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, WEF Anti-Coffee, Nikki Haley Funding, Woke Remakes, Personal Robots, Human Rights, Texas Border, SCOTUS, Jordan Peterson, Mating Instinct, Levels of Awareness, Cenk Uygur, Chicago DEI, Sweden Bombings, Rep. Clay Higgins, Swing-State Vote Counting, President Trump, CBDC, Vivek Ramaswamy, Glenn Greenwald, J6, Victoria Nuland, Ukraine War, Kim Dotcom, California Senator Race, Adam Schiff, New Hampshire Primary, Canadian Open Border, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Wow, if you were on the Locals platform right now, you would have heard a great, great story.
But, if you're not on the Locals platform, you can still have a great time, because today Yeah, today is going to be amazing.
Today, all you need to take it up to the level that nobody can even understand.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker gel, cistern, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, very good.
Very good.
Above average.
I'd give it an A-minus, possibly an A. And see how much better you feel.
Let's talk about all the news.
It'll be a combination of things that are real and stuff that's fake and things that I make up completely.
You won't tell the difference, really.
It's all going to sound the same.
Well, San Diego has had more rain in, I guess, a day than they usually have in a month, and it's flooding.
And it's flooding so badly in San Diego, the sea world is underwater.
I'm not making that up.
That's actually a real story.
Sea world is underwater.
Now, what happens if the whales swim away?
Because the whales don't know the difference between the flood water and the water they're swimming around in, right?
Can't they?
If the water gets high enough, can't the whales just swim away?
Can they free Willie?
Is Willie free already?
And is it just the whales, or can all the smaller fish that are out in those tanks?
Now I know that whales are not going to swim away.
But it's funny to imagine, isn't it?
Well, the World Economic Forum, I know a lot of you people are like, oh, the World Economic Forum is trying to destroy the world and take away our rights and put us in slavery.
I think it's a lot of hyperbole, don't you?
A lot of hyperbole.
I'm not worried about the World Economic Forum like all of you people are.
No.
No, I'm not worried about it at all.
Let's see what's in the news.
The World Economic Forum thinks that coffee is putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Maybe they're going to come for your coffee.
Well, fuck those guys.
Fuck them.
Kill them.
I want them all rounded up.
Put in prison.
WF must be stopped.
They've gone too far.
Too far.
Yeah, I don't take this too seriously.
Did I tell you that 2024 would be the year that everything sounds funny?
Right?
Do you remember when the World Economic Forum said, there's too much CO2 in the air?
I'm trying to do a Swiss accent or Austrian or whatever the hell it is.
The scientists have said there's too much CO2 in the air, and so you must drive your combustion engine less.
Now, I have to admit that while I don't buy into that alarmism, it at least sounds a little science-y.
A little science-y.
Kind of serious.
But then when they come for my coffee, I say, I don't feel like you're being serious anymore.
Because you know what I'm not going to give up?
My coffee.
No coffee.
You're not going to take my coffee.
And my cold, dead hands, you can pry it.
Anyway.
If you're not watching the Dilbert comic strip, which means that you're not subscribing either on the X platform where you can subscribe to see it every single day, as well as the Dilbert calendar in digital form, then you would not know that this week Dilbert, his company, is being asked to house migrants in their cubicles.
That's not too much to ask.
And it looks like they'll be housing three to five Elbonian migrants per cubicle.
The women in the office are not going to be happy about it, especially since in Elbonia, the national sport is rape.
But Alice and Tina, the tech writer, are not going to be too happy about it.
So that's what you're missing, if you're not on the Locals platform, where you can subscribe, or on X, where you can see Dilbert as well.
On the Locals platform, you see also my other comic, Robots Read News, which is far naughtier than anything you've seen before.
Well, the story about who's funding Nikki Haley gets more weird and interesting all the time.
So apparently she's definitely been getting money from these Never Trump type people.
So let's see who's giving her money.
There's the this is by Kyle Becker's reporting on this 1630 fund.
It's managed by the Arabella Advisors.
You got the Hopewell Fund.
Also managed by the Arabelle Advisors.
And you've got the Democracy Fund Voice, founded by eBay co-founder Pierre Omidyar.
I don't know how to pronounce his last name.
And Reid Hoffman, famous billionaire founder of LinkedIn.
So both the last two billionaires are the biggest Probably the biggest two.
I know Reid's probably the biggest number one funder of Democrat stuff.
So you got Democrats and Never Trumpers funding Nikki Haley.
What do you think's going on there?
I haven't quite put this together yet, have you?
Is it exactly what it looks like?
Because what it looks like is they're planning to take Trump out.
I mean, that's what Vivek says, it's what a lot of people say.
But I can't think of any other reason for it.
Can you?
Or is it a clever way to ruin Nikki Haley in case she gets in?
As in, well, we could make sure we've destroyed the reputation of somebody if they're going to be Republican.
Could you imagine if Nikki Haley actually became president?
She wouldn't have Republican support.
And she's not going to have Democrat support.
So what kind of support would she have?
Well, what would be the point of having a Nikki Haley president who didn't have Democrat support and didn't have at least half of Republican support?
And it would look like she got in because the Democrats wanted her.
But what part of that would work in the real world?
So it certainly argues against any kind of normal political plan, as in, I think I'll give money to the one I want to get elected.
It doesn't feel like anything like that's happening.
So if you're not donating to the person you want to get elected, what exactly are you doing?
Now, the obvious thing would be, oh, they're just trying to hurt Trump.
But really?
I feel like they might know something's gonna happen to Trump that we don't know.
So, yeah, I just worry that they know more than we know.
But it certainly looks like they're gonna try to put him in jail, and it certainly looks like, if that doesn't work, there might be a plan B. There might be.
Well, there's going to be, according to End Wokeness on X, there's going to be a couple of remakes of a couple of films.
There's going to be a remake of The Wizard of Oz, and also It's a Wonderful Life.
So we'll have remakes of those.
But there will be completely non-white perspectives.
So it's going to be the all-black or people of color, LGBTQ Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life.
So what do you think about that?
I'm totally okay with it.
You know who I think should be the most angry about it?
Black moviegoers.
If I were a black moviegoer, I would say, why not make a movie that a black person wrote?
Why can't we have our own movie?
It feels like too little, doesn't it?
I think they could be good movies, because the basic plots, of course, are awesome.
So I would probably watch both of those remakes.
I think they could be awesome.
You know, and I don't mind.
I think there's plenty of space for the black Wizard of Oz.
You know, it's a big world.
It's a free market.
And I'd watch them.
You know, as long as they're well-made and they've got good actors, you know the story is good.
But isn't it insulting?
I mean, it feels like too little, doesn't it?
Like, if you're trying to make sure that the non-white professionals get their own thing, which is a perfectly good thing to want, I feel like they'd be better served by just having their own thing.
You can't tell me that there are no black writers writing good movies.
You have to go back that far to find a good script.
I mean, I know it's a classic, but anyway.
Maybe the intentions are good.
All right, so as you know, humanoid robots are on the way.
You do know that in a year, People like me will have an actual humanoid robot in our house, right?
You know it's that close.
An actual humanoid AI robot in my house, probably by the end of the year.
Because I'd be an early adapter at ridiculous prices.
There's no way I'm gonna go a minute without a robot.
Can we just say this?
The minute there's a robot that's like an actual quality robot, I might wait for the Tesla robot, but I'm getting a robot.
Is there anybody with me?
You know, I realize it's purely a price thing at this point, but if you can afford it, you get a robot, right?
How do you not have a robot?
Of course you're getting a robot.
Well, I have a prediction for you.
Apparently, there'll be a number of companies making robots, including Tesla.
Tesla will have its humanoid robot coming out pretty soon.
I have a theory that this will be Elon Musk's biggest profit, the robots.
By the way, he said that too.
He thinks there'll be lots of robots, and it might be a bigger profit than cars.
I agree with him.
But here's why I think the Tesla robot might be the most successful of the humanoid robots.
I think it's the only one you're going to be able to have sex with.
Seriously.
No joke.
He's going to make a fortune.
Because my guess is that Elon will be the only one who has an uncensored robot that will do anything you want it to do in the privacy of your home.
Now, you said to yourself, Scott, I'm not going to have intercourse with a robot.
Well, maybe you won't, but somebody will.
You know, I laughed myself into a cry last night when I was just walking through my house, you know, on the way from one room to another, and I suddenly had this thought.
If I had a robot, And I was really lonely.
And I didn't have anybody around.
And I'm 25, instead of my current age.
Well, I wouldn't have intercourse with my robot, because it wouldn't have any components.
You know, there's no, nothing to, nothing to insert.
But, into.
But, and of course, you know, I don't think it'll have a mouth, so...
But if I'm 25, and I'm really, really horny, I'm gonna put a wig on that thing and ask for a handjob.
Now, you can tell me you would never do it.
Fine.
Fine.
Let's go with that.
You'd never think about it?
You'd never do it when you were 25, and you didn't have any options?
Oh, yeah, you would.
You wouldn't say to yourself, I've got a robot, I've got a flashlight.
I've got a robot and I've got a flashlight.
What to do, what to do?
Oh yeah, that robot will be holding the flashlight.
You can take a bet on that one.
I know it doesn't seem like you would do it.
I know not you.
I don't mean you, but I was just laughing myself to death when I thought there was any chance we wouldn't be trying to have sex with the robots.
Oh, we will be trying to have sex with the robots.
Oh, yes, that will happen.
There's no doubt about it.
Maybe not you.
I didn't say you, but people.
People will.
Speaking of people.
Well, it looks like BMW just signed up to I have humanoid robots in its car making facility in Germany, I guess.
So, humanoid robots are on order for real factories, and they'll be just walking around like co-workers.
All right, so a WEF advisor guy, but he's also a famous author, named Yuval Harari, Is he getting some attention today?
Because he says some things about human rights are fiction.
That it's just imaginary.
That nobody has any human rights because they don't come from anybody.
It's just fiction.
It's just something we tell ourselves we have rights.
And I saw a lot of people on the internet say, my God, my God, what could be worse?
How many of you disagree with that statement?
I thought it was obvious that rights are imaginary.
You don't think they are?
All right, let's say yes or no.
Are human rights a fiction, meaning that we simply agree that we have the rights?
I'm seeing yeses.
I'm seeing nos.
Some say God-given.
So all right, so let's say, let's take the God-given perspective, and I think that's the major pushback.
is God-given, wouldn't you say?
Because there's not really a third alternative where they are just sort of natural nature or something like that.
That doesn't make sense.
All right, but let's say you agree they're God-given.
What happens if somebody has a different God or a different belief system?
Does your God-given rights require that you have the right view of God and what God wants, and if other people disagree with you, that they have the wrong God?
So, do human rights depend on having picked the right God?
See, that's the problem.
If it's God-given, you have to also sort of press upon your fellow citizens that your God is the right one, and then we get in trouble.
Yeah.
I was surprised that this was controversial, because I thought everybody knew that religion was based on belief, not fact.
Now, I have a question that I'm actually curious about.
Because I have an impression that I don't know if it's true or not.
So I'm not a believer, but I wish I were, because I observe that it has many benefits in this life.
And if you're right about the afterlife, well that's a pretty big benefit too.
So I'm not a believer, but I think it's a superior way to live if I could get there.
If I had the ability to be a believer, I would be, because it looks like they're happier and more successful.
But how do you reconcile that faith is belief, by definition, with the fact that, in the case of rights, you treat it like a fact?
So it's either a belief or a fact.
How do you integrate The faith is a belief by definition, but that sometimes you'll treat it like a fact if you're, let's say, deciding who has rights and stuff.
I just don't know how you do it.
I'm not arguing one way or another.
I'm not giving you an opinion.
I just wonder how you do it.
So, is the way you do it, you say to yourself it's a belief, but it's also true?
Is that how you reconcile that?
It's a belief, but it's also true.
All right?
Yeah, I guess that's what a belief is.
All right, that was just for my own benefit, because I don't know how you do that.
All right, so the Supreme Court ruled against Texas, as you know.
Texas wanted to protect its own border from the migrants.
And the Supreme Court said, no, the federal government controls your border.
You can't protect yourself.
And they're going to take down your barbed wire and let the migrants flow in.
Do you know what's wrong with that?
Everything?
I think everything's wrong with that.
Alright, so I've got two opinions.
Number one, my legal opinion, and I know you want to hear my legal opinion.
Because what would be more valuable than a non-lawyer's legal opinion?
Well, the Internet's full of them, so why not mine?
My guess, without knowing anything about the topic too much, my guess is that the justices may have correctly read the law and the Constitution.
So I'm not sure that they got the wrong answer.
It just doesn't work.
That's my take.
I'm not sure they got the wrong answer, and I'm not sure you want a Supreme Court who makes shit up.
Right?
I mean, the whole point of getting these conservative judges is that they're not going to add something to the Constitution that isn't there.
Now, the fact that they disagreed makes it kind of questionable.
How can you disagree about what's there?
It'd be one thing to interpret it differently, but it's weird that the conservatives would ever disagree, because they should just be looking at it and saying, well, it's either there or it's not, and it's either clear or it's not.
But they did disagree, and Amy Coney Barrett, allegedly a conservative, voted that the feds can dismantle the state's self-defense.
Now, of course, this raises the question of sexism.
Yes, because people say, wait a minute.
All we needed was that one female conservative to go with the other conservatives, and suddenly it would be the other way.
But why is it that the female conservative is the one who wants to keep the border open?
And now it gets interesting.
You're saying to yourself, it's based on blackmail.
It's bribery.
I'll bet it's not.
I doubt that.
I kind of doubt it.
I think it's probably as simple as she thought the law said something the others didn't.
But there is another really interesting layer to this, which I've mentioned before and I got away with it, so I'm going to do it again.
Apparently, Jordan Peterson has weighed in on this.
I didn't see this from him, but somebody talking about him, so I hope I got it right.
Jordan Peterson talks about something like the return of the repressed.
Something about that.
That the idea is that women may be more open to immigration because the men coming across are more manly than the ones here.
In other words, that women are operating on a mating instinct to increase the number of manly men.
Because there aren't any in America.
So, they might argue that it's something about fairness and asylum and stuff like that, but that the real base mating instinct is simply that the men coming across are more men than the ones that are here.
Are you going to disagree with Dr. Peterson?
Has that ever been a good strategy?
Of all the times that people disagreed with the scientific speculations of Jordan Peterson, did that work out really well for people in the past?
Here's what I think.
I'll put my own take on it.
Everything is an expression of the mating instinct.
Everything.
Everything.
Everything humans do is an extension of the mating instinct.
Even if you don't know it.
Everything is.
The clothes you wear, the fact that I've got a big dick in my face that looks like a microphone.
None of these decisions were conscious.
But we are simply mating creatures.
Mating is the thing we have to get right.
Everything else is subsidiary to can you make more of yourself, because that's survival.
In theory, we optimized for survival.
So, why would immigration policy be the one thing in the world that's exempt from the mating instinct?
And the answer is, it absolutely is not.
In fact, it might be the purest example of the mating instinct being expressed.
Now, of course, because there are some dumb people... Are there any dumb people here today?
Usually, we've got a few that get in here.
Are there any dumb people?
Should I speak to the dumb people for a moment?
Would the smart people mind if I just take a moment for the dumb people?
Yeah.
Whenever I make generalizations, it really doesn't mean every single person.
So if I say that women in general might have a different view than men in general, that doesn't mean you.
It doesn't mean people you know.
It means sort of on a general General way sort of an average.
So if you say to yourself, but Scott I know a guy who doesn't think exactly like that example That's not contributing to the conversation because we're starting from the point of it's not applying to everyone All right.
Now we can go back to talking to the smart people Are the dumb people satisfied?
Would you like to jump into the comments?
And you're allowed, I'll give you permission.
If you're a dumb person and you're trying to keep up, you can say in the comments, Scott, that's crazy, because I know somebody who's the exception.
And that will be really helping.
So go ahead and do that.
Do you know why you would do that?
Do you know why you would try to get attention when your opinion is so bad?
Because getting attention is part of The mating instinct.
That's right.
She can't help it.
And that's my point.
All right, here's my take.
Everything's the mating instinct.
Immigration is the purest example.
Why do men in general want to stop immigration?
Because we don't want the competition.
Because we want to have the babes in the United States to ourselves.
If you show me a border with hot women coming across, I say to you, you know, maybe we're being a little tough on this whole migration situation, aren't we?
You know, they look like they need asylum.
Especially the hot one.
Do you see the hot one swimming across with the wet t-shirt?
I think that's a woman who needs some asylum.
She could stay at my house.
Now you show me military-age men who are coming over to rape my women.
What do I say?
Shut that fucking border!
Are you fucking crazy?
This is insane!
What are you doing?
And I will give you political reasons.
And I'll give you economic reasons.
Then I'll give you safety reasons.
And I'm lying.
It's all a lie.
I'm watching a bunch of men come over who are gonna fuck the women that I wanna fuck.
That's the whole story.
And I'm watching women like Amy Coney Barrett, who's got that little clit hard on for the men coming over.
She has justified it based on the Constitution and has no idea that she just fucked the whole country for her vagina.
That's what I think.
That's what it looks like to me.
Now, you might say, but no, it's really about the law.
And I say, but no, if you think anything's about the law ever, you're really not operating at a very high level.
You want to know what the levels of awareness are?
Let me give you the levels of awareness.
Level of awareness number one.
You're a child and you learn for the first time that your parents lied about Santa Claus.
And then you say to yourself, huh, I think people can sometimes lie.
That's level one.
Actually, level one is you believe everything, you know, when you're a child.
Then you learn, wait a minute, the Tooth Fairy?
Santa Claus?
Wait a minute!
And you realize that sometimes they can lie.
Easter Bunny, etc.
That's going from zero to maybe one, first level of awareness.
Then, At some point, you realize that they lie not just about silly stuff, not just about Santa Claus, but they actually lie about really important things.
And then you go to the next level of awareness.
And then you find out, holy cow, a whole bunch of our news stories are fake.
Oh my God, I didn't know this.
I thought the news was mostly real.
And then you find out that there are a whole bunch of stories that are shaded, and even the facts are hidden, and the context has changed.
And you realize that a whole lot of the news is fake.
And then you realize it gets worse.
A lot of the data, the science, and the data that we see is fake.
Is that where you are?
How many of you are at that level where you know that when you see science and you see news, you should not assume it's true, because it might be true and it might not be true.
That's where most of you are?
All right.
Here's where I'm trying to get you.
I'm trying to get you to the layer above that.
I'm trying to take you up a level.
At the level above it, you'll know none of it's true.
It can't be.
You'll know none of it's true, and that it can't be true.
That's where you need to get.
None of it's true, and it can't be.
How do I know that?
I used to be in the business of creating data that other people would have to use to make decisions.
Was it ever real?
Nope!
It was my job to support the decisions that had already been made, or to support guessing by making it look like the guess had some basis to it, or to, you know, make the department look good, or that sort of thing.
No, all information is fake.
Because it's all motivated.
Whoever is coming up with the information has a story to tell.
That's it.
Once you learn it's all fake, you go to a different level.
So if you're still believing some of the news is true, good luck.
Good luck.
By the way, I always see the Jewish conspiracy people come in every morning.
I've got a question for you, if you think there's a global Jewish conspiracy.
And I'll just ask you this question.
Would you agree that there's such a thing as liberal Jewish people and conservative Jewish people?
Of course.
Of course you know that.
So, they all got together?
So all the liberal Jews and the conservative Jews, they all got together?
And it's all part of a big conspiracy?
Is that what you think?
And why is it that this alleged conspiracy for, I don't know, hundreds of years, that there's never been a whistleblower?
Never a whistleblower.
Not one.
There wasn't a liberal who didn't like what the conservatives were doing, or a conservative who didn't like what the liberals were doing, like everywhere in the rest of the world, all the time, forever.
Not a single person said, you know what?
I was in the meeting.
Where we plan to do whatever it is you think is being done.
No whistleblowers.
Really.
Not a single whistleblower.
And yet there are whistleblowers for everything else.
All right.
That's just for you to think about.
All right, so yes, I think the question on the border is largely sexual.
I also think that BLM was largely a mating event, the Black Lives Matter stuff.
I think that female approval of Black Lives Matter was probably a mating instinct sort of thing.
All right.
And again, doesn't mean every person, doesn't mean you, right?
That's just for the dumb people.
All right, Cenk Uygur, who's running for president without knowing he's a naturalized citizen, so he can't run for president, but I love it anyway.
I have a kind of weird appreciation for Cenk, because I think his heart is in the right place.
I think so.
I mean, you never know.
But he looks like he actually wants things to be better.
So the fact that he has a different idea of how to get there, I'm much more forgiving on that, because I don't think his intentions are in the wrong place.
Yeah, we can disagree on what makes sense.
And I'm seeing your comments, so I understand that you have a different view of it.
But, you know, sometimes it's Sometimes it's kind of a question of, do you think you're good at judging character?
You know, we all think we are.
I judge that his character is good and so therefore his intentions are good.
But I could be wrong.
I could be wrong about anybody.
But here's what he said and how I disagree.
He was talking about the Gaza situation and the West Bank and He says the occupation, as he calls it, is morally wrong and completely indefensible.
Saying the Palestinians cannot be trusted to govern themselves is deeply racist.
Would you agree that it's racist to say that the Palestinians can't be trusted to govern themselves?
Which I think the better way to say that is Israel doesn't trust that they would be safe if it happened.
Is it racist?
What do you think?
Well, I would say it would be racist if they were expelling from their country the people who were also Palestinian and looked like them and prayed like them and had the same genes.
So clearly there are plenty of people living in peace in Israel.
So if it were race, that would not be the case.
So clearly it's a security problem.
And the way that they're dealing with the security problem is they don't know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
They can't tell the difference.
So.
But what if it was?
What if it was racist?
Because you could make the argument.
I think it's primarily just risk assessment and politics.
And what they want is mostly the people who don't The people who want to kill them, they'd like to have less contact with them.
Seems normal.
So here's what I said.
I haven't been double-canceled yet, so we'll see how this goes.
I posted back then, I said that racism is morally and ethically acceptable for self-defense.
Let me say it again, because you might think you misheard it.
Racism is morally and ethically acceptable for self-defense.
Because the standard for self-defense is whatever you think you need to do.
That's it.
It's whatever you think you need to do.
Doesn't matter why.
Now, you could break the law by doing whatever you need to do, and then the law will take care of you.
And I agree with the law.
The law must be obeyed.
But, If you're talking about ethics and morality, that's a separate domain from the law.
We'd like them to be compatible, but they're not always.
So, if you have a choice between staying alive in your opinion, not mine, but your own opinion, that you have to do something racist to stay alive, then you should definitely do it.
But, to be clear, Racism in any other domain outside of self-defense is abhorrent.
So if you're being racist in your personal life, your business life, who you rent to, who you hire, all of that stuff, completely, you know, I disavow all of that.
That would be a bad way to run a country.
Bad way to be a human being, and bad in every sense.
But, in the very narrow domain of self-defense, yeah, you can be as racist as you want.
And people really need to understand that, or they'll die.
The classic example is the... Was it Jesse Jackson saying that he might cross the road if he saw a young black man in a hoodie or something?
You know, that classic case?
Why?
Is Jesse Jackson a racist?
Well, yes, in that exact example, he would be by his own definition, I think.
But he would also say, you know, I hate it, but I'd stay alive.
Yeah, I'm paraphrasing, of course.
So, yes, if if you have any reason to think you'd be in trouble, you get to do what you need to do.
Totally.
Yeah.
If you were an Israeli citizen and you were walking down the street of old Gaza, And you were just looking like a, you know, let's say you were obviously an Israeli citizen, Orthodox Jew.
And you were just walking down the streets in Gaza before the war.
Would you feel safe?
Or would you feel all racist?
Because you thought that maybe they would hurt you because they're not big fans of yours.
Well, it would be racist if you felt afraid.
Wouldn't it?
By definition.
Because you'd say, I think I'm afraid because they're Palestinian and they have a certain sense.
No, it would be racist.
But it would also be smart to stay away from that town.
So, the trouble is, if you get too hung up on whether it's technically racist or not, you're missing the larger point that it doesn't matter.
Is everybody on the same page there?
We could argue about whether it is or whether it's not, but it doesn't matter, because you're going to do whatever you need to do to stay safe and to keep your family safe, and nobody can tell you that's immoral.
You could be wrong.
You could be wrong.
It's still your choice.
Yeah, it's not ethically or anything.
When Elon Musk went with Ben Shapiro recently, just the other day, visited Auschwitz, and I believe he had a quote I saw that said, you know, having visited Auschwitz, he understands why Israel had to act decisively, you know, in Gaza, why they couldn't let that stand.
And, yeah, I think that's where everybody gets when you have that clear question about self-defense versus, is this a little bit too much DEI?
Yeah, self-defense wins.
Speaking of which, there are, I guess, black Democrats in Chicago.
One of them is a DEI consultant, which is interesting.
And they're calling for controls on immigration.
So even the black citizens of America who are DEI employees, their very job is to get rid of racism.
And they're saying, you need to close this border.
Now, what they don't say is all these brown people coming in, which is not what they're worrying about.
Because they're not thinking about Brown or anything else.
They're just thinking, taking our resources.
So if they were not black Democrat DEI consultants, we'd be calling them racist.
But because they are, we can see them somewhat clearly as just people who are under threat.
So are these black people being racist?
Absolutely not.
Or, better yet, what's the difference?
What's the difference?
If they think they're threatened, these are my American citizens, be they Democrats or DEI consultants.
If I rank them in importance, they're at the top of importance, because they're Americans.
They're on my team.
Should be.
And we would all like to be safe, and I would like these people in Chicago, be they Black or white or Democrat or Republican or DEI consultants, which I'm not a big fan of I want them to be safe And if they if they think that closing that border makes them safe, does it matter if it's racist?
No, it doesn't matter at all.
Yeah racism and self-defense just shouldn't be in the same conversation So just get it out of there.
So I agree with the Democrats and the DEI consultant in this case Jordan Peterson He's in a lot of news today.
Since he does more interesting things than you and I do, he's in the news a lot, sort of like Elon Musk.
Anyway, he did a video in which he did an interview with somebody talking about the German protests, the farmers.
Now, how many of you even know that there's a massive German protest?
How many of you even know that?
Okay, so most of the people watching this are pretty well informed.
By the way, is anybody also on one of the other platforms?
Because their comments have stopped.
If anybody has a minute, can you look at the... Look at YouTube or Rumble or X. The comments stopped coming through on the studio.
I can see all the comments on Locals.
Anyway, if they start again, I'll let you know.
Live chat.
Studio.
Oh, are they back?
No.
Yeah, it looks like they're... I think I'm still live though, right?
Am I still live on the other platforms?
Oh, you can see the comments?
So I guess other people can see them, but I can't.
All right.
All right.
Well, I'll continue.
Anyway, Jordan Peterson points out that on YouTube, He had accrued only 50,000 views in 14 hours, which would be enough views to make the rest of us jealous, because it's so many.
But for him, it's nothing.
Normal would be maybe three quarters of a million or something.
So, according to Dr. Peterson, it seems obvious that YouTube is suppressing this content specifically.
Why would YouTube be suppressing German farmer protests of an American, not American, but Canadian, psychologist?
Why would they be doing that?
Yeah, it doesn't matter.
They're doing it.
There's no doubt they're doing it.
So any pretension you thought about free speech in America, it's kind of an illusion.
Would you agree?
We don't really have free speech in a practical sense.
We have it in the... Well, not even in the technical sense, because the government does lean on the platforms to suppress speech.
So, no, we actually don't have free speech.
Do not.
And in fact, a lot of the people who tried to exercise their free speech are in jail right now.
That's another topic.
Let's see, here's a little test for you.
General Knowledge Test.
Without looking it up, what is the population of Sweden in rough numbers?
Just take a guess.
Population of Sweden, rough numbers.
Go.
3 million, 10 million, 15, 13.
Oh, those are pretty good guesses.
Yeah, I think it's around 10 million.
It's about 10 million.
But your guesses are quite well informed.
They were all in the range.
I'm impressed.
So how many bomb attacks would you expect?
So 10 million would be, say, the size of New York City, right?
How big is New York City?
10.7?
8 million?
Depends which part you're measuring, I guess.
So 8 to 10 million.
So roughly, Sweden is about the size of New York City.
How many bomb attacks in New York City would you consider a crisis in a year?
Bomb attacks.
One.
One, right?
One would be a lot, right?
Suppose you had 10 a year.
Imagine 10 bomb attacks in one year just in New York City.
You wouldn't even be able to live there.
Yeah.
How many bomb attacks do you think that there were in Sweden that would include things like hand grenades and things that blow up in the past year?
134.
134 things blew up in Sweden.
134 things blew up in Sweden, only 10 million people.
Sweden apparently has just fallen to the migrants.
Yeah, the migrants have basically just ruined Sweden.
I don't know if it'll ever be the same.
So I think Sweden's just gone.
I don't think I would even travel there at this point.
So that's a little warning for you in case you're wondering if our uncontrolled migration has any potential risk.
Yeah, it does.
Representative Clay Higgins from Louisiana says Biden is staging a civil war by pulling down those barriers in Texas, the ones that Texas put up to try to protect itself from the migrants.
And what do you think?
Do you think Texas and the federal government will end up coming to blows?
I think not.
Because I think Americans just wouldn't do it.
Like, who would execute that order?
Like, seriously, who would execute the order?
If you're in the National Guard and you're standing there looking at your, you know, you're basically your other American in another uniform who's just doing their job and you're just doing your job, are you gonna shoot him?
I don't think we're anywhere near that.
I think the soldiers would just lay down their guns and say, look, are you fucking crazy?
We're not going to shoot these guys.
That's crazy.
So I don't think it's going to turn into a civil war.
I just don't think our minds are anywhere near that.
We're hundreds of miles away from that, mentally.
So here's a question which I need a fact check on this.
I saw a question by Benny Johnson on the X platform.
Can you tell me if this is true?
So he makes an assumption.
I think it might be true.
So I'm not doubting it.
I'm just doubting my own memory.
So check my memory, right?
This is what Benny Johnson says.
In a post he says, I'm asking honestly without bias or preconditions.
When in American election history have all five swing states simultaneously stopped counting ballots on election night?
Is there any explanation for this other than centrally organized fraud?
Now, here's my question.
I was somewhat unaware that it was only the five swing states and that it was all of the five swing states.
Is that true?
There was no other state and it was 100% of the swing states.
How did I get to this point without knowing that?
Because he perfectly formulates the question.
When you put it that way, it's obviously fraud.
I guess I had been resisting the idea that you could tell it was fraud because they decided to count votes the next day.
If that's the only thing I knew, I'd say, well, it's suspicious.
But, I mean, in a big bureaucracy, some states will do it different than others.
But somehow I was unaware of this context.
I knew that some of them were swing states, but I didn't know it was all five all at the same time.
If it's all five at the same time, it's definitely fraud.
Are we on the same page?
So, this is a perfect example of something I say a lot.
A lot of the times when you think people are disagreeing, they're not.
It's just that the fake news got to somebody and it didn't get to somebody else.
That's it.
So in this case, I think I was a victim of fake news or maybe I didn't do my own work.
Because it never occurred to me that it was all five, and only the five, and at the same time.
Somehow those three facts never were in my brain at the same time until Benny Johnson put it in that form.
Scott is waking up.
I block everybody who says that.
I'll let you go this time because I don't know how to block you in real time.
But everybody that says I'm waking up, I block.
So don't do it jokingly because you get blocked.
All right.
Only because I take it as an insult.
All right.
I know you're kidding.
It's okay.
She was kidding.
All right.
Yeah.
I think the reasonable the reasonable belief because the government is guilty until proven innocent.
If if you're if you're the government you have to prove it was it was legitimate and the evidence suggests otherwise.
All right.
So Trump said directly and out loud that the reason he's ...made up his mind to never want to have a central bank digital currency, the so-called CBDC, is that Vivek basically filled him in and told him what the risk was, and then Trump said, OK, I'm on board.
Have you ever seen that before?
The simple transparency of Trump is like a beauty to behold.
Oh, I didn't really understand that topic, and then Vivek explained it to me, so now here's my opinion.
That was just beautiful, wasn't it?
Because, you know, I don't even know much about the topic.
So I can't say I have a strong opinion other than eventually we will have a digital currency.
There's no question about it.
Yeah, we're not gonna be paying stuff with paper in a hundred years.
It's just not gonna happen.
So I don't know what will happen, but there's gonna be a digital currency.
Someday.
But in the meantime, maybe you want to forestall that and I could understand that.
I wouldn't oppose you wanting that.
But just watching Watching how the sausage was made, and then not having a problem with it, it's just a purifying feeling.
Don't you always assume that what's happening is some weird behind-the-scenes negotiating, and somebody got blackmailed, and somebody doesn't understand, and somebody's taking a bribe, and all that stuff?
And then sometimes it's just this.
Oh, Vivek is super smart.
He explained it to me, so now here's my opinion.
And Vivek's really smart.
What's better than that?
Right?
What is better than that?
Nothing.
That is government operating perfectly.
Full transparency, a poor opinion that was corrected by a better opinion, and then he explains what happened and when.
Wow.
It's funny.
It's such a small thing.
You know, it was just a throwaway thing he said at a rally.
But there are very few things that have made me feel better about the country than watching exactly how that decision got made.
Yes.
Put your smart people in charge of the complicated stuff.
So Trump says, I mean, somebody asked the question, well, a lot of people asked, do you think that Trump would be able to deal with Vivek in terms of Trump's ego?
And I told you, You don't understand Trump.
He loves smart people.
And if they're smarter than he is, he loves them even more.
He's very consistent about that.
And so Vivek was just smarter than him on that topic.
You know, being specific on that topic.
So he went with the smart guy.
How much do you love that?
So Trump says a very small chance that DeSantis would be in his cabinet.
Not that he wouldn't do a good job.
But I do love the fact that DeSantis came through this process with so much respect.
Don't you love that?
You don't really think a political process ends with anybody looking good, especially if they didn't win.
But he set a standard that I really appreciated.
I'll say it again.
What he added to the country.
To Santa simply by running and giving us the essentially validating Trump as the Republicans genuine choice.
That's so important.
I mean, it's the difference between a civil war and not having one.
It might be that big a difference.
Of course, Vivek, the same thing.
So what Vivek and DeSantis did for the country in our system is just hard to underestimate.
It's just huge.
So debt of gratitude.
Glenn Greenwald is showing us the way.
He had some event where he was debating with some leftists about January 6th, whether it was an insurrection.
And you have to hear him I wouldn't say it was joking mocking, but he's so good at making his points.
It just makes other people look stupid So here was the things he was saying to people who believed there was a I think one of the Krasensteins was there and somebody else He noted that Trump didn't resist leaving the building Like when his term was over which would be a weird thing to do if you're trying to cling to power Why would you leave the building?
That's the dumbest thing you'd ever do if you were going to do an insurrection.
Leave the building.
And then he points out he didn't try to activate any military force.
Who tries to do an insurrection without trying to get at least some kind of military force on your side?
You know, even if it's your, you know, whatever, your personal security or something?
Like, I don't even thought...
I don't think the record even shows that he talked to his own Secret Service.
Imagine trying to be a dictator and not colluding with your own protection, your own Secret Service, who are dedicated probably to prevent you from being a dictator.
So the guys in the room with guns who would literally shoot you if you actually tried to become a dictator, I hope they would, wouldn't they?
Can somebody give me a fact check?
If the Secret Service saw you actually becoming a dictator, wouldn't they take care of it?
Now, you're saying no because they would be so professional, they'd be so professional that they would support him even if he went full Hitler and started rounding up and murdering his opponents.
They would still just do their job because they're professionals.
No, they wouldn't.
Come on.
No, they wouldn't.
They would prevent him.
So one way you can know for sure that he wasn't planning any kind of real insurrection was that That he didn't work it out with anybody in his security detail.
There's no evidence of that.
That'd be the first thing you'd do.
Because you can't have the enemy being your protection.
It's the very first thing you'd have to do.
So, yeah, and he didn't arrest his opponents, which is a basic thing you do if you're a dictator.
If Trump wanted to stay in power, he would have just had Biden arrested.
But he had no power to do that.
He had no power to, well, nobody would have done it.
So, watching the people who have been brainwashed into thinking January 6th was an insurrection is going to be real fun.
Because if you take the Glenn Greenwald model, and I think we should, We should mock it and make them explain how that could be an insurrection.
Now, the best argument I've heard for the insurrection hoax believers is that he had those fake electrodes.
This is what Bill Maher says.
And the way that argument goes like this.
He had fake electors, so therefore that's how he was trying to take over the country.
Now anybody who knows the situation would say something like this.
Well, the documentation shows that they believe they were simply placeholders to maintain the right to pursue the legal challenge.
It was just a placeholder thing, and they weren't replacement for or fake.
They were simply sort of on hold to show that you're putting a stake in the ground, that you're challenging it.
Now, what does Bill Maher say about that?
Well, he wouldn't let you finish the sentence, he would talk over you.
I guarantee you, you'll never get to finish that sentence.
I saw him doing that to somebody the other day.
Now, suppose you say, what if they were fake?
How in the world were fake electors going to take over a country?
Was the Supreme Court going to say, oh yeah, Fake electors are fine.
Like, there's no way to connect the dots that that process could have been a way to take over the country.
The only thing it could have been is exactly what they said it was.
A bunch of lawyers said, you know what, we'd have a stronger case if you had some alternate electors and, you know, otherwise we won't use them.
So.
Would they strong-arm the real delegates?
Probably, if it was a real insurrection, they would.
I don't know if they did.
Maybe somebody did.
Don't argue with analogies.
That's a bad way to go.
All right.
Russia apparently is ruling out any peace talks in the Ukraine.
And why wouldn't they?
Because apparently the money is going to dry up from America unless something changes.
And that would guarantee that Russia could have anything they want with Ukraine.
Kim Dotcom has a provocative prediction, if I have it right.
He believes that Victoria Nuland is the real president of Uh, Ukraine, meaning that America is really in charge and that she's the point person over there.
And, uh, Kim Dotcom believes that she might be putting together a, some kind of false flag operation to blow up their own nuclear power plant.
With the thinking being that if Ukraine blows up their own nuclear power plant, That that would force NATO to get involved because it would look like Russia did it.
And then if NATO gets involved, maybe Ukraine can be saved.
They already said that.
It's been ongoing.
Yeah, two on the nose.
I don't know if any of that's true.
I'm not backing that theory myself, but it's out there.
But all I have to say about Ukraine is, how could Putin possibly lose at this point?
Would it be fair to say we started a fight we didn't need to start?
In other words, probably it was our own damn fault.
We fought too long and killed too many people that didn't need to die, and when there was a time that we could have made peace, we let it pass.
I think Biden did all that.
I think he basically gave away Ukraine.
Do you know who could save Ukraine?
Only Trump, while running for president.
Because if Putin doesn't control all of Ukraine before, let's say, Trump or a Republican takes over, it might be too late.
Because I think that Trump would threaten him and say, look, you are going to talk peace, or we'll rain hell upon you that you've never seen, sort of thing.
And he'd probably actually believe it was going to happen, and he'd probably adjust.
Yeah.
All right, so California's Senate race is funny because it's so pathetic.
So the people running to be Senator for California would be Adam Schiff, Katie Porter, Barbara Lee, and one Republican, Steve Garvey, who doesn't have a chance because it's California.
The funny part is all of the people are under 25% support.
They're all under 25%.
They're so odious that nobody wants any of them, I think.
But what's funny is you have a straight white male, allegedly, running against a woman and a woman of color.
How in the world can California elect the straight white guy when there's a woman and a woman of color in the same party?
Can they?
Yeah.
I think Gavin was a special case.
If Adam Schiff wins this thing, I'm going to think the race is rigged.
It just doesn't seem like that's possible.
So the New Hampshire vote is today.
Why does anybody care about New Hampshire?
Why does anybody care about that?
It's such a funny little weird state and so few people vote.
The fact that we give it any credibility at all is sort of hilarious.
But to me it's like all the news people are trying to milk a bull.
It's like, alright, we know you can only milk cows.
Bulls don't have udders.
But all we have is this bull.
So, let's milk it.
That's what the news feels like.
Okay, we all know that New Hampshire shouldn't matter.
It shouldn't be important.
But it's the news, so we gotta talk about it.
Yeah, let's talk about how we can milk that bull.
Alright, it's like squeezing orange juice out of a turd.
You just can't do it, no matter how hard you squeeze.
So, the Democrats, using their technique of blaming Republicans for whatever they do, are going to blame Trump for his many miscues in talking for having cognitive decline.
That's right.
The supporters of Joe Biden have decided that a good fruitful attack for their side would be to attack Trump for his mental decline because he sometimes mixes up names.
They are so freaking consistent.
And again, I have to apologize to Tucker Carlson for when he said that they always do what they blame you of doing.
I didn't think he meant always.
It just sounded like a weird, you know, overgeneralization.
Well, not always.
Not every single time.
Yep, it's every single time.
No matter how absurd it is, they'll do it anyway.
This is the one that sort of points it out.
Imagine the absurdity of defending Joe Biden on a cognitive level.
But they're doing it.
They're doing it.
And I guess we're worried about the Canadian border.
So you heard about there were a few hundred people on the terrorist watch list that got through the southern border.
So thank goodness the Canadian border doesn't have that kind of problem, right?
Because we had, I think, a couple hundred people or so, something like 100 or 200, that were actually on the terrorist watch list that came up through the southern border.
Can you imagine if we had, like, That many people on the northern border?
Like a few hundred people on the watch list?
Checking the news, there were 500 of them.
Yeah.
So, actually, it turns out that by an order of magnitude, there are more terrorists coming across the northern border.
You know what I worry about?
I don't worry about the ones that came across the southern border, because they might be the dumb terrorists, they wouldn't be able to pull something off.
But every terrorist that comes through the northern border, I say to myself, well there's a terrorist who figured out how to do it right.
Now that terrorist I worry about.
Because if you came in through Canada, you've got some game.
If you came in through the southern border, I don't think you thought it through.
Because, you know, Canada.
It's right there.
Just walk across.
I guess it works on either border.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
This episode of Coffee with Scott Elms has been brought to you by the best book ever written.
It's called Reframe Your Brain by me.
And we're in phase two now.
Phase one is launching the book.
Phase two is a bunch of people bought it and read it especially for Christmas.
And now the messages are coming in.
I had to buy five more.
My neighbor got one for me for Christmas and just bought seven for their family.
And people are posting that it's changing their lives.
So I say this because I'm marketing a book, but also it's completely true.
You can read the reviews and see it yourself.
It's changing lives.
Now, there are a lot of books that say a lot of fun and interesting things, and you say to yourself, well, that's some good advice in that book.
But do you do it?
So what's different about Reframe Your Brain is that the reframes are literally one sentence each.
So if you find a reframe that fits your situation, you just have to read one sentence.
And it will either change the way you think of the situation or not, but that's your total investment, is a sentence.
So that's why people are using it successfully.
Because it's so easy to implement, and there's no downside.
You just read a sentence, it works or it doesn't.
So that can change your life.
So, ladies and gentlemen, that's all we got for now.
Thanks for joining on the YouTube Rumble and X-Platforms.
Sorry your comments got locked up there, but I guess you can see your own comments.
