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, Dilbert TV Show, Nothing Is Real, John Kerry, UFO Distraction Ploy, Recession, Whitehouse Palestinian Protest, Insurrection, Vivek Work Ethic, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, DeSantis Participation Trophy, Nikki Haley, Axios, Trump Disses Vivek, Gender Pay Gap, Gender Emphasis, Woke Cigna, Gaza Egypt Border, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
- - - - Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the finest experience you'll ever have in your life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to Levels that nobody could even understand.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalice, a cyan, a canteen, a 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.
It's the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh.
Yeah, that's good.
Possibly top 10.
One of the best sips of the entire sipping universe.
Now we got news, a lot of kinds of news, but I saw this little article about there was a place in upstate New York where they found what might be the oldest existing forest that might be so old and has like old kinds of plants and stuff.
It might be so old That the dinosaurs saw the same kind of plants.
Where is this place?
In upstate New York?
Turns out it's practically across the house from where I grew up.
Turns out, have I ever told you, too many times, that I end up in the middle of stories for no reason whatsoever.
So I'm reading this story about the oldest forest.
I'm like, OK, well, the story about dinosaurs in the oldest forest clearly will have no connection to me.
So I'm reading this story.
Where is this oldest forest?
Oh, it's in the Cascule Mountains.
Oh, that's interesting.
Cascule Mountains is where I grew up.
And where is it?
Cairo.
That's where I did my grocery shopping.
And why did they say, oh, apparently you're not allowed to visit this oldest forest place, so visitors can't go there, because they don't want people ruining it with their traffic, so it's just for science.
So there's this place in New York that would be cool to look at, and it would be the only thing in New York worth looking at, but you're not allowed.
You're not allowed in.
You grew up in Cairo?
I'll be damned.
Maybe we knew each other.
But then they throw into the article, this is in the New York Post, for no reason at all, they throw the following thing into the article.
Well, you can't go to this old growth forest, but there are other things you can go to.
Why is that even in the article?
The only point of the article is there's this great, like, old forest that may have been around during the dinosaurs.
And then they end it with, but you can't go see it.
It's closed.
However, the good news is there are other completely unrelated things in upstate New York you can do instead.
And then it lists one of them as Ski Wyndham, the ski slope in Wyndham, New York, that was literally across the street from my house.
I literally could look out the window and watch people ski on the mountain across from the house.
That's where I worked.
I used to work at the Wyndham Ski Slope.
Anyway, all stories about me.
Speaking about things about me, I made a discovery that is just blowing my frickin' mind.
Now, I know this will be more about me than you, but this is really interesting to me.
It might not be interesting to you.
I'll say that right up front.
So I made a little discovery.
Somebody has uploaded the old Dilbert animated TV show that ran for two half seasons on UPN back in the year 2000 and 2001.
And, uh, they took out, you know, the opening and closing credits.
So it's like 10 hours of just solid Dilbert.
Now, I didn't remember most of it, even though I wrote, I think I wrote at least half of it, uh, the scripts, but it's been so long that I didn't really remember the specific jokes or anything.
So I started watching and I thought, Oh, wow.
Strangely, this held up really well.
You know, a lot of humor doesn't hold up, but it held up really well.
And then I did something.
That was really interesting.
I had one complaint with the series myself, you know, when it was made, and it was that the actors all talked slowly.
And I didn't know that until the first initial animation came back.
And I thought, why is everybody talking slowly?
Now, they were not talking slowly.
They were talking normal.
But what I didn't realize, and it just took me a while to piece it together, I always wondered why the Simpsons and other You know, really well-performing comics.
Everybody seemed to talk fast.
Bop-bop-bop-bop-bop!
So, in just a whim of curiosity, I set the YouTube viewing at 1.25x speed.
And at 1.25x speed, that is a fucking magical show!
Oh my god!
It's so good at 1.25x!
I screamed!
Like, I howled.
I was crying watching things that, some of it I wrote.
I just didn't remember.
Yeah, the difference between regular speed and 1.25 takes it into a whole new category.
Now, if you're interested enough to watch it, and especially if you've watched it before, here's what to look for.
Look for the first half of the episodes, you know, the first 10 or so.
They're not really that strong, and there's a reason for that.
In the first season, you have no feedback because you've got all these episodes you've written and they're in the pipeline.
And you don't really see them until they're on TV.
So you don't know what you did right and what you did wrong.
By the second season, half season, the last 10 shows or so, watch those last 10 shows.
Now here's the political part.
I'm going to tie this into the politics.
Ask yourself if that show should have been canceled.
Now, the backstory is that it ran on a Monday night on the old network, UPN.
The UPN decided strategically that they were going to turn Monday night into an all-black comedy block.
Now, nothing wrong with that.
That's just probably, you know, good marketing and stuff.
But Dilbert ran on that Monday after Ayesha or something.
And they had a good audience, good enough to be re-upped for the next year.
As soon as a TV show has moved to a new time slot, and this is well understood in the TV industry, it almost always kills it.
Oh, Moesha.
Moesha, that's correct.
Yeah, it was after a show called Moesha, and it did well.
I retained a good lot of that audience.
So basically, Dilbert got canceled for being white.
But look at the quality of the show.
And ask yourself if that show should have been canceled.
You're going to be surprised.
All right.
I saw a fascinating thread from Kyle Becker on X who believes that the NFL is rigged and that it was obvious in the game.
I guess it was a game last night.
I'm not really following football.
But do I understand the story right?
I want to make sure I get the allegation right.
Now, this is just an allegation.
I didn't watch it.
So it wasn't at the Chiefs against the Dolphins.
And don't we understand that Taylor Swift is dating one of the Chiefs and therefore that's like the biggest story in sports because Taylor Swift is attached to it.
And wouldn't it be great to have a Super Bowl with Taylor Swift?
Now, according to Kyle, who's watched a lot of football, he says it was kind of obvious that the refs were pushing for the Chiefs.
You think that's true?
Did anybody watch the game?
How many of you have the same impression that it looked like it was rigged?
Yeah, I don't have an opinion on this, but I'm interested in yours.
A lot of yeses.
A lot of yeses.
Has anybody started to figure out what I finally came to realize?
That nothing is real.
Nothing's real.
Absolutely nothing is real.
You know where I learned this?
I learned this as a child.
I remember watching professional wrestling as a child.
And I'd watch it and I'd say, I'm almost positive that's not real.
I feel like they would be hurting themselves far more if they were really trying to hurt each other.
So as a young child, I was like, I feel like TV's lying to me.
That's not real.
And, uh, Then do you remember the game shows?
Like, what's the one with Tic-Tac-Toe?
Celebrity Squares?
Hollywood Squares, right?
Hollywood Squares.
And there was a little notice that came toward the end of the show, just a little notice that would say, sometimes, just sometimes, just occasionally, we might tell the contestants what the question is before the question.
Yeah.
Do you remember, I forget the one celebrity who was always hilarious?
It was always obvious to me that his joke had been written in advance.
Yeah, Paul Lin.
Right.
Paul Lin was always the one who had the funny, naughty answer.
It was so obvious that was scripted.
So I grew up in a world as a kid and I'd think, I think the people around me think wrestling is real.
And then I'd turn on Hollywood Squares and I'd be like, I'm not positive, but I think the other people watching this show think that these are spontaneous answers, when kind of obviously they're not spontaneous answers.
And then I remember Jerry Springer.
You remember the Jerry Springer Show?
In every single episode, there would be a chair that involved, there would be a fight.
Every episode, there would be a fight.
And I said to myself, Well, that doesn't happen by accident.
It's obviously, obviously rigged.
And I looked around and people would be like, wow, look at all those fighters.
And I would think, you really can't tell that that's not real, right?
Well, let's go watch some Hollywood squares and some wrestling.
We'll work this out.
Now, by the time I got to watch the news as an adult.
Oh, and here's another one.
You remember when, uh, Which magician was it that made an airplane disappear on live TV?
Who was that?
The famous magician?
One of the big ones?
David Copperfield?
Yeah, I think it was Copperfield.
So remember watching TV?
I think it might have been live.
And a bunch of people would join hands around this real airplane.
And then they do some things and the airplane disappears.
And then they talk to the people and they're like, oh, I don't know.
Well, that was amazing.
That was amazing.
I don't know how that plane disappeared.
You know how they do that trick?
All of the people are in on it.
All they do is they just unjoin their hands and move the airplane out or whatever they did.
I forget the details.
But the trick is that you imagine that the people making the TV show are playing it straight.
They're not playing it straight.
It's just entertainment.
So they're pretending that the people who were on site saw something amazing, but they didn't.
They didn't.
Have you seen the... Is it David Blaine or something?
Or somebody, Angel or something?
Who's the one who did the levitation on the street?
Chris Angel?
And you see the clips of where he'd go... And it would look like he levitated off the ground, and you'd see all the people go...
Do you think the people standing behind him couldn't tell that he was just lifting up on one toe?
Really?
You think everybody there was amazed?
The whole crowd was amazed, right?
The other thing they would do is they would do two tricks.
Now, this is just in general.
I'm not saying that David Blaine did these things.
I'm saying that one of the ways they do that is they'll do two tricks.
One trick would be obvious how it's done.
So if you film the reactions to it, it wouldn't be much of a show.
People would be like, looks like you're just lifting off on one of your toes, but you're angling your body so that I don't see the toe.
So it looks like you're levitating, but really you're just lifting yourself off on one toe.
So the way they do it is he does a different trick.
So the different trick is just a real magic trick.
So the person who sees the real one is like, And then they splice in the reaction with the trick that wasn't a trick if you were there in person.
And it looks like that they were fooled by his levitating.
Now I think that's how it was done.
I don't know for sure.
But if you believe that magic tricks on television are the same as they would be if you were in person, no reason for that to be true.
Now let's get to the news.
By the time I was an adult, I had a very long You know, history already of knowing that the things on television were made up.
Yeah, and so I wasn't too surprised to find out that the news is not real news.
But let's talk about the real news.
So there's a story that the East Coast is sinking because of all the buildings.
So not only is the news scaring us because climate change might raise the water level, But apparently the buildings are so heavy that places like Long Island and New York City are actually starting to sink a few millimeters a year in a fairly substantial way.
Now, what I think is funny about this is that Governor Abbott of Texas keeps sending busloads of immigrants to the places sinking into the ocean because it's already too heavy.
I think Governor Abbott is only about two or three busloads away from solving this problem, if you know what I mean.
Two, three more busloads ought to take care of the whole problem.
So, Governor Abbott, for the win.
Well, this is tragic news.
John Kerry will be stepping down from his job as Biden's Special Envoy for Climate.
Yeah, there will no longer be a special envoy for climate.
Oh my God.
Oh my God.
What are you going to do?
Do you all have the backup plan?
We're not going to have any kind of Biden special envoy for climate.
We're actually exposed.
People were exposed.
I don't know what's going to happen now.
I feel so Taken care of.
When, you know, I'd go outside, it'd be like a little too warm or a little too cold, and I'd be like, ah, curse the climate change!
And then somebody would remind me, it's okay, Scott.
We got this.
John Kerry is riding around in his private jets, filling the sky with God knows what.
And he's got this.
Because not only is he John fucking Kerry, But he's the Biden Special Envoy for Climate.
Now, if he had been still on the job, do you think that the football game last night would have been cancelled because of the blizzard?
I don't think so.
No, I don't think so.
That's exactly the kind of problem you get when the Special Envoy for Climate steps down.
All hell breaks loose.
Snow everywhere.
Terrible temperatures.
I don't think this could be worse.
So, wear your jackets, people.
Well, the Wall Street Journal reports that interest in UFOs has reached a new recent high.
Huh.
I wonder what would have caused a recent high in interest in UFOs?
Is it because Jerry Springer's guests always get in fights?
Is it because professional wrestling was always real?
Is that why?
Is it because we've been fed a load of bullshit to keep us distracted because Biden is not doing so well and we've got three wars or four wars or six wars going on and the border is open?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to go with the UFOs are a distraction by our intelligence agencies.
There is nothing to it.
Nothing to it.
You're never going to see a UFO.
You're never going to see a UFO.
Sorry.
You will actually be a UFO before you see one.
That's actually literally true.
You will be a UFO before you see one.
In other words, the odds of you someday, one of you, at least one of you, flying on a SpaceX rocket to Mars?
Pretty good, actually.
You know, over the course of the next 50 years or so?
Pretty good.
The odds of at least one of you being on a rocket ship to Mars.
So you will actually be a UFO before you ever see one.
If there is one.
I heard there's some planet that we saw some indications of life.
Not a planet, a moon.
And I don't know why we don't call moons planets.
It seems like discrimination.
I mean, I get there's a difference, but...
So maybe.
Maybe.
I doubt it.
I'm going to go with there's no life on that planet and the data is wrong, but we'll see.
Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, the probability of recession is dropping, according to the experts.
Or actually, yeah, so here's what they say.
According to economists surveyed, they lowered their probability of recession within the next year.
So it used to be about half of them thought there'd be a recession, now 39% of them.
And I ever told you that surveying economists is about as useful as nothing?
Nothing.
It's as useful as nothing.
The best economic prediction in the past year was from?
Me.
Yeah.
Literally the only person I know who said in public, you know, I think we'll do okay after the pandemic.
I'm the only one.
But now it looks like things may be slowing down.
Now the economists on average are expecting 1% growth in 2024 and normally we would be closer to 2.6 so that would be very slow growth but it would be technically not a recession because it's still Growing?
1%?
Now let me ask you this.
Do you think economists, if you're taking their average especially, can predict the GDP within 1%?
No.
No.
These are pure guesses.
Nobody knows.
And while there's an insurrection going on right now at the White House, Apparently the Palestinian supporters who are protesting broke through the one barrier and they've reached an inner barrier of the White House on their attempt to take over the country.
And non-essential personnel have already been evacuated and the White House has fallen.
Is that too strong?
If they're evacuating people from the White House, Hasn't the White House fallen?
I'm pretty sure that Biden is not in the White House, right?
It's a weekend.
So if you take out the non-essential people from the White House, and the President is already not there, you kind of just gave up the White House.
It's not like Congress, where you've got hundreds of people wandering around.
You've got basically one guy who matters, and then a bunch of non-essential people.
Exaggerating a little bit.
But to me it feels like if the top guy is already gone, the only one that matters, and then the non-essential people are leaving already, didn't the White House just fall?
All right, I'm exaggerating a little bit.
It's only to make a point that January 6th was bullshit, and this is not a real insurrection either.
May I remind you that should they take over the White House, we don't automatically give them the nuclear codes.
You all know that, right?
If they take over the White House, no matter how much sauntering they do, I'm worried that they're going to start taking selfies.
Maybe touch a lectern or two.
This could get ugly, people.
It could get ugly.
But of course, this is all helping battle against the weird narrative that January 6th was some kind of unarmed insurrection.
And if only they'd taken control of the Capitol building, they would Own the military by trespassing, I guess.
That's how you take over another country's military, by trespassing in one building.
That's what the news said, and I know the news is real, just like Hollywood squares.
Well, so here's some Vivek news.
Is it my imagination, or is Vivek making all the positive news, and everybody else is making negative news?
Well, let's watch that theme develop as I go.
So, first Vivek news.
I tweeted something about Vivek and Elon Musk commented on my post and he said, if it is accurate that Vivek did more meetings with voters than all of the candidates combined, then I think you will do very well in the vote on Monday.
And then he explains, the power of an extreme work ethic is usually underestimated.
Now, I'm used to looking on the X platform and seeing people make comments and opinions who are not qualified to hold that comment or opinion.
You know, such as me talking about economics, such as me talking about climate change, such as me talking about politics.
You know, basically all things I shouldn't be talking about because I have no expertise.
But when Elon fucking Musk says he's impressed by somebody's work ethic, Drop your tools.
Drop your tools.
Pay attention.
Wake up.
Wake up.
Elon Musk just said he impressed him with his work ethic.
That's a long way from nothing.
A long way from nothing.
And who would know that better than anybody?
Elon Musk.
By the way, I've always thought that the Elon Musk work ethic thing was true.
I mean, I do believe he's an insane worker, but some of it might be a little bit, you know, let's say, uh, what would be the word?
Not hyperbole, but romanticized.
Yeah, that's the right word.
Romanticized.
Cause we always hear the story about him, you know, sleeping at the office when there's a big project.
He slept at Tesla under his desk or wherever he slept at Twitter somehow.
And I do think that that's real.
I do think he really did those things.
But when we hear the stories, we imagine he's just sort of awake 24 hours a day.
I'm sure he finds some way to enjoy himself.
He does have a lot of children.
I always say it's interesting that we think we know somebody.
Do you think you know who Elon Musk is if you don't know anything about his fucking?
Because he must spend a lot of time during the 24-hour day enjoying the company of women who don't mind spending time with the richest man in the world.
He does have, like, how many kids?
300?
So, I feel like we, you know, we see this little sliver of a person, even though in this case his work life is a giant sliver, but there's always so much you don't know about famous people.
Don't assume you know anybody if they're in the news.
All right, so let's see.
So Vivek gets that good hit by really one of the best endorsements you could ever have, which is Elon Musk saying that he's impressed with his work ethic, assuming these numbers are real.
But Vivek is not the only one who made news.
DeSantis also made news, which is important because this is the big weekend.
That I was going to, uh, putting in all their votes for the caucus.
So DeSantis has made some news.
Let's see, uh, DeSantis news was, uh, oh, that's not good.
He was introduced by a guy at an event who gave him a participation trophy.
And he said he has no hope of winning, but it was nice for him to participate.
And then he called him a snowflake.
So.
So that made news.
All right, let's see, compare.
Vivek made news for the hardest work ethic we've ever seen.
So much so that he was complimented for his work ethic by literally the most famous person in the world for having the extreme work ethic.
So that's pretty good.
That's pretty good.
But DeSantis also made news for being pranked for doing so poorly that we all think it's hilarious he got a participation trophy.
Now, I pride myself on being able to identify professional work from amateur.
This troll who came up with the idea of a participation trophy, that's a little too good.
Now, if this was an amateur who was just sitting around and said, hey, I got an idea.
This is my own idea.
I'm just going to give up a participation trophy.
Now, I would be very impressed if an amateur came up with that.
This looks like professional work to me.
It looks like somebody put him up to it.
Speaking of which, do you remember the... No, I don't think it was Vivek.
There's no indication that Vivek's doing dirty tricks, by the way.
There's another dog not barking.
Think about it.
Think about any lie that Vivek has told during the campaign.
None.
None.
As far as I know, he's not even been accused of one.
Yeah, the fact-checkers have been like, oh god damn it, didn't say anything that was a lie again.
Zero fact-checking, zero accusations of dirty tricks.
I mean, you gotta pay attention to the dog that's not barking here.
It's pretty impressive, the non-barking part.
Anyway, so I think that was probably, there was a professional behind that funny troll about the participation trophy.
But okay, so DeSantis didn't do well.
But at least Nikki Haley made some good news, a little positive news.
The positive news of Nikki Haley is that, oh, okay, well, not some positive.
Axios is reporting that some Iowa Democrats and Independents are gonna pretend to be Republicans just so they can distort the caucus results.
So they'll be what they call Republicans for a day, because the system allows it, it's completely legal.
And they would do it to vote for Nikki Haley, but mostly just to screw Trump.
You know, to make Trump look not as strong, or to get themselves a weaker candidate, they say.
Now let me ask you this.
I'm introducing today my new segment that I call, Is it News or Propaganda?
So this is reported in Axios.
I didn't see it anywhere else, but maybe it's somewhere else.
But Axios has decided that this is a story that I hadn't heard before.
That people are crossing over.
Democrats are pretending to be Republicans to screw the Republicans.
Now, is that news?
Or is Axios prodding the Democrats to do this trick?
Is this responsible?
Is it responsible for them to report it when it guarantees there will be more of it because of the reporting?
Because keep in mind the reporting is saying this is perfectly legal.
This is not illegal.
It's transparent in a sense because everybody knows it's happening.
So is Axios becoming the news or reporting the news?
To me it looks like Axios wanted to create the news.
Or create more of it.
This doesn't look legitimate to me.
Does it look legitimate to you?
Or do you think this is just politically motivated and you wouldn't normally see it as news?
I'm interested in it.
I think I think the fact of it is very interesting.
But why aren't the other?
Why are the other outlets not also reporting on it?
Because it's so interesting.
That I would say, wow, this is actually pretty important.
I'm going to take a guess.
That some of the other outlets might be hiding it.
Yeah, they might just like the fact that you don't know.
Maybe.
But I would think that others would just have a higher ethical standard.
Because I consider this unethical reporting on the weekend of the event.
It seems like it's more prodding them to do it than it is talking about it.
That's just how I receive it.
All right.
I told you the other day that I didn't know who all these Haley supporters were.
You know, this could be one of the reasons that she polls better than you think.
Because I had noted that in my own life, I knew only one person, literally one, who supported Nikki Haley.
But when I told you that, I lied.
I'm sorry.
All right, so I have to confess.
I told you publicly that I only knew one Nikki Haley supporter, and that's not true.
It's not true.
That one supporter informed me that he switched to Vivek.
I don't know one.
I do not know a single Nikki Haley supporter.
I did for a while.
You know, for a few weeks there, I totally knew one.
But not anymore.
Not anymore.
All right.
Let's see.
And then I saw a comment by the Amuse account on X. Amuse is a good account to follow.
And about election rigging.
Now Amuse says, the reason multiple states are refusing to allow anyone to run against Biden in the primary is to allow Democrats to vote for Nikki Haley in the GOP primaries.
Now, I don't think that's the only reason.
You know, Biden just doesn't want a primary.
He doesn't want to lose.
Well, one of the effects of not having a primary is it frees up some Democrats who would have otherwise had to register as a Democrat to vote in the Democrat primary.
But what if there is no Democrat primary?
Ah!
Now they're all free agents.
Now they can rig the system by voting as Republicans.
Right.
So you already have your answer that the election is rigged.
It's already rigged.
In the primary.
To me, that's obviously rigged.
Now, it could be accidental, but it's no less rigged, because it introduces a variable that is independent from the will of the people.
Will you give me that?
You might say, oh, rigged is too strong a word because it implies something.
But I say, if you introduce a variable that changes the outcome, And it's not based on the will of the people.
That's rigged.
Anything that isn't something like giving the voters useful information and making it easier to vote legally, anything that's outside of that domain is probably rigged.
It might be legal, but it's rigging nonetheless.
So the big story you want me to talk about is that Trump Slapped Vivek in some comments and called him a fraud.
Now, when I first heard the news that Trump had maybe backed off from his love affair with Vivek, and vice versa, but not really, I thought, whoa, this is some story.
Looks like we're going to have some fighting, some intrigue, some drama.
OK, it looks like it was just sort of a misunderstanding.
So, the reporting, if you can trust it, is that there was a photograph of Vivek posing with some people who had shirts on that said something like, uh, protect Trump, vote for Vivek.
Is that what it said?
Protect Trump, vote for Vivek.
Now, the first thing you need to know, oh, save Trump.
Save Trump, vote for Vivek.
Now, I don't even know what that means.
Oh, Vivek made the shirt?
Well, did he?
I don't know if that's true.
Can you confirm that?
I don't know if you can confirm that.
But what does it mean?
What does it even mean?
I don't know what it means.
Save Trump?
Vote for Vivek?
What does that mean?
The only thing I can think it means is that they think Vivek would be his vice president.
Because having Vivek in the race does make Trump more assassination proof.
And also, lawfare proof.
Because the last thing they want is a stronger candidate.
They, the other team.
So, in some sense, I do think that Vivek having a strong showing does protect Trump.
It literally could save his life.
So, I think that Trump and his team may have Actually, I don't know what this shirt means.
Does anybody have a different interpretation?
Does anybody have a different interpretation?
Oh, was it about pardoning Trump?
What the others would have pardoned him to?
It's about the pardon.
Is that how you interpret it?
Well, I don't know.
So here's what I think.
So what happened was Trump And Trump attacked him and called him a fraud.
But when I first heard the story, what I thought was that Trump was attacking him the same way his enemies are.
Because the anti-Vivek people are saying, you know, there's something suspicious about how well he's doing.
So they're thinking he must be a, you know, from the WEF or the CIA is endorsing him or something because he's too good.
He was always too good.
Like he's always been too good.
He went to a really good school, did really well in business.
He's always been too good.
He's just more of it.
So he just happens to take his being too good to politics.
So it's not mysterious and it's not an indication that there are dark forces behind it.
There's no indication of that at all.
It's all complete bullshit.
But I thought that Trump was jumping on that train because that seems to be where he has some weakness.
In terms of trust?
I don't think that's a valid concern, but people have that concern.
Now, I think that Trump, when I read Trump's actual words, he went after Vivek for not being as much a supporter of Trump as he said he was.
So Trump's only problem with Vivek is that Vivek went from full-throated support to something that was a little bit less.
Or could be looking like that.
So basically, Trump was not attacking Vivek, or who Vivek was, or what he stood for, or his policies, or his character.
It was really all about what Vivek thought of Trump himself.
That's it.
So that's just the most Trumpian thing in the world, because one of the things I like about Trump is he says out loud, I like the people who like me.
I just love that he says that right out loud.
Yeah, I like the people who like me.
Because that literally describes all of us.
It's really hard to dislike somebody who actively likes you.
Yeah, it's just very human.
So every time he says that, I go, OK, that's the most honest thing somebody said today.
I like the people who like me.
So if a vape looked like he was pulling back from his full-throated support of Trump, Trump was giving him a brushback pitch, none of this is important.
So then Vivek came out with a long thread in which he explained that he appreciates and respects Trump's job, etc.
The work he's done.
So they're all good.
There's no real issue there.
That was just pure politics.
A little bit of a brushback in the context of a game.
No problem.
No harm, no foul, I think.
So that's a non-story that could have been a story, but really it was a slight miss.
And like I say, the biggest complaints about Vivek, and this isn't a joke, this is literally true, the biggest complaints about Vivek is that he seems too good to be true.
Don't let that stop you.
Don't let that stop you.
Too good to be true isn't the reason to not trust him.
How about the fact that he hasn't been in politics his whole life, and he's bringing you a Jeffersonian, almost, approach that we long for and are thirsting for, and that he's recommended practical solutions for almost all of our problems.
I think those are important things.
Not, he's too good, so he must be a trick.
Sometimes people are just better than other people.
That's the thing.
All right.
And I think it's interesting that Vivek's entire campaign is built on bringing merit back as our Central American theme instead of, you know, race.
And the first thing they do to the guy who's saying merit, merit, merit, is people say, I'm not sure you deserve this.
Come on.
He just did a double Grassley in Iowa.
Listen to Elon Musk.
Nobody deserves it more.
If you're going to look at effort.
At risk, too.
He's putting himself at a great risk.
Well, as Steve Malloy points out on X, the New York Times had these two articles so far in January.
These are two headlines, both in the New York Times.
On January 2nd, Global Warming to End the Snow.
Ten days later, also New York Times, January 12th, headline, Global warming to increase snow.
Oh my god, it's getting hard not to be a climate skeptic.
It's getting really hard to think any of this is not bullshit.
Yeah, it looks like bullshit to me.
And what Steve Malloy says is, it's the say anything science behind climate hoax.
It really is say anything.
I saw a snowflake yesterday, so it must be climate change.
I saw a bird die.
Climate change.
Just say anything.
I've got hiccups.
Climate change.
Say anything.
There's a little viral video going around and I could talk about this for the first time.
I'm gonna throw a little free speech at you, ready?
You ready for some unfiltered free speech for the first time ever on this topic?
All right.
So in Australia, there's some kind of public hearing on the gender pay gap.
And it features a politician who was politely asking questions about how it was calculated down there in Australia.
And it looked like there was nothing but women who were testifying and in the audience.
So it was just all women on sort of one end of things.
And on the other end of things was this looked like a politician.
And he was asking questions, just asking how they calculated it.
So he asked, have they taken into account the difference in hours worked between men and women?
And the answer was, well, we annualized the women.
Now, annualized means you didn't actually measure what they made.
You imagined what it could have been under different situations.
You annualized it.
Annualizing isn't measuring it.
That's not what that is.
So then the gentleman asked very politely, so suppose you were looking at it on an hourly basis.
What would be the difference between the men and the women on an hourly basis?
Because that would be the logical way to measure this, right?
And they said, well, they didn't know.
That was the whole argument.
The whole argument is if you do the same amount of work for the same amount of hours, you're measuring whether or not there's a difference.
And they didn't measure that.
So the only thing that they didn't measure is the only thing that mattered.
If you did the same job for the same hours, did you get the same pay?
The only thing that mattered, they didn't measure that.
They measured some other stuff and annualized it and came up with the wrong number.
Now, I'm going to say the thing that I couldn't say out loud before.
The reason that people still believe there's a gender pay gap is because women are bad at math.
I'll just let that sit there for a while.
That's not a joke.
That's true.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible.
There are lots of women who are better at math than I am, right?
So just hear this clearly.
I'm not saying I'm better than math, Than women.
Yeah, I can name three women in my personal circle who are unambiguously better at math and statistics than I am.
No doubt about it.
But!
Here's the secret.
You know those women I said are better at math than I am?
Not a single one of them believes there is such a thing as the gender pay gap.
That's right.
There are lots of women who know more math than I do.
But none of them believe in the gender pay gap.
None of them.
Do you know why?
Well, I tipped it off.
Why?
They're good at math.
Yeah, if you're good at math, it doesn't exist.
You actually have to be dumb enough not to know how to calculate it or to not understand how somebody's tricking you with their weird calculations to even think it exists.
It's been measured for years.
And whenever you control for all the variables, it disappears.
I think it gets down to about three cents on the dollar.
And three cents on a dollar, we can't really measure that to that precision.
We can't measure to that precision.
So basically it's similar.
So let me say it again.
The only reason that the gender pay gap is still an issue is because women in general are bad at math.
Now in general, men are bad at math too.
Most people are not good at math.
But it couldn't exist Without the vast majority of women not understanding really basics of math.
Now, if this were the other way around, would I be saying, oh, the problem is that men don't understand math?
Probably.
Probably that's exactly what I would say.
Because most people can't do math.
Does anybody disagree with that?
The majority of ordinary humans would not be able to work through what annualized even means.
They wouldn't know what that meant.
Much less know that if you didn't account for all the other variables, you would get the wrong answer.
So it's a little bit more than math.
It's knowing what to study.
It's closer to economics than math.
But if you didn't have that little background on economics and math, you would easily be fooled into thinking the gender pay gap was a real thing.
It hasn't been a real thing in memory.
I'm sure it was at one point, but certainly not now.
So Cigna, big insurance company, has an employee training manual in which it says that the scientific studies have shown there are no biological differences between the races.
So they want you to know at Cigna that the science shows, scientific studies, that there are no biological differences between the races.
You know what question that raises for me?
How do they know who's black?
Because there's no difference.
No biological difference.
Can they sort the Asians from the Blacks?
Can they tell the difference?
Because I'm told by Cigna that the studies say there's no biological difference.
So you can't tell by looking at them.
And probably if you checked their DNA, they'd all be identical according to Cigna.
Because there's no biological difference between the races.
Let me tell you my view, in case you haven't heard it lately.
I think measuring the biological difference on the average in any group, you know, whether it's gender or race, it's just causing trouble.
It's a useless number because there are no average people.
What if you really could do a good job and knew exactly the average, the average biological difference between, you know, any two groups?
What the hell is that going to do for you?
Cause trouble?
Start a fight?
The only thing that matters is the person that walks in the room and is standing in front of you.
If the person who walks in the room and stands in front of you is Yao Ming, a 7 foot 4 tall Chinese guy who is good at basketball, it doesn't matter if the average Chinese national doesn't play good basketball.
You're standing in front of Yao Ming.
It only matters that he's seven foot, whatever he was, real tall.
Likewise, if Thomas Sowell walks in the room, what does it matter if some other group, on average, isn't doing good in their economics classes?
You're standing in front of one of the smartest people in the world, and he's black, telling you about economics and explaining it to you really well.
So what matters is that person.
And every time anybody tries to trick you and say that the average should be part of your mental process, don't let that happen.
That's just a trick.
It's a trick to manipulate you.
You should care deeply about not discriminating against a person, you know, a real person.
But you can discriminate against their average all you want, because that's not even real.
Who cares about the average?
The only thing it's good for is politics, and it shouldn't be there.
We shouldn't be treating people by their race.
Says me.
And then I saw also on the Cigna thing, it's explaining to their employees that gender is not binary.
Gender is not you're a boy or a girl, but rather it's a continuum.
Now, I agree with that.
I disagree with many of you.
I believe that sex is binary.
There's some very unusual exceptions.
Somebody might have some mixed equipment or something.
But sex is definitely binary.
A boy isn't having a baby unless there's major surgery involved or something.
But gender is what you call yourself.
So I actually, probably different from many of you, I accept that, yeah, gender is probably this infinite, you know, infinite different scale, because I think that's true of every other characteristic of every person.
All of our characteristics are sort of, you know, infinitely different from everybody else.
So I accept that gender is very much a, not as binary as sex is.
Sex is definitely binary.
Now, here's my question though.
Why is gender, The one thing you can be all nuanced about and public about.
Aren't we all a bunch of gigantic fakes?
Right?
So let's say if I go to the office and I've got, let's say I've got lupus and I don't want you to know about it because I've got it under control.
You know, I can do all my work and everything, but I don't want you to know.
Do I make you know?
I mean, do you need to know?
I feel like there are all kinds of things about a person that we're better off if we keep to ourselves.
Like, it's just sort of your business.
But why do we have to tell everybody our gender?
Like, I get why you'd have to maybe make a sex distinction, because, you know, at the very least they're restrooms.
You know, so you have to figure that out.
But why does everybody have to tell us about where they are on the scale?
Why is that the one category where people's infinite differences matter?
Why aren't we all talking about our religious beliefs or how fast we can run?
I'm working with people who can run marathons.
I'm totally different from them.
I think I should be measured on the scale of how hard I can run.
But why is this one thing?
Your preference of where you put your genitalia.
That we all have to know that.
We all got to know what you're doing with your genitalia.
It's like, I'd like you to know I'm non-binary.
Oh, thank you.
Because I was wondering if you used your cock just on women, or do you also use your cock with men?
Because you know, that's what I was wondering when I met you.
It was the first thing I thought.
I was like, what do you do with your cock?
I don't wonder that.
Don't need to know it.
Don't need to know it.
I don't need to know if you can run a marathon, or if you can't.
Those are things you can keep to yourself.
Now, I don't want to discriminate, because I legitimately don't have any bad feelings about anybody's gender preferences, and I don't even know why anybody would.
I don't even understand the point of discriminating against people by gender.
What's the point of that?
But why do we need to know about it?
Keep that off my forums.
Take that off my government forums.
Just get that shit out of my face.
If you want to have sex, that's fine.
All right.
So it looks like this is the weirdest story, because we're living in this artificial world, talking about Gaza and Israel.
So the new news is that Israel's looking to do some military operations on the border, on their side of the border with Gaza.
And on the Egypt border.
Now the reason they would do that is you might say to yourself, hey, why do you need to control the Egypt border when Egypt is controlling it just fine?
And the answer is Egypt is not controlling it just fine.
They're doing a good job of keeping Hamas from entering Egypt, apparently, but they're doing a bad job of keeping the tunnels from Egypt into Hamas from supplying them with weapons.
So Israel is going to have to control it because Egypt's not doing all they could to stop the tunnels.
So, but here's the funny part of this, well not funny, but here's this part of the story that caught my interest.
This said it was, I'm going to look for the exact words here.
Yeah, so the Palestinians would be concerned about Israel doing this military action on that border, because for Palestinians, it would roll back a symbol of Palestinian sovereignty.
It could also open the door to Israel maintaining longer-term control of the border after the war.
Palestinian sovereignty?
Palestinian sovereignty?
Who thinks that still exists?
Or ever will.
Gaza is never going to go back to the Palestinians.
How in the world do we write about this like that's still on the table?
That is so off the table.
That is completely off the table.
Now Gaza might be rebuilt.
But it will be forever under Israeli security control.
Because to do otherwise would be absolutely stupid.
And Israel doesn't really do stupid stuff.
They might do things that you wouldn't do or you don't like it, but it's never stupid, even when it's stuff you don't like.
Like, for example, if you don't like the building of the settlements, a lot of Americans would say, hey, stop building those settlements.
It's going to cause trouble for you, and then it causes trouble for us.
But even if you disagree with it, it's really smart.
I hate to say it, but if I were there and I wanted to expand my control I would build settlements as long as I could get away with it, until eventually the facts on the ground are more in my favor.
So, they don't do stupid things, and it would be absolutely stupid to just say, all right, we'll hand over Gaza now that we destroyed it, we'll hand it back over to some people who say they don't like Hamas, some Palestinians who promise us they don't like Hamas.
Go ahead and run Gaza.
Knock yourself out.
That's not going to happen.
Do any of you think... Am I wrong?
Is there anybody here who actually thinks that Gaza is going to be run by Palestinians?
In a real way?
As in controlling security?
Because whoever controls security controls Gaza.
But why does the news still treat it like that's an option?
Is that just because they know they have to?
That they just can't deal with reality on this?
Yeah, certainly for the next 20 years, there's no real chance of the Palestinians having real control over that area.
All right.
Well, that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks for what I think all of you would judge as the best live stream that you're going to see today.
And did I miss any topics that you just knew I needed to ask about?
I think I covered it all.
My God, I'm what you call thorough.
All right.
Not liking Hamas and not having the same agenda as Hamas are not the same.
That is correct.
That is correct.
Yeah, it's not enough to say that you don't agree with Hamas.
It would be really helpful if you didn't want to destroy Israel and kill all the people there.
Although I think they usually talk more about conquering it than, you know, I don't think they care per se whether there are Jewish people living in other countries.
All right.
Thank you.
The Trump-Vivek dynamic, we've talked about that.
Yeah, I think we've done what we've done.
So, ladies and gentlemen on the YouTube and Rumble and X platforms, thanks for joining.
I hope you like this microphone upgrade, even though it's in my face.
I call it the BBC microphone.
It's a BBC microphone.
No, I'm sorry, like the British Broadcasting Company.
They use this kind... What were you thinking?
God, you're disgusting.
No, British broadcasting company, they use this kind of equipment.
