All Episodes
March 2, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:02:43
Episode 2401 CWSA 03/02/24

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, Prehistoric Women Hunters, China Erases Covid Data, Steve Garvey, Arizona Shoot Migrants, Australian Censorship, Grok Analysis Potential, Democrat 2024 Policy, Scaring Black Voters, White Rural Voter Danger, Morning Joe & Mika, Fani Willis Campaign Funds, Black Female Prosecutors, Steve Baker Arrest, Free Speech Arrests, X Free Speech, Ricky Vaughn, Elon Musk Pay Package Lawfare, President Biden & Hunter, Extortion vs Influence Peddling, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- Do do do, do do do do do do do.
Good morning everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
Some call it Coffee with Scott Adams because that's his name.
And if you'd like to take it up to a level of enjoyment that only The Weeknd could understand.
And I don't mean the singer.
Well, for that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass.
A tankard shell's just fine.
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.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, wow.
That was extra good today.
I don't know why.
Well, there's a story in the Telegraph that suggests that prehistoric women were probably better at hunting than men.
Shall we just stop there?
That's right.
Yeah, because one of the things we really know a lot about is prehistoric people.
And we certainly know that those women were probably better hunters than men.
You know, if you asked me what kind of skills it would require to be a hunter back in prehistoric times, I would have said strength.
Strength would be right up there near the top.
I would have said athletic ability, the ability to run long distances, carry your prey back, throw a spear far and hard.
But most importantly, I would think that one of the greatest skills of hunting would be the ability to sit quietly for long periods of time.
All right.
So then...
I'm sorry, that was just for me.
you You can feel free to enjoy it too, but that was just for me.
All right, the funniest part about this was the comment section.
So I looked at the comments and one of the first comments is from somebody who you might not recognize by this name, John Cavanaugh.
Does anybody recognize that name?
John Cavanaugh.
No, you might not recognize it, but if I said the other name he goes by, let's see if you recognize it.
Coach Cavanaugh.
Do you recognize him now?
Coach Cavanaugh?
He trained in Conor McGregor.
He's probably the most famous MMA fighter or coach.
He just puts a little meme there of some actress whose name I can't remember just going, sure.
I like the fact that we don't have to take any of those bullshits seriously anymore, do we? - Do it.
Do we have to keep pretending that women can do everything men can do in general?
Now, certainly, if you talk about any individual, yes, women can do almost every single thing that men can do except draw comics.
No, I'm kidding.
They can do that too.
Um, not as well, but... No, stop it.
Stop it.
You're gonna get me in trouble in your comments.
No, no, it's just joking.
We're just kidding.
There's a new study that says that people who sleep less than six hours a night have a higher all-cause mortality.
Oh.
Oh, that's bad, because that would be me.
Oh, but there's a second part.
The second part is, only if they don't exercise.
Apparently if you exercise, it cancels out the lack of sleep.
Do you believe that?
Let me tell you how to read this science.
One of my jobs here is I teach you how to interpret scientific studies so you know which ones are credible and which ones not to believe.
And there's one rule that I hold more dear than all the other rules, and it's this.
If the scientific study agrees with what you want it to say, you should embrace it fully.
I don't know if this is true.
If it's true, it would be sort of an exception, because most of this kind of science is not.
But I like it, because I sleep less than six hours a night, and I exercise.
So, sounds good to me.
What do you say?
Do we all accept this one?
Let's not look into it too closely.
I don't want to find out that it wasn't a randomized controlled trial, if you know what I mean.
Observational?
Good enough.
Meta-study?
Fine.
As long as it agrees with me.
Well, here's something in the category of nothing to worry about here.
That'll be one of my categories.
I think that'll be a new segment I'll do.
A regular recurring segment.
Nothing to worry about here.
And the story under that category is Apparently China has some kind of national directive to erase all COVID data from the entire healthcare system.
Everything about vaccinations, all the studies.
Yep, it's probably exactly what you think it is.
I don't think it's to save, I don't think it's to save room on their computers.
Let's just say it's probably not a data storage problem.
Yep, that's probably exactly what it looks like.
Well, one of my better predictions, and boy do I have some good predictions lately, but one of my better ones was that the age of apps on phones would come to an end, and that the logical future interface would be that the phone adapts to whatever you're trying to do, Without you first telling it what you're going to do, choosing an app, and then doing it, which destroys your flow.
I want to just start using.
Just talk to it.
So the example that I always gave was, let's say you just started writing a message.
So you just got a blank screen.
Every time you open your phone, it's just a blank screen.
So you could talk to it, or you could type to it.
And then it figures out what you must want and then figures out how to do it.
Now, AI can do that pretty well.
So instead of calling up, let's say, a text message app, you just start sending a message.
You know, Bob, can you do this or that?
And then your phone, quite reasonably, thinks, huh, it's a message.
There are several ways I can send it.
And then when you're ready to send it, and only then, it gives you the options of which mechanisms to send it by.
Do I send it by WhatsApp or email?
So the technology should be the last thing you do, not the first, because it ruins your flow.
And apparently there's a whole bunch of companies that are working on just exactly that.
Devices that don't have a traditional interface or an app.
You just sort of talk to it and the AI figures out what to do.
So, I'll take a win on that.
There's news that ex-baseball star Steve Garvey, who's running against Adam Schiff for the Senate in California, that he's actually up in the polls.
So he's got 27% compared to 25%.
But I think that's a fake out, right?
It's fake news.
I need a fact check on this.
I think it's only telling us that Steve Garvey is the only conservative in the race and Schiff is running against several people who are taking Some of his votes away, but in the end In the end, isn't it just the two of them or am I wrong that the final vote will just be between two people or no?
Is it like jungle rules or something?
Because if it comes down to just Steve Garvey in California a conservative Against any Democrat doesn't he get slaughtered?
I think he's doing the Trump thing, or the Fox News thing, where Fox News always has the highest ratings, because there's only one Fox News, but there's a bunch of other liberal places.
I think that's all that's happening, right?
So his actual chance of winning in California is still vanishingly small, isn't it?
Because if he won in California, that would be quite a story.
I just can't believe it could happen.
Yeah, there's a runoff and then it just goes Democrat like usual, right?
I'm seeing in the comments, Garvey's best hope is to reach the general election and lose 60-40.
I think that's right.
Alright, over in Arizona, Republicans are trying to get a bill passed that would allow landowners to shoot migrants on their property.
Now I'm laughing because there's no chance.
I don't think there's any chance that gets passed.
Is there?
Is there any chance that will get passed?
Now, I think they would have to, you know, demonstrate that there was some danger or something.
I don't think you could just, you know, start mowing them down, even if they pass this law, which I don't think they will.
Even if they did, I don't think you could shoot them just for, you know, wandering across the corner of your property.
So I don't know how this would actually be implemented or how you could keep people out of jail and keep people from, you know, being murdered unnecessarily.
But there's a bigger question here.
There's a bigger question.
The bigger issue is, what does the federal government think about their border policy when one of the states on the border is considering letting their citizens open fire on the migrants?
That's the story.
The story that this is being taken seriously.
That people are actually saying, you know, maybe we should just start shooting them.
Which I don't recommend, by the way.
Bad idea.
But the fact that this is actually being discussed, there's an actual bill.
Legislation is going forward.
Now, again, It's just mind-boggling that we're in this place.
Let me tie in another unrelated topic.
Squatters.
So we have a massive problem with squatters, because I guess the law is favorable to squatters.
So if somebody gets in your house, you go away for the weekend, they can just move in.
And you can't get them out legally, because there's no force you can use.
And the government won't help you.
You just get into a long legal process that doesn't help much.
So, I've got a feeling that men with guns are going to start changing the equation.
Now, I'm not recommending it.
I'm predicting it.
Bad idea to take law into your own hands?
Don't do it.
Very much don't do it.
But, I do know men.
Don't you?
Have you ever met a man?
We do have a limit.
There's a limit.
Now, each of us have a different limit, but we're very close to the point where a lot of people who own guns are going to say, there it is.
That's my limit.
You put a squatter in my house and the government won't get him out.
That's my limit.
And I think people are just going to start using firearms to do what the government won't do for them.
Now, as it happened yet, We haven't seen anything like that, but it seems like the obvious predictable outcome if there's a continued government against the people situation Which is what it looks like it looks like the government is against the people of the United States at this point that's what it feels like and Reasonably
Given how well-armed we are, some segment of Americans, tragically, are going to say, OK, this is why they gave us the Second Amendment.
So there's a reason I have this gun.
I hate to see it happen, but we're definitely heading in the place where if the government doesn't do the job for the people, the people are going to start shooting.
And I'm probably not going to talk about it, but it's a bad idea.
All right.
So I saw a document today.
Thank you, Owen.
That I didn't understand, but there is a very poorly written article about Australia and censorship.
And apparently, Australia is worried about me destroying the world.
Does that sound like an exaggeration?
The government of Australia is worried about me, personally, just me.
Not me as an example of other people, but actually me.
And that I could be an existential threat to not just Australia, but the entire world.
Do you believe that?
Apparently it's true, I found out this morning.
So, there's a longer document that I posted, and it was so poorly written that I ran it through two different AIs, Grok and OpenAI, to ask it to summarize it, what it was saying about me, because I couldn't tell it was so poorly written.
I mean, really poorly written.
Super poorly written.
Like I've never seen anything like it.
It's actually a wonder of badness in writing.
But here's one part of it, and again, I'd like to put this in context, but I don't understand the rest of the document.
So something was happening over there with their government and censorship, and specifically censorship around climate.
And they called out two people in particular as their, people that they wanted to mention as their most dangerous voices that they considered critics of climate change.
And here's what they said.
A COP26 paper, and again, I don't know what that is.
Some kind of government censorship related thing, I guess.
It's called Deny, Deceive, Delay, which the Academy's, some group in Australia, submission also cited with approval... Okay, I can't even read this frickin' thing.
I was gonna read you one paragraph, but I swear it looks like it was written by a drunk guy or something who knew a lot of words.
I'll just read the part with me in it.
There are political right-wing top influencers as part of a conspiratorial Quote, intellectual dark web.
Now it's coming to my name.
This is how they're describing me.
Political right wing, top influencer, as part of a conspiratorial intellectual dark web.
It's alleged members, uh oh, here comes the alleged members.
Do you know how weird it is to be me sometimes?
best-selling psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson and humorist Scott Adams and his Dilbert cartoons.
The paper was aggrieved by blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, do you know how weird it is to be me sometimes?
Let me just describe like an ordinary day for me.
I'll just be sitting here with my phone, just like you.
And I'll think, hey, I've got a clever thing to say about climate change that might help people understand the larger context.
And I'll say, put a little post here and the X platform.
Boom.
Hey, good.
I got, you know, I got a hundred thousand views.
Good.
And then I go on with my day.
Then over in Australia, somebody's like, my god, he's trying to destroy the entire planet.
If he makes people panic less about climate change, it's going to get hot.
Australia will probably fry first, because it's kind of warm down there anyway.
And then Australia will fry, and maybe the entire world.
And we've got to stop that cartoonist.
Isn't that weird?
I'm just sitting here with my opinion.
And apparently the nation of Australia is worried about me.
Do I have that much influence?
You tell me.
Does Australia need to be afraid of me?
Because I'm so influential?
You say yes?
You think they need to be afraid of me because I'm so influential?
Do you think that I can influence the climate change issue worldwide?
How many of you think that I can influence, personally, just me, and Jordan Peterson, of course, but do you think that I personally can change the world's policies on climate change?
Why are you saying yes?
Do you think that I personally, just me, just talking into my microphone and posting on X, that I can change the world's climate change policies?
Well, you're right, I can.
They should be afraid of me.
So, Australia, don't come at me.
Let me say this if the Australian government is listening.
You know I'm on your side, right?
Did anybody tell you I'm on your side?
Australia?
Maybe you Australians need to talk among yourselves at the government level.
Maybe work this out.
I'm on your side.
Very much.
Completely.
I'm pro-Australia.
I want you guys to do really well.
I want you not to waste your money on things that won't help.
I want you to thrive, spend money on things that will help.
I want you to be a strong ally of the United States.
So, maybe targeting me for destruction is a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.
And yes, I can influence climate change globally, and I don't care if you believe it.
And I don't know why anybody would think I would have so much influence.
Next story.
About a month ago, I was posting that we don't understand any of our complicated legislation.
It would really help the public if AI could be used to summarize legislation.
Wouldn't that be great?
Just run these big, complicated, omnibus things through the AI and have it just tell you in clear language, OK, it's trying to do this and this and this.
I said that a month ago.
Anyway, I think it was yesterday that Elon Musk said that very soon Grok, the AI, will summarize legislation.
So that's why Australia is afraid of me.
I also suggested the other day that we should use Grok, or AI in general, to create what I'd call an influence chart of who's married to who, who dated who, who worked for who, who clerked for what judge, who was a roommate with who.
Because it turns out that the only thing that matters in our news stories is who was involved.
I'll say this a million times until it just becomes your operating system.
If the only thing you know is what happened in the news, which is what the news tells you, and you don't know the connections between not just the central person in the news, because they usually do tell you that, but how that person is connected to other people in the world.
If you don't know the connection to the other people, There's nothing in the story that's real.
It's just completely fake news at that point, right?
Yeah, you gotta know the people.
Now, I don't know if it's possible, but it does seem to me that every time there's, let's say, a Trump court case, somehow, we always figure out that somebody knew somebody who was sleeping with somebody, clerked for somebody.
I don't know where that comes from, but it must come from public records.
If you did nothing but check the LinkedIn profile of everybody involved in anything, you'd have 20% of the connections.
And then there's other things.
I would imagine you could find out who's married through public records.
Is that something that AI could do?
Figure out who's married just from public records?
Sometimes you could figure out who's a roommate.
The college roommate thing is really strong.
I can't imagine being a college roommate with somebody and then, you know, not having a strong connection to them and wanting to protect them a little bit.
So I'd love to see that.
I don't know if it's possible, but we'll see.
Is it my imagination or have Democrats completely surrendered on policy?
Because here's what I see.
I see that they've completely given up, and the only thing you can do if you don't have any policy arguments is what they're doing.
End free speech, and then tell you that that Trump guy is a Putin-loving, pussy-grabbing monster and he's coming for you.
And probably a white supremacist, too.
Have you noticed that?
The entire Democrat approach, they sent out Jill to say that Trump's bad for women.
So that's actually their entire campaign, is that.
Now let's compare campaigns.
Trump campaign theme, I think you would agree, it's something like, you know, make America great again, and everybody understands that he means something like the first term, and secure the border.
So securing the border is pretty specific.
We know what that would look like.
And I don't think Trump has the same obligation for policy descriptions, because you know he would do what he did before.
For example, you know he doesn't like regulations.
He would cut two for every one he approves, presumably.
He would just keep doing the same things he was doing, because he was happy with what he was doing and his supporters were happy with it.
So I assume he would Promote American energy, right?
Promote American energy production.
That would help us with our GDP and maybe it's the only way out of the debt situation.
You're gonna have to outgrow it if you can't spend it, if you can't pay it down.
So that's Trump.
Secure the border, get rid of excess policies, keep taxes low, you know, don't get into any wars.
Pretty good policy stuff.
And he doesn't really, like I said, I don't really think he has to say it.
He's the only person who ever ran for president who doesn't really have to get too specific because we saw it.
It's a huge advantage that he had for years.
You just say, well, do you want this or whatever?
What are the, what else is being offered?
Now here are the campaigns.
Trump, secure the border and make America great again.
Biden, There might be a Putin-loving, pussy-grabbing monster under your bed who could be also a white supremacist.
How does nobody notice that?
The media is so biased that you don't notice that only one of the candidates is even running on anything like policies?
And then, furthermore, when Trump goes personal after Biden, he's going after his age and infirmity, which we all see.
Right?
That's very different.
Even the Democrats see it as too old.
The polls are very clear about that.
So when he says Biden's too old, that's just objectively something most reasonable people can see.
But when Biden says, you know, all this Putin-loving, pussy-grabbing, white supremacy stuff is going to be the existential problem to the country, what happened during the first four years that would suggest any of that?
You know, it wouldn't be so ridiculous if he said, well, he did say all these things before the first time Trump was president.
But now that you've seen four years of what he does, how in the world would any of these things bother you as like a real legitimate worry?
Anyway, you have to completely get rid of free speech and own the media to win a campaign if you're not even trying to talk about policies, because you know that if you did, you would lose.
That's where we're at.
And the most important seems to be, and I would say really central to winning for the Democrats, is to scare black voters.
And so if you said, what are the two campaigns doing in terms of getting black votes?
You'd say, well, Trump is saying that, you know, he did some good things and, you know, black home ownership went up and some other stuff.
So he's saying, I'll do some good things that's good for everybody and has been, you know, seem to be good for black Americans because they're just part of Americans.
And the Biden campaign is, there's a white supremacist who's coming to take away everything you have.
So scaring black people is really the central thing that the Democrats have to do.
I would say more than any other thing, they have to frighten black voters.
Would you agree?
Now, I think that's very mockable.
I think somebody like Vivek could say, you realize that all your team is offering is frightening black voters.
That's their entire campaign.
We're gonna say that this guy's so bad, and he's extra bad for black voters.
And we're gonna hope that you believe it, because we own the media.
Probably work.
Anyway, and the way the media is trying to spin Trump's statement that because of all of his legal problems he might appeal to black voters, the way they're spinning that is they're saying that he's claiming that being a criminal would make him popular with black people.
That's not the point.
That would be super racist.
I don't know anybody who was thinking of it that way on the Republican side.
Here's the way they're thinking of it.
Being unfairly accused by the justice system is something they can definitely relate to, I would imagine.
I mean, I'm not black, but based on what I hear, if they have an issue about the justice system being biased, and then they can observe it being biased on Trump's case, I would think that that boosts their own argument, that the justice system is not blind.
Which I think is an important argument for black America, that they would like us to know that it's not the same situation.
You could argue the actual stats, but how people feel about it is unfairly abused by the system versus unfairly abused by the system.
And then the Democrats, because they're... I won't complete that sentence.
The Democrats turned that into, he's such a big racist that he thinks if he's a felon that black people will like him more, because he thinks they must be felons or something.
It's disgusting.
It's disgusting that they would try to turn it into that.
But it's working.
There are two MSNBC guests, a couple of creepy-looking white guys, wrote a book that says that white rural voters are the biggest threat to American democracy.
Yeah, all those white rural voters have been marching in the streets.
I mean, you can barely go outside without running into a white rural voter who is doing a protest in the streets.
And when I go to, if I go shopping, I'll notice that all the shelves are empty because the white rural voters robbed everything in the store.
And you know what is really, really frightening?
If you ever find yourself in a white rural area, well, I hope you're wearing body armor.
Because they're all murderous.
They're all murderous.
You get anywhere near them, they start shooting.
Those white rural voters.
Yeah, you gotta worry about them.
They're trying to steal all your money, take away your free speech.
Oh wait, no, that's the government.
Sorry.
They're trying to start some war.
No, that's the government again, starting wars.
Well, but at least they're trying to overtax.
No, okay, that's the government again.
But at least we do know those white rural voters, they're trying to round up citizens who did nothing but protest and put them in jail.
No, that's the government again.
Well, the one thing we know about these white rural voters is if there's even one little virus that ever comes out again, they're going to want to lock down society.
No, that's the government again.
Well, the huge crime rate.
No, that's not them.
Yeah, I know.
I don't know what to think about it.
But I have another question.
What's your best theory of what happened to Morning Joe and Mika?
What the hell happened to them?
I'm actually curious about it.
So it's not even a, it's not even a political point.
I'm actually genuinely curious.
So I have some theories.
Now one is TDS, you know, Trump Derangement Syndrome.
But I don't know.
I don't know if that explains it.
They act like they're paid intelligence assets.
Don't they?
They act like going after Trump is their job, and not just their job being on TV, but maybe like an extra job, if you know what I mean.
Maybe like their side job.
Unspecified, if you know what I mean.
They look and act exactly like they're either CIA or, I don't know, Chinese assets.
I don't think they're Chinese assets.
But they don't act like Normal people.
There's something wrong.
I don't know what it is.
Now, I'm going to generously rule out the option that the two of them are insanely stupid.
Because they act insanely stupid, only involving Trump.
And I don't think that there's any such thing as somebody who's smart in general, because they both seem very smart in general.
You know, successful professionals, etc.
I don't think there's any such thing as being smart about everything except Trump.
You know, unless you've got TDS.
Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So I don't think they're stupid.
And I'm having trouble believing that it's just TDS.
Because they're just so committed to the weirdness of it, it looks like they're paid.
So I'm going to say again, that every time you see something that doesn't make sense to you, and nobody can explain it in any way that makes sense, It's probably always the CIA or some intelligence asset situation.
So I don't know.
I'm just saying that every time I see a mystery and then it gets solved, it always is the same solution.
Well, it was really the spooks who were pushing the program.
All right, the Letitia James campaign.
Apparently, it's totally legal to get a bunch of campaign funds for your campaign and then spend it on yourself.
For anything you want.
Travel, trips, food.
And so apparently, allegedly, Letitia James did that and spent over $300,000 so far on what looked to be personal expenses from her campaign funds.
Now, it's completely legal.
I guess there's no problem with it.
But it's deeply unethical.
Because the people who donated the money to her certainly were not expecting her to use it for lunch.
Would you agree?
They weren't expecting that.
It's legal.
I guess it's unrestricted.
But certainly unethical.
And given that she's in the situation of going after Trump, the dirtiness of this is just...
But the question I would ask is, why is anybody donating to a campaign in a safe, apparently she's very safe, that's why she can spend her campaign money, she doesn't need it.
Why would you give money to her next time?
Shouldn't her campaign funding drop to something like zero?
Shouldn't somebody run against her and say, well, you can donate to me, and I'll use it to win this race.
Or you can donate to the other side, and she'll use it for a trip to Luxury destination which actually is literally what she is some of the money for How do you lose that campaign?
Donate to me and I'll do a good job donate to my competitor.
She'll go to a luxury resort on your money No, she's got a problem All right So getting back to the Democrat to the strategy of scaring black people.
I It's a two-pronged thing.
If you scare black people, they won't vote for Republicans.
But more importantly, if you combine scaring black people with getting Soros to fund a bunch of female black prosecutors, the woman part matters too.
Because they're afraid he's going to grab their pussies.
And he's a white supremacist, they say.
So Soros gets them all funded and they become prosecutors and attorney generals and whatnot.
And what would you expect them to do if they'd been brainwashed into thinking that Trump was the devil and he was going to rape them all and be partners with Putin and become a white supremacist?
Well, I have a problem.
Believing that the black female prosecutors and attorney generals and whatnot that are going after Trump are acting unethically.
Because it looks like it, right?
It looks like it's completely unethical.
And that it's purely just lawfare.
But I feel like that's missing the story.
This is downstream from the brainwashing.
Stopping Hitler is what we want people to do.
Let me say that again.
Stopping Hitler, even if they break the law, is what you want your fellow citizens to do.
So if Trump were, in fact, what the media had presented, an existential threat to the entire solar system, yeah, I want Letitia James to stop him any way she can.
I want, who's the other one?
I'm forgetting the names.
But, you know.
Yeah, Alvin Bragg.
Funny Willis.
So I would like them to stop an existential threat.
Stop Hitler.
Stop this monster.
The problem is that he's not those things.
And it's pretty obvious after four years of him in office, he's not those things.
So, I'm going to say that we have to do what we can to make sure he doesn't go to jail for lawfare, but we need to stop the brainwashing.
The brainwashing gets you this.
Soros funding wouldn't make any difference without the brainwashing.
Because I think they would, my guess, is that when Letitia James wakes up, and Fonny James, or Fonny Wills, when they wake up in the morning, I don't think that they say, let me go to work and go do some racial stuff.
I doubt it.
They probably go to work and say, oh, there's some crooks.
Let's see what we can do about reducing crime, and I'll get paid too.
I guess.
So I don't think it's about being black.
I don't think it's about being a woman.
Except that Democrats have specifically brainwashed that segment of the society and then funded them into office to act as one would when you're trying to save the world.
So these are some victims of the brainwashing and the Soros campaign.
I think they will be completely destroyed and I don't think there's any choice.
So I've said that the Republicans need to destroy these prosecutors and attorney generals and DAs.
They need to destroy them, their careers, because you can't have it happen again.
But I think they're victims as much as they're part of the problem.
And I think they got brainwashed.
And I think they were put in a position where they had to act a little bit like this.
And maybe it was a little bit out of character for some of them.
So I'm going to say that Brainwashing is the bigger problem, but you're still going to have to destroy their lives just so it doesn't happen again.
So, well, at least we have free speech in this country.
Blaze Media investigative reporter was just picked up by the FBI for his January 6th reporting.
Apparently did nothing but report things standing around.
And of course he was put in chains and perp-walked so that anybody would be humiliated by the situation.
So if you were a reporter you would certainly want to do whatever your government said because you don't want to be put in chains and perp-walked.
But that's just one example.
All right, so you can't make, yeah, Steve Baker is the name of the journalist.
We'll say his name.
But I don't think you'd make, like, some trend, you know, out of one situation.
Might be something special about it.
But there's also the Trump Law Fair for his free speech on January 6th.
But really, that would just be two examples.
Like, don't make a whole big thing about two examples because it's sort of anecdotal.
It's not like free speech is gone in America or anything like that.
Well, the January Sixers are in jail for protesting, which looks a lot like free speech.
So, I mean, you could argue that that's like thousands more examples of a lack of free speech.
But still, I'm not sure that's like some global trend or anything like that.
Well, Ricky Vaughn has been put in jail for a free speech on the Internet, but again, that's sort of a special case.
It's kind of a special case.
But at least we have the media to, you know, they have free speech.
Well, actually, we found out that the media is completely captured by our intelligence people, so, and the Democrats.
So we don't really have free speech in the sense that the media has free speech.
They pretty much have to do what their masters tell them to do.
But in so many other ways, we have free speech.
And by what I mean by free speech is that the only place you have free speech is on the X platform.
Unless you misuse somebody's pronouns.
Yeah, because you can't do that on the X platform until that gets fixed.
But apparently Elon said he would fix that.
Here's another prediction I got right.
I said that Elon would not be personally aware that the X platform had said it's hate speech if you misidentify somebody's gender.
And sure enough, apparently he wasn't aware of it, and he said he would fix it.
Said he'd fix it.
So that prediction was just sort of a Dilbert prediction, that the CEO is never involved in that level of decision.
So it wasn't hard to guess that he didn't know that happened.
But so at least we've got our free speech on X now, because that's coming back.
Well, I mean, you do.
I don't actually have free speech on the X platform, but maybe you do.
In my case, my account seems to be so siloed, I don't know why.
It could be the algorithm, could be something else.
But I don't reach anybody who disagrees with me.
So, it's not really free speech if the only people you can technologically talk to are people who agree with you.
It's not exactly free speech.
So, again, I don't want to make a big thing about the fact that they're perp-walking and arresting an investigative reporter just because he was doing his job and nothing illegal.
And don't start throwing in your Catherine Herridge stuff about how she's in trouble with the courts for not reporting her source.
Special case.
Don't think about Trump saying that you should protest peacefully and they turned it into some kind of a hate crime insurrection thing.
Don't think about those thousands of fucking people who are rotting in jail because they Tried to do their patriotic duty to express their opinion that the election was not as fair as it should have been.
Forget about fucking Ricky Vaughn who said something he thought was a joke and he's in goddamn jail for it.
And forget about the fact that your entire media is captured.
Because at least you can talk to yourself on the X platform.
We still have that.
So, yeah, we don't have free speech, nor do we have a republic.
And that's not hyperbole. - Okay.
That is not hyperbole.
You're no longer living in a republic.
I don't know what's going on, but it does look like some intelligence group of people are just running the show and have been for a while.
All right, there's a meta-analysis.
What have I told you about meta-analysis?
The lowest, one of the worst ways to know it's true.
Somebody looks at a bunch of studies and says, well, all the studies are bad, but if we take the average of them, it might average out their mistakes.
Maybe, but I wouldn't call it science.
Usually your assumptions of which ones go in the study and which ones are not good enough ends up giving you the result.
So it's about your assumptions, it's not about the study.
But an exception might be if the meta-analysis was only of peer-reviewed Double blind, highest quality tests.
Now in that situation, if they're all high quality tests, the highest quality gold standard, well then looking at a meta-analysis, that gets much more reasonable.
I wouldn't criticize that.
I would put a little warning flag by it.
But I wouldn't say that's a big mistake.
It's the non-controlled studies, you know, the observational studies, that sort of thing.
If you do a meta-analysis of those, I don't know that you'd know anything.
But a meta-analysis, taking the average of all the best quality studies, that might mean something.
So that was done recently on vitamin D and its impact on COVID.
And the result is that it's 60% lower COVID cases, 68% reduction in ICU admissions, and 84% reduction in deaths.
Wow.
And what's different about this is it's not observational, which is what I've complained about.
I've complained that they say, hey, the people who came out the best had the best vitamin D levels.
And I said, hmm, that's not good enough.
Because that's after the fact.
Like after the person dies, you check their vitamin D. That could tell you something, but it also could be just a correlation.
The way you really want to do it, is you want to admit people to the hospital, and then boost their vitamin D, and then compare them to people who were admitted to the hospital, you know, with similar conditions, that didn't have boosted, didn't get boosted when they got there.
That'd be a pretty good comparison.
And apparently that's what they did.
They did the right comparison and found out that vitamin D is basically a miracle drug.
And it would be good if you already had it in you, but if you didn't and you got sick, apparently being boosted made a big difference.
Now, um, I don't like to brag.
No, that's a lie.
I love to brag.
Um, I had by far, by far, the best predictions and opinions on the pandemic.
No one came even close.
Let me just give you a sample.
I won't go through the whole list because it's long.
On day one of the pandemic, I told everybody to supplement with vitamin D and get sun and lose weight.
That was better than the advice of every doctor.
I also said that I predicted that the vaccination would not work.
Now, separately, I ended up bending to the pressure of wanting to go on a foreign vacation with my lovely wife at the time and got the shots.
So far I seem fine, so I may have gotten lucky.
By far, it was the best prediction and advice.
Nobody came close.
And I won't go through the other things I got right about the pandemic.
But the funny thing is, of course, I'm famous for being wrong about the pandemic.
If you went on the internet, you'd find I'm one of the most famously wrong people.
It's because some idiots reversed all my opinions and made it into memes.
That's how it goes.
So I'm famous for the worst opinions, but unambiguously, there's nobody who came close.
There's nobody said it sooner or more right than what I said.
And you can actually overdose on vitamin D.
Somebody died recently from too much. - That was in the news as well.
Well, who is the angriest man in the world?
I don't know.
But I'm going to say, if it's not Elon Musk, I don't know why it isn't.
You already know that the courts struck down his, what, $56 billion pay package that the board of the company he created had approved.
He completely earned it.
And he wouldn't have gotten much of anything unless he'd met incredibly difficult targets for the company which he met.
The person who sued him had nine shares of the stock, just enough to have a cause.
One, because they used a court that just would hate anybody who wasn't a Democrat, I guess, or backing the Democrats.
And so he loses in what is obviously a political decision.
But worse.
Do you think it could be worse than losing $56 billion in court for what is clearly a lawfare and illegitimate decision?
What could be worse than that?
Well, let me tell you.
The lawyers who pushed that case and denied him $56 billion in compensation that he absolutely earned They're demanding $6 billion in lawyer fees in the form of Tesla shares.
Wow.
Can you take a moment with me to just go, wow.
I don't know what's the worst thing I've ever heard in my life.
You know, that didn't involve actual violence, physical violence.
This might be the worst thing I've ever heard in my life.
I can't even think of anything that is more anti-civilization than this.
Except actual violence.
This is anti-civilization.
I mean, Let me be honest.
If I were the richest man in America and somebody took $56 billion from me because they could, just because they could, and then they demanded $6 billion from me just because they could, just because they could, I would put a hit on them and I would have them murdered.
Now, I don't recommend it.
Because it's impossible to get away with murder these days.
But if it were me, I would actually have them killed.
Literally, I would have them killed.
Now, I don't recommend it.
No violence.
But if I were in that situation, I would never be able to sleep until they were dead.
They... They... They may get lucky that they messed with the only guy who wouldn't kill them for it.
I don't think that Musk is a murderer, but I wouldn't say that about every CEO, would you?
Do you think there are any CEOs who have ever murdered anybody?
Of course there are.
Probably quite a few.
Yeah, I don't know who.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that there are, let me put it this way.
Do you think that there are any international companies that are operating in, say, third world countries where everything's bribery and murder and danger?
You don't think there's ever been a CEO of a major oil company who gave the order to kill somebody?
Now, they might have been bad people.
They might have been.
Maybe they hired some mercenaries to kill some people who were bothering their operation around the oil drilling.
But honestly, can you tell me you don't think CEOs order the murder of people who are bad enough that they deserve to be murdered?
Of course they do.
They just try to try to not get caught.
Now, I don't think Elon's that kind of person, and I definitely don't recommend that he put out any murder contracts.
I'm just saying I would.
I would have done it.
I would actually have them killed.
If somebody did that to me, I would have them murdered.
I really would.
Am I alone?
And here's the thing.
If somebody does something just to me, I'm gonna be pretty mad.
But this feels like an offense against the world itself.
This feels like such a deep offense.
It just feels like it's against the world itself.
Here's what I think will happen.
I think that Elon will use all of his resources to destroy the rest of their lives in every way that he can within the legal system, which would be a good result too.
So, I do think that if you do this kind of thing, your life should be destroyed.
And I'd say that about the prosecutors, and I'd say this about these lawyers.
Because lawfare, lawfare is sort of like stealing a horse in the Old West.
You know what I mean?
In the Old West, if somebody stole your horse, you could kill them.
If you caught them.
You know, sort of standard.
Because if they took your horse, you're in bad shape.
That's how bad it was.
You could kill them for it.
Well, lawfare is that bad.
Joe Biden insists he did not interact with any of Hunter and James Biden's business partners.
Of course, we all know that that's ridiculous.
It's very proven that he's lied about the whole thing.
But what I don't know, so Axios is reporting that there's a big difference between the cash on hand For the Biden campaign, they've got $130 million in the bank, but Trump's spending a lot of his money on legal bills, so he's running out of cash at the RNC.
Now, so Biden has $130 million of cash.
Now what is unstated in this Axios story is, how many diamonds does he have?
Or did he lose them all?
Because I think you'd have to look at that separately.
Because the Bidens have a bad, bad experience with diamonds.
Hunter lost a diamond that China gave him.
And Biden's brother, Jimmy, he got a diamond, but he lost that thing.
And it makes you wonder how much of the campaign, how much bigger could it be if they didn't lose all the diamonds?
Am I right?
All right.
It looks like Jimmy Biden got a million dollars from two companies based in Panama, this is new information, and didn't do any services for it.
So how many stories do we have now where one of the Biden brothers or son got a bunch of money from a big corporation in another country that the United States has dealings with and gave them no services in return?
It's happened a few times, right?
Now, do you remember the story about Hunter getting tough with the Chinese company and saying, you know, I'd hate to, I'm paraphrasing, but something like, I'd hate for my father to be mad at you.
Meaning there would be consequences if you don't pay up.
Now, I've heard it said that it's perfectly legal, although ethically sketchy, for the Biden family to be out there shaking down people for cash under the influence-buying assumption, even if they don't provide any services at all.
So I guess they found a perfectly legal workaround.
They could take people's money and provide them no services at all.
And it's legal.
But allow me to reframe the situation and put the whole Hunter Biden family in jail.
Not his family, but Joe and Jimmy and Hunter.
It goes like this.
I'm pretty sure blackmail is a crime.
I will accept.
I'm no lawyer.
But I will accept that taking money from other countries, under the promise that you might be useful but doing nothing, is probably not illegal.
But you know what's illegal?
You know, if you don't give me this money...
Something bad might happen in a political, you know, sort of governmental sense.
I don't know if you know, but I'm a close personal relative of somebody who's part of the decision-making process, and it couldn't always go your way, if you know what I mean.
You know, it's probably gonna not go your way if you didn't give me this money.
That's blackmail, isn't it?
Do we have any lawyers in the house?
How in the world is that not blackmail if they're getting no services except the protection of the family?
Am I wrong?
And why has nobody brought up this point?
That it's extortion?
Extortion is a better word?
Blackmail, not extortion, you say?
To me, it looks like extortion.
Is it only a crime in the other country?
Is that the problem?
That it would be maybe a crime in the other countries, but it's not a crime for us to extort somebody in another country?
Well, actually, I need a fact check on that.
If I try to extort somebody in another country, and I succeed, and they give me money, have I committed a crime as an American?
Or is it only if I extort people in America?
In other words, is the crime committed only on the, essentially within the nation that has the victim?
I don't know how that works.
So, here's what I think we should do.
We should stop saying that they're selling influence, because that's their frame.
Their frame is that they were selling influence and it was legal.
You know, they started out by saying, we're not doing anything.
But once it became clear they were selling influence, then they say, well, it's legal.
I think we should stop framing it as influence.
They were extorting other countries.
They were literally threatening them, you know, an implied threat that if they didn't play ball, bad things would happen to them.
Now that might be hard to prove, so there might not be any legal, you know, recourse there.
But if I were the Republicans, I would say it's a shakedown racket, and you don't want a blackmailer being part of your Government.
If you literally have a blackmailer as your president, an extortionist, where his family is extorting on his behalf, however you want to say it, that's not a good sign.
You were asked to play ball when you were a newspaper reporter.
Wow.
You offered to do the bribe, you were.
The Queen's Congresswoman Grace Meng's father, Jimmy Meng, got convicted of bribe taking when he had no legal power to do anything he threatened or offered to do for the bribe giver.
Hmm.
Okay, I don't know if that's directly relevant.
Yeah, yeah, the influence peddling needs to go away.
I don't think they were peddling influence.
I think they were peddling threats.
Looked like extortion to me.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes my amazing show.
I'd like to say goodbye to the people on the X-Platform and Rumble.
Thanks for joining.
And if you're on the racist YouTube platform, I would recommend that you find a different platform and not support racist companies.
So I'd go with Rumble or X if you care about that stuff.
Although I must say, from a technological standpoint, YouTube is quite a wonder.
It's quite amazing.
To me, YouTube is one of the most impressive technological accomplishments of all time.
It's very impressive.
Anyway, that's all for now.
Export Selection