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, President Milei WEF, Collectivism Poverty, David Sutcliffe, Brian Roemmele, Phil Bump, Meta-Analysis, Inter-Dimensional Beings, David Grusch UFO, Axios Propaganda, Hunter Biden, James O'Keefe, Open Border, Senator Schumer, Kamala Harris, Daniel Penny Trial, Diversity Hiring Mandates, President Trump, Trump VP Options, Governor Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, Magnet Mind Control, Joy, Rachael Maddow, Visual Mental Illness, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's the highlight of your life and today it's even better with an improved microphone for at least the locals' platform.
The rest of you already had the good microphone and everybody was jealous and now everybody's got a good microphone and everything's good.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their small human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, shells or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like Coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hitter, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, that was good.
You know, honestly, it's not always good, even when I say it is.
But this was actually really good.
And I think that's telling you that the day will be amazing.
So yesterday I saw a news story and there was a black gentleman who was the subject of the news story and I couldn't help but note that his last name was Mayo.
M-A-Y-O.
And then I thought to myself, ah, that's not really funny.
It just looked like a racial comment or something.
That's not really funny.
But, you know, my mind is always looking for patterns, so I just saw, huh, mayo.
Within minutes, I saw another story in the news about something called mayo.
And then, within an hour, I saw a third story about mayo.
There were three mayo-related stories in the news at the same time.
Now, it's only because I noticed the first one, right?
That's how that works.
If you notice the first one and then the other ones just come online because you changed your filter.
I think that's what's happening.
But if you see, let's do this test.
If during the day you notice something about mayo or mayonnaise or the Mayo Clinic, just remember I told you, you're going to notice it.
So this will be a little test.
It's called reticular activation, meaning that once you've seen something, it becomes part of your filter and you see more of it.
All right, Apple, uh, Has released this Apple Vision Pro.
It's glasses for virtual reality.
And the first reports are coming in.
Apparently this thing, some say, weighs close to a pound.
And people's necks are getting tired after half an hour.
Does that surprise you?
That people aren't delighted wearing the glasses?
Well, I'm going to give you a little preview.
If you were subscribing to the Dilbert Reborn comic on Locals or on the X platform, you would know that Wally is going to get some of those Apple Vision Pro glasses.
He's going to try wearing them in the office and his boss is going to say, you know, Wally, you're not allowed to wear VR glasses during meetings.
And Wally is going to say they're prescription.
And then the boss is going to say, you can't tell me I can't wear prescription lenses.
Yeah.
And then from there on, Wally will never have to pay attention in a meeting again because he's got prescription VR glasses.
It's allowed under the Disabilities Act.
Well, as you know, Argentinian President Millet went to the World Economic Forum and he basically, let's see, how did they put that in the news?
The way they worded it delicately was, took the, okay, they took the entire Philosophy of the World Economic Forum.
He balled it into a little ball and shoved it up all of their asses.
No, they didn't say that, but that's what it felt like.
He basically said that collectivism in all its forms creates poverty.
And you guys are all about collectivism.
He said that at the World Economic Forum.
Now, I was already inclined to like him.
And I was liking him a lot.
But it was still platonic.
Now I would just do him.
I would just do him.
I'm hetero, but you know, God damn it.
Stop making me love you this much.
It's starting to get physical.
I can't, I can't even control it anymore.
How much do you love the fact that he just went to the WEF and just laid him out and then left?
Well, he's probably still there.
Well, there's another part of that story that's equally interesting.
So he did his speech in his native language, and it was quickly translated.
So we got to watch the speaker as well as the translation.
But David Sachs was posting today on X.
There's a version in which they use the AI app Hey Jen to rework his speech so that it's perfectly in his voice but in perfect English and even his lips match.
Oh my god.
Now, I keep telling you AI is not as impressive as you want it to be, and I still say that, but mostly in terms of the intelligence part.
The part where AI just solves what I'd call a basic computer problem, a translation.
That's not what I think of as intelligence.
But with the AI stack, Apparently you can do these basic technology things a hundred times better.
So how close are we putting two stories together?
How close are we to me being able to put on the Apple Vision Pro VR glasses, watch a non-native English speaker speak to me right in front of me, And have it translate in real time, so even the lips match the English translation.
One year?
I say one year maximum.
At the most, one year.
Because there's going to be a delay, so it probably has more to do with how much of it they can process locally, right?
That would be the big variable.
It's just how local it is.
If they have to go to the cloud, there'd be just a little bit too much latency, I think.
But if they could do that locally?
Oh my God.
And I think they can.
I mean, I think that's actually a thing that could be done.
Anyway, collectivism leads to poverty.
Collectivism in all its forms.
Now, how do you define collectivism?
It took me a while to figure out, okay, is that the right word?
So collectivism, as I understand it, maybe I have the wrong definition, is where people are working together as opposed to individuals pursuing their own best situation.
Is that what collectivism is?
Just the forced working as a group instead of the free market allowing you to work individually?
And I would say that socialism is a subset, but just one subset, of collectivism.
Am I right?
Collectivism is the bigger group.
Socialism would be just one of those examples of it.
Communism would be a different one.
And then a lot of things that we do, like socialized medicine, would be collective.
Although I'm not terribly against that.
All right, so, Matt Walsh.
...is proclaiming the lack of value in therapy.
Now, a lot of people have been saying that, especially conservative leading people, that going to therapy is a waste of time.
Now, I remind you, because this is the smartest audience in the world, that whenever anybody makes, and this is really universal, when people make comments like, something doesn't work, or these people are like that, or this group does things like that, they never mean everybody.
Right?
So when Matt Walsh says, you know, therapy is usually a waste of time, I haven't asked him, but just a reasonable interpretation is, it doesn't mean everybody every time.
Right?
That it never works under any situations.
I think that'd be too far.
And I don't think, I don't believe that Matt Walsh believes that.
He's just using an ordinary way of talking.
And when you talk in an ordinary way on social media, somebody's going to misinterpret you.
Anyway, David Sutcliffe, you might recognize him as being an actor whose face you'd recognize, but he's transitioned in the last several years into a therapist.
So he's a trained therapist.
I mentioned on a show that I saw him doing a, on camera, I'm not sure if it was therapy or just a conversation, with Andrew Tate.
And I was so impressed.
Just with the entire, the entire show of it.
I mean, just something as something to watch, to watch how therapy could work or what the techniques are.
It was just fascinating.
So anyway, um, tying this together.
Um, so after Matt Walsh said some bad things about the value of therapy, uh, David Sutcliffe weighed in in the comments and he says, um, He challenges him to an on-camera therapy session.
Wouldn't you like to see that?
Now, my guess is that Matt Walsh doesn't need any therapy at all, because that's his starting point.
His starting point is, I probably don't need any.
I can handle it myself.
Now, I don't know if that's what he's thinking, because I'm no mind reader.
I hope that Matt Walsh takes them up on this.
Because this feels to me like it would further both of their arguments.
And my interpretation of their arguments, which is always dicey.
It's always dangerous when you're interpreting somebody else's argument or summarizing it.
So I hope I'm doing it right.
But my interpretation would be Matt Walsh says it's mostly a waste of time.
And I'll bet it is.
Mostly.
That's my own observation.
But I would agree with, especially after watching him in action, David Sutcliffe.
If you watch him for five minutes, you're going to say to yourself, OK, even if I don't like therapy, I feel like I would have paid for that.
You know what I'm saying?
Like you watch David Sutcliffe talking to Andrew Tate for five minutes, and you would say to yourself, OK, I would pay for that.
So I hope it happens.
It would be great.
I told some of you that Brian Romali, who's an AI expert, who's building his own AI models locally, things you can run on your own machines, and all kinds of interesting AI experiments.
But one of the things he's doing is he's training his own AI from scratch, and not using the same kind of training sources that the well-known AIs are using.
Now, obviously there's a limitation.
to using, let's say, the general current body of language in the world, because you're going to end up with a modern version of ethics and way of operating.
In other words, it would be biased toward how people act in 2023 or whenever they got the data.
So one of the things about our earlier American experience is that people had different attitudes and it was more of a can do.
Let's make this happen.
Go to the moon.
Greatest country.
Yeah.
So there were some advantages to our earlier American point of view.
So one of the things Brian's doing, and again I may be mischaracterizing it a little bit, but the basic idea is he's using non-standard data to train his AI, and among them he talks about getting access to a huge trove of science fiction magazines and comics in the public domain.
So now he can train it on, like, this 50s science fiction stuff, which will be fascinating to see how different it would be than something, you know, using more generic sense.
But the interesting part is I offered to him that he could use all of my published materials to train his machine.
Now, as you know, it's going to be a minefield that the AIs that are being developed, they might get sued.
They're already being sued by authors.
So the hard part will get permission.
If you wanted to train your AI, you have to use public domain stuff, like Brian is doing.
Go back in time to get enough public domain.
Or, you get permission.
So, because my body of work is so extensive, you know, 50 books and thousands of hours of video and 11,000 comics, if I make it available to him, which I did, just publicly, I gave him permission on X, which, by the way, is a binding contract.
Isn't that funny?
I issued a binding contract on the X platform.
Because I said in public, you specifically have my permission to do this thing, and he accepted.
Would that not stand up in a court of law?
It's a verbal agreement, it just happens to be written down, right?
Is there anybody who's a lawyer?
I believe that's a contract.
Am I wrong?
It's not signed, but it's obvious.
The identities of the people is obvious.
The intention of the people is obvious.
It's in writing.
We have an offer and an agreement.
I believe I did a legal contract on tax.
Right?
Yeah, it could be used in court.
Now, it's not bulletproof.
That's why you get a lawyer, but, you know, I don't think there'll be a problem.
Anyway.
So, my pattern is now, my pattern as in the pattern of my thoughts, in theory, if Brian uses my material, would become part of at least one permanent AI pattern bank.
So, it wouldn't necessarily be reproducing my writing and personality per se, it's just that my patterns would be in there.
So that would include things like talent stacks being better than being just great at one thing, things like systems being better than goals, things about how I write humor, things about my opinion, things about persuasion.
So because my body of work has such a wide, I don't know, wide basket or something, you could probably get something good out of that.
Now I'm going to make another prediction.
We're all worried about how AI will perform ethically.
Meaning, what if AI goes rogue and decides to kill us all to make more paperclips?
You know, the usual experiment.
And I don't know if anybody's come up with an idea yet how to give ethics to a computer.
Has anybody done that?
I mean, obviously they tried, obviously lots of people are working on it, even as we speak.
But let me give you my best suggestion.
And maybe it's a stopgap until we can do better.
If I wanted to make AI act ethically in all situations, knowing in advance that there would be lots of gray areas and new situations that I couldn't program directly, it would be easy to tell AI, don't murder, because murder is well-defined.
Don't steal, well-defined.
But there are lots of gray areas in ethics, right?
That's why it's not cut and dry.
So here's how I would solve the gray areas.
I would program my AI to imitate the character of an actual living person.
Now, not any character that nobody knows about, what they do in their private life, but what the public record says about that person's character.
Now, let's just pick a person.
Yeah, pick Jordan Peterson.
Pick anybody who you believe would make the right decision when nobody's watching.
Pick people you believe would make the right decision when nobody's watching.
I'm seeing some names go by, I'll just read them.
Somebody said Brett Weinstein.
I agree.
I agree.
I mean, I don't know him intimately, but everything I can see about Brett would suggest he would always prefer acting ethically, and he would do so when you're not watching.
Ben Shapiro, Thomas Massey, these are interesting names.
Like, I don't disagree with any of those.
There are a few I'm not going to read that I do disagree with.
Mother Teresa is actually an edge case.
Yeah, Mother Teresa.
You know, you could imagine you're Billy Grahams if you wanted to go religious.
That would give you another problem.
Michael Schellenberger.
I believe he is completely honest privately.
Vivek.
Victor David Hanson.
Yeah.
So, Lee Zeldin, Naval.
Yeah, these are really good names.
I see Jack Posobiec, and I agree that he's going to tell the truth in private as well as public, but you want to stay away from the overtly political people who are in the realm.
I think I would avoid anybody who's getting a paycheck for talking about politics, which would probably include me as well.
But that's the way I'd go.
Yeah, you can imagine just giving your device a character and say, before you make any decision, you must run it through the character filter and say, would Brett Weinstein do it?
Yeah.
Would Thomas Sowell do it?
Yeah.
Would Martin Luther King do it?
Would Zuby do it?
I'm going to throw Zuby in there with the great philosophers of our time.
Because he earned it.
Because he earned it.
All right.
So here's some more fun news.
The famous Phil Bump, who writes for the disgraced Washington Post, what I call the Washington Poop.
Now, Phil Bump, as you know, at least to conservative viewers of politics, is considered sort of the joke.
He's sort of the court jester of writers, at least from the conservative side of the world.
So he is the one you expect to lie about stuff like Hunter's laptop.
He is considered by the right, not by the left.
The left just think he's spewing facts.
People on the left I think he's just telling them what's true.
People on the right would consider him sort of a joke of a writer and just in the bag for some forces of keeping things Democrat, I guess.
But here's the fun part.
He wrote an article in which the title of it was, Doing Your Own Research Is a Good Way to End Up Being Wrong.
So Phil Bump, who is often accused of being one of the... Oh, I see David Sutcliffe already saw my post about... He's boosting my post about going out and talking to Walsh.
Isn't that funny?
The immediacy of this, this medium?
So I'm just talking to you about, you know, these two public figures, and then at the same time You're telling me in the comments, while I'm doing this live, that those two public figures may have a greater chance of talking because of something I did just before I came online?
You know, just boosted it as a good idea?
It's just weird how immediate everything is now.
It's kind of mind-blowing, isn't it?
That you just would send me that comment And then it just became part of reality, like, while you watched.
It's amazing.
Anyway, so, Phil Bump is getting a lot of pushback because it's funny that someone who's famous as a pusher of misinformation, according to the right, the people on the left would say he's a beacon of truth.
But I have to agree with Phil Bump on this, although I consider him my political nemesis.
He's completely right.
I didn't read the article, of course.
I'm not gonna read the article.
But the title's right.
That doing your own research is a good way to be wrong.
So here's what I said.
I said to him, yes, doing your own research is usually, remember, nothing is complete or universal or talks about every situation, but it's usually the worst way to know the truth, because our science and our data sources are compromised.
All you can do is find the info that agrees with your hunch and ignore anything that disagrees.
So in the real world, that's kind of what research is.
Finding stuff that agrees with you and ignoring the stuff that doesn't.
But the problem is that sometimes you get one right in a way that you can later confirm is right.
And that makes you think that you're good at researching.
The worst thing that could happen is doing your own research, and then later find out you were right.
You know that's the worst thing that could ever happen to you, right?
Doing your own research, and later you're proven right.
You're in trouble.
Because you're going to think you were right because you did your own research.
No.
A lot of things are just binary.
There are going to be people who say, yes, that's true, and people who say, no, it's not true, and there won't be much in between.
Somebody's going to be right, and when they're right, they're going to say it's because they did their own research.
Because remember, both sides are doing their own research, but only one of them is going to be right.
So how do you explain the other side who also did their own research, but they're wrong?
It would be absurd to say that doing your own research is a way to find truth when people doing their own research come to opposite conclusions.
Permanently.
So I went on and I said our experts are corrupt and lying.
Mostly.
They're mostly corrupt and lying.
And most of the public still thinks that something called a meta-analysis is valid.
And that's just one example.
Imagine doing your own research, but you think that meta-analysis is valid.
Anything you research would be garbage, because you started with an absurd belief.
And then I close with this.
Are you ready for this?
Here's my kill shot at the end.
I said, if I haven't convinced you yet, consider these two facts.
Number one, Phil Bump's writing is part of the record of facts.
So, go do your own research, and one day you'll find out that what Phil Bump said is considered facts.
So, good luck with that.
And then, number two, literally nothing you have experienced in your own life will be correctly recorded by history, and you can observe that in real time.
Have you not noticed?
Have you not noticed that we don't agree on what the current situation is?
We don't even know if Trump was a insurrectionist or the opposite.
It's not like we're, it's not like the industry is going to be off by 5%.
We can't even tell if he was a patriot or insurrectionist.
I mean, you and I think we can, but everybody else thinks they can as well.
They have different opinions.
So, if you think that researching helps, just ask yourself how today's history will be written.
It couldn't possibly be accurate.
There isn't any chance of that.
There's no chance of that.
All right.
Let's talk about David Grush, and he's the whistleblower who says that the government has biologics and spaceships.
But, I correct myself, he doesn't say spaceships.
And I didn't realize this, I've mentioned this before, but he calls it biologics.
So he says they have biologics and they have ships, but he's not attributing it to outer space.
He's also not attributing it to, you know, coming from within the Earth or something like that.
He calls them interdimensional beings.
Now, I had this realization yesterday.
I shared it with my man-cavers on locals, so I'll say it again.
And we'll do a little experiment.
I did this last night.
You're going to enjoy this.
In the comments...
I want an answer only from the people who have had psychedelic experiences.
Mushrooms, LSD, DMT.
Alright?
So everybody else just stay silent just for a moment.
I'm going to ask only the people who have had the experiences to answer this question.
Do you believe you can identify almost immediately another person who has also had psychedelic experiences just by looking at them and in five seconds?
Look at the comments.
It's a wall of yes.
A few no's.
There's a few no's.
But it's a wall of mostly yes.
Well over half are yes.
Now, I also believe that.
I believe that you can tell just by looking at them.
And there's something in the eyes.
Would you agree?
There's something in the eyes.
Well, once your eyes are kind of opened, they always look that way.
And I didn't believe that I could really tell, but in my 20s, I started asking.
I would actually say, you know what?
I just have to ask you this question.
Have you ever done psychedelics?
Because I had a suspicion.
I always get a yes.
I don't think I've got one wrong yet in years.
Now, sometimes you can tell by their lifestyle as well, so it's not really that hard to guess.
But I swear you can tell by looking at their face.
Now, are you also aware...
That interdimensional beings is a common experience for people on DMT.
How many of you knew that?
That the people who do specifically DMT, they report that they have encounters with creatures which they don't feel are dreams.
That they feel they're actually crossing some interdimensional barrier and they're seeing interdimensional beings.
Now, put it all together.
Take a look at David Grush.
Go to your image search.
Just look for David Grush.
Take a look at his face, his eyes, and you tell me if you think he's ever had a psychedelic experience.
Now, I don't know.
I'm not saying that I could know from looking at it.
But, to me, he registers as somebody who's maybe crossed an interdimensional barrier or two.
And then you have to ask yourself, has reality and interdimensional awareness merged with some people?
Are there some people who can live forever in both worlds, having visited the other world once?
I don't know.
I feel like it's a little bit yes.
So I would like to at least put out there that one answer to these biologics, the biologics I think are just some contamination.
They haven't figured out what it is.
And I don't think there's necessarily any ships.
But I do believe that people who are sure that there are some kind of interdimensional beings Would far more likely to have had a psychedelic experience.
And I don't think it's unconnected.
So I'm just going to put that out there.
Yeah, Mike Cernovich would be one to consult on this topic.
I just put it out there that I'd love someone to ask him if he's ever had a psychedelic experience.
And I'm not, you know, again, I'm not judging him.
I want to make sure that's coming across.
I'm not judging him.
I'm saying, wouldn't you like to know that?
That feels like an important thing to ask.
And I wouldn't trust Congress to ask the question.
So maybe there'll be some podcaster who someday asks them that.
All right, here's another funny thing.
Do you know what Phil Bump's wife's first name is?
China.
Her first name is China.
Yeah.
So this is a real thing.
So Phil Bump once wrote a story about You know, the bad DeSantis criticizing China too much.
He was trying to give China a little bump.
Now, that's pure simulation.
How in the world is Phil Bum's wife named China?
China Bump.
That just feels like too big of a coincidence.
Yeah, and I think she spells it with an I, not a Y, actually.
So, even more entertaining.
Well, now more of what I call Backwards science.
Backwards science.
There is a study that says that people who can dance are generally more capable at work.
Good dancers are more capable at work.
And they have better attendance.
Huh.
Let's see.
What could be behind that?
So people whose bodies work so well that they can dance have better attendance, less absenteeism, than people who can't walk and can't dance.
I feel like dancing is a signal of good health.
And dancing well is a signal of probably genetic, you know, quality, I would think.
Now, I'm a poor dancer, so I don't mind saying that other people who can dance probably have some genetic extra thing I don't have.
Right.
Hockey players can skate better than they dance.
Okay.
All right.
Well, there might be, you know, there's also something to exercise is going to make you more capable as well.
So maybe if you were to start dancing when you didn't dance before, the exercise would also make you a better employee.
That would be true.
Just any form of exercise.
But I would look for the backwards part of this story.
I think healthy people probably just do better in general.
Let's do an update on Axios Propaganda.
Axios Propaganda.
It's so common I'm going to give it its own theme.
They actually say this.
See if you can tell the difference between this and a Babylon Bee satire.
I swear I'm not making this up.
This is an Axios post teasing their article.
It says, Trump supporters cite his economic record as a reason to vote for him.
But that's a bit puzzling, because his economic record is only good if you leave off what happened from March 2020 to the end of his administration.
March 2020?
Was there anything happening in March 2020?
Oh, the pandemic started!
That's right.
Axios is telling its dumbfuck readers that Trump is responsible for the economic downturn of the pandemic.
Seriously, Axios?
I am not going to read that article.
You know, reading just the tease of the article was all I needed to know that it's basically Babylon Bee material.
Well, Jonathan Turley continues to report on Hunter Biden's legal woes, and so here's the latest thing.
So you know Hunter Biden's in trouble for having a gun.
In which he allegedly lied on his gun application to say that he was not drug addicted.
Now part of the defense is that there's no way to know he was drug addicted at the time he bought the gun.
Now this sort of challenges the question of what addiction is and every single medical expert I've ever heard of says there's no such thing as getting better.
You're always an addict.
You might not be using.
Yeah, we should make that distinction.
You could be an addict who's not using, but you're not not an addict.
So I'm not sure exactly how that question is phrased on the gun application.
But the argument would be that he wasn't using at the time he got the gun.
The problem with that, it's going to be a little awkward.
The pouch that the gun was found in, and I guess the, uh, the widow of his brother that he was dating is the one who threw it in the garbage.
It was, uh, the pouch was covered in cocaine.
So that's going to hurt his, I wasn't doing drugs at the time I owned the gun.
I was just rolling the pouch in cocaine.
Did you put any of the cocaine in your body?
Oh, no.
I wasn't using them.
I was just rolling my gun pouch in cocaine.
Well, why were you doing that?
Can you explain why you were rolling your gun pouch in cocaine if you weren't using cocaine?
And then, you know what the right answer would be?
Here's the correct answer to that question.
With all due respect to the court, there's nothing I did for five years that made any fucking sense.
No further questions.
The addict defense is pretty strong.
You know, except if he's an addict, he goes to jail in this case.
But if... Anyway, I guess you made that point.
So, I continue to say that I am not anti-Hunter Biden on the gun question.
If he broke a law, I suppose the law, the system has to do what it has to do.
But I'm not, I'm just too pro-Second Amendment to think that you can't have a gun because you're an addict.
So I guess I disagree with the law more than I disagree with Hunter.
I understand the law.
I understand why it's there, but I'm not comfortable with it.
Well, Iran and Pakistan are at war, but I don't think you have to worry about this one.
So apparently Pakistan Air Force launched a strike on Iran because Iran had launched a strike on Pakistan.
But it wasn't the governments fighting each other.
Here's the weirdest part of the story.
They were both attacking the same group but in different countries.
So apparently there's this group called the Baluch.
I guess it's a separate ethnicity.
They exist both in Iran as militant groups and in Pakistan.
So Iran attacked the Baluch militants in Pakistan, and then in response, the Pakistani is retaliated by attacking the Baluch militants in Iran.
So, is this likely to escalate into a big war when it's two countries who both want to kill these Belush militant groups?
I feel like it's just two countries that want to kill the same bunch of people.
Because who wants a militant group?
So if you're worried that this is going to escalate, I don't see how it could.
They basically are agreeing with each other and, you know, of course they don't like that their sovereignty is being penetrated.
But they don't really give a shit about the Belush militants, I don't think.
So I don't think this has really the potential to blow up, because it's not starting as something that's likely to escalate.
Now, there might be more bombs going back and forth, but it doesn't look like they're going to land in Tehran.
It looks like they're going to just target these groups.
James O'Keefe found this big, I guess big facility down by the border called Elitis, and it's funded by a shadowy group of people that, it's hard to know where their money is coming from, but some of it allegedly comes from the U.S.
government, and they're there to process all of the immigrants coming in.
And everything about it is freaking sketchy.
It's just, it's just all sketchy.
Everything at the border doesn't make sense.
And now Schumer is saying that they don't want to do a border deal unless it gets 60 billion dollars for Ukraine.
How is that not a traitor?
He literally wants to spend 60 billion dollars while our border is open.
Now, I get that Congress does this horse trading, and it's part of the process, and maybe you wouldn't even want to change that part of the process, because it's the only way anything could get done.
You have to bribe people, and give them pork, and promise them things, and it's an ugly process.
But when the border is wide open, is that the same as other problems?
Is that like the budget, where you're like, oh, I'd like to print more flags, and I'd like to fix this beach, and then you make a deal?
I like flags, you like beaches, let's make a deal.
That's not like this.
Our country is being literally invaded by millions of Military-age males from countries that are not all our friends.
I mean, they're literally coming from countries where rape is a national sport by the millions.
So, I would say that Schumer, I understand he has to do his political thing because he's a political animal, but this is legitimately traitorous.
Do you agree?
Like, I feel like, or treason or something, to put another country so much ahead of your own citizens, this is not business as usual.
This is not like picking the national fucking bird, right?
He's treating this like it's almost like a detail or something, like a budget.
It's a budget conversation.
It's not a budget conversation.
It's not.
I mean, it is, but it's not about the budget.
It's literally national defense, and he's acting like it's negotiable.
No, national defense should never be negotiable.
Now, I get that their argument would be that Ukraine also has a national defense element to it.
So vote for it separately.
If you can make your argument for Ukraine, go make it.
But if you can't make the argument without tying it to an unrelated thing, that means you don't have an argument and you shouldn't be asking for your $60 billion.
I don't know.
This strikes me as either a clear symbol of corruption—well, that's what it is.
It's a clear symbol of—it's a sign of corruption.
Because it can't be explained under normal circumstances.
If you take out the variable that he might be blackmailed or bought, It doesn't make any sense, does it?
Explain it outside the context of being bought.
I don't see any explanation for this behavior.
I see no explanation for it.
Yeah.
All right.
Kamala Harris says there's no denying America has a history of racism.
Do we agree?
Does America have a history of racism?
Because there's some Republicans who are saying, no, we're not a racist country.
I think DeSantis and maybe Nikki Haley said that.
Maybe if a fake said it, I don't know.
But a lot of a lot of Republicans say it.
We're not a racist country.
Of course we're a racist country.
And the thing I wonder is, do you do you think the Democrats know that they're the racists?
Now, they're not the only racists.
There are plenty of Republican racists.
But do you think they know?
Because here's what I was wondering.
If you could go back in time and talk to the plantation owners, while they currently were running plantations with slaves, do you think they would have said, you know, we know we're being evil?
Yeah, now we know it.
We know it.
We're totally being evil.
We know it.
We're trying to get away with it.
Because it's really good for us.
Like, we're making a ton of money.
You know, but we know we're being evil.
Do you think they would have said that?
Not a chance.
They would have said, like I'm no historian, but I know what a human being is.
So let me explain how a human being would act in that situation every time.
Evil?
Are you kidding me?
You should see what their life would be like if they were in Africa.
Right?
I'm so kind to them.
I give them food and shelter.
If I were to free them, they'd starve to death.
So I'm really almost like a father figure.
I mean, it's tough love, sure.
They're slaves.
But how much better their life is?
Don't you think a plantation owner would have actually believed their own story, no matter how ridiculous it looks from today's perspective?
They would have believed it then.
So Kamala Harris is no different.
She is the racist.
We do have a racist country.
But she's not aware she's the perpetrator.
Now let me give you some examples.
Today we learned that Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who accidentally killed a guy on a subway trying to keep that guy from maybe hurting other people, the judge has denied the request to dismiss it and he's got a $200,000 bail in New York City where nothing is a crime.
Unless you're a white guy.
So there's nobody in the world.
Well, let me test you.
Is there even one person watching who believes that a black man, if he'd been in the same situation as Daniel Penny, do you believe a black man would be prosecuted for what everybody can see was not a murder?
I mean, it's a video you can see for yourself.
It's obviously not murder.
No, no, nobody believes that a black man would be prosecuted for this crime.
So Kamala, you're right.
We do have a racist history that includes yesterday.
Your racist history includes checking yesterday.
And today's not looking good, frankly.
Yesterday we were racist, literally yesterday.
But I'm not feeling good about today.
I feel like there might be more of it today.
All right.
Here's a little more.
So there's an account I follow on Axe called Amuse.
I talk about it a lot.
It's a good follow.
So look for at Amuse.
Now I'm just going to read what Amuse said about trying to get a job.
So Amuse was doing a phone interview for a new job in what looks like a tech position.
And here's what he said.
"I'm in the market for a new job, "and I was referred to a startup "that has raised half a billion dollars in venture capital "regarding a CRO position.
"It is a great fit based on my background.
"The first question the HR person asked "was about my identity.
"They need a, quote, diverse candidate.
When I explained I was a straight white male, I was told that I didn't meet their requirements.
Without any hesitancy, the hiring representative explained they had a mandate to only consider candidates that were people of color and or members of the LGBTQ community.
In the old days, the HR department would at least pretend they weren't engaging in illegal hiring practices.
Today they don't even seem to realize what they're doing is a violation of the law.
Plantation owners.
I previously joked that I was going to become a non-binary so that I'd qualify for participation in our new society.
I'm seriously considering it now.
Alright.
How many times would you have to have that experience before you identified as gay?
For me it's one.
It's one.
I would never put myself in this situation again.
Now, I'm in a lucky situation.
I don't have to apply for any jobs.
But if you put me in this situation, oh, I'm gay as fuck.
I'm going to be so gay, I will suck a cock in the interview.
I'll blow the interviewer.
No, I won't.
I'm just kidding.
But I would identify as gay.
I would identify as black.
I would sit right in front of them and tell them I was Chinese.
No, I wouldn't say Asian, because that would hurt.
They don't like the Asian-American community.
But I would say I was black.
I would sit right there in front of them and say, yeah, I'm black.
I would make them tell me that I can't self-identify.
But I would never put up with this bullshit twice.
I don't know what your limit is, but my limit is once.
This is going to happen to me one fucking time.
I mean, I would try it without any tricks the first time, but after that, no.
I'm going full bullshit after that.
You do this to me, I'm going to lie like a fuck, and I'm not even going to think twice about it.
And by the way, if you build an AI after that set of ethics, it'll be a good AI Yeah, you should you'd want your AI to do just to do exactly what I just said don't put up with racism Do whatever you have to do to thwart it.
In fact, I think every white male should be identifying as black immediately now remember I told you I I registered as a Democrat and And everybody said, you stupid guy, why'd you do that?
Because I know you like Trump and you like Vivek.
Why would you register as a Democrat?
You ready?
You're on a list of people they're going to go after.
Why do I want to be on the hit list?
When they go after your guns, do you think they're going to go after the Democrats first?
No.
They're going to look at your political registration, and they're going to go to your house fucking first.
If you're going to lose your gun, it's because you're a dumbass who said you're a Republican.
Why?
You need to hide that shit right away.
Now you can register for the primary or whatever, and then just unregister as soon as you can, but you need to get off that list.
You can still act the same, but don't get on the list.
They're going to use that to come for you if things get worse.
It's not a prediction.
It's a risk, sort of a risk management thing.
Don't put yourself on the, please take my guns first list.
And most of you have.
That's just, that's an error.
You've got to take care of your safety.
You're not even protecting your family if you're doing that.
You need to register as Well, independent?
I don't know.
Might help.
But if you register Democrat, I guarantee they're going to your house last.
Am I wrong?
Tell me I'm wrong.
Disagree with me.
Go ahead.
Disagree with me in the comments.
It is a fucking mistake to be on the take my guns first list.
Don't do it.
In fact, joining the NRA to me is suicide.
Suicide.
The NRA is literally a list of people who have guns.
Why in the world would you own a gun and put yourself on that list?
Now, I suppose if they, you know, if they could find you just because you registered to buy a gun.
But I imagine there are plenty of people who have NRA membership who maybe don't have a registered gun.
But they're on a list.
They're going to go there first.
All right, here's my other suggestion.
Apparently, a muse recorded the interview.
Now, I don't know the legality of that, but I would suggest that white men, when they go for job interviews, should wear a body cam and disclose it.
Say, hi, I'm wearing a body cam.
Because I'm a white male, and it's just part of my process now to stay safe.
And then ask them directly, what is your identity versus merit philosophy?
And just make them say it.
Make them say it on record.
Now, they probably wouldn't interview you.
They'd say, get out of here.
But somehow we're going to have to figure out a way to call out the bad people.
Now, I would love to see a list of Fortune 500 companies and others who will say specifically that they will value merit first over identity.
I don't mind if they include identity, but I need a specific statement that it's your first filter.
And then, if identity is important to you, go ahead.
But don't you think we need a list?
Because I would never apply for a job that wouldn't say that directly.
If you can't say merit first, but we also like to have diversity, which I do too.
If you can't say that directly, I don't want to even apply for a job there.
Harris is talking about the conservatives are bad people for banning our books.
So do you think history is real?
So Kamala thinks that they're banning books so we're losing our history.
What exactly are the books that are getting banned?
The history of teaching children how to jerk off?
Because that's the sort of book that's getting banned.
Although that would have been a helpful book when I was a kid.
I hate that I had to figure it out myself from listening to my friends Brian and Eddie describe what they did in the treehouse.
Sorry, Brian and Eddie, but you taught me everything I know.
Boy, was I surprised.
It does what?
I remember the first time somebody said, yeah, if you just keep pulling on it, like something comes out.
I was like, what?
What are you talking about?
You mean like pee?
Oh, my eyes were open that day.
So thanks, Eddie.
All right, Trump has come out opposing digital currency for the country.
That's a Vivek position.
I don't think we'd heard Trump say something specifically about it before.
But now Vivek said he, you know, in order to be even considered for vice president, he'd have to make sure Trump and he were on the same page on this.
So it looks like Trump taking some good advice and implementing it.
So that's something.
But we're still talking about Other people being possible vice president picks.
What do you think of Kristi Noem?
Kristi Noem as Trump's VP pick.
What do you think?
No?
Why not?
Why not?
It's a wall of no's.
Alright, so, if you were Trump, given, you know, looking at the wall of answers to whether Kristi Noem is the right pick, Yeah, no.
So one of the problems is that she allegedly had an affair with one of Trump's staff members.
So that's not an ideal look.
But I feel like she's the poor man's Tulsi.
She's the poor man's Tulsi Gabbard.
Am I right?
As soon as you hear it.
Yeah.
As soon as you hear it, you go, Oh yeah.
I mean, why, why would you pick Kristi Noem if you could have Tulsi?
I don't know that you could have her.
I mean, I'm not saying she would say yes to it, but those don't seem like in the same class to me.
Yeah.
So, I don't get a sense of strength from Christy Noem.
And that's my issue.
You know, Trump is all about energy and strength.
More so than, you know, passing the fact-checking.
And that's worked well.
Because energy and strength are really persuasive, attractive qualities.
So, if I look at energy and strength, I don't see Christy Noem, who looks like a stiff wind would blow her away.
Like, I want somebody who, you know, if the mainland of the United States was attacked in a, like a Hamas-like attack, which house would you rather live next to?
They both have guns, right?
They both have guns, I think.
I mean, as far as I know, she hunts.
I think I'd, I think I'd want Tulsi, you know, protecting my house.
I don't know.
I just feel like I would.
But they both have guns.
How about, let's see, somebody else was suggested.
Is there anybody else you're thinking of?
How about Elise Stefanik?
Elise Stefanik.
Do we like her?
I don't know enough about her.
I'm saying yeses and nos.
Yeah, I know.
She's very much in alignment with him politically.
I don't know enough about her, so I don't know if that's good or not.
My first choice for Vivek would be any job that doesn't bog him down doing bullshit.
So I wouldn't want him to be In a cabinet position, because it feels like that's doing a lot of email, if you know what I mean.
It just feels like that would be meetings and bullshit and he'd disappear.
You don't want to Pete Buttigieg him, right?
You don't want to, like, think you're doing him a favor, but he just disappears into the bureaucracy.
I'm not sure you want him to be vice president, because then he's gonna be overseas at funerals and, you know, just more bullshit.
Just stuff that he doesn't need to be part of.
And sooner or later it would turn into some fight between Trump and him about, you know, anything.
But, if he were, let's say, a special assistant to the president, Not Chief of Staff, because that's too much bullshit work.
And it's better to have an insider for that, because they know where all the bodies are buried.
I think he needs to be like a Kelly... Kelly... whose name I'm forgetting... Kelly Conway.
Yeah.
I think he needs to be a Kelly Conway.
Because Kelly Conway was, I think, not bogged down by bureaucracy, you know, didn't have to fly to any funerals, and was pretty much always available to be in Trump's ear, and probably was really, really helpful, my guess.
You know, just based on seeing her on TV, I think she was probably one of the most helpful people in his administration.
So, I think that's the kind of influence you want Vivek to have.
I think.
Because if you tell me, give me raw Trump all the time, you know, nobody's influencing him, it's just raw Trump, even I'm scared of that.
Not because he would do anything that's intentionally dangerous, but because he's the type of personality who needs... He's a yin who needs a yang.
Like, he needs a Kellyanne Conway.
Because I'm pretty sure she could give him the straight answer, not the keep-my-job answer.
Don't you feel like she gave him real answers, not bullshit?
He needs that.
And I think Vivek is that times ten.
Tim Scott is just too on the nose.
I don't know.
He just seems too obviously pandering to be the right decision.
If you pick Vivek, nobody thinks it's because he's brown.
Am I right?
There's not a single person who would say, ah, you picked Vivek because he's brown.
Not a single person would say that.
Because he's so obviously, you know, he brings the weight, like he brings the real deal.
But if you pick, you know, Ben Carson or Tim Scott, you're going to think that was identity first.
And those are both very capable people.
But Vivek is a different level.
You know, they're not comparable in terms of their capabilities or even close, but they're very good.
You know, I have only good feelings about Tim Scott.
And, you know, Ben Carson's a good guy.
I just think he's a little too old.
He's not the right choice.
DeSantis would be just another.
He would just be Trump lite.
I can't see that happening.
It doesn't seem like a possibility.
Well, in other news, scientists can use magnets to change your mind.
So they can put magnets around your head and the magnetic field will cause you to change your feelings about everything from immigration to other things.
So you can change your strong political feelings by putting a magnet near your brain.
Now keep in mind that your brain would not know a magnet was there.
Because you hold the magnet up to your head and you don't go, ooh, my brain is so attracted to that magnet.
You don't feel it.
So that's why it's so creepy.
It's basically brain control from an external source that would change your entire opinion about whether to be tough or loyal or just really basic stuff.
Now, what the science left out is that your free will can completely control this.
So you put the magnets up to me.
And even though you would say, well, Scott, it's just physics.
It's just a case of physics.
It's just changing your brain structure, or changing how it operates chemically, maybe.
And so it's really a different machine, because the magnets turn it into a different device, essentially.
So your free will isn't going to make any difference.
To which I say, oh, no.
You don't understand that my free will is independent of physics and science.
It's magic, and therefore it can overcome these magnets.
Right?
No.
Free will is a ridiculous concept.
And if you can change somebody's opinion with a magnet, it means that cause and effect is the only thing that makes your opinions.
You don't have your magical soul coming up with your own special opinions.
You are assigned your opinions, for the most part, from the media.
And then beyond that, it's just physics.
Cause and effect.
And that's it.
That's the whole story.
There's nothing left out.
All right.
Uh, Texas continues to get some pushback from the federal government because Texas wants to control its own border, at least in the Shelby Park area.
And the government's trying to get the courts to make them stand down.
Well, that's that whole story.
Not too interesting.
But I do like the fact that Texas has some fight in them.
If you haven't seen Glenn Greenwald take down Joy Reid, you really need to.
So Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow, I call her.
You call her Rachel Maddow?
I forgot her real name.
But I call it a racial mad now.
Now, everybody who's saying mad cow, you are doing a worse joke than mine.
So everybody needs to say mad cow, because we got a lot of NPCs.
Get it out of your system.
Just say mad cow.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, say it.
Mad cow, mad cow.
No, mad cow is not as funny as racial mad now.
Let me explain why.
Because the racial And the mad cow don't really fit together.
They would just be two different things.
But if you're racial and mad now, it says that the thing you're mad now about is always something racial and it always is.
Now that's actually good.
So racial, racial, mad now, much better.
Mad cow is funny, but it doesn't get you as much.
It's not as deep.
All right, but it's also funny.
So Glenn Greenwald goes after them for just being ridiculous clowns.
But I believe that there's something different happening with Joy Reid and Rachel Maddenow that's not the same as what's happening with other people.
If I watch Adam Schiff disagreeing with me and saying some stuff on TV, I never think he's mentally ill.
Because he doesn't really look it.
He just looks like a liar and a weasel.
If I see Eric Swalwell saying stuff that sounds ridiculous to me, I never think he doesn't know what he's doing.
I think he knows exactly what he's doing, and he's not mentally ill, even a little bit.
You might not like him ethically or politically, but he's not mentally ill.
He looks like he's perfectly functioning.
But then I turn on Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, and I don't get that vibe.
I don't get the vibe that they're completely aware that they're just political creatures who are lying to us for effect.
They actually seem mentally ill.
Now, I'm not saying that with any hyperbole.
I mean this to be purely medical.
To me, they present as literally mentally ill.
Now, let's take somebody else on the network, because you're going to say, and you should, Scott, it's just because you don't like MSNBC.
No.
If I'm watching, you know, Ari Melber, He's there, right?
That's MSNBC.
I don't say he's crazy.
He doesn't look crazy.
If I say Chris Hayes, I disagree with him.
But he doesn't look crazy at all.
He just looks like he has opinions.
But Lawrence O'Donnell does look mentally ill.
I'm not even sure about Joy Behar.
I'm not even going to say Joy Behar looks mentally ill.
I think she just has a team.
She just looks like a team player who, you know, just says everything for her team.
And I think on some level, if you were to talk to her privately, I think on some level she knows what she's doing.
So I think she's closer to a shift than a mentally ill person.
Now, of course, I'm not qualified to diagnose anybody.
Now, Anna Devaro doesn't look crazy to me.
Anna Navarro looks political and like she's on a team.
She doesn't look crazy at all, in my opinion.
So, the question is, can people identify mental illness by looking at somebody?
I feel like not only can we, but it's really built into our biology so that we can avoid mating with them.
Right?
So you can spot a lack of symmetry in somebody, which is a signal of genetic imperfection.
But I think you can spot illness that's been tested.
People can spot somebody who's not feeling well just by looking at their face.
But I think mental illness is like right there.
And Rachel Maddow just looks mentally ill, as does Joy Reid and Lawrence O'Donnell.
Anyway, that's fun.
This is what Glenn Greenwald said, talking about Joy Reid, I think.
He said, anything she doesn't understand, and it's a long list, she defaults to blaming racism.
Now, I'm paraphrasing.
He didn't say those exact words, but that's pretty close.
That does seem actually accurate, that anything she doesn't understand, she blames on racism.
Now, we can't read her mind, so we don't know that's what's going on in there, but it's a funny characterization.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that was all I had prepared for today.
Good timing.
Is there any topic I missed that you're just dying to hear me weigh in on?
All right.
Can you talk about persuading for a three-way?
Yeah, I can talk about that.
Persuasion for a three-way is actually fairly easy.
Would anybody like to know how to do it?
Yeah.
You find three unusually attractive people and you're done.
That's pretty much all it takes.
I've never had a three-way.
I've never had one because I'm not one of the three attractive people.
If I were like seriously good-looking, I'm sure I would have had a few.
Sure I would have had a few.
But no, it's not really a persuasion problem.
It's a little bit more, are you so hot that people will have sex with you even if somebody else is doing it at the same time?
All right, I'll just take half of you.
Look, I need one breast.
Like, it's better than anything else I'm doing.
I just want just one breast.
The rest of you, have fun.
I just, I just, just one.
Yeah, all right.
Uh, yeah, whether it's an extra male or extra female.
That's the other easy way to talk your spouse into a three-way.
The easiest way for a husband to talk a wife into a three-way is to say, uh, it's my best friend, Bob.
It's gonna be way easier.
No, I'm just joking.
That wouldn't be easy.
That wouldn't be easy either.
Just joking.
Just joking.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen on the other platforms.
Dennis Miller's comment on Trump.
I don't know which ones those were.
Just looking at some of your messages here to see if I missed anything.
Alright.
Sean Strickland.
Don't know that story.
Do an episode on 3D printing guns.
What is there to say about that?
Wouldn't everybody already know everything there is to know about 3D printing guns?
Yes, you can do it.
Government won't like it.
I mean, there's not much to say that isn't kind of obvious.
All right.
Thanks for joining on YouTube and on Rumble and on the X platform.
