Episode 2308 Scott Adams: CWSA 11/30/23 Elon Musk Tries Honesty, Biden Decomposes, More Fun
My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Overcoming Addiction, Arkansas Paper Ballots, Seth Rich's Laptop, Hannity, President Biden Polls, Biden Crime Family, VP Harris, TikTok, Gaza Cease-Fire, NorthFace Marketing, Elon Musk, Blackmail Reframe, Bob Iger, Henry Kissinger, Peter Zeihan, J6 Undercover Suspicions, J6 10,000 National Guard, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Evans because that's what we're going to do.
And if you'd like to take this situation up to levels that nobody can even understand with their human little brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel or a cistern, 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
It's going to be way better if I put on my microphone.
So I-- I have a trick for remembering to put on my microphone.
What I do is I leave it in the middle of my Working surface so that there's no way in the world that I could not notice that it's on.
And then as soon as I get my printed notes, I've got to put them down and the microphone's in the way.
So I move it out of the way.
And then later you say, why can't we hear you?
Because my trick to remember doesn't work.
Doesn't work at all.
I need a new trick.
Well, there are a bunch of interesting things.
I'll just go over them quickly.
There's a new discovery using a radar that there was some ancient waterway that snaked from the Nile to where the pyramids are.
And you can't see any signs of these ancient waterways, but apparently they were massive.
So that might be the big explanation of why the pyramids are where they are.
Because they had massive waterways to transport all the materials and stuff that they needed.
Now isn't that interesting?
To think that the pyramids were right next to a big tributary of the Nile.
And that once that tributary dried up, we had no idea how they got those rocks.
Might have been the answer.
I guess you already knew that one.
I saw an Andrew Huberman clip in which he had some guests saying that your dopamine resets in 30 days.
So if there's something you're addicted to, if you can stay off it for 30 days, your dopamine will get back to where you want it.
So in other words, If you can keep off something for 30 days, you'll start to not miss it.
Now, I added my own experience, which is when it comes to food, my experience is it takes about 60 days.
Because there's not just your body that has to get acclimated to the dopamine, but also your brain.
Because you often have a habit.
So you're dealing with an addiction and a habit at the same time.
Maybe the dopamine Goes back after 30 days.
But the brain part, where you got to reach for that thing, in my case it was Diet Cokes.
You know, your brain just wants to do a Diet Coke after, let's say after you exercise or something.
You know, my normal triggers.
So 60 days to get rid of your habits, as well as your dopamine deficiency.
And that's why, when I give diet advice, I give it like a hypnotist, not like a nutritionist.
So what I tell you is, don't try to quit the quantity of food you eat at the same time you're trying to give up an addictive food.
So for example, you should just try to quit one bad food at a time, while not making any changes to the volume you eat.
Because if you change the volume you're eating, you've got hunger at the moment you're dealing with, You've got a habit you're dealing with, and maybe an addiction.
So you've given yourself three problems.
You can get rid of one of them by just not being hungry.
Eat as much as you want, but make sure that you lose your craving for this one that's extra bad.
And then when that craving is gone, two months later, you pick another one.
Now if you did that every two months for one year, Imagine you could reduce these six biggest problem foods without really much of an effort, because you would never be hungry.
And you'd always be eating things you liked.
All the time.
So that's my suggestion, is never let yourself be hungry while you're dieting.
Just change the mix of things you're eating.
All right.
But do them one at a time.
Don't get rid of all your addictions at the same time.
So even getting rid of sugar all at once is tough.
But getting rid of that, you know, ice cream you eat before you go to sleep, you know, just work on that.
And then if you can get that one after two months, maybe work on, you know, dessert after dinner.
And then just that one.
So that'll work for you.
Believe me.
All right.
I was asked on X If hypnosis could be used for breaking addictions, such as drinking and drugs?
And the answer is, I'll give you the answer that my hypnosis teacher taught me, which has basically changed my life.
You know, you've heard this in another context, but in the hypnosis context it's really strong.
My hypnosis instructor taught me this, which I've seen to be true my entire life.
That when somebody has decided to quit their addiction, drinking, drugs, food, smoking, whatever it is, when they've decided to quit, it doesn't matter what method they use.
They could use hypnosis and it would work.
Totally would work.
They could use reading a book that gives them some tips.
Totally would work.
They could say, oh, I did it my way.
I went to a desert island.
That would work.
It all works.
Once you've decided, everything works.
But you might want to do something.
In other words, don't do nothing.
It probably helps that you pick some method you're comfortable with.
But the flip side of that is when you only want to quit, no method works.
Let me say that again.
When you want to quit your addiction, but it's not a decision, it's just something you really want, no method works.
Let me say that like five more times.
If you haven't decided to go it, you just want it, no method works.
No method works.
That's the thing you have to get right, is the decision.
All right.
Rasmussen.
I had a poll of Arkansas voters and what they think about paper ballots versus machines.
And by 2 to 1, the Arkansas people wanted paper ballots.
But here's the weird part.
31% opposed having only hand marked ballots.
In other words, 31% of people in Arkansas prefer machines.
Why?
Does anybody have any reason?
Have you ever heard of any reason?
I've never heard one.
Because it's not a reason that you can't do it in time.
That's just a manpower or human power thing, right?
There's no problem about getting done in time.
100% of experts would agree that you can have a fair and secure and well audited election.
100% of experts would agree that adding a complicated new technology could give you problems on voting day, of course, but also questions about what's happening within the machine if people can't tell.
So there's a public perception problem.
So even if the machines are perfect, the public has trouble telling.
So there's an audit problem.
So I just can't understand How in the world, nearly a third of people in Arkansas, you know, especially a Republican kind of state, what argument do they have for not having paper ballots and also having electronic machines?
Have you ever heard the argument?
Machines with timestamp?
But still, machines introduce an extra level of complication, right?
Lots of Democrats.
But do you think it's... Let me ask you this.
Do you think it's because 30% are uninformed about the advantages and disadvantages?
Is that all it is?
They're just uninformed?
Probably.
All right.
So, you know, this whole Seth Rich thing is bubbling up again because, I guess, through some Freedom of Information Act, we'll soon have access to what his laptop said.
Now I don't expect anything interesting to come of that.
According to a thing called the News, the idea that Seth Rich had been giving stuff to WikiLeaks, and that therefore that's why he got killed, that that came literally from a Russian disinformation.
That's the first time I heard that.
And that the story is that it was Russian disinformation and Hannity, Sean Hannity on Fox, is the primary one who turned it into a thing and that there was never anything to it.
How many of you think that that's a true statement of what happened?
That there's no evidence anywhere, there's no document, there's no testimony, no evidence that WikiLeaks ever got anything from Seth Rich.
Don't believe it?
Well, I'll tell you where I'm at.
This is not one I'd be inclined to believe.
I'm not inclined to believe it.
But we do live in a world where most of the conspiracy theories have turned out to be real.
You know, maybe like 55% of them or something.
So, it's sort of squarely in the category of anything's possible, isn't it?
Yeah, just sort of anything's possible.
I don't know.
But I'd love to see Hannity respond to the claim that the entire thing was based on one known Russian disinformation, because there was a fake document that they say they traced to Russia.
It doesn't exactly sound like you could believe either side of this.
There's a lot of lack of credibility in this story.
Well, Gallup has a poll about how independent voters are thinking about Biden.
I'm going to ask you to see if you can guess if the independent voters, well, what percent do you think did not think that Biden's ruining the economy?
Very good guess.
Yeah, about a quarter.
About a quarter.
That's correct.
All right.
How many of the independents Thought he's doing a pretty good job in the Middle East.
Oh, right again, 25%.
Yeah, it's right around 25%.
How about, what percentage of the public thinks he's doing good in foreign affairs in general?
Foreign affairs in general.
Well, how do you keep doing this?
You're right again.
Yeah, 28%, but you're very, very close.
Very close.
Wow.
You are the smartest audience I've ever seen.
And it should be noted that many of you had the right answers before I asked the question.
That's something you're not going to see on Alex Jones.
No.
Nope.
Only here.
Can Stephen Crowder have people get the right answer before he asks the question?
I don't think so.
That's only here.
Anyway.
So James Comer in the House Committee Oversight Group, he released an email.
He says that the bank money laundering investigator, so there was a bank employee who was an investigator for looking into allegations of money laundering within their bank.
He raised concerns back in 2018 about unusual financial activity from China going into the Biden accounts.
Now, a bit of a question, Apparently the government has known about this, and at least a bank has known about it.
I'm sure it was reported, since 2018.
Basically everybody knew since 2018.
When I say everybody, I mean everybody who mattered in the, you know, the deep state government situation.
Now, would you say that Biden is staying in power because he thinks he's the best candidate for the job?
I don't think so.
Do you think it's because he's got plenty of energy left and he thinks his health is perfect, or at least good enough, and there's no real problem and he beat Trump before so it just makes sense?
No.
Nobody believes that.
Nope.
So why is he staying in office?
Is it because they don't have a good backup?
No, not really.
Because they have at least people who can walk and talk and stand upright.
Of course they have better candidates.
Of course they do.
Now, I've got, I think I've narrowed it down to two possibilities.
And maybe it's both.
Number one is that he's the most blackmailable president we've had in a long time.
Although I suspect they all are.
And that That he's being blackmailed by some members of the intelligence community or something just so that they'll let him stay alive and out of jail.
So it's the ideal situation if you're in an intelligence branch of a government to have the most blackmailable person as the leader.
You can't do better than that if you're the head of the intelligence agencies.
But, on top of that, he's got to stay in power to stay in the jail.
Not just from the blackmail, but he's got to keep his pardon abilities.
He's got to keep his ability to prevent people from investigating carefully.
Because they might fear that if he's in office again, he'll get retribution, so they can't go hard at any of his family.
So, how in the world could he win?
When you no doubt have somebody like Trump, who would say these things out loud?
You know, where's the part where Trump says what I said?
Let's be serious, people.
You know he's not running because he believes he's healthy enough.
You all know that.
Jill knows it.
The public knows it.
So it's not because he's healthy enough to do the job.
It's not because he's the only good candidate the Democrats can muster.
They've got some solid candidates.
I mean they could.
They could.
So I think that Trump could say this directly or you know Vivek or anybody who's running could just say you've sort of narrowed it down to you're either blackmailed or you're just trying to stay in a jail and that's kind of the whole story.
Now it is kind of a point in time which is weird that you could make the same argument about Trump.
That he needs to win to make sure he stays out of jail?
Because that's probably true.
So we have two presidential candidates who are probably going to run against each other, if the polls are correct, primarily to stay out of jail.
Now, Trump has also a revenge motive, and he's Trump, and he likes to win, and he wants the country to do well.
So he has lots of motives.
But one of them, I'll bet, I'll bet one of them is staying out of jail.
You know, top five.
So good work, America.
The American system got us to here.
That's where we ended up.
Great job.
All right.
If I ever get murdered, I don't want it to be in an ironic kind of way that people do a story because it was kind of funny.
You know, tragic.
Tragic, of course, but sometimes funny.
For example, If I were murdered by a talking dog, you know, I do a comic where there's a talking dog, well that would be in the news for sure.
I mean, I suppose I'd be newsworthy either way.
But I don't want the story to be how funny it is the way I died.
It can't be ironic.
I just want to go some natural way.
I don't want to be like this LA social justice advocate Who was killed when a homeless woman broke into his home and filled him with bullets.
So Jamila Elena Meikle is the suspect.
Went into his home and shot him to death.
So that's who he was.
That's the homeless community is who he was trying to help.
If only there had been some way to avoid this.
If only.
What could he have done differently?
I don't know, can't think of a good thing.
Cenk Uygur, he's running for the nomination to be the Democrat running for president, and he's saying he's choosing to run to keep out all other major, well he's keeping out other challengers at a time when three-quarters of the country didn't want him to run.
And Cenk says it will be seen, if Biden stays in and he loses, it will be seen as one of the most selfish acts in American history.
He's practically handing the country over to Trump.
Well, he's right.
But what is behind the selfishness?
I don't think the selfishness is he wants to be a two-term president.
Biden might be the first legitimate President who said, you know, one term is fine.
I don't know if anybody ever said that, but he might be the only person who ever legitimately expected to and wanted to have one term.
Might be the only one because of his age.
I think he still wishes he had one term.
That's my assumption based on observation of his health and his performance, but can't read his mind, so you never know.
I guess the US set a new record with 15% of our current population is made up of immigrants.
4.5 million new immigrants settled since Biden took office.
And there are now almost 50 million immigrants, both legal and illegal, residing in the country.
Does that sound like bad news to you?
What's your, like, does your brain translate that into bad news?
Because I feel like there's some bias in that, if you are.
I mean, like a lot of bias.
We would have far fewer gigantic corporations in America, like Google and things like that, if we didn't have this many immigrants.
Do you think that the net of 50 million immigrants, do you think the net-net is negative?
Does anybody think that?
Yes?
Okay, that's crazy.
That's crazy.
Most of these are legal immigrants who had the wherewithal to get to America because they wanted to work in this system.
Are you kidding me?
Let me say this unambiguously.
50 million immigrants in the United States is financial gold.
That's financial gold.
Now, hold on.
If you're shocked by that, it's because you're confusing the troublemakers with the average.
Don't confuse the troublemakers with the average.
The quality of immigrants to the United States is probably unparalleled, even with as much trouble as we have with the illegal crossings.
If you're looking at the whole picture, oh my God, do we get good immigrants.
We get really good immigrants, in general.
Now, at the moment, we've got a quality problem because we're not vetting anybody.
They're just running over.
That's different.
And I would grant you, if all 50 million just ran across the border from every part of the world, you don't know which way that goes.
But given that most of the immigrants came under some kind of a system where you had to be adding something to the economy, You need to get this right.
This is something you need to get right.
The United States has a declining population.
We would be dead without immigrants.
It's the difference between thriving and just being dead.
So I'm saying people disagree with that.
If you disagree with that, you're completely off base.
This is not a matter of opinion.
This is not a matter of opinion.
I believe 100% of economists would agree.
100%.
Find me one economist who disagrees with me, and not about illegal immigration, but about the 50 million.
You will not find one economist left or right who disagrees.
I don't think.
Now, again, everybody who's disagreed with me, you're having the same problem.
You're imagining that the troublemaking group Is somehow representative.
It's not.
Not even close.
All right.
Kamala was at some event with, we'll talk about this event with, what's his name?
Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Dealbook, I guess, is the event.
And Harris was asked by Sorkin to talk about TikTok, specifically its danger to the United States.
And she treaded water for two minutes talking about completely other things, and then when he got her back to TikTok, she said she didn't want to talk about it.
That's the Vice President of the United States talking about one of the existential threats to the country, no doubt about it, which is that China can push the heat button on anything they want.
And she's like, I don't want to talk about it.
Wow.
And her family members use it, of course.
Of course.
Well, the Gaza ceasefire has been extended another day.
What does it all mean?
What does it mean?
Does it mean there's going to be a permanent ceasefire?
I doubt it.
Netanyahu is saying as clearly as possible today, no, Hamas will be completely destroyed.
Whatever we do between now and then, don't be confused, it won't look like, I'm paraphrasing, It's not going to look like a ceasefire.
Whatever we do, it ends with killing everybody in Hamas who was a bad guy.
So I think, you know, delaying for another day, if they get some more prisoners back, probably a win.
The thing I don't understand is, I keep hearing people say that Hamas will rearm themselves because of the ceasefire.
Where would they get these arms?
Is it because they can more easily get to a different tunnel where there's some arms?
Because I doubt they're running out of arms.
Aren't the tunnels just full of ammo and arms?
I don't know.
It seems to me that they've got that area pretty buttoned up.
Nobody gets in or out.
I don't know how they were going to get any extra arms from the outside.
So unless they had some way to, you know, repurpose them on the inside, I don't know that it would make any difference.
So that's just an open question.
Did you see the viral thing that happened with North Face, the maker of outdoors clothing?
There was some viral TikTok, an attractive woman who must have had a big social media presence.
I don't know who it was.
But she was up hiking in some remote part of Australia and it was raining and she was wearing a North Face made rain jacket.
I guess she thought it might have been a little waterproof, but it wasn't.
So she was complaining in this remote mountain where there's just nobody else.
Like all by herself up on this mountain.
And she's just waterlogged and wet.
And she's complaining into her phone.
And she tells North Face that she wants them to bring her a new jacket at the top of the mountain.
So North Face, magnificent bastards that they are, immediately leapt into action and managed to get this quick film.
They did this so quickly that she was still in the mountain.
They rented a helicopter, they got a film crew, I guess, and they got a guy that they filmed running into the store, grabbing a jacket, running onto a helicopter, You see the helicopter find her on the mountain.
She really was the only one there.
And it was easy to find her.
There wasn't much in trees or anything.
It was kind of open land.
They see her.
The helicopter pulls down next to her.
And this is the funnier part.
The guy with the coat Gets out and he runs over to her and she acts like she knows what's happening at this point.
And instead of talking to her, he throws the coat at her.
He just throws it at her and she catches it and he turns and immediately runs back to the helicopter and goes away.
Now, how many of you think it was planned?
A little bit too good?
A little bit too good.
Yeah.
I'm gonna say It's not impossible that it was organic.
It's not impossible, but the timing doesn't make any sense at all, does it?
Have you ever tried to rent a helicopter?
Can you get your helicopter rented in an hour?
Get your film crew, and then they found her on the mountain.
Yeah, it was still funny.
So whether it was planned or wasn't planned, I would still give North Face an A++++ for marketing.
It was kind of amazing.
Yeah, even if it was planned, it was amazing.
I don't mind if it was planned, if it was just a marketing stunt.
I'm okay with that.
It entertained me.
Well, the big story.
Is that Elon Musk was at that same event I mentioned, that deal book thing, talking to Andrew Ross Sorkin.
And when asked about the advertisers who are leaving the X platform because of his alleged anti-Semitic comments, which were of course not anti-Semitic, that's the way these things work.
And he said about them, don't advertise.
If someone is trying to blackmail me with advertising, Blackmailed me with money?
Go fuck yourself.
Go fuck yourself.
Is that clear?
I hope it is.
Now, I only had one word response for that.
Legend.
Yeah.
And then he said, hi Bob, talking to Bob Iger of Disney, who might have been in the audience.
So, I don't know.
I don't think I could love this any more than I do.
I do love the fact, as was pointed out to me by user Blackjack Pershing on X, who said, calling the people leaving blackmailers is a genius reframe.
And he mentioned my book.
You know my book.
Reframe Your Brain.
Yes, it's about reframes.
But that's what Elon did.
If you allow their frame, hey, you said something anti-Semitic, so they left, you lose.
Because then you're arguing from within their frame.
No, I didn't do it.
I didn't do it.
Well, you're in the frame.
No, but I didn't do it.
Never works.
You have to change the whole frame, which he did.
He changed it to blackmail.
Does that, does it ring?
Does it ring true?
When you hear blackmail, does your brain say, that wasn't blackmail?
Or does your brain say, you know what?
That was pretty blackmailish.
You know what?
Mine does.
So mine grabbed blackmail just like it owned me.
Now that's a good reframe.
And then what did he do to sell the reframe?
He pissed on your tablecloth.
He used terrible swear words in a situation where you should not use terrible swear words, knowing of course that it would be viral.
So not only did he reframe it, but then he lit a nuclear bomb under the reframe, so you're not going to miss it.
Not only that, But he did it in such a way, let me ask you this, let me ask you in the comments, you tell me.
How many in the comments have now quoted him, either talking to a friend, or in your mind you repeated it, or you retweeted it?
How many have quoted him already?
A lot.
Right, the news people do.
A lot.
If I've taught you anything about AI, And the fact that they use these large language models to create some kind of intelligence.
That's kind of what he's doing.
He just drew your attention to it in a way you couldn't miss it.
He said something interesting so you repeated his words in your mind.
What happens if you can get somebody to repeat your words in their minds?
It reprograms them.
So he actually reprogrammed half of Earth.
By doing that.
If you think that was just... I think the news is reporting it as like an epic meltdown.
That was the opposite of an epic meltdown.
That was a persuasion play that had the best persuasion technique you'll ever see.
You can't beat that.
He had the provocation by doing something out of context.
He did it in a public way.
He got all that attention.
Now, what do I tell you are the two strongest persuasion elements?
The two strongest parts of persuasion are what?
Fear, correct.
And?
Fear and?
Visual, yeah.
The visual part of your brain.
Now, attention is necessary for all persuasion, so if you said attention, you get credit for that.
But if you can give fear and a visual thing... He didn't say, fuck you.
Fuck you would have been bad persuasion.
He told Bob Iger, a person that you can personally, if you know business, if you follow business at all, you can picture him.
And he didn't say, fuck you, he said, go fuck yourself.
I literally see Bob Iger trying to get his dick in his mouth.
Can you beat that?
No.
No, you cannot beat that.
That's visual persuasion in a verbal sense.
So verbally, he painted you a picture, and he painted you a picture that's a physical impossibility.
Was that a mistake?
Because it's a physical impossibility?
No.
That's technique.
Because the physical impossibility is what makes you think about it so long.
You're like, well, you can't really... Well, suppose you... Okay, if you took enough yoga, no.
But if you were built, if you were really well hung, you know, if you count anal... You know, so it makes you think about it.
And it makes you think about it visually.
You just can't get out of that.
And then as far as fear, when he says blackmailed, even though he's being blackmailed, not you, you can feel it.
I can feel that.
Because you could put yourself in this position and you're thinking, really?
You're gonna blackmail this guy?
And my favorite part was, he didn't have to say, I'm the richest man on earth.
Didn't need to say it.
He just said, you're gonna try to blackmail me?
With money?
To me, that was the kill shot.
With money?
Because you know what that was designed to do?
The way he framed that, you know what that was designed to do?
Make them feel hopeless.
Do you think I'm going to stop funding this because you're fucking with me?
I'm still the richest man in the world.
I can keep this alive as long as I want.
Yeah.
With money?
Are you serious?
So if you want somebody to eventually change their mind, You want to make sure that they know it's hopeless, and they're going to look like turds until they change their mind.
Apparently, there have been substantial cancellations of the Disney app since he said that.
Yeah.
Disney's going to go full on Bud Light.
Because basically, Elon just sounded the attack.
Didn't he?
It's one thing when DeSantis goes after Disney.
Honestly, I didn't really care about any of that.
Yeah, it was good politics, I suppose.
But I didn't really love the Disney-DeSantis fight.
Wasn't a big fan of that.
But this is kind of, this is a different level.
This is about free speech itself.
The survival of free speech.
I do think it's that important.
So I don't think Musk could have done much better than that.
And then on a separate topic, he said that he's done more for the environment than anybody on Earth.
Is that good persuasion?
He's done more for the environment than any single person on Earth.
Yes.
It's perfect.
Do you know what is bad persuasion?
I've done a lot for the environment.
I've done a lot for the environment.
I've done many things.
I will list them.
Bad persuasion.
Do you know why?
Everybody thinks, you know, I recycle.
Yeah, okay, great, I recycle.
Yeah, we all do stuff for the environment.
You're a bigger entity, so of course it adds up to more, but we're all doing our part.
There was that time I walked when I could have driven.
We're all doing our thing.
Yeah, big deal.
You do lots of things for the... But when he says, I'm the single biggest contributor to the environment in the history of planet Earth.
You just have to stop and say, all right, is he?
Is he?
And then you think, well, there's Greta, but she hasn't really physically done anything.
She's just convincing people.
Yeah, so if you get into an argument with yourself about whether he's really the number one, or would it be more appropriate to say he's only in the top five?
If he can make you argue whether he's the number one, or well, just in the top five, he wins.
He wins.
Because then it's not you saying, well, I recycle too, so big deal.
All right, but here's my favorite story, which is unrelated but related.
There are claims now that Elon Musk's rockets for SpaceX are putting holes in space.
Does it sound like I made that up?
There's actually, there's a science-y explanation to it, but literally, literally, The simple explanation is his rockets are putting holes in space.
Does it sound to you like maybe there are powerful entities who have decided to take Elon Musk out?
Are you seeing any signs that maybe there's a coordinated attack?
His rockets are putting holes in space.
Come on!
Come on!
And then the other thing Musk said Which I took to be a comment about the ADL and people who act the same, I guess.
I'm saying what I care about is the reality of goodness, not the perception of it.
And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil.
Fuck them, okay?
Now I think that would include ESG.
Probably includes the WEF.
Might include the WHO.
Might include Democrats in general.
I don't know.
But he's got a point.
It is really annoying that the people who are the most evil are the ones trying to convince you that they're the angels.
Good point on that.
All right.
Did any of you have trouble understanding why Musk was in trouble for commenting positively on the tweet?
Did anybody look at the tweet that got him in trouble and read it and then reread it and say, I'm not sure what the problem is.
And here's what it looks like.
It looks like it's the standard play that goes like this.
You pretend you don't know what he says, and then you never leave that frame.
You just pretend you don't understand what he really meant.
But of course you do.
Let me read, I'll remind you what it was.
And then I'll show you how they pretend they're reading it wrong.
OK?
So this is the original poster.
I don't know who it was.
It said something, quote, the Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them, the post read.
And then it went on, I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about Western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.
And then Musk replied, you have the actual truth.
You have said the actual truth.
Now, what would make this super bigoted and racist is if he said that Jews in general Or doing whatever this is.
Is that how you heard it?
When you read this, did you think he meant all Jews?
No.
You know why you didn't think it meant all Jews?
Because nobody ever means that.
About any group.
If you say black people have a high crime rate, you're never talking about all black people.
That's what rate means, right?
You're not talking about all of them.
If you say Elbonians like to wear hats, are you ever talking about all Elbonians?
Never.
Never.
Everybody knows that.
If you say black people like hip-hop music, do you mean every black person likes hip-hop?
Never.
Never.
Of course you don't mean that.
And anybody who heard you would know that you did not mean that.
So when this tweet said Jewish communities in the West, do you think there's any chance that he intended to mean every Jew in America?
No.
We all know that.
Do you think that he included, now I guess the ratio, I looked it up this morning, 7 out of 10 American Jews are Democrats, 70%.
Do you think that Elon was including the 30% of conservative Jews who might be in favor of building a wall on our border?
Do you think he was saying bad things about that group?
No!
So, of course not.
Like, obviously, of course not.
Because that would be a group that largely agrees with Elon.
Right?
So why would he be criticizing the people who have the same opinion he has?
It's obviously not about Jewish people in general.
It's obviously about individual groups like, you know, maybe he was thinking of the ADL, maybe he was thinking of Democrats, maybe he was thinking of Soros.
But to me it was a comment about Democrats.
So when I read it, I go, oh, it's talking about Democrats who want open borders, and that includes a lot of Jewish folks.
But it's not really about being Jewish.
It's about being in the group of people who like the open borders, which would include a lot of every type of person.
You got your Christians, you got your blacks, your whites, your everything.
So here's the thing you need to know.
There's nobody who believes he said anything anti-Semitic.
You get that, right?
None of his critics believe he said anything anti-Semitic.
None of them.
They all know what they're doing.
They know that if they intentionally pretend he did, they can keep saying it because people don't go back to the source and read it and do what I'm doing.
Nobody thinks he did.
Nobody.
Not a single person believes he meant all Jews.
Not one.
All right.
So it's obviously a political statement, but once it's out of the bag, nothing you can do about it.
Now, you should see this technique in lots of other places, don't you?
How often do you see the, oh, he must be talking about every single person?
And you know they're not.
Ever.
All right.
Speaking of Disney, apparently in their financial reports, they're acknowledging that they're too woke and it's costing them money.
But they say it in a big corporate way.
Do you want to hear the big corporate way you say, uh-oh, we went too awoke and we ruined all our products and everybody hates us?
Here's the corporate way to say it in public.
Quote, we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel, and consumer products.
Yes, we're not aligned with the customers.
Our products are shit because we bowed to the woke people on the left.
Now, when I say they bowed to the woke people on the left, here's a test.
This will be a test.
Did I mean every Democrat?
Did that refer to 100% of Democrats?
Of fucking course not!
Of course not!
And every one of you understood, right?
Did I need to say, you know, a lot of them, or many of them, or too many of them, or there are too many of them in that group?
No!
No.
No.
Because since you're not trying to kill me and remove me from my, you know, platform, you just hear it the way I mean it.
But if you were here to de-platform me, you would say, oh, you're saying every Democrat.
How ridiculous of you to say every Democrat's like that.
All right, Henry Kissinger's dead.
People have different opinions about him.
And I would ask you the following question.
If you think you can evaluate Henry Kissinger, you know, based on the historical record, how are you going to, how are they going to write the history of the Trump administration?
Because someday that's going to have to be in the history book.
And how will they write the history of Gaza?
In the last month or two.
Just think about that.
Who's going to write that history?
And when it's written, would you believe it?
Because there's certainly going to be an Israeli version of history.
There certainly already is, you know, a version for the Palestinians.
So which one is history?
It depends, right?
So, if a Democrat wrote a biography of Henry Kissinger, do you think that would be, you know, nice and clean and unbiased?
Versus, let's say, a staunch Republican wrote a biography of Kissinger, do you think it'd be different?
Of course it would!
So, people were asking me all day yesterday, because Kissinger died at age 100, they were saying, you know, give us your opinion of his legacy.
You know, did he do more good than bad?
And here's my answer.
How would anybody know?
It's completely unknowable.
There might be things that if I looked at, I would say, oh, I don't like that.
There might be things I'd look at and say, hmm, by today's perspective, that seems very unwoke.
Maybe.
But if you're telling me I'm going to try to figure out whether Kissinger was mostly good or mostly bad, you know, what was sort of the average?
You don't know.
There's literally no way to know.
It's unknowable.
Because you would be looking at historical records and things taken out of context, and there's no way you could piece that together and have a reasonable opinion.
No way.
Yeah.
So, I mean, you could have an opinion and a sense of things, but if you have a high level of confidence in that opinion, I think that would be unwarranted.
So I would say he's probably somebody who did some good stuff and some bad stuff, and I have no idea how it nets out.
Well, Peter Rezaian has declared he's going to leave the X platform.
Because he said, what was once a platform where you could access open source information that was reliable and free, has now been laid to rest by Elon Musk.
Yes, I'm talking about that little blue bird we've known and loved for years.
Now, that seems to be pretty close to the opposite of my experience.
I would say that X is way better and the singular place where there's still free speech and everybody can have their say.
Now why would his opinion be the polar opposite of my experience?
And by the way, tell me who you agree with.
Would you agree that it's like so bad now you should leave?
Or do you agree with me that it's not only better than it's ever been, but it's the jewel In the Constitutional Republic.
At the moment.
Yeah.
Now many of you said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Stop talking about this Peter Zaien guy and his views about China and Ukraine because it seemed to you that he was some kind of a intelligence plant.
That he was just working for the CIA, you said.
Now I don't know about any of that.
I don't know about any of that.
I have no No data, nothing that would say that.
I do know he acts exactly like that, or exactly like what I would expect to see if he were primarily a CIA asset.
And I don't think that any honest person would say what he said, which is that the platform's gone to hell and you can't get good information anymore.
I don't believe he really believes that.
I can't read his mind.
Right?
So if you're going to say, hey, you're reading minds, I'd say, well, OK, you got me there.
But here's why I think it.
I can't know for sure.
Here's why I think it.
I think it because nobody would have this opinion.
Nobody would have this opinion.
This is not.
I mean, it's just sort of sort of on its surface, it's obviously ridiculous.
So to me, it looks like it's just yes, some alliance.
That he's satisfying with us.
I don't know who it would be.
So I'm not going to make any accusations about who he really works for.
I'll just note that a lot of people have that view and that my observation is I can't think of a second way to explain it.
I don't know a second way to explain this observation.
So here's an interesting update on OpenAI and ChatGPT.
So another We've got a resignation by another board member, Helen Toner, and she said this on X about her resignation.
To be clear, our decision was about the board's ability to effectively supervise the company, which was our role and responsibility.
There's been the speculation we were not motivated by a desire to slow down Oh, there's been speculation, but we were not motivated by a desire to slow down open AI.
So the primary story that we all got about the Sam Altman situation, and I think it was reported in every outlet, was that the reason for the conflict was that the board wanted to go slower and Altman wanted to go faster on AI.
And now here's the board member herself, She's saying, unambiguously, it had nothing to do with that.
Now, if she didn't tell you that, what would the history of this situation have written?
Probably it would have gone with all the news reports.
It would have written that that was the reason.
So you really think you can evaluate Kissinger?
No, you cannot evaluate Kissinger.
Because it's all this, and always has been.
If this one board member had not decided to not only quit, because if she had not quit, I don't think we would have ever heard of this, right?
It seems related to her quitting.
I think she would have kept quiet and maybe had more decorum as a board member.
But this is really valuable for the permanent record.
So I don't know what the problem was.
They've been pretty unspecific about it.
All right.
If you're not following Kyle Becker on X, you're really missing out.
In my opinion, he is in the top, I don't know, definitely top 10, maybe top 5 of useful news related independent journalists.
Probably top 5.
He's in there with Greenwald and Schellenberger, Kanekoa the Great.
Those are accounts that just always have the best stuff.
All right, and it's so good that I want to read you his very long post because he summarizes the January 6th situation.
Really well, and you need to have it re-summarized every once in a while, because it's complicated.
So, let me just read Kyle Becker's thing.
So he says, so it turns out there were, quote, at least 200 feds and undercover operatives working the Trump entrapment plot on January 6.
Now, don't get too excited about that.
That's not a verified fact.
He says his source is, that's according to U.S.
Representative Clay Higgins, Republican, who sat down for a recent interview.
And said, quote, the FBI was not just participating in the January 6th acts from within.
I suspect they had over 200 agents.
So this was one politician who suspects.
Right?
So I'd say, well, we have verification.
I'm sure that they were there.
But 200 would be a whole different story than 50.
Would you agree?
Well, 50 might be the same story.
200 would be a different story than 20.
That would be a different story.
All right.
So there's one person who thinks that he suspects there were over 200.
So I wouldn't rely on that number.
That's just one person's speculation.
And that they were dressed as Trump supporters and etc.
Now Kyle says, again he's not buying into the number entirely, he says this figure is in the realm of possibility given the newly released J6 videos, court documents and witness statements.
I would agree.
I would agree with it's in the realm of possibility.
Probably high.
But in the realm.
I mean if it's a hundred would it change your mind?
If you find out there were only 100, not 200, that wouldn't change your mind much, would it?
100's a lot.
So, but, here's the important part.
And when you track, this is in quotes, so I guess this must be what Clay Higgins said, quote, and when you track the text threads and the communications within those groups and find the origins of suggestions of potential violence or an active occupation of the Capitol on January 6, you'll find that those messages were led by members of the groups that ended up to be the FBI agents and had infiltrated the group, Higgins said.
Now, Is that true?
That we have enough of a pattern that the groups that were involved, at the very least, we know that they were infiltrated, and that the feds were the ones who might have been the provocative ones, which of course is, you know, not allowed.
All right.
So Higgins continued, so the FBI's involvement was deep, not just on J6, but on the days and weeks and months prior.
All right.
So we don't know the exact number, but there's apparently evidence that some number of them may have been instigators.
And that would be the key point, whether the FBI were the instigators or would it have happened organically.
Now Kyle says there's now zero doubt that J6 was a setup.
Well, setup does a lot of work.
But he says the Trump incitement narrative had been hatched months prior as the infamous Time Shadow Cabal article made clear.
All right, so Time Magazine.
So Kyle says the J6 riot was war-gamed multiple times before the Electoral College.
Wow.
Did you know that?
It was war-gamed ahead of time?
Is that in the Time article?
I don't know about that.
The FBI unconstitutionally used NSA surveillance to track the extremist groups seeking to disrupt the event.
They had federal informants embedded in multiple extremist groups, including the Proud Boys.
Now here's sort of the payoff here.
He says, yeah, somehow the FBI and Capitol Police were woefully unprepared despite multiple advance warnings.
Yeah, how do you have all these embedded FBI agents who are fully aware Of what January 6th is going to turn into, because they're part of the organizations that are going to do it.
And they don't warn anybody?
Or if they did warn them, they weren't prepared?
Hmm.
That doesn't quite track, does it?
He goes on.
D.C.
Mayor Bowser, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, and others refused to press for more National Guard.
Despite it being documented and on the record that former President Trump wanted 10,000 National Guard troops outside Congress to protect the Electoral College.
Is that an established fact?
That's documented that he asked way ahead of the Electoral College for 10,000 and they turned it down.
What else do you need to know?
If the groups That were the aggressive ones, had FBI informants, and we have records that the FBI informants might have been the ones riling things up.
And then we know that since everybody knew there would be a problem, and Trump knew it too, and he asked for reinforcements, and he was denied.
That looks exactly like a setup, doesn't it?
What else would it be?
I mean, even incompetence, it would be tough to stretch this to incompetence.
Usually, I'm going to take the incompetence argument as the obvious one.
Oh, that people were just dumb.
Because that explains a lot.
But this would be a level of dumb that would be hard to explain.
They're not that dumb, are they?
Kyle goes on says also there was no centrally coordinated plot to overturn the results of the election, as FBI sources told Reuters in a 2021 report.
That's a big deal.
And indeed, he says that was the entire point of the election challenges during the convening of the electoral college.
If Donald Trump wanted to overturn the 2020 elections, he would not have disrupted the electoral college.
He would have continued to pursue his legal challenge.
That makes sense to me.
It seems that if you're going to do the legal challenge, that the riot is working against your own interests.
It's like pick one.
Pick the riot or pick the legal way.
They don't kind of work together.
It's a good point.
Trump would not have sent in unarmed extremists to disrupt electoral college in order to retain power.
This is not only illogical, it is absurd on his face.
It is absurd.
Because at best, they could have delayed things a day and then Supreme Court would have worked it out and literally nothing would have happened.
So, nonetheless, this ridiculous partisan narrative has constituted the basis for prosecuting a former president and what has devolved into a partisan show trial.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So, you know, there's still some questions about the number of feds.
But if people are guessing 200, it wasn't five.
Right?
It wasn't five.
I'm gonna put my own guess on it.
We'll probably never know.
I'm gonna put my own guess on it at between 30 and 50.
Between 30 and 50.
Just a guess.
Based on living in the world and how hard it is to get anything done and that sort of thing.
And they probably would have thought that was enough.
So some of you are guessing 100.
200 seems high.
I mean if it's 200.
That would explain everything.
All right.
Yeah, and then we have the Governor Whitmer situation to tell us that things can get out of control with the undercover assets.
So we know that's a thing.
Is the claim that Feds are responsible for January 6th?
That would be the current claim, but I don't think that Trump had enough proof of that to make it part of the court case.
But remember, the standard for government is guilty until proven innocent.
Standard for citizens is the opposite.
We're innocent until proven guilty.
So if you have allegations about the number of feds, and they're not forthcoming about the number, you should assume they're guilty.
Not because it's necessarily guaranteed to be true, but it's the only smart way to play it.
If the government won't tell you what they're doing, assume it's corrupt.
Every time.
Right, in the great unlikely chance that something else is happening, okay, you got it wrong that time.
But you're going to be right 9 out of 10 times if you assume that when they're hiding stuff, there's a good reason they're hiding it.
And it's not a reason you like.
So yes, the mere fact that the FBI will not disclose how many agents were involved, I consider a proof of crime.
In a logical sense, but not a legal sense.
Logically, it's proof.
Because, and again, make the distinction, if it were you as an individual, that's not proof.
You're going to have to prove I did it.
But when the government says, we're not going to tell you this valuable information that you want to know, and by the way, we can't even tell you that there's a reason we can't tell you.
Right?
Because suppose they said, yes, the number is 200, but we don't want to tell you how many are embedded in the groups and how many were just working that day.
That's not good enough.
Because they don't have to tell us that.
They could just say, there are about 200, but we don't want to give you the breakdown of what they were doing.
That would be something.
And at least then I would understand.
The part where they don't want to tell us something.
It's like, okay, you don't want to tell us how many people are embedded, because that would, you know, maybe alarm those groups.
I get that.
But not telling us any number?
Even a generality?
No, that's proof of guilt.
Now, again, it doesn't mean they're guilty.
But it should be considered proof.
The same way that we can, you know, convict somebody, an individual, for a crime, if you convict somebody of a crime and you say they're guilty, you understand that doesn't mean they did the crime, right?
That just means that the process found them guilty.
That's different from whether they actually did it.
Likewise, I am prosecuting the FBI right now by saying your failure to give us this information, I consider proof of guilt.
Does that mean they're guilty 100%?
Nope.
Nope.
Could be some weird thing that we don't know about.
But you have to treat it like they're guilty, the same way if somebody is convicted, even if they're not guilty, in reality, they're still going to put them in jail and treat them that way.
Because you have a working assumption that's the only way you can go through life.
Well, I don't know for sure, but My working assumption is this.
So it bothers me no end when we treat January 6th like a maybe.
It's a maybe, because we don't know, but we shouldn't treat it that way.
You should treat it like a confirmed guilt by government hiding information that you have no reason to know why it should be hidden.
Yeah.
All right.
All right.
Doesn't the military war game against such coups?
Well, since it wasn't a coup, I don't know.
know.
Yeah, and then there might be a question about how many are actually FBI employees and how much are informants and whatever. and then there might be a question about how many Oh, wow.
All right, that's all I got for now.
Ladies and gentlemen, one of the finest live streams you'll ever see.
If you're still looking for Christmas gifts, I recommend my two excellent books.
My classic is out with just a tighter edit.
Same book, better edit.
If you really want to change somebody's life.
And then reframe your brain for really anybody.
This works for everybody.
For your mental health, to your career, to your happiness.
Everything.
And if you don't believe me, just look at the reviews on Amazon.
Keep this in mind.
I'm a cancelled author and I have a five-star review for my new book.
I'm cancelled.
I mean, you'd expect, just in the normal way of things working, you'd expect a bunch of haters would have come in and said, well, we hate you.
But instead, if you look at the reviews, people say, I don't like his politics, but wow, this is quite a book.
So that's about the best endorsement you can get, is your haters actually stop.
The haters actually stopped their criticism at that book.
They criticize everything else about me, not that book.
So, there's your commercial.
Alright, YouTube, thanks for joining.
Your autistic son is reading Reframe Your Brain.
Excellent.
I will see you tomorrow, and if you missed my cooking show yesterday, I'll give you an update.
I did a cooking show, livestream, I made a lentil soup, or you could call it dal, because it's an Indian version.
And what I learned is, it's real easy to do the main ingredients, but you need like 15 spices to get it where you want.
It was actually delicious.
I overcooked the lentils a little bit, but taste-wise, probably the best thing I've tasted in months.
