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, Dementia Hitler, OpenAI Lawsuit, Home Insurance Cost, Vermont, South Carolina, Elon Musk Hit Piece, Wall Street Journal, Drug Abuse, DEI University of Utah, President Trump, John McCain, J6, The Hill, MSNBC, Tripledemic, President Biden, Congressional Corruption System, Entrapment Day, Vivek Ramaswamy, Lloyd Austin Hospitalization, Unfirable DEI Hires, Derek Chauvin, Antisemitic Comment Origins, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the highlight of human civilization.
And if you would like to take this experience up to levels which, I don't know, I don't think any of us can even imagine, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Ah.
That was glorious, really.
I almost feel like I need another one.
Anybody?
Double sip?
Double sip?
Go.
Yeah, neither that.
I could not go on without that extra caffeine.
But now we're ready for the best show that's ever been.
Would anybody like to give me a hearty thank you?
We're making the trend for making the term Dementia Hitler trend for 48 hours on X. Anybody?
Would anybody like to thank me for that?
Yeah.
Yeah, I did that.
You know, it's funny, the Dementia Hitler, you never know what's going to catch on.
It's not like it's the first time I tried to make something catchy, but it doesn't always work.
And I don't always know why it doesn't work.
But sometimes you know it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
So I was just looking at Biden giving his speech, and the term just popped into my head.
Just fully formed.
I just saw it.
Dementia Hitler.
So I wrote it down.
And when I wrote it down, I said to myself, that's kind of sticky.
But I had no idea that it would be trending for two days.
So far.
My goal is to get Trump to use the phrase, Dementia Hitler.
I don't think he will, because it's not his own, but we'll see.
So I wonder, you know, after a big speech like Joe Biden did on January 6th, do you think that afterwards he talks to his staff and says, hey, how'd it go?
How do you think I did?
And they're like, well, Well, you know, you're fine.
I know, but what's the feedback?
What is social media saying about my speech?
Well, many of your supporters liked it a lot.
Okay, I know the supporters are going to like it, but what about the other people?
Well, you're trending on X. Excellent.
Excellent.
That's what I was hoping for.
What's it say?
Well, what's trending is the phrase Dementia Hitler.
So that's how your speech went.
There you go.
All right.
In other news, Microsoft and OpenAI are being sued by some authors of non-fiction books.
And the idea is that the AI is scraping their work and getting it in some way that they say is a violation of copyright.
Now, I've heard that the fiction writers separately were trying to do something legally as well, but I don't really understand why that makes sense.
If you write a work of fiction, isn't the value of the book the exact wording and your phrases and your sentences?
It's not like AI is going to reproduce that.
I mean, it might do a sentence or something as a quote, but it's not going to reproduce the book for free.
And I can't really summarize it, because a summary of a fiction book is nothing.
You know, summarize Romeo and Juliet.
Well, two lovers, you know, they had trouble getting together, their families didn't like each other, ended up committing suicide.
Fiction, fiction by its design, can't be summarized.
So I'm not exactly sure what the fiction writers have to worry about with AI.
But I'll tell you that non-fiction writers have a lot to worry.
And I'm one of those.
So, in addition to Dilberty jokes, which would be fiction, my latest books are all non-fiction.
Reframe Your Brain, the book that is changing lives all over the world right now, is non-fiction.
Now, I'm going to tell you something that I probably shouldn't tell you.
You can get a summary of most books just by asking AI.
It'll tell you the basic idea.
And the thing that I shouldn't tell you, as a fiction writer, I'm kind of being disloyal to my people, is that most non-fiction books can be summarized just fine.
Most non-fiction books can be summarized by AI just fine.
In fact, I use a chat GPT in voice mode where you can just talk to it anytime you want.
You don't have to use any wake up terms.
You just start talking.
You can have a conversation with it on anything.
So the other day I was driving and listening to my AI, and there was a book.
I'm not going to mention the book, because I think it would be unfair in this context.
But there's a very well-known business book that I had not read, but I felt bad because I should.
You know, there's some books you kind of have to read to be considered up-to-date on what's going on.
And I said to myself, well, AI, can you summarize that book?
And I did.
And I went away feeling that I didn't really need to see anymore.
The summary was sufficient.
You know, I asked questions, which is the way I like to learn.
I like to get the general idea of something and then ask a question.
It's like, well, does that include this?
And how do you define that?
And, you know, that sort of thing.
So I had some questions, but basically I saved myself four hours of reading a book.
And I don't think I lost anything.
I feel like I got exactly everything I needed from the summary.
Now, can you do that to my books?
That would be your next question, right?
Can AI summarize my books?
Because they're also non-fiction.
It's factual stuff.
And the answer is no.
You can't summarize them.
And the reason you can't summarize mine is that I write it with persuasion techniques, which if you take the persuasion out, you would have a description of tools that nobody would use.
Let me say it again.
When I write a book of fiction, it's usually stuff that I think would make your life better.
But only if you do it.
Only if you do it.
Reading about it isn't going to do anything for you.
So I combine my non-fiction books, the type of text that would persuade you to maybe try it.
If you summarize my book, you would take the persuasion out.
You'd say, well, he says do this and this and that.
You wouldn't do it.
You absolutely would not do it because you heard his summary.
So if you summarize my book, you lose most of the value because it'd be a bunch of stuff you don't try.
Now, there are two ways to convince people to do stuff.
One is to show them some science, which sometimes can convince people.
I use more story form, because stories are more persuasive.
So if I say, I had this experience and I know three people that had this experience, you're probably more persuaded than if I said there was a meta-analysis or something that you didn't trust anyone.
So don't take the persuasion out.
But these authors are suing OpenAI and they're asking for $150,000 a piece.
Or what?
All fiction, non-fiction authors that become part of it?
I don't know.
Does that sound fair?
Do you think GPT should be allowed to essentially steal and summarize your book if they give you $150,000 once?
That's probably 99% of writers would say that was the best deal they ever saw in their life.
And 1% would say, that's way less than my book is worth.
I don't know.
We'll find out what the courts say about this.
Well, there's a big problem with insuring homes, if you didn't know.
Some of it seems to be getting blamed on climate change, which I believe is bullshit.
But there are other reasons as well.
One reason is people keep building in dangerous places.
So the more expensive homes you build on the coast of Florida, the more it's going to cost you for insurance.
In California, our version of that is if you build your expensive new McMansion in an area that's close to a forest that's poorly managed, your house might burn up.
And your insurance company knows that now.
So they're not going to give you insurance.
They're going to say, nope, we don't want to take the risk of insuring your $3 million McMansion next to this forest that'll probably burn down in the next five years.
So it's a real big problem.
If you can't get insurance, the entire housing industry dies.
And if you, if you have to pay so much for it, the rates are going up as much as 50% since the last few years.
Your home insurance is up about 50%, which is something that every voter with a home is going to notice, if they haven't insured.
They're definitely going to notice that.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
But here's what I think will happen.
I think that the market will adjust.
Because our markets are flexible enough that somebody's going to figure out how to build a home that doesn't get destroyed by a hurricane.
Right?
That's all it would take.
You just have to build a home that won't burn down and won't be destroyed by a hurricane.
Which can be done.
Can be done.
So you just need more of those, I think.
Yeah.
Anyway.
So where are people moving to?
This is an interesting article in the New York Post.
It's kind of interesting.
You always hear about California and Florida and Texas, but apparently the places people are moving to most are Vermont and South Carolina.
Did you know that?
That the states with the most incoming are Vermont and South Carolina?
Bernie Sanders, his little Vermont is very popular.
Now, I feel like the Vermont people Or some of them are, you know, just going for a simpler lifestyle and they like the scenery and stuff.
But don't you think a lot of the people moving to Vermont are saying, get me out of this city?
Doesn't it feel like people are escaping for their own safety, at least to some extent?
Maybe lower cost of living as well.
I couldn't put up with the snow, but South Carolina is the other place.
What do Vermont and South Carolina have in common?
Anybody?
What do Vermont and South Carolina have in common?
Maybe nothing?
Lower cost of living?
Maybe a lower cost of living and... I hear South Carolina is really beautiful.
Isn't there the most livable city in the country is in South Carolina?
Or is it North Carolina?
Is it Greenville or something?
Where's Greenville?
South Carolina?
Or North?
All right.
So wherever that is.
And the people are moving away from California, New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan.
Did you know that?
You probably knew about California, but did you know people are moving out of New Jersey, Illinois, and Michigan?
I wonder if those are all high-tax states.
Does anybody know?
Greenville is in both.
Oh, so there's a Greenville in both North and South Carolina, but I'm told the good one is in South Carolina.
The good one.
How would you like to be the bad Greenville?
It's probably pretty good too, but there's one that's better.
All right, there's a big story in the Wall Street Journal about how investors and people are worried about Elon Musk's illegal drug use.
Now, before I tell you this whole story about people all upset about Elon Musk's illegal drug use, here's what you need to know.
Three years ago, after, this is what Musk himself says on X, he said, after one puff with Rogan, meaning one puff of marijuana, I agreed at NASA's request to do three years of random drug testing.
Not even trace quantities were found of any drug or alcohol.
Or alcohol.
Nothing.
In three years.
So three years of total cleanness.
And the Wall Street Journal writes a long article about how everybody's worried about his drug use.
It's going to ruin everything.
Now what would you call that?
Is that news?
Does that look like valuable news that you need to know?
No.
This is clearly a hit piece from the Wall Street Journal.
Now, I do expect more from the Wall Street Journal, I have to admit.
I expect better than this.
I think the Wall Street Journal is typically much better than this.
This is despicable.
It's despicable.
Now, I think Musk does You know, everything that needs to be done to debunk it, just by saying that he's been tested for three years and he doesn't have even trace quantities, including alcohol.
Now, does Elon Musk not drink?
Is that a thing?
Does anybody know?
Because I'd be very impressed if that's the case.
Does he not even have a casual drink?
And the reason I ask is because there are a lot of very influential people More of them I see in the political right who have stopped drinking and they like to let you know publicly, I'm one of those people.
And it feels like that trend is really increasing.
Have you seen it as well?
The number of public figures who say they don't drink anything, you know, such as me.
Yeah.
Anyway, I'd love to know if he is just off of alcohol or they didn't find any because it doesn't stay in your system that long.
I don't know which one it is.
But here's the thing you need to know.
So I added this to the argument.
And this is one of the things I can say because I'm canceled and disgraced.
So this free speech stuff is just terrific.
I got to tell you.
My enjoyment of social media and just being able to talk in public in general is about 120% better than it was last year.
Because here's a topic that I can tell you without any hesitation that I don't know if I would have done even a year ago.
It goes like this.
I'm going to tell you a big secret of Silicon Valley and perhaps American industry in general, but I know less about that.
And it's this.
In the normal world, both the successful people and the unsuccessful people are doing a lot of drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.
A lot of drugs.
But what's the difference between the super successful people and the people who become addicts and street people and, you know, they lose their jobs and their family and everything?
What's the difference?
Well, nobody's going to tell you this, except me.
Because you just aren't allowed to say this out loud.
I'm going to tell you something out loud that I believe is known to everybody in Silicon Valley, but you've never seen an article on it.
Or at least I haven't.
Maybe somebody has written one.
It goes like this.
It is inaccurate and maybe misleading to say there's people on drugs and then people not on drugs.
And that the people not on drugs are operating efficiently and getting stuff done, and the people on drugs are all a mess.
In a general way, I would agree you should stay off drugs.
In a general way, it's better not to do any.
In just sort of an overall general way.
However, we live in a world where no two people are the same.
Your reaction to, let's say, a drink of alcohol might be completely different.
than someone else's.
And the same goes for the other drugs.
But more to the point, beyond the individual differences, is that the drugs that people choose have very different characteristics.
There are drugs which primarily, if used correctly, can enhance your performance, that are illegal.
There are drugs which, if used even correctly, will degrade your performance and there's no way around it.
If you're taking too much Klonopin or you're drinking or you're probably heroin or something, not going to help.
That's That's not making you able to make rocket ships.
If you're shooting fentanyl in your arm, you're not making car companies and rocket companies.
That's the wrong choice of drug.
If you're drinking all day long, sometimes you could be a functional alcoholic.
There are lots of them.
But it's probably not helping you.
It may be something you're managing, but it's not making you better at your job.
However, there are a number of drugs, and most of them were named in the Wall Street Journal article, that are closer to performance enhancers than performance hurters.
One of them that's closer to an enhancer is mushrooms, and LSD, and psychedelics in general.
Now, I want to be really as precise as I can about this.
For some number of people, doing hallucinogenics could be terrible.
Could be.
You could overdo it.
I imagine there's all kinds of risks.
So I don't recommend it.
And in general, I'm not going to recommend That anybody do any of the drugs that I'm about to mention.
Don't drink alcohol, don't smoke cigarettes, don't do weed, even if I say I do, don't do it, because I'm not a doctor and I do it for medicinal purposes.
But, it must be said that a lot of the greatest accomplishments probably depended on psychedelics.
Yeah, I'm going to say this as firmly as possible.
Probably a lot of the biggest accomplishments in American tech were from people who were on the right kind of drugs and in the right way.
Meaning that the psychedelics may have cured their mental illness so that they could go on to better performance.
It may have made them more open-minded.
It may have simply made their life better so that they could put more gusto into what they're doing.
Now, and again, I'll keep repeating myself because I don't want to make, I want to make sure I'm not confusing anybody.
All of the drugs I mentioned could be devastating to a person's life and I don't recommend them at all.
Period.
I don't recommend them.
But it is nonetheless true that some number of the greatest accomplishments in the world Probably, not probably, certainly, came from people who had enhanced their abilities through some illegal drugs.
Suppose you knew that somebody was capable of doing great things, if only they could beat their depression.
And then they took ketamine.
Ketamine?
Ketamine?
I always read it, but I never hear it.
Ketamine or ketamine?
It's one of those.
Suppose you took that and suppose you did it responsibly and it helped you with your mental health.
Well, that frees you.
Now you can go do those things.
But if you're just, you know, tortured by your mental health and you don't know what to do about it, you've tried all the normal things.
Therapy didn't work and, you know, whatever.
Maybe, maybe.
And again, I'm not recommending this.
So if you have a mental health problem, Don't go take a bunch of ketamine because you heard it on the live stream.
Be responsible.
Don't take drugs.
I'm just saying that in the right situation, that a smart person can enhance their capabilities substantially.
And I won't go through all the other drugs and say how it could be misused, but how somebody might use it correctly.
I'm just saying if you're doing doubters, That are making you sleepy and stupid, it's not helping you.
But if you're doing things that expand your mind and don't have a lot of downside, something that helps your mental health, something that makes you more creative, more energized, more interested, it would actually help.
Now, when I saw that the Wall Street Journal said that Elon Musk has done these following drugs, the reports say at various parties or something, obviously not in the last three years, but sometime in the past, I say to myself, can I get a list?
Can I get a list of those drugs?
Because whatever he's doing is working.
Is somebody suggesting that if he had not done those few party drugs that were mentioned, You know, they were in the context of a party.
If somebody suggested that if he hadn't done it, that SpaceX would be doing much better?
Would he be selling more Tesla cars if he had not smoked a joint with Joe Rogan?
I mean, put any of this together for me.
None of it makes sense.
It only makes sense that the Wall Street Journal is writing hippies.
All right, moving on.
The University of Utah is removing any DEI questions and statements because the government of Utah said to.
And they're just getting out of the DEI business, apparently, in the University of Utah.
So, let me ask you this.
Is the trend for DEI certainly for less of it, or do you think it's still expanding?
You think there's more of it or less of it in the coming year?
I think it might be bifurcated.
I think there might be some really blue places that get more of it, but the red states are definitely getting rid of it.
Now, what do you make of the fact that there's a thing that some states think is so dangerous it's illegal, and other states say, oh, we need more of this?
It's almost like some states are passing a law that says you have to eat sugar, and other states are passing laws that say, stay away from sugar, it's bad for you.
And they both exist at the same time.
Now, I like the fact that our 50 states could be like laboratories for the Republic, but that doesn't make any sense.
If there's a substantial number of states who say doing this is actually bad for you, While other states are saying it's good for you and really, really good for you, I think we ought to maybe come together and have a convention and pass that out.
Maybe that's not something we should compete on.
Well, Trump makes news again for allegedly mocking John McCain's injuries from the war.
When he was talking about the Obamacare vote and how John McCain surprised people by giving the thumbs down, Trump said, John McCain for some reason couldn't get his arm up that day.
I remember a time when this would be big news and everybody would be shocked and offended.
It doesn't feel like that anymore, does it?
Because once you know Trump's act, you just know he says outrageous things about his critics, and you just go, oh, it's just part of the show.
I mean, I think he's passed into Don Rickles territory.
I was hearing yesterday yet another story about now deceased comedian Don Rickles, whose entire show was about insulting people in the audience and famous people.
He would just insult people.
Now, if you were to just walk up to somebody and insult them, they would be quite mad.
But if your brand becomes the, I'm the insult person, you become Don Rickles, then you can say anything.
Because people say, oh I get it, it's just part of the show.
I think Trump has sort of drifted into the Don Rickles frame, where he can just say this, You know, about John McCain's war injury, and people just shrug it off.
I don't think it's going to be a headline.
Well, it's a headline.
I don't think anybody cares.
I think it will change zero votes.
Because it's McCain.
Trump is really good about not going after innocent citizens and voters who are minding their own business.
As opposed to Dementia Hitler, who wants you to know that MAGA people are definitely bad to the core.
Right.
Trump doesn't do that.
Compare these two things.
Trump mocking the war injuries of one character who many people in the country who agree with Trump think is despicable and has gotten us into wars we didn't need to be in and whatnot.
Compare that to Biden giving a speech saying that the MAGA people are insurrectionist supporters.
Which one's worse?
I would say Dementia Hitler is way worse.
Now, on an individual level, Trump was worse, but it's worse against a critic.
I don't know.
Saying bad things about a critic is just sort of business as usual.
But saying bad things about your public, if you're the president, is really, really, really bad.
I don't approve of either one.
Just, you know, if you're saying, why are you approving Of Trump making fun of somebody's disability.
I'm not approving it.
I'm just saying I understand it as part of the show.
So it doesn't bother me in any way whatsoever.
So here's my theme for today.
Everything's corrupt and it's obvious.
Everything's corrupt and it's obvious.
So in the following stories you can see that theme.
So I was reading the publication The Hill.
And I noticed that they use insurrection when talking about January 6th as though it's a proven fact.
In other words, they don't soften it by saying, some call it an insurrection.
You know, some have branded it.
What they don't say is that no court has found it was an insurrection, which is true, no court has.
But they don't say that.
They just write an article and they say, The insurrection brought an overwhelming bipartisan disapproval from Americans.
Just the insurrection.
Not the protest that some people said was an insurrection, but the insurrection.
Now I ask you, is this a sign that the press is clearly corrupt?
I think so.
For the press to write insurrection when clearly the evidence is 100% against it, And then just to treat it like it's such a fact that you don't even need to explain it or put any caveats.
You don't need to put it in quotes.
It's just a fact.
Now, how is that different from Trump saying that the 2020 election was rigged?
What did people say when Trump says 2020 was rigged?
Everybody, everybody said no court showed it was rigged.
No court showed it was rigged.
Guess what?
No court has shown it was an insurrection.
At least he's not been accused of insurrection.
There was a court that just sort of said there was an insurrection.
But there hasn't been a trial on the question of whether it was an insurrection.
So why is it that a trial is necessary when you're saying the election was rigged?
You can't say that unless it was a trial.
But you can say it was an insurrection.
When there's no core finding of anything of the sort.
That's corruption.
So this is a corrupt publication, in my opinion.
How bad was the insurrection?
Well, on the same day yesterday that an MSNBC host cried on the air when hearing how horrible January 6th was.
That's right.
He had to take out a tissue because he was crying on the air about all the violence and terribleness of the day.
At the same time, I'm reading a post from the blue-collar intellectual podcast, Julian is his name, and he posted this.
Happy J6 to everyone losing their minds.
I've had sex more violent than this insurrection.
Y'all are ridiculous for trying to take Trump off the ballot for this.
I've had sex more violent than this insurrection.
Now that's one of the funniest things I've heard about.
I've had sex more violent than this insurrection.
Now that's some good mocking.
Now I've told you, you need to mock this.
The January 6th thing should be not denied.
Just mocked, because it's so fucking stupid.
This is some good mockery.
I've had sex more violently.
Well, The Hill, who we've already determined is a piece of shit, is also reporting that the triple-demic is surging, and there are fears of it.
Are you all worried about the triple-demic?
Is there even one person here who's all worried about the triple-demic?
You know, the flu and the COVID and I don't know what the third thing is.
You're all worried, right?
Oh, we're so worried.
I'm so worried.
I changed all of my life over it.
Nope.
Didn't do anything differently.
I didn't do anything differently.
Did you?
I can't think of anything I did differently because there was a triple-demic.
Oh, but they got a word for it.
It's a triple-demic.
Now, do you think that The Hill wrote this article because this is newsworthy and interesting, or because it has a political dimension to it?
Well, I don't know.
Makes you wonder.
If they hadn't called it an insurrection, I might have given them the benefit of a doubt.
But when you do something that's clearly biased and political, then I say, maybe I could extend that to your other coverage.
Wouldn't that be fair?
Let's talk about President Biden and his dementia Hitler tentpole hoax.
He said that three years ago, a violent mob fueled by lies attacked the U.S.
Capitol.
Our democracy was tested, but it held because we, the people, prevailed.
Now what I see is a Hitler-like anti-democratic guy who's keeping his, trying to, keep his opponent off the ballot, trying to, or his party is, doing massive work to decrease free speech and to jail their opponents.
Dementia Hitler.
And he has the nerve To not only promote this hoax for his presidency, but he says the Republic held because we, the people, prevailed.
I'm pretty sure that we, the people, were the protesters.
Well, let's get that straight.
We, the people, was the protesters.
We, not the people, was the government they were protesting.
Because they're not the people.
I mean, that's basically the protest is that the government was not being responsive to the people.
So no, we the people is who the protesters were.
Let's get that part straight.
So yes, we do have a dementia president and his tentpole hoax is going to be January 6th.
So they're now firmly in the narrow ravine and let your mockery cannons go.
Jonathan Turley points out that over half of the states are calling on the courts to reject Trump's disqualification to be on the ballot.
So, more than half of the states are saying it should be illegal, or at least unwise, to keep him off the ballot.
Which means that over half of Americans oppose this effort to keep him off.
But does Dementia Hitler care?
No, Dementia Hitler is going to do something that more than half of the public doesn't want.
We had the 34 minute glitch again.
Still don't know what that is.
So yeah, that's a pretty big sign of corruption, trying to keep your opponent off.
How about that pipe bomber story?
Remember that?
January 6th pipe bomber?
It's a good thing we now have all the information about that, isn't it?
To which you're saying, what?
I don't know about that story or I forget about it.
Well, Vivek Ramaswamy reminds us in Truth Number 9, part of his series.
He says, pipe bombs were placed near the DNC and RNC headquarters on January 5th in 2021.
With many irregularities, including Kamal Harris showing up at the DNC headquarters on the morning of January 6th without Secret Service or any law enforcement spotting the pipe bombs.
So that's a big question.
Why wouldn't they spot them?
Because apparently they weren't well hidden.
They were not well hidden.
Only for both pipe bombs to be found later on January 6th.
Hmm.
Yeah, strangely, the government still hasn't said a peep about the perp.
Despite available surveillance footage of the pipe bomber, which has not been fully released, hmm, why not?
A CBS reporter recently exposed the DOJ's notable silence on this investigation.
What really happened?
Yes.
Does this sound like, oh, just some little mystery criminal thing?
Or does it sound like the government is covering up something that looks like An op.
It looks corrupt.
It looks like the government's covering something up.
I don't know for sure, but in the context of all the other fuckery, it's reasonable to assume what Vivek is assuming, that there's something here, is the lack of transparency.
A lack of transparency from a government entity allows you to assume guilt.
Which you should not assume for a human, like an individual citizen.
Assume innocence for people.
Assume guilt for your non-transparent government.
Mike Cernovich posted this asking, Is America the only country where you don't know election results for weeks and are assured this is normal and not corrupt at all?
What if it's as obvious as it looks?
Why are we the only country that can't count our votes the same day?
I can only think of one reason.
And it's not incompetence.
Because incompetence has largely been driven out of the system by doing the same election year after year after year with people who know what they're doing.
So I don't think it's incompetence.
It has to be planned.
It has to be designed that way.
Otherwise you don't get it.
Because you can design it out easily.
Other countries do it easily.
It's not even a challenge, really.
There's no challenge to it.
We just don't do it.
And everybody in the country, Democrat, Independent, Republicans, everybody knows that your credibility of your system degrades with every hour you delay the final count.
Everybody knows that.
It's just obvious.
Common sense.
So if it's obvious it's a terrible, terrible, terrible thing for the Republic, why don't we fix it?
There's only one reason.
Corruption.
I can't think of a second reason.
Like, even if you assume that the country has become terribly incompetent, they would at least be trying.
Am I right?
Even if you assume incompetence is the problem, they would at least be conspicuously trying to fix it.
But that's not happening, is it?
I don't know.
Maybe in some states they may have tweaked some things.
But if it happens again, If this election is another one where we don't know the results for days, you have to assume it's rigged.
You just have to.
Why else?
California has declared that the state health insurance will cover sex change operations for illegal immigrants.
So not only can you come to America and get health care, but they will change your gender if you ask.
Now, I just I think that that's so close to a perfect law.
But you know, some things, you know, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, you know, they say.
Being close is still a fail.
And when I say it's close to being a perfect policy, instead of covering sex change for illegal immigrants, I would make just the smallest tweak to this.
Just the smallest tweak.
I'd keep it just the way it is, with the smallest little adjustment.
I'd make it mandatory.
Yeah.
That's how I'd play it.
You'd end immigration in about 10 minutes.
You may come into the country under asylum.
We'll be altering your gender.
And it's mandatory.
Just make it mandatory.
We can solve this whole, this whole thing.
And you know, the best part is you wouldn't really have to surgically alter all of them.
You could do three or four and you would end the entire immigration problem.
Am I right?
Because I think people notice a pattern.
It's like, wait, how many?
Three.
We're just getting started.
Okay, I'm out.
Three would be enough.
Three would be enough.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm joking.
Don't get too serious.
Speaking of Cernovich, he also had a good point about how the Congress members are underpaid.
Relative to what we're asking them to do.
So $174,000 a year to live away from your family and have like separate quarters.
So you're supporting your family back where your family is, but you also have to support yourself in at least a lifestyle that makes it seem credible that you're an elected official in DC, which is really expensive.
And $174,000 a year sounds like a lot to a lot of people, but it's not really a lot.
In that context because he'd have two homes now Joshua Lysak added to that Famous ghostwriter Joshua Lysak and Already said he said congressional salaries need to be in the millions of dollars or zero It needs to be millions of dollars of pay or zero and here's the argument
A lukewarm $174,000 per year means you need to earn your fortune through other means in DC.
And you need leadership.
We're financially independent and free.
Now, does that strike a chord?
It really does, doesn't it?
Because if you tell me that you put all these people who have, let's say they're aggressive enough that they can run for office and win.
So you're a certain type of alpha aggressive character.
And then we guarantee that you can't make enough money to live in comfort.
What are you going to do?
It's almost like we're begging them to steal from us.
You're begging them to steal from the public.
Because if they don't, they're doing more work than they're getting paid for.
That's what makes people steal.
They think that their situation is not fair.
So I can imagine you could justify it very easily as in, well, you know, I really couldn't stay in this job and I'm helping people so much in my district and I really am one of the good guys.
So if I allow this project to go forward and I vote for it, uh, It's a good project anyway.
Hey, maybe I was bribed to support it, but you know what?
I would have supported it anyway.
So you can see how easily somebody can talk themselves into taking a bribe without calling it a bribe.
So we put these people in this situation, which as Joshua Lysak points out, we've designed a system for corruption.
Not to prevent it, Remember, design is destiny.
You can look at the design of a thing and determine how it'll go.
So if I said to you, the government doesn't exist, I'm going to design one on paper, and I'm going to have these congresspeople get elected, they have to live in D.C.
away from their families, for twice the expense, and we're going to pay them just enough to get by.
Just enough.
What would you say is the likely outcome of that system?
By design.
That would be a system designed to guarantee corruption.
And it looks like that's what we got.
Do you know how I know?
Because it's designed to guarantee corruption.
Do you know why I think the election is almost certainly rigged?
Or there's an attempt to rig it, whether they do it or not.
It's because their elections are designed to make it hard to audit them.
By design.
It's not an accident.
You could very easily make a fully auditable system.
Just put it all on paper and have people count it twice.
Am I wrong?
Put it all on paper, and then an audit is you count it twice.
That's about it.
So it's easy to design a system that has no corruption.
Or it would be hard to have it.
But we didn't do it.
What is the logical assumption?
It's designed to be corrupt, and moreover, you have to assume that both Democrats and Republicans are okay with it.
Because I don't see a lot of work going on to fix it.
You have to assume both sides are in on it.
Not every person, but certainly powerful people on both sides.
Well, Representative Clay Higgins, who now we know is underpaid, was on Tucker's show.
And he says he's got more information than we do about what happened on January 6th.
And, of course, we were reminded in that episode that Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, would not answer the question of how many FBI undercover agents were dressed like Trump supporters and attended January 6th.
Now, what do you assume when the head of the FBI won't answer the question of whether there were any and how many?
You have to assume that the answer to that question would be embarrassing to the FBI.
What would be an embarrassing number?
That they didn't have enough?
Well, it could.
Maybe.
It's possible he's worried they didn't have enough undercover agents.
But the other possibility, which seems far more likely, is that they had a lot.
Or what we would think would be a lot, whatever number that is to you.
And so it's easier or safer not to mention it.
Now, to me, when you add that to what Higgins says, there's a lot of evidence that entrapment was the entire process.
There's an audio of Nancy Pelosi Uh, being happy during January 6th as it was happening, because she heard that the trespassers were on the Capitol grounds.
And then she realized that you could put them in jail now, because they've gone into this federal offense, trespassing, and she seemed pretty fucking happy about it.
She seemed happy that she could put the protesters in jail.
Yeah, so I will say that based on what I've seen so far, I think the working assumption is that it was a government op.
Doesn't mean I know that.
Doesn't mean it's proven.
But the government is guilty until proven innocent, and they've made a very big show of not wanting to be transparent.
If you suspect your government could have done something, and their response is to give you no transparency, The working assumption is that you've proven their guilt.
It doesn't have to be true.
In the same way that you say about a citizen, innocent until proven guilty, that doesn't mean they're innocent.
That just means that's the standard.
And that if you've got a good standard, you're better off than if you don't have a standard.
The standard for the government is if you suspect they did something bad and they put up all the walls and bar you from finding out for sure, you have to assume it's true.
And you should do all of your actions, your words, and all of your decisions based on that working assumption that it was an op on January 6th.
Doesn't mean it is.
Likewise with the election, I have no proof of any rigging.
Personally, I don't have proof, and I don't know how I ever would.
But the fact that I can't get it, one way or the other, my working assumption is it's rigged.
And that it will be rigged again.
That's my working assumption.
Doesn't mean it's true.
Vivek Ramaswamy actually called January 6th Entrapment Day.
Hashtag Entrapment Day.
And he gives you this evidence.
He says the Capitol Police fired rubber bullets and stun grenades into a peaceful crowd.
Yet later, willingly allowed members of that crowd to enter the U.S.
Capitol building, only to be later tracked down and arrested and imprisoned.
Now, I think you could have some debate about whether that crowd was peaceful.
Would you agree?
You can debate that, because there were certainly violent members of it.
But what I would not debate is that the rubber bullets and stun grenades appeared to be aimed into the middle of the Non-violent group.
Am I right?
If the only people they were rubber-bulleting and stun-grenading were the people in the front who were breaking windows and trying to beat to death Capitol Police, then I would say, oh, that's a good use of a rubber bullet and a stun grenade.
But why should you assume about the fact that this was done into the center of the peaceful part of the crowd, and then they opened the doors?
Now, it doesn't mean that the people opening the doors have any communication with the people who fired the rubber bullets and the stun grenades.
Might have been different people, different, you know, just making their own decisions about what they thought would work best.
But, if you can't prove it one way or another, and it looks very suspicious, as with vague points out, it smells bad, right?
The video is really damning about why they would do that.
Now, it could be as simple as incompetence.
It could be that whoever fired the bullets into stun grenades was just bad at their job and made a bad decision.
That would be the most ordinary explanation.
But the fact that we can't know, like, what was behind that?
Your working assumption should be that it's what it looks like.
It looks like they were trying to cause more trouble than they were trying to solve.
That's what it looks like.
Can I prove that?
Do I know what they're thinking?
Can I read their minds?
No.
Nope.
Can't prove it.
Can't read their minds.
And if this were just about individuals, I would say, well, they're innocent.
We'll prove it guilty.
You better bring me some proof.
But we're talking about the government, and the government is guilty unless they can prove it with transparency.
All right.
This story is wacky.
So for a few days, for four days, the Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, was hospitalized in intensive care, and the President of the United States was unaware of it.
But don't worry, because his number two was in charge of running things from her vacation in Puerto Rico.
That's right.
For four days, the United States did not have a military defense.
Or at least not one that is working the way we want it to.
So the person in charge wasn't even basically, wasn't operational.
And the person second in charge was on vacation.
Now, I suppose if something bad happened, she would immediately come back from vacation.
But do you feel comfortable with that?
Keep in mind that the person who was second in line also did not inform the President that he didn't have a real Secretary of Defense.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Wouldn't you get fired for this?
If I were the Secretary of Defense and I did this, would I not get fired?
I think obviously I would.
Obviously I would.
Like, really obviously.
Like, there's no, this one's, this one's black and white.
But how about if you were the number two, the Deputy Secretary, who is in charge, but on vacation in Puerto Rico, and you also didn't tell your President that he didn't have a, you know, a Secretary of State who was, or a Secretary of Defense who was in the country.
Shouldn't you be fired for that?
I think so.
How about for not immediately cancelling your vacation when you found out that your boss is incapacitated?
I think you should be fired for that.
Or at least, again, not mentioning it to your boss, the President.
Well, here's what I think.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks is a woman, and the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin is a black man.
I think the first black Secretary of Defense.
Do you think That they will be fired for what is obviously a firing offense.
I'm going to say no, and I'm going to say this is what the anti-DEI people have been warning everybody about.
You can't fire some people.
It's just really, really hard to fire people who have been hired for their diversity.
Now, does that mean that these two people are not capable of doing their jobs?
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying there was a specific thing they did that no matter what your general capability was, or no matter what you did up to that point, it's a pretty obvious firing offense.
But I don't think it'll happen.
Now, you could argue, Scott, you don't know the details, and if you did, maybe you'd change your mind, and you're right.
If I knew the details, I might change my mind.
But here's the problem.
Our leaders, especially our military leaders, they need to inspire confidence.
That's a real key part of their job.
Inspire confidence.
Did this inspire confidence?
No.
They're the opposite.
And I'm pretty sure that they can't be fired because one's a woman, one's a black man, and I don't think we can fire them in today's environment.
So, well, they're leaders in the military sense.
And then Jack Posobiec report says, here's what really happened.
The White House senior staff knew Austin was in the ICU, but he hid it from Biden.
Oh, that's worse.
I was saying that they didn't tell the president, but they knew the senior staff knew.
Okay, so if the senior staff knew, does that put the Secretary of Defense and the deputy, does that put them in the clear?
Because that would suggest they did try to tell the boss, but the staff didn't tell them.
I'm going to say that doesn't put them in the clear.
I mean, it's a good defense.
But if you're the Secretary of Defense, do you hope somebody tells the President?
Or do you make sure you talk to him?
Why in the world would you not have at least a 10-second conversation with the President if you were going to leave the country undefended?
Maybe he didn't know that hospitalization would be that bad.
There could be lots of, you know, extending circumstances.
Could be.
All right, let me catch up my comments here.
Comments don't scroll on this platform.
You have to scroll.
All right.
Yeah, so in the age of DEI, You have to ask a lot of questions.
First of all, the White House senior staff, how many of them are DEI hires?
But they hid it from Biden, and it's going to be a problem.
And Biden was livid for the White House staffers.
Do you think Biden should be livid about that?
Yes!
Yes.
Even Dementia Hitler should be livid about that.
Absolutely, Levin.
Let me make this standard.
If he doesn't fire the Secretary of Defense and possibly the Deputy, if he doesn't, he's got to fire his staff.
Because if his staff is really the problem, and it might be, so maybe the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy are both in the clear.
It's possible.
But if they talk to the staff, do you think Biden would have said, well let me ask you this, do you think Biden would have said, you know what, you stay on your vacation in Puerto Rico and I'm sure everything will be fine because we have telephones and we'll call you if we need you.
I don't know.
He might have said that's a bad look, you better get back here right away.
He might have.
I think I would have if I had been the president.
So yeah, you should be pretty livid about that.
What else is happening?
So the Daily Wire is reporting that a meta-analysis has been completed on the question of whether minorities in this country are mistreated by the legal system compared to anybody else.
What do you think they found?
Yeah, it's just what you thought.
As a meta-analysis, the study found that there was no difference in how people were treated by the legal system.
The racial bias just didn't seem to come out of the studies.
So there wasn't any racial bias in punishment that they could suss out of the meta-analysis, which is a study of studies.
So, but here's the more interesting part.
When they look at individual writings by academics, they find that the academics routinely do this.
They routinely show you data that suggests there's no difference in treatment or penalty by race.
And then they'll write an article that says it's really terrible that there's such a big difference in the treatment by race.
That's right.
The academics and the science-y people are so out of control that they can show you the data that's opposite of what they write about, and nobody catches it.
These are things that nobody caught until somebody looked specifically to see if the article and the data matched, and they didn't.
Isn't that amazing?
People were really, they were actually showing the data the opposite of the argument they made in the same paper.
Routinely.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
Yeah.
So, how's that George Floyd situation look now?
I think we can say out loud that Derek Chauvin was in the process of being murdered because he's white.
And that's pretty obvious at this point.
All right.
I have discovered, at least in my personal experience on X, that there are way more anti-Semitic commenters.
Is that because of the war in Gaza?
Or, I speculate, these might be bots.
And the reason I speculate that is, don't you think that the bad, evil people on the left Hired a bunch of people to act anti-semitic so that X looks like the place that hates Jews?
You don't, don't, well it could be a tic-tac effect, yeah.
It could be, but here's why they look like bots to me.
In other words, paid people that are paid to cause trouble.
It looks like that because they make the same comments all the time.
The similarity of the comments they make, at least in my posts, are hard to ignore.
It doesn't look like real people who just had a thought and made a post.
Because you can recognize that.
They're all different.
But when they have this commonality to them, I worry that Elon Musk is being set up.
And that there are bad people pretending to be anti-semitic.
Let me tell you what they say.
The common thing that they say.
It goes like this.
If you're a casual observer of political news, you might assume that most of the things they tell you are reasonably true.
You know, the news sometimes is wrong, but reasonably true.
So that would be what I call the lowest level of awareness.
Would you agree?
If you think the news is usually true, that's the lowest level of understanding of your environment.
If you think that the The traditional news sources are corrupt, then you're a little bit higher level of awareness.
But, people don't stop there.
I don't.
I say, why is the news corrupt?
And then I back it up a little bit and I go, oh, Democrats.
Because the news is dominated by Democrats.
The Democrat Party wants them to support them.
So really, you have to go all the way to Democrats.
But, Is it all Democrats?
And are Democrats pushing their own buttons?
Here's where other people go, but not me.
So other people say, it's not the Democrats, Scott.
There's somebody behind the Democrats.
Well, who's that?
Who's behind the Democrats?
Well, Scott, it's the WEF and the World Economic Forum.
It's Klaus Schwab.
So Klaus Schwab is pressing the buttons of the Democrats.
The Democrats are pressing the buttons of the press.
And the press is pressing the buttons of the voters.
So now you understand the whole mechanism.
But wait, we're not done.
We're not done, say the commenters who are streaming in lately.
They say, Scott, look deeper.
It's not the WEF.
The WEF is also a puppet.
It's really the Jews.
Now that's the comment that I'm getting to almost anything I post.
If I post any kind of, you know, the press is doing this or the Democrats are doing that, which I often do, somebody will enter the comments and say, dig deeper, Scott.
You almost know who they are.
Now, that of course is something I've, you know, always heard on social media.
What's different is I hear it on all, it seems like any kind of post that has any kind of conspiratorial people behind the scenes or manipulating you kind of sense.
Somebody will come in and say, you're almost there, Scott.
You're almost there.
You haven't uncovered yet the massive global Jewish conspiracy that is really behind climate change and the WEF, that is really behind the Democrats, that are really behind the media, that are really the ones who are corrupting and influencing the people.
Now, if you're joining me late, I'm not subscribing to the WEF theory, and I'm not subscribing to the Jews running the planet through the WEF and other theories.
So I don't subscribe to those.
So my only point is I'm seeing more of it.
Is anybody else seeing more of it?
And do you think it's because of the Gaza situation?
Or is it about Musk?
Is it an op?
Or just because the news is the news and what it is lately?
What do you think?
I actually don't know.
Okay.
All right, I'm just looking at some of your answers to see if anything useful comes out.
All right.
All right.
Well, I will just tell you, I've said this a number of times, in my career, I get to see behind the curtain a lot.
So I either know people who are already, you know, behind the curtain, or I've spent enough time that I can kind of see what's back there.
I spent a ton of time around real successful Jewish professionals in publishing, especially in publishing, there's a high percentage, syndication, comics, etc.
I've never seen any of this Jewish conspiracy.
Have you?
And it's hard, it would be hard for me to imagine That I wouldn't get a whiff of it?
Like, given the access that I have, I wouldn't see any of it?
Like, ever?
Not even one example?
Ever.
And yet, there are people who are pretty sure that it's massively true.
Here's what I think is true.
People do have, you know, extra love for anything that's like themselves.
Is that fair?
People have a little extra affection for anything that's of themselves or by themselves or reminds them of themselves or is part of their heritage, their culture.
So do we expect that Jewish Americans would be more supportive of Israel than the average American?
Of course.
But it's all transparent.
I mean, it's like nobody's hiding that.
And Israel is a good ally of the United States.
For good reasons.
Now, we could all argue about funding and those details, but it would be really hard, really, really hard for me to have gone decade after decade working with high-powered Jewish people professionally, You know, close friends.
You know, my college was a highly Jewish population.
A lot of them were my closest friends.
And never see any hint of it.
Of the large Jewish conspiracy.
Never?
Right?
Like, I try to remain open-minded to any possibility, but that's a long time to not see a hint of this massive force that you believe exists.
But like I said, certainly individually, People have, you know, an extra love for their cultural backgrounds.
Why not?
Nothing wrong with that.
So, obviously, we have to make sure that our policies are America-centric.
So we've got to be cautious that we don't get, you know, biased in any direction that's bad for America.
But I don't see it as a gigantic problem.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, on the On X, and on YouTube, and on Rumble.
Thanks for joining.
I'm going to say bye, and I'm going to talk to the Locals people, because they're special.
And by the way, if you were subscribing on Locals, you would see the Dilbert comic every single day.
It never stopped.
By the way, do you know that?
There was never a day that Dilbert didn't publish in the last 35 years.
So even when I got cancelled, it never missed a day.
Seven days a week, every day.
Since 1989.
Have not missed a single day.
Since 1989.
35 years?
Yeah, it'll be 35 years in April.
So if you'd like to see that in my Robots Read News comic and the God's Debris book and PDF and Also, the Religion War in PDF and lots of other content.
Then scottadams.locals.com is where to go.
And if you're on any of these platforms, hit the subscribe button because that helps us all.
