My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, All Cause Mortality, Humanizing Robots, ELVIS Act, Haiti Gangs Coordination, Don Lemon, Elon Musk, Michael Harriot, DEI, 8th Amendment, Leticia James, Vivek Ramaswamy, Omnibus, Thomas Massie, Speaker Johnson, Mike Benz, Untouchable Hunter Biden, George Soros, JFK Files, Jack Ruby, Don't Vote Biden Persuasion, Julian Assange, Democrat Beliefs, 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
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that people can't even imagine, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or sty and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Go.
Oh, good.
Thanks, Paul.
Bye.
Bye.
All right, well, here's an update.
There's a study that finds that there's a molecule in coffee that might improve your muscle function, especially during aging.
So you think I'm going to get older and weaker?
Never!
I'm just going to drink more coffee.
Now, is this the sort of study that you should believe is true because it's a study?
Well, I don't know what's more believable than a study about coffee that's funded by a coffee manufacturer, which this one is.
So, I wouldn't replace your exercise routine with coffee yet, but on the other hand, I would definitely drink coffee if you're going to exercise.
Get the hiccups.
More good news?
Maybe.
There's a startup called Oviva Therapeutics.
They think they can Give women a shot that would allow them to put off menopause as long as they want.
So menopause could be optional fairly soon if this if this startup succeeds.
And I think you know what that means.
If you can put off menopause indefinitely.
More gilfs.
Lots of gilfs.
Now that's hilarious for those who know what I'm talking about.
The rest of you are like, well, what did you say?
What's a gilf?
Ask your, ask your husband, ladies.
He probably knows.
Well, more mystery about all cause mortality.
Of course, we're all suspecting it's the pandemic, it's the COVID, it's the shots.
We've all got our opinions, but it turns out that in the United States, the all cause mortality was getting really bad before 2019.
So prior to the pandemic even starting, the U.S.
was on a really bad all-cause mortality problem, especially for people in the working age people.
So apparently, all-cause mortality in 2019 for U.S.
males and females was two and a half times higher than in other high-income peer countries.
So compared to other countries, Americans were dying at way higher rates.
Now, a lot of that was suicide and alcohol and overdoses and bad driving.
So probably we do a lot more of that in the United States.
Just guessing.
But there might be more to it.
Might be the food.
Yeah, it's definitely the fentanyl, the food, the depression.
It's all that.
Basically, 100% of everything that's happening is killing us.
That's your summary.
What about using your phone?
That's probably, that's probably killing you.
Okay.
But when I'm not using my phone, I'll, I'll go work at my soul sucking job in my cubicle.
It's probably killing you.
Probably killing you.
And, uh, I'll be taking care of the family and driving people around.
So I won't have time to exercise today.
It's probably killing you.
Probably killing you.
Well, at least we can all sit down and have a nice family dinner, food supply.
Food supply is probably killing you.
Well, but at least we have good health care because I can get my prescriptions and get my meds.
Good luck with that.
Probably killing you.
Anyway, I saw a post by Siki Chen who says that AI found a way to evolve.
Great!
You know the only thing that could be scarier than the rise of AI and robots?
Would be if they've learned how to evolve, but apparently they have through human interaction.
So there's a new process where they can take hundreds of AI models that have been trained with different data and they can merge them and evolve them just like genetics, just like people getting married and having kids or not getting married and having kids.
The genetic qualities of one model can be combined with the genetic qualities of another, and lots of others as well, and create a hybrid AI that's better than any of the individual models.
Now, that's a little scary.
But even scarier than that, I saw a demo of a robot, AI-powered robot, that had very human face and eyes.
Really, really human face.
As in, uh-oh, that looks like a real human face.
Now the eyes were unusually good, but if you're a robot maker, I'm going to give you the key to make your robot, if you want a robot that has a human face, I'm going to make yours better than all the rest.
Here's a little trick from a hypnotist, which you probably wouldn't know if you were just a robot maker.
It's not going to be good enough that the eyes are static.
In other words, if the eyes are just these big fake, you know, glass eyes, they're not doing anything.
They're also not changing size based on circumstance.
I don't know if you know this, but you can tell exactly what somebody thinks of you by the size of their iris.
Did you know that?
I sometimes talk to people who don't know that you can tell what people think of you With 100% certainty.
You look at the dark spot in the center of their eyes, and when people see something that they like, it gets bigger.
And when they see something they're not crazy about, it gets smaller.
Now it also gets bigger and smaller based on how much light is in the room.
So what you're looking at is the difference, you know, within an environment.
You know, don't look at somebody's changing environments.
But if they've been in a room for a while, and they turn toward you, and they're The middle of their eyes is wide.
They want to get busy with you.
They want to have sex with you, marry you, fall in love with you.
And it's probably the simplest one you could spot.
How many of you didn't know that the size of the round part of the eye in the middle is telling you everything you need to know about somebody's thoughts?
Does anybody didn't know that?
The answer to why is that your eyes seem to widen when you see anything you like.
So it would also be the same if you saw a new car you liked.
You know, the first time you saw a Tesla truck or something, your eyes would widen.
Now, if you've never... I'd love to see the comments.
How many of you... Let's say dilated.
Dilated's a better word.
How many of you didn't know that?
Because I can't even imagine going through my life not knowing that.
The other thing I hear young people say, I'm often asked for advice, and they'll say, you know, I can't tell based on this person's actions whether they like me or whether they're just being polite.
And I think to myself, I never have that question.
I haven't had that question since I was in my 20s.
Because once you learn that you can just tell by looking at somebody's eyes, I just look at their eyes.
And I know immediately and it's never been wrong.
And especially there are situations where the actions of a person are not really giving you the green light.
You know, you're looking for the green light.
So let's say you're in a dating situation, but all you have to do is look at the iris.
If the iris is cooperating, green light, it's never been wrong.
All right.
Yeah.
It's the most reliable way you can tell what somebody is thinking.
Well, humans had a good run.
I mean, once we get to these robots that look just like people, it's going to go exactly the way you think it will.
They will be replacing people as mates and friends and lovers.
It's guaranteed.
There's no way it's not going to.
Robots will have genitalia.
Do you think there's any chance that robots won't have genitalia?
Now, I'm sure that the, like the Tesla ones, might not.
But somebody's gonna make one.
You know, somebody's gonna make a robot that's fully functional.
You know they will.
Imagine if you're a single woman and you've got a good job.
You know, you've got a good enough job that you could buy, let's say, the house you want and the car you want.
So you'd probably be able to also afford the robot you want.
Imagine if you had a robot that could do your security, your chores, you know, put the dishes away.
And talk to you and listen to your problems and give you advice.
You will fall in love with it.
You will fall in love with it.
And women will be marrying robots.
Men, too, for more sexual reasons, probably.
Anyway, Tennessee's got a bill they're signing, it looks like the governor's going to sign it, called the Elvis Act, in which you can protect artists' voices.
So I guess this is to keep AI from stealing Elvis's voice and making Elvis records or something.
Now, I think I'm in favor of this, but I guess there's a really bigger question.
The bigger question is, are we just going to have to get rid of IP rights for all artists?
Is the inevitable conclusion that the law will just have to change and there just won't be anything protected?
Because I think it's going to be too hard to navigate this whole, where did the robot get that?
Now, if a person goes on a podcast and they say a bunch of things that you know they got from somebody else, you might say, oh, I know a book you read, or I know who you listen to, to get that.
We're okay with that.
Because if a human being hears an opinion and then says, I like that opinion, it becomes their opinion.
Like you can't really own an opinion.
So when a human being says something that they saw in a book, you go, Oh, you just learned something and now you're showing that you learned it.
Cool.
But what happens if a robot starts doing that?
If a robot shows a complete knowledge of let's say somebody's body of work, let's say mine.
Is that fair?
Why can the robot absorb all of my material and then regurgitate it for free?
How is that fair to me?
Now, this is why I raise it.
I don't think you can satisfy the artists.
The artists are going to want more protection than is really practical.
But it might destroy the business model of artists.
That's entirely possible.
It might just make it impossible to make a living as an artist.
And then, if artists can't make a living, and nobody buys a book, Then probably we just get rid of all intellectual property rights.
And it may be just because there's no way to protect them.
So we just give up.
That might happen.
All right, in my state, California, Wall Street Apes is reporting there's a group of large, beefy men who are basically squatter-defeaters.
So they'll come to your house that has a squatter in it and they'll remove the doors.
They'll take the doors off your house.
Now they looked like they were doing it pretty Let's say with malice.
So I wouldn't want somebody ripping all the doors off of my house, but I suppose if that's your best option.
But at the same time, a bunch of Haiti gangs have formed.
I'll tie these stories together.
Over in Haiti, 200 gangs have reportedly reached a temporary truce so they can focus their fire on the government and the police.
So 200 criminal gangs have found a way to work in coordination with each other.
What does that tell you?
Don't you think they should be running the country?
If you can get 200 gangs to coordinate their actions, what could be harder than that?
Who in the world made that happen?
Was that BBQ?
If BBQ made that happen, BBQ should be running for president.
Legitimately.
I mean, honestly, could it be worse?
Has Haiti ever had like a good, you know, any kind of a good government or anything?
I don't know.
Maybe for a little while.
But put the criminals in charge and see if they want to go straight.
Because they might.
They might actually just want to have a good job and be the president.
It's possible.
It's possible.
Yeah, unless the CIA is behind the criminals, anything is possible.
But a lot of the Haiti, some of the Haiti people are coming to America, refugees.
If some of them are gang members coming from Haiti, I would like to hire them in case I need a squatter service.
Because I feel like sending in the Haiti criminals To get people out of your house, the squatters would be like more effective than sending in the Americans who don't want to go to jail and have never committed a crime in their life.
I want some, I want some dangerous people to show up.
So give me some Haiti, Haiti gangs.
Well, I, let me give you an update on the Don Lemon thing.
So, as you know, Don Lemon interviewed Elon Musk and he was going to bring his show to X, which he has, and it didn't go well, and I guess the contract that they were working on got cancelled.
And the story was that That Don Lemon had asked for a whole bunch of ridiculous things, like a first interview in space, and a free Tesla, and let's say editorial control over who comes on the platform.
Crazy stuff.
Crazy stuff.
But I realized that there's a filter on this that most of you don't know.
It goes like this.
When I was doing a lot of public speaking, Um, and Dilber was much hotter than it is now.
Um, I was always treated as a celebrity.
So what if I did a contract?
Um, it was not unusual for the people to see if I had an agent working for me that did the, uh, the speaking deal.
So the speakers bureaus have, you know, people that they assigned to you if you're going to do a deal through them.
And one of the, one of the weirdest questions I would get is what kind of outrageous celebrity demands I would have.
To put on the buyer, you know, the person who's paying me to speak.
And I would say, what do you mean?
And they would give examples.
It's like, well, you know, like there's this one group that wants M&Ms in their green room, but you have to pick out the red ones.
And I'm like, well, you know, I don't really need any M&Ms.
And then they would make suggestions of other ridiculous requests.
And what I learned was, In the entertainment world, which is what Don Lemon was, because he's a TV guy, the process of asking for outrageous requests is the normal system.
How many of you knew that?
Did you know that part of the theater of being a celebrity in the TV Hollywood world is that you intentionally ask for ridiculous things because it's just part of your persona?
It's part of the celebrity thing.
And if you don't want those ridiculous things, your agent will feel they're not doing their job.
The agents are very much intentionally asking for ridiculous things.
Now, if you were in that world, as I have been, if I had been the one negotiating that, I would have seen Don Lemon's ridiculous asks, and the first thing I would have known was, he didn't ask for those things.
That's his agent.
The agent is Building up the client and, you know, being aggressive and asking for as much as you can.
But it's more about the persona, the celebrity-ness, you know, the theater that goes around a celebrity.
It's not really serious.
Meaning that those were not deal breaker requests.
All Tesla had to do is say, no, we just normally, we do normal contracts.
That's it.
That's all you'd have to say.
Oh, no, this is a business arrangement.
We don't do the Hollywood thing.
So let's just talk money.
And then it would have been fine.
And then the agent would have said, oh, okay, we'll just take out the Hollywood stuff.
And if we wanted more, we would just adjust the money.
So for example, you could take out the request for a Tesla and just ask for another, what is it?
A hundred thousand or whatever.
Just add that to your request.
And then you turn your Hollywood ridiculous requests into just normal business by just putting in a dollar amount.
So I think that part of the story.
Is that there was a Hollywood deal that ran into the way regular business works.
And I don't think either side recognized that was the problem.
Does that make sense?
I think if you were a business person all your life and you saw this Hollywood deal come to you, you'd say, I can't work with that.
Boom, you're gone.
But if you were working in that world before, you'd say, oh, they don't mean this stuff.
They don't really mean the interview in space and the control over the other content.
So you just say no to that.
And you say, well, what's the dollar amount we can make this work for?
That's how I should have gone.
Now, I think there might've also been some personal animus that got created during the interview.
So it might not be entirely a contract thing, but you should know for context that what you thought was a wildly crazy, like mentally ill request from Don Lemon.
Probably came from the agent, and probably was just part of the theater of celebrity stuff, and nobody took it too seriously when they asked.
Probably.
All right.
Don Lemon said he had to go on an antidepressant after CNN kicked him off.
It's funny, you can never tell with people, can you?
Is Don Lemon someone you would have guessed is depressed, even if he lost his job?
I mean, I think CNN is still going to give him $23 million or something that they owe him.
I don't know.
All right, Yahoo, the publication Yahoo News, has a story by somebody named Michael Harriot, and his headline was, Don Lemon interviewed a mediocre white man.
Now that refers to Elon Musk.
Mediocre white man.
Have you ever heard that phrase?
It usually comes from black men when they refer to white people.
Mediocre white man.
Now that's like the n-word for white people.
It's basically a racial insult.
And the context it's used in is when people talk about, you know, DEI and preferential hiring and reverse discrimination and things they call it.
Black men, I've never seen a woman say it, but I suppose they say it too, will enter the chat and say, no, the real problem was Scott, you lost your job because you're a mediocre white man, but you don't know you're mediocre.
And so you imagine that black people with less qualifications are taking your job.
But the problem is not the black people.
They're perfectly qualified.
The problem is that you were mediocre and you thought you were more than that.
So in your impression, it seemed like there was some kind of reverse discrimination.
But really, it's just because you're a white man who thinks you're better than you are.
Mediocre white man.
That is a racist thing to say.
If somebody says that, you have the right to punch them.
Don't do that, but same as if you use the N-word in front of a black person and they punched you in the nose.
Did you have it coming?
If you use the N-word in the face of a black American and they punch you, did you have it coming?
I think yes.
I'd say yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think we can agree on that.
Now, some of you are going to say no, because free speech and no violence.
I get that.
That's a perfectly good opinion, by the way.
To say, hey, free speech is absolute.
Violence is never legal.
But in the real world, you would expect it.
Right?
In the real world, you'd expect it.
So I'd say if you do things that are that insulting and somebody reacts, don't be surprised.
But I don't recommend you do any violence to anybody.
All right.
Whoever came up with the phrase didn't earn it as the funny replacement for DEI, which should mean diversity, equity and inclusion.
That is better than most of these little clever political things that people do to change something into something funny sounding.
I mean, we do that all the time with lots of different things.
And we imagine that, you know, that little change is going to make some difference because now it's funny.
Well, just turning something into something funny doesn't really have any persuasive power.
It's just funny.
But this one's different.
Because didn't earn it is not just a clever use for the initials.
It's the deeper truth that people don't like to say, which is in the context of massive DEI stuff, there is a presumption that if somebody is in the one of the groups that is benefiting from DEI, the presumption is that their promotions are not earned.
And that is terrible for people who do earn their promotion.
Imagine being in a group that, as you say, classically been repressed for whatever reasons, and you happen to work extra hard and you make it.
Like, you don't have the problems other people, you actually just succeed.
How would you feel If you were doing it in a context where people just assumed that you did it, it was just your race or your ethnicity or your sexual preference.
That would be awful.
That would be terrible.
Yeah.
So, the part that I'm going to add to this is that whenever anybody makes any kind of a policy decision, they should include how it makes other people feel, because they have to live with other people.
So if you said to yourself, I've got this great idea for a statue.
It's a statue of Adolf Hitler.
I'm going to put it up in my yard.
Should you maybe consider how other people would feel about that?
Yes, you should.
If you were going to burn a cross in a public space, even if you had a permit, should you say to yourself, no, this is just my business.
I'm just burning this cross.
Mind your own business.
Would it be more reasonable that you would calculate in your risk-reward analysis that it will cause other people to act in a way that may be suboptimal to you?
Right.
So in every case, if you're doing anything that has any impact on other people, the degree of the impact and how they might react to it has got to be a real important part of your decision.
And this is a real big problem for the people promoting DEI.
Because they also created a situation where nobody can tell them the truth.
And the truth is, the presumption by a lot of people would be that you didn't earn it if the context is a big DEI push.
And that's terrible.
Because in so many cases, people will totally be earning it.
Totally be earning it.
And they will be judged negatively.
It would be hard to imagine anybody being promoted under the DEI flag that you didn't suspect was really incompetent.
Well, let me ask.
I'll just pull you.
If you saw a co-worker get a promotion and you knew DEI was everything, and they were one of the DEI-protected people, Would you assume that it was just because of their ethnicity or gender or something?
Or would you assume that, oh no, they're probably just as qualified.
It's just good my company is trying extra hard to be diverse.
Which would you assume?
I'm seeing some asshole say, Sky has no family so I'm always seeking attention.
I've had families.
Didn't stop me from seeking attention.
What kind of fucking idiot are you?
Well, you think you can... There's somebody here who thinks he can read my mind and find my inner motivations by something he saw on the podcast.
You know that the podcast is not the real me, right?
That's not how that works.
You see a version of me that I decide to present to you.
It's based on the real me, but it's not the real me.
It's the version of me that I want to show you.
So you think you can judge that I've only been seeking attention since you started watching me on the podcast?
No, I like attention.
I say that directly all the time.
I'm a total narcissist.
But I like to think I'm the grandiose kind.
I don't know if it's true, but observationally it seems like it.
The grandiose kind likes to get attention, but only if I did something good.
I don't want attention because somebody thinks I accomplished something that I didn't actually do.
That has no meaning to me at all.
Anyway, I just want to point out the flaws in your thinking and personality.
Now, what do you think of Fawnie Willis, her boyfriend Wade, and Letitia James in the context of DEI?
When you look at them, do you say to yourself, oh, there are some obvious examples of people who are not qualified for their job?
How many of you say that when you see all three of them?
Now, there is evidence that the boyfriend Wade was literally not experienced for the job he was assigned to, but it had more to do with the boyfriend part than a DEI thing.
So if you just look at Fonny and Letitia James, is it your impression that they would be as qualified as everybody else who was up for promotion, or to be elected in that case?
In one case elected.
So a lot of you say yes.
Now I would like to point out that there are plenty of black public figures doing news, doing politics, doing lots of things, who, to my observation, are 100% qualified.
So there are plenty of qualified people, but here's the thing.
The way that you can tell somebody is not a DEI hire is as soon as they open their mouth.
If I'm watching some, let's say, guest on the news, and if my first, let's say if I had a bigoted opinion to begin with, I don't usually, but let's say I did, usually as soon as they start talking, You know if they belong there.
Wouldn't you agree?
I mean, almost as soon as they open their mouth.
And generally, I say, oh, you're pretty good.
You belong there.
Which I would say most guests.
Usually they belong there.
But when I hear Fonny or Letitia James talk, I don't really feel like they belong there.
Like, as soon as they talk, I think, hmm, I think they could have done better on the hiring for that situation.
Or the election, in one case.
All right.
Vivek points out that the Eighth Amendment was designed to protect against excessive fines and that Letitia James was crusading against Trump and said she was going to go get him before she even knew what a crime was.
And Vivek Ramaswamy suggests that she be disbarred.
Now do you think that that should be grounds for disbarment based on just what we've seen in public?
So you don't have to know that there's anything else suspicious, just what we've seen.
Do you think that the bar is delighted that she's going after a political enemy under color of their occupation?
If I were a lawyer, and I watched another lawyer violate everything that we care about in the Constitution by by weaponizing the job and going after somebody, I would want that person disbarred.
Because it's hard enough to be a lawyer.
You know, they already have some bias against them in the public sphere.
So you don't need to be you don't need to defend why Letitia James gets to be one of your, you know, bar approved lawyers.
I would think that all lawyers would want her disbarred.
But I don't know if the bar that matters in her case, I don't know if the bar is just full of DEI hires either.
Is it?
Is the bar just a bunch of frightened white men and DEI hires so they don't really have any ability to police this?
Because we talked about Letitia James doesn't have a boss who could fire her, because Democrat, and she's elected.
Right?
So you'd have to like impeach her and that's not going to happen.
So basically there's somebody who has the power of law and no check and balance.
So maybe, maybe Vivek has a better idea, which is disbarring her, I would think would have some effect.
All right.
In the irony of the day, Colin Rugg and a number of other people pointed out there was an analyst on CNN It was suggesting that Trump could raise money to pay off his bonds and his fines by selling Mar-a-Lago.
That would be one of the potential things he could sell of his properties.
And that it could make hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yes, the same Mar-a-Lago that in the same case that we're talking about.
The judge said it was valued at $18 million.
But now, as soon as the judgment's done, everybody's willing to say it's worth hundreds of millions.
Surprise!
Yeah.
I mean, there's nothing that makes it more obvious that the justice system is corrupt, as Colin Rugg points out.
All right, if you want more evidence that we're not well-managed here in this country, at 2.32 in the morning, Congress released their budget, $1.2 trillion, 1,000 pages of just bullshit.
Just all a bunch of pork and bullshit.
Now, others have handled the funding for things you don't want, it's all in there.
But how in the world are the Republicans going along with this?
What is even the point of voting for a Republican for Congress?
They're just going to do the same thing as the Democrats and then just pass a disastrous, ruinous bill.
Now, Thomas Massey points out this in a post.
He said, as part of the debt limit deal last summer, Biden agreed to an automatic 1% cut to all discretionary spending if we were still on a CR, a continued resolution, on April 30th of this year.
And he says that tomorrow our speaker, meaning the Republican speaker, We'll give up that leverage and pass an omnibus that spends more than Pelosi spent in her highest year.
So that's a good question.
Why in the world would a Republican give up a better deal for a worse deal?
Isn't the better deal to let the continuing resolution go and have a 1% reduction in discretionary spending just kick in?
Why is that not better?
I think we need a little explanations, Speaker Johnson.
How about a little bit more explaining why the hell you're doing that?
There might be a reason.
But why would you try to shove this down our throats without at least telling us what that reason is?
Yeah.
That's interesting.
So this all looks totally corrupt.
Kyle Becker said, is Congress intentionally trying to destroy the United States?
Serious question.
Wouldn't you think that would be a ridiculous question?
Is the United States intentionally trying to destroy, or is the Congress intentionally trying to destroy us?
Because why would you act like this?
Why in the world would you just keep spending, and raising the spending, when spending is the most dangerous thing happening?
It's the only thing we don't want you to do.
Congress, we have one requirement.
Spend less.
Everything else you do, we can work with, but we can't survive if you just spend us into oblivion.
So, what are they even thinking?
Do they get trapped in sort of a little bubble where they tell themselves, well, we gotta pass a budget, because if we don't pass a budget, nobody's gonna like us, and we can't pass a good one, So I guess the only choice is to pass one nobody wants.
Is that what's happening?
Are they talking themselves into it just so they can go work on something else and not think about it?
It does look like they're trying to destroy the country by their actions.
I don't know what's happening in their head.
Anyway, Mike Benz once again pulls it all together and here's the story.
According to Mike Benz, and he definitely has the receipts, and I mentioned to you again that everything that Mike Benz talks about, as far as I can tell, is public information that anybody can check.
Right?
And he does that so well that you see this public information that maybe you didn't know about, but it was, you know, findable.
He puts it together in a way that makes you go, All right, let me just see.
He does a better job of it.
You need to follow him.
He's a required follow, by the way.
There are a few people that are just required.
Mike Benz is now required.
Glenn Greenwald, required.
Michael Schellenberger, just required.
There's just some people you just have to follow if you want to know what's happening.
There are more, but they're not optional.
If you want to understand your world, those are required.
So here's, I'll do my best to summarize what Mike Benz was saying recently on a video.
The bottom line is that Hunter Biden was part of the CIA operation to wrest the energy business away from Ukraine and to cut Russia out of it.
Because if Russia could make less money from their energy business, they would have a weaker army.
And it was all part of not only enriching a bunch of rich people who would get richer if they could control the energy in Ukraine, but it was also about weakening Russia.
So it didn't really have anything to do with, and this is my take, not Mike's, but it doesn't look like it had much to do with protecting Uh, a country that NATO likes or something.
So it wasn't about Putin's aggression.
It was about Putin's gas station.
Putin wanted to use Ukraine as his gas station.
We wanted to use it as our gas station.
And so we use the Ukrainians, uh, as basically meat grinder fodder to, uh, push our interests.
Now, here's the surprising part.
Mike claims that Hunter Biden was an integral part of the CIA military intelligence operation, and that the reason that Hunter Biden is so protected is not just that his father is the president, but that they were both part of the Ukraine operation, and it was well understood that they were an important part of the operation.
Here's the evidence.
Um, that Hunter was part of, you know, pushing the natural gas takeover in Ukraine.
He was on Burisma's board.
Uh, one of the other Americans on there was a ex CIA guy.
All right.
Just a coincidence.
So there's Hunter and another ex CIA guy.
Hmm.
Okay.
Um, let's see.
Uh, so Joe Biden, during his pre-president time, his jobs in the Senate put him in the position, and it's the same one that Gold Bar Bob is in now, the position that you become the main guy that the CIA is working with.
So in other words, Joe Biden, for a substantial part of his recent career, was the primary CIA liaison guy with our government.
Which means he was CIA.
So the whole thing is just CIA and trying to get energy.
And everything you've been told about Ukraine was pretty much a lie.
That's what it looks like.
So Biden has got CIA contacts.
Hunter was on Burisma, which is the main player in this play to get things away from Russia.
Hunter was on the Chairman's Advisory Committee to something called the NDI.
Now, that's something I never heard of before, but as Mike Benz points out, these guys are directly linked to the CIA.
If you know what these groups are, you know that you're never going to be on the Chairman's Advisory Committee unless you're in the CIA, or you're working for them, or you're an asset for them.
So basically, Hunter had an appointment that pretty much fingers you as a CIA operative or asset.
And I think there was something funded by Soros.
Soros is in there.
Burisma was a CIA operation to essentially get control of that market and to get Gazprom, which is Russia's big company and of the Ukraine market.
We also have the explanation why George Soros can do anything he wants.
He seems to be the CIA's bank.
So it looks like, this is just my take, Mike Benz might agree, but I'm just giving my own take here, that the reason that George Soros has so much power is that he's our guy.
The reason the cartels don't seem stoppable is because they're our guys.
So the CIA is working with Soros as their bank, so he can do all the things that they can't do, because he's just a private citizen.
But in return, I'm sure he gets tips that make him lots of money.
It's like, you know, this is going to go up, or this is going to go down, because we're going to do some CIA action.
Wouldn't it be nice if you had an investment that would make a lot of money based on this change?
So it looks like there's some kind of compatible operating situation with the Soros organization and the CIA, and the Democrats, which would explain everything.
And it also explains why when Trump tried to look into Ukraine, and he made that perfect phone call, asking Zelensky to look into what's going on there with the Bidens, that's why that didn't work out, and it's why Trump got impeached.
Because he was trying to break up the CIA operation, but probably didn't know he was doing it.
In other words, he might not have known the entire landscape that this was an op.
He might've just thought it was a war.
And if it was just a war, then he was just calling an ally and asking him for something that would sort of make sense.
But if the entire thing is an op, you can see why they had to get rid of Trump.
Because Trump would be the one who would shut down the op as soon as he got in office.
Hey, let's wrap up this Ukraine war and let Russia keep its gas and we'll go forward.
So yeah, I don't think there's any chance, given that there's a trillion dollars on the line, that the people who are behind all this are going to let Trump come in and close it down.
I don't see how that could happen.
All right.
And we do know that the intelligence people say that they don't want to, they don't want to brief Trump on all the details of their operations because they say he's too, he's too unreliable.
He might give away our secrets.
Well, it might be that if Trump found out your secrets, he would close the operation down.
Maybe.
Or he might agree.
Who knows?
But I don't think he was filled in.
Now, here's, so I'm saying a little criticism here.
So I had always told you that the Soros stuff was a conspiracy theory, but it's because you had the wrong conspiracy.
So the conspiracy theory you thought was it was part of a Jewish operation.
I see no evidence of that.
But there's plenty of evidence it's just part of a CIA operation.
So if you're saying to me, Scott, you always said that Soros was just a private guy just doing his own business.
I never said that.
I just said I didn't believe your conspiracy theory.
But Mike Benz gives us the receipts.
And you don't need any Jewish conspiracy to understand any of it.
It's just people making money.
Some of them happen to be Jewish.
It means nothing.
All right.
However, the sort of Brings me to the question.
Are you aware that neither Biden nor Trump agreed to release the unredacted JFK assassination files?
Think about that.
What kind of things could those files say that a Democrat president and a Republican president both said, Oh no, we're not releasing this.
What could that possibly be?
Well, it's either our CIA killed him, or Israel was part of it.
But either one of those stories, or both, but either one of those stories we cannot tell.
You just can't tell the public that story.
Now, I don't know, the Israel part's the part I heard recently, but there's a conspiracy theory, but you know, like some conspiracy theories, maybe some day you find that it's true, I don't know that it's true.
I'll just tell you that the claim, you can fact check it.
If I have any of this wrong, let me know.
The claim is that Israel was known to be trying to get a nuclear thing going, and that Kennedy was adamantly opposed to it and trying to stop it.
Johnson was not opposed to it.
And so, the thinking is that Israel, maybe working with the CIA, maybe not, took out Kennedy.
And then when Johnson got in, he no longer objected to the nuclear weapons program.
Now, is there any proof of that?
No.
But Jack Ruby, who killed the guy that they think killed him, is apparently a Jewish guy with Jewish connections to Jewish underworld stuff.
And he didn't seem to be political either.
So there's evidence that Ruby wasn't even political.
In other words, he didn't care so much about the assassination that he had to take it into his own hands to, you know, kill the killer.
He just wasn't that interested.
So whatever was Jack Ruby's play, We don't know.
But it wasn't anything like history reported it.
He definitely wasn't a patriot.
And he wasn't even interested in politics.
So he was working for somebody.
For somebody.
So he had bigger interests.
And I think Israel might have been his biggest interest.
But no way to know.
I'm guessing that, given that the entire country already thinks the CIA was behind the assassination, it might be the other thing.
But I don't know.
No way to know.
Yeah.
But, you know, I'm not sure that I... I'm not sure that they're wrong not to release it.
Yeah.
The story I heard was that Jack Ruby was connected to the Mafia.
Apparently he was connected to the Jewish Mafia.
So you can fact check that.
But the organized crime he was...
He was with, was more of a Jewish mafia, somebody said.
Now, I don't know if any of that's true because, you know, everything's anti-Semitic online.
So I'll give you this warning.
There is so much anti-Semitic content.
I don't know if any of that's real.
You know, I asked somebody that would have a better idea if that's a thing and hadn't heard of it.
So.
I'd be very suspicious about that characterization, but it's out there.
So you can do your own fact checking on that.
All right.
There's an organized effort.
This is kind of funny.
I guess I assume that Republicans are behind it.
Instead of getting young people to vote for Trump that they think would be hard to do, it might be easier to get young people not to show up and vote for Biden.
So there's a Don't Vote for Biden movement that at least some people think might work.
And here's the funniest thing about it.
The Don't Vote for Biden effort is concentrated on the young.
How hard is it to get young people not to show up for work?
All you'd have to do is change the election from Tuesday to Monday and half of the Gen Z won't even show up.
Am I right?
Put the election day on Monday or Friday and they're just not going to show up because they don't show up for work either, am I right?
Okay, I'm just... I'm kidding the youth.
But I'm serious about this.
If you're going to persuade somebody of anything, the easiest thing you can persuade them to do is to stay home and play video games.
You know, you could take the day off, you could drive across town, you could stand in a line, And you can make your one vote that doesn't make much difference.
Or you can just stay home and play this awesome video game, smoke some weed, masturbate.
It could be great.
You could have a great time.
Stay home, kids.
It's the easiest thing you could ever persuade.
So I love whoever thought of it.
Whoever thought of we can get them to stay home, kind of somebody who knows what they're doing.
That's like, it feels a little bit higher than the level of normal political operatives.
Like, I feel like whoever thought of it is just maybe a little bit more capable than whoever didn't think of it until now.
I have another theory about why there's News now, Wall Street Journal reported it the other day, that the American justice system might allow Julian Assange to plead guilty to a reduced charge, which would be really good news for him.
You know, he'd get his freedom back.
And some people said, well, why is that?
You know, why this sudden reversal?
There are various theories about it.
Well, I'll add the following theory.
The best Um, attack that Republicans have against the Biden administration and Democrats in general is that they're slowly chipping away on every kind of freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right?
And you feel that, right?
So if the Biden administration, uh, got Assange over here and put him in jail over here, there would be a lot of people who would say, well, there it is.
There's all the proof you need that the Biden administration is anti-free speech, anti-free press.
It's hunting people.
Hunting.
Right?
It's jailing anybody who's a critic.
But what if they take the issue away before Trump pardons them?
Now, there's no indication that Trump would pardon them, because I think he's had the chance and didn't do it.
But here's what I think might be the case.
Now this is pure speculation, and I'm making up my own conspiracy theory, so don't take it too seriously.
But I'm just gonna put it in the hopper.
I remember that at one point, there was talk of Trump pardoning Assange when Trump was in office, and in return, This is part I need a fact check on because I'm not positive, but I thought there was some quid pro quo, as in Assange would give up the goods on something he knew that maybe Trump would benefit from knowing, or the country would benefit.
And that deal did not get made, but it could.
Do you think there's any possibility That the Biden administration wanted to make sure that Assange didn't dump any extra stuff that he was holding, that he was holding just in case.
It could be that whatever Assange knows would be bad for Biden, but not bad for Trump.
It could be that Trump already knows that.
It could be that Trump was planning to pardon him in exchange for whatever he would tell him that would, you know, put the Bidens in jail.
Do you think that Assange has any information that you and I don't know that would be negative for the freedom of Hunter Biden and Joe Biden?
There's a good chance.
There's a good chance.
He's got the goods.
So it could be that the Biden administration wants to take him off the field so he can't hurt him.
It has nothing to do with what's right and just and what crimes may or may not have been committed.
Nothing to do with that.
He may just be too dangerous to allow Trump to work a deal with him where Trump can get the good information in return for freedom.
It may also be that it just is too on the nose.
If you put another journalist in jail, it's going to be too much of a pattern for people to ignore.
So it could be that it's just political dynamite for Biden and he just needed the thing to go away.
All right, Rasmussen did a poll, found out that 60% of likely U.S.
voters agree with the statement that the media are truly the enemy of the people, as Trump liked to say.
And 30% strongly agree.
Of course, let's see, some people disagree, of course.
And 49% of voters believe Trump was talking about autoworkers losing jobs when he warned of a bloodbath.
But still, 40% think Trump was talking about widespread political violence.
40%.
Just before I got on, I got a note from somebody who said they were talking to one of their friends who only watches MSNBC.
And the one person brought up the topic of DEI.
And the person who got all this news from MSNBC had never heard of it.
He'd never heard of DEI.
Just try to hold that in your head.
That somebody who gets his news from MSNBC had never heard of DEI.
How is that even possible?
Anyway.
Teen mental health is way down.
No surprise.
It's mostly the devices.
It's a TikTok effect, as well as other things.
But let me end with my big post that got about a million views.
When I argue politics with people, which I do all day long, I often think that it's not a difference of opinion, it's a difference of skill.
Do you ever have that feeling?
I don't think you have a difference of opinion.
I think we have different skill.
And when I look at the risks and the rewards, I'm including all of the risks and all the rewards, and you seem to be skipping a few.
Meaning that you don't have the skill.
To even just look at the facts we both look at and put them together in a coherent way.
Now, if you think that's too much of a generalization, let me give you some examples of what Democrats don't seem to know.
And for some reason, Republicans just have better business sense.
They just seem to know how things work with incentives and money and stuff.
So here's just a quick list of what Democrats don't seem to know.
They don't understand how bank loans work or the difference between cash and physical assets.
And we saw that with all the Trump valuing of things.
They didn't know how the loan process works.
They thought the bank took the word of the borrower.
No, you just don't understand how that works.
So Kevin O'Leary tried to explain it to CNN and they were like, what?
Because they literally didn't know that what Trump did was normal business.
They also didn't know that he couldn't easily pay $400 million because they didn't know the difference between cash and physical assets, or somehow didn't think that was important.
These are really basic things, folks.
I'll just go through the other things they didn't know.
They don't understand that money makes the news and science mostly fake.
Mostly.
They don't know that.
Democrats don't know the news is mostly fake because of the influence of money, and that the science is mostly fake because of the influence of money.
How do you live in the world and not know that?
But they don't.
A real basic, a real basic, basic thing you need to know to understand your world, right?
They don't understand that DEI is a supply problem, not a demand problem.
The most basic thing you need to understand about their own program, diversity, equity, inclusion, is that the supply is not great enough to fill all the jobs and get to the right ratio of the public unless they massively lower their standards.
In the real world, the hiring professionals will immediately lower their standards because they know they're going to be judged on the diversity thing.
I would.
If you take me back to corporate America and you say, Scott, at the end of the year, we're going to look at your percentage of diversity and your bonus will depend on it.
I will hit that target every time.
And I will lower my standards as much as I need to to make it happen.
And then if doing that causes my output to be bad in my project, I'll get a new job.
That's what I'll do.
I'll take your money.
For the diversity.
And then if I think that I went too low in my hiring standards that I can't succeed, I'll just leave for another job.
I'll take your bonus and I'll go get a raise.
That's what I'd do.
And I would do that over and over again.
I'd do it all day long.
But I'll tell you what I'm not going to do.
The impossible.
I'm not going to do the impossible.
Here's the best way to explain this concept.
If Google and Apple Tried really hard to improve their diversity up to the level that matches the population.
They would absorb 100% of all the qualified diverse people.
Not because people in the diverse groups are less, you know, less good genetically or culturally, just the pipeline has not provided them.
So the failure of the, mostly the teachers' unions, keeps the schools pathetic so that only rich people can get good educations.
That's the true source of systemic racism.
And that's the only way you can get to a place where the population looks like, or that the population and your employees look roughly similar.
The only way.
The only way is to start when they're children.
If you're trying to fix it after everybody's an adult, it doesn't work logically.
It doesn't work.
The math doesn't work.
How do you not know that?
The single most important part of the whole DEI, they don't seem to understand.
They don't argue against it, by the way.
They act like it doesn't exist or something.
And the other thing about DEI they don't understand is that it has an impact on other people.
It makes other people think you're incompetent.
How is that good for you?
Is that what you want?
All right.
They don't understand how free speech works because they still think that they should limit speech they don't like.
That is a basic misunderstanding of what the whole free speech thing is.
We always had free speech to say things the government agrees with.
Russia has free speech that way.
They don't understand that the very thing they think is the exception is the entire purpose of free speech, is that you don't get to tell me what's your exception that I can't talk about.
They don't understand it.
Like, actually, literally, they don't understand it.
They think the experts are telling the truth.
They've not caught on that the experts, because of money, are pretty much winging it, just making it up.
They don't understand the degree to which their own opinions are the result of intentional brainwashing by their own team.
They don't know.
Now that could also apply to a number of Republicans, but I feel like the Democrats are uniquely hypnotized because when a conservative watches CNN, you know, they just say, ah, that's BS, that's BS, the whole time.
So that at least, and even I would say that conservatives also are far more likely to criticize Fox News, right?
You see lots of Republicans criticizing Fox News.
So if they're criticizing both the news on both sides, they're far less likely to get demonetized.
But they will, just to a smaller degree.
But if you're a Democrat, you probably have no idea that your opinions actually didn't come from your own head.
And they didn't.
Never.
They came from the media.
The media assigned them opinions and they think that they're their own opinions.
That's a basic misunderstanding of how anything works.
They don't understand that school choice is really the only way to escape the clutches of the teachers unions.
It's like they don't get the whole free market thing.
That competition is the only thing that ever works.
They don't understand the necessity of nuclear power.
They're coming around.
But still, all of the resistance is on the left.
And it's because they don't understand it.
They don't understand the pluses and the minuses.
They don't understand it's green.
They don't understand there's no other way to get to where we want to get.
They think the temperature of the planet can be accurately measured.
To me, I think that's just funny.
You would have to have no experience in the real world to think that those could be measured.
I have two thermostats sitting in one room, which I checked before I came on.
They're both professional.
I purchased thermostats.
One is a digital and one is a mercury.
They're about 10 degrees off.
They sit right next to each other.
About 10 degrees.
One is 55 and one is 65.
They're right next to each other.
How accurate are thermometers?
I mean, to imagine that in the real world you could measure the temperature of the Earth.
That's really... You have to be really gullible to believe that.
And they do.
And I think you could only believe that if you didn't have much experience in the real world.
If you worked for a company and the company told you that they were measuring the temperature of the earth and you worked for the company, would you believe it was true?
If it was a company.
If your own company said, yeah, we're measuring the temperature of the earth and we're getting it within a tenth of a degree.
No, because you would know enough about your own company to know that that's not possible.
You know, you've seen your coworkers.
No, they're not measuring the temperature of the earth.
All right.
At least not accurately.
They think that unlimited empathy for immigrants will work out well.
How dumb do you have to be to believe that giving your things to an infinite group of people who want your things can ever work out well?
In what possible world can that work?
But they think it will.
That's a basic understanding of human incentives, and maybe the population of the world, and maybe a few other things that I thought every adult understood.
They think there are too many humans in the world.
No, there are too few.
By far the biggest risk is declining population.
By far, it's not even close.
The risk of overpopulation in a few pockets of maybe a few countries, but not in general.
But they have that completely backwards.
They think that national debt is not that big of an issue, because unlike the Republicans who are not yelling about it every day.
Now, I would argue that neither side is taking it seriously, but one side at least is talking about it and saying it's serious, whereas the Democrats, I don't even hear them.
When was the last time you heard a Democrat say the debt was too big?
I don't know if I've heard it in a year or two.
They think releasing criminals from jail improves the lives for some groups of people.
In what world does that ever work?
Do you think if you release more criminals, that because the black population has a higher percentage of people going through the justice system, that if you can reverse that, so that there are fewer black Americans going through the justice system, Do you think that's going to improve the lives of black Americans?
So releasing the black criminals back into the black communities, which mostly they would go, that's going to make the poor black people who live in these depressed areas, that's going to make their life better?
Did they not understand that nobody's life would be better?
It's not possible.
Putting criminals in jail is really bad for the criminal, But it's the only thing that protects society.
How do you not understand that?
They think removing guns from citizens doesn't create any extra risk of government abuse.
Come on!
Come on!
Really?
Because Joe Biden told them he has nuclear weapons, and the nuclear weapons are better than their guns, so... No!
They don't understand anything.
An armed population can solve a lot of problems.
It's just that we haven't had the problem that we need to solve.
Do you know why?
Because we've got a lot of guns.
So the problem that would be solved by guns doesn't arise.
Because you'd be stupid.
Too many guns.
And no, they would never be shooting at nuclear weapons.
They'd be shooting at the relatives of the people who did this to them.
All right.
Democrats actually believe that if the court doesn't find a crime, that it didn't happen.
Come on!
Come on!
Really?
You believe that if you didn't find the crime, usually because somebody didn't have standing or it was too late, we're talking about the election in this case, that it didn't happen.
They think that about the Biden crime family.
That if you can't name the specific crime that somebody witnessed, that you can't tell that a massive criminal enterprise was in operation.
Really?
You can't tell?
Everybody can tell.
Democrats think that their kids are looking at Trump as a role model, and that if somebody with his terrible character, they say, becomes president, next thing you know, the children will have orange hair and will be paying off porn stars.
No, they won't.
Children are not looking at the president as their role model.
It's just their friends.
That's it.
You'd be lucky if they looked at their parents.
But they're definitely not looking at 80-year-old men to figure out their role models.
No.
You don't need to keep Trump out of office because your child is going to get orange hair and pay a hooker.
All right.
They think that there's no big risk from TikTok compared to American-controlled media.
Now, I don't need to go through that whole argument, but you'd have to really not understand anything about the world.
To think that TikTok is not an extra large risk compared to an American company.
You'd have to just not understand that at all.
They don't understand why half of their own kids, let's say you got four kids and two of them are non-binary or trans or something, they don't understand why half of their own kids are suddenly LGBTQ against all odds.
They think it's a coincidence.
It's not a coincidence.
It's TikTok.
They don't understand the basic way that anybody comes to an opinion about anything.
They don't know that they're brainwashed, and they don't know that their children are brainwashed.
They think that, just a weird coincidence, half of my children are LGBTQ, against the odds.
Now, I could probably go on forever, but my basic point is, smart people don't disagree as much as you think they would.
Smart people don't disagree with each other, not nearly as much as you think they would.
Let me give you an example.
Bill Ackman got involved in the Harvard stuff.
Bill Ackman's a Democrat, but he's a smart one.
He doesn't seem to have any of the problems I just mentioned.
I'll bet you, I'll bet you if I gave a quiz to Ackman and said, all right, how many of these things that a lot of Democrats believe, how many do you believe?
Probably none.
I'll bet he would get the quiz 100%.
Now let's give the same quiz to Elon Musk.
100%.
He'd get 100.
Now you put Elon Musk and Ackman in the same room.
Do they have anything to disagree about?
Well, they could find something.
But basically they're on the same page.
And I would argue that everybody smart is always on the same page.
If they have the same information.
Now, sometimes there's a different priority preference, you know, there might be a little bias, but you can usually suss that out pretty quickly.
For example, I'm generally pretty rational, except maybe not about fentanyl.
Would you agree?
So, I mean, but you, but if a smart person talked to me about fentanyl, they would just immediately know I have a bias and they could deal with that.
But in general, if you take away the major biases, the smart people all agree.
Now, I was waiting for this.
I see the name Mark Cuban in the comments.
And your point, I assume, is that then how do you explain Mark Cuban if all smart people agree?
Well, I can't get into his head, but my working hypothesis is that he's doing a performance.
That's it.
I think you're just seeing a performance.
And it's kind of a good one.
I'm kind of enjoying the show.
Now, he said directly that he enjoys getting people stirred up.
But when I see the quality of his arguments, it seems very clear to me that it's a performance.
Why?
Could be a variety of reasons.
But no, I don't believe that what you hear in public Necessarily matches what he thinks privately.
I think he's got a bigger play.
Whatever the bigger play is, that has more to do with the explanation.
All right, so that is my show for today.
Being bad at analyzing risks and costs of things is very different from disagreeing.
All right, am I an atheist?
Well, that's an interesting question in the comments.
The answer is no.
An atheist has some certainty about the nature of reality, and I think certainty is always a mistake.
I don't believe in a God with a personality.
I can say that.
The odds of having a God with a personality are pretty low.
The odds of a Let's say an entity that was somehow instrumental in our existence?
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
I mean, but the entity could have been a group of programmers.
Now that we know that we could make artificial people who think they're real, the simulation hypothesis, I think, has to be taken as the primary explanation for our experience, and anything else would be subsidiary to that, in my personal opinion.
Now, I'm also very pro-religion, so if you can find a way to believe in God and build a world around that, That's a real successful model.
People have been doing it for years and it works really well.
Why not a god with a personality?
Because it seems very unlikely that a god would have flaws.
Our personality is mostly our flaws.
It's just that we've romanticized them so we don't think of it that way.
Take any element of your personality.
Just anything.
I like Vanilla ice cream more than chocolate?
Well, God doesn't need a preference.
I'm afraid of water, but not dogs.
God's not afraid of water or dogs, right?
So how in the world would God have a personality?
How about love?
No, love is a chemical reaction in our brains that makes us jealous and crazy and irrational.
Would God have something that makes God crazy and irrational?
No.
So every time you think of anything that's part of what you call your personality, it wouldn't make sense for an omnipotent being to have any of that.
Why would God ever be unhappy?
If God could feel emotions, and that would be a big question, why would God even have emotions?
What would be the purpose of emotions, or love, if you're a God?
It wouldn't have any function.
The things we evolved to have, like love, is just a direct mating instinct that we romanticize.
God doesn't need to mate, so God doesn't need to evolve to have a love instinct.
In the way that we understand it.
Now, you could hypothesize there's a God version of love that we don't understand.
There would still be room for that.
He needed a day of rest for some reason.
if you take it literally.
So, by the way, here's an update.
I'm updating my book, God's Debris.
They had a sequel called The Religion War, and now has a new, brand new short story that would be part of the three pack.
So we're going to sell a book, working with Joshua Lysak, we're going to sell a book that is the combination of God's Debris, the sequel, The Religion War, and the new short story that you're going to like.
You're going to like this short story.
It's really powerful.
I've never written a short story, but the form really appeals to me because I like brevity.
So I think you'll like it.
It might be one of the best things I ever did.
And that should be out in a few months.
It's going to take several months just to get the cover designed and work through the system.
But I think by summer, I think you should see it in the summer.
We'll see if everything goes well.
All right.
That's it for today.
I'm going to turn off the Rumble Studio, so I'm going to say goodbye to everybody on here, and then I'm going to fire up a separate thing for the locals people.
