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, Apple Vision Pro, January Jobs Report, LBJ, Election Integrity, Vivek Ramaswamy, NYC Migrant Assistance, Female Empowerment, Female Societal Destruction, Elon Musk, Uncontrolled Migration, Reparations to Migrants, President Biden Unity Speech, President Dotard, Jailing Political Prisoners, Racial Remake Movies, President Trump, Trump J6 Trial Delay, John Bolton, Vaccine Excess Deaths, US Retaliatory Strikes, Iranian Proxies Struck, Trump Terrorist Strategy, Biden Terrorist Strategy, 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
Rum pum pum pum da da da da da da rum pum Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, here's all you need.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope beat of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Zip.
It happens now.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
So good.
So.
You know, I always complain about my microphone stand and my lights.
And I'm just going to put this out here.
I had to basically make my own microphone stand, and I wondered why nobody makes one that works the way you want it to, which is that it just sits on your desk, fully stable, and that's it.
Instead, have you ever seen how the professionals put a microphone like this in front of a person like me?
They'll put, you can see this on Tucker Carlson's show, they'll put a floor stand on the floor next to you and then it'll be a T kind of thing that connects to it that'll come across you and then they'll be here.
So they have like a bar that comes across the person sometimes.
So, not a boom.
I'm talking about a boom would come from above.
I'm talking about something that comes from the floor.
And all of these are crazy.
This is what you need.
Right here.
And this doesn't exist.
I had to buy this microphone and this stand and then separately find connectors to connect them because it doesn't come with the stand or the microphone.
So, and then what about my ring lights?
You know what a ring light is?
It looks like this.
The light is good, but every ring light I've ever bought, they put the control not on the device, but on the cable.
So here I've taken the cable and wrapped it around the device so that the control is close enough to the device that I can find it.
So I don't have to go fishing every time I turn it on.
Now, who makes this?
Who in the world would put the on button for this two feet away from the unit on a chord?
Who?
And why are they all like that?
There's not one person who said, you know what?
I will put this on the chord, but I've got an idea.
I'll put the on button sort of close to the unit that it turns on, but still on the chord.
No!
They have to put the turn on halfway down the chord.
Does that make any sense at all?
No.
All of those microphones are too tall.
So somebody said, Scott, you idiot, here's a whole bunch of microphones to do what you want.
Nope.
Every one of them is this tall.
Look for yourself.
You're not going to find one this tall.
This is the height you need.
They just don't make it.
It's weird.
Anyway, that's my complaining.
Let's talk about Joe Rogan allegedly signed a $250 million Spotify deal that allows him to put some of his stuff on the X profile, or X platform.
I don't know what any of that means.
Does that mean that Spotify will also benefit from any revenue from X?
Do they share it?
What exactly does that mean?
So we don't know what that means, but I'm glad that Joe Rogan is signing big multi-million dollar deals.
And what happened to his $100 million deal?
Is that already over?
Or did he renegotiate it?
Well, I have many questions.
So we don't know what's going on there.
Well, people are raving about the Apple Vision Pro.
And I've learned quite a bit about it today.
Number one, I've seen zero people complain about it giving them a headache.
Has anybody seen anybody complain about the Vision Pro giving them a headache?
Because that's the big problem with virtual reality.
I see a yes, no.
The number of people I saw who were raving about it didn't say anything about headaches or dizziness or anything.
Guy, you dizzy?
All right.
Yes with 30 minutes of use.
I got a no.
I got a yes.
All right.
Well, that's an open question.
It looks like there's a lot of yeses.
But what I didn't know until today is that it's not just VR, it's also AR.
AR, different than VR, and it probably wouldn't give you the same headaches, AR.
So AR adds things to your existing environment.
So you could, in theory, drive a car, but it would add some things to your environment, maybe some extra useful things.
But you could also watch a movie while you're driving a car, but don't do that.
That's definitely not recommended.
But the AR stuff looks kind of mind-blowing.
A lot of people are blown away.
You can basically put a big screen floating in front of you and just put a number of them around your environment so that you've got a giant theater of sports and you've got the stats on another screen.
You can manipulate it all with your fingers and stuff.
Very cool.
But the things we haven't worked through yet are the social part, because there are people now walking around with those glasses and doing stuff like this as they walk in public.
And why wouldn't you?
Because you're manipulating your personal environment.
But it looks kind of goody and maybe a little nerdy, but it's also apparently so well done.
The people are saying that the technology is just mind blowing.
So am I going to have to try these?
Am I going to have to try these out?
It was like over $5,000 out the door.
I don't know.
I feel like I'm going to wait a little while, so I'm not going to be the first week, but I'll probably get dragged into trying it.
Because part of what I do, since I talk to people in public about what's going on, I'm probably going to have to try it out.
Even though I don't think it's my thing, because I don't want to be in the unreal world that long.
Oh, the other thing I wonder is about glasses.
So I'm nearsighted, which means that if you put something as far away from me as the glasses, I could see them perfectly.
So in theory, I wouldn't need my regular glasses, right?
And I wouldn't need sunglasses either.
So I could go outside without sunglasses or regular glasses.
So that's interesting.
You need glasses?
No, I think you would need glasses if you were farsighted.
If you're nearsighted, I should be able to see anything up close.
I should be fine without glasses.
You have to order special inserts.
Hmm.
I might be wrong about that, but it seems to me I wouldn't need them.
It could be different based on people.
Yeah, they make you get inserts.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Well, I've tried that for snorkeling.
If you have vision problems and you snorkel, you can get snorkel lenses that are approximately your prescription.
But they give you a headache and it's just not fun because they're not exactly your prescription.
You know, they're just in the general area.
So now, all right, so there's a new machine.
I saw a post by Massimo that coffee shops are using the cameras in the shop And AR, in AI, to figure out which employees are making or are being productive.
So, you can see if, you know, one employee made 20 cups of coffee and the other one only did 5, etc.
Now, this would be the point at which the humans definitely become the machines.
Right?
So, if the AI is watching the humans and determining if the humans are working hard enough, That is the humans being the machines.
It should be the humans monitoring machines to make sure machines are working properly.
But now we flipped it.
Now the AI is going to monitor the human employees and judge them by their productivity.
That takes all of the humanity out of working.
All of it.
Because the human part of working is the part where you're not working.
You're chatting with your co-workers, you're messing around, right?
That's all the human part.
So now that will be removed.
You will literally just become a cog in the machine.
Well, as you probably heard, there was this jobs report that beat like crazy and added 350,000 jobs in January.
It beat what the experts imagined.
And so, therefore, I guess that's proof that the economy is doing well, huh?
Economy's all fixed.
Everything's good.
Jobs report's great.
Right?
Because all of our data is accurate, right?
Well, I don't know the details in this one, but some say that nearly all of these jobs are part-time jobs.
Do you know what that means?
It means all these people either got a job that didn't pay them enough to live, if it's their only job and it's part-time, or they had to take a second job because they weren't making enough to live.
This jobs report might be terrible news.
Some of it is government jobs, but not much of it, apparently.
So, how do you know the difference between good news and bad news?
Is it good news that we created all these jobs, or is it the worst news you've ever heard because everybody needs two jobs to do what one job used to do?
I actually don't know.
I legitimately don't know if this jobs report is good news or some of the worst news you've ever heard in your life.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what I do know.
I do know that these numbers were going to be good whether they were good or not.
I predicted it.
Now I've told you the closest the humans can get to knowing what's real is how well their worldview predicts.
So my worldview is that our economic data is largely fake and that the government that controls it would make it look extra good in an election year.
Here it is.
Now is it possible that it's actually Good.
Yes, it is.
But I have a worldview that predicted perfectly.
And guess what?
It'll work next time, too.
You can hindcast it.
You do whatever you want.
It's going to work.
The government who controls the numbers is going to tell you that the numbers look good in an election year.
That's just guaranteed.
All right.
So, let's see.
Here are some things that we now know that we didn't used to know.
I saw the Rasmussen Report talk about some... I think it was an AP or somebody was talking about how apparently it's known that LBG... LBG?
That LBJ cheated to win his Senate race.
Has anybody heard that?
That cheating was just a widespread, understood thing at the time.
And that everybody understood.
And they even knew who the boss was.
They knew how it happened.
They knew who was in charge of it.
Right?
They knew exactly the whole story.
So, I'm allergic to the truth.
I guess not enough exposure to it.
Okay, so we know that, I think we know, that LBJ's election was fake.
Now here's the question.
I was alive then.
How many of you were alive and old enough to remember that there was an election, who was running, and stuff like that?
I don't recall any time that the news told me that LBJ got to prominence, which allowed him to become vice president and then president.
I didn't know he got to prominence by a rigged election.
Nobody ever told me that.
Now, how about JFK?
Don't we now understand that it's common knowledge that he got elected by rigging something in, I don't know, Chicago or Ohio or something?
That's, my understanding is that's accepted history.
And that the mafia had some involvement and all that.
So, these are two things that happened in my lifetime.
I was alive when these two stories were just presented as the result of the democratic process.
Now on the live, when there are questions about the election, and the same people, you know, same jobs, I guess, that said that those prior elections were fair, when now we know they weren't, are saying that Biden's last election was fair.
How's it different?
Are the elections more fair now because of all of our controls?
Is it because we put in good controls so now we don't have to worry about fake elections?
I'm not aware of anything like that.
Because, best of my understanding, we don't have elections that can be even fully audited.
That's my understanding.
So why would it be that in the past few years we found out not only did our elections used to be fixed, apparently it takes about 30 years or so before you find out for sure or you admit it or it becomes part of the record, We know that the FDA, the CDC, the WHO, basically everything with letters has been corrupt for the last five years, six years, seven years.
We know that.
I mean, the FBI, the CIA, all the intelligence people, all corrupt.
The media, media completely corrupt.
And even the elections confirmed it used to be corrupt.
And yet we sit here like idiots, imagining that we live in a system where the election makes any difference.
If our elections are not rigged, it would be the biggest surprise in the world.
Now, I have to say, so I don't get banned, because we don't live where we have free speech, I'm not aware of any specific proof or evidence that any of our recent elections have been rigged.
I have no evidence of that.
But I didn't have any evidence during LBJ's time or JFK's time either.
I didn't have any evidence then either.
To imagine that these elections are fair, and have been recently, is really bordering on absurd at this point.
It would be the weirdest set of coincidences if the elections were fair, when everything else is not, and they used to not be fair, and not much changed.
How in the world are we supposed to believe in the elections?
How in the world?
2016, I think, is exactly what it looked like.
They didn't realize that Trump would do as well as he did because the polling was maybe a little weak.
It might be that that's all that happened.
It looks like it.
Anyway, New York Times has an opinion piece saying that Trump's running mate has got to be Vivek.
I don't read the New York Times because it's a paywall and I'm not going to pay for it.
But I will point out that I think all the smart people can see it at this point.
Does it feel to you like everybody who's really paying attention, they're all on the same page at this point?
It's sort of, Vivek's really sort of the obvious choice.
Anything short of that is going to be a little bit, not even a little bit, it's going to be very disappointing.
If Trump ended up picking some safe governor, I never heard his name, or her name, or worse, just as a diversity hire, that doesn't have the power of a vague, how are we going to be happy with that?
How are you going to be happy with that?
Now, I get that Carrie Lake has a lot going for her, but she doesn't have a Vivek-level, you know, power profile.
She's just really good at what she does.
But, you know, we haven't seen her in politics or run a major business like Vivek has.
All right.
Keep an eye on that.
I guess New York City wants to give a $53 million program to give prepaid credit cards to immigrants.
The ones who are recent.
And Eric Adams is wondering why everybody keeps coming to New York when they're paying them cash to come to New York.
So...
Does it seem to you that Democrats have a problem understanding systems?
As in, they understand goals.
Our goal is to make sure these people don't starve.
Got it.
Give them food.
But then the system can't possibly work.
Because then everybody comes in for some free food.
In unlimited numbers.
All right, so we're going to do more on that.
Yes, if you pay people to do something, there will be more of it, not less.
Now, I saw a post from JD Haltigan, PhD.
He's got a hypothesis, a theory he's been working on, that there are two kinds of people, basically empathizers and systemizers, and that women tend to be empathizers and men tend to be systemizers.
So in other words, if you want somebody to read the room, you're better off on average.
Of course, everybody's different.
You know, there's no universal guy or universal gal.
People are all different.
But in general, Women are going to be better at reading the room and emotions and nurturing and stuff like that, says JD.
And that men are more likely to think in engineering terms about how the whole system works.
Now, again, there are plenty of female engineers and there are plenty of men who can read the room.
So we're not talking about every man or every woman.
I just say that for the NPCs who have to rush in and say, but I know a person who's different from your general average.
And it's important that I note that because I'm an NPC.
So anyway, get that out of the way.
But, here's another way to say the same thing.
If women are empathizers and men are systemizers, you almost automatically get a goal versus system model, or a short-term versus long-term model.
Short-term, let's be nice to everybody, because we're nice people, and we like to be nice.
Long-term, if your system is just being nice to everybody, you're all dead.
So the systemizers say, hey, don't break the system or we're all dead in the long run.
And the empathizers say, but this person is hungry today, right now.
Why can't I just give them food?
I feel really bad for them right now.
So the right now is a goal.
And the system, you know, build it up for the long term, make sure you have a long term integrity of a system, that's more of a male-centric behavior, but of course, lots of exceptions.
So, the bottom line is, if women have more power in the country, it should, in theory, destroy the country.
Let me say it again.
If women, sort of in general, and again, Not every person is like every woman, and not every man is like every man, for the NPCs.
But in theory, everything we know about men and women on average should mean that as women gain more power in a society, it should destroy it.
In the long run.
Because they should favor short-term kindness and empathy over long-term systems that are a little more cruel.
You know, the free market?
It's pretty cruel.
Capitalism?
Pretty cruel.
The Justice Department?
Pretty cruel.
The borders being closed?
Pretty cruel.
But what do all those cruel things have in common?
In the long run, they work.
They are systems which we know work.
And what do we know never works?
Paying people to break the law.
Paying people to break the law has never worked anywhere in the history of humankind.
Anywhere.
But capitalism has worked in a lot of places.
You know, it has its problems, but it's worked in a lot of places.
So, and one of the things that is hard to say is that women are the problem.
And, you know, that's one of the benefits of having free speech.
I can say women are the problem.
And then the smart people can say, oh, you don't mean every single woman, obviously.
You're plenty of conservative women, et cetera.
And of course, I don't mean every woman.
But I still say women having power in society in general should lead to the destruction of that society.
That would be the most predictable outcome given biological differences between the genders, the sexes, let's say, not genders.
All right, Elon Musk is weighing in heavily on the interpretation of the Biden immigration strategy, and Elon said today, or yesterday maybe, that Biden's strategy is very simple.
Number one, get as many illegals in the country as possible.
Number two, legalize them to create a permanent majority, a one-party state.
How many of you say that's what's going on?
That the real plan of the Democrats is to get a whole bunch of Democrats in the country and then control it all with their one party.
I disagree.
I disagree.
I think we often make the problem on this and lots of other topics of looking at the outcome and assuming there's an intention.
The outcome is exactly that.
If you were gonna straight line it, I would definitely say the outcome of bringing in massive millions of people from other places has a very good chance of increasing the democratic control and turning it into a one party situation.
So there's no argument about the predicted outcome.
Are we on the same page on that?
That if we just keep doing what we're doing, It does look like it could lead to that.
Now, nothing is 100% predictable, right?
The future is usually a guess.
But so far, that makes sense.
That would be the outcome.
Now, here's where I differ.
I think that the situation is a whole bunch of people with different incentives.
There might be And probably is.
Some people are thinking exactly like this, and have power.
People in power say, you know what?
Just keep bringing them in, and we'll turn these red states blue, and we're done.
We control everything.
So I do think that that exists.
And when Elon Musk calls it out, I think he's accurate in that it exists, and there are people who have that point of view.
I think there might be so many other points of view that it's really just the average of all people operating under their self-interest as they see it.
For example, There are certainly lots of regular Democrats who support the open borders, who are not thinking of it in terms of voters.
Would you agree with that statement?
That there are plenty of people who just think it's a kindness, philosophical thing, and they might say, well, you know, this could get us more voters, but that's not really, that's not the idea.
It might happen, but that's not the point of it.
So, I think there are those people who literally just want this kind of world.
I think there is also a sexual element to it.
I do think that women, on average, are more likely to say yes to hordes of manly men coming in their direction.
I think that's actually part of the story.
It's not the whole part, but it's part of it.
I think that there might be something about the whole Soros organization that we don't fully understand that's not just about getting Democrats.
You know, he seems to have some bigger purpose that's not entirely clear to me.
We'll talk about him a little more later.
So my interpretation is that it might have that effect.
But that it's a lot of people operating under their own self-interest that just sums up to this.
And it might be that the people who have the most power are thinking of it in terms of votes.
That could definitely be.
So that would be very close to the Musk theory.
But I don't think that Joe Biden has a strategy.
I don't sense that he's in charge.
So I don't think it's his strategy.
So it would be somebody's strategy unknown.
So who?
Yeah.
And then you look at foreign influence.
Is TikTok friendly to immigrants?
I don't use TikTok.
If I go on TikTok, is it going to be a whole bunch of people saying, stop the immigration?
Or is it going to be a whole bunch of people saying, we must be kind to the immigrants?
If TikTok is telling us to be kind to immigrants and do a lot more of it, then China is part of the issue.
And I don't think that Democrats are necessarily coordinating with China about TikTok.
They could be just, you know, influencing in the same direction.
So it could be you got your Democrats who just think it's nice to be nice to immigrants.
You could have your political people saying, you know, the main thing I like about it is getting all these extra voters.
Could be, probably.
And it could be that China is saying, this is very disruptive to America, so keep sending over those, you know, keep it going.
And then Soros, who knows what's up with that situation.
So, that's my take.
It's true, but it's not the whole story, that there is a voter element to it.
Here's what I would do if I were Republicans.
You already see, That black Americans are revolting against the immigration because they see it directly affecting their paychecks, they think, and their facilities.
So, you know, there are stories of, you know, gyms that are turned over to the immigrants that used to be someplace that the inner city people could go at all hours of the night.
So, if I were Republicans, here's the play I would make.
I would say, you might win with these immigrant voters coming in, but we're going to take your black voters as a trade.
And here's how you do it.
You can tell black voters that the reparations got spent on immigrants.
Now that's not exactly how money works, because money is what we call a fungible.
So, you know, if I have a dollar in my pocket, I can kind of spend it on anything.
It's not like it was, it's not like it was dedicated to one thing, and then when I changed my mind, that one thing I can't have.
It's just money can be spent on whatever.
But it is real-ish that if you don't have extra money, you're not going to be considering reparations.
Is that fair?
If you don't have extra money, if you can't afford it, then reparations are off the table.
And at the moment, the cost of the immigrants is so high that I think any reparations conversation would have no chance.
So I would just, if I were a Republican, I'd say, look, they promised you reparations and then they gave it to the immigrants.
What I wouldn't say is if you vote Republican, you'll get some reparations.
I would say the Democrats already spent your money.
They hurt your paycheck with inflation.
They caused you to get two jobs.
They shut down your rec center, filled it with immigrants, and they took your reparations money and they're paying it directly right now.
To the migrants.
How would you like to be a black American and know that the migrant who's standing next to you is getting $1,000 a month from the government, not even a citizen?
That would hurt.
Yeah, if you were looking around and you saw your community was suffering, and you saw that money that could have gone your way, in your opinion, you know, but money's fungible, it's gonna hurt.
And you see people expressing very much that opinion.
So if you want to be persuasive, you find something that people are already thinking and feeling, and you boost it.
And I think that the black Americans are already thinking and feeling that they just got pushed down one more rung.
So imagine you're black American, and you feel that there's some kind of a hierarchy in the world, and that you're at the bottom, and that's affecting your whole community.
Now suddenly the migrants come in, and it would look to you Like they somehow they got a higher priority.
How does that feel?
Well, probably exactly like you think.
So I think Republicans can say, we can't stop the immigrants coming in right now.
We don't have the power.
But we can sure make you know that this isn't good for you, black Americans.
You need to get on the side that's going to stop this.
And we heard some, you know, anecdotally, some black Americans do seem to be switching over to Republicans and Trump in particular, because they say we had more money under Trump.
That might be the whole story.
We had more money under Trump.
If that's something that black Americans believe, that should be enough.
All right.
Alex Jones says he has a scoop here that there are two stories that seem to be converging.
This would be Alex Jones's take.
One story is that we've got all this facial recognition technology that isn't turned on because it wouldn't be right and proper to just be facially recognizing and tracking all Americans.
However, If you needed it to track the immigrant population, it would just sort of always be on, wouldn't it?
Because if your cameras are tracking facial recognition, and your purpose is to find out what the immigrants are doing once they're in the country, How are you not watching the rest of the citizens?
Because they have faces too.
So Alex Jones is suggesting that there's a possibility of a fake white supremacist attack that would give the cover for the facial recognition to be activated by the NSA, which would give them an excuse to monitor all citizens forever.
That's the sort of thing that you would have called crazy a few years ago.
I don't know if any of that's true.
I'm just telling you that Alex Jones is saying it's true.
And given that his track record has been weirdly better than average, it caught my attention because it's a pretty specific claim and he says his sources are impeccable.
So we'll see.
All right, Biden did this tearful kind of speech yesterday, I guess, in which he said, we must not be enemies, meaning Republicans and Democrats.
At a moment of deep division, President Lincoln said, we are not enemies, but friends, we must not be enemies.
I've long believed we have to look at each other, even in our most challenging times, not as enemies, but as fellow Americans.
You buying any of that?
Scripture tells us, you know, we gotta love our fellow people.
Okay.
Now, I had to respond to that, and I think a million and a half people have already viewed it, which suggests that maybe people agreed with my comment.
So I posted In response to that, I said, President Dotard doesn't remember declaring war on one-third of the country, smearing them as white supremacists, discriminating against them in employment, and jailing J6ers while law-faring their preferred candidate.
You are—this is me talking to Biden—you are indeed my enemy, Mr. President.
We are not in the politics frame anymore.
You're jailing people for protesting.
That's not politics.
No.
And I said NPCs are invited to demonstrate how brainwashed they are by insisting it was an insurrection.
And of course, the very first comment was somebody insisting it was an insurrection.
Can always depend on them.
So here's my thing.
This isn't politics when you're putting one side in jail.
If we were just talking about which policies were good, and it got out of hand, and we were insulting each other, then I would say, very good, Mr. President.
Very good.
You should be calling for unity, because we should be able to talk about these things without fighting and making it physical.
But you made it physical.
You made it physical.
You physically put protesters in jail, these January Sixers.
And you're trying to put their preferred candidate in jail.
In jail.
In jail.
No, that's not politics.
Biden is my enemy.
Am I wrong?
I've never said that before about a president.
But this president, in my opinion, has targeted me and people who look like me and act like me.
And I think he said it directly.
I think he said it many times.
I think he's unambiguous.
He's very clear.
And he is my enemy.
He's my enemy.
I'm not going to do anything violent or illegal, obviously.
But yes, and my thinking about him is as an enemy, not a political opponent.
I believe he's destroying the entire country.
I think that he's gonna cause hardship on a scale we've never seen before, unless he gets stopped fast enough, which I think will happen, actually.
But no, no, you don't get to put people in jail and then ask for them to talk nice to you.
I mean, if they'd done a crime, I'd be on your side.
You know, a real crime that wasn't just a political bullshit thing.
And yes, for the NPCs, I do know that some of the protesters broke the law.
We're not talking about them.
All right.
So, if you want to know how bad things are, Reuters was reporting that there's a massive recall of Tesla automobiles.
Oh my god!
A massive recall of Tesla automobiles?
Oh man, that would certainly change your mind about buying one, wouldn't it?
Certainly changes your mind, huh?
Do you know what it was?
The massive recall?
There was an automatic over-the-air software update that changed the look of some icons.
The owner of the car needed to do nothing, and there was no risk and no expense, and it all happened automatically and had no impact on anything whatsoever.
And Reuters told you that their cars were falling apart, essentially.
So, do you have any questions about who Reuters is?
Do you have any questions about who the AP is?
No.
It's all pretty clear at this point.
Well, Hallmark is remaking the book that I think was also a movie, Sense and Sensibility, which took place back in the 1700s in England.
But they're casting it all with black actors, so it'll be an all-black remake of a historical situation which originally featured all white people.
Now, let me say as clearly as possible, I don't mind remakes in which they change the race of the actors.
For example, when The Wizard of Oz was remade by Michael Jackson and some others as The Wiz, that was a good watch.
And the thing about the Wizard of Oz is they were all imaginary, made-up people.
So why did they have to be all white?
If they were imaginary and made-up people, they could be all black.
So if you take something that's imaginary and made-up, whether it's the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or Star Wars, or Star Trek, if you want to make them all black, That seems like just a good creative choice.
If you've got an audience for it, you've got good actors, yeah.
Why not?
I don't care.
If I didn't care that they're all white, I shouldn't care that they're all black or all Asian or all anything else.
As long as it's well made.
Right?
As long as the art.
Yeah, Hamilton.
Hamilton's a good example.
Hamilton was, of course, based on historical stuff.
But I don't require a play to have all the right ethnicities, you know, based on the historical accuracy of it.
That doesn't bother me.
So I thought Hamilton was just sort of interesting that they changed up the ethnicities.
But they weren't trying to change history, per se.
But I do think that when you do a historical thing, there's a little more pressure to get the original ethnicities right for historical purposes.
But here's my question.
How long will it be before the Babylon Bede creates a movie that's a remake of Roots, but they use all Irish actors?
That's going to happen, isn't it?
Wouldn't you watch that?
I might actually watch that movie because it would be hilarious.
They just do all the same parts, but they just make them all Irish guys.
Come on, that's pretty funny.
All right.
All right.
I don't take any of this too seriously.
If Hollywood makes movies and people go to them, they're good movies.
If they make movies and people don't go to them, they're bad movies.
Everything else is details.
So I'm not going to get too excited about how they cast a movie.
All right.
You know about the loneliness epidemic, of course.
But at least the lonely people in the past could go online and have at least fake friends in the digital world.
Not nearly as good as real friends, but at least the social networks were built around friends.
But I think that's changed.
And as AI content becomes the main content you watch, that's not really your friend.
So there is some thinking, I think Bindu Reddy was talking about this, that the old social networks were focused on friends, but that's dead now.
And now your TikTok feed is going to be mostly AI-created content.
So your loneliness epidemic Could get a lot worse, because you won't even have the same online friend experience.
Could be totally artificial.
On top of that, if you add your Vision Pro Apple AR VR glasses, are you going to spend a lot more time around things that aren't even real?
Completely outside the real world, in a sense.
And is that going to increase your loneliness because the alternatives are better?
You know, I've famously said, it's not unusual for me, in my current stage of life, well actually when I was in my 20s it was the same thing, it's not unusual for me to have three days a week Where I don't have any human contact.
None at all.
I'm not going to count ordering a coffee at Starbucks.
And that's not really human contact.
And I don't mean if people are walking by on the sidewalk.
But an actual conversation.
So I can go two or three days without having a conversation in person.
That's very common for me, actually.
In my 20s, I did it all the time.
Every weekend, mostly.
Just about every weekend.
However, I find it's much easier now than it was in my 20s, because today, take today.
So, I don't know if I'll have any human contact today.
Don't know.
I mean, it's hard to say.
All day long I'm going to be doing things I like because I have so many options.
I get to exercise.
I like that.
I'll probably take a walk if the weather's good.
I really like that.
I'll probably spend some time in my man cave doing God knows what.
I really like that.
I'll probably do some work that I want to get done that I kind of enjoy.
I might do some things around the house that I want to get done.
Kind of enjoy it.
So, the loneliness thing is an epidemic, it is important, but it's worsened by basically everything that's happening.
Almost everything is worsening the loneliness problem, so keep an eye on that.
Here's an update on the Trump lawfare stuff.
You've probably already heard that the case that involved Trump being an insurrectionist, allegedly, is delayed until the Supreme Court or the upper courts can figure out whether a president could be charged with something like that or if they have immunity.
But what's interesting about it, it's not just delayed until another date.
It's indefinitely delayed, which suggests that the judges don't think it's necessarily going to happen, if at all, or at least before the election.
So I'm feeling like Trump might be in the clear just because of the timing and the delay.
You know, because if he gets in office, it's not going to matter.
He'll still be president.
And I think the other charges are weaker.
Am I right?
Aren't all the other charges kind of weakish?
So does it look like Trump's going to beat the lawfare after all this?
It does to me.
If I had to put a bet on it, I bet he beats every one of them.
Somehow they'll be pled down to something like a misdemeanor that nobody cares about.
The non-criminal ones where he pays some money, but that's not a criminal problem.
It's gonna be all these not-quite-a-criminal-conviction-go-to-jail situations in a variety of ways, from delays to, you know, surprises.
Yeah, there's always an October surprise.
Might not be in October, but you can be sure that it'll be coming.
All right, CBS News had John Bolton on, and John Bolton said this.
Now, here's the surprising part.
This happened in 2024, just recently.
See if this sounds like 2024, or if he's stuck in time, you know, somewhere back in the past.
John Bolton, quote, I think Trump will cause significant damage in the second term, damage that in some cases will be irreparable.
I have to say that is scarier.
I think Trump will cause significant damage in his second term.
Damage that in some cases will be irreparable.
Are you scared yet?
Does John Bolton not know that Trump was already president for four years?
How'd that go?
Do we have a bunch of irreparable harm from the first four years?
Because I'm pretty sure people were telling us there was going to be a lot of irreparable harm, existential danger, if Trump is president.
Why are we arguing about things we've already shown not to be a thing?
Now, I will grant you that any president could cause a problem that's irreparable.
It looks like Biden's causing a bunch of them at this very moment.
You know, immigration being the top of the list.
But the only thing I can figure is that this wasn't really John Bolton talking.
I believe there might be enough soup in his mustache at this point that has formed its own entity, possibly a civilization.
And I believe the mustache soup, having evolved into more of a creature, now has enough control of his mouth so it can move it just from the mustache alone.
Like, he got there and he probably thought he had other things to say, and then the mustache takes over his mouth.
Oh, Trump is a existential danger.
Oh, I've never said this before.
This is a brand new thing I'm saying, so it's news.
Oh, I've never said that Trump might be reckless or cause some chaos before, so you better pay attention to me, because my mustache is making my lips move.
So that happened.
All right, let's talk about excess deaths, which you believe are caused by the COVID shots.
How many of you believe that?
The excess deaths are high, and they were caused by the COVID shots.
How many believe that to be true?
Most of you.
All right.
Now, I think there's a good chance that's true.
So, could you please hear this first part before I get to the second part?
There's a good chance that's true.
Good, good chance that's true.
But here's what you should consider.
Everything else we were told, based on data, turned out to be untrue.
Everything else we've ever been told, based on data, we know to be untrue.
But did you decide that this would be the one time the data was accurate, and that what it told you was definitely exactly what it looked like?
Why?
And I want to make a distinction that's very, very important to the point.
I'm not telling you you're wrong.
I'm not telling you you're wrong, because I don't know.
I'm not telling you that the shots are not the reason for it.
I'm not telling you that.
I'm saying that if you believe the data was right, And yet all the other data for literally everything important has been wrong, which we know, not guessing.
We know that all the data we saw in the pandemic, everything we learned about nutrition over decades was wrong.
Probably everything we heard about the jobs report is fake data.
We don't have data about, you know, how many deaths there are in Gaza because it's a war zone.
You tell me where you think there's good data about anything.
Is our inflation number accurate?
Is our... What?
What is accurate?
There's no such thing as accurate data, and if you haven't learned that yet, you're still a little bit behind.
Now let me say it again, because apparently I'll just have to say this a hundred times.
I'm not saying you're wrong.
It might be exactly the case that these shots are causing excess mortality.
I think there's a good chance of it.
But, if you think it's true because the data says it, and here's the important part, the data from lots of different sources say it, then you haven't been paying attention.
Do you know what the sources, do you know what people from lots of different countries and lots of different sources say?
They say that you're all going to burn up from climate change.
Lots of different countries, lots of different experts, how could they all be telling you something that's not true?
How about the pandemic?
Lots of different experts.
They told you those masks were going to work.
All over the country, different experts, different places.
How could they all be wrong?
Right?
And that's just one thing.
Ivermectin can, you know, you just keep on going.
So, do you think that this time, because it's a whole bunch of different sources, are telling you that almost everybody's saying that excess mortality is up?
It's not just up in the U.S.
It's up everywhere.
And worse, there's a high correlation I saw this morning between the excess death rates and the rate of vaccination.
Uh-oh.
And I'm talking about the COVID shots, which you don't call vaccinations.
Now, that's pretty damning, right?
Suppose that were true.
Suppose that data was true, and again, that would be gigantically unlikely, because every other data is untrue, but if it were true, that there was a perfect correlation between the excess death rate and how likely you are to be vaccinated, that would prove, wouldn't you feel that that would be all you needed to know that it was the shots?
How many would say that that's, that would be enough confirmation?
Oh, you know I'm tricking you.
Damn you all for being with me too long.
You can sense the trick coming, can't you?
There should be a correlation between how much vaccinations you got and excess death.
You would expect the people getting most vaccinated are the ones who have the most concern about dying early from anything.
So, probably it doesn't mean anything, that data.
And if you didn't see that right off the bat, then you need to up your game a little bit.
It could be exactly what it looks like, that the more shots you get, the more likely you're going to die from the shots.
It could be.
I don't have any data that I trust to support that idea, but definitely, that's definitely in the short list of possibilities.
But if you think it's because it's correlated with how vaccinated you are, that's probably a data error or an analysis error.
So how many of you are saying to yourself, uh-oh, I do agree that I disagreed with every data set and every expert for the last five years, and I was correct to do that, but somehow I decided to believe the excess data numbers?
Which, who do you think comes up with them?
Who do you think comes up with excess death or excess, not excess data, excess mortality?
Who do you think comes up with those?
Who would have the information?
What group of people have the information about excess deaths?
Insurance companies.
Insurance companies.
And would an insurance company make more money or less money if the data shows excess deaths?
They would make less money if they kept their rates the same, and there were excess deaths.
Correct?
If they kept their rates the same, but more people were dying, that's bad for the insurance company.
Because they have to set their rates based on their best estimate of how many died.
But suppose they wanted to raise their rates.
What would be a good way to do that?
A good way to do that would be to tell the world that there's a really high excess mortality problem and we just can't figure it out.
We don't know where it is.
Gosh!
You know, we're the insurance company.
You'd think we'd be able to narrow this down to, let's say, was it the shots or was it something else?
Because they need to know what it is.
It's not enough to know that they are dying at a higher rate.
You need to know why, because that allows you to set your rates, you know, based on different demographics.
Oh, this group is doing something differently than this group.
You know, they're smoking, but this group is not smoking, so we'll set our rates differently.
So, I suggest to you that one way everybody in the world simultaneously could be telling you that the excess mortality rate is high, is that every insurance company in the world wants to tell you it's high, because that's how they raise their rates.
Follow the money.
Do you know what it would take for me to trust the excess mortality data?
It would take for it not to be in the best interest of the insurance companies in every country, in every city, everywhere on Earth.
That's what it would take for me to believe the numbers.
Yeah.
So, are they right?
They might be.
But I'm not going to do what many of you are doing, which is to say, all the other data in the world is wrong, but the stuff that I wanted to believe is right.
Just ask yourself if you did that.
Did you, did you doubt all the data that we now know is wrong?
And then you accepted, boom, right off the, right off the bat.
As soon as you saw some stuff that agreed with you, you're like, oh yeah, that's the good data there.
That excess mortality number is pretty good, even though, Even though the insurance companies everywhere have a financial interest in lying to you about it.
Yeah.
So... I made it more messy.
So the lesson here that you should take from this is not that the excess mortality is not true.
That I don't know.
So don't take away from this that I think the shots were safe.
Don't take away from this that I think there is no excess mortality.
Don't take from this that I don't think those two things might be connected.
I'm just telling you, if you fell for this immediately, because it agreed with what you thought was true, that was not rational thinking.
It wasn't.
You might be right, but not because of rational thinking.
All right.
I heard there's a whole war starting that we don't know much about, but I can tell you that all the news from the war zone is fake.
Do you know how I know that?
Because all the news from all war zones is fake.
All the news from non-war zones is fake.
I just covered this.
So do you think that the news from the war zone is going to be real?
Of course not.
There isn't the slightest chance of that.
Not even the slightest chance that the war news is real.
But we'll talk about it anyway.
So here, let me give you an example.
So I guess the U.S.
government said that they hit 85 targets.
Is that real?
So our government says that they hit 85 targets.
Real news or fake news?
Well, I've got questions.
How many different locations was it?
Was it four locations, let's say bases or camps, that each had 20 buildings on it?
You know, 20 structures, 20 targets?
Doesn't that feel completely different than if there were 85 individual Iranian proxy sites?
Which was it?
Was it four?
Or was it 85?
Why don't we know that?
Why don't you know that?
Yeah.
They fired 85 times or 125 times was another number I saw.
Why is that so confusing?
Well, if they wanted you to know the real story, wouldn't it be easy to tell it?
We attacked four locations and we, you know, with 85 weapons or whatever it was.
And then you'd have a real good sense of it.
Oh, there are four places we have to worry about.
But if it's 85, that's a totally different story.
If it's 85, we've already lost.
Because if they can put 85 proxy places in that area, how in the world are we going to stop them?
Let me ask you this.
How many could answer the question, as the U.S.
is entering this war, is in it, how many can answer the question of why the U.S.
has places in the Middle East and Syria and Iraq that even exist in the first place?
How many of you know the answer to the question?
I think the official answer is that we're doing it to stop terrorist groups from forming.
So we're looking to mow the grass, as they say, of the terrorists.
I doubt it.
That might be one reason, but it's probably a whole bunch of other complicated things.
Yeah, it might be protecting some oil interests.
God knows.
But whatever the government's telling you is probably a lie.
All right, so we don't know what the U.S.
did.
We don't know if their attacks made a difference.
We don't know how many sites.
But the real question is, even if everything went just the way they planned, would it make any difference?
And the answer is no.
Does anybody think that these attacks will make any difference?
Anybody?
How could they?
No.
I think all we're doing is showing that if we get attacked, we'll attack back, which has some value.
Do you remember I told you that the menu method could be persuasive, but not the we'll do something that you don't know in the future?
That that just never works?
Because the only way you're going to stop what Iran is doing is if the proxies run out of human people.
I guess that's the same.
Humans.
So if the proxies still have people, and they've got plenty of people, and they've got plenty more if we kill them all, so we're not going to get rid of their people.
If they have assets, you know, weapons, we'd have to destroy their weapons, but we'll never be able to destroy their weapons, because they'll just get new ones.
So if we can't get rid of the people, and we can't get rid of the weapons, What difference does our bombing them make?
They just reconstitute, which is exactly what they'll do.
So why do we do it?
You don't think our government is fully aware that they won't make any difference?
It's for domestic consumption.
This is purely for American domestic consumption, as far as I could tell, because it's not going to make any difference strategically or geopolitically.
Now, there are other possibilities.
It could be a cover for something else we're doing.
It could be that we're doing an attack on a bunch of valid targets, but really it might be a distraction from a real attack that might make a difference.
Maybe some of our dark arts special forces are preparing to do something or already did something that could actually make a difference, but maybe you'll never hear about it.
Yeah, maybe there's something cyber going on we don't know about.
But, so some people like Lindsey Graham and a few others saw some general saying that if we did not attack inside Iran, against actual Iranian military types and targets, that Iran would never get the message.
Well, I disagree.
Let's compare this to my technique, which President Trump apparently used on the Taliban.
Do you remember the famous meeting, I don't know if I have the details right, but it's something like this.
When the president met with the Taliban, he said, some version of, we plan to get out of Afghanistan.
If you kill even one American, now that we said we're leaving, if you kill even one of us, here's a photo of your house with your children in it.
This thing is gonna blow up.
This specific thing, your house.
And then the, you know, the heads of the ISIS said, uh, that's very specific and that's my house.
I don't have to wonder what will happen.
That's my house.
My children will die.
And Trump just told me that in person.
That's the menu approach.
Now when that ISIS or Taliban guy, I guess more Taliban than ISIS, was it ISIS or Taliban?
It was the Taliban.
I'm confusing them.
When the Taliban guy left, do you think he was thinking about a general risk or was he thinking about his family blowing up?
He was thinking about his family blowing up.
So what Trump did was he created a champion for not fighting.
So the guy who he showed his house, he became a champion for avoiding fighting, a champion on the inside, in the Taliban.
So Trump turns people into champions of not fighting internally.
Who is the champion of not fighting right now in Iran?
Nobody.
Nobody.
Right?
Because there's nobody who thinks it's going to get them.
Everybody thinks, yeah, people will die, but probably not me.
Probably, probably not my family.
So, the Biden approach of we're going to do a generic thing to your proxies, in my opinion, has no persuasion value at all.
Unless we could magically degrade them so much they literally can't fire, but then it just buys us some time and they reconstitute.
Can't work.
But, if you said to Iran, here Iran, Here's a picture of the Ayatollah's house.
Here's a picture of his girlfriend's house.
Here's a picture of his other girlfriend's house.
Here's a picture of his other girlfriend's house.
Here's a picture of his children walking to work.
Here's a picture of his daughter-in-law.
Going to work in this building.
Every one of these things is going to disappear the second you do X, whatever X is.
That's completely different than we'll do bad things to you if you do bad things.
Completely different.
Because you turn anybody who sees that specific threat into an advocate for, okay, maybe this isn't in our geopolitical interest.
Because my house is going to blow up with my kids in it.
So, have I made the point yet?
Because I feel like I've been failing on making this point over and over again.
But I think maybe I did a better job this time.
You need to create advocates on the other side, and you only do that with very specific threats.
You can't do that with, we're coming after you, the Biden way.
All right, got it.
So the question of, you know, can Trump stop a war or prevent a war that Biden can't?
Yes.
Yes.
Capital letters.
Yes.
We've seen him do it twice, three times, four times.
We've seen him do it over and over again.
Right.
You don't have to wonder if his form of persuasion is the powerful kind.
We saw it.
No mystery to it.
All right.
Well, actually, there are three things you want to degrade if you want to stop, let's say, the proxies.
You'd have to either kill all their people, or enough of them.
That'll never happen.
You'd have to destroy all their military assets, or economic assets, which would get you to the same place.
That'll never happen, because they can just send new ones.
Or you destroy their will.
And their leadership, which would get you to the same place.
And I don't see any of that happening.
So that should be the whole story.
Yeah, the best you could do is make it uneconomical to be a proxy.
You can make it uneconomical.
So if you could figure out who's in charge of each proxy, and then go after their secret money, they might find a new way to be bad, because you took all their secret money.
That was the point that they were doing it in the first place.
You know, hypothetically.
So there might be a way to take away their willingness to do it, if you went after the leaders of the proxies, and also could get their money, or kill their families, or something.
Something like that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, Brings us to the conclusion of the best live stream you're going to see this Saturday morning.
Because a lot of people don't work on the weekends.
Not me.
I'm here every day for you.
Solving your loneliness problem, in some cases.
Filling you in about how to evaluate your data and others.
And generally having a good time.
So thanks for joining on the X-Platform and on YouTube and Rumble.
