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, AI Lawsuit, Business Insider, Politico, Axios, Gender Dysphoria, Fani Willis, Coordinated Lawfare, The View, Hunter Biden Contempt Hearing, President Trump, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, 2024 Puppet Fight, Vivek Ramaswamy, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Elon Musk, NBC News, Mark Cuban, Personal Security Decisions, Israel Hamas War, Senator Fetterman, South Africa, 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.
Trying out a new microphone for the platform's Not Counting Locals, which is on its own system.
And I have no idea if you can hear me.
So if somebody on YouTube or Rumble or X could tell me in the comments, do you hear me now?
And, of course, comment.
Oh, well, they can.
Okay.
Good news.
Good news.
Audio is good.
Well, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can ever understand, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel or styne, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hitter, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Ah.
Yeah, that was as good as I hoped it would be.
Well, let's talk about the news.
Have I told you lately that the news is all just funny and absurd and ridiculous?
I don't think I've been mad about the news in a while.
And it's not because the news is any better.
It's just, it's gone so far, it's just ridiculous.
And so I end up just being entertained by it.
Until we all die, of course.
But here's what's happening.
Have I ever told you that it's weird how often I end up in the middle of a national story?
It's really weird.
The number of times there'll be some story, the headline, I'll be, oh, there's a story, and here are the details.
Okay, the story's about me.
It's the damnedest thing.
So here it's happening again.
So it turns out there's a big lawsuit by a bunch of artists, class action copyright suit, against the big AI companies that do visual stuff.
So Stability AI, Mid Journey, and DeviantArt.
And apparently on behalf of 16,000 artists, they're suing because the AI companies looked at all the art by these many artists and then use that art to train itself to reproduce art that could either look in the style of, or I guess even identical if they wanted, to all these many artists.
And I read the story and it highlights me as one of the artists that they copied.
So apparently the entire archive of Dilbert comics may have been scooped up by AI, which means that it will forever be part of the AI mind.
Now, how interesting is that?
I always wish that I had left something of my human intellect on the internet So that when AI became alive, which it did this year, it could scoop up some of it and I would be part of the brain.
So part of the mind of AI is literally me.
So if you use these images, they're at least a little bit informed by my work.
Now, I don't know how much, because I haven't seen anything by any of them that looks too Dilbert-y, but when you ask it to do a comic, It does have a strange Dilbert-y feel to it, and I hadn't noticed that.
What I didn't know is because they literally trained it on my work.
I'm not sure I mind.
I guess I'm part of the class action, or maybe I'd have to sign up to be part of it or something, but I can't say it's bothered me.
Can't really say it's bothered me.
I guess I should be bothered.
But I don't feel like it can do my job.
If AI could do my job, maybe I'd try harder to protect it, but it really can't.
It's nowhere in the neighborhood of being able to do what I do, but maybe someday.
Maybe someday.
So here's a story about a guy who murdered his wife, and they caught him pretty quickly, or at least they allege that they caught him.
And it turns out that he was researching a specific kind of poison.
He was a doctor, Minnesota doctor, and the wife was poisoned with the exact poison that he was researching at the time.
And the crack investigator said, huh, he's investigating this kind of poison, and his wife died of that kind of poison.
Maybe it's him.
Now, I think you can all see that that was a rookie murder mistake.
How many times do I have to tell you?
If you want to murder your spouse and you're a poison expert, you don't poison your spouse.
That's going to lead him right to you.
No, you find somebody who's researching explosives and also wants to kill their spouse.
And then you make a deal.
You poison their spouse.
They blow up your spouse.
No way the police can connect it.
Hat tip.
Alfred Hitchcock.
Yeah, he did it first in the movie, but it's still a good idea.
So don't poison your wife if you're a poison expert.
Well, here's a little technological breakthrough that could be a gigantic thing, or you'll never hear from it again.
Have you noticed that a lot of the science breakthroughs have that quality?
This will change everything, or possibly you'll never hear about it again.
You know how many times I've heard that Cancer is almost cured.
Probably about 700 times since I was in my 20s.
So far, not so much.
Although they are doing good.
They're doing well.
All right.
But Japan has a solar breakthrough.
They've figured out a new technology for making a solar device.
It's not a panel exactly because it's a thin, foldable, almost a material.
So apparently you could Buy a few yards of this solar panel material.
You could just sit it on the, they give the example, you could just lay it out on your deck and it'll start making electricity for you.
Now this has been a technology that was around, but they just figured out how to make it as efficient as the current panels, you know, in the 20 some percent efficiency, which is pretty good.
And maybe it will.
But the big story here is not that it's new technology.
That's the boring part.
The interesting part is that China completely dominates the solar panel industry.
And for what reasons, I'm not exactly sure.
Other countries are just not set up to manufacture the way they do.
But I guess Japan would be perfectly situated to make these thin, competitive solar panels.
This is the sort of thing that can change everything from what you think about competition with China, to climate change, to inflation.
It's one invention that touches everything, you know, from trade, climate, basically everything.
And, you know, but it could be nothing.
We'll see.
Or it could be everything.
So here's something I didn't know, or maybe I knew it and forgot.
Did you know that Politico and Business Insider are owned by the same company?
How many of you knew that?
Politico and Business Insider owned by the same company.
Some of you knew that.
Yeah.
Now, did you know that the company that owns both of them is a German company that owns other media in Europe?
Yeah.
So when you're reading Politico or Business Insider, you're reading articles by people who have a German media boss.
Don't you think you should know that?
Doesn't that feel like really important, if you're going to read any article in there, to know what the boss might be thinking based on who it is?
But here's what I recommend.
I think that if you're a media company that sort of looks like it could be an American company, if you weren't paying attention, it should be labeled as a foreign propaganda.
Because there's no such thing as media that's not propaganda.
But at least when it comes from inside our house, we're a little bit more alerted to it, right?
Like if you see the New York Times, you know it leans left.
If you see Fox News, you know it leans right.
But you know it's an American flavor of left, an American flavor of right.
And that's, you know, not perfect, but at least it's inside the house, it's in the family.
But if a German company is, and I'm not saying that they are, but if they're intentionally trying to change our minds in this country, I feel like that needs to be labeled.
I mean, we've been labeling manufactured goods forever, right?
I assume it's a law.
Is it a law that if you have a physical product and it's made in China, it has to say made in China?
It's a law, right?
So why don't we do that with media?
If the article is written by a German company, even though an American wrote it, I feel like we should know that.
So consider that a possible law.
All right.
I saw another statistic that said that gender dysphoria diagnoses are rising nationwide.
Axios has this story.
Wait, who owns Axios?
Who owns Axios?
Is that the same company?
Cox, you say, owns Axios?
Okay.
But anyway, California is up over 100%, I think Virginia is up over 200%, etc.
Now, do you think it's fair to say that the gender dysphoria thing is a massive mental health problem exacerbated by essentially media manipulation?
That's a fair statement, right?
Yeah, I feel like that's just something you can say as just a fact.
Now, I love the fact that Vivek just says it directly, that the gender dysphoria stuff is a mental health problem that we're treating like it's a physical problem.
Um, you know, that may be a little bit too universal for my taste.
This is probably, you know, some gray area of people who have, uh, an actual genetic physical issue that, you know, it would be fair if they can address it without us giving them a hard time.
But I think most of it is mental health.
Most of it's probably mental health.
So at least we can say it, even if it's not stopping it, that we say it.
Um, well, So I've got a kind of a theme today for the rest of the show and the theme is what if everything is exactly the way it looks?
The scariest thing that you can imagine is that everything you suspect is true because it looks like it is actually true and we'll get lots of examples of that as we go.
Here's one.
So Fannie Willis Who is the Fulton?
I have trouble keeping all the Trump legal issues straight.
She would be the Georgia, the Georgia prosecutor, right?
Secretly colluded with the January 6th committee.
So that would suggest, although that would not be confirmed, but that would suggest That there's some kind of collusion from a central Democrat source that's making sure the individual states are being aggressive and going after Trump.
So, I don't know if that's illegal.
I mean, it seems kind of Rico-like to me, but I don't know if it's technically illegal.
But it does fit the category of, what if everything is exactly the way it looks?
Because All the charges against Trump, even though they're coming from states, it looks exactly like it's only political.
As though... I'm not saying that he didn't, you know, make any mistakes or do anything that's, you know, not technically illegal.
Maybe.
But I think that would be true of almost every human being.
You could bring in anybody, examine every part of their life, and you could make some argument about some crime they committed.
So I think that's what's happening.
But my working assumption is that it's exactly what it looks like.
That the Democrats are coordinating lawfare with people who probably want to raise, you know, rise in the Democrat world, and so they're just doing their bidding.
It looks like it's exactly what it looks like.
That's what I think.
Well, there's news from Chicago.
I guess the Chicago bought a whole bunch of Free laptops and free iPads and other devices for the kids who couldn't afford it.
And let's see how that worked out.
See, free iPads, free laptops.
That seems like a good idea, doesn't it?
The poor people, they can't afford it.
And you need those things in a modern world.
So Chicago, quite reasonably, decided they should give free ones to people who couldn't afford them.
And let's see, now we know how that worked out.
$23 million worth of devices, that is 77,000 devices, went missing in one school year.
77,000 devices went missing in one school year.
Okay.
Maybe the situation in Chicago is exactly what you think.
Maybe everything is.
Maybe everything's exactly what it looks like.
Uh, whoopie, uh, well, dammit, I just ruined my own joke.
Forget for a moment that you just heard the word whoopie.
This will have nothing to do with the following joke.
You're completely disconnected.
Forget.
Forget you heard the word whoopie.
We're now going back in time half a minute.
So there's a TV show now.
It's doing really well.
And it's basically people with mental health issues talking about the news.
It's called, what's it called?
It's called The View.
It's called The View.
It features people with serious mental health issues trying to understand the news and failing.
One of the characters on this show is called Whoopi, Whoopi Goldberg.
And she was pleading with Liz Cheney to run a third party race to make sure Trump didn't win.
Because she said that about Trump, that quote, if he ever gets it again, we'll never have any more elections.
There will be no more.
He will stop it.
And he's very clear about that.
He wants to be dictator for life.
Now, Imagine that there's a television show about fucking idiots with serious mental health, and you're the diversity hire.
All right, moving on.
Sometimes things are exactly how they look.
Exactly.
Well, Hunter, this is weird, Hunter decided to crash or show up uninvited to the Congress's contempt hearing about Hunter.
So he was being held in contempt for refusing to talk to the committee, but when the committee was having a hearing about Whether they should find him in contempt, he showed up for it.
So this is the second time he showed up when he wasn't supposed to show up, just to make a point that it's not about the showing up, it's about, you know, the process.
He wants to do it in public.
Now, I've heard the argument that says, no, no, no, that's not the way you do it.
First, you get grilled in private and then later, That would be the standard.
Later, you might be asked in public, but by then, there's a good basis for your understanding of this.
Now, Hunter says, I don't want to do this in private because you'll take me out of context and lie about what I said.
Is he right?
Is Hunter correct that if he does anything behind closed doors, You will be taken out of context and that would be bad for him.
Of course he's right.
Of course he's right.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm not going to say he's wrong because it's Republicans.
This is how the whole thing played.
Anybody who says something behind closed doors and there's no transcript, at least until there's a transcript, yeah, there's a high chance That people will exaggerate what he said or take it out of context.
Yeah.
You know, if he could avoid it, he'd be stupid to do anything behind closed doors.
Now, I like his, I kind of like his approach, you know, just from a strategy perspective.
It's a, it does make sense that he keeps showing his face.
So there's no doubt about whether he wants to participate.
So he's making the case very clearly.
Yes, I'll participate in this.
I'm totally a volunteer.
Let's just make sure that the public sees everything.
So he's in favor of participating in transparency, and he's forced the Republicans to make an argument against transparency.
I think Hunter's winning.
I'm not sure what you see when you watch that.
I saw a lot of people saying, it's awkward, you know, he's stormed down, so it makes him look bad, and what was his strategy, and what was he thinking, and all that.
And I watched the whole thing and I thought, well, I think I know what he's thinking.
He's saying this process is bullshit, and he wants it to be transparent.
And that's always what I want.
So I hate to be the one who's continuously defending Hunter Biden, but I'd like to remind you once more, he's a private citizen.
He's innocent until proven guilty.
And that standard just has to stay.
So I like how he's playing it.
I know the experts are saying it's a mistake, but I feel we all understand now that he wanted transparency and the people who want to take him down did not.
Now there's no argument that they're going to make that will convince me he's not right about that.
I don't care about the precedent.
I don't care about the reasons.
It's better preparation.
Don't care.
He made his point and he won.
He made his point and he won.
I'm never going to argue against transparency unless it's like, you know, a nuclear secret or something.
Yeah, national security, yes.
All right, so I think you did well there.
So, let's see.
Another Trump case.
I guess Trump's back in court for his New York inflated assets, taxes kind of a case.
And if things go against him, now the judge has already ruled that he did the deed, that he inflated his assets.
So the ruling on fact is already against him.
And now they're going to decide what the penalty is.
Now, if you try to keep straight all of these different legal cases against Trump, this is the one with the judge who is Dobie the Narcissistic House Elf.
That's how I try to remember them.
By what fictional characters of ridiculousness they remind me of.
So yeah, this one's the Dobie the House Elf, the Narcissistic House Elf.
But the elf will decide if Trump's gonna have to pay $370 million and, worst of all, lose his licenses to operate in New York.
Which is so outrageous.
For Trump, of all people, you know, somebody whose name was essentially paired with New York for decades, that he would lose his license to operate in New York over some political bullshit that is literally a victimless crime.
There's no victim.
There's nobody who says they lost money.
Nobody lost money.
You know, they're saying that taxes were not paid.
Let me explain that.
So the argument is that the government lost out because he saved a bunch of money.
Wait, that doesn't make sense.
If Trump If Trump paid less to his bank, that means Trump would have paid higher taxes.
But the bank itself would have paid lower taxes because they didn't make as much as the government thinks the bank should have made.
But the bank was happy.
God, it's such bullshit.
You know, it's all complicated and You know, it's a confusedopoly, so you're not going to figure out what's going on, who's doing what to whom.
The only thing you remember is 91 indictments.
Four cases.
Trump must have done something wrong.
Well, who knows?
And then, apparently, because Melania's mother recently died, Trump's legal team asked for a recess so Trump could be with his wife while she's mourning the passing of her mother.
And Dobie the House Elf said, nope, nope, none of that.
All right, Chris Christie, in the biggest surprise of politics, he dropped out of the race.
Amazing, I know.
But the big story is he was caught in a hot mic talking about Nikki Haley and saying that she's going to get smoked.
In other words, she could not win against Trump.
And she says, you and I, we both know it, and she's not up to this.
Is that an embarrassing open mic moment?
I don't think so.
Because the polling actually agrees with it totally.
So Rasmussen did a poll where it saw how each of the top three candidates, according to polling, would do against Biden.
So Trump would beat Biden easily, according to current polling.
DeSantis would be a squeaker, would go either way, too close to call.
And Haley would get beaten easily by Biden.
Now that's polling, and I don't know that any polling is especially reliable now.
Especially because when people answer these polls, it's very unclean.
Because there's a little bit of wishful thinking in the answers, because there's still multiple candidates.
But once you get down to there's just two, I don't know, it seems like all the rules go out the window.
What would Republicans do if Nikki Haley is the candidate?
You think they'd say, well, in that case, we prefer Biden?
You think they would stay home and just say, yeah, you know, Biden's just as good?
I don't know.
I feel like Republicans are going to back whoever the Republican is.
Trump could get more feet on the ground.
Trump could get more people to cross the street to vote.
So motivation-wise, probably a big difference.
So I guess I believe the polling, but a lot could change between now and then.
Well, DeSantis and Nikki Haley had their debate last night.
How many of you thought that would be worth watching?
Did anybody waste their time trying to watch that train wreck?
Have you developed the heuristic that I've developed?
So it goes like this.
There's a political debate.
Do you watch it, yes or no?
And question number one, is Trump in it?
Is Trump in it?
Because you know it'll be fun if he's in it.
Question number two, is Vivek in it?
If Vivek's in it, it's going to be fun.
If neither of them are in it, why would I bother, really?
Does it matter?
I don't know.
I mean, you only watch these things because there'll be a moment.
Right?
If Trump is in it, there will be a moment.
If Vivek is in it, there will be a moment.
Do you remember what the moment was that they reported with DeSantis and Nikki Haley?
There was so little happening in that debate that they had to get a body language expert just to create an article.
Oh, well, we think one was, you know, Body language, who cares?
And I guess at this point, also according to polls, this is interactive polls, Haley is actually surging in the early states.
So she's close second in New Hampshire behind Trump, polling at 44 to his 52, so he's up by eight.
And in Iowa, Trump is at 56% to Haley's 40%.
Is that by 16?
But that would be super strong showing in those states.
Now, let me ask my audience.
Nikki Haley doing great in the polls, these totally real polls that are not suspicious at all.
And so I would imagine that with this kind of polling strength, many of you are supporting her.
So in the comments, can you tell me how many of you are supporting Nikki Haley?
Look at all those supporters.
Yeah, now this doesn't make sense because 40 percent of the people in the two first states are going to support her.
How can it be that there are zero people on my live stream when, you know, most of you are probably Republican voters?
Huh, it seems highly unusual that there would be zero people in this large crowd of over a thousand people and then over here we've got See, I'm not seeing your comments at the moment, so let's see if... I don't know why, but the comments... Oh, I know why.
There, now I can see your comments.
All right, so just looking through the comments over here.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no.
So what's going on exactly?
How in the world can somebody get 40% support in the two first states When literally zero people in this non-random distribution, but still zero?
Oh, we got one yes.
All right, Mike Anderson, we got one yes.
But you can see the point, right?
What if this is one of those situations where the truth is exactly what you think it is?
What do you think is the truth here?
Either Democrats are answering as if they're Republicans and tried to rig the thing, which seems likely, actually.
Or what?
Or somehow all the polls are wrong?
Because the thing is that if Rasmussen is saying that Haley is polling high, Rasmussen is definitely not skewing things in favor of Democrats.
That's not happening.
So I don't think they're necessarily skewing it in favor of Republicans.
I think they do a good job of going down the middle.
But that's my opinion.
So it must be in the data itself.
I don't think the polling companies are all just making it up because they couldn't be in the same ballpark all the time.
I feel like it's in the data.
And I do think that there's some mystery that the pollsters themselves are trying to figure out about why some of the polls seem kind of hinky.
Yeah, there's something going on.
We just don't know what it is.
But I do not believe for one second that Nikki Haley is You know, a close second to Trump in the Republican Party.
That doesn't seem even slightly possible.
You know, based on social media, based on this, based on anything.
I just don't see any indication of it at all.
So, what do people who are Democrats think of the result last night of the two Republicans?
Well, CNN's Abby Phillip, who, by the way, believes the fine people hoax is real.
I like to call that out every time I mention her on the news.
She does a good job on the news.
I think she's very talented.
She deserves her job.
But she does believe that fine people looks like many of the people in the news.
So that's a bad look.
But she said that Nikki Haley seemed flustered and frustrated.
I don't think that helped her tonight.
But There were five other political consultants that said opposite.
Some Democrats, some Republicans, that said that Haley had a great night and she just totally destroyed dissenters.
What do you think?
I think that these debates do nothing but make people think they're sidewalk or who they want to win.
I mean, My take on DeSantis is that he's way too boring.
He doesn't know how to smile and connect to crowds.
I don't know how he won as a governor, frankly.
I'm kind of surprised by it.
Once you see the quality, well, maybe it was because Trump endorsed him.
Okay.
So that's the reason, Trump endorsed him.
But the fact is he's been a great governor.
I don't agree with everything he's done in Florida, but on balance, one of the best.
Maybe one of the best of all time.
But his campaigning is not stellar.
No, I would not hate a world in which terrible things happen and he became president.
I wouldn't hate it.
But I do have a problem with Nikki Haley.
She keeps saying that women are special.
And that is the most disqualifying thing you could ever do as a Republican.
is to be all DEI, the worst thing you can do.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
So Vivek is talking conspiratorially about Nikki Haley and the deep state and who they want.
So Vivek's thesis is that the people who always run everything The people whose names maybe you don't know, the deep state, we're behind the scenes, maybe some billionaires and capitalists and people like that.
He says this, here's the plot.
Number one, narrow this to a two-horse race between Trump and a puppet they can control.
Number two, eliminate Trump.
Number three, trot their puppet into the White House.
Now, I don't know if that means before or after the primary, but I guess my interpretation is that he means that Nikki Haley is the puppet, and if you could get rid of Trump and slot her in, and maybe slot in a puppet to replace Biden, or maybe you don't need to if it's somebody who will win, and that it's really a puppet play.
And that what you're seeing is the deep state, you know, getting ready to insert their puppet and that nothing we do in the democratic process makes too much difference because they can kind of make their puppet prevail.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that there is a more of a corporate, let's say a big corporation play to get Nikki Haley in there because she's the one they trust?
It certainly feels like that, doesn't it?
So I go back to my thesis for today.
My theme, if you will.
Maybe it's exactly what it looks like.
Because I cannot understand the complete lack of grassroots support that I observe.
I can't explain that.
Unless it's exactly what Vivek says.
Now, I can't always know what's true.
But I can do a pretty good job of telling you what it looks to be.
Sometimes things look exactly the way they are.
Other times not.
But in all likelihood, this is exactly what it looks like.
Meaning that the big corporations are trying to get Nikki Haley elected.
And they'll have some plan to get rid of Trump before the election.
So, we'll see.
All right, I saw Dr. Jordan Peterson tweeted today, quote, you are not obligated to associate with people who are making your life worse.
To which I said, I got canceled a year ago for saying that.
Apparently he said it in 2021, so he's been saying it for a while.
But I think the secret is he said it better.
Am I right?
Maybe he said it in a less provocative way.
But the weird thing is that I got cancelled without people disagreeing with me.
Did everybody note that?
That I got cancelled, but nobody disagreed with me.
Literally nobody.
Instead, what they did was they imagined that something else happened.
And then they disagreed with the thing they imagined.
Does that happen to anybody else?
Do you know anybody else who says things clearly but then they imagine it was something else so they can criticize the imagined part?
Well sure, NBC News has a hit piece on Elon Musk.
It said Elon Musk drew a swift rebuke From two of the nation's best-known civil rights organizations, after he criticized efforts by United Airlines and Boeing to hire non-white pilots and factory workers.
Now I'm going to save you the time of reading the article.
Let me summarize it for you in my own words.
Summary of the NBC article.
First thing you need to know, Is who are the players?
And I will say this a million more times.
The news doesn't make sense unless you know who the players are.
NBC News is generally considered the CIA's network.
In other words, the news that comes out of NBC News, you should not assume is true.
You should assume that it's the official government's position.
Or at least the CIA.
Now, I don't know that that's true.
Well, that is the general assumption.
And I know that when I read NBC News, it looks exactly like that.
Which doesn't mean it's true.
But it looks exactly like it's true.
And so I get back to my theme.
What if everything is exactly like it looks?
So here's what they do to Elon Musk, and I summarize this in my own words.
What Musk said, again, these are my words characterizing what Musk said, that it's dangerous to prioritize race over merit and competency when lives are at stake.
An airline pilot has to protect your life and your family's life.
So when it's life and death, it's a bad idea to prioritize anything except Capability.
So that seems pretty provocative, right?
So what is the criticism for?
NBC will now misinterpret him, and then they'll find third parties who are basically Democrat assets, and they will have the third party criticize the misinterpretation of what he said.
If you believe that NBC is suggesting that what Musk really meant is that people of color cannot fly planes as well as white people, he never said anything like that.
Not even close.
Nothing in the general neighborhood.
He strictly talked about capability.
And if you focus on race instead of capability, Everybody who's in business knows you get what you measure.
You get what you measure.
If you measured your employees' height, you know, they would all start wearing lifts in their shoes.
Because you get what you track.
So if they're tracking race, they're not going to stop tracking, you know, capability.
They won't stop.
But it changes the focus.
And if there's a tiebreaker, which way is it going to go?
That's the problem.
If it's a tiebreaker, which way is it going to go?
And the problem is that we don't know what's really a tie.
So you end up favoring race where maybe the facts did not suggest you should.
Now look at my situation.
So here's a situation where they took a completely reasonable thing that literally everybody agrees with.
Find me one person in the entire planet who would disagree with a statement that you should hire the most capable pilots.
All right?
Nobody disagrees with that at all.
So take my case.
What did people say I said?
How was I characterized?
I would say that the way I was characterized when I got canceled Was that I was saying I disliked black people so I didn't want to be around them.
Is that what you heard?
Is that an accurate characterization of what I said?
It's not even close.
It's not even in the same zip code.
I've never said that.
Because I don't think it.
I don't have any issue with black people individually in person.
Never have.
Never will.
Because why would I?
There's no reason for it.
Yeah, I judge individuals as individuals.
Just period.
I tend to like anybody who has a good sense of humor.
I tend to like anybody who likes me.
I have very low standards.
Do you have a good sense of humor?
Oh, I can hang with you.
No matter what else is going on.
Can you laugh at that?
Oh, I can hang with you.
You got a good sense of humor.
Do you like me?
All right, we're friends.
I'm done.
We're friends.
Good sense of humor.
You like me?
Good.
We're done.
So here's what I did say.
I said if there is a group of people and you know that because of data or polling that there's a large percentage of them that have it out for you, you should stay away from them.
Do you think the news changed that into he said you should stay away from all black people all the time?
No.
I mean, that's what they said, of course.
But that's not what I said.
Now, did I say that all black people have it out for me?
No, that would be stupid.
That'd be the dumbest thing anybody ever said.
But the news can say that.
Because nobody's checking with me.
Nobody in the news, who cancelled me, actually asked me why I said what I said or what the context was.
Just think about that.
Nobody.
Not a single entity that cancelled me asked me what was going on.
None.
Now, a number of podcasters did, but they weren't cancelling me.
They didn't cancel me.
They were just interested in the story.
So here, let me say it again.
If your interest is safety, you can discriminate as much as you want.
There's no law against it.
It's not unethical.
There was a recent video of Mark Cuban from some time ago, where he said that he admitted he was bigoted and prejudiced because if it were late at night and he saw a black teenager in a hoodie, he might cross the street.
Now, Elon Musk sort of had fun with him because they got a little fight going on, so he tweeted and called him a racist.
But who disagrees with Mark Cuban?
Literally no one.
Literally no one.
So do I think Mark Cuban is a racist?
No.
He's somebody who does risk management.
Is there anything that Mark Cuban said that would suggest he doesn't like black people?
No.
There's nothing in that.
Nope.
All he suggested was that there's a risk if you see somebody dressed a certain way and they're part of a demographic group, you have a higher risk.
Every data everywhere suggests that's true.
If you saw a black man walking toward you on the street and he had a necktie on, he had a necktie on, do you cross the street?
I wouldn't.
I wouldn't cross the street if I saw anybody with a necktie on.
It wouldn't matter who it was.
You wearing a necktie?
Oh, okay.
Yeah, I also, back, do you remember when boom boxes were a big thing?
You know, the young people would carry like a big boom box, this gigantic, you know, recording radio thing.
I used to use that as another way to know I was safe.
If you saw somebody coming, you know, walking down the sidewalk, and let's say it's a black teenager and they've got a hoodie on, If they also had a boombox, totally safe.
Is that discriminatory and bigoted?
Yeah, probably.
Probably.
Because I made a decision based on a boombox.
Yeah.
Now, but am I being irrational about my own security?
Would that be rational?
Let me be as clear as I possibly can.
My security decisions are none of your fucking business.
And that's the end of that conversation.
It doesn't matter why I make a decision.
If I think I can make myself safer, or my family, I'm going to do whatever it takes.
I don't care what you think about it.
So, no, I don't think that black people are a risk, like, just because they're black.
I don't know anybody who does.
Literally nobody thinks that.
I've never heard it in my whole life.
Do I think that if I went to a black neighborhood that was mostly black, would my risk being Mr. McWhitie, the Trump supporter, would I have a greater risk of danger if I were recognized in an all-black neighborhood?
I assume so.
But what if I'm wrong?
None of your fucking business.
I could be wrong about my own security.
Suppose I decide to have a personal gun or not have a personal gun for home defense.
Is that any of your fucking business?
Nope.
You do not get to decide what makes me safer.
You do not get to decide.
There's no law that says you have that right.
There's no ethical rule that says you have that right.
It's not morally supportable for you to get in my business.
My physical security It's my fucking business.
You don't get it.
You don't get a say and vice versa.
I don't get a say in yours.
Now, if I make a mistake, I go to jail.
We all understand that, but it's still my decision and nobody gets to participate.
Just me.
Now, do I think that if I competed in a corporate America for a job, And there were, let's say I lived where there was a substantial black population.
Do I have a good chance of getting the promotion in the context of DEI and the fact that I'm a white guy?
No.
No.
So I should leave that situation.
Right?
That's the same advice I would give literally anybody.
I'll give anybody the same advice.
If you're going to be passed over because of your immutable characteristics, you should get out of there.
Get the fuck out of there.
Get away as far as you can get.
So nobody disagrees with that.
So if I tell you, you know, nobody thinks there's any statement that's true of all, of any group, but there might be a bunch of people who are learning DEI and they're learning CRT and they're learning ESG and they've been trained.
To think that I'm literally their problem.
Literally, me.
That I'm their problem.
You know, representing other older white guys.
If you're in that situation, get away.
You need to get away.
Now the way Dr. Peterson says it, if you're, says you're not obligated to associate with people who are making your life worse.
Now he's speaking more generally about narcissists and people like that.
But it's the same thing.
It's exactly the same.
You are not obligated to be around people who might have an unusual interest in doing you harm.
So that's the story in that.
Yeah, it's always the same.
You always take what somebody said, change it into a different thing, and then you got something to bitch about.
I believe that 99% of all political agreements comes down to one group It's trying to make the actions of a few people represent the whole group.
When we talk about January 6th, how does the debate always go?
It always goes like this, if it's a Republican and a Democrat.
That was not an insurrection.
Republicans don't forget to bring guns to an insurrection.
So that Republican says that.
And a Republican will leave out that there was violence there and there were people doing violence.
Because it doesn't really matter to the point.
It matters to the legal system.
It matters to the victims.
But it doesn't matter to the point of whether it was an insurrection.
Because clearly those few violent people, still there were too many of them, I'll call it a few, just as a ratio of the total.
But there were way too many of them, nobody approves of it.
But it didn't represent the whole.
But even today, some Democrat tells me, "Why are you ignoring that it was a violent insurrection when we have pictures?" I've seen the pictures.
Everybody's seen the pictures.
We've seen the pictures of the violent part.
We've seen the picture of the doors being opened and people sauntering.
Why can't we just say it's both?
But that the important part was that they didn't have weapons and they didn't have an intention to do any insurrecting.
That they were there to protect the Republic, not to defeat it.
That's really important.
Yes, there were bad elements here.
So every disagreement seems to fall into that category of somebody thinks the sum equals all.
Let's take Elon Musk.
Do you think Elon Musk meant to say that there are zero people of color who can fly an airplane?
No, of course he didn't fucking mean that.
Nobody would mean that.
Literally no one.
Anywhere ever had that thought, you know, as a serious thought.
But the only way they can attack him is to act like he did say something that's batshit crazy like that.
That's all the politics.
Well, meanwhile, South Africa is taking a case to the Hague.
The UN is gonna, I guess, rule whether Israel is committing what South Africa would call a genocide.
Now, I always talk about word thinking, and here's a perfect example.
Whether or not this is a genocide, does that change what it is?
If you give it the label, let's call it a genocide, that activates a bunch of rules, right?
You know, the way we treat it would be different if it fits that definition.
But the weird thing is, it's still what it is.
It's exactly what it is, no matter what word you put on it.
Why do you need to put a word on it if you think it's the worst thing in the world and it needs to be stopped?
You need a word.
You can see what's going on.
We could argue about the exact death count, but it's pretty obvious what's going on.
And so whether it is labeled one way or isn't, it is what we're observing.
We're all seeing the same thing.
Everybody's on the same page of what it is.
Now I don't think anything will come of this, no matter what you think of it.
I don't think this process makes any difference.
But there was an interesting side story that came out of it, which is Senator John Fetterman, who was Speaking out against the effort to call Israel genocidal.
So Fetterman was pro-Israel, as am I, 100%.
And then Fetterman went on and said that South Africa ought to sit it out when it comes to white genocide.
That's right, John Fetterman, Democrat, Set out loud and in public that South Africa ought to set it out when it comes to white genocide, because he's very clear that the black Africans are essentially murdering, creating a genocide in South Africa, and they're the last fucking country that should blame anybody of a genocide.
They're in the middle of one.
Now, again, you don't have to use the word genocide.
You can see what's happened.
Right?
It's plain, the news is covering it all the time.
Yeah, the white farmers are being pushed out and slain.
So, how many topics is this in a row where Fetterman said something that's exactly my opinion?
Not even a little bit off.
It's exactly my opinion.
Why does he keep doing it?
Why is he the only one who's a Democrat who can do it?
Well, RFK does it sometimes.
He does a good job too.
But what is going on?
And by the way, I listened to a bit of his speech today, John Fetterman's.
And I have to say, he does have his fluency.
His fluency returned.
I was very skeptical that his medical condition was recoverable.
But it sure looks like it.
And I hate to tell you, but he's a legitimate candidate for president.
Eventually.
Now that, you know, there could be lots that will come out later that, you know, maybe changes my mind.
But if he keeps saying things that aren't too far from Democrats, but are very compatible with what Republicans think, he's gonna be hard to stop.
It's like, why didn't anybody think of it before?
Let me put it a different way.
Fetterman seems to be the first Democrat who figured out That if you didn't act batshit crazy, it might work out in the long run.
Now, I think he does this at his own peril, because I imagine the Democrats are just ready to kill him for saying things that any Republican could ever agree with, because it's just common sense.
It makes sense.
Yeah.
So again, you know, I'm not going to agree with him on every policy thing, but damn, he looks like the real thing.
He looks like the real deal.
So far.
You know, I'm always open to the fact that I could be bamboozled.
But he looks like the real deal.
Let me say this.
This would be the best compliment I can give him.
Would be one that I would also give Vivek.
Also give RFK Jr.
There are a number of people running this time.
Not all of them.
Who, in my opinion, are just patriots.
Just patriots.
I think Vivek You know, of course, he's a young, ambitious guy.
Everybody can be ambitious.
That's not a fault.
Well, I feel like he's running because he wants to fix stuff.
I feel like RFK Jr.
is running because he thinks he needs to fix stuff.
And I think Fetterman is acting the way he's acting because he wants to fix stuff.
To me, that's just patriotism.
Now, does Nikki Haley have the same incentives?
Well, It doesn't look like it.
She looks a little more traditional politician.
What about Trump?
Is Trump running to get his revenge or to fix the country?
Why would he have to do only one?
Why would he have to choose?
What would be wrong with both of those things?
There does have to be some mutually assured destruction.
The Democrats do have to be destroyed.
The leadership, not the party.
But the leadership of the party needs to be destroyed.
For what they've done, right in front of you.
20 different hoaxes.
20 different political hoaxes.
Through their trained monkeys, the media.
That really needs to be addressed.
So if you think that the revenge incentive is somehow lower than You know, your ethical standards.
There's a utility to it.
There has to be some utility to it.
Otherwise, I wouldn't support it.
All right.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today.
Apparently, my new microphone setup is working great.
And just looking to see if any of you have any comments.
One hour in the dot, I'm so good at this.
All right.
Klott was going to end Biden's 2020 run because of the fine people hoax.
How did that work out?
Well, if the 2020 election had not been rigged, it would have worked.
So somebody's saying that I said I was going to take Biden out because of the fine people hoax, and then I failed.
Well, it's certainly true that I did not succeed.
But it is my current opinion that the 2020 election was probably rigged, but I don't have any facts for that.
It's just that if you look at everything else we know, it's really impossible to imagine it wasn't rigged.
I tried.
I tried for really up until just a few months ago.
I tried everything I could to stay open-minded about, you know, Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Maybe.
Maybe it was a fair election.
Maybe.
But it's hard to get past the fact that every single institution in America is obviously corrupt.
Just obviously corrupt.
And that would be, 50 state elections were the only things immune from corruption.
Really?
Now, even if you don't take the vote counting rigging, because I don't have any evidence to prove that, But even if you just took the political shenanigans, the rule changes, the remote voting, the Hunter laptop, the media coordination against Trump, I mean it was certainly rigged.
In a practical way it was rigged.
In the sense that the will of the voters was removed from the process.
Would you call that rigged?
If the media colludes to basically make up stories, you know, the fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, if there's this massive coordinated attempt to come up with a hoax, you know, like the laptop wasn't Hunter's hoax, that's not exactly a democratic system.
That would be a pretend democratic system that's run by the people who can pay enough advertising to influence the media.
So there was nothing like a republic or anything like that.
Let me tell you my best guess about who they are.
I say this a lot.
People on the Republican side, almost exclusively, they talk about a they.
Now, it gets used in two different ways.
One of them is the anti-Semitic, Jews are running the world way that I don't subscribe to because I've never seen any evidence of that whatsoever, and I would have by now.
But the other is that there's a deep state they.
But they're never named.
Nobody ever says, you know, it's they, you know, this person, this person, this person.
Sometimes they say it's Obama.
Sometimes that's the WEF and Klaus.
Sometimes it's the global conspiracy of the Jews, the Rothschilds and other crazy stuff.
But nobody's too specific who they are.
Here's my best guess of who they are.
I think that there's a massive incompetence problem that permeates everything including politics.
And that mass incompetence is so pervasive that it looks like it's coordinated or planned.
So if you had one problem, let's say your only problem was border security, you'd say, oh, there must be something about border security.
There's like something about that situation that's not working.
Well, it's not the only thing that's not working.
It's kind of like, you know, the airplanes are falling out of the sky or money is going to Ukraine.
It feels like there's a lot not working.
But I don't know that it's coordinated.
It looks to me like it's just mass incompetence.
And then the mass incompetence is shielded because we no longer have a press that's asking the right questions of their own team.
So if you take away the independence of the press, if it ever had it, I don't know if they ever had it, but without the press, the bad guys, the they, can say anything.
They just literally make anything up and it sticks.
So here's what I think.
I think that the corporations, the big corporations, are in fact driving the ship and always have.
But it's not like there are one or two corporations that are controlling everything.
It's more like each corporation has some set of policies that they really care about and they make damn sure that those happen.
But it's a different corporation for a different policy, etc.
So it's definitely the corporations that are driving everything, including DEI and all that other stuff.
That's my take.
But it's not like one they.
It's just a bunch of corporate interests that sort of manifest themselves through the system, but no coordinated they.
You know, the oil people may be coordinated, And the banky people might be coordinated, but the two of them are not on the same side necessarily.
You know, it's just people pursuing their interests.
That's what it feels like to me.
I don't think there's any they beyond that effect.
All right, that's all for now.
I'm going to say bye now to you three platforms, YouTube and Rumble and X, where we're live right now.
