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, President Biden's Empathy, Underage Social Media, Wales Crime Prediction, Don Lemon Show, Ronna McDaniel, Jen Psaki, MSNBC Management, President Trump, Truth Social Valuation, Trump Gag Order, Trump Bibles, Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr., P Ditty, Michael Shermer, Havana Syndrome, Mass Hysteria, Jeffrey Clark, J6 Insurrection Hoax, CISA 2020 Censorship, Mike Benz, DEI, Germany Foreign-Born Crime, 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
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all that you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, 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, that dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go!
Oh, that's so good.
Oh, somebody's having Diet Coke.
Oh, my God.
My God.
All right, let's talk about all the things.
Favorite story of the day, New York Post is reporting.
There was an animal lover who was trying to care for a sick baby hedgehog.
And so she took the baby hedgehog to the veterinarian.
And the veterinarian had to give her the bad news about the hedgehog.
It was very bad news.
Very bad news.
It turns out that the hedgehog was actually a hat.
It was a fuzzy hat, pom-pom hat.
Oh no, it was a pom-pom for a hat.
So it wasn't so much a baby hedgehog as it was a part of a hat.
Now, I saw the picture of the nice woman who was caring for the baby hedgehog that turned out to be a pom-pom from a hat, and I looked at her face.
Biden supporter.
You could see it in the face.
Look at the face of the hedgehog lover, who turns out was actually loving a pom-pom from a hat.
I don't know how long she fed it and cared for it, but It's quite a story.
So I'm going to say Biden supporter.
And my theme for today is the stuff that people believe, the things that people think are true.
No, sometimes it's not a baby hedgehog.
It could look just like one.
It could act just like a sick one that doesn't move around much.
But sometimes it's just a pom-pom from a hat.
All right, let's talk about Joe Biden.
You know, thank goodness we have a commander in chief and a president, a leader of our country, who whenever there's a big disaster in the country, he's just perfect, isn't he?
He just knows how to make us feel better and to talk about our pain.
So here's an example of how Joe Biden calmed the fears of the community, showed his empathy, He said that he had commuted over that collapsed bridge to Baltimore many times by train.
Okay, we don't know how he did that because there are no train lines that run over that bridge and there never have been.
But somehow he managed to make it not only about himself, but about a version of himself that doesn't exist and never has.
I think that's a new record for bad leadership.
Well, let me try to give you the ranking.
Good leadership would be you show up right away, you show empathy, and you talk about the victims.
That's A-plus leadership.
You've seen Trump do that a number of times, including East Palestine.
But the way Biden does it is he shows up And if he had just talked about himself, you'd say, hmm, that's not as good.
No, I'd rather that empathy talking about the victims.
That's number one.
But number two, talking about yourself, well, at least you showed up.
At least he showed up.
But Biden managed to find a new low ground where not only do you not show the empathy that you need to, and you don't even talk about yourself.
You talk about an imaginary version of yourself that everybody knows didn't exist.
So, I don't know if that's better than not going there at all, but it might be a tie.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk says that the new version of Grok is coming and it's going to be a banger.
He's calling it Super Grok.
And if you're a Premium Plus or whatever user, you can get Supergrok.
Will Supergrok be the AI of all AI?
I don't know.
But it might be the most unfiltered one.
It might be the closest to at least attempting to be honest.
We hear that the Claude The new Claude AI is beating ChatGPT and the others.
So apparently Claude is the number one AI right now, just in terms of capability.
I'm thinking about subscribing to it, but I don't know how many AIs I want to subscribe to.
I don't know.
By the way, what would happen if one AI just subscribed to other AIs?
So your personal AI just has a subscription and can answer any question by querying the other AIs.
That's what it's going to be, right?
It'll probably be something like that.
Well, Chamath Palihapitiya, One of the all-in podcast guys, one of the most successful Silicon Valley investor guys.
He said this, and I want to see how many parents agree or disagree.
He says, as a parent with teenagers, so he's got some teenagers, he said, being the bad guy, be limiting their social media has been a path to exhaustion and constant bickering, at least in my home.
So having the government back me up and do the obvious and sensible thing that will give me, as a parent, more reinforcement would be to ban social media under 16.
Because if something's literally illegal, it's way easier for a parent to say, you can't do that.
It just makes it easy.
But if it's legal and all your friends are doing it, you really are going to have to fight full time and do nothing else but fight about that.
Because a modern teenager in the modern world, if you say they can't have their social media after they've experienced it, right, it's too late after they've experienced it and they're hooked, they will know that they cannot have a normal social life.
They would know that their ability to deal with their peers the way everybody else is dealing with them would be gone.
I don't even think they could date.
I think they wouldn't be able to date, because it would look weird.
Like, I'm not going to hang out with a weirdo who doesn't use social media.
It would make you a freak in your own school.
So there's no right answer, and I've had enough of an acquaintance with this topic in my personal life.
I don't think there is a way to take a phone away from a teenager.
Now, I think somebody like a Mike Cernovich, I'll use him just because he talks about his family situation a lot in a very productive way.
No, I think in this case, if you've got, um, I think he's doing homeschooling.
If you've got homeschooling and you start early and they don't have social media and you, you build some kind of a life that they think is their life that doesn't involve it, you know, doing stuff with dad, et cetera, you can make that work probably.
You could probably make that work.
But unless you go full Cernovich, I don't see any way to make it work.
So I agree with Chamath that the government banning social media for kids is just smart, obvious, and it's the right thing for the government to do.
It's exactly what you want your government to do.
To help you out instead of hinder you.
Give me a hand.
Give me some help.
That's what you want.
I guess Florida has already banned social media for kids under 14.
Do I have that right?
Kids under 14 are banned from social media in Florida.
I don't know how that's going to work, but we'll see.
So just like I was in favor of testing drug legalization, it didn't work.
But good job testing it.
At least we found out what doesn't work.
I think there might be some model where legalization could work if you changed a bunch of other things, right?
But if you don't change a bunch of other things and you just change that one thing, I think we could say that it doesn't work.
Tried.
We tried it.
Didn't work.
Now we know.
We don't have to try that again.
But if you tried something where you changed everything, but also that one thing, maybe, maybe somebody will try that someday.
We got to keep trying stuff because what we're doing now isn't working.
Axio says there was a new study about educators.
In other words, teachers, mostly.
And the study finds that half of all educators believe AI Will not significantly affect their employment opportunities.
So... The people that you've chosen to teach your children don't believe that AI will significantly affect their employment opportunities.
What do you even say about that?
Did we intentionally find the dumbest people to become teachers?
How in the world could they have that opinion?
The job that's most likely to disappear entirely is their job.
Am I wrong?
The most likely thing to disappear entirely is teachers.
Now, to me it seems like the model of the future is somewhat obvious.
I'm getting a spam call.
The model that would work is obvious.
You get rid of bad teachers and you replace them with good AI.
Now, the AI might look like people, but it'll be on a screen.
It might be VR someday, but in the short run, the best AI that learns from all the teachers that there are and puts together a class that's the best of the best.
But let's say you could also change who the teacher is just by pushing a button.
So let's say I think it will hold my attention better if the teacher is an attractive female.
So I just choose that option because I think it will keep me sitting there looking at it longer.
Why not?
You know, you might pick the man with the deep voice because you're sexist and you just think that sounds more authoritative.
So maybe you'd learn better in that case.
Maybe.
Maybe if you're a member of some minority group, you might say, you know, I just want somebody who looks like me to teach me.
Makes me feel more comfortable.
Good!
You have the option.
Whatever works for you.
So the fact that AI could be instantly modified for the specific person, and then let's say that you say to the AI, you know what?
The way I learn best is when you put it in a story form, or the way I learn best is when you put it into a practical, real-world example, or I need to hear it, or I need to see it, or I need to write it down.
The AI could work with you to figure out what your learning process is, and where you need a little extra, and what it needs to repeat.
It could look at your eyeballs.
The AI teacher could be looking at your eyeballs as you go, because if you have a camera, and it could determine if it's working or not.
Imagine the AI seeing that you're starting to zone out a little bit.
And so it says, Oh, I got to, I got to change pace.
I got to mix it up.
I got to excite you.
I got to give you a little, little shock.
Your teacher can't do that because they're teaching to one person or they're teaching for the whole class.
So they can't adjust for any one person.
you know, but AI could, it could adjust instantly to one person. So I don't think there's any chance that in the long run teachers will do what teachers have been doing. Now they might have great opportunities, but you know, they might be the person running the AI or, you know, managing the process or overseeing that the classes are right.
You know, there might be something like that.
But it's not going to look the same.
That's for sure.
Over in New South Wales, they had a program to predict crime.
They were going to use AI plus state surveillance stuff to figure out who was likely to be a criminal, so they could watch them extra, a little extra.
Now, I have mixed feelings about this.
Number one, could you build a technology with current technology that would accurately determine who is likely to commit a crime?
What do you think?
Do you think our current technology can identify people who are likely to commit a crime?
Of course it can.
Of course it can.
Do you know why?
Because I could do that.
I could just read your damn messages and I'll tell you if you're going to commit a crime.
I'll bet I get it right 80% of the time.
You know, AI could do a little better than that.
Yeah, absolutely.
People totally broadcast their criminal intentions in their words and actions.
Very much so.
It would be obvious to the AI.
But we can't really live in a world in which every part of us is surveilled and every bad behavior is caught.
Because the problem is that we're all bad behavior people.
Not you.
I mean, you're the exception.
I mean, and I'm the exception.
But amazingly, only the people watching this broadcast are the exceptions.
I don't know how that happened.
But everybody else, they're doing some sketchy stuff.
Do you know who never got arrested before?
Puff Daddy.
Do you think the AI could have figured out what was going on there?
Probably.
Probably.
I think so.
So I think the risk of AI and predictive crime is that you would find out that most average people are criminals.
They're either cheating on their taxes or they're doing a little something at work.
They're fudging their expense accounts.
They're doing something.
They're speeding.
Who knows?
They're drinking and driving.
I don't know.
But yeah, if we had a society where every bad thing you did got caught every time, We'd all be in a lot of trouble.
Except for, like I say, except for those of you who are watching this now, and me.
Luckily for us, we're the exceptions.
But other people, they'd be in a lot of trouble.
Well, apparently the Don Lemon Show is not the roaring success that Don Lemon had hoped, and that its audience has almost disappeared after three shows.
And maybe this is what we can learn from that.
Did you think that Don Lemon had a natural audience, or do you think that people watched him because he was on primetime on CNN?
And do you think that people watched his Elon Musk interview because it was Elon Musk, or because it was him?
What do you think?
Well, I would say that his recent performance suggests that he did not have an audience that would follow him.
Rather, he had an experience on a platform that brought a sizable audience to anybody who was at 8 o'clock or whatever his time zone was, whatever his time was.
So it seems that through the process of trial and error, Don Lemon has determined that literally nobody wants to watch him.
Now I'm exaggerating a little bit, right?
I think his show is bigger than mine.
I think even his failed show is bigger than mine.
But he started from a higher base, so it looks worse.
I started from nothing and grew it up, at least this part of my work.
He started from a higher base, and so it looks like failure.
But he's still doing better than I'm doing.
I mean, if he did nothing but continued his, you know, low-rated show, he'd be killing me with numbers, probably.
So, we'll see.
Anything could happen.
I still wish him well.
So, we'll see.
I don't really like to see anybody who's doing what I'm trying to do.
You know, this sort of a job, if you could call it a job.
I'm not even sure if I call this a job.
Have any of you noticed that I literally am doing this for my own entertainment?
I don't really have to work.
I don't really have to get up at 4.30 to do this.
I don't have to, but I actually love it.
It's a highlight of my day, usually.
Like right now, in this very moment, I'm hoping that you're enjoying something you're watching, but I'm having a better time than you are.
Because I'm getting all the attention.
I get to say what I get to say and put things the way I want to.
It's a great, great, great experience.
So I feel bad for anybody who feels like it's a job.
Now, the other thing that makes this fun is that I do it live.
I wouldn't like this at all if I were recording it right now.
And then you just got to see it an hour later.
No fun at all.
I wouldn't have any interest in that whatsoever.
It's only the live, direct experience that gives me any kind of joy.
But it gives me a lot.
So I do appreciate all of you tremendously.
All right.
I'm loving the dunking on the Democrats that's going on with the Ronna McDaniel situation.
As you know, NBC hired her from From her Republican world as head of the RNC.
And they like to, sometimes the networks like to bring in a voice that's opposite of their normal voices to, you know, just so you can hear everything.
But Glenn Greenwald is dunking on Jen Psaki.
He says, uh, hilarious.
Today, uh, Jen Psaki said there's, there's a difference between NBC hiring, um, her, Jen Psaki, right from the Biden White House versus hiring Ronna McDonnell, Ronna McDaniel, right from the RNC.
And here's the difference according to Psaki, that she doesn't lie like McDaniel does.
Um, That's all she does, is lie.
What exactly is the lie that McDaniel told?
Does anybody know of one?
I don't know of one.
The only thing that I think what they call a lie Is her debunking their hoaxes.
So I think that her debunking their hoaxes is what they call lies that they can't handle.
And watching Glenn Greenwald, he's been dunking on them for like a couple days.
He just has the funniest, in-your-face, you hypocrite, piece-of-crap posts.
But they sound sort of professional and funny.
Anyway.
The fact that Jen Psaki can say that with a straight face and her audience can go, uh-huh, uh-huh, you know, that's a good point.
Because Jen Psaki, when she's, as Greenwald points out, the same Jen Psaki who spread the CIA lie two weeks before the 2020 election, you know, the laptop lie.
Yep.
That is funny.
But speaking of Rana, Donald Trump had some things to say.
Nobody makes politics as fun as Trump does.
I don't know why even his enemies haven't at least appreciated the fun of it.
Like, even if you don't want him to be president, I get that.
I get that.
We all understand.
But you can't enjoy the good parts.
Like the just pure, the pure entertainment of it.
All right.
Watch this show that Trump puts on.
So this is, uh, he says, talk about Rana.
He says fired after two days.
Wow.
Rana McDaniel got fired by fake news NBC.
She only lasted two days.
And this afternoon, McDaniel went out of her way to say that the, what they wanted to hear.
It leaves her in a very strange place.
It's called Never Neverland.
And it's not a place you want to be.
These radical left lunatics are crazy.
Crazy.
Hmm.
That's interesting.
Do you wonder if more people will be willing to say that the real problem is mental illness?
Because when I say it, I don't get a lot of pushback.
Weirdly.
But he's saying crazy.
And the top people at NBC are weak.
They were broken and embarrassed by low ratings, highly overpaid, quote, talent.
Bring back free and fair press.
Make America great again.
Just watching him have his third act fun is pretty amazing.
He's just sort of enjoying this week.
I mean, he's got other legal jeopardy, of course.
There's always going to be more.
But he's having a good week.
So for me, the takeaway of the whole NBC thing, which, by the way, they did fire her after two days, so she's gone, is that the NBC management gave up the game.
And their own employees were so embarrassed by it that they had to reverse it.
And what I mean by gave up the game is for, what, two and a half years or something?
MSNBC and NBC had been reporting that January 6 was an insurrection.
So how did management justify Hiring a known, according to them, insurrectionist to put on the show next to their fine, good people who would never tell you a lie.
How could they justify that?
There's only one way.
NBC management knew that it was never true, anything their hosts were saying about the news.
Am I wrong about that?
Is there any other way to see it?
Because there's a little bit of a mind reading going on with this, right?
But it's a process of elimination.
What else could it be?
What else could it be?
It has to be that the NBC management knew that their own product, their news, were lying to you and telling you a hoax.
Because if any of that were true, there's no way they would hire the insurrectionists to work on the network next to the people who had been calling them insurrectionists for years.
Couldn't possibly happen.
But it did happen because the management was completely aware that it was not true.
I assume.
Now, that's a little mind reading.
I grant you.
So if you're going to call me out on it, that would be the correct thing to do.
But I ask you, what's the other way to look at it?
How else can you explain That they would bring on somebody that their hosts had been calling the worst criminals in the world, insurrectionists, who they believe should be in jail.
How do you explain it?
You can only explain it by they didn't believe the insurrectionist hoax story that was their main content for two and a half years.
There isn't another way to explain that.
It's not just a difference of opinion.
It would be like they had decided to put Charles Manson on to talk about the other side of crime.
Would they do that?
No, because it's Charles Manson.
But they did it.
In the case of Rana, their own hoax is that it was real.
So I think that was an embarrassing admission.
Well, Trump's third act is going well.
I haven't caught up today.
Give me an update.
How is the DJT Trump stock, Trump's media stock?
Because yesterday it was up 50% and at one point his 58% stake was worth $9 billion.
How is it today?
Is it up or down so far?
Does anybody know?
Too soon to know?
Or do we know?
We should know by now, right?
Somebody says up.
Now, how do you explain that a media stock that is primarily true social, which is only half a million users, has never made money?
How do you explain that the market has valued it as at up to $15 billion, maybe even higher today?
How do you explain that?
Well, let me tell you how I explain it.
If you ask me, Scott, does this look like a good investment?
No!
It doesn't look like a good investment.
Are you kidding me?
Now you ask me the second question.
Scott, are you going to buy any stock?
Yes.
Yes, I am.
As soon as I get off the show, it's very likely that no matter what is happening with the price, I'll probably buy $1,000.
Because I don't want to have a lot, because it's kind of risky.
Yeah.
But do I want Trump to not be crushed by the system?
Yes, I do.
Do I think that it's a better way to donate to his campaign?
To just buy an investment in something that might go away?
I mean, it could go to zero, right?
Anything could go to zero, but it might go up.
It might go up.
I might be able to double my money.
That was a campaign donation.
So, in my world, where I try to do things that make the world a little better place, I'm going to disregard the normal risk-reward analysis for this stock, and I'm going to buy it to just poke my finger in the eye of the people who are trying to break him.
Because when they try to break him, they're trying to break you.
They already took a whack at me.
They took a whack at me.
Do you know why I'm still here?
Because of you.
The reason I'm still here is that you collectively gathered around and said, no, we're not going to let him be canceled.
And many of you joined my subscription service, even didn't want to, didn't even think that was what you wanted.
And some people just signed up to subscribe purely to support free speech, more than supporting me.
Supporting the concept that you don't want to see people you agree with get crushed by the evil system.
So, I'm very much a beneficiary of the good judgment and, let's say, the impulse to set things right that exists out there.
You know, the good that's still in people.
The good in people that will, if they see you stuck on the road, will pull over and help.
Right?
Now, here's the thing.
That maybe the Democrats didn't count on because they don't understand Republicans.
If your car is broke down on the side of the road, the first truck that's going to stop is going to be a Republican.
Now, if you didn't know that, welcome to the real world.
The reason that I'm protected and I can still get to do this is because of you.
Period.
It's not because of me.
It's entirely because of you collectively decided I'm still in business.
And that's what apparently a third of the country just decided that Donald Trump will not be broke by this system.
That is the public deciding.
So if you think this is about true social being a great investment, I can't tell you it is.
But if you think it's about Americans trying to finally say, this is too much, this is too much.
You've pushed too hard, Biden and your goons.
And we're just going to put up a break wall.
So it's like a fire break.
Buying DJ stock is an act of pure patriotism to act as a fire break against the Democrats setting the whole country on fire.
And it works.
It is a fire break.
It absolutely worked.
And it also warns them what's coming.
You know what I mean?
It warns them what's coming.
Because it's a signal of energy.
And if I've taught you anything, it's follow the energy.
Not the arguments.
Don't follow the arguments.
Don't follow the science.
Follow the energy.
Now usually the energy is revealed in money.
Because money and energy go together.
So when you see how much energy was put into the DJT stock, that's the story.
It's not even a dollar thing.
It's the energy.
That energy is unmistakable and growing.
Meanwhile, Trump got hit with a gag order in New York over his Stormy Daniels, quote, hush money case, because he said some things in public slamming the judge.
Thank you.
Thank you for the gag order.
What do you think happens every time Trump gets a new gag order that tells him he can't say what he thinks is true in public?
His numbers go up.
His fundraising goes up.
Yeah, that's what happens.
So yeah, more gag orders, please.
Every time you take away his freedom of speech, you take ours away.
That's how I feel.
Trump is just sort of the canary in the coal mine.
Whatever they do to him, it is going to come back to you, right?
It's going to get you.
Now, you saw it got me, right?
It's the same energy that got me.
And I'm, you know, way down in the, below Trump in the effectiveness category.
So yeah, it will just keep going down until they get everybody.
Meanwhile, Trump is selling Bibles.
Axio says it's not for the campaign, but he's selling Trump Bibles for $60.
Now, if it's not going toward his campaign, what is it going toward?
The legal bills, I assume?
So you could actually pay Trump's legal bills and get yourself a nice Bible, too.
How smart is that?
I don't think I've ever seen anybody read a room better than that guy.
Talk about how to read a room.
If you said to me, Scott, donate some money to Trump's legal fund, I'm not too happy about that, right?
Because I feel like, you know, everybody's got a legal fund they want me to contribute to.
But if you tell me that he's selling a Bible to his fans and followers who love Bibles, then yeah, you're always in the market for a new one, if Bible's your thing.
It's sort of perfect.
It's exactly correct.
Who's going to complain about the Bible?
I mean, somebody will, but it looks silly.
Lawyers.
Yeah, lawyers will.
I guess lawyers will.
Anyway, it's another perfect reading of the room.
It's a perfect business model for paying off his legal bills, if that's what he's doing, I assume so.
I like it.
Well done.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr.' 's picked his running mate, who is Sergey Brin's ex-wife.
Nicole Shanahan.
Now, she's an attorney and a tech entrepreneur and seems to have, you know, tons of qualifications, etc.
She's in her 30s, so she's young.
And there's some rumors that I'm not going to share, but I heard it in the comments earlier.
But that didn't seem I guess not credible enough that I want to share any of those.
But let me say in general, everything you hear about public figures is fake.
Right?
So you're going to hear a whole bunch of things about Nicole Shanahan.
Some of it might be true in terms of, you know, she was once married to Sergey Brin and now she's not.
That would be true.
But I would look out for anything that's more interesting than that.
Probably not.
Probably not true.
So the rule with public figures is that the stuff that's public, such as a marriage or divorce, probably is true.
If somebody died, probably true.
Somebody got a new job, probably true.
But once you get past, you know, name, salary, and, you know, name and social security number, everything about why anything happened, that's all bullshit.
It's always the why of anything, the context, never reliable.
So just remember that when you're evaluating her.
But I was looking at her background and apparently she highlights that she has worked on racial equality.
So, that's a hard no for me.
In our current environment, that's just a hard no, unfortunately.
I wanted to say yes.
I wanted to be pro whoever he picked, but unless he comes out and says the way I was doing it was a mistake, Which would be fine, by the way.
If she came out and said, you know what?
I worked on this equality thing, but the more I think about it, you know, maybe we should take a different approach.
If she said that, I'd be fine with it.
Because somebody in their 30s who changes their mind about what works, because they tried the other thing and it didn't work, that would be a strong signal.
Very strong signal.
I like people who can change their minds and do it publicly and show their work.
So if something like that happened, it would be awesome.
But I'm a little bit worried about the background and racial equality and the fact that she lists that.
I don't know if that means DEI in any way or not.
But she is also big into regenerative agriculture because we have to fix our food supply and RFK Jr.
is right about that.
Maybe the biggest issue in the world.
Food supply.
And the quality of it.
And children's and maternal health.
Those are things she's interested in.
Those are good.
And she's worked on behalf of honest governance.
Well, good luck with that.
Right?
So, let's see in the comments.
What's your opinion of his VP pick?
Have you had any time to do that?
Are you worried that she was once married to a founder of Google, and Google's Gemini AI tells you what Google's all about?
That they're sort of a racist cesspool?
Yeah.
So Google being a racist cesspool, I don't think they can correct themselves, but you wonder if Sergei was part of that and if you're married to that, you know, are you part of that world?
Did you come out of the racist cesspool world right into the vice president role?
That would be a bad look.
So I very much want to support RFK Jr., at least on the policy level, you know, even if he doesn't have a legitimate shot at the top job, and by the way, he does.
Don't let us sneak up on you.
RFK Jr.
is not a long shot.
He's not a long shot.
Like, whatever you think is a long shot, he's not that.
No.
No, he has an absolute walking path to the White House.
The walking path is that Biden falls apart, there's not enough time to replace him, and Trump gets some bigger attack or scandal that the public believes.
What are the odds that there's some new hoax about Trump brewing right now? 100%.
What are the odds that a huge part of the country will believe the hoax, at least initially?
100%.
Certainly all the Democrats.
So you know a hoax is brewing.
You know that a big part of the country is going to believe it, because they always do.
They always fall for it again.
And you might see the two main candidates so bruised by election day that anything could happen.
Anything could happen.
But I'm very uncomfortable with the VP choice.
So I would say it's a move backwards.
What would you say?
I would say that my sort of my casual support for RFK Jr.
as not just a personality, you know, seemingly a good person to have in the fight, but also policy-wise, there was a lot to like.
Not all of it, but a lot to like.
I think it's a step backwards.
But it might be a step forward for his base, and it might help him fund things, and it might help him get on the ballot.
So it could help his campaign.
That part I don't know.
But my own opinion of the package goes down a little bit with the choice.
And by the way, I'm sure she's very smart, and very good at what she does.
That's not really the issue.
So at least he picked quality, and he picked youth.
So I would say those are two pluses.
He picked smart and he picked young.
I don't hate that.
And somebody who wasn't a creature of Washington, D.C.
I don't hate that.
So there's a lot to like about it, but that's just a huge red flag with this racial equality background stuff.
Now, if you're new to my show and you just casually came in, And you heard me mocking racial equality.
It's not because I don't want people to be equal.
It's about the policies to get there.
The policies to get there are absurd, and really are just a way to humiliate black men, basically.
Because DEI looks good on women.
Because when women complain and whine and then something gets fixed, it feels like a natural situation.
When men complain about the past as the reason that they're not as successful, they look pathetic.
Pathetic.
They look that way to other men, and there's a reason you don't hear men complain as much about being held back.
It's because it's a bad look.
It's pathetic.
The whole point of being a man is that you're supposed to go through the wall.
You're not supposed to quit.
Oh, there's a little wall in front of me.
No.
Going through the wall is what makes you a man.
Sorry.
If you stand there and whine, just join the women.
And you did.
If you're in the Democrat Party, it's basically a woman's party.
So, a female strategy for success is complaining about how unfairly you've been treated.
And it's a very good strategy, and we've seen it work.
And women certainly had a right to complain.
Do we all agree about that?
Women definitely had a right to complain.
And so they did.
And so everybody said, okay, well, not only do I feel a certain way because women are unhappy, because men are just primed to want to solve problems like that, but also it's valid.
You look at it and go, okay, you didn't even have the vote.
Yeah, I mean, you really couldn't.
There was a time in my lifetime where a woman really would have a hard time getting a job that was a male-centric job.
But not anymore.
They're in pretty good shape right now.
But if you're a black man, I think it's just embarrassing for anybody to think that you got a leg up from the government.
To me, that would be embarrassing.
So I wouldn't want to be in that situation.
Well, let's talk about Puff Daddy.
We still don't know Diddy.
Diddy or Diddy Not?
There's an old video of Puff Daddy.
Saying that white men like Trump need to be banished.
White men like Trump?
Hmm.
Who would be a white man who is, in his opinion, like Trump?
Hmm.
Would it be Republicans?
Would I be on that list?
Would he say people like me should be banished?
Well, I don't know.
But having heard that video, I'm going to change my admonition yesterday, when I said no matter how guilty he looks in this situation, you should reserve your judgment, because that would make him innocent until proven guilty.
And that is the standard which we should hold to, no matter how many rumors you hear.
Let the court decide, and until then, innocent until proven guilty, no matter how bad this looks.
Well, I was wrong.
Turns out he's a fucking racist, and I don't care if he gets burned.
So he can die in jail with a broomstick up his ass, and I'd be happy about that.
I don't really need any more racists, so let's get rid of him.
Malinformed is what I call him.
The story that I hear the most I'm reluctant to believe all of the sex claims.
You know, there are claims about underage people at his parties, and there's claims about raping and stuff.
But the one allegation that I've heard from several sources who seem to know him personally is drugging the drinks of women at his parties.
And who was it who was describing that the way they do it Is they put the drug in the mixer and then the women drug themselves.
So you have the place where anybody can go up and pour themselves a drink.
And they make, you know, they make, women always make mixed drinks.
So women typically are not going to do vodka straight up.
They're always going to add some juice to it.
So they put the drug in the juice.
That's, that's the allegation.
I can't prove that it happened, but that would make them drug themselves.
So that it wouldn't be obvious who drugged them.
Like they wouldn't have any memory of somebody putting something in their drink, and they wouldn't have any memory of anybody giving them a drink.
So the men would just drink without the juice, you know, which is typical, straight up, or maybe add their own Diet Coke or something.
And the women would just naturally add the juice and then bad things would happen is the allegation.
I don't know if any of that's true.
I just know that on video, he seems to be a major racist.
So for that alone, he can fry.
Well, Michael Shermer, who is one of the most notable skeptics, I think he leans, I don't know if he's an independent or leans a little Democrat.
But don't judge him by that, because there might be only a few people who are not Republicans who can actually look objectively at his stuff.
And he's one of them.
So he's a good follow.
So if you want to see somebody who may not be on the same team as you, and I don't know, by the way, I just think he's not Trump.
He's not a Trump supporter, but I don't know if he's independent or what.
But he tells us today, And Robert Bartholomew has an article on this, that Havana Syndrome, that thing where they thought there was the secret mass, the secret sonic weapon, turns out there have been studies and they now know for sure it did not exist, and that all of that was a psychological event.
It was all a psychological event.
Now, you know I'm the first person to tell you that, right?
The day the story broke, I said, this isn't real.
This is a mass hysteria.
Not only is it a mass hysteria, but it's a classic one.
It's an obvious one.
It's like, it's right on the nose.
It's so classic hysteria that I don't know how you could miss it.
Well, how you could miss it is to not be familiar with mass hysterias.
If you've never seen one or never learned about one or never studied the history of mass hysterias, you don't know that they're not just common.
It's closer to being the operating system of humanity.
We just do one mass hysteria after another.
There are several of them percolating right now.
This isn't the only one.
It's just the most obvious one.
So let me tell you how I spotted it.
So you can use these tricks for yourself in the future.
Number one, it's an extraordinary claim.
It's a claim similar to, uh, I have a big foot is in my backyard.
Or UFOs abducted me.
It's in that class.
So when you first hear it, you say, huh, that would be an extraordinary claim.
Well, extraordinary claims are going to be wrong 99% of the time.
So your starting point should be 99% likely not true.
If you started with, it's probably true because it's in the news.
And it's probably true because the intelligence people say it's true.
That's probably true because the CIA says it's true.
That's probably true because all of the networks are reporting it.
If you started from that perspective, you've learned nothing.
None of those are good sources.
None of them are credible, even a little bit, not even directionally.
Not even directionally.
They are not useful for this sort of thing.
So you should have said, on the surface of it, 99% likely fake.
Leave open a little chance.
100% would be stupid.
No, 100% would be wrong.
Because, you know, we could be surprised.
You've been surprised before.
But start with 99% fake.
Don't believe anything the fake news tells you because they're not part of the information structure.
They're part of the disinformation system.
Let me say it again.
The point of the news is to keep you uninformed.
That's not hyperbole.
That's not politics.
That is an actual accurate description of what the news is intended to do.
It is intended to mislead you for the benefit of the country or for the benefit of rich people or for somebody's benefit.
Usually somebody thinks it's good for something.
But no, the news, it is not its purpose to tell you what's true.
It's to frame the stories in ways that are good for the people in power, and that's it.
So, number one, extraordinary stories are almost always false.
Number two, it fit the classic form of a mass hysteria.
It was a whole bunch of people who said, oh, you got hurt by a sonic weapon?
I think I'm hurt by a sonic weapon.
And then the third person hears it and goes, you know, I didn't get to sleep last night.
I wonder if it's that sonic weapon.
And then somebody else says, my sinuses have been acting up all week.
It's probably that sonic weapon.
And then the next thing you know, the sonic weapon's being used at other embassies in other parts of the world.
Okay, this is the classic, most obvious, Perfect form of a mass hysteria.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, there were early reports of people with actual brain damage and it showed up in the scans and the physical damage was unquestionable.
And it was, you know, lots of doctors in different places were all getting the same answers.
Yes, something happened.
They're damaged.
And what did I say?
Nope.
Nope.
None of that's true.
And then you could have said in your mind, Scott, um, this is a whole bunch of doctors, doctors operating independently on all kinds of different people in different parts of the world.
And you're telling me that all of those doctors who have nothing to gain by being wrong, that they all just fell for this mass hysteria.
Is that what you're trying to get me to believe, Scott?
Yes, because that is what exactly what a mass hysteria is.
It's exactly that.
It's people who should know better falling for it.
That's what it is.
So the fact that all the doctors were falling for it.
Let me think.
Do you have any recent experience in which all the doctors seem to be wrong?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Yes.
All the fucking time.
It's the most common thing in the world for all the doctors to be wrong.
Very ordinary.
You know what's not ordinary?
A secret sonic weapon used by Bigfoot.
That's not ordinary.
But all the doctors being wrong, I hate to tell you that's ordinary.
It's very ordinary.
Yeah, go get some statins if you don't believe me.
Anyway, and then the final tell, the intelligence people blamed Russia.
Is there anything else I needed to say?
If you add that it looks exactly like a mass hysteria, it's an absurd, ridiculous, extraordinary claim on its face, and then the intelligence people blame Russia.
People.
People.
The next time this happens, you can do this on your own, right?
Have you learned?
Extraordinary claim.
Fits the mass hysteria perfectly, and the CIA blames Russia.
That's, that's the triple header right there.
So it was exactly what it looked like.
Well, are there any mass hysterias that are brewing right now?
Is there any mass hysteria right now that is obviously fitting the pattern?
Let's see, the pattern would be lots of Capable experts think it's happening.
They've got lots of specific examples of it happening.
It's an extraordinary claim.
Like what?
Are you kidding me?
I don't believe that.
That's incredible.
And sometimes they blame Russia.
It's called the January 6th insurrection hoax.
It just got Ronna McDaniel fired.
You don't think it's still active and changing things in our world?
It is!
It's changing things in our world, and it's a mass hysteria.
Now, this mass hysteria was initiated by the news.
So the news, you know, very intentionally caused this mass hysteria.
But I would say at least, I don't know, a third of the country was told that an insurrection had happened and that Trump wants to stay in power forever.
And that he was planning an insurrection, and that's exactly what he planned.
Well, Jeff Clark, Jeffrey Clark, he's a former Justice Department official who worked with Trump around that time.
I'm allergic to the news.
Anyway, Jeffrey Clark's being investigated now, and he's Some of the things we learned from one of his co-workers is that, you know, there was this attempt to try to organize these alternative electors.
So that was true.
They did try to get them.
Their take on it was they're a placeholder to keep their rights active so that it would be obvious there's a dispute, that the dispute could be worked out the way we work out all disputes, usually in Congress or in the courts.
But it wasn't meant to be nefarious, and it wasn't meant to be illegal, and it wasn't meant to be overthrowing the country.
But what we learned today is from somebody who worked with Clark, who's in a lot of trouble, by the way, if things don't go his way.
What we learned is that his co-worker believed that Clark was serious and truly believed that the election had been stolen, and that his work was trying to correct what looked like an insurrection, a stolen election.
So he was an anti-insurrectionist by intention.
But because the mass hysteria fake news people can paint that same set of actions as being somebody trying to take over the country and keep Trump in power, they got to sell that narrative.
But now we know what he was thinking.
Based on the fact that people were with him and working at the time.
Everything he did suggested that he genuinely believed there was this great injustice and he was trying to figure out how to fix it.
Now what does that do to the narrative of January 6th?
The entire narrative is that it was planned And that people knew the election was fake.
I'm sorry.
The allegation is that they knew the election was fair, which is stupid.
Nobody could have known that even whether it was fair or not, you couldn't know it.
It wasn't knowable, but the news told us you could know the unknowable.
And so they're idiots, believe them.
So now we know for sure that a main character, um, and indeed, Indeed, there has not been one set of evidence that anybody who is trying to reverse the January 6 results, not a single person has any evidence, there's no evidence that's been presented, that any of them believe that they were doing something wrong, as opposed to trying to correct the wrong.
Every bit of evidence from every testimony From every person supports the narrative that Trump thought the election was truly rigged and thought they were avoiding an insurrection not causing one.
Has your news told you that?
Did your news tell you that we know for sure that the January 6th main theme that Trump knew it was a fair election and was trying to overthrow it anyway, the main theme has been completely debunked by a complete lack of any evidence.
That should be the biggest story, because now we know that all of the prosecutions were illegitimate.
We know that.
Once you know that people's intentions were to correct a wrong, not to create a wrong, but to correct a wrong, and that's definitely in evidence now, widespread in evidence, the whole narrative is gone.
And yet the news treats it like none of that happened.
The whole tentpole that was holding up the hoax is completely gone.
Not a single bit of evidence.
Nothing in writing, nothing even people speculating about what somebody else was thinking.
No evidence at all that it was anything except what it looked like.
Somebody tried to correct wrong in his mind.
All right, we'll talk about that Baltimore Bridge.
How many of you think it was a terrorist act?
That something got hacked and maybe Putin was getting revenge.
It was all kind of perfect because it was the Francis Scott Key bridge.
So that was, you know, gets to the real patriotism.
And it was a critical bridge because apparently it's going to have a massive impact on the supply chain.
I think we'll adjust, but it could affect prices and timing and stuff.
I'm going to say not likely it was a terrorist attack.
And the reason I'm going to say not likely is that terrorists like you to know it was intentional.
That's sort of the whole point of terrorism.
Because people don't get the same amount of fear for a natural accident.
They just say, well, stuff happens.
Personally, I would say that, you know, my suspicions were raised, but as of today, even the FBI says, no, it wasn't a terrorist act.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
I believe the FBI has ruled out terrorist attack.
Is that true?
Which would suggest they've talked to the captain and the crew and they have a better idea that it may, maybe it was some ordinary mistake or mechanical problem.
I think it was just bad timing.
Yeah, you're saying that the FBI lies?
Well, that's true.
But would they lie about this?
They might.
They might.
Yeah.
The FBI is no longer credible on any political stuff.
All right.
Would Putin do this, though?
On some level, it would be a perfect response, because if the CIA was behind hiring these These terrorists that went into Moscow?
And some people say they were.
I don't know.
If that's true, and they didn't leave any trace, but yet Putin was sure it was true, would he do a similar attack in which you couldn't tell if it was real or not?
You couldn't tell who did it?
It would be kind of perfect.
Yeah.
There is a little of a perfect payback symmetry to it.
But I'm still thinking coincidence, because you can read into these situations anything you want.
Well, more climate catastrophe.
It turns out the ABC News is worried that rising global temperatures could change where the majority of the world's wine is produced.
So France, for example, might be less of a good wine-growing place, but maybe some other places would get better.
So let me put this in context.
The climate alarm went from, I think your cities will be underwater in 12 years, to, I don't want no Swedish wine.
I feel like they're slowly backing out.
It wasn't long ago Everything was going to crash down on you, the water level would rise, it would be super hurricanes and you would fry in your sleep.
But now, I'm a little worried that I won't be able to call anything Champagne because nothing will be grown in the Champagne region.
What if I have to drink wine that came from Mongolia instead because it's so warm there?
I feel like the cat's on the roof.
That's what it feels like.
It feels like the cat's on the roof and the predictions are not coming true at a level that would support the narrative.
So maybe they need to back off the narrative too.
Well, when I said super hurricanes, I meant your Chardonnay might taste different.
See what I mean?
It's going from really bad to, I don't know, you might have less access to poison.
Just think about it.
Alcohol is poison.
And one of the big problems of global temperature rise, if it's happening, is that you might have to get your poison from a different source.
That's your biggest problem right there.
Well, I don't know.
If I have to poison myself by putting a little extra work into it, that's no good.
Anyway, Mike Ben's talking about the whole of government censorship effort.
So, did you know that the Department of Homeland Security's censorship agency, CISA, C-I-S-A, did you know, Mike Pence reports, that they put a Washington Post reporter on its taxpayer-funded domestic disinformation conference in 2020, where they formulated social media censorship strategies for the 2020 election?
Just hold that in your mind, that the government Created very expensive, well-funded, gigantic entities, if you count the entire web of connected people, for the specific purpose of censoring 2020 information, and one of the participants was the Washington Post, most famous for their CIA connection.
So that's what you call, as Mike Ben says, a whole-of-government censorship effort.
Yeah, there were a lot of people in on that.
So do you still think that the Washington Post cancelled me because of what I said?
Does anybody think that I was cancelled because of what I said?
Or is it a coincidence that the Washington Post led the cancellation, and we know the Washington Post is an intelligence agency that works closely with the Democrats, and listening to me talk in public has got to hurt them a little bit.
Big coincidence?
Not a single Republican complained about anything I said?
I mean, they were uncomfortable with it, but once they heard the whole explanation, they were like, oh, okay, free speech.
Yeah.
No.
Everything's political.
Everything's political.
All right.
I would like to say that not knowing how anything works is not a political opinion, but we keep treating it like it is.
We keep acting like there's a difference of political opinion on big topics.
It's not really that.
It's really stupid people who don't know how anything works trying to debate people who do know how things work.
And then we imagine that has something to do with politics.
That's not politics.
That's just, some people know how to analyze things, and some don't.
That's all that is.
Let me give you some examples.
Democrats don't know how free speech works.
That being the prior story.
If you have a strike force that the government put together to censor speech, then you don't understand that censoring speech is the end of everything.
Or maybe you do, and you want everything dead.
So it's like people who don't understand, how do you not understand that free speech means you don't censor people you disagree with?
But they seem to think free speech allows you to censor people you disagree with, which is the opposite.
It's literally the opposite.
Now, how do you have a political conversation with somebody who thinks that's free speech?
That censoring is free speech?
You can't!
That's a smart person arguing with a dumb person.
If you don't know how anything works, you would think that limiting free speech could work out for you well.
If you do know how anything works, you don't want to do that.
How about open borders?
If you know how anything works, you'd be against it.
But if you don't know how anything works in the real world, you'd be for it.
How about reparations?
How about DEI?
Yeah.
If you understood incentives and what it would do to the people who are not benefiting from the DEI and what kind of an obscenity it becomes when people try to hit those targets but they don't have enough supply of people to hire, it breaks everything.
Who knew that?
Well, people who understand how the real world works know that this is a disaster.
If you don't know how the real world works, you think it's a way to get equity.
How about New York Mayor Adams talking about giving debit cards and free money to migrants?
Prepaid debit cards.
What do you think will happen if you start paying people to come here illegally?
Huh.
Would there be more of it or less of it if you reward it?
I don't know.
I can't figure it out.
Ever since I registered to be a Democrat, I can't figure these things out?
Well, you see my point.
Arguing about free speech, open borders, DEI reparations, and benefits to immigrants, those are not really differences of opinion.
Those are differences of intelligence.
Period.
Those are just differences in ability to understand your world.
Nothing else.
Now, a lot of it is experience.
When we talk about the old saw that says, if you're young and you're not a liberal, you don't have a heart.
But if you're older and you're not a conservative, you don't have a brain.
You've heard that one, right?
It's an old one.
But the mechanism for that makes sense.
The less experience you have of how the real world works, the more likely you'll be seduced into something that sounds like it's going to give you fairness.
But as soon as you have more experience, and you see how things actually work, as soon as you hear about DEI, you say, oh, that could never work.
Because it will just cause people to hire less qualified people to meet their targets.
And the DEI proponents can't seem to understand that it's a supply problem and not a demand problem.
And that if they did away with DEI tomorrow, the demand for diverse employees would be the same.
Nothing would change.
Because the companies independently want to have more diversity.
It's good for them.
It's a good look, as long as they don't have to trade off any competence.
But as soon as you turn it into DEI, they do have to trade off competence, because they're going to try to hit those DEI goals.
If you don't understand that, you really shouldn't be in the conversation.
It's sort of basic.
Let's see how the German government is doing.
Ed Wokeness printed some German government data on the percentage of all crimes committed by foreign-born populations in Frankfurt.
So in Frankfurt, the foreign-born population were 100% of serious sexual assaults.
I don't know what makes it serious.
Is that group?
Maybe gang?
Gang assaults, probably?
Pickpocket incidents, 93% is foreign-born.
Human trafficking, 83%.
Day home burglars, 80%.
Aggravated theft, 76%.
Illegal smuggling, 70%.
Theft, 66%.
Crime against life, 60%.
Child abuse, 53%.
Arson, 52%.
Assault, 52%.
That's just the immigrant population.
smuggling 70%, theft 66%, crime against life 60%, child abuse 53%, arson 52%, assault 52%.
That's just the immigrant population.
Now should you stop immigration because of these numbers?
What would somebody who understands how the real world works, what would be their response processing these numbers.
In the real world, you don't let more people in that will be in this category, right?
In the weird imaginary equity world that the Democrats live in, you increase the number who come in.
It doesn't make any sense.
Now in my world, And I think Elon Musk and a lot of other people would agree that we do need more bodies.
At the moment, we can't succeed without pretty strong immigration.
Bigger numbers than you're used to, and way bigger numbers than you can be comfortable with.
But we need to vet them.
They need to come through a system where we're weeding out the serial criminals.
It's just basic.
Just basic stuff.
But no, we won't do that.
And meanwhile, President Joe Biden, he's thinking about granting amnesty to people who've been here a while.
And he's coming up with other ideas to incentivize more illegal migration.
Does he know he's doing that?
Who knows?
Can't read his mind.
But I can tell you that anybody who understands anything about anything says you shouldn't incentivize criminals to come to your country.
Now, I'm not saying all immigrants are criminals, obviously, that would be ridiculous, but too many criminals is a problem.
All right, there's a real housewife of Beverly Hills, Anna Marie Wiley, who allegedly, Colin Rugg is reporting this, allegedly lost her job as a real housewife because she was a Trump supporter, and she liked Candace Owens, and she opposed with her husband, I guess, who was an athlete, Transgender athletes.
Didn't oppose transgender.
Didn't oppose transgender.
Just the athlete part.
You know, competing against women on women's teams.
All right.
So now what's interesting about this is that they're a black couple.
So it's a black woman who got kicked off a show, allegedly, for being pro-Trump.
Now, it's certainly believable, but remember what I told you?
All news about public figures is fake.
Probably not an exception.
So, it might be true in the details that she was let go from the show.
It might be true that she's a Trump supporter.
And it might be true that that was a contributing factor.
But what we don't know, was there anything else?
Because there's a good chance, if you listen to the story, that somebody involved would have a different version of that story.
Now that should be your primary first thing you think whenever there's a public person in the news.
First thing you should think is, eh, news about public figures?
Not very often right.
All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, brings me to the conclusion of my prepared remarks.
Did I miss any stories?
Is there anything happening that I missed?
You know, I find that I look almost exclusively on social media for the news now.
She could have been a pain in the neck and they needed a reason.
Well, Pain in the Neck probably wouldn't be a good enough reason, as long as she got ratings.
So, it could easily be that the ratings, or that she wasn't a popular member of the show.
Could be.
But I suspect, you know, you would think that a show like that would benefit from having a pro-Trump person in it, because that would be a source of stories and conflict.
So, to imagine that they thought they would lose money by having a source of conflict on a reality TV show stretches the imagination.
It is easy to believe that they just weren't comfortable having a Trump supporter on their show and that's all that mattered.
So, it is a believable story, but I don't automatically think you have the right context whenever a public figure is involved.
Do I think the guy on the ship was drunk?
No.
I'm guessing that the ship captain probably did as much as he could.
Because we know the lights blinked.
So we doubt that the ship captain was directly responsible for the lights going out.
So that would say that whether he was drunk or not, whatever the problem was, wasn't that.
They woke him up.
But that too is not, that doesn't tell you anything.
So the captain has to sleep.
That's why you have other people who can pilot a ship.
I don't think the captain always has to be awake.
Nobody required that.
So, you know, there's going to be a lot of conspiracy theories about it.
I'm going to say I lean toward it was just a human problem with some mechanical problems thrown on top.
Yeah.
Yeah, once a ship loses propulsion, there's not a whole lot you can do.
You're not going to be steering it.
But the fact that it did what it did, here's how you should deal with coincidence.
Today, a truck ran into a telephone pole, and the damage was quickly fixed.
Was that in the news?
No.
No, because it was an ordinary accident.
It got fixed.
Today, a boat sank in the harbor.
Big news?
No, because, you know, little boats sink.
It's a thing.
Today, a plane crashed, but luckily the pilot was so good that he made a good emergency landing and survived, walked away.
So, what you're seeing is a survivor bias sort of situation.
So, you have accidents happening all over the world every day.
Every now and then, one is going to have a coincidence involved.
Somebody's going to hit the base of a bridge.
So, your problem in analyzing this is that you don't see all of the accidents that didn't cause a bigger problem.
And so in a context where there's just accidents everywhere, all the time, every day, some of them are going to hit the base of a bridge.
You see what I'm saying?
Some of them are just going to be worse than the others, and then we're going to think it was a terrorist attack.
Yeah.
Seems the boat turned.
Well everything about the action of the boat appears to be uninformed to people talking about it.
Because the things that we don't know about are at some point they dropped anchor.
Right?
So I think the boat was sort of going in a direction and then in desperation they dropped anchor.
And then the anchor would cause them to pivot off the anchor, basically.
So we don't know what the anchor did.
We don't know what happens as the power was coming on and off.
Apparently, there was also a strong flow.
Was it the tide?
So there was a water effect.
There was a night effect.
There was a technology effect.
There was an anchor effect.
So looking at the video isn't going to tell you as much as you think it would.
Yeah.
Wrong anchor?
I don't know, is that a thing?
Well, bumpers would have only helped against a smaller object.
Yeah, bumpers wouldn't have helped you against a ship that size.
It would help against the smaller ones.
They did stop traffic after the mayday was received.
So it looks like police did a heck of a good job.
And did you hear the story about one of the workers?
So there was a work crew, a repair crew that had most of the death.
So a number of them died after the hit.
But one of them fell in the water, survived, it was like 48 degree water, survived, didn't need any serious medical treatment, and brushed himself off and said he just wanted to go home.
Imagine being that guy.
He survives one of the biggest disasters in the country, brushes himself off and says, all right, I'm ready to go home now.
All right.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, on On YouTube and Rumble at X. I'm going to say goodbye to you and I'm going to keep the feed open for the local supporters only.
