All Episodes
Dec. 21, 2023 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:17:02
Episode 2329 CWSA 12/21/23 The 2024 Democrat Hoax Strategy And Lots More Fun News

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: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Do-do-do-do. Ra-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum-bum.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilizations.
I've had a bad start of the morning this morning.
I think it will all get better.
This show was going to be amazing based on how it started.
If you'd like to take this show This experience, up to levels that nobody can even understand.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Happens now.
Go.
Well, let me tell you, Hmm.
Seem to have a sound problem, right?
Let me find out why.
Hello, hello?
Well, let's see, we're not plugged in.
Hello?
Hmm.
Hello, hello, hello, hello, hello.
Looks like it's broken.
All right, you can hear me now, right?
You can hear me on YouTube now, right?
You can't, you actually can't hear me?
Even now?
Huh.
Why would that be?
So I guess we're done with this.
I'm going to try to restart.
Let's see what happens if we restart.
Thank you.
Thank you.
How about that?
Did that work?
Anybody?
Let's get some comments.
Boom!
Yes, so let me tell you what happened to my morning.
All right, so it turns out that that sound problem is no doubt related to the first story I was going to tell you.
So every morning, the first part of my day, I fill this gigantic mug with coffee, and then I walk into my darkened office, and I look for the little hot plate I put it on.
You see the little hot plate back here?
And I set it on the hot plate, and then I usually turn on the lights.
Now the hot plate is black in a darkened room, On a dark desk.
So I just sort of feel for it and, you know, put the coffee on it.
I neglected to turn off the hot plate from yesterday when I used it.
Which caused some burning of my fingers.
And some tippage of the coffee.
Because as I burned my left hand while I was putting the coffee on with the right hand, it kind of spilled a little.
Have you ever had that situation where you spill a little of something and then you try to quickly correct it?
And that works out great, doesn't it?
Quickly correct it.
No, no.
Now what happens is you're flailing to correct it.
Results in slightly more spillage.
How much is slightly more spillage?
100% of the coffee in this cup.
It's quite a lot of coffee.
Ended up being sprayed across every object on my desk, from apparently the sound mixer, which didn't work, to my keyboard completely, the entire top of the keyboard was liquid, to all of the electronics, the lamp, every cord, my desk thing, and a lot of my notes, covered with coffee.
So the first part of my day was, Cleaning up the biggest coffee spill I've ever seen in my life.
I mean it looked like the Exxon Valdez just shit on my office.
It was all over the floor.
It was all over my computer.
It was all over everything.
There was nothing that didn't have coffee on it when I was done.
Now keep in mind that this is four in the morning and I haven't had coffee yet.
Do you know how unpleasant it is to clean coffee from every crevice of everything you own?
And not have any coffee in you?
It's the worst.
But the good news is, the good news is, that I cleaned everything up, got it all under control, except evidently I've burned out my mixer.
I don't know why that's not working.
But, here's the good news.
I went and I got a brand new fresh cup of coffee.
And while it was filling up in my coffee machine, I was watching, looking at my phone.
And, uh, I probably looked at my phone too long because it filled up.
You ever have a coffee that feels like right up to the top.
And then you say to yourself, Oh shit, what am I going to do now?
I could like stand here and try to sip it off the top.
And then that always burns you because it's too hot.
And you like, you don't want to stand there until it cools off, but you can't sip it off the top.
And my coffee maker creates this like crema stuff, you know, it adds air to it so that it's like this really tastes good.
So if you suck off the top, then you just get the bad black coffee on the bottom.
So I don't want to do that.
So I did what any of you would do in this situation.
I said to myself, yes, the coffee is so close to the top of my cup.
That almost any motion will spill it.
And the last thing I want to do is spill some coffee.
That's for damn sure.
Because I just spent 45 minutes cleaning it up.
There's no way I'm going to spill it.
But you know what?
I have the skill and the stamina.
I have the balance and the training to carry this cup of coffee without any spillage whatsoever.
Watch me do it.
And so, well, the long story short, After I finished cleaning off my stairway?
Yeah, I got every stair.
Every stair.
Top to bottom, full of coffee.
But, the good news is, there's no coffee on my desk, there's no coffee on my stairs, and there is coffee in my stomach.
Yes.
Yeah, it was a little bit of a Prisoner Island situation, but goddammit, I'm back.
I'm just gonna fight through this day no matter what it takes.
I will not be beaten by coffee.
All right, let's get to the news, the important stuff.
There are three things that I've been wanting to try.
One is this Dr. Huberman idea of getting sun in the morning.
It resets your circadian rhythms or whatever.
So I tried that yesterday.
I've tried it before, but I tried it yesterday in particular.
I also tried grounding.
That idea that if you stand on the ground down doors on your bare feet, it'll somehow, I don't know, change your electrical situation.
So I did that yesterday.
I also tried for the first time, I've had it for years, but a infrared sauna.
So I did those three things.
Got sun in the morning, grounded with my bare feet, and took a infrared sauna.
How did I feel for the rest of the day?
Really, really good.
Really, really good.
Yeah.
I had a... I just felt good all day.
The infrared sauna did, in fact, make my muscles less painful.
Yeah, it was really good.
So I don't know which of those three things made any difference.
I'm a little suspicious of the grounding.
I'm not sure that's real.
The grounding part doesn't sound real, frankly, but I was trying it.
So those three things really did make me feel good.
All right, Epstein, 150 names will be released, but three will remain sealed.
Which of those names do you care about?
The 150 that they're going to show us, or the three they won't?
Of course, there's nothing you can do with the Epstein story that doesn't make it worse.
Am I right?
There's nothing.
There's nothing you can do with that story.
That won't turn it into a worse version of what it already is, which is terrible.
Nothing!
Yep.
Thanks for the 150 names.
Now I'm really curious about the three you're not going to give us.
All right.
Also, Dr. Andrew Huberman says there's some study that says, it's called the cathedral effect, that if you try to do work in a low ceiling environment, You can do more detailed analytical stuff.
But if you're in a cathedral or just a high-ceiling place, it makes you more creative.
And you can do more creative work.
Now, this is a subset of one of my reframes that you'll see in my amazing book, Reframe Your Brain, that everybody's talking about.
Actually, a lot of people are talking about it.
And one of the reframes is this.
It's for writer's block.
That you don't have writer's block.
The reframe is you're in the wrong place.
Because what I learned is if I can't create anything where I am, it's probably because where I am.
It's the position I'm sitting.
It's the light in the room.
It's the physical environment.
It's the sound or motion that's around me.
And I have to change those things.
If you sit in a room by yourself and you say, oh, I want to write something, I need to create something, but I can't do it, I've got writer's block, you probably don't.
You're probably in the wrong place.
Just move your place.
I discovered, and I talk about it too much, that if I go to Starbucks, there's something about the noise of Starbucks and the way they design the building, which also has high ceilings, by the way.
If you go in Starbucks, high ceilings.
I mean, higher than your house, usually.
And I can work like crazy, even with the noise and the bustle and the bad tables and the sticky tables.
I mean, I'm literally, my elbows are on the table and it's just like full of sticky coffee and shit.
And people are talking on the phone.
Everything that shouldn't work, works perfectly.
So you really can't guess what is a good place to work.
You really can't.
You just have to attest it.
Stormy Daniels said some funny things about Hunter Biden, and it's the most honest take I've ever heard on Hunter Biden.
So Stormy Daniels for the win.
Would you like to hear the most honest thing anybody ever said about Hunter Biden?
Stormy says, Hunter seems like he'd be fun to party with.
Jack?
Yeah, I would love to party with Hunter.
I mean, he's apparently cleaned up his act, so he's not partying.
But he would have been fun.
And then Stormy goes on, she goes, everybody's like, oh my God, he didn't pay his taxes.
He used his money on hookers and blow.
I'm like, you wouldn't do the exact same thing if you thought you could get away with it?
You wouldn't spend someone else's money on hookers and blow if you could get away with it?
Oh, I wouldn't.
I wouldn't do that.
No.
I mean, you would.
I know all of you would, but I wouldn't do that.
God, no.
Well, Harvard continues its destruction of its reputation.
Apparently now there are reports of 40 separate acts of plagiarism by their president, Claudine Gay.
And even the New York Times has published a They hit peace on her, basically.
Imagine the New York Times basically just trashing her at this point.
Yeah, so they're saying her plagiarism is like a genuine problem.
So, what do you think?
Do you think Harvard will be forced to get rid of her?
Nah.
No, I don't think so.
Nope.
And I guess Saturday Night Live compared Claudine Gay to Urkel.
So even Saturday Night Live is going after her.
That's pretty brutal.
Alright, New Zealand, according to the End to Wokeness account on X, they're going to end funding for all sporting bodies that don't crack down on trans players competing against women.
Now what's interesting is, Didn't you think New Zealand was kind of a super woke?
But apparently they've turned completely on the question of trans in sports, and they're gonna defund you if you're gonna have transitioning players playing on the women's team.
Anyway, that's happening.
Do you think that there's a genuine shift in the whole wokeness business, or are we getting a The mug is... Can you do me a favor on YouTube?
The microphone is unplugged because I spilled coffee on my mixer and it doesn't work, which I didn't realize until I turned it on.
So please tell the other people to stop asking me to plug in my microphone.
Could you do that?
Just ask them to stop saying it.
So the rest of you, could you answer that question for me so I don't have to see it?
Because otherwise I'm going to have to cover up the comments.
I'll just put some tape over it so I can't see it.
Because I can't really do the show if everybody's talking about the sound.
Everybody?
Because I'm going to turn it off in a minute.
All right.
All right, I think you're under control now.
All right.
There is a So the Wall Street Journal is saying that young people are increasingly get their news from TikTok.
And it's causing a problem because young people are getting a wrong opinion about Israel Hamas war.
So here's what the war used to be.
TikTok versus Scott.
I wasn't doing so well.
I was not winning that.
And now it looks like it's TikTok versus Israel.
How do you think that's gonna go?
TikTok?
So TikTok is a, honestly, it's an existential threat to Israel.
I don't think that's too far, is it?
Is that too far?
I don't think that's hyperbole.
I think that TikTok is an existential threat to the existence of Israel.
Because what it's done is, it seems to have propagandized young people to be anti-Israel, and those young people, I hate to tell you, but they're going to get older, and they're going to be in charge.
So they basically just brainwashed a generation to abandon support of Israel.
Now, the question of how much the United States should support Israel is a separate question.
I'm just telling you what's going to happen.
So it's not whether they should or they shouldn't.
I'm just telling you what's going to happen.
What's going to happen is if TikTok continues unabated, if no changes are made, Israel will go out of business.
I don't see how they can survive.
Because if you take out the American support, you know, they're going to take out every other country's support at the same time.
So it looks like the battle is now between Israel's very existence and TikTok still operating, at least in America.
Do you think that Israel can win that?
This will be a real good test, because we worry that China and TikTok in general is having too much influence on our Congress.
But separately, there are lots of people who say, hey, Israel is having too much influence on our government.
Now, I would say, of course, both China and Israel are trying to influence our government, because we try to influence everybody else.
Everybody's trying to influence everybody.
That's normal.
But now the fight is between really two very powerful rivals.
Well, they're not rivals.
It's just one is doing something that's bad for the other.
Who do you think is more powerful?
China's influence over Congress or Israel's influence over Congress?
And if they had to fight it out over the existence of TikTok, who would win?
China or Israel?
I'm seeing mostly China.
What do you think?
Close call?
I actually don't know.
This could be a close one.
Because the Chinese money is apparently changing something, but Israel has a big effect as well.
So if this gets reframed as an existential threat to Israel, there's a much better chance it gets banned.
Because the US is trying to support Israel, but it wouldn't make any sense to try to support Israel at the same time we're allowing TikTok to destroy Israel.
So I think Congress has to make a decision.
Are we for Israel?
Are we on Israel's side?
Because that doesn't make sense if TikTok is still operating.
That makes no sense.
If you're going to be on Israel's side, why not actually do it?
Money helps.
But I would say that giving Israel money, certainly they like it and it helps.
But I'll bet they could have done almost everything they need within our money.
But you know what they can't do?
They can't survive while TikTok is still operating in America.
They cannot survive in the long run.
So you better get that fixed.
And I'm on Israel's side on that completely.
There's a new research that says doing your own research online makes you dumber.
Has anybody ever told you that before?
Let's add this to the pile of, you know, you could have just asked Scott.
If you just asked me, I would have told you.
How do people do research?
Oh, I just read a story that said Bigfoot is going to be elected to Congress.
I better research it.
So you go down to your little rabbit hole and you find, you know, you search for, is Bigfoot going to run for Congress?
And then what comes up?
A whole bunch of articles about Bigfoot running for Congress.
You're like, yep, yep.
Absolutely.
I knew it.
There is a proof.
Bigfoot's running for Congress.
Yeah.
The more you search on your own, the dumber you get.
And now there's a study that backs it up.
Except you know what the problem is?
Studies are fake too.
Why would you believe this study?
Why would you believe any study?
It's 2020, almost 2024.
Why would you believe a study?
This study is like every other study.
It's a coin flip.
There's literally a 50% chance of being true.
50%.
And since it was either true or false, there were only two conditions, right?
Either this doing your own research either helped you or it didn't help you.
50-50.
You don't know anything.
Just because there's a study that says it went one way, it literally tells you nothing.
Does everybody get that?
There are only two possibilities, like a coin flip, but studies in general, studies in general, half of them don't hold up in the long run.
So if a new study comes out in this category of things which often turn out not to be true, and it's just one study, it actually tells you nothing.
Like actually, literally nothing.
Because you don't know which 50% it's in.
The 50% fake ones or the 50% real ones.
And you could have guessed, without even having the study, if you had flipped a coin or guessed, same odds of being right.
It didn't add anything.
Which is weird when you think about it.
All right.
But I do believe it's true that people convince themselves that their conspiracy theories are real by finding other people who say the same thing.
That seems obvious.
So it turns out that poverty is way down instead of up.
Wouldn't you think, Scott, I know there's some things you can't measure.
I know sometimes the polls are not accurate.
Sometimes you can't predict things way into the future, but there's one thing that should be pretty easy to measure.
Poverty.
Because, you know, they do it every year, so they should have the methodology down pretty well.
You know what they were doing wrong?
This is going to blow your whole fucking head off.
Here's how they were calculating poverty wrong.
You're not even going to believe this.
They tried to measure how much money you were getting.
Now your common sense says, well that's what poverty is.
How much money I receive.
Right?
That's pretty obvious.
My poverty level is based on how much money I get.
So a smart group decided to revise it and say, what if we looked at how much you consume?
Do you see what's happening?
When they looked at how much people consumed, people were consuming a level of stuff that was well beyond poverty.
So if you looked at what they actually spend and consume, it's way above the poverty line.
They're not starving, and they're mostly not homeless.
So it turns out that when you measure people's income, No, it's not just credit cards.
Because the poor don't even have credit cards.
But when you look at poverty, it turns out that poor people have lots of ways to get resources, and they weren't all being included.
It's not so much a credit card thing.
A credit card is more of a middle-class debt thing.
The people who are so poor they don't even have a bank, we're actually doing better than we thought.
Because they had some way to get money.
Basically, government services plus whatever else they were doing.
Might have been crime.
Could have been crime.
But whatever they were doing, they were getting more consumption power than the income suggested.
So the most basic thing you think you could measure weren't even close.
Weren't even close.
All right, but if you can't measure doing your own research and be Be confident about it, and you can't really measure poverty levels.
At least we can measure and predict climate change 100 years in advance.
Now, how lucky are we about that?
All these other things are hard to measure, but it looks like we're really good at measuring climate change.
And as you know, the climate will continue getting warmer and warmer, and there's no way around it.
My next story is about these cold snap in China.
So China, let's see, China has set a new record in the Mongolian part of China in a town called Ho Hot.
Yeah, the town of Ho Hot was super cold.
Now, I don't know if there's a town called Ho Cold, It was also super warm, which would feel right.
But the town of Houhat, where all the prostitutes were warmer than they should have been.
Houhat.
Yeah, new cold record.
Ironically.
And what do the climate change people say when records for cold are being set in China?
Well, here's what I say.
Here's what I say.
Who cares about China?
China's like the size of a postage stamp.
No, China's actually a pretty big place, if you count that whole Mongolia area.
So China's setting records for cold, but here's what you didn't know.
Climate change doesn't just make things warmer, it makes the extremes more variable.
Yeah.
So this is just one of the extremes caused by warming.
Another thing that's happening is that the Arctic ice, you know how it was plunging for years?
Well, several years ago it stopped plunging and started increasing, and it's still increasing.
And it's sort of back to where, almost where it was.
So, it turns out that none of the predictions have been right so far.
At least about ice and, you know, water levels and general warming.
Well, nothing, really nothing.
So, yeah, it's all that global warming that's causing the lowest temperatures we've seen.
All right, let's talk about the hoax situation for 2024.
As you know, we, meaning the people who study politics, have been able to do, let's say, what would you call it, Almost anthropology or it's almost like a dig where we've pieced together the Democrat structure of power.
Now that includes all the extended parts like the, you know, you've got the ADL that you'd say, well, the ADL has nothing to do with Democrats.
They're just trying to protect, you know, Jewish people from various abuses.
But it turns out that there's like a Democrat who's the head of it who uses it also, besides doing the good work to protect Jewish people, also just as a hammer to, you know, hammer on anybody Republican.
So there's a whole bunch of illegitimate fact checkers, illegitimate watchdogs, illegitimate misinformation people, and they have all been mapped.
And you can see that basically Democrat operatives or their buddies are the ones running these fake organizations, which do a combination of real work.
Because in case they say, hey, look at our real work.
It's real.
It's real work.
But it's not really the big purpose.
The real purpose is for the fake stuff, where they can just say Republicans are lying and everything is set in stone.
So, here's my take on what we know so far.
We were expecting, for example, that there would be some tent pole hoaxes.
Now, a tent pole, if you think of a circus tent, the tent pole is like the big pole that holds up the tent.
So there'll be lots of minor hoaxes, and we all knew that.
But months ago, many people, including me, said, oh, what will be the 2024 hoax against Trump?
Well, now we know.
So here's what it looks like.
First of all, have you all noticed that Biden and his supporters have stopped talking about policies?
Like our policy is better than whatever Trump would do?
Or whatever the Republicans would do.
Because at this point, am I right that the policies of the Republicans, with the exception of Haley, Republicans kind of have similar policies, right?
Vivek is going to give you something that looks like Trump, but his own take on it, right?
So it's basically Republican policies, which are very clear and very much in contrast to current policies, immigration being an obvious one.
Wouldn't you expect that, given that the Republicans are polling well, you know, collectively, and they've got different policies that are really different, don't you think that all the conversation should be about those differences in policies?
Well, it turns out that the Democrats have learned through polling that all of their policies are unpopular.
Except one.
What's their popular policy?
I mean, the one that's in the top group.
It's abortion.
But abortion has been cleverly moved into a state problem.
Which, by the way, the more I think about it, I thought it was a gigantic mistake by Republicans to make a deal of abortion and essentially make themselves unelectable.
But I think in the long run, it allowed them to win federal elections by taking it away from the federal decision-making process.
So I think like a Trump or a Vivek can say, all right, here's my opinion on abortion.
But remember, I don't make any decisions on abortion.
If I'm president, that's totally not my job.
And I'm going to let the people whose job it is to make that decision.
Citizens of the governments of the states.
So at the point, at this point, see if you notice that Biden and his proxies have gone completely personal attack.
Complete personal attack.
Mostly against Trump, of course.
So here's what I call the three-legged stool of hoaxes that we can see now will be the primary tentpole hoaxes for 2024.
Number one.
Trump quote invokes Hitler.
Invokes Hitler with his polluting the blood comments, etc.
So this is just the fine people hoax too.
The fine people hoax was that You know, the hoax that he praised neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, when indeed it was just a deceptive edit and he condemned the Nazis.
They just changed it to the opposite of what he actually did.
Well, they're doing that here by, if you remove the context, it just looks like he took something out of Mein Kampf, which he never read, he says.
It's easy to make it look like, oh, it's Hitler.
That's how Hitler talks, because nobody knows the difference.
Number two.
He's still colluding with Putin, and he's Putin's puppet.
So this is just Russia collusion two.
So we've got find people hoax two.
He's Hitler.
Russia collusion two.
He's Putin's buddy.
And then we have January six hoax.
He's an insurrectionist.
So he's Hitler, Putin puppet, insurrectionist.
What do all of those have in common?
They're not even close to reality, and they have nothing to do with his policies.
At what point would the country notice that the Democrats have given up on policy?
They've just given up?
It's total character assassination, period.
Now, it works, Because it turns out that like half of the country believes that the Colorado decision keeping him off the ballot was the right one because he's such a damn insurrectionist.
It's actually working.
Anyway, those tentpole hoaxes are of course the justification for the weaponization of the government.
Now, is this Scott and other people being all snowflakey and worrying about the weaponization of the government?
Or is the government simply doing its job to find wrongdoing and punish it?
Well, we do know that after 2016, and Mike Benz has been great at uncovering this and explaining it, that the Democrats literally said we can't have this happen again, which is meaning Trump getting elected.
And they created a whole structure to make sure it didn't.
And then Soros, in the meantime, was getting his lefty prosecutors in place.
And so they'd created a structure where they could lie about Trump, the fact-checkers would back them, the fake ADLs and the various other fake organizations would back them.
So they would have, this is what the Democrats like to do, they like to create fake external companies or entities Which tell them they're right, so that their fake news can say, well, Democrats make this claim, and then these fact-checkers agree with them, so now it's okay for us, the news, to say it's true, when it's not.
So basically, you have the news, the fake, it's a big constellation of entities.
It's maybe hundreds of these fake entities that have been created in the last several years.
So now you've got enough judges that are lefty-leaning who will do literally anything, like the Colorado judges.
And so the weaponization of government depends very much on selling the three hoaxes that weaponization normally nobody would want.
Would you agree?
If you just ask people without any context, just stop somebody in the street and say, you think the government should be weaponized against individuals?
It wouldn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, you'd say, what did you ask me?
Of course not.
I don't want the government to weaponize against the public.
That'd be the worst thing I ever heard.
But suppose I came up to you and said, Hitler is taking power.
The only way to get rid of him is to, well, sort of stretch our interpretation of what's the law.
Just sort of bend our ideas about what the Constitution is saying and not saying.
But are you okay with that?
Because if we just bend it a little bit, just warp it a little bit, we can keep Hitler out of office.
Now what do the people on the street say?
Well, I would normally be totally against this weaponization of government, but now that you've convinced me that he's Hitler, he's friends with Putin, and he was an insurrectionist, Well, in this one case, I guess I'm in favor of a little bit of weaponization, because it's so important.
So it's a pretty good play.
The entire package is pretty tight.
So they've got the fake persuasion, the three hoaxes, that's enough to convince you that weaponization of the government normally would be bad.
But in this special case, it might be the only thing to save the planet.
Not to mention, all that climate change is going to kill you if you don't get the right president.
They say.
All right, so that's what the hoaxes that will dominate the coming year.
There will be new ones, but those will probably be the big ones.
Ted Lieu, Congressperson Ted Lieu, says this about the Colorado trial.
He said, the Colorado trial court And then this next part is in all caps.
Held a trial and made rock-solid findings of fact that Trump engaged in insurrection.
Supreme Court would not have any basis to overrule the findings.
The only ways Supreme Court can overturn is to make the perverse ruling that presidents can engage in an insurrection.
Well, Ted Lieu dropping the hammer on things, huh?
Am I right?
Now remember, the most important thing you need to know to understand the news is the players.
There are some players who are so insanely political that nothing that comes out of their mouth should be taken seriously.
Ted Lieu is one of those.
I like Ted Lieu.
I've interacted with him on X a few times.
He's sort of a happy warrior.
But when he gets into the political situation and anything about Trump, he goes just completely batshit crazy.
Here's the things that didn't happen.
So he says the Colorado Trial Court held the trial.
No, they didn't.
Where was Trump giving his evidence that there was no insurrection?
The judges just sat there and said, well, it was obviously an insurrection, so it was nothing like a trial.
And they made rock-solid findings of fact that he engaged in insurrection?
That didn't happen.
There was no fact trial on insurrection.
He's just making all of this up.
And that the Supreme Court would have no basis to overrule?
Well, the smartest people are pretty sure that it could be close to a unanimous decision, which the Supreme Court almost never does, in overturning it.
Does he really believe any of this?
Do you think that Ted Lieu believes one word that he wrote?
I don't know.
I actually don't know.
It doesn't look like he believed it.
But maybe?
I don't know.
Yeah, I mean, to believe this, you'd have to be really fucking stupid.
I mean, this take, this is like a IQ 20.
I mean, this is so fucking stupid.
So I'm gonna give him, I'll give him the, uh, Benefit of a doubt that he knows what he's doing.
Because the other alternative is kind of insulting him.
I kind of like him.
Ted's kind of cool.
Kind of biased, but kind of cool.
Would you like a zombie update?
Got a big zombie problem.
As Sean OhnoLennon posted, he said today, at this point, if you get the bulk of your news from cable, you're officially a zombie.
Now, if you get your news by watching both the left-leaning and right-leaning cable, you're at least triangulating on something.
Maybe you get a little better idea what the fake news is.
But yes, if you're only watching your preferred network, you have no fucking idea what's going on.
You would have no idea what's going on.
I mean, you would really be lost.
You want some more proof of zombies?
There's an online survey and the 54% of respondents approve of the decision of Colorado.
How in the world could you be well informed and think the Colorado decision made any sense?
How could you do that?
Well.
Here are some of the things we know about Biden.
He actually said this in public, now this is a while ago, after.
He said, we just have to demonstrate, talking about Trump, this is Biden talking about Trump, he said, we just have to demonstrate that he will not take power.
What?
We have to demonstrate that he will not take power?
Does that sound the same as we need to run an election and win?
We have to demonstrate that he will not take power.
And then he goes on.
If he does run, so this is before Trump ran, making sure under quote legitimate efforts of the Constitution, uh, does not become the next president.
So he says, we're going to demonstrate that he will not take power.
And again, use the legitimate efforts under the Constitution.
That's called the law.
So he's literally saying, we're going to use the law to keep him out of office.
What he doesn't say is that he's guilty.
And they said they'll use anything they can use in the law to keep him out of office.
Isn't he saying very clearly we're going to weaponize the Justice Department?
That's what it looks like to me.
To me, it looks kind of clear that he's going to try to do it within the law, but within the law, If it's your own people and your own judges, the law becomes whatever you want it to be.
So let me ask you this.
Is this Colorado decision within the law?
Well, if the Supreme Court didn't want to overturn it, it would be.
So the trick here is they'll make the law anything they want because their judges can just define it any way they want.
So that's pretty scary, but at least he hasn't done anything like this, right?
It would be terrible if he said something that sounded a lot like, we're going to use lawfare to take out our competitor because we can't beat him in an election.
But do we see any signs of that actually happening?
Well, here's Glenn Greenwald explaining the situation.
He says, Trump's first indictment was from a liberal Manhattan prosecutor.
His other state case is from the Democratic Democrat Party machine in Atlanta.
His two federal cases are under the Biden Department of Justice, and now a Colorado court full of Dems just banned him from the ballot.
1, 2, 3, see 91, 91 charges, and this Colorado thing, and every bit of it is funded by and done by Democrats.
That doesn't look like any kind of justice system, does it?
Wouldn't you think that at least some of this would be Republican-driven if there was anything there?
Yeah, this looks exactly like Biden said what he was going to do, and now he's executing it right in front of us.
Now, how many casual viewers of news would be aware that Biden said he was going to do this, use the legal system to the extreme, And that all of these cases are bullshit cases that are just trying to slow down Trump.
How many Democrats actually know that?
How many of them know that Democrats created an entire structure of fake entities to support their own fake news?
If you did a survey, do you think any Democrat would know that?
I doubt it.
There aren't even that many Republicans who could explain it, but the people who really pay attention know it.
There have been some death threats to those Colorado judges, according to NBC News.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible, I do not support any death threats against justices, or any violence whatsoever.
I do not encourage that.
However... However, I also live in the real world.
And here's the question I ask myself.
So if those justices made that ruling and got a bunch of death threats, what if they learned about cause and effect?
Again, do not make death threats against justices or any political people or anybody really.
And don't do any violence against anybody.
Don't do that.
But do you think the justices learn that if they try to fuck the country, right in front of the country, that at least half of the country will notice?
And they're not going to like it.
I have a real mixed feeling about this.
But I feel like I'm turning evil, you know, like Biden.
Because the Democrats are saying, you know, normally we wouldn't do evil things, but stopping Trump is too important.
So we're going to do a little evil to stop him.
And then I feel myself looking at this and say, oh, these Colorado judges who tried to do an insurrection and take the preferred candidate of about half the country off of the election for basically the dumbest, ridiculous, thinnest legal excuse you've ever seen, looks like some of the worst things I've ever seen done in the history of the United States.
And then patriots of the United States said, you know what?
We're going to fucking kill you.
Honestly, emotionally, I don't have a single problem with it.
But legally and morally and ethically, do not do this shit.
You know, I can say it doesn't bother me because it doesn't bother me at all.
Honestly.
Like, you know, the way I feel it.
I don't feel it.
I don't feel the problem.
But intellectually, do not do it.
Don't get yourself in trouble.
Don't threaten people.
Don't do it.
Do not do it.
But honestly, it made me feel bad.
Because cause and effect has to work.
Right?
The entire system depends on mutually assured destruction.
If any court in this country did something to destroy the United States and found themselves getting destroyed as a result, that's not a bad outcome.
It's nothing you'd ask for, but it's not a bad outcome.
You need bad things to have bad outcomes.
Otherwise, nothing works.
Nothing works.
There's got to be pushback.
But not this way.
All right.
Did you know That, as the 2020 election was coming by, that there were Democrats who were talking about a military coup to get rid of Trump.
In writing.
Yeah, Mike Benz talks about this.
Apparently somebody named Rosa Brooks, in 2020, headed the Transition Integrity Project.
They're talking about plans to get rid of Trump if he I guess if they thought he lost the election, but he didn't leave so they they thought yeah, we can get Mike Pence to do the 25th amendment, maybe Maybe a military coup or just having the military refuse to follow orders They were actually talking about really really illegal shit in writing They're not hiding it.
That's exactly what it looks like And now Biden said this recently, Trump poses many threats to our country.
Now listen, listen for the part where he says Trump's policies would not be good.
Because I'm sure that's here, right?
Biden says Trump poses many threats to our country.
The right to choose, civil rights, voting rights, and America's standing in the world.
But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy.
Was there anything there about his policies?
Anything?
It's literally just about, yeah, he's scary.
Orange man bad.
All right.
Um, I forget if I told you this yesterday, but George Clooney has this movie about, um, some American athletes competing in Nazi Germany when Hitler was in charge.
So in other words, it's a movie that's going to put a Hitler in your face in a popular movie.
In a way that's kind of unusual, because you don't always have a movie in which Hitler is the main character.
But George Clooney is.
Now, let me ask you this.
You're aware that the CIA is well known.
Decades ago, they used to work with movie theaters or movie producers to make sure that the movies were brainwashing Americans the way they were.
So the movies would make you patriotic and want to join the military.
You'd want to be Rambo.
So basically, it is well understood that the CIA was influencing Hollywood to make movies that brainwashed the public in ways that they thought were good for the country, I guess.
I hope.
But thankfully, that all stopped.
But by total coincidence, There's a George Clooney movie in which Hiller is featured at exactly the same time the Democrats are trying to make you think about Hiller.
Now, I'm not saying the CIA influenced George Clooney, but I would tell you if I were in the CIA and it were my job to influence people, there are certain people I would target as obvious ones to target.
George Clooney would be at the top of the list.
Why?
He's obviously a Democrat, but more importantly, he's political.
If you went to him and said, George, you can help us save America.
Really?
How?
Well, if you make movies that fit the narrative of getting rid of Trump by making Hitler more in our minds, because he's being, Hitler's being compared to Trump.
You want people to see Hitler, really think about him.
Really have a sort of a Hitler-first frame in their mind, and then, you know, we can get rid of Trump.
So, if you were going to make a movie, I know you've got lots of choices, but do you have anything that would be, like, Hitler-ish?
Oh yeah, we'll put that at the front of the line.
Now, let me be very clear.
I don't want to accuse George Clooney of something.
I don't have any evidence of that.
I'm just saying, if you're looking for evidence, That the CIA was still manipulating things?
That's exactly what it would look like.
It would look like finding a political person who's a popular celebrity, George Clooney, and getting that person to be associated with content that is right on point with your narrative.
And this is right on point with the narrative.
Does that mean that George Clooney is a CIA asset?
How would I know?
I just know it would look exactly like this.
Yeah, and if you're looking for other hints that the CIA might want to still influence movies, you would look for crazy stuff, like something that didn't make any sense.
For example, let's say I'll just pick a crazy example.
Let's say Netflix gave a development deal to Obama, who had no experience in the film industry.
Now, Have you ever seen an ex-president go into the movie business?
Oh, they did.
Oh, they did.
Netflix did give a development deal to the Obamas.
Oh, yeah, they did.
Now, again, I'm not saying I have any evidence that the CIA wants the Obamas to make content that's good for the Democrats.
I'm not saying that.
I don't have any evidence of that.
I'm just saying that if the CIA were influencing Hollywood, It would look exactly like this.
Exactly like this.
So, you decide.
Is it exactly what it looks like?
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
Because when it comes to the government, what is the assumption?
Is the government innocent until proven guilty?
Nope.
Nope.
The government Has to be guilty until proven innocent.
If they can't give you transparency, you should just assume they're guilty.
So I don't know if the CIA is influencing movies.
I don't know.
I can't prove it.
But I assume it.
It's a good working assumption because it looks exactly like it and you can't prove otherwise.
So it's a good working assumption.
All right.
Remember Vivek embraced what some call the great replacement idea that the immigration is being uncontrolled as part of the plan by the Democrats to get more Democrat voters because they assume that immigrants will be more likely Democrat.
Rasmussen asked people, how likely is it that some people are promoting mass immigration to the United States as part of a political agenda to replace the existing American population?
Now the way Rasmussen worded this is the polite way to say it, and appropriate way, but really the great replacement, what people talk about, is replacing white people.
Right?
So there's a slight difference, well maybe a big difference, Between replacing or adding Democrat voters versus our real plan is to get rid of Whitey.
Not exactly the same.
But Vivek's take, I think, has more to do with the voting.
So Vivek is doing a little victory dance today because apparently polling shows that people largely agree with Vivek.
That the people coming into the country are part of a plan by Democrats to get more voters.
So here's the thing.
Men said it was probably true, but 62%.
Women, 53%.
So is that consistent?
That men, 62% said, oh yeah, it's obvious you're bringing in these other voters.
But women said, you know, far less, 53%.
I think this is the natural difference between protectors and nurturers.
Don't you think?
Because the nurturers are like, yeah, it's a problem.
I mean, it's a problem, but they're people.
You know, we should treat them nice.
So yeah, some, it might cause some issues, but still nurturing is important and taking care of people.
Whereas the men say, did you just say that there's a risk at the border?
Well, yes, but you know, I'm sure we can handle it.
And the men say, we'll close the border.
Well, but you know, we could probably let them in and the sanctuary says, well, we'll find a way to, and the men are like, or, or close the fucking border.
It's just a male instinct.
So you can see there'd be a male, female difference.
But apparently every group, black, white, Hispanic, young and old, by a majority, a majority, every group, Believes that immigration is for the purpose of changing the voting balance in the United States.
Every group.
Black, Hispanic, white, young, old, male and female.
Every group agrees with Vivek.
Every group.
Have you ever seen that before?
Every group believes this is true.
Every group.
I don't know if I've ever seen that.
Can you think of anything else?
Any other political decision where every group agreed by a majority?
What would be any other?
I can't think of any other topic.
This is the only one.
Yeah, all right.
And then Elon Musk weighed in and he said a member of Congress told him, I guess in person, a member of Congress told him that it is a deliberate means of importing future left-wing voters.
Now what Elon Musk didn't say is if that member of Congress was a Republican or a Democrat.
That matters.
If a Republican said it, it could be political talk.
If a Democrat said it, I'd think, oh wow, That's really telling me something.
So I'd like to know who that was, or at least their party.
And then he says, viewed through that lens, this administration's facilitation of massive illegal immigration precisely matches their goal.
So it would certainly explain why something as easy as closing the border isn't happening.
The only explanation is that somebody in charge doesn't want it to happen.
There's no other explanation.
I guess so.
Vivek also went after Nikki Haley because Nikki Haley was claiming that the October 7th attack was on October 7th because it's Putin's birthday and so Putin is connected with the Hamas thing and therefore Putin must be killed because he's trying to destroy Israel as his side project, I guess.
But Vivek says this about He says Nikki Haley is now psychotically claiming that Putin's birthday is on October 7th, and that's somehow related to Hamas attack on Israel, but then it gets more fun.
And then Vivek says, you can see the dollar signs flashing in her eyes.
She needs to publish her tax returns and clients of her defense contractor now.
And then Vivek ends with, roll that log over.
Roll that log over.
Now that's good persuasion.
Because you can see the log, can't you?
You can just feel the log.
And you can see all the bugs and worms coming out underneath.
It's so visual.
I don't think Vivek gets enough credit for the quality of his communications, even though people note it.
I don't think they fully note it.
You know what I mean?
I mean, everybody who's watching say, okay, we've never really seen anybody like this.
Honestly, I've never seen anybody with this level of skill running for president.
Communication skill, understanding of topics.
Have you?
Now, I think RFK Jr. is super skilled, very persuasive, very smart, can go deep on issues.
But I think Vivek's another level.
I think he's even above that.
And, you know, of course, I always say about Trump, comparing Trump to anybody is a waste of time, because there's just one Trump.
Like, whatever he does, it's just his own package of persuasion.
You just can't compare that to anything.
But of the people who are not Trump in the world, I've never seen anything like the debate.
Never seen anything like it.
It's a whole other level.
And if nothing else happened, we would at least remember that we had one American who could do that.
You know how important that is to me?
It's, like, really important.
Because if you see the bumbling idiots that usually run for office, you say to yourself, aren't we supposed to be putting our best people there?
Like, where are our best people?
Why don't good people ever run for office?
Is it just, you know, crooks and idiots and buffoons and clowns all the time?
And then suddenly, Vivek shows up.
Now, you could love or hate his policies.
That's a separate question.
But you can't look at him and say, Oh, we're not sending our best.
We definitely sent our best.
Absolutely, we sent our best.
Now, and I say good things about RFK Jr., too.
I think he's quite an addition to the process.
Now, I like, of course, you know, Trump has his pluses, too.
But honestly, when did we ever run anybody as qualified as Vivek?
Ever?
Jefferson?
Thomas Jefferson, maybe?
I mean, you have to work at it.
I mean, I think Abe Lincoln was kind of a bad guy.
I'm not sure Abe Lincoln was the good guy that we try to remember him as.
But of good guys, yeah, Vivek is in a class by himself.
I saw a post by some ex-user called Jacqueline Doyle.
Who replied to me and said, The situation in Gaza is complex.
It requires a careful understanding of historical, political, and humanitarian factors.
It's important to approach discussions with empathy and respect for all perspectives involved.
To which I say, Nah.
Nah.
No.
How many people think the Gaza situation is complex?
Complicated and complex.
Hamas is the simplest situation I've ever seen.
Let me explain it to you.
Let me explain the entire Middle East.
All the complexity.
The side that has the best military gets what they want.
Are you still confused?
Anybody have any extra questions?
There's nothing else to know.
That's the whole story.
See, the complicated part is the part that doesn't matter.
Right?
So, let's talk about, you know, who was there 3,000 years ago, and then the diaspora, and then, you know, the, let's talk about the UN in 1948, and what happened then, and who left, and why they left, and then the, you know, the Hamas, and then the Palestinians, but then the Palestinians, and then there's some abuse of the Palestinians, but then they're terrorists, so you have to do some things, and, you know, oh, sure.
If you talk about all that stuff, it gets complicated, but you know what all of that stuff has in common?
Everything I mentioned has one thing in common.
None of it matters.
The history doesn't matter.
That's the stuff they're trying to tell you to get you on their side.
But the Israeli military is the entire story.
Israel wants a certain set of things.
They have the military to make it happen.
And so that's what's going to happen.
What's to discuss?
Oh, here's what I would like to happen.
What good is that?
What you would like to happen has no impact on anything.
How about your good ideas of what they should do?
Nope.
No impact.
How about your disgust at the terrible things they're doing?
Nope.
No impact.
None of the complicated stuff matters.
There is lots of complication, but none of it matters.
So when people ask me what I think about it, I've come up with the solution for that that I feel is the best one.
All I say is that Israel's response to the October 7th is justified based on only this.
This is the only justification.
Anybody who could do what they're doing would do it.
We would.
Every other country would too.
There are zero countries that would let that go.
And there shouldn't be any countries that let that go.
Now, if you want to get into, but, but, but Hamas, you know, they had reasons.
I don't care.
Well, what would the reasons have to do with anything?
Because it's just, it's just cause and effect.
If you do that to any country, October 7th, and that country has the ability to do it back to you harder, what do you think is going to happen?
Our discussion of what should happen is completely useless.
It's just causing an effect.
So I have no confusion whatsoever.
And then if you try to take me down the rabbit hole, and you say, but Scott, when you say it's justified, are you considering the 3,000 years of history?
And my answer is, no!
No.
Do you know why?
Because it doesn't matter.
3,000 years of history doesn't fucking matter.
Because the one with the big military will get whatever they want.
If Hamas had the better military, they would destroy Israel.
And we would be sad.
But it would happen.
It would happen.
Right?
No doubt about it.
It would happen.
And we could talk about the history all day long while it happened.
It wouldn't make any difference.
As long as their military was strong enough to get it done.
So, yeah, let's stop imagining there's anything complicated about the Middle East.
The ones with power win.
That's it.
That's it.
The IDF says they confirmed they've killed 5,000 Hamas fighters.
You might say to yourself, well, that sounds like good news, if you're on Israel's side.
Here's the bad news.
They estimate there were 30,000 of them, and some of the senior leaders might have already escaped.
So they've only killed 17% of a group they vowed to kill 100% of.
They're not really very close to the end point.
But I have a real question of how anybody knows how many people are in tunnels still alive.
How do you count the people that are in a tunnel that collapsed?
Do you think it's possible that the real number is closer to, you know, 10 or 15,000?
But since nobody knows who's in the tunnel, they're not confirmed?
If they already got rid of, what, a third of the tunnels?
Maybe a third of the tunnels are blown up?
Something like that?
They wouldn't have any idea how many people are left.
Now, I heard an estimate.
Can somebody do a fact check on this?
This would be an estimate that came from Hamas.
And for the NPCs, I'd like to give the NPCs their prompt.
In a moment I'm going to state a number that came from Hamas as a source.
Hamas is an unreliable source.
They should be expected to lie and exaggerate the deaths of the civilians.
Now what I'd like you to do if you're an NPC is I want you to hear that and then go into the comments and say, Scott, why are you believing Hamas?
Because that's the most obvious thing to say.
So the NPCs get ready to say the most obvious thing.
Hamas reported, I think, 20,000 deaths in Gaza.
Did anybody hear that number?
I heard it in passing.
Now, have I mentioned that Hamas is not a reliable source of that information?
Did I mention that at all?
Yeah, it's not reliable.
However, have you noticed that the news is quite happy to quote their numbers?
Right?
So as long as the news quotes that number, that will become the real number, at least sort of in the common consciousness.
Now, before the war began, or before the real heavy fighting started, I said, what would be the number of people dead, or claimed to be dead, that would be the real problem for Israel?
Like, so if you imagine, for example, and this didn't happen, But imagine if Israel had gone in hard into Gaza, 500 people died, but they got control of the situation and accomplished their goals.
I would say to myself, 500?
Wow.
That's a lot of people.
You don't want 500 people dying.
But I would also say, you know what?
Kind of proportional.
I mean, actually, it's better than proportional.
Because it's, you know, less than you could have killed.
If it were 500 people.
And then I said, all right, just in my mind, what would I feel were too many deaths?
Like what number would just seem just out of control?
At the beginning, before anybody was dead.
And I said 20,000.
Did I say that out loud?
I don't remember.
I know I said it privately.
I did say that out loud?
Okay.
So we just hit that number.
From this point on, 20,000 is kind of the level at which the Holocaust narrative that supports Israel's very existence is very weakened.
Because now it's going to be transposed and compared to 20,000 people that claim.
Have I mentioned that Hamas's claims of casualties are not reliable?
At all.
Has anybody, have I mentioned that before?
Yeah, they're not reliable, but it will become part of the common consciousness because the media were important.
So I worry a lot about 20,000.
20,000 is a, is a red flag.
Like there was a heavy yellow all the way, but now you're into red flag territory where it looks like from this day forward forever, um, At least people in the Middle East, and anybody who supports them on TikTok, is going to say that they were alive when a genocide happened.
Am I right?
Now, I'm not saying it's a genocide.
I'm more nuanced than that.
I'm just saying that that 20,000 number, even coming from the least reliable source ever, is a real problem.
10,000 I think they could have lived with.
But if Hamas gets away with keeping the 20,000 number, that's pretty big.
Now keep in mind that Israel said it wanted to kill 30,000 people who were actually warriors in Hamas.
So Israel's target number of deaths is 30,000 at a minimum.
That's not counting any civilians.
So if they do what they plan to do, And got all 30,000?
And then you added on top of that the number of civilian deaths?
It's like a whole Vietnam.
You know, I mean, because American deaths were 50,000 a year.
Oh no, 50,000 total.
Wait, what was Vietnam?
Vietnam was 50,000 total for the whole war, for American casualties.
Obviously, the Vietnamese lost millions.
Yeah, it's over 50,000.
So, I think Israel, if they actually did what they say they're going to do, the reported number, whether that's close to reality or not, it's going to look like 50,000.
And that's a real problem.
Real problem.
All right, we'll see how they handle that.
Biden is hiring a director for social communications.
I saw this on a post by ALX.
And where do you think that they would advertise for hiring their director of social communications?
Where would be a good place to?
I guess they're advertising that on threads.
Threads. Threads.
That's where they're looking for their social media master.
Yeah, we're going to get the best and the brightest off of threads.
All right.
All right.
I would have looked on X if I were them, but all right.
That's fine.
Anyway, I have nothing to add to that joke because it's a joke by itself.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'd like to talk about today.
Sorry about the sound problems.
I'll figure out what's going on here.
But it looks like my spilled coffee is going to be the real answer to that question.
I probably pushed some button accidentally.
I'll figure it out.
Export Selection