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, Nuclear Energy, Governor DeSantis, Florida Squatting Outlawed, Catherine Herridge, Random Punched NYC Women, Food Supply Cancer, Governor Abbott, Texas Anti-Semitism, Anxious Young People, Oregon Drug Decriminalization, AI Idea Implementations, Reverse Engineering Biden, President Biden, Protecting Democracy, John Eastman Disbarment, John Stewart's TDS Set, Yahoo News, Gilbert, Phil Lyman, Election Integrity, 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
We're going to launch into the best show you've seen this morning.
It involves a whiteboard.
There will be a whiteboard.
And let's just jump right into it.
One of the good things about doing the Dilbert comic on my own instead of having a publisher is that I can do it faster.
And so this week, squatters have moved into the cubicles in Dilbert's workplace.
So Ted will be the first one who is replaced by a squatter, and the rules of the state require the boss to give the salary and benefits from Ted to the squatters who took over his cubicle, and so it goes.
If you'd like to see that, you'd have to be a member of Locals, scottadams.locals.com, or subscribe to Dilbert Reborn on X.
Anyway, here's some good news.
They're restarting a nuclear plant in Michigan.
So the Biden administration, I will give them full credit for this, allowed me to be non-political for a moment.
Biden administration putting a $1.5 billion loan to restart a Michigan nuclear power plant.
Hello.
Good job.
Good job, government.
I'm sure it could have been faster and better, like everything in the world.
But if you're moving in the right direction, I'm going to call it out.
And yes, this is the right thing.
Would the Trump administration have done the same thing?
Probably.
Probably.
Because I think it's just time.
And I would like to take another victory lap for those of us who worked so hard to move that battleship from saying that nuclear is bad to nuclear is the thing that will save the world from every energy problem we have.
So another call down to Mark Schneider, Michael Schellenberger, Zion Lights, and everybody who helped on that.
Do you realize that that was literally a grassroots change in civilization?
That there were specific individuals, and there weren't that many of them, Probably just a handful of people who collectively used persuasion and a tremendous amount of energy.
There may have been some financial backing from just citizens.
And the entire thing changed.
I don't even know the last time I saw anybody negative on nuclear.
Can you remember the last time you saw a negative nuclear story in the press?
Or anything negative, except that they were closing, right?
So everything's changed.
And that was people.
People did that.
So that's kind of impressive.
Well, there's a new report that says that there's a compound found in cinnamon that might be the cure for baldness.
Uh, they caution you, you can't get the benefit by eating a bunch of cinnamon.
You wouldn't be able to eat enough cinnamon to do that.
But, uh, yep.
They're going to cure baldness.
You know, if they reverse aging and cure baldness and I can put a chip in my head to cure my eyesight and fix all of those other aches and pains, I think I'm going to live forever.
Yeah, I'm gonna have a full head of hair any minute now.
I think it's the weirdest thing that we're trying to cure hair.
Now, I don't know if anybody can back me on this, but being bald is way better than you think.
Do you know how much time I don't spend on my hair?
Yeah, it's a really tough mental thing to get past.
Because you say to yourself, ah, lost my hair.
All my virility is gone.
Women will not like me.
I will be teased for my hair.
But it turns out if you go to the gym and shave your damn head, you actually come out ahead.
Just go to the gym, shave your stupid head, and never worry about combing your hair again.
It's really kind of awesome.
It's one of those things which you wouldn't ask for.
Nobody would say, please make me bald.
But it does turn out to be better than not bald.
It literally is better.
If, as long as you go to the gym, if you don't go to the gym, it's, it's just adding one bad thing to another bad thing.
But as long as you go to the gym, bald works perfectly.
All right.
The Babylon Bee is reporting that Ron DeSantis has been kicked out of the Republican party.
Wow.
What did he do?
Kick down the Republican Party for accomplishing too many things.
Accomplishing too many things.
I think the last straw was when he immediately responded to the public outcry about squatting, and immediately changed the law so squatters don't have rights in Florida.
And everybody said, that was a great job, but now you gotta go.
I'm sorry, you gotta leave.
You're making everybody look stupid by accomplishing things.
Oh, Ron DeSantis, you think you're going to be such a show-off by accomplishing things?
Well, we've had enough of you, sir.
Sit down.
Go to the back.
We've had enough of this accomplishing things that the public wants.
We won't put up with this.
Well, Catherine Herridge, as you know, had some kind of weird exit from her job at CBS, but there is rumor that she's negotiating with X To be on the X platform.
How awesome would that be?
To me that would be probably the single most important thing that happened on X since the takeover.
And I say that because she has such a good reputation as a solid investigative journalist that having her on the platform would be very different from adding Don Lemon to the platform.
Right.
Because, you know, Catherine Herridge is not noted as anybody who's in the bag for one side.
She seems to be straight down the middle.
So that would be a huge boost to the credibility.
But I have a question.
As Elon Musk has pointed out a few times, the traditional media is taking a big hit in viewership.
It's down like 20% a year, while X clicks are up.
And But you've all noticed that a lot of the traffic, at least the political traffic, and news-related traffic, it links back to the news.
So what would happen if the traditional news just went away?
I don't think it can, because they need it for propaganda.
But if X became the only good place to get news, because it's the only place you trusted it, would the others go away?
Or would they just devolve more into The propagandists that they are.
I think they would just evolve more.
That's my guess.
But anyway, it's a big, that's a big deal.
I hope they make that deal.
Um, so poor Steven Crowder, as you know, his divorce situation is public and I'm not going to get into the, you know, the who did what part, but there's a story that's bigger than the story.
The story is about the people observing.
So there's a whole bunch of people observing.
A divorce in which the wife was not working and the husband had made a ton of money, especially recently, and they had to work out the financials because there's no prenup.
And I guess it's not super friendly, or as friendly as it could be.
And so Tim Poole and others are watching in horror as they're learning for the first time that The husband has to pay his opponent to take his money.
So the court will charge the husband, because he's the one with the assets, for the illegal services of both the husband and the wife.
I mean, the husband will get his own attorney, but the wife will get her attorney.
She'll pick it on her own.
And then she'll use the husband's money to extend the lawsuit because the lawyer For the wife is going to want to keep it going as long as possible because that person gets paid by the hour.
So the wife will get this, you will hire the lawyer from hell and just torture the husband for extra money until he just psychologically gives up and writes a big check and can't stand paying the can't stand paying his opponent to negotiate.
How long can you pay your opponent?
For negotiating with you.
There's some point where you just can't do it.
Like, your brain just says, I can't pay people to take my money.
It's bad enough they're going to take my money, but I can't pay them to take my money.
Like, that's just too far.
Anyway, the bigger story here is that the whole enterprise of marriage and divorce is a really poorly designed system.
I'm not going to take sides in this specific divorce because we don't know enough and it's not fair and I wish them well and we don't know what's going on and any judgment that we make about what they are doing or not doing, completely inappropriate.
But the larger story that people watching it are horrified at the system.
They're not horrified at what the people are doing.
People are kind of working the way you do within the system.
It's all ugly.
Anyway, that really needs to be fixed, but I don't have any ideas for doing it.
There's a weird and alarming trend of women in New York City doing selfie videos showing that they had just gotten punched randomly while walking down the street.
Now, I don't know yet, is this really a thing?
Or were there just three examples of it and we think it's a thing?
But there are I just watched three videos of young women in New York who said they were just walking down the street and somebody walked up and punched them in the head and now they got a big black eye or bump on their head or something.
Now, I don't know if that's really a trend or a weird little blip statistically, but I will tell you this.
If you're having any conversation on the topic, of young women being punched in the face randomly because they walked down the city street, that's when you should re-examine your strategy for success.
And I'll say it again, that the Democrat strategy for success focuses on victimization and fixing it.
And that's a female strategy.
Because if a man complains about the little things that are holding him back, he looks pathetic.
And it's not exactly the way men were evolved.
We were evolved to run into an obstacle and then die trying to get rid of it.
Pound on it with our head, stab it with a knife, shoot it with a gun, do something!
But you don't stop because you had a complaint.
It doesn't matter if you got a sniffle or a limp or massive discrimination.
You don't stop, you just keep pushing through and you find a way around and you find a strategy that works.
But the female strategy of victimization as the primary operating system of the world gets you women walking down the street and getting punched in the face.
Now, I'm pretty sure that the simulation is working in a humorous fashion at this point.
I think the simulation that we all live in, this can't possibly be real.
I don't know if you've figured that out yet.
But whatever this is we're experiencing, there's no way this just happened on its own.
This looks very programmed to me.
And is it a coincidence that young women are fucking up the entire world by making victimization seem like a credible strategy for everybody?
Politically, men, women, black, minorities, people of color, LGBTQ, it's all victimization, victimization.
Now, what would it take to change your mind when you got so entrenched in your terribly destructive worldview that victimization should be the primary motivator of everything?
What would be, if you were designing the simulation, how would you, let's say, wake up people?
Well, I would have them being punched in the face on a regular basis.
Which, by the way, I'm not in favor of.
So, I don't want to act happy that anybody's getting punched in the face.
That's all bad.
We don't want anybody to get punched in the face.
But, it's hard to avoid the fact that we live in a simulation and it's telling us, hey, hey, I have something to tell you about the quality of your political preferences.
Really?
What is it?
I'd like to have a second conversation because it looks like you didn't hear me the first time.
About what?
Your political preferences.
Would you like to talk about them?
Well, alright.
Bam!
Now, how many times do you have to get punched in the face before you start saying, hey, maybe it's something I'm doing.
I wonder if somehow my actions Or in any way related to the outcomes.
Number one, get the fuck out of any city where you're getting punched in the face walking down the streets.
Get the fuck out of there.
That's number one.
Number two, examine your voting.
Just give it a second look.
I don't give a lot of advice, but I'm going to make an exception.
If your political preferences Cause you, a young woman, to be randomly punched in the face because you went outdoors?
Just take a pause.
Just look at the big picture.
Just ask yourself, is there anything we're doing that we could do differently that would make fewer people get punched in the face?
It's all ask.
Just rethink it.
There was a study in the UK on Representation of black people in advertising.
So over in the UK, they did very well, very well in diversity.
So in the advertisements, they looked at over a two month period and found that 37% of the advertisements featured black people in the advertisements.
Very good job.
How good?
It's like the best job I've ever seen because the black percentage of people in the UK is 3%.
So although black people in the UK are 3%, they're 37% of all advertisement.
And I think we could all say that's a huge success.
You know, I feel that I've reached equity and equality already.
Because once 3% of the population is 37% of the advertisement, I feel like everything is now equal.
So, well, not totally.
I still have to pay a few trillion dollars in reparations, but I think that's just fair.
There is a new film that I guess is debuting only on X. Grace Price is the producer, and I didn't watch it, but the teaser seems to suggest that cancer in this country is maybe being triggered by our food supply.
Do you think you would see that documentary in, let's say, one of the major networks?
Probably not, because they take their advertisement from the food industry.
Now, there might be some of that advertisement on X, but probably not.
So X, by being boycotted by advertisers, at least to some degree, Becomes maybe the only safe place you can put on a documentary that would challenge one of our biggest industries.
So, I don't have an opinion about the accuracy of the documentary.
And remember, there's always a documentary effect.
If you watch any documentary with any point of view, by the time you're done, you will think it's all true.
Doesn't mean it's true.
It just means you saw one point of view for an hour.
If you see one point of view for an hour, you're going to be persuaded because it's not going to show you any counter evidence.
So be careful about that.
But every part of my instinct does say that our food supply is poisoning us and causing cancer.
Oh wow, she's an 18-year-old girl.
Wow.
So she says, it's a story of how I, an 18-year-old girl, spent two years relentlessly searching for the true cause of cancer.
Yeah, the true cause.
So, you know, there's a genetic component to cancer, of course, but then there's the lifestyle triggers.
So she went looking for the triggers.
That will be very interesting.
Greg Abbott issued an executive order that the Texas colleges and universities should, you know, look at all their Rules and make sure that they're sort of anti-Semitism.
So they're trying to reduce anti-Semitism in the Texas universities.
And so Greg Abbott did these executive orders.
And people like Christopher Rufo, who says he's very committed to the fight against anti-Semitism, as all of us should be, says, why are you calling out this one group?
Oh, that's a good question.
Shouldn't the rules be looked at to make sure that 100% of all people are free from anti-everything?
That in other words, there's no group that gets discriminated against.
Why do you need to call out one particular group?
Is it because that one particular group is the subject of the most discrimination?
No, that's not why.
That is not why.
Because if it was based on the most discrimination, they would have already done an executive order to stop discriminating against white people.
White people and men have been by far the most obviously discriminated people, and Asians, Asian Americans in colleges.
So there are a couple of groups that are by far more discriminated.
But at the moment, anti-Semitism is sort of at a crisis level.
So I do understand why you felt the need to respond.
But it is a very good question.
Why do you ever need to pick out one group if it's a general rule for your population?
It should be.
Don't do it to anybody.
There's no exceptions.
But I understand.
We're in a special time and place.
And Governor Abbott felt he needed to respond to that.
I feel that was more a political response than a good government response.
Well, let me put it another way.
I don't think DeSantis would have done this.
What do you think?
So DeSantis is sort of setting the standard for what a good governor looks like.
You know, no bullshit.
If you want it and it's important and it, you know, the science supports it, we're going to do it, but we'll do it fast.
Right?
So, I mean, that's really the standard.
I think Greg Abbott might be the second best governor now.
All right.
The Democrats, as you know, they tried to dent their nickname strategy for taking Trump down, and they came up with the nickname, Broke Don, the same week that he made several billion dollars with his public offering.
So, I don't know if that's related, that the moment the Democrats come out with a nickname, Broke Don, he makes billions of dollars, but I would recommend an experiment, just to see.
They should start calling Trump Bad golfer Don.
Bad golfer?
And just see if that causes him to win a PGA event.
I mean, he's not even in the PGA.
But I think if they start calling him Bad Golfer Don, he might... he might beat Tiger Woods.
I'm just saying he's competitive.
He's a competitive bastard.
Whatever nickname you give him, it's gonna be like, hey, let's call him Small Penis Don.
I swear to God his penis size would double in the next day.
Yeah.
He's just a winner.
He's just a winner.
That's just in case any anti-Trumpers wandered into the show, just to really give him a heart attack and make them hate me extra.
Well, I was saying on The Man Cave the other day, and it's worth repeating, how telephones have ruined movies.
You've noticed that it's impossible to watch a movie, that all movies are just garbage now.
Now, some of it is the wokeness.
We talk about that a lot.
But here's another phenomenon.
I remember going to the movies, let's say, in the 60s when I was a kid, in the 70s, in the 80s, and it always felt the same.
The movie would open with something terrible happening to somebody.
Somebody would lose a job, or their family would be slaughtered when they went out to the grocery store.
Something horrible would happen.
But then, during the course of the movie, you know, the antagonist, the hero, would prevail.
And then you would get this relief at the end, like, ah!
It would be like a dopamine relief.
So not only did you watch a good movie, with lots of good scenes, but because they depressed your dopamine with the bad news at the front, When they released it, you're like, oh, yeah, pretty good.
So here's how phones ruined that.
If I'm looking at reels or TikToks, you know, the little videos that the algorithm said I want, if you look at a 15 second reel, And you compare the dopamine you get from 15 seconds to any 15 seconds of a three-hour movie.
Any 15 seconds.
Which would be a better dopamine hit?
The real.
Not sometimes.
Every time.
Because there's no 15-second slice of any movie that gives you much of a dopamine hit.
I mean, most of it's just connecting tissue.
It's like, you need to know this to move it along.
Here's another car chase, yawn.
Another guy tied to a chair to be tortured, yawn.
Another sex scene to show you that the characters really, really do love each other, yawn.
Fast forward.
So how in the world can a movie compete when every 15 second slice is inferior to every, every 15 second slice when I'm looking through my phone?
Now worse than that, there's another bigger effect.
I used to be able to easily handle watching somebody's family get slaughtered in the first part of the movie.
No, of course, because it was fiction.
But also, for some reason, my constitution and my brain could sort of handle some bad news.
I was strong enough that, like, I needed to artificially take down my mood just so I could artificially feel the difference when they raised it later.
Well, what happens in 2024 if you walk into a theater and the first scene is horrible damage and terrible things happening to somebody that you're going to care about later?
You just don't want to watch it.
I literally want to just walk up, walk out right away.
It's intolerable.
So I can't handle A big dopamine drop, and I don't know if it's because the environment has changed, it's more complicated, something about my phone, but I cannot handle bad news in a movie because my brain is saying, why would you watch 15 minutes of somebody being tortured when every single flip of my phone is better than every second of every movie?
It's just, there's no competition anymore.
I don't think movies can survive.
I don't see any way that can happen.
We keep talking about how AI is going to make it easy to make a movie.
I'm going to give you the counter prediction.
AI will make movies useless and worthless.
So once you take the money out of it, because let's say anybody can make a movie, nobody's going to want to watch that movie you made.
How many clips of AI have you seen as examples of how AI can make a 15 second clip and it's so good?
And I watched some of those 15 second clips and I go, oh, that's sort of interesting.
But when was the last time you went to a movie and then gushed about the special effects?
I don't remember the last time.
But when Star Wars was new, you did, right?
It was like mind blowing.
Wow.
You got a little dopamine hit.
Just seeing what they could do was a dopamine hit.
But now there's no dopamine hit because they can do everything.
So imagine you're watching a movie.
And it's not the first time you've ever seen AI.
And there's a character walking through a complicated cityscape.
It's all done by AI.
Are you still impressed?
No, because it's not the first year of AI.
The first year, it's all pretty amazing.
By the second year, it's just what's there.
It's just background.
So you're not going to want to watch the movie, because you're not going to want to watch any movie.
Because there won't be any movie with a 3x structure.
No matter who makes it, humans or AI, nobody cares.
But in the short run, the movie makers, because they still make money, they can kind of force you to see a movie by brainwashing you.
Literally.
We're still at that point where if the advertising is good enough, we all have to watch it.
You know, it's like you're forced to.
Dune 2?
I don't want to watch Dune 2.
But the advertising got me.
I know I'm not going to like it.
I know I'm not.
Even though it's exactly the kind of thing I used to love.
You know, good sci-fi movie.
But, no.
So, yes.
Phones ruin movies and there's no coming back.
We keep talking about the causes of kids being more depressed and having mental health problems.
We always think, ah, it's the phones, it's the phones, it's the phones.
And I think, it's mostly the phones.
But I think we're leaving out the fact that it's everything.
If we concentrate on the one thing, we're going to lose everything else.
I think the thing making kids, young people, depressed and anxious is the food supply is bad.
There may be environmental pollutants that have an effect.
It's the phones, of course.
It's bad adult advice on everything.
How about the homework?
Does anybody have a teenager who does four hours of homework a night?
How do you be happy if you have four hours of homework every school night and at least one night on the weekend?
That's actually normal.
In my town, that's normal.
Four hours, six nights a week.
And that might be on top of a sport or something, so that they're getting to bed at midnight.
So they're getting no sleep, and then when they go to bed at midnight, they pick up their phone.
Because they need an hour of phone before they go to sleep.
So, homework, if you took out the food pollution, and you took out the phones, and the only thing you did was make kids do four hours of homework a night, they would all be anxious, depressed, and unhappy.
That's all.
Now, that's just one thing.
The food is definitely killing them, making them fat and unhealthy and feeling unsexy and dropping their testosterone and everything else.
The homework, the bullies, the social media.
And then there's the mass hysteria in the news.
When I was a kid, I distinctly remember getting a mental health problem from being told that we were going to get nuked by the Soviet Union maybe any minute now.
Like, I actually had a bomb shelter in my basement.
Which my father thought could be done with cinder blocks.
That'll stop that radiation.
So, and we did the duck and cover things for a nuclear attack, all that crazy stuff.
So, I actually know what it feels like to be part of a mass hysteria.
Now, in that case, it might have been a real risk.
So, I'm not sure if the false part is true, but the hysteria was certainly true.
Now, we have the same thing with climate change.
If you're a kid today, you're being told that climate change will destroy your world in your lifetime, in your lifetime, and there's no way back.
What would you do if all the parents, all of them, every TV show, because they're not watching Fox News, right?
So every time they turn it on, it says your world will be destroyed.
It doesn't look like the adults can stop it.
You're going to grow into a hellscape.
We're spending all your money.
By the way, there's no way you can pay back the debt.
And probably the terrorists will kill you all.
So the news is certainly making young people anxious.
All right.
As you know, Oregon's looking to back out from their decriminalization of drugs because it made things much worse.
So the ODs went way up when they decriminalized.
But there's a little pushback because in Portugal there's a claim that their decriminalization worked.
And the claim is That they did a more comprehensive job.
In other words, in Portugal it could be decriminalized if you were doing drugs but they would try to force you into treatment.
Apparently in Oregon, they passed some money for treatment, and then they never implemented the treatment part, for whatever reason.
So they had decriminalization without any treatment, or extra treatment.
So, I say again, I think it's terrific that there was a trial.
You know, that's what the states are for.
Hey, test this, see if it works.
But that test, I don't think you can call that a good test.
Now I will say, Just to put a counterpoint on this, I've heard other people say that the Portugal success is all fake.
Have you heard that?
That the so-called Portugal decriminalizing drugs, we heard it was a big success, but it's all a lie.
I don't know what's true, by the way.
I don't know if it's a big success or a big lie.
But I know they did it differently.
So if they got different outcomes, that would be useful.
All right, here's a brain flipper for you.
We'll get to some more politics in a minute.
But AI is going to flip the creativity implementation model that has always been driving our society.
What I mean by that is, forever, at least in my lifetime, a good idea had no value at all.
Because we all have good ideas.
It's all about the implementation.
Implementing anything is just so hard.
Getting through all the laws and the, you know, just even hiring a lawyer to set up your corporation and hiring people and payroll and, you know, and then you get sued.
And so starting a business is insanely hard.
But coming up with an idea for a business has always been cheap and free and easy.
That just reversed.
Because with AI, you'll be able to start a company just by telling your AI to do it.
We're not there, but maybe by next year, you'll be able to say, hey, startup AI, I got an idea.
I need you to make an app and the app should do this and that.
And then I want you to form a corporation around it.
So contact a lawyer or act as the lawyer.
Fill out the forms.
You know, I'll just sign things.
I'll answer questions and sign things, but you're going to do all the work.
You're going to set up my corporation.
You're going to set up the payroll.
You know, you're going to hire if you need anybody, but you probably won't need anybody because buddy, it's just me and you.
So it's just me and the AI, but the AI will do everything.
All the legal stuff, the lawyers, the accounting, everything.
It'll make sure you don't violate any state laws.
It'll pay your taxes.
It'll do all of it.
And what I would do is come up with the idea.
So, it's shifting the power from great implementers, and I would say Elon Musk is a great implementer, to great ideas.
Did Elon Musk come up with the idea of the electric car?
No.
No, he did not.
But he's the greatest implementer we've ever seen.
Did he come up with the idea of, hey, rocket ships would be good for a variety of reasons?
No, he did not.
Did not invent that.
But he implemented better than anybody ever has.
Neuralink implementation.
Starlink implementation.
Buying X and fixing everything.
Firing 80% of the staff.
Implementation.
So implementation makes you the richest person in the world.
And should.
And should.
That's all deserved.
However, imagine if I can wake up in the morning and say, you know what?
I've got an idea for an app.
Form a company, AI, write that app, and let's test it with a few people.
And I could actually just come up with hundreds of ideas over the course of maybe a few years, try every one of them, or at least to the point of having a viable, testable product, to see if anybody's excited.
It should create the value in the creative people.
And this is the weird part.
I contend that my generation is special.
Special in one specific way.
We were born and we grew up before phones.
So our brains are developed before the smartphone gave us all the productivity and gave us all the creativity.
So we had to come up with creativity and solutions on our own.
So I believe my generation developed some skills for creativity, if only because we sat there alone a lot and not looking at anything.
Do you know how much time I just sat there not looking at anything or doing anything?
Because there wasn't anything to do, like just nothing.
I used to sit on a wall when I was a teenager and pick up the little sticks, the twigs that fell off a tree.
And I'd watch the traffic in my small town, which would be one car every five minutes.
And I would take the bigger sticks and I'd break them into smaller pieces.
And when I was done with that, I would get another stick.
And I could do that for an hour because there was nothing else to do.
I would be in my room trying to spin a basketball in my finger.
Because I didn't have anything else to do.
I learned to juggle.
Just nothing else to do.
But now I've been immersed in technology, so I was old enough to have a brain that was created pre-technology, but I was young enough that I was completely immersed in technology in my whole work career.
So that's unique.
And now, I'm still young enough, but just barely, because, you know, I'm really past my expiration, but I'm staying healthy so far.
I'm one of the people who has a full creative structure in my head, and I've got enough wherewithal with technology that I should be able to be one of the few people, you know, the small sliver of people who could use AI and add creativity.
My belief is that we've lost our ability to be creative.
Because we're more consumers and less creators.
Yeah, if you don't have a phone, you create.
Because you create your own consumption.
Come up with a thought, think about it, that's your entertainment.
But if it's just coming to you, there's no thinking, you're just creating.
Your creative muscle is basically atrophied.
So I believe that as AI gets better, The creative muscle in humans will atrophy, it will just let the AI do it, but there'll be a thin sliver of time in which I can quickly become the richest person on Earth, simply by coming up with ideas that are higher quality ideas than young people are able to do, but I also would have the ability to instantly implement through AI.
None of that's going to happen.
But it's an interesting thought.
So the only thing I want you to remember is that there's an inversion where implementation used to be everything, and now it might be nothing.
So it might make the idea the valuable thing for the first time in history.
The idea has never been the important thing, except maybe the wheel, you know, because you could implement it yourself with a, you know, carving a stone or something.
All right.
So.
Prigozhin is dead, but they think his troll farms live on, and there's more priming us that Russia is going to influence the elections.
Huh.
Who would want to prime us to believe that the elections were being influenced toward Trump?
Oh, yeah, all the bad guys who, if Trump wins, are going to say it was Russia collusion, and they're going to try to overthrow the election and say it wasn't fair because Russia interfered.
So they're setting you up for that.
I don't believe there's any evidence that any Russian troll forums make any difference in our elections.
There's no evidence that made any difference the last time, in 2020 anyway.
So I don't think it'll make a difference this time.
This is the fake data season.
This is a season where all of the economics will make it look as though Everything is working great because the Democrats control the government, the government comes up with the data, and believe it or not, the data is going to make it look like the economy is doing well.
Well, surprise!
Some data came out and it looks like inflation is slowing down.
Well, I think we can thank Joe Biden for that.
Now, for your amusement, you know, a lot of you believe that Joe Biden has been replaced by AI because he looks and acts and walks like he's AI.
Maybe, you know, maybe a version 3.5 GPT sort of AI, not really a good one.
But, uh, I proved that he was actually, um, he's mechanical.
And the way I did it was I reverse engineered him to find his code.
I did.
I reverse-engineered President Biden, and I found out the code behind all of his communication.
I'm going to show you on the whiteboard the form that he uses.
I'll show you some examples.
So this is the reverse-engineered Biden code.
And so this is just a formula, sort of like an algorithm.
And you can populate it with any number of contents, but it's always the same form.
So he starts with an outrageous lie about anything, and then he justifies the lie with what I call a hollow because.
It means he uses the word because, but what comes after the word because is nonsense or incomplete.
But then he just keeps talking, so that you don't have time to think about it too much, but it sounded like there was a reason.
And then he sometimes adds a weird emphasis so that his non-point sounds like it was a point.
Let me give you an example.
So the lie might be, well, inflation was 25,000% under Trump, but I got it down to zero.
And then you add the fake because.
Because of all the Biden-omic policies.
Have I mentioned infrastructure?
Now, if you want to add that, if you want to make it stronger, you do what Jean-Pierre Carignan, whoever she is, what she does, she adds weird emphasis.
Joe does this too, but he does it differently.
So I'm going to add the weird emphasis to make it sound like the hollow because actually says something.
All right, you ready?
The GDP is up 25,000 percent and that's because Of Bidenomics, and because of my policies, and have I mentioned the infrastructure?
And it's because of policies.
The policies.
See?
If you just said, everything got better because of my policies, you're like, I'm not even hearing the reason.
But if you say it with weird emphasis, then people will think they heard a reason when there's not one there.
No.
The reason that unemployment is zero for black people, the reason it's zero for black people is the Biden economic policies.
The policies.
Infrastructure.
Infrastructure.
See?
Now, Joe does the weird emphasis with a whisper, or sometimes a dementia yell, so that would go this way.
GDP is up 500% because of the Biden policies.
So that's the whisper thing.
But he could also do, because of the policies!
You know, his dementia yell.
So pretty much everything will follow this.
Outrageous lie, hollow because, with no explanations, with weird emphasis.
And that's a Biden robot right there.
You can build it yourself.
Well, RFK Jr.
is growing in support.
I saw he's got his new VP.
And Douglas MacKinnon was writing that RFK Jr.
has a higher favorability rating than both Biden and Trump.
Now, you know, Trump, of course, has his loyalists and they're not going to go anywhere.
But it's kind of interesting that the third party is more favorable than both of the major candidates.
RFK is also the favorite among voters under 35.
Wouldn't that be exactly the people that Biden has pretty much owned?
That feels like a mortal blow to the Biden campaign.
And he's gaining rapidly among minorities.
So basically, RFK Jr.
is a threat to the strongest strongholds Of the Democrat Party.
And he doesn't have to take many of them away.
Because remember, Trump on his own is already scooping up a lot of minority voters.
So if you add RFK Jr., what's left for Biden?
Just young single women who are getting punched in the face.
So basically Biden's entire demographic core is going to be young women who get punched in the face.
That's not much to run on.
I will lead you, the people who are getting punched in the face, because of my policies.
See what I did there?
So, it looks like the Democrats are going to have to jail Trump and keep RFK Jr.
off the ballot to win and protect democracy.
They're doing a lot to protect democracy.
For example, Oh, by the way, before I give you that, I saw Benny Johnson was reporting that the judge's daughter in that Alvin Bragg case.
So the judge's daughter has a photo of Donald Trump behind bars and in a jail cell as her profile picture.
So fair trial coming up.
So that's a judge who has to go back to his own daughter and explain why Trump isn't in jail.
His own family.
We'll give him a terrible time, presumably, if he doesn't put Trump in jail or fined against him in the hardest possible way.
So do you think that that case is anything like, oh, I don't know, fair justice or anything like that?
Well, let's put this all together into one statement.
So it looks like Biden is trying to protect democracy.
That's going to be his play.
And he's going to protect democracy.
just as effectively as he comes up with nicknames.
So he came up with Broke Don and caused Trump to make $9 billion.
And he's going to protect democracy.
And the way he's going to do it is he's going to keep RFK Jr.
off the ballot.
They've created a whole organization just to do that.
He's going to use corrupt prosecutors and judges to put Trump in jail to protect democracy.
He's going to use government-funded entities to censor Republicans and manipulate the news for democracy, while servicing the military-industrial complex for democracy, and taking away your guns for democracy.
Now there, that's how you save your democracy, am I right?
Now you're probably laughing and saying, Scott, those seem like the opposite of saving democracy.
But do you like freedom?
You like freedom, don't you?
If you want freedom, Biden is your one.
Because after he's done all of that, in a Janis Joplin kind of way, you'll finally be free.
Because freedoms, just another word, For nothing left to lose.
They will take your candidate away.
They will take your guns away.
They will take your free speech away.
They will take your access to accurate information away.
They will take your RFK Junior away.
And after they've taken everything away, and you can only walk down the street getting punched in the face, you'll finally be free.
Because you'll have nothing else to lose.
Now you say to yourself, but Scott, at least I can enjoy some nice food.
No, food's giving you cancer.
No, you have nothing left to lose.
You say, well, at least I can scroll through my phone.
No, no, mental illness.
Can't scroll through your phone.
Just going to make things worse.
Well, at least I can go outside.
Well, if you do, you better put on your sunscreen.
If you're going to go outside, put on your sunscreen.
Sunscreen might kill you, people say, from the chemicals.
So you'll die if you go in the sun or you don't go in the sun because you won't have enough vitamin D. So basically you've got lots of options is what I'm saying.
Wear your mask!
Lawyer John Eastman looks like he's going to get disbarred for helping Trump in the fake insurrection that the Democrats who savin' democracy have convinced you actually happened.
Now one of the ways that the Democrats saved democracy is that they threw away some of the testimonies That would have been, let's say, helpful to Trump and the other J6ers.
So they're helping democracy with a show trial in which they throw away the exculpatory information to save democracy.
I feel a lot safer.
In fact, right now, since I'm being completely censored from all contact with Democrats, don't I feel safer?
Of course I do.
And freer.
Because now that I don't have ability to broadcast to people who might have their minds changed by anything I say, I feel much freer.
Much freer.
Nothing left to lose.
Well, the simulation has been tapping us on the shoulder and kicking us in the shin and grabbing us by the balls and saying, are you paying attention?
This is a simulation.
How do I know?
Well, it couldn't wink any harder.
Here's an example.
The Daily Show has been, you know, as you know, resurrected with Jon Stewart.
And somebody decided that the best way to decorate his entire set is behind him, it has the words, The Daily Show, but surrounding him on his desk and on the sidewalls and everywhere else, they've abbreviated it to TDS.
So yes, I swear, this is true.
Jon Stewart sits among A hundred acronyms that say TDS and then presents TDS.
In the real world, I swear to God that's happening.
Now you tell me we're not in the simulation.
Seriously.
You're watching Trump embark on the third act of all third acts, exactly as I told you he would.
And you don't think we live in a simulation?
Have you ever seen me change the world?
Watch the comments.
Have you ever seen me change the world?
How is that possible?
Well, I'll do it again.
So there's a story in Yahoo News about a Utah gubernatorial candidate, Phil Lyman.
And I guess he said some things about the bridge collapse, and he referenced diversity and DEI.
Now, I do not think that the bridge collapse is caused by any diversity or DEI.
They don't know exactly what the problem is, but I think that's the least likely possibility.
Some are still saying it might be some kind of a cyber attack.
I wouldn't rule it out.
But I think by far the most likely is just shit happens, and sometimes that happens when you're near a bridge.
That's my guess.
Now, I could be easily talked out of that.
It wouldn't take much more information to be convinced it was a cyber attack.
I'm sort of 60-40 that it was just an accident.
I'm at zero that it was anything racial.
I don't see any evidence of that.
Back to this story.
The Utah gubernatorial hopeful, Phil Lyman, I think more that he was just, you know, he was bolstering a story that he's against DEI and was using it as an example.
Probably wasn't the best example, but in the process of doing a hit piece on him, Yahoo News mentioned that one of the terrible things this poor guy did, this Phil Lyman who's running for Utah governor, And if you can believe this, this bad behavior, it was so bad that they needed to call it out in the article.
And, you know, people live complicated lives, but they found one of the worst things he's ever done.
And I feel bad even bringing it up because, you know, poor Phil Lyman, he doesn't deserve this.
But since it's been reported, I feel, you know, I feel I can, I mentioned it.
Well, this poor guy, this really happened.
He reposted one of my posts on X. Yeah.
Yeah.
Now, if you saw a story in which a major part of the story was that this guy, my God, how could he?
He posted one of my posts.
Now, how did they describe that?
Let me check their exact wording.
They said they described me as the Gilbert cartoonist.
Gilbert with a G. The Gilbert cartoonist.
And I was called a conservative commentator or pundit.
Alright, so the two things they described about me are completely wrong.
I'm not the Gilbert cartoonist, and I'm not conservative.
The times that I agree with conservatives are every time they say something that's obvious and, you know, it's just obvious.
Am I a conservative because I like strong border control?
Well, according to them.
If I don't want massive migration uncontrolled, what?
If I don't want my government to be massively censoring the citizens, well, what am I, some kind of conservative reactionary?
What exactly is the policy that they could look at to call me a conservative?
Because every single thing that I agree with conservatives on, and it's a pretty long list of things I agree with, they're all just common sense.
I don't take any religious take on anything.
Right?
I have no religious point of view.
So how do you call me a conservative?
So here's your news.
Now, do you remember I talked about the Gell-Mann theory?
Gell-Mann noticed that whenever there was a story about physics, his expertise, he knew it was all wrong.
But then he would read the next story that wasn't his expertise, and he would forget to question it, because he thought, well, it's in the news, probably true.
And then one day he realized, wait a minute, If 100% of the things I know about are wrong, what does that say about the rest of the news?
And of course, that was the insight that unlocked everything.
Of course it's all fake.
Look at this example.
It's a story in which I'm a central player of the story, and the only two things they said about me are dead wrong.
Now, that got through editors.
It wasn't just the writer.
It got through editors.
Probably more than one.
Anyway, here's the bigger part of the story.
So I've been saving the big part of the story.
Imagine, if you will, I'm a central part of the story, and it's being used to malign this one individual, Phil Lyman.
Don't you think that if you're going to mention that he reposted my post, what's the minimum Logical thing you would do if the story is about something I posted, and it was on the topic of DEI.
What's the minimum you would do?
You would link to it.
Am I right?
You would link to it.
Now, suppose you didn't want to give me any attention, because I'm the Gilbert cartoonist and a conservative, and they don't like that.
So suppose you didn't want me to get any extra clicks.
Well, it's just a post.
It wasn't that long.
I mean, it was a long thread.
But you know, maybe it'd be a quarter of a page.
They could just copy and paste it.
Because that would be fair use.
If you're talking about it, you can publish it in whole.
You knew that, right?
There's no copyright problem.
If you're doing a story about it, you can just publish it in whole.
You couldn't do it with a whole book, but you can do it with something short.
So, now you say to yourself, but Scott, they probably had a lot of things they didn't link to.
Nope!
It was an article in which every paragraph had a link to find out more about something in the paragraph.
Every paragraph.
There were like 12 links to external things.
And yet, a core part of the story was my post.
No link.
Let me tell you why there was no link to it.
Because they read it.
Yeah.
The post is my highly viral post, maybe the most persuasive thing I've ever written, and maybe the most persuasive thing that's ever been written.
Big claim?
Well, that's called persuasion.
I'm actually giving you a challenge.
I don't think anything has ever been more persuasive, because it was the sum of everything I've learned all my life, Put into one piece, and I didn't hold anything back.
And it was about how DEI is basically a female strategy.
And that for men, you just look pathetic if you say, hey, my discrimination held me back.
If you're a man, it just looks pathetic.
I don't care if it's true.
But it's true.
I don't care.
I got problems too.
Why is your problem special?
But for a female strategy, victimization can work.
You can actually get things fixed by complaining.
If men do it, they can sometimes get things fixed, but we don't respect them ever again.
So it's not really a good trade-off.
So it's so persuasive in my personal opinion, and I think you'll agree, that that's the reason it's got 1.1 million views is because people agree.
If you look at the comments, They're unlike anything I've ever done.
Most of the comments are something like, it's the best thing you've ever done.
Most of them.
That's a weird thing.
Because you don't get that comment on just a good post.
It's very rare that most of the comments say it's the best thing you've ever done.
When, you know, I've written 50 books.
So that's, that's really special.
So it's so dangerous, apparently, that Yahoo News won't link to it.
Now, I'm going to tell you the real reason they don't link to it is just that it would destroy their entire narrative.
That's why.
It's that dangerous.
But I'm completely controlled because I'm siloed.
I'm siloed, not just that nobody wanders in accidentally and sees my stuff, but even when there's a major entity, Yahoo News, I would call a major news entity, even when they do a story about it, they silo me by not, I'm the only thing they didn't link to.
Are you blown away by that?
Or is that just because it's me that I'm blown away?
Maybe I'm just too inside my own head here.
Does that tell you something that's meaningful for the rest of you?
Or am I just talking about myself?
I can't tell.
This might be just too much inside baseball.
Anyway, I'll look at your comments about that.
Pennsylvania court ruled in favor of signature verification for mail-in voting.
Why the hell is that a story?
It's a story that the court ruled that you do the most basic thing to make sure the election is not rigged?
What?
Why in the world was that even important?
We live in a world in which strengthening voter security is somehow controversial.
That's controversial.
Wow!
And then I saw an opinion piece by John Ralston from the Ralston Reports.
Not familiar with him, but apparently he wrote a column and he re-upped it so we could see.
And he says, in the wake of the McDaniel hiring-firing, people seem to forget the issue here has no equivalent.
So he's talking about the 2020 January 6th stuff.
Has no equivalent.
He said, you deny the 2020 election, you should be shunned.
You can and should be able to platform Trump backers.
In other words, MSNBC should be able to put a Trump backer on there, but not an insurrectionist.
Not an insurrectionist.
No, that's too far.
That's too far.
And the reason that he has this opinion is that he believes it's a fact that the election was not rigged.
How can you be so brainwashed that you think it's possible to know who won an election?
How does that even happen?
That is strong brainwashing.
But imagine putting him in a room with me and he makes this claim that people like me should be shunned For imagining that this election was not perfectly fair.
To which I would say to him, how would you know if it was fair or it wasn't?
And he would say dumb things like the courts didn't find a problem.
And I would say, what school did you go to where you learned that not finding something by looking in the wrong place tells you that there's nothing there?
So, I would like to give a demonstration of proving that automobiles don't exist.
Would you like to see it?
I can prove it.
Watch this.
My proof that automobiles don't exist.
I don't see any.
No automobiles under my shirt.
How about this drawer?
Searching, searching.
No automobiles.
Proof!
There are no automobiles under my shirt.
There are no automobiles in my desk drawer.
Q.E.D.
There are no automobiles in existence.
They're all imaginary.
Now, is there something wrong with this individual's brain?
Like, organically, they can't figure this out on their own?
Or is this purely brainwashing?
Now, if it's brainwashing, IQ is not a variable.
This is one of the hardest things for people to understand.
IQ, and being smart, and even being well-informed, won't help you from being brainwashed.
Do you think that when Patty Hearst was taken by the Symbionese Liberation Army and basically brainwashed, was it because she had a low IQ?
She probably didn't.
I mean, I don't know anything about her, but I doubt she was just sort of naturally dumb.
No, there is absolutely no correlation between intelligence and how easily you can be hypnotized.
In fact, The evidence anecdotally for hypnotists is that it's easier to hypnotize a smart person, because they let their guard down because they think they can't be hypnotized.
They just don't assume that it happens to them.
They assume it's only something that happens to dumb people, so they don't have any defense.
It just goes right through.
But do you think that John Ralston is aware That there is no mechanism, and nobody's even tried to create a mechanism to know if an election is fair.
That's unknowable by design.
If it were paper ballots, and every paper ballot was counted by both teams, so there was a Democrat that counted every ballot at the same time a Republican counted every ballot, that would be, I would say that I could call that election fair.
Because it would be designed For me to acquire that information.
So if you say, Scott, do you think this is fair?
I say, well, how'd you do the election?
Well, it was all paper ballots.
It was all same day.
We checked all their IDs.
And then every single thing was counted by two people at the same time.
And when they got to 10, they would check the count.
All right.
Did you have eight Bidens and two Trumps?
Yes.
Okay.
Continue to the next 10.
That way you're audited.
Instantly.
You're instantly audited.
Because two teams got the same number, and they stopped every ten, and then they went on.
Right?
So, so you could design a system where you would say to me, I know it's really complicated, and there's all these precincts, and you can't watch them all, and who knows, but this was our system.
If they told me that, and I knew that was really the system, I would say, yeah, yeah, you know, what?
I'm gonna treat that as a fact.
Because you built a system that would produce information to allow me to say it's a fact.
The current system produces nonsense.
Nonsense.
I can't even tell where the vote is.
Wait, is my vote in the ballot box or is it in the machine that created the paper?
Are they counting the paper or is the machine count?
Are they comparing it?
Then it goes into some kind of ballot counting machine, tabulator.
What's that all about?
Then where does the electronic signal go for any of that?
And how do they transmit it?
And what computers are involved?
And how many entities?
How many state lines does it cross?
How many international borders does it cross?
What is this susceptibility to hacking?
It's designed so you can't tell who won.
It's pretty obvious.
When you imagine how easy it would be To design out all possibility of fraud, and then you look what we built instead?
I think that removes all doubt.
Doesn't it?
So to argue whether a vote was or was not rigged is the stupid argument.
I'm sorry, because I know a lot of you make the argument it's obvious it was rigged.
That's the dumb argument.
If only because you can't sell it.
It's an unsellable argument.
Nobody's buying it.
So why do it?
But if you say to somebody, look at the design, look at what it could be, then look what it is, and look that we know we have a credibility problem.
So it's not like we don't have a problem, and it's the biggest problem in the country, and no effort whatsoever to fix it.
There's only one conclusion, right?
You see how easy it is to fix things you want to fix?
Ron DeSantis shows you every day that he can fix things that need to be fixed fairly efficiently.
Yeah, so it can be done.
So don't be shunning those election deniers.
Instead of being an election denier, be an election system analyst.
Am I an election denier?
No, I'm a system analyst and I found a system that can't tell you who won.
That's it?
You do not have an argument for that.
This is a system that, by its design, can't tell you who won.
It can give you a result, which I accepted immediately and never changed my mind.
Because I do think that cheating is built into the system.
So whoever cheats their way to a win, well, they got the win.
Unfortunately, that's the system.
So when I accepted the result immediately, it had nothing to do with my suspicions about the quality of the election.
It's just that was our system and we allowed it to run.
We all watched it and that's our system.
So I hate to say it, but Joe Biden was elected by our system and I accepted it and I've never changed my mind.
He gets his four years.
I guess he'll get another one maybe if they find a way to make it happen.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, That is all I have for your collective interest.
