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, Vice Media, Bill Ackman, Business Insider, Hunting Republicans, Catherine Herridge Files, Birth Control Zombies, President Trump, Open Border Theory, Election Integrity Theory, Joke vs Hoax, Jack Posobiec, Odysseus Moon Landing, Homeschooling Tax Credit, Vivek Ramaswamy, Gemini AI Bias, Jen Gennai, Reddit Data, Shaun Maguire, Russian Hoax List, Ken Dilanian, MSNBC Propaganda, Political Prosecutions, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because that's what it is.
We don't call it Colonizing with Scott Adams or Coffee with Colonization, but we could.
And 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 mug or a glass, a tank of gels, 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 dopamine in the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go.
Oh yeah, that's good.
All right.
Have you ever noticed that a joke is funny just by itself, but then it gets funnier depending on who tells the joke?
Because it's really about who tells it.
So you probably saw the meme that involved Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi walking across the tarmac.
And it's a real video of them walking across the tarmac.
But somebody added the Visiting Angels music and logos to it.
And if you don't know what Visiting Angels is, it's the nurses that come work with the old people.
Now, if you're familiar with that commercial, which has run a billion times on at least Fox News, it was pretty hilarious.
But even though it's funny by itself, it's ten times funnier when you know that Trump reposted it on Truth.
I will never want to have a president who doesn't have a sense of humor again.
I mean, that was the best thing about Reagan, wasn't it?
He could tell a joke.
But Trump is just flat-out funny.
He's just unambiguously flat-out funny.
And, I don't know, I appreciate it.
Well, in other news that I like, Vice Media is going out of business.
Huh.
Vice Media is going out of business.
You know, I'm shocked because every time they wrote a story about me it was so accurate.
How much do you think I love watching my enemies go out of business?
Do you know what would have happened to me if I hadn't been cancelled?
I would have gone out of business with all the media that is surely to go out of business pretty soon.
But I'm doing fine.
And in case Vice Media would like to update anything before they're completely out of business, you should know that as of yesterday, at least a verbal agreement, I have secured an American source for the Dilbert calendar for 2025.
So one year from my cancellation, I'm back in business, motherfuckers.
And the Dilbert calendar will be manufactured with all American products for the first time ever.
Do you know why it was never done before?
Because the bastards who used to run it told me it couldn't be done.
Yeah, they said it couldn't be done.
There was no way to do it in America.
Not only did I do it in America, I did it in Texas.
I'll tell you more about this as we finalize things.
But things are looking great for me.
In case you wondered.
I'm doing great.
All right.
Bill Ackman, famous investor, is threatening to sue Business Insider for what he says is defaming his lovely wife.
And he's giving him a chance to correct everything they said, but you know that's not going to happen.
So he's going to sue him.
And apparently he retained the same law firm that sued Fox News over the Dominion voting machines.
So Bill Ackman, he's a serious guy.
I guess you don't want to go after his wife.
Imagine all the things that have been said about him.
Probably a lot, right?
And probably not all true.
Probably something that was actionable.
But they go after his wife, who had nothing to do with anything, and he just went full barbarian on him.
He's actually going to put him out of business, I think.
I think he'll actually put him out of business.
And I'm here for it.
Oh, I'm so here for it.
I love to watch him just defend his wife, even at the risk of putting an entire business out of business.
Yes.
Yeah.
Because I think that the thing they did to her, you know, based on my reading of the situation, it looked like they deserved to be out of business.
That's my take.
So we'll see if justice is served.
There's a woman, I didn't catch her name, who did a TikTok video in which she has the best turn of a phrase.
You know, I love the reframes when somebody takes a familiar situation and just describes it in a more helpful way.
Well, you might not like this one.
So she says, quote, under 50 years ago, you didn't have to ask permission from the government To go fishing, own a property, build on your property, start a business.
Now you virtually can't do anything without asking for the government's permission first.
You're a free-range human in a tax form.
If you still think you're free, you're deluding yourself.
You're a free-range human in a tax form.
And we're done.
If you think you can top that, Don't even try.
Don't even try.
Our entire human experience has just been explained, and you cannot top it.
Don't try.
Don't try.
I know you want to.
You're like, oh, I can do that.
Nope.
Nope.
You can't beat it.
This is everything you needed to know.
Well, meanwhile, media mogul Tyler Perry has paused the building of what would have been an $800 million expansion to his studio in Atlanta.
And he's doing it because he saw a demonstration of AI and he said to himself, I'm not so sure I should put 800 million dollars into building a thing that will be obsolete in a week.
If you could just talk to your AI.
Now, Tyler Perry may have been fooled by the demos, as many of us have been, to imagine that you could edit it to create movies.
But we don't know how to do that.
I suppose we might.
It feels like it's solvable.
But not immediately and using the tools we already have.
So I think Tyler Perry's business judgment has proven to be incredible.
He's one of the more successful entrepreneurs of all time.
So if he's pausing his studio, I would definitely pay attention to that.
Because he's a person who can read a room.
All right.
I saw somebody complaining about movies and the sex scenes, and I wanted to give you my list of six things that I fast-forward through in a movie.
So when any of these six things happen in a movie, I just grab the remote and say, OK, I don't need more of this.
So I always fast-forward through a love scene or a sex scene.
They're both disgusting.
I don't want to see two actors pretend to make out because they're pretending to be married.
Because when a terrible thing happens to one of them, I'm supposed to feel worse.
No, I get it.
You're married.
OK, fast forward.
Yes, married people have sex.
Fast forward.
OK, yeah, you're having sex.
I get it.
I'm not impressed.
Fast forward.
So that's the love and sex scenes.
You already know that whenever I see a guy tied to a chair, Could be a woman.
Usually a guy.
If I see somebody tied to a chair, I usually turn off the movie.
But if I really want to watch it like it's a reacher, I watch that.
So I'll fast forward to that just so I can get to the good stuff.
I also fast forward through car chases.
Not impressed.
Fight scenes.
How many fight scenes have you seen?
Do you need to see another one?
I fast forward through all fight scenes now.
I have no interest at all.
I also fast forward through the final battle that's always in a large industrial complex.
If it's toward the end of the movie and your hero enters a large industrial complex, sometimes unspecified what it is, and he's going to have a final battle in there.
Fast forward.
Fast forward.
I believe I've seen movies that had a final battle in a large industrial complex.
Fast forward.
And then lastly, I usually go through the entire first act.
It's not unusual for me to fast-forward the entire first act, because usually it's showing somebody suffering.
Right?
The first act is, oh, I'm in jail, and now I'm pounding rocks.
And now I'm still pounding rocks, but they're hitting me with a whip.
Oh, I sure hope I get out of this jail in the second act.
Well, I know you're gonna get out of the jail in the second act.
I don't need to see how many rocks you pound.
I don't need to know how many times they whip you.
I don't need to know how many times they give you a crust of bread and it's the only food you have.
Fast forward, fast forward, fast forward.
So if you could make some movies that don't have any of that stuff, I'd really appreciate it.
Rudy Giuliani is going through bankruptcy because of his many lawsuits, etc.
And it made me wonder, has anybody compiled the full list of conservatives who have been destroyed simply by being part of the political process?
So, let's see, you got your Mike Lindell, you got your Roseanne, you got your Alex Jones, you got me, you've got Trump who's getting the Navalny treatment.
I saw an article by Joel Pollack and Breitbart.
Would you agree that that's a perfect analogy?
Putin puts Navalny in jail.
Forever, you know, whether he dies or, you know, dies of old age or something else.
And right in front of us, the Democrats are probably trying to put Trump in jail on Trump tub charges forever.
He would be in jail forever if they got their way.
How about Peter Navarro?
Going to jail?
How about Tucker Carlson?
Lost his job.
How about the libs of TikTok?
I think they just lost their banking processing company.
What about Catherine Herridge, who just got removed from CBS?
And by the way, if you don't know that story, somebody said she was working on the Hunter laptop story.
Do you mean still?
Or do I have the past and the current conflated?
Was she currently working on a laptop story about maybe how it came about?
But anyway, she was fired with a bunch of other people who were fired from CBS News.
We don't believe she was fired for the same reasons.
The other ones were fired for economic reasons.
And, um, but people suspect she was fired because her reporting was getting too close to the truth, is what people say.
I guess Catherine Herridge is not saying much about it.
She's being kind of quiet.
Um, but, uh, so basically everybody who knows anything about the news business says they've seen lots of people get canceled.
But, or fired, but they've never seen anybody have their files confiscated.
So it looks like it's about getting after sources, which means that the government would be working with CBS to make this happen.
So it's exactly what it looks like.
My theme for today is, everything is exactly what it looks like.
Everything is exactly what it looks like.
I'll give you more examples.
The J6ers.
How about all the January 6ers?
I would love to see a list of all the people who have been hunted and or destroyed in politics.
And I wonder if there's a similar list on the left.
Are there people on the left who entered politics, simply gave their opinions, maybe you didn't like them, but then their lives were destroyed?
Well, there were attempts.
Yeah, they attempted to get Brogan, but he lived.
Al Franken's a good example.
Yeah.
I thought the Al Franken thing was illegitimate.
Cuomo?
Hmm.
I don't know.
Probably Cuomo.
Yeah.
I said Alex Jones.
Sage Steele?
I don't know who that is.
Oh, uh, Pesabic?
Well, so Jack Pesabic, he's getting it today.
So we'll get to him.
Anyway.
So Google is apparently rigging the 2024 election right in front of us.
There's a report from Allsides.
That's an organization, Allsides.
And they looked at Google News and they said the bias has gotten even more pronounced lately.
And now 63% of articles came from media outlets.
The Allsides race says, lead left or left?
But how many of the stories that were carried on Google News came from the right, the political right?
Six percent.
Six percent.
Now, would you say it's fair to say, based on everything we know, because there was a professor whose name was Epstein, coincidentally.
Do I have that right?
There was a professor, Epstein, who did a study and found that, you know, based on your Google searches, it absolutely will change your vote.
Now that's a real thing, right?
Robert Epstein?
So we know for sure, well, we know from a researcher who tested it, that you can change people's votes by what they see.
And if they're only seeing 6% of things from the right, one assumes that that is just rigging the vote.
Now, is it illegal?
Probably not.
I don't think so.
But does it have the effect of rigging the election?
Of course it does.
Now, do you think that anybody needs to rig the actual counting of the vote if they can rig the media?
And the answer is no.
If you rig the media, you can get any result you want.
Because the media tells people how to vote, and then they go do it.
I saw another graphic today that something like 95% of all employees of the high-tech companies, the biggest ones, are donating to Democrats.
How did that happen?
How did 95% of all the people in the biggest tech companies, how did they end up all being Democrat?
Like, what causes that?
Huh, let's see.
What happens to highly educated people before they get jobs?
Let's see, they're born probably somewhat normal.
You know, maybe a mix of left and right leaning people.
But by the time something happens, there's something happens between their birth and taking the job that turns them into wild leftist crazy people.
Could it be college?
Yeah, of course it is.
Do you know why it works?
Are there any all-men's colleges?
Is that a thing?
Has anybody heard of any all-men's colleges?
Do those exist?
I've never heard of one.
Are there all-women colleges?
Are there still any women colleges?
A few?
I think most of them went co-ed though, didn't they?
I thought even the women's colleges went a little bit co-ed.
Well, here's my hypothesis.
If you put men and women together, and the men are horny and the women are at that age where the men want those women, That the women will have the biggest social impact, because the men are just going to conform to succeed socially.
Let's just put it that way.
So it seems to me that if they were all male colleges, you wouldn't have this.
I think it has something to do with the mix of boys and girls.
And the reason I say that is I saw a post today that a high school teacher said that all the girls in high school are bi or trans.
They're all some non-standard sexual preference.
And what I'm told is that, at least locally, the boys are not woke.
At all.
And the girls are all changing their genders, their gender assignments.
So there's a huge difference between how the boys are handling the woke world and how the girls are.
And the girls are running at it hard, and the boys are rejecting it, for the most part.
Now, of course, you'll find some exceptions in both cases.
But largely, it's a female kind of phenomenon.
I have a theory that birth control has turned the women who are on birth control into a zombie army who can't find satisfaction in, let's say, some historical family kind of a mode.
And, you know, although they may be working and successful in the financial way, it seems that something fundamental has changed women.
And the problem is that if the same thing had happened to men, we would just shout them down and marginalize them and not care what they said, because that's how we treat men.
But if women, by some large percentage, and it doesn't have to even be over half, if they start complaining, men don't really push back.
Because we're trained not to.
So we don't push back the same way, anyway.
So I think that part of the problem is that we have maybe a zombified, chemically mutated group of women.
Who we can't talk to honestly because we don't have that kind of civilization.
We just can't talk honestly to women.
It's too much of a problem.
Anyway, so my theory is that it's women in college who can't be reasoned with, who are on birth control and possibly have been turned into zombies.
So it's sort of a zombie apocalypse frame.
I'm just watching the comments to see how many of you are going to disagree.
I've not seen any disagreement to that, which I wasn't expecting.
Is there no disagreement?
I'm literally seeing nobody saying anything wrong with that interpretation of reality.
Okay.
Yeah.
Anyway, 42% of US adults Well, anyway, the Google rigging the 2024 election by the fact that their search results lean in one direction heavily, that's exactly what it looks like.
It's exactly what it looks like.
I don't think there's any mystery to it at all.
It's that elections are downstream from media.
I'll just borrow Andrew Breitbart's framing.
Elections are downstream from media.
If you rig the media, You're done.
Does anybody disagree with that?
Elections are downstream from whatever the media tells you to think.
So if you rig the media, you don't really need to rig the election.
You know, unless something weird happens.
Do you know what is the one situation you can't rig the media?
If you get a Trump.
Trump broke the rigging of the media because he got too much attention without being part of their proper framework.
So he was the anomaly of all anomalies.
And then being pushed over the true social had the weird effect of shutting him up, which has even weirder effect of making him more popular.
Now, of course, he's not completely shut up.
But would you agree that Trump is acting Way more presidential than he did before.
Meaning that he seems to be just going for things that make sense and, you know, just standard things.
And even things he said before that sounded outrageous now just sound normal.
So where before people were mocking him for wanting to build a wall and close the border, that doesn't sound extreme at all.
It's basically exactly what Biden's trying to do right now.
So some of it is because we caught up to Trump and the things he said don't sound radical because now they just sound smart.
And part of it is he's just being a little more subdued because I think he's getting excellent advice and he's taking it.
So I don't know who his current advisors are, but they're doing a good job, I feel.
Don't you?
I feel like whoever his inner circle is at the moment are making a difference, it feels like.
So it's just something you feel from the outside.
So Biden thinks he's going to do an executive order on the border.
And let's see, what would that do?
It would allow him to deny immigration for anyone deemed, quote, detrimental to the interests of the United States, because apparently the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act gives them that power.
So with one stroke of the pen, he can decide who is detrimental to the interests of the United States and just ban them or send them back.
Now, Here's why this is interesting.
We're going to find out who runs the country now.
Because if we know Biden wants to do this, if he wants to do it, and then he does it, and then it works, you might conclude that, at least for a while, he's in charge of the country.
But I'm going to go with the opposite.
I'm going to predict that it doesn't work.
Now, maybe it doesn't work because he doesn't do it.
Maybe he doesn't do it the right way.
Maybe he does half of what he said he'd do.
Maybe he does it, but it doesn't get implemented.
Maybe it gets implemented, but it doesn't work.
And what I'm going to say is, I don't believe he runs the country, so I don't believe he will be allowed to stop immigration.
Because the best working assumption of why the border is open in the first place, and this will be just my working assumption, I can't prove it, it's just, it looks exactly like it, that our CIA must be partnering with the cartels, and we're both getting something out of this.
It looks like maybe what we're getting out of it is control of the Mexican government, because you would need the cartels to do that.
It looks like what we're getting out of it is maybe protecting any American manufacturing in Mexico.
Do you remember the story about the American manufacturing plant in Mexico that was attacked by the cartels?
I don't.
Never heard of it.
Have you?
How could all those American manufacturing companies be down there and you've never heard one story, not one story, of having a problem with the cartel?
Huh.
Huh.
So you've got big manufacturing down there that would be valued at billions and billions of dollars.
To me it looks like we're letting, we, the CIA, to me it looks like the CIA is allowing the cartel to earn the same way they allow the mafia to earn, because they use them for their own dirty work, and they don't want to lose that asset, it's too important, and sure, they don't like that there are massive overdoses, and sure, they don't like that there's illegal immigration, but that's how the cartel makes money.
And if they make the cartel stop making money, then the cartel is going to attack the businesses, presumably, the American businesses in Mexico, and they're not going to help us control the government of Mexico.
So I think that there's just a deal.
Now, what else could it be?
You tell me that you could explain what we've been seeing for decades, unless it's that.
There's no other interpretation that explains everything you see.
Every other interpretation leaves you in mystery.
But if you assume that the CIA is acting like they've always acted, which is the most reasonable assumption, That anybody who's always acted a certain way is continuing to act a certain way.
Like, why would you even question that that's not happening?
It would be an insanely unlikely situation if the entity that always acts that way, in exactly these situations,
Is not This one time What and it's even the country that's closest to us the most important one and and that would be the one time the CIA doesn't try to dominate it in part by partnering with the dangerous elements It would be the only time it didn't happen if it's not happening.
So I'm gonna go with what I call the working assumption I have no proof that any of that is the case.
None at all.
Not even a whiff.
But the working assumption is that's what's happening.
Right?
My working assumption is that our elections couldn't possibly be fair and not rigged.
I don't have evidence that, you know, I personally have a strong faith in.
But if we have a system in which, well, let me give you some numbers.
So Rasmussen did a poll asking people if they trust the elections, and more than half of them said they're worried about the credibility of the election.
Let me get the actual number here.
I think it was like 52%, according to Rasmussen, said that the elections were not something that were secure enough.
If over half of the public thinks your elections are not credible, and your entire system depends on people thinking the election is credible, and here's the key part, you know exactly how to fix it, and you don't, For decades.
What does that mean?
It means exactly what you think it means.
Again, I don't have proof, but my working assumption is there's literally only one way to explain what we observe.
The only way to explain it is that the system is designed for cheating.
It's designed to cheat.
That's why you have the massive mail-in votes designed to cheat.
That's why you have machines Because you can't audit them as easily.
Now, do I know that for sure?
I don't.
So don't sue me for defamation because I don't have any evidence and I'm not claiming I do.
I'm saying that from the outside, the only reasonable working assumption is that it's designed for cheating.
Because we can show with no doubt whatsoever that the public does not believe they're credible.
That's very easy to demonstrate.
And being credible is what you would think would be the most important thing, if it were even intended to be a fair election system.
All right.
Here's the hoax of the day.
How many times have you seen a conservative say something that was a joke, and then the liberals turned it into, that's no joke.
You really meant that.
Well, it's happening again.
Remember I told you if you only know what happened, you don't know anything.
But if you know the people involved, you probably know everything.
Here's an example.
Mediaite is reporting that Jack Posovic said at the CPAC that he wants to end democracy and finish the job that started on January 6th.
Now, did he say that?
Yes.
Yes, he did.
So if he only knew what he said, what would you know?
Nothing!
You need to know who said it, and you need to know who reported it.
Mediaite is a hoax-creating entity.
They pretty much only do lies about conservatives.
So if you read it first in media-ite, your working assumption should be it's not true.
Something taken out of context.
Now here's the second one.
If you'd never heard of this person, Jack Posobiec, and then you heard he said this, what would you think of him?
You say, my God, I don't know who this guy is, but he looks like he wants to overthrow democracy in the United States.
He said so himself.
But if you do know who he is, you know that the last thing in the world he would seriously suggest is an end to democracy.
It's literally the last thing.
Yeah.
So again, if you don't know who is involved, you don't know, you don't understand what's going on.
Yeah.
There's a hoax creator saying something, and then there's a famous political joker who's not, he's not only a joker, but if you don't follow Jack's feed on X, you're missing a lot of good jokes.
He's literally one of the most famous humorists who's, you know, also a serious commentator on the news, but he's one of the funniest ones.
Maybe the funniest one, right?
He's basically, you know, he's bordering on Jon Stewart for conservatives.
Now, if you were, if you were not familiar with him, And that was not included in the story, that he's not just sometimes funny, but it's his brand.
He's funny all the time.
Like every single day, his X-Feed will have jokes in it, in addition to serious things.
Very Trump-like in his mixing of the jokes and the serious stuff.
All right, well, apparently we landed on the moon.
How many of you think we didn't land on the moon?
There's a private company called Intuitive Machines and they built a little lunar craft and apparently it successfully reached the moon.
I don't know if it's working, but it reached the moon.
So, well, I think they did.
I think they're on the moon.
The only thing I want to add to the story is if they had waited one year, they could have put a robot up there and kept it there.
Just think about it.
So there will be lots more trips to the moon.
So moon base has to happen before the Mars base.
Do you all know that?
Do you know that a moon base is sort of a necessary step to have a Mars base?
I think Elon Musk says that.
I assume it's because you have to get enough material into space and then from there, you know, maybe it's resupply or whatever it is for Mars.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
We now have the technology, let's say in one year, that we could just drop a bunch of robots on the moon and as long as they had a solar power to recharge, wouldn't they just keep going until they broke?
Couldn't they just build stuff and, you know, just do anything they wanted?
Battery fires.
More severe temperatures and radiation exposure.
But we put the lunar lander up there.
If we put lunar explorers up there, and they explore for, what, years, right?
So, I mean, I think your robot would last a year.
Yes, I'm saying that you put more than one robot so some of the robots can repair the other robots.
That's right.
So some of them would be repairers and builders.
Anyway, but I guess the amazing thing is that we're actually there.
You're actually alive when we can put a robot on the moon.
I mean, I can barely hold that in my head.
That is so mind-blowingly Insane.
And here's the other possibility.
What if the robots, you know, let's say we send a few robots up and it looks good.
What would we do next?
Send more humans or send more robots?
I think we would send robots.
The last thing we want is a bunch of humans on the moon.
If you can do it with robots.
Now when the robots are done, When the robots are done, they might have a little place that a human could go without dying.
And of course, there'll be sprinklings of humans here and there.
But I feel like it's going to be a robot planet.
It will be the first robot planet.
It will be the first planet, well moon, it'll be the first entity up there that has a hundred percent robot population.
It would only take one robot.
But I'm in.
I guess I just can't stop being blown away by what's gonna happen with robots and planets.
Here's a story I don't believe is true.
There's something wrong with this.
But Rachel Stewart posted that the new Washington State envelopes for mail-in ballots, and she shows a photo, which was based on an actual photograph of a ballot, never had to disclose my party declaration on the outside of my ballot.
Wait, what?
You have to put your party designation on the outside of your ballot?
That can't be true.
That can't be true.
Is it?
I need a fact check on that.
Yeah, it sounds fishy, doesn't it?
Is that not maybe there's an outer envelope it goes into?
Or is it just for the, oh, maybe just for the primary, in which case it wouldn't matter?
I don't know.
Party designation is on the outside of my California ballot, somebody just said.
It's an internal envelope.
Okay, let's say it's an internal envelope and the external is what you mail it in.
Somebody opens it up.
Do they count it the moment they open it?
Or are there people who open them and people who count them?
Because if I were to organize it, I would have openers who would be separate from counters.
Yeah, it seems like it'd be really easy to accidentally lose some ballots if there's any time before they're counted that you can identify a big pile of them that are going to go one direction.
Yeah, so I feel like there's a detail missing in this and yet it's still alarming.
So let's just say we don't know what's going on there.
Trump apparently has Made a statement about homeschooling.
He came out strongly supporting homeschooling, and he proposed a tax credit of $10,000 per child to be homeschooled.
What do you think of that?
Would $10,000 get you there?
Gets you close.
I love that idea.
I love that idea.
Here's my take about public school.
If you randomly take 20 people chosen from the public, let's say young people, how many of them are going to be bullies and narcissistic abusers?
At least one.
At least one.
If you have only one bully and a narcissistic abuser in a group of 20 people, how will the other 19 fare?
Not well.
It only takes one.
It's like one in 20 can just destroy an entire situation.
But every public school has at least one in 20.
I think the public schools are where you send kids to be destroyed.
Again, look at the design.
The design is this.
I'm gonna send you where there's guaranteed bullies and narcissists And they're going to do terrible things to you.
Also, you might learn things.
On paper, that can't work.
Now, why did it ever work?
Probably because it was before social media, and probably before it was before a lot of diversity.
So diversity gives you more things to bully about, unfortunately.
I'm pro-diversity.
I like diversity.
But it does create more avenues for attack if you don't like what the other is doing.
So I think it's close to child abuse to send a kid into that environment with that many bullies.
But if you don't have a choice, You're going to do what you got to do.
So giving people a choice of not having their children destroyed by bullying seems like a real strong play.
And I would also think that this goes a long way toward reparations.
Now, Trump would be smart enough not to call it that, but I've been saying for a long time That what reparations should look like is to fix the only thing you can fix, which is the schools.
And specifically, if black kids want to do better, they're going to have to get out of the public school.
There's no way around it.
So my idea of reparations is fixing schools.
And you have to fix everybody's school at the same time.
Because if you want equity, but you also want reparations, fix everybody's school.
Then you've got reparations, because that's the thing that will make the most difference later in their lives.
But it's also equity, which is what you also wanted.
It just means that other people get the same benefits of having a safer, better school.
All right.
Um, so and does it again?
Again, I'm going to say, whoever is advising Trump It's just nailing it right now.
He hasn't done anything lately that I wouldn't have advised him to do exactly the same.
He's quieted down his hyperbole.
Right?
He's talking a lot about Biden's age.
Totally appropriate.
And now he's going after homeschooling, which I think really, really gets people right where you need to get them.
It feels like Vivek.
It feels like you can almost feel it.
And I'm going to say again that there's something magic about Vivek and Trump.
And I think the magic happens because Trump understands who Vivek is.
And they're completely on the same team of, you know, Team America.
And I think that they understand each other's strengths and weaknesses, because they're both unusual characters.
And I know a lot of you said that Trump wouldn't be able to handle, you know, Vivek being the smartest person in the room.
I think you're totally wrong.
I think that's what makes Trump special, is that he would do the opposite.
He would recognize what he had, and he would completely take advantage of an asset that's that valuable.
Trump knows what an asset value is, even if he tells his bank something else.
All right.
We're still mocking Google's AI called Gemini for showing that there are no white people in history, only black people.
And being generally so woke that it's ridiculous, they wisely pulled back.
I'm going to give Google more credit than you are.
You know, there's a certain behavior that I kind of look to, and it's not whether you made mistakes.
Certainly, Gemini was a huge mistake, because it was anti-white.
That's a pretty big mistake.
But, to be fair, when the mistake was pointed out, they pulled it.
They pulled it.
Now, I think that was exactly the right move.
Now, if they fix it, then you saw the system work the way it should work.
They tried something.
It wasn't right.
That's natural.
They saw the complaints.
They adjusted.
Maybe it'll be better.
I doubt it.
I mean, it seems unlikely.
But so far, that's the right thing to do.
So I don't like to be the one who says, you made a mistake.
Blah, blah, blah.
Jump on you.
Making a mistake is pretty basic human behavior and corporate behavior.
I just, I just can't judge people on a mistake, but you can certainly judge.
Oh, don't get ahead of me.
But only if it is a mistake.
If it's not a mistake, I'm going to judge the fuck out of you.
Yeah.
And honestly, it doesn't look like a mistake.
Are we on the same page now?
It doesn't look like a mistake to me.
No.
It looks like a very long pattern of doing exactly this.
It's just they got caught.
And I don't mean to say that they meant to erase white people in history.
There's no way they meant that.
But they certainly created a tool that would go too far.
And I doubt that's the one area that would go too far, because their Google search results are already so insanely biased that you can't imagine the AI would be anything else.
So, I would look at the design.
Did Google design their AI to be a neutral arbiter of the truth?
No!
No, it wasn't designed to give you the truth.
It was designed to give you the narrative that Google thinks is the appropriate one.
There's a video of a crazy white lady, who may be Irish or Scottish or something, and I guess she was the head of, or is, the founder of Google's AI Responsibility Initiative.
But here's the funniest thing.
I'm going to tell you her actual name.
And I'm not making this up.
It's her actual name.
And she's in charge of, or she's the founder of, Google's AI Responsibility Initiative.
Her first name is Jen.
Her last name is Gen A, spelled G-E-N-N-A-I.
So, the company that is generating AI wanted somebody to look at it named Gen AI.
I don't know.
It's just weird.
But anyway, she openly, as Matt Walsh and I think Elon Musk also noticed, she openly said that she would treat white people differently and disadvantage them, and that that was certainly a good thing to do.
So, it's not an accident.
Google is an anti-white company.
Their feelings about Trump are primarily emanating from an anti-white perspective, and it's not really hidden, and it's exactly what it looks like.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Biden's white, but he's not in charge of anything.
All right.
So, this is funny.
So Google is gonna buy Reddit data to train its AI.
Has anybody ever spent time on Reddit?
Does it worry you that Google would use Reddit data?
Well, as, was it, I'm forgetting her name, Bindu Reddy?
It's a woman who says a lot about A-I-N.
Do I have the right name?
Do you remember that name?
Anybody?
All right, well I might be getting her name right.
I think Bindu is in there.
But she made a funny comment.
She said that Google spends 60 million to buy the data from Reddit, but they're gonna spend at least that much to get rid of the data from Reddit because the last thing the Google AI is gonna be able to do is to say things that they say on Reddit.
Am I right?
Now that is funny.
That is funny.
That they will spend more erasing the data that they bought Then they will spend on the data, because they couldn't possibly use the Reddit data.
If their AI learns anything from Reddit, you're going to have to shoot it.
It's bad enough that it's too woke, but maybe we can work with that and remediate it.
But if you made their AI copy any kind of the patterns that come out of Reddit, You might have to unplug it.
All right.
There's a fellow named Sean McGuire.
He used to work at Google.
The reason he doesn't anymore is because they said they wouldn't promote him because he's white.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, If there's a white guy who used to work at Google, and they said directly, and by the way, he gave you the exact quote, they say directly they won't promote you because you're white, and they'll even say you're a star performer, but, you know, you're white, you should probably go somewhere else.
Have I ever given that advice before?
You should get the F away and go somewhere else.
So apparently he did leave.
So he left Google because they wouldn't promote white people.
And he built a company and sold it for a billion dollars.
So it worked out.
Does that sound familiar?
It's my experience.
Yeah, I was working at a bank and they said directly, they didn't hint, my boss has said directly, we can't promote you because you're a white guy.
So I left, went to the phone company and got on the fast track to management.
And then my boss called me in one day and said, can't promote you because you're a white guy.
And that's when Dilber started.
So I started it while I was still working.
Now, Sean Maguire is the same model.
Corporate America locked him out.
He went, he made some money, and then after he made enough money that he had something like free speech again, he said what he needed to say.
Sound familiar?
Now, if you're black, or probably just about anything but a white man, you're saying to yourself, Scott, If this has been going on for over 40 years, if, as you claim, every single corporation, Scott, you fool, if you're saying every single corporation has been discriminating blatantly against white men for 40 years and we never heard about it, how do you explain that, Scott?
How do you explain that?
Easily.
Did he go through the pandemic?
Have you heard of climate change?
You can always get people to shut up and say what you want them to say if money's involved.
And money was involved.
So for both Sean McGuire and for me, when we were working for corporations, we kept our mouths shut.
Then once we left, we bought our free speech back and then we talked.
Now, I would give you that there are 40 million witnesses who will back my story.
I don't know the real number, but maybe 30 or 40 million white guys who had the same experience.
If you don't believe me, let me ask you in the comments.
White men, How many of you had that exact experience, but did not go public about it and did not sue your employer, but rather sucked it up and or left?
Stream of yeses.
Stream of yeses.
Now, if you're a black man in America, what are you thinking right now?
If you've never, if you've never been exposed to this, what are you thinking about this?
Do you think they're all lying?
Because I've actually been told that.
I've been told it's not true, and I'm just lying, and I don't have any sources.
My sources are every white man in America.
You could literally go out in the street, just see a white man who looks like he's been around a while, you know, pick somebody who's like 50 or 60, just tap them on the shoulder and say, hey, do you work for a big company?
If they say yes, ask them if they've seen any discrimination or had it themselves against white men.
It's 100%.
There won't be anybody who says no.
None.
Now, if that's a big surprise to you, well, surprise.
Surprise, surprise.
So yes, Google is exactly what you think it was.
It's an anti-white company.
And one of the biggest companies in the world.
It's just anti-white.
It's very expressly anti-white.
Anti-white male.
And they don't hide it.
The training involves it.
The DEI says it directly.
And the search results prove it.
And the AI proves it even harder.
It's exactly what you think it is.
Yeah.
All right.
But at least our justice system is working great.
Oh, maybe not.
I'd like to read a little thing from Jesse Waters.
This was on X. He said, the same prosecutor who got busted for cooking up Hunter's sweetheart deal... Oh, if we knew that the prosecutor is the one who tried to get away with that sweetheart deal for Hunter, you'd automatically think they were crooked, right?
Wouldn't you automatically think, oh, that's crooked?
All right.
Well, remember I told you that if you know what is happening, you don't know anything.
But if you know who is involved, you know everything.
So now you know that before I tell you the rest of the story, that the who is involved is a prosecutor who Got in trouble, and it was reversed, for doing a ridiculous Hunter Biden sweetheart deal, which would suggest that the prosecutor is not acting, let's say, independently for the benefit of the country.
That there's some other impulse going on there.
All right, so now that we know who it is, this is the same person who He arrested the alleged FBI informant who was really a Russian agent, they say, and no longer the highly credible source that he had been for many, many years, according to the FBI and according to, you know, Jamie Raskin and other Democrats.
And it was that FBI informant who got arrested who was the one who was saying that Joe and Hunter were taking bribes from Ukraine.
Hmm.
So, let's review our Russian hoaxes.
I created a new list of the Russian hoaxes.
Let's see if that made it onto this.
Russian hoaxes.
All right.
So here are nine Russian hoaxes.
There's the original Russia collusion hoax.
There's the Russian bounties on American soldiers.
There's the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation.
There's Trump responsible for Navalny's death.
There's Trump invited Russia to attack NATO if NATO doesn't pay its bills.
There's the FBI informant.
That's this story.
For the Biden, the FBI informant was, you know, not credible.
There's the Putin blew up his own pipeline hoax.
There's the Trump must have some kind of love affair with Putin.
Otherwise, why would he be so good to him?
And then, I didn't know about this one, but researcher, scientist, Peter Hotez thinks that Russia was behind the anti-vax movement.
All right, so now that you know the context, that the Democrats use serial Russia-related hoaxes, and it makes sense because it does two things.
It's anti-Russia, that's good, but then it's also anti-Republican.
All right.
So what would you think of the story of the alleged FBI informant who was right until this last story that he was just all Russia collusion wrong about?
What would you think of it if you knew that the prosecutor who arrested him was just a straight down the middle, maybe even a Republican?
What would you think of it?
You might think it wasn't suspicious.
Because you wouldn't have any suspicion about the prosecutor.
So you'd say, well, they probably just found some real stuff.
Doesn't mean it's true, but you'd think, well, at least the prosecutor isn't lying.
But when the prosecutor has done something as visible and public as the Hunter-Sweetheart deal, and then that same person conveniently arrests the best witness against Biden, if true, That's a lot to assume is an accident.
So my working assumption is that it's exactly what it looks like, and that the Russian informant may have had accurate information.
Don't know.
But it's my working assumption that they would not have had this particular prosecutor.
I realize he was probably in the job that was responsible.
But still, it's so dirty looking, That you just have to go with a working assumption that it's exactly what it looks like.
A rigged election, again.
Brendan Carr of the FCC says, the FCC just ordered every broadcaster to start posting the race and gender scorecard of the demographics of their workforce.
That's really, really racist.
I don't even know what to say about that.
That is so racist.
At least Brendan Carr is one of the good guys, so he doesn't get in his way at the FCC.
But he's calling it out at least, so at least we know what's happening.
How in the world can that be good for the world?
I can't even imagine.
Well, Letitia James, one of the people going after Trump, trying to seize his properties, the one who ran for office on a promise that she would take down Trump and then figure out some way to do it.
So she found the person, then she looked for a crime.
There wasn't one, but she made one up.
Now, one of the things she said apparently is, someone told me once, if you want something done, give it to a woman.
Now Vivek points out on X that that's the same thing that Nikki Haley said.
If you want something done right, give it to a woman.
So Vivek says, Letitia James, while threatening to seize Trump's property, quote, someone once told me if you want something done, give it to a woman.
And Vivek says, I remember holding down my vomit when Nikki used the same line at the first debate.
Just a couple of sexists, they'd get along well.
Yes, it's exactly what it looks like.
It's a couple of anti-male women who have way too much power.
And it's something that men couldn't say.
So, there really is a woman problem.
I mean, I think we've got to call it out at this point.
Not all women.
Blah, blah, blah.
Conservative women seem to be normal.
Not all women.
But there's something wrong with that demographic that is affecting too many of them.
I saw somebody say, I think it was Jake Novak, that nothing we're told is explaining what we're seeing.
There's some kind of larger force that is corrupting everything and it's like we can't figure out where it's coming from.
And it might be just coming from the fact that women have too much power and men don't know how to tell them to stand down.
Because women are traditionally amazing at a lot of things that men are not so good at.
And men are traditionally better at a number of things that women aren't interested in or historically haven't done so good in.
But if we act like everybody's the same, you end up with people who are not suited for what they're doing.
You'd have a bunch of 40-year-old single men as babysitters.
Nobody thinks that's a good idea, right?
Nobody, right?
And now I think that we have women who are completely ill-suited to protecting the public, and that they seem to be operating on some kind of personal level that's not protection-related.
So, for example, I don't believe the border would be open, except that women don't understand security.
That's it.
Now again, I'll stop every 10 seconds for the dumb people to let them catch up.
When I say women, I'll say this slowly for the dumb people.
When I say women, I don't mean all women.
I don't necessarily mean you, or your sister, or your wife, or that one friend you have.
I'm making a general statement which might be useful, although I recognize there are exceptions.
Okay, that was just for the dumb people to catch up.
And there's literally nothing we can do about it because we can't talk to women honestly.
Or you can't.
I've got free speech.
I have kind of free speech.
I don't really have free speech because I'm siloed.
My speech has, for whatever reason, has been so siloed that nobody's going to hear it except people who largely agree with me.
So I have free speech within my silo.
If I left the silo, I'd be destroyed like the rest of you.
But at the moment, I can say whatever I want because nobody can hear it who disagrees.
All right, here's another story.
I loved, there was a Chiron.
I think this was also on Jesse Waters' show.
I had to take a picture of it because it was so extraordinary.
Here's a Picture of a person on the news on MSNBC.
Now, Fox News is showing that this person was on MSNBC.
And you see the guy, right?
Just an ordinary guy who goes on the news.
And he's saying, you know, maybe that laptop wasn't a hoax after all.
So, if the only thing you knew was what happened, You wouldn't know anything.
Because you'd say, well, here's a news person who wears a suit who's saying that Russia maybe is doing some bad things.
I thought they weren't, but maybe they are.
But if you knew who this well-dressed person was, It might sound a little different.
Do you know who knows who he is?
Well, it turns out Fox News knows who he is.
So you can't read it, you can't see it on your little screen.
But Fox News added a chyron that says, CIA mouthpieces bring back laptop hoax.
They call him a CIA mouthpiece.
This is a guy who believes he just works... Well, not he believes.
This is a guy who gets his paycheck from the news and does things that are supposed to look like news.
Fox News doesn't even bother treating him like he's real.
They simply treat him like he's a CIA plant and that he's doing some CIA stuff here and they're just gonna label it.
Fox News did that.
Good work, Fox News.
Nicely done.
That is exactly the way I wanted to see that story presented.
Remember, if you only knew what happened, a guy in the news said something about Russia, you wouldn't know anything.
You would have to know who this guy is.
He's literally the most famous of all the CIA alleged mouthpieces.
The most famous one.
He's the one that people ask me if he's the one who said it.
When you hear something that's clearly propaganda, often people will say, who said that?
Ken Delaney?
He's the first name people say!
And he's out there pushing the Russia collusion stuff again.
Or Russia hoax stuff again.
So, now that you know who he is, what's that tell you?
If you know who he is, then you know that the news is not real, but that at least Jesse Waters is not in on it.
At least Fox News Chiron guy or girl is not in on it.
Yeah, because they're calling it out.
So it won't matter because only Fox News people watch Fox News and the MSNBC people will think that a real journalist gave a real story.
That's all we'll say.
If you've checked MSNBC lately, it went just pure, just outrageous propaganda.
I mean, beyond anything you've even seen, and it's been pretty bad.
All right.
All right.
Let's talk about Israel after the war.
We have some data now.
About what Netanyahu says Israel wants to do after the war.
Let's see if this sounds like what I told you would happen.
Do you remember my prediction?
There's only one thing that can happen, so you don't have to speculate.
Will it be that they'll kill every man, woman, and child in Gaza?
No.
No, that was never possible.
You didn't need to predict it.
Will they Let Gaza go back to the way it was and, you know, Hamas or even just some Palestinians will be in charge?
No.
No, there wasn't any chance of that.
So where was it going to end up?
Were they going to just make them all Israelis?
No.
No, that was never going to happen.
Of course not.
It's going to be a one-state solution, exactly like the United States.
We are a one state solution, but really we're two countries.
You know, we're red states and blue states.
Now, if you say to me, but Scott, that's not that different.
I submit to you that the states who think that abortion should be legal are not at all like the ones who think you should not be.
That's a really big difference.
I mean, you can't get a bigger difference.
It's a miracle that we can live together under the same entity.
So I would say that Israel's only option is to do exactly what they just announced they want to do.
Have one state.
But here are the details.
So basically Israel would control Gaza and the West Bank, of course.
But they'd let the local officials do the local stuff.
So they'd be in charge of the security.
Well, I don't know about police, because they're in charge of security, but at least the non-security stuff would be done by the locals.
They would quote, de-radicalize society.
Do you know what that means?
I don't, but I think it means control the schools.
It must mean control the schools, because that's where the radicalization comes from.
And of course, that's what I said they'd have to do.
They'd set up some buffer zones in the north or south that makes perfect sense in the short run.
Security.
And they would dismantle and get rid of the UN group that was allegedly closer to Hamas than they should have been.
They were the main entity for giving aid to Gaza, and some say, and there's good evidence that they were complicit with the terrorists.
So, is there anybody who would like to give me credit for a prediction that was the easiest prediction in the world, that the only way it would end up is the only way it could end up?
It's not even a prediction.
I mean, that prediction was like this prediction.
When I drop this piece of paper, I predict it's going to go, I know, shocking, down.
Shocking.
How did anybody think it was going to go a different way?
No, I'm kidding when I say give me credit.
Because I don't need credit for saying the most obvious thing in the world, that there's literally only one thing that could happen.
And then, therefore, it'll happen.
So don't give me any credit for that one.
All right.
Yeah, you thought the paper was going to go to the ceiling.
What's going on here?
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my story.
The basic theme is, I think you caught it, probably everything is exactly what it looks like.
I don't believe we have anything like fair elections.
I think the election system is designed for fraud.
It looks like it.
And nobody can give me a counter-explanation.
Nobody even offers another explanation.
Honestly, if there's another explanation, I'd love to hear it.
But my working assumption, without the benefit of proof, my working assumption is our elections are designed for cheating and that both Republicans and Democrats must be okay with it.
Secondly, it's very obvious that, you know, Google in particular and the rest of the media are in on it and that our votes are entirely determined by the media and that the media is the election.
And the media is not anything like a Democratic-Republic situation.
So, yes, it's exactly what it looks like.
The media determines how people vote, and that if that's not good enough, well, maybe they control the vote too.
That's hard to say.
How about the political prosecutions?
Do the political prosecutions look like, oh, it's only the Republicans being team players who say that it's unfair what they're doing to Trump?
No, it's exactly what it looks like.
It's a Navalny situation where the people in charge are trying to put the critic in jail.
None of the charges are legitimate.
And I've got some, you know, one autistic guy on X who says, but, but if you say the value of your property is different than what it is, that's fraud.
So therefore he goes to jail.
And then I say, you mean like every time the car dealer says, I can't give it to you at that price, I've got to talk to my manager?
You mean that kind of fraud?
You mean the kind where, the kind of crime where you're driving at 51 miles per hour in the 50 mile zone?
Is it that kind of crime?
Is it the kind of crime where you say, I will work hard to do this, pay back this loan, but maybe you weren't really thinking it?
Yeah.
So the entire world is just fraud.
It's marketing, it's sales.
We have different reasons.
We call it negotiating, hyperbole, marketing, sales, strategy.
The whole world is fake.
Everything people say is exaggerated, spun, stuff left out.
If you started making all of it illegal, the whole economy would close.
It's absurdly childish to imagine that what Trump did is worthy of, and the Republic would be better for, his prosecution.
That's really stupid.
It's really, really stupid.
And there's no other way to put it.
Or biased, I guess.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining on the YouTube and Rumble and X platforms.
