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:
Texas versus America. (I side with Texas.) And lots more
Politics, SpaceX, Elon Musk, Taylor Lorenz, ADL, Libs of TikTok, Bidenomics, Gen Z Social Skills, J6 Pipe Bombs, Rep. Thomas Massie, Kari Lake, Political Bribes, President Biden, Sanctuary Cities, President Trump, Nikki Haley Funders, Charlamagne The God, Migrant Crisis, Texas Border, VP Vivek Ramaswamy, Dean Phillips, Congressional Corruption, Ukraine War Funding, Roy Spencer, Climate Change Models, 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
Stock after we're done with this, because we're entering the super cycle of robots.
Now, unless somebody talks me out of it, my understanding is that Tesla, the car company, will be rolling out humanoid robots.
And Musk has said that the profitability from humanoid robots could be way more Way more than the profitability from selling electric cars.
So, aren't we entering the super cycle of all super cycles?
Like, the thing that only happens once in the history of humankind, which is the rollout of humanoid robots?
That's only gonna happen once.
So, I feel like if you don't have at least a little bit of money in robots, You could be in big trouble, because robots might be the only business of the future.
It might be all that's left.
I can't think of any investment situation similar to this.
Uh, and by the way, don't take any investment advice from me.
I don't give investment advice.
I'm going to tell you what I'm doing and why, and then you can, you know, look at your situation and do your own research, et cetera, but don't take my financial advice.
So the reason I'm going to double up on, um, Tesla stock, probably, I mean, I'll do a little more research before I do is that, I don't want to be left out of the super cycle.
It could be pretty intense, you know, once the robots are rolling out.
Anyway, speaking of Elon Musk, who's always in the news, Ben Shapiro talked to him in an interview.
And if you haven't heard this estimate, it's kind of wild that SpaceX is doing so well that in five years we might have a moon base.
And in 10 years, we might have this civilization on Mars, you know, moving actually numbers of people to Mars, to actually just live there.
And, uh, Musk thinks that maybe in 45 years, Mars could be self-sufficient, meaning that if it never got another supply ship from Earth, it could still do okay.
Now, what is interesting about this feed is that I can't tell if it's actually live.
I have no idea if I'm talking to real human beings right now.
Am I?
Because the comments every now and then will just stop, like they have right now.
Does that mean nobody's watching?
I actually can't tell if I'm live.
It looks like it's live, but there's no comments.
Give me just a second.
I want to check on X to see if it's live, because I might be down everywhere.
And unfortunately, you can't tell me.
I wish you could.
All right.
Let's see.
Just look at my feed and see if it's live.
Oh, there I am.
I'll be down.
Let's see if it has sound.
Yep, it has sound too.
Good for us.
All right.
So yeah, moon base in five years, Mars in 10, and civilization self-sufficient in 45.
Those estimates sound about right to me, based on what's going on.
You probably have heard of Taylor Lorenz, a writer who used to work for the Atlantic and then she went to the Washington Post.
What does that tell you about a writer, any writer, if they used to work for the Atlantic and then they went to work for the Washington Post?
Does that give you any clues of what's going on?
Well, those are two publications which people imagine are the most corrupt in all of the news-ish business.
Corrupt in terms of being just Democrat organs and not anything like news.
But she did a video today that's getting a lot of mocking.
I thought I'd join in.
She's reading about all the media layoffs.
So a lot of journalists are getting laid off across all kinds of industries.
And it's all for the same reason.
Those entities are not doing well.
And I'm starting to think, I know this is just a suspicion, but I'm starting to think that Maybe they're brainwashing the American public with obvious bullshit, day after day, ignoring the obvious.
Possibly, it is not the best business model.
That's what I'm starting to think.
And I think it's fascinating that the people most surprised by these layoffs are the investigative journalists, who should have been the first ones keyed into the fact that the entire news industry had been destroyed by Trump.
They didn't notice that he destroyed their entire fake news industry simply by making us pay attention to how fake it was.
And then people got on board, and when it was so obvious, That the architecture of the news business is completely just bullshit.
Um, and people started catching on.
So Taylor Lorenz, I guess those journalists should have caught the biggest story in the world, which is all of our news and all of our science is fake.
Sometimes not intentionally, but it works out that way.
Speaking of evil and fakes the, uh, I guess there's some documentation that says the ADL,
There's some emails discovered, according to Libs of TikTok, that says that the ADL urged a counterterrorism unit in Washington to investigate the Libs of TikTok person who runs that account, and also Matt Walsh, under the theory that they were for being anti-LGBTQ, and that they should be investigated by a counterterrorism unit,
Terrorism, for having an opinion about those topics.
That was the ADL.
Now, the ADL, I believe, has done some good work in its history, you know, protecting Jewish people especially, but for some reason it just became this completely corrupt Democrat, you know, hitman organization where they just basically try to shit on anybody who's not a Democrat.
And they actually came after me, and the head of the ADL, in public, on X, accused me of being a Holocaust denier.
I've never even met a Holocaust denier.
Who denies the Holocaust?
Now, It's the most corrupt, ridiculous organization, and if anybody takes them seriously, it's probably the same people who take seriously the journalists at, you know, the Daily Beast or something.
If you believe the Washington Post, you probably also believe the ADL.
All right, let me see if I can get the right answer from you.
On this question, what percentage of the U.S.
voters think Bidenomics will help Biden win this year's presidential election?
Yeah, that's right, 26%.
As you know, roughly a quarter of all people polled will get every question wrong, no matter how easy the question is.
No, Bidenomics is not going to help Joe Biden.
But 26% say, yeah, probably will.
Are you aware that Generation Z doesn't know how to communicate?
It's true.
They don't know how to communicate.
So those are the people between age 18 and 24.
If you haven't noticed this, apparently every boss and person who works in the business world has noticed, that the Generation Z people just don't know how to make conversation.
So they're socially, you know, repressed.
I won't use the other R word.
And I feel like there's a solution to it.
The solution is the Dale Carnegie course.
I actually have been teaching my own Gen Z person in my family, my stepdaughter, who's in that category.
How in the world am I failing to turn off the ringer of my phone no matter how many times I try?
That's weird.
So I've been teaching her the Dale Carnegie stack.
Now, the Dale Carnegie technique for making conversation is like a superpower.
And it's really easy.
You can learn it in... I'll teach you the whole thing in 60 seconds, in case you haven't heard it.
If you want to make conversation with somebody and you don't know how, ask them questions.
But don't ask, you know, random weird questions like, what's your favorite TV show?
At least not at first.
You ask them stuff like, you know, what's your name?
Where do you work?
What do you do?
You know, where do you live?
Do you have a family?
Are you married?
Do you have kids?
Where do they go to school?
You know, the word to go to school is maybe if you also have kids, so you might find something in common.
But if you simply show interest in people and ask questions, that's the answer for the Gen Z people.
That's it.
That's all.
In 60 seconds, the whole technique.
It'll change your life.
If you know any Gen Zs, just give them that lesson.
Start the conversation with a question.
Continue to show interest.
Shake hands and make eye contact when the person's talking, and try to sort of agree with them or boost what they're saying so they feel good talking.
It's like, oh yeah, oh yeah, that happened to me.
Oh, I know what you mean.
You just let them talk and show them some attention and appreciation, and pretty soon they'll let you talk.
You'll find your way to jump in, but not until there's something you're interested in.
You don't have to make random conversation.
Wait for them to say something that you'd like to join in on.
So that's the whole technique.
I learned that in the Dale Carnegie course.
And it would really make a difference in your career if you're in that age group, because you would stand out.
People would notice.
They'd say, whoa, there's a Gen Z person who can make conversation.
Put them in sales.
Put them in management.
So if you're going to add to your talent stack, add making conversation.
60 second lesson, really.
That's the whole thing.
Well, we have a solution to the pipe bomb mystery.
Remember the pipe bomb mystery?
Who left those fake pipe bombs around January 6th in 2020?
Thomas Massey reports on X that three years ago, into the January 6th pipe bomb investigation, with zero arrests, a dozen unacknowledged facts, and several impossible coincidences, When the FBI says, quote, it's our policy not to comment on ongoing investigations, what I hear is, quote, it's our policy not to comment on ongoing cover-ups.
All right, so what's the rule with the government?
I'll remind you, if this were an individual, They would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
That's the only standard that works.
I mean, that we want to work.
And that's a good standard, but it doesn't apply to the government.
The government is opposite.
And the reason the government is opposite is that the government has power and individuals do not.
That's why individuals have to be protected by the presumption of innocence, even when they're not innocent.
But the government, because it has power over us all, Has to be assumed guilty unless, through transparency, it can show you clearly that it's not guilty of whatever.
So here's a case where the government is applying massive levels of cover-up.
So why should you assume?
Why would they cover up something that's not a problem?
It's kind of obvious.
If you think there's any mystery to the January 6th stuff, well, maybe in the details, but you can conclude that it was an op of some type and that the government is covering it up.
I would say that that's a conclusion that you can very comfortably make.
Now, suppose you're wrong.
You still should make the assumption.
You should act as though you do know, exactly the way people would act as though you're innocent until proven guilty, even if they might think you're guilty.
So when the government is non-transparent, you don't have to wonder what happened.
That's the wrong play.
No, you say, oh, now we have confirmation that it's exactly what we thought.
We don't know the names and the people.
It'd be good to know that.
But yeah, it was a government op and the government's covering it up.
Confirmed.
Confirmed by lack of transparency.
You don't need to know anything else.
I wouldn't even ask any further questions.
I just conclude that the government is corrupt.
Here's one other way to prove it.
It's funny that Carrie Lake is making further news today.
Not because someone offered her a bribe, which happened, it was caught on audio, but a Republican operative in Arizona said that somebody, quote, from the East Coast, we don't know, had offered to basically bribe Kerry not to run for the Senate when she was running.
And she turned him down flat and said it's not about the money, wouldn't even talk about her price, which gives me confidence in her.
But then somebody noted today that the reason it's still news is not because she was offered a bribe.
It's newsworthy because she turned it down.
And that's actually true.
The thing that's impressive is that she didn't take it.
That's what makes it news.
So that's the country you live in.
That if somebody doesn't take a bribe, everybody's talking about it.
It's like, what's going on here?
Somebody didn't take a bribe?
All right.
We can also conclude that nobody has any blackmail material on Carrie Lake, because you don't need to bribe people that you can blackmail.
Am I right?
Obviously, the people who don't want her to run don't have any blackmail, because they wouldn't use that.
Instead.
So she's pretty clean.
I like that.
I think her political capital just went up, I don't know, 50%.
That's a pretty big deal.
All right.
There's a clip of Biden in 2007 talking about sanctuary cities.
And he said that no on sanctuary cities, the idea, because sanctuary cities, quote, turn into dumps, and the only reason they exist is because the federal government doesn't enforce the law.
That was 2007.
Yep, sanctuary cities turn into dumps.
2020, Biden says illegals make cities safer.
That's so dumb, you don't even have to talk about the point of it all.
Nothing to say about that.
And I have this idea that Republicans could win, maybe every election for the rest of time, if the only thing they did is run the Democrats' own words as their campaign.
So in other words, Trump could win easily simply by playing clips of Biden Uh, you know, mumbling and talking over himself and contradicting himself and lying and, and nothing else.
Uh, because he's, he's so gone and so corrupt that anything looks good compared to him, including Biden, including Trump, even if he hated him.
Speaking of which, uh, Trump has made a strong move.
I think this is a smart political move and very Trump-like.
He announced that anyone contributing to Nikki Haley from this point on would be permanently banned from the MAGA camp.
Now that's exactly the right move, right?
It's very transparent, he's not hiding anything, and up until this point he wasn't messing with anybody's donors, because it was an open primary, and that was the right thing to do.
But at this point he's saying, okay, you know, it really I mean, it's kind of obvious that Nikki Haley is the Democrats' play, not the Republican play.
If Nikki Haley were genuinely, you know, grassroots, supported by, you know, supported by lots of Republicans that I've ever met or talked to, I've still never met one.
I'm waiting for my first Nikki Haley supporter who's a Republican.
Haven't met one.
Democrats seem to want to boost her for their own reasons, though, strategically.
So, I think it's actually a good play by Trump to put the strong arm on anybody who's funding her from the Republican side.
I heard that Reid Hoffman is going to pull his funding from Haley, but I don't know if that's confirmed.
So, yeah, I think that's the right play.
Good play.
Well, is Charlemagne the god?
We'll just call him Charlemagne.
He's a real interesting character.
I like Charlemagne.
As a public figure, because my take on him is that he's one of the few people who's not lying to us.
You know, he's a public figure and he's, you know, obviously leans Democrat.
Well, it's not obvious, but I just told you, he leans Democrat.
But he also seems to be a person who has good intentions and wants to know what's true.
But like most Democrats, he's caught in a bubble of complete bullshit.
So knowing what's true is kind of hard, but he's working it out.
There's a clip of him calling Trump a fascist, talking to Joy Reid in an old MSNBC clip.
Now, if you're a Democrat and you're listening to MSNBC, you are literally, and this is my opinion, That is literally true, not hyperbole.
You're literally getting your news from people who have mental illness about the news.
I mean, I don't think Joy Reid is necessarily mentally ill in some general way, but about the news, clearly there's mental illness going on.
There's some kind of hysteria going on with, you know, some of the individuals like Racial Mad Now.
They just look crazy.
And it's not because they're women.
I'm not saying all the women on MSNBC look crazy.
And certainly on CNN, the women don't look crazy.
But there are two of them that look crazy.
I mean, they look actually like they're battling some serious mental problems.
But that's what Charlemagne was listening to a few years ago.
But now what he's listening to is his own radio show, Callers.
Working class people, as he says, saying this immigration migration crisis is too far.
It's got to be stopped.
So even Charlemagne is thinking, hmm, I'm hearing bad things about this Trump guy, but he probably would close the border.
And it's kind of hard to understand why it's not already closed.
So, um, and then there's, There's news that the black vote in Georgia is starting to move in a big way toward Trump.
I don't know if any of those polls are yet useful.
But there does seem to be I think the migrant crisis will move the black vote a little bit more Republican than it's ever been.
That feels like a safe prediction.
I don't think it'll be this massive switch from Democrat to Republican, but Trump only needs, you know, 10-20% shift in the black vote and he wins everything.
It looks like that's actually going to happen.
All right, of course we're going to talk about Texas.
Of course.
Here's my take.
When things are going well, we use a thing called politics and free speech and all that stuff to get things done.
So if you're not in mortal danger, then you can have some political discussions and I can talk about my policies and you can talk about your policies, as long as you're an American citizen.
And even if you're not, you could be a Jordan Peterson or, you know, Russell Brand or something, and we'll still listen to you.
Cause it's a good process.
As long as you're not in a lot of trouble, the talking it out and politics works really well.
But when it comes to our border at the moment, it has moved to a new phase that I will call biological.
We've moved out of politics because we're now in a Critical literal life.
Well life and death is too strong, but people will die So there is some life and death element to it, but migration is a crisis It does risk destroying the entire country and that's not hyperbole It does risk destroying the entire country if it went on we're not there at the moment So under those conditions when Politics as in talking it out Doesn't work And you realize that just talking about it is going to get you all killed.
Then it moves to what I call the biological level.
Biology takes over.
And I'm going to be as blunt as possible because I'm the only person who's cancelled enough to say this in direct terms.
It's time for the women to shut up and get out of the conversation.
With all due respect.
Yeah.
Now, I say the same about abortion.
People get mad at me when I say this.
The reason I don't have an opinion on abortion is that I stay the fuck out of that.
That's biological, not political, in my opinion.
And when it's biological, you gotta let the biological people who are made for this event Have the larger say.
Now, I don't mind if you weigh in because it's a free country.
So if you're a man and you've got an opinion on abortion because you think it's life and death, that's fine.
I just don't personally.
So personally, I'd rather women collectively make the decision about what's legal and what's not and what to do in their own situation.
Now, that doesn't mean that they will make the decisions I think are right.
That's not the point.
The point is that responsibility and biology are so tightly linked that it's always a good idea to let the people with the most responsibility, i.e. having a baby, have more vote.
They just have a bigger say.
And I think in a practical sense that it does go that way.
I think women are getting more of what they want on abortion than men, and that's probably good.
Now, when it comes to protecting the country from large male military-age men, some of whom are clearly terrorists, coming across our border, That's not really women's work.
Now, I don't think there'll be any pushback on this, actually.
It's just one of those things people would be afraid to say.
If you look at the videos of the National Guard lining up, I'm sure there's some women there.
But they're the exception.
So remember, everything I say is a generality.
Plenty of specific exceptions.
We accept that.
But this is now just biological.
The country's in danger, the government didn't work, and politics didn't work.
So what Abbott is doing, Governor Abbott of Texas, is just going biological.
He's a man.
He rounded up a bunch of mostly men who are in uniform and under his command, and he's putting them on the border, and he's going to stop the biological risk that's pouring across the border.
Now, what's the federal government going to do?
Well, it turns out that Abbott has a lot of game.
So he put out a message that says that the Constitution allows the states, and he showed the part of the Constitution that does.
In fact, the states are allowed to protect themselves under the specific situation that the federal government won't do it.
That's the exact situation.
Now, you know, don't listen to me for any constitutional conversation.
But the basic idea is the states do have the right To protect themselves militarily, if it's the only recourse they have.
On top of that, it gets really interesting.
Apparently they also specifically, in the Constitution, very directly, it says they can team up with other states for their mutual protection.
And sure enough, a bunch of other Southern and And I think, are they all Southern?
Mostly Southern, but Republican states have joined in on the side, at least with resources.
So let's see who's joined in so far.
We've got Florida, of course, Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
So they're mostly personnel and resources.
I don't think, um, I don't know that any gun carrying people from the other states are coming in, but I wouldn't rule it out.
So this is now a male issue.
It's biological.
It's a existential risk.
And if the constitution didn't allow it, we'd have to do it anyway.
We'd have to do it anyway.
It's great that it does allow it.
I mean, it should.
And it does.
So, they do have the best argument.
Now, what's going to happen?
You're going to ask me.
Is it going to come to violence?
Really unlikely.
I mean, anything can happen.
You can imagine somebody firing and somebody firing back.
But not really.
Not really.
And the reason that there won't be, in all likelihood, there won't be physical violence of any scale.
I'll just say of scale.
There could be some.
Could be some shoving.
I don't know.
Could be some little stuff.
But it won't be a scale.
There won't be a civil war.
Do you know why?
Because on one side, you've got a bunch of men.
What's on the other side?
If the federal government tried to use some military force, what would be on the other side?
Men!
They're on the same side.
They're on the same side.
It doesn't matter what their generals tell them.
These are men who will protect your border.
There's no way that they're going to start killing each other to benefit the people coming across the border.
That's not going to happen.
Yeah, and you know what the risk of that happening would be?
If women still had some control over this situation, but that's no longer the case.
If women were involved, there might be a disagreement.
Maybe it would boil up to something violent.
But if it's a whole bunch of men, standing next to a whole bunch of other men, who are Americans, and we're on the border, And the question is, should we let all these other biological risks come across the border?
In this case, risk would be partly criminal, the terrorists, but partly economic, etc.
They're going to be on the same side.
They're not going to be shooting each other.
If anything, they'll secede from the Union just long enough to help Texas.
So let me say this as clearly as I can, because the more support Texas has, the less likely there'll be any kind of bloodshed.
I'm on Texas's side.
I disavow the federal government and the way they're running the country.
I do not have American patriotism at the moment.
Biden, unfortunately, has unraveled that for me.
Now, of course, I'm pro-American people.
You know, the people, yes.
But the American federal government has lost all of my support.
All of my support.
And if it comes to violence, I back Texas.
It won't.
Very unlikely.
But if it comes to violence, I want to be as clear as possible.
If I have to kill somebody, I'm going to be on the Texas side if it happens, because they're the ones protecting the border.
I don't know what's happening with the federal government, but I don't support it.
I just don't support the federal government under Biden.
Whatever is happening is not coming from inside the House.
Do you feel that?
Whatever it is that's driving the Biden administration to keep those borders open, it's not coming from within America.
I mean, it's also coming within America, but the larger force is something else.
I just don't know what it is.
And it also doesn't matter at this point.
Does it matter?
Well, maybe in the legal sense, but we're going to close the border now.
So I believe the decision's been made that the border will be closed.
Men have made the decision, plus, you know, Sarah Sanders Huckabee.
Yeah, good credit to her for being in the mix there.
And there are probably some other female governors.
So somebody give me a fact check on that.
Because if there are some female governors that are joining into Texas, I want to give them a shout out as well.
But it's going to get real interesting now, and I don't know that this gets unraveled.
I believe that this play becomes the future.
In other words, I don't think the federal government is going to do something clever that works, you know, like nationalizing the Texas soldiers or whatever.
They might try.
I just think it won't work.
So I think that the states forming literally the potential of an armed civil war is enough to make the federal government back down, especially in an election year.
Do you think that Biden wants to be the person who plunged America into a civil war?
Because that's what it's going to look like if one bullet gets fired.
If one bullet gets fired.
He doesn't have a chance.
Not a single chance of getting elected.
I mean, I'm not sure he has much of a chance now.
Let's talk about the VP choice.
I'm going to commit.
I was very hesitant about the idea of Vivek as a vice president choice for Trump because I like Vivek.
I didn't want to see him get ruined in a vice president role that wasn't valued and maybe he just gets in a fight and his reputation gets ruined because of just being part of the Trump administration.
And then as a young man who has great potential, we would lose out as a country to whatever he could contribute because he just gets slimed by being part of it.
I still have that concern.
I do think he might be the only person who has enough talent to avoid that trap.
It would be hard, but if anybody could do it, he's the one person I've ever seen who could do that.
Now, here's the thing you need to know about a potential, oh, and if I didn't say it directly, I'm all in on Vivek as vice president.
Now, Trump will make his own decisions.
But I know that he does a good job of surveying opinion of, you know, the opinion people.
So somebody on his staff probably is watching the show or will hear that I'm all down with Viveka as a vice presidential choice.
So I think it's useful.
If anybody else has the same opinion and you feel that you're one of the influencers, it's time.
You know, if you think Viveka is the choice, let's just say it.
Because I think it does make a difference.
Now here's what I think makes Vivek the obvious choice.
And here's the easiest way to say it.
Trump and Vivek solve for each other.
They solve for each other.
In a way I've never seen before.
It's kind of remarkable when you think about it.
What is the solution for Trump's age?
Vivek.
Vivek's the solution for Trump's age.
What is the solution for Trump maybe not understanding some of the technical issues like, you know, digital currency and, you know, what do you do with AI?
Because a lot of our decisions are going to be super technical going forward.
Who solves for that?
Vivek!
He solves for that, right?
Who solves for the fact that Trump is going to be labeled a big old dictator, fascist?
Well, Trump doesn't do a good job solving for himself, because he likes to stay in the tough guy mode.
And as long as you stay in the tough guy mode, you can be painted as a fascist.
It's just kind of easy.
So Vivek solves for that.
Because he will simply give you the better argument for everything.
What about the fact that Democrats think Republicans are a bunch of dummies who don't follow science?
Vivek solves for that.
He's not a dummy, and he definitely follows science.
Right?
Nobody would really... It would be weird to say that about him.
I'm sure somebody will, but... So, now what about the other way?
Does Trump solve for Vivek?
Well, what's Vivek got working against him?
Number one, he's brown and Hindu.
And even in my feed, people are saying, he'll never be successful in American politics as president or vice president, because he's brown and he's Hindu.
And the, you know, the conservatives are never going to go for that.
Yes, they will.
Yes, they will.
All he has to do is be Trump's choice.
Trump can make you okay with brown and Hindu.
In fact, you'll love it by the time, four years later, you'll think it's your favorite thing in the world.
You'll want all your presidents to be brown and Hindu by the time he's done with you.
All he has to do is do a good job, and I'm sure he will.
So yes, Trump solves for Vivek, any concerns you had.
What about, I'm seeing a bunch of people saying, I don't trust Vivek.
He just sort of came out of nowhere and, you know, suddenly, you know, so there must be something sketchy about him.
Trump solves for that.
Because Trump and Trump's people will certainly vet the living piss out of him.
You know, if he's got any like weird dark money that's following him, we haven't seen any.
Where's all his weird dark money?
Where's his... I haven't seen any.
And you know that the Trump people are going to look for it hard.
And if they don't find any, which I think they won't, that's good for Vivek.
So it's a really weird situation.
And then, of course, the biggest question would be their personalities.
Can two personalities who are both tigers share tiger meat?
Can two tigers share tiger meat?
You know, the attention, the power, the influence.
And that's a question.
However, I'm going to go back to my earlier response about Vivek.
There's only one person who could pull it off.
There's only one person who could pull off sometimes disagreeing with Trump and getting away with it.
Because when Vivek disagrees with you, you've seen him do it a million times on video, he'll give you an argument that is so disarming that it doesn't feel like an ego contest.
It just feels like, oh, okay, well that's a different way to look at it.
He's a reframer as much as a fighter.
He's a fighter, too.
But when it counts, he's a reframer.
And reframing always works.
I wrote a book about it.
You may have heard of it.
So I think they're a perfect match if they can survive and if Trump decides to pick them.
So I'm on record.
I'm with Texas and I'm with Vivek.
And it's time to get serious about fixing stuff.
By the way, 2024 is going to be lit.
2024 is great so far.
Even the things that are bad look like the beginning of a correction.
You know, if you say, oh my God, 2024, it looks like a civil war.
No, it looks like a problem is just about ready to be corrected.
Not in California, but yeah.
So, you know, you have to be careful of what looks like bad news.
The, the Texas stuff is all good news.
It's all good news, unless it comes to some violence.
And I think that's very unlikely.
It would be, it would just become a court thing if it became anything.
All right.
All right, Dean Phillips continues to be interesting, so he's running against Biden, and watching him complain about Biden's, you know, declining abilities is interesting.
And Dean Phillips said this on Axios, how can one quote to support democracy while supporting the most unpopular and unelectable Democrat in the modern era?
Is that a good question?
How can you say you're in favor of democracy while you're supporting Joe Biden, who is the least favorite person of all time in that job?
As Phillips says, Biden is four points below the man he barely beat in 2020.
He says it's hard to believe, but very true.
It's not hard for me to believe.
And then he says, now keep in mind, this is a Democrat running for president who's saying these words about Democrats.
Look at the choice of words.
The delusion is dangerous.
It's not rocket science, folks.
We need a different nominee.
The delusion.
He's actually telling his own team that they're suffering from delusion.
Is he right?
Completely.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And where does the delusion come from?
The media.
Yeah.
So this is a, you know, where does, where does any belief about politics come from?
You know, we like to think we cooked up our own opinions.
We didn't.
They come from the media.
So the media has literally brainwashed Democrats into being idiots, in effect, and Dean Phillips is calling them out.
You're operating under a delusion, and if you can't see that Biden's the wrong candidate, you're clearly just not using your rational brains.
Is he right?
Yes, yes, that's totally right.
If you're voting for Biden and you have an alternative, and he's an alternative, I mean he walks and he talks and he makes sense so far.
Yes, you're just delusional.
There is no way that Biden can win unless there's a lot of cheating that goes on.
And more to Dean Phillips's credit, he talks about he saw a MAGA crowd waiting for a rally.
It was across the street from where he had an event in, I guess it was Iowa or New Hampshire?
New Hampshire, I guess.
And he said he spent some time talking to the MAGA people, and do you know what he found out?
Well, everybody who's a MAGA person knows.
So here's a guy who's a major Democrat, and he sees a bunch of rabid Crazy mega-people waiting for the big mega-Trump-fascist-Hitler rally!
And when he talked to them, you know what he found out?
Oh, these are nice people.
Now, that's something that 100% of mega-people know.
Yeah, if you talk to them one-on-one, these are just nice, reasonable, working class, often, sometimes retired, just people.
They're nice people.
And Dean Phillips actually acted a little surprised by that.
Why?
Because he watches Democrat news.
And the Democrats probably told him that they're all basically, you know, evil demons working for, you know, Beezlebob or something.
And then he talks to them.
It's like, wait a minute.
My news sources are not lining up with people who just want a good economy and a safe country.
Not making sense.
All right.
Looks like, as Glenn Greenwald points out, that Congress is pulling out all the stops to fund Ukraine.
So they're doing all this desperate, urgent maneuvering to get it funded.
They're holding border security as a hostage.
And as Greenwald points out, when was the last time you saw Congress fighting this hard for America?
Now, I get that their argument is if Ukraine falls, it's bad for America, bad for Europe.
I get it.
But it's kind of one or two steps away from being something that affects us.
Why don't you see Congress working on, let's say, the border problem, for example?
Why aren't they putting this kind of creativity and massive effort into solving our direct, immediate, existential problem?
Because they're largely worthless.
And I assume they're corrupt.
The only explanation for our policy in Ukraine, I think, is corruption.
Now, the other arguments have some weight.
I do think there's something to, you know, if Putin got away with whatever he wanted, he might try more things.
There's something to that.
That's not a nothing.
Um, there, there's something else going on.
It does look like, I believe the people who say that Ukraine has been the bad people's piggy bank forever.
So I believe the business model looks like this.
There are Democrats who, uh, get us into wars.
We don't need to get into with good arguments that sound good enough to get into the war.
And then the public has to pony up a zillion dollars for various military things that are poorly accounted for.
And that people who are in that world can make gigantic amounts of money in a very short time because the accounting is poor for where the money goes.
So I think our wars are all optional wars lately.
They seem to be optional wars from profiteers who are driving the model.
That's what it looks like.
All right, there's an interesting study by a fellow named Roy Spencer.
You need to know that he's a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
So he would be leaning right, which is important to the story about climate change.
But here's what he came up with.
So he's a qualified scientist, right?
He's not just a guy writing an article.
So he's in the field.
And he says that climate models that guide energy policy do not even conserve energy, a necessary condition for any physically based model of the climate system.
Now, I don't know exactly what that means, but I think he means that if you run the model and it doesn't assume that the, I don't know, environment stored any energy somewhere, then it must be flawed.
I don't know exactly what that means, but what he did was he looked at all the existing climate models.
And he determined that they're nowhere near the actual temperature, and that the climate models are way above the actual observed temperature, and they have been for years.
And what he says is, quote, well, he showed that the observed rate of global warming over the past 50 years has been weaker than the predicted by almost all computerized climate models.
So he says there's a specific logical reason why all the models are bad.
And now, those who believe that the climate models are good, here's the trick that fooled you.
It's called hindcasting with lots of different models.
Now, if this is the first time you've heard this, it's going to make you really mad.
Some of you have heard it before from me.
So, let's say you've got a hundred different climate models, and they all use different variables and techniques.
Some of them are wildly off.
Some of them, by just chance, are going to be close.
So what you do is you come up with a new model today, and then you test it against the history.
So you say, if this model had existed 50 years ago, would it have accurately, you know, tracked the actual temperatures we're measuring?
Now, if it does, you say, I got a good model, because it would have worked for 50 years in a row.
Therefore, there's a good chance it'll keep working.
That's logical, right?
Does that make sense to you?
If you had a model that you created today, and you could know for sure from our past data, that if we had created it 50 years ago, it would have accurately predicted our temperatures.
So that's a good model.
Now, most of you are going to say, well, that does make sense.
If it worked for 50 years in a row, That's really a well-tested model, isn't it?
Nope!
Don't fall for that one.
That's like one of the most classic, I guess, tricks.
Here's why that doesn't make sense.
If you have a hundred models and they all predict different things, some of them are going to be, by coincidence, close to the actual.
And you will talk yourself into thinking that the reason that one model is close to the actual is because it's a valid model.
Nope.
If you took a bunch of pennies and threw them on a checkerboard, there would be a penny that landed on, you know, most of the squares.
And it doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean pennies know where a square is.
It doesn't mean, let's say some of them landed more on red than black squares.
It wouldn't mean that pennies prefer red squares.
It's just a pure statistical fact.
If you've got a hundred past models, some of them are going to be close.
It doesn't mean they're predictive.
So that's the part that throws you.
You say, well, if it predicted for 50 years, clearly it will predict for the next one or two.
Nope.
No, it's just some were going to be on target and some weren't.
But if you check back in another 50 years, it's almost impossible to imagine that the one that had worked for the first 50 years is the same one that's working 50 years later.
Because it never worked in the first place.
It was only coincidentally on target.
Just a coincidence.
Right.
So Roy Spencer makes, I think, that point and debunks the climate models.
So everything you knew about the climate and the economy and everything else was fake.
Yeah.
And I believe that 2024 is going to be incredible.
Not just for what it's going to do to our brains.
You know, it's going to scramble our brains pretty good.
But everything seems to be trending toward a solution, even though it might be at its worst point at the moment, like immigration.
But immigration is clearly trending toward a biological solution, meaning men will just say it's over and they'll ignore their government if they need to, to get it done.
I think the economy is going to improve.
I do worry about debt.
I just don't understand how we can survive the debt and still have low inflation.
So there's something about economics that nobody understands.
Because nobody can explain that, I don't think.
I've never seen anybody even try.
It's like completely inexplicable.
Right.
So, I think we have a huge corrective force coming.
I think that corrective force is largely male.
I think that free speech is breaking out everywhere.
I think that the X platform and Elon Musk saved America.
Saved America.
I don't think that's an exaggeration.
I think that we're heading actually into the crapper at 100 miles an hour because we didn't have free speech, which is the minimum for fixing anything in a country.
It's just the minimum.
So if you don't have free speech, you got nothing.
And now the X platform will be able to tell our government whose side the people are on.
At least the people who are paying attention.
On X, I think you're going to find that the support for Texas is through the roof.
Where else are you going to see that?
Do you think CNN's going to tell you, you know, we checked and the country really, really does back Texas on this?
I'll bet they won't.
I'll bet they won't report that.
There might be a poll here or there, but I'll bet they won't spend much time on it.
But Axwell, Ax platform will be telling you what the people think.
And I'm telling you right now.
And I'm telling you, if I want to say this clearly as possible, if it came to bloodshed, I sided with Texas.
It won't.
The odds of bloodshed are really small.
You know, unless there might be a weirdo or a crazy person or something, but we're not going to have armed military conflict between Texas and the rest of the country or the government.
All right.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very positive about the coming year.
Uh, I think China is on the decline.
I think, uh, Gaza will be, yeah, it's going to go the direction it had to go.
You know, the, the tough choices are what's been happening now, but the tough choices had to be made.
They just had to be made.
So, uh, everything looks bad, but it's trending in the right direction.
You know, Israel is going to be in a better situation after they're done than they were before.
Guaranteed.
I mean, they'll be in a better shape.
All right.
That's all I got for now.
And optimism is going to be my key word for the day.
And good luck with Texas.
I'm backing you 100%.
And Vivek, backing you 100%.
And those are my messages for the day.
Thanks for listening.
Your comments were, looks like they locked up a little bit.
