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:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
I'm pretty sure it's the best time you'll ever have.
And if you want to take this up to levels, well, that humans can't even understand, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a canteen jug or glass, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh yeah, it was good.
It was good.
So, you know, it's funny.
I was in Starbucks the other day and I could swear I got decaf.
I know I didn't, you know, because I watched him make it, but I was feeling like, oh, maybe the coffee is wearing off.
But it is a thing that at some stores, they will give you decaf if they ran out of regular coffee.
That's a real thing.
I don't think that happened to me, but it's a thing.
Well, scientists have discovered at least four new species of octopus.
Who I call octopi.
Now you might know it, but it is appropriate to say both octopi and octopuses.
One of those sounds naughtier than the other, so I go with octopi.
However, if you found four new species of octopi and you wanted them to form some kind of a political action group, what would they be?
Go!
Octopi forming a political action group?
Go!
Octopi Wall Street, that is correct.
Octopi Wall Street.
That is their new political action committee.
And you think that four octopi is not enough, but let me tell you, they got a lot of hands.
Yeah, they got a lot of arms.
All right, we're done with that.
That is all the octopi humor I have.
No more octopi count.
Well, as you know, the sperm count among humans is plunging toward the ground, and by 2040, you can fuck all day and you'll never have a baby.
So that's good news.
Well, it's bad news in the sense that it would be the end of humankind.
So that would be a little bit bad.
But, on the positive side, no unwanted children by 2040.
You'll be just shooting blanks there.
Now, what do you suppose it is?
Science is all confused.
What could it be?
Why has our sperm count been dropping for years and years everywhere?
Yeah, it's the thing that the news can't tell you.
It's the thing that your government can't say out loud.
Our food supply is poison.
Obviously.
Walk down the street, go to a mall, look around.
You don't see that 90% of your fellow citizens have literally been poisoned.
They look like it.
Just look at them.
Very obviously they've been poisoned.
Not to death.
I mean, not quickly.
They'll die faster, but yeah.
So, I think this sperm count thing and, you know, maybe even excess mortality.
I mean, you know, there are other possible reasons for that, as we all know.
But, I think it's the biggest story that's unreported and it can't be reported under our system.
Because I got a feeling there are some big food companies that have some influence in this world.
So we'll probably just run out of sperm and all die because we can't ask the right questions in our current system.
Dr. Jordan Peterson's Problems with Canada continue.
The Ontario College of Psychologists said that he needs to go to re-education school because of some damn thing he said that they don't like.
So Canada wants, you know, this is an older story, but this is the update.
So the update is, I guess, Dr. Peterson tried to get the courts to weigh in and they said, nope, you have to be re-educated if that's what they say.
So right now, Peterson is out of... He doesn't have any legal challenges left.
This isn't cra... That's crazy, isn't it?
Now, of course, he threatens, uh, you won this round, he says to them.
But mark my words, however, the war has barely started.
There's nothing you can take from me that I'm unwilling to lose.
So watch out.
Seriously, you've been warned.
Well, I don't know what he can do to this This Ontario blah, blah, blah.
But does he really need his license?
I mean, how much private practice does he do?
I feel like his job is larger than giving it away on video.
Yeah, so Bill Ackman needs to get involved.
Is there anything Bill Ackman can't fix?
I don't know what's going to happen with this story.
But I'm definitely on Peterson's side.
This doesn't seem like something that should happen in a civilized country.
You ought to have a little bit of free speech, but apparently not.
Apparently not.
You've got to get a Canada re-education camp if you say something the government or this body doesn't like.
All right, Canada is broken.
Ted Cruz is endorsing Trump.
Is anybody surprised by that?
Nobody's surprised that Ted Cruz is endorsing Trump, right?
I think it was yesterday or the day before I saw a story, it's like, Ted Cruz hasn't endorsed anybody.
And I thought, well, it's not really a big mystery which way that's going to go, is it?
Maybe it was, but I kind of expected it.
So who else is saying good things about Trump?
Well, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon is going out on a, I think he's going out on a limb.
Jamie Dimon is not Any kind of famous Republican.
I don't know what he registers as, but he's not... I don't think anybody considers him Republican.
But he said this quote on TV.
He said, I don't like how Trump said things, but he wasn't wrong about those critical issues.
J.B.
Dimon continues to not be a fucking jerk.
Which surprises you, doesn't it?
Like, when you see a famous person these days, who just says something that just sort of is ordinary, ordinary, obvious common sense, and it's not just full-blown Trump derangement syndrome, or crazy, or clearly just stupid, he actually made news, Jamie Dimon did, he made national news by not being an asshole who just was Trying to destroy the country with propaganda.
Just saying a normal thing.
That yeah, Trump was right about, and he named some things, and he said, but he wasn't wrong about those critical issues.
That's why they vote for him.
People should be more respectful of our fellow citizens.
Thank you.
As he notes, Biden is running against MAGA.
He's running against the citizens.
He's running for president against the citizens.
At least, you know, a third of them at least.
At least Jamie Dimon notices there's something wrong with that.
I don't know if he ever thought about running for office.
He'd be crazy if he did it, but he would be a strong candidate, just the fact he's willing to talk about it honestly.
So he says that Trump was basically right about China, immigration, NATO, and I think he said taxes.
He mumbled a little bit.
Do you agree?
I think you do, right?
Trump was right about a bunch of stuff.
Let's add another one.
So the Biden administration is considering adding the Hooties to the terrorist list.
Does that sound familiar?
As in what Trump did before Biden reversed it?
So let's add to J.B.
Dimon's list that Trump was right about China, immigration, NATO, taxes, the entire Middle East, Yemen, and we can go on.
Now here's a story that makes you just shake your head the whole time you think about it.
Try listening to this without shaking your head.
Try to just hold your chin and try to hold your head straight while I tell you this story, because you're not even going to believe it.
On Bill Maher's show, he had Bernie Sanders on, and it turns out that when challenged, Bernie Sanders didn't know the difference between equity and equality as it is defined by his own party.
Bernie Sanders, the lefty of the lefty leftists, could not define and did not understand that his own party's primary policy, primary, the most important thing, is to make sure everybody has the same outcome.
And he actually believed it was about opportunity.
The opportunity version went away years ago.
Now I heard also Dr. Jordan Peterson said in a post the other day on X that in his experience he's talked to a number of members of Congress and that they actually don't know That equity changed from being about opportunity to being about outcomes, and that that's the standard definition used by the left.
So even the politicians elected by the left, the Democrats, Bernie Sanders, is not aware of the most important part of his own party's platform.
Hold your chin quick, quick, because your head is shaking, isn't it?
It's like, what?
No.
I can't be living in a world in which that is even possible.
No.
No.
That can't possibly be that the most important part of the Democrat policies is unknown to the main head Democrats that were elected?
Is that possible?
Turns out it is.
But you ask yourself, how can we be in this place?
Where equity is being talked about seriously, and policies are being built around it, and the cities are being destroyed.
It's because our leaders are too fucking old.
That's it.
The reason that Bernie Sanders doesn't know what his own party is doing is because he's too fucking old.
He doesn't belong in the job.
We need to be able to say that directly.
You're too fucking old.
You know who else is too old?
Trump.
I'm not going to not say that.
I prefer him over Biden, you know, by a lot.
But he's too fucking old.
The reason that I backed Vivek is because I just can't be a hypocrite about this.
I can't tell you Biden's too old and Bernie's too old and say that Trump's fine because he's acting right.
To be clear, Trump does not show any worrying signs of age.
I don't see any.
He looks like he's 100%.
But can you trust that?
Can you trust it?
No.
I don't trust it at all.
And you shouldn't trust it.
It'd be crazy.
In fact, Biden wasn't completely gone when he ran for office.
If we'd gotten the Biden that ran for office, he was on the edge of functioning.
But he's not now.
And every smart person who had lived in the world, the real world, for a little while could tell that four years was going to be devastating based on his starting point.
Now, Trump could do better.
I mean, he could sail through four years with no signs of aging.
It's possible.
But would you bet on it?
We're going to have to, because the alternative is worse.
So, great.
But yeah.
I think that's literally true that the top Democrats don't know what their top policy is.
Like, literally, don't know what it is.
Unbelievable.
Trump was quoted as saying yesterday in his speech that if fake news didn't exist, 90% of our problems would be solved.
Who thinks that's true?
Do you think it's true that if fake news didn't exist, 90% of our problems would be fixed?
Well, this is what I call a theme.
This is my theme for the rest of the show.
So we're going to talk about the other headlines, and then I'm going to bounce against this idea.
You tell me if the only news is fake news.
Starting with... I saw a very funny post from Ken Okawa the Great, which I'll tell you every time I mention him, you should follow him.
If you're not following Ken Okoa, the great.
You're just missing all kinds of good content.
I have no idea who it is, you know, his real identity, but he's pretty much gold every day.
Long threads that perfectly explain our situation.
So definitely follow him.
So here's his comment.
It's just the driest, funniest thing.
He says in a post, World Economic Forum climate scientist Carlos Nobre says 2023 was the hottest year in 125,000 years.
But he doesn't understand why so many people no longer trust science.
Now, why is it that you can simply accurately describe what a person did in public, and that's the joke?
It's a joke.
There's nothing added.
This is just literally what happened.
He said that they think they can measure the temperature accurately over 125,000 years, and then he wonders why people don't trust the science.
I have no idea.
Gosh, that's a mystery.
I wonder why people are voting for the populist anti-science candidate.
I saw Gadsad posted today that there's a lot of proof for climate change.
Let me give you some of the strong evidence for climate change.
However much it snows is proof of climate change.
If it snows too much, well that's some climate change right there.
If it doesn't snow at all, climate change.
If it snows the exact average amount of snow, Well, that's a little suspicious, isn't it?
Yeah, everything is a reason for climate change.
Is climate change real?
I don't know, but I know there's no way to know.
There's no way for me to know.
I don't know if there's any way for anybody else to know, but no way for me to know.
All right.
So CNN and MSNBC have dropped the veil of trying to be news.
Is that a fair statement?
MSNBC and CNN, based on the Iowa caucuses and how they were handled, I feel like they stopped pretending.
Which actually is sort of a relief, because it was the pretending they were real news that was bugging me the most.
As long as they don't pretend they're real, and people understand that, Then I'm a little more comfortable.
I've always liked that about Fox News.
In my opinion, Fox News has, obviously, it caters to a right-leaning audience, and so they present news that their audience is going to like.
But the thing is, with Fox News, they're completely self-aware, as are the audience, I think.
When Jesse Watters jokes that he's going to be sort of an unreasonable Republican-sounding pundit, we laugh with him, because it's obviously true that he's going to take a Republican pro-Trump position.
And so once he laughs at himself right in front of you, because he's mocking the understanding that he's pro-Trump, it doesn't bother me, because it's transparent.
Here I am going to be favoring this person.
So if you want to watch that content, Fox News is a great place to do it.
I always say the same thing about Fox News, because I don't get enough credit.
The producers for Fox News are just the best.
They just put on the best shows.
And they're consistently the best.
Everything from who's on the show, to the combination of people on the show, to the topics they pick.
The production quality itself is just all the best.
Well, you can, you can dislike the coverage or the bias or whatever, if that would be fair, but the production quality is just, it just blows me away every time I see it.
You know, somebody just said hair and makeup.
I have a hypothesis that I haven't checked that Fox News changed their stylists in the last few months.
Because I noticed that the on-air personalities, especially on The Five, I noticed it the most, suddenly went from, you know, professionally dressed, of course, to really well-dressed.
Did anybody else notice that?
It was sort of striking.
It happened kind of overnight.
Like, especially the women.
I don't notice the men so much because they wear boring clothes.
But the women, they all just, their wardrobes just, like, went up a level suddenly.
Good news.
Anyway, why am I talking about that?
All right, here's some more lies.
There's a Michael Moore video going around that purports to show Michael Moore giving a full-throated endorsement to Trump.
That is a fake video.
How many were fooled by that?
How many of you think you saw a Michael Moore video on X and said, my God, I didn't realize he was totally supporting Trump now?
Did it get you?
Yeah, it was a pretty good fake.
So here's how it was done.
It's a rootbar from 2016.
So it's not current.
It's 2016.
And the rootbar part of it is they edit out at the end, where he says basically, H Trump, he's terrible, don't vote for him.
But the first part, he was doing pacing, as I often tell you you should do for persuasion.
So it looked like he was reading an opinion of someone who was very pro-Trump, So the audience could understand how an ordinary person could say Trump was on their side.
So he read it with the complete sincerity of the person who wrote the letter, even though it disagreed with him.
So that's pacing.
He was agreeing with his audience that, yeah, there is a reason.
We do fully understand why somebody would support Trump.
But, and then he would give his reasons why it's a bad idea.
But they cut out the part where he changes and says it's a bad idea.
That was just a fake news, but weirdly it was a true fake news, because the part that it did show was based on a real person's opinion in a real letter, and it did very well point out why real people support Trump.
So it's fake news and a context, but that part of it was actually on target.
Do you all know the Lincoln Project?
It's a bunch of people who used to be Republicans, but now they're just super anti-Trump.
And they raise tons of money and they make ads, anti-Trump ads.
And I don't know if any of you have the same feeling, but when you see the people who are the principles of the Lincoln Project, you know, the people who are the founders, do you have any, like, visceral feeling about them?
Does anybody have a negative feeling about them?
I'm looking for some specific words.
Whenever I see them, and by the way, I don't have any evidence of any wrongdoing, but I'm just telling you a feeling, this is not an accusation, but they look like sex offenders who don't know what a soap is.
Am I wrong?
Like, whenever I see them, I go, I haven't, you know, there are no allegations.
I'm not saying that they've done anything wrong.
There's no evidence of that.
But they have a vibe of sex offenders who don't wash.
That's all I, like, I feel I can smell them when I see them.
Do you have that feeling?
I don't get that from other people, even if they're, you know, if they disagree with me.
All right.
Anyway, I'm not making the accusations.
I'm just telling that they have a vibe about them.
But they put out a new video in which they're comparing Trump to Hitler, and it made me think, don't you wonder what the brainstorming meetings are like at the Lincoln Project?
Like, I have this image in my head, they're sitting around the table, you know, but they're not sitting very close, because, you know, the smell, and one of them says, hey, hey, I've got an idea.
And everybody says, what is it, what is it?
We need some good ideas.
And then one of the members of the table says, I'm just spitballing here, but this could work.
What if, what if we do a compilation video in which we suggest that Trump is like, wait for it, wait for it, Hitler.
And there's an audible gasp at the table.
And they say, Maestro!
Maestro!
Genius!
Genius!
Maestro!
Eureka!
And then they say to themselves, I don't think anybody's thought of this before.
This could work.
They're really the dumbest, smelliest people in all of politics, but they're funny.
So now when I see their ads, I always laugh and think, oh, there they go again.
And I always laugh at the people who give them money.
I can't imagine a worse use of money.
You'd have to have a lot of money to make that make sense.
Let's give some money to the Lincoln Project.
We have no idea what kind of video they're going to come up with.
Surprise us!
Hitler?
Well, that's a fresh one.
Well, there's more fake Biden claims from the White House.
So Jonathan Turley's pointing out this White House trick of making outrageously fake claims, and then when the correction comes, well, it doesn't get much play.
You remember the story about the Border Patrol people who were whipping the immigrants, literally with whips?
And it turns out, nope, they were just riding horses.
It wasn't so much that they were whipping immigrants, It was more like they were just people on horses, and they were using their horsey thing to keep the horse in control.
But most people heard the story but didn't hear the correction, so they still think it happened.
There's another one like that.
There was a story about Homeland Security being chased away by, you know, the Texas authorities, and it caused them not to be able to save a drowning Some drowning immigrants.
And so the immigrants drowned because Texas government is so bad and they made the federal government stand down and didn't allow them to save the drowning people.
Well, none of that was true.
Nothing like that happened.
There were some drownings.
So that part is true.
But it had nothing to do with anybody preventing anybody from doing anything.
They didn't even have the timing right.
It was happening before anything.
So this is another story.
Do you remember the correction?
No.
No, you probably remember the story, but not the correction.
So what would be the incentive for a government not to lie?
I feel like lying is so incentivized, they'd be crazy to tell the truth.
What would be the point of it?
Might as well lie.
Well, speaking of lying, Putin was talking about US elections.
He's a good troublemaker.
You have to appreciate his troublemaking ways.
So Putin said, I guess translated in English, he would say, in the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting.
They bought ballots for $10, filled them out and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers.
And that's it, Putin said without providing any evidence.
Now, the funny part is, That, you know, Putin's an ex-KGB guy, and he knows exactly how to get under the skin of Americans, and that was it.
That's how you get under the skin of America.
So, yeah, I think at least half of America, according to polls, at least half of America agrees with him directionally.
Not necessarily that the only problem was mail-in ballots, but directionally, I think people assume the elections have been stolen.
So I'm going to say it directly.
I don't have any evidence about 2020, but I would be amazed if we've had any fair elections in my lifetime.
I'd be really surprised.
I don't think there's any way to know for sure.
But why would there be fair elections?
If you understand how the world works, you have to assume that the bad people are doing everything they can to gain control all the time.
And they're not going to fail every time.
Eventually one of their secret plays to gain control through, I don't know, the CIA or the FBI or, you know, a secret coalition of whatever.
It's going to work eventually because nobody will ever stop trying.
It's too much of a payoff to stop trying.
So you have to figure that over some amount of time, eventually our system would be owned by bad actors.
It's almost guaranteed.
We have a system that Money buys too much.
If you can buy influence with money, of course the system is rigged.
How could it not be?
Maybe not in an illegal way.
It could be that the rigging is just owning the news sources.
All you would need to rig an election is to own the sources of news.
You don't need anything else.
Right?
So we act as though owning and funding and promoting fake news, we act like that's completely legal, so that's not rigging.
Of course it's rigging.
If you look at CNN and MSNBC, they're not even trying to be news.
You know, after the Iowa caucuses, not even a wave at ethics.
I mean, basically they just walk right into full Propaganda mode.
Because they can.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
Is fake news the biggest problem in the country?
Yes, it is.
Yeah, it probably is.
Because it drives every other problem.
All of our problems would be solvable if we understood what the problem was.
It's only because we don't know what it is that we're not solving it.
All right.
Erica Weinstein.
Posted a serious question.
Is the Democratic Party of the United States going to rely so heavily on January 6th that it never does any self-examination as to why so many Americans are still voting for Trump?
No.
Do you know what their self-examination is?
Let me do a Democrat self-examination.
Huh.
Let's see.
Trump has all of these indictments.
He's been accused of so many improprieties and yet he's still wildly popular.
How do we explain it?
Let's do some self-examination.
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
It looks like it looks like the problem is mega extremism and probably racism.
Uh-huh.
Yeah, it turns out the problem is entirely on the other side.
There's no fault on this side.
Yeah, I'm examining as hard as I can, and I don't see anything on our side.
Because we're good people, and the other side are morons and criminals, and so... There's my self-examination.
That's the way everybody does it.
You know, I'd love to say that's just the Democrats.
That's basically every person.
That's every person.
You know, if you happen to be on the side that's right, It doesn't sound stupid.
It only sounds stupid when it's obvious you're on the wrong side.
I mean, you literally have Democrats arguing in favor of racism.
You don't have to be a genius to know that's the wrong side.
I mean, they act like they're not, but they're clearly promoting racism as hard as possible.
So it just sounds funny when you know that they're doing everything they can to make things worse.
But they don't know it, maybe.
Maybe they do.
Here's some more news, if you can call it that.
This is also some more fake news.
So I saw Chuck Colesto posted, Breaking Now, a mutant coronavirus strain that attacks the brain and has a 100% kill rate in mice, created by Chinese scientists.
As they admit, there's a risk it spills over to humans.
That's right.
China's working on a coronavirus type Mutant virus that kills 100% of the mice it's in.
Which suggests that it might, don't know for sure, might be able to kill 100% of the people it's in.
And the problem would be, you know, if it got out.
That sounds pretty bad, right?
Here's the fake news part of it.
Community note says, That the headline is misleading, not the Chuck Colesto part, but the headline is that the virus strain mutated from a virus that was found in Malaysia in 2017.
And the reason they're testing it is to basically be in better shape in case it did spill over.
So the idea is that the virus already existed.
And if they test it better, they can have a better idea how to stop it.
Now, that doesn't mean it isn't a deadly virus, and if it gets out, we're all dead.
That's still true.
So, you know, Chuck Colesto's point about it is accurate, directionally.
The only thing that needs a tweak here is that it wasn't created by Chinese scientists.
It already existed, but they do have it in the lab.
So it sounds worse if you think they created it.
It sounds less worse if you know they're studying it to try to avoid it as a problem, which would be rational.
But we don't trust anything coming out of China, so who knows what's true.
Ben talking about the fact that Biden met with Larry Fink at BlackRock in 2019 when Biden was deciding whether to run.
And so the story goes that BlackRock gave a We got the 34-minute glitch.
Great.
The story goes, we don't know what happened in the meeting, of course, unless we were there, but reportedly BlackRock gave a positive, you know, we're here to help kind of message.
Biden took it as a green light and went.
Now the interesting part, because everything is connected to everything else, is that BlackRock was a big, had a big financial interest in Ukraine.
And there was talk that this is the speculative part where I can't tell you what's true.
I can only tell you what people are asserting is the most likely true thing.
So the assertion is that the whole effort with BlackRock was to get Russia out of the energy business and get the United States big companies into the energy business in Europe.
Not only so Putin didn't have, you know, financial leverage on Europe, but also so American companies could make a whole lot of money, because it turns out if they could have that business instead of Russia, it's an enormous amount of money.
So BlackRock would be sort of favoring Biden, Biden would favor defending Ukraine, if America could continue owning Ukraine like it tried to, because America was behind the, you know, the whole
Current situation there that there would be a reason for American companies to rape Ukraine of its resources for many years to come and it would be good for America and then also the politicians in America could go wet their beak in big old corrupt Ukraine and make big amounts of money and nobody would know.
So it does so the the allegation.
The allegation is that Ukraine was always a big ol' money-grabbing situation.
It was money-grabbing to take business away from Russia, which has a strategic advantage, of course, but also money-grabbing to insert American companies and probably politicians in there, in the dirtiest, most corrupt place in the world, where they could all get rich at our expense, and Ukraine's expense especially.
So I don't know if that's an accurate description of it, but it sure sounds like it.
How many of you would say that sounds to you like the most accurate description?
And by the way, this appears to have been going on forever.
Yeah, I see in the comments.
I don't think this is a brand new situation.
I think this is the way America has operated forever.
And then further, Mike Benz talks about the color revolutions.
Do you know how many countries the United States has overthrown with secret coups and what they call a color revolution where you get all the people to protest until the government changes?
I think there's over 40.
Yeah, 40 or more.
And we're watching the same technique.
Now this is Mike Benz.
We're watching the Democrats put together the same technique in America to make sure that the Republicans have no power going forward.
So it's basically, the idea is that the protests are already being set up in case Trump wins.
And that there will literally be a coup in which they're trying to get the military to ignore Trump.
Get the protesters to take over the streets and essentially run a coup should Trump win.
And I, you know, this is one of those allegations where, I don't know, it's a big allegation, but yet you can see it yourself.
So I think what's going to happen is major protests if Trump wins and But I wonder, aren't we smarter now?
If you're a Republican, wouldn't you just get out of the way and call it the way you see it?
The color revolution is on.
Don't panic.
Don't let them overthrow anything.
Just let their energy run out.
They're going to destroy mostly Democratic cities, which are basically gone anyway.
So let them go.
Just get out of the way.
So the last thing I would do is go all Kyle And bring a gun.
Don't arm up and go to the city and think you're going to stop the protesting.
Just get out of the way.
Just get out of the way.
You should be armed at home in case they come to your house.
Definitely want to be armed at home if you can do so legally.
The revolution will be televised.
So the fact that we can predict it and call it out might be helpful.
It's hard to run an op Where the people you're running the op on have called out your plays in advance.
That's why they do it.
And that's why Mike Benz is doing it.
He's calling it out in advance, so when they do it, you can say, well, you can see this, right?
Just watch it.
Then you know what's happening.
The problem is not knowing what's happening.
Or, as Trump would say, 90% of the problems are fake news.
Right?
The news will cover it like it's a legitimate series of protests, because of course everybody's angry at Trump being Hitler.
That's how the news will cover it.
That's not true.
That will be part of the color revolution.
Because once the Democrats own the press, they get the organized people to march, they try to put some suppression on the military to make sure the military doesn't get involved, That's a coup.
What else would you call it?
Yeah.
So, that's happening.
Do you remember that story about all the forest fires in Canada last year?
And Trudeau said it was climate change?
Remember that news?
Well, a Quebec man has pled guilty to setting 14 forest fires.
Yes, it was exactly what you thought.
Somebody was setting forest fires.
Yeah, that's the whole story.
It was arson.
Yep.
Now, how many of you thought those were natural forest fires?
Did any of you think those were just a big old coincidental natural forest fire?
Even lightning didn't explain it because it was too, it was too, like, obviously human-patterned.
So, yes, there's the big news.
Well, Fortune magazine is reporting that DEI backlash has companies quietly changing their programs to avoid lawsuits.
Do you think that's a thing?
Do you think lawsuits will change DEI?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Maybe.
I mean, if companies have trouble getting insurance, remember, it's always about insurance.
Insurance is the only thing that predicts, because that's what it does.
Insurance literally predicts.
But if they put their money on it, that's why it's legitimate.
So if a company that has a DEI group starts getting sued, the insurance company that might potentially be on the line for paying those payments are going to stop insuring them.
I wouldn't insure anybody for lawsuits about discrimination if you had a DEI group.
Do you agree?
If you were an insurance company and you were insuring against lawsuits for discrimination, which is a thing, you can get that insurance.
I wouldn't insure anybody if they had a DEI group, because that guarantees problems.
Now, the big companies probably don't need that kind of insurance.
Because they are what's called self-insured, meaning they could afford it if they got sued.
They don't need insurance.
So it won't work for the biggest companies.
I assume they don't have that kind of insurance, because they wouldn't need it.
Anyway, they would need it, but they have money to cover it, so they don't need insurance, per se.
But I have a theory.
I saw the NWOPNS account showed the group picture of the United Airlines DEI office.
And let's just say there were no white people in that picture.
They appeared to be all black or brown enough that I couldn't tell the difference.
Now, I finally have an insight that's going to make you laugh.
You ready for this?
You're going to be mad that you didn't think of it.
So you're a big company, and you want to prove that you're hiring Let's just keep it simple.
You want to prove you're hiring enough black employees, especially to good jobs.
It doesn't count if you're hiring janitors.
You want to hire to good, professional, high-paying jobs so you can say you're doing your job for diversity.
So you form a DEI group.
Have you noticed the DEI groups seem weirdly overstaffed?
Anybody notice that?
Like the number of people who are on the DEI staff is weirdly high.
Like you'd think, wouldn't two be enough?
Two people couldn't do it?
But the groups are like really big groups.
Do you see it yet?
The DEI group itself counts as a diversity hire.
Every person who goes into the DEI group is a high-paid executive, That that company can say, yes, we're doing so well with diversity.
We've hired 10 new executive level black employees, and we're pretty happy about it.
And all 10 will be in the worthless DEI group that doesn't do anything useful, but they have inflated salaries.
As long as they exist and you can keep adding to them, you can say that your DEI hiring is on fire.
It's like, oh my God, we hired 20 highly capable black employees to really good-paying jobs, nice professional jobs, and we're quite proud of that.
So what kind of jobs did they take?
Engineering?
But, you know, high, like, finance jobs, right?
Well, where are they?
They're really all in the DEI group.
That's a real thing that's actually happening.
I'm not making this up.
There were 12 people in this DEI group.
Do you think the United Airlines did not claim those 12 hires as 12 good executive hires?
Of course they did.
It's such a scam.
It's just ridiculous.
All right, let's talk about Vivek and Trump.
So, Vivek and Trump are appearing together.
Vivek did a powerful speech pro-Trump, and Trump had him up there, and people were chanting, you know, Vivek for Vice President, and Vivek has said he's actually sort of considering it.
You know, not that it's been offered, but he said, you know, if Trump would agree with him on several things he thinks are important, that that might be in a conversation.
So the things that Vivek thinks are important for him to be part of the administration, should it be a Trump administration, is he's got opposition to digital currency.
He doesn't like that expensive FBI headquarters that Trump is flexible about.
And he wants to pardon Assange.
There might have been more, but those were three that I saw.
So Vivek is negotiating behind the scenes to see if Trump's policies are compatible enough.
On some of the details that he'd be comfortable not having to change his opinions if he joins the team, I guess.
Now that doesn't mean he would join as vice president necessarily, but Trump did say, quote, he'll be working with us for a long time.
So they do seem to have some agreement.
Now, how many of you saw them appear together?
And give me in the comments your first impression.
First impression of Trump plus Vivek.
Go.
First impression.
Did it work?
Didn't work?
I'll just read you comments.
Yes.
Loved it.
Energy A+.
Loved it.
Loved it.
Totally work.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Mixed?
Somebody said mixed.
Interesting.
Fatherly.
Worked for me.
Trump-lite.
Allies.
Okay, so almost all of you are very pro about this.
Now, you know I endorsed Vivek for president, and you know that, you know, I like Trump's skills as well.
So you're probably saying to yourself, Scott, you must think this is a, you know, a dream team.
I'm not there.
Honestly, I'm not there.
First of all, Vivek might be too strong a player for the vice presidency.
Unless it was a Clinton-Gore kind of situation in which Clinton was perfectly happy to say that Gore was more than a partner.
He was more than a vice president.
He was like in the important meetings, he had a portfolio of things he was working on that were important.
You could imagine, you could imagine Vivek having a Like a real portfolio of power.
But, does that work with Trump?
Is Trump likely to give his Vice President more glory than himself?
Let's say he gave Vivek a really good portfolio and then Vivek mailed it.
And everybody was talking about it.
And then people start saying, you know what?
Gosh, he's so good at Vice Presidents.
Don't you think, I don't know, maybe I'm going to write an article about, maybe we got this backwards.
Maybe Vivek should have been the president, because look at how well he did as vice president.
Do you think Trump could live with that?
Do you think he'd be happy with Vivek overshadowing him?
It's a possibility.
All right.
Now, by itself, I've told you that one of the things that people don't understand about Trump is he really, really likes smart people.
And if he's going to get along with anybody, it will be because they're smart, even if they disagree.
I mean, he, Trump is just addicted to smart.
I mean, it's practically his theme in life.
Yeah.
And loyalty.
Smart and loyal and effective.
He loves it.
So on the intellectual level, Vivek is very much Trump's catnip, and vice versa.
So they are each other's catnip, I think.
But I'm going to give Vivek a little advice, and I'm going to give you maybe a little education on persuasion.
Did you see the back slapping and the arm on the shoulder?
All right.
The vague.
You cannot dominate Trump in public.
Do not physically dominate him in public.
You can't do that.
Don't do that anymore.
You all saw it, right?
Yeah.
Trump does it and he can get away with it.
He physically dominates people.
He'll be the one who pats you on the back so hard that your body moves.
Boom, boom, boom.
He'll be the one who Does the handshake first and pulls your arm in and makes you look like you're, you know, you don't know how to shake hands.
Trump is the king of physical persuasion.
Vivek actually turned around while he was, you know, Vivek was talking, turned around to Trump and put his hand on his shoulder, on the top of his shoulder.
You don't do that.
You don't do that.
First of all, you don't do it to your running partner.
Never.
Or you don't fucking do it to the guy who used to be president and probably will be.
That's just a flat-out mistake.
And by the way, Trump did not look comfortable when it happened.
I mean, you can't read minds, but that was the impression I got.
I also noticed, and did anybody else notice that while Vivek was talking, When he was saying things that Trump liked, Trump was visibly smiling.
Did you notice the smile go away?
You saw it, didn't you?
Trump literally stopped smiling.
I forget what the topic was.
That's less important.
Yeah.
He visibly stopped smiling at one point.
Do you see it?
I'm not so sure that Vice President is the right play.
Because that's going to put them at odds a little too often, and they're both too strong.
You know, there's a long tradition of making sure your vice president is weaker than you.
And like you said, Gore was the one exception that worked out well.
I don't know that Trump is designed to be that kind of a leader.
I think he's designed to be number one.
But the problem is, so is Vivek.
Vivek is designed to be number one.
Two number ones is a problem.
Now what Vivek does have working for him is that he doesn't ever have to run against Trump again.
Trump will be done after this.
So they're not competitors and Vivek seems like a natural heir apparent.
So that's good.
I also worry that Vivek will get destroyed in the process of just being that close to Trump.
Sort of a Mike Pence destruction kind of thing.
So I worry that it's a problem.
Yeah, I worry that it's unrecoverable.
Partly because of the way the news would treat it.
So I would not necessarily recommend to Vivek that he take that job.
I definitely want to see him in the administration.
Do we all agree on that?
I mean, If there's any job in the administration he wants, and he wants it more than vice president, I feel like, you know, what is it he couldn't do?
I was thinking about all the jobs in government, you know, the top jobs, the cabinet positions, and the secretaries of this and that.
I thought, name one he couldn't do.
I couldn't come up with one.
I mean, they put the secretary of agriculture as just, you know, usually a donor or something.
So they don't really need, you know, the top people in the world.
I mean, what does Pete Buttigieg know about transportation?
Right?
So you could put Vivek in almost any of those cabinet positions.
He would learn their entire function in a week, maybe a day, and then he would improve it.
Almost anything would work.
So you better clamp down on the body language because it's just not, that doesn't work.
Ashley St.
Clair was saying that therapy is overrated.
Elon Musk said the same thing.
I say the same thing.
What's your ratio of how often therapy helps?
I'm going to say 20%.
I think there are, and even Ashley St.
Clair said that, you know, she used it successfully with some postpartum depression stuff.
And there are emergency kind of situations where you just need somebody else.
Somebody's got to help you.
I think 20%.
Now 20% is high enough that I'd try it.
You know?
Like if I thought I needed something and I didn't know what else to do.
20% is definitely high enough to try it, if you could afford it.
But just be aware, they really don't make money if they heal you, you know?
If you stop going to therapy, They don't make money anymore.
That model just doesn't work.
All right, Jack Smith, prosecutor, got, I can say a word I've never said in public.
A word I've never said out loud.
I've read, and I know what it means, but like me, I'll bet you've never said this word out loud.
Jack Smith was excoriated.
He was excoriated, according to the news.
So what he did was he asked Twitter to give him access to Trump's private messages and Twitter complied because they had to.
There was a warrant.
And they were instructed that they couldn't tell Trump that his private messages had been penetrated.
And a Some judges just said, he has executive privilege, you can't do that.
And they slapped him down and excoriated him.
Yes, he got excoriated.
Have I mentioned that he was excoriated?
Yeah.
And basically, the court had no, they weren't giving him anything.
Basically, he just violated presidential Privacy, which we all think is a good idea.
Have privacy if you're president.
And the course just said nope.
But he won.
Won what?
I'm seeing some dissent in the comments.
The case.
All right, so I will confess the following all the legal stuff.
Oh, he got the messages, somebody says.
Yeah, he already got the messages.
Right.
So yeah, I suppose he won in the sense that he got the messages, but I don't know if he can use them in a legal sense.
If he got it, but he can't use them, did he win?
So I don't know the ins and outs of this, but it's all sketchy and bad.
Walgreens is closing their fourth location in Boston, in a black area of Roxbury.
And the The residents are quite mad at Walgreens.
Do I need to say any more about that?
They're mad at Walgreens.
Because Walgreens is closing because there's too much shoplifting.
So they're really mad at Walgreens.
What else is there to say about that story?
Really?
Well, here's what I say.
You should not live anywhere that Walgreens is not willing to live.
Is that fair?
If you live where the Walgreens is running away... Get the fuck out of there.
Get the fuck away.
If Walgreens is afraid, you should get away.
Get away.
There's a... Biden's got a campaign ad where he says, you know, I'm the only person who can defeat Donald Trump.
I'm the only one who can defeat him.
I love that the Democrats have completely given up on running on policy and leadership.
It's just purely personal now.
I don't like Donald Trump.
You don't like Donald Trump.
We don't like Donald Trump.
Let's do something about it.
They're not even pretending that this is about anything but Trump.
It's so weak and hilarious.
Well, the Wall Street Journal's dumping on DEI in government.
An attorney named Mr. Toth in Austin is writing in the Wall Street Journal that the federal requirements that if you're a contractor for the government, you have to have a certain amount of diversity.
He says that's clearly illegal and could easily be sued out of existence.
I don't know about that.
It's lasted a long time.
But the fact that the Wall Street Journal is reporting that DEI and, well, they're allowing somebody to write an article saying that DEI could be could be eliminated by lawsuits.
Because lawsuits get stuff done.
I don't know if there'll be any lawsuits on that.
It seems like there would have been already.
But who knows?
I love how Biden has turned an election into a hate crime.
Like, every time I see Biden now, I just hear the monster truck thing.
Extreme!
Mega!
Don't you?
Doesn't it now just sound like a joke?
It doesn't seem funny.
I mean, it doesn't seem serious at all.
It's not like they're even trying.
Extreme!
Mega!
It doesn't even... Like, that's it?
You're going to attack the country?
And I have this question.
If we're all big about self-identifying, I can self-identify as LGBTQ or anything else.
I can self-identify my gender.
I can self-identify my race.
But the only thing I can't self-identify is extreme MAGA.
Why is that the exception?
Why do you get to tell me I'm extreme MAGA?
Where's my self-identity?
Can you tell me I'm black and then I have to go through life as black because you told me I am?
No.
Can you tell me I'm gay if I don't think I'm gay?
No.
Can you tell me I'm a woman if I think I'm a man?
No.
So, self-identifying is fine and encouraged, except if you're extreme MAGA, who, by the way, I've never met.
Extreme Mega.
Have you ever met any Extreme Megas?
I see a lot of people put it in their profile because they think it's funny.
And it is funny.
But Extreme Mega!
It's the only thing you can't self-identify.
And indeed, people only do it because it's funny.
All right, here are the things that I believe should disqualify any candidate for president.
There's lots more you could add to the list.
These should definitely be on the list.
You should be disqualified for president if you claim one gender is better at being president.
That's got to be disqualifying.
I mean, Hillary Clinton said women are better.
Nikki Haley said she'd be better because she's a woman.
That's got to be disqualifying.
It's just got to be.
If you have a DEI website on your campaign If there's a page about DEI promoting it on your campaign, that's got to be disqualifying.
I'm thinking of Dean Phillips here.
That Bill Ackman, who doesn't like DEI, is promoting, but he believes that Dean Phillips will learn through education that DEI is actually bad in practice.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Dean Phillips Could remain a Democrat and get rid of his DEI statement and come out against it?
Of course not.
There's not even a slightest chance of that.
There's not any chance of that.
I mean, he might quietly remove the page, but he's not going to come out against DEI and remain a Democrat.
Can't do it.
So that's crazy.
If your campaign theme is, if your campaign is built around demonizing One part of the public, I think you should be disqualified.
If Trump was saying that the, you know, one part of the Democrats were dangerous and maybe they should be jailed, how can you possibly support that?
But that's what's happening on the other side.
When they say extreme MAGA, they are suggesting that maybe violence or jail would be the right solution.
Now, they don't say it, but it's what I hear.
Do you?
I mean, it feels like a threat of jail or violence, because we're extreme MAGA, like terrorists, you know, that white supremacy terrorism that they keep telling us about.
How about If you think white supremacists are the top national terror threat, or top threat, let's say, not terror threat, but top threat, they should be disqualified.
Right?
They should be.
How about if you think the border is controlled?
If you're willing to say the border is controlled, you should not be allowed to be president.
Now, what Kamala Harris says, and I think other Democrats say, is that the problem with the border is the law.
Because the law says if you claim asylum, that we have to treat you like it's serious, even if we know it's not.
Now, can you explain to me why we don't change that law?
So that the Democrats seem to not like it, and you know the Republicans don't like it.
So it's an immigration law that neither Democrats or Republicans like.
But we're still going to do it.
There's only one explanation.
There's only one explanation.
It's got to be corruption.
There is no other explanation.
You tell me.
Tell me any other explanation why both parties would know that the law is garbage and it still happens.
I can't think of any other reason.
China is still in the doom loop.
Apparently they lost two million, well their population dropped by two million in the past year, which is more than twice as much as 2022.
So not only is their population declining, but it's declining at an increasing rate of decline.
Wow.
How much of that is because their citizens don't have sperm?
It's mostly economic though, right?
Because they just can't afford to have kids.
And they had that one child policy for too long.
All right.
So it looks like China's a bad place to invest.
Let's talk about Yemen.
I guess our special forces, the SEALs, intercepted a boatload full of missiles heading to Yemen.
And now that Biden has reversed his policy and it looks like he's going to make the Hoodies a terrorist group again, just like Trump did.
I asked the question, do you think Biden will reverse all of his policies back to Trump's policies in alphabetical order?
Or is there some other order he's going to do it?
Maybe just as headlines come up.
Oh, that's a problem.
I better reverse that quick.
Yeah.
I've got a feeling there'll be a lot more reversals to the Trump situation.
Well, let's see if you can solve this question.
Tony Blinken and Biden are still pushing a two-state solution for Israel, where the Palestinians would have their own state living in harmony next to Israel.
Because that's what would happen, right?
If you had two states, they would live in harmony?
What?
Why wouldn't they?
I don't see a problem.
All you need is the two states.
Am I wrong?
Problem solved.
What?
What am I missing?
Oh, the part about one side wants all the other side dead.
Yeah.
And gone.
More gone than dead.
I think they care about gone more than they care about dead.
So, how do you fix that?
Here's what I think.
I don't think the Biden administration and Tony Blinken are serious, even a little bit.
I do not believe that the Democrats or any part of the American government seriously thinks a two-state solution has any possibility of working.
Certainly, Israel doesn't seem to think it, at least most of them.
Now, why would they say it if there's no chance that it could possibly work?
It's because they have to.
They have so many people who would want to hear that, that they just have to say it.
But as long as they know it can't happen, because it's not up to us, it's up to Israel and you know where they're at, as long as it can't happen, we can play good cop.
So I think the two-stage solution is nothing but us playing good cop so Israel can play the bad cop and we look like good people or something.
So I'm sure Israel I'm not sure.
I don't know how sure I am.
But I think Israel understands that America is just playing it for public opinion.
Because there are enough anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian people, at least in the Democrat Party, that they just don't want to start a fight with them.
So, Blinken will go over there and pretend like a two-state solution is possible, and then it won't happen.
How's it going to end?
I will tell you how it's going to end.
Here's what it's going to be.
Well, on day one, Israel will say, it's not really practical to have the two states because they don't yet have a functioning government and an education system and infrastructure.
So once we get the basics set up, we'll have this 20-year transition plan, maybe without the 20-year part.
We'll have this transition plan where we totally, totally won't have a second state.
And Israel is going to say, all right, just work with us.
It's got to be a one-state solution for a while while we get everything in place.
And when everything's in place, it would be our intention to have a two-state solution.
So then the United States gets to say, yes, we pressured Israel into a two-state solution.
They agreed to a two-state solution.
But of course, nothing happens immediately.
So first, you have to get some stability.
First, you have to feed the people who are starving, which is a lot of them.
First, you have to, you know, figure out, you know, how to fix what's wrong and, you know, decrease Hamas.
It's just going to take some time.
You know, things don't happen overnight.
It's just going to take some time.
So if you'll bear with us, We'll start with a one state plus solution.
You know, one state plus working on the second state.
You just got to give us some time.
And then time will go by.
And if Israel is smart, they will say, we're going to have to have some objective standards to know when it's safe to go full two state.
And they'll say something like, if we can get the number of terror attacks below Three per year.
I don't know.
I don't know what a reasonable number is.
Then that will activate our two-state next step.
And then that will just never happen.
All they have to do, all they have to do, Israel, is say, we totally want a second state.
We're ready to go as soon as it meets these criteria.
And they're perfectly reasonable criteria.
Stop trying to kill us all.
You know, that sort of thing.
They're never going to meet the criteria.
So the United States could be happy that they tried.
And they can even claim success.
Hey, we got a two-state solution.
You gotta wait for it.
But we totally got that solution.
In a while.
If you just wait.
That's where it has to go.
Well, John Cusack apparently has ended his career by being accused of being anti-Semitic.
I don't know if that's true.
He's accused of it.
But that's the end of his career, right?
How could John Cusack ever be an actor in Hollywood?
He started out being anti-Trump, and that was pretty popular.
But how in the world is he ever going to work in Hollywood?
He has as much chance of working in Hollywood as I do.
Zero.
Zero.
All right, and just an announcement.
I'm going to start blocking all the commenters on X.
Who use the word they and the who in quotes, because they're trying to cleverly say, but Scott, don't you know that all the problems in the world are because of they?
And I say, they who?
You know, Scott, they.
And I say, you mean the World Economic Forum?
No, Scott, go deeper.
Go deeper.
Who's behind the World Economic Forum?
I don't know.
Who are they?
Well, they are all Jewish.
And then I say, well, what would be their names?
You know, they.
But name one.
They, they, who?
The who?
You just say it out loud, Scott.
The who?
The Rothschilds?
Like, who do you think is running things?
Let me, let me suggest to all the The they, people.
Do you think there wouldn't be a whistleblower?
Do you think we could go decades knowing that Jews are on both sides of even whether Israel should exist as a state?
There are conservative Jews, there are liberal Jews, there are Jews in the middle.
There's a Jew on every side of every question that matters about anything.
Except, you know, they're all against the Holocaust.
So, here's my question.
Do you really think we could get to 2024, and we've got a whistleblower from everything from, well, everything, really.
We've got a whistleblower from everything, including UFOs, and they don't even exist, according to me.
So you don't think there would be one whistleblower ever who would tell you, you know what, it is they, they have meetings, And here are the names of them, and here's what they agreed.
Not ever.
Not a single time there's ever been a whistleblower said, yeah, I was in the meeting.
Oh yeah, they're planning.
Not ever?
Just ask yourself, how could there never be a whistleblower?
Is that really possible?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
You know, eventually it all comes out.
Remember when I said, could it be true that the entire medical community could tell you that vaccinations are a good idea when they don't know?
And what did I say?
I said, that feels unlikely that the entire medical community, but that was pretty much the case.
It was pretty much the case that the entire medical community had enough common financial interest that they, in fact, went along.
Now, but to my point, in the long run, have they changed their mind and do we have better information?
Yes.
In the long run, there were whistleblowers, plenty.
The real information, or at least competing information, came out.
And so, in just four years, What was apparently the best hidden conspiracy ever is completely transparent now.
Would you agree that in four years we did in fact find out what lies were being told, right?
For almost everything else in a few years, often not the same year, but in a few years you do find out that Russia collusion was fake.
In a few years.
It didn't take that long.
But you believe that for, what, decade after decade, that you believe there's been this massive Jewish conspiracy behind all the bad stuff, and there's never been a whistleblower?
Never?
Now, if you tell me that these secret people behind the news are all so well organized, That there's no Gentile who ever noticed.
Like, there's nobody who told his spouse or a friend, you know, I gotta tell you, these meetings are lit.
We make all the decisions and it's to destroy the world.
Yeah.
Nobody's ever, like, got a whiff of it.
Nobody ever heard about it.
Now, I suppose, you know, well, I'm not going to change your mind because I don't think you got there based on reason.
You know the old saying, you can't, you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
And I don't think the, I don't think that they is a position you reasoned yourself into.
And Monkey Man, who's my biggest anti-Semite here, I'm going to block him probably after today, says, you won't have an open discussion about it.
Really?
Fuck you.
Fuck you.
I'm having an open discussion about it right now.
Talk to Fuentes.
That's the best you have?
Why don't you tell me who the whistleblower is instead of telling me to listen to Fuentes?
Why don't you just tell me?
Just tell me what he told you that got you to this place.
You tell me.
Because it's so convincing.
You just tell me.
I'm sure I'll be convinced.
All right.
All right, monkey.
We're done with you.
I can say bye to these platforms and we can say, we're going to talk to the locals people privately.
