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, Owen Shroyer, Food Supply Excess Mortality, Legal Veteran Psychedelics, Populating Earth's Moon, President Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, 5 Election Solutions, One-Party System, Dementia Hitler, Secretary of Defense Austin, Saving Democracy Protests, Blackrock ESG Layoff, Google DEI, Adriele Parker, Paul Graham, America's Academics, Cancelling William Penn, Renaming Pennsylvania, Senator Fetterman, Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat Controlled Press, Mexico Border Demands, Bill Ackman, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
I call it Coffee with Scott Adams, because that's sort of what it is.
And we're going to talk about the headlines, and the news is all funny today.
Sometimes tragic, but mostly funny.
And you're going to love it.
If you'd like this experience to go to a level that I can't even explain, it's so amazing, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a stain, 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 the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Oh, yeah.
So good.
Well, have you ever been taught that two wrongs don't make a right?
Well, apparently they were lying to us.
I have an example of two wrongs that made a right.
I saw a post by Owen Schroyer and Infowars in which they took a hoax about me and incorrectly believed it was true.
That was the 4chan hoax that reversed all my vaccination views.
So they started with thinking that the hoax was true.
That's the first wrong.
And then they did create some content about my prank that was a husband apology and I wasn't serious at all.
So they treated the, the hoax of my views as real, but then they added the prank that I added, which they also treated as real.
So they treated two unreal things as real, but the net effect I think was to make me look good because apparently The user would be left with the impression that I had apologized and made good for being wrong.
So two wrongs actually made a right.
And I don't mean to brag, but I did that intentionally.
I knew I couldn't get rid of the hoax, so I just created another hoax to bury the first hoax.
Totally worked.
I've got a question about excess mortality.
Many people think it's because the vaccinations themselves were dangerous.
I don't know that, because I don't trust any data about the pandemic.
I don't trust data that agrees with me, and I don't trust data that disagrees with me.
I don't think any of our data is reliable.
So I don't know what excess mortality is, but I'd like to add one more hypothesis In case it's not as obvious as the pandemic changed our lifestyles, the vaccination has its own whatever percentage of injury, and the COVID itself might have some long COVID, but it doesn't look like it.
At least in terms of excess mortality.
But I would add this following hypothesis.
Do you think anything changed with our food supply because of the pandemic?
Because we imagine that the pandemic was some kind of a trigger, in some way, for this excess mortality because of the timing.
But didn't our food supply undergo tremendous changes because of what was available and what was not available?
Am I wrong about that?
And the reason that I have this hypothesis is that, as you know, I've mentioned it a bunch of times, I've altered my own diet radically Because I found out there were so many things in just normal food that I had some kind of inflammation reaction to.
So with trial and error, after a great deal of effort, I found that if I ate nothing but fresh stuff, like broccoli with nothing but let's say butter on it, butter seemed pretty safe, If I eat food like that, like a real piece of fruit, a real vegetable, a real piece of fish, then I didn't have any inflammation problems, and I feel great.
My entire overall health is completely better.
Now, yeah, the biggest thing I cut out was bread, specifically wheat-based products.
I think that was my biggest problem, but here's my overall statement.
I feel like the food supply got worse recently because when I stopped eating the bad food, the degree of how much better I felt was really shocking.
And I'm going to add to my hypothesis.
By the way, I'm just spitballing and speculating.
Don't take any of it too seriously.
But have you noticed that fasting Is getting real popular?
Like you hear about it all the time.
Fasting, fasting, fasting.
We assume that the mechanism that makes us feel better is that you shock your body into being, let's say, more protective if it thinks it has to work a little harder for food or something.
I don't know.
I guess that's the theory.
But I'd like to add another possibility why fasting is popular.
It's because all of your food makes you sick.
Maybe.
I'm just putting that out there.
It's possible that fasting makes us feel good simply because food is poison.
And so we take a break from poison.
And it's maybe not so much because shocking your system is good for you, but probably is.
Probably is.
Now I'm going to add a third piece of very anecdotal, non-confirmation evidence.
You know about Jordan Peterson's unusual diet.
He had some severe health problems, and now he reports that he feels a lot better on what I believe is an all-meat diet.
Do I have that right?
Can you give me a fact check on that, Jordan Peterson?
He has an all-meat diet now, right?
And apparently he feels great.
Now, here's the question.
Is it because he had some weird allergies that were specific to him?
Is it because meat is so good for you?
Or, the new hypothesis, the less you eat, the better you feel.
And specifically, the less variety you have, the better you feel.
So long as you're getting your minerals and your nutrients and stuff.
I guess meat must have a lot of that.
I've got several anecdotal, non-proof things that suggest there might be a problem with our food supply that might be going directly to excess mortality.
It might be that bad.
I think we need to just stop everything and take a deep dive.
By the way, I think RFK Jr.
is roughly on the same page in terms of doing a deep dive on our food supply.
Just to find out what's real.
You know, what's killing us and what's not.
All right, there is a California Forever Project in California where some rich people are buying up lots of property and they want to build a city.
Yes, it will be a walkable city.
No, it's not because the WEF got them and they're all turning into communists.
No, they don't want to take your car away.
No, they don't want to take all of your possessions away.
These are actually just California entrepreneur types.
But it's a real interesting group.
So among others, I assume, the three of the biggest names in this project are Mark Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, and Laurene Powell Jobs.
Now, as I've told you many times, you can't understand anything in the news unless you understand the players and what the players are associated with, like who they're married to, You know, what party they vote, etc.
And this is weird because Reid Hoffman and Lorraine Powell Jobs, Steve Jobs' widow, are the two biggest Democrat, two biggest Democrat supporters.
But Mark Andreessen would be very much not that.
Now, I don't want to characterize his political views, but I can say for certain That it doesn't map completely to the Democrat position.
I don't want to say he's anything that he doesn't say he is.
Probably independent.
Best guess.
But he's kind of the... He might be the least irrational person in that space.
Meaning that he's just going to sort of look at what makes sense.
He's not the ideologue.
He's like the real person from real life who just wants to do things that make sense.
So the fact that he's involved gives me a lot of confidence.
If it were the other two, I'd worry about God knows what.
It would look like some kind of weird Democrat thing that I didn't understand.
Like maybe there's a secret agenda or something.
But the fact that Andreessen's involved makes me think it could be interesting.
This, um, I've told you many times that I believe the future that nobody's talking about, as much as they should, is cities built from scratch.
I don't believe you're going to fix the cities that exist.
I think you're going to have to build brand new cities, which will be great for jobs, getting jobs, great for improving your life.
And one of the main things they want to do is lower the cost of living.
So they'll have sustainable energy and affordable homes and everything.
This is everything I want right here.
So this is an example of your billionaires doing, I think, like just a pure public service.
Because I don't know that they think this is the best investment.
It might be.
I don't think that's why they're doing it.
To me, I'm guessing that these three are putting their money behind one of the most important things that the country needs, which is to figure out how to make affordable housing, clean energy, and all that.
So, good for them.
I guess the Veterans Administration has approved psychedelics for veterans.
If you don't follow that topic, this is probably one of the most important things that's ever happened for veterans in America.
Because the potential for the psychedelics to deal with PTSD, it's unparalleled.
There's nothing in this class.
And so we might be seeing the beginning of something that could fundamentally change the lives of maybe I don't know, a quarter of all veterans?
And we're talking about an enormous, enormous benefit to humanity, and specifically the veterans.
So I don't have any comment on it, other than whenever the government or any part of it does anything that makes sense, like I stop and go, oh, what's up with that?
And I don't know, but was this psychedelics bipartisan in Congress?
I'm not sure if Congress weighs in on this or not.
But are there as many Republicans in favor of psychedelics being used medically?
Or does anybody know if there's any kind of divide politically?
Because this one should not be political at all.
There should be zero politics in psychedelics.
I don't know the answer to that.
Did you know that there's a moon race?
It's kind of interesting.
SpaceX gets all the attention, but apparently there's another rocket going up from some alliance of two big American companies.
Which ones?
I don't know.
Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
So they have a joint venture.
They're going to put a rocket up on the moon, look around a little bit, do some exploring.
And India's Looking at the moon, and China's looking at the moon, and I think Musk has a flight to the moon.
The moon's really going to heat up.
There's pretty much a guarantee of a moon war, don't you think?
How in the world could we not end up with war on the moon?
If there are humans on the moon, probably there's going to be a war.
You know what would be interesting?
This could actually happen.
Imagine if, you know, we get a bunch of assets on the moon, sufficient that somebody decides there should be a war.
Imagine if the people were on the moon, just say, nah, pass.
No, this is earth-gaulic.
Start a war, we need to own the moon.
Yeah, you know, maybe not.
No, seriously, you'd better start a war, start shooting.
You know, maybe not.
Could happen.
Representative Boebert is entertaining us again.
She's allegedly punched her ex-husband in the face.
Or I guess, is she still married or is he ex?
I'm not sure.
She claims it didn't happen.
Blah, blah, blah.
But we don't care if it really happened.
It's a fun story.
So, Representative Boebert, you keep adding to our entertainment.
And I'm here for it.
I guess Trump's in court today.
About his immunity claims.
Does anybody think he's going to win on immunity?
I feel like the whole the president can't be held responsible for things.
I feel like he's not going to win that, at least in any kind of lower court.
I'm not too invested in that story because I think it's going to go exactly the way you think.
Vivek Ramaswamy suggests five things to fix our elections.
Listen to these five things and tell me, do these things look practical and possible?
Would they actually fix the problem?
And if all of that looks good, why aren't we doing it?
Number one, a single day of voting, so everybody votes on one day.
Number two, make election day a national holiday.
Perfect, so you don't have to worry about work.
Number three, paper ballots.
Yes, easier to audit, harder to cheat.
Number four, government issued voter ID to match blah blah blah.
Yes, government ID, obvious, simple, smart.
Number five, English as the only language used.
I don't know.
I don't know about that one.
I'm lukewarm on that one.
I think the issue of English as the primary language is important, but if you're an American citizen and you need a little help on language, I don't know.
I think I'm okay with multilingual voting.
So I'm going to disagree with Vivek on that.
Although it would be presumably good for Republican outcomes.
So that one looks a little political to me.
But, here's my question.
Does that look possible?
Of course it does.
Other countries do exactly this.
Would it work?
Of course it would.
Of course it would.
You simplify the system, you make it more auditable.
Yeah, of course it would work.
Is there any chance it's going to happen?
No.
No.
Do you see the other politicians recommending something this specific?
Well, maybe they mentioned it, but why is it only one person is kind of pushing it?
Why do you think that is?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you sometimes need an outsider to run for president.
In my opinion, I'm going to make an assumption that I call a working assumption.
It doesn't mean it's true.
Sometimes when you don't know what's true, you've got to pick an assumption because you've got to act somehow.
You can't just say, I don't know, I don't know.
So my working assumption is that the only reason the elections are not fixed and, and the and is the important part, and you don't see either party Talking about it as much as you'd expect.
Suggests that both parties cheat.
And they don't want to lose the cheating advantage they have wherever they're cheating.
So if you think the Republicans are the good guys and the Democrats are the bad guys, I would suggest that the evidence says no.
And that there must be some, something that is attaching both parties to the current system, and it's not good.
It's either because Maybe people who benefit from the system, let's say selling election machines, might have lobbyists, they might donate to things, one assumes.
So I don't know what the story is, but you need an outsider, somebody who has not been bought and paid for, to tell you that you can fix this and it's not hard.
Nobody on the inside can do that, apparently, because there's some penalty to it if you're on the inside.
So, when you say to me, hey, what about experience?
I say, hey, fuck your experience.
Fuck your experience.
What do you want?
Do you want a Vivek who can fix your biggest problem, and he just tells you how in simple language?
Or do you want the current situation, where our experience, apparently bought off Congress, does nothing for you?
No, give me the outsider.
Please.
Please.
Give me the Argentina model.
President Xi is cracking down on corruption some more, says the news.
Do you believe that in China, when President Xi says he's cracking down on corruption, that that is exactly what's happening?
Or, do you believe in the real world it's a way to get rid of your enemies?
Your political opponents.
Oh, coincidentally, the people who said bad things about me are corrupt.
Oh, let's get rid of them.
Now, let me ask you this.
How close are we in the United States to one party getting enough power that they can crack down on the corruption in the other party?
We're almost there.
If Democrats controlled, you know, each of the organs of government, I believe Without evidence, but based on what we've seen so far, that they would do a fake corruption crackdown just like China.
And they'd say, oh, look at all these bribes we found, only in Republicans.
Why don't you look for bribes in the Democrats?
Oh, yeah, we're sort of looking there, too.
Well, look at those Republicans!
Gonna put some Republicans in jail.
So, after watching the obvious political jailings of the January 6th protesters, do you think that the Democrats would stop for one second if they had control of all the organs of government from doing a fake corruption crackdown?
Why would they?
I mean, it's right there.
You can just use it if you want.
Of course they would.
First of all, it's obvious.
It's like an obvious thing to consider.
And if they had all the power, every bit of evidence from the past suggests that they would use power they have.
So right now they don't have it.
But if they owned the whole government, which could easily happen, I think they would.
There's a A company that makes robots.
They've got one that can make a cup of coffee now.
You can use your Keurig and put it in the pod and make you a cup of coffee.
The company is called AI Robotics and Archer Aviation, I think.
The founder of the company is Brett Adcock.
Adcock.
Now, I don't know much about the founder, this Brett Adcock, but I'm just hoping he's not trans.
Because if he was born a woman, and his real last name was Adcock, well that would just be bad luck.
That would be bad luck.
So there's no indication he's trans, but I just hope it doesn't happen.
Anyway, yeah, makes a good cup of coffee.
Would you buy a robot that could make a cup of coffee with your coffee machine?
Would you buy a machine to use your machine?
Well, I would have said no until today.
I've been keeping a log of my new Miele coffee machine.
It's sort of a built-in, high-end coffee machine, can make fancy coffees.
And I kept a record of how many errors The machine gave me per cup of coffee.
Now sometimes I put two cups in one mug, but let's say one use.
And so far to get nine, nine cups of coffee, I've had to solve eight different error conditions.
Approximately one error per cup or mug.
One error per mug.
Sometimes I have to, you know, empty out the wastebasket.
Sometimes I have to clean the bin.
Sometimes I gotta add beans.
Sometimes something's not aligned.
Sometimes it overflows.
Sometimes it gives the wrong amount of coffee.
Sometimes... There are at least 12 errors that cycle through so routinely that the odds that you could put a cup there and push a button and get a fucking cup of coffee are zero.
Not really, but they're very close to zero.
I already fixed two faults this morning for two cups of coffee.
Two faults, two cups.
So yes, if you said to me, Scott, we've got this machine that needs service every single time you use it, but we can fix this by getting another more complicated machine that's even less tested.
I feel like the process of getting a cup of coffee would then be moved back from fixing the coffee machine all the way back to fixing the errors in the robot itself.
So, can you imagine anything that would be more annoying than waking up and needing your first cup of coffee and knowing that you have to go to your computer and decode and unbug your computer so that your computer, your robot, So that your robot would be capable to debug the errors of your coffee machine.
So, can't wait for the future.
Well, Dementia Hitler, hashtag Dementia Hitler, is still trending.
Three days.
Can I take a victory lap for that?
Yes, that was mine.
Dementia Hitler.
Apparently it was immediately sticky and people are using it like crazy and it's going everywhere.
So now, has anybody figured out why that's so sticky?
You know why?
Because people have been calling politicians Hitler forever.
We've been saying that Biden has dementia forever.
But as I explained on my Man Cave livestream last night, humor Often it involves oversimplifying.
So the concept is this.
If you simply took a situation or person and you stereotype them, that would be one form of simplification.
But it's not quite funny yet if it's just a stereotype.
You want to go to that extra level where you over-stereotype them down to the simplest little thing.
When I think of Biden, I think of the freedoms he's taking away, you know, all the ways the Democrats are working against free speech.
I think of him jailing political opponents.
I think of him keeping his opponents off the ballot.
Those are all Hitler-ish, you know, dictator-y things.
So I have this sort of dictator-y feeling about him because of what he's doing.
And then when I see him work, I only see dementia.
Like, I don't see anything but dementia when Biden's.
Do you?
I only see his flaws when he talks.
I'm like, oh, he's going to fall apart any minute.
So if you were to stereotype Biden, you'd say he's such a typical Democrat and he's kind of old and, you know, you might be doing something with your freedoms.
But then you go all the way to dementia Hitler.
And that's why it's funny.
Because Dementia Hitler is too much of an oversimplification.
And that's why your brain has a laugh reflex.
Because you recognize it being true, while also being such a gross oversimplification.
It's not true.
So when you tell somebody something that's both true and not true, they'll laugh.
Because the brain can't reconcile the two things.
It's true.
Well, it's not true.
But it's true.
Well, it's not really true.
That's how humor is formed.
Humor is formed when your brain can't reconcile something.
Yeah.
You can see lots of examples of that.
Anyway, so let's see how Joe's doing.
He posted today that Trump proudly posts on social media that the words best described his 2020 campaign are, quote, revenge, power, and dictatorship.
And then Biden says, there is no confusion about who Trump is and what he intends to do.
Now, I would consider this Joe Biden trying to get me killed.
Let me say that clearly as possible.
This is my president.
We're saying things in public which are inciting violence against me.
Why?
Because I say that Trump would be a better president.
I'm still backing Vivek Ramaswamy.
He's my preferred candidate.
But if Trump is a candidate, I'm definitely going to back him over Biden.
As a Trump supporter, should that happen, and first choice is Vivek, but should that happen, I'm going to have to deal with the fact that the current president is telling the public that I'm supporting a dictator.
You don't think that makes me, puts me in danger?
Of course it does.
Of course it does.
Yeah.
So not doing so good there.
And that does sound a little like a dementia Hitler business.
And Biden also said that he sent out a meme that says you can't be pro-insurrection and pro-America.
You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-America.
So now the Democrats are absolutely running against the founders of the country.
It was the founders of the country who were, of course, by definition, revolutionaries and insurrectionists.
So he doesn't like insurrectionists, the very founding of the company, country, that was the concept.
And they're also removing statues of the founders because of slavery.
Yeah, it's a good argument, actually.
They really are running against the founding of the country.
I'm not sure I hate that, but it's an interesting approach.
But here's what I say about that.
You got it backwards.
In my opinion, you have to be willing to overthrow your country or you're no American.
I would never consider you an American like in the The concept way, not the legal way.
But I would never consider you sufficiently American if you are not willing to use your Second Amendment rights to have a gun and overthrow your government, should they need a good overthrowing.
Now the caveat is, it should be for reasons.
Like, good reasons.
As in violating the Constitution grotesquely, something like that.
But if you're not willing to overthrow your government, you're no American.
The right, and indeed the obligation, the obligation to overthrow your government is built right into the Constitution.
That's what the Second Amendment is about.
At least my interpretation of it.
I guess others might interpret it differently.
But your First and your Second Amendment are very squarely about making sure your government doesn't abuse you.
If you're not willing to overthrow your government, You're no American.
I say the same thing about the flag.
If you tell me I can't burn the flag, well then the flag has no meaning to me.
The only value to me, this person, of an American flag is that I can burn the fuck out of it.
Right in front of you.
I can take that thing and I can set that on fire right in front of the Congress of the United States.
That's why I worship it.
That's why I respect the flag.
A flag I can't destroy right in front of my leader, there's no flag to me.
That's a piece of cloth.
But if it's indestructible, because you can burn it and it gets stronger, that's my flag.
Yeah.
So, he gets all of that wrong.
But the Democrats are running their insurrection, so the Colorado Secretary of State says she won't count the ballots that have Trump's name on them.
So we're actually at the point where the Democrats are in open insurrection.
They're literally trying to keep candidates off the ballot.
Now, they're using their lawfare, but there's no reasonable person who thinks this isn't A coup.
It's like a pre-coup or a pre-insurrection, keeping your strongest candidate off the ballot.
So that's happening.
But at least the country is doing well economically, right?
So at least jobs are doing great.
Well, the new report is the job report's been fake.
The New York Post says the initial U.S.
employment reports overstated the jobs this last year by 439,000?
They overstated the jobs for the past year by 439,000?
They overstated the jobs for the past year by 439,000.
And we've all been saying, "Hey, things are going great." They made up the numbers.
They just make them up.
Now, when I say they make them up, here's how they figure it out.
They've got... That was more than 40% of the payroll growth in 2023.
So the payroll data was off by 40%.
Now ask yourself, how many people will see the story about the numbers being corrected versus how many saw all the monthly stories about Biden's doing great and employment has never been better?
Well, 90% of the country sees the good employment numbers and maybe 10% maximum would see that, you know, by the way, they're all wrong.
None of them are right.
So that's a typical Dementia Hitler play So yeah, so employment was not so good, but at least we have a solid vice president to back up the president who has dementia What did she say lately Kamala Harris vice president?
She said, at this moment, we are seeing extremists ban books and attempt to erase, overlook, and rewrite the dark parts of American history.
And she says, for example, the Civil War, which was about slavery.
The Civil War, which was about slavery.
Now, as you know, our Vice President is an idiot.
And her favorite salad is word salad.
But here's the problem with rewriting history.
You know history was never right to begin with, right?
Has anybody not realized that if you tried to write the history of, let's say, the last 10 years that you've been paying attention, how could you?
We don't agree on the basics.
We don't even agree if there was an insurrection in 2020.
It was on all the news, fully covered, explored in detail, and we don't know if it happened.
I mean, I know it didn't happen, but the news says it does.
So what are the historians going to write?
Are the historians going to write that it happened?
Now, if you know that you could not possibly write an accurate history of our current time, do you think we ever could?
Really?
Really?
Do you think there's anything in American history, the way it's taught, that's true I think the basic facts of like, you know, who was president, who died, who won the war, maybe, well even that.
World War II, you could argue who won the war.
Was it Russia or, you know, the other allies?
So even basic stuff like who won the war in World War II is a little ambiguous.
Was it kind of just Russia?
With a little help from us.
So Kamala, I would say that don't worry about history getting rewritten, because it was never true to begin with.
And that's my honest opinion.
My honest opinion is there's nothing in American history that isn't designed for brainwashing.
That's it.
You don't know what anybody actually did or why.
All right.
But here's the good news.
Now you probably heard that not only was the head of our military, who's not the president, so Secretary of Defense Austin was in the hospital and I guess he was in intensive care, but at least his deputy was in charge.
Well, his deputy we found out didn't know that he was incapacitated in the hospital.
That's right.
So the top of our military was unavailable for four days.
The number two didn't know for two of those days that he was unavailable.
So we didn't have number one and number two under the president.
We didn't have them.
But thank God, Thank God, during that time, the United States was not being invaded.
Imagine if we'd been invaded, like at the time when our military people are not available.
Next story is, our border has been invaded.
RNC Research says that a CBS poll says 75% of Americans see the situation on the border as either a crisis or very serious.
That's right, 25% Not so bad.
25%.
Yeah.
It's the same 25% who gets every poll question wrong.
I don't know if it's the same people, but there's always 25%.
And how about Rasmussen?
Rasmussen says 65% of likely voters in the U.S.
believe it is accurate to describe the current situation with migrants at the border with Mexico as, quote, An invasion.
Two-thirds of likely voters call what's happening an invasion.
At the same time, our Secretary of Defense was unavailable, and the number two didn't even know he was unavailable while she was on vacation in Puerto Rico.
So, I mean, all of this makes you think that our Secretary of Defense is, like, some kind of a fucking idiot, right?
Like, you know, don't you sort of think, oh my God, is our Secretary of Defense some kind of, like, idiot or something?
Well, I saw NWokeness on X, good account to follow, talked about this story and included a photo that I've never seen, the pairing of a point of view and a photo that matched so well.
So now that we know that our Secretary of Defense is incompetent, I'd like to show you a photo, a real photo.
I don't think this is Photoshop.
A real photo of during the pandemic, Secretary Austin reviewing the troops.
All right?
So here's the guy that you have in charge of making your important decisions in your military.
Ready for this?
Here you go.
There you go.
That's right.
He's got a whole Darth Vader headgear on because he's trying not to get any germs on his face.
It's like he's wearing a lampshade on his head and he's reviewing the troops.
Now, do you know what those troops are thinking as he walks by with that lampshade on his head?
Here's what they're not thinking.
I would die for you.
I will charge that hill if you tell me to.
Because you're inspiring confidence with that lampshade on your head.
Whoa.
I'm sorry.
Anyway.
Okay.
ABC 7 Eyewitness News talked about January 6th.
They call it an insurrection without any quotes around it.
So it's just an insurrection according to them.
And then they say it has been described as the worst attack on American Democracy since the Civil War.
Yep.
So I looked at the photos, and it showed the photos of January 6th with the attack on democracy.
And I don't know, maybe I have some vision problems or something, but I looked at the photo, and I could see lots of protesters.
And I could see the building, the Capitol building.
And I could see some, you know, the Capitol Police.
And I could see clouds and I could see, you know, landscape and background.
But you know what I didn't see in the picture?
I didn't see any democracy.
Apparently they were attacking democracy.
But I didn't see any.
I saw a building.
Can somebody give me a list of which buildings are also democracy?
So if I trespass, I'll know if I'm attacking democracy in the worst way of the Republic.
All right.
Can we call these fucking idiots at AB7 News who say that somebody attacked democracy?
Is that the dumbest thing you've ever heard?
How exactly do you attack democracy?
And then once you've got it, how do you kill it?
Do you beat it with a stick?
Where's the democracy?
Is it behind you now?
Do you see the democracy?
It's behind me, isn't it?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Is it behind me?
Tell me, is it behind me?
I don't want to look.
Alright.
Well, I think it is behind me, and I'm going to attack it.
There.
Thank you.
That's called attacking democracy.
Why do you use a term like attacking democracy?
That literally means nothing.
Well, first of all, what were they doing?
They were literally there to defend democracy.
Am I wrong?
Did I miss the whole point of January 6th?
I thought the whole point was that the protesters believed that democracy had not been served.
Wasn't the entire point defending democracy?
How in the world are you a news organization and you somehow missed the primary point of the protest?
The primary point.
It's like a seminal moment in American history, and you didn't know what the protesters were asking for?
You missed the basic, the most fundamental part, that they thought the election wasn't fair.
Are Democrats so lost that they believe that the protesters knew it was a fair election, but thought they could get away with an insurrection?
Is that what they've been told?
Are they that dumb?
But they think something like that happened?
Let me catch up your comments over here.
Yeah.
Well, anyway.
There's a report from Unusual Wales that BlackRock is going to lay off 600 employees, mainly from their ESG division.
I guess Fox News is reporting this.
600 employees?
Mostly from their ESG division.
How many employees did they have for ESG?
It wasn't all 600, but they had hundreds?
Did they really have hundreds of DEI employees?
That's really embarrassing.
Imagine being the head of BlackRock and the news reports say you had hundreds, hundreds of ESG employees.
That is so irresponsible.
If you were a stockholder and you found that out, you should be pretty bad.
Wow.
That is such a violation of fiduciary responsibility.
But at least BlackRock is correcting their mistake.
Now, how did the Democrats, the Democrat Party, how did they rationalize the fact that even their biggest allies, I found out that the Democrat approach to ESG is a mistake.
At some point it's going to get embarrassing if the business Democrats are disagreeing with the political Democrats, and they are, at this point.
Do you know who else doesn't like DEI?
Bill Ackman.
Bill Ackman is not a Republican.
There's more on DEI.
So Google's head of DEI, Adria Parker, I think, she's on a video that's going around today saying that she thinks it's terrible that some parents are teaching their kids not to judge people by their skin color.
It sounds like I'm saying that wrong, doesn't it?
Right.
She's angry.
That parents are teaching their kids not to treat black people special.
Now, those are my words, but she says it as clearly as that.
Isn't that amazing?
That she's in such a bubble that she thought that saying that publicly, or at least on a video that could be public, she thought that that was a perfectly defensible position.
She actually wants people to be judged by their color and their immutable characteristics.
Now the reason for it is, if you don't put them in a special class, i.e.
judge them, you can't, you know, improve their situation.
So I understand the point of it is to take people that she thinks are in a worse situation and elevate them.
But you can't do that without treating them like there's something about black people, or there's something about women, or there's something about LGBTQ that's different.
And I can't believe she doesn't get fired for that.
If that were my company, I would fire her immediately.
Even if I liked DEI.
So even if I liked DEI, I would fire somebody for saying this in my company.
Imagine being a white person and going to work for this company.
Imagine being a white person applying for a job at Google when you know that they're saying explicitly that they want to make different policies based on your color.
It's very overt.
They're not hiding anything.
Why would you work there?
Unless they offered you like a million dollars a year, you know you're not going to get promoted.
They're saying very clearly that you're not You're very unlikely to be promoted if they have any options that would give them more diversity.
They're not going to pick you.
So I recommend a question for all white male job applicants.
If you're applying for a corporate job, I suggest the following question.
And you might want to write this one down or replay it, because the exact question matters.
Let's say you're in a job interview.
Ask this question if you're a white male job applicant.
Let's say you're in Google, trying to get a job at Google.
I would ask this question.
Do you have a DI group in this company?
And if so, how can I be sure I would have equal opportunity for advancement here?
How could I be sure that as a white male, I would have equal opportunity for advancement in your company?
Ask that question.
Watch what happens.
Yeah, if you start asking that question, DEI will die.
Because you can't answer that question.
If somebody's honest, they're going to say, well, the whole point of DEI is to favor people who don't look like you.
So if you were to work here, I'll be honest, your odds of promotion would be less than if you worked at a company that wasn't trying to address DEI.
Why would you work for a company that would tell you people like you are going to be disadvantaged at this company.
It's really direct.
I'm not guessing.
I'm not like reading between the lines.
It's very direct.
It would not be good to be white and male to work at Google, because they have a whole department to make sure it is bad for you and good for other people in other ways.
So yes, if you're white and male, ask that question.
You probably won't get hired if you ask that question, If they can't answer the question to your satisfaction, maybe you don't want to work there.
I would go so far as to say, as I did on X, there are no respected business leaders in favor of DEI.
There are no respected business leaders in favor of DEI.
Now you're going to say to yourself, but what about this one?
What about that one?
And I would say, no, it's sort of a trick statement.
Because if you're in favor of DEI, there's no way I could respect that.
I don't have any respect for their leadership.
And Mark Cuban is out front with pro-DEI.
And I would say I don't respect him as a manager.
I think he might be very capable and awesome in a lot of ways.
I like him in general.
But I can't respect him as a business leader if he's leading with DEI.
You lose all respect.
Well, I mean, what else is there to say?
Paul Graham, who does have respect as a business leader, one of the titans of Silicon Valley, he said in a post today, he said there are two ways to achieve equality of outcomes.
Either you're going to raise up the bottom, Or push down the top.
And since raising up the bottom is so laborious, people focused on the quality of outcomes will always be tempted by the seemingly easier expedient of pushing down on the top.
There you have it.
Why do I say that Paul Graham is a respected business leader?
This is why.
This is why.
He's not saying he doesn't like diversity.
He's not saying that.
He's saying very clearly that there are two ways to get it.
You push down the top or you elevate the bottom.
Elevate the bottom is nearly impossible because there isn't a supply that's big enough for all the companies.
If they had a supply, it'd be easy.
Like, oh, need more black people?
Hire more black people.
But the supply is low.
So, yes, the thing you would do if you don't want to do something hard is to do the easy thing.
Now, I'm going to add to that, that the two predictive things are laziness and follow the money.
Right?
The two most predictive things.
If you can say to yourself, oh, we're designing this system, and somebody says, you know, people are lazy, they're not going to do all of that.
That's a pretty good prediction.
Right?
And if you say that you'll make more money doing this, that's a pretty good prediction too.
So laziness and follow the money.
Two of your best, strongest variables for predicting the future.
And who knows that?
Paul Graham knows that.
So that's why he's a respected leader.
Who else knows that?
Elon Musk knows DEI is a problem and was posting on it today.
Do you respect Elon Musk's business capability?
Yes.
Yes.
All right.
Yeah, there are no business leaders who support DEI who I would respect.
I would respect them as humans, but not as leaders.
The New York Times just published a story in favor of standardized testing, because the idea of getting rid of the SATs so you have better diversity performance.
Looks like that wasn't a good idea according to the New York Times.
So now even the New York Times is against the DEI overreach.
So that should tell you that there's definitely something happened here.
And then, of course, I think I mentioned that there was a study that showed that what we all had been told was massive racial discrimination in criminal punishment.
Turns out there are no studies that support that.
Well, a meta-study Doesn't support it.
There might be individual ones with flaws, but if you look at the body of research in whole, there does not seem to be evidence of racial discrimination and criminal punishments.
But academia, as part of the same story, academia has been telling us forever that it was true.
So if you think about it, the whole George Floyd Summer of Love riots were because we all believed, well, whether you believed it or not, we'd all been told, whether you believed it or not, that there was a huge disparity and that the black people were getting just, you know, abused by the police and also the criminal justice system in general.
Now, That came from academics, because we rely on the academics to tell us what are the facts.
So I would say that the entire George Floyd riots were, I blame them on our academics.
I would blame climate change craziness on our academics, not just the scientists, but really the academics, because they're the ones training the young people to be active about it, etc.
In fact, where does DEI come from?
The academics?
I would say that our biggest problem in the country is that the academics are fucked up.
You could pick literally any problem in the country and trace it back to a flaw in our academics.
Meaning the people.
The people who are the teachers in charge.
Pick any.
Pick any problem.
Literally any problem.
And as soon as you think of it, say to yourself, oh, wait a minute.
If the public had been better educated, we wouldn't have that problem at all.
Right?
You can literally pick anything from unemployment, to war, to DEI, to the divisiveness of the country.
It's all our colleges.
It's literally just that.
If they were teaching useful things that were not propaganda, we wouldn't be in any of these problems.
I don't think.
Do you think we'd be having a massive mental health problem just from TikTok?
Or is it the fact that the academics would support the massive gender reassignment surgeries of children?
Probably the academics are on that page.
I don't think we have any problem in the country that couldn't be fixed by replacing the academics with less propaganda crazy people.
All right.
Apparently the William Penn statue is coming down.
And Joel Pollack asked if Pennsylvania will have to be renamed.
I guess William Penn had some Slaves or did something people didn't like.
I don't know.
Doesn't matter.
But he's being cancelled.
Now we have a problem because we have a whole state that's named after him.
Pennsylvania.
So Joel was asking for some new ideas for how to rename Pennsylvania when it comes to that.
His best suggestion was Federmania.
I like Federmain.
Like you add Maine at the end of Fetter.
Fetter Maine.
That'd be good.
But I had a few other suggestions.
Penis Sylvania.
Penis Sylvania.
Because people don't like, you know, William Patton.
He's getting cancelled.
But people love penises.
Penis is still very popular.
So Penis Sylvania.
Or how about this one?
Since we're making wordplay jokes about it.
How about Hun-Sylvania?
Pun.
So we'll rebrand the whole state around wordplay.
Yeah.
Pun-Sylvania.
I'd like that.
I would love to go to Pun-Sylvania.
Or how about make it more like Las Vegas, where they have legal prostitution, and then you could rename it to Poon-Sylvania.
Poon.
Poon-Sylvania.
Now that's only funny if you know that sometimes people say Poon-Tang to refer to sex.
If you didn't know that, Poonsylvania is not funny.
If you do know that, you probably had a good laugh.
Poonsylvania.
Speaking of Fetterman, John Fetterman, Senator from Poonsylvania.
He's co-sponsoring a bill that would ban members of Congress from stock trading.
And I say to myself, why can't we get two Fettermans and trade a Schiff?
Like, I'm okay with this kind of Democrat.
I'm okay with this one.
He seems to legitimately not like bullshit.
That's all.
That's all I ask.
You know, I don't have to agree with all of your policies.
But if you're opposed to bullshit, well, you've got me.
You've got my interest.
Fetterman is unambiguously opposed to bullshit.
And letting congressional people beat the averages by trading in stocks, that's some bullshit right there.
That's some serious bullshit.
So, Edelman doesn't like bullshit.
He's got me.
Well, Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat, he's against, he says that election denial is a sickness that is poisoning our democracy.
Yeah, it's a sickness, election denial.
That's what he says this year in 2018, he said that the elections were rigged.
You know, a lot of politics only works because the public doesn't really pay attention.
It takes about two seconds to find videos of like compilation videos of all the famous Democrats, the same ones who are saying that You know, that Trump was questioning an election that he shouldn't have.
All of them literally questioning past elections.
But how many people see it?
Only the people who are on X, and also doing political stuff, and on, you know, have right-leaning sources in their feed.
Nobody else sees it.
So to them, they just see some Democrat say, hey, stop questioning elections, and they're like, oh, that sounds good.
Sounds like a reasonable thing to say.
Oh, Chairwoman Elise Stefanik is opposed to DEI.
Excellent.
Good to know.
Well, let's see.
Semaphore is reporting that Biden's team, when they meet with the press, they bring a spreadsheet of the press's reporting so that they can give them a grade and criticize their reporting.
And tell them where they can do better.
Poor Democrats.
Now obviously the press doesn't have to do what they're told, but given that we all think that they do, apparently so, like the New York Times and the Washington Post have come in to meet with the Biden team, and the Biden team will take out their spreadsheet and say, you know, And they actually did say this.
You're spending a little too much time on this.
Will you spend a little bit more time talking about how bad Trump is?
That's actually happening.
Yeah.
The Democrats are literally grading the press for how close to the Democrat message they are, and they're dinging them if they're not close enough.
Now, is there any penalty if the press decides to ignore the White House and just do what they want to do?
Yes, there's a penalty.
They won't have access.
So they won't be able to write a story that says, I talked to this person in the White House.
They just won't take your call.
So yes, the White House actually has control of the press by simply turning on or off access to people who can give them quotes and news.
Well, Biden administration is talking to Mexico.
about helping out stopping the flow of immigrants.
But Mexico has some demands.
So here's what Mexico wants in return for being more active in stemming the flow of immigrants.
They'd like to get $20 billion to, let's say, to deploy and, I don't know, basically $20 billion for improvements in Mexico and Latin America and Caribbean countries.
They want to suspend the U.S. blockade of Cuba.
Did you know that Mexico cares about the blockade of Cuba?
What's that all about?
Is it just a Hispanic thing?
Like, why do they care?
I don't know.
But they want us to suspend the US blockade of Cuba, remove all sanctions against Venezuela.
Again, why do they care so much about Venezuela?
And grant at least 10 million Hispanics living in the U.S.
the right to remain and work legally.
Let me ask you this.
Do those requests sound like a good negotiating starting point?
Obviously, they wouldn't get all of it.
Or does it sound to you like the cartels told the government of Mexico, pretend you're going to play along, but ask for things they can't possibly give you?
Yeah, it's a poison pill.
That's exactly right.
This is obviously a poison pill.
This is the clearest signal yet that the cartels control the government, and they're telling the government, don't fix this, because we're making a ton of money charging people to illegally enter the United States.
Like a ton of money.
It's not a side business.
It's like billions.
So yeah, it's exactly what it looks like.
All right.
The story of Bill Ackerman's wife keeps getting more interesting, but I think I'll spare you that.
If you're not following that story, it'll be too hard to catch up.
But I'll just say that Bill Ackman went after the Harvard president for, first of all, not saying the right things about Gaza and Israel, but then also for plagiarism.
And then people went after Bill Ackman, but that didn't work, so they went after his wife.
So now it's like a full court of press to go after his wife.
And Ackman is asking, publicly, is this a new standard?
Because it used to be that you could fight as hard as you want in the business or political realm against the individual.
More the business realm.
But you don't go after the family.
In politics it's a little different.
But in business you don't go after the wife.
And his I guess they're political opponents.
So he's a business guy who's entered a political field with his latest activism to discover that that rule about not going after the family doesn't appear to apply once you go into the political domain.
See Hunter Biden, right?
Yeah, family is definitely fair game.
Shouldn't be, maybe.
But it is fair game in the political realm and has been for a long time.
So he's now got to defend his wife.
And the hardest part is that his wife apparently met with Brad Pitt several times, professionally.
She's an architect.
He likes architect stuff.
He had some project he was interested in.
But his wife is apparently brilliant and super attractive, and she was having lunch with Brad Pitt.
Man, you've got to be real secure if your wife is having lunch with Brad Pitt.
You've got to be really secure, and I guess he is.
I'm not sure if it happened when they were married yet, or when the timing was, but it's part of the story, human interest, that doesn't have anything to do with the main part of the story.
Oh, but now there's also the story that, of course, Jeffrey Epstein became part of the story.
So apparently when Bill Ackman's wife was working at the, I think she might have been the head of the MIT lab, or she worked there, and I guess Jeffrey Epstein once went to a presentation there and donated $150,000 to the lab.
So she had a brief little donor meeting with him, nothing special.
But you can smear anybody with that association.
So these are pretty terrible attacks against his wife, which I do not agree with, and I hope he goes nuclear on that.
All right, I think he will.
What's happening after the war in Israel?
So Tony Blinken's over there in the Middle East.
He's going to talk with the United Arab Emirates and he's talking to the Saudis about how to do things after the war in Gaza is over.
Apparently the United States has taken the ridiculous position that the Palestinians should be running Gaza after things settle down.
Israel is taking the more smarter position, at least General Galantes, that Israel is always going to have to have the security control of the area.
So even if someone else is sort of running and making sure the garbage gets picked up, Israel is just going to control it.
And that's the only rational thing.
It would make no sense at all to do this and then rebuild it.
With all the people's minds the same, and maybe worse, because of the war.
So it would be ridiculous, absurd, to put it back together.
So in my opinion, they should either leave it unoccupied, which has its own horrific impact on the locals, or they have to put somebody else in charge, like the Saudis.
With Israeli military control, but maybe some kind of Saudi or third party who is willing to deprogram you.
Now, I'll say it again.
You can deprogram the kids.
The adults, not so much.
But if you had full control of the children's environment, meaning that when they went to school, they would only hear what you wanted them to hear, you could deprogram.
You still have the problem that they go home and their parents get them.
But if you could make sure that, except for the parents, you could deprogram them right in the schools, you could deprogram.
But if you just put the same influence back in Gaza, you're going to get the same situation.
It'd be crazy.
So I don't even know if the United States is serious about having the Palestinians run Gaza.
Like that doesn't even sound smart enough to be serious.
It might be just something they have to say so they sound a little bit neutral when we're not.
So I'm not sure they believe it.
It might be just something they need to say for position.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best live stream you've seen so far today.
And thanks for joining on your X platform and Rumble and on YouTube.
It's been a pleasure.
I'm just looking to see if there are any comments on here before I say goodbye.
Anything I need to address?
It's an unsure action, okay?
All right.
Thanks for joining everybody here, and I will see you tomorrow.
