Episode 2204 Scott Adams: Will Robert Peters Beat John Barron In The Election? Come Find Out
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Curiosity Impulse, Reframe, President Trump, San Francisco, Lines Of Influence, Mike Cernovich, Destructive Empathy Addiction, Oliver Anthony, China Unemployment, Vivek Ramaswamy, Taiwan's Future, RFK Jr., Larry Elder, Robert L. Peters, President Biden, Enrique Tarrio Prosecutors, Washington Post, Maui Fire, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Possibly some alien civilizations, maybe AI and some simulated realities.
But for now, let's just stick to the stuff we know.
And if you'd like to take this up to levels that you've never even imagined would be possible, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
Yeah, that's good.
Oh, yeah.
Well, there's so much news, I barely know where to begin.
It's all amusing and interesting and Well, I don't know.
This could be the best time you've ever had in your life.
It's about to happen now.
Let me start with a video I saw from Joshua Steinman.
He was wondering why, in this video, they showed a dad making a sound to calm his crying baby.
And I'll try to reproduce the sound, but basically the baby's crying next to him and he just looks at the baby and he goes, oh, basically, you know, maybe I didn't get the tone exactly.
And the baby just goes up and just completely stops crying and goes into a whole other mode.
And Joshua asked, what's going on here?
Like, why does that work?
You know, what, what is the magic of the sound?
And as your friendly neighborhood hypnotist, I thought I would take a shot at answering that question, because it's more interesting than you think.
I think that when the father goes, oh, and the baby stops crying, it's as simple as it moves the baby's thinking to another part of the baby's brain.
When it comes to brains and psychology, think of it like real estate.
Location, location, location.
If somebody's using a part of their brain and there's something about that that's not working either for you or for them, you want to get them away from that part of the brain.
You just move them to a different part.
So the baby presumably was in there's something I need mode.
Need some food.
Need some something.
I need something.
But probably wasn't in any kind of great distress.
It's just the babies can't talk.
So when there's any little thing they need, they cry.
So it's not too hard to get somebody distracted from a thing that's, you know, not that big a deal.
And maybe a little bit hungry.
The humming is so unusual for the environment, because the baby's heard talking, they've heard general noise, but they don't know what this is.
They'd probably have the same reaction if, say, an alarm went off.
They'd stop and, oh, what's this new thing?
So probably the only thing that's happening is that the baby replaced, I would say, the need for food, perhaps.
It replaced that with curiosity.
Now here's the lesson.
And by the way, my new book, Reframe Your Brain is along these lines.
It's how to reprogram your own brain fairly quickly.
And that's what's happening with the baby.
The baby's brain is being reprogrammed in real time, simply moving the program from one part of the brain to another.
And curiosity is an insanely underrated human impulse.
We're designed or we're evolved to be curious.
And that curiosity is what keeps us alive, right?
If you hear a mysterious sound behind you, you're going to turn around because it might be danger.
So curiosity is literally baked into your survival.
So if you want somebody to get away from hunger, let's say the baby crying, Then curiosity, uh-oh, there might be something here that I really need to know about right away.
That's the way to do it.
So if you can, if you want to distract somebody, use curiosity.
It's the same if you're in a, let's say you're in a car with your kids.
This is a trick I used on stepkids.
And the kids are a certain age and they're in the back and they're just arguing.
And they get in that mode where they can't get out of it.
They're just fighting verbally.
This works almost every time.
Look, a deer!
Even though everybody's seen the deer, it evokes that there's something different, curiosity thing, and kids will stop immediately.
Where?
And it's not even that interesting.
It just goes to their curiosity part of the brain, and then they're done.
So that is the same kind of effect that, at least in one way, it's the same kind of effect as a reframe.
A reframe takes you from where your thoughts are physically in the real state in your brain.
It just moves it to another part.
Sometimes that's all you need.
You just got to move away from where you are and move to another part.
So reframes do that instantly.
And that's one of the reasons they work.
It's not the only reason, but it's a key part.
We'll talk about that more.
My book Reframe Your Brain just launched yesterday, but only on Kindle, only on Kindle.
We hope today, maybe tomorrow, we should get approval from Amazon to start selling the hard copy.
So the hard copy, maybe in a day.
We'll see.
I'll let you know as soon as I know.
All right.
Trump said he's not going to have that election fraud event he was going to have where he's going to talk about all the election fraud he's seen, I guess.
So instead, they're going to wrap that into some kind of legal filing.
Does it sound like he had the goods?
Not really.
I think if he had the goods, he would go along with it.
So I remind you that 95% of all election claims are false.
Don't know if there are any real ones.
I don't know.
Oh, damn it.
I just got demonetized.
Shit.
I don't know that for sure, but those are the key words that got me demonetized the last several times.
You can't say anything about it.
So I think when I talk about it again later I'll use code words.
I think you'll know what I'm talking about, but when we get to that point I'm just going to use code words.
All right.
Apparently there's a technology that can make plastic, or it can replace plastic, using plant and woods.
You know, plant-based stuff and wood.
Now apparently this is already in use.
It's just more expensive than the old-fashioned way to make plastic.
So the big, you know, the big change would be if they could make it more efficient, and I guess they're working towards that.
And it's starting to grow, this plant-based and wood-based Now if this becomes a big thing, let's say all of our plastic started to get replaced with plant-based and tree-based plastic, logically you would want to increase your supply of plants and trees.
So if this were me, I would be looking to add something out of some kind of a fertilizer-like I can't think of anything.
If you think of anything, let me know.
Is there any way to do that?
CO2.
CO2.
Is there any way to add something to, let's say the atmosphere, so it gets everywhere, that would promote the growth of these plants, 'cause we're gonna need a lot of 'em to turn 'em into plastic?
I can't think of anything.
If you think of anything, let me know.
CO2, CO2.
Well, now you're thinking.
This brainstorming session is going well so far.
CO2.
I'll take that under consideration.
Well, New Zealand, I think this was in a Peter Zayen tweet, has figured out how to lower the cost of housing.
Do you want to know what amazing, amazing idea they had to do it?
They reduced their building zoning restrictions.
That's all it took.
That's it.
I think the biggest change was they allowed multi-unit homes on what had been single-family homes.
So imagine if you were a single-family home owner and you wanted to turn it into, let's say, a triplex so three families could live there.
You had plenty of room.
You just couldn't do it.
It was just illegal.
So New Zealand just said, well how about we make that legal?
And guess what happened?
Free market, bunch of people bought, you know, bunch of people and companies built multi-unit homes.
They were all built to code.
You know, it wasn't like they were unsafe.
It's just they weren't allowed before.
So now they have plenty of homes and so the cost of housing went down.
I wonder if something like that could work in the United States.
Well, the problem with the United States is that we've got all these states, all 50 of them, and they all have their own regulations.
So unless we had some kind of a federal regulation that could override local ones, that would be a problem in our system.
But yeah, the ATU market, the little homes that you can ship in on a truck and just plop in your backyard.
I don't know if you follow the news on that, but they're exploding.
If you're on Instagram and you've ever clicked on one of those ads, you get all these other companies that are popping up building these, usually like a 400 square foot home that they just deliver and Plop down on your land.
So all that stuff is possible.
I think housing can be fixed.
We just have to tweak the zoning.
I saw an interesting back and forth on the livability of San Francisco.
Paul Graham, who spent a lot of time in San Francisco, he said San Francisco, he wouldn't recommend it for raising children.
But he thought that a young person who was careful, you know, might be okay.
Is that the worst recommendation you've ever heard for a city?
What do you think of San Francisco, the jewel of California?
Well, I wouldn't bring children there.
And unless you're under 25 and you can run pretty fast, it's kind of a bad bet.
So there's your San Francisco.
You know what's interesting also is that San Francisco is now teaming with self-driving taxis.
I think that happened kind of overnight it seems.
Is there anybody from San Francisco watching?
Can you confirm that there are self-driving taxis that are in operation and that they're somewhat almost ubiquitous?
Is that really happening?
Because I haven't seen videos or first-person reports, but I've seen news reports about it.
Yeah?
Okay.
So we have one confirmation from Iceland?
Good enough.
So that's interesting.
Now what's interesting about that is, years ago I wrote a book that you can't buy because I'm banned from most of my other books.
It's called The Religion War.
It was the sequel to my book, God's Debris.
And in The Religion War, it was set in a time in the future, because I wrote this 20 years ago, it was set in a time in the future where small drones were attacking cities.
That's happening now in Moscow, right?
Small drones attacking cities.
And that the main mode of transportation was self-driving taxis that you could call with your app.
This was 20 years ago.
And the other part was that if you use your massive databases of computing that knows what everybody's doing in the world, sort of like we have now, That you could identify what I called in the fictional story, the Prime Influencer.
The Prime Influencer.
The idea was that, you know how ideas just sort of catch on?
There'll be something that is in the back of your mind for a while, or maybe you never heard of, and then all of a sudden, everybody's into it.
And it seems like maybe it'd been around forever, but why does everybody care about it right now?
And the fictional idea was you could trace back the lines of influence, if you could find out who did what in social media, who knows who, who has influence over who, that you could find the lines of influence and that you could identify the one person.
Now, in the fiction model, there was one person.
In the real world, it would be multiple people who had influence over their domains.
And I wondered, Could you identify somebody in today's world that had such an influence over politics, let's say, in the last eight to ten years that... No, it's not me.
It's not me.
Can you think of one individual who changed the actual canvas?
I mean, things look really different.
Mike Cernovich.
And the fun part about it is, there's a lot of people in the world who have never even heard his name.
Now, I'm not even going to press the argument.
Because if you know, you know.
And if you want to know, you can figure it out.
You can talk to people.
You can do a lot of research.
Someday, somebody might write the book.
Like, if you saw it in a book, you know, what things he influenced and how that spread out.
Now, I count myself As one of the people who you're listening to primarily because of him.
In my earliest forays of talking about politics, he boosted me.
But if you didn't notice, he's boosted a number of other people.
So he got there on his own with Guerrilla Mindset, his book, and being one of the best tweeters of all time.
And having the full set of communication and persuasion tools, which is unusual to have a full set.
And he did more than just make his own brand well known, but he seeded a lot of other people, including me, so that when our influence grew, it was sort of a shadow of things that were at least compatible with a lot of things that he would influence.
I think someday we'll actually be able to measure this, and you'll be able to find out who is the most influential, and there's no way to track that now.
You would actually have to really be immersed in this sort of social media political world.
Even know who is influential.
Because there are a lot of people you see on TV, who are the talking heads with the nice suits, who just say what everybody else says.
They don't have any persuasive power whatsoever.
Nobody's trying to copy them.
Nobody's looking at Jake Tapper and saying, I like that suit.
I mean, he wears really nice suits.
Nobody's looking at him saying, I'd like to be that haircut.
Whatever he's doing, I'd like to do more of that.
Like that's just not something that the normal media inspires.
So you have to look to other people for that.
Alright, here's my opinion on the cities.
Speaking of cities.
I think that cities are not just places where there are too many addicts.
They're also that.
But I think the cities are addicts themselves.
And they're addicted to destructive empathy.
The empathy that feels good, like, oh, I told you that I'm a sanctuary city.
I told you that my police don't arrest people.
I told you that we're not bad to the street people.
So there's some kind of, I think it's probably dopamine.
There must be some dopamine hit that you get from acting superior, morally superior, having more empathy than other people.
But that's largely, you could call it liberals.
But that feels insulting to me.
I'm not going to say the cities are being destroyed by liberals, because I'm pretty sure there are plenty of liberals who don't like anything that's happening in the cities.
So it's not liberals per se, there's some kind of addiction.
It feels like, and when you see that reason has been dispensed with, what does that tell you?
Because these are not all stupid people.
There's an addiction.
And I would think that, you know, without getting into who's a progressive, who's a liberal, without even getting into the politics.
I think the politics probably follows the emotion, not the other way.
And I think that there's an addiction to being nice, or empathetic, that they can't shake.
Because the way you would fix any of this stuff is being meaner to people.
Am I right?
The solution to the cities is to treat the people who are in the worst situation already, to treat them in a mean or severe way.
Because that's the only thing that changes behavior, basically.
So, here's my prediction.
Cities, like addicts, have to hit bottom.
Cities have to bottom.
They can't come back until they bottom.
Because there won't be the will to do anything.
As long as it's sort of working and you're sort of still, you know, the traffic lights are sort of working and, you know, it's still sometimes the police show up, maybe late, but sometimes they do.
You know, if as long as it's still sort of working, nobody's going to change anything because they're addicts.
They're addicted to the feeling of being kind to people.
But at some point they will hit bottom and there'll be, you know, some city will just become unlivable completely.
And then things will change.
But not until then.
So wait for the cities to bottom, and I don't think we're quite that close to it.
Might be within three years.
Total destruction of city living.
And that will be not the bad news, that will be the good news.
If you're not aware of this, when an alcoholic hits bottom, and they survive, which is dicey, that's the only way they can ever get better.
It's hitting bottom.
So it's not bad news.
It's necessary news.
All right.
Brazil is testing some kind of a cocaine vaccination.
You get the vaccination and the cocaine doesn't feel so good.
I don't have great hopes for that.
But it does suggest that if Big Pharma got involved, anything could happen.
Meaning that they could make it mandatory, I suppose, if they had enough power over the government.
So I'm not in favor of vaccinations for cocaine users.
I think they would just switch to other drugs.
You just have to keep upgrading the vaccination.
Then you'll have a fentanyl vaccination, which I think they're working on, actually.
Then you'll need a heroin vaccination, and then you're going to need a marijuana vaccination.
And then, of course, an alcohol vaccination.
Do you think the vaccination industry is going to stop with the one drug?
If they get that through, everybody's going to be spinning up new vaccinations for everything.
You don't think there's going to be a vaccination for sugar?
Of course, oh, you said it before me.
Damn it!
Damn it, the comments beat me.
Yeah, there'll be a vaccination for sugar.
For cigarettes?
Tobacco?
Yeah, of course.
Of course.
I'm not sure I feel good about that, but it's something that's out there.
There was a very important science thing that happened, and let me read you the science thing.
Alright?
It's from the University of Kansas, Department of Physics.
And they did a study that, now listen to this carefully, because I don't want you to be confused by this.
It's very simple.
The study rigorously proved that the thermal fluctuations of freestanding graphene, when connected to a circuit with diodes, have nonlinear resistance.
Obviously, linear resistance would be stupid.
But if the diodes have nonlinear resistance, and the storage capacitors, it produces useful work by charging the storage capacitors.
So, you got that working for you.
I don't know what any of this means, but it seems to mean, it almost sounds like it could produce energy out of nothing.
When I say nothing, it's not actually nothing, but energy out of just sitting there.
Am I right?
Is that what it's saying?
That if this works, you can create energy just by sitting around.
The windy sun, or cold, or warm, or steam, or photons.
Is it photons?
All right.
Snoopy Boob says, LOL, Scott.
Very basic electronics.
Read a book.
Solid advice.
Read a book.
Thank you.
Book.
All right.
So there's that.
Have any of you seen the, you all know the story of the musical sensation, is it Anthony Oliver?
He's got the big red beard and red hair and he plays his banjo thing.
And his song, I forget the name of the song, but it's the one with your bullshit wages, etc.
What's the name of the song?
The Rich Man North of Richmond.
Which is also, by the way, an amazing title for a song.
The Rich Men North of Richmond.
Try not remembering that.
Yeah, I forgot it for a moment, but it came right back.
The Rich Men North of Richmond.
Man, that's good.
That's good.
I don't think he gets enough credit for his writing.
This Anthony Oliver, because the singing, the performance is amazing, he's very talented, but the writing, the writing, ooh, the writing's kind of special.
It'll be interesting to see if this is something he can generalize to his other art.
I hope so, it's pretty amazing.
But anyway, if you want to feel good about America, and I know you need this, And maybe anyplace else as well.
Watch the videos.
You can Google it.
Just look for reaction videos.
of Anthony Oliver, reaction videos.
Now a reaction video is where a YouTuber usually plays a video, often music, and then you just see a little inset of the person reacting to it.
Now usually the common ones would be a young black kid, a YouTuber, listening to Led Zeppelin for the first time, and then being amazed because they hadn't been exposed.
So anyway, here's what's special about this.
Somebody put together a compilation of all the different reaction videos and overlaid it on the one performance.
So you could see all of the reactions, not just one person.
And what was special about it is that they did a really good job of making sure you had a mix of people.
So you had maybe half of them were African American.
You had some Asian people watching, you had Asian Americans, you had some standard white people watching.
And here's the thing that touches you.
They all had the same reaction.
They were all brought to tears.
And when you watch the white, the Asian American, probably there was a Hispanic American in there somewhere, and the black Americans, who you would imagine would be on a different side of literally everything, You know, if you watch the news, you assume that.
You watch them agreeing to tears.
Agreeing to the point of tears.
About the message in the song.
Not that the song was just beautiful, because it is, but the message.
They agreed to tears.
That's the country you live in.
If you get the government out of the way.
You get the media out of the way.
That was an unfiltered experience.
Nobody in the news told you how to feel about that.
I mean, the news kind of promoted it as a thing that exists.
But they didn't tell you how to feel about it.
Nobody told you how to feel about it.
You just felt it.
And you can see in this that maybe, maybe, this will be the moment when people realize That the most important reframe in American history is available, but not yet taken.
It's available because we all know it.
You know what I'm talking about.
It has never been black against white.
Or at least not in modern times.
No.
It's always been rich against poor.
That's what the song gets to.
It gets to that.
And everybody recognizes it upon exposure.
That's it.
If you just say it, you know, again, if you're just a person on TV with a suit, and you say, let me tell you, Jake Tapper, the real story here is that we should be talking about the rich versus the poor.
No impact.
No impact.
It's just a talking person saying some words.
Then you watch Anthony Oliver choose words that are just better chosen, more emotional, more persuasive than anything I've ever seen on the same topic.
And he just cut through everything.
He just cut through all the noise.
It was sort of a perfect moment.
So if you're feeling bad about your country, And you've got reasons.
You've got reasons.
There is this one crack in the narrative that one bearded guy with, what is that?
Some kind of electric banjo or something?
One bearded guy with a banjo just sliced through the narrative like it wasn't even there.
That's inspiring.
That's inspiring.
All right.
China's got a youth unemployment of 21%.
Yikes.
So China's got problems.
Here are some things that are problems for China.
So Biden administration is ramping up the technology controls, or what would you call it, the things that are banned so that China can't get them.
And apparently, at the moment, China seems like they're solid, but apparently all signals are that the wheels are coming off.
The unemployment is high, they've got a population bomb, they've printed a lot of money, I didn't know that, but they've printed more money than the U.S.
has, percentage-wise, and they don't have access to mid or high-end semiconductors, and there's no plan when that could happen.
What would happen to China if they're actually cut off from semiconductors beyond the lowest level of them?
Actually, their civilization would grind to a halt.
And that's actually what it looks like right now.
Now, if we put restrictions on China getting semiconductors, what does that do to the risk of war with Taiwan?
Does it make it more or less?
I feel like they almost have to capture Taiwan to get semiconductors.
Am I wrong?
So, you know, there are lots of other forces.
So I don't, I don't think.
Oh, let me tell you something that the news didn't report on.
So this will be, I think this will be the first time you've heard this.
Eliminated the possibility of China going to war over Taiwan.
Now, when I say eliminated, I don't mean forever.
Not forever.
Forever is still alive, right?
But let me tell you how.
Vivek gave an interview.
In which he said that since we rely on the semiconductors, there is no way that China is going to get Taiwan, as long as we rely on their semiconductors.
But we're working hard to make this stuff domestically, and Vivek says directly, once we can make this stuff domestically, Taiwan becomes a civil war and not our problem.
Do you see it yet?
You see it?
He stopped any chance of war with Taiwan.
Because what he said was, if you're patient, you can have it.
No, he didn't say that.
This is me putting my own words on it.
But the way China's going to hear it is, wait, wait, wait, did I hear that right?
A major candidate for president who may in fact become president because we're over in China and we see that the only guy who could stop him seems to be indicted four times.
He's running against a cadaver and DeSantis is falling.
Oh shit, we better listen to what he says.
Because you know they're listening to the major candidates, right?
So imagine you're China.
You have a strategic goal that you don't care if it takes 100 years or 1,000 years.
You're fucking getting Taiwan back.
And you know what?
That's what I'd do if I were them.
If I were China, I'd be saying, we are getting Taiwan back.
There's no way that the US is going to have this major ally sitting in our harbor forever.
We get there, we can't do it right away, but we're getting it back.
If you tell China, who has, you know, the thousand-year plan, that maybe if you wait, you know, eight years, or something like that, that it'll be much easier for you to do it.
In fact, you won't even get much resistance from us.
Now, if you were them, would you go soon?
If you can just wait?
You wouldn't.
No.
China is a rational actor with a really long timeline and patience.
Vivek told somebody with good strategic thinking and a long timeline that if you do it in the next eight years, you're fucking crazy.
That's crazy.
Because we're going to stop you.
And it's trouble.
And if you think it's not nuclear, better think again.
Because those microchips are a basis for our civilization.
We're not going to not have them.
Period.
No war.
The odds of war with Taiwan dropped to zero as soon as you said that.
Am I wrong?
And am I the first person who told you this?
Now, let me say again, That we're seeing candidates accomplish things in the real world like I've never seen before.
He said exactly the right thing to stop a war.
I mean, a lot of you thought, oh, it's pretty inevitable.
It's going to happen next year.
There's no way it's going to happen next year.
There's no way China's going to go when somebody at that level gave a real good argument why waiting eight years is really smart.
Really smart.
Now that's a real-world effect while he's a candidate.
Who else is doing that?
RFK Jr.
In my opinion, RFK Jr.
is, you know, surfacing things about vaccinations and our food and chronic illnesses and the border, the border.
I mean, RFK Jr.
has done more for our understanding and therefore, I think, an ultimate solution to the border than Trump.
Then Trump.
RFK Jr.
has done more to close the border, we're not there, but he's done more to set the stage than Trump.
Trump did a lot of talking.
RFK went down there and he dug in and created a movie about it and now he's telling you exactly what the problem is.
That's way more productive, right?
So just hold this in mind.
The amazingness that's happening right now.
The candidates are so fucking strong that they're changing the world as candidates.
As candidates!
Have you ever seen this?
Now, let's talk about another one.
Larry Elder was on The Breakfast Club.
Yesterday or the day before.
So the clips are going around.
What is Larry Elder running for president for?
Is it because he thinks he has a pretty good chance of winning?
Well, maybe they all think that, under the right circumstances.
But Larry Elder has this message that he's had for a long time.
That the problem with black America is families.
Maybe with America in general, is families.
But a little more acute in the black community.
And he's basically hammering that message.
So he took that to the Breakfast Club and made his point.
Is Larry Elder producing benefits as a candidate?
Or does he have to wait until he's president, which is a long shot?
No, he's producing... The fact that he went on The Breakfast Club, where they had a different view of, you know, what's going on, was so productive.
I tweeted it, and you should absolutely watch it.
Like, if you want to kind of understand the landscape of the two different opinions, great place to see it.
Because The Breakfast Club... Now, give me a fact check on this.
But one of the things that impresses me about them is that they do seem intellectually very flexible and very well informed.
Am I wrong?
That they're intellectually flexible and very well informed.
So they're really quite a national asset at this point.
Now, don't confuse that with agreeing with them.
You're not supposed to agree with them.
It doesn't work that way.
But do they show intellectual flexibility?
Do they bring in important topics?
And do they, you know, bring you maybe to another better understanding because you've seen some?
Yeah, I think they do.
It's long form and they let people, you know, talk it out.
It's very good.
So there you go.
RFK Jr., Vivek and Larry Elder, killing it as candidates.
It's very impressive.
Alright, you want me to talk about the fact that Biden apparently had a secret name, Robert L. Peters, and there are a bunch of references to it on the laptop, and of course, you might remember, if you saw the video of Tucker talking about it, that his family called somebody Petto Pete.
So some people are saying that Robert Peters and Penelope might be the same thing and it has something to do with Biden.
I'm not comfortable with any of those accusations.
I'm just telling you they're rolling around.
All right.
And I guess Representative Comer has asked for all the unredacted documents that have that fake name in it, Robert Peters.
Now, Don't you think this is going to get you one step closer?
One step closer to unraveling the Biden crime family situation?
Now, you know what this means, though?
There's a very good chance that our next election will be a contest between Robert Peters and John Barron.
So Robert Peters might be running against John Barron for president.
Because you remember Trump was allegedly John Barron.
He would call people and say it was somebody else.
So let me ask you this.
There are quite a few candidates who are running for president.
If you were to look at all the other candidates, And by that, I mean the ones that the experts think will not be in the final race, because the experts are still saying it's Biden versus Trump, right?
Based on the polls.
How many of all the other candidates also have a second name that they use?
I'm thinking it's zero.
Do you think Chris Christie is actually, you know, George McGee?
Maybe, I don't know.
Maybe they all, or the other way, maybe they all have secret names.
Do any of you have a secret name?
All right.
Well, speaking of secret names, I have a hypothesis that a candidate's name has more to do with their success than is obvious.
Now, and the hypothesis goes like this.
The more fun it is to say their name, or the more interesting the name, the more advantage they have.
Now, it's not predictive like they'll definitely win, because they have a good name.
But Barack Obama was hard not to say.
It's almost like playing the drums.
Barack Obama, Barack.
I mean, it's almost got a percussion to it.
It's just like a great thing to say.
How about AOC?
The fact that she needed the three letters because her name was sort of long and interesting.
Trump himself.
Trump himself.
Trump is a fun name to say.
Here's another name that's fun to say.
Vivek Ramaswamy.
But it's got one problem.
That it's hard for your standard American to remember the name and then pronounce it correctly.
Vivek.
But it's fun to say once you get it, once you're one of the smart people who knows how to pronounce it, you can act like you're smart in front of your friends.
Well, have you heard of Vivek Ramaswamy?
If you can pronounce it right, you sound like you're the smart one in the room.
Because the other people are going to be, what's that, Vivek Ramaswamy?
You know, they're all going to be doing that, and you're like, I think you mean Vivek Ramaswamy.
So quaint.
So you want to be that person.
But I only noticed today that Vivek Ramaswamy has interesting initials.
VR.
Come on.
Come on.
You tell me that if he, let's say he gets to, you know, a higher level, you know, he's knocking on the door right now, but let's say he gets really into the main conversation, which I think he's going to do, by the way.
People are going to call him VR.
You tell me that's not fun to say?
VR?
Oh, it is.
Oh, it is.
It's V for victory.
Yeah.
And I don't know.
This names that are fun to say thing is pretty powerful.
Alright, I would also say, have you noticed that Vivek has been on Tucker's show, Jordan Peterson's show, and where else was he?
He was on, well, everywhere basically.
John Stossel.
And all of them seem to have a positive opinion of him.
And then Elon Musk tweeted once or twice yesterday that Vivek is an interesting candidate with potential.
So, just hold this in your mind.
People who are impressed with him and believe he has the, at least has the capabilities of being an impressive president.
Tucker, Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, John Stossel, and me.
Because I endorse the vape for president.
Now, are you noticing a pattern?
You see any pattern?
Did you notice that Cernovich has sort of moved away from DeSantis?
Do you see what's happening?
Yeah.
It's Internet Dad time.
Internet Dad time.
The Internet Dads are tapping you on the shoulder.
And it's very subtle so far.
It's just that you're going to start noticing that it's the smart people.
I hate to say it, but that's just true.
It's the smart people.
The smart people are noticing.
Watch for the people that I call the Internet Dads.
And again, they're not women.
They're not all men.
They could be women, they could be LGBTQ, whatever.
It's just the dad vibe, you know, the person who's just trying to help, not trying to be overly political, just trying to help, and knows how.
That's the dad vibe.
Just trying to help, and also knows how.
So they do it.
Yeah, I don't know.
I'll keep an eye on that.
That's a whole lot of talking about and interest and chattering from exactly the right people.
And I want to put this in your mind.
Put this image in your mind.
Imagine a world, and at the moment it's unlikely based on current polling, but imagine a world in which Vivek ends up in the final contest and he's debating on stage either one, Biden Or Kamala Harris?
Just put it in your head.
Make sure you've watched at least one Vivek long-form interview so that you can see what kind of skill he brings, which we've never seen by the way.
You know, as good as Trump is, Trump's sort of a bully debater.
But nobody does bully debating, you know, energy debating better than he does.
He's just the best at the energy, you know, control, alpha, dominant kind of thing.
But Vivek, we've never seen.
We've never seen this.
He has a control of the topics and a facility with words.
We've never seen this.
And it would be interesting to see how far this could go.
But I think you're going to see it.
He's rising.
I think that if you saw an interview or if you saw a debate, if you imagine it happened, between Vivek and Joe Biden, here's my prediction.
MSNBC would have to fake a power outage.
That's a real prediction.
In the unlikely event that Vivek and Joe Biden end up in a one-on-one debate, I predict that MSNBC will have a technical problem that they just go off the air.
Or there will be no debate.
That's a possibility too.
But there's no way they're going to put Biden up there with Vivek.
They can put Biden up there with Trump.
Trump would destroy him.
But they might think they have a shot with that.
You know, maybe.
It would be wrong, but they might think so.
They don't have any shot with Vivek.
They have none.
That would be a slaughter.
So I heard some people say that Trump and Vivek might not get along because, you know, they're both strong-willed people.
Here's my take.
Which I feel very confident about, but of course I couldn't know for sure.
But I'm very confident about this.
This is my read on Trump.
He doesn't suffer fools, but if you're smarter than he is, he's all about it.
And as smart as Trump is, in his way, I mean there's nobody like him, Vivek is smarter than him, and he knows it.
Trump would know.
I know it.
Do you know how hard it is for me to say somebody's smarter than me?
Come on.
That's pretty hard for me to say.
But in this case, it's kind of easy, because he's actually just smarter than me.
He's smarter than you, too.
So get over it.
But Trump does not have an ego problem, per se, about people who have so much skill That if he were to work with them, the two of them would be stronger than either of them together.
So, I think you're very misinterpreting Trump's personality if you think he would run away from, or have a problem with, a person at the highest capability.
He has a problem with the General Milley types.
You know General Milley?
When I watch General Milley on TV, I think to myself, is it just me, or does he seem not smart?
He just seemed not smart.
I mean, I hate to say it.
He was smart enough to become a general, so that's pretty good.
But not really Trump-smart, right?
He wasn't Trump-smart.
He wasn't even Pence-smart.
And he's definitely not Vivek-smart.
You can tell.
So I think that Trump and somebody with that level of capability, especially someone who's been supportive of Trump in a general sense and a legal sense, yeah, I think it's closer to they would get along amazingly.
But if you say, would there be rumors of them having big fights over topics?
Of course.
If they work together in any way in the future, they would have big fights over topics, and then they would get over it, and then they'd just get on with life.
Yeah, of course.
Newt Gingrich says he heard, so this is hearsay, which he calls it hearsay, meaning that he heard it from somebody who heard it from somebody, basically, that that funny Willis prosecutor got a call to say that Trump had to be indicted on Monday to cover up the bad news story about Weiss's screw-up.
Now, do you think that happened?
Do you think somebody in the Democrat power structure said, no, you've got to go on this today, and she pushed back because she wasn't ready?
And they said, no, ask me today because of the news coverage?
I'm going to give that a probably.
Probably.
Only because it sounds so normal.
Right?
It doesn't sound extraordinary enough where I'd say, that's too on the nose, because it looks to me sort of like normal business.
And I don't even think that this is illegal.
Is it?
Would it be illegal to say, you know, you could get two benefits if you do it today.
If you wait, you'll only get one benefit, but you were going to do it anyway.
Is that illegal?
I mean, doesn't the defendant have a right to a speedy trial?
So if the pressure was to make it more speedy, it's going to be hard to say that was illegal.
It would be coordinated.
Now, the Proud Boys leader, Enrique Tarrio, who was not even at the January 6th thing, they're trying to put him in jail for 33 years.
So that's what they're shooting for.
33 years in prison.
Do you see that to be something about Enrique Terrio or the Proud Boys?
Is that what that story is about?
No, it's not.
It's about you.
It's about scaring you and making sure that Trump looks as bad as possible.
To me, it looks like this person is going to be sacrificed.
Sacrificed in the sense If they can give this one guy, who would be notable in the story, because everybody's heard of the Proud Boys, so the leader of the Proud Boys is a big part of the story.
If they can give this guy 33 years, or even working toward giving him 33 years, it's gonna make whatever Trump is accused of look more serious, right?
To me, that's probably the only reason it's happening.
I mean, I could imagine they wouldn't even charge him.
You know, if Trump were not part of the story.
So I don't know the details.
It could be that there's something more to it.
But if he wasn't there, and all he was trying to do is delay the count so they could make sure that they'd audited it, 33 years for that?
That's a lot like 33 years for free speech.
I mean, it's close to it.
So I'm not comfortable with it.
Don't like it.
All right.
Yeah.
You know, there was a time, not too long ago, let's say 10 years ago, if I saw a story about a guy who was maybe going to get 33 years in prison, and it was a big, you know, public story, and they've been investigating it for a long time, I would assume that the prosecutors have the goods.
That in all likelihood, you know, innocence will prove a guilty.
But 10 years ago, I would have said, well, almost certainly guilty.
I mean, really, they've looked into it already.
But in 2023, I don't think that at all.
In 2023, I think it's unlikely they have the goods.
I think it's just political.
What do you think?
Does it look like justice or just politics to you?
To me, it looks like dirty politics and nothing else.
Now, that doesn't mean I'm right.
I'm talking about assumptions.
My assumption 10 years ago?
Probably guilty, if they're making a big deal about it.
It's their job to find out who's guilty.
Why wouldn't it be?
2023?
Probably not.
Probably not true.
So, that's just the assumptions.
All right.
In my effort to not be demonetized, I'm going to talk about a topic using code.
Are you ready?
You'll have to pay attention a little extra.
All right, so I'm going to talk about an event that happened one year after 2019, and one month before February 6.
You remember that, right?
And it was after an election between these two fellows, Robert Peters and John Barron.
So they had an election back in 2019 plus one.
And then some protests happened one month before February 6.
And there's some news about this.
There's a media group whose initials are really the same initials as Oh My God.
Oh My God.
Yeah.
There's a media group that does undercover videos.
Same initials as Oh My God.
And they've got this undercover video that suggests That there was some kind of impropriety with 7,000 pieces of paper.
These 7,000 pieces of paper, they had an official use.
They were used for something regarding that event between Robert Peters and John Barron.
There were pieces of paper that would be put into machines.
You don't need to know why.
They're just pieces of paper going into machines.
But there was a report that there's this one person who can't be found now.
Oh, surprise!
Can't be found now.
Who allegedly admitted to putting 7,000 of these pieces of papers into a box on the street that had something to do with an event between Robert Peters and John Barron.
And according to this group that has a name that has the same initials as, oh my god, this is all pretty well documented.
And The problem here is this feels too much like UFOs.
Have you noticed that the UFOs always have the unclear photographs and the person who talked to the person?
And you can never get beyond that barrier of blurry photographs and people who talk to other people.
And with this one, we don't have the person who was alleged to do it.
And I have not heard from the police officer.
I'm hearing from people who talk to people.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
So if you said to me, Scott, is the quality of this evidence sufficient to convince you that there was serious impropriety in the year 2019 plus one between that competition between Robert Peters and John Barron?
And I would have said to you, honestly, I haven't seen it.
2,000 mules was debunked in the sense that there was no video support and you imagine there would have been.
Not debunked in terms of falsified, but debunked in terms of the obvious thing you would look for to confirm it wasn't there.
Video somewhere.
At least one video or one witness or one confession or something like that.
So we didn't have that.
So I'm of two minds, and it goes like this.
Number one mind, I need some evidence.
Now, I know there's evidence, but you need a court or some follow-up to find out that the evidence means something.
Not just evidence.
Evidence is kind of meaningless, until you've confirmed it.
So on one hand, the rational part of me says, you know, I don't see the evidence, and people have been looking pretty hard.
I've seen claims, but they're all kind of UFO quality claims.
So under normal circumstances, if that were the only decision I were making, I'd say, you know, I'm going to bet against finding any problems there.
Finding.
That's a different discussion than there are or are not problems, just finding.
But, have you noticed, or have I mentioned, or have you been here when I mentioned, and Tucker Carlson has said it a lot as well, that the Democrats always blame you for what they do.
And every time it happened, I would say, just a coincidence.
You're just shaping the evidence to fit your narrative.
It's like, okay, confirmation bias.
They're not just literally blaming you of what they're doing.
That would be stupid.
And then you see one evidence after another.
Now, even if you don't believe that they're intentionally blaming you for what they're doing, how do you ignore the pattern?
I mean, the pattern is very well established.
They do seem to be blaming the Republicans of the things they are later confirmed to have done themselves.
Now, fast forward to the present.
A guy named John Barron, is being indicted on RICO charges, meaning that he didn't just try to do something, they say, but rather it was part of an enterprise of people conspiring to do something.
So they always accuse you of what they're doing, and they just accused this poor John Barron fellow, whoever he is, of a RICO kind of situation.
I'm going to have to go with the obvious.
The obvious future is that there's a RICO problem here on the Democrat side and that they conspire to make the events of 2019 plus one come out the way they want it.
So I don't see the evidence but I think it's largely guaranteed.
So am I allowed to say in public I have zero evidence But given the larger situation, and that includes the fact that in all of human history, there's never been a complicated, high-stakes system that is not fully transparent, and there are lots of people involved who have high interest in distorting the results, that has never existed in human civilization without becoming corrupt over time.
Never.
There's not any example of it ever.
The church, Yeah, you can try pretty hard to give me a counter example.
How about the finance world?
All totally straight, right?
No, no.
Whenever you've got something complicated, high value, and lots of people, it's always corrupt.
How about the crypto world?
All good, right?
No.
It's just full of scams.
But we have been told by some entity that you can imagine is coordinated in a Rico kind of a way, we're told that all 50 states were the only exceptions to the thing that is an unbroken trend in human civilization.
That wherever there can be fraud, there is.
Wherever there can be.
And this is the very situation where most can be.
Now when you say to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, they audit this.
Really?
Show me the audit where they found out the woman, allegedly, who threw away... I'm just making this up, this is not an actual claim.
Show me how you audited the person who collected a bunch of ballots from someplace they thought would go one way, and then just threw them away instead of delivering them to the Dropbox.
Which part of the audit picked that up?
Which part of the audit picked up, allegedly, Anybody who coordinated a lot of people and brought their ballots to one place and maybe they shouldn't have been voting.
How did they audit that?
You can't audit that.
That's not even subject to audit.
If you had direct evidence of it, you know, somebody caught it on tape or there was a confession, well then you could make something of it.
But you can't audit the thing you didn't see.
Everything that happens before the thing gets in the ballot box, All of that's invisible.
And apparently that's where the most likely place that fraud would happen.
Well, there are two places.
One would be if some kind of hacker situation got involved, and I see no evidence of that.
But it would be the thing that would be, at least in theory, hard to find.
Do we audit the code of the machines?
I don't think so.
That's not a thing.
Because it's proprietary, you can't audit their code.
So if you can't look at the code, and you can't look at anything that happens before the actual whatever is stuck in the whatever box, how do you know anything happened?
All right, so I'm gonna go with the fact that they charged Trump Who?
John Barron.
They charged John Barron with RICO is, in my opinion, a guarantee that they are part of a conspiracy that would be subject to RICO if we had the evidence.
What do you say?
You don't think the media, the intelligence organizations, and the Democrats colluded toward a common illegal goal?
Of course they did.
It seems kind of obvious but you know again I'm only talking about 2019 plus one so can't be demonetized about that.
We'll see.
So there's a Washington Post story that says blah blah Ukraine's having trouble with their counteroffensive.
When you read the Washington Post, the least credible entity in news, And you know they're reporting about something that they couldn't possibly know anything about.
Which is, how are things going on the ground in Ukraine?
Do you think they have any sources that are telling them useful information?
So this story is not about Ukraine, even though they have a story, Washington Post has a story about it.
The story is, I laugh when people ask me how bad I feel about being cancelled in newspapers.
I actually took money from the Washington Post when they were running my comic.
I always felt dirty about that, honestly.
I felt filthy that I was taking money from the most corrupt industry and the most corrupt entity within the most corrupt industry, the news.
I hated that.
The fact that I don't have to say I work for the Washington Post, you know, indirectly through a comic strip, is really freeing.
I like how that feels.
I like their money.
Their money was good.
But, you know, I'll probably still eat.
Well, anyway, I don't know what's happening in Ukraine, but neither do they.
That's the story on Ukraine.
Did I know Gary Larson?
No, not personally.
We obviously we know all the same people in common.
I feel like I forgot a story here.
What the heck was it?
Probably not.
No, looks like I had it all.
Bam, I'm good.
All right.
So Trump has caused his election claims event.
So maybe that tells you he's not so confident.
All right, Maui.
I don't know what to say about it.
I'll tell you what I think to look out for for fake news.
There's a story about the water conservation guy or the water manager of Maui and somehow he didn't allow the water that was sacred to be used for the fire.
I don't believe that story.
Do you?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that during the fire, the authority said, we need your water, and that he didn't release it?
Some of you believe and some don't.
I would wait for a confirmation of that one, because that has too much of the on the nose to it.
Just as the left wants to say it was climate change, all right, that's a little too on the nose.
All right, that's a little convenient, isn't it?
The fact that it could be the climate change guy Really?
Really?
The one who's most associated with loving the land, I guess?
No, he didn't resign.
The guy who resigned was the head of the one who didn't sound the alarm.
That's a different guy.
Now, the guy who didn't sound the alarm actually had a reason, which was the guideline said, don't use it for a fire.
I mean, effectively, he said, use it for just this.
And I think, and his concern was that people would, if they hear the tsunami thing, they would head uphill, and uphill is where the fire was.
However, as others have pointed out, who sees a fire and runs toward it?
And wouldn't all the smoke in the air almost immediately clue you in That your tsunami was not your biggest immediate problem, right?
So I feel like it would have taken about like a minute and a half for the crowds in the street to talk to each other and say, no, no, no, they're just sounding the alarm, it's that fire.
Just run away from the fire.
Yeah.
So I'm going to go with the people who say he should have done the alarm, and if the reason he didn't is because there was a guideline about it, then the guideline's the problem, not him.
Do you know why?
You cannot ask somebody in that situation to ignore a guideline because he would be fired.
Well, if somebody died because he ignored the guideline, if somebody died because of that, that would be on him.
And that's more than you can ask an official in that situation.
So I'm going to say, you know, we wish he had acted like a hero.
Okay.
We wish he'd used his common sense and done something different.
Okay, I'm with you on that.
But he was in a situation where making that decision was stupid for himself.
In other words, not doing something probably felt like the smarter thing than doing something that was against the policy and being the reason somebody died.
You don't want somebody to die and you violated the policy in a way that looks like it caused it.
That's the worst.
So it's super bad that maybe he was responsible for people dying even more than if he'd done the wrong thing.
But we don't know.
So it's bad either way, but I'm going to say I would put a little more pressure on the guidelines for not being sufficient to give him warning.
Here's what the guidelines should have said.
This siren is only for this purpose, but use your judgment.
Right?
Wouldn't that have solved everything?
Just better guidelines.
This guideline should only be used for tsunami, but if something else comes up, you know, if we're attacked by aliens, use your judgment.
That's what it should have said.
If it had only said use your judgment, You know, there could be an exception that requires people to get out of their homes.
Everything would be fine.
I blame who wrote the guidelines.
I blame the guideline writer, not the person who followed it, because that was an impossible situation.
We think he chose wrong, but you'd have to be in that situation to know that he was risking his life.
If he did a positive thing that killed somebody, he was risking his life.
If he followed the guidelines and things went wrong, and he probably had some wishful thinking that it wouldn't go wrong.
Because I don't, you know, do you think he could have imagined the type of devastation that was coming?
Do you think in his head he knew what the end state looked like?
I don't think so.
You think so?
No, I don't think anybody could have even imagined what would happen to Lahaina.
Even if you saw the fire coming, you know, from the lesser populated part of the island, you know, and you saw it hitting even the suburbs, it would be just hard for you to imagine that everybody couldn't get out.
Like, you don't see fires moving 80 miles an hour, which is about what it was doing.
All right, and we will leave Britney Spears alone.
