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, In-N-Out Oakland, Woke Hierarchy, Bill Maher, Democrat Strategy, Dish Biden Donation, TikTok Themes, Liberal White Women, Kate Middleton, Squatter Stories, Legal Looting, Reverse Government, Regulatory Capture, Biden Grizzly Bears Release, YouTube Viewer Monitoring, RFK Jr., Moscow Terrorist Attack, President Trump Suppression, Democrat Billionaire Congress, Rep. Mike Gallagher, Levels of Political Awareness, James Carville, 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
Well, to do that, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, cistern, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh, that's good.
That's good.
Well, as you know, most of my technology is broken at any moment.
I've got a broken automatic shade.
I've got a bad computer and my elevator's down.
Coffee machine is a nightmare.
But everything else is going to work great today.
Because we've got some fun news.
Well, it turns out that the In-N-Out Burger Place has closed its first outlet.
They've never had to close any store.
That's pretty good.
But they closed the one in Oakland because, uh, too dangerous.
Too dangerous.
It's the first ever permanent closure for the chain.
Now, I think they finally earned their name.
They're out.
They're out.
They were in, but now they're out.
Why would anybody live in Oakland?
I don't know.
But if they keep closing places to buy food in Oakland, I'm a little worried that the people in Oakland are going to drive to my town for food.
And then I'm going to have to move again.
Oh no.
Anyway, I watched a show last night.
Has anybody heard of a show called The Three-Body Problem?
I guess it was a book.
Now it's a show on Netflix.
Well, I watched it, so you don't need to.
Here's my review.
Number one, it's an interesting show.
But the best part about it is to laugh at the wokeness.
Because it has a very strict hierarchy of who's good and who's bad.
At the top of their hierarchy, you've got minority women who are physicists and geniuses, and then just below them would be black men, also physicists and geniuses, and then at the bottom would be white men, Who are scumbags and bars, sometimes bartenders, but just generally kind of worthless.
So if you watch it, do what I was doing last night with a friend.
We were watching it and we're trying to guess what we would see next.
So for example, a guess would be, all right, the first time you see a white guy, he's going to be a scumbag.
Then just see if you're right.
You'll be surprised how often you can guess exactly what's going to happen.
But that said, so the wokeness, of course, is off the chart, as all movies, but it's actually well made.
So beyond that, it's actually pretty interesting.
I just watched the first two.
Anyway, Bill Maher is making news again, talking about the pandering Democrats, and he's advising his own team, the Democrats, to get off the race politics, because it's sort of the past.
And I do think this is one of the things that Bill Maher is sort of a national treasure for, is that he is capable of telling his own team when they're making a mistake.
I'm not sure they listen.
But it's pretty awesome that they at least have somebody who can talk to them and say, you know, maybe this thing you're doing is ruining the country and maybe not so good.
So, let's see, I guess the Financial Times, as he quoted, said Democrats are going backwards faster with voters of color than any other demographic.
So the more the Democrats try to make it about race, the more diversity they're losing.
So, do you think they've figured out that it's not working?
Well, don't worry, because they have a better plan.
So, if racial division isn't getting the Democrats what they want, don't worry, because that's not like, it's not like the only thing they have, because that would be pathetic.
Imagine if you had a whole national party, and the only thing you had to offer was you're all racist.
That's it.
But don't worry about that because they have a lot more.
So the news says that the Biden campaign has decided to use personal insults as a big part of their campaign.
So they don't just have racial division.
They also have personal insults, but not like the clever ones.
I'm not talking about a Trump kind of insult, where it's really sticky and fun and well-designed, and it says something really funny, and you want to say it yourself.
I mean, it just really gets into the minds of the other people.
It's not like that, no.
Biden has decided that they're going to call Trump Broke Don.
Now, I'm going to make a recommendation for the Democrats.
They don't take my advice.
They don't even listen to me.
But if they did, I'd say, you might want to call a meeting with Bill Maher before trying this.
Now, I don't know what Bill Maher would say about that idea of Biden trying to out insult the best insulter in the history of humankind.
But it does seem like they're not taking Strength against weakness, which would be the normal way you do these things.
Normally, you'd find something that the other team doesn't do well, and then you do it well, and you'd form that contrast.
That'd be good.
What you don't do is try to get into an insult contest with the best insulter of all time.
And you don't open the bid with broke Don.
Let me give you a little persuasion advice.
If he's broke because you broke him, you lose.
If he's broke, Don, because you took his money, we're gonna notice that.
He didn't get broke on his own.
He got broke because you're stealing his money.
By the way, he's not broke.
You stole so much money that he formed a new social media entity and he'll probably make four billion dollars this week.
So, joke's on you.
Every time I hear Broke Don, I hear Frank Luntz in my head.
Frank Luntz on CNN was looking at the camera and saying, if they take Trump's property, if they try to take his house, or one of his houses, he's going to win the election.
Well, what do you think Broke Don reminds you of?
It reminds you of they're trying to take his stuff.
There's nobody in the country who's okay with that.
Nobody.
You know, at a real basic human level, you don't want to see your government taking people's stuff because they're on the other side.
Literally nobody's in favor of that except batshit crazy pieces of shit.
Right?
Now, if this were reversed, I'd be saying the same thing.
You know, it has nothing to do with party.
If your government is just taking somebody's stuff, Because they're angry and they want to win the election.
Just call him broke Don.
Just remind us every time you use that, that you're robbing his stuff and it can happen to us too.
So I don't think that the... I really don't think that the Democrats have anybody working for them at the moment who knows how to do anything.
They appear completely lost.
And I think Bill Maher is pointing that out correctly.
And I liked Bill Maher's take on this, about the race relations, because it's exactly mine, but he words it differently.
You've heard my reframe for race, which is that dividing people by race is literally just stupid.
It doesn't buy you anything.
You don't get anything from it.
But it misses the fact that we're infinitely different.
You know, Dave Chappelle makes a better point.
He makes the point that it's about class, and that if you're rich enough, you're not really having the same problems as poor black people.
You're having the problems of rich people.
And then that becomes the group that you have the most identity with, because you have most in common with it, at least in terms of the real stuff that matters to your life.
So the way Bill Maher puts it is, you know, we have lots of interracial everything.
Andy gave some great examples, very entertaining.
But the fact that we're complicated and we're diverse way beyond race now, we're just diverse in every way.
And to imagine that you can put a bunch of us in one big category is really old thinking.
There was a time it made sense, but this is not that time.
Well, the Department of Justice reportedly dismissed a $3.3 billion fraud suit they were going to do against the Dish company, the satellite Dish company.
But they dropped that fraud suit after the chairman of Dish, Donated $113,000 to Biden.
Now, I don't mean to suggest they're connected.
It's just what happened soon after the other.
Oh my.
What if everything is exactly the way it looks?
Do you ever think about that?
What if everything is just exactly what it looks like?
That would be the worst case scenario.
Well, what this looks like is that somebody bought their way out of a lawsuit.
I don't know that that's true, but it looks exactly like it.
Yeah, it doesn't mean it's true.
Well, did you know that everything on TikTok has a similar theme?
So Ashley St.
Clair was pointing out that TikTok is removing and banning videos.
Which speak about the increased risk of mental health issues with hormonal birth control.
Now, Ashley is a advocate for that point of view.
I'm no doctor, so I cannot confirm or deny, and I certainly don't trust any studies, pro or anti.
So, I don't know.
I can say that observationally, I think it's obvious.
I don't know if anybody's had that experience, but to me it seems obvious that personalities change, at the very least, that personality changes with hormonal birth control.
I think that's observably true.
And apparently TikTok's going to remove or suppress your voice if you say that.
So TikTok's in favor of hormonal birth control, if you look at the impact of their suppression.
So what else?
Let's see if there's any kind of pattern here.
Let's see.
What does TikTok say about climate change?
Too many people?
Too many people, yeah.
They say the people are the problem.
What does TikTok say about dual income, no kids, couples?
I believe that there's a trend showing people with no children celebrating how happy and free they are and all the money they have and the things they can do.
What does TikTok think about being heterosexual?
Not as cool as it used to be, huh?
You know what's really cool?
Being anything except heterosexual.
Much cooler.
How about the traditional family?
Not so much.
Not on TikTok.
How about free markets?
Kind of not so much.
What do all these things and more have in common?
Every one of them has the same impact.
It suppresses American reproductive urges.
So, is it a coincidence that the reproductive impulse of Americans is being turned off by TikTok?
Do you think that spending all day on your phone increases your testosterone and makes you want to get busy with a real human?
Or does it do the opposite?
We're pretty sure it does the opposite.
So you've got a tool that China can use to turn off the human reproduction in America.
And we're not worried about that?
And our Congress wasn't concerned until probably has said too many things pro-Palestinian.
But whatever it takes, if it's the Palestinian situation, I don't care why.
And Ashley also responded to my comments on that post saying, wait until you find out about quote, the list videos.
Thousands of videos with reasons to not have kids.
So apparently there's something called the list.
On TikTok, where you can add all the awesome reasons to not have kids.
Is that a little too on the nose?
What would it take for you to be able to see it?
What does it take for pattern recognition to kick in?
Are we there yet?
Anybody?
Anybody see the pattern?
Yeah, it could not be more obvious.
Now, you might say to me, but Scott, is it intentional?
Well, I'll tell you what, they could turn it off if they wanted, because they can make anything viral they want.
So whether it happened on its own or didn't happen on its own, it's certainly the message that they're comfortable with, and that ends up being the same thing.
And of course, any food imports are probably killing us and making us unable to reproduce.
So I think our food source is poison, in my opinion.
I talked about this, that 50% of young liberal women have been diagnosed with a mental health condition.
What do you think the number is when you add the undiagnosed?
The ones who didn't go to seek help.
Because if you live where I live, it's really expensive and hard to find anybody to give you mental health support.
Is that the same everywhere?
I think it is probably, right?
It's not really easy or cheap to get any kind of therapy, right?
Not very few people can afford it.
So if 50% of women have been diagnosed, it means they had the wherewithal to, you know, get a medical professional to do that.
I would bet that the real number is closer to 75 or 80%.
Young liberal women, I think, are 75 to 80% mentally ill.
That's my guess.
Now, why would that be?
Well, Elon Musk had a theory.
He responded to that post about the young liberal women having that much mental illness, and he said that hormonal birth control and no kids to care for would make any mammal sad.
Okay, that's just like the best sentence that you're going to read today.
You know, I've often said that the difference between humor and a good summary is almost nothing.
There's almost no difference between summarizing a real situation and a joke.
Because the only reason that things don't sound like a joke, you know, by their nature, It's because we make them complicated.
If you take anything in the news and you just summarize it, it's hilarious.
That's all it takes.
So here he's done it.
He's just summarized it.
Hormonal birth control and no kids to care for would make any mammal sad.
Okay.
There's really nothing else to say.
That's pretty much it.
If you do all the things that would make any mammal sad, And then you look around and go, hey, what is making all these mammals sad?
Could it be that every single thing we do is clearly something that we know would make you sad?
Maybe it's that.
Maybe.
All right.
The Financial Times is reporting that China is telling the government that they can't use computers.
They have Intel and AMD chips.
So now China is worried that American-made chips could be spying on them.
Now, do you think that's just a response to the U.S.
saying you can't have TikTok on your machine?
Or do you think they're actually worried?
And do you think they have a reason to be?
Do you think they have a reason to be worried about American chips on their computers?
I'm going to say yes.
I'm going to say yes.
I don't know that those chips have any issues on them, but I can tell you if we were getting our chips from China, I would be very suspicious about what's on there that I don't know about.
Cause I don't know how hard it is to hide something on a chip, you know, a little unexpected code or something, but I'd be worried if I were, if I were China.
All right.
Um, I don't think I said it on this, uh, this live stream yesterday, but that Kate Middleton video, that looks sort of obviously AI to me.
The one where she talked about her cancer diagnosis.
Now, if it is, I'm totally okay with it.
Ethically, morally, publicity wise, royal, royal family wise.
Every part of that I'm okay with.
Cause here's what I assume.
If she's been taking chemo for two months after stomach surgery, she's not looking that great, right?
She's probably lost a lot of weight, her face is probably a little sunken, and there's probably not enough makeup and wigs that can compensate for that.
My guess, it's just speculation, is that their best case scenario was to record her voice, which is probably fine, And then just add an AI, because the background looked very AI, and everything else is pretty easy to do, the deep fake stuff.
The only thing that would be hard would be getting the voice exactly right, because even though the computers are good at faking voices, you can still sort of tell when it's a fake.
But if you used a real voice and just added the AI, it'd be fine.
Now, remember, she's got young kids, And the young kids don't need to see her looking bad.
You know, that'd be a little scary.
So, you know, we live in a world where makeup is accepted and, you know, wigs are accepted and dressing good is accepted and getting the lighting just right.
And then Photoshopping the picture, it's all accepted.
So if they use new technology to, to just put on a little better face than normal, totally acceptable.
I don't even think they should hide it.
If it came out that it was AI, they should just say, yes, this is AI.
It's the real person's voice.
And we did it so that people didn't see her looking back.
I'm totally okay with that.
There's nothing wrong with that at all.
In fact, it's a good use of the technology.
Well, James Carville, in his unspoken way, he is quoted as saying that Part of the party's polling problems, in other words, why the party is not doing well, is, quote, too many preachy females in the Democrat Party.
What does that sound like?
What would be another phrase for too many preachy females?
Batshit crazy women.
Yeah.
Yeah, the Democrats have a problem of mentally ill women who they can't say no to.
They have problems saying no to them.
So it turns out that the mentally ill women end up running the whole show because nobody can say no to them.
It's just too dangerous.
We've all been trained to say, all right, okay, yeah, whatever.
That's fine.
Just let me go do something else and try to ignore this.
So at least the Democrats are now aware.
And I would say that, uh, Bill Maher's pretty close to this same realization, that if your party is run by mentally ill young women, you're gonna get this result, which is a President Trump.
So just keep saying, broke down, keep making it about race, and keep being preachy female-led party, and you can pretty much guarantee, unless there's an amazing amount of rigging, you can pretty much guarantee a President Trump.
All right, what about all these squatter stories?
This is probably one of the most alarming things I've ever seen.
I've canceled my holiday plans because I don't want to come home and find somebody living in my house if I'm gone for a week.
Has anybody had that?
Has anybody literally thought they were going to cancel their vacation plans because they don't want a squatter moving in the minute they walk out the door?
And why don't we hear more stories of violence?
I'm not recommending it, but it's kind of weird that with all of our guns, and if somebody steals your house, and nobody's gotten violent, how in the world did they not get violent in that situation?
Now, I don't recommend it, because you end up in jail and losing your house, so it's way worse to be violent.
I'm just, I'm kind of amazed at the level of constraint, the level of self-restraint.
What happened to America?
Let me just say it directly.
You could end the squatter problem tomorrow with violence.
I don't recommend it.
I'm just saying if this were any prior time in America, it would already be solved.
Your neighbors would come over, and they would help you kick the shit out of the squatters, and then the police would come, and the police would not arrest you, they would arrest the squatters.
Because that was what America was.
We didn't let the criminals take our shit.
But now we do.
So, I don't recommend violence, but I'm rooting for it.
Can I say that?
I don't know.
Is that too far?
Because I definitely don't recommend it.
I do not recommend it.
I mean, I strongly, strongly don't recommend it.
Because you're going to go to jail if you do that.
But probably there's some number of people who are just angry enough that it's going to go too far and they're going to get in real trouble.
I don't recommend it.
But there used to be a way that these problems got solved and I don't think we have that mechanism anymore.
And everybody who's sane is just saying it's crazy.
And here's my take.
As long as the squatter situation is real, there's no way that Trump can lose.
Because the squatter situation and the DAs taking Trump's stuff, in my mind, that's the same story.
Does anybody have that same feeling?
That the squatter problem in America is the same story as the Democrats and their lackeys stealing Trump's stuff.
It's somebody who had a property right, and then the government, through its behavior, is taking it away.
Not for themselves necessarily, but letting somebody take it away.
Yeah, the looting as well.
The massive looting.
Basically, it's the government stealing from you.
Let me say it directly.
Wherever looting is allowed by the law, that's the government stealing from you.
That's the government.
Because they're the ones who control that.
They can make you stop.
You know what else they can make you stop?
Make it legal to kill a squatter.
Make it legal.
Didn't it used to be sort of okay to kill a horse thief?
So I don't recommend anybody do anything illegal.
Let me say that as clearly.
Don't do anything illegal.
But let's make it legal.
That'll never happen, but it would be a solution.
So what we have now is what I call a reverse government.
A normal government would be trying to protect and take care of the people.
Am I right?
Even a totalitarian government.
Do you know what Putin Really is interested in doing?
Putin actually wants Russia to do well.
I'm positive he does.
I think he really wants the Russian people to have a good life.
Now, I'm not pro-Putin.
He's got plenty of problems.
Plenty of problems.
I've talked about him in the past.
Don't need to mention him every time.
I'm just saying that the normal function of a government, be it a republic, be it You know, uh, any, any democratic or even totalitarian, they do want their people to do well.
Cause you know, they do well if the people do well.
So, but we have the opposite.
What is it?
What kind of government do you have when they're encouraging squatters to take your home?
That's a reverse government.
Instead of a government protecting your rights, they're actively taking away.
What do you call it when the government is actively suppressing speech by using its entities to talk to social media and lean on networks and stuff like that?
Well, that's the opposite of what your government is supposed to do.
Your government is supposed to protect your free speech.
They're actually actively taking it away.
That's a reverse government.
How about making sure that the economy is solid?
That would be the job of a government, wouldn't you say?
Make sure that the economy is functioning well.
Basic government function.
What's ours doing?
Well, we just passed an unlimited, ridiculous budget, which guarantees that we'll go out of business as a country, because we'll be ruined by debt.
Is that what a government is supposed to be doing?
Or is that closer to the opposite?
That's the opposite.
That's the opposite.
They're actively making the economy crash.
They're not just doing nothing.
They're very actively crashing it through, you know, unlimited debt.
That's a reverse government.
How about that Department of Justice that's supposed to protect us from crime?
Is that what's happening?
No, no.
In fact, at least in the political realm of January 6th and everything with Trump, the government is the crime.
The government is the crime.
They're not the ones preventing it.
They are the crime.
Right in front of us.
What about the news?
The news is supposed to tell you what's real.
Do they do that?
No.
They very directly do the opposite.
Not even close.
And the government, of course, is silent on that, because it works for their benefit.
There's a long post from RFK Jr., which I just realized fits perfectly with this point, in which he points out that all of our regulatory bodies are supposed to be protecting us, are all captured and they're doing the opposite.
So the people who should make sure our food supply is better are probably actively making it worse.
The people who are supposed to make sure that our medicines are safe are probably actively doing the opposite, actively.
Not just doing nothing, not just being worthless, actively working against armatures.
How about the national defense?
The national defense is supposed to keep us safe.
Is that what Ukraine is doing?
But.
Is that keeping us safe?
Are we witnessing our military doing things that keep America safe?
It doesn't look like it.
To me it looks like we're risking a nuclear confrontation and using up all our weapons and degrading the respect of our military and God knows what else.
Putting our soldiers in dresses.
Literally, putting our soldiers in dresses.
Now, does that sound like the government's on your side?
Not so much.
Let me stop for, there's somebody here who still believes the 4chan hoax about my pandemic opinions.
If you fell for the 4chan hoax that said I was pro-vaccine and pro-mask and pro-lockdowns, none of that ever happened in the real world.
And if you're concerned, is that what I personally did with my own health decisions?
I'd like to gently suggest that you don't have any role in my health decisions.
Be they correct, be they incorrect.
Because you don't know anything about my health situation.
You don't know anything about my risk-reward.
You are a stupid piece of shit.
Whose only value was to come on and say some completely wrong bullshit that you heard on 4chan, or Reddit, or some terrible place.
And you're just making the world a worse place.
You're worse than the government right now.
To come in and just yell at somebody who's trying to help you.
Trying to help you.
Trying to make the world a better place.
And your job is to come in here like a little dingleberry.
Tell me that something that happened two fucking years ago that you misunderstood is the important thing. We should be thinking about right now Anyway All right, so we have a reverse government.
But the good news is it can't get any worse.
Am I right?
I mean, what could the government do that could be more on the nose To prove that they're against the people.
There's nothing else they could do.
There's nothing.
I tell you, there's nothing that our government could do that would make you think even more than you already do that they're anti-people.
So next story is the Biden administration accelerates their plan to unleash grizzly bears near rural communities.
Wait, what?
The Biden administration is releasing grizzly bears near rural communities intentionally.
Okay, I take back everything I said.
It can get way worse, people.
It can get way worse.
They're unleashing grizzly bears.
I didn't make that up.
Does anybody think I made that up?
That's an actual story.
They're releasing the grizzly bears near your homes.
Just in case you hadn't gotten the hint from the Squatters and the Fentanyl and the MS-13.
If none of that was giving you the hint, how about a fucking grizzly bear?
Do you see it yet?
All right.
And then again, Senator Bill Hagerty points out that every single Senate Democrat voted against this amendment that would have stopped the Biden administration from using taxpayer dollars to charter flights for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens from their countries directly to American towns. You would think that the normal
role of a government would be to prevent non-citizens from entering, you know, especially under this current situation.
But not only are they not preventing it, but they're charging us, the taxpayers, to fly them in comfort and as quickly and as efficiently as possible into the country.
Now, does that sound like a government, or does that sound like a reverse government?
Well, with any luck, the grizzly bears will eat the criminals coming in.
They're not all criminals.
Most of the immigrants are fine people.
I didn't mean fine people that way, but you know what I mean.
Well, but don't worry.
In many other ways, the government is just fine.
We'll see this next story.
Apparently, there's a report that Google is willing, or has been asked, we don't know if they're willing, but they've been asked to reveal the identities of some YouTube viewers.
The viewers.
So the government, reportedly, has asked Google to reveal who was watching certain videos.
Not who created the video.
The government Is trying to find out who was watching certain videos.
Does that bother you at all?
And apparently they can even find out who you were, what you were watching, even if you were doing it anonymously and not signed in.
Because they can figure out your IP address.
So they want to find out what you watched.
Now, I think there's a specific case involved that they were looking into.
But just think about that.
They want to know what you watched.
If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.
All right, so this is actually RFK's take on it.
I'm going to read his words because I think they were well chosen.
He said, the CIA works for military contractors, providing a steady pipeline of forever wars.
The health agencies are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, which profits from chronic diseases.
The Fed, held captive by big banks, flood the canyons of Wall Street with money.
The agencies that are supposed to be stewards of American security, prosperity, and health are no longer working on behalf of you and me.
They've become sock puppets for the industries they're supposed to regulate.
Corporate capture is the biggest threat to American democracy.
Correct.
That is correct.
100% correct.
Now, when I say the government is working against you, it's usually because of some entity that's corrupt or some, you know, billionaire who's corrupt or something.
So the government doesn't wake up in the morning and say, what can we do that's bad for America?
There's always some entity that's benefiting, right?
There's somebody making money.
And that's why the government acts the way it does.
So somebody can keep making money, apparently.
Well, only the mole can save us.
How many of you remember the mole?
The mole is, let's say, an imaginary person who works for the Democrat campaign, originally for the Hillary Clinton campaign, which we imagined was giving terrible advice.
But doing it intentionally like a mole, you know, really they're playing for the other team, but they've infiltrated.
And, you know, I said earlier that the Biden campaign is going to start insulting and calling Trump broke Don.
That feels like the mole.
Doesn't it?
Again, it's an imaginary person, but it feels like somebody is literally giving them what they think is the worst advice.
Hey, Have you thought of publicly flogging Trump in front of the public?
It's just like all terrible, terrible advice.
You'll see more of that.
Well, of course, the big news still is that Moscow attack on the theater and the mall.
I thought by now we'd have more clarity on who did it.
ISIS claimed responsibility, and at some point people thought it was.
I reminded you that It's too early to believe ISIS, even when they claim responsibility.
Because we do know that in the Vegas shooter situation, they claimed responsibility and it wasn't them.
So we do know that ISIS claiming responsibility is a thing, even if it's not true.
That doesn't mean it wasn't ISIS, because there's evidence that they're from a, you know, sort of an ISIS area, and it's about that.
But then other people are saying it's really a Ukraine operation in secret, and Putin seems to be taking the approach that it was Ukraine.
Now, what we don't know is if Putin knows the real answer.
What we don't know is if he does know the real answer, if he is pretending he doesn't know.
Because it would be a good excuse to get more savage on Ukraine.
Because the current situation was sort of a stalemate, but it seems to me that Putin now has an October 7th free pass for Ukraine.
This is the problem when precedence gets set.
They prime you so you only think of that precedent.
Have you ever been in a conversation about politics and Hitler came up?
I'm joking, because Hitler comes up in every conversation about politics.
Once you get a Hitler model in your mind, then it's just always there as your go-to to understand everything that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Likewise, the October 7th attacks, because they're in your head, When you see this attack, how many of you connected it to October 7th as in sort of a like attack?
How many of you just automatically thought, oh, this is very October 7th-ish?
Did anybody think that?
Yeah, the news has mentioned it, but I think people probably automatically compare them.
And here we have a country which is already primed For thinking that Israel had a moral cover for going hard against Gaza.
You know, you could argue how hard and the specifics of it, but they had some moral cover to go hard militarily.
Does it seem a coincidence that when we'd been so primed by October 7th giving you a free pass to be brutal, that That suddenly Putin gets a free pass to be brutal with Ukraine.
Because all he has to do is say, I think it's Ukraine.
And even now, as I'm talking, probably Ukraine is getting pounded pretty hard.
Has anybody seen an update?
I heard there were cruise missiles and bombers heading toward, you know, heading toward Kiev or whatever.
I've got a feeling he might just take out the capital.
He might just turn the capital into Gaza.
I don't know how hard this is going to be, but it seems to me that for domestic reasons, Putin has to get as brutal as he possibly can.
Because he can't look weak, right?
The last thing he can do is look weak, especially when some people think it might have been Ukraine, whether it was or not, who knows.
But I think that it's going to get brutal because he got a free pass.
Did Ukraine do it?
Let's go through the possibilities.
Is it a coincidence that ISIS did it now and the way they did it?
How would ISIS benefit from this particular crime?
Here's the thing.
An ISIS attack, I would expect usually to be more like something blowing up.
Right?
These guys were trying to get away with it.
That's very un-ISIS to try to run away and live, isn't it?
You know, it seems like the terrorists have this whole, I've got to die doing the thing, it has to be an explosion.
I don't know why, but they seem locked into that pattern.
So when I see people doing something that's a little bit off pattern, I say to myself, hmm, that's a little off pattern for terrorist attacks.
And that doesn't mean it's not.
I mean, they may have been inspired by the October 7th thing, so there's a perfect reason that they did it the way they did it.
They may have noticed that October 7th got more attention.
But if you were ISIS, would you want to get Putin really, really mad at you right now?
Is that something that ISIS wants more of?
Does ISIS want more of Russia coming after them?
I don't think so.
It seems like that wouldn't be a good strategy.
Would it?
I mean, is it likely that that attack will make Putin say, oh, I guess, you know, wherever ISIS is mad at me, anywhere in the world, I guess I better back off?
Probably not.
So I'm not sure that ISIS would see that as a good strategy for ISIS.
By the way, the Taliban just issued a statement opposing the October 7th attack.
The Taliban.
That's right, the Taliban.
So it could be ISIS.
I'm still saying that the indication is not.
Then the second question is, was it Ukraine?
Why would Ukraine benefit from that?
Do you think there was somebody in Ukraine who said to themselves, if we do this horrible attack in the heart of Moscow, We'll have more chance of winning the war.
Does that sound likely?
Does that sound like a good approach?
See if I can make the comments work here.
Comments stopped again.
All right, there should be a fix coming this week for the mobile app, I'm being told.
But let me just close this and reopen it because I can't read the comments right now.
And I want to.
All right, locals, coming back to you.
Trying to see if I can see the comments refreshed.
There we are.
We got refreshed comments now.
All right.
So ISIS, might have been ISIS, but it's hard to see how that's good for them.
Might have been Ukraine.
But again, it's hard to see how that would be good for them.
Because it sounds crazy.
Like, why would you give Putin a free pass to bomb the capital?
Because that's what he has.
Putin now has a free pass to destroy the capital of Ukraine, which he didn't really have before.
Because before he was like, well, I'm fighting for these areas on the border.
But if he can sell it to his own public and the world as a Ukraine op, he can take out the whole capital.
Why would Ukraine do that?
They would have to know that's going to happen.
All right.
Now let's talk about the CIA.
Again, I have no evidence that the CIA was behind it, but would it make sense?
Would the CIA care so much if the capital of Ukraine gets bombed to rubble?
They don't care about the rest of Ukraine, apparently.
So it could be that anything that makes Putin look bad is good for the CIA.
I don't know.
But it's hard to see how anybody has a clean play here.
Because it's not obvious to me how anybody benefits from this.
Somebody saying NATO?
How would NATO benefit from this?
I don't see it.
How would Ukraine benefit from it?
I don't see it.
How would the military-industrial complex benefit from it?
Oh, now we're talking.
Now we're talking.
There is one entity that would make a ton of money.
It's our own military-industrial complex.
Who does the bidding of our industrial-military complex?
Well, depending who you're listening to.
Many people would say the CIA is basically partners with our military-industrial complex.
So, if you see something that looks like would make a lot of money for American military-industrial complex people, and you can't find anybody else who seems to have an obvious way to benefit from it, I'm going to go with a working assumption that we did it.
I don't have evidence for that.
No evidence whatsoever.
But a working assumption is that we're guilty.
Yeah, it looks like, you know, it may have been, you know, ISIS related people or something, but that doesn't mean that's, you know, not who's behind it.
And, yeah.
It looks like we did it by proxy, exactly.
Now that doesn't mean I'm right.
Remember, we're still in deep fog of war, so anything could be true.
I have very low confidence in anything that anybody says, including me, about this situation.
But, if you're trying to figure it out logically, I would rule out the people who don't benefit.
I don't see Ukraine benefit.
I don't see ISIS benefit.
I don't see NATO benefit.
I only see the military-industrial-manufacturers benefit.
So, follow the money.
All right.
And how in the world did Russia not figure out exactly who the problem is?
Because you know they're torturing these guys, right?
the guys they caught. Russia benefits.
Oh, so some of you are thinking that Russia did it to himself?
You think Putin did it to himself?
I think that's the least likely explanation.
Of all the explanations, that's sort of Michelle Obama is going to run for president kind of thinking.
It's just too cartoonish.
It's cartoonish.
Yeah, thinking that Michelle Obama is going to run for president is a cartoon opinion.
But thinking that Putin did a terrorist act in his own heart of his own country, that's a little bit cartoonish.
Yeah, he's not going to do something that makes him look weak and vulnerable.
I don't see that.
All right.
I'm not sure the terrorists know who recruited them, which if they don't know who recruited them, That kind of rules out ISIS, doesn't it?
If that's true.
Let me test this.
I'm just thinking of it right now.
If it's true that they don't know who recruited them, does that suggest ISIS?
Because doesn't ISIS recruit people who are already on their side?
It feels like these guys had to get talked into it with money.
ISIS didn't have any believers who were willing to do it for free?
I don't know.
This has our CIA written all over it, but it doesn't mean it's true.
It's impossible to know at this point.
All right.
Let me ask you a question.
If you're using other social media especially, Have any of you who are, let's say pro-Trump, seen a sudden huge decrease in Trump related social media?
So does anybody feel like they got siloed and they're just not seeing any Trump stuff?
I'm just going to put that out there because I heard some reports, very anecdotal, That maybe there was some new round of suppression coming.
So I'm looking at your comments.
Oh, I see a whole round of yeses.
Now, are you seeing it on the X platform?
Because I only use X, so I haven't really noticed.
You think that Trump material is being throttled.
I'm just seeing a wall of yes.
So on Facebook, Facebook and Instagram, Well, wow.
People are confirming it like crazy.
It's just a wall of yes.
So a lot of people are just not seeing Trump stuff now.
Interesting.
Do you know what could really get Trump elected?
Suppressing his stuff.
That could really help him.
I feel like everything they're doing is somehow related to be... Oh, here's an opinion.
Some Chechen connection?
Bombings to be terrorists?
Oh, so are you saying that you think Putin ginned up reasons to go against the Chechens so it wouldn't be that unusual if he did a false flag?
Is that what you're suggesting?
All right, I will put that suggestion in the hopper, that there's some suggestion that Putin has done a false flag in the past, and a big issue of the Chechen situation.
But I don't think it's confirmed that he was a false flag in either case.
I'm still going to put that at the bottom of the list.
I think that Putin doing it himself has got to be the least likely possibility.
All right.
Again, Elon Musk making news as he always does.
He tweeted or posted that, please forward links to X posts to your friends so they know what's actually happening.
Some people still believe the legacy media.
Now, what's the key word there?
What's the key persuasion word in this sentence?
Some people still believe the legacy media.
What's the key word?
The persuasion word.
This one's easy.
Which word is the persuasion?
I think there's just a delay in the comments.
The persuasion word, I'll just tell you.
Oh, I guess it wasn't as obvious as I thought it would be.
Some people are saying legacy.
The correct answer is still.
If you took the word still, it completely loses its power.
Watch this.
Here's without the word still.
Some people believe the legacy media.
And then what do you say if you hear that?
I'll tell you what I say.
I say, oh, you mean, you know, the accurate media I listen to?
Of course I believe it.
Why wouldn't I?
There's Elon Musk being a troll and right winger or something.
Now the legacy part isn't the insult you think it is because people don't know what that means.
Go on the street and ask people to define legacy.
Good luck.
They don't even know what the word means.
They literally don't know what the word means.
It's just something that those of us who like to talk about stuff in public, we know what it means.
And if you're a technologist who's got legacy computing systems, you know what it means in that context.
But people don't really know what it means to have legacy media.
What percentage of the general population even knows what legacy media means?
20%?
Tops?
It's not a lot.
Yeah.
So the legacy is not the keyword.
Keyword is still because still makes you think past the sale.
Still is the active word because it tells you that you're going to be there and other people have already gotten there first.
What's that called?
The high ground maneuver, thank you very much.
It's the high ground.
By suggesting that some people have gotten to where you're going to get to eventually, but they got there first, puts you in the position of still being in the weeds, and we know where you're going to end up.
Oh, you're going to end up with us, eventually.
But at the moment, you're still in the weeds.
That's persuasion.
Really good persuasion.
Yeah, I use the word still in my version of this when I mock people who come at me online.
I often can make them go away forever by saying, you still, you still, you think the news is real or you still believe the news in 2024?
If you say you think the news is real in 2024, It's suggesting that they haven't caught up, even without the word still.
You put it in the form of a question and it suggests, you haven't caught up to me yet?
That's the high ground maneuver.
People can't resist the high ground because they don't want to feel that they're a lower level of awareness than somebody they're talking with.
They can disagree about facts, but when you say I'm at a higher level of awareness and you'll get there, It really gets to people.
That really gets you on the insides.
But disagreeing about a fact is just, you get to yell at each other.
It doesn't really have that impact.
Yeah, still drinking in the morning.
That's another one.
All right, I'm trying to understand this Mike Gallagher story, who's resigning from Congress, But he chose a resignation date that makes it impossible to replace them in time, which means they're going to be operating at a deficit, and the margin will get smaller, and so maybe the Republicans will lose control.
And if the Republicans lose control, here's what Roger Stone warns.
He says a billionaire Paul Singer, now this is Roger Stone, so I can't confirm the facts.
I'm giving you his opinion.
So Roger Stone says billionaire Paul Singer who paid for the original Steele dossier.
Is that an evidence?
Did billionaire Paul Singer pay for the Steele dossier?
I don't remember that.
Can you confirm that in the comments?
Well, okay.
But anyway, Roger Stone is certainly plugged in, so he's saying that this billionaire Paul Singer paid for the original Steele dossier, and Roger predicts that he will be exposed as a man financing the RINO effort to turn over control of the House to the Democrats, and here's the key part, who will then pass a law barring Trump from running for president.
Whoa.
Could that be true?
Could it be true that a billionaire could buy off just a few politicians?
Because you only have to get a few.
And if they leave, Democrats get control of everything before the election.
And if they control everything, they pass a law that says somebody accused of insurrection can't run for president.
And then they take him out.
Now, if you were a billionaire who cared most about Trump not being the president, because if Trump is president, it might take down your whole operation, do you think that you would be willing to spend, oh, I don't know, several million dollars to make sure that Trump can't win?
You might.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, that's crazy.
Because he's a Republican.
So why would a Republican want the Democrats to have control of everything?
Well, he's smart.
Nobody says he's not smart.
So I would say it's because he knows the Republicans are going to be in charge if Trump wins.
And so this is his one chance to keep Trump out of office and probably Republicans will do fine in the election.
They might take back power, at least in one house.
So, I don't know.
I'm going to stop short of saying that this is a confirmed plan, but as I often say, design is destiny.
If the design of what we see is going to give us that outcome, it's hard to imagine That's not intentional.
You know what I mean?
Because I don't believe that Mike Gallagher has given his reasons for his suspicious timing of leaving.
Doesn't it sound like he owes a description of why, and I haven't heard it, but I don't want to blame him of, you know, taking money if that's not the case.
But I think we're all going to be watching the next year to see where Mike Gallagher ends up.
And does he end up in some entity that has some connection to billionaire Paul Singer?
I don't know.
I guess I don't embrace this theory fully, but there's certainly enough questions that this is in the mix.
You can't rule it out.
So let's say there's nothing about Roger Stone's opinion.
That you could rule out as being obviously wrong.
Right?
Could be true, could be not be true, but it's not obviously wrong.
So, you know, that's something.
All right.
I heard from one of my followers on X, maybe on here as well, George LaPerche.
He said to me that ever since I posted this, and it's something I wrote, on Facebook, my liberal friends have gotten completely quiet on the political front.
Nicely done.
So, I'm going to read you, you've heard this before, but I'm going to read it to you because now it seems to be a little bit tested.
And maybe you'd want to try it too.
So one of my posts was levels of awareness in politics.
And by the way, this was written as a high ground maneuver.
This is the high ground.
So listen for the persuasion, which tells you if you're not thinking in the way I'm going to describe, well, you might be a little bit behind the rest of us.
It's going to be just like Elon Musk's still believe the legacy media.
It should, if I wrote it correctly, It should make you feel, oh, I guess I need to catch up with everybody.
All right?
I said levels of awareness in politics.
Level one.
At level one, you believe they're the preferred news source, so you believe your news is true, and you don't sample any other sources.
You're not even aware of any other arguments.
You just watch MSNBC, and that's what you believe is true.
That's level one.
Level two, a little bit higher, You sample news from multiple sources, but you still believe that your source is the real one.
And you think, oh yeah, I hear the other story, but that's from the fake news.
So that's level two.
At level three, you become aware that all news is fake everywhere, at least in the limited way of leaving out context.
The facts might be true, but they might be out of context.
And you realize that, wait a minute, it's both sides.
Both sides do this.
And then you're up, that's when you're at level three, when you realize that the news from everywhere is motivated more than you thought.
All right.
Level four is where you understand that none of our experts are reliable.
No, you can't pick the good expert.
You do not have that power and they're not reliable.
We used to think they were, but they're absolutely not.
Some of the experts might be right, but none can be trusted without verification.
It's because of the distortion of money.
All of the experts pretty much have some kind of monetary stake.
So you can't really believe people have a monetary stake.
But at level 5, you start to see the gears of the machine.
I call it Mike Benz style.
So if you don't know Mike Benz, you should follow him on X, and you will learn about the machinery, the NGOs, the funding, the Atlantic Council, the Carlisle Group, and all these other entities that make everything happen.
So once you see the gears of the machine, you know how the wrap-up smear works, you know how the fake news works, you know that the watchdogs are just essentially, they're basically pit bulls for the Democrats.
So once you learn all that, you can see the gears of the machine.
That's level five.
And then you also realize that we're probably under the control of our intelligence professionals, and that's the nature of the country.
If you still think we're a democratic federal republic, then you're not at level 5.
So I think I'm at least at level 5, because I don't believe any of the news, I don't think our experts are credible, and it seems to me that the country is not a republic in any way.
And then in level six, this is the level where you're dead because you know too much, also known as the Epstein level.
Now, do you think that this would shut up somebody who was arguing with you because they watched MSNBC and they got the right answer?
It might.
It might.
Because when people realize that they're arguing from a lower level of awareness, where they believe the things that their own side tells them, it's actually embarrassing.
Just think about this.
Imagine me coming into your conversation and saying, you still believe the news?
And what do people always say when you say, do you still believe the news?
They always say, but what about Fox News?
They're sometimes wrong too.
And then you say, I didn't say there was a good one.
I'm just mocking you for believing any news.
But what about Fox News?
No, I'm not saying there's a good one.
You have to get to my level where everything is spun.
Everything is spun all the time.
Want to hear an example?
You know that quote from, what's his name?
Who's the wetworks guy?
Carville.
So James Carville was talking to Anderson Cooper.
And he said that the Democrats needed to go harder, you know, with the dirty tricks and advertising and marketing, and they need to do more of what he called wet work.
And what he described the wet work as is the basically the really dirty campaign ads.
Now, Anderson Cooper laughed, let's say, awkwardly.
Because he knew he was talking to somebody on his own team, Democrats, and here's this Democrat saying what works when we're in the context of people talking about trying to assassinate RFK Jr.
and Trump as well.
So immediately the people on the right leapt to the conclusion that what Carville was really saying is assassinate Trump.
That didn't happen.
How many of you think that Carville was secretly trying to send a message to assassinate Trump?
Did you believe your own news?
If you believed your own news, that story?
No!
He defined his terms immediately.
There was no delay.
If you hear it out of context, like the Fine People Hoax, the Fine People Hoax is exactly the same.
Where you say the thing that would be real easy to take out of context, But you know immediately that it could be taken out of context, so you fix it immediately.
He said, no, what works means, yes, it's taken from the colorful language of the CIA whacking people, but this context, it means just the advertising.
He said it directly.
He said it immediately.
And there's no ambiguity to that at all.
But if your news told you that he was suggesting Killing Trump.
That didn't happen.
All right.
So don't believe your own news.
Don't believe the other news.
Don't believe any of the news.
It's a spin situation.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the incredible conclusion of the best live stream you're going to see today.
Thanks for joining everybody on the X and Rumble and YouTube platforms.
I'm gonna say a few words to the local subscribers after I log off.
