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, Xfinity Customer Service, Retracted Studies, Schools Destroy Families, Finland Sand Batteries, Vegan Robot Restaurant, Trust in Government, Bitcoin Diversification, J6 Liz Cheney, Avanza ESG Fund, Certifying Trump Win, Cease-Fire Hollywood, Shaun King, President Trump, Jimmy Kimmel, Nancy Mace, George Flopinopolis, Byron York, Census Non-Citizen Inclusion, Mike Benz, Migrant Crisis Benefit, Haiti Government Collapse, TikTok Buyoff Allegations, Vivek Ramaswamy, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, Democrat Hoax Team, 2009 Obama Immigration Policy, Israel Hamas War, Lara Trump, 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
All right, good morning everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
It's Call to Coffee with Scott Adams, and if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that I don't even think you can understand, All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a sty in the canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure that dopamine at the end of the day is the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh, that was pretty good.
I gotta admit.
Excellent sip.
All right, well, we don't know what's going to happen today in this show because I'm using 5G off my phone to live stream.
So far, so good.
I've got a solid three bars on my phone.
If you've ever tried to get anything repaired at your house lately, you've probably run into what could be called the The incompetence crisis.
So I've got Xfinity Internet Service, which goes out every few minutes in my account.
Don't know why.
I've had my equipment guy check all of the equipment and isolate it.
It doesn't seem to be on my end.
Xfinity keeps sending me messages to say, oh, there's a problem on our end.
Can we send out a tech?
Followed by a message that says, there's no problem on our end.
Do you want to cancel the tech?
Followed by, the tech will be there soon.
Followed by, there's no problem if you want to cancel it, because there's nothing wrong with our network.
Followed by the tech arriving and saying, oh, there's plenty wrong with this network.
Nothing wrong with your side, but I'll change this wire.
So he changes the wiring somewhere in the external part of my home, from the street to the house.
And then he says, it's all working now.
And then I say, how do you know it's working?
Well, you can check for yourself if it's working.
And then I said, you know the problem is intermittent outages, right?
So showing me that it's working is not actually showing me that it's working.
Because the moment you drive away, it's going to quit.
Oh, but I changed the thing that was the problem.
So you can see it's working.
I told you I isolated the problem and fixed it.
So you're good to go.
So as he was driving away, the internet failed completely and continues to be worse than it was when he showed up.
So if you've worked with any technology companies, you are aware of what happens next.
Do I have to tell you what happens next?
Easy.
I will contact them.
They'll say the problem must be with your internal wiring that we can't service or possibly your equipment.
I'll call my equipment guy and my inside wiring guy and they'll say, I don't see any problem.
It's got to be in the network.
And then you're going to say, but why don't you look at Starlink?
Well, I have a little too slow for my needs.
And I don't have any other terrestrial internet services that are fast enough.
So I can't get the good stuff anywhere else.
So I'm going to use my usual technique, which is I'm going to shit tweet Xfinity until it's their highest priority.
That's right.
Every single fucking day, I'm going to say Xfinity is failing and their internet is shit and it's not working until they decide it's a high enough priority to get it fixed.
Now, I don't know what else to do.
I mean, I could call them every day and have them tell me they can't find the problem, which basically has been going on for years.
Now, do you think this is isolated to Xfinity?
No.
As I've said before, I've put in maybe five different home theater setups, you know, with complicated AV.
It's never worked once.
Probably five different companies.
I give up eventually.
And it never gets, it never works even The moment they drive away.
Every time.
So, no surprise.
Anyway, enough about me.
There's a new indication that there were 10,000, according to Nature, a science journal, 10,000 studies were retracted in 2023.
It's a new record.
10,000 studies that passed peer review, done by actual scientists, Got retracted because they were not apparently credible.
It's a new record.
So what do you make of that?
Does that tell you that things are worse than ever?
No!
If there's one thing I want to teach you this year, it's that if somebody tells you a number without a percentage, or a percentage without a number, it's propaganda, or it's BS, or it's bad work.
So when they say that 10,000 studies were retracted and it's a new record, is that bad?
You don't know unless you know the percentage.
If 10,000 is 1% of all the studies, even if it was bigger than the year before, because let's say there were just more studies that year, that wouldn't be bad.
1%.
You'd think that was pretty good.
If it's 75%, that's really, really bad.
So even though this is one of those stories that seems to agree with my preconceived notions that there's a lot of bad studies, hearing the number without the ratio and not knowing if that's a big or a small percentage is useless.
How many of you, this is just a little check for you, how many of you knew before I told you that when I said there are 10,000 retractions and it's a new record, how many of you immediately said, that's not actually telling me anything?
How many of you knew that the moment you heard it?
Because that's what you should be doing.
I'm trying to, I'm trying to get you to the point that the moment you hear the raw number without the percentage or the percentage without the raw number, you can't believe anything else that happens after that.
Yeah.
So be alert.
There's also a study, some researchers said, That the after school activities for kids, you know, they're all packed up with tutoring and sports and music and clubs and stuff like that.
They say that it's not really helping them because the kids are so basically filled with stuff all day that that last hour of stuff is not really helping them.
They're basically full by the time they get done with school, their heads are full.
Now, Did they need to do some research on this?
Or could they have saved some money and just asked me?
Because asking me would have gotten you the same result.
Scott, do you think that the schools are organized in a way that's good for the children, good for their minds and their development, and good for the families?
I would say no.
It seems to be organized for the opposite.
School and all the activities appear to be organized to destroy family life and drive you into divorce.
Now, I'm not saying that they planned it that way, but there's a famous, well, I guess it's getting more famous, saying that says that if a system gives you the same output time after time after time and nobody changes it, that the output is the intention.
You can't say, well, we didn't intend it to work out that way.
If year after year after year, you keep doing the same thing and you know what you're getting.
Anybody who's a parent, uh, with the exception of people who are maybe parents for the top 2%.
If you're a top 2% or you could probably handle all this stuff.
Yeah, I got A plus, I got music, got it all.
I'm in the sport too.
But for 98% of kids, they just get overwhelmed and they don't have any family time.
There's no family dinner because everybody's driving everybody around.
The parents' lives are a living hell when they get done with their own work.
They're just driving, driving, sitting, watching, driving.
And it basically just destroys all quality of life for no benefit whatsoever.
I knew that.
How many of you knew that?
How many of you were completely aware that the schools are set up to destroy your family?
I mean, it looks like it must be the intention.
But the top students, like if you've got an athletic kid, this stuff's great if they're really good at athletics.
It's just not the average.
Over in Finland, they've got a big project.
They're going to make a big battery out of sand.
So they're going to store a whole bunch of heat in a special kind of sand.
Uh, that just stores the heat well, and then they can reuse it later.
What if that works?
It's not ordinary sand.
There's some kind of special sand, but not that rare.
So what if that works?
I love the idea of using dirt for a battery.
Special sand.
But Finland also has a project to make a gravity battery.
So the first kind just stores heat, which can then be converted to energy.
But the second kind, um, uses an abandoned mine and a big weight that goes down the mine downhill to create energy because anything moving can be used to harness energy and then during the day when the energy is cheap they pull it or when I guess at night when the energy is cheap no it must be the during the day because they're using solar they'll pull the weight up the mine and then when they need the energy they'll let it go back down
So two different technologies in Finland.
Kind of promising.
All right.
York University.
We'll get to the political news.
There's fun science today.
They said the best case scenario for the highest life satisfaction.
So they looked at different demographics and lifestyles and they found out that the happiest people are this.
You're married, happy, Oh, this is for women, I think, specifically.
For women, you're married, you're happy with your personal appearance, because the thing they found is that your appearance has more to do with your overall happiness than almost anything.
And if you've got excellent health and consider yourself upper class, you're most likely to be happy.
Huh.
Well, now that's completely surprising.
People who are in a good marriage, good health, Good looking, and good social life, and also lots of money.
They're upper class.
Now, somehow, quite surprisingly, they're happier than other people.
Now, who saw that coming?
Who saw that coming, huh?
I don't know.
Well, let's add this to, you could have asked Scott.
I think I could have told you this and saved you a bunch of money.
Well, there's a new robot restaurant.
It's a vegan restaurant.
One of the founders of Chipotle, I guess, or the founder, he's experimenting with it.
And it's got a big robot arm and it only has three staff members because the robot does a lot of the work.
And it kind of makes sense to make a vegan restaurant with robots.
Because if you're a vegan, you don't like to be around a lot of meat.
And the employees are made of meat, almost entirely.
A little bit of bones, but mostly meat.
And so you can get rid of a lot of the meat, including the food, as well as the employees with that robot.
Now, here's something that's been my biggest pet peeve, so much so I even tried to start a startup at one point to fix it.
The amount of work To buy food, bring it home, prepare it, store it, put it in my mouth and clean up?
It is crazy!
It's crazy!
And the expense of it all?
How many times a potato has to change hands before it gets in my stomach?
Do you know how much work a potato has to do to get into my body?
A lot of work!
So I would like to see robots Take the whole concept of getting food into my body and make it a lot easier.
So this might be a working step in the right direction.
How many of you have largely given up on cooking an actual meal every night?
Rather just grab a sandwich or something.
Have any of you just said, this is just crazy.
I'm not going to make a meal every night.
I just wonder, is it common?
Because it's been a long time since I was in any kind of family situation where there was like a family meal.
You know, part of it is a school thing because nobody's available at the same time.
You can't have a family meal if the kids are always doing an activity.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think the whole idea of the family dinner is sort of disappeared for maybe half of the country or more.
Well, the military is going to go hard in drones.
We're going to make a thousand drones for the Air Force.
And I guess one of the big uses of the drones would be to escort our human planes, like the B-21 and the F-35.
I guess you all saw that coming, but the big story is it's happening fast.
And as soon as they put AI in there, we're all dead.
I think we all know that because we saw the movie.
All right, Elon Musk has a good quote today that I think sums up everything.
He said, trying to help people, well, it's not his own quote, he just posted it.
Trying to help people understand what's going on right now is, you know, what's going on in the world, basically, the country.
Trying to help people understand what's going on right now is like, Going back into a burning building to pull someone out only to have them keep punching you in the face and Demand evidence that the burning is on fire even after they admit they can see the flames Doesn't that feel like what it is It literally feels like the world is burning and when you talk to people say hey the world is burning You know, can we help you out?
They'll say I'm fine And they'll say, can you see the flames?
Yeah.
Yeah.
What's going on here?
Why?
Why do you not want to get away from the flames?
What's going on?
And I would say that the shorter version of this is cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance is when you have created a, let's say, a decision around your who you believe you are.
You're a nice person.
So you must back a nice things for example Then you find out the nice thing isn't so nice and you don't want to change your mind because you like to be consistent So I do think a big part of the problem is people are not seeing the obvious because It's hard Well Bitcoin is zooming up again.
Is it still up this morning?
It was zooming What does it tell us that Bitcoin is zooming?
Number one, it's probably something about not trusting governments, because if I thought that the dollar was going to stay useful forever, I would own a lot less Bitcoin.
So I think Bitcoin is a vote against the government being effective in the long run.
But you also have the ETFs that are getting approved.
I guess Great Britain's looking at it too.
So a lot of people who would not have touched Bitcoin are now seeing it as an essential part of their portfolio.
So as people just add it for diversification, it will become valuable.
Now, how many of you remember for the past two years, I've been telling you that Bitcoin makes sense for diversification because at some point the ETFs are likely to add it.
Unless something surprising happened.
And here we are.
So the ETFs, meaning the funds, are adding it.
And if the funds have to add it, there are going to be gigantic purchases, which drives up the price.
And that's what you see.
Among other animal spirits, there's a lot of psychology in it.
Well, my theme for the rest of the show is the enemy is inside the house.
The enemy is us.
That's the theme.
See if I can tie this together.
Story number one, according to Fox News, the January 6th committee allegedly suppressed testimony showing Trump administration tried to get National Guard presence on January 6th.
Now, Liz Cheney, who was part of that January 6th committee, says that's flatly false.
But Liz Cheney is the least credible person in the world.
I think if I knew nothing other than Fox News says it's true and Liz Cheney says it's not true, Who would you believe?
If the only thing you knew is Fox News versus Liz Cheney, which side do you take?
Well, the news is not the most reliable thing in the world.
But Liz Cheney is the least reliable thing in the world.
No, I think, yeah, this will be one where there's going to be some question about whether or not it was really suppressed or whether she thought it wasn't important and the committee thought it wasn't important.
So it wasn't that it was suppressed, it was misinterpreted.
It's going to be one of those stories.
But since nothing that Liz Cheney says is anything but ridiculous partisan bile, I think there's a greater chance that Fox News has the story right in this case.
There's a fund called Avanza, which, because it uses ESG.
ESG is, you know, the standard where you make sure that you're doing good by the environment and you're hiring diverse staff, etc.
And one of the companies that didn't do well in the rankings, and therefore, Avanza decided they could not put money into it.
And you may have heard that this company is called NVIDIA.
NVIDIA.
Yeah.
So there's a company that has actual U.S.
people's money in it that said, hmm, NVIDIA.
You know, this might be something we'd invest in, except for that they're weak on ESG.
So, do you think the problem is the World Economic Forum, like CSG?
Is the problem coming from all them strange-talking foreigners with their accents and stuff and making people go to Davos?
Or could it be that Americans are taking it too seriously and that's really the problem?
Don't we have the option of rejecting it?
Don't we?
We can't just say no.
Well, I would say this problem's coming from inside the house.
If you were an investor in this Avanza fund and you found out that they didn't invest in the number one best stock of all time so far, who knows what'll happen after this, Nvidia, and it was because of weak ESG, I think you'd have to say the problem's coming from inside the house.
Well, Mike Lindell is going to get his day in the Supreme Court.
I'm surprised, actually.
I don't know exactly what it is, but I think it's about election claims.
Says he's been waiting three years for it.
And he says, quote, the evidence we're going to drop you're going to see on Friday is the most explosive you've ever seen.
We're talking Kraken, people.
Kraken all over the place.
Now, I will give you my generic warning that if a hundred claims are made about the 2020 election being rigged, you can guarantee that 95% of them are false at the minimum.
It could be 100%, but at minimum, 95% are going to be false.
I said that on the first day and lots and lots of times after it, and it's been true so far.
Now, Does that mean that there aren't a bunch of real claims that will turn out to be, you know, explosive?
It doesn't mean that.
5% of the claims would still be a lot of claims, and you only need one to be right for the whole election to be different than it came out.
So it only takes one.
You only need one, and everything is different than what you thought it was.
So do we have one?
Well, if you follow the Rasmussen account almost, well, every single day, for weeks and weeks and months and years, actually, I think they've been showing you evidence that sure, it looks credible, but there's always that extra level of verification.
It's like, you gotta hear what the other side says.
So do you think the Supreme Court would have taken the case if there was nothing to it?
So I'm not sure if he's going to make election claims or some other kind of claims.
We don't know.
But if we live in a simulation, and if the Trump story is going to look like a three-part movie play, which it seems like it's shaping up to do, there has to be the magic point Where Trump is right about the 2020 election being rigged.
Now, I don't personally have any, you know, proof that that's the case.
That it was rigged.
Personally, I wouldn't know.
I would have no way of knowing.
But, if it's a movie, it feels like every single indication, the cat's on the roof, Michael and Bill's going to the Supreme Court, you know, there's court cases pending that have been delayed for reasons we don't understand, or Ballots that are apparently, according to witnesses, are fake ballots and they're locked in a room and they won't be unlocked, but we don't know why there's a delay.
So there's a whole bunch of things.
Any one of them could be the Kraken.
So, you know, the Kraken would be the alleged big, big proof that the election was rigged.
We haven't seen it yet.
To my satisfaction.
But I would say all the indications are it's coming.
I've never seen more foreshadowing for anything in my life.
Now, it doesn't guarantee that there's something out there that's corrupt, and it doesn't guarantee that if there is, we'd never see it.
But it sure feels like it.
Is anybody having the same feeling?
That it just feels like between now and November, something's going to break on that story about the 2020 election.
I don't know if I'd put money on it, but it sure feels like it.
Just things are heading that way.
All right, MSNBC is reporting that Joe Biden said, and I quote, every time he hears Trump speak, he gets juiced up.
He gets juiced up whenever he hears Trump speak.
Well, I think I need to hear more about that juice, because I think Kamala Harris is juiced up every time she hears Trump speak.
I don't know if it's the same juice.
Could be a different juice.
But whatever juice they're pumping into Biden might be a different juice they're pumping into Kamala, but they seem pretty juiced up to me.
All right.
Speaking of Rasmussen, they did a poll.
Says 35% of likely US voters say that if Trump wins this year's election, they would support Democrats in Congress refusing to certify the election results.
Is that the best?
That's just the best poll.
I love the fact that Rasmussen even asked that question.
It's just perfect.
Because 35% saying they wouldn't certify a Trump victory, Now, keep in mind that the question does not suggest that there might have been something wrong with the election.
So the question does not say, if you suspect that there was something wrong with the election, would you be against certifying it?
No.
It just says, would you be against certifying it?
Just if he wins.
So there might be some assumptions embedded in people's answers, as in they might assume that that means it's rigged, But that would sound a lot like the MAGA people, wouldn't it?
What percentage of the country do you think are MAGA Republicans?
Go.
What percentage of the country are MAGA Republicans? 35?
Is that high?
35%?
I think that's about the number of Republicans.
And the number of, you know, Trump-leaning Republicans is pretty close.
So, basically, it looks like there are a few more people who would support the Democrats doing exactly what the Republicans tried to do.
Except that the Republicans weren't trying to do that.
Were they?
Do you think the January 6th people were trying to Prevent certification?
Well, it kind of depends what you mean by that.
If prevent means permanently prevent, that's not what the January 6thers asked for.
They did not ask for it to be permanently prevented.
They wanted a delay to make sure it was a good election.
But these Democrats don't say anything about a delay.
35% of voters, which would include some, apparently that would include some Republicans, I don't know how many, not many probably, they would refuse to certify.
So I guess there's no moral argument left.
And let me say again, the problem's coming from inside the house.
Yeah, it's inside the house.
Well, something called the Academy Awards happened last night, which apparently is some kind of celebration of movies that I would not watch, because they're all terrible.
I recognized zero movies that were nominated, and I have no intention of seeing any of them, because the more likely it is to get an award, the less likely it's good entertainment.
Because it means they packed it with crap.
Um, but let's, there are a number of stories that came out of it.
Number one, some guy named Jonathan Glazer, uh, got up there and he got RuPard.
RuPard is when you get taken out of context.
So part of your comments are removed to make it very different from what he actually intended.
So let me tell you what he said, and then I'll tell you how he got RuPard.
He said, and by the way, I'm not agreeing with what he's saying.
I'm just telling you what he said.
He said, right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation that has led to conflict for so many innocent people.
So his framing is that the Israel occupying that territory, so he would call it occupying, others would call it something else, is basically it makes them feel bad because their Jewishness and the Holocaust are being cheapened.
So basically he's saying that Jews and this big idea of the Holocaust are being cheapened by what's happening there.
That got taken out of context Now just to be clear, I'm not saying he said something I agree with, and then they reversed it.
I'm not saying that.
But he did get taken out of context.
So they dropped the second part where he says being hijacked by an occupation.
And it got reported as, right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust.
No.
They were not refuting their Jewishness of the Holocaust.
But that's how it got reported on social media by a lot of people that you follow, probably.
Now, what he did say might be equally odious and terrible to the people who are his critics, but it wasn't what he said.
Just to be clear, that wasn't what he said.
Interestingly, you always hear people saying that Hollywood is run by Jews.
I'm not saying that.
That's a common meme you hear.
Yet, it seemed like the biggest theme was pro-Hamas.
How do you explain that?
How do you get a job?
So a number of the people who went to the Oscars were wearing pro-ceasefire messages.
So a lot of them were pro-ceasefire.
Now, if you were Jewish, there's a good chance that you interpret pro-ceasefire—not everybody, of course.
Everybody's different.
But there would be a lot of Jewish people who would say that if you're pro-ceasefire, you're kind of pro-Hamas, because that's what they're asking for.
It's literally what they're asking for.
And, you know, that would give you the problem of how do you solve it in the long run if you do a ceasefire.
So how do the actors who are pro-ceasefire ever get work again?
Is that going to be a problem?
Or has something happened in Hollywood I don't know.
I feel like Hollywood has done every single thing they can to destroy their own industry.
full of Jewish actors and Jewish managers, et cetera, but they've all gone to, or a substantial number of them turned into ceasefire supporters, which would feel to many like Hamas supporters.
I don't know.
I feel like Hollywood has done every single thing they can to destroy their own industry.
So the wokeness, you know, made it terrible to watch.
And, you know, movies are boring in general because other things are just more exciting these days and faster and get to the point faster.
So movies are like a dead art form, in my opinion.
But then they add this thing.
Why do the Hollywood actors think that they need to be making comments about Israel during the Academy Awards?
Like, where do they get that idea?
You can't separate those a little bit?
Anyway, Jimmy Kimball was the host.
He was pretty cringy according to people who don't like him, but according to the wild seal-like clapping in the audience, to his bad jokes when he made fun of Trump being up past his jail time, and then the audience went, oh, Trump in jail!
We so happy!
We so happy Trump in jail!
So it was disgusting on that level that they were cheering for an innocent man to go to jail.
Innocent would be my opinion.
Innocent until proven guilty.
And then the biggest surprise of all, apparently there were guidelines for the Academy Awards to, and movie, well, guidelines for movies.
So the guidelines for movies were to include a lot of diversity.
And they had pretty specific guidelines of, you know, make sure you've got at least two from this group and, you know, et cetera.
And then after all that pro-diversity stuff, Uh, let's see how it went.
Peachy Keenan is reporting this on X. Best picture went to, uh, well, that was an all-white cast.
All right, probably an anomaly.
Uh, the best sporting actor went to a white guy.
Best actor, though, went to, well, that was a white guy.
However, however, the best actress went to, well, a white woman.
But not to feel bad, because the best director went to a white guy, but at least to redeem the best director for short films went to a white guy.
So a lot of white people want stuff.
I'm not complaining about it.
I'm just saying, how the hell did that happen?
Does Hollywood have some kind of a weird self-hatred internal revolution that's going on?
Is there a civil war in Hollywood?
I don't know what's going on.
I have no idea.
Also, the best song went to a white woman.
Do you all know Sean King, who is famous as a black activist, who many of his critics say, Sean, you don't even look black.
I don't even think you're black.
So that's one part of his story.
But apparently he's up the ante and he's become a, he's embraced Islam.
So as of yesterday, Sean King is a Muslim.
So he's a black Muslim.
So that's good.
So I don't want to say that Sean King is the poor man's Andrew Tate, but I really do.
So I'm going to say it.
Sean King is the poor man's Andrew Tate.
I just like saying people are the poor man's something.
It's always funny.
It's never, it's never not funny.
All right, meanwhile, Trump was posting on Truth during the Academy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel actually read his post live.
Here's what it was from Trump.
On Truth, he said, Has there ever been a worse host than Jimmy Kimmel at the Oscars?
His opening was that of a less-than-average person trying too hard to be something he is not and never can be.
Get rid of Kimmel and perhaps replace him with another washed up but cheap ABC talent, George Slopinopoulos.
George Slopinopoulos.
He would make everybody on stage look bigger, stronger, and more glamorous.
And then he says, after a really bad politically correct show tonight, and for years, disjointed, boring, and very unfair, why don't they just give the Oscars to those that deserve them?
Maybe that way their audience and TV ratings will come back from the depths.
Make America great again!
Trump is never not funny.
It's like he doesn't have the capability to not be funny if, you know, if you like his whole act, right?
If you hate him, you hate him.
Let's talk about ABC News' George Slopinopoulos, who you know as Stephanopoulos.
So he got into it with Nancy Mace, Republican, on the show.
And it was fascinating because they both are, so both of them are really good with media.
Right?
George Stephanopoulos, obviously great understanding of media and how to use it, but a, you know, a biased partisan for Democrats.
Nancy Mays, same thing.
Super good at all media things, you know, the camera loves her, lots of good quotes and stuff.
So these are two people who really understand how the media works.
Do you know what people do when somebody really understands the media and is partisan?
Interview somebody else who really understands the media and is partisan?
Well, it was kind of hilarious, because Nancy Mace kept trying to frame the questions from Stepanopoulos as, quote, trying to shame a rape victim, which she repeated over and over and over again.
Meanwhile, Stepanopoulos was framing it as the jury found Trump liable for rape, Which didn't happen in the real world, by the way.
But also what didn't happen in the real world is the staff of the office trying to shame Nancy Mace as a rape victim.
So both of them just continually repeated their claims, which were ridiculous.
They're both ridiculous.
But they're both so smart about the media that they know that all that mattered is what they repeated.
So they were actually just not even in the same conversation, and neither of them cared to fix it.
You have to see it.
It's fascinating.
If you were a little less, let's say, informed about how things work, it would look like two people who couldn't have a conversation, or somebody avoiding a question, or somebody asking illegitimate questions and trying to score points.
That's sort of the old way to look at it.
But if you understand that the two people are brilliant at handling media events, brilliant.
I mean, they're top 1% easily.
Then you understand that they know that the audience can't follow an argument.
The audience can't follow any complicated argument.
So what you can do is just repeat over and over something you want them to hear.
So if you were a pro-Nancy Mace and you spent, you know, any one second looking at that video, you'd say, man, I hate that sloppinopolous guy, to quote Trump.
He's trying to shame a rape victim.
I watched the whole thing.
Nothing like that happened.
Not even a little bit.
At the same time, did the jury find Trump liable for rape?
Nope, completely made up.
But he wants everybody to think that happened.
So what did happen?
Well, Byron York tries to explain What the jury did find, and I think you can join me in saying what?
All right, so here's Byron York trying to explain it.
He said, in fact, the jury specifically found Trump not liable for rape.
It found him liable for, quote, sexual abuse.
The judge later tried to spin the decision, citing laws that did not apply.
Okay, according to Byron York, laws did not apply, to argue that the jury implicitly found Trump liable for rape.
I don't even know what that sentence means.
Like, I understand that as English, but, like, what's it really mean in the real world?
How in the world does a judge cite a law that doesn't exist to argue that the jury found in their own minds they were thinking something other than what they said?
But I guess something like that happened.
You know, Byron York is very credible in his analyses.
In the absence of an actual jury finding of rape, the judge guessed that the jury's decision necessarily implies rape.
Do you understand why Nancy Mace would not want to get into a decision about the details?
Because you can't explain the story and the details.
You could read that sentence like 15 times and go, I'm not exactly sure what?
Right?
Do any of you even understand that issue?
That the judge used a law that doesn't exist to read the minds of the jury?
What?
Anyway, so those are two good media pros at work.
Did you know that apparently half of the country is unaware, according to a recent survey, that the non-documented slash non-citizens get counted in the census?
Now you might say to yourself, well, so what?
The census is just trying to figure out who's here.
So they're here, might as well count them.
So what you might not remember is that the census is in part, and maybe largely the main reason, is to figure out how many representatives are applicable.
So if they can, they being the Democrats, if they can pump up areas with extra non-citizens, then the census, when it rolls around, will say, hey, you need some extra representatives because you got some extra people.
Those extra representatives would allow the Democrats to have a majority and rule forever as kings and queens.
The Trump administration, I guess, tried to get citizenship to be the only valid answer on the census, you know, so that it didn't have this distorting effect.
And Musk is pointing that out, Elon Musk.
And it's obvious that this is Isn't it obvious to you that this is all intentional?
I mean, that's what Musk is saying.
It's obviously intentional to pump up the power of the Democrats at any cost.
And the any cost would be extra crime, etc.
And cost.
So, you think the problem is the immigrants, right?
Do you think the problem is the migrants?
Do you think the problem is the cartel?
Do you think the problem is George Soros?
Well, to me it looks like the problem is coming from inside the House.
Because none of those things would matter if the Democrats didn't want it to happen.
Because we would just have stronger laws, etc.
So, the problem with migration is coming entirely from inside.
And it's intentional.
Because if a system continues to give you one kind of output and you don't change it, That must be the output you want, because you do have the ability to change it.
So we must assume that this plot to increase power at the cost of American citizens is exactly what it looks like.
Speaking of things that are exactly what they look like, do you remember me saying the only explanation for why we're not doing anything useful about fentanyl and about the border must be that the cartel is on our side?
Now when I say our side, I mean must be working with American power interests, otherwise we would stop it.
And Mike Benz, who has more information than I do, I was just looking at the system and saying, hey, if the system keeps giving you the same result, and the government has the ability to change it but does nothing, That must be the result they want, and therefore they must be working with the cartels to control Mexico and Central America.
But I was just talking through my ass based on the system.
All I did was look at the output.
I simply looked at the output and said, all right, if nobody's trying very hard to change it, they must want it.
What could be the possible explanation for wanting this?
And the only explanation is that we're the ones doing it.
If it were coming only from the outside as a risk to Americans, we would have stopped it, somehow.
But we're not even trying, in a way that looks like trying.
You know, there's little stuff, but not really.
So Mike Benza says that the reason that the Department of Defense, CIA, and the State, and the Department of Homeland Security, they all tried to stop Trump from building a border wall, Because, as Mike Ben says, if we lose the cartels, we lose Latin America.
That's right.
We need the cartels for America to have control over the governments of other countries.
Because the only way we can control the governments is to control the cartels, because the cartels control the governments.
So basically, we are consciously, we meaning these groups of three-letter people, are consciously allowing 100,000 people to die from overdoses and consciously allowing us to be overrun with crime and migrants because it gives us control over the other countries.
Now, is that a bad decision?
I'm going to surprise you because it surprised me.
But, as you know, I've been probably one of the most vocal critics about the border, as well as fentanyl, and not doing enough about it, because, in my opinion, it was a contributing factor to my stepson's overdose.
And so, I was really, really mad at the government for seeing the problem, much like Elon Musk points out.
You can see the flames.
Why aren't you trying to put them out?
And that was really frustrating to have, you know, a death in the family that looked like it, you know, could have been maybe if not preventable, there could have been a lot more that could have been done.
And then not to watch nothing being done was like the worst, most painful feeling you can imagine.
That I couldn't stop it from happening to somebody else's kid.
I mean, really, that's all you have left.
All you have left when you lose your own kid is you can make something good out of it.
You know, you try to turn it into a positive for anything.
So, you know, maybe you do a charity, a lot of people do stuff like that.
I thought my role would be to try to persuade tougher action against Mexico for the fentanyl specifically.
I can now see that that's a waste of energy.
I can now see that this was a conscious trade-off.
And a better way to see the death of all of the young people and other people dying from fentanyl is that they're effectively like conscripts.
In other words, it's like having a draft, except the draft is based on who got addicted.
So the people who got addicted are essentially war casualties.
Because the war in this case is to control the other countries by working with the cartels productively to do that.
And the expense of that, just like the expense of any war, would be the soldiers you lose.
And the soldiers in this case didn't sign up for it, except they kind of did.
You know what?
If you're an addict, you didn't sign up to die, you didn't sign up to fight the cartels, but you did sign up for something that was going to put you in the middle of that mix.
And you did sign up for something that gave you a pretty good risk of dying.
And it is true that people consciously put themselves in that situation.
And so I've actually had a change of opinion that when you know it's coming from inside the house, meaning that the drugs coming into the country are America's choice.
Then I see it as basically a forced conscription, like a draft, except that the addicts who were the ones who paid for the war, they pay for it literally by buying the drugs.
And it looks like the our three letter agencies probably share some of that and use it for for bad gains.
But, yeah.
So, my stepkid was killed in this war that he didn't know he was in.
So, there's that.
And I actually feel different about it now.
Because the thing I don't know is if we're better off.
I don't know if we're better off as a country by controlling Central and South America.
If we're doing it just for money or something, then of course it's the height of evil.
But if we're doing it because people who are a lot smarter than me say, you know, if we don't do this, it's going to be way worse.
It's going to be way worse if we don't do it.
Because they'll just, you know, the Central and South America will, you know, have, I don't know, economic problems with the bad government and dictators will bring in Chinese rockets, you know, all kinds of problems.
So, I don't know.
You know, I try to be a realist.
And I say, obviously, I didn't want my stepson to die.
But he did die the way I thought he did.
The way I thought he did was there were too many drugs and he took some.
It looks like the drugs are intentional.
It's the way they fund their control of other countries.
And that effectively, he was a conscript.
You just didn't know.
Or you might say he was a volunteer, but he didn't know he was volunteering for that.
Well, what about those gangs in Haiti?
As you know, the government is, I don't know, disappeared.
They're in some other country.
The leader, I guess the leader was put in by some kind of CIA, FBI plot, according to also Mike Benz.
And the president was assassinated largely by our spooks, plus who they worked with in that country, who are probably not good people.
And then the bad people took over and then emptied the jails, released the prisoners, and now the reports are that there are cannibal gangs that are going around eating people, and the streets are just pure crime and violence now.
Now, a lot of people are saying, do you remember when Trump called these other countries shithole countries?
And people said, you can't say that.
Well, I'm not going to call them a shithole country because I've learned.
That that is an inappropriate thing to say.
So, Haiti is not a shithole country.
It is merely a country with no functional economy or government, in which the streets are ruled by criminal gangs and cannibalism is becoming a national problem.
But not a shithole.
Not.
Now, that's the bad news.
Here's the good news.
The good news is that the cannibals in Haiti have a better diet than most Americans, and they're getting good protein source, not a lot of additives, and the reports are, oh, there are very few chronic illnesses in Haiti among the cannibals.
So the American diet, as you know, will give you a lot of chronic illnesses.
RFK Jr.
will tell you that for sure.
But in Haiti, they're, they got a cleaner protein.
They're just eating each other and no, no chronic illness.
Yeah.
It's carnivore diet.
But, and then other people are saying, but Hey Scott, don't joke about this because those Haiti gangs are going to come to America.
You know, the cannibals are going to come here and start eating Americans and I'm not sure that's a problem.
Because if we just sort of lock ourselves indoors, the cannibals are going to end up eating people around doors.
So they're going to eat a lot of homeless people, probably eat a lot of the Venezuelan prisoners that were released.
So if we could get the cannibals to eat the Venezuelan prisoners that came up from Venezuela, that could be a plus.
So in the short run, two plans.
The short run, you get the Haiti cannibals to eat the other migrants.
But eventually that's not going to work Because if the cannibals stay here in America long enough, apparently the microplastics in the water will cause them to lose their health and vigor.
And they might lose all of their cannibalistic urges because they'll mostly be playing video games and masturbating like Americans.
And they just won't have the energy.
They'll probably just door dash like everybody else.
They'll be like, well, I could go kill a homeless person and eat them because I'm a cannibal, or I could just door dash, play video games and masturbate.
So in the long run, I wouldn't worry about it.
It'll take care of itself.
Meanwhile, there's a study of Great Britain that says that the water is so polluted that the men's sperm count is going down and they're shooting blanks.
This is coming from Sir Tim Smith, who is 69, they have to tell you.
So, I don't know, that just seemed a story about sperm.
They got to tell us that the guy's age is 69.
I don't know.
Why do we need to know that?
Why do we need to know that?
Anyway, the UK's rivers and seas are so packed with chemicals that all the men are turning into hermaphrodites and frogs are gay and stuff.
Something like that.
So yeah, that's another example of the problems coming from inside the house.
Meanwhile, in the city of Pittsburgh, they're cutting back on the police responses.
So between 3 a.m.
and 7 a.m., No police will show up if you report certain kinds of things like theft, harassment, criminal mischief, and burglary alarms.
Well, I'm not so sure you'd need the police in all those situations, so that might actually make sense.
We'll see.
Let's talk about TikTok.
As you know, Trump was against it, but now he's for it because his biggest donor has like, I don't know, $30 billion invested in ByteDance.
So the biggest donor looks like he bought off at least Trump and Vivek and maybe Rand Paul and maybe Thomas Massey, maybe others.
And there are reports, one lawmaker told the publication Semaphore, They'd been personally threatened that a yes vote to ban TikTok could result in political retaliation.
They said it would be bad for your future, and you'll get millions of dollars dropped on your head, meaning, you know, for your opponent.
So that's what's happening.
So if you thought that the risk of TikTok was coming from China, It was not.
It was coming from an American investor who has so much money that he can essentially buy the loyalty of Trump and Vivek and Rand Paul and Thomas Massey, apparently.
Now I'll just say allegedly, because you can't read anybody's minds, but that's what it looks like.
And if you wanted to make sure that's not the case, what you would do is you'd listen to Vivek, and you'd make sure that he knew what the critical problem was, which is the persuasion threat.
So you can find out if he's bought off.
Or he's lying by whether or not he says he understands the greatest threat.
So here's an update.
So if Vivek says, yes, I understand the threat of TikTok is a persuasion threat, then maybe he's got an honest opinion.
But if he ignores the persuasion threat and talks about things like data and children spending too much time on it, then you'd know he's bought off, in my opinion.
All right, can't read his mind, but that would be the indication.
So let's see what he says.
Listen for what reasons does he give why TikTok is bad?
Right.
Give you reasons.
Trump just came out against a legislative measure that would require the owner of TikTok to divest it.
It's currently a Chinese owner of a company called ByteDance, or else that it would be banned in the United States.
President Trump just came out opposing that.
I think that's the right decision, actually, that President Trump to oppose that legislation because it doesn't make any sense.
And I've long said this, even late in the campaign.
Right.
It took a lot of heat from fellow Republicans.
Give you reasons.
I think we have to ask ourselves the why.
And this is the problem with professional politicians.
Give us reasons.
Don't really need the analogy, just the reason.
Give us a reason.
Could you get to it?
Yeah, what is it?
Yeah, what is it?
What is it, Vivek?
What is it?
to say and they act like billiard balls on a pool table.
They go in whatever direction they're hit without thinking about the actual.
Don't really need the analogy.
Just the reason.
Give us a reason.
Let's take a step back and ask about the why of what's going on here.
Could you get to it?
Concern that people have with.
Yeah.
What is it?
Yeah.
What is it?
That applies to a bunch of other social media platforms.
Can you tell us?
And that is an issue we need to tackle.
Why don't you fucking get to it?
Okay, that's not the point.
Yeah?
Get to the point.
Oh, here it comes.
It's not the major concern.
It's a major concern.
The point about the digressment relates to a different concern.
Oh, here it comes.
The use and provision of data, U.S. user data, potentially to the Chinese Communist Party.
And I think that is a major concern.
It's not the major concern.
It's a major concern.
It isn't limited to just TikTok or even Chinese-owned companies in the U.S.
Here it comes.
It expands to include even so-called U.S. companies Not the issue.
This is a diversion.
Not the issue.
This is all bullshit, by the way.
Not the issue.
This is a diversion.
Not the issue.
Yeah, it's also bad, but it's not the big issue.
Yeah.
Let's talk about persuasion.
And the big problem is?
But what's the big problem, Vivek?
What's the big problem?
- Properly disclosed to the public.
And one of Airbnb's co-founders reported- - Come on, let's talk about persuasion.
- To promote American values.
- And the big problem is, but what's the big problem, Fave?
- They put a little black square on their Instagram account.
- What's the big problem? - That virtue signaling aside, this is what they say behind closed doors.
- All right.
- It's not just Airbnb though.
It applies to countless other US companies.
- Not the point.
- So we have to ask ourselves the why.
Why?
Why are you getting to the fucking point?
Not the point.
Get to the point.
Come on.
Come on.
Tell us persuasion is the big problem.
Say it.
Say it.
Diversion.
Not the point.
Get to the point.
Come on.
Come on.
Tell us persuasion is the big problem.
Say it.
Say it.
Diversion.
Diversion.
What's the actual problem?
Now we're going to talk politics without actually talking about the problem.
Oh, now we're going to talk politics without actually talking about the problem.
So now it's about politics.
I became one of the rare Republicans when I was running for president, one of the rare Republican candidates who did open a TikTok account.
Any questions? - Yes.
Yeah, it's exactly what it looks like.
So yeah, apparently they were just bought off.
Now what Trump says is that he said he thinks TikTok is a national security threat.
But he couldn't support Congress banning it because it would boost support for Facebook, which he says is the enemy of the people.
Now, first of all, would it boost, say, Instagram that's owned by Facebook?
Do you think it would boost Instagram?
Because Instagram's a competing service.
You know, they have reels that are like TikToks.
I think so, probably.
But would that make any difference?
I don't think it would make enough difference.
Is the reason that Facebook is the enemy of the people?
Do they have only barely enough money to be the enemy of the people?
Vivek's not wrong.
He's just diverting.
Did you hear me say he was wrong?
No, I didn't say he's wrong.
I said that they were bought off, and that they're markedly So the people who are not bought off are Crawford and well, I'll give you some other names, but the people who mentioned persuasion specifically, they're not bought off because they know the big problem.
If they say persuasion first as the big problem, then you could say they're not bought off.
So, Facebook has all the money it needs to be the enemy of the people.
It wouldn't make any difference if they had a little extra money from some TikTok people coming over.
That is obviously not a real reason.
Trump is giving you the best reason he can.
It's a lie.
It's because their big donor owns a big piece of it.
So, the problem on TikTok is coming from inside the house.
Your government apparently will not be there to help you whatsoever on the question of TikTok, so it's up to the parents.
Let me check in.
You think that Crenshaw said persuasion's the big problem, but that he's bought off?
Who's going to pay for that?
Who would buy him off?
You have to figure out who would pay for that.
Nobody would pay for that.
All right.
Adam Schiff, who still hasn't passed the uncanny valley problem where you don't look like a human.
You look at him and you go, I don't even know if I'm looking at a human there.
Is that a human being?
Anyway, Schiff and John Brennan are saying the same message.
What's that tell you?
If Adam Schiff and John Brennan both go on TV and say the same thing about Trump, what do you know about the thing they said?
They are literally the hoax team.
The hoax team is Clapper, Brennan, Schiff, Swalwell, Raskin, right?
Others.
But if you see them working together on any Trump-related thing, it's a hoax.
It's what they do.
They don't send these guys out for the true stuff, because the true stuff, you don't need hoaxers.
They save the hoaxers for just hoaxes.
So as soon as you see that Brennan and Schiff said the same thing, which is that the intel people probably won't give President Trump As a candidate, or maybe even in office, the good stuff on the intelligence briefings, because they don't trust him with all of his boxes at Mar-a-Lago, they don't explain why it was okay that Biden had a bunch of boxes.
But they say that they'll probably leave out, quote, the sources and methods.
Because they're afraid that Trump would give the sources and methods away to somebody.
Now, here's my question.
Why would you ever tell a president the sources and methods, whether it's Trump or somebody else?
Isn't that exactly what you shouldn't tell somebody who's not, you know, deep into the secret part of the government?
I think the secret part of the government should say, here's what we know.
And then when they say, how do you know it?
Yeah, you can say something general, but should you be giving sources and methods?
Should you?
It seems like it should never be written down.
But if the president asks for it, don't you think they should answer?
As in, how do we know this is true?
And they could say something like, well, we have human intelligence sources that we trust and they've been right before.
Is that something that's going to give away the store?
You know, most of these are kind of obvious how we get, you know, it's either a human or intelligence or something.
But anyway, so I have a question whether any president ever got something that secret, the sources and methods, except for the generic stuff.
So I don't think the issue is real, but when you see Brennan and Schiff on it, it means that they're part of a hoax to make it seem that Trump is uniquely untrustworthy with information.
It's just part of a narrative.
There's a video that I saw on the Maze account, M-A-Z-E, on X, shows President Obama in 2009 talking about immigration and saying, we can't have a million people pouring over the border, half a million pouring over the border, which is what we have per year or more.
And seven years later, Obama's position is considered racist and xenophobic by Democrats.
Now, Do you see that none of our national opinions are real?
Can you see that opinions are just assigned?
I always tell you that, and I think you say to yourself, well, not to me.
I mean, some other people might get their opinions assigned to them, but that doesn't apply to a thinking person like myself.
But no, the Democrats were told in 2009, you can't have a half a million people pouring over the border, that'd be bad.
You know, Obama said it and the news said it, so Democrats said it too.
And then, when everything changed, for no good reason, and suddenly those people are pouring over the border, suddenly it would be racist and xenophobic to point out that that was ever a bad idea.
And that was immediately adopted by Democrats.
Is there any question in your mind that our opinions on politics are just assigned to us?
There's nobody who thought this through.
Do you think there are a bunch of Democrats who got new information since 2009?
It's like, you know, in 2009, with the information we were working with, we did think it was bad for half a million people to come across the border.
But now that we're seeing it happen, all the information suggests it's a great idea.
Do you think that happened?
No!
No.
The news told them what to think, and then they thought it.
That's all that happened.
Well, let's talk about Israel going into Arafat.
As you know, Biden said that was going to be a red line.
Now, a red line, let me define what a red line means.
A red line is something you say, but then you ignore.
Because it doesn't really mean anything in the real world, apparently, unless you're Putin.
Putin actually, Putin actually acts on red lines.
That's why you have Ukraine.
But again, I guess we just, just use it as a word.
It doesn't mean anything.
So Biden said it'd be a red line if Israel goes into Rafah while there are still civilians there, of which there are.
Netanyahu said, we're going to do whatever we need to do.
We're going into Rafa.
So, are you surprised?
To me, this looks like good cop, bad cop business.
It doesn't look real.
Do you think that Biden really wants Israel not to go into Rafa?
Do you think that's his actual opinion?
It could be.
Might actually be.
But I feel like this is just obvious good cop, bad cop business.
Because the United States wants to act like we're the reasonable brokers and we're the control on Israel that they don't go too far.
But we're a little bit on both sides.
We're going to give aid to both sides.
Um, given that we know Netanyahu was absolutely definitely going to do what he was going to do no matter what we said, it kind of made sense for Biden to oppose it.
So I might surprise you here too.
Biden doing that fake red line and saying don't go into Rafa is actually probably good politics.
It's probably good politics.
I just don't think he means it, because he knows it doesn't make any difference, and Netanyahu's going to do whatever he wants.
But probably good.
But speaking of which, I should also mention that if Vake and Trump are just being political, it's probably good politics.
So the question about TikTok and banning it, If it's true, and I don't know that this is true, but it could be, and I think it's likely it's true, if it's true that TikTok was never going to be banned because it just would never get the votes, then there's no point in Vivek and Trump being on a losing side, right?
If they know it's going to lose, You might as well be on the side that says, hey, I'm not, I'm no dictator.
I'm not going to brand, I'm not going to ban this free speech.
So it looks like Trump and Vivek have found the political sweet spot, which is you act like you're in favor of free speech, but you have to, you have to lie through your teeth about what you understand about the risk of TikTok.
So they're obviously lying through their teeth.
Laura Trump, as you know, is the co-chair of the RNC now, and people are saying there's some good indications there.
So she's going strong to suggest Republicans work hard for ballot harvesting, the legal kind.
The legal kind, not any illegal stuff.
But everybody understood that if you don't ballot harvest like crazy, you can't win in today's environment.
So at least she is fighting fire with fire.
And I heard some of you being skeptical about her as the person in this job.
I actually have a really high opinion of her.
You know, just from a little bit of interaction.
She's interviewed me a few times.
And every time I see her, she just looks like such a put-together, serious, capable person.
You know, just in general.
And I guess she's going to utilize Scott Pressler as well, who everybody who likes him knows that that's a good idea.
So Pressler is apparently a superstar for registering Republicans to vote.
And why wouldn't you use your superstar?
It's been puzzling that he didn't have a higher profile, because he obviously knows how to do this work.
So, two indications that Lara is not only ripe for the job, but already on it and doing some positive things.
There's a report that said Trump, when he met with Musk, wanted him to speak at the Republican National Convention.
CNBC is saying that.
That didn't happen.
Now, actually, let me revise that.
It might have happened, because, you know, it doesn't hurt to ask, but Musk is never going to speak at the Republican National Convention.
Who takes that seriously?
Really?
Do any of you think that he would be dumb enough to speak for one of the two major political parties when he's trying to sell cars to everybody?
Of course not.
Of course not.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
He's like one of the smartest guys in the world, and CNBC is reporting it like maybe he'd be mulling over doing the dumbest thing in the world.
The dumbest thing in the world would be to give a speech at one of the party's conventions.
Nothing would be dumber than that.
And he'd be doing extra work To be doing the dumbest thing?
No, that's not going to happen.
Scott Pressler is actually on the road getting signed up.
Yeah.
I don't know how he gets funded, but he's doing the work.
Yeah, and Musk has to depend on the government liking him for a lot of his businesses.
That's true.
All right.
Is there any story I missed?
And did I make my case that the problem is coming from inside the house?
TikTok problem?
Inside the house.
Border problem?
Coming from inside the house.
Yep.
Oh.
It's funny, I can tell people who don't know anything about me by whether they believe the 4chan hoax about my pandemic beliefs.
I live in this weird world where anybody who follows me knows I had the best predictions about the pandemic by far, and nobody was even close.
I just nailed that fucking thing.
But 4chan reversed it and made it look like I got everything wrong.
So some percentage of the planet thinks I'm the worst ever when it was probably the best prediction performance of all time.
By the way, I do take some credit.
And I also tell you when I get things wrong, because I think that's fair.
Otherwise, you know, since what I do here is make predictions, I should tell you when I get them wrong, and I should tell you when I get them right.
Peter Navarro got four months in prison?
Oh my God.
Pittsburgh?
- Bloomberg, yeah, we talked about that.
There are some people who never saw 4chan, but the hoax started there.
So if you heard somebody who believed it, then you got it from somebody who got it from 4chan.
Scott, millions of people have built businesses on TikTok.
They'll have their lives ruined if it's banned.
It's true.
Yeah, there's nothing that's free.
I'm looking at the people who fell for it.
They're trying to redeem themselves.
Here's one.
Klott failed on COVID and now pretends he didn't.
You should be very embarrassed that you fell for a 4chan hoax.
Are you aware that I predicted that the vaccinations would not work when it was announced?
Never changed my mind.
Were you aware of that?
Do you know I was against mandates all the time?
And I was never in favor of masks, and it was part of the activism to get them removed.
So anyway, you should be embarrassed that you fell for a 4chan hoax.
No, I watched your videos.
No, you didn't.
If you watch my videos, then you're dumber than you act like.
Because... Look at the comments.
Look at the comments.
The other people who watch the videos, too, will tell you you got everything wrong.
All right.
Some of you want to hate Dan Crenshaw.
Well, I don't know what other issues you have with him, but he's right on TikTok.
On TikTok, he's exactly right.
Other things?
I don't know.
Didn't I get the Vax?
What's that got to do with anything?
So, some of you think I got the pandemic wrong because I got the Vax.
Let me say this clearly for those of you who don't understand.
What fucking business is it what I did for my own health?
What's that got to do with anybody?
And how do you know I didn't make the right decision?
Because if you believe anything about data about the pandemic, you're an idiot.
Anything that agrees with you or anything that doesn't agree with you, there's no data about the pandemic that's reliable.
So there's a school of thought that says that people my age with a comorbidity May have gotten some protection.
And I don't know if I did, but might have.
And I got, as far as I know, no negative effects.
I'm healthier than I've ever been.
As far as I can tell.
And I got to go on great worldwide vacations.
Which part was a mistake?
Now you might say, but later there might be a problem.
And then, then you'd be right.
But it wouldn't mean I made a mistake.
Because let me explain what a lot of you don't understand.
I'll put it in easy terms.
Let's say there's two paths, and one of them has a 90% chance of working, and one of them has a 10% chance of working.
Alright?
There's two paths.
Let's say, and we don't know, we're just guessing.
And I've got my reasons, you've got your reasons, but I take the path where there's a 90% chance of being right, but I get unlucky.
So the 10% kicks in.
So there was a 90% chance I'd be right, but I wasn't.
Somebody else took the path with a 10% chance of being right, and they got lucky.
What would the person who was a 10% chance of right say after they got lucky?
They would say they were geniuses, and they would say that I made the wrong choice.
But I didn't make the wrong choice.
I got the wrong outcome.
So, if your analytical abilities can't separate the wrong outcome from making the right choice based on statistics, then you shouldn't be talking about it.
That's pretty basic stuff.
Now, some of you also say that you knew You knew it would be bad for you, because it was the government and Big Pharma.
Nobody trusted that.
Not me, not anybody.
Nobody trusted it.
So I waited nine months to see who dropped dead.
Because if I believed it, I would have gone first.
I waited like nine months.
People weren't dropping dead in my age group.
If I had been young, do you think I would have gotten it?
Probably not.
If I didn't have a comorbidity, asthma, and it wasn't a lung disease, do you think I would have gotten it?
Probably not.
No, no, but probably not.
So a lot of you are generalizing from your personal experience to what I should have done with my personal health, and that's actually stupid.
You can only say that you got a result you liked or that you guessed right.
But your opinion of what I did for my personal medical situation is, first of all, you can't know if it worked or not.
There's no reliable data.
I don't have any outcomes that are bad so far that I'm aware of.
And I had a great year and you had to stay home.
So how did I lose?
Where's the part where I'm worse off?
Because I don't see it in that story.
I see I had more freedom than you and in the long run so far it cost me nothing.
Am I wrong?
I had more freedom because I was not afraid of the shot after nine months of watching people my age not die from it.
All right, that's enough of that.
We're done with the pandemic.
I'd appreciate it if you never bring up the pandemic again.
Yeah, it's just too boring.
It forces me to talk about it and then, you know, to just correct your misperceptions.
I'm just bored with it.
All right.
So this guy says, Scott coming out as Provax.
Now, did you hear that, asshole?
Did you hear me say Provax?
Did you hear me say that I said it wouldn't work?
And as far as I know, it didn't work.
For most people.
Now, which part is Provax?
Are you still unable to hear what I'm saying?
You can't handle that level of complexity?
Lenzar?
Or are you just a troll?
I can't tell if you're a fucking idiot, Or bad hearing comprehension?
