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, Fani Willis Whistleblower, Mark Zuckerberg Apology, Steve Milloy, Climate Change Psychology, Dr. Jordan Peterson, Global Warming Data, J6 Hearings Documentary, Elon Musk Pay Package, Judge McCormick, Chinese Hacker Danger, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
- - Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Would you like to take this up to a level that nobody can even understand?
Well, to do that, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a sty in the canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's happening now.
Go.
Oh, extra good.
One of the best.
Well, happy Black History Month.
I hope you're enjoying your coffee black in honor of the month.
Let's see how Oakland is celebrating Black History Month.
They're shuttering the only Denny's in Oakland.
Okay, that's probably a coincidence, but there's no more Denny's in Oakland.
Now the thing I'm most worried about is that this is not the first food-related place that was closed in Oakland.
And I live a short drive from Oakland.
So what happens when all of their food sources are closed because of crime?
And I'm just a few minutes away by car.
Stolen car.
And I'm completely made of meat.
I don't like where this is heading.
I do predict massive cannibalism in the areas surrounding Oakland within the next six months.
So better fight for your life.
Well, California is having a ballot initiative.
A ballot initiative is what we do because our government doesn't work.
So sometimes the voters will say, well, how about the government?
We'll just do it ourselves.
We'll make our own law.
It's called a budget.
No, it's called a ballot initiative.
And so California is doing a ballot initiative to make it illegal to do crime.
Okay, I might be paraphrasing it a little bit too much, but they want to strengthen the penalties for serial theft and fentanyl related crimes.
Yeah, you know, the very things that are destroying the city.
Well, all the cities.
And so the California citizens want to have a little more, a little more penalty for crime.
So it's possible.
That I will be able to survive living in California.
I'll tell you, it was tough yesterday.
So yesterday, the news said there was going to be this big Pineapple Express, you know, storm of storms.
And so I'm not going to show this to you closely, but It turns out that there was a force field around my town that prevented any heavy rain or weather.
For some reason, you know, the entire, you know, county after county was just, you know, deluged.
But there's this little island right there where I am.
Yeah, it's sprinkled a little bit.
No big deal.
Kind of a disappointment.
All right.
The New York Post is reporting that there's a Connecticut... No, there's a... Where is it?
There's a high school somewhere in New York that they have state-designated tampon dispensers in the boys' rooms.
So in the boys' bathroom, they had a state-mandated tampon dispenser.
That lasted 20 minutes until one of the boys or more of them ripped it off the wall.
He just ripped it off the wall.
Now, does anybody have sons?
Do any of you have young sons?
Let's say under 18?
There's no such thing as a young boy who's woke, is there?
There's basically, I suppose if you're LGBTQ maybe, but I don't think there are many woke boys.
There might be some woke girls.
I don't know.
But there aren't any woke boys.
That's just not even a thing.
We'll see if they get tamed later when they need to earn a living and live in the real world.
They'll get trained.
They'll get trained to obey, unfortunately.
Dave Rubin was interviewing Dr. Drew, and Dr. Drew said something that I completely agree with, but it's just shocking to hear it, you know, coming out of anybody else's mouth, but especially a doctor.
And he said, quote, I've realized that everything in the news is BS.
Everything.
There is nothing I can consume on legacy media that I can trust, and that is shocking.
It makes you wonder how long it's been going on.
I didn't realize how much speech was being That's kind of where I'm at.
I do agree that 100% of the news is motivated.
It's more like marketing, isn't it?
If you really think about it, the news is almost entirely marketing.
Because almost nothing makes it on the news unless somebody has a way to make money from it, directly or indirectly.
Even if it's just purely political, if your party wins because of that political point, Well, then you get to be in power and maybe you make more money.
So, pretty much all of the news is some kind of marketing for something else.
To imagine that its purpose is to inform you and make you a better citizen.
I don't know if it ever was that.
I guess that was probably an illusion at some point.
Well, my theme for today is that all of our data is bad.
Let's see if I can make that theme come true.
All of our data and everything in the news is bad.
So there's a survey that found that humans prefer AI-generated copy.
So they did a survey and found that a bunch of people preferred reading what the computer wrote over what humans wrote.
Does that sound like good data and something useful and told you something you should know?
Well, here's the part left out.
A little bit of context.
98% of all people who write, human beings that is, don't know how to write.
There are very few people who actually know how to write.
So if the computer does a better job than 98% of humans, that's just starting out.
It's beating the other 2% that's the hard part.
Yeah, you know what else?
Let's see, I'm 66 years old.
I could be about 90% of all living human beings in basketball.
Probably.
I'll bet I could beat 98% of all living human beings in basketball because they don't play.
It's just not their game.
If you've never played, you know, I could probably hit a shot better than you.
So I don't, I'm not too worried about the computer doing better than professional writers yet.
It could get there, but I don't think the current technology can do it.
All right, let's talk about Fonny Willis.
So Fonny is the one... I'm getting all the bad behaviors mixed up.
She's only one of the people in the news, but it's not complete.
She's just one of the people who took money from some source and gave it to her boyfriend.
Because there's at least two or three of those stories going on right now?
Yeah, because everything's broken and corrupt.
All right, yeah, so Cori Bush and Fonny are both having some issues about some money that they gave to boyfriends.
One from a campaign and one from public money.
Fonny's from the public money.
Taking it from the campaign, that's a different situation, I would say.
Anyway, now the Free Beacon has some audio of a whistleblower who is complaining to Fannie Willis about her top aide misusing federal funds.
And so what did Fannie do when the whistleblower said that her top aide was misusing federal funds?
If you guessed she fired the whistleblower, You're right.
She fired the whistleblower.
Those of you who subscribe to the Dilbert Reborn comic will find out that Dilbert's CEO has just hired a high-priced consultant that is probably his girlfriend.
So if you want to see how fast Dilbert can turn the news into a comic, Well, a lot faster than it used to be, because I don't have any syndication company to get in the middle.
So if you subscribe to it either on the X platform or the Locals platform, you already saw it.
So what do you think about this story about Fonny Willis firing a whistleblower and maybe allegedly giving money to her boyfriend to prosecute Trump?
Well, you know what I say about that?
It all sounds a little funny to me.
I told you all the news is funny.
This is the funniest story I've read in a while.
It's very funny.
All right, moving on.
Have you seen some stories that suggest that dementia can be transmitted to another person?
Alzheimer, I think, and dementia.
Has anybody seen that science?
I'm not sure I believe it yet, because I don't believe anything that's in the news.
But there is some suggestion that you can, in some special cases, dementia can be transmitted.
I don't know how that's possible, but maybe.
And then, of course, you've heard the old thing about you are the average of the five people you spend time with.
Have you heard of that?
I forget who said it first.
You are the average of your five closest friends or something.
And I was thinking, maybe we have a reason to understand why Corrine Jean-Pierre can't speak.
Because the people she spends the most time with would be President Biden and Vice President Harris.
And I'm telling you, if dementia can be caught, she's probably got a good dose of it.
Because here's what she said today, and I quote Corrine Jean-Pierre.
Look, what we want to make sure, and what FAA wants to make sure, and it is their priority that we make the safety, obviously, the safety of Americans as they fly across the country, obviously, and beyond, is safe.
End quote.
You know, but what I think is that, sure, Americans might be able to fly safely, but are they unburdened by what has gone before?
And is there a Venn diagram that could explain this better?
Yeah, I just feel sorry for Corinne.
She has to be around people who are going to give her dementia.
Well, here's some more fake news.
The Hill is reporting a new survey.
That if President, former President Trump is convicted on any of the serious counts, not counting the, what do you call it, the civil suit, that's different, but if he gets convicted on any of the criminal ones that are brewing, according to the Hill, his popularity or his poll results will plunge compared to Biden.
So, does that sound like a legitimate survey?
So they found out that if he's convicted, people would be less likely to vote for him.
Does that sound like something that they can determine with a poll?
Okay.
Let me tell you how to rig a poll.
Now, I'm not saying this poll is rigged.
I'm going to tell you how it's done, and then you can look for it in this poll and any others.
This is how it's done.
It's how you ask the question.
Consider these two questions to get to the same place.
You're trying to find out what will happen if Trump is convicted of a crime.
And then how will people vote?
Two ways to ask the question.
Number one, would you vote for a criminal for president?
Would you vote for a convicted criminal?
Do you know what's wrong with that question?
The question makes somebody make a statement about who they are.
It's really a question about the voter.
Are you a person who would support a criminal?
No!
If a live person is asking me, like a real living person, would you vote for a criminal for president?
No!
Are you crazy?
Who's gonna vote for a criminal for president?
Now here's another way to ask the same question.
Suppose you said, do you prefer Biden or Trump for president if Trump had been guilty of one rigged conviction in our weaponized justice system?
Do you prefer Biden or Trump if Trump is convicted by the weaponized justice system that Biden is using to keep Trump out of office?
Do you think you get the same answer as would you support a criminal for president?
Now, I don't think that the survey they're mentioning asks the question either of those ways, but they're both valid.
They're both ways to get at that question.
So the specific way they ask the question, but also the specific time they asked it, is going to get you whatever answer you want, you know, based on how you word it.
But the other thing that Democrats consistently get wrong, and a lot of other people too, is they conflate the present with the past and the future.
In the present, if you're just thinking about Trump alone, Do you like him better if he's not convicted or convicted?
People will say, well, you know, given the choice, I'd rather a not convicted person.
But, if you said, alright, the conviction's over, he's not in jail, but the conviction's over, and now it's down to Biden versus Trump and you have to vote.
Well, now it's a different question, isn't it?
It's not about, are you an awesome person who would never vote for a criminal, or are you going to let Biden have four more years of this?
Open borders and God knows what.
So once it gets down to, all right, are you really going to vote for Biden?
A lot of people who cared about criminal conviction are going to say, you know what?
It was probably just a weaponized justice system.
I'll ignore that.
All right.
There's more.
There's information that coffee helps you lose weight.
Now, if there's one thing I can teach you about interpreting science, and this is important, so if you don't listen to this tip, you'll be poorly served in the future.
If you see a scientific study that agrees with what you would like it to be, That's called valid science.
Valid science.
Proof, really.
I call it a fact.
So when there's a study from people I don't know who use the system I don't know for a process I don't know, in a study that probably has no more than a 50% chance of being reproduced, when they tell me that coffee helps me lose weight and it's good for me, I say, that's science.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's what I call quality science.
Right there.
Let's talk about Zuckerberg and some of the other social media people.
They had to appear in Congress to defend the horrible things that their platforms are doing to children.
Which they are.
And Josh Hawley tried to embarrass Mark Zuckerberg by asking him to get up and apologize to the family members of people whose children apparently had been victimized because of Facebook or Meta or Instagram.
And he did.
To his credit, Zuckerberg immediately stood up with no objection, faced the family members of the tragic children who were lost, and said that he was sorry for their losses.
Now, first of all, it was purely for theater.
Didn't make any difference.
I thought it was a messed up thing to do, honestly.
I did not appreciate Josh Hawley's showboating.
I like Josh Hawley on a lot of things.
He's a pretty solid politician.
But that wasn't necessary.
You know, I want to be on Josh Hawley's side.
Because I think there's a real danger on the platforms.
So I agree with him on policy.
But don't do that to a citizen.
Don't do that to an American citizen.
He's not an elected official.
How about treating him with a little bit more respect than that?
Even if you disagree deeply, I just don't think that was respectful.
I think that was below the office, frankly.
It was below the institution and the office.
But I would note that Zuckerberg handled it cleverly by not really offering an apology at the same time that people imagined it was an apology, so they heard it as an apology.
So it's sort of one of those green needle... Damn it, what's that audio illusion?
Green needle.
You can hear two different things with the same audio.
Brainstorm and green needle.
So it was one of those.
Because if you watched it live, you said to yourself, hey, there he is apologizing.
And then you listened to his words, and then the people talking about it said, well, there he is apologizing.
And so your brain said, there he is, he's apologizing, because they just said he's apologizing, and there's words coming out of his mouth, so it sounds like apologizing to me.
But he didn't.
I'm not saying he should, or shouldn't.
I'm just saying that he said he was sorry for their loss.
Now here's how you know it's not an apology.
You could replace him with me, just randomly.
Just pick a person out of the crowd and say, Zuckerberg, could you just step aside for a minute?
We'd like to randomly replace you with another citizen.
Um, Scott?
Okay.
Come over here.
Now face, face the parents who've lost their children.
Is there anything you'd like to say?
And I would say, well, I wasn't expecting this, but you don't doubt that I'm here.
I would like to say that I'm genuinely sorry for all of your losses.
And I would be quite serious about that.
So, it's not really an apology if everybody in the world could have said the same thing and it would have sounded the same.
It's not exactly taking responsibility, which is sort of key to an apology.
An apology without taking responsibility is a nothing.
Nobody asks him if he feels bad that, you know, there are victims.
I'm sure he does.
He's not a monster.
It's a husband apology.
So, a few other people called that out.
Apparently, according to Linda Iaccarino, CEO of X, last year X suspended over 12 million accounts for violating, I think it's something about children policy, and it's up from 2.3 million that were removed in 2022.
So they've just vastly increased the amount they're removing.
Now, I don't know how much gets through.
I mean, if you remove 98% of it, Is that even going to make a difference?
Or is the 2% going to be so much that it's like nothing happened?
I don't know.
Don't know.
But I'll tell you, we don't know exactly what's going on online except it's bad for kids.
Now, you may say to yourself, Scott, What did this hearing accomplish?
Because we have this serious problem that is ruining the lives and literally killing, in some cases, children at an alarming rate.
So did anything get done?
Of course.
Of course.
That's why we have a government, to get stuff done.
So among the things that they got done were we humiliated a citizen into a fake apology.
That wasn't going to happen on its own.
Then there was a hearing.
There was a hearing.
That's not nothing.
And then the hearing, with any luck, might produce a report.
And then the report It might be used to craft some legislation that has a poison pill in it.
You know, poison pill is something you include so that nobody can vote for it.
And then there maybe won't be a vote because somebody will hold it up for procedural reasons.
But if there is a vote, it won't be approved because of the poison pill.
And then when it's not approved, it'll become a campaign issue for one of the sides.
So you're thinking that nothing happened.
It's like, oh, I don't think anything's gonna happen.
That's not true.
You got a fake apology, a humiliated person, you got a hearing, you got a report, you probably have some fake legislation with a poison pill, and you might get a campaign issue out of it.
So that's not like nothing.
Come on.
Stop treating it all cynically, like absolutely fucking nothing happened because nobody really cares about your dead kids.
Because you know what?
The government doesn't care about your dead kids.
I learned that the hard way, because fentanyl's still coming in, folks.
Steve Malloy, who He writes and posts a lot about climate change.
He's a skeptic of the alarmist view of climate.
But he says that the, that the climate hoaxes, or the, yeah he calls it the climate hoax, the hockey stick claim is being debunked, he says.
Now you might not know, That climate scientist Michael Mann, I think I have this right, but fact check me on this, is in a lawsuit against Mark Stein.
I think it's happening in Canada.
And the issue is that Mark Stein may have said some things about Michael Mann's sciencing that Michael Mann thinks is lawsuit worthy because he would say that his science is good and he's an honest guy and he did good work.
And that maligning him in public should have consequences.
However, in defense of Mark Stein, it looks like a Wharton statistician was brought in, Dr. Abraham Weiner, who testified under oath that the hockey stick is bullshit, and that the data is bullshit, and the interpretation is bullshit.
Now, did it take long For other people to weigh in on this.
Well, Dr. Jordan Peterson weighed in very quickly, and he talked about how the climate change thing is being debunked.
Well, that caused a science student, somebody whose profile says they're a science student, Dan Vandenbroek, and he wrote a lengthy Reply to Dr. Jordan Peterson.
And he says that although, and by the way, as a public figure, if you really want to annoy a public figure, start your criticism this way.
We hate it.
Well, you know, you do a lot of good things in this other field.
Oh my God, I hate that.
Oh, do I hate that?
Because everything that follows that is gonna be fucking stupid.
You know it is.
So this guy's gonna go after Jordan Peterson for being, you know, an expert in one field of science, but not climate science like he is.
So he's going to point out that, you know, although your insights in psychology have been invaluable to many, blah, blah, but your reliance on figures such as Steve Malloy, and then he'll talk about how Steve Malloy is known for his ties to oil and tobacco industries.
I don't know if I don't know about any of that, if that's true.
But I do assume that everybody who's involved has some kind of tie to somebody.
I don't think there's anybody who's really completely untied to anybody who has any political or financial interest.
And blah, blah, blah.
So he blinds Steve Malloy with, you know, generic stuff, nothing specific.
And then, let's see, then he says you have a lack of nuance on these topics, and he complains about How Jordan Peterson tweeted that there's global greening because of CO2, and that therefore CO2 might be helping the planet more than hurting, because greening is increasing.
But the science student points out that Jordan Peterson and others are leaving out that although it is greening, that's true, CO2 is going up and the planet is greening, but it's not because of CO2, it's because of better land management.
To which I say, but it's still getting greener?
Yeah, but not because of CO2, because of better land management.
And then I say again, but it's still getting greener.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but not because of the CO2.
No, it's because of better land management.
And then I say, I accept your frame, and you're saying that those two things together, or maybe even just the land management, is making everything greener.
Yes, I am.
But it's not because of climate change.
Okay.
Do you even hear yourself?
Can you even hear what you're saying?
Because if there's a problem that's just making us happier, why are we complaining about it?
Does it matter why it's getting greener?
It doesn't matter why.
It just matters that it's not getting ungreen.
That's what matters.
All right.
Anyway, here's my take on this.
Yes, Dr. Jordan Peterson is not an expert on climate science.
However, Dr. Peterson is looking at more science than this guy, because psychology is also a science.
Some say you can't reproduce it, but there's still some science there.
Specifically, The science of mass hysterias, and the science of how people can be influenced, and even more importantly, the science of how economics is basically psychology, with money.
Right?
The study of economics.
So this young man can't understand why somebody as smart as Jordan Peterson wouldn't go with the consensus of scientists and climate science.
Because, I mean, how could all these people be wrong?
There's actually still somebody in the world who believes that if all the scientists agree, or 90% or 95% or whatever it is, that therefore you know something.
Oh my goodness.
This is probably what Dr. Drew was when he was the age of this young man.
Still believing that if the consensus of science was heavily weighted in one direction, that told you something useful.
We're a long way from that world.
And so my take on this is that the climate alarmists are using one less science than I am.
Does that make sense?
I'm kind of copying Dawkins.
Dawkins says he doesn't believe in God.
But really, he's a lot like the believers, because he disbelieves all of the other gods that they also disbelieve, and he's just one god short of being the same opinion.
All right, now he says it like it's funnier.
In my case, I'm being more serious.
If you looked at the science of climate change, and it's the only science you looked at, You'd be missing the picture.
Because the science of why you think what you think, psychology, is at least half of the story.
So you're one science short if all you did is look at climate science.
Now, I know climate science includes chemistry and physics, so it's a bunch of science in there.
But you're still one science short if you don't understand how all the Economic incentives of the entire industry are pointing in the same direction, and therefore the psychology of people involved would be to believe something that the evidence doesn't suggest, because cognitive dissonance and or self-interest would drive them strongly in that direction.
If you don't understand how easily that can happen, i.e.
maybe it happened in the pandemic, then you're one science short.
So don't tell me I'm anti-science.
I'm using more science than you.
Not less.
I'm accepting everything you said about climate change did really come from scientists.
And then I'm looking at what the psychologists would say about scientists who are in this situation.
And I use both sciences to come to my decision.
If you only used one science, you're a science short.
Here's another thing I told you.
I have experience in something called the real world, where I worked at big companies that acted like big organizations.
Now, once you've worked at a few different big companies, you realize there are some things that are just in common and has nothing to do with which company.
It's just you put a lot of people in one place, no matter what their mission is, and they start acting like a group instead of an individual.
So one of the things I told you was, Someday you would look back and think it's funny that science ever told you they can measure the temperature of the earth and get an average and compare it to the past years.
That's ridiculous.
You don't have to know anything about science to know that's not doable.
You can't do anything of that scale anywhere in any time.
No, it's not possible.
Now, I get that, you know, years ago in the 60s, they put a, you know, a rocket ship on the moon, but that's math and physics.
That's a whole, you know, different constrained set of variables, right?
Space is kind of easy compared to weather.
I mean, once you get into space, it's basically, what, a vacuum?
Well, a vacuum.
So that's got to make everything easier, right?
So here are some of the things we've learned about how they measure the temperatures from some critics.
You've heard about the heat islands where if your thermometer, let's say if you put your thermometer there 50 years ago and then since that time a Parking lot got put in or it's near a city or an airport or something.
The temperature is warmer wherever there's a bunch of concrete.
Where there's concrete or metal, it's just gonna be warmer.
So if the only thing that changed was that there was more construction around where the thermometers already were, Then what you would expect is that it would look like there's global warming, but all it was is that the thermometers are in the wrong place.
But if you're paying attention to the topic, you know that the people who measure the temperatures, they know that.
So they're aware of it.
So obviously what they did was they went out and they surveyed all the places that the thermometers were near heat sinks, and then they replaced them or moved them.
So that makes sense, right?
So, how good did they do?
Well, the critics went out and measured and counted all the places and then checked to see if they were near heasings.
89% of the thermometers were still near a heat island.
89% of the thermometers still, like right now, are next to a heat island.
No, there was never any hope that you could measure the temperature of the earth.
It's ridiculous.
No, no.
In fact, it's entirely possible that all of the warming is just that.
I don't know.
And then if you measure the satellites, if the satellites are done for the temperature, you don't have much history.
So the satellites have only been doing their thing since the 70s, maybe?
So then you'd have to splice it together with some other way of measuring it before that, and if they were not comparable, it might look like things have gone up lately, when in fact you're just bad at measuring stuff.
Here's another measurement problem.
Apparently the thermometers are looking for the high of the day and the low of the day.
So that's all they're measuring, the high and the low.
Do you think that gets the job done?
No!
Because it turns out that there are these temporary biases.
So in other words, let's say you're not too close to an airport, but there's an airport down the road or something.
A shift in the wind could take your already high temperature, zing it up a degree or two, and then the wind changes and it goes back to where it was.
So what was the temperature?
Did it reach a new high?
Or did the wind blow?
See, you're not even close.
To having the right technology in the right place long enough and a low enough level of complexity that you can know you can do it right, we're nowhere near human beings being able to measure the temperature of the Earth and do it over time and know what's changing.
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying the world isn't getting warmer, and I'm not saying that humans have no role in it.
I'm saying that if you think you can measure it, that's crazy.
And everybody who's had any experience in big companies and doing any kind of data-related work, they'll all tell you the same thing.
I'll bet there wasn't a single data budget analysis I ever did in my entire corporate career that was accurate or real.
You don't even try, really, because it's not an option.
If doing it accurately and real was an option, I would have done that.
I would have been fired.
Because really, you have to do what your boss wants it to be.
If you come up with an outcome that makes your boss unhappy, you've got to go back and do it.
Do it a different way.
So I would say that maybe the jig is almost up for the science community in the climate science world And by the way, who knows what the actual danger is, but I don't trust any of the science.
All right.
There's a PBS documentary talking about the famed January 6th committee that held all those hearings.
And although we knew this, it's just shocking to see it put together in a documentary, that the January 6th committee people hired the former president of ABC News, James Goldston, to produce it like a miniseries.
So he had the idea that you need to have the drama and the pageantry and the showmanship and drag it out in the right order so that we have the maximum psychological impact on the public.
To which I say, is that why you do hearings?
To manipulate the public?
I thought the point of the hearings was to find out if something bad had been done.
Were we trying to look for criminal activity to see if there might be some justice that needed to be applied?
Where's the part about their main, apparently their main focus was literally propaganda.
And they're so proud of it that they're even talking about it on camera.
It's like, oh yeah, we were real concerned about how How this came across, so we hired somebody to really package it up like a TV show, so we could really brainwash and propagandize the American people.
And man, we did a good job of it.
We're quite happy about it.
Yeah.
We knew it.
The part that's new is that they're bragging about it in a documentary.
Like they think it's okay.
This isn't okay.
This is so not okay.
Totally not okay, and it's a documentary where they're bragging about it, and then probably would do it again All right, here's a tiny story that could be an interesting story I don't think anything's gonna come of this, but we'll see apparently before Joe Biden Got to the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin fired when he went over there in person and
There were some drafts of speeches in which he was talking about that situation that some people say, but we don't have confirmation, his early speeches may have been in conflict with him saying that everybody wanted to fire this guy and that, you know, he just did what everybody wanted.
So, I would say I wouldn't get too excited about it, but the number of Krakens that are out there that sound like they could be something, There are a lot of them now.
Probably most of them will turn into nothing.
But I guess the White House is just refusing to produce said document if said document exists.
And if it does exist, I'm sure they've destroyed it by now.
Because the penalty for destroying it, apparently, is nothing.
But the penalty for giving something embarrassing to the other side would be even worse.
So what am I looking at?
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
So let's talk about the first city on the moon.
I saw somebody tweeting the question, you know, someday there'll be a first city on the moon.
What should it be called?
If you had to name the first city on the moon, what would you call it?
I have a suggestion.
Moscow.
Yeah, Moscow.
No?
Elonia?
Elongate?
Yeah, if it has any kind of a gate, it would be the Elon gate.
All right.
Most of you already heard the story about Musk being turned down for his $55 billion pay package that he negotiated with the board back in 2017 or 18.
And here's what maybe you didn't know, that it was turned down because it was seemingly unfair and he had too many friends on the board.
Here's some more background to that.
The judge, it's always exactly what you think it is.
It's exactly what you think it is.
There's a judge who turned it down, was, let's see, Judge McCormick, who used to work with Biden's top donors, and was, Nominated by Biden's close friend.
And Hunter Biden claimed to personally know every judge on the Delaware Chancery Court.
So that's actually in recording.
When he was threatening a Chinese partner, he told them that he would take him to court and he knows every member personally of the Delaware Chancery Court.
Right.
So Delaware is basically owned by the Bidens.
And so this is the place that they found a weakness they could go after Musk.
So every bit of this is corrupt.
It's exactly what it looks like.
The Bidens are corrupt owners of Delaware.
Delaware is where a lot of corporations put their paperwork, anyway.
It's a common thing.
And so they found this weakness that they own Delaware, so they could make Delaware cost Musk $55 billion.
Now, Musk, not to be defeated by such bullshittery, has decided that he's, um, he did a little survey on X and, uh, they suggest he move his corporation to Texas.
Now, um, and apparently he's gonna do that.
Now, some have said that there should be an easy way to port your corporation to another state.
I think Musk may have said that.
But there should be some kind of technology or service or process where I could just call somebody and say, hey, I'm incorporated in Delaware.
Send me the paperwork to make it Texas.
And then I just sign something.
And then it's just Texas.
So if that existed, and I knew the ins and outs, I would move my corporation immediately.
Because I think Delaware has to be broken.
I think Delaware has to be just bankrupted.
Treat it like Gaza, basically.
If Delaware is going to fuck the rest of the country, well then fuck Delaware.
You can just drown in the ocean.
Your whole fucking little state can go to shit, as far as I care, if you're going to let your politicians or even your appointed people do this.
Totally unacceptable.
And if every corporation moved out of Delaware and sent them back to the Stone Age, I'd be fine with it.
Not really, I'm just a little mad about it.
What I think will happen is that Musk will renegotiate and he will get reinstated probably when he gets back in Texas.
Now what is not reported is that when his initial pay package was put together, It was considered by smart people the most risky pay package any CEO ever did because his odds of making a penny were very low.
His odds of making a penny, a penny literally, were low.
Very low.
But he killed it.
He 10-timesed it by now.
So the odds of him doing that, 10-timesing a brand new thing that is in the industry where almost everybody goes out of business, it was a very fair agreement that everybody fully understood.
So I don't think the basis for overturning it has any basis at all.
All right.
Energy drinks are bad for kids, says a new study.
It's bad for their brains.
They have more mental disorders.
And imagine you're a teenage kid now.
If you have like a 15 year old, just imagine him.
He's got a phone in one hand with a TikTok destroying his brain.
He's got a vape in his other hand, destroying his brain, and sitting next to him is his energy drink, destroying his brain.
That would describe maybe half of all the teenagers.
I'll bet at least half of them are doing all three every day, or something like that.
I don't know what the vaping ratio is, but it's terrible.
So, we really don't give a shit about kids anymore, do we?
Did we ever?
Did we ever care about the well-being of children?
I mean, we're basically ripping their balls off and, you know, letting them vape and use their phone all day at work.
We're letting them have TikTok and, you know, we're shipping fentanyl in because we can't seem to figure out how to stop it.
We can stop it.
But we don't try hard enough.
It doesn't look like we care about children.
Look at the teachers' union.
The teachers' union is basically child abuse.
All the evidence suggests we don't care.
All the evidence suggests.
We definitely care as parents, but as a system, we definitely don't care.
All right, Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, warns us that Chinese hackers have a 50 to 1 advantage over our hackers, just so many of them, and they've already gotten into our major infrastructure and they could shut down the entire country and kill us all with a stroke of a pen.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that they're already in all of our systems and they can shut down everything, like critical infrastructure?
Basically starve the country if they wanted to.
Well, maybe.
But did they say that about Ukraine?
Wasn't Russia going to take down everything in Ukraine with their great hacking?
And as far as I know, Ukraine had no real problems.
Am I wrong?
So I'm not sure we know how to predict this stuff.
We might be terrible at predicting it, because we're also terrible at knowing in advance how we would address it.
Maybe we're a little bit better at recovering.
I don't know.
It's scary as hell.
And then also, at the same time that the FBI was testifying about how much China has hacked the United States, A Russian group of hackers were hacking data from the FBI.
That's right.
While Christopher Wray was testifying about the Chinese hacking everything, a bunch of data was being hacked by a Russian ransomware group, and they got a bunch of data that includes data from the FBI.
And that's a lot of it.
I don't know exactly what data they got from the FBI, but none of that sounds good.
Is this bad news or good?
I contend that we humans can't tell the difference between good news and bad.
Do you know how I read it?
Why would you ever use a nuclear bomb?
If this is real, why would you ever use a nuclear weapon?
And we have mutually assured destruction if it's real.
If it's real that China is already, you know, burrowed into our system and we can't get him out, I feel like it's real that we've done the same thing to them.
In Russia, the same thing.
So, did we somewhat, without realizing it, drift into a situation where nuclear war is just sort of stupid?
Because even if you wanted a war of tremendous destruction, you wouldn't use a nuke.
You'd just push the button on your cyber machine and take them down.
But even an EMP doesn't make sense if you can take him down with a hack.
Because everybody would agree that if you had a choice, you would defeat your enemies in ways that could be easily recoverable.
For a variety of reasons.
So, you know, we might be better off.
It's entirely possible that this increased the ability of humankind to survive.
But it could also kill us all.
I have an idea that I just want to put out there.
Why is it that the United States doesn't have personal meetings with the Ayatollah and the leadership of Iran?
Now, I think you're gonna say, but, but, we've tried, and they say no, or you're gonna say, but, but, you can never meet with terrorists, or, but, but, somebody wouldn't like it, or, there's some reason, right?
Or they'll refuse to talk.
Do you think any of that applies to Trump?
I feel like Trump could say, here's the deal.
I think Trump could do something that would be the greatest thing in human civilization.
He could tell Putin and Xi and the Ayatollah, I just want to be with you guys and maybe, you know, one European Union person or NATO or something, just to get Europe involved.
And just say, look, sit in a room and you say, there are four people who can destroy the world, maybe five.
It's us.
If the five of us decide not to destroy the world, and we decide to live in peace, we could probably work it out.
Because we don't really want to occupy China.
We don't want to occupy Russia.
We sort of want to have our own domain of influence.
We know you're going to have your own domain of influence.
And we should just divide up the world now.
Just divide it up.
And then you said to yourself, Scott, you're so naive.
You can't divide it up because we don't agree who owns what.
What are you going to do about Taiwan?
How are you going to divide that up, Scott?
I could do that.
Here's how.
I say we all agree that China and Taiwan should be one country.
So we'll make a 100-year plan to put them together.
Because in 100 years, nothing's predictable.
Nothing's predictable.
We might have no need for Taiwan semiconductors.
China mainland might be a democracy by then.
Taiwan might have turned into a dictatorship by then.
Maybe technology makes governments unnecessary.
Maybe the robots have changed everything.
Maybe AI is doing everything.
So you finesse it because you can't solve it.
You just say our plan will be in 100 years Taiwan will be all part of China.
One way or another, if 100 years later it's a bad idea, you just don't do it.
That's it.
You just renege.
Well, it's been 100 years and still we think we should be a separate country.
So you just do it.
But here's what I think Trump could do that no one in history could do.
He could put him in the same room, and he could say, we literally, the people in this room, can decide the future of humanity.
I think we should decide to all live.
I think China could do great if you just stop messing with us, and we can stop messing with you, and you don't try to undermine us.
How about we stop trying to overthrow Putin, and Putin, you stop trying to do whatever it is you're doing to us.
Now, I think the big complainers to that would be American.
Because I think a lot of it is about our energy companies wanting to maximize their global influence.
I don't think it's really political.
So Trump is probably the only president who could piss off our own energy people and say, look, we won't bug you, Russia.
Just go pull your energy out of the ground.
We'll compete on level playing field.
But we're not going to try to take your energy or close you off from markets.
We're just going to try to out-compete you.
I think Trump could sell a grand bargain.
In a way that's similar to how he went to North Korea.
And similar to how his administration got an Abraham Accord.
He's a singular creature.
And when he walks into a room, everybody else in the room becomes a dealmaker.
Think about that.
When Trump walks in the room, the other leaders turn into dealmakers.
Because he's a dealmaker, and that's how you have to deal with him.
So he could actually change people into dealmakers, and I think he could sell a grand bargain, where we decide to have peace in the Middle East, Taiwan, and you just basically settle all of it.
Just settle all of it.
And, you know, some of it with a timer, saying, well, we can't settle Gaza, But we got this 50-year plan to do something, this or that.
Only Trump could do that.
Only Trump.
He could actually create something like peace till the end of time.
He could.
All right, here's my update on national debt.
And my update is always, why don't I understand this?
Why is it that when we thought we'd run up the debt to a trillion dollars, one trillion, we thought we were doomed, but now that it's thirty-five trillion, whatever it is, we're not doomed?
How could we be off by a factor of thirty-five?
Now, time value of money is not thirty-five, maybe it's more like ten.
But ten times bigger than a catastrophic number?
Why are we all alive?
Then I hear smart people who know more than I do say, but our debt to GDP is still lower than Japan and like way lower.
And Japan's not going under.
So as long as our GDP grows, we can handle ever increasing debt.
Now that's true if the rates are right.
So in other words, if the rate of growth of our debt is slower than the rate of growth of our GDP, we'll be fine.
But is that happening?
I feel like our debt is growing faster than our GDP, but I haven't looked into it.
I feel like there's no chance that that works.
But I saw Mnuchin acting like, well, you know, our debt to GDP is fine.
You know, we can't let it get higher, but, you know, we're in a zone where it's not going to kill us.
So, yes, our debt is greater than our GDP, but Japan's debt is even greater than our ratio of debt to GDP.
Like a lot.
It's a lot more, actually.
So I will just say, as Mnuchin says, as long as the United States has better currency than the other places, we kind of limp along.
But if anybody ever came up with a currency that was better than the dollar, we'd be in big trouble.
And I do see that that's a possibility someday.
Maybe a digital currency.
Alright, let's talk about Israel.
I'm not going to give you the number, because it's so unreliable, but Hamas is coming out with a new set of numbers for what they claim are the deaths, and claim are they injured.
Now, by any measure, it's way too many people being killed and injured.
So, from the human being perspective, we should all acknowledge that, you know, one death is too many, and this many is just, you know, an alarming, frightening figure.
But, if you don't see the play that's developing, you should.
Because if Hamas can lie that number up big enough, and they're doing a good job of it, they've got a number that essentially, it's checkmate, or check, with the Holocaust narrative.
In other words, it's going to be tough for Israel to be the special country who needs everybody's special attention, because the Holocaust once happened.
You can say more than once, because the Jews have had kind of a tough history.
If Hamas can succeed in propagandizing the rest of the world, which is not nearly as pro-Israel as you think they might be, to believe that the death count in Gaza is some ridiculously high number, that just completely kneecaps the strongest asset in Israel, which is they have this historical past that, in a way, it gives them a superpower.
Because people say, well, I understand that given your history, it makes sense that you'd be very concerned about security.
So anyway, Hamas is very close to winning the propaganda war simply by ratcheting up the number of people they claim died, whether that's accurate or not.
So that's why I'm not going to give you their number, because that would be helping them with their propaganda.
All right.
And I'll say again, the one and only way I can see this going is that Israel will keep the West Bank forever, they'll keep Gaza forever, they'll keep it under Israeli control, probably with some, you know, Saudi or Jordanian or Palestinian, you know, to do the picking up the garbage and the basic stuff of government.
But obviously Israel will keep military and security control.
There's no way they're going to give that up.
And if they get control of the schools, it probably takes them one or two generations to brainwash the kids to not want to destroy everything in Israel every day.
So, I think that's the plan.
Now, that would require 50 years, or whatever, of refugees, basically.
So, what do you do with the people who are displaced from Gaza?
I have no idea.
Yeah, obviously they can't kill them all.
They can't starve them.
They're not going to go to other countries.
But they're not going to go back to Gaza and just pick up where they left off.
And if they did, it would take years.
So what's going to happen?
I feel like they're just going to build a new civilization in tents, and the level of the tenting will improve until somebody builds a building, and then it'll just become its own little city.
So I think wherever they're at at the moment, probably in some big desert area, is probably where they'll be forever.
Or the first Mars colony that we call Moscow.
All right.
That's a tight hour of live streaming.
I'm going to leave it there.
Go do some things.
I've got special guests coming in a few hours.
Do you all know Zuby?
Zuby is doing a world tour, talking to people all over the world.
So he'll be stopping by.
And he will be the first in-person interview I've done in three years.
Have I done any in-person interviews since the pandemic?
I can't remember any, but he'll be here in the house.
And that's why he does better than other people.
Cause he goes to you and that's a pretty strong model.
All right.
Uh, yes, but that wasn't an interview per se.
Yeah.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, I will see you tomorrow.
Thanks for joining on the platforms of YouTube and RumbleNX.
