because they know, like, you know, Vance would still be continuing the same policies, and he would then be in a much better position to get the presidency. And since we're past the midterms at that point, he would still be able to run twice. So he could be president for 10 years. That would be like an ideal, like a briar patch scenario for us. Right.

Oh my God.

Obviously, it would be a big thing in history for that to happen, but I just, you know, it wouldn't help the Democrats. I think it's all a show to them. It's all theater. It's all just how do we make a spectacle of this and become a thorn in the side of Trump and make him look bad and make us look good? And the whole line about healthcare was just he realizes that if he goes too far with this narrative, that people are going to get turned off by that because they're going to say, you're not even trying to get anything done. You're just— you're not trying to help me. You're just trying to help you. And so he realizes that he needs to say, well, but this is more important than that.

Right.

Just so that he can come across as saying, I'm out for you guys, and so he can get elected. And that's the only reason.

So disingenuous.

Yeah, it's just so transparent. It's so obvious. And like, it's just— he's always going to be this way.

Yes. I mean, they're always going to be this way. And it's funny. I mean, what was his name? Goldman. I mean, he got thrown out of his seat. He was the newest designated liar. He was pretty bad. But it's funny because he lost to someone who's, I think, DSA. So now you're seeing some of the designated liars getting replaced with socialists and communists. And I'm like, wow, this is going to be even more of a ride. Yeah.

I mean, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out because I do think they probably will win in some cases where they have the strong Democratic lead because again, in those cases, People probably won't even necessarily be aware that they're socialists and communists. They'll just be like, whatever the D is, that's, that's where I put the box. And so they probably will get some seats. But I think I'm interested to see where it is more of a toss-up what happens, because in theory, it should mean they're really radical, they're really extreme, and it should be pretty easy to take them down. But I don't know. Well, I mean, obviously, we've been seeing things go in the other direction lately. So I think—

Yeah.

My hope is that the Republicans and the media and all of us can get the word out to people to the point where people are aware of how extreme and radical these candidates are, and that they're good. You know, they might be putting on a good face for the campaign, but just like Spanberger, they're going to turn around and do these radical things. And so, you know, you should really take that into account when you're going to the voting booth and either just don't vote if you can't stomach the fact of voting for a Republican if you're a Democrat, or just, you know, vote for a Republican to keep this from happening and then maybe send a message to the Democrats that they need to have better candidates.

Right. As far as AOC, you guys, I think this is the worst time for her to try to run for president. If she's going to, I think she should wait, um, for the next go-round because this is basically the season of women Being extra batshit crazy. So you clip together videos of these chicks from the Clancy stans that love Lindsey Clancy and have donated more than $2 million to her. And then you get AOC injecting herself in the belly and this and that, and it's not the right time. So I feel like we could combat her just because she's a woman on the left. And, um, I— are you excited, Owen, that your mayor of Chicago's running again?

Yeah, I don't know.

I, I don't live in the city, so I don't have a voice in that. Um, but obviously it impacts me just because I live so close to Chicago. But, um, yeah, I, I, I've kind of resigned, like, that anything can really be done about Chicago or Illinois for that matter, because it just seems so hopeless. It's like Democrats basically have a lock on it, and it may be that they rigged the election so well that it just can't go any other way. Or it may just be that they've, you know, got enough Democrats that live in the city that they just dominate the conversation and dominate the voting booths. But either way, it just seems kind of hopeless. It's like they, they— I think people had a clear choice of 2 candidates, and they were both— I believe they were both Democrats, or maybe one of them became an independent just so he could run against the Democrat. But they were both—

Republicans. That's Julie— Julie Kelly's husband is running against him. Julie Kelly, the attorney that you see on the news, her husband's running him. And he is a Democrat, but he's running, I guess, as a Republican because he can't stand what's happening to Chicago. We should see if we can get him on here.

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, I'd love to see a change. I'd love to see some sanity return, but I just don't see it happening because it's like they— when Brandon Johnson was elected the first time, he was running against somebody who I think was another Democrat who was just a little more reasonable. Like, he wanted more law and order. Than Brandon Johnson did. That was the key difference, and people chose Brandon Johnson. And I, you know, I think he— the other guy might have been a white guy, so that might have been a factor. But like, it's, you know, they just— it doesn't seem to ever go in the sane way. It always goes in the most insane way. And I don't— I don't know what I can do about it. I mean, I just— I kind of resigned myself that it's always gonna be this corrupt cesspool.

In Chicago politics. I will say though, and I know we have to wrap this up, but I will say that, um, it seems to me from what I've witnessed that the Black residents in Chicago are pretty pissed off about what the illegal immigrants are doing in the city. Um, and so that's happening under Black politicians. So maybe they want to change because they're like, you know, we don't, we don't recognize our city either, because now we're being invaded and these people are taking over our parks and our this and our that. So that could be something hopeful. Maybe they'll be like, let's try what we got.

I would love to see that, but I just like when, you know, when I do walk by the TV and see what's on the news and all the political ads start, it's always like demonizing the Republican. And it's always like saying, well, he's going to take away your abortion rights and he's going to take away this and he's going to do this. And like, A lot of that is BS too, but it's all very cherry-picked and all very, you know, and, but I think somewhat effective and persuasive because it makes people fearful. It makes people think, oh, if I let that guy get elected, you know, all these bad things are going to happen. And that's standard politics, but it's just, it's dominating the airwaves like that, at least for whoever watches TV anymore.

Yeah.

That's what they're seeing a lot of the time. And it gives a really distorted picture And of course, it doesn't even mention the illegal immigration issue at all.

Right.

It doesn't even come up in the conversation in those ads. So, you know, I don't know, maybe we can outspend them and get the other side out there. But I just think, you know, it's given that the media itself is very left-leaning, they reinforce those messages and they choose what to talk about. And they obviously don't emphasize the problems with illegal immigration and how it's impacting people. That just never gets onto the news broadcast. So Um, you know, it is an uphill battle just because the media is largely just an extension of the Democrat Party, and it's all this free advertising for Democrats.

Um, maybe I can suggest to Julie, kind of like when Trump said, what the hell do you have to lose, to maybe make one of her husband's campaign slogans like, hey, try the white guy. Um, so it could be catchy.

I mean, I, I know Daley had his own corruption issues in his day, but he is, I think, mostly remembered as a very Yeah, right?

So who knows? I am actually going to text her. I can actually text her after the show and say I have an idea. So maybe Julie and/or her husband could do a segment on the show. That would be fun. Hey, try the white guy. Sounds good to me. All right, you guys, thank you so, so much. Owen, thanks for the show today. I'm not seeing you tomorrow.

No. I think you will see me tomorrow and then not Wednesday and Thursday. Oh, that's right. Okay.

Yeah, so I should be back tomorrow. Okay, good, good, good, good. You guys, Owen will be back tomorrow and so will Marcella. So you guys, let's, uh, say— oh, could you guys hit the like and subscribe also before you go? That would just mean the most to us. We'd really appreciate it. And, um, thank you for being here, you guys. We've seen our numbers increasing, and it means so much to us. Um, we know— I, like, I know, I'll speak for myself— that Scott's, like, seeing this community. And, you know, we've held our numbers, which, you know, it really is a miracle, you know, from all of my analysis on the shows. And, you know, to, to not have Scott here, I get it, you know, like, a, a bajillion people were like, see you later. But, you know, Scott did build an amazing community, and we really love each other, and he wanted us to stick together and go on. So to see that, you know, we held steady for so long, and now our, our numbers are increasing, and we're so thankful, you guys, for that. It means a lot. We're working really hard, and, um, you know, we're doing it for all of you guys, and mostly because of everything Scott gave to us. It's just like you can't even imagine and not giving back, you know? So let's say an always thank you to Scott and Shelley for allowing the show to continue. And we'll be back tomorrow. And in the meantime, you guys be useful. Try to educate some people on what's really going on in the world. Use our voices and just be useful, okay? Oh, Gina, thank you. All right, guys.

I did notice in the comments someone said, how do we know Owen is an AI? The image you're seeing is AI, but it is somewhat based on my image, so it's not far off. And Erica can actually verify that because she has met me in person. So there are people that, you know, that know that I'm a real person. But, you know, can you actually know that I'm not AI? I suppose not.

But I know.

You could argue that none of us can know any of that anymore with anybody. So, you know, I guess unless you've met the person in person like Erica and Marcella have and others, And Scott had. And so, yeah, but I am a real person, whether you believe it or not. Honestly, it doesn't really matter too much to me.

No. And I've had breakfast, lunch, and dinner with Owen multiple times. Imagine that. Um, all right, you guys, so go out there and be useful. Get your AI on. And, um, we will see you tomorrow. And a closing sip to our beloved Scott. To Scott.

To Scott.

You guys, I'll stay for an Akira song for those that want to stay, and if you don't, you don't have to. All right, bye guys. Bye. Bye. Oh, uh, Stella is barely gonna make it through a song. Okay, but we're gonna do it. We're gonna do it. You guys, should we do How to Program Reality or The user interface. How to program reality or their user interface. The first one I see is the one I'll do. Bum bum bum. I love Julie Kelly. Andy, you're just saying cha-ching because you're Andy. Come on now. Come on, someone drop a title. All right, Goldie, you got it. We're going to do How to Program Reality because why wouldn't we want to? Okay, where'd it go? Here we go. All right, guys, ready? Here it is. By Akira the Dawn.

Let me show I want to show you my path toward figuring out the user interface. It's important that you know how I got there so that you could have some trust that there's something to it. When I was a kid, I was influenced, as was my mother, by the book The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale. This suggested that you could somehow change your life, or maybe you were changing Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. So this was my first introduction to the concept that maybe reality was not fixed and something that you were a victim of, But rather you could do something. There was some mechanism, some technique, some tools you could use to get some control over your environment and your life, as opposed to having it control you. And that was my first thought, that reality could be programmable in at least some simple sense. But of course, I embarked on a lifetime of exploration to find out if I could find out more about how to program reality. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. How to program reality. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. Led me to learn meditation. I became a Trained hypnotist. Of course, mushrooms let you see the world in a completely different reality. And all of these things, from studying all the different religions to doing affirmations, which is really just visualizing what you want and writing it down every day, visualizing what you want, writing it down every day, and then learning persuasion— these all had the same cumulative effect of teaching me that reality was indeed far more Reality is a lot more subjective than you're led to believe. When I say reality is subjective, I don't mean that there isn't some base reality that's real. What I mean is that we don't have access to it. In other words, just take religion. 2 people with completely different religions can go into a store They can go to the store, they can shop, they can get married, have children. They don't really need to reconcile the fact that they live in different worlds. One thinks there's an afterlife, one thinks there's reincarnation, one thinks there's nothing, and yet we, we all survive and thrive and reproduce. There's nothing to suggest that our brains are the kind of brains that can understand reality. Instead, all of the evidence suggests that we can put filters, optionally and somewhat subjectively, on our reality. And the thing that we deal with is the filter. We're not dealing with the underlying reality, but our filter on it is the thing that's real to us. And you can change those filters. So that's the important part. And you can change them fairly easily. And if you find a filter that predicts better and makes you happier, Well, that's the better filter, even if it isn't a better approximation of reality. What matters is you're happy. What matters is you're getting what you need out of life. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. How to program reality. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. Program reality. You can change those filters. Change those filters. Change those filters. How to program reality. Think positively. Think positively. Think positively. So once you accept that there's a subjective reality, you're starting to get ready to accept the user interface for that reality.

Love it so much. Love it so much, you guys. Please, if you can, Akira the Don. I don't think he has tipping open on his X page, but if you go to meaningwave.com, meaningwave.com, I think there's a way to support him there or buy his music because oh my gosh! I mean, we love listening to his songs at the end of the show every day, and I think he's making some more Scott. Stuff, so check his check his page. Most not most, but a lot of people on X have a little dollar sign like somewhere at the top of their profile. I asked him; I was like, see if you could put your tipping on there so people can tip you. You know, whatever. And I forget what the problem was, but he was going to try to work on that. So I just appreciate him so much, and he will come on again. You guys, if I ask him to come on, he totally will. So that'll be great. Oh, thank you for saying it was an excellent show, you guys. Thank you. Oh. And thank you to everybody who reached out to me, um, after September 10th and September 11th, and you said that those were really good shows. And that means so much because I did feel like a weird sense of responsibility to bring you guys like an appropriate show for those days. Um, and you know, it's like we take it all so seriously, so I'm glad that you found those to be good shows. I appreciate that. Yeah, Apple Music has it at meaningwave.com. Totally, guys. All right, so let's do our goodbyes or our see you laters. We could do our ciao, Bella. Thanks, BD Lion. Awesome sauce. All right, guys, we'll see you tomorrow. The home team will be back tomorrow. And can't wait. All right, bye guys. Have a great day. Oh, that's right. And I was quoted on Benny Johnson's podcast. But yeah, that's that's for a rant. That's for a rant of mine. All right, guys. See you later. Bye, guys.