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, Murder Drones, Pyramid Theory, Teaching Financial Literacy, Reliability Trait, NBC News, Migrant Reframe, RFK Jr., Election Year Economics, Alcohol is Poison, Vaccine Blood Clots, NYC Trucker Strike, Hunting Republicans, Scott Adams Predictions, Mail-In Drug Testing, 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 where all of your mysteries will be solved, all your questions will be answered, and all of your concerns will be addressed.
But if you'd like to take it up to a level that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Play that back at 1.5 speed.
I dare you.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's gonna happen right now.
Go!
Oh, that is unbelievably good.
I'm going in for two.
Second sip.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Join me!
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Yep, nailed it!
Well, I'm going to tell you about some great new technologies that are kind of cool.
Did you know that DNA is a really good data storage device?
That all of the data of who you are is stored on these little parts of your body?
And it turns out that the technologists now at the Paul Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington are trying to make DNA computer data storage, which apparently would be massively better and faster than what we're doing.
Does that sound like something that might actually happen?
Do you believe that someday we will have DNA-based databases?
I'm going to say no.
I'm going to say no.
I just don't see it happening.
Now, I'm like the biggest technology optimist in the world.
I think we're going to go to Mars and all that stuff.
But I don't think we're going to have DNA storage.
I would love to be surprised, so maybe.
There's a story about some young folks who designed and printed a drone that would be, if you bought it, it would be under $500.
And it calculates GPS coordinates without a signal using a camera and Google Maps.
So in other words, it will know where it is the same way a human would, by looking around.
Now, if you could make a drone with a 3D printer, that means you could have a drone that nobody knows you purchased.
So it'd be like an unmarked gun.
So you could have your own, you know, phantom drone.
Or a ghost drone.
It'd be like a ghost drone.
It would cost you almost nothing, relatively speaking.
And you can't be jammed with GPS.
So they can't jam your GPS.
You know what this is, right?
This is the ultimate murder weapon.
So, they don't talk about the chip.
You still have to get a chip somehow.
Unless you can attach your phone to it.
I was always assuming that the murder drones would just take a phone.
You could just take an old iPhone and just connect it to your murder drone and it would have all the intelligence it needed.
That's what I always figured.
But I think these will be used for assassinations and then later for various terrorist activities.
So now we have a way for the ordinary person to assassinate people and leave absolutely no sign.
How would you find it?
Let's say you Well, I guess there would still be some fingerprints on the chip.
So you'd have to give us some instructions.
And so that would give you a little bit of a hint who created it, but not much.
So you wouldn't have any trace of where it came from, and you wouldn't know where it originated from.
It's the ultimate weapon.
My book, The Religion War, Is largely written around this, this development.
So one of the, the big plot points is that it's a, it's a place where anybody can send a drone to any place else and kill somebody.
So that's gone.
Well, as you might know, the only thing I think about more than ancient Rome is ancient Egypt and their pyramids, because it fascinates me all the different theories of how they got built.
So you got your, you got your ancient alien theory.
Aliens did it.
You got your advanced prior human civilization that died out theory.
You got your theory that the Egyptians were just really good at doing hard stuff because their workforce was so impressive.
So good.
So good.
And we keep wondering, how is it that these gigantic rocks got transported from distant quarries and raised up to the top?
And I was doing my usual thing where I was thinking, all right, what are they not mentioning?
So I'm thinking of all the different, you know, ways that people are explaining how it happened and why we couldn't do it today so easily.
And I'm thinking, there's one thing that's clearly left out.
It's that the rocks were made on site.
And so I said to myself, what are those rocks made of?
And I googled it yesterday.
And they're made of limestone.
And I said to myself, theoretically, could you make your own limestone rock?
It turns out you can.
All you need is pressure.
Literally just pressure.
You put enough pressure on some limestone, crushed up limestone that you could, you know, hold in your hand like sand.
You just crush it.
It turns into a rock that lasts forever.
Because that's exactly what a limestone rock is.
It's something that was sort of powder that was under pressure for a long time and turned into a rock.
But you could make one right away.
Now, there's a video on YouTube, some French gentleman tested this theory, and he put up some wood forms, and he put some limestone dust that was common to his area, which apparently is very common to the area where the pyramids are.
So there's like powdered limestone laying all over the place, and you put it in a little form, you add some water and some clay, and you wait a little while, and it's a perfect rock.
Now I know what you're going to say.
I know what you're going to say.
Scott.
Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott.
Why do you come into areas in which you know nothing about and try to act like you're suddenly the instant expert on something you clearly don't know a thing about?
Because let me tell you one thing, Scott.
If they had made the stones For the pyramid, that would really be obvious.
Because I think stone experts can tell the difference between a natural stone and a stone that was made by somebody, you know, just making a stone.
Easy to tell.
It'd be obvious.
And that's true.
There's one exception to that.
Limestone.
If you cut a limestone in half, it would look exactly the same whether it was a natural one or a fake one.
It would look uniform all the way through, like concrete.
It would just look all the way.
A real one would be no different than one that formed naturally because it'd be basically the same thing.
So, is it possible that the most obvious solution is the one that really was true?
That maybe the reason that we don't see hieroglyphs of them making the bricks is that we don't have them Making any kind of bricks so keep it keep this in mind.
We know that the ancient Egyptians knew how to make bricks because Part of the construction of the pyramid is ordinary bricks that we know how they were made So if they knew how to make a brick And we know it's possible to make a giant rock out of just limestone dust that you press together and put some water and clay in.
You think they didn't figure that out?
They already knew how to make bricks out of, you know, stuff on the ground.
Don't you think that's a little bit more likely that they made the bricks or the big rocks on site so they didn't have to relocate them 500 miles or whatever they allegedly did?
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, Scott, Scott, you idiot!
You freaking idiot!
I can't even stand listening to you because the one thing we know is that the quarries exist.
There are hieroglyphics showing that they went to the quarries.
And I think the quarries are real.
I think that they may have also had real quarried rocks, especially the granite, because you can't make granite.
You know, I looked into it.
You can't make granite.
That kind of needs to be naturally made.
So if they have granite parts, probably exactly what you think.
Copper tools took a long time.
A lot of people, you know, got it done.
But the only thing I'm adding is that apparently the hard part to understand is how they did it in the timeline they did.
So you could solve for how long it took by imagining that there was real quarrying of real rocks, just the way they say, but they weren't the majority.
If you imagine that the majority of them were made on site, then it solves your timing problem, which is the biggest mystery.
Because I think we all agree that if you had infinite time, you could have carved all the rocks and carried them and put them where they are.
It would just be really hard.
But if you had a lot of time, you could do it.
So I'm going to throw that into the mix only for fun.
I wouldn't make any bets on it, but I love the fact that the most obvious solution, which is that they made the rocks on site, is the one we're not talking about the most.
Now there might be an obvious reason why it doesn't work and nobody mentioned it to me, but just put that... Here's the only thing I want to do with this story.
I want to use it to open your mind to how easy it would be for the most basic things we know, or think we know, to be completely wrong.
I'm just opening the possibility so that your mind can imagine, oh my goodness, we could be completely wrong about all these pyramid stones.
That's all I'm trying to get.
Doesn't mean I'm right.
I'm not going to assert that I'm right.
All right, here's some good news.
Want some good news?
There's some financial literacy classes that are growing up in high schools.
So a lot of middle schools and high schools are teaching financial literacy, which is such a good idea.
I've actually been thinking about doing it locally.
Maybe over the summer or something.
Just offer a financial literacy class for any neighbors who want to send their kid.
And just do it in one day.
Teach them a little bit about buying a stock and having a checking account and getting a mortgage.
Just the basic stuff.
The way that I teach it to young people, because I've taught a number of young people basics, is if you learn just a few things, everything else can flow from those few things.
So there's a real easy way to get started in it that allows you access to everything else sort of automatically.
So for example, when I say, if you're thinking of buying stocks, get a diversified ETF.
So once you understand what that is, Every other thing that you could do has to be better than that.
And if nobody can tell you what's better than that, don't do it.
You don't need to.
And what you would find is every time you look into a new thing, it's like, well, maybe I should own a municipal bond.
And then you start looking into it, you Google it, and then you compare it to your ETF, and you go, huh.
Yeah, maybe a little bit of these just in case for diversity, but really, maybe I don't need it if I'm young.
So you give them one foot in and they can figure out the rest just by Googling and comparing it to what they already know.
So there is an easy way in.
That's the only thing I wanted to add there.
I saw a post from Sahil Bloom who said, one of the most underrated traits in business and life is reliability.
He says, you can get damn far by just being someone who people can count on to show up, punch the clock, and do the work.
I gave exactly this speech to a young person recently.
Exactly.
I said, you don't understand how easy it is to succeed in today's world.
If you're the person who shows up on time, Doesn't take unnecessary Monday and Friday sick days.
Does what you say you will do.
And doesn't complain too much about it, unless there's something genuine to complain about.
You're gonna be in the top 20% of every workforce.
You all know that, right?
All the adults already know this.
It's something that children don't know.
But every adult already knows that it's actually rare for people to simply follow up on what they said they would do.
If you just do that one thing, you will rule, or at least be in the top 20% of every workforce.
Now at the same time, We're seeing estimates that, you know, 40% of the jobs will go to robots.
I don't think it's going to be that dire.
I think robots will create as many jobs as they take away.
We'll see how that works out.
But if you're worried about it, if you're worried about you'll be one of the employees who gets in the lower 50% and therefore you might be replaced by a robot, try the simplest thing first.
Try being reliable.
Try showing up on time.
Try doing what you say you'll do.
You'll probably be fine.
You won't be in the bottom 50% that gets fired in replacement robots.
We'll get to the bigger stories in a minute.
I like these fun ones.
These are all palate cleansers.
Well, NBC News went full racist.
They had a story today that says that black Patients who have heart problems, and apparently there's a pretty high rate of heart disease in black Americans, that they might not do as well if they go to a non-black cardiologist.
And the thinking here is that if you go to a doctor, in this case a specialist, who has, let's say, a greater appreciation for your lifestyle and culture, that you're going to get a better outcome.
That's NBC News.
Now, let's dig into this a little bit.
What are they trying to tell me?
And it was alarming because my doctor is female and brown, and I don't know exactly what her background is.
Maybe Indian?
I don't know.
I mean, she's American, but I don't know what her ethnic background is.
However, I have seen that she does generally a very good job, despite...
NBC News warning me that I will have bad outcomes if I don't match the race and probably ethnicity, too, of my doctor.
So I'm at a big risk.
Now, the only places I've seen this are just a few places.
Last year, I went to my doctor and I was complaining about an arm problem.
You know, I had some stiffness in one arm.
And my doctor was completely stumped, but she was smart enough to recommend me to a specialist.
So the specialist has exactly the same background as my regular doctor.
So there's no difference in the resume.
But the specialist was a white man.
He was a white man.
Because my doctor knew that I needed a doctor, at least for the hard stuff, I probably needed a doctor who was my same gender and same race.
I mean, that's why NBC News has reported that that's important.
And sure enough, it's the sort of thing I would have doubted, but here's how it went.
I sit down with a doctor who's white, like me, and male, like me.
First question out of his mouth when I say my arm is all stiff, he says, do you like old 70s rock?
And I was like, what?
And he said, do you like old 70s rock sounds?
I was like, you know I do.
I mean, just look at me.
You think I don't like 70s rock?
Take one look at me, obviously.
And then he said, do you ever air a guitar?
And there it was.
Yeah, finally, finally when my doctor matched my ethnicity and my gender, finally, he was like a laser-focused target and he found the problem.
Indeed, I've been over-arrogatoring 270's rock.
Now, did my brown female doctor have any idea that I was at that kind of risk?
No, no.
So like NBC News, I'm gonna double down on their advice, you need to find somebody who looks just like you.
Because the medical advice from people who don't look just like you could be way off.
So next time, ask for a specialist.
Somebody who has the same talents as your doctor, but looks different.
According to racist NBC News.
Well, here are two problems we've got in the United States.
Well, a few of them, actually.
Our food is too expensive.
Do you agree?
Our food is too expensive, you know, relative to what we would like it to be.
Let's see.
We don't have enough manufacturing capacity, sort of in general.
But we're talking about it a lot because of ammunition.
We don't have enough people to make ammunition in case we get into a shooting war.
And generally speaking, if we'd like to reshore a lot of China's business, we don't have the manufacturing capacity.
So, is it my imagination?
Or did we, by pure luck, have two problems that are all self-solving?
Or three?
Or four?
I feel like all of our problems are self-solving.
Huh.
We have this gigantic recent labor force that may not have specific skills, but they can do manufacturing and farming.
We've got our foods too expensive and we don't have enough manufacturing and farming but we've got all these people who don't have jobs who would like jobs and are mobile and are not tied to any specific part of the country so if we wanted to centralize them in some large empty part of the country in the middle Where they would get instant jobs and we would get instant manufacturing.
It would take a little while to build the factory, but we've got a lot of labor to build the factory as well.
And then they would work the fields and perhaps they would live in boxable homes or ADUs or instant pop-up homes that we'd now know how to make in volume.
And we would solve all of our problems.
Not only that, but we would be the only industrial country who's not in a recession, because we would figure out a way how to monetize our biggest problems.
Because if there's one thing the United States does better than any country ever, and this is one thing you'll agree, one thing the United States consistently does better than any country that's ever lived in the entire world, Is we figure out how to make a profit out of our fuck-ups.
We know how to monetize problems.
You got a problem?
We'll monetize it.
Do you have too much racism in your country?
Well, let's build a racism grifter industry.
We'll monetize that shit.
Yeah.
You got too many criminals?
Well, how about we build you some private prisons?
We'll monetize that shit.
Yeah.
Anything else you want?
We'll monetize it.
So we've got all these problems of too many illegal migrants, food's too expensive, and we don't have manufacturing.
These problems solve each other.
Don't they?
Am I wrong?
In the short run, it's just nothing but expense and problem.
In the long run, if we had a functional country, there would be some state who would say, you know what?
We got a lot of blank space here.
And a lot of it's owned by the government.
Why don't we just say this is a special economic zone?
If you build here, you don't even have to pay taxes.
How about ever?
Just no taxes.
If you build here.
And we're going to employ all these people.
We're going to build manufacturing.
We're going to make your... We're going to make the ability to build these little boxable type... Boxable is a little house that unfolds.
I think Elon Musk is one of the investors.
You bring in your advanced farming techniques.
Maybe you've got some indoor farming too.
And you just see what works.
Just see what works.
You know, now Germany apparently is entering a recession.
We heard Great Britain and Japan is.
But we're not.
Part of it is because of government spending, but part of it might be that our population is growing.
So we have the only growing population, you know, you could complain because we added more people from illegal migration than were born naturally.
That's a problem, maybe.
But it might also be an opportunity.
Might actually be an economic opportunity in the long run.
Let me ask you this.
This will be a real good economic question for you.
If we close the border today, it won't happen, so this is all hypothetical.
Let's say we close the border tight.
And we still have people in, but you have to have better reasons and be vetted and everything.
So it'd be just a functional immigration system.
Do you think that the people who have already been let in Let's say the last 10 million.
We'll just we'll just limit it to the last the most recent 10 million Will they be in the long run in the long run?
Economically positive or negative to the country go in the long run economically positive or economically negative The correct answer is positive Yeah, and and that's actually an easy one Do you know why?
Population adds to your economy.
Population is great.
And immigrants are great.
Immigrants are great for an economy.
You want the ones who are so incentivized, you know, not the terrorists, of course.
There's some terrorists coming in, too.
But if you're just looking at dollars and cents, I'm almost certain that it costs a ton of money in the short run.
But if you looked at it in a generation, it would be positive.
Now, I'm going to make that as a challenge.
So do your own research and see if you can confirm or debunk that.
Now remember, we all agree that for several years, the $10 million will not be positive.
Do you all agree with that?
Do you all agree that in the short run, there's no way it could be good because it's just an expense?
But each one of these people are likely to get a foothold.
They're likely to earn money, and by the second generation, their own kids, they're very likely to be hard-working citizens who just want to dig in and make a difference, like everybody else.
So I would like to put that out there as a reframe and a challenge to your thinking.
I know that probably almost everybody watching this is very anti-illegal immigration.
Am I right?
Pretty much we're universally anti-illegal immigration.
We're also almost, but not all of us, very pro-legal immigration, so long as people are checked out and we make sure that they can add to the country.
We're all on the same page with that stuff.
The only thing I'm suggesting is if you game it out for a generation, you probably come out ahead.
Imagine if you went back to the Statue of Liberty days, you know, Ellis Island.
How many people who were, let's say, alive at the time, Just Americans who were born here.
How many of them saw all the immigration coming in of people who spoke different languages?
And remember in those days?
In those days, Italian was like black.
It just sounds so dumb today.
It's like, ah, you're a little bit extra brown.
So, you know, it was like the most racist world possible.
So these people were coming to the country with no money.
Into this racist country.
They were all different things.
Many of them didn't speak the language.
And did it work?
If you looked at it from today's perspective, did mass immigration of people with low skills and speaking the wrong language from all different places, did it add or subtract to our economy?
I think it added.
I'm wrong again.
Do you think we'd be better off without massive immigration?
I'm pretty sure all economists agree with me on this point.
Now, if there's anybody here who has a business and economics background, then I will listen to you.
If you don't have a business and economics background, I don't have any interest in your opinion.
No insult.
I don't mean to insult you.
I'm just not interested because it wouldn't, it wouldn't have any weight.
It wouldn't have any value.
You know, I'm not, I don't mean to insult you.
I'm just saying that there's some things you imagine are common sense and they're far from it.
Right?
If you think you can common sense yourself into understanding the migrant situation, not even close.
Common sense can't touch this.
It's way too complicated if you're gaming it out for the whole generation.
You don't know.
My guess is people equals prosperity pretty much every time.
Do you know why India is going to be, maybe, the biggest superpower?
Economically?
People.
Number of people.
Do you know why China is such a risk economically and every other way?
It's people.
It's just number of people.
If you've got more people, you can raise a bigger army.
Just period.
That's just how it works.
Yeah, Japan.
Japan, superpower, because a lot of people.
So, I think we can hold two thoughts at the same time.
You can hold the thought that we really need to get a hold of immigration, because it's a really expensive thing and it's too fast at the moment.
But I think it's not unreasonable to say it's all going to work out.
We have to get through this patch, which is dangerous, but it'll work out.
It'll all work out.
All right.
Even RFK Jr.
is saying who the heck is in charge of the country, and you'd think you would know.
If you're RFK Jr., don't you think you would know by now who's in charge of the country?
But even he says, in a post, during the 35 years I've known Joe Biden, he's always demonstrated his core decency.
He has shown his affection and esteem for my family by displaying a bust of my father in the Oval Office.
I suspect that the White House decision to deny my Secret Service protection And many other more important decisions are being made not by the President himself, but by the anonymous men in lanyards who now seem to be running our government.
Well, RFK Jr., men in lanyards?
Men?
Did you say men?
My God, the sexist, sexist guy.
I can't stand it, his sexism.
It should be the men and women in lanyards who are secretly running the country, even though they're all really men.
No, I'm just saying that.
I'm just joking.
It's men and women.
Now, if you and I were saying this, it would sound a little conspiracy theory nutcase, right?
But when RFK Jr.
says it, gives you a very clear example of it that we've all been tracking, his lack of Secret Service protection for no reason at all.
You have to take that pretty seriously.
We really do not know.
Who's making our decisions or why?
Now, if you take the Mike Benz theory that the Atlantic Council is running all the geopolitical stuff and the domestic stuff is probably just, you know, the deep state bureaucrats are handling.
So that's probably the answer.
It's probably no mystery at all.
Here's some fake economic news, and I say fake economic news because you should not trust in the election year.
Do not trust energy prices, job reports, inflation reports, or GDP.
They will all be gained because it's an election year.
Don't trust any of those numbers that said Hey, they look pretty good.
I can't help myself.
I have to still look at them even though I don't trust them.
So, one of them is that natural gas prices are the lowest since mid-2020.
So that's good.
And gas prices are definitely lower than the highest place.
They're not where they want to be.
We want them to be.
We are drilling more oil than we ever have.
It's probably true.
Jobs look good.
Weirdly appears to be heading in the direction of under control, but there's some disagreement on that.
And then the GDP, of course, is always gamed, so you never know what's in there, how much is inflation, all that other stuff.
But just generally, don't get too excited about any economic news that looks good, because it's probably all going to be gamed by the administration that's in power.
Yeah.
So don't trust it too much.
And then, of course, the stock market is the most game thing of all.
All right.
Here's an interesting post I saw.
What is the monthly rate of some of the Top places.
So if you wanted a one-bedroom apartment in the middle of the city, in New York, it would cost you over $4,000 a month.
One bedroom.
And where I live, in San Francisco, I'm outside of it, but in San Francisco, it'd be $3,300 for a one-bedroom in the middle of the city.
In Boston, $3,100.
But, and you go to Miami, it's $2,800.
But, and you go to Miami, it's 2,800, Los Angeles, 2,600.
Now, how in the world is it better to live in New York at 4,000 than Miami or Los Angeles for 2,800 or 2,600?
New York sounds pretty expensive compared to what you get.
I think it's a little bit less in my neighborhood, but clearly the biggest thing we need are cheaper ways to live.
That's going to be the big thing.
All right, there's a fake chart on the internet that shows the increase in average income versus the increase in rent.
You'll see the average income is slowly climbing and the rent prices are, you know, hockey sticking up.
It's a fake chart which I reposted just to show you that the community note pointed that one of the things was inflation adjusted and the other was not.
So, pretty much every chart on the internet is fake.
It's really hard to find any data on the internet that's not fake.
It's all fake.
Yeah, so this one was fake because one was inflation adjusted and one was not.
That doesn't mean that the rents are not Increasing higher than income.
It just wouldn't look that dire.
I saw a post from the Amuse account.
Great account to follow.
Amuse.
That beer sales might be going down in part because Ozempic is going up.
So if you take the Azempic drug to lose weight, it kills your appetite for things, especially alcohol.
Not especially, but it includes alcohol.
So that's one reason that alcohol might be down.
So I asked, I just asked on the X platform, how many people had stopped drinking Because they'd heard that alcohol is poison.
That's something I've been saying a lot as a reframe.
And I'm just going to look at the answer, because it's pretty impressive.
Look at these numbers.
All right, so have you stopped drinking alcohol because you heard that, quote, alcohol is poison?
So help me do the math.
There are over 12,000 votes, and 18% said yes.
Thousands of people stopped alcohol completely just because they heard that sentence.
And that's just the people that happened to follow me on X, just happened to see the results, or the poll, and happened to answer.
Now, I'm not looking at the percentage, right?
That wouldn't mean anything.
So I'm not looking at the percentage that did and didn't.
I'm only looking at just the number who quit.
And the number who cut down is 26%.
So if you add the 26% who cut down to the 18% who just quit, you got your 44%.
to the 18% who just quit, you got your 44%.
So something like 5,000 or 6,000 people reduced or quit alcohol because of one sentence.
And that's just the ones that were reported.
The actual number must be, you know, some big multiple of that.
Now, is that impressive for how powerful a reframe is?
It literally just changed the words and didn't add anything because you already knew that, you know, the alcohol wasn't good for you.
Yeah.
So I remind you that my book, Reframe Your Brain, has got over 160 reframes.
This one is one of them.
And they're all this powerful.
They can make you feel everything from less social embarrassment, Are you impressed?
I can't tell from your comments.
To me, this is amazing.
It's just flat-out amazing.
I wouldn't have guessed it.
There's no way I would have imagined that it would make that much difference.
But there it is.
Anyway.
I saw a post by Jimmy Doerr.
He's reposting a John Campbell thing, showing that there's some big increase in blood clots that people think might be related to the vaccinations.
And Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, she also weighed in on this.
She says, yes, these huge weird clots are real.
And doctors and bombers have only been seeing them since the vaccines came out and were mandated.
Now, is that true?
Do you think that there is a massive clotting problem that's so massive and obvious that even Jimmy Dore, who's not in the medical world, can see that it's clearly a big problem?
And that Marjorie Taylor Greene is reporting it and that there's, they would say, that there's, you know, observable massive difference to what it was.
So, what do you think would happen if you did a Google search to try to find out if this is real or if it's been debunked?
Because pretty much every pandemic issue is either confirmed when you Google it—it might be wrong, but, you know, the science will confirm it—or it's debunked.
Or it's debunked.
Do you know what happens if you Google this?
If you look for, are these clots caused by the vaccination?
Or you look for John Campbell.
Do you know what you'll find?
You'll find this one study that says getting COVID causes clots.
And that we could see that happening before the vaccinations were even available.
I'm not saying it's true.
Hold on, hold on.
Half of you just called me a vaccination supporter, right?
Because that's what happens.
If you try to add any nuance to the discussion, half of the world goes, oh, you love the vaccines, Scott.
Get some more boosters.
Why don't you get some more boosters, Scott?
Right?
That's what's happening right now.
There's a whole bunch of you are all mad.
You're mad at me.
Why are you mad at me?
I'm just telling you that the Google search engine doesn't work.
It is very obvious, very obvious when you do your own Google search.
And by the way, you should.
You should.
Here's what you won't find.
You will not find confirmation that it's real.
But here's the scary part.
You won't find a debunk.
Now that's scary.
It's a major claim that probably all of you have seen, right?
Is there anybody here who has not seen the claim?
I mean, it's literally part of the language.
Clashant.
Am I right?
It's the most common claim.
The single most common claim.
And if you do a Google search, you will find neither confirmation that it exists, nor, and here's the scary part, A debunk.
You won't find either one.
If you Google search, it would be like, well, maybe the COVID itself caused some in this one study.
They just happened to be before the vaccinations.
So here's all I'd like to say about this.
I don't know what's true about anything, because all of our sources of information are so deeply, deeply corrupted that it's actually possible this could be a massive national problem and we wouldn't know about it.
That's actually possible.
I think it's unlikely.
If I had to place my bet, I would place it as this is not real.
And the reason is, if this were real, I don't know how even Google could keep it silent.
Because at the very least, you'd see massive doctors posting on it on X. Because there must be plenty of places where they could determine this is true.
And then you'd also see lots of interviews.
And then somebody like Tucker Carlson would say, right, but, you know, can you show me your work?
You know, did he really test this?
And did he test it against a control group?
And all of that stuff.
So the lack of that, and the fact that it's not even on X, in any robust form where they're showing both sides, makes me think it's not real.
But let me say very clearly, it could be.
I don't know.
My main problem is there's no way to know.
But let me tell you this.
Let me tell you the thing I know for sure.
Here's the thing I know with 100% certainty.
If you're sure you know it causes clots, that's not rational.
If you're sure it doesn't, that's not rational either.
Those two positions are the irrational ones.
The rational ones is you don't have any information that you could depend on, plus or minus.
There's just no information.
So, there's that.
All right.
There's a panel of experts who got together to decide who are the best and worst presidents.
Turns out that Joe Biden, huh, he came in 14th.
That's not bad, is it?
14th out of 46.
That's not bad.
Not bad.
But where did Donald Trump go?
Oh, dead last.
Dead last.
Huh.
Because the panel of experts is something you could totally believe in 2024.
Am I right?
There's nothing more reliable than a panel of experts in an election year in 2024, and it's on the internet.
Because that's totally something you believe.
Now, where in the story does it tell you the political affiliation of the panel of experts?
Nowhere.
We don't need to know, because you know exactly what's going on.
We live in a world in which every panel of experts, every fake fact checker, every watchdog group like the ADL, And, you know, the Southern whatever group.
They're all fake.
BLM?
Fake.
Antifa?
Fake.
Patriot Front?
Fake.
Panel of Experts?
Fake.
Fact Check Organizations?
Fake.
Southern Poverty Law Center?
Fake.
Now probably all of them do enough real stuff that they can point to the real stuff.
The news, the Washington Post, fake.
They're all fake.
Yeah.
So you didn't need to know that this wasn't reliable.
You only needed to know it was a panel of experts.
Let me give you a test.
I'm going to see if you've learned your lesson.
Here's the test.
There's an organization that's not a government organization, but they're weighing in on something important in politics, but they're not a government organization.
Are they credible?
No, they're fake.
And I just made it up.
Even if they were real, they'd be fake.
100% of them are fake.
There are no real ones.
Real ones don't exist.
If you think that some are real, And some are not.
You're not paying attention to anything.
No, they're all fake, and they were designed for that purpose.
They're designed to be fake.
They weren't formed to be real, and then they drifted into something else.
Although the ADL might have.
That might be an exception.
They might have done good work at one point, but now they're just a fake Democrat organization.
So, just learned that.
There is a report, and I don't know how much credibility you put on this, that Fannie Willis, the DA there down in Fulton, that much of her campaign finances are sketchy.
Now, I don't know much about this story, and it seems to be not in any mainstream press, so I'm going to put a question mark next to it.
But there is some question about her campaign financing.
It looks a little sketchy.
All right.
Speaking of sketchy, there is an alleged trucker delivery strike involving New York City, which would mean that the truckers would simply refuse for seven days to deliver anything to New York City.
Now, seven days would be enough to make a point, but presumably it wouldn't, you know, crash the city.
Nobody'd starve.
I would say keep an eye on this one.
I don't recommend this because I think the truckers themselves are in too much jeopardy.
I feel like the truckers will all be just targeted and hunted, just like Canada.
So, I don't know if it'll make a difference, but we'll keep an eye on that.
So, this is sort of an interesting one to watch.
Is it my imagination or has there been a news blackout on this story in the mainstream news?
Has anybody seen the so-called trucker thing in the mainstream news?
Maybe just on Fox News once or twice?
I can't tell if it's real or if it's just somebody wants to make it real.
We'll keep an eye on that.
All right, here is another article by Jonathan Turley.
Talking again about the lawfare against Trump.
And here's something he said in his article today.
He said, quote, Having campaigned on bagging Trump on any basis.
He's talking about Letitia James here.
He says, Having campaigned on bagging Trump on any basis, James turned the law into a virtual license to hunt him down, along with his family and his associates.
Hunt.
There's Jonathan Turley.
Who I believe is not prone to hyperbole.
I've been reading him for a long time.
He's not the hyperbole guy.
He really does show both sides.
I believe he's a registered Democrat.
He's voted mostly Democrat.
I think I'm right on that.
But he does try to call balls and strikes and does a great job of it.
And he's using the word hunt.
Now, I would like to remind you some of my best predictions.
Now, best doesn't mean most accurate, because there are a lot of things that we all predict that, you know, when it comes true, a lot of us predicted it, right?
So, for example, I don't take much credit for predicting that Biden would not be able to serve two terms or even one without his mental health being a gigantic problem.
So I got that right.
But I don't take a lot of pride in that, because you got that one right, too.
Am I right?
Did you all get that one right?
I think you did.
I think almost everybody got that right.
So I don't take a lot of pride in that one.
I take pride in ones that were absolutely off the wall, or seemed like it, and then came true.
I predicted in 2020 that if Biden won the election that Republicans would be hunted.
It was the most mocked I've ever been for a prediction.
And the trolls came in, it's like, ah!
They're haunted!
Oh, show us who's haunted, Scott!
Who got haunted?
Well, the Janitorialist people, and Canada the Truckers, and now even the quite reasonable Jonathan Turley uses the word haunt in this context.
The lawfare looks like haunting to me.
The cancellations of one after another of everybody who supports Trump, that looks like hunting to me.
So that was one of my better predictions.
All right, let me give you some idea of, I'll just remind you to brag a little bit, some of my least likely predictions.
My 2016 prediction that Trump would win, when he was a 20-to-1 underdog.
Now I also predicted he would win in 2020, but I didn't really feel it.
I didn't feel it like I did in 2016.
But if he had won, I wouldn't have taken a lot of credit for that because a lot of you would have predicted the same thing.
So no big surprise there.
I predicted that the so-called sonic weapon for the embassies was bullshit.
I believe I'm the only one.
I didn't see any public person say on day one, this is obviously a mass hysteria.
It's one of my best.
And I was positive about it.
There was no doubt about it.
I also predicted, a lot of people don't remember this, but when the project Warp Speed was first announced, I predicted publicly a number of times that the vaccinations they produced wouldn't work.
How many of you remember that?
I said it a few times.
I said they wouldn't work.
I did get them anyway, but I did predict they wouldn't work.
Why I got them is a different story.
I predicted that Russia would not be able to conquer Ukraine in two weeks like everybody said.
Now, I didn't make a prediction about what would happen if it took years, and I didn't make a prediction about any particular domains that they did take control of.
I just said they wouldn't take Kiev, and it would be because the Ukrainians would have better, smarter weapons than Russia might have counted on, and they would have the home court advantage.
And that's what happened.
Now, I also made the worst prediction that Russia was only bluffing and wouldn't enter Ukraine because it would be disastrous.
Totally wrong.
But I was right that they didn't win right away.
I'm the only person who told you that Fauci was lying when he first said that face masks don't work.
Now it turns out they don't work, but what I spotted was that it was a lie.
Separate from the question of whether they work, I knew he was lying when he said it.
And then he later admitted it.
I'm the only one.
I'm the only one in the entire country who said the day he said it, that's a lie.
And then he admitted it later.
Nobody else got that one.
I also said Kamala Harris would likely be the nominee and might be president, but she was for two hours.
I'm not going to take credit for that one.
It's just a weird coincidence that that one was right for two hours.
Ali Alexander also said, what, about the masks?
I don't remember that.
Well, let's see.
President Lula of Brazil is no longer welcome in Israel.
They're mad at him because he said that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a holocaust.
Here's my little tip.
If any of you would like to never be invited to Israel again, just call anything they do a holocaust.
Not going to be invited.
Your invitations will dry up immediately.
If you do that.
But, I would like to add this.
The biggest asset that any country has, besides maybe nuclear weapons, and even in this case, it applies, is the psychology of the country.
And also the psychology of the other countries and how they see you.
Now Israel's had this gigantic asset, ironically it's an asset, which is the Holocaust.
Which is, we all see their situation as special because the Holocaust is unparalleled in our imaginations and in history.
I'm sure it's not unparalleled, but we see it that way now.
If you lose that, if you're Israeli and you lose that psychological, you know, gigantic asset, that you get a little bit of special treatment and consideration, because nobody else that we know went through a Holocaust quite like that.
Yes, you can mention the other Holocausts, and I accept that.
But in our consciousness, the World War II Holocaust is, you know, the one that's in the front of your head.
In my opinion, I think Israel has largely spent that asset.
Now, it doesn't mean it wasn't worth it, so I'm not going to say it's a mistake.
But they're very pointedly spending that asset.
And when it's done, the rest of the world is not going to say, you get special treatment because of the Holocaust.
They're going to say, Things were—bad things were done to Jews, and Jews did bad things.
It's a tie.
I'm not saying that, just to be clear.
I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that's what people were going to say.
That would be a common opinion.
So, I wonder how much of an impact this will have if it turned out that the outcome was That Israel gets full control and it becomes a one state and 100 years from now Israel's bigger and controls all that territory.
You're going to say it was all worth it.
And that was a good investment.
They gave up the Holocaust asset but in return they got much safer.
Perhaps that might be the outcome.
Representative Tlaib.
Says don't fight for Biden because of the Gaza situation.
That's pretty interesting.
So the leftists of the leftists say don't vote.
Now, she doesn't say do vote for Trump.
That would be going too far.
But it's interesting that she broke ranks.
And.
Yeah.
And then my last story here, which is one of my favorites, I get this also from the Amuse account on X, which you should follow.
And this is so diabolically clever that I'm sort of obsessed with it.
It's not really going to happen, but I'm kind of obsessed with it.
So Amuse says, Thought, as long as mail-in ballots are allowed, all drug tests should be mail-in too.
Oh, wow.
Did that hit you the way it hit me?
Now, by itself, it's just a really clever observation.
It doesn't really have any impact on anything in the real world.
Here's how it could.
Imagine, if you will, somebody like Matt Gaetz, just to use an example person.
Imagine if he tried to flow some legislation to allow all drug tests to be mail-in in the corporate world.
And his argument is that we've proven that mail-in is a safe system, and we should extend it to people who may have some shyness about peeing in front of other people.
Now, I happen to be one of those people.
If I were in a corporate environment where I had to take a drug test, I actually physically couldn't do it.
Because physically, you need to be somewhere around where somebody either watches or can listen.
To you urinating in a cup.
I would never be able to do that.
And probably 5% of the country couldn't do that.
Are you one of them?
Tell me in the comments if you could do that.
Somebody's listening, and you've got to perform.
Could you do it?
I can't do it.
I'm seeing a number of people.
It's probably in the 5-10% range, something like that.
Now, that would be enough legitimate health reason to say that mail-in drug tests should be confidential, and you should be allowed to mail it in if you're applying for a corporate job.
Wait, what are you saying?
You're saying that would lead to, uh, what?
Massive fraud?
No.
No.
What are you thinking?
Mail-in drug tests are just as safe as mail-in ballots, and we know that mail-in ballots are safe because we just had the courts find absolutely no problems with them.
Am I right?
Name me, name me one court That ruled that mail-in ballots made the election illegitimate.
None.
None.
So since the court systems, according to every Democrat in the world, have ruled that there's no problems, no problems with mail-in ballots, we should extend that by legislation, by legislation, to allow mail-in drug tests.
Is that brilliant?
Is that like the best idea you've heard all day?
I mean, it's almost as good as solving those pyramid rocks.
Yeah.
Now, and just to be clear, nobody would ever vote for that, right?
Nor would you maybe want them to.
I mean, in my case, I'd like it if I were ever in that position.
But it would force people to talk about it.
It would force it into headlines.
It would force Democrats in every big company to say, mail-in is not secure.
Now, of course they would try to say, oh, you right-wing white supremacists are trying to compare two things that can't be compared.
They're different.
Of course they're different.
Is that comparison fair?
Eh, no.
Not really, because analogies should never win you an argument.
I say that twice a week.
Analogy should never win you an argument.
So you shouldn't change mail-in voting because of something about pissing in a bottle.
Do we agree?
You shouldn't change your voting system Because a pissing in a bottle is, you know, they're just not comparable.
But it will make people think about it.
It would force you to wrestle with the security problems of a mail-in anything.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best President's Day livestream you're likely to see.
Because I remind you again that other people are lazy and they don't care about you as much as I do.
I care.
That's why I'm here every day.
Because I care.
And the weak people who take the day off, oh, it's President's Day.
I couldn't possibly add value to the world on a day in which we artificially decided to celebrate people who are elected for no particular reason because we don't have, like, You know, State Assemblyman Day.
So, yes, lazy bastards.
Lazy, lazy bastards.
And I'm glad you're here with those of us who are go-getters.
All right.
And ladies and gentlemen, I will talk to you later on the X-Platform and Rumble and on YouTube.
