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, National Hoax Day, J6, Backwards Science, X Platform Ad Return Rate, Axios Hit Piece, Election Year Economics, Brain Body Connection, NYC War On Rats, Selling US Nuclear Technology, Small Modular Reactors, Philadelphia Safety Emergency, DEI, Mark Cuban, Elon Musk, Bill Ackman, Business Insider, Senator Fetterman, AI, Sam Altman, Dementia Hitler, President Biden, J6 Hoax, Hunting Republicans, Hoax-Based Campaigns,Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, President Trump, 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
*Painful music* *Painful music* Good morning everybody and welcome.
Coffee with Scott Adams is the finest experience you've ever had in your entire life.
If you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel or a cistern, 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, it's a dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh, that's so, so good.
So good.
Well, it's a very newsy day, and may I say to all of you, Happy Hoax Day, everybody!
It's January 6th, where we celebrate all the hoaxes played upon us by our own government.
Now, you might say to yourself, but Scott, is it some kind of national holiday?
No, not yet.
Because that would be government sanctions.
This is actually a holiday to make fun of your government for perpetually hoaxing you.
Let's see if we can do the full count.
Let's see.
2016 election, Russia collusion hoax.
2020 election, fine people hoax.
2024 election, January 6th insurrection hoax.
And that's why today is National Hoax Day.
And Happy Oaks Day to all of you.
We're gonna have a good, good show today, so don't go anywhere.
Well, now how would you celebrate Happy Oaks Day?
You know, traditions?
You ever wonder how traditions start?
You ever have a curiosity about that?
You always think, wait a minute, why am I putting gifts in a sock?
Why am I putting a sock on my fireplace?
Like, who came up with that idea?
And this is how it happens.
Some creative person such as myself comes up with the idea and then it just catches on everywhere.
So for National Hoax Day, I would recommend that we celebrate it the following way.
Number one, if you want to dress traditionally, wear a bison hat.
Bison hat, maybe wrap yourself in an American flag.
That's in terms of costuming and pageantry.
It's the Bison Hat.
Now, if you'd like to act in a way that is compatible with National Homestay, I recommend sauntering around while taking selfies of yourself.
Well, that's redundant.
Sauntering while taking selfies.
May I give you my best impression of a January 6th insurrectionist doing insurrection-y things?
Sure.
It looks a lot like this.
Happy Hoax Day.
Now, if you didn't know what I was doing there, it probably scared you when you first saw it.
If anybody just signed on, and you saw me sauntering and taking a selfie, I wasn't trying to conquer the country.
I promise.
No.
No, I know.
It looks like it.
It looks exactly like an insurrection.
But I promise you, I wasn't.
I wasn't.
I was just pretending.
Watch, I'll do it again.
Click.
See?
Not trying to take over the country.
But it looks like it, doesn't it?
Like, when you look at this, doesn't that scare you?
It's like, how will our nuclear forces ever survive these selfies?
Click.
I know, it's scary.
Well, let's see.
The Babylon Bee notes that Adam Kinzinger's mom let him open one present on January 6th Eve.
That's right.
Adam Kinzinger gets to open one present on January 6th Eve.
We don't know what it was.
Speaking of hoaxes, do you remember the story about the 10-foot aliens at the Miami shopping mall?
Well, it wasn't so much 10-foot aliens.
It was very close to that, though.
So you could see why they would be confused.
It wasn't 10-foot aliens.
It was some teenagers messing around.
Well, you could understand how people would think that was 10-foot aliens attacking the Earth.
Teenagers with sticks, 10-foot aliens.
It's very similar.
Now some people say it's because there was a big shadow cast upon something.
Who knows?
Maybe.
I just realized I didn't post my Dilbert comic today.
All right, I'll do it right after the show.
So that was a hoax.
There were no 10-foot aliens.
Just teenagers.
My next segment I call Backwards Science.
Backwards Science.
This is where you see if you can untangle cause and effect in a way that your best scientists could not.
So let's see if you can top the scientists on National Hoax Day.
All right, here's the science.
In both the U.S.
and England, and I guess India and China too, They found a high correlation between if your spouse has high blood pressure, you're far more likely to develop yourself.
That's right.
In the United States, 9% more likely to have high blood pressure if your spouse has it.
Huh?
What could possibly cause that?
What could possibly cause your spouse to have some causation kind of a thing with your high blood pressure?
Could it be?
That you end up having the same habits over time.
That if one of you is a foodie, probably the other one's going to eat more than they wanted to.
Am I right?
If one of you really, really likes to have a glass of wine after dinner, isn't it a little bit more likely that the other one would drink at least more than they might have otherwise?
So don't you think this is completely Lifestyle plus fat people marry other fat people.
And again, I don't do fat shaming.
We're talking purely medically.
From an obesity perspective, it's somewhat rare to see a skinny person marry an obese person.
It does happen, but it's sort of less common.
So does this have anything to do with marriage and everything to do with lifestyle imitation?
I think so.
Yeah, I think they left out a few things here.
Well, Elon Musk is happily reposting a claim from Doge Designer.
Apparently there's some kind of NP digital, I don't know, some kind of study that found out that the highest return on ad spending was on the X platform.
For the whole year, I think.
The highest return.
In other words, If you advertise on the X platform, you are far more likely to get a click or a sale.
So, how do you like 2024 so far?
It is the weirdest thing.
As soon as the clock turned 2024, everything started going my way.
Like everything that I would want to happen, I checked the news.
I'm like, oh, there it is.
Yep.
That's exactly what I wanted to happen.
And it's happening.
So here's the question.
How would you like to be the ad buyer for a big corporation when you made a real big deal out of making sure that you were not on the X platform?
Because Media Matters told you that you'd be paired with neo-Nazi content, which was never true.
And so Musk is suing Media Matters.
And now we find out that any idiot who took their advertising off of the X platform costs their employer a lot of money.
Is that fair?
That anybody who removed their advertising from the X platform, now that there's evidence it was the highest return, they should all be fired.
Because they made the wrong decisions, right?
I'm sure that won't happen, but All right, here's a headline on a post that comes from Axios.
Axios is a newer news entity.
And here's how they framed their story.
They said, Musk is shaping the future of transportation, communication, artificial intelligence, and space.
Wow.
So it looks like It looks like there's going to be this really good article about Elon Musk, because he's shaping the future of transportation, communication, artificial intelligence, space.
They must have some good things to say about him.
Let's read the rest of the sentence.
An enormous, maybe even unprecedented concentration of power and influence.
Oh, so it's a bad thing.
That's right.
Axios has decided that maybe we're in danger because Elon Musk has too much concentration of power.
You know what that makes me do immediately when I see that ad line?
It's the same thing you should do.
You should immediately not read the article, and you should go to Google, and you should do a Google search to find out who owns Axios.
Who owns Axios?
Do you know?
If you don't know, Then you should not read it.
Let me say that again.
You shouldn't read the news on any platform that you don't know who owns it.
Because who owns it is going to determine the nature of the content.
So it's owned by, I need a fact check on this, but I think it's owned by a family-owned business, the Cox family.
Is that true?
Or mostly owned by them?
And are the Cox family not Notable Democrats.
Can you do a fact check of me?
Because it was a little unclear when I googled it what's going on there, but it looks like cox family No, you don't spend it.
You don't spell it that way locals platform, but thanks for asking.
No, it is cox cox But see if it looks to you like Axios is just owned by a Democrat entity, which would suggest it's not real news, and that in an election year it should slant pro-Democrats.
That's what I'd expect.
Now, that doesn't mean it has to happen.
I'm just saying if you're a savvy news consumer, you should always know who owns them.
If you don't know who owns the entity, you don't know anything.
All right.
You should also expect... Let me tell you what I was telling a young person a few weeks ago.
So a few weeks ago, I was describing to a young person the basics of stock investing.
And one of the things I said was, you can never time the market.
That's why you should be in index funds.
I don't give financial advice, by the way.
None of this is financial advice.
But I said, but one thing you could usually count on is that because the press leaves left, and the government at the moment is also Democrat, at least the White House, what you should expect is that the economic data for the coming year, in an election year, especially if you have an incumbent, that the economic data is going to be skewed toward very positive news.
And that that would be a natural and predictable effect of the Democrats controlling the news, as well as the White House.
So what I said was, you can never time the market, but there is this one thing that seems to be consistent, that the news will look more positive if the people who control the news want you to think things are more positive.
Does that sound fair?
And therefore I said, If you're going to own stock, it would be good to own it before the election year in this specific case.
Sure enough, did you see the jobs numbers?
The Hill reports it this way.
Surprise jobs data gives boost to Biden as the election year begins.
That is literally the least surprising headline, and I could have written it one month ago.
One month ago, without knowing anything, if I didn't know anything about the economy, I could have said, OK, in one month, they're going to say, the economy is looking better than you expected.
Of course it would be better than you expected.
And the most important part, jobs.
Because if you don't have a job, that's bad.
So yeah.
Now, I always have to make this distinction.
Is it also true that the economy is doing well?
Sort of.
Sort of.
You know, I'm the only person I know who is a public figure who predicted that the economy would be better than people expected right now.
So it is actually better than people expected.
I think we still have an existential threat with that.
Nobody's figured that out.
But everything except debt looks pretty good.
That's sort of like saying, you know, you're very healthy except for the terminal cancer.
I get it.
I get it.
So I don't know how we solve that.
But at least we have one or two candidates who have an idea.
So I think both Vivek and Trump would have similar concepts, which is you unleash our energy Um, industry in the United States.
And that should make the GDP, you know, zoom, it should give us extra cash.
And if you ever have any chance of paying down your debt, you're going to have to do it by unleashing the product of any of the country.
You know, cut, cut the regulations, let the energy flow.
Energy is the biggest economic driver of the country because it drives the cost of everything else.
So, in theory, we could drive our cost of living down enough we'd have some extra money to pay off some debt.
In theory.
All right.
Ryan Rimelli is talking about some new studies that says that your heart includes memory.
So apparently your brain is not isolated in his skull and then your body is like this other machine that's doing its own thing and they just talk to each other.
There's evidence, I'm not sure how much I believe, but there's evidence that memories are stored in other parts of the body, like the heart.
I guess there are examples of people who got transplants and then somehow picked up the memory of the person who had the original heart.
I have to say I'm skeptical of that.
I'm skeptical, but open to it.
But skeptical.
However, I'd like to put my own spin on this story, which is this.
Why have we, historically, why have we separated the brain from the rest of the body?
Well, it's because if you have a human civilization, you're probably compartmentalizing things by occupation.
So somebody who's a brain surgeon doesn't need to know as much about feet.
Right?
So it kind of makes sense that brains are, you know, we think about brains when we're thinking about education and brain surgery.
And then you think about the body when you think about a broken leg and exercise and stuff like that.
But I think that's always been an artificial distinction.
In my experience, the brain and the body are just the same thing.
Meaning that your thoughts are so controlled by the situation with your body that to say that your brain is doing the thinking and your body is somehow uninvolved is crazy.
Let me give you an example.
If you're hungry, you don't make the same decisions as if you're well fed.
That's well understood.
And plus, you experience it yourself.
So that's your body.
That's your body influencing your brain.
If your body is having a fear reaction, your brain is going to make decisions based on that.
And sometimes your body just goes into this fear reaction without knowing how it happened.
If your body is tired or sleepy, Completely different decisions and even different preferences under those conditions.
So it's always a mistake to imagine that your brain is this thing operating independently and then your body is doing this thing.
If you don't think of them as one machine, you're really in bad shape.
Now here's why this is important.
Yes, the vagus nerve, exactly.
If you can relax your vagus nerve, it'll relax your body and then your brain will follow.
So the thing you need to know is that although your brain can tell your body to do stuff the normal way, your body is telling your brain what to do.
And so I often tell people if they want to manage their own thoughts, they should do it by changing their body.
Let's say you have low self-esteem.
Change your body.
Look in the mirror and say, Oh, that looks good.
Or that looks good, better than the people my age.
Better than the people I'm competing with.
You don't have to look like a movie star.
But how about you're not feeling interested.
You're too bored.
Put your body somewhere outside your house.
Go do something.
Put your body in nature.
Put your body out there.
Put your body in exercise.
Put your body by healthy food instead of unhealthy food.
Right?
So just imagine that your body and your brain are just one device.
And you manage them in an integrated way.
That's what I say.
I'm not sure if your heart really has memory, but I don't rule it out.
I wouldn't rule it out.
Because memory is just a pattern, right?
Wouldn't you say?
Intelligence is a pattern.
So if you can store a pattern in your brain, is it impossible to imagine there could be a different kind of storage mechanism that could store a pattern In your other parts of your body?
I feel like the concept.
Maybe.
Maybe.
So here's some bad news and worse news for New York City.
The bad news is they have a rat problem.
And the mayor has declared a war on rats.
A war on rats.
That's the bad news.
The bad news is that your city Has such a bad reputation with rats that you have to declare a war on rats?
Other places can be silent on that question.
They got a war on rats.
You know what?
That's the bad news.
You know what the worst news is?
According to the news today, they're losing the war on rats.
Yeah.
Bad news, you got so many rats, you need a war.
Worst news, you're losing the war.
That's bad news.
So, New York City not looking so good.
If I were to solve this problem, I would do a $1 bounty per rat, payable only to illegal immigrants.
$1 per rat, payable only to illegal immigrants.
Solve two problems.
No?
All right.
All right.
The government of the United States is doing something smart and wise and economical.
Wait a minute.
Oh, hold on.
I must have written that down wrong.
What?
It might be true.
This might be true.
This is weirder than the aliens, 10-foot aliens at the shopping mall.
But this might actually be true.
The Biden administration is going strong.
On trying to sell our nuclear energy small modular reactors.
Because if we can sell our nuclear technology and know-how to other countries, that gives us sort of a geopolitical control of those other countries.
Because the last thing you want is for some third world country in Africa to say, you know what?
We need some nuclear power here.
Can anybody help us?
And then Russia and China say, yeah, we can help.
Like, that's our bad situation.
Because we don't want Russia and China befriending any countries that could be our friends, right?
We need all the allies we can get.
So the Biden administration is doing a big push, exactly the right thing, to try to get other countries a little bit pregnant.
On American nuclear know-how.
Is that a good idea?
That's a great idea.
In fact, I think the Biden administration should be making a much bigger deal about it.
You know why they're not?
Because half of their base still thinks nuclear energy is the worst thing in the world instead of the thing that will save it.
So he's doing the smartest thing Well, it's one of the smartest things I've seen a president do, obviously.
If Trump were doing this, I'd be praising him from top to bottom, and he didn't.
So, you know, I'm being honest.
Now, I think Vivek would, of course, push nuclear.
He said it even today.
Moments ago, he just posted that we should go hard on nuclear.
So I know Vivek would get there.
I think that Trump could have done more on nuclear power.
I was always disappointed on that.
However, there's only one problem with this push to get other countries to buy into American nuclear know-how.
So we're selling these small modular reactors, the kind that you can make the components in a factory, and while it might be only a third as good as a regular power plant, it'll be way cheaper.
You know, maybe power a million homes for 60 years.
So it's really good stuff if you can do it.
You know what the one problem is?
The stuff we're selling to other countries doesn't exist.
Yeah, that's the only problem.
So we're trying to get all these other countries to ignore China and Russia's existing technology, to instead invest in our technology that we've never yet successfully built.
Nobody in America has built a small modular reactor.
We don't have a company that's ever done that.
We have companies trying to do it, and they're quite far along, but nobody's ever done it.
Yeah, Rolls-Royce has done it in England, but in the United States?
Nope.
Nope.
Haven't done it.
Now, why?
Probably has a lot to do with our regulations and poor governance, probably.
But, having said that, I think it's a great idea that we're selling our nuclear technology.
Was I joking?
Because what we're selling is Smoke and mirrors?
No.
No.
If Trump were selling a technology that didn't exist to other countries on the hope that it would soon, I would say it was brilliant.
So I'm going to use the same standard.
Yeah.
I mean, it's not that unusual that a company will sell something they don't have.
If they think they're going to have it soon, it's not that unusual to do this.
So I'm going to give Biden Pretty close to an A-plus on this.
Pretty close to an A-plus.
Now, if Vivek would have done the same thing, maybe even better.
And I think he would do it more full-throated.
Whereas Biden is doing the right thing, but I feel like he has to be quiet about it.
Because he doesn't want to offend his base.
Because you know what the Democrats hate more than anything?
Good work.
They hate it.
They hate it.
All right, speaking of that, well, maybe things are turning.
Here's another sign that 2024, everything's going to go well.
It goes like this.
Colin Rugg was posting about this on X. So apparently the Philadelphia mayor, Sherrell Parker, signed this executive order declaring a public safety emergency.
So Philadelphia is so dangerous now that they're getting really serious about law and order.
She's fully committed to ending the lawlessness, going to hire 300 more police officers and fire their new head of DEI.
So Philadelphia fired their DEI director and just declared an emergency and said we're going to hire police officers and fix them.
How's that for 2024?
And like a lion, it's going to be a hell of a year.
Hell of a year.
Yeah, so even the deeply Democrat city is saying, they don't say it out loud, but they are saying, if we act like Republicans, we can solve this.
Doesn't that look like what it is?
To me, it looks like Philadelphia just said, you know what?
Acting like Democrats got us here.
If we act like Republicans, let's see if we can fix it.
And then they acted like Republicans, hired police officers and fired their DEI director.
That's pure Republican.
Will it work?
Yeah.
Yeah, it'll totally work.
Absolutely, it'll work.
Speaking of the disgraced concept of DEI, Mark Cuban is doubling and tripling down in his support for it.
I was going to let it go for a while.
Let it go, as in, you know, not comment on it on Axe, at least directly to Mark Cuban, because I didn't think he meant it.
Like, I didn't think he was serious.
It just looked like he was preparing to run for office to me.
But the more he writes about it, the more I think he means it.
Which, which means I have to get involved.
Because that's not a good, it's not a good direction for the country.
So I posted to him the following.
On X today, I said, Mark, literally everyone, I can call him Mark, because I've talked to him a few times by DMs anyway.
So I use his first name.
Mark, literally everyone who has spent a minute in the real business world knows DEI might have been well-intentioned, but in practice it is pure race discrimination every time.
You think that's fair?
Is it fair to say that obviously it was well-intentioned?
But in the real world, no.
So I gave him a... I said, ask me about the five careers I've lost so far for being white and male.
So I just listed them.
Number one, Crocker Bank.
Quote, we can't ever promote you because you're white and male.
Yes, management told me that directly.
Not guessing.
They said it to my face.
Directly.
So I left Crocker Bank and went to Pacific Bell.
What happened there?
Seed number one.
Same thing.
Exactly the same thing.
Management told me they couldn't promote me because I'm white male.
I was back then as well.
Could have changed, but it didn't.
Number three, Dilbert was an animated show that was doing well enough to get renewed on UPN.
But UPN decided that Monday night, where that TV show ran, they were going to turn it into an all-black comedy lineup.
And Dilbert didn't fit the all-black comedy lineup.
So it got moved to a new time zone, and when you move things to a new time zone on TV, it usually kills them, which it did.
My speaking career, which had been quite robust, completely ended when I backed Trump in 2016.
Why?
Was it because I had Republican leanings?
No.
It's because I was a white guy and I backed Trump.
I mean, it was just racist.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There was no corporate entity that could invite me because it would be too many people in their own group who would say, why did you invite a racist?
And what was the evidence that I'm a racist?
That I'm white.
That's it.
And I, and I thought Trump would be a good president.
That's it.
Would that have happened to a black man?
Doubt it.
How about my recent cancellation in 2023?
So I lost my entire cartoon syndication and book publishing careers.
You can count that as two.
So really it's six careers.
And why did I get canceled?
Well, here's how I would frame it.
I said that you should stay away from people who have been taught in school that you are their oppressor.
You should stay away from people who are learning in school that you are their oppressor and their main problem in life.
Now, I'm doubling down and tripling down on that because everybody agrees.
There's literally not a person in the world who would disagree with that statement.
Now, did I say it in a way that May have been taken too provocatively?
Yes, I did.
Intentionally.
I didn't realize it would lead to my total cancellation, but I was trying to be provocative.
But the point is, the point is one we all agree on.
There's nobody in the world who wants to spend time with people who, in general, have been literally taught in school that you're the problem.
Taught in school that you're the problem.
Who disagrees that you should stay away from that group of people?
But, let me say carefully and completely, you shouldn't discriminate against individuals.
Right?
There's no one individual who represents, you know, anything that's some universal thing.
So don't discriminate against individuals in hiring, or your personal life, or renting, or any of that stuff.
I'm against that 100%.
But as a demographic group, Can you say that you should stay away from a group that has been taught in school as part of the government officially sanctioned programs that you are the problem?
You should get the fuck away from that as far as you can.
And yeah, I'm going to triple down on that.
So anyway, um,
I saw Elon Musk say in response to Cuban, because they've been talking about this on the X platform, talking about DEI, and Musk said that he agrees that you should, you know, look for the right qualifications first, but Musk said that if you had a, let's say a white candidate and a candidate who would give you some diversity, that even Musk would use the diversity as a tiebreaker.
So if I were to apply for a job at Tesla, and I had the same qualifications as a black candidate, or somebody else who they were looking for, then Elon Musk says that he would favor the other candidate.
Now you know that's racist, right?
So I'm deeply disappointed, but I also agree with him.
So I agree with Elon Musk's point of view.
It's super racist, but I agree with it.
Here's why.
He's taking it from the point of view of the, uh, well, I'm, I can't read his mind, but this is my best, my best estimation of why his opinion would be what it is.
Um, if your job is to take care of the shareholders, your job is for your company to thrive within the legal bounds of the constitution and the country.
You actually are better off if you have a diverse workforce that has the same level of talent as if you had not.
So if you take the white guilt out of it and you just say, can I reduce the amount of outside pressure I will get?
Will I make my customers happy?
Will the press say good things about my company?
And the answer is yes, if it's more diverse.
So from a business person's perspective, Elon Musk is 100% right.
If you had two people who are the same qualifications, you probably would want to pick the one that gives you diversity as well.
Because as Cuban points out, and I agree, that diversity can be an advantage because it gives you more opinions from more places in America than you would have otherwise.
But you wouldn't do it If you were going to lose something else.
If you had to give up too much to get that extra perspective, then you have to make that choice, which one is the bigger benefit or cost.
But I agree with Elon Musk.
If you put me in his position, I would do what's good for the company and the shareholders, because that's my job, and I would probably discriminate racially.
However, let me be as clear as possible.
This makes Elon Musk a racist.
Unambiguously.
Because he said, in clear language, I would favor somebody because of their race if they had the same qualifications.
Now, if he said, I'm going to flip a coin, I would say, oh, that's fair.
But he said he would favor them because of race.
That is racism.
Purely racism.
As an individual, and as a citizen of the country, I say, fuck you and fuck that.
Fuck you.
Fuck you, Elon Musk, for being a racist and saying it in public.
But on the other hand, I totally agree with you.
I would do the same thing.
Is that fair?
Can I hold those two opinions strongly?
I would do the same thing he's doing, because it makes sense from a business perspective.
And frankly, it might even be better for the country.
He tends to look at the big picture.
Yes, the big picture He's probably right.
But it's unambiguously racist.
So let's not, we don't have to sugarcoat it.
It is racist by definition.
I mean, it's the cleanest, clearest, complete racist thing you could possibly do.
Might be good.
Might be good for the country.
But probably not.
You know what the real problem is?
The real problem is there's no such thing as two people who have the same qualifications.
That's not a real thing.
So it might be that we're not really even talking about anything real.
Have you ever met two candidates who have the same qualifications?
You said, oh, these are equal.
There might be people you can't tell the difference, but they're never the same.
You just can't tell.
So maybe that ends up the same.
All right.
Apparently the effort to keep Trump off the Off the ballot because of his insurrection ways is now been extended to a whole bunch of other members of Congress.
So there's this former congressional candidate.
Who?
He's famous for hating MAGA.
He's trying to use that same 14th Amendment to disqualify one other candidate, Perry.
But then there's somebody else trying to qualify 126 members of Congress, all Republicans, because they somewhat agreed with the January 6th protesters.
Now, have you ever seen anything like this?
Where one party is trying to remove people from the ballot for reasons that are obviously bullshit.
And we got this far.
Now, I think none of that's going to be successful.
But pretty amazing.
Oh, my.
Let me tell you, the comments coming from Rumble are a different character than the comments coming from YouTube.
Oh my.
Anyway, so Jonathan Chorley writes about the insurrection play that the Democrats are doing.
Now, I've never seen anything as anti-democratic as that.
What is more anti-democratic than keeping candidates off the ballot for bullshit?
Anyway, Bill Ackman continues to stir up trouble.
So, you know, Bill Ackman was the or maybe one of two main people pushing to get the Harvard president fired.
And she eventually did resign.
But then he's also going after MIT.
And I guess there are people, business insiders, going after him.
So Business Insider went after Bill Ackman's wife.
Or some academic work in which he had not done proper attributions, because he was going after President of Harvard for plagiarism, so Business Insider said that, well, we'll look at your wife.
Is that fair?
Is it fair to look at a guy's wife because you don't like what he said?
Uh, no.
No, that's not fair.
That's not fair at all.
Because it's not like it's politics or something else.
You know what else wouldn't have been fair?
If Bill Ackman had gone after the President of Harvard's husband for plagiarism.
What do you think I would have said about that?
I would have said, Bill Ackman, you're being a dick.
If you go after the President of Harvard for plagiarism, that makes sense.
Because, you know, that's a job that's supposed to protect against plagiarism.
But if you went after the spouse, even if I don't like what the spouse did, that's not a fair attack.
That's another domain.
And when I watch Business Insider go after Bill Ackman's wife, I say, Bill Ackman's wife wasn't involved.
She didn't say a peep about any of this.
She's not a politician.
She's not a politician's wife.
That is a completely unfair attack.
So what did Bill Ackman do?
He's forming a group to look into the Business Insider writers to see how much plagiarism they've done.
So now it's full-out war.
It's just full-out war.
Who's going to win?
If it becomes a full-out plagiarism war, who's likely to win, the left or the right?
Well, the world of academic writing is probably Five or 10 to one populated with Democrats.
So they should have five to 10 times as much writing.
And if everything were equal on both sides in terms of rate, you would five, five to 10 times more plagiarism just because there's more writing.
So game on business insider.
You just took on the, uh, the, probably the most dangerous man in American business, and he's gonna put you out of business, I think.
Maybe.
All right.
So then he also went after MIT, Bill Ackman did.
So there's a chairman of MIT.
His wife has some nonprofit, and they did some clever thing that only a person like Bill Ackman could untangle.
So they did something with a charity that doesn't look On the surface, like it's the most legitimate thing in the world, that there's some kind of clever tax manipulation that Bill Ackman says might have been illegal.
Might have been illegal.
So, could you remind me, if this ever comes up, could you remind me never to start a public fight with Bill Ackman?
Please?
If you ever see me, like, leaning in that direction for any reason, I have no reason, but if you ever saw me, Can you just grab me by the collar and just hold me back, like, Scott, this isn't going to work out for you.
Don't.
Don't do it.
But I love watching it, since I'm not involved.
And more evidence that everybody, including me, or even especially me, was wrong about Fetterman.
He says the border crisis is a crisis.
What?
Democrats can say that?
Apparently they can.
Right out loud.
He said that when he went to Harvard, Harvard was always a little pinko, but now he doesn't recognize it.
What?
What?
Okay, that sounds like a Republican.
He's also a full-throated supporter of Israel, and he's not a big fan of the people talking about colonizers, which he calls out, calling them colonizers.
He goes like, where does this come from?
It must be TikTok.
He hates TikTok, too.
Come on.
Come on.
Fetterman?
Fetterman is pro-Israel, anti-TikTok, thinks Harvard has gone full pinko, and the border crisis is a crisis.
You know what else?
I watched a clip of him describing it.
It actually looks like he recovered.
He looks recovered.
Like when he talks, I thought his fluency was good.
Good.
Now, I don't agree with him on all of his policies, but he's the real deal.
I don't want to walk away from something that's real.
I totally see his appeal now.
I absolutely, completely see his appeal now.
Now, I'm not sure that's why he got elected.
I think he got elected just for being a Democrat, but he has some skill.
I'm going to give him that.
I don't think he's president material, but he could surprise you someday.
Sam Altman said something useful here about, you know, the AI speed at which we adopt it.
So Sam Altman, you know, head of OpenAI, he says stasis is a myth.
Stasis meaning staying where you are.
Everything's moving all the time.
Right?
So there's no such thing as staying in one place.
So you can say you want to, but it's not really a choice.
Nobody can stay in one place.
The world is changing too much all the time.
But he says this, the fight for a future is a struggle between technological driven growth and managed decline.
Wow.
That's sort of setting up the, you know, the fake choice a little bit, but it does make the point well.
He says the growth path has inherent risks and challenges, along with its fantastic upside, and the decline path has guaranteed long-term disaster.
Stasis, staying where you are, is a myth.
So what he didn't say, but I think is implied, that if the United States decided to slow down on AI, just to make sure we're going safely, our competitors won't, China won't, Right?
So we would guarantee that this key technology, you know, we go behind.
That would, I think I would agree with him, that would guarantee a managed decline.
That would be like not trying.
Now, I agree with him completely on the risk analysis.
And I think people in general are bad at risk analysis, which is why we often get the wrong answers.
The risk analysis is exactly the way he described it.
Yes, there's a risk of all technology.
There was a risk with smartphones, and I think we're paying it.
I think we're paying a pretty big price for smartphones.
There was a risk of, you know, windmills would eat your birds and solar cells would be hard to recycle.
You know, basically everything, everything that's progress also has a big risk involved.
So if you say that AI has a big risk, you're right.
And it might even be bigger than the other risks.
It might actually be existential.
You're right.
But not doing it guarantees you go out of business.
Not doing it guarantees you become a third world country in the end.
So it's not really a hard choice.
If you have a, let's say, you feel you have better than 50-50 chance of making AI work without killing you, That is a way better chance than not doing it at all and letting China have AI.
I mean, that's the end of everything.
So, yeah.
Now, on top of that, it's not just worrying about China, because people are building AI in their basements, right?
We already have the tools that an individual could build an AI, which is already happening.
You can't stop it.
So the idea of artificially slowing down our companies, it doesn't really make sense from a risk management perspective.
Now, let me be clear.
If AI gets out of control and destroys America, am I wrong?
Is my opinion wrong if five years from now, America is destroyed by AI?
The answer is no.
It was still the right bet.
It's just not every bet is going to be a winner.
But in terms of guessing what's the right way to go, this is definitely the right way to go.
You want to be a little bit aggressive, at least in AI.
There's no way around it.
Because if you take the, we don't want to be dead in five years, you've guaranteed you're dead in 10.
So I'll take a 50% chance of surviving over 100% chance of failing.
That's just basic risk management.
That's not even an opinion.
That's just risk management.
It's just numbers.
It's just math.
Of course, you'd have to believe your own assumptions to do the math.
All right, let's talk about Biden's hate speech.
So Dementia Hitler, I like to call him Dementia Hitler, gives a speech.
And of course, his staff was quite aware that if they gave him a background that looks satanic, that people like me would say, Hey, that speech looked satanic, like his last one.
So, you know how they fixed it?
They put solid American flags behind him, so that from every angle, there would be an American flag behind him, so that it didn't look like Satan.
So, Dementia Hitler gets up there and starts talking like, Rawr!
Rawr!
Rawr!
Hitler!
Kill all the maggots!
Or whatever he said.
He's got all these flags behind him.
So, Do you think that Biden may have the DEI problem that he's trying too hard for diversity, and if you try too hard from the limited pool of people available, you might end up with a competency problem?
Yeah.
Do you know what the problem with putting all American flags behind Biden is?
Does anybody know the problem with that?
I'll bet his staff doesn't know the problem.
There is a problem.
You know what it is?
Now, I'm not sure that science is born out, but in this book, Persuasion, by Cialdini, he's also the author of Influence, the most important book on persuasion ever written.
So this is somebody who works on Democratic campaigns.
Until recently, I think he's retired from politics.
So he's actually advised Obama.
We think he advised Clinton.
Right.
One of the things in his book is that they did a test of how people are primed, the persuasion part is about priming people, if they see an American flag.
You know what the result was?
American flags make people vote Republican.
Because the American flag is the symbol of patriotism.
When you say patriotism, who do you think of?
Even if you don't like Republicans, You kind of think, okay, they're the flag wavers.
The Republicans are the flag people.
They're the ones who don't want you to burn it.
Democrats are the ones who might be okay with burning it.
Republicans, no, don't burn my flag.
Republican, most likely to put a flag outside their house.
Republicans, most likely to go to a protest holding an American flag.
Democrats, most likely to go to a protest holding a Palestinian flag.
Mexican flag.
So, I think that Biden's staff failed him again, and I totally get that they wanted to make the background look not satanic, but they made it look Republican instead.
Will that give Biden any Republican votes because he has flags?
Nope.
Nope.
Will it make people think, huh, It looks like he's agreeing with the Republicans and I feel more Republican because I saw some flags.
Well, it depends if you believe the research.
You know, the research is in the field where I'm not sure it's, it's not like physics where you can prove it's true.
Sometimes it'd be different opinions.
So the research might be sketchy.
But, uh, yeah, I think the American flag was a, weirdly, it was a mistake.
It was actually a staff mistake.
So, anyway, Dementia Hitler, as I call him, is angry and unstable and chaotic, and he does look like Hitler.
In other words, I only see hate when he talks.
Was that your take?
The look on his face, and the way he presented, and the way he talked about those MAGA people?
To me, it looked like hate.
Why would you ever vote for somebody who hates a big part of the country?
His own citizens.
Hate.
So it was a dark, hatred-filled, Dementia Hitler kind of a presentation in which he threatened people like me.
Yes, I feel that he literally threatened me.
Threatened.
Because he bragged about putting the January 6th people in jail, and now there's a legal ruling that you could be jailed simply for passively being there.
There was recently a case in which there was a guy named Alfred who was part of January 6th.
He didn't do anything.
He was just sort of there.
And he didn't do anything violent or destructive.
Doesn't seem to be that he incited anybody to do anything.
He was just there.
And the court said, DC of course, nevertheless we affirm his conviction because a jury could rationally find that his unauthorized presence in the Capitol as part of an unruly mob contributed to the disruption of the Congress's electoral certification and jeopardized the public's safety.
That's a real thing.
He's being convicted, his conviction is being upheld, even though they acknowledge that his only crime was to be in an unauthorized place.
And that's good enough, because his participation gave cover or support to insurrectionists.
Do you know who else's activities give cover and support to insurrectionists, according to this standard?
Me.
Me.
Right.
Me.
So by doing this right now, talking in public, in support of the protesters, I am part of a larger operation, which you could reasonably assume, according to this legal standard, that somebody like me is guilty of insurrection.
Or at least guilty of being part of destabilizing the government through my opinions.
Yeah.
Now, obviously they have not extended the standard to people like me, but I feel it.
I feel when Dementia Hitler brags about how many people he put in jail for January 6th, he's telling people like me not to complain in the country that's supposed to have my back on free speech.
Because I feel like I've become part of the insurrectionists just by saying it's a hoax.
It's a hoax, by the way.
January 6th was a hoax.
Because Republicans do not do insurrections without guns.
Glenn Greenwald has dunked it on Joe Biden.
He says, "Joe Biden is so deeply and passionately devoted to the urgency of democracy that he's doing everything possible to imprison his leading opponent, criminalize his movement, the MAGA people, and, as federal courts found, censor the internet by his anti-democratic measures or to save democracy." Thank you.
Thank you, Glenn Greenwald.
See, this is why you should listen to Glenn Greenwald.
When he disagrees with you, you should also listen to him.
Because he's capable of disagreeing with both sides.
That is an important and valuable asset.
That there's even anybody who's willing to criticize both sides.
So when he talks, I listen.
He has earned my respect, even though he insulted me once on X, but I got over it, because he's quite valuable.
Charlie Kirk says that Joe Biden brags in his J6 Doomer speech, I like that, Doomer speech, that his DOJ has targeted 1,200 J6ers, convicted 900, and sentenced them to 840 years in prison collectively.
He wants his political opponents afraid this can happen to them too.
What a sick man.
Well, it worked, because I am his political opponent, and I'm literally worried about jail.
I'm not kidding.
I'm literally worried that I could be jailed on a trumped-up charge.
Is that fair?
How many of you think that's a reasonable thing to worry about after listening to Dementia Hitler?
Is that reasonable?
Am I overworrying?
We're not there yet.
You know, I don't live in a world where, yet, I could be picked up in the, you know, the January... But you can see it's moving in that direction.
You can see he's trying to widen the envelope to make it any MAGA who support it.
It's very obvious.
Yeah, I'm definitely a target.
So, Dementia Hitler, thank you for walking into the narrow ravine.
Where everybody can now see that this is just the third hoax in a row.
He runs all of his campaigns on a big old hoax.
And, uh, well, and Hillary's does it too.
All right.
I'm just looking at some of your comments from...
All right.
Stop using the word diverse.
All right.
So I'm calling the three big hoaxes, the Russia Collusion Hoax, the Fine People Hoax on January 6th, Insurrection Hoax, I'm calling them the Three Hoaxmen of the Apocalypse.
Do you like it?
The Three Hoaxmen of the Apocalypse.
Yeah.
Give me a man and I'll show you the crime.
Exactly.
Stalin.
Trump says that Biden is fear-mongering.
So he reacted to the speech, calling Biden's remarks a, quote, pathetic, fear-mongering campaign event.
And he said that Biden was only attacking him on the issue of democracy because he could not run on other issues.
That is correct.
He's only attacking him on January 6th because if they don't run a hoax, they don't have enough to get elected.
All right?
It's all about the hoax.
Now, here's the scary part.
What is the most powerful form of persuasion?
What's the most powerful form of persuasion?
Fear.
There's nothing about fear.
If you can make somebody afraid, you control them because they have to do what they have to do to get rid of their fear before they even eat.
Right?
You could be really, really hungry, but if a bear appears at your campsite, you're going to run first and eat second.
Right?
So fear beats eating.
If you want to like have some sex, But the bear appears at your campground, you will immediately cancel the sex to run away.
Right?
Fear just beats everything.
Now, I would argue that when Trump ran the first time, he successfully weaponized fear about the border situation and immigration.
Now, you might say he shouldn't have done that.
I think maybe he overdid it.
But, it worked.
Because fear is Good persuader.
Now, what Biden's doing is a little different.
Because he's using fear persuasion, except he's telling half of the country that they're the target of the fear.
Like me.
So what, what do I feel being targeted as, you know, he would say I'm part of MAGA, even though I never identify with MAGA.
I've never identified with MAGA in case anybody wonders.
I just don't like the name.
And I don't like to be a joiner.
I just like to have my opinions.
Like I don't need to be in a club.
Don't put me in the club.
I just want to have my own opinions.
That's all I want.
Well, so Biden has created fear in the Democrats that Trump and his MAGA army is a bunch of non-democratic people who want something bad.
I don't know.
By that framing, instead of doing what Trump did, and he said, there's somebody outside the country who's a risk, which could, in theory, unite the country.
Wait, there's somebody outside the country, the illegal immigrants, who might bring in too much crime, and that's a risk?
Oh, we could bind together for that.
But because Biden's persuasion is that the MAGA people are the problem, that makes me afraid that another four years of him could end up with me in jail.
So he's activated my highest level of self-defense.
I'm in actual fighting for my life, self-defense mode, because of his crazy dementia, fear-mongering speech.
Now it could be the greatest mistake anybody ever made in the political realm.
If you don't want to really make people like me, Fight for my life.
I'm already doing enough damage.
You don't want to make me think I'm going to die if I don't do it better.
But, here we are.
So, I can promise you this.
You're going to see my best.
Because I'm trying to stay out of fucking jail.
So, I'm not going to take any prisoners.
I'm literally fighting for my life.
And I'm going to go all in.
Going all in.
Got nothing to lose.
Vivek continues to pick up the free money.
I saw this in somebody else's post that I copied his words without giving him credit.
Sorry about that.
But it's a phrase I use a lot also, picking up the free money.
So he says his top goal is to reunite the country.
Now, day one, he's going to pardon the J6ers, Julian Assange, Douglas Mackey, and Ross Albright.
And it won't wait until the last day like presidents usually do.
Wait a minute, Ross Albright?
Why is he going to pardon him?
He wants to pardon the Silk Road guy?
The guy that brings you fentanyl?
Now, remember I told you I wasn't going to take any prisoners?
Well, I've actually heard from Ross Ulbricht's mother, because I said he should stay in jail, and she thinks I'm persuasive.
So his mother basically begged me not to keep dumping on Ross Albright and say he should stay in jail.
Sorry, Mom.
you I think you should stay in jail.
Now, I think the other people should get pardoned, but I would oppose his pardon.
Because I'm anti-Fentanyl.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, all he did is create a tool.
What people do with the tool should certainly not be his problem.
No, that's a stupid argument.
The Silk Road was made for crime.
It was made for crime.
That's why it exists.
No.
Yeah.
How many people have died because the Silk Road exists?
What do you think?
How many innocent people, innocent-ish, I guess, how many people died because the Silk Road exists?
Tell me that, and then I'll tell you whether I think you should be pardoned.
If the answer is none, if the answer is none, or, you know, some trivial number that was a weird thing, I'd say, All right, I'll give him a pardon.
But the answer is not none, is it?
Can't you buy guns over the Silk Road?
Am I wrong?
Can you buy a gun over the Silk Road?
So a number of you are saying zero.
So you actually think zero people died because Silk Road exists.
Well, there's a lot of people who think that.
How about on this platform?
How many of you think the number of people who were killed by the Silk Road existing was zero?
Now isn't the Silk Road how people get fentanyl and how they get weapons that criminals can't get legally?
The Silk Road is a very important part of the Silk Road.
Thank you.
All right.
You know what I love?
I love the fact that people are so addicted to my morning livestream, that if I go over an hour, they get mad.
Because they feel they can't quit.
You can stop watching.
After an hour, if you want, you can just stop watching.
No, you can do it.
I know you all like to complete your mission.
But, you know, it's okay with me.
Yeah, it's okay with me.
You can murder somebody and get less time than you could get for the Silk Road.
That makes sense to me.
I think you should get more time for making the Silk Road than you should for murder.
If you killed one person, that's just one murder.
Well, that's my opinion.
Anyway.
Nikki Haley, who is, according to The Hill, this is their headline, Nikki Haley, dogged by Civil War controversy, and they quote her in the headline, I had black friends growing up.
I had black friends growing up.
Now, how does she not know that that would be quoted exactly the way it was quoted?
She didn't see that coming?
The old, I have a black friend so I can't be a racist thing?
She didn't see that coming at all.
Did not see that coming.
Alright.
Here's what I like.
I would like that the United States could have a president that is the smartest person at the G20.
Do you think that Nikki Haley, who had a black friend when she grew up, black friends, do you think she would feel like the smartest candidate at the G20?
No.
I would like a candidate who would be smart enough not to say, I had black friends when I grew up.
Vivek would not say that.
Would he?
Do you think Vivek would ever say in public, Oh, don't call me a racist.
I had black friends.
No.
Did he have black friends?
I don't know.
Who knows?
But it doesn't matter.
You don't answer the question that way.
That's just dumb.
It's just dumb.
So, I'll tell you the thing I like best about this particular election.
This is the first election where I didn't have any doubt that the candidate I endorsed is the smartest one running.
That feels good.
You should try it.
If you're not endorsing the vague, you should try seeing how it feels to know for sure They endorsed the smartest candidate.
It feels really good.
It feels really good.
Now, I think Trump, like I say, don't, don't compare Trump to anybody on any dimension.
He's just his own thing and there's nothing like it.
And he is what he is because of the complete, the completeness of him.
Right?
So you wouldn't take one quality from someone else.
And say, oh, is this better or worse than Trump's one quality that's the same?
No.
Because Trump is what he is because of the combination of things that nobody has.
Right?
So comparing by a quality is a dumb thing in his case.
But I really like having the smartest candidate.
Backing the smartest candidate.
All right, that's all I got for you YouTubers and rumblers and on X. And thanks for joining.
I'm going to say something to the Locals people after we go?
