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, String Theory Value, Marijuana Risk, Viagra Risk, President Trump, ISIS Moscow Video, President Obrador, Cartel Employment, Squatter Risk, Non-Citizen Voters, Trump Judgement Details, DEI, CA Job Growth, Fact-Checking Fakery, Prosecutor Lawfare, Umbrella Fear Persuasion, Batshit Crazy Women, Bubble Power Groups, Axios Propaganda, Voting Irregularities Study, 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, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of your entire existence.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even really imagine, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Dopamine at the end of the day makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous zip.
It happens now.
Thanks, Paul.
you saved me.
Ah.
Well, that's good stuff.
I got lots of little science-y stories and news stories and maybe a little bit of a theme.
But let's start with this.
Elon Musk posted that he voted 100% Democrat until a few years ago.
And now he says, now I think we need a red wave or America is toast.
That does seem to be the case.
It does seem to be that the political left is so batshit crazy that letting them have another four years would be the end of the country.
Potentially.
It does look like it's an existential threat.
And the existential threat would be bat-shit crazy women.
Basically.
Because if we could do something about the bat-shit crazy women, the rest would take care of itself.
You just gotta get rid of that one insane group that got too much power and we'll be in good shape.
But I think a red wave would go a long way to make that happen.
All right, here's a post on X that had me laughing for two days because I'm mad that I didn't think of it myself.
You ever have that situation where somebody makes a good point and you think, oh, why didn't I ever say that?
That's so smart.
Well, Eric Weinstein said this about string theory.
He goes, uh, how do you know that string theory isn't working as physics despite expert assurances to the contrary?
And he says the answer is, no one at all is in any way worried about the Iranians, Russians, or Chinese getting their hands on our cutting-edge string theory.
So how real is string theory if we don't have any concern whatsoever if our rivals get it?
Now, that doesn't just mean, you know, maybe it has some potential military value, but at the very least, if it's going to be anything useful at all, it would have economic use, but apparently we don't think it has any value whatsoever because we don't protect it.
Now, why didn't I ever think of that?
Have you ever thought of that?
That there is no security whatsoever on this brand new theory of physics.
It's probably because nobody believes it's real.
Like, on some level, they know it's not worth protecting, which I think is hilarious.
Well, scientists warn in Germany, I guess, that the price of food will go up every year from now on and 3% per year.
And the problem is that the rising temperatures, the rising temperatures will make food prices go up.
Can anybody explain how a little extra warmth makes it harder to grow crops?
Because I always thought that that made your crops more abundant.
Well, what are they trying to tell us here?
That sounds ridiculous to me on the surface, because we know that warming is associated with the greening.
The only way this would make sense is that it simply changes where the greenery is.
So maybe there's some places that dry out, so they get a little drought, but some other place grows better.
Now let me ask you a more important question.
Do you think they could really measure this?
Do you think they can measure the difference in food growth just based on temperature?
Not just the difference, but how much of the difference depends on it being a tenth of a degree warmer this year?
Do you think they have that ability?
No, they don't.
No.
If you lived in the real world for five minutes, you'd know that the last thing science would be able to do is figure out how the crops are different because of a tenth of a degree difference from this year to last year.
They can't do that.
That's not a real thing.
It's like saying that they can measure the temperature.
I was going to do a little demonstration but I got lazy.
In one of my rooms in the house that I don't heat or cool, I just keep the door closed, I put two thermometers in there.
So one's a digital thermometer and one's a mercury thermometer.
And every day I go in and check to make sure that I'm getting the right temperature.
So I use one of the temperatures to check To see if the other temperature is correct.
Because otherwise how would I know, right?
Let's say the digital one was off.
How would I know?
I'd just see a number.
So I put right next to it the mercury one.
So if it's like off a degree, I'll catch it.
Do you know what the temperature difference is of two thermometers sitting within three inches of each other?
Five degrees.
Five degrees.
One of them says 55 degrees, the other says 60.
They're right next to each other.
So how do I know which is right?
Well, I know the digital one's not right because I checked it against the mercury one.
And I know the mercury one is not right because I checked it against the digital one.
What exactly do they use to check their temperatures when they go do the reading?
You ever wonder about that?
Do you think when they go out to service the machines or to check the numbers on them, do they bring a separate device so they can sit next to it and then find out if they get the same reading on both devices?
Do you think they do that?
Of course not.
Of course not.
There's no way in the world we're measuring the temperature of the earth.
It's like one of the great scams of all time.
No, I don't know if the temperature of the Earth is going up or down or how much people are affecting it.
I'm just saying that if we think we can measure it, you haven't lived in any kind of real world for a while if you think that.
Anyway, there's a new study on marijuana that says the daily cannabis use has a 25% increased risk of heart attack and a 42% increased risk of stroke.
Now, just try to hold this in your head.
This is a really big effect, would you agree?
Rarely do you find a scientific study that will say there's a 25% difference in anything.
Right?
That's a really big difference.
And that's just for one thing.
There's a 42% difference in the risk of stroke.
Now those are really big differences.
Am I right?
So with differences that big, I'll bet you've noticed it in your real life, haven't you?
Haven't you noticed all the daily marijuana smokers falling over with heart attacks and strokes?
I've never heard of one.
I've never actually heard of one.
But let's do another one.
We hear fentanyl is bad.
Do you know anybody who died of fentanyl?
Yes, yes I do.
I do.
So I believe that fentanyl is deadly.
Let's see.
Do you believe anybody has ever died of regular cigarettes and getting lung cancer?
Yes, my mother.
Yeah.
Yep.
Pretty normal thing.
So I do believe the cigarettes are associated with lung cancer.
But how could I get to my current age and never hear of one example of anybody had a health problem with marijuana?
So the first filter is observation versus science.
It doesn't mean the science is wrong if your observation is different, because you can be biased and confirmation biased and all that.
But if you don't see any correlation between the news that's telling you there's this gigantic thing and you're looking around and you've never seen it, it should raise the flag.
But let me put it in these terms and see if it seems funnier.
If it's true that they just found a 25% increased risk of heart attack and 40% of stroke from daily marijuana users, and we had never detected that before, in all of the different marijuana studies, nobody had detected a 25% difference or a 42% difference?
We've never detected that before.
This tells me one of two things.
Either science was never real until this year, because really, all the science couldn't find this gigantic difference for, what, a hundred years?
Nobody noticed this.
All those studies came up blank.
But this one, well, this new one, nailed it.
So either this is the first time science has ever been right, or this is bullshit.
It's one or the other.
You have to pick one.
Either science has never been real until this year, but they finally got it right after all those messes.
They finally got it right.
Or this is bullshit.
I'm going to go with this bullshit.
Because that's what I want to believe.
All right.
There's another research that says that Viagra use decreases the risk of Alzheimer's by 60%.
Again I ask, if there's a 60% decrease in Alzheimer's from boner pills, nobody noticed that until now?
Nobody found that correlation?
Well, I think there might be a few things going on.
One is if you, I assume this is based on asking people for their own report.
So they don't put a camera in the bedroom of the old folks and say, all right, I saw him taking a Viagra.
All right.
And then I, then I noticed that he was not having any Alzheimer's.
No, it's gotta be self-reported, right?
Wouldn't you say?
They self-report that they take Viagra and then they either self-report or there's some doctor report that says they had Alzheimer's or not.
But do you see any potential problem with that study?
As in, makes you wonder if people remember they took the, maybe they forgot they took the Viagra or they forgot they didn't.
I don't know.
Doing a study where you're self-reporting and the group is, you're checking for Alzheimer's, seems like a natural problem.
I don't, maybe they found a way to get around that.
But I would say this is a big movement forward in science because now, Now that we know that the Viagra will help you with your sexual performance as well as your mental performance, now a guy my age can bang a woman and also remember her name afterwards.
Now that's new.
So, it's a big step forward for science.
Alright, there's an estimate out of the UK that artificial intelligence could take 84% of the government jobs.
Because a lot of the government jobs are just pushing paperwork around and stuff.
So 84%.
I'm going to do you one better.
I think AI could be the entire government.
And will be.
Actually, I'll make that a prediction.
It won't happen on day one.
But AI will actually be the entire government.
All you have to do is feed it a little the Constitution, a bunch of case law.
It could do it all.
It could be the judge and jury, it could be the entire legal system, and it could do all your paperwork, all your taxes.
You should be able to just show all your information, you know, just scan it in and have it do your taxes.
Because if it sees all the documents, what else does it need?
You're not allowed to write anything down.
I mean, you could tell it, oh, I gave some donations without a receipt or something.
Think about the cost of our government.
Think what it would cost to have a government.
And then imagine you could get rid of all those costs.
Because it would just be, you just pick up your phone and you're talking to the government.
AI is a fad?
I don't think so.
So there is a possibility that the national debt could be paid.
It could be.
I mean, obviously, if we fired all these government employees, that'd be another problem.
But it could be that we could reduce the cost of government so much that we could pay off the debt.
Think about how much we spend just to keep government employees.
Now we don't need them.
We might not need any of them.
Now I'm going to go full Star Trek on you.
You ready?
I'm going full Star Trek.
In the future, all militaries will be replaced by AI.
Because the AI will accurately figure out who would have won the war.
So you won't need to do the war.
It'll make a war unnecessary, because it'll just tell you who's gonna win and how long it will take and how many people would die.
So instead of the, let's say Ukraine-Russia thing, if they had started gearing up for war, AI would have said, all right, it looks like this will probably be some kind of a stalemate situation, but if Russia keeps at it and loses a half a million people, they can definitely prevail in the long run, risk of nuclear war, you know, 25%, whatever it is.
And then everybody looks at it and they go, oh, okay, well, this isn't worth doing.
Now, obviously, that's super, you know, super, let's say, optimistic.
But if you imagine, for example, AI helping us avoid war, then you make it a bigger topic.
Could it help us avoid war?
I think it actually could.
Because in order to have a war, you almost always have to brainwash some member of the public.
Am I right?
War is usually a brainwashing operation first.
To get the country on its side.
I saw a video today of an ex-CIA guy from, I don't know, looked like the 60s or something, talking in an interview and saying that one of the reasons that the CIA does the big narrative, like the big narrative is communists are coming to take over the world.
We have to stop them everywhere domino effect.
That's not real.
That's something that the CIA told us.
Do you know why?
As the agent explained, if you want to take over the country of Nicaragua using your CIA, you first have to say that there's the bigger reason.
That, oh, it's part of the dominoes of communism.
So we wouldn't really care about one little country enough to, you know, care about taking over its government or staging a coup.
But if you say, oh, it's not really about the little country.
It's about the dominoes.
When I was a kid, we all thought that dominoes was a thing.
Oh, this one falls and the others fall.
It's a domino thing.
So you always need the big story.
And this will be my theme for today.
You need the big story that's completely made up in order to sell a war to your own public.
Right?
So, Putin's got the big story.
That's, you know, NATO's against him, and Russia used to own this stuff.
Israel's got the big story.
You know, their version is they've always been there, and you know, blah, blah, blah.
That's the big story.
So then they can do the little things, as long as it fits within the big story.
Well, what happens if AI tells us the big story is not true?
Which it would.
You know, unless it's completely fake AI.
But the AI will say, you know what?
There's not really any reason for this war.
It would make more sense to be allies.
I think AI would have said, war with Russia?
Well, that's crazy.
Why don't you just be allies?
You could make a lot of money.
You don't really have anything that you're fighting over.
Now, that's not true because the war is really about resources.
Imagine AI said, why would you have a war When your CIA did a coup in Ukraine and tried to sell it to your own public like it was some natural thing.
If AI told us as it was happening, oh, this is a CIA op here in Ukraine, you would have a completely different opinion than if they said Russia is the big bear on the move trying to recreate the Soviet Union and they're going to start with Ukraine and Poland's next.
See?
The big story.
Is what gives them permission to do the thing they want to do, which is go blow up a pipeline, take the oil business, or the gas business mostly, away from Russia.
So if AI could blow up the big story, there would be no wars.
Because all the wars are about the big story.
They're never about the thing that's happening at the moment.
It's always about the big story.
What happens if the big stories all go away?
Because they're not real.
The big stories are never real.
They're all bullshit in order to hypnotize the public to go to war.
Anyway, so AI could get rid of militaries, it could get rid of the government.
There's gonna be a lot of change coming.
Apparently Trump is in court today for something over the Stormy Daniels case.
Let's see if I can remember which one of the 91 indictments in lawfare is a Stormy Daniels, something about his penis.
That's all I remember.
Does anybody remember anything else about that story?
Except I think it involved his penis.
That's all I remember.
So I don't think that one's going to take him down.
I don't even know what that one's about.
But is today the day you're supposed to pay the, uh, Half a million dollar fines, or at least the 400-something fine.
Is today the day?
Oh, it's not today?
When does he have to pay it?
I thought it was today.
Now, ask yourself, if you were Trump, how would you handle that deadline?
Now, he said publicly he has the cash.
But we don't really think he necessarily does, so we don't know.
What would be the most Trumpian way to play this?
I would like to make a suggestion.
I would like the most Trump-like thing to do was to keep the mystery until the last minute.
So, for example, if he did find a way to pay it off, don't tell us until you write the check.
Make us wonder All the way till the end.
Just a perfect Trump thing to do.
And then it gets better.
I want to see a video of him taking a checkbook out of his pocket, and asking for a pen, and asking who he makes the check out to.
Don't you want to see him ask who to make the check out to?
Do I make this out to Letitia James or Judge Ereguan?
I'm just making out to the Joe Biden, the Democrats.
How do you want this to go?
And then they give him some official name.
And then he just writes $450 million.
And we just have to watch him writing the check.
And he writes a personal check for half a billion dollars.
What a baller thing that would be.
To write a personal check for half a billion dollars.
Now my guess is they won't take a personal check.
But it's still really funny.
It would be funny to have them watch them reject his personal check.
Wouldn't you love to see that?
You know, have him hand it over to some, I don't know, some kind of a court official, and have the court official look at his personal check and say, hmm, do you have identification?
Do you have a driver's license?
Then Trump would be, well, actually, I don't even have a driver's license.
I haven't driven in years.
And then they would say, well, how do I know who you are?
Would that be good TV?
Yes, it would.
Pay it in cash.
Pay it in pennies, you say.
All right, what else is going on?
ISIS says they're going to release a longer video from the Moscow attacks.
How is that possible?
Now, I don't know all the details of that Moscow attack, but did any of the attackers get away?
I thought they all got caught.
If they all got caught, how could ISIS still have a video that we haven't seen?
Did they upload it while they were shooting?
I doubt it.
I think they were busy.
How in the world could ISIS have another video?
Unless it was never ISIS, and it was always an op.
Because if it was an op, yeah, we might have the video.
But I can't imagine how the The perps could have gotten the video from the body cams all the way to some ISIS handler in the hot moments of the firefighting.
I don't know.
Everything about that's suspicious.
If I had to put my bet on it, I would say it was American CIA trying to make it look like it was ISIS.
What do you think?
I think it was our intelligence people just making it look like ISIS.
That's my best guess.
I think Putin's right about that.
But I could be wrong.
So 60 Minutes talked to Mexico's President, Obrador.
And he was asked about all the fentanyl coming from Mexico, and he said, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Fentanyl is also made in the United States and Canada.
So why are you picking on Mexico?
And then the pathetic 60 Minutes person said, well, you know, according to our officials, most of it comes from Mexico.
That's not really good enough, is it?
If most of it came from Mexico, but we also make it in the United States, wouldn't the production just switch to the United States?
Or Canada?
So, it might be a good point that the vast majority of it comes from Mexico, but he might have a point that it wouldn't matter where it came from.
Now, we assume that, well I assume, that the President of Mexico is essentially an employee of the cartel of Mexico and so, you know, he's going to say whatever is good for keeping the fentanyl business going.
But related to that, there's a study that finds that the fifth largest employer in Mexico is the cartels.
The fifth largest business Well, employer, I guess.
Fifth largest employer is the cartels.
Now, if your fifth largest employer is the cartels and you're the president of Mexico, you can't really get out of the fentanyl business.
But more importantly, since I think the fentanyl business is largely a partnership between the cartels and U.S.
intelligence agencies who find it productive to work with bad guys, it's never going to stop.
But here's something that the president of Mexico did say helpfully.
He said, did you ever notice why there's not a big drug problem in Mexico?
And I said to myself, wait, what?
How could they have access to all the drugs?
And yet they don't have a drug problem in Mexico?
And I thought about it and I thought, I've never heard of a drug problem in Mexico.
Have you?
And he says that they don't have one because they celebrate their customs, traditions, and they don't have a problem with the disintegration of the family.
Do you think that's it?
Do you think that Mexicans don't do fentanyl because they have good families?
That seems a little simplistic.
I feel like there's something happening there that we should understand.
Do you think they just drink more alcohol?
I don't know.
I don't exactly know.
Maybe it's cultural.
Maybe if you're struggling, you don't think of fentanyl.
Fentanyl, to me, always seemed like the people who were not struggling in life but had to give themselves a problem.
You know what I mean?
A lot of people born to middle-class families, every ability to go to college, get a job, and they have these useless lives.
That don't make any sense.
And then anything makes sense if nothing makes sense.
So I can see why maybe the meaningless of life in the United States, um, contributes, whereas there, there might be more meaning if you're working hard every day, you know, breaking your back just to eat and you got family and religion.
That's a lot of meaning.
So I would say meaning.
It's probably a big part of it, but I don't know how much.
All right.
So, I contend that if either the Mexican government wanted to stop the fentanyl trade, or the American government, either one, it would have stopped.
Is that fair?
That if either one, and it would only take one, you don't even need the other one to agree, if either Mexico wanted to stop it, or the US wanted to stop it, it wouldn't look anything the way it looks.
It would be completely different.
So I think we have to assume that it's intentional on the part of our own government as well as Mexico.
And so that means that we're probably working with the cartels.
President Mexico proposes that we would handle immigration this way.
He says the U.S.
should commit to $20 billion a year to the poor countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Yeah, that would keep people home.
Lift sanctions on Venezuela, which would allow their economy to improve so people would stay home.
And end the Cuban embargo.
I don't know exactly how that fits into the whole thing.
And then legalize law-abiding Mexicans living in the U.S.
So basically just make them all citizens.
At least the Mexicans he's talking about.
Well, How do you think of that idea?
I don't know.
Every time somebody has an idea for what America should do, it's like, well, you start with reaching into your pocket and running up some debt and giving us billions of dollars.
All right, well, I may have said this yesterday, but I think that the squatter situation is the most persuasive thing happening in politics.
Anybody want to agree or disagree?
That all the video, especially of the squatters taking over people's homes, that's the number one most persuasive thing I've ever seen in politics.
I've never seen anything on this level.
Because here's what it has.
It's got the visual, right?
Because we've got videos of the actual homes taken over.
You've got fear.
Fear is the number one persuader.
But the fear of literally criminals taking over your house.
That's like really scary.
But on top of that, we care more about losing something we had, especially if you worked all your life and it's your main asset in life.
Your fear of losing the main thing you worked for all your life is just off the chart.
It's just off the chart.
Now, almost everything else feels like it could be somebody else's problem.
Like when I see crime, I do worry that it'll, you know, get me too.
But I largely watch it as a story about other people.
I don't know if you have that experience.
If you're not in the middle of the crime, it feels like something happening to other people.
But when I see a video of somebody losing their house, and how easy it was, that's personal to me.
Like, I change my vacation plans.
Not really, but you know what I mean.
I mean, I actually will act differently because of that risk.
Yeah.
And we see, what state is it?
Minnesota or somebody is going to pay people $500 to keep migrants in their house.
Just think of that.
Which one is that?
We'll see.
Some stupid state, I can't remember which one.
No, not North Korea.
All right, one of our stupid states, oh, here it is, Michigan.
So Michigan is going to give $500 a month to homeowners if they let the, what they call the newcomers, or the immigrants, the migrants, live there in their house for $500 a month.
So, do you see any problem with that?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you bring in a roommate who's a migrant, and then you drive your kids to school, the migrant can change the locks on the house and take your house.
Am I wrong?
I'm right, aren't I?
They can move into your house and pay you nothing, and change the locks when you go on vacation, and then it's their house.
I don't know if that works in Michigan, but in 22 states that would work.
Just think about how dumb everything is right now.
And I'll tell you in a bit why everything is so dumb, if you hadn't figured it out.
I'll tell you in a minute.
All right.
A federal judge in D.C.
Upheld a law allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections.
So the vote has been given to non-citizens in DC.
Let me see who that judge is.
Oh, it's a batshit crazy liberal white woman.
Yep.
So, oh, here's a surprise.
Somebody doing something that's clearly not in the interest of the United States or any of the citizens.
Who would do such a thing?
A batshit crazy liberal woman.
Now, other people might do it, but there's definitely a theme that's hard to miss.
James Garville didn't miss it.
He says, and I quote, a suspicion of mine is that there are too many preachy females.
That would be your badge at Crazy Females.
Don't drink beer.
Don't watch football.
Don't eat hamburgers.
This is not good for you.
He said the message is too feminine, meaning the Democrat message.
Everything you're doing is destroying the planet.
You've got to eat your peas.
And then he goes on.
If you listen to Democratic elites, NPR is my go-to place for that.
The whole talk is about how women and women of color are going to decide this election.
And he says, I'm like, well, 48% of the people that vote are males.
Do you mind if they have some consideration?
That's right.
So the Democrat party is clearly the female party.
James Carville is quite aware of it.
And part of the problem of having a female party is that there, apparently there are some tasks that women just can't do.
Now when I say that, does it mean every single woman?
Does it mean that Margaret Thatcher can't do it?
No!
It doesn't mean every woman.
It never means every single person.
But clearly we have a problem with crazy liberal white women.
It's crazy liberal white women.
And if you can't say it out loud, you can't fix it.
So this is the value of cancelled people.
Because I'm a cancelled person, I can say out loud what you're all thinking.
What the hell is wrong with these crazy white women who are doing things that are bad for the country?
Somewhat obviously.
Like, really obviously.
Yeah, the awfuls, as they're called.
So, let's see.
We got that going on.
We'll get back to that theme.
Mike Cernovich looked at the court ruling about that half a billion dollar fine on Trump.
And apparently, if you look into the details, and Mike is qualified to do that, It's way worse than you think.
You know how there was no victim?
Normally a fine would be based on the victims.
Like, you know, they lost this much allegedly, so you pay them this much, maybe a little extra for whatever.
But it would be largely based on what the cost to somebody else was.
Do you know what they did in this case?
Since there was no victim, they based the size of the fine I swear to God I'm not making this up—on how much profit he made.
Just think about that.
The fine is based on how much profit he made.
Because they said he wouldn't have deserved that profit except for the fraud.
They had no cost, and everybody involved made money and was happy about it.
So they took his profit away.
Also, Mike Cernovich points out they negated the severance package between Trump and his former CFO, the guy who also is going to jail.
So Trump was okay with the severance package.
Trump Organization was okay with it.
The guy who was going to get it was okay with it.
And the judge decided to void it.
What?
What?
How do you avoid somebody's contract that's completely legal and both sides are happy with it?
That happened.
You didn't know that detail until Mike Cernovich looked into it.
So to me it looks like just theft by the government.
and I think Mike said something like that too.
And there's no precedent for this.
precedent for this.
And Mike also pointed out that the case law used for the precedent didn't even apply.
It was just a completely made-up fine, made-up case.
So there you go.
I have a theory about why DEI still persists.
Because I do keep running into people online Who don't understand why it's a problem.
And I've decided that I started out thinking it was like a philosophical problem or there's a difference in priorities, something like that.
But really the DEI thing is that people who are bad at analysis have a different opinion than the people who are good at analysis and have experience.
This is purely a logic question.
And I went back and forth with somebody I think is smart But still couldn't figure it out.
So apparently the people on the left believe that it's a demand problem.
That if you could get the corporations to try harder to hire people who are in the diverse categories, you'd get a better outcome, and you could do it without lowering the quality of the employees.
They actually think that.
To which I say, That might work for Google, right?
Because Google would be a, you know, or Apple or somebody who are a real first level employer.
But they're going to suck up all of the available high quality, diverse people because they want to look diverse.
So they're going to suck up everybody who's good.
Well, who's left?
Every other company is going to have to get some diversity and all the good ones just got sucked up.
If there were enough people, it would be great.
But there's this imaginary view that there's some magical negro somewhere who's got high qualifications.
By the way, that's based on the movie, The Magical Negro.
That's not a racial thing I just made up on my own.
In movies, there's a thing called the magical negro who, like, solves a problem in the end of the movie in kind of a trite, stereotypical way or something.
So that's a movie term.
But, where was I?
Oh, DEI.
So, people really believe that there's a demand problem.
Have any of you ever worked for a major corporation?
They have insatiable demand for diversity.
They're looking everywhere for it, they're trying as hard as they can, and even if you changed all the, you know, DEI tomorrow, if you got rid of all the DEI, they would still try really hard.
The reason they have to try so hard is that it's not possible.
It's a game in which a few could win, you know, a Google and an Apple, they might actually be able to hire enough people of exactly the quality they need.
But once you've hired all those people, you end up with a supply problem, which is not enough.
And for some reason, that concept of there's not enough, Democrats don't Seem to understand that.
How do you not understand supply and demand?
And the part that they really don't understand is that the managers who have tasks and bonuses that depend on increasing diversity, they are going to hire diverse.
They're just going to lower their standards.
And I swear to God, you can't get anybody to understand that that's not just a risk.
It's a guarantee built into the system.
If you give somebody The bonus this year, like just a few months from now, based on whether I've hired diverse candidates, I will hire diverse candidates.
I will manage to my bonus.
And then you say to me, but Scott, in the long run, that's not going to work out for you, because if you really did lower your standards, your performance of your group you're hiring for would be bad in the long run, and they would just catch up to you.
You know what I say to that?
Well, if it catches up to me after I get the bonus, I'm going to play for the bonus.
That's what I'm going to do.
And then next year, I'm going to say, yeah, my project is not finished, but it's not because you forced me to hire people who are less qualified.
It's because blah, blah, blah, the supply chain or something.
I'll just make up corporate reasons why I'm not done.
And I'll just say it wasn't anything to do with diversity, just bad luck.
Competitors did better.
Timing didn't have enough budget.
All that stuff, right?
So here's the thing, and I guess this is what people don't understand.
In the corporate world, you manage to what is measurable.
And diversity is 100% measurable the way we do it.
Is this candidate black?
I don't know.
Could you make them look black on paper?
Well, they've got a little bit of black in there, so yes.
So we know how to measure it.
So the thing that you can measure is what all managers will manage to.
The thing you can't measure is whether or not, if you'd hired differently, you would have gotten a different outcome.
You'll never know.
So you don't manage to what can't be measured now or ever.
You manage to what can be measured, the diversity level, and you give up everything else to get there.
That's the real world.
Now, how do people not understand that?
How is that a hard concept?
I think if you have no experience in the real world as a hiring person, which I've done, if you have no experience, it wouldn't be obvious.
Like it doesn't really jump right out at you as that's what would happen.
But once someone is explained that there's a limitation in the supply, what do people think happens?
Like in the real world, do you think people just miss their goals?
Never.
You're gonna hire whatever gives you that bonus.
Period.
All right, California job growth apparently ranks dead last in the U.S.
for the first time since 1993.
I wonder why California's growth in jobs would be less than every other country.
Is there anything we do here in California That would be, let's say, I don't know, negative to humans who live here, or businesses.
Could it be that we're running out of energy, water, we can't get insurance because of our fires, and there's no affordability of housing, and all we have is regulations and the highest taxes you've ever seen in your life, and it's getting worse, and crime everywhere, and unchecked immigration?
Could it be?
That when you do all the things that are obviously really bad for business and for human beings, that it makes a difference?
Yeah.
Safety.
Safety.
Yeah.
Apparently it makes a difference.
So I guess you don't get to work at In-N-Out in Oakland because Oakland's too poorly managed to have an In-N-Out.
They don't get to have one.
The city's too poorly managed.
So good job, California.
You might know there was a study that showed that the fact-checkers are almost entirely left-leaning and super left-leaning.
You all knew that, right?
So apparently there's not much in the way of conservative fact-checkers anywhere.
So the fact-checkers are all fake.
They're there to support Democrats, basically.
Michael Schellenberger is talking about this fact-checker who got it wrong.
The Australian government is demanding that ex-Facebook and other social media companies censor content that its fact-checkers say is inaccurate.
What?
But now one of the government's main fact-checker groups has been caught spreading misinformation about renewables and nuclear.
So the trouble is that the fact-checkers, if you believe that they're real, which they're not, all the fact-checkers are fake, That your news is going to follow the fact-checkers and you end up doing your nuclear and everything else wrong.
So the fact-checkers are actually a mortal risk to the existence of civilization.
Now if we had free speech, which largely don't, then the fact-checking wouldn't make as much difference because people would check the fact-checkers.
But if you bubble everybody off so they don't see anybody else's opinion, the fact-checkers could be too powerful, which is what's happening now.
France has a new terror alert, so France raised its security alert to the highest level following the Moscow attack.
Now, do you think that's a fake out?
Since everything's fake, so do you think that ISIS is more likely to attack France than it was a month ago?
Does that seem likely?
No.
You know what I think is likely?
I think that France needs to support the idea that it was some kind of Islamic terrorists.
And so they're raising their alerts to make it look like, hey, these Islamic terrorists, they could be coming after us too, Russia.
Wait, why would you think we were behind it?
I mean, we just had to raise our terror alerts too.
I mean, why would you think we were behind it?
I mean, look, we have the same risk.
We've raised our terror alert risk.
I don't know.
To me, it looks a little bit artificial.
Now, if there's a big terror attack in France in the next two weeks, I'm going to eat my words.
But it sounds a little bit too much like supporting the narrative.
No, it wasn't the Americans and the CIA who bankrolled those bad people in Moscow.
No, no, it wasn't Ukraine.
No, this is a risk we all share.
So France, we're under the same risk you were in Moscow.
Doesn't look real to me.
Meanwhile, a Boston activist is seeking $15 billion in reparations Have you ever seen a worse year for the black brand in America?
This is the number one worst year for black Americans in terms of their reputation in America.
Let me just give you a sample of what's happened just recently.
We'll go back a couple of years.
So we've got all black prosecutors going after Trump.
Do you think anybody noticed that the prosecutor seemed to be very black?
Now, that could be a coincidence.
It could have just to do with the domains that are going at him.
But it doesn't look like a coincidence.
It looks like lawfare.
And it looks like all of these black women who are DAs and Attorney generals, they look like criminals to me.
And it's much worse to look like a criminal in an official job, right?
So if you're Bob Menendez, you know, Gold Bar Bob, it looks worse that he's a criminal and he's an elected representative.
Right?
If it's just a regular crime, you go, oh, it's just regular crime.
But it looks way worse that elected officials and prosecutors are clearly criminal.
I would say obviously criminal.
Yeah.
Now there are some white people in there, but the faces we see the most are the prosecutors.
You're seeing Letitia James and Fannie Willis the most.
So I'm not saying what's true or false.
I'm just saying that the impression that people will get is black faces doing something obviously illegal in front of all of us.
So that's bad.
If you were black, you'd hate that.
Of course, DEI is a terrible stain on black Americans because, you know, the, the, the nickname didn't earn it is exactly what every non-black person thinks about it.
Who is not crazy batshit liberal.
So it's DEI is probably the worst reputational stain for black Americans in my, in my memory.
Then you've got the reparations programs, which to non-black people look like theft.
It looks like just some kind of organized theft.
So I just see it as an attempt to rob me.
That's not a good look.
An organized attempt to rob me.
The whole George Floyd narrative fell apart.
And so black people picking George Floyd to build statues to and to use as a Rule model is a terrible look from anybody else's perspective.
And now we're pretty sure that George Floyd actually died of a overdose.
Most of us are sure of that.
And that the white guy got railroaded and prosecuted.
So that's a terrible look.
Terrible look.
We know that Black Lives Matter, the organization, was never real.
It was just a big grifter scam and probably organized by our intelligence people.
That's a bad look.
We found out that the whole problem of police killing black people, yeah, at an unusually high rate, was never true.
That's a bad look.
That it was never true.
And we reorganized civilization based on it.
It was never true.
We changed all of civilization based on that.
Great going, guys.
That really helped.
And then I think people are slowly waking up to the fact that one of the biggest complaints of hiring discrimination was never real, at least not in a big company.
In big companies, they are craving, thirsting, and trying as hard as they can to hire diverse people, and always have, in my experience, always have.
Before DEI was even a phrase, corporations were trying really hard to improve their diversity, and now we know that The discrimination against black people in hiring was the opposite.
It was a strong, strong preference and the discrimination was against white people and Asians, Asian Americans.
So I would say if you put all those things together, the reparations, the DEI, the black prosecutors going after Trump, the George Floyd thing falling apart, black lives never been real, the police stuff never real, and the discrimination, again, narrative never real.
So I would think it's probably the worst five years for the reputation of black Americans.
And I think that might be at least part of why Trump is looking better to at least black men, because he's treating them like adults, just treating like everybody else, which is a way better look.
If you, if you look at this list of things and say to yourself, all right, what do you think of black Americans in the context of DEI and all this stuff?
And I'd say, well, that's not a good look.
That's not a good look.
Obviously.
These are all general things that don't apply to any one person.
Blah, blah.
Everybody is infinitely unique.
Blah, blah.
But it's a bad look for your brand, right?
If white people were doing any of the things on this list, I'd be embarrassed.
And even if I didn't do them, I'd be embarrassed for my brand.
All right.
Well, maybe we shouldn't have a brand.
Maybe we should just be individuals.
Remember I told you about the how the CIA likes to have a big, a big threat like communism that allows them to do the small things they want to do, such as maybe overthrow Nicaragua, right?
Understand that concept.
The intelligence people get this big umbrella threat, and then that allows them to do things within that umbrella.
Now, do you understand Black Lives Matter better?
Black Lives Matter was about creating a big umbrella threat, it was never real, so that they could do individual things like change laws and do things they want to do on that level.
Do you know why Biden is talking about MAGA and white supremacists, which is completely not real?
And why he's trying to create this umbrella risk of MAGA?
It's so you can lock up the January 6th people.
Because if the only thing you're doing is just locking up the January 6th people, it would look terrible.
But if it's part of this larger mega white supremacy insurrectionist group, well then any individual person you put in jail makes sense.
Doesn't it?
What about everything is Russia, Russia, Putin?
That's just the new communism.
Yeah.
If we can say that everything happening anywhere is Putin's fault, whether it's politics or Ukraine, Then you can do all kinds of things.
You can overthrow Kiev.
You know, you can do just anything because you got this big old Putin problem.
So now that you see this technique where they, in order to do the small things they want to do to fuck you, they have to put this umbrella of fear over it.
Then you understand that the umbrella of fear is never real.
Have you heard of climate change?
Climate change is an umbrella threat to allow them to do the little things that they wanted to do.
Do you see it now?
Do you see the play?
It's always the same play.
There's this big general threat that the media sells to the public because the media works for the CIA.
And the CIA does operate in the United States to brainwash these citizens, and this is how they do it.
They give you an umbrella threat, To allow them to do what they need to do below.
What about the pandemic?
The pandemic gave them a global threat that allowed them to what?
Censor.
It allowed them to censor the people they wanted to censor, which turned out to be largely political opponents.
Oh, surprising.
Surprising.
There was a big umbrella threat that didn't really look as bad after the fact.
You notice that none of these threats look as bad after the fact?
After the media stops brainwashing you, and a little time goes by, you think, well, I don't know if, was that old domino theory of communism ever real?
I don't know.
Maybe that was never real.
Was Black Lives Matter ever real?
I don't know.
Now take my specific situation.
If we were not under the larger threat of all that white supremacy, do you think I would have been canceled?
Except for the larger threat of white supremacy?
Well, I don't know.
It's an open question.
So there's a whole bunch of things you can do.
Once you create the general umbrella fear, you can take care of any individual under that umbrella.
And I just happened to be under one of the umbrellas that they created.
So as long as I was under one of the umbrellas, they could take me out.
And it just happened to be that one.
By the way, how much media brainwashing does it take to cancel somebody for complaining that people are racist against him?
You know that's why I got canceled, right?
I got canceled for saying that the country is training black people to be racist against people like me.
Is that the fault of black people?
No.
No.
And I never said I was.
I said that if you're training any group of Americans to be against me, I want to get away from those people.
It has nothing to do with any race.
It has to do with the people training them, which is largely batshit crazy women.
So batshit crazy women are the first ones who believe the news.
They believe the climate change risks, they believe the white supremacists under the beds, they believe basically everything.
I think once you get that group worked up and they believe every risk, it's okay as long as they're not in charge.
But you know what changed recently?
A whole bunch of batshit crazy women in important jobs like judges and representatives and mayors and attorney generals and stuff.
And then they're dangerous, because they are a least capable citizens for protecting us.
They seem to have some kind of natural impulse, the crazy, the batshit crazy, mostly white women.
They seem to have some natural impulse for empathy, but without the analytical ability to know that their short-term actions will destroy us in the end.
I believe that men are more self-defense oriented, And would look at the border and say, well, close that.
And then the Basia crazy woman would say, well, but you know, everybody, you know, it's a country of immigrants and they built this country and right.
And then every single man would look at it and say, okay, but do you see all these, all these military age men coming across the border?
Just close that.
Just stop that.
You have to be batshit crazy to not want to stop the border stuff.
There is no rational argument for it, right?
It's batshit crazy.
Now you say, but Scott, it's not crazy because it's their plan to change the census and get more stuff.
No, it's only the plan of a few people in charge, maybe.
But for that plan to work, they have to scare Or confuse or brainwash batshit crazy white women until the men in the Democrat Party are too afraid to say anything to them.
Because, you know, we're all afraid of batshit crazy white women.
And then they get too much power.
It's sort of like, you know, suppose society decided that most babysitters should be men.
What would happen?
Most babysitters should be banned.
Well, in most cases it would be perfectly fine.
Most men would just be perfectly good babysitters.
It might even be better in some cases, right?
But, wouldn't you know for sure that the number of horrible things would go up?
Is there anybody who doesn't think so?
There's not one person who doesn't agree with me.
Not one.
Every single person listening knows that if we change to a mostly male babysitting situation, the crime would go through the roof.
You all know that.
But the reverse is true, too.
If you put women in charge of physical security, you're dead.
That's it.
Now, for the dumb people, give me a moment to let the dumb people catch up.
Once again, it does not mean that every single woman in the world could not be a police officer or a judge and not do a good job.
No, it doesn't mean that because individuals are infinitely different.
But we do know that if you made all babysitters men, there'd be a lot of baby raping going on.
And we do know that if you put batshit crazy white women in charge of physical security, you're fucking dead.
You are fucking dead.
And the reason we don't is we're afraid of batshit crazy women.
Because you just can't say it out loud.
But I can.
That's why I'm here.
Because when they cancelled me, they made me more powerful.
More siloed, but a lot more powerful.
And I get to say what you can't say.
Now, the reason that James Carville can say what I said in his own James Carville way, the reason he can say it is that he's a hundred years old and near death and he doesn't give a fuck what you think.
That's why he can say it.
So he's also in this weird, weird, strange place where he can just say shit because he's an old man.
And I got that going for me too.
Now, do you know that not a single person has pushed back on me?
In months of me saying in public that the big problem is bat-shit crazy white women.
No pushback.
No pushback.
Do you know why?
You all know it.
You all know it.
We all know it.
And you can't let the people who can't figure out why DEI doesn't work That's just a logic problem.
It's like a supply and demand problem.
You can't let those people be in charge.
If you can't solve why DEI is only bad, and never good at all, if that's not obvious to you, based on your education and your experience, my God, you shouldn't be in charge.
So, speaking of that, North Korea says they're gonna There's a proposition from Japan's Prime Minister to have a summit with Kim Jong-un.
That would be kind of a really big deal if Japan and North Korea decided to get along because, you know, their history is really bad.
So, that's a step in the right direction.
Would you agree that Trump solved North Korea?
Have you noticed we haven't really had a, like, they've been testing some missiles But we don't worry about it because we never gave them a reason to send the missile our way.
We just don't give them any reason.
And Trump did that.
He basically took away the reason.
How about we just be friends?
And Kim Jong-un is over there thinking, well, yeah, why wouldn't we be?
So, I think the Japan move is probably just, you know, sort of a classic Japanese, cautious, wait a few years, see what happens, and now it's time to make a move.
And I think this is probably a continuation of Trump's reframing North Korea as our little buddy.
Right?
He literally reframed North Korea as our little friend.
And then we stopped worrying about him.
That's all it took.
And Japan's pushing that a little further.
Good.
Good for them.
Axios had an interesting article about all the bubbles that have formed.
So these are groups of people who are mostly talking to themselves or their little power groups.
Now, it mentioned some left-leaning bubbles as well, but they weren't very interesting.
I'll just tell you the right-leaning bubbles, the way Axios sees it.
Now, what's interesting about this is the way they see it.
Because I want to see if it's the way you see it.
Because I don't think the left understands anything about the right.
It might be true the other way, that the right doesn't really understand the left, but I don't feel it.
I feel like the right completely understands the left, but I might have cognitive dissonance about that.
I don't have confidence in that.
It just feels that way.
Now, I say that because the right sees their own news, plus they almost always see all of the news on the left, because it's the dominant news source.
But it doesn't work the other way.
So here's what Axios says is the bubbles.
They quote Musketeers.
So these are sort of Musk-liking people, I guess.
And they say, this is a fast-growing mostly male group who feed off Twitter.
Come on.
Axios, you have editors.
Am I right?
A brand new article.
You have editors.
And they're calling X Twitter?
Literally?
The writer didn't notice that that was wrong, and the editor didn't catch it?
How in the world?
Anyway.
Anyway, so it says it's a fast-growing, mostly male group of podcasters and Twitter users, it says.
Especially the All In group and Joe Rogan.
And they follow independent reporters led by Barry Weiss through social media or newsletters.
Would you agree that that is a category?
Does that sound like a bubble to you?
A little bit.
A little bit.
I'll give them that one.
I'm not sure what the specific names that they put there are.
Maybe not as representative as they could be, but basic idea.
Yeah, there's definitely a group of people who would agree with Musk, but what would be a better way to describe that group?
If you were going to describe them in a way that wasn't, oh, let's say biased, how would you describe that group?
The All In podcast, Joe Rogan, and the people, Barry Weiss, and people who follow Musk?
What do they have in common?
I'll tell you what they have in common.
They're all moderates.
They're all moderates.
Why wouldn't you call this the moderate people who are not batshit crazy?
Do you know what the All In pod has in common?
It's not their love for Elon Musk, although they obviously like him.
No, what they have in common is they're smart people who don't have crazy opinions about anything.
You could disagree with them, but they show their work, and none of it's crazy.
What does Elon Musk have that makes him sort of different in politics?
Well, he listed his views the other day, and they're completely middle of the road.
Stuff like, uh, don't do gender surgery on minors.
That happens to be the dominant American view.
So, and, you know, immigration should be controlled, etc.
These are the most common dominant American views.
So instead of saying there's a group, there's a bubble of people who are, have real high common sense, and hold on, who else follows Musk?
High IQ people.
Am I right?
The all-in podcast, if you added up their four IQs, it's like a thousand.
They're the smartest people in one podcast ever.
And, you know, then there's Elon Musk.
And then name the other people who are well known for, let's say, interacting in his circle of social media.
They're all the dominant ones.
Are not just average.
They are the smartest podcasters by far.
Now I'm going to throw Joe Rogan in the smartest podcasters because I've said for years, one of the smartest things that Joe Rogan does is he presents himself as a not a person who's not as smart as he actually is because he's super smart, but he has that common touch where he can relate to people across all different barriers.
So, You could have said, these are the smartest moderates in politics.
Am I right?
Would that be inaccurate?
Yeah, Jordan Peterson, yeah.
The people who are the musketeers, as they call them, to try to find a way to make it sound bad, are the smartest, best people.
How about the one independent reporter, Barry Weiss?
One of the best.
They don't mention that?
Why don't you mention that the one reporter is like, like a superstar among the reporters.
Yeah.
Here's the other category.
The MAGA mind melders.
Okay.
The fact that they, they're going to use MAGA in that at all is, you know, are already, you know, it's coming, right?
The new conservative ecosystem would seem like a distant planet to anyone whose habits were formed pre-Trump.
And here are the names that they put in this category.
People like, Now they're going to name some people, and they're going to say, people like them.
That's such a Democrat thing to do, because there's nobody like any of the people that they're going to mention.
So they start out with people like Charlie Kirk.
Well, who's the other Charlie Kirk?
Come on.
He's pretty unique.
Like him or not, he's kind of unique.
And the others are as well.
They mentioned Jack Posobiec and Mike Cernovich.
Is Mike Cernovich MAGA?
I think Mike Cernovich is just one of the smartest people who can see the whole field.
To throw Cernovich in with a, you know, a cult, basically, that's not fair.
And it also doesn't understand him, right?
It's a complete lack of understanding.
They also mentioned Laura Loomer, Alex Brusewitz, never heard of him, Tucker Carlson, Don Jr.
Does that seem like... Yeah, that's a pretty good grouping.
I mean, I can see why they would group them as like-minded.
In many ways.
But what would be another way to describe this group of people?
How about open-minded, super smart, well-informed, red-pilled, usually right?
How about usually right?
I mean, there's a lot you could say about this group, but they decided to make it a mag of mind melters like like they're, I don't know what the mind melder part is.
And they talk about Breitbart and Steve Bannon's War Room.
And then they talk about Rush Limbaugh at Grandpa's.
You know, Grandpa's who would have been watching Rush Limbaugh if he was still around.
Now, I wasn't mentioned.
Which category am I in?
Am I a...
Musketeer, a MAGA mind melder, or a Rush Limbaugh grandpa?
All of the above.
All of the above.
Yeah.
The trouble is that I do think categories are sort of useful for understanding things, but as soon as you say a person's in a category, you're really minimizing the individuality of that person.
I like to think I could be in any category at any given time based on the topic.
Do you know what Democrats don't want to allow is a possibility?
That people could make decisions based on the facts instead of their party affiliation.
Ah, now you understand what Axios just did here, don't you?
They tried to make being smart political, as in you're just a team player.
So they say, instead of saying the smartest people are all banding together in what I call the Internet Dads, the Internet Dads, they decide to call them basically Musk, you know, cult members or something to make it sound bad.
The other way to tell this story is there's a large group of people, many of them who used to vote Democrat, who can't buy on to the crazy batshit parts of the Democrat, But they're not full right-wingers.
They're just looking at what works.
So the All In podcast, Joe Rogan, Barry Weiss, and Musk, what would be one thing they all have in common?
They'd like border security to be better.
So does that make them Musk Musketeers?
No, it makes them Americans who are paying attention.
Like calling them musketeers is a way to minimize them as some kind of joiners of some kind of weird cult or something.
How about the smartest people in the world have found each other?
Because that's what happened.
The thing that X and Musk allowed people to do is for the smart people to find each other.
Do you know how I know that the All In podcast is awesome?
Because I found him on X. Wouldn't have found him otherwise.
Do you know how I know that, you know, you're going to get a good scoop from Jack Posabeck and that, you know, Tucker is awesome?
Because I'm on X. So X is the way we find each other.
But the dominant thing that keeps us together as a entity that has power is that the smart people are all in one team.
The smart people aren't lying.
I look at people like Laurence Tribe, who I would assume could beat me in an IQ test.
Smart guy.
But when you listen to him, you think, oh, there's something wrong here.
There's something wrong with that guy.
But it's probably not IQ.
So there's something about being smart enough and also honest enough that you can look at the costs and the benefits of any situation.
So I would characterize it this way.
Smart people who are willing to entertain both the costs and the benefits of any important topic are a rare group and there are not many people who can do it.
Do you know what's interesting about the All In podcast?
Is that every member of the All In podcast has the analytical abilities that they can tear apart a complicated thing and give you some value to it.
And it won't be You know, some Democrat view or even a Republican view.
It'll be non-political.
It'll be entirely what works and what doesn't.
And that, if that's powerful, thank God!
If that's like a power center that's forming, thank God!
We've been waiting for that!
Anyway.
Mad Liberals, an account on X, has been doing a lot of work looking for irregularities in that 2020 election, and has produced a 205-page report of his findings that, in his view, would substantiate the irregularities of the 2020 election.
Now, I asked him for a summary.
He said a quick summary is that after analyzing over 80 counties, He says he found 8,000 double-scanned ballots, and more than 8,000 ballots are missing in the recount, and 6,000 new ballots added to the recount, and over 300 test ballots added to the recount, and over 350 ballots overwritten ballots.
So there were a number of, I guess, double-scanned and overwritten and stuff.
Now, what do I always say about election irregularity claims?
I'll say it again.
I don't know what's true and what's not, because I have no way to validate or have an opinion on any of it.
But, you should assume that every claim has a 95 to 100% chance of being false.
So, there might be something here.
But it would be the 50th time I've said, oh, there might be something here, only to find out that my original estimate that almost everything would turn out not to pan out, so far.
So far, most of it's not panned out.
But there are a number of things that are, let's say, pending, and this is one of them, that are sort of floating out there and have not been debunked.
So there is a category of things that have not been debunked, which is different from You know, proving something.
All right, just looking at some of your comments.
You're afraid to say what's true because you're afraid of actually being cancelled, not fake cancelled like you cry about.
No, actually, you fucking asshole.
Stop reading my mind.
I'm actually telling you my actual opinion.
What you have in your mind is some fucking thing that you think I should say because it's in your head and you think it's true.
That doesn't mean it's in my head.
All right?
So just fuck off.
The only logical conclusion is election cheating.
What do you even know what I say about the elections?
If our elections are fair, it would be the only institution or system in America that is.
What are the odds of that?
So I say two things at the same time.
One, any specific claim is almost infinitesimally unlikely to be true.
Number two, the odds that our elections are not already controlled by our intelligence people are close to zero.
I don't think there's really any chance that it's a real election.
And I don't think it has been for decades.
Are you happy?
Whether or not we find proof that the elections are rigged seems somewhat off point.
Because the whole point of having somebody like an intelligence group rig an election is to not get caught.
The not getting caught part is pretty important to the professional work.
I'm pretty sure they like not getting caught.
Punkrock Jesus says, Scott hates people who don't worship him.
That sounds a little bit mind-reading, doesn't it?
First of all, it's ridiculous, and second of all, if that existed, you could only know it by reading my mind, which you can't do.
So why would you read my mind and find something ridiculous in there?
Oh, let me do it.
You like to have sex with kittens.
Well, I can see it as clear as day.
So I guess that's proof.
You just hate people who try to stop you from having sex with kittens, don't you?
I see that in your brain that I'm reading.
I'm reading your comment right now.
Yeah, drinking early.
Elections were proven stolen?
No.
Proven means different things to everybody.
It wasn't proven to me.
Do you believe the pandemic was something that was prepared to control us more, but got it earlier to use?
I don't believe the pandemic was intentional.
I believe it got out of a lab.
Now, there might have been some opportunistic things that happened because of it, but no, it just got out, in all likelihood.
All right, I'm looking at some of your comments now, as I've reached the end of my prepared remarks.
All right, thanks for joining everybody on Locals and Rumble and the X Platform.
I'm going to say goodbye, and then I'm going to Cue up a separate live stream for the locals people to do a little after show action.
